Is this Google/VZ deal something we should be worried about?

[PromoTheRobot]

Isit really the end of the Internet as we know it?

 

PTR

[DrDawkinstein]

its nothing to be worried about. no big deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

this post typed by google bot

[Chef Jim]

Isit really the end of the Internet as we know it?

 

PTR

 

God I sure hope so.

[Booster4324]

its nothing to be worried about. no big deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

this post typed by google bot

 

These aren't the google bots you're looking for.

[The Dean]

These aren't the google bots you're looking for.

 

 

I can never find nice bots in my size.

[Chilly]

PTR, that article is a bit old. Verizon & Google jointly announced what they were working on today.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100809-715911.html

 

First, some background on me: I work for one of the largest internet hosting companies in the world, Rackspace. We're one of the top managed hosting companies, and the Cloud Hosting market is between us and Amazon right now. Here's a chart showing who has the most servers (although we're up over 60k now): http://www.intac.net/a-comparison-of-dedic...any_2010-04-13/

 

Next, a Cover My Ass disclaimer: All opinions in this most are mine, and not necessarily Rackspace's.

 

As you can see, net neutrality is a big deal to my industry. If the ISPs started prioritizing content based off of deals, we'd have to spend millions making sure our traffic is prioritized correctly. The ISPs would be getting us three ways: 1.) The consumer who pays to have the internet installed in their home; 2.) the business who pays for the hookup at the data centers; 3.) the business that then has to pay to get this traffic prioritized. If we had to pay to get our traffic prioritized, that would cause our prices to skyrocket, upping the cost of server hosting big time. Not a great situation for us.

 

My thoughts on this deal:

 

- I have no problem with them prioritizing mobile wireless traffic, but only until the networks are built out and can handle it. Until the technology is mature, though, the costs are just too high and the network saturation problems too great. However, it should be done based upon the type of traffic, and not on a content basis. For example, they should be able to prioritize http traffic over streaming videos or big file downloads, but they shouldn't be able to prioritize google's webpage over yahoo's webpage. This provision should have an expiration date or stipulation that it expires at some point.

 

The proposal somewhat indicates this, though in a less direct manner. Here's what it specifically says on wireless:

 

Wireless Broadband: Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband

services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The

U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued

development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

 

There is a definite need right now while the technology develops for such a stance, but I think there needs to be a hard deadline when this ends, whether that be time-based or capacity-based.

 

- The stipulation that current services can't be prioritized is important. There isn't really a technical need for traffic prioritization, and it would put in a significant cost barrier for anyone trying to start a small, innovative internet business. Keeping the internet open is the best way to insure innovation and prevent lots of services from raising prices, due to providers prioritizing traffic. Here's what it says:

 

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.

 

- The agreement says that the FCC has no regulatory power over the content of the internet, an important point to keep it from becoming like TV.

 

- I think the section on "additional services" is really poorly defined. It's extremely broad, to the point that the rest of the network neutrality provisions could be rendered moot. Here's what it says:

 

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services.

Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband

Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services

and could include traffic prioritization.The FCC would publish an annual report on the effect of

these additional services, and immediately report if it finds at any time that these services

threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised

or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections.

 

It doesn't define "scope" or "purpose" of broadband Internet access service anywhere, essentially leaving that up to the FCC. That means it's subject to big time political games. I don't like that at all.

 

- Here's one section the media isn't really talking about, but is very important:

 

Network Management: Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management.Reasonable network management includes any technically

sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network

security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s

network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or

capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical

requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet

community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or

types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its

network.

 

This one is likely not going to go over very well with some people, but it's essentially saying that ISPs can throttle things like bittorrent if it's saturating their network. I don't really have a problem with that, myself, and think the providers should have the right to prioritize types of traffic if that type does cause for network saturation.

 

Overall, I think the framework is lacking. It's not well defined, which puts the power in the hands of the FCC. Quite frankly, I don't trust the FCC to enforce policies consistently or intelligently.

[PromoTheRobot]

PTR, that article is a bit old. Verizon & Google jointly announced what they were working on today.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100809-715911.html

 

First, some background on me: .....

Thank you for that post. The big thing that some people are squawking about is this leading to an unstated censorship of the web. For example, the NFL may strike a deal to only have their own team boards getting priority. What would that do to independent, grassroots sites like TBD?

 

PTR

[Chilly]

Thank you for that post. The big thing that some people are squawking about is this leading to an unstated censorship of the web. For example, the NFL may strike a deal to only have their own team boards getting priority. What would that do to independent, grassroots sites like TBD?

 

PTR

 

Honestly, probably not much. TBD uses such little bandwidth that it wouldn't really matter. Remember that "priority" in this instance is talking about speed. Unless providers knock non-paying sites back to the 56k ages - something that would lose customers really fast and blow up in their face - it wouldn't make a difference.

 

To give you an example, let's say Scott wanted to turn the board into the first high definition Bills multimedia site, with daily reports from camp shot in high quality, steaming video. It would certainly be possible to do so, and currently, there wouldn't be any problems with it. However, in the scenario envisioned, if Scott didn't pay to have his traffic moved faster, the videos wouldn't perform well, leading people not to use them. Scott's in a hard spot here - he either pays to have his traffic prioritized well enough to make his video work, or his product suffers from such horrible buffering that no one uses it.

 

That's the example that people are referring to.

 

The policy framework definitely mentions such a scenario, and says that outside of wireless internet, it shouldn't allow it. It's trying to prevent that from happening. However, what people are getting caught up on is the private services clause. I understand why - it's so broadly defined, it doesn't really mean anything. But given that this is just a policy framework, and isn't law, I'm not sure we can derive much from it.