Thursday, 12 August 2010 09:57
Google is defending their Network Policy Proposal with a new post to their public policy blog. Read it here. "Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal" Far from being factual, the post to the Google Public Policy blog reiterates previous fallacies about their Network Management proposal. Rather than write another piece on exactly why this policy represents a massive sell-out of true Net Neutrality principles by Google -- I'm going to deconstruct some of these so called facts. --
MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.
FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet. My Take: this is true. But it has been Vint Cerf leading this charge. Where is he now? Hiding in a Google bunker somewhere? He's certainly not been on the news circuit endorsing the deal and claiming how much a victory it is for the open internet. The fact is, something critical has changed at Google -- a major policy shift that leaves Net Neutrality advocates like myself wondering what the hell happened. With headline quotes like
"carrier-humping net neutrality surrendermonkey" -- its pretty clear that not many people are buying that this is good for the web. Good for Google, good for Android and Verizon -- but not the rest of us garage inventors. Google, you've sold out. --
MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.
FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself. My Take: If adopted this plan sets a tone for policy. It says that only one principle of Net Neutrality matters -- that being the payola principle. Thats a pretty important part of Net Neutrality, and Americans might be able to give Google some credit for finally getting some basic protection against payola. But, here in Canada, this is a complete and total step backwards for Google policy. We already have these protections, and as far as the internet is concerned we always did. Section 27(2) is law, its essentially the same as the google wireline prohibition -- but its stronger because its not limited by some vague concept of material harm. But these protections haven't worked in Canada. We still have CAIP vs Bell, we still have throttled torrents, and we've still got QoS services, differentiated services (like Digital Phones!!) that all violate the principles of true Net Neutrality. Fundamentally WE DO NOT HAVE PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IN CANADA... and neither will the US under this proposal. Thats why we protested on the hill, thats why we have bill C-552 -- because we recognise that 'undue' language isn't good enough. So, is it a myth that this proposal is a step backwards -- I don't think so. -- MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.
FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain
openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be
applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we
have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from
regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye. Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline
market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers
to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves,
rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users,
these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third,
network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a
significant business model in this space. My Take: This is complete and total BS, and its why Google will now be known as the surrender-monkey company. First, the wireless market is not significantly more competitive than the wireline market -- a handful of multi-billion dollar corps does not true competition make. Open Access could help eliminate some of that competitive issue, but not much. But its the second argument Google professes that makes my blood BOIL. Because bandwidth is constrained on mobile networks is exactly why we need Net Neutrality there the most! You see, Net Neutrality is a PRINCIPLE... it says all content is created equal, everyone has the permission to innovate without asking or paying a carrier. It says that I, the end user, get to decide what is important to _me_. This proposal GUTS this principle and replaces it with one where Skype cannot truly compete on a level playing field, and one where we are all injured by this retardation of innovation. This proposal will ensure that in the eyes of regulators, the principle of Net Neutrality is meaningless, and only the symptom of payola is important. That there is constrained bandwidth for mobile only means that what we can do with our phones today must be done in relation to availability. It's not for Verizon to tell me that their latest Video service is more important than my Skype traffic. Its not OK for Google to even suggest that in a constrained supply scenario, that certain traffic is more worthy of bandwidth. No billion dollar corporation can make this call. The result of this means that ALL NEW TECHNOLOGY will end up in the slow lane until they either force change, or pay a fee. It's precisely what everyone has been fighting for on wireline -- and its even more important on wireless.
Verdict. Surrender-Monkey's the lot of yeh. --
MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.
FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband
providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services
which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers
could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service,
or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are
separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers
already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to
let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing
them to impede on the Internet itself.
My Take: This is where the entire proposal goes from being well meaning, to rediculus. The idea that a carrier can prioritize gaming by their partner companies, that they can launch digital phone services that compete with skype and vonage... that they can launch IPTV services to kill netflix and hulu. This is the very definition of Net Neutrality and Google, you just dropped an Atom bomb on that principle. This creates a competition differential that will harm our digital marketplace with disastrous consequence. It means that the established monopolies of a bygone era will continue to dominate the garage inventor, will continue to slow down the growth in speed of our networks as they apportion more of that cable line into your house for their own purposes. It means, that everything we've feared will become true. This is no Myth and what Google is selling here doesn't slay it. We've seen Shaw Digital Phone vs Vonage Canada... this is the future of differentiated services and its not Net Neutrality. -- MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.
FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course,
Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately
this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not
be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior
public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our
October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.
My Take: Of course this mobile exclusion has nothing to do with Andriod.... riiiiight.
-- MYTH: Two corporations legislating the future of the Internet.
FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the
Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in
and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so
presumptuous to think that any two businesses could – or should – decide
the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to
help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years.
My Take: If we lived in a truly democratic society where Google and Verizon weren't spending ungodly amounts of money on lobbyists then maybe I could buy this. Two businesses, of this size, working together, could very well purchase this policy from the US government -- and potentially capture the FCC in the process. Lets not pretend, Google, that your money will not decide the future of this issue. It almost certainly will.
Monday, 09 August 2010 17:30
In 2006 I brought the Net Neutrality movement to Canada, founding Neutrality.ca and taking the fight to the public. I launched an online petition and collected tens of thousands of signatures. In the process I was able to discuss Net Neutrality with the CRTC, on the radio, and even with MP's who have drafted legislation. Through it all, there was but one principle behind Net Neutrality:
All Bits Are Created Equal.
It's a simple philosophy – one that until today I believed Google respected, even championed. With employee's like Vint Cerf how could I have thought any differently. In 2005 Vint Cerf wrote a letter to congress that formed a foundational ethos to my movement. In it he said:
“The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation.” - Vint Cerf
This end-to-end principle, or the idea that all bits are equal, is what enabled the Internet we know today.
“I invented the world wide web without having to ask anybody's permission. Hundreds of millions of people are using it freely today. I'm worried that this will end in the USA.” - Sir Tim Berners-Lee
I'm worried too, because Google just told us that it has agreed to put an end to this freedom. Today's deal [1][2] with Verizon specifically permits carriers to create 'differentiated services' or, services that are not 'Internet' as defined by Google – but rather something else, something that does not exist in a neutral network.
If we were to apply the Google/Verizon agreement as policy, and using a Canadian perspective it would mean that while both Shaw and Vonage provide a telephone service. Shaw would be allowed to section a part of their bandwidth for phone, label it a differentiated service, and then give it priority. Vonage, would not be guaranteed such access, and would still have to route their traffic over the Internet.
“Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need.” - Vint Cerf – 2005
By definition, this type of prioritization of services by carriers is what the whole Net Neutrality fight has been about. The future of technological innovation, the ability for new Google's to evolve, requires a level playing field such that anyone can compete on the merits of their technology, rather than on their incumbent status from a bygone era.
Beyond this flip-flop on differentiated services, Google has also chosen their words carefully for their main net neutrality language. Instead of using the language accepted by Net Neutrality advocacy groups, language that is before the House of Commons as bill C-552, they have chosen to use the old language of 'undue discrimination', for which Canada has had in law since before Net Neutrality was a consideration.
A comparison:
Bill C-552: [Before the House of Commons]
"36.1 (1) Network operators shall not engage in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership or destination."
Google/Verizon Agreement:
“Non-Discrimination Requirement: In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted."
Telecommunications Act – (Enacted) S 27 (2)
“No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.“
If the Google/Verizon agreement was truly an agreement that benefits Net Neutrality, then why does bill C-552 exist in Canada? Surely, if Canada already has Net Neutrality laws against unjust discrimination, then we don't need Bill's like C-552.
The last time the CRTC ruled on traffic management, interpreting undue preference, thousands protested on the hill. We still have Bittorrent throttling, we have differentiated services, we have preference in the form of application level QoS. All of these non-neutral acts, are consistent within the meaning of section 27 – and thus, we have bill C-552 to further clarify that carriers must really, actually, be neutral.
But this debate on language is well known – why then would Google/Verzion choose the 'undue' language when it has been shown ineffective at protecting Net Neutrality? Why further weaken it with a 'meaningful harm' clause? Why limit damages at 2 million?
Beyond these issues, Google has further retreated from Net Neutrality by pretending wireless is different. It's not. Even our CRTC got that one right in 2009, applying our section 27(2) derived regulations equally to wireless. On this point, the Google/Verizon deal is ridiculously self-interested – which may not be that surprising given Google's success in the mobile market with the Android operating system.
On this point, many will argue that Wireless constraints are real, that bandwidth is scarce, and that Neutral networks wont work. However, the overriding Net Neutrality principle, that all bits are equal still applies. The limits on wireless supply simply mean that the carriers need to manage their supply and demand ratios more carefully. It's why your cell phone plan has a 500MB cap, and your cable modem 6GB. Scarcity is managed through billing, statistics and building capacity – not deciding the technological priority of competitive applications.
Its a simple calculation. Two figures, bandwidth and transfer. Bandwidth refers to the speed at which you can receive data, and transfer refers to how much bandwidth you can use over time. Transfer = Bandwidth * Time. Carriers can only buy bandwidth – they have the same amount of capacity available all the time. For consumers on an oversubscribed network, your bandwidth will fluctuate depending on how many concurrent users there are. If everyone uses their internet all at once, the system would be very slow. As a result, consumers cannot buy truly unlimited amounts of transfer – that is, the ability to use your bandwidth 24/7. Instead, you pay for a defined amount of transfer – and in this way the carrier limits the amount of time you will be using your available bandwidth. If not all users are using all of their bandwidth all of the time, then, the carrier can add more users. This is called an over-subscription ratio. How over-subscribed the carriers network is, defines how much average bandwidth is available for each user and how much transfer they are allocated. By varying levels of supply, and managing demand via bandwidth and transfer allocation, the carrier is entirely in control of its service standards.
Net Neutrality is the best management of carrier over-subscription because it reduces the carriers role to one of simple statistical management over supply and demand. If the net is too slow at peak times, buy more bandwidth. If you can't buy more bandwidth, sell less service. In this way, it Net Neutrality has a positive incentive for carriers to build more capacity. The more capacity you build, the more you can sell.
On the other side of the debate are Network Management technologies, sometimes called application QoS. They allow carriers to increase their over-subscription ratio by prioritizing specific applications and services. The idea being, no one cares if it takes 60 seconds to send an email, if their VoIP call is clear. It allows the non-prioritized state of the network to provide less bandwidth than the customer believes they are buying. If the customer buys a 10Mbit plan, is that 10mbits always, on average, or at best. Usually it's the latter. It's therefore clear why carriers would want to avoid Net Neutrality – under it, they have to build capacity instead of managing scarcity. The problem of this approach is two-fold. First, only existing products can be prioritized – there is no way for a carrier to prioritize a technology before it is invented. Thus, all new technologies get put in the slow lane – unless they ask permission, and likely pay a large fee.
This is what Sir Tim Berners-Lee is talking about when he speaks of the freedom to innovate without permission. Without it, it is unlikely the world-wide-web would have been possible.
The second problem with managed networks is that because the carriers are now in scarcity management, they have no incentive to build new capacity. They stand to make more money by selling prioritization services, and artificially keeping bandwidth levels low.
It is encouraging to note that Canada's S27(2) and the CRTC reading of it for wireless ensures the most egregious of these abuses cannot happen here. However, with the Google/Verzion deal exempting wireless in the US, the green light for capacity management seems to be given. That Google would cede, “unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks”, can only be seen as a major concession of Net Neutrality principles by the company.
In the end, what is clear is that Google has taken a major step back from their commitment to Net Neutrality today and abandoned the company motto of “Do No Evil” in the eyes of many advocates of an open and competitive internet.
-- Kevin McArthur is the CEO of StormTide Digital Studios Inc, and the Founder of Neutrality.ca
-- Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada License
-- Editing for formatting, but not content permitted.
|
Tuesday, 10 August 2010 07:42
This morning I had the chance to read a piece by Peter Nowak on the Google/Verizon Agreement and I felt I just had to respond to a few key assertions. First, read the article. First, Peter says there are two 'bad' elements to the proposal, but largely ignores the third big problem I wrote about yesterday. That is, the NN language for what it _does_ cover, is extremely weak. Net Neutrality is a technical principle that deals with a specific disease, not a set of symptoms of that disease. The google proposal is like cough syrup for the web -- it won't do anything to cure the disease. The 'undue' language in the proposal is essentially the same as we've had in Canada since before Net Neutrality ever became a political concern. Section 27(2). Its law. For the Internet it's always been law in Canada. It is known NOT TO WORK -- and this is evidenced by Bell vs CAIP, by the protests on the hill, by all the torrent degradation and other Net Neutrality violations that continue to go on in Canada today. Peter Nowak, in his article says "Here in Canada, net neutrality rules were created by our regulator, the CRTC, last October." ... but this isn't correct. We don't have Net Neutrality regulation in Canada at all, we have an interpretation of undue preference. When the ruling came out it was highly criticized for not doing _anything_ to prevent the BitTorrent degradation that was then, and still is, a fact of the Canadian internet experience. This proposal from Google/Verizon does nothing to protect the future of Skype, of Hulu, of BitTorrent DNA's legitimate video business. Differentiated services, like Shaw's digital phone, are not internet. But they still compete with Skype, with Vonage, will all VoIP providers -- so no Net Neutrality for them. Video on Demand is not web streaming, so HULU is out of luck for a level playing field -- the carriers will offer HD TV while holding back the type of Internet bandwidth required to make this happen. BitTorrent DNA will continue to be relegated to degradation on the public internet in the guise of "congestion management", claims of which have never been scientifically proven. In Canada, we have bill C-552. It is the first step towards TRUE Net Neutrality in Canada. Is it perfect? No. But it's got BitTorrent's back. Does it address differentiated services? Thats an issue for committee and the CRTC. Its not specifically spelled out, but the language is broad enough to cover them for sure. Peter's article also seems to take the approach of if the carriers want to build a second internet, let em, it will be a spectacular failure. But I'm sorry, I just can't agree with letting the carriers have one set of rules and everyone else another. Net Neutrality has always been about preventing a two-tier internet -- anyone who's watched a video PSA on NN has seen the two-tier imagery. Further, this isn't about a second generalized pipe -- it's about specialized services like 'optimized gaming', Voice and Video... which I don't even understand how that could be anything but a Net Neutrality violation to those in the know. I have to reiterate that Bits are Bits. Net Neutrality is not about undue preference. That's a symptom of the disease. Its about the technical principle that says, I can communicate at a given speed in any way I want with anyone else on the internet that pays for the same level of speed. This is neutrality. The future services of tomorrow _depend_ on a generalized, dumb, pipe. They cannot evolve from a starting point of de-prioritization over the technologies they intend to replace. What good is a 15% improvement on a VoIP system, if it exists in the slow-lane until it can build critical mass. A slow-lane tech will never build that critical mass, and that optimization will never happen. Net Neutrality is about INNOVATION. The freedom to innovate WITHOUT permission from the carriers, without competitive disadvantage from the carriers, without prejudice. To call what the CRTC has read 27(2) in, as Net Neutrality regulation, entirely ignores the Tim Berners-Lee innovation without permission side of the debate. The concerns aren't overblown, and the clauses are cough syrup at best. It's why SAVETHEINTERNET.COM, the group that started this whole thing, is calling the proposal "Worse than expected" and Adam Green is saying Google has gone 'evil'. I totally agree with those statements, despite those who would have us believe that this is all overblown and that undue preference can be equated with Net Neutrality.
Tuesday, 13 July 2010 07:43
Yesterday, Peter Nowak (a prominent Canadian tech journalist and fellow author) posted a link to twitter. The link was to a guardian article entitled "Ebook deals 'not remotely fair' on authors" -- and I took exception to some of the content. Specifically that authors (like Peter Nowak and I) should get a 50% royalty on ebook sales, or in the alternative, 25% and have our copyright returned after two years. To me, the phrase that comes to mind is: good luck with that one lady.
I get what I consider a pretty solid royalty on E-Books from Apress -- more than double my standard royalty for print and the book grosses more when sold as an ebook for my publisher. But, e-book royalties don't matter right now. For every 100 print copies, I sell about 5 ebooks. The amount I make from E-book sales in a quarter wouldn't cover a meal at a nice restaurant. This is despite really solid demand for digital copies of my book -- mininova [before the cleansing] resulted in the pirating of thousands more copies than I've sold in either print or ebook. Before our discussion was over the conversation inevitably turned to DRM as it usually does in a Canada with MP's like James Moore and bad bills like C-32. DRM, you see, will soon get the full force of law if certain factions get their way. Buy an ebook and want to turn it into braile for a disabled student -- not if its got a digital lock. What about text-to-speech for those who can't read, but can hear just fine? At least some of the ebook formats allow publishers to TURN OFF this accessibility option, simply because it p/o'd some members of the audiobook industry. DRM has some really evil qualities for some segments of our population -- but for the rest of us, its just plain annoying. Want to excerpt, annotate, exercise your fair dealing rights? Not if its a DRM format and those actions aren't blessed by the device/format maker. If DRM affected 80% of users, it wouldn't be effective and people wouldn't buy -- but what of the 20% use case. Those who depend on resale of their textbooks at the end of a semester, or even those who share culture through donating books to aid organizations. What of history, and how we preserve a first edition ebook for posterity -- when its format requires an authentication server to open? But alas, I'm a victim of piracy, and as is my publisher. Can I say for sure I've lost sales to piracy? No. I can't assume that anyone who downloaded my book would have pony'd up the $30+ required. But then, I should love the DRM, proprietary readers, and formats that make it hard for people to download my book for free. That would solve all the issues of the digital age. Right? Well, no, and I don't. In Peter's column this morning he claims 'DRM concerns on ebooks are overblown', but are they? There are thousands of publishers out there today -- and finding one is hard. Really hard. Most people write a book and shop as many publishers as they can, getting rejection after rejection. But, still, many find a publisher willing to take them on and put the required financial backing and editorial resources behind them. But then, what happens when there are only a handful of publication companies, or any one company commands such a market share to make ignoring them a ridiculous proposition. What happens when, as in the Apple App Store, the distribution channel decides to exert editorial control? Peter Nowak seems to think competition will solve many of the DRM issues. Digital Audio after all is trending to a DRM-Free model under market forces, why wouldn't ebooks? But one must be careful what they wish for, for these are early days. While there may be many companies vying for position in the ebook market, they're also very likely to shut down once a clear winner has been decided. We've seen this before. Sirius/XM. HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, etc.. When the dust settles on epub vs kindle, what will the end result be? Will all books have a proprietary format wrapping them, as do videos -- be it a DVD with CSS or a Blu-Ray disc with AACS. We've seen the monopolization of formats before and we will see it again in this lifetime.
There's always been one big exception to bad DRM. It doesn't work. It can't work. If your eyes can perceive it, someone, somewhere can make a tool that will bypass the restrictions. Unfortunately, now, bill C-32 wants to make it illegal to distribute these tools. The tools your local disability support services will require if they are to make transformative use of DRM content. The tools that practically every linux computer needs to play a DVD.
So how does this change the ecosystem? Will Steve Jobs be the new big brother -- deciding what books he's willing to publish? Will culture have to pass a morality test designed by Jeff Bezos? E-books offer the ability to correct errata in already sold content, some even the ability to revoke a book entirely. Will this lead to orwellian unspeak, new forms of censorship, and other evils that we thought died long ago? Its a strong possibility -- I'd probably go as far as to say it's probable. So with all this in mind, authors need to take note and do as I do. Reject DRM and proprietary formats. Fight with your publishers and demand that they publish your book in an open format. Put your money where your mouth is and protect the ecosystem that got your book published. Because if we all do as Peter Nowak recommends, and pretend DRM concerns are overblown, well, I'm certain we wont like the publishing system we've created in 10 years.
|
