Dan Weinreb’s blog

One Internet or Two?

Here’s the heart of the matter: The meaning of the Google-Verizon proposal depends on what the meaning of “Internet” is. There are two ways of looking at it.

First, there’s Verizon’s way. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg is essentially saying: Right now, we provide three services to you, over the copper or fiber-optic wire: telephone, television, and Internet. All we’re talking about is allowing us to do more, by providing “additional, differentiated online services” along with the three that we already provide. The Internet stays net neutral, so there’s nothing to make a fuss about. He suggests that examples of what these additional services might be include “health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options.”

Second, there’s everybody else’s way. The Google-Verizon proposal means that there are two internets, running over the same infrastructure. The first one is the Internet we all use. The second is paid-access-only, owned by the carriers. Its traffic can take priority over the traffic on the Internet. Large content providers would be able to buy from the carriers preferred, guaranteed bandwidth, and the Internet gets whatever is left over, which it can share in a “neutral” way. But what actually happens it the opposite of net neutrality.

Is this second option what they mean? Notice that Google’s own statements use the phrase “the public Internet”; why put in the word “public” other than to contrast with something else, a second, private Internet?

And, don’t forget, net neutrality does not apply to mobile/wireless networks. Why not?

What happens if there are technical advances allowing Verizon to replaces their wire and fiber cables with a new, even-better home service that doesn’t use wires at all? As wires become quaint old technology, does that mean the FCC loses all of those powers? And what about connections that traverse many different physical media? That’s what the “inter-” in “Internet” means. Do the rules for wireless “trump” the others and apply to the whole communication?

Politics and Diplomacy

Initially, I was surprised, disappointed, and even angered by Google. I expect no better from Verizon (or any of their direct competitors), but Google is a company that I’ve respected and admired for a long time. Their external handling of this matter has severely tarnished their “Don’t be evil” image.

If Google says that the carriers are putting up a strong fight against net neutrality, I believe that. I have no problem with Google’s negotiating a proposal, privately, with Verizon, per se. But the best proposal they could agree on is unacceptable to me, and to many others, as you can see from the articles referenced below.

It would have been pleasing and gratifying had Google “come out fighting,” denouncing Verizon, and saying that net neutrality, everywhere and anywhere, was utterly mandatory to any possible agreement. Instead, it looks as if Google’s very first move in the game is to give in to Verizon’s lousy proposal. It makes Google look as if they were every bit as enthusiastic about this compromise as Verizon must be.

But think about it some more. First, there’s real evidence that the carriers have a lot of political power, i.e. ability to influence the decisions of the Federal Government. Look at how the courts have been interpreting laws in ways that give the FCC little power. How did Congress react? How did the Obama administration act? Talk is cheap; now they have to actually do what they said. But as far as I can see, they don’t seem to be fighing back.

Now, taking this into account, imagine being in Google’s shoes. If Google simply insists strongly on full net neutrality, and then do not succeed, Google will end up looking powerless. People will respect Google less when Google tries to influence public policy and it does no good. That would be bad not only for them, but for us: despite the current imbroglio, Google can be, and usually is, a powerful participant on the correct side of the issues.

What’s really happening? There are many interpretations that are consistent with the facts (to greater or lesser degrees). Here’s the one that I think puts the best light on Google. The carriers are fighting hard, and have demonstrated lots of political power. Google is trying to negotiate the best deal that they think they can get, and call that a “first proposal that is a starting point for discussion.” Meanwhile, Google is trying to acquire power for net neutrality, to fight back. One way is to urge us all to write letters to our congresspeople asking for net neutrality, which they are urging us to do. If Google really wanted this deal, why would they exhort us to pressure Congress to enforce net neutrality?

This is the world of diplomacy, which often seems opaque, confusing, and even silly from the outside. I have no expertise here, but diplomacy is a serious and important pursuit, and in the present situation it’s the only way to go. Nobody can actually get their way by force. Diplomats, especially in multi-party negotiations that are novel rather than routine, are in extremely difficult positions when it comes to saying anything in public. My interpretation of what many statements mean is from within that kind of framework.

Google is Handling This Poorly

I always tell people to hold their judgment of a genuine controversy until they have heard out the other side. What has Google said?

Full disclosure: I like Google, and have many friends who work there. It’s likely that my employer will be bought by Google and that I will soon be a Google employee. I give you my word that I am not changing, or even shading, my opinions on account of anh of those things. I think that the “best light on Google” interpretation is likely to be close to the truth, but I cannot prove it. I am 100% in the “net neutrality” camp. Also, as soon as anti-trust issuees are cleared, Google will buy ITA Software and I will be a Google employee. I have always liked Google a lot, and I feel that my own situation has nothing whatsoever to do with what I’m writing here. When I do become a Google employee, I will have to stop writing about these topics, since what I say then would be subject to interpretation as Google official policy no matter how hard I disclaim that. But right now, the ITA/Google deal has not been done, and it might theoretically never happen (I have no inside knowledge whatsoever), so right now I am definitely not a Google employee. Still, you should apply all the usual caution you bring to bear on anything you read, especially on Internet blogs.

And in all fairness, remember that the audience for this isn’t just you and me. Google knows that this will be scrutinized by Verizon (and other carriers), the FCC, Congressional staffers, and so on. As I said earlier, I believe that they are trying to appear to Verizon as someone who can be worked with, and they must not offend anyone in public, lest they hurt their ability to influence parties in negotiations.

Nevertheless, I am not just disappointed but even rather appalled and outraged by Google’s comments to the press and outside world. It’s amazingly similar to the way bad politicians talk: spin, misleading, non-sequiturs, and even a few falsehoods. I hope Google will learn from this experience that if you talk like a sleazy politician, it’s very hard to hold the moral high ground of “don’t be evil”. I hope they’ll find better people to do public relations in the future.

For starters, on August 5, Google “denied reports that it is in talks with Verizon for a deal that could undermine Net neutrality. Google officially announced: “We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet.”

Note the very careful wording. They have not talked about paying for the carriage of Google traffic. This was literally true, but utterly misleading. (They sure fooled me! See my earlier blog essays.)

Then Google released a statement on their Google’s Public Policy blog, called Facts About Our Network Neutrality Policy Proposal. It’s in “myth versus fact” format.

MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

It sure looked that way to me at first. I now believe that Google does not want this proposal to turn into reality, although the bad scenario in which it does is a real possibility. But Google appears to be hypocritial.

“Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet.” Sorry, that looks like Google talked when talk was cheap, but now that push comes to shove, it’s caving in.

That was my own immediate reaction. But in my “best light on Google” theory, this statement is a slightly coded way of saying “we are going to do real work, and pay real costs, to get net neutrality rather than this proposal”. It’s so hard for us to know what’s happening behind the scenes.

MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

The proposal would give the FCC enforcement power over the “wireline Internet”. But that misses the whole point, since by “Internet”, it doesn’t include the “additional services”! Also, I don’t know about you, but I have never even heard the term “wireline Internet” before, ever. What, exactly, does that mean? Anything that does not go over protocols like CDMA? Anything that does not go over actual cables?

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

Google says: “However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.”

In other words, Google’s compromise is that there will be no regulation at all. They consider this OK because (1) wireless is more competitive because there are more than two providers to choose from; (2) airwaves are in contention, unlike cable, so “carriers need to manage their networks more actively”; (3) Congress will keep a watchful eye.

Regarding (1): I was at a talk (the MassTLC Innovation unConference) in which an expert explained that you need at least four or five wireless carriers to get a competitive market. The expert was one of the leaders of the Android group at Google.

Regarding (2): The fact that there is contention over the airwaves is the main reason that the FCC exists and has regulatory power in the first place! This is a “freedom is slavery” argument. (This is a metaphor, not a literal reference to slavery. It’s from George Orwell’s novel “1984″.)

Regarding (3): The claim is that we can relax, because if anything bad happens, Congress will step in and save the day. But in light of what’s clearly going on, the carriers have a huge influence over Congress, and what they’re doing is avoiding any regulation. Will Congress suddenly develop a backbone and do something, especially after the carriers have set everything up the way they like it?

The proposal says that the wireless providers should be “fully transparent with users” about “congestion management”. First, being fully transparent doesn’t protect users; it just means that users know what they are getting, whether they like it or not. Second, what is the line between “congestion management” and “preferential treatment”? Without a very crisp distinction, the two might slide together, which is exactly what we’re worried about.

They also propose that the Federal Government (hmm, why not the FCC specifically?) should “monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market.” Again, we’ll know what’s happening to us; not very comforting.

Now here’s what I really consider sophistry: “Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.” Well, that’s already true. It’s always true. After all, no proposal would bar Congress from making laws in the future! Google is saying soothing things that actually don’t mean anything. I don’t know about you, but that makes me feel that I am being taken for a ride.

The next paragraph is designed to persuade us that “open Internet wireless platforms” are coming all by themselves. That’s nice. I guess we can just trust the providers and go home.

I know, I know, I ought not be sardonic and sarcastic. But my meta-point is that, above and beyond the specific facts about wireless vs. wired and so on, Google is sounding like they are trying to fool us. Some of the sentences in this blog item afre downright insulting: do they really expect me to believe this, or to consider this a substantive rebuttal?

MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

Here they describe the “additional services” and say that they “are not part of the Internet.” They say: “We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet”. Why qualify “Internet” with the adjective “public”?

“First, the broadband provider must fully comply with the consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards governing its Internet access service before it could pursue any of these other online service opportunities.” Exactly what standards are we talking about here?

“Second, these services must be ‘distinguishable in purpose and scope’ from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet.” Again, this sidesteps the key point: these “additional services” run over the same infrastructure as the Internet, and they will get priority, thus slowing down the Internet. And what, exactly, is the “purpose and scope” of the Internet, and, most important, who gets to make that decision?

“Third, the FCC retains its full capacity to monitor these various service offerings, and to intervene where necessary to ensure that robust, unfettered broadband capacity is allocated to Internet access.”

Well, I’m very comforted that nobody is taking away the FCC’s ability to monitor what’s going on, but being able to take action is what matters. They say that the FCC “retains” its capacity to do those things, but the last time I looked, I thought that the FCC’s powers in these areas had been greatly curtailed:

The record so far is indicative of how the FCC has functioned to date, and reflects the way the Commission has shrunk from its responsibilities to deal with crucial issues about the future of the Internet. Instead of issuing orders in dockets on a non-discriminatory Internet or on re-establishing the FCC’s ability to protect consumers and set rules of the road for broadband, the Commission has abdicated its responsibilities.

“It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here.” What that ends up sounding like is: “now that Google has sold out, it’s up to everybody else to proceed without Google’s clout.”

But we really need to do it. We have to make it clear that we want net neutrality.

Appendix: The Anti-Google Press

The Huffington Post ran (at least) two articles, after the real story came out about what Google and Verizon were proposing. The first is called Google-Verizon Deal: The End of The Internet as We Know It, and the second is called Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse.

PC Magazine ran a story called Google Acknowledges That Verizon Owns Your Internet, which approaches the issue from a different perspective. For example, it brings up Google’s “Nexus One”, an Android phone to be available on many carriers. But they didn’t market it seriously, hardly sold any, and killed the project in less than a year. There can be any number of reasons for a project to fail, but the Verizon deal certainly raises questions about whether Google could have caved on creating this kind of competition among the carriers. I think it’s likely that Google really did intend to do that. But now, we all have to wonder what the motivations were for killing the project, and we’ll never really know. By creating this kind of suspicion, the Google-Verizon proposal erodes the public’s trust in Google.

Wired Magazine ran a story called Here’s The Real Google/Verizon Story: A Tale of Two Internets (UPDATED). I will quote the two strongest paragraphs (the word “flame” probably isn’t entirely out of bounds to describe this):

So the Google-Verizon deal can be summed up as this: “FCC, you have no authority over us and you’re not going to do anything about it. Congress, we own you, and we’ll get whatever legislation we want. And American people, you can’t stop us.”

This Google-Verizon deal, this industry-captured FCC, and the way this is playing out is akin to the largest banks and the largest hedge funds writing the regulatory policy on derivative trading without any oversight or input from the public, and having it rubber stamped by the SEC. It’s like BP and Halliburton ironing out the rules for offshore oil drilling with no public input, and having MMS sign off.

Later, the article calms down, and get more analytical:

And that would be the first question, assuming this tale of two internets ever gets written: To what extent would an inherently more private network mingle with the public internet? Would it be like pay cable and satellite TV, which now provides some content that had previously been available on “free” TV, without killing broadcasting entirely? Or would it be like network television and syndication, which killed local station production and innovation?

There’s also Infoworld’s article.

Appendix 2: Google vs. Antitrust

I am sure that Google does not believe that they are doing anything evil. The question is whether living with a “Don’t be evil” slogan has stopped them from being able to see their own missteps when they happen. This problem was discussed in a thoughtful article by Fred Vogelstein, published in Wired last summer, that made a big impression on me. It’s called Why Is Obama’s Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google? I recommend strongly that anyone interested in Google’s place in public policy read this article. It’s not an anti-Google screed at all. I found it fair and disinterested. Of course you will make up your own mind.

Most relevant to the present discussion are these two paragraphs:

For much of its history, Google has responded to most criticism with two words: Trust us. The company has repeatedly persuaded skeptics that its immensity is a mere byproduct of its altruistic mission and that the algorithms it uses to organize the Internet, while proprietary, are objective and benevolent. But in an economy destroyed by bad faith, secretive formulas, and complicated mathematics, trust is in short supply, and Google’s assurances are losing their persuasive power. More than 15 years ago, federal regulators began making Microsoft the symbol of anti-competitive behavior in the tech industry. Now, a newly activist DoJ may try to do the same thing to Google.

Just like Gates before him, Schmidt says he has no plans to change his company’s trajectory in the face of regulatory challenges. Microsoft’s belligerence was a function of its will to power, a refusal to believe that the government had the authority or intelligence to take it down. Google still thinks it can get regulators to see it as it sees itself: not as a mere company but as a force for good.

Yesterday, in New York City, I went with some of my extended family to see the latest show by The Flying Karamazov Brothers, entitled “4PLAY”. This was both extremely impressive and totally hilarious, for kids as well as adults. It runs through March 7 at the Minetta Lane Theatre (18 Minetta Lane, New York, NY).

In order to describe it without spoilers, here is a list of adjectives:

• Blue Man Group
• Circus
• Comedy
• Dancing
• Drum
• Four-part a capella
• Guitar
• Humor
• Joke
• Juggling
• Marx Brothers
• Monty Python’s Flying Circus
• Parody
• Penn and Teller
• Piano
• Pun
• Repartee
• Trombone

You might think there’s no way to make juggling interesting after so many years, especially if you’ve seen, e.g., Cirque de Soleil. The Brothers have new takes on juggling, especially juggling as a form of music. Bring an object that you’d like to see them juggle! Here’s one review. You can easily find others by searching the web. But just go see it, and bring some kids!

I am happy to report that Slate.com has also come out with an excellent article on this sordid business, by William Saletan. (This essay is a sequel to my last one, Demagogues in Our Time.) Saletan says (among other things):

“The stated mission of the organization behind the project, the Cordoba Initiative, is to build “interfaith tolerance and respect.”

“The initiative’s chairman, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has denounced church burnings in Muslim countries, rejected Islamic triumphalism over Christians and Jews, and proposed to reclaim Islam from violent radicals such as Osama Bin Laden.”

(More about Rauf: Rick Hertzberg, in The New Yorker, says: “He denounces terrorism in general and the 9/11 attacks in particular, often and at length.”  Remember people saying “well, where are these moderate Muslims, anyway?”  Here’s one excellent example, a man not afraid to stand up and say what is right.)

A Rasmussen survey released on July 22 asked adults nationwide, “Do you favor or oppose the building of a mosque near the 9/11 Ground Zero site in New York City?” They opposed it, 54 percent to 20 percent.  But why was such a misleading question asked?  Perhaps because “polling” isn’t just a way to learn what people think, but also to affect what they think.  This may have been an intentional Push Poll.

Add to the “Demagouges” column: (Read the Slate article to read their lies.  Sorry, but there is no more appropriate word than “lies”.)

• Rep. Peter King, Republican, New York.
• Debra Burlingame, the co-founder of “9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America”
• Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, le
• “Dr. Babu Suseelan”, claiming to be a Hindu leader.

“Babu” is a title of respect, meaning “boss” or “father”; his real name (I think) is Madhavan A Suseelan.  (Similarly, you have heard of Mahatma Gandhi, but many people don’t know that “Mahatma” is not a given name; it is a title meaning “Great Soul”.  His given name was “Mohandas”.)  In his writings, he always refers to himself as “Babu”. Dr. Suseelan is the Director of Addiction Research Institute, Pennsylvania.  His essays about Islam are extremely easy to find from a web search.  He groups recent Islamic Jihad attacks to “…death and destruction caused by Jihadis in different parts of India[, which] are the continuation of the Islamic brutality stretching back to the time when Mohamed led Muslims in the first Jihad.”  He goes on about “Jihadi invaders” to India in the early Eighth Century, and goes on at great length about how Muslims destroyed the great civilization of the Hindus.  That does not square with what I have read about the Mughal Empire period, although I am hardly an expert.  This man hates Muslims, everywhere and anywhere, and is horrified by them.  In another essay, he says ” These Islamic terrorist’s devilish acts of unimaginable hatred are designed to send tremors of alarm, fear and a warning throughout the civilized world.”  If there is any evidence that he is a Hindu “leader”, or a representative of any subset of Hindu people at all, I was unable to find it.  You can form your own opinion.

Sarah Palin has been saying/tweeting many interesting (read: hilarious) things lately.

Rick Lazio, who is in the earlier list of demagogues, tried to get the Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, to “conduct an investigation into the mosque, which is a legally registered charitable organization.”  The AG “dismissed the calls for an investigation, saying he knew of no criminal action by the mosque”, and then gave a short, clear speech defending freedom of religion.

I have no doubt that Lazio knew full well that this is what Cuomo would do.  Oh, by the way, it just so happens that they are running against each other for Governor.  You don’t think that maybe Lazio’s negatiive political ads will stress Cuomo’s refusing to investigate, do you?  If anyone hears about Lazio’s this, I’d like to know.

Abe Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League’s national director, said: “Their [9/11 families’ anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”  So, it justifies bigotry.  Is that really what the ADL wants to be known for?  I have now more than lost respect for the ADL.

In both the New Yorker article and the Slate article, the quotes from Newt Gingrich are generally the most despicable.  Take a look, and then see Slate’s analysis and fact-checking, written by Brian Palmer. It ends with “I can’t think of a surer way to lose both our national soul and the struggle against terrorism. Yes, Mr. Gingrich and Ms. Palin, there’s a cultural-political offensive afoot to undermine our civilization. And you’re leading it.”

Demagogue: “An orator or leader who gains favor by exciting the passions and prejudices of the audience.”

The so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” is the most blatant case of demagoguery I have ever seen during my own lifetime.  The opponents are painting a picture of a huge mosque being built exactly where the World Trade Center stood.  They seem to suggest a huge, ornate structure with minarets and such.

Of course, there is no such proposal.  The proposed building, to be called “Park51″, will have a large Islamic “prayer room,” which presumably qualifies as a mosque. But the rest of the building will be devoted to classrooms, an auditorium, galleries, a restaurant, a memorial to the victims of September 11, 2001, and a swimming pool and gym.

To see just how entirely ridiculous this claim is, read “Zero Grounds”, by Hedrick Hertzberg, in The New Yorker, which is the source for this essay.

This is a great opportunity to see who takes which side:

Demagogues:

• ex-Gov. Sarah Palin
• Sen. John McCain
• ex-Gov. George Pataki
• ex-Mayor Rudi Guiliani
• Newt Gingrich (particularly awful and hypocritical)
• the Anti-Defamation League (usually known as a Jewish civil rights group)
• most people from Staten Island
• Carl Paladino (a leading Republican candidate for governor of New York)
• Rick Lazio (the other leading Republican candidate for governor of New York)

Defending Park51:

• Pres. Obama
• Mayor Bloomberg
• Jewish Community Center in Manhattan
• United Jewish Appeal Federation of New York
• most people from Manhattan
• Community Board No. 1 (the council that represents a corner of Manhattan that includes both the 9/11 site and the “mosque” site, by a vote of 29 to 1)
• the city’s Landmark Presentation Commission (unanimously)

If anyone wants to extend this list in the comments, that would be great!

Why This Is Interesting

On Thursday, I wrote about the alleged Google/Verizon deal, which was being said to be against the concept of net neutrality. This was remarkable, both because it was so far from that one would expect, and because it was published in many major media despite total denials from both companies.

This kind of journalistic train wreck doesn’t happen every day! Usually I’m annoyed when the reporting of the news is bigger news than the news itself. But in this case, I think it sheds a fascinating light on how technology reporting works.

Technology affects ordinary people profoundly these days. But major news outlets are under extreme time pressure to get stories out, and also don’t always have the technical expertise to fully understand the implications of a story in such a short time. The combination of these factors can lead to a lot of confusion.

(You can skip to the last section if you want to get to the exciting punchline.)

Even More Coverage

Many, many web sites picked up the Google/Verizon story.

eWeek first ran a story, by Clint Boulton, similar to the ones I referred to. It also said was that the FCC had been having talks with Google, Verizon, Skype, and AT&T, which they cut off on 8/6, citing too much disagreement.

In The Huffington Post, on Thursday morning, Josh Silver wrote a story entitled Google-Verizon Deal: The End of The Internet as We Know It. He completely believes that net neutrality is now dead. He does not even mention the denials from both companies. Maybe they hadn’t come out at the time he wrote this, but if so, that shows a serious weakness in our “24-hour news cycle”! This, in turn, was picked up in other blogs.

Later that afternoon, Huffington published a story Bianca Bosker published Alleged Verizon-Google Deal: Who’s Saying What, which leads with the denials from Google and Verizon, then the stories from the big newspapers.

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Menlo Park, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, spoke as if she took the story as true. She’s entirely right about net neutrality, other than the specific recent news story. I can sympathize with her and her staffers for feeling that if a story has been ruin The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, then it’s not necessary to do costly and difficult research to make sure it’s true. The resources of a congressperson are not infinite, and you have to draw the line somewhere before you decide that something is worth believing. I hope that her constituents will be sympathetic about this; her heart is obviously in the right place.

The Cringely Theory: A Content Distribution Network

Then the New York Times called out a famous tech journalist, Robert X. Cringely. Actually there is no such person; it’s just one of the people who writes under that pen name, maybe Mark Stephens and maybe not.

The op-ed piece by Cringely hypothesizes (entirely as a guess, as far as I can see) that Google would set up mirror servers around the world at Verizon backbone routers. Strangely, he doesn’t mention that this concept has been around for years. It’s called a Content Distribution Network. The most famous is Akamai (generally considered the premium service) but there are many others. Does this Cringely actually think he just invented the idea? And why does he think that’s what Google and Verizon are doing? This guess sounds entirely inconsistent with what we know.

The Cringely story got slashdotted in the late morning of Sunday Aug 8 (twelve hours before I now, as I write). Most accept the CDN theory.

One commenter points out that CDN’s are like network non-neutrality in that he who pays more gets better bandwidth and latency, and this has been true for years. Whenever one hears something simple and think, “Why didn’t I think of that?”, one must pay attention!

But then there’s a thoughtful reply, by Stephen Friederichs, which is worth reading in full:

This is different in that Google actually paid for something physical and not just a “It’d be a shame if your nice Internet caught on fire” protection scheme. What I feared about a lack of net neutrality wasn’t Google getting faster because they paid, but everyone else getting slower. These large communication companies have a history of trying to sell the same infrastructure as many times as they can. This is different in that new infrastructure was created instead of old infrastructure unfairly and arbitrarily reapportioned.

The Wayne Rash Theory: Technical Improvements

Today eWeek published a long story. by Wayne Rash. He says Google and Verizon are simply trying to work out how to give everybody good service on audio and video, in light of the latency issues on the Internet.

Indeed, although audio and video are rather jittery, I’ve been amazed that they even work as well as they do, since the Internet was not at all designed for such services. Go back and read the debates about how “packet switching” (what the Internet does) is inferior to “circuit switching” (what the phone system does). It’s a lot more complicated than that in real life.

Rash goes on to say that the New York Times was “swayed” by the advocacy group called Public Knowledge, who he says are very hard-line about net neutrality. He says: “In other words, we’ve gone through two days of kerfuffle based on sloppy reporting, lazy journalism and technology coverage from a publication that doesn’t understand technology.”

The comments on the article are thoughtful and interesting, too.

I find Wayne Rash’s theory to be, by far, the most plausible explanation, in light of
what we know now. If this story be true, it means:

• The change helps to set proper priorities and handling for network traffic of certain kinds, not from different providers.
• Network neutrality is helped, rather than hindered, since some of the network neutrality arguments get confused and veer off into this separate issue.
• Google isn’t evil, after all.