It’s summertime, and the living is easy, even if it is 90 degrees outside. While things are going slow in Washington, we thought we’d take this Friday afternoon to do something a little different. Okay, a LOT different.

How about a telecommunications-related maze? We admit the connection to the debate over Internet regulation in this post is a bit of a stretch. But who doesn’t like mazes? And to make this post at least a little thematically consistent, picture yourself in the square box in the middle, in the present-day Internet world with still-too-slow load times and constant buffering of streaming video. On the outside is a world of dedicated fiber to handle a still largely-unimagined future of web access.

So what are you waiting for?

Has Jeff Pulver been mugged by reality?� �

� �

In a recent New York Times article, he admitted that that traffic over the Internet is expanding beyond the ability of networks to handle it.� He told The Times, “There are times during peak traffic times — assuming that the carrier isn’t deprioritizing traffic — when quality of service could help if the network is congested.”�

� �

Exactly.� While the Oliver Stone-types in the blogging community see a conspiracy, the obvious fact of prioritizing traffic is to create a better online experience.� There’s little harm if an email is delayed two seconds.� But there’s a major harm when streaming data from a medical procedure in Bad Axe, Michigan gets bottled up on its way to a specialist 500 miles away.�

� �

Thankfully, Pulver seems to have seen the light.� Unfortunately, many others in his former camp still think that the best way to grow bandwidth is by having the Feds regulate it.�

� �

As Steve Tyler used to sing, “Dream on… dream until your dreams come true.”�

“A never-ending challenge.”

That’s how Vint Cerf recently described the mission of educating Congress on the need for new Internet regulations. He asked rhetorically, “Do you write to the ones who get it or the ones who don’t get it?”

What’s ironic about this comment is that those pushing so-called Net neutrality keep insisting that their goal is a “light touch” of federal regulation. They deny that this effort will start a lobbying free-for-all that threatens the Net’s traditional openness.

But let’s remember that the tax code was originally a “light touch” of regulation. Then lawmakers discovered reasons to keep rewriting the rules until the code became thicker than the New York City phone book. Pretty soon, individuals and corporations weren’t making financial decisions without first clearing them through an accountant or tax attorney.

Not a pretty future for the Internet, is it?

At ZD Net, Tom Foremski asks a very interesting question:

I would love to know how much Internet bandwidth is used by the swarms of spiderbots? Because if bandwidth costs are going to go up, as the telco/cable last mile owners charge third parties for bandwidth, then the spiderbots might get banned.

Spiderbots eat up a huge amount of bandwidth, and if bandwidth gets more expensive, the spiderbots are going to suffer. For example, I get 5 per cent of my traffic from more than 18 spiderbots. They use up about one-third of my bandwidth.

That’s a key reason why Google, Yahoo and others, are pushing for net neutrality–equal access to bandwidth–at least the last mile pipe to the home, the most important pipe. If companies are going to have to pay extra to the telcos or cable companies for bandwidth to reach their users, they might not be so pleased to be paying for the bandwidth of the spiderbots.

In other words, it’s no surprise that Google, Yahoo and Microsoft — the search engine behemoths — are asking for special protection from the government. If they can avoid paying for the bandwith they use, they certainly will. And who gets stuck paying for the Internet usage of these large, wealthy companies? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a network engineer) to figure out that the ones paying for it will be the rest of us.

We can’t let this one go.� Monday’s Center for American Progress debate between Vint Cerf and Dave Farber put in neon lights one of the inherent problems with regulating so-called Net neutrality.

Specifically, federal regulations on data treatment will inevitably forestall technology’s advance:

“Network architecture may be subject to dramatic change in the next five to 10 years,” said Farber in the debate.� “Whatever we do, we have to be sure that we don’t prejudge the path technology takes.”

He also added some important context to the current lobby campaign:

“When the government starts putting its finger in the Internet pie, it’s almost irresistible for the Congress to continue to stretch that.� [I see a future where] it’s going to be very hard to keep away from that slippery slope.� It’s a different type of threat but based on past performance, it’s a rational threat.”

It wasn’t quite Ali vs. Frazier. Still, this week’s debate between the Internet’s “Father” and “Grandfather” showed why new federal regulations on the Internet are so inimical to the Net’s future.

Start with the debate introductions. After noting Google executive Vint Cerf’s credentials, the moderator introduced him as representing Google. No, Cerf corrected. He was here “representing Internet users.” (He didn’t mention whether he was representing the world’s 1+ billion Net users or just the 100+ million U.S. users.)

A cynic might ask, on whose side would Cerf lobby if Net users’ interests and Google’s interests diverged?

Seriously, as Dave Farber quickly pointed out, this posturing will lead to exactly the kinds of regulatory problems and disincentives the country faced during the 1990s.

“The unbundling nightmares of the `90s was a good example of [regulators] getting bogged down,” he said. “Regulatory mechanisms become a part of [a company’s] competitive edge.”

He added, “We’re in a rapidly changing world of both application and technology. The FCC is often used [by companies] as a weapon [against other companies].” If you don’t like a regulation because it gives away too much to your opponents, you just file a lawsuit, he said.

“To have Congress pass hazy laws and then expect regulators [to implement them] is probably expecting too much.”

Incidentally, a tip of the hat goes to the Center for American Progress for hosting the event.

More soon….

America’s rapidly falling ranking among the world’s countries in high-speed Internet deployment is well documented – we’re now in 16th place according to a letter to Capitol Hill from CWA president Larry Cohen.

As Cohen notes, broadband deployment in rural communities is particularly urgent. That’s why this editorial from the Omaha World Herald is a breath of fresh air from the heartland:

“If net-neutrality legislation were to pass in its current form, the creation of a more robust Internet architecture would be stymied. Rural interests have rightly expressed concern in Congress that adoption of net-neutrality ideas could undercut efforts to improve telecommunications services in rural areas.”

Granted, there’s a danger that a single monopoly provider may abuse the public trust. But as we’ve documented, existing laws already offer substantial protection.

The far greater danger for rural residents is the lack of choice that comes with only one Internet provider. On this, the World Herald is clear:

“Building a stronger Internet in response to consumers’ demand cannot be achieved without adequate financial incentives for the private-sector firms that own the network. That reality needs to be recognized if America is to see the Internet continue to grow and reach its full potential.”