“Do we need a new Internet?” Eventually of course! Until then we need smart network innovation
February 17, 2009
In asking the important question: “Do we need a new Internet?,” John Markoff’s article in the New York Times has helped focus the overall Internet debate on the importance of encouraging innovation to better protect Internet users.
- Mr. Markoff’s important article spotlights efforts by mainstream researchers like Stanford’s Clean Slate project to “re-invent the Internet“ to address its security deficiencies. It also provided an outlet for those concerned about the Internet’s increasingly serious security vulnerabilities.
It should not be surprising that researchers would be trying to innovate to create a better Internet that is safer and more secure; given that the:
- Original Internet /protocol/architecture was designed 35 years ago; and
- Internet’s co-designer, Google’s Vint Cerf readily admits the Internet’s serious end-to-end architectural shortcomings.
- When asked in an interview with the Guardian about Internet security, Mr. Cerf replied:
- “It’s every man for himself,” he says, grinning. “In the end, it seems every machine has to defend itself. The internet was designed that way.”
- Even more recently Mr. Cerf admitted:
- “It’s true that we didn’t focus very heavily on the security side at the time that we were finalizing the current protocols that you’re using. We were much more concerned about whether it worked at all, as opposed to, “does it work securely?”"
- When asked in an interview with the Guardian about Internet security, Mr. Cerf replied:
The immediately defensive and negative reaction to Mr. Markoff’s reasonable question even being asked – is highly instructive.
Why are people so threatened by the notion that:
- Innovation may continue to evolve the Internet?
- A next generation Internet might be more safe/secure for users?
- Change may come to the Internet?
- A future innovation may prove better than one developed over thirty five years ago before the invention of the PC?
It is absurd on its face to propose there should never be a new Internet. It would be like saying there should be no change to printing after the invention of the Gutenberg press!
- I can understand how one might not choose a new Internet over the old Internet, if the new one proved to not be an improvement, or enough of an improvement to justify the migration hassle.
- However, to summarily dismiss that no future “new Internet” innovation could improve on the existing Internet — is patently absurd.
Why are many threatened by Mr. Markoff’s legitimate question: ”Do we need a new Internet?”?
The real reason is that making security more of a priority on the Internet threatens net neutrality political othodoxy.
- That orthodoxy insists on an inviolate end-to-end Internet infrastructure where bits are only controlled by the user at the edge and never managed at the core by a network provider.
The most threatening part of Mr. Markoff’s question and article to net neutrality orthodoxy was his insight that a more secure Internet “is likely to emerge as new hardware and software are built in to the router computers” that run the Internet at its core.
- Net neutrality orthodoxy insists that innovation should only occur at the edge of the network, and that any smart network innovation or reasonable network management at the core — is by definition discrimination and an infringement of free speech – because bits are being interfered with.
Bottom line:
It is the height of hypocrisy and irresponsibility for net neutrality proponents to claim to be motivated by promoting innovation and the best interests of Internet users, when they oppose on principle, smart network innovation and reasonable network management practices that make the Internet safer and more secure going forward.
Stimulus: Congress rejected mandated open access/net neutrality; affirmed reasonable network management
February 13, 2009
In promoting the important goals of extending broadband to all Americans and stimulating the economy, Congress has rejected attempts by net neutrality regulation proponents to broadly impose open access or net neutrality requirements on the marketplace at large — via the economic stimulus bill. The Congress obviously understood that would not be an economic stimulus, but a wrong-headed, counter-productive depressant to necessary private broadband investment. (see stimulus bill)
- Importantly, Congress implicitly affirmed the necessity for “reasonable network management” and also implicitly rejected the core end-to-end network principle of the net neutrality movement – where they define/accuse any smart network management/innovation as anti-competitive discrimination or infringement of free speech.
Important takeaways:
First, Congress rejected the House provision mandating ”open access” and mandating that the FCC define “open access” in the unprecedented short time of 45 days.
- To put this failed provision in perspective, this week, Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge described the net neutrality movement’s definition of “open access:” it ”essentially requires carriers to share their networks with competitors.”
- In rejecting this extreme, hyper-regulatory flavor of net neutrality, Congress re-affirmed its longstanding support for inter-modal competition policy and technology neutrality.
- Chairman Boucher of the House Internet Subcommittee said yesterday to Congress Daily and CSPAN that he did not want NTIA to impose any “obligations on the broadband providers that would lead them to not apply for these grants.”
- Chairman Boucher fully understands the risk that if NTIA is too regulatory in its application of the conditions on the NTIA broadband grant money, much fewer entities will apply for grants and the most important goals of promoting universal broadband and stimulating the economy — will fail.
- Chairman Boucher apparently understands the inherent tension and danger here — that open access/net neutrality and universal broadband/economic stimulus are largely opposing goals.
Second, in referring to the FCC’s broadband policy statement as a guide for contractual obligations for those entities applying for broadband grants from the NTIA, Congress did several things:
- It specifically applied the conditions only to entities that choose with their free will to avail themselves of taxpayer funds — it did not create any new general or legal requirement on any other entities in the competitive free market Internet at large;
- It implicitly affirmed the necessity and legitimacy of “reasonable network management” in rejecting the radical net neutrality view demanding the “end-to-end network design principle be legally mandated and that any smart network management or innovation be banned as de facto discriminatory or an infringement of free speech; and
- It also did not change the legal standing of the FCC’s broadband policy statement’s enforceability or unenforceability on a stand-alone basis — separate from conditions for NTIA broadband grants.
Third, Congress explicitly re-endorsed the current longstanding policy of technology neutrality — i.e. the wisdom of the government not picking technology winners and losers in the marketplace.
- This technology-neutral provision was in the section defining who is eligible for the NTIA grants: Section (e) (1) (C): “…the Assistant Secretary shall to the extent practicable promote the purposes of this section in a technologically neutral manner.”
Fourth, Congress implicitly re-endorsed the wisdom of the longstanding policy of competitive neutrality by including the FCC broadband policy statement in the grant requirement, because it states that: “consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
- In other words, Congress has affirmed the competitively-neutral view that competition policy should be applied not only to the transmission layer of the Internet, but also to the application, service and content layers of the Internet as well.
- This is a critical affirmation that the government should not play technology or competitive favorites, but let consumers decide what technologies and companies succeed or fail in the marketplace.
Bottom line:
Congress rejected the extreme demands of Net neutrality proponents for open access network sharing and mandated net neutrality.
Congress also affirmed the critical longstanding market-based principles of competition, “reasonable network management,” technology neutrality, and competitive neutrality.
If Congress, the NTIA, and the Agriculture Department want to succeed in encouraging universal broadband access and stimulating the economy for all Americans, the NTIA and FCC must be restrained and focused on these first purposes.
- They must be disciplined and not succumb to the siren song of the net neutrality movement to take – Americans without broadband and the economy at large — hostage to their fringe “commons” agenda to re-open and re-litigate the 1996 Telecom Act and overturn Congress’s successful free-market Internet policy.
In sum, Congress’ explicit and implict decisions in the economic stimulus bill prove that Congress does not want to replace the consensus and essential purposes of competition, universal broadband and economic growth, with the counter-productive fringe agenda of an open Internet commons.
The Open Internet’s Growing Security Problem — Part III
February 12, 2009
Evidence continues to mount that the real problem on the Internet is that it is not as safe/secure as it needs to be — not the popular myth that it is not open/neutral enough. (See previous posts in this ongoing series here: Part I, Part II)
- It is a sad state of affairs when there is more media and public policy attention paid to addressing potential ”open” Internet problems, than to the very real and increasing Internet safety/security problems.
More evidence on the seriousness of the Internet’s growing security problem:
“The Online Shadow Economy: a billion dollar market for malware authors.” MessageLabs White Paper
- “The shadow Internet economy is worth over $105 billion. Online crime is bigger than the global drug trade.”
- “With little chance of being caught and so much money at stake, it is little wonder that “a huge number of people are involved“”
- “…malware is going to get more common and more virulent…”
”Corporations Are Inadvertently Becoming the No. 1 Security Threat to Their Own Customers, According to New IBM X-Force(R) Annual Report“
- “With an alarming increase in attacks using legitimate business sites as launching pads for attacks against consumers, cybercriminals are literally turning businesses against their own customers in the ongoing effort to steal consumers’ personal data.” ”Data Breaches are more costly than ever.” Washington Post.
- ”Some of the best news out of this survey is that churn is really happening,” Ponemon said. “People really do care when organizations screw up and lose their data.”
- “Last month when Heartland Payment Systems, the nation’s sixth-largest credit and debit card processor, disclosed a breach that could affect millions of customers, the company’s stock lost 42 percent of its value to close at a 52-week low of $8.18.”
“Busting bots: Defending against botnets” SC Magazine
- “Botnets leverage unique binaries, severely limiting the effectiveness of anti-virus signatures and intrusion prevention systems. And many are now built with protocols that allow their drone machines to blend in with legitimate outbound web traffic while they communicate with their command-and-control servers to receive and act on instructions.”
- “Compromising a machine – like the one belonging to the Connecticut College student – provides the coordinated computing power necessary to send junk mail, siphon sensitive data and launch destructive denial-of-service attacks that could jeopardize national security. Remember Estonia?”
“Security software maker’s own website hacked” The Age
- “Leading PC security software maker Kaspersky Lab has made millions helping consumers and businesses stay safe online but the company has evidently struggled to secure its own website, which was hacked, leaving sensitive information exposed.”
Bottom line:
Why don’t those pushing for the Internet to be more “open” do more to address the Internet’s safety and security problems?
- Could it be that Internet ”openness” is a big contributor to the Internet’s growing Internet security problem?
Congress: Don’t Kill the Internet’s Golden Goose — Welcoming Private Investment Capital
February 11, 2009
It is more important what Congress does not do – than what it does do – concerning the final language on broadband in the pending economic stimulus bill.
- It is critical for economic growth and job creation for Congress not to derail the market competition and private investment dynamic, which is currently very successful for 90+% of the country – in trying to achieve broadband open access for the <10% of the country that does not have it, or enough of it.
- Economically-depressing, open access/net neutrality restrictions on broadband investment are counter-productive in an economic stimulus package.Welcoming private investment capital has been the proverbial ‘golden goose’ that has produced most all of the Internet’s many ’golden eggs’ of economic growth, job creation and innovation.
- Few ever heard of the Internet until the National Science Foundation opened the Internet to private investment capital in the mid-1990′s.
- In 1996, Congress made it the “policy of the United States to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that exists for the Internet….“
- One of the last things the country needs right now is for Congress to unwittingly cripple one of the few relatively healthy segments of the economy, and a critical engine of future economic growth and job creation, with unnecessary open access/net neutrality restrictions.
- Such restrictions would be disincentives to continue investing private investment capital in the broadband Internet.
Public investment to achieve universal broadband for <10% of the country can be, and should be, done cleanly without destroying the private investment incentives for the other 90+% of the country.
- In other words, conditions on $6b of proposed public investment in broadband, must not discourage private investment which is over twenty times larger — ~$120b in the last two years.
- The real economic ‘multiplier’ Congress must want to avoid here is 20-1 — discouraging $20 of private investment for every $1 in public investment.
- The Senate bill has done a much better job of addressing these competition and private investment concerns than the House bill has.
- However, the final bill should exclude open access/net neutrality restrictions on broadband investment.
In completing the final economic stimulus package, Congress needs to stay laser-focused on the recovery purpose of the bill and ”do no harm” to the overall economy.
- There is great consensus around a clean bill that promotes universal broadband access and adoption.
- It makes no sense for Congress to endanger the most important, urgently necessary, consensus goals of economic growth/job creation and universal broadband, with unnecessary and counterproductive open access/net neutrality disincentives to private investment.
- It has been irresponsible and self-serving for net neutrality proponents to try and take the urgent economic stimulus package hostage to their non-urgent, economy-depressing political agenda — that they cannot achieve through the normal policy making process.
I. Why does open access = economic depressant?
Open access investment restrictions would depress economic growth, discourage job creation, and dis-incent private investment because they would have the practical effect of:
- Undermining the economic benefit of network ownership;
- Undercutting market-driven pricing by:
- Forcing the commoditization of broadband prices; and
- Discouraging fair consumption-based pricing, i.e. speed tiers and usage caps;
- Crippling the market’s natural pricing mechanism for satisfying increasing bandwidth demand with increasing bandwidth supply;
- Discouraging product and service differentiation to meet the growing diversity of consumer, needs, wants and demands from broadband;
- Kneecapping private investors’ ability to earn a return on their investment; and
- Prohibiting necessary smart network innovation to deliver quality of service.
Net neutrality proponents are irresponsible in asking Congress to totally ignore the real world risks and problems that their proposals could cause.
- The old adage is true: ‘Capital goes where it is welcome.’
- Applying unnecessary open access/net neutrality restrictions on the broadband industry could be seen by many investors/companies as a flashing neon sign: ”private broadband investment unwelcome.”
II. What’s the big untold story here?
The big untold story is the new government’s clear rejection of the net neutrality movement’s sweeping ‘commons’ agenda.
- First, in his inaugural address, President Obama effectively repudiated those seeking to replace the free market Internet with a government-mandated Internet “commons” under the guise of promoting “Internet freedom” – by asserting: “Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched….”
- Second, the new Government roundly rejected overt commons-based agendas – like:
- FreePress’ call for $44b in public broadband investment as a ”Down payment on our Digital Future,” and
- Educause’s call for $100b in mostly public broadband investment in its ”Blueprint for Big Broadband.”
- They rejected this ‘commons’ vision because they know that the current market-competition policy is working, and that it would be unwise to increase the deficit and make the U.S. taxpayer pay for what private investors already are funding on their own.
- Moreover, if ever there was a time when the Government could have endorsed a massive public investment in broadband, it would have been in this $800b stimulus package when the budget’s ‘pay-go’ rules have been suspended because of the economic recession.
- If they couldn’t get the Government to fund their big commons agenda now, they certainly won’t be able to in the tighter constraints of the normal budgeting and appropriations processes.
- Third, we learned a lot about where broadband funding fits in the nation’s political funding priorities.
- Getting broadband to those Americans that don’t have it — was proved to be important to the tune of ~$6b.
- However, public funding for mainstream broadband deployment or upgrades that would compete with or supplant current private investment did not prove to be important.
- Simply, net neutrality proponents got a rude political awakening – that the largely-manufactured problem of network discrimination — paled in comparison to the Nation’s myriad of urgent, massive and real problems.
Bottom line:
The $120b of private investment by broadband companies over the last two years dwarfs the $6b in public investment in the economic stimulus package.
- The biggest broadband economic multiplier the Congress should be concerned about is 20-1, i.e. discouraging the $20 of private investment in broadband by putting unnecessary and broad restrictions on the $1 in public investment.
- The last time the Government considered imposing open access restrictions on broadband several years ago, that uncertainty massively chilled private investment in broadband and ended up delaying widespread availability of broadband in the U.S. — by several years.
Finally, placing open access/net neutrality restrictions on private investment in the economic stimulus package would depress economic growth, discourage job creation and dis-incent private broadband investment.
- It makes no more sense than playing with matches during a drought.
“Happy little bunny rabbit dreams” is what Internet’s Architect calls net neutrality assumptions
February 5, 2009
David Clark, the chief protocol architect of the pre-commercial Internet, recently said: “The network is not neutral and never has been,” and dismissed “as ‘happy little bunny rabbit dreams” the assumptions of net neutrality supporters that there was once a “Garden of Eden” for the Internet” — per excellent coverage of Mr. Clark’s remarks at GMU by the Washington Internet Daily.
- Mr. Clark’s exceptional Internet experience coupled with his current work on a Future Internet Design project for the National Science Foundation provide him great credibility in the net neutrality/Internet architecture debate.
Another colorful quote from the Washington Internet Daily’s coverage of Mr. Clark’s remarks – cuts to the core of the problem with net neutrality — that its seriously anti-private-investment:
- “Investors don’t want to pour money into “this open-platform crap” — a competitive commodity business with high up-front costs and little control over the network.”
Bottom line:
Mr. Clark’s comments highlight net neutrality’s most glaring failing in this serious economic recession — net neutrality is profoundly anti-investment of private capital, which is a monster problem given that most all of the Internet’s varied infrastructure was built by, and depends on, private investment capital.
Net neutrality activists would like everyone to ignore the reality that new government net neutrality restrictions would largely eliminate the opportunity for private investors to profit from innovation and investing in Internet infrastructure.
That’s certainly no way to get Internet for everyone…
