In 2001 I proposed an architecture I called MAE Europe. It would have been in Vienna and would have allowed for rapid interconnection of Internet traffic in Central and Eastern Europe. I had built our fiber across that area much on GasProm lines and we served countries from Czech Republic and Poland to Russia and Greece, Romania and Bulgaria amongst others.
Now this would have used DNS in that area so that traffic would not go back to the US and then switched back to the area. It would stay in the area, lower costs and increase speeds. Did not sell. I remember speaking with my Russian partners, some of whom were the first to get the Internet in Russia.
Now the Hill reports the Russians are planning on finally doing what was proposed. They remark:
Russia is taking steps to tighten its grip on the internet within its
borders, as the nation’s legislature advanced legislation this week
that would test temporarily disconnecting Russia from the global
internet. The first version of the bill was approved by the
legislature on Tuesday. It still has two more steps to go before it gets
final approval. The bill would require that all internet traffic
move through servers physically based in Russia. And it will expand the
state-run communications office to oversee that routing. In
a separate move, the Kremlin has also announced that it is planning to
build its own version of the Domain Name System (DNS), the records
systems used for the internet to direct users to specific domains for
websites. Both decisions are raising eyebrows on Capitol Hill.
Surprise. It took only 20 years! Actually a bit more since I had pitched it to the Russian Parliament in 1998! They did not want to be lectured by an American.
Controlling the DNS is controlling traffic. In a sense the old MAE entities did just that, US control. What about that story about the goose and the gander?
Showing posts with label Internet Neutrality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet Neutrality. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2019
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Supreme Court and Net Neutrality
Let me give a simple example. The First Amendment gives all of us a right to free speech where the Government cannot deny us, especially political speech. One could generally agree with that.
Now the Government grants exclusive licenses to say a cable company or a wireless company to provide access. Let's wait there a bit and consider a simpler example.
Let us assume I want to give a speech, to let the people know of some Governmental problem for which I seek a remedy. However to do so I need a soap box to stand on, perhaps I am height impaired. But the Government granted the exclusive monopoly to the soap box manufacturer. He refuses to sell me a soap box or even rent one. My speech cannot be accomplished. Has the Government violated my First Amendment right?
Well according the Kavanaugh, the soap box company has the right and not me! This is Jesuitic logic at its best. The soap box company can deny me access because I would violate their rights. You cannot make this up folks.
Now the Judge states:
The net neutrality rule is unlawful and must be vacated, however, for two alternative and independent reasons. First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule. Second and in the alternative, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market. Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court’s precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment..... In short, although the briefs and commentary about the net neutrality issue are voluminous, the legal analysis is straightforward: If the Supreme Court’s major rules doctrine means what it says, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because Congress has not clearly authorized the FCC to issue this major rule. And if the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting decisions mean what they say, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion. To state the obvious, the Supreme Court could always refine or reconsider the major rules doctrine or its decisions in the Turner Broadcasting cases. But as a lower court, we do not possess that power. Our job is to apply Supreme Court precedent as it stands. For those two alternative and independent reasons, the FCC’s net neutrality regulation is unlawful and must be vacated. I respectfully disagree with the panel majority’s contrary decision and, given the exceptional importance of the issue, respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Now there are these two points. First, Chevron gives the Administrative agencies broad discretion in implementing the law. Kavanaugh seems to see it as quite narrow with ongoing Congressional authorization for every period and comma and colon. Second, the soap box issue is critical. They the ISPs are for the most part monopolies or at least oligopolies. They control free speech, they delimit free speech. The opinion above is in my opinion without merit. I have previously considered this in detail in a non-Jesuitic manner. My rather Ockhamistic approach uses logic and grammar as clear textual interpretation. The above is in my opinion a clear delimitation of free speech, and is in my opinion a clear breach of the First Amendment.
But it seems the soap box manufacturer's monopolistic lobby has won, for now!
Now the Government grants exclusive licenses to say a cable company or a wireless company to provide access. Let's wait there a bit and consider a simpler example.
Let us assume I want to give a speech, to let the people know of some Governmental problem for which I seek a remedy. However to do so I need a soap box to stand on, perhaps I am height impaired. But the Government granted the exclusive monopoly to the soap box manufacturer. He refuses to sell me a soap box or even rent one. My speech cannot be accomplished. Has the Government violated my First Amendment right?
Well according the Kavanaugh, the soap box company has the right and not me! This is Jesuitic logic at its best. The soap box company can deny me access because I would violate their rights. You cannot make this up folks.
Now the Judge states:
The net neutrality rule is unlawful and must be vacated, however, for two alternative and independent reasons. First, Congress did not clearly authorize the FCC to issue the net neutrality rule. Second and in the alternative, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the First Amendment bars the Government from restricting the editorial discretion of Internet service providers, absent a showing that an Internet service provider possesses market power in a relevant geographic market. Here, however, the FCC has not even tried to make a market power showing. Therefore, under the Supreme Court’s precedents applying the First Amendment, the net neutrality rule violates the First Amendment..... In short, although the briefs and commentary about the net neutrality issue are voluminous, the legal analysis is straightforward: If the Supreme Court’s major rules doctrine means what it says, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because Congress has not clearly authorized the FCC to issue this major rule. And if the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting decisions mean what they say, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion. To state the obvious, the Supreme Court could always refine or reconsider the major rules doctrine or its decisions in the Turner Broadcasting cases. But as a lower court, we do not possess that power. Our job is to apply Supreme Court precedent as it stands. For those two alternative and independent reasons, the FCC’s net neutrality regulation is unlawful and must be vacated. I respectfully disagree with the panel majority’s contrary decision and, given the exceptional importance of the issue, respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Now there are these two points. First, Chevron gives the Administrative agencies broad discretion in implementing the law. Kavanaugh seems to see it as quite narrow with ongoing Congressional authorization for every period and comma and colon. Second, the soap box issue is critical. They the ISPs are for the most part monopolies or at least oligopolies. They control free speech, they delimit free speech. The opinion above is in my opinion without merit. I have previously considered this in detail in a non-Jesuitic manner. My rather Ockhamistic approach uses logic and grammar as clear textual interpretation. The above is in my opinion a clear delimitation of free speech, and is in my opinion a clear breach of the First Amendment.
But it seems the soap box manufacturer's monopolistic lobby has won, for now!
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Net Neutrality: The Full Employment Act for Lawyers
Beware of what you ask for. You see as a Common Carrier you received all types of protection. Since Elizabeth I you got lots of assurance that your liability was limited. Now that the big carriers got what they asked for, perhaps they may want to explore that a bit.
I wrote an extensive piece some ten years ago. It may really be worth looking at now! I also wrote a draft book on the subject, including interconnection.
This may easily lead to a massive number of large class action suits. For example:
1. What the FCC in its wisdom did was remove Common Carrier protection. Under such a class, common carrier, your liability was limited to what you were paid for the transport. As no longer being a common carrier you become a party to any claim resulting from what the service being provided is used for and the damages resulting therefrom. Yep, send a noisy CAT of a mammogram and misread the lesion, you are now a party.
2. In classic common carriage, you sell access to your network according to standard prices.If you have a subsidiary that competes with some third party then you are safe from any antitrust claims. Both Sherman (criminal) and Clayton (FTC). But now you can compete with price discrimination, namely discriminatory pricing. Welcome to Clayton. This will keep antitrust attorneys fully occupied, and it is a class.
3. I remember when I first started at Bell Labs in 1964. The turned Beverly Hills over with ESS No 1. It crashed at 12:45 PDT, which was 3:45 EDT and just before the Stock Market closed. Millions of lost trades. But too bad, as a common carrier your were safe. But now as a party to the transaction you become a party to the claim.
I can see this list just expanding! Having been an Expert at a few dozen trials, I just am amazed at how some folks just do not think, unless .... well I will just keep that one to myself.
I wrote an extensive piece some ten years ago. It may really be worth looking at now! I also wrote a draft book on the subject, including interconnection.
This may easily lead to a massive number of large class action suits. For example:
1. What the FCC in its wisdom did was remove Common Carrier protection. Under such a class, common carrier, your liability was limited to what you were paid for the transport. As no longer being a common carrier you become a party to any claim resulting from what the service being provided is used for and the damages resulting therefrom. Yep, send a noisy CAT of a mammogram and misread the lesion, you are now a party.
2. In classic common carriage, you sell access to your network according to standard prices.If you have a subsidiary that competes with some third party then you are safe from any antitrust claims. Both Sherman (criminal) and Clayton (FTC). But now you can compete with price discrimination, namely discriminatory pricing. Welcome to Clayton. This will keep antitrust attorneys fully occupied, and it is a class.
3. I remember when I first started at Bell Labs in 1964. The turned Beverly Hills over with ESS No 1. It crashed at 12:45 PDT, which was 3:45 EDT and just before the Stock Market closed. Millions of lost trades. But too bad, as a common carrier your were safe. But now as a party to the transaction you become a party to the claim.
I can see this list just expanding! Having been an Expert at a few dozen trials, I just am amazed at how some folks just do not think, unless .... well I will just keep that one to myself.
Saturday, September 2, 2017
The FCC and Net Neutrality
Wired magazine has a piece that somehow thinks this is all new. They state:
This past April, the
Federal Communications Commission invited the American people to weigh
in on whether the federal government should roll back the rules
currently in place to protect net neutrality. By the time the online
comment submission period ended last Wednesday, the agency had collected
21.9 million comments, an astounding level of participation on what at
first glance appears to be a rather esoteric telecommunications policy
issue. (For comparison, when the FCC received around 500,000 postcards
and emails about its media ownership rule changes in 2003, it was considered a big deal. Even Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the 2004 Super Bowl garnered only about 1.4 million comments.) So
what did the people say? The industry group Broadband for America,
which opposes the FCC's current rules, recently commissioned an analysis of the comments
from a company called Emprata. The study determined that a majority of
the comments–about 60 percent–favor keeping the FCC's current rules,
which classify internet service providers as "Title II" common carriers
like mobile and landline phone companies and ban them from blocking or
interfering with lawful content. If you look only at unique comments, as
opposed to form letters using boilerplate text, those in favor of
keeping the Title II rules outweigh those who want to jettison the rules
1.52 million to 23,000. The only hitch: the commenting process was such a debacle that the legitimacy of the entire body of comments is now in question.
Should one be surprised that the FCC's system is so let us say reckless? Hardly. It is a Government controlled process. Some Beltway Bandit probably wrote the specs, then another Beltway Bandit did the software. And in the midst of this no one is really responsible for anything. So one expects rational actions from these folks.
In my experience and in my opinion I saw the FCC up close. If I went in with some issue, my opponent was in the waiting room after I finished to rebut my position. How did they find out? Simple, the Sunshine rule, the FCC tells everyone everything. In those days one filed a paper document. Yes it was cumbersome and yes form was important. But it meant that someone had to give some thought to the process and multiple filings were difficult. The on line approach allows for slamming of various types not to mention the system allows the uploading on anything, yes folks anything.
These then are the people who will control our information flow. One should understand that the main ISPs, such as Comcast, Verizon, AT&T are also in the media business and promulgate their own interests. They carry a big stick, and they also have great carrots for FCC officials when they go out in the world. Just look at the heads of major industry lobbying groups!
So what will happen with Net Neutrality; ask the largest bidder!
Friday, February 12, 2016
Common Carriage, Elizabeth I, and the FCC
Common Carriage has been around now for over 500 years in English and in turn American Law. What this means simply is that there exists an entity called the carrier and you enter into a de facto agreement with them to transport your packet from point A to point B for a certain publicly published price. In return for that service as a common carrier the entity has liability only for the cost of carriage if the packet is somehow lost.
Thus if you ship a pound of gold, 16oz is you will, and at $1,200 per oz you have almost $20,000 worth of gold and the carrier charges you $5 a pound, then if it is lost you get $5 back. That is all. If however you are not a common carrier and you loose it you may be sued for both the $20K plus and consequential damages resulting therefrom.
Now in today's debate on Internet Neutrality there are three issues:
1. Wireless: Is wireless somehow protected perforce of their bought and paid for licenses? We have answered No. First the old RBOC go their free as did many of those who "won" license lotteries. Second, there is an issue of ownership versus right to use. What did the carrier get when the auction occurred, ownership or a right to use. We argue the latter.
2. Interconnection: Interconnection is the process of having one carrier deal with another. We have also argued for well over 25 years that interconnection should be mandated at zero price. The factotum of externalities is nonsense. The French economist Tirole has argued its existence and has tried to justify the incumbents right to compensation. For anyone with a femto second of experience that is utter nonsense. Sock companies cannot charge shoe companies for interconnection!
3. Last Mile: This is the Net Neutrality argument. Namely should each entity connecting to the last mile pay the same rate for carriage as any other? Or can the carrier discriminate? I think when it comes to people we have finally agreed that its is both immoral and illegal to discriminate against anyone. If not we should start now a full policy and legal structure against any form of discrimination. When I buy a loaf of bread it should be the same as anyone else. But the ATTs, Verizon's, Comcasts see the world differently. If they do not like me for some reason they can charge more or even prevent me from buying access at any price. They want to determine what I can get. I don't want to carry the analogy too far but well one can see where this would go. They all have take advantages of Governmental, read from the people, advantages to render their services and make profits. They are or should be common carriers. They should not discriminate.
This is the issue before the FCC. The big guns and deep pockets of the incumbents are out in force. We should watch how this evolves. If it goes the wrong way they we may suffer the consequences.
Thus if you ship a pound of gold, 16oz is you will, and at $1,200 per oz you have almost $20,000 worth of gold and the carrier charges you $5 a pound, then if it is lost you get $5 back. That is all. If however you are not a common carrier and you loose it you may be sued for both the $20K plus and consequential damages resulting therefrom.
Now in today's debate on Internet Neutrality there are three issues:
1. Wireless: Is wireless somehow protected perforce of their bought and paid for licenses? We have answered No. First the old RBOC go their free as did many of those who "won" license lotteries. Second, there is an issue of ownership versus right to use. What did the carrier get when the auction occurred, ownership or a right to use. We argue the latter.
2. Interconnection: Interconnection is the process of having one carrier deal with another. We have also argued for well over 25 years that interconnection should be mandated at zero price. The factotum of externalities is nonsense. The French economist Tirole has argued its existence and has tried to justify the incumbents right to compensation. For anyone with a femto second of experience that is utter nonsense. Sock companies cannot charge shoe companies for interconnection!
3. Last Mile: This is the Net Neutrality argument. Namely should each entity connecting to the last mile pay the same rate for carriage as any other? Or can the carrier discriminate? I think when it comes to people we have finally agreed that its is both immoral and illegal to discriminate against anyone. If not we should start now a full policy and legal structure against any form of discrimination. When I buy a loaf of bread it should be the same as anyone else. But the ATTs, Verizon's, Comcasts see the world differently. If they do not like me for some reason they can charge more or even prevent me from buying access at any price. They want to determine what I can get. I don't want to carry the analogy too far but well one can see where this would go. They all have take advantages of Governmental, read from the people, advantages to render their services and make profits. They are or should be common carriers. They should not discriminate.
This is the issue before the FCC. The big guns and deep pockets of the incumbents are out in force. We should watch how this evolves. If it goes the wrong way they we may suffer the consequences.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Net Neutrality or Antitrust
As ArsTechnica reports:
Verizon Wireless is testing the limits of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules after announcing that it will exempt its own video service from mobile data caps—while counting data from competitors such as YouTube and Netflix against customers' caps. The only way for companies to deliver data to Verizon customers without counting against their data caps is to pay the carrier, something no major rival video service has chosen to do. While data cap exemptions are not specifically outlawed by the FCC's net neutrality rules, the FCC is examining these arrangements to determine whether they should be stopped under the commission's so-called "general conduct standard." The FCC is already looking into data cap exemptions—also known as zero-rating—implemented by Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile USA.
This is less of a Net Neutrality issue than possibly an Antitrust issue. The wireless channel is a distribution channel. It was "bought" at an auction but still is using a public airwaves. More importantly they are bundling or tying a purchase at the disadvantage of a competitor.
One wonders where the DoJ Antitrust Division is on this one. Some 20 years ago I addressed this specific point. But somehow the Government has spent 20 years in some alternate universe. My specific concern then was Verizon and access and it is essentially the same argument.
In addition some decade ago I also discussed Internet Neutrality in similar terms. The combination of the 1996 paper and the 2006 paper are ever so more relevant today.
Verizon Wireless is testing the limits of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules after announcing that it will exempt its own video service from mobile data caps—while counting data from competitors such as YouTube and Netflix against customers' caps. The only way for companies to deliver data to Verizon customers without counting against their data caps is to pay the carrier, something no major rival video service has chosen to do. While data cap exemptions are not specifically outlawed by the FCC's net neutrality rules, the FCC is examining these arrangements to determine whether they should be stopped under the commission's so-called "general conduct standard." The FCC is already looking into data cap exemptions—also known as zero-rating—implemented by Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile USA.
This is less of a Net Neutrality issue than possibly an Antitrust issue. The wireless channel is a distribution channel. It was "bought" at an auction but still is using a public airwaves. More importantly they are bundling or tying a purchase at the disadvantage of a competitor.
One wonders where the DoJ Antitrust Division is on this one. Some 20 years ago I addressed this specific point. But somehow the Government has spent 20 years in some alternate universe. My specific concern then was Verizon and access and it is essentially the same argument.
In addition some decade ago I also discussed Internet Neutrality in similar terms. The combination of the 1996 paper and the 2006 paper are ever so more relevant today.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Why Are Economists So, Well Just Ignorant...?
I read a piece by a Stanford Economist who is alleging that one should not allow Common Carriage over the Internet Transport companies, such as CATV companies. He alleges:
Under net neutrality, Owen said, Internet service providers are unlikely to offer costly service improvements to anyone if they cannot recover the costs. "At least on the surface, it seems that net neutrality would condemn all users to the same not-terrific and slow-to-improve service," he said. By the end of the 20th century, Owen said, a broad consensus developed among economists that price regulation of industries was unlikely to improve consumer welfare. "Maintaining efficient prices and providing incentives for progressive management of regulated firms rarely works," he wrote.
Now admittedly he is at Stanford, and down the street a way are all those app companies etc but he is an economist after all, so we cannot expect much regarding technical reality.
You see the Internet was designed and is looked at as an hourglass, thin in the middle, limited capabilities, just allowing say TCP/IP. The smarts were at the edge, then end, with the users. That has worked for a real long while. The problem is that we have allowed the CATV folks to get between the TCP/IP path and the end users. That is against the prime directive, that is what the argument concerning Internet Neutrality is all about. Imagine a world with only MSNBC, and you have Comcast's view of life.
By making the carrier a Common Carrier they do what they are supposed to. Common Carriage does not mean rate regulation, never did, only in the minds of those who fail to understand it. It means openness and level playing fields, etc, those catch phrases so common in DC.
The Internet is meant to be minimalist and not really pay attention to what is being sent across it. Each packet is equal. Each packet gets charged the same. Competition helps, but frankly until the wireless companies get their acts together we are left with 1970 technology from CATV companies. Remember that we change out our mobile devices at least every other year while the average age of a cable modem is 10+ years. They have NO motivation to innovate. So why should they be motivated to do anything other than take actions to further disable their customers. The only answer is Common Carriage, as Elizabeth I set up in 1603!
But also from an economics perspective, why should we tolerate bundling. CATV companies are notorious for that. We all understand that, we should pay for what we get from them, transport to a meet point. Tell me what it is and don't get in the way! Simple economics, simple antitrust. But not simple for some folks.
Under net neutrality, Owen said, Internet service providers are unlikely to offer costly service improvements to anyone if they cannot recover the costs. "At least on the surface, it seems that net neutrality would condemn all users to the same not-terrific and slow-to-improve service," he said. By the end of the 20th century, Owen said, a broad consensus developed among economists that price regulation of industries was unlikely to improve consumer welfare. "Maintaining efficient prices and providing incentives for progressive management of regulated firms rarely works," he wrote.
Now admittedly he is at Stanford, and down the street a way are all those app companies etc but he is an economist after all, so we cannot expect much regarding technical reality.
You see the Internet was designed and is looked at as an hourglass, thin in the middle, limited capabilities, just allowing say TCP/IP. The smarts were at the edge, then end, with the users. That has worked for a real long while. The problem is that we have allowed the CATV folks to get between the TCP/IP path and the end users. That is against the prime directive, that is what the argument concerning Internet Neutrality is all about. Imagine a world with only MSNBC, and you have Comcast's view of life.
By making the carrier a Common Carrier they do what they are supposed to. Common Carriage does not mean rate regulation, never did, only in the minds of those who fail to understand it. It means openness and level playing fields, etc, those catch phrases so common in DC.
The Internet is meant to be minimalist and not really pay attention to what is being sent across it. Each packet is equal. Each packet gets charged the same. Competition helps, but frankly until the wireless companies get their acts together we are left with 1970 technology from CATV companies. Remember that we change out our mobile devices at least every other year while the average age of a cable modem is 10+ years. They have NO motivation to innovate. So why should they be motivated to do anything other than take actions to further disable their customers. The only answer is Common Carriage, as Elizabeth I set up in 1603!
But also from an economics perspective, why should we tolerate bundling. CATV companies are notorious for that. We all understand that, we should pay for what we get from them, transport to a meet point. Tell me what it is and don't get in the way! Simple economics, simple antitrust. But not simple for some folks.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Net Neutrality and the FCC
The FCC issued its NPRM yesterday for new Net Neutrality. The rules are short, and the basis for substantial litigation.
Here is a sample of the key proposals:
§ 8.3 Transparency. (a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services, in a manner tailored (i) for end users to make informed choices regarding use of such services, (ii) for edge providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings, and (iii) for the Commission and members of the public to understand how such person complies with the requirements described in sections 8.5 and 8.7 of this chapter. (b) In making the disclosures required by this section, a person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall include meaningful information regarding the source, timing, speed, packet loss, and duration of congestion. (c) In making the disclosures required by this section, a person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose in a timely manner to end users, edge providers, and the Commission when they make changes to their network practices as well as any instances of blocking, throttling, and pay-for-priority arrangements, or the parameters of default or “best effort” service as distinct from any priority service.
Here is a sample of the key proposals:
§ 8.3 Transparency. (a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services, in a manner tailored (i) for end users to make informed choices regarding use of such services, (ii) for edge providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings, and (iii) for the Commission and members of the public to understand how such person complies with the requirements described in sections 8.5 and 8.7 of this chapter. (b) In making the disclosures required by this section, a person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall include meaningful information regarding the source, timing, speed, packet loss, and duration of congestion. (c) In making the disclosures required by this section, a person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose in a timely manner to end users, edge providers, and the Commission when they make changes to their network practices as well as any instances of blocking, throttling, and pay-for-priority arrangements, or the parameters of default or “best effort” service as distinct from any priority service.
The issue is what is to be disclosed. Congestion is a real difficult problem and it can be obfuscated readily. I have had difficulty adequately collecting such data for fifty years. There is no definition readily acceptable.
§ 8.5 No Blocking. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.
§ 8.5 No Blocking. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.
Wow, reasonable! That is how lawsuits are started. My reasonable and your reasonable are always at odds. This is clearly the most unrealistic document ever created!
§ 8.7 No Commercially Unreasonable Practices. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in commercially unreasonable practices. Reasonable network management shall not constitute a commercially unreasonable practice.
§ 8.7 No Commercially Unreasonable Practices. A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in commercially unreasonable practices. Reasonable network management shall not constitute a commercially unreasonable practice.
If you liked the confusion above, then the last one noted here is even better! What does commercially unreasonable mean and to whom! This will be in the Courts for lifetimes! The big carriers could not be happier. I wonder who wrote this in the first place? Just a thought.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Internet Usage Billing
There has always been the problem of billing in the telephone world and now in the Internet world. As one who has run phone companies I really hate billing, the costs are massive. You have to provide records of use, you get calls from irate customers, you need reconciliation and it adds 20-35% on the cost. I always suggested fixed fees and unlimited use since on the average we can predict the use to a fairly good number, on the average. So a few use little, they pay for if they want to and there are few hogs, there are always a few hogs.
Now in an Ars Technica piece they recount the changes in Canada. They will be billing by usage. The suggested fee is $2 per GB per month. Now let us do a simple calculation:
1. There are about 2.5 million seconds in a month
2. There are 8 Billion bits per GB
3. That is an average data rate of 3 Mbps per month for $2.
4. The ISP is most likely paying the Tier 1 carrier about $20 per Mbps per month. So we have a deal already? No?
Somehow we have a problem here. But there is a bigger problem. If I down load a Netflix like movie with say with an H.265 5Mbps 90 min movie I am downloading about 5000 seconds at 5Mbps or 25Gb or 3GB. Oops, that is already $6!
Is this what they are proposing. Will I get real time billing or will I suddenly see a $5000 bill unannounced appearing on my mailbox and have no recourse. I need itemized billing, and that in Internet space is a nightmare. How do I allocate it, by Google, by my blog, by my email. And all that junk sent to me, how do I stop that, and not get billed, after all it is billed to both sender and receiver.
And if I have some allocation for work, how do I do that, if I have separate billable projects.
Then how do I correct billing errors!
Do they have any idea what they are getting into. I agree that there will have to be some usage billing but at the seller not the receiver. Let Netflix, if it is them, pay the carrier, which they do, and let me get billed accordingly! The alternative is a nightmare. But after all that is what we have politicians and the FCC for, to create just such nightmares.
Now in an Ars Technica piece they recount the changes in Canada. They will be billing by usage. The suggested fee is $2 per GB per month. Now let us do a simple calculation:
1. There are about 2.5 million seconds in a month
2. There are 8 Billion bits per GB
3. That is an average data rate of 3 Mbps per month for $2.
4. The ISP is most likely paying the Tier 1 carrier about $20 per Mbps per month. So we have a deal already? No?
Somehow we have a problem here. But there is a bigger problem. If I down load a Netflix like movie with say with an H.265 5Mbps 90 min movie I am downloading about 5000 seconds at 5Mbps or 25Gb or 3GB. Oops, that is already $6!
Is this what they are proposing. Will I get real time billing or will I suddenly see a $5000 bill unannounced appearing on my mailbox and have no recourse. I need itemized billing, and that in Internet space is a nightmare. How do I allocate it, by Google, by my blog, by my email. And all that junk sent to me, how do I stop that, and not get billed, after all it is billed to both sender and receiver.
And if I have some allocation for work, how do I do that, if I have separate billable projects.
Then how do I correct billing errors!
Do they have any idea what they are getting into. I agree that there will have to be some usage billing but at the seller not the receiver. Let Netflix, if it is them, pay the carrier, which they do, and let me get billed accordingly! The alternative is a nightmare. But after all that is what we have politicians and the FCC for, to create just such nightmares.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Internet Neutrality and Congress
There is a new bill running around Congress concerning Internet Neutrality. It was issued by Senator Cantwell and it is interesting in many ways. First it is a bit naive in its wording when describing the Internet. In many ways it appears to be written, from the techncal side, by someone who just took one of those executive courses on telecommunications. They got the jist of some of the words and enough just to be dangerous.
The key words seem to be:
The key words seem to be:
A broadband Internet access service provider may not unjustly or unreasonably—
‘‘(1) block, interfere with, or degrade an end user’s ability to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer lawful content (including fair use), applications, or services of the user’s choice;
‘‘(2) block, interfere with, or degrade an end user’s ability to connect and use the end user’s choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;
‘‘(3) prevent or interfere with competition among network, applications, service or content providers;
‘‘(4) engage in discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, service, or service provider with respect to network management practices, network performance characteristics, or commercial terms and conditions;
‘‘(5) give preference to affiliated content, applications, or services with respect to network management practices, network performance characteristics, or commercial terms and conditions;
‘‘(6) charge a content, application, or service provider for access to the broadband Internet access service providers’ end users based on differing levels of quality of service or prioritized delivery of Internet protocol packets;
‘‘(7) prioritize among or between content, applications, and services, or among or between different types of content, applications, and services unless the end user requests to have such prioritization;
‘‘(8) install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that prevent or interfere with compliance with the requirements of this section; or
‘‘(9) refuse to interconnect on just and reasonable terms and conditions.
‘‘(d) REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section shall prohibit a broadband Internet access service provider from engaging in reasonable network management.
‘‘(2) REASONABLENESS PRESUMPTION.—For purposes of this section, a network management practice is presumed to be reasonable for a broadband Internet access service provider only if it is—
‘‘(A) essential for a legitimate network management purpose assuring the operation of the network;
‘‘(B) appropriate for achieving the stated purpose;
‘‘(C) narrowly tailored; and
‘‘(D) among the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available.
There are so many holes in this set of statements that one could drive all the trucks that GM makes through it. What do the words mean? Litigation would ensue for decades while costing the consumer billions to pay for it while delaying any progress to the development of service.
The market will play this one out. There are tons of competitors and with wireless just peaking its head up with 4G, LTE et al, then just let the market work!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Internet Neutrality and a Simple Proposal
Internet neutrality is really a simple thing. It means that the providers are disaggregated and get to do what they should do. Regulation on the other hand is a very complicated thing and it means that we always have regulatory lag, a phenomenon that those of us around long enough remember.
You see there was a time when the FCC regulated everything, thanks to the Progressives who believed in the Government having a heavy hand and that was when the choice you had was black rotary phones. Again you see that was the direct effect of regulation. But as they say, I digress.
Let us look at what makes up an Internet connection. In simple terms it is shown below:
There are the seven elements we show in the figure. The Internet Neutrality issue is then who controls what and how much?
Now below we show the way it is today on cable.
Cable controls it end to end. Including the modem. That is one of the major problems. That also was what cable used to call it an information service and Title I. Frankly it is common carriage at face value but the FCC in its immortal wisdom decided against it. In many ways over its period of existence the FCC has been the main problem in impeding telecom in the country. Yet it has prospered despite the FCC.
Now a simple proposal. We show below what we propose. Just separate the services, mandate open modems, and let the customer get services from whomever as we tried to do under the last telecom bill in 1996.
Let the cable company provide non integrated transport, that is what they sell. Regulate that. You see my Cablevision Internet fails every day at 11:00 AM, I can set my clocks by it, the service drops more frequently than the leaves in the fall! It costs $55 per month and works at best 80% of the time. Yet there is no alternative. So why not regulate it as a common carrier, just the transport side.
The problem will be however the FCC. They never do anything simply. The FCC will make this more complex, will permit more loop holes and will drive Internet access into the ground and will drive the prices sky high! Why, it is in the DNA.
You see there was a time when the FCC regulated everything, thanks to the Progressives who believed in the Government having a heavy hand and that was when the choice you had was black rotary phones. Again you see that was the direct effect of regulation. But as they say, I digress.
Let us look at what makes up an Internet connection. In simple terms it is shown below:
There are the seven elements we show in the figure. The Internet Neutrality issue is then who controls what and how much?
Now below we show the way it is today on cable.
Cable controls it end to end. Including the modem. That is one of the major problems. That also was what cable used to call it an information service and Title I. Frankly it is common carriage at face value but the FCC in its immortal wisdom decided against it. In many ways over its period of existence the FCC has been the main problem in impeding telecom in the country. Yet it has prospered despite the FCC.
Now a simple proposal. We show below what we propose. Just separate the services, mandate open modems, and let the customer get services from whomever as we tried to do under the last telecom bill in 1996.
Let the cable company provide non integrated transport, that is what they sell. Regulate that. You see my Cablevision Internet fails every day at 11:00 AM, I can set my clocks by it, the service drops more frequently than the leaves in the fall! It costs $55 per month and works at best 80% of the time. Yet there is no alternative. So why not regulate it as a common carrier, just the transport side.
The problem will be however the FCC. They never do anything simply. The FCC will make this more complex, will permit more loop holes and will drive Internet access into the ground and will drive the prices sky high! Why, it is in the DNA.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Internet Neutrality the FCC and Broadband
The DC Appeals Court today ruled on the Comcast case regarding the FCC and Net Neutrality. Basically they affirmed what we have been saying all along, namely the FCC has no authority.
The Court states:
Through the Communications Act of 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended over the decades, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., Congress has given the Commission express and expansive authority to regulate common carrier services, including landline telephony, id. § 201 et seq. (Title II of theAct); radio transmissions, including broadcast television, radio, and cellular telephony, id. § 301 et seq. (Title III); and “cable services,” including cable television, id. § 521 et seq. (Title VI). In this case, the Commission does not claim that Congress has given it express authority to regulate Comcast’s Internet service. Indeed, in its still-binding 2002 Cable Modem Order, the Commission ruled that cable Internet service is neither a “telecommunications service” covered by Title II of the Communications Act nor a “cable service” covered by Title VI. In re High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, 17 F.C.C.R. 4798, 4802
Simply put the FCC has no authority and this will naturally extend to the entire Broadband domain. One would have thought that Harvard Law graduates would have had some exposure to the law.
We argued this position in a paper we wrote on Internet Neutrality almost five years ago. There we stated that the FCC had no statutory standing and that the grounds for Internet Neutrality as we defined it was based in common law principles. Simply that if I were to enter into an agreement with say Comcast to have them carry my bits from A to B then they could charge whatever and deal with the bits in any manner as long as it was not discriminatory to me or the other parties. If they agreement states that they will deal with streaming video in a certain manner, and do so for all streaming video, then that is what I buy. Simple.
The Comcast case does no deal with that discrimination.
The Court states:
Through the Communications Act of 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended over the decades, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., Congress has given the Commission express and expansive authority to regulate common carrier services, including landline telephony, id. § 201 et seq. (Title II of theAct); radio transmissions, including broadcast television, radio, and cellular telephony, id. § 301 et seq. (Title III); and “cable services,” including cable television, id. § 521 et seq. (Title VI). In this case, the Commission does not claim that Congress has given it express authority to regulate Comcast’s Internet service. Indeed, in its still-binding 2002 Cable Modem Order, the Commission ruled that cable Internet service is neither a “telecommunications service” covered by Title II of the Communications Act nor a “cable service” covered by Title VI. In re High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, 17 F.C.C.R. 4798, 4802
Simply put the FCC has no authority and this will naturally extend to the entire Broadband domain. One would have thought that Harvard Law graduates would have had some exposure to the law.
We argued this position in a paper we wrote on Internet Neutrality almost five years ago. There we stated that the FCC had no statutory standing and that the grounds for Internet Neutrality as we defined it was based in common law principles. Simply that if I were to enter into an agreement with say Comcast to have them carry my bits from A to B then they could charge whatever and deal with the bits in any manner as long as it was not discriminatory to me or the other parties. If they agreement states that they will deal with streaming video in a certain manner, and do so for all streaming video, then that is what I buy. Simple.
The Comcast case does no deal with that discrimination.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Net Neutrality: Going to the Extreme
I have been discussing Net Neutrality for over five years now. The issue should be simple. First, the packets to and from me should be secure and not open to any form of inspection or discrimination by any intermediary. Second, if I send a hundred pound packet I should pay 100 times more than if I send a one pound packet, thereabouts. Simple.
Not quite. First the FCC has no authority here, really. Yet that has not stopped them from issuing an NPRM and in turn starting the rule-making. Yes it will be thrown out by the DC Circuit. But that has never stopped the FCC before. They have the reputation to keep of being the most Luddite group in DC, and that is truly saying something. One may have thought Martin rather heavy handed, well just look at the crowd now.
Now on to the most recent venture, the attempt to make Google adhere to net neutrality in searching, whatever that is. Yesterday in the NY Times some member of what appears to be a disadvantaged company, also called a flop by some, bemoans the fact that he alleges that Google did not treat him and his company properly, whatever that means. He states:
"Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance."
You cannot make this up! Search Neutrality! How about the First Amendment to the Constitution. Must the Times allow equal time on Page 1 for dissenting opinions? I think not. Google has a service, if you do not like it go somewhere else. The FCC has even less authority here my poor disgruntled young person! At least in net neutrality as I had discussed it there is over a thousand years of common law in bailments to hang your hat on. What is the basis of your claim? Oh I forgot, this is the generation where every student is on the honor roll and every student is a winner at sports. Not like that in life!
This whining young person then continues:
"Google’s treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America’s leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google’s free turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain’s leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service here."
Let me tell a short story. I used Rand McNally's map service for years and paid a fee. Then they decided to change it, increased the fee, which I paid, and then destroyed all my old data. I had no reason to stay, I told them as much, went to Google, because it was better, not free, better! If Google had a bad search engine, such as in my opinion the Bing system, I would have gone elsewhere. I use Google, I like Google, I am making an economic decision.
We will watch the FCC go through the movements of being the protector of the consumer in the neutrality of everything wars. Perhaps they should try neutrality amongst religions, having Hindus, Christians, Jews, and the like all have equal footing, perhaps that would eliminate world conflict!
The rules to control net neutrality already exist in common law. They are the common law common carriage rights. We do not need some unbalanced FCC getting in the middle. The Government seems incapable of doing anything except spending money. In my experience the only competent branch of the Federal Executive is the Military, most of the time, not always. For example, just look at the three stooges from last weeks flight to Detroit. We want these minds controlling our information flow now, not really, let the market do that, please.
Not quite. First the FCC has no authority here, really. Yet that has not stopped them from issuing an NPRM and in turn starting the rule-making. Yes it will be thrown out by the DC Circuit. But that has never stopped the FCC before. They have the reputation to keep of being the most Luddite group in DC, and that is truly saying something. One may have thought Martin rather heavy handed, well just look at the crowd now.
Now on to the most recent venture, the attempt to make Google adhere to net neutrality in searching, whatever that is. Yesterday in the NY Times some member of what appears to be a disadvantaged company, also called a flop by some, bemoans the fact that he alleges that Google did not treat him and his company properly, whatever that means. He states:
"Today, search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s new Bing have become the Internet’s gatekeepers, and the crucial role they play in directing users to Web sites means they are now as essential a component of its infrastructure as the physical network itself. The F.C.C. needs to look beyond network neutrality and include “search neutrality”: the principle that search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance."
You cannot make this up! Search Neutrality! How about the First Amendment to the Constitution. Must the Times allow equal time on Page 1 for dissenting opinions? I think not. Google has a service, if you do not like it go somewhere else. The FCC has even less authority here my poor disgruntled young person! At least in net neutrality as I had discussed it there is over a thousand years of common law in bailments to hang your hat on. What is the basis of your claim? Oh I forgot, this is the generation where every student is on the honor roll and every student is a winner at sports. Not like that in life!
This whining young person then continues:
"Google’s treatment of Foundem stifled our growth and constrained the development of our innovative search technology. The preferential placement of Google Maps helped it unseat MapQuest from its position as America’s leading online mapping service virtually overnight. The share price of TomTom, a maker of navigation systems, has fallen by some 40 percent in the weeks since the announcement of Google’s free turn-by-turn satellite navigation service. And RightMove, Britain’s leading real-estate portal, lost 10 percent of its market value this month on the mere rumor that Google planned a real-estate search service here."
Let me tell a short story. I used Rand McNally's map service for years and paid a fee. Then they decided to change it, increased the fee, which I paid, and then destroyed all my old data. I had no reason to stay, I told them as much, went to Google, because it was better, not free, better! If Google had a bad search engine, such as in my opinion the Bing system, I would have gone elsewhere. I use Google, I like Google, I am making an economic decision.
We will watch the FCC go through the movements of being the protector of the consumer in the neutrality of everything wars. Perhaps they should try neutrality amongst religions, having Hindus, Christians, Jews, and the like all have equal footing, perhaps that would eliminate world conflict!
The rules to control net neutrality already exist in common law. They are the common law common carriage rights. We do not need some unbalanced FCC getting in the middle. The Government seems incapable of doing anything except spending money. In my experience the only competent branch of the Federal Executive is the Military, most of the time, not always. For example, just look at the three stooges from last weeks flight to Detroit. We want these minds controlling our information flow now, not really, let the market do that, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
