Real Net Neutrality Problem: 'Edge Provider' vs 'End User'

An anonymous reader writes At the Washington Post, Brett Frischmann elaborates on the theory that the continuing flaw with the FCC's Net-Neutrality strategy lies in the perverse distinction between "End User" and "Edge Provider". Succinctly: "The key to an open Internet is nondiscrimination and in particular, a prohibition on discrimination or prioritization based on the identity of the user (sender/receiver) or use (application/content)," and then, "Who exactly are the end users that are not edge providers? In other words, who uses the Internet but does not provide any content, application, or service? The answer is no one. All end users provide content as they engage in communications with other end users, individually or collectively. ... Think of all the startups and small businesses run from people's homes on home Internet connections, using WordPress tools or Amazon hosting services. Are they 'end users' when they email their friends but 'edge providers' when they switch windows to check their business metrics?"

Comments

Re:Which way are the bits going?

[NotSanguine]

It sounds like they're intending to draw a distinction between nodes that principally receive data from those that principally transmit data.

If the node has a high ratio of bits received to bits transmitted, it's an "End User." If it has a high ratio of bits transmitted to bits received, it's an "edge provider."

It's like that because of the artificial restrictions placed on upload speeds by the DOCSIS and ADSL protocols. Which is just the big boys trying to protect their business model by keeping us from being creators and sharing on a peer-to-peer basis.

High speed, symmetrical network links for everyone, and peer-to-peer protocols for social networking, sharing creative content and ensuring freedom of speech could be incredibly empowering and liberating technologies.

Unfortunately, those technologies which would allow users to share directly with each other, as well as strong encryption would most certainly limit the ability of the corporatocracy and the governement to spy on us for their benefit. So of course it must be stopped.

I really hate how cynical I'm getting, but our corporate and government overlords keep taking our freedoms and most people are cheering them on. Good consumers. No need to be a citizen. Just be a good little consumer.

doesn't matter

[globaljustin]

this is about artificial scarcity

how they use technical-sounding language to contextualize that fake distinction is interesting to note, but the core of the matter is that none of the distinctions are actually relevant

also "data sources and data sinks" is also equally non-technical a description of network topology

data "flows" but it doesn't pool up like water in a retaining pond

Re:P2P infringement

[NotSanguine]

peer-to-peer protocols for social networking, sharing creative content

But do most home users, especially those who aren't paid for producing "creative content", have the legal right to share most of the "creative content" stored on their devices?

Who knows what folks would do with the opportunities provided by high-speed symmetric links? Individually made feature films distributed by the filmmakers. Bands distributing their music directly. Authors selling their books. P2P social networks that are secured (in that you maintain control over your data on your own systems) and include only those you choose. And on and on and on.

The lack of symmetric links props up the business models created in the era of mass marketing. It could be quite disruptive to the content providers who dominate the ISP market (and generally only offer asymmetric links to their customers) as well. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.

As for using such network links to distribute the intellectual property of others, the current model doesn't really stop that anyway does it?

The only folks that asymmetric (with hobbled upload) links benefits are those who profit from controlling the distribution of creative content, those who profit by creating centralized servers for social networks, product sales and other human feedlots so the information stored on their servers can be analyzed and PI based on viewing, browsing and buying habits as well as personal interests can be sold to marketers. And since most of those don't use any sort of encryption, the government gets to spy on you too.

So. Do you want freedom to communicate, collaborate and share only with those you choose to do so with, or do you want the big corporations and the government six inches up your ass? Yes, that's a straw man. But through it, I hope you get my point.