Are we talking past each other with the net neutrality debate?

I started reading (yes another book) "Internet Architecture and Innovation" on my flight to Portland Tuesday night. It's going to be a really interesting read, if you like the internet, economics and innovation of course. One of the first parts discusses the history of the internet and a design principle called end to end. This means that when something is transmitted certain events must happen. There are two meanings to the same principle though, which complicates things. In one version only peers can "talk" to each other and share the information. This isn't exactly literal, because if I'm skyping the data isn't just between skype on my pc and yours, it goes through many, but the idea is that only your pc and mine know we are skyping. In the second method, some intermediaries might know that we are skyping, through something called deep packet inspection where a router is able to read the information it processes. Both ways are still called end-to-end. Which is obviously a problem.

Another easy example. One version would require equal up and download speeds, the other doesn't. Let's say you have a picture and want to upload it, in the one version it would take you the same time to upload as to download it the next day back to your pc. We know this doesn't happen.

Until reading this book I really thought that the internet was truly designed in an equal and neutral manner. However, this isn't the case. Using these two design principles results in an internet that looks very different and we would expect it to evolve differently based on which understanding was applied.

It's obvious that for consumers the first option is better. Where the network behind the internet is neutral and a "dumb" pipe. Why is it better? Because no one would be able to intercept your data or change the speeds you get your information or even cap your data downloads. This is bad for network owners because they can't charge or filter as easily for specific content. They simply become a pipe that information flows through.

The differences in incentives and contexts which the design rules are applied drives this discussion. Since the participants believe they are talking about the same thing there is confusion over the disconnect. This leads to an obvious other problem, our clueless elected officials. They don't understand how the internet works at the simplest level, let alone the esoterics of the minute differences in this argument. It is no wonder they have tried to do back door deals to get this topic to go away.

This also has led to confusion within the internet community of how the telcoms can say that the internet wasn't developed as a neutral platform. In a way they are correct, in other ways they are wrong. It was just a matter of what was being discriminated. Before it was up vs down speeds, now it could be content. Which to them is no different. For us, it matters a whole lot more.

SOPA hearing today

For all of those interested in protecting the Internet today is the last day to try to prevent congress from passing SOPA. This law, would censor the internet. There have been a lot of people talking about this law on both sides of the argument. Chris Dodd president of the RIAA is pushing heavily for this law. He argues that if China has the same ability to control content in China, then the US should have the exact same authority. In a previous blog I argue that this is the biggest killer to internet innovation. Effectively this would create a Great FireWall of the US.

Opponents of the law have started a censorship the internet campaign. I tweeted one of these yesterday. Effectively it blocked out parts of your writing in simulation of the final impact of the law. In addition to these campaigns a few other big hitters have come out against the law, including the Writers' Guild of America. This group understands that copyright laws shouldn't dictate the future of the internet and it's openness. In addition yesterday the EFF posted an open letter from internet leaders arguing that SOPA would crush innovation. I strongly suggest reading this letter. It's written by the people that created things like IPv6. These people know what they are talking about.

We users have had a blessing in disguise with the MegaUpload and Universal Music Company DMCA Take down issue. Effectively, they took down legal songs using a copyright provisions in addition to taking down videos ABOUT the discussion.

So what are some of the key problems with this bill? It requires DNS level blocking. Which could potentially break the internet. It takes down entire domains if there is a single alleged copyrighted material online. It can block payment to sites through requiring Master Card and Visa to shut down payment for the site. All of these have to happen within Five DAYS. Nothing gets done in five days in any business.

There are additional problems with these laws and our foreign policy. Recently Hilary Clinton gave an extensive speech on net freedom and how repressive regimes are censoring the internet and killing free speech. So, our international rhetoric is completely out of line with what we're doing internally. Furthermore, this is going to create problems with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has decided to institute a policy framework which is effectively the opposite that everything SOPA stands for. Finally, this has a negative impact with the #NoDisconnect policy that the EU has recently pushed for.

If you want to keep up to date with the comments being discussed in the hearing today. Follow @EFFLive as they are tweeting comments from congressional leaders about the problems with this law. Additionally, please contact your congressional leaders today (scroll down to the bottom) about this issue.

Watch Live Stream Here: http://www.keepthewebopen.com/sopa

Additional Reading:
Internet Blacklist vs. Constitution - EFF
SOPA and Educators - EFF
Recent SOPA amendments - TechDirt
DC Decided to Regulate Hollywood to prevent innovation - TechDirt

Is the internet a truly democratizing technology?

Boring title I know. However, I believe this is an extremely important discussion to have. Are technologies political things? Many people claim that the internet has radically changed things. That through the internet now all sorts of political activities can happen. Things are freer and more open. Is this true? Is this a result of technology? Does this technology have to be democratizing? I'm going to argue that while there are political implications of many technologies, there are other factors to considered when talking like this.

Can a road have political implications? Most people would argue that, no it's a road, you use it to get from point A to point B, or just for fun. Well, what if you have to use public transportation and some one designed a bridge so that the bus couldn't go over it? Would it be political then, or would the person who designed it be instilling political capabilities into a technologies? I would say in this case, the technology was used to prevent the lower class from reaching a nicer area in New York. A designer named Robert Moses designed many bridges for NYC from 1920-1970 that prevented exactly this type of traffic from occurring (Winner, 1986).

Other cases include using assembly lines to control how workers work and the steam engine to force people to work at a steady pace, or a takt time. Other technologies such as an automated tomato picker forced a lot of other changes in California. For instance it laid off workers, forced small farms to combine into larger farms to use the technology, which drove down the cost of tomatoes which big farms were taking advantage of, and also changed the tomato itself. It actually forced the development of a harder tomato so it could survive the automated picking. Which really pissed people off.

Ok, but we're in the age of the internet. Big deal, what's your point with all these old technologies? Arab Spring. Protesters were able to rally using the internet. The US government created these things called suitcase internet This allows users to create a mesh network and connect to websites so users are able to get around the walls that governments put into place. Wikileaks is another source of political technology. Sure, it's just a site where you can upload files, but you could say that anything is just a site. The point is that there are norms and expectations around Wikileaks that allows some one to feel secure if they leak something to.

Additionally, governments are starting to and continuing to control the internet and how it is used. Eric Schmidt, of Google, is worried that this sort of governmental control is only going to increase. Hacktivists such as Lulz Sec and Anonymous are only going to increase the likelihood of this. The US government itself has a conflicting approach to hackers. In the cases where these hackers are going after groups that are not within the US or not the US government, the State Department has been extremely supportive. However, as soon as these groups change focus to the US, they are declared terrorists groups, or something close, which much be destroyed. NATO recently declared much the same thing.

We are in the beginning of a struggle over the future of the internet. Hacking groups are standing up for regular users and attempting to change the direction of governments. There have been a few successes coming from unexpected locations. This op-ed has some of them. The TL;DR of the article is that the UN lambasted some of the UK's laws, and that an Australian ISP backed out of a filtering agreement with the Government.

Clearly there are many different uses for the internet. These uses can be good and bad. However, these uses have political ramifications. The choice to hack, the choice to be social on the internet, and the choice to educate yourself all impact how the future of the internet goes. I don't support hacking. However, it is forcing transparency and increasing awareness of people both in and out of cyber space, what is actually going on in the Interwebs.

Also, the UN declared the three-strike laws for copyright, where if you get caught three times you lose internet for life, to be a violation of human rights.

References:
Winner, L. (1980) "Do Artifacts have Politics?" Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1: https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/download/attachments/75695134/Langdon+Winner+Artifacts+and+Politics.pdf

Soft War: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20073030-10391715.html

Regulation and Broadband investment

Just finished reading a rather interesting paper from Telecommunication Policy: Regulation, Public Policy, and investment in communications infrastructure: Johannes M. Bauer.

This paper deals with the different regulatory frameworks that relate to Next Generation Networks for telecommunication. There are two major implications for implication. First, looking at opening up the network to additional services will have a short term impact, but may hamper innovation in future networks. Second, investment and innovation at the market platform can lead to higher prices and in some cases slower penetration where there is minimal return on investment on the infrastructure (think middle of no where US).

This is important as in the US we hear about how prices are cheaper for services in Europe. This is very true and some countries have significantly better broadband infrastructures than the US. Such as the Scandinavian countries, South Korea and Japan. Many of these countries have had very active partnerships between public institutions and the private firms rolling out the new network.

We all can remember what it was like on dial up back in the mid to late 90s, and how after some time we started to see a huge increase in the number of service providers. This is because the regulators did something called "unbundling" which forced the telecoms to open up their network to any service providers. This caused a drop in price, but it reduced any sort of infrastructure investment at the dial-up level. With broad band we are starting to see this to some extent, but not nearly at the level we saw it with dial-up. This has to do with the fact that these networks are still being deployed. If these networks are opened up to just any old service provider the incentive to continue to invest drops off as a firm like Verizon will make less money off of their large investment to lay down fiber.

However, we should concern ourselves with the medium of the broadband. Cable services are much more prevalent than fiber networks, dynamic regulations are required to account for the differences in the network. Opening up the cable networks at this point may be desirable as the infrastructure for the network is well established with high prices for these services. Perhaps it is time to unbundle the network from the services.

In the picture above are the different types of regulations and the short term impacts on innovation and investment. From this table, it's clear that depending on the situation of the network different regulations need to be in place.

So, my take on this: we need to have extremely flexible regulations that work to drive incentives for investment and innovation. In the US there needs to be different regulations than in Europe as there has been a different history of regulations. However, to drive down costs while pushing for innovation into the next generation of networks, I think a fair method would be to allow for something similar to patents for these networks. A given time period after a large portion of the network has been installed where the telcom that laid down the network has exclusive access. Then after a given period, 5 years or so, the network has to be opened up and no preference to the data can be allowed. This will allow the firm to recoup investment as well as plan for the next generation of networks. So possibly faster fiber switches, or all wireless or whatever.

I still think that the networks need to be data neutral because there can be consequences on unregulated markets if the networks aren't open. For instance gaming and video streaming would be the first to take a hit. This would have repercussions in a network completely unrelated to the broadband company, yet still have potential for financial impact. In other words, gamers may get pissed and stop gaming.