Monday, April 14, 2008
Why net neutrality hasn't captured the public imagination
The Tyee, an independent on-line magazine based in BC wrote a story about net neutrality more than a year ago, noting that most Canadians are sleeping through the debate.They followed up again last week.
Despite what is called a "perfect storm of events that may crystallize the issue for consumers, businesses, politicians, and regulators," there hasn't been an overwhelming outcry, despite extensive press coverage of the most recent network activities.
There are a number of voices who present a conspiracy theory on traffic shaping in Canada. They promote an Oliver Stone-type narrative trying to have you believe that traffic shaping is intended to help stop the unauthorized distribution of copyright material.
Canadians aren't buying it.
Why?
I think it is simple. Traffic shaping is consumer friendly.
Network management protects customer service. For the vast majority of consumers, traffic shaping protects the overall quality of their internet experience.
Traffic shaping is designed to make sure that the most latency-demanding applications work properly. Voice over IP and network gaming - these applications just won't work if the network is congested. If all bits are treated equally, then all applications get equally degraded when the network is jammed.
Traffic management is designed to make sure that there is capacity for the bits that absolutely, positively need to be delivered right away.
As to the conspiracy theory? Traffic shaping doesn't care if file sharing traffic is legal content; that traffic is made to be a lower priority because it is, well, lower priority. Contrary to the ridiculous assertions to the contrary, there is no loss of utility of the file if it takes longer to download it. Once it is transfered, you have it and you view it locally in full living colour.
Rather than threaten the distribution of video content using streaming media, traffic shaping allows ISPs to protect capacity for such latency-demanding applications.
Some users want to load massive files onto their hard drives; perfectly legitimate, but lower priority traffic. Such traffic isn't blocked, but during peak periods, it is capacity restricted to prevent it from tying up all of the network capacity. Why is it unreasonable to shift file transfers to off-peak times so that the majority of internet users can continue to play networked Xbox games or place their VoIP calls?
Maybe Canadians are sleeping through the net neutrality rhetoric because network traffic management is designed to benefit the majority of users. It's democratic.
Freud said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - there is no hidden motivation. Traffic shaping isn't a nefarious first step toward blocking content; maybe Canadians understand that network management is simply to manage traffic - there is no hidden intent.
Net neutrality will be the theme of a special session at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit on June 18.
Technorati Tags:
CRTC, net neutrality, Canadian Telecom Summit, Canada
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 4/14/2008 06:36:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I hope your telecom clients pay well for this piece of sophistry. It is pretty clear what side your bread is buttered on.
There is a big difference between latency and throttling. The ISPs have unilaterally decided to drastically throttle certain types of traffic.
While p2p is not generally real-time sensitive, some of it may indeed be time-sensitive. It is merely a protocol for efficiently transferring files. With the current tactics of Bell and Rogers, users do not even have the option of paying extra for quicker transmission during so-called peak hours.
Moreover, the tactic of throttling bandwidth during peak hours is probably encouraging users to keep their computers on through the night, with adverse consequences for energy consumption and climate change.
We need a real debate about network neutrality. Simply reiterating Bell's and Rogers' self-interested claims does little to advance the debate.
There is a big difference between latency and throttling. The ISPs have unilaterally decided to drastically throttle certain types of traffic.
While p2p is not generally real-time sensitive, some of it may indeed be time-sensitive. It is merely a protocol for efficiently transferring files. With the current tactics of Bell and Rogers, users do not even have the option of paying extra for quicker transmission during so-called peak hours.
Moreover, the tactic of throttling bandwidth during peak hours is probably encouraging users to keep their computers on through the night, with adverse consequences for energy consumption and climate change.
We need a real debate about network neutrality. Simply reiterating Bell's and Rogers' self-interested claims does little to advance the debate.
Posted by 
Steve Stinson : 8:42 AM, April 14, 2008
Steve Stinson : 8:42 AM, April 14, 2008
Again, I can't help smiling when I read this post. Is it naive or is it biased?
Why net neutrality hasn't captured Mark's imagination, I wonder?
Is it perhaps because Mark has problems to understand the term "public interest"?
Isn't it totally hilarious the thought that a Corporation can be "democratic" or "undemocratic"? Isn't the thought that throttling the competition services is "democratic" even more hilarious? I am laughing aloud right now :D
Well, it is gratifying to see that I am not the only one that thinks that Mr Mark's view of the world is either sympathetically naive or worryingly biased, I still can't figure out what to make of this.
Lately, I check Dilbert's column, and then Mark's. They give me my daily morning smile.
Cheers
Jean Paul
Why net neutrality hasn't captured Mark's imagination, I wonder?
Is it perhaps because Mark has problems to understand the term "public interest"?
Isn't it totally hilarious the thought that a Corporation can be "democratic" or "undemocratic"? Isn't the thought that throttling the competition services is "democratic" even more hilarious? I am laughing aloud right now :D
Well, it is gratifying to see that I am not the only one that thinks that Mr Mark's view of the world is either sympathetically naive or worryingly biased, I still can't figure out what to make of this.
Lately, I check Dilbert's column, and then Mark's. They give me my daily morning smile.
Cheers
Jean Paul
Posted by 
: 10:55 AM, April 14, 2008
: 10:55 AM, April 14, 2008
I don't think that the conspiracy theory has much to do with blocking copyright infringing files.
The issue is that there are only 2 last-mile providers in any territory - the phone company and the cable company. Almost without exception, these companies have all 3 of the following: voice, Internet and video services.
It is obvious what happens to the Internet if it threatens voice or video revenues.....
The current throttling exercise by Bell is affecting my VoIP service -- intentionally or not, I don't know. The problems started when the throttling began and only happens during the throttled hours.
I have no Bell landline, VoIP is my landline service, using an alternate provider that pays Bell for last mile access. In my opinion, this is where the anti-competitive concerns arise.
And the only P2P I have run in the last several months has been to test and characterize how Bell is mangling my data between me and my ISP.
The issue is that there are only 2 last-mile providers in any territory - the phone company and the cable company. Almost without exception, these companies have all 3 of the following: voice, Internet and video services.
It is obvious what happens to the Internet if it threatens voice or video revenues.....
The current throttling exercise by Bell is affecting my VoIP service -- intentionally or not, I don't know. The problems started when the throttling began and only happens during the throttled hours.
I have no Bell landline, VoIP is my landline service, using an alternate provider that pays Bell for last mile access. In my opinion, this is where the anti-competitive concerns arise.
And the only P2P I have run in the last several months has been to test and characterize how Bell is mangling my data between me and my ISP.
Posted by : 2:20 PM, April 14, 2008
: 2:20 PM, April 14, 2008
I can understand the logic that Bell is trying to use to justify their actions. I can even respect their right to do it to their own customers. Once this line is crossed, they will extend this model to prioritizing the traffic from websites that pay their extortion fees. Why not? They are a business, after all.
Where I have a problem is when they interfere with the free market. Third-party ISPs have purchased bandwidth (non-Internet bandwidth, contrary to Bell's assertions) that is not being provided. This distorts the free market and inhibits innovation and competition.
Where I have a problem is when they interfere with the free market. Third-party ISPs have purchased bandwidth (non-Internet bandwidth, contrary to Bell's assertions) that is not being provided. This distorts the free market and inhibits innovation and competition.
Posted by : 8:04 PM, April 14, 2008
: 8:04 PM, April 14, 2008
Over the past few months I have made a point of asking my friends and neighbours - regular folks, not techies - about their feelings on net neutrality and throttling issues. These people are almost entirely unanimous in their response - "what's that?"
However, it's not that they don't care, they are simply ignorant of the issue and the impact it can have on them.
Personally, I am ambivalent on the whole issue. Yes, 50 simultaneous TCP connections x thousands of users is a problem. However, I am very leery of abdicating to Rogers management the right to determine which of my packets are important. This is a corporation that in the last month has capped my data consumption and raised my rates at the same time, all while posting profits in excess of $1Billion!
Shaping P2P file sharing is just a stepping stone to shaping all data. How long until my Vonage packets are subject to shaping? Vonage isn't working correctly, hmmm, well how would you like to try our Home Phone service?
There's no reason to worry though, Rogers and Bell have a long history of being consumer friendly. I'm sure that in the long run they'll watch out for our best interests.
Post a Comment
However, it's not that they don't care, they are simply ignorant of the issue and the impact it can have on them.
Personally, I am ambivalent on the whole issue. Yes, 50 simultaneous TCP connections x thousands of users is a problem. However, I am very leery of abdicating to Rogers management the right to determine which of my packets are important. This is a corporation that in the last month has capped my data consumption and raised my rates at the same time, all while posting profits in excess of $1Billion!
Shaping P2P file sharing is just a stepping stone to shaping all data. How long until my Vonage packets are subject to shaping? Vonage isn't working correctly, hmmm, well how would you like to try our Home Phone service?
There's no reason to worry though, Rogers and Bell have a long history of being consumer friendly. I'm sure that in the long run they'll watch out for our best interests.
<< Home
Syndicate
