Comments on: Bandwidth, Storewidth, and Net Neutrality

By: Bret Swanson - Maximum Entropy » Blog Archive » Arbor’s new Net report: “This is just the beginning…”

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:16:02 +0000

[...] see our analysis from last winter talking about the evolution of content delivery networks — what my colleague [...]

By: Some basics about edge caching, network management, & Net neutrality | The Technology Liberation Front

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:11:30 +0000

[...] talking about the evolution of the debate over edge caching and network management (”Bandwidth, Storewidth, and Net Neutrality“), but I also wanted to draw your attention to related essay by another PFF colleague of [...]

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:25:57 +0000

in his testimony George Gilder wrote:
"Asian broadband also proves there was no Internet "bubble." Today, Korea runs over the net between a three and five times larger share of its economy than we do. Riding the bus to work, Koreans watch television news and exchange video mail over their mobile phones. They enjoy full-motion video education and entertainment in their homes. Many of the dot-coms that failed in America due to the lack of robust broadband links are thriving in Korea. Consider that by this time next year Verizon Wireless’s 38 million customers will enjoy faster Internet access via their mobile phones than through their Verizon DSL connections to their homes. Only the most severe disincentives to invest could have yielded such a result, which defies the laws of physics. The American Internet "bubble" was actually a crisis of policy."

I have a question, Why do these countries have better internet then we do?

To me the deployment of a known technology reflects the free-will of the corporation not the drag of regulation. So if the technology is not deployed, it is the result of a purposeful management decision by the corporate leaders. The auto industry for example swore it could not meet emission standards, the Japanese just did it. Now the American auto industry is on the verge of bankruptcy begging for a handout at taxpayer expense. George Gilder, in the quote above, fails to make a logical connection to demonstrate how our regulatory environment hinders the internet in the US when compared to the Asian internet. So is the corporate whining on network neutrality regulation simply rehash of the auto industry's failed prostrations?

The lesson is clear, if the Asian internet is superior we need to look at what they are doing correctly and then we need to adapt their model for here. Whining about regulation gets us nowhere.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:25:57 +0000

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:25:57 +0000

in his testimony George Gilder wrote:
"Asian broadband also proves there was no Internet "bubble." Today, Korea runs over the net between a three and five times larger share of its economy than we do. Riding the bus to work, Koreans watch television news and exchange video mail over their mobile phones. They enjoy full-motion video education and entertainment in their homes. Many of the dot-coms that failed in America due to the lack of robust broadband links are thriving in Korea. Consider that by this time next year Verizon Wireless’s 38 million customers will enjoy faster Internet access via their mobile phones than through their Verizon DSL connections to their homes. Only the most severe disincentives to invest could have yielded such a result, which defies the laws of physics. The American Internet "bubble" was actually a crisis of policy."

I have a question, Why do these countries have better internet then we do?

To me the deployment of a known technology reflects the free-will of the corporation not the drag of regulation. So if the technology is not deployed, it is the result of a purposeful management decision by the corporate leaders. The auto industry for example swore it could not meet emission standards, the Japanese just did it. Now the American auto industry is on the verge of bankruptcy begging for a handout at taxpayer expense. So is the corporate whining on network neutrality regulation simply rehash of the auto industry's failed prostrations?

The lesson is clear, if the Asian internet is superior we need to look at what they are doing correctly and then we need to adapt their model for here. Whining about regulation gets us nowhere.

By: Bret Swanson

Bret Swanson — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:24:03 +0000

Thanks for reminding me of these very real backtracks. I guess I'm not crazy. I saw one vivid instance in person fully two years ago when Lessig massively retreated in the face of brutally incisive questioning from Peter Huber at a Telecosm conference debate.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:15:24 +0000

It is a fact that the NN coalition has lost some powerful members as Yahoo and Microsoft, among others, have peeled off.

And it's also a fact that prominent NN supporters have modified and softened their views, Lessig among them.

And it's also a fact that the caching system Google wants will accelerate their traffic relative to other services non-accelerated traffic.

So where's the bunk? Google's business and technology people are doing their job, making the service work better for their customers, and this is what they're supposed to do. Their public policy people seem to be a step behind.

By: Ryan Radia

Ryan Radia — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:01:03 +0000

The WSJ story did have some interesting and revealing details about the arrangements that Google is after, but the story's initial claim that "the celebrated openness of the Internet is quietly losing powerful defenders" and also the headline that "Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web" have both been debunked, as I stated in my earlier post. Google hasn't amended its stance on net neutrality regulation. And unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) Google doesn't want a "fast track" on the Web. Or, at least, that's not quite what they want, technically speaking.

This story is indeed a good starting point for a debate over the relatively desirability of content-delivery networks and actual Internet "fast lanes" and whether any of these competing methods of pushing content should be subject to government regulation.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:31:49 +0000

I agree that anyone who says the WSJ story was "debunked" either didn't read it or didn't understand it. The important point the story made is that the views of notable NN advocates have in fact evolved over the course of this debate, which is a good thing given how destructive their programs as of two or three years ago would have been to the evolution of the Internet and network-based services generally. Lessig is now saying he's OK with access tiering, but a couple of years ago he wasn't ( http://www.jedreport.com/2008/12/lessigs-defens... ). Ben Scott told the FCC in Feb that he's OK with some forms of prioritizing, but previously he wasn't. You can go right down the list and see advocate after advocate modifying or softening extreme views as they learn more about the issue and absorb criticism.

And similarly, anti-neuts have softened their views as well, in an effort to reach some sort of common ground. It's normal for views to evolve over time on issues like this that combine law and technology, it shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone when that happens, and it makes perfect sense to periodically assess the state of play and see where we are.

By: Bret Swanson - Maximum Entropy » Blog Archive » When Nerds Attack!

Bret Swanson - Maximum Entropy » Blog Archive » When Nerds Attack! — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:16:35 +0000

[...] here was my attempt, over at the Technology Liberation Front, to put this topic in [...]