Net Neutrality pt 2

I give up. For 2 weeks I've tried to come up with various problems that exist on the internet that network neutrality violations could fix, but I've failed. I've gone so far as to look at the parliamentary submissions from various ISPs. There is only one justifiable debate on violating network neutrality, traffic shaping to ensure Quality of Service (QoS) vs Peer to Peer (P2P) usage. I thought I had some form of argument on that score, until I read BitTorrent's late submission to the commission. After reading all of this, I've determined that the ISPs are whooped, they don't have a leg to stand on.

Even before reading BitTorrents reply, they didn't have a leg to stand on. The main argument is that P2P usage causes congestion on the internet and that requires a management via "traffic shaping". "Traffic Shaping", for the curious, is the practice of forcibly slowing down, or "throttling", the internet usage of certain applications to allow room for other applications to work. They seem to make it clear that they blame P2P traffic for congesting the network and they have to manage this themselves for the sake of time sensitive traffic, like IPTV, VoIP, and live streaming. They all admit that they use Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) for this. This means that they track what a user is doing and act accordingly. I have a three simple problems with this.

The first problem I have is that throttling, ethically, should be controlled by the user. I've seen too many technical issues where a person has flooded their line with Torrent traffic and thus had nothing left for browsing. Setting up a speed cap for the program in question solved the issue, albeit the internet was slow for the user. If they had a problem with that, the advanced settings allowed the user to schedule the programs network usage, so the program would only download when they weren't home. While not perfect, it did the job. ISPs doing this for you is a different deal. They are claiming your downloading is affecting other people's lines, and state that as reason for interference. The only reason congestion would ever really be a problem would be because the ISPs have treated the internet like the banks treated money. Banks loan out more money then they have on deposit. (Here's a video on the subject). ISPs promise more bandwidth than they have available thinking that they can juggle their customers as long as everyone doesn't demand usage at once, collectively everyone will stagger their usage. This doesn't work out so perfectly, leading to "peak usage" times, where everyone does use their internet at once. So, ISPs took a shortcut, and they want to make the user pay the price. This inherently seems wrong to me. Hell, we accept the shortcut because we all benefit, but discriminating to lesson the shortcut's impact sets a bed precedent.

My second issue is one of trust. I mentioned in my previous post that a lot of the concerns Network Neutrality proponents raise deal more with the concept of fear that the ISPs will misuse this power. What I didn't mention is that they are right. Corporations, in my experience have not earned our trust and never will. The fundamental problem here is that corporations tell us that the customer is number one, but they rarely are. Shareholders are number one, this means profit is number one and customers don't like hearing that truth. Over and over again we see proof that the corporate structure is not one that leads to our best interests. They will sell us out if they think they have a chance of doing so and us still giving them our money. Also, just because they are large organizations that deals with something outside of the average person's comprehension doesn't automatically mean that they make the right choice, it just means that they have a better chance of not getting caught. DPI and other methods of traffic shaping involve a level of privacy invasion that these companies have not earned the right to use.

Lastly, one thing had struck me through reading all of these official governmental papers. One line keeps cropping up; Market Forces. It's true that corporations built the internet without legal promoting to fulfill the consumer's needs. However, the government is stepping in because ISPs aren't using market forces to fix the issue, they are using rationing. I might be in the minority here, but I had no problem with high usage fees. My provider caps my data traffic at something like 100 Gigs per month, then afterwards they charge me something like $2 per Gig. I rarely break this cap. I think I did it once when I downloaded the entire archive of OCRemix after a computer crash. I have a friend who downloads a lot of audio books though, and he regularly breaks the cap. We both feel it's fair that we pay a little extra for heavy usage, (he feel the markup cost of $2 a gig is a little extreme though.) In both cases, we change our habits to limit our network usage in response to this. I pay for a higher speed, I'm fine with paying for using it a lot, but I'm not fine with paying for something and only being able to use it some of the time for some things for reasons that are artificial. It bothers me that they defend themselves citing the wonders of market forces when their reliance of traffic shaping indicated a failure of those same forces.

All of this ignores BitTorrent's reply to these ISPs' comments, which mentions that most P2P clients use Torrent protocols that ultimately reduce network. Better yet, they are about to release this uTP technology, that will self-throttle making all of this a moot point, as file sharing will no longer cause congestion.

Well fuck, I just wasted a lot of time.



Note: This is a lot more technical than I like, sorry about that. So many wiki links...


Reference Links
ISP Submissions
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1029651.pdf
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1241688.DOC
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1242429.DOC
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1029682.pdf

Net Neutrality

So I came across a few articles on this, and it re-spawned my classic "I hate corporations" mentality, but this time I stopped myself. Seriously, I don't like one sided fights, or one sided arguments. While corporations are scary as shit and don't care for us in any way shape or form, corporations aren't all the devil who solely want to kill us, and do provide much needed services to the world. I think I might be missing something in this debate, so I think I'll attempt to play the devil here for a moment.

For those non-techies, What is Net Neutrality? Well, leaving my opinion out of it, it's the debate over how much control Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should have over the internet. As it stands, the internet is very much like the road system, we pay for gas, and we drive on the road. There are rules of the road that exist to make things go smoothly. The rules of the internet currently read "first come, first serve" which means everyone has as much right to be there as the other, much like the rules at a stop sign (at least in most of Canada) and this works well. Here's the difference between my analogy and reality, the roads are publicly owned, and the internet is privately owned by various organizations. Let's extend my metaphor and imagine that roads are privately owned. One problem that does exist in this circumstance is that roads are busy things, as a road gets busier, eventually you need to upgrade things to make it work out. If a "Stop" sign gets busy, it's time to install a light. Net Neutrality proponents want regulations in place to prevent corporations from deciding that instead of expanding the infrastructure, they would rather set up a "Premium Service" and give priority at stop signs to those that pay for it, leaving non payers waiting until all the premium members had left. There a few other things involved with Net Neutrality, but if you don't already know about it, and are curious, I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Net Neutrality has gained many proponents, mainly because a lot of people are afraid that these companies will attempt to control more and more of what a consumer will be able to do with the internet. Frankly, a lot of the stuff I hear kinda comes off as this sci-fi dystopia corporate overlord paranoia. "They will will control all that we see, and track all that we do. The poor will be treated as second class citizens and be allowed only the dregs of the internet left over from the rich. Small businesses will be marginalized as they are denied the power of the internet and find their customers going to the larger companies. The RIAA will use proprietary information to stifle all forms of illegal downloading, and then start to track your movements and charge you a quarter every time you hear a song." Another batch of fears seems directed at the younger generation fearing the older. "Video game bandwidth will be forcibly limited for the benefit of "UberCorp's High Definition On Demand Television, Best of the 80s™". Youtube will only load at speed if you pay for it too." The horrible thing is, even though it sounds like an Orwell book, I don't think such things are unrealistic as a fear, just will appear in a more subtle form.

The corporations in this case seem to hold this view that new rules are not needed because they would never do such a thing. Such rules would also prevent beneficial services being offered to the public. Frankly, they are right. I feel that proponents of Net Neutrality are preying off of our fear of control and proposing ridiculous scenarios to gain support. There is a lot to be said for optimizing the internet and prioritizing it's use. After all, while we all use the roads, the moment we see flashing lights of an emergency vehicle, we pull over. Trucks tend to get their own lane for our convenience. The internet is a hundred times more complex and more likely to benefit from such rules. This covers much of the debate, and before even researching the corporate views, I can see some points on their side, however, to illustrate this point, you either need to know exactly how the internet works (on a physical level) or have someone explain it to you.

Time for a lesson on Internet 101. If you know this stuff, feel free to skip a paragraph or two. This is coming from a few years bouncing around various levels of Verizon Online's company and my own education.

The internet is not a thing. In any logical schematic of a computer network, professionals always visualize the internet as a cloud. It's thousand, millions of computers that are working with a brilliant organizational communication protocol that allows them to work together to let anyone talk to anyone. If any particular path becomes congested, information is automatically rerouted to paths that are open. Various groups created technologies that allowed the average man to navigate the network without needing an IT specialist to help. Since it is often looked upon as a singular entity, people have developed funny ideas on how things on the internet work. Some people think that when they buy it from their ISP, that the ISP has control over everything, they are wrong.

The Internet itself is basically run by half a dozen companies that maintain individual aspects of the foundations that makes up the internet. ISPs go to these people and buy service from them at bulk, and then sell service packages to you, the consumer (good thing, it would be a nightmare otherwise). Since originally it was too expensive to create a whole new infrastructure to accommodate this new technology, ISPs found ways of using existing mediums for data transfer, whether it be analog noise via phone lines, electrical signals via copper cable wires (redundant term when you think of it). They give you a device that translates your computer's standard networking signal into something to be transfered over their pre-existing system, then they build a centralized server into the existing infrastructure that translates this data back into computer-speak and connects that to the internet. These systems also provides you with the package of services needed to actually do stuff online. All they are responsible for is that signal over their network, whether it be phone or cable.

Here's where it gets fun. The connection that centralized server has is ridiculously fast, but it's built to service hundreds to thousands of people. The existing networks that the ISPs use, however, have different qualities in different locations. These were not built specifically to handle internet so different areas, and sometimes different houses on the same street, have radically different capabilities when it comes to the strength of the signal they are able to send. In a lot of cases this is simply a matter 100-200 kilobytes per second, but the company would like to be able to market a standard of some kind instead of saying "whatever we can give you". They also prefer to charge you per month as the high speed services are always on, and charging per byte of information is just asking for trouble. So the companies standardize what is can promise to provide at bear minimum on low end networks. Most lines can actually handle a signal that would give you a few bites over what is advertised, but they purposely send a signal that is only in line to the speed package you are paying for. This works, it's fair. What about those with newer wires that can handle a stronger signal? Then those in a better area have the option of paying more to get a higher speed of internet that is possible by the improved wire. I'd like to note that this wire was there already for another service that they offer, and we are only talking about the connection between you and the centralized server, so they are basically charging you more so they don't slow you down as much. I don't have a problem with this, it's really the only sane way to manage something like this, while keeping it fair. I just want to establish that the ISP companies already are in the practice of not providing you with the best service possible, just the service you agreed to.

Another aspect come up. There are two sides of the equation here, sending and receiving information. Well, on average, unless you are using P2P(link) network programs, you are often going to be downloading (receiving) much more then you upload (send). With this in mind, ISPs provide packages geared towards connections that have a much lower upload speed then download. That reserves space on the central server for business owners who run website servers. Again, good idea. Provide what is needed to who needs it, this works for the average person. Alright, that covers the basics. Now for the opinions.

Enter the people who know what they are doing. I'll tell you this truly, ISPs hate "expert" users. Despite the fact that they are often the people that build and maintain the technology they profit from, whether it's a network engineer or an enthusiastic hobbyist, the "tech-savvy" cause the largest headaches for ISPs despite the fact that they are needed so much. We often know their system as well as they do, or we know just enough to get ourselves into trouble. We know what to expect from our internet and know what we can do with it. Worst of all, and let's face it, we do things we shouldn't do. We push the boundaries of their service, forcing them to accommodate things they are not in control of, or prepared for. When we screw up and affect other people, they hold the ISPs responsible. We are the ones who constantly call for faster internet, and then find new ways to use the speed provided, so that we need more yet again. Basically, we force them out of their comfort zone, and hold them to task for their mistakes. What's worse is that we feel entitled to our web wasting ways. The problem is, that we are entitled to it. If the world is to keep developing, then boundaries must be pushed. When boundaries are pushed, we see the cracks, sometimes we make those cracks, sometimes we just notice what was already there, but in either case, whether we work for them or pay them for service, we are the discoverer and messengers of bad news.

Not only that, we ask for things that no normal person would ever need. The average user doesn't notice or care when the internet drops for a second, or even a minute. Often they are reading a website that has already been saved on their computer. The gamer playing a game online notices it, and they speak up. The average person doesn't use the internet all the time, most people just need internet access when they want it, ISPs can manage their network more efficiently with DHCP, customers don't need a static IP address,. The guy who want to host an ftp server from his house does, and he speak up. The average person needs far less upload speed then they need download and never even notice the difference, the file sharer running a torrent notices. In some cases the ISP regulate the problem away. It's in the Terms of Service that you cannot run a server off of a residential line. If you want to do extra stuff, buy a business line, pay for the service you want. Fair. Other times they are forced by other technologies to up their standards. Just before I was laid off, Verizon introduced some great tools where I could reduce ping speed for increased stability. Cool. Others are in legal gray areas and that is where a lot of the debate comes from. However it happens, it always ends up that the average user never complains, and the tech-savvy guy just doesn't like the fact that the rules to the game have changed.

There are problems, and solutions, but I think I'll make this topic a two parter. Frankly, I don't think this is a case of "Big Bad Corporate Daddy" stepping on the little guy. I think there are legitimate problems here, that they have a right to address. Most of the restrictions are concessions to how a business must be run, but there usually is a way to do what we want to do, within reason. The major issue is that none of us can talk about what we really want to talk about, because it involves another ongoing moral battle. We want our file sharing. Most of us are fine with these little concessions we have to make in order for the internet to work, we understand this, but as long as we feel like there are groups out there who will manipulate the market to bypass the moral issue, we won't trust ISPs to make any changes for fear that it will become a weapon against us. It's at this point "us" and "them" should disappear. As long as there is an us/them duality, we are just going to react against a perceived agenda and make each other hate each other more. When that happens all of those little concessions we made because they just made things work, become ammunition in our hands on how we have been wronged. As long as we do this "us/them" thing, there will be no resolution, and no point.

I know there is more to the issue, I don't feel done in my thoughts on this, more next week.