Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent's Bram Cohen against Network Neutrality
wigwamus writes "BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen warns on potential 'absurdity' of Network Neutrality laws and concedes that his hook-up with Cachelogic is creating a system that might contravene Network Neutrality. He suggests there'd be no difference between big media footing the bill for their own upload costs of their offerings and subsidizing the consumer's download costs of the same."
I worry that if a law is passed to solve bandwidth problems today it will take 20 years to repeal it when there is no problem. Could Net Neutrality work out the same as the Spanish-American War Excise Tax?
From TFA: "One reason, perhaps, is because if toll roads are to be allowed on the internet, then someone has to build them, and that means jobs for the hardware boys."
Possibly the biggest problem with the 'net neutrality' debate is a mass lack of understanding of how prioritized services would be implemented. It has little to do with hardware. One can forgive mere journalists for such a network faux paus.
The thing about prioritized traffic is that the last mile makes the biggest difference. So, if come big media company pays its ISP to prioritize its video traffic, it won't amount to very much unless each and every last-mile provider on the Internet everywhere configures their equipment to treat that traffic with the same priority.
In fact, even on the backbone, its the same story. As soon as a packet crosses onto another provider's network, it may no longer be routed with any priority at all.
The only thing that can be know for sure about the effect of prioritizing IP traffic is that other traffic will slow down. Like VOIP 911 calls, for example.
The most, and possibly only, practical way to improve the performance would be for the telcos to make good on promises made 10 years ago to run high capacity to every home. Promises used to get lots of money from the government, which they never delivered on.
Perhaps the best thing would be to support "fail fast" for telcos. Never bail them out - the sooner a telco goes under, the better. Artificially keeping them in business supports investment in outmoded technology and outdated business models and managment structures. The 'dumber' a network is, the better it works. By allowing telcos to go under, investment in newer, faster technology is naturally encouraged.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
This guys a fuckin' nut!
He makes dark deals with the movie and music monopolies and now claims he can circumvent Net Neutrality.
Just let him bob and weave in his dark corner with his soiled money and let the rest of us move on to the real world please!
this is about the podcasters, bloggers, and startups...if you make them pay twice, then you are taking away the nets key advantage to old media -- easy access to all, anyone can create, not just consume...dont let the Bells take that away, dont let a few billionairs control out thoughts, news and entertainment, we broke that mold, DONT RE-BUILD IT!
Long story short: he is wrong. He didn't take into account what would happen to smaller websites if Network Neutrality was no longer the norm. I don't really want to go into why Network Neutrality would be a good law because this is Slashdot, and I assume most of you already know. Bram Cohen is a smart guy, but he does not properly capitalize on his ideas. His statement regarding Network Neutrality just further proves that seeing the world in $$$ is not his forte.
The dude had one good idea and now he's struggling to monetize it. He's hardly impartial. Network neutrality isn't about not having to pay for the bill for your uploads, it's about having to pay the rest of the net too. Without peering, the internet will turn into a content delivery network much like cable television, and I guarantee that I won't subscribe to that. That'll be the day when I rent an excavator and start burying fiber myself and peer to other folks like me.
Since he cashed in, like Shawn Fanning. Why should his biased opinion on this count for anything, when he's mostly interested in $$$$$? Might as well hear the spiel straight from the CacheLogic CEO. Besides, CacheLogic sounds like an Akamai wannabe.
...but, with all due respect, when organizations as diverse as Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, moveon.org, the NRA, the Christian Coaliation and the EFF all actually agree on Net Neutrality, you must be barking up the wrong tree.
Sure, laws on this subject need to very carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences. And the American Lawmakers have a long record of messing up in that respect. But I believe -- with all the above-mentioned organizations, that Net Neutrality has to be respected.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
"when you're talking about large file transfers going to very large numbers of people there frequently are significant costs involved"
While it would be terrible for an ISP to block Google or Amazon, it probably won't happen because neither service puts a strain on their resources. But there are internet uses which do put a strain on an ISPs resources. For example, while this isn't true today, it is quite possible that we will download DVDs which, even compressed using XVID or something, will still be a couple gigs a piece (maybe as low as 1GB). Imagine a Netflix/Napster-like subscription service for video downloads!
Currently, ISPs oversell their capacity because most of the time, we use very little of it. Like while I'm writing this comment, I'm using 0kbps and when I submit it, my connection will burst up to give me a fast experience. But if I was using a lot of this connection a lot of the time, my ISP would have a problem - and I don't think it's too hard for us to imagine IPTV or the like for the future which would present such a problem.
Personally, I would prefer usage charges (charges per GB levied against the user) than charges to the content provider. I'd rather pay for it myself than just get the content that a company will pay for, but it seems like Bram has realized that, with high-bandwidth services becoming more and more prevalent, there will be a point at which ISPs need to do something about that extra used capacity - whether that means charging the users sucking all that capacity or charging the content providers enabling the users to suck all that capacity.
I wonder if the internet is something that should not be left to capitolism, to media companies...because of things like this. Aside from the obvious privacy issues of a government issued internet (something we could probably get around...but hey, its not like they don't already see everything), I think a govNET could have some very nice benefits. I am of belief that government exists to do for the people only the things they cannot do for themselves, or things which there is little incentive to consider (pollution). The government doesn't always screw things up. They manage, for the most part, to get our mail where it belongs in a reasonable time for a reasonable cost. They keep our highways and our roads in decent shape for the most part. And they train and are capable of effectively (more so than other countries can) deploying troops in the event of a crisis.
I don't see how a govNET would be very much a different decision than the highway situation was...get the government to lay out tons of fibre optic cable to every home, and then the only upgrades you have to make are to the infrastructure. What a campaign advantage it would be to boast of pushing for fibre optic to every home, school, and office, for a REASONABLE cost. Considering the benefit we all get out of our highways, we don't pay that much tax to keep them useable. I think the same could go for the internet.
I know there are more important issues at stake than fast music downloads.
The internet has proven to be wonderful tool for people to communicate. TV and radio were supposed to fulfill these promises but big business has subverted them.
We have seen that bloggers can actually force big media to carrry there stories, that the internet is an invaluable research tool, and that it gives voice to the voiceless, from Iranian dissedients to disgruntled corporate employees.
The free music is a nice side beneift, but let's not lose track of our priorities.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
I read TFA, and I find it to be very naive.
If there would be no Network Neutrality anymore, the following could (and probably will) happen:
- Netcache has to pay to the user's provider as well as for it's own upload costs it already has.
- The user still pays the same amount of money he does now.
- There is no incentive anymore to upgrade those main pipes, the company's that want good network performance to the end-user will just have to pay up extra.
- PROFIT (For big providers like AOL).
In the end, there will be no (speed) advantage to anyone. Everything will just get more expensive! This is what history should have taught us by now.
Network neutrality should be guarded!
I think Bram Cohen is just making a BIG mistake here! (Or he is simple misquoted)
If the services that Cachelogic offers violate net neutrality at some level, then the internet hasn't had net neutrality since the mid 1990s. Akamai and Squid Proxy do very similar things with data (replicating it in multiple locations for faster downloads). Cachelogic and Akamai still have to pay the backbone providers, just like everybody else. What violates neutrality is the backbone providers setting aside a certain amount of bandwidth (or setting up a second network) to make transfer speeds from some sites faster than others.
If the ISPs want to create a second network of their own to push their own media services at much higher speeds, let them. I equate it to getting your internet access from your cable company. Your TV and your net access come down the same wire, and TV is a media service, so that's really nothing new. If you don't agree with that, then you can think of it as whatever the ISP wants to provide being on a faster LAN (since it originates "locally"), whereas the rest of the internet is still on a WAN.
That said, the article's analogy to toll roads was an excellent choice, as anyone in the Northern Virginia area can tell you. When they first open, the toll roads are significantly faster but cost a fortune to use, with the promise that the prices will go down once it's paid for. But then it fills up to the point where it's only a tiny bit faster than the equivalent free roads, and the prices go up even more to cover the costs of expansion. After a few years, your choices are completely clogged free roads where you go 15mph, or a $3/each way 15 mile road where you go 35mph after the fourth or fifth mile.
The conclusion that it doesn't matter if the media company buys more bandwidth the old fashioned way or pays the ISPs for the use of a secondary faster network is spot on. However, the customer will end up paying the same amount either way, which means there is no advantage for the customer by switching to the new tiered network model.
This article seems to completely miss the point.
Bram points out, rightly, that one must be very careful with legislating network neutrality, to keep from forcing ISPs to deliver all traffic (DDoS, spam, etc.). He acknowledges that with a sufficiently broad definition, the Cachelogic scheme could violate network neutrality.
Of course, so would Akamai, in this case. The article gets the entire topic wrong. What they're discussing is not a QoS tier at the network level, but a single company's caching architecture that makes their clients' data go faster.
And the company isn't even a network provider.
Close, but no cigar.
How can things like IPTV come into being if companies like Verizon are barred from building up and reserving the capacity to provide them? Why should Google, Microsoft, etc. be allowed access to that bandwidth since it's not impeding their ability to provide their services? Not allowing the telecoms and other large ISPs to do this would akin to not allowing Google to invest in dark fibre for its own purposes. Hmmm is that the smell of hypocrisy among the slashdot crowd once again?
Both sides are being dishonest here. The content companies have no right to the entire network, and the ISPs don't want to provide the full service that they sell. There is supposed to be an implicit gentleman's agreement that if someone buys a leased line, they won't face arbitrary tolls. That's the point that a lot of talking heads can't seem to understand. They think that the content companies want to be free-riders when all they want is to be able to deliver their content at full f$%^ing speed to their customers. The "toll" is more like a warlord in Africa charging a "toll" to let legitimate businesses use the government-built roads. The customers on both ends paid for the bandwidth. If there is a problem with not making enough money, then the ISPs need to go back and rethink the wisdom of charging only $15 for broadband.
He suggests there'd be no difference between big media footing the bill for their own upload costs of their offerings and subsidizing the consumer's download costs of the same."
Subsidize? Subsidize?! I have to wonder what Cohen is thinking. If he thinks that the telco's plans will result in cheaper internet access for consumers, then he's an amazingly naive optimist. Only competition will force prices down and quality up, and its just not happening. My choices here are roadrunner, which goes out for days at a time versus SBC dsl, which for about $40/mo tops out at about 2.5Mbit at my range from the CO. Meanwhile I can only look on in envy at my friends in verizon markets who are on FIOS, while SBC/ATT continue to pledge lightspeed for my city "real soon now".
Just Google for "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal" by Bruce Kushnick. It's not exactly a secret.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Did you even read the blurb?
"[Cohen] concedes that his hook-up with Cachelogic is creating a system that might contravene Network Neutrality"
Only an idiot would want legislation to pass that would make his current business project fail.
I'm not going to debate the issue. But as it stands now, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, Christian Coalition, Associated Press, Gun Owners of America, MoveOn, the Christian Coalition, financial groups such as National Association of Federal Credit Unions, America's Community Bankers, American Bankers Association and Independent Community Bankers of America, and the typical EFF and ACLU, and yes, even Moby and Michael Stipe all support this. And ya know, i gotta support what Moby does.. ;)
Seriously though, this issue is pulling together people who would never side with one another. From the land of geekdom, to financial sectors, hollywood, online content providers, religious groups, conservative and liberal groups, the press and financial firms. If congress doesn't listen to this loud voice rising up.. I'll give up hope for this nation because rarely do you see people come together like this. Rarely do you see this many organizations agree over such an issue.
I'd be willing to wager that something like Bittorrent, which seems to have a habit of choking/flooding a connection, would be prioritized flat at the bottom of the list unless otherwise paid for.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
you repeal the law of humanness. A totally free market would result in MEGABIGCO Inc. owning the world and everyone being some sort of electronic plantation worker for them, never quite making enough "money" to ever get out of debt to them. You will inevitably go from lot of companies to cartels to a monopoly, because that makes more money for the monopoly owners, and because humanness means that they will continue to impose their will on governmental processes. We already went through this crap and debate in our semi recent human past. it's been tried and found severely lacking. A "free" market means zero environmental regulations, what is in it for them? They don't care if their factory pollutes the water table over someplace, the bosses and owners will just live where that doesn't happen and buy up all the land around them to give them a clean environment, and stuff like that. It means no minimum wage,back to child labor, no safe working conditions, etc, because that is their historically proven over and over again humans as bosses track record back before these regs existed. This is *precisely* because companies are run by humans and megalomaniacs and greedsters strive for top dog positions all the time,and they get there, "by hook or CROOK", hence why those sorts of bad news policies flow downstream in the "giving orders" chain of commands structure, in government or business.
The "free" market is one of those things that it is easy to say and might sound sort of good in theory, but it won't ever fly or work as advertised without tremendous negative effects. For an example of an area with more or less "anything goes free markets", look at the horn of africa.
So let ISPs start giving priority on bandwidth for some things, and maybe limit bandwidth for others. Over time, let people yell and scream, and companies figure out ways to provide premium services without irking their customers too much, and ten years from now when everyone has 25-megabit connections no one will care because even "low tier" bandwidth will be enough for a couple of high-quality video streams simultaneously.
This falls into the same category that anything Linus says does for me. Just because you've had one good idea, doesn't mean we should listen to you about anything else. Bram doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about, and he's using the position he gained by inventing something lots of people use to push his opinion. Linus tries that all the time, and I usually don't give him the time of day either.
-|BlackErtai|-
A big problem with western society today is this: We have seen how corrupt and untrustworthy people can be, and we attempt to codify what we want in our laws such that the reading of them is infallible enough to keep these corrupt and untrustworthy people from doing harm.
It doesn't work.
No law can be rigid enough to be interpreted flawlessly by everyone and yet be flexible enough to catch the exceptions that eventually crop up.
It requires human judgement to really tell if something contravenes the spirit of the law, and yet we tie the judges' hands with specific, rigid definitions of how to judge the case. We attempt to remove human judgement from the equation because we do not trust it. This is utterly stupid.
The only way to get Net Neutrality to work is to establish an ideal scenario of how the Internet should work, and giving judges the leeway to decide whether certain cases that crop up go against those established ideals. Yes, this also means selective enforcement, which is only a bad thing if you have bad people making the enforcement decisions.
If people would stop electing corrupt and otherwise untrustworthy invidviduals to positions of power, we would not have to worry so much about these things. It is the responsibility of the people to weed out the political landscape and leave only the trustworthy. Obviously we have been slack.
Judgement calls in cases like Net Neutrality are necessary, and if made by trustworthy and integrous people, will solve a lot of these bickering problems we have trying in vain to construct a law so perfectly worded that it can bend both ways backwards at the same time.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Actually, it doesn't. It covers what the ISP believes the average user with that connection speed will use. If every user of that ISP consumed the maximum amount of bandwidth 24/7 the ISP would have to raise prices significantly.
For those of us who build telco networks, this discussion of network neutrality is all just plain silly.
There are many ways to get internet data from source to desitinantion. If a company wants to buy into a faster or better connected network, that is the choice they make. That has always been the choice the content providers make. The customer does not have any implicit rights to the best path unless the content provider has made the choice to be on the best path.
As for building a fast lane, that is just a bunch of BS the telcos are pumping so that they can build a new internet which they control . . . for the sake of cheaper video transport and more effective cost recovery. Yep . . . it is all about money.
It is all just a big distraction. Network Neutrality is just a hand wave to keep your attention while the other hand is busy.
Telcos cannot transport cable TV (IPTV - iow non-reg content) on their broadband networks for free. So, they want to prioritize bandwidth at different qualities and different prices. They in turn will take advantage of the new price structure to keep their own video transport costs low. At the same time, they can sell it to the rest of the world as a diffentiated service offering for content providers.
This also acts as a way to protect their own IPTV offerings from internet based IPTV offerings.
This is sneaky on so many levels. And, if someone manages to enact legislation to protect the rights of the consumer, I cannot imagine how they would enforce it.
Leave the internet alone!!! You don't want it to be any more complicated than it already is. If half of the SlashDot readers actually understood what it takes to build/operate/support/maintain the physical internet, this thread would be completely different.
Brotha', then all our opinions are irrelevent. Everyone who uses the internet will be directly affected, both monetarilly and personally, by the presence or abscence of net-neutrality. To say that someone with an interest in the outcome of the debate cannot have a valid, arguable opinion implies that no one who is affected by the outcome can way in. And frankly, given that the passage of the Net-Neutrality bill will directly affect me, you're fuckin' right I'm going to have an opinion.
The extended audio of the interview (just over 4 minutes long) is on the Newsnight 26th May podcast, buried 26 mins 30 seconds in. On itunes at: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewPodcast?id=136697142&s=143444&i=5973421
Thats all well and good except that the barrier to market entry and not government created. They are fundamental to capitalism. Since it costs initial capital to enter a market, a company can not enter the market and be competitive immediately. There is a reason you or I couldn't start making cars that ran on butter tomorrow.
"Monopolies ONLY occur due to government licensing."
Ridiculous beyond comprehension. Learn about economics and its history. See: John D Rockefeller and Standard Oil. In an unregulated system, the natural equilibrium is monopoly.
"Not true. A provider of a product or service will provide what the consumer wants, including making sure that they abide by whatever environmental restrictions the market demands. Pollution is better covered by trespass and realistic tort laws than by regulation -- regulations of the environment today just move polluters around. The biggest polluter in the country is the US government, by the way."
First of all, a dichotomy between "tort laws" and "regulation" is patently false and intellectually shallow. Furthermore, pollution is not well-suited for tort law. Not only are harms that occur due to pollution often societal, but they are difficult to trace to individuals or companies as the cumulative effect brings about such negative consequences. Tort law focuses on private property and pollution harms the common good, public property and society in general.
"No, child labor has occured during the beginning of markets because the older workers were not able to adapt to the new markets. In most situations, children will be less productive if the government stops restricting how it pays employees. Minimum wage laws create unemployment because they rob uneducated non-productive people from finding jobs that won't pay them what they're worth until they prove their worth as employees. Many foreigners come into the country to work illegally for less than minimum wage, but quickly start earning much more than minimum wage once they've proven their worth."
Factually wrong. Its that simple. Child labor did not occur because older workers were not able to adapt. Its insulting that anyone would actually post such tripe. Children are not working in South East Asia for three generations because the older people couldn't adapt. Children didn't work in Western Europe and the United States from the start of the Industrial Revolution until nearly WWII because their parent's couldn't adapt. The children of children who were forced to work were also forced to work, are still forced to work at the same jobs.
"Go read Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and Goethe. You'll drop your Keynesian theories right quick."
Ah it all becomes clear. How about this - don't try and drape ideology as economics. The Austrian School is all about how economics 'should' be. Its horrible at predicting how things are. Its also fundamentally anti-labor (relying solely on the marginal utility to produce value has no fundamental origin of the system). There's a reason the Austrian school has been a fringe theory of economics in every society (except ironically under the National Socialists).
" subsidizing the consumer's download costs of the same."
Pardon me, but isn't the subscription fee for the DSL/Cable Modem/T1/Microwave connection supposed to cover bandwidth costs?
Yes, you say?
Ah, thought so. In that case, net neutrality is the only thing that makes sense. What the providers can do is, hmm, let me think. . . oh wait, I know! How about offering tiered connection speeds? E.g., 768 Kbps/128 Kbps for a small monthly fee, 3 Mbps/768 Kbps for a slightly higher monthly fee, and 7.1mbps/1.5mbps or faster for a higher fee?
What, providers already offer tiered services, you say? Oh my fucking GOD, they already HAVE their solution in place! Here's a hint Verizon/comcast/TW/Adelphia/Cox/Rogers/Etc: how about realizing you offer tiered services (or if you don't already, OFFER them) then you have your solution. Don't pile on yet more fees. If your subscription prices don't cover the costs of your infrastructure, then you need to revisit your pricing structures to begin with.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
regulations, which brings us back to it won't work without them. And "insurance" for what? If there's no regulations, there wouldn't be any penalties of note for them to break in the first place, so not much need for insurance other than fire insurance. And as to public versus private land, again, historically, a lot of examples where private concerns who "owned the land" just dumped willy nilly. And none of that addresses child labor laws, workplace safety, etc.
It does no good if all or most (really, I am forced to speak *most* generally on this topic) the business ignore any workplace safety, you can take your labor down the street and almostbigco inc has the same lack of caring.
I realise in the real world there are exceptions, there are some voluntarily concerned and well meaning businesses, but taken as a general topic and to an endgame, I can't see how you will stop the giant greedsters from taking over, short of periodic violent uprisings and heads on pikes. You either have some thought out regs or you don't. If you go the route of regs, you will never have this theoretical "free" market. How about the stock market? With no regs, how would you ever hope to beat the corporate insiders trading? It would destroy confidence in the market (already low) virtually overnight.
Myself, I prefer "fair" market concept, some minimum but very well enforced market regulations and business regs. I think it could be greatly fixed/enhanced by disallowing the concept of a career full time politician or governmental worker inside the bureaucracy, but that is another subject entirely.
You won't be able to eliminate human weaknesses or vices, so all you can do realistically is remove as many ways as possible for them to be realised on the "potential victim" population.
I remember when the internet wasn't so large and easy to access. We all got along fine... who cares about all this? if they make using the 'net cost prohibitive then people will just find better and cheaper ways to link their computers. I don't need some big telco to wipe my ass for me
--we can make our own backbones.
P.S. the telcos and carriers have no leverage because if they deny google access to their networks then all their customers will drop them.
If you post a story that is contrary to he status quo, it never reaches the front page. If you post a comment you are then modded down. Are there any sites where minority opinions are actually allowed ?
But there are. There's the email delivery problem, as well as providers which block ports essentially for their convenience, with no oversight (not just SMTP ports but also e.g. web ports). While that would be fine if there were a free market, and you could just pick a competing provider, that's usually not the case when it comes to a high-bandwidth connection. Providing high bandwidth connections to homes requires regulation for various practical reasons, which results in semi-monopolies. What those semi-monopolies are allowed to do with their control over household and business connections needs to be regulated. The only question is exactly how.
Something similar applies as you go further upstream, into the Internet cloud itself: Tier 1 providers are an oligopoly which also benefit from regulation that allows them to do what they do. Once again, the question isn't whether there should be regulation, the question is what the regulation should be, and what rights and protections customers should have.
While I share the trepidation at what new legislation might bring, simply leaving it to the market isn't going work, because the market isn't even close to being "free". The reason this is coming up now is because big corporations are actively looking to consolidate their competitive positions now that the Internet has become so central to the economy, as well as looking for ways to replace profit centers that were undercut by the Internet. Sitting back and hoping that they won't do anything nasty and won't abuse the power that they've been granted by existing laws is hardly rational, either.