June 7th, 2006
Net neutrality and politics don't mix
[Update: 12:00 AM June 9, 2006] The amount of political rhetoric coming from the Net neutrality crowd is at a fever pitch. From MoveOn.org to SaveTheInternet.com practicing their brand of scare the public to a self-interest driven "do-no-evil" Google, the consistent message we're getting is this: [More scare mongering here]
- Internet Telco providers will control what you see on the net
- There will be a two tiered Internet
- Google or other websites might respond at a snails pace or work at all
- Voice over IP telephony providers will be shut out
Would Google support "Search neutrality" regulation to ban search companies from providing premium search result placement at extra cost? What's needed is an intelligent and balanced debate on this topic, but the issue as represented by many in the media has been largely one sided. Instead of seeing this as a battle of large corporations between companies like Google and AT&T, we are suppose to believe that it is just the "evil" Telco companies and the "evil" politicians they paid off opposing Net neutrality against the people. If we are suppose to start with this premise, then we may as well not even have a debate since we've demonized any and all opposition to begin with. [Update: David Berlind posted a response to this].
Net neutrality is largely technological issue with very little to do with politics. Do we honestly believe the politicians are capable of regulating the routers on the Internet when they have no clue how the Internet actually works? This is the first time I've officially weighed in on this issue and I'm going to address this debate from a technology standpoint which has largely been missing. I'm going to start by address the fear mongering point by point.
Internet Telco providers will control what you see on the net:
Oh really? What part of the Internet do they control now and what services and websites are being filtered? Sergey Brin of Google thinks that AT&T and Verizon's proposal to offer faster network performance to companies that pay more is tantamount to censorship. But Internet Service providers are already providing traffic prioritization today in various forms and the Internet as we know it hasn't come to an end. Anyone who's ever bought an Internet connection knows that ISPs will provide SLA (Service Level Agreements) for traffic prioritization at extra cost.
In the case of broadband access, some of us pay $15 a month for 1 mbps Internet service. Others pay $25 a month for 3 mbps Internet service from the same ISP. For businesses willing to fork out $90 a month, they even get to have "business class" DSL service where they get a much better ratio of backhaul throughput to the aggregate throughput of the customers sharing the same backhaul. Oh and what about priority shipping of packages? What is the difference between paying for priority shipping on a physical package versus an IP package? Is this what they're referring to as "a two tiered Internet"? Gosh imagine that! Pay more money and get better throughput, of all the nerve! [Update: Net neutrality extremists want to ban charges for premium services]
There will be a two tiered Internet:
Google provides better search placement for additional cost at the expense of companies who can't afford to pay, should this be illegal too? Would Google support "Search neutrality" regulation to ban search companies from providing premium search result placement at extra cost? Oh and what about Akamai Internet caching services? Akamai provides premium throughput and caching to optimize content downloads for those who can afford it and if you can't, too bad. Should this be outlawed too?
What about companies like FileShack.com? They cap download performance for nonpaying customers at a pathetic 100 kbps while customers who pay extra get to download any content at much higher speeds. Should we also ban them from offering two classes of service for the haves and have-nots? Why not spread the wealth and spread the bandwidth so that everyone gets a bigger piece of the pie? Hey let's take this to its logical conclusion and ban all forms of premium services. Why should we have first class seating on airplanes where tons of space is "wasted" so that some poor soul like me has to be crammed in to the back of the plane? I suppose if this were the Soviet Union, we would stop all the "inequities" so that we can all stand in line together for long periods of time while no one ever seeks to improve the status quo since there are zero incentives.
George Ou is Technical Director of ZDNet. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
| 06/07/06
