Is the iPhone 4 Capping It’s Downstream?
Check out the tests George Ou and I ran over at Digital Society here. Read More →
Why Obama is Wrong about Net Neutrality and His Scheme Must Be Defeated
As Capitol Confidential noted the other day, net neutrality is an issue that that is dear to the left, but has flown under the radar of most Americans. It’s a rather technical and arcane subject, but can be summed up rather simply: Net neutrality rules enforced by the Federal Communications Commission would allow government bureaucrats to micromanage the Internet — thus sucking out the lifeblood of the digital economy and threatening the dynamism and freedom we’ve come to take for granted online. Proponents of net neutrality claim that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) abuse their position as “gatekeepers” to the Web, and the public needs government to establish strict “rules of the road” to protect us from their scheming. Trouble is, the evidence of abusive practices by ISPs is anecdotal and thinner than an iPod mini. The digital economy is currently so dynamic and cutthroat that free-market forces work quickly to correct any undesirable hiccups that arise — all without any micro-managing of the tech industry by government. Net neutrality advocates insist we need government to preserve an “open” and “free” Internet and claim the market has failed. But they cannot point to any market failures that make the Internet less open or free. In short, the Internet isn’t broken. And it doesn’t need a government fix. No matter. The left presses ahead, because the facts are irrelevant. The goal is to put government in charge of digital policy, taking away your freedom as a consumer to shape the Internet with your own choices. This would stifle the enormous private investment and innovation that has created the modern Internet — in part, because industries would be relegated to playing “Mother May I?” with the FCC before releasing its latest innovation. And that’s the best-case scenario. The Reason Foundation’s Steve Titch argues that if government-enforced net neutrality rules were in place five years ago, the iPhone as we know it wouldn’t... [Read More...]
The Cable Pipeline Opinion: Net Neutrality’s Conundrum
This is a guest column by Leonard Grace. Through continued research of the Net Neutrality debate, distinct realizations come to mind for Regulators’, Consumers, and Network Providers alike in pondering the heated discussions around whether either regulation, or a (hands-off) approach, are sufficient to allow unfettered and equal access, including clear competition, and that all are present on the Broadband pipelines. First there has continued to be somewhat of a hysteria and possibly pre-ordained fear, albeit without serious incidents of record, that network providers both have and will continue to throttle speeds and limit access of their customers to the copious amounts of content becoming available through the Internet. Perhaps the hysteria has unfolded as a result of one BitTorrent case, or associated with a fear of other industry debacles as seen with banks, Insurance companies, Investor Management companies, and Wall Street, driving the public to government as their interventionist in reigning in these industries; but how realistic are these fears based on the current Internet model? Regulation can hamper Broadband Access and Adoption Increased regulation of a burgeoning Internet on the verge of offering just the recipe the FCC is mandating could backfire in helping startup companies materialize and grow while slowing the proliferation of increased infrastructure, and network upgrades. Without the freedom to invest and seek sufficient ROI’s network providers will cut costs rather than invest for the future. This could stunt job creation, a by-product of innovation and free-flowing investment, in an industry with a broad potential to produce applications and services for the Internet. Network Management Polices will continue to improve and evolve to handle varying Traffic Needs It is in the best interest of private network providers to provide the best network management policies for all users in continuing to build their consumer and business base. This correlates... [Read More...]
The Wonderful-Whimsical Imagination of Free Press’ Timothy Karr
Originally published at The Daily Caller. In what has become a sound board for Free Press, Huffington Post published an attack piece this past weekend by Timothy Karr. Karr is the front man for SaveTheInternet.com, a site run by Free Press. The site has been a continuous emotional response to the issue of Net Neutrality for the last several years, a complete and full introspective of grand potential disaster scenarios for the future of the Internet, and short on data. Karr is to Net Neutrality what Al Gore is to man-made Global Warming. Essentially, without the strong hand of the all knowing government, the Internet as we know it is doomed. Karr’s most recent article attacking telecommunications consultant Larry Downes is what I would term “astroturf research”. Last week, CNET published an article by Downes that considers the possibility that the White House is stepping back from strict and over reaching Net Neutrality regulation. This is Downes opinion, and one that he brings evidence to the table for. We know this is his opinion because in the second paragraph of the article he states, “That’s my reading, of a number of recent developments, underscored by comments made by government speakers on a panel on the first day of a Tech Policy Summit at CES in Las Vegas.” Downes is a journalist. And he’s doing what journalists do, observe and report, nothing more. In recent months several think tanks have advised that last Fall’s FCC Net Neutrality Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) could potentially thwart the expansion of broadband across the nation to rural areas. Specifically what are referred to as “underserved and unserved” areas of the country. The basic notion is that by restricting the methods in which network engineers can manage their networks by way of Net Neutrality regulation, the costs of running small networks in these underserved and unserved areas will increase to the point of making them financially unsustainable. ... [Read More...]
Larry Downes VS Free Press
I just had my first article published on Tucker Carlson and Derek Hunters new site venture The Daily Caller. The launch was yesterday and I think it has gone swimmingly. The article is on a piece that Timothy Karr, the guy who runs savetheinternet.com a Free Press site, wrote that was just raunchy. Not in sort of a back alley, red light district sense, but from the unscrupulous, “you’ve got to be kidding me” sense. The piece was written to try and brush off some reporting Larry Downes had produced based on some policy perspective he had at CES, but instead of producing counter evidence to this reporting, Karr decides to attack Downes credibility. Stay classy. I’ve been reading Downes for a long time. The guy is a respected journalist and he has good things to say. That doesn’t mean he’s always right, or that I agree with him on every point he makes, it just means that if you have his portfolio it should buy you some respect to the point that just because you don’t agree with him you don’t try to throw his credentials under a bus. This isn’t even to mention that all the people over at Free Press are socialists anyway and they should be sharing the love around. So you can head over and see the post here. I’ll probably repost it here in a couple of days after I allow TheDC its due. Not like you are going to wait around for the posting here, but I’m just saying, for cataloging sake, it will be here eventually too. -nick Read More →
Bart Stupak’s FCC Sunshine Legislation
You may have seen this posted yesterday, it was one of our lost posts… You can swing over to digitalsociety.org and find some nice commentary on Bart Stupak’s proposed legislation that would allow more than two FCC commissioners to meet at one time. Something that has up till now been prevented to stop acts of collusion. Check it out here. -nick Read More →
FCC Considering Forcing ISP’s To Share Their Lines
The FCC is considering forcing ISP’s to share their lines with other broadband firms.? In other words in Johnny Upstart Broadband Company wanted to start offering Internet service they wouldn’t have to build their own infrastructure, they would just be able to use Comcast/AT&T/Verizon/etc’s last-mile.? I think this is general is a bad thing because it hurts those businesses, and the new businesses have no real infrastructure upstart costs.? At least not to the extent of the companies infrastructure they would be using. But the really troubling thing here is that the Berkman Center Study on Broadband is being used as a key component to the decision making.? Check out this post, you can find a flurry of other posts and data that shows the Berkman study was severely flawed, which makes the FCC decision making process to go ahead and use the study seriously questionable. -nick Read More →
White House Out of Control on Net Neutrality
Have you heard that opposing government regulation is now akin to supporting censorship?? Does this make sense to anyone else? It apparently does to White House Deputy Technology Office Andrew McLaughlin.? This week McLaughlin compared opposing government mandated control over Internet content delivery the same thing as China censoring the Internet.? He continued, ?If it bothers you that the China government does it, it should bother you when your cable company does it,? McLaughlin said. When we are talking about Net Neutrality, we are clearly no longer talking about the same thing as the liberals in the White House. Look, there is simply no evidence that ISP’s want to block content.? In fact they would be nuts to do so.? Additionally, there is no evidence that the government will not block or censor content either.? What people need to begin to realize is that for the FCC to implement their recently proposed NPRM, they will at some level have to monitor traffic.? There is no clear detail how they will be doing this or if they will be monitoring at the content level. McLaughlin makes the comparison of the ability of ISP’s to block content to China’s censoring knowing full well that the government could soon have the same ability.? The double standard is brilliant, and the ploy convincing to those who aren’t familiar with the heart of the issue.? Compare anti-neutrality sentiment to a country that strictly limits freedom of speech online and quickly bring in the sheep. If you want to seek out actual information on the issue, read all sides, that’s fine.? Then make a decision that is best for you and your house.? But while you’re at it look up the contributions from Google, Amazon, Yahoo, and Ebay to the Obama campaign compared to the McCain campaign, and know that you should take anything coming out of the White House on this issue with a grain of salt.? It’s a big fat payback for monies paid in advance. Read More →
Online Gaming Needs QoS
Some guy named spastkid at gamepolitics.com responded to my criticism of the ECA supporting Net Neutrality, which is essentially the same thing that I posted here the other day.? The guy responded with what will always be a typical response.? This is that game traffic won’t have prioritization, but neither will the other guys so everything is all neutral.? That’s great, but the point is that game traffic needs to be prioritized in order to prevent queue stacking and generating lag in the game. Here’s the discourse between the two of us.? If you’d care to dissent at my logic and explain how game traffic would still survive even without QoS then go ahead and let me know. spastkid: Your arguments about how those who support video gaming shouldn’t support net neutrality doesn’t even begin to make sense. Let’s say, net neutrality fails, who’s to say that there will not be any ISP?who will set packets by online games to a lower priority such that their “time-sensitive” VOIP?packets do not get interrupted by those pesky gamers who dare to use their purchased connection to play online games? Also, your post seems to be filled with strawmen arguments. I doubt that you would find someone here who is somewhat up to date on net neutrality issues who would think that it is all about blocking websites. While it IS?true that your “gaming traffic” will have no priority over your neighbour’s traffic of a “lower priority”, your neighbour’s traffic isn’t going to have any priority over yours anyway.. ———————————————————————— Oooh! You mean there are people around with the mythical “Common Sense”? And my response: So your position then is that you would rather have government mandated rules that will with 100% certainty if passed, destroy... [Read More...]
The ECA Keeps Getting It Wrong
It baffles me that ECA (Entertainment Consumers Association) continues to step on their own toes with the net neutrality issue.? If the ECA truly supports video games then they are doing video gamers a disservice by supporting anything to do with net neutrality regulation. The FCC NPRM proposed last month prevents ANY discremination in applications.? Which means video games will have 0 prioritization. You will have massive jitter in your online games. i.e. lag or queue stacking.? You will have no priority over your next door neighbors 24/7 torrenting, or any other bandwidth heavy applications.? Gaming traffic is very, very small. But its time sensitivity is extremely high. If you support video gaming, you should not be supporting regulation.? Support neutrality all you want, but support it by using smart infrastructure, not dumb networks that treat everything the same.? Everything on the net is not the same. And applications like video games and VoIP must have priority. If you think the neutrality argument is about blocking websites, you are very misinformed. Find your local network engineer and pick their brain, like I did here: www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/podcast2/ -nick Read More →
