End of the Internet As We Know It!

This fear mongering was initiated by an August 4th article in the prestigious New York Times with the title Google and Verizon Near Deal on Web Pay Tiers that began:

WASHINGTON — Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.
...
Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality,

We now know that this story was very miss-leading. First off, there is no 'deal' only a joint legislative proposal to give the FCC the authority to enforce network neutrality in the traditional, i.e. wireline, Internet. This is an authority it doesn't now have. No 'deal' and no tiers on the pillow. Hardly the 'overthrow' the NYT promised in the Wednesday edition.

But hey, it's the NYT so it must be true. On Friday Amy Goodman's Democracy Now reported "The internet and telecom giants Verizon and Google have reportedly reached an agreement to impose a tiered system for accessing the internet." Then they went on to discuss the deal that "many fear could spell the end of the internet as we know it." Josh Silver of Free Press was the expert on the show and based on the NYT report he declared "The era of Google doing no evil just ended." He also looks to the FCC to exercise a dictatorship, saying "Chairman Genachowski—he has the votes—to simply move what’s called a reclassification of agency authority, and he could reestablish his authority" and "solve this problem."

Craig Aaron of Free Press, writing in the Huffington Post, called it the "pact to end the Internet as we know it" He too looks to the FCC for salvation saying "We need the FCC" and ending his piece, like Joan McCarter, by pleading for the FCC, telling his readers "If you haven't yet told the FCC why we need Net Neutrality, please do it now."


I thought we had net neutrality. Is it gone already? That fast, huh?

Tuesday Keith Olbermann also spoke of "the Google-Verizon deal with the devil" He then went on to falsely imply that they were trying to take away FCC rules that already existed! "What Google and Verizon agreed to was this: that FCC rules ensuring equal access to the Internet should still apply to wired devices like a computer on your desk, but those rules should not apply to wireless devices, such as mobile phones or smart phones or iPads." His guest from CNET comforts us "The government writes laws.  The FCC passes regulations."

This call for the FCC to take over has reverberated throughout the non-technical left recently.

Well the world wide Internet has developed quite nicely under the regime of the companies and organizations that have managed it thus far, thank you. And I must also tell you that many who have championed Internet freedom and net neutrality long before it became fashionable at the Daily Kos or Huffington Post, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation [EFF], think that the FCC call to enforce net neutrality is a Trojan horse for a lot of regulation the Internet doesn't need. Back in October it asked Is Net Neutrality a FCC Trojan Horse? In that commentary they warned that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's rule making on network neutrality "is built on a shoddy and dangerous foundation – the idea that the FCC has unlimited authority to regulate the Internet." EFF has been the home of the fight for civil liberties on the Internet for more than 20 years. I have a sticker from them on my front door. It says "Come Back With A Warrant."

The Internet is more than a way to blog here or watch silly YouTube videos. It is a social organization that is unique in human history. I remember being in a room some years ago with less than a thousand people and a speaker told them that if they walked off the job, the Internet would grind to a halt in a few weeks. I looked around the room and realized it was true. The event was a USENIX SysAdm meeting and the people there were some of the most important system administrators on the Internet. USENIX is a Unix and Internet users group that formed in 1979 and since has played a vital role in organizing and regulating the Internet.

Other bodies that play important roles in making the Internet work and so far have done a very good job of keeping it free and innovative include the World Wide Web Consortium [W3C] "an international community that develops standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web,"  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN] is a technical coordination body for the Internet. InterNIC oversees the domain name registration system. The Internet Society is the home of groups responsible for Internet infrastructure standards and provides leadership in chartering the future of the Internet. The Internet Architecture Board is responsible for oversight and some Internet standards. The Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] is a large international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to anyone who wants to join. There is also People for Internet Responsibility [PFIR] a group concerned about many present and future aspects of the Internet, including regulation.

While not comprehensive, this is a pretty good list of the organizations that have brought you the Internet as it exists today. Net neutrality is the standard and the Internet has been relatively free by the design of these people. They are not government agencies and they are all international bodies. The Internet is an international social and technical structure, it's knows no national borders except where governments try to interfere, and appropriately, it has been run by international bodies. That's why governments like China that try to have it their way find they have a hard row to hoe. These people don't play that.

Now comes the national chauvinistic American left demanding that the FCC take over.

And the names of these organizations, that have taken the Internet from 15 nodes in 1971 to were it is today? They have played almost no role in our recent discussions on net neutrality, because the knowledge of the Internet among most of the people doing the talking is very shallow.

In that regards I must again toil to clean out the mess in the stables left by some of this recent commentary. This is stuff I have said elsewhere, but it bears repeating.

First. What is Network Neutrality? Network Neutrality means that data, of the same type, is treated the same irregardless of source or destination

There has been a bit of confusion around this with some people mistakely promoting the idea that it means different types of data must be treated the same and that dog just doesn't hunt.

The NYT propagated this idea in the article I've already cited when it spoke of the "Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another." Josh Silver carried on the same way on Amy's show warning "losing net neutrality then allows these companies to prioritize some traffic—video, say—and de-prioritize others." and so did Craig Aaron in the Huffington Post saying "Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications."

What they are suggesting as net neutrality really would end the Internet as we know it because if realtime packets for realtime services like video and voice can no longer be given priority over email and web packets, some services we now take for granted aren't going to work anymore.

Consider this description for a new DLink router for the home sold on Amazon:

Typical Internet applications such as e-mail and chat require minimal bandwidth. But other applications such as Voice over IP (VoIP) and video streaming/conferencing require much higher bandwidth as they are real-time sensitive. The DI-102 Broadband Internet/VoIP Accelerator uses an intelligent engine to detect and prioritize bandwidth-sensitive packets so that they can be sent over the Internet as soon as the request is made. This results in faster processing of real-time based packets, less latency, and a better user experience. For instance, there are two computers on your network and both are online - one is using an e-mail program and the other is making a VoIP call.

When data packets from each computer are sent to the Internet at the same time, the DI-102 will automatically classify the VoIP call as more important and send the VoIP packets first, and the e-mail data second. The user on the phone can immediately notice the benefits whereas the user sending e-mails will barely notice a change.

If net neutrality ala Silver and Aaron were to prevail, this type of technology, which is already widely used, would be illegal. They, including the NYT in this case, don't know what they are talking about. Once again, network neutrality means that data, of the same type, is not discriminated against because of its source or destination. All else is confusion.

Then there is the question of wireline versus wireless. The technically clueless have been of one voice in demanding that they be treated as equals. They see Google as turning to the darkside because they have taken the position, as Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that "The issues of wireless versus wireline get very messy...and that's really an FCC issue not a Google issue."

Unlike the bloggers here, Schmidt, Google and anyone else that has to route real Internet traffic has to deal with certain realities, certain laws of physics, if you will, that most people here are oblivious to. In the wireless world bandwidth is both fixed and limited.

As a tech savy poster to Slashdot pointed out in their much more sophisticated discussion:

   The bandwidth available for wireless transmission is determined by the range of frequencies available, divided by the number of users on that band. It's a FIXED amount. The FCC's not going to widen it just because, there are too many considerations for it.

   You can only achieve a given data speed over wifi. We've improved it over time. But there is a physical limit for reliability of the signal, and that's why wireless is a different story. With wired (or land-based into wifi hotspots) you can just lay more lines in parallel, add a separate color laser to your fiber, etc. which makes it feasible to upgrade and widen the bandwidth. When you have an easily maintainable infrastructure, you don't mind letting it be used freely without priority restrictions.

   Now pictures this: if wireless providers went all net neutral as per your calls, then a phone call would have the same priority as an app downloading updates in the background. Do you know you're going to always have good enough reception to guarantee call quality? Or are OS/firmware updates not more important than that stupid youtube of a dog who can't get up?

   The point is that for wireless, there is a need to prioritize bandwidth, and because it's a fixed bandwidth, if you want priority over something else, you can't just claim it like you do on a landline network.

Are you really demanding equality between 911 data and Facebook apps? There are some very good reasons for not including wireless in the first run of network neutrality rules. It's not just about corporate greed.

And finally there is Google. Yes, Google is now a multi-billion dollar corporation. But Google is also a product of this Internet and Open Source community. It started as two guys with some Linux computers in a dorm room and the fantastical dream of making all of humanity's knowledge available to all of humanity. So far they have come damn close. I know some people that work there and they like it. Google hasn't been perfect but they have given a lot back. They made Android open source, they could have owned it. They blew the whistle on DHS demands' for search engine data after AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft had quietly complied. They balk at Chinese censorship as the others went along and while they have been back and forth on their China policy, they have always championed open access and recently stared the Chinese government down.

It is just possible that after the courts ruled that the FCC didn't have the authority to enforce net neutrality, Google thought that they could then best advance the cause by grabbing the telecom named most likely to agree and hammering out some sort of proposal to make net neutrality law. They might do that because it's the right thing to do and it because makes good business sense for them. Anyway, thanks to them, something will now almost certainly be done to secure net neutrality. I don't see that Google has suddenly broken it's pledge to do no evil and I think they have been treated in a very shabby manner by this community.

Will Android make Google Money?

On some of the blogs discussing the Verizon Google deal yesterday. Many commentators said they would now prefer Apple's iPhone over Google's Andriod. What they fail to understand is that while Google developed Andriod, Google doesn't own Android.

Andriod is a mobile phone O/S that is not owned by Google. You don't need Google's permission to use it or have to pay Google for it.

From the Andriod Open Source Project website:

Here you can find the information and source code you need to build an Android-compatible device.

Android is an open-source software stack for mobile devices, and a corresponding open-source project led by Google. We created Android in response to our own experiences launching mobile apps. We wanted to make sure that there was no central point of failure, so that no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other. That's why we created Android, and made its source code open.

That means literally that you can download the software and create your own Android based phone and not owe Google a thin dime. It is open source. Same as FireFox, same as Linux or Open Office and the price is the same. And since you have the source code you can modify it, debug it and extend it completely independent of Google.

So how will Google make money off of Android?

This question is being discuss this morning on Slashdot as they ask the question

Does Google have an Android revenue-model?

oxide7 writes "Google's basking on its Android success — 200,000 Android units activated each day, total shipments of Android are surpassing those of iPhone in U.S. and Nielsen reports Androids hold 27 percent of US smartphone market — but is the reported success actually minting money for the company?"

He cites this article in International Business Times Does Google have an Android revenue-model?

Recently Google's CEO Eric Schmidt was questioned about this but as there is no way to measure Android's success, Schmidt merely said, "trust me, we do", bordering on abstraction. When asked if the revenue was enough to support an Android project, Schmidt pointed out Google's ad-revenue model saying "Trust me that revenue is large enough to pay for all of the Android activities and a whole bunch more."

Ever since Google launched Android in 2007, its business model around the open-source OS platform for smartphones has been ambiguous. Though, it is a widely accepted that unlike traditional firms, Google does not build product around a viable business model but instead makes a product and then seeks a revenue-model.

Android provides an open-ecosystem for manufacturers and application developers to build products around the platform. However, with no control over licensing, its lack of an Apple style application store to monitor apps and also with no bargaining capacity with service providers, options for Google to generate revenue from Android are slim.

I'm quite sure also that Google will find away to make money off of Android. They are the preeminent practitioner of the Open Source ethos of getting rich by giving it away, but please understand Google is not your enemy and Android is not iPhone.

In the popular mind Google is in competition with Apple because Apple makes the iPhone and Google makes Android, which is seen as the iPhone's new rival. The iPhone has been everybody's new darling, but please understand what iPhone is. It is owned lock, stock and barrel by Apple. If you want to buy it, you buy it from Apple. If you want to write software for it, you do it on Apple's terms, and for now, if you want to use it, you use it on AT&T.

Android, on the other hand, is a mobile operating system based on the Linux kernel and while Google developed it, Google doesn't own it. Android is Open Source Software, the entire source code [which you will never see for the iPhone] is available under the open source Apache license.

Anybody can make Android phones, any carrier can service them and anybody can write software for them, that is the nature of Open Source. For this reason alone, progressives should favor the Android over the iPhone.

And another thing I'd like to point out. All you iPhone users can thank Google for releasing Android because the competition will bring you cheaper and better service, just as all you Window 7 users can thank the Open Source community and the latest Linux Desktop offerings like Ubuntu Linux 10.04 for forcing Microsoft to wake up and perform, and all you Mac users can thank the Open Source community for building most of the inerts of OS X. Peace out.

Free Press would make this Illegal!

Yesterday I saw this D-Link Router on Amazon.com:

Voip Internet Accelerator Intelligent Packet Priority Engine

for as low as $35.00 and I thought I had better snap one up quick because if Josh Silver and Craig Aaron and others at Free Press get their confused understanding of Net Neutrality written into law, this type of useful Internet device will soon be illegal. This is how Amazon describes what it does:

Typical Internet applications such as e-mail and chat require minimal bandwidth. But other applications such as Voice over IP (VoIP) and video streaming/conferencing require much higher bandwidth as they are real-time sensitive. The DI-102 Broadband Internet/VoIP Accelerator uses an intelligent engine to detect and prioritize bandwidth-sensitive packets so that they can be sent over the Internet as soon as the request is made. This results in faster processing of real-time based packets, less latency, and a better user experience.For instance, there are two computers on your network and both are online - one is using an e-mail program and the other is making a VoIP call.

When data packets from each computer are sent to the Internet at the same time, the DI-102 will automatically classify the VoIP call as more important and send the VoIP packets first, and the e-mail data second. The user on the phone can immediately notice the benefits whereas the user sending e-mails will barely notice a change.

Now I think it is good that this sort of packet prioritizing technology is finally making it all the way down to the home level. Without it at the higher levels, I would not be able to watch Countdown [or any video] on the Internet, and I like watching video and listening to music on the Internet.

But Josh Silver, Craig Aaron and others at Free Press are pushing for a version [or misunderstanding] of Network Neutrality that would make this DLink device illegal on the Internet and for that matter, end Internet service as we now know it.

Josh Silver is the executive director of Free Press and has been a leading critic of Google's stand on Network Neutrality. Friday, on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now he signaled his understanding of net neutrality when he warned "losing net neutrality then allows these companies to prioritize some traffic—video, say—and de-prioritize others." So you see, he would view what this D-Link routers does to be a violation of net neutrality.

Similarly, Craig Aaron, Managing Director, Free Press, wrote in the Huffington Post on Tuesday "Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications." So obviously this device which discriminates between voice data and email data, for example. is a total violation of Net Neutrality as he understands it.

So they got a quarter million dollar grant from the Knight Foundation in January and now they are going after Google big time on Net Neutrality. They got 300 thousand people to tell Google "Don't Be Evil." Good. Fine. I just wish they understood what they were talking about and would stop making such a muddle out of Network Neutrality.

So Once Again: Network Neutrality means that data, of the same type, is treated the same irregardless of source or destination.

Now that I have had a chance to watch Countdown with Keith Olberman, thanks to the priority given to video data packets under the current voluntary regime of net neutrality, I have to amend this diary in an attempt to clean up a little his Augeas' stables on the Google Verizon deal and net neutrality because it is clear he has drunk the Free Press - Huffington Post - Democracy Now Kool Aid.

He begins the segment with the type of disaster reporting headline that is designed to alarm, warning of "an end to the Internet as we know it" saying the "Google Verizon deal to throw out net neutrality for the sake of their profits" and warning "it's worst than we thought."

He then goes on to imply that net neutrality is something that is already written into law and which Google and Verizon propose to take away, "What Google and Verizon agreed too was this, that FCC rules assuring equal access to the Internet should still apply to the wired devices like a computer on your desk but thoses rules should not apply to wireless devices such as mobile phones or smart phones or Ipads."

And just what rules were these, Keith? Because my understanding is that there were no rules, i.e. laws, regarding net neutrality and that in April, before Google started talking to Verizon about this, the courts told the FCC they didn't have the authority to make such rules. In that context, Google went to Verizon and won it's agreement to support a legislative proposal that at least in shires network neutrality for wirelines. And again I have to point out to Obermann and everyone else that only thinks as an end user, that data packets, even when destine for "wireless devices such as mobile phones or smart phones or Ipads", only travel the "last mile" on wireless, so net neutrality on wirelines, even for data destine for those devices, is important.

So Obermann is presenting the Google Verizon deal as suggesting that laws already on the books no longer be applied to wireless when it is a proposal that suggests that net neutrality be made the law of the land with regards to wirelines but leaves aside the question of wireless. Wireless is a much more difficult problem from the technology point of view. This is something that people who are clueless about the technology like to leap over. Google CEO Eric Schmidt was alsolutely right when he said "The issues of wireless versus wireline get very messy...and that's really an FCC issue not a Google issue."

And as a tech savy poster to Slashdot pointed out:

The bandwidth available for wireless transmission is determined by the range of frequencies available, divided by the number of users on that band. It's a FIXED amount. The FCC's not going to widen it just because, there are too many considerations for it.

You can only achieve a given data speed over wifi. We've improved it over time. But there is a physical limit for reliability of the signal, and that's why wireless is a different story. With wired (or land-based into wifi hotspots) you can just lay more lines in parallel, add a separate color laser to your fiber, etc. which makes it feasible to upgrade and widen the bandwidth. When you have an easily maintainable infrastructure, you don't mind letting it be used freely without priority restrictions.

Now pictures this: if wireless providers went all net neutral as per your calls, then a phone call would have the same priority as an app downloading updates in the background. Do you know you're going to always have good enough reception to guarantee call quality? Or are OS/firmware updates not more important than that stupid youtube of a dog who can't get up?

The point is that for wireless, there is a need to prioritize bandwidth, and because it's a fixed bandwidth, if you want priority over something else, you can't just claim it like you do on a landline network.

All these "technical" details are things that Silver, Aaron and Obermann can overlook, but they can't be over looked by the people that make the Internet function everyday. And I really have to wonder what is going on here? Is it just naiveté? Or is it something else? I know that NBC would like to kill net neutrality. I don't know about the money behind Free Press. But I suppose some might find it useful to announce the death of net neutrality now and blame it all on Google.

Google Verizon Announce Terms of Deal

August 9, 2010 10:58 AM PDT

CEOs from Google and Verizon Communications held a press conference Monday announcing a proposal to lawmakers for keeping the Internet open.

The companies suggested a legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers. The major breakthrough in the proposal is an agreement that the nondiscrimination clause that the Federal Communications Commission has proposed as part of its regulatory efforts would be enforceable.

"We agree that, in addition to these existing principles, there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices," the proposal states. "This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications, or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition."

I believe that Google has been following it's do no evil policy all along in this matter. It has long championed net neutrality along with everyone else in the Open Source community and Free Software movements which produced it, long before DailyKos was and most people here ever heard the term.

It has a long history in the fight for a free Internet and has been treated in a very shabby manner by some people in this community who don't know the history and frankly are sometimes very confused by the technology and don't really understand net neutrality.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt understands this. As he said while speaking about the Google Verizon meeting last week:

"People get confused about Net neutrality," Schmidt said. "I want to make sure that everybody understands what we mean about it. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types...There is general agreement with Verizon and Google on this issue. The issues of wireless versus wireline get very messy...and that's really an FCC issue not a Google issue."

One of those confused people is the very Josh Silver, the executive director of Free Press, that has been spearheading this critque of Google before the facts. Friday, on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, Josh Silver said:

So if, let’s say, that your Verizon provider is blocking or slowing down traffic, and you don’t like it, you don’t really have a choice. That’s problem number one. Number two, you know, losing net neutrality then allows these companies to prioritize some traffic—video, say—and de-prioritize others, and then what effectively happens is the internet becomes like cable television, where Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable decide what’s fast, what’s—how much it costs, and who’s slow.

Eric Schmidt is right and Josh Silver shows that he doesn't understand the rights he seeks to defend. I have to support Schmidt and oppose Silver because I like watching Countdown on the Internet, on my own schedule and, for now, without commercials and if real-time data packets aren't given priority over say email packets, you can kiss applications that require data in real time, such as video and interactive games, goodbye.

This question of what 'net neutrality really involves is so important to the discussion that I want to break it down even more for the non-technical by way of analogy, so let's take a ride on Josh Silver's Railroad.

The railroad system is a lot like the Internet and I believe at one time there actually was a problem with the big RR barons making and breaking companies by favoring this ones freight over that ones. Hence the need for Railroad Neutrality. Now normally that would mean that every company's cars are treated the same, not that freight cars and passengers cars are given the same priority. Not So on Josh Silver's Railroad! In Josh Silver's brand of Railroad Neutrality all railroad cars are treated the same. Sometimes the coal cars have to wait days while the passenger cars go, sometimes the passengers have to wait days while the coal cars go and sometimes the milk spoils. Welcome to the Josh Silver Railroad.

As I said in a comment I posted on this question last week:

Google, along with Red Hat, and a few other large Open Source companies [along with Linux and other user groups, Open Source standards organizations and frankly too many community members to list here] have been fighting for open standards and freedom on the Internet, of which net neutrality is but a part, with the big proprietary software companies like Microsoft, hardware companies such as Intel and IBM and the telecoms for well over a decade. This has involved a lot of meetings, discussions, industry standards boards etc. These have all been 'secret' as far as the average Daily Kos reader has knowledge, but the Internet would already be a much more 'private' place without their intervention.

I was there and saw all. I started Linux Users, Los Angeles [LULA] in 1996 and was it's president for 8 years. In the late '90s I put Red Hat Linux on a hard drive and sold it as an easier to install version known as Linux On A Disk. I never paid Red Hat a dime for their software. Not only did Red Hat not sue me, they had no cause under the terms of the GPL, they recommended my product to customers that found their's too difficult to install, and when they went public they gave me a taste - they gave a lot of people in the community a taste [ as did Google, I might add, with their IPO ] in their "friends and family" program. Mandrake Soft, Novell SUSE, Calera and many others all use the Red Hat Package Management System [RPM] without charge. They all work co-operatively to develop their software and they share everything. When you can wrap your mind around this kind of business model you can begin to understand open source and the Google outlook.

Google entered talks with Verizon only after the courts ruled that the FCC could not enforce net neutrality. From TV Broadcast News:

The talks come after the FCC was stymied in its effort to reclassify broadband services as a common carrier, which would have given the commission more leeway in regulating how network operators conduct their business.

Do people here have a problem with Google fighting to establish net neutrality as an industry standard when the FCC is doing nothing?

I first met Google at the Linux Expo held at Duke U. and hosted by Red Hat Software in 1998. At the time Red Hat had 14 people and was looking to hire 20 more and Google was still two guys running a search engine from their dorm room.

From this close observer, I can tell you that the Open Source movement, including Google, has fought long and hard for a place at the table. It would seem that Google is now suspect for even sitting at the table.

Laid off Census Worker Demands a Recount!

I was a U.S. census worker from the end of January until the middle of June. Now I'm standing in the unemployment line. Only there's no line. In California you have to apply for unemployment on-line not in a line. If you are an ex-Fed, you can't apply on-line. You have to telephone. Nobody answers the phone.

I started calling July 6th. I would get the 5 minute message, followed by touch-tone choices, followed by, sorry we are too busy, try again later. No, that's not quite fair, "Please try again later." Last week the stock market went up as the government reported a drop in first time unemployment claims. Friday, I was finally able to get through and file a claim.

The 2010 U.S. Census put over a hundred thousand people to work at a time when we very much needed it. Now that is all done but jobs market is not looking any better. So, I say, let's take another look at those numbers. I don't think we counted everyone. In fact here in TNSOL town [Target Non-Sheltered Outdoor Locations - pronounced 'tinsel'], I know that many people were missed. So I think we should do it all again. In 2010, let's have what we wanted and should have had in 2000 & 2004. We Demand a Recount!

Recounts, They're not just for elections anymore!