Lee W McKnight on Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh () syr edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:55 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   Richard Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle

David,

For IP if you wish.

First, the disclaimer: I'm not presently funded by either cable/telco or Google, though they know where to find me : )

Second, I've also been annoying people for several years now, by making the same observation as Richard Bennett, namely 
that 'net neutrality' has been cleverly promoted by Google's DC office to club the cable & telco companies politically 
about the head and face in the interests of....Google.  Duh.

It's called agenda setting in political science.

Google's agenda is served by people running in circles trying to define a policy whose core premise is that if you 
operate a network, you're bad, but if you offer a service/application, you're good. OK fine. And then what? Never mind, 
not really an issue as long as rates aren't raised on Google, which is the real point of the exercise, and this pseudo 
'issue.'

Anyway, I applaud Richard for raising the curtain on the real show behind the scenes, whether or not Tony's right some 
other interest is encouraging him do so.

Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Thu 7/10/2008 11:48 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re:   Richard Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle


________________________________________
From: Tony Lauck [tlauck () madriver com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:44 AM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Richard Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle

"These complexes exploit a flaw in Internet architecture that enables
them to seize more than their fair share of network bandwidth,
effectively giving their owner a fast lane. A richly funded Web site,
which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of
the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way
on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality,
actually preserves a more fundamental inequality."

What flaw might that be in the Internet architecture?

Google has numerous computers, but only because they have numerous
users.  Google is paying lots of money to connect all of these computers
to the Internet so they can serve those users.  However, the numerous
users are also paying for their own Internet access. (Collectively they
are paying more, but there are many last miles that have to be funded to
those users' locations.) At any given moment one Google user is
connected to one Google computer.  In what way does this differ from the
situation where that same user is connected to one computer supporting
an obscure, poorly funded web site?  Yes, Google owns many computers,
but the operators of numerous obscure web sites together own many
computers, and together they also pay for Internet service.

What does computer ownership have to do with Internet architecture?

Tony Lauck
www.aglauck.com - an obscure, poorly funded web site


David Farber wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: Richard Bennett [richard () bennett com]
>
>
> Here's my piece on Google, Yahoo, and net neutrality from today's San Francisco Chronicle.
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/08/EDBH11LNQS.DTL
>
> Google's political head-fake
>
> Richard Bennett
>
> Wednesday, July 9, 2008
>
> The devil's best trick is to persuade us that he doesn't exist, but Google only has to convince us that it's not 
> evil. Nearing an agreement with Yahoo to grab the ailing company's search business, Google scripted a series of 
> dramatic public events apparently designed to distract from the pending deal. These events emphasize network 
> neutrality, an ever-changing regulatory ideal that Google thrust into the political spotlight two years ago. As 
> entertaining as this spectacle is, regulators should not be fooled. They should apply traditional anti-monopoly 
> standards, blocking the Google-Yahoo deal.
>
> The deal, as currently structured, substantially alters the Internet economy. Advertising is the prime revenue stream 
> for social networks, news sites and Internet aggregators of all kinds, and it's closely linked to search. Instead of 
> a search market where three players compete vigorously for eyeballs, this deal would create a status quo where the 
> top dog enjoys an 85 percent market share and the ability to set prices for search ads with no fear of being undercut 
> by its much weaker sole competitor. This should set alarms clanging wherever antitrust and personal privacy concerns 
> are held dear, but it hasn't.
>
> The centerpiece of Google's net neutrality misdirection campaign, a new initiative to bring faster broadband at lower 
> prices to American consumers, was book-ended by Google CEO Eric Schmidt's visit to Washington and a public 
> endorsement of heavy broadband regulation by Internet pioneer and Google Vice President Vint Cerf. The initiative, 
> Internet for Everyone, is virtually identical to earlier network neutrality organizations, It's Our Net and Save the 
> Internet. Each of these organizations was fronted by rock-star intellectuals such as Lawrence Lessig, co-founder of 
> the Google-funded Stanford Center for Internet and Society, and his protégé, Tim Wu, the new chairman of the advocacy 
> group Free Press.
>
> Net neutrality is largely seen as an obscure but noble cause, so it's a safe issue for an image-conscious corporation 
> to embrace. Google had largely abandoned it in the months before the recent publicity blitz, probably because of how 
> the issue had morphed in the preceding year.
>
> Initially, network neutrality was the demand that network carriers ignore the Internet's fundamental inequality. 
> Google had good reason to advocate this, because it is advantaged by a status quo in which money buys privilege. Any 
> move by carriers to selectively boost speeds for fees dulls the advantage Google has secured for itself by building 
> huge complexes of hundreds of thousands of computers.
>
> These complexes exploit a flaw in Internet architecture that enables them to seize more than their fair share of 
> network bandwidth, effectively giving their owner a fast lane. A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster 
> than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way 
> on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental 
> inequality.
>
> The latest turn in the network neutrality debate - emphasizing the fair management of bandwidth-intensive 
> file-sharing applications - left Google on the sideline. Cooperation between peer-to-peer networks and carriers 
> enhances the value of both, and creates a more powerful and less expensive alternative to private networks - which is 
> counter to Google's interests.
>
> Despite its carefully crafted public image as a naive and squeaky-clean innovator, Google is a public corporation 
> managed by professionals, some of them longtime friends of Washington power brokers and fully capable of 
> understanding the problems the Google-Yahoo deal poses.
>
> The tech press has been too busy reprising its Internet Bubble era cheerleading and cooing about Google's network 
> neutrality "idealism" to raise questions about the demise of Yahoo as a search competitor. Fortunately, the Justice 
> Department is investigating, and Congress has planned several hearings, including one today.
>
> Any anti-competitive concerns motivating the net neutrality movement are theoretical, as no single carrier today has 
> the power to fix prices. Consumers have an increasing menu of options for broadband networks, many of them wireless. 
> A search monopoly is, however, a true gatekeeper, directing Web surfers toward some sites and away from others. When 
> that power is combined with the ability to set prices for advertising, it's a disaster not only for the Web but for 
> democracy.
>
> Senate hearing
>
> What: Public hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to consider the state of the 
> online advertising industry
>
> When: 10 a.m., today
>
> Where: Room 253, Sam Rayburn Building, Washington
>
> Why: There is concern that tracking individual's Internet activities violates their privacy
>
> To learn more: Go to links.sfgate.com/ZECG<http://links.sfgate.com/ZECG>
>
> Richard Bennett is a Bay Area network architect and inventor. He was an expert witness at the FCC's February field 
> hearing on net neutrality and a frequent conference speaker.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com