BitTorrent's Bram Cohen against Network Neutrality 269
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."
Re:Introducing Bram Cohen, the ECONOMIST (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what neutrality is really about (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Government control? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
As much as like Bitorent (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I believe Bram Cohen is just very naive (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Caching violates net neutrality? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Misleading summary of a misleading article (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:3, Insightful)
So buy VoIP services from your ISP instead of Vonage or some other random net entity. Your ISP can guarantee their VOIP services have sufficient QoS so you get excellent quality phone service. Most cable companies are already starting to offer VoIP.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, often at *substantially* higher costs than what is available from the independent VoIP providers, and with no guarantee that QoS can be maintained once the packets leave your provider's network.
Cohen's reasoning: (Score:4, Insightful)
"[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.
Re:He's got good reason to oppose it (Score:4, Insightful)
Its very frustrating listening to both sides when the solution is really simple:
1. Run big pipes to every home/office
2. Cap usage (not bandwidth) daily.
3. Charge users who use more (like your cellphone)
I work from home/office and need a fat pipe with big upload. Joe suburban kid wants to peer-to-peer stuff. No problem. When the traffic reaches the cap, either suspend service, or charge more for the extra traffic -- according to pre-existing arrangements. (Remember your cellphone business model?????)
I do the same for hosting now and the hosting providers seem to be happy with what they make from me. I would get the burstable traffic that I want so I can download a distro, or other large files occassionally at great speeds. Joe suburban kid can download the media that he wants from Youtube, and the ISP's can get into the business of providing all the content that they want as well.
What's wrong with that? It's capitalism, they can build out all the capacity that they want, and pass the buck onto the consumers.
But no, that's too simple for everyone to understand... What they want, is to build the big pipes and use it for their own traffic to us. Exclusively. Except that's not the way how the internet works. We want to watch Youtube or listen to iTunes or download the latest viral Lazy Sunday. They want to give us Verizon channel 5. Sure, give us Verizon channel 5, if its any good, we will watch it.
I only wish network neutrality advocates could stick to the simple position outlined above. It works for everyone. The ISP's content providers, and the consumers.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
This is precisely what he is trying to do. And he does take all those things about smaller sites, etc. He signed up with the big boys now. He want to clear the way for his "new" friends. He has no interest in what happens to the small timers. Make no mistake, he's using he "geek clout" to convince us that what's good for WB is good for the internet. I hope that nobody falls for it. Ah, the power of money. Quite a bear trap it is.
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. So google shells out 10% of their profits to help comcast. Then they shell out 10% of their profits to help ATT. Then they shell out 10% of their profits to help AOL... When does it stop?
When did capitalism become so communist? If comcast needs more money then it should charge its customers more, not demand companies who have no connection to comcast's network at all to pay them more money.
Re:Cohen's reasoning: (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the same can be said about everybody who has been "against" network neutrality. Cisco has the most to gain because they make routers and... guess what... all those QoS things that the telcos propose will require them to buy new routers.
Thus far, everyone against net neutrality legislation has had a profit motive. Most of the people against it do not, though some (like Google) have a "we don't want to bleed red" motive. Most folks want net neutrality because a lack of net neutrality allows big telcos like AT&T who have lots of end users to strong-arm smaller companies like hosting providers and similar for what amounts to protection money to avoid having the performance of their customers' access to those end users artificially degraded. The result will be less availability of services, and a gradual compartmentalization of the Internet by ISP, and eventually a complete breakdown of the power of the Internet to serve the consumer.
Net neutrality should be mandated. As for future technologies, the LAST thing we ever want in the future is a technology that would regress us back towards a pay-per-bandwidth system. As a consumer, I won't do it (which is why I don't have a data plan on my cell phone). I want to see MORE swing away from pay-per-[insert unit of measurement here] and towards flat rate services. Flat rates are good for the consumer because they encourage people to try new technologies that otherwise would not be affordable.
Would the iTMS be here if we had to pay our ISP per kilobyte for those downloads? Doubt it. Would we have things like Google Video/YouTube? Nope. In fact, I would say that all of the companies that are actually innovating in the technology space (as opposed to leaches like Cisco and AT&T that do pretty much the same thing year after year, only faster) benefit greatly from net neutrality.) When those companies benefit, innovation increases, and the consumers ultimately get cool new technologies that simply would not exist if companies like AT&T had their way.
Of course, flat rate services are the last thing AT&T and friends want. They'd like to sell those downloads themselves. They'd like to be the only ones who can afford to do so just like with their cell phones. Too bad for them. They can take my net neutrality when they pry my DSL modem from my cold, dead hands.
totally free markets will never work until... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
1 good idea doesn't make you infalible (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Government control? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, dear god, no...
I don't know where you live, but here in Chicago our roads are notoriously poor, constantly under construction, and never built to last. Am I going to have to check the TV news first thing in the morning to make sure there's enough bandwidth through the construction zone of the Dan Ryan backbone for my telecommute to work?
Of Laws and Men (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:greedy telcos (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Get A Clue!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Vested Interest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting response from Cohen considering... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 [hrw.org] are not working in South East Asia for three generations because the older people couldn't adapt. Children [loc.gov] 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).
you have just described (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:3, Insightful)
But what does the mining company care if their land is polluted, as long as they can still extract whatever they need from it? If it is more profitable for them to pollute, then that's what they'll do.
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:5, Insightful)
mmm... and are there no exceptions?
If I remember correctly the East India Company used to maintain a private army to enforce its self proclaimed monopoly over trade in India. Eventually Britain came to depend on that trade so much it sent its own troops to protect British interests, and ended up conquering the place. But in the beginning, the East India Company enforced its own monopoly. In blood, if need be.
MEGABIGCO won't occur in a free market if there are no barriers to entering that market.
In a purely deregualted market, MEGABIGCO will create it's own barriers to entry. Quite possible by sending men round with hammers to break up your equipment and hospitalise your staff.
But if you pass law against organised violence and intimidation, then you're interfering with the market. That may not be the primary intent of the law, but if you have a business model that relies on violence and intimidation for income then you probably won't see it that way.
From that, I think it's clear that some level or regulation is required, unless we want the the markets to be dominated solely by the vicious, brutal and unprincipled.
On the other hand, I don't think this completely invalidates your points either. Bad regulations can be abused, and often seem designed to be abused, in order to enable monopolies.
I think the problem is binary thinking. The question is not "is regulation good or is regulation evil?" The question we should ask is "what level of regulation best serves the public interest, and while we're at it, how do we thing the public interest is best served?"
Incidentally, please don't take this personally. I agree with a lot of hat you write. On this occasion though, I think you're arguing mainly from theology.
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. The sad thing is that I am not anti-government as some people believe. I am a Unanimocrat -- I believe that people should be free to pick which government they live under, and are free to secede if the government they chose doesn't meet their needs. Of course, contracts with governments you choose might have exit costs, but I'm pro-contract, so that is part of life.
You could even lie about your product, but if lying wasn't covered by a law or regulation, oh well. You haven't killed or sickened them directly, you let them choose to eat your bogus stuff, their lookout, so they can't hold your responsible, correct?
I believe that in a free market, the purchase of goods would be contractual -- "I am paying you this (real) money in exchange for your (safe) food product. If A, B or C happens to me, you could be held liable." I believe that there might be numerous competing contracts, but in the long run the best ones will rise to the top. Today, government is WAY TOO SLOW to deal with passing laws on unsafe products, and they still have numerous laws against safe products (criminalizing the act of selling or using the product).
How would the humans know in advance what was safe or not, trial and error? Remember, lying wouldn't be illegal, if it was, that means it is a regulation to not lie.
Lying could be considered fraud if you contractually stipulated to tell the truth. Also, trial and error works -- look at eBay's generally good feedback system. I believe a free market will bring many different feedback companies that you could reference before making a purchase. You could also only deal with bonded and insured companies (to fend off diseased products or ones that might fail). You could also self-insure by buying products covered (and tested) by your self-insuring company.
The joe sixpack serf workers had the choice of being on the country plantation at the lords mercy, or living in town where they were at the landlords and factory owners mercy. and, we can see what happened in the past when it was like that (it still is some places).
The fault, again, is with government, not the market. The use of force is held by the government and their preferred companies. Try selling watermelons out of the back of your car and you'll quickly learn that one. I still believe that child labor is bad, but I don't think it is illegal.
We are still a very predatory and cruel species in general terms.
Which is good to a point because this allows competitive forces to promote the better people. THe big problem is that uncompetitive regulations tend to keep the worst people in the power positions.
the best we can do is a more-fair market and constantly work at lowering numbers of regs and by our actions trying to get as many honest and fair people at the top levels as we can, but it will be near impossible without *some* regs/laws.
I'm not sure of that. In the past 3 years I have extricated myself from so many regulations and laws by buying directly from suppliers -- food from farmers in my area, clothing from people who make their own, etc. Over time, I think I'll find more bartering options as people get upset about government's madness -- with the dollar heading to the toilet any year now, we'll see more and more madness.
I appreciate your post.
Why are sites like Slashdot and Digg so Biased ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it is far better to maintain a larger middle class for the overall good of society, using a real strong economy, not an inflated budget debt scam economy that is paraded and charaded as somehow "good" when it clearly isn't.. I don't really believe in shifting still viable jobs, but in creating new ones in new areas, that way, no one suffers as much and everyone gets bettered across the board, this nation AND that other nation over yonder someplace. I don't think a viable national economy can exist in a very large nation *unless* it stays well diversified, which would include basic manufacturing and agriculture. And etc.
I think "fair" trade with some common sense regs is a better idea overall than the stuff that is being pushed by the globalists today with "free" trade. When THEY say "free", they mean they are free to do whatever THEY like and screw everyone else because they can squeeze a few more short term dollars out of people with no regard to the future.
I think that concept sucks. We can do better by having a more informed and aware and less ruthless presence at the top of the economic and political food chains than what we have now. I would think the political and big business scandals of the past few years would be more than ample evidence of why this is needed. When you are lead in business and politics by crooks liars thieves and thugs that is the society they create. It makes no difference what the snakeoil sellers are selling,just that people can recognize it is in fact "snakeoil" and move reduce that sort of behavior. The alternative method proposed starts personal from the individual and works up from there. The top to bottom power pyramid we have now is the part that isn't working that well, because at the top we have...well, to be blunt, crazy and greedy and ruthless people. We don't need to keep them as role models or think their business methods are all that great. Some do, but I certainly do not, and am not shy in stating it.
Re:Bram Cohen (Score:1, Insightful)