‘No such thing as net neutrality’: II
p2pnet news view P2P:- “I’m kind of a unique ISP as I support Net Neutrality,” said TekSavvy CEO Rocky Gaudrault (right) when we asked him for his views on Tom Koltai’s post.
Tom’s an Australia economist and regular contributor who at one point in his life was an Internet Service Provider — an ISP.
The topic of net neutrality is major and yesterday he posted an item in which he states there’s no such thing
Says Rocky »»»
From where I sit, if the demand goes up, you up your network capacity to accommodate.
Controlling how individuals surf in order to not keep investing isn’t the way to go. There are plenty of opportunities to make money, even when the demand goes up.
Net Neutrality is most threatened when an entity has absolute control (and no transparency) on the population’s ability to have online choice.
I think different ISPs should have the ability to provide different choices for internet access (as we do — a capped and an unlimited service). In my mind, so long as choice exists (which is what Bell and the like are trying to remove), the population can select, knowingly being aware of what they’re getting.
I also think some of the discussion Tom speaks of doesn’t consider the varying technologies.
Cable is affected in clusters (by locale) but DSL isn’t, so disproportionate use becomes very technology specific and pretty much subjective.
Bottom line, if you control traffic in any obstructive way (slowing/stopping/filtering/etc), it’s for profit margins, or to disadvantage competition. So from a law or regulatory perspective, I’d say, if an ISP doesn’t believe in Net Neutrality principles that’s fine.
But if they’re a regulated monopoly regulated to strictly be a dumb pipe or unbiased carrier, they have an obligation to not impose their retail way of business on other ISPs.
It’s anti-competitive!
Transfer of blame
Yesterday among other things, Tom stated»»»
There’s something about owning/running a network you built every step of the way the Telcos/RBOCs will never quite grok. You know every point of failure, potential failure, chewing gum and shoelace repair location in the whole network. It’s yours. You created it. Therefore, when some little kid comes along with Napster and tries to take it down by filling up all the MRTG graphs, you start a battle of wits.
It’s you versus the kid. He wants to rape your entire bandwidth and you have another 25,000 customers don’t really want him too.
So you watch graphs, you reconfigure routers; you purchase expensive $24,000 Alteon smart switches so you can traffic shape the little kid.
However, he gets his mates in on the Napster thing.
Suddenly there’s not just one leak in the dam; the whole network in multiple locations around the country is holier than a set of fishnet stockings.
You’re left with no choice: all the Napster traffic has to be routed via an alternative source. You buy a satellite feed and divert all the P2P traffic straight out the dish on top of the roof to Pas-8.
Hah! fixed his wagon and his little mates. They’re now Sprint’s problem. The other customers click on blissfully unaware you just single-handedly fought off the invading Mongol hordes to ensure the MRTG graph didn’t blip over 90 %
What’s all this about? There’s no such thing as net neutrality.
And in a comment post to Readers’ Writes, he says
@Devil’s Advocate Says: “…when some little kid comes along with Napster and tries to take it down…”
Shortsightedness (or lack of foresight) always seems to be followed by transfer of blame.
There are very obvious reasons providers would even have to think of traffic management.
1) They didn’t anticipate the growth rate, so SUFFICIENT RESOURCES weren’t built in;
2) They continued to OVERSELL what they already couldn’t provide, by an astronomical factor;
3) They began operating an array of THEIR OWN CONTENT services, and needed to steal back some of the resources they didn’t have.
@RW – you forgot the fourth thing.
4) Bandwidth to the USA for countries not in the USA costs a bloody fortune. In fact to be precise, 1n 1994 I was paying $88,000 for a 2 Megabyte link (that’s one DSL connection worth of bandwidth) from Sydney to Coos Bay Oregon.
So don’t try to tell me that I wasnt warranted in trying to stop little Johnny. I was.
The arrogance of Americans and Canadians in regards to the amount of bandwidth available and what it shoud cost is amazing.
The orignal Internet was USA concentric – that is no longer necessarily the case – yet it is cheaper often to buy a link from singapore to America than from singapore to Malaysia (just across the harbour).
Outside of the USA ISP’s have to backhaul 10,000 miles in some instances just to connect. To have that backhaul used up by just 2 or 5 or 10 users is bullshit. That is reality.
There are 6 billion people in this world of those only 335 million live on the American Northern Continent. Why is it that the American minority see fit to instill their standards, expectations and consumer waste habits on the rest of the world ?
/Angry Rant Mode /off
@ Robert – Yep – P2P is great from the ISP point of view if it community based. This rtequires every ISP to install a Torrent Seeder and an ED2K server. However, I can’t recomend this superior technology solution at this time for obvious legal reasons.
@surfer and @dresdnik – Yes we do already pay for content. ut not in the $35,00 blueray example. We pay for content in that the cvontent uses up part of out monthly allowance – ISP capacity (preventing other activities from occurring that might benefit the GDP) and of course in Disk storage, hardware expendioture at the local, ISP and RBOC levels. So actually, a 90 minute movie if you download it using P2P actually costs $1.05 in the USA, about $1.65 in Canada. I blogged about this in January this year in the real value of a DVD movie.
@ Readers Write – Smoker on a bus ? Yep in my original article I stated the smoker has two choices – smoke and upset everyone or get off the bus and catch the next one. – Unfortunately we really do only have one Internet Bus. So like Mommy says – play nicely and the toys will last a lot longer.
@Reader’s Write – Solar Cell Battery Recharge Time – You have a point but as an economist I have to retort – it’s a rather selfish one. Your battery recharge time don’t affect the GDP of the entire country – just yours.
And on the subject of Turd Sandwich – there is a saying, you cant polish a turd. Unfortunately the Mythbusters proved that one wrong –> http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html
P2P does affect the GDP of the entire country – and not just the content industry. I have tried to make suggestions to them, they don’t really want to listen. I am referring to every E-Commerce page on the Internet is harder to to get to BECAUSE of P2P traffic – both genuine downloader traffic AND industry spoling attempts.
Does that mean you should stop using P2P software ?
NO! But just maybe, we could all conserve it a little bit – sort of like letting the old lady cross on the pediastrian crossing when you dont have too.
Just an idea, no-one has to give up their selfish P2P practices (This statement excludes the old folks home IT dude – you keep on downloading at full speed) – I’m just suggesting that during the fianncial crisis it is a bit unfair for all of us to continue as before and put our heads in the sand…. “I’m not hurting anyone, I’m just downloading a couple of files that have already been ripped.” – Great download them – but just like turning off the light switch to conserve power – possibly we could all utilise P2P in a more eco concsious manner. (Eco towards other Internet users).
Stay tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
July, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
@Rocky:
Indeed, you are unique! We need more like you in the provider arena.
None of the criticism I’m putting out here actually applies to Teksavvy, or any of the GAS (or similar) providers, anyway, as I view you guys as Bell victims just as much as their own subscribers. (Maybe moreso, when I think about it!)
________________
@Tom:
“The arrogance of Americans and Canadians in regards to the amount of bandwidth available and what it should cost is amazing.”
Once again, you illustrate my point about side-stepping reality…
Providers can bitch all they want about anything they want.
As long as they’re still demanding and collecting the whole premium rate from their customers, while still dumbing down that service, they’ve given up the right to complain about “failing economics”, period! If they had any respect for their customers, and wanted to show how much they appreciate the “hard times”, they would dumb down the subscription fee, in light of the reduced service they’re providing.
Yeah, but there’s one problem with doing that, huh?!
That would acknowledge the fact that they’re already breaking their own customer contracts, and are aware of it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Additional to above..
“The arrogance of Americans and Canadians in regards to the amount of bandwidth available and what it shoud cost is amazing.”
You’ll notice, once again, it is the USERS who are being labelled – this time as “arrogant”, apparently because they expect to actually use the service as outlined and sold them by their providers.
I think it’s arrogant for a company to tell me I can have an 2009 Astin Martin for the price of a Toyota, and then deliver me a 1980 Hyundai and expect me to gleefully accept it and keep paying for it. It’s the same thing!
“Bad economic times” is no excuse to openly disrespect and rip off your customers.
Geez, you’d think it would be an excuse to actually suck up to them a little more, as you need them more than ever!
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
” And on the subject of Turd Sandwich – there is a saying, you cant polish a turd. Unfortunately the Mythbusters proved that one wrong –> http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html ”
Yes, but this has little to do with the meaning of my original statement. Everyone else seemed to understand,
but you didn’t.
The Labels hate p2p because instead of being able to foist off a lousy CD with one good song ( Turd Sandwich ),
on people, that once the pay for it they can’t return once they found out what was really inside the sandwich,
p2p allows potential buyers to examine the entire sandwich BEFORE wasting a dime on it.
After all, even if the turd is polished, upon proper and fair examination it is still, after all , a turd.
P2p allows this proper and fair examination, and the delicious, meaty angus burgers are properly paid for
when they are discovered, ( proved by the studied effect of p2p on sales … 0 ).
Because of P2P, we no longer have to wander the crowded pature, blinfolded and barefoot.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
” “Bad economic times” is no excuse to openly disrespect and rip off your customers.
Geez, you’d think it would be an excuse to actually suck up to them a little more, as you need them more than ever! ”
A person would think that.
A ‘created individual’ , that is, a Corporation, is to arrogant to understand that basic concept.
Apparently, this arrogance isn’t isolated to just Corporate persons
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Yeah, polishing a turd is just a waste of otherwise good varnish.
8 (
July 4th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Wow, Koltai’s done gone and done it now
1. See my response to him in the other post.
2. Don’t claim to be a p2p “advocate”, while apologizing for the fact that ISP’s are basically selling a nonexistent product (all their jabbering about “superfast connections”).
3. Admit that it’s not the ISP’s against “the kids” (big, steaming pile of RIAA-sanctioned boilerplate). It’s actually more like “ISP’s vs. ‘anybody who might actually innovate in some way at some future point.’ Sorry, but that ain’t gonna wash — sounds a hell of a lot like the Bernie Madoff school of business to me
And, as for this being about the “arrogance of Americans and Canadians”, well hell yeah — if by that you mean that it’s somehow “arrogant” to expect that you’re actually getting something at least *kinda* like what you think you bought.
Bye, now
July 4th, 2009 at 3:56 am
You guys make me laugh. Not because you’re wrong, but because you are right.
I wonder how many of you have read the brothers Karamazov or the thoughts of Mao Tse Tung or the Wisdom of Marxism.
I went to school in a communist regime and received my Doctorate in Economics from the same communist regime. (Now there’s a non-sequiter.)
The peculiarity is that Economics is essentially based on consumer demand, a regulated market and profiting from the opprtunities.
Net Neutrality is a socialist policy and whilst in a perfect world, I would agree with it entirely, It doesnt work for the same reason I cant drive my old 7 series down the freeway at 200 miles per hour – regulatory interdiction.
On the freeway it’s the police, on the Net its the meet-me rooms, the internet exchanges, the upstream and downstream fair use policies, the number of ports available for traffic exchange, the port size of those ports (T1, T3, OC-3, OC-??) the backplane at Mae-West, Mae-East.
Throttling bandwidth to ensure that every member of the proletariat can equally use the bandwidth is also a socialistic policy.
So essentially we have a bunch of Capitalists (the ISP’s & RBOC’s) utilising and espousing comunist tactics to maximise their capitalist earnings and we have bunch of social democrat (users) screaming unfair distribution to the co-operative.
I have to smile.
As for Rocky; I have to commend you dude. That’s a wonderful stand to take.
I offerred internet access (initially to friends and family (1986) and then to the whole of Australia (1992-94), which expanded across the pond in 1995 to Oregon, Washington State, Utah and California and yeah we even crossed the Border at Rock Ridge into BC…… (infra red T1’s). I stoped servicing clients in 2001.
After 15 years as an ISP – come back to me and tell me that you still agree with Net Neutrality.
At one stage I had 25,000 users utilising a 64 kbps connection to the USA and we were (ausnet services) voted best ISP in Australia 6 months in a row by APC magazine.
Communism in Russia failed.
A remodelled Social Democratic type of Socialism survives in some European Countries today.
When you can understand why pure Marxism failed – you will also understand why Net Neutrality is a dream.
The short answer is that there will always be a group of Capitalists that feel they deserve more of the pie than is their fair share.
Yeah yeah – bake a bigger pie…… is an empty rhetoric.
I am happy to debate this subject further on either side of the equation (I too would like net neutrality to be a realistic dream) with anyone that has had more than 20,000 customers located on more than one continent (with the continents seperated by a body of water called an ocean. in other words the five lakes does’nt do it.)
Anyone else just doesnt really have a “clue”.
heh heh – Red flag hung on clothesline…. waiting for bull to notice.
July 4th, 2009 at 4:04 am
Postcript: BTW – at no time have I said stop using P2P software.
This article arose from my suggestion that net neutrality would become potentially more real if everyone throttled their down and up transfers and placed a hop limitation on their peers.
Don’t keep shooting the messenger (err me) think about the logic of what I have said.
Don’t bitch about what you can’t change – ask how can you impact positively the network to bring anout the change that you desire?
My job is to make you think.
Regardless of what you think of my comments – there is now a seed of logical doubt in your minds – let it grow.
And keep using that P2P software.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
” Regardless of what you think of my comments – there is now a seed of logical doubt in your minds – let it grow. ”
No, there isn’t.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
@Tom:
Yes, you often DO make some of us think.
Unfortunately, this curious comparison of Net Neutrality to Communism/Socialism/Marxism only causes any functionally-thinking person to simply scratch his head, wondering WTF you’ve been smokin’ lately! (Probably a more plausible explanation of why you’d be laughing as well.)
Net Neutrality is no dream. The Internet began with it.
Much of it is still intact, however, corporate interference is attempting to take it away, and causing us to defend it. However, these corporates didn’t create the Internet, and only own parts of it that CAN be replaced. Most of them are clinging to the idea that seizing control of certain elements of the Internet will save their butts from sinking with their failing business models. It won’t work.
There’s nothing “socialistic” about throttling.
In order to have a socialist act, you still need an accepted authority to initiate it. Providers don’t have the authority (at least in North America) to interfere with data, nor do they own the data itself. Throttling is a senseless activity that is counterproductive to a mission of keeping data moving. Using “throttling” and “network management” in the same sentence only creates an oxymoron.
I’m sure the providers that engage in throttling know this as well, and have an ulterior motive behind it all…
Step 1: Keep spewing the “P2P steals everyone’s bandwidth” propaganda to justify network interference.
(Already done)
Step 2: Keep kissing MAFIAA butt and give creedance to their “P2P users are all thieves” propaganda, to justify spying.
(Already done)
Step 3: Convince governments about the need to increase providers’ control over data, to curb “illegal downloading”, “IP theft” and “network congestion” (maybe throw in “child pornography” for good measure?), thus opening the door for a mass blessing of their use of DPI technology.
(In progress!)
Results:
- DPI becomes widely accepted.
- warrantless spying becomes acceptable.
- arbitrary traffic shaping becomes acceptable.
- anti-competitive behaviour by large mainstream providers becomes virtually impossible to challenge.
The idea that users are somehow responsible for the mess is the “empty rhetoric” that is widely used to deflect the fact (as you continue to do, by the way, Tom) that subscribers were sold a service they’re not getting, and the agreement between the customer and the business is being violated.
Providers are only “distribution nodes” that we’ve allowed to evolve into something way too important-seeming. The reality is, everything a provider does with its network impacts the rest of the world network in some way. If they don’t summarily allow an unfettered, free flow of information through their own pipes, they’re doing the rest of the world a complete disservice.
Traffic processed by a provider is certainly not comprised of only their own subscribers. If providers are allowed to tamper with or examine any of this data on an ongoing basis, they really should need the rest of the world’s permission to do so.
That won’t work either.
Tom, I really don’t know where you were going here.
You profess to be a “proponent of P2P” and “just the messenger”, yet you repeat some of the same corporate BS that has already been debunked ad nauseum.
1) “Don’t bitch about what you can’t change” (??)
I would direct that one back at the corporates, who are trying to TAKE AWAY Net Neutrality. Anyway, who TF says anything here can’t be changed?!
2) “I am happy to debate this subject… with anyone that has had more than 20,000 customers…Anyone else just doesnt really have a ‘clue’.”
What?! You think this is a matter that can only be debated by PROVIDERS??
Not only is that disingenuous to the masses, but totally inappropriate and stinking of some strange misdirected elitism.
You can debate the technical aspects of network provision all you want – it has virtually nothing to do with the Net Neutrality debate. In the end, you’re still avoiding the questions of reneging on a business agreement with your customers, and whether or not a provider should have the right to interfere with everyone’s data (the heart of the debate).
3) “I cant drive my old 7 series down the freeway at 200 miles per hour”
This is a pretty feeble analogy.
Did anyone do anything to give you the impression you could do this!
Is anyone else on that freeway supposed to do that, either!
You enter the freeway under ADVERTISED CONDITIONS… the speed limit, and the Law.
This is a complete contrast to many providers, who continually, to this day, advertise “always fast”, “unlimited”, “download large files, streaming video and other rich media”, yet pull the rug out from under you for doing just that.
As for the “communist/marxist/socialist” references you’ve made, I can only put that down to possible sleep deprivation on your part.
…But, it did almost make me laugh.