Think of what you’re saying.
You can get it wrong and still you think that it’s alright.
Think of what I’m saying,
We can work it out and get it straight, or say good night.
We can work it out,
We can work it out.
The Beatles, 1965

The Wall Street Journal reports that BitTorrent and Comcast are discussing greater use of “smart” networking techniques to speed data, including BitTorrent data, across Comcast’s network.

Over at PaidContent, the news is even more interesting, as BitTorrent claims the cable company has agreed to network management that “will be protocol agnostic & disclosed to consumers….”

This is good news:

First, it’s more evidence that the best way to keep the Internet open and affordable for all is through consumer demand, the public spotlight and a watchful FCC.

Second, BitTorrent’s explicit recognition about the need for smart networks totally undercuts the manufactured hue and cry by the Net Neutrality folks. And it discredits the idea that the “solution” for the surging increase in online data is merely to expand bandwidth.

Remember, Japanese consumers may have 100 mps pipes but P2P still clogs their networks. Under the “dumb pipe” system of Net Neutrality, who’d wind up paying for the largest online users? Answer: Everyone else.

At a Congressional hearing on Net Neutrality back in 2006, proponents couldn’t get their answers straight when asked to define the concept. Two years later, evidently not much has changed:

Jonathan Rintels writes this week at SaveTheInternet that Net Neutrality is “a requirement that broadband Internet consumers be permitted to access the lawful content of their choice.” We agree. But if that’s the definition, then this Net Neutrality fight is over since consumers already have that right.

Google blogged a different approach recently, saying that prioritizing some types of traffic over others is completely consistent with Net Neutrality – a comment at odds with the “all data is equal” crowd. Though it’s correct about that, Google’s problem is its position that Net users, not the company, should pick up the tab for the new pipes that need to be built to handle its video content.

Then there’s Net Neutrality advocate Susan Crawford, who testified on the Hill last week. She’s argued that content-based regulation couldn’t be done without “a heavy handed regulator.” (She’s right.) So that’s why Net Neutrality requires government policies “separating transport from other activities, and separating access from backbone and backhaul transport….”

Net Neutrality advocates can help clear up the confusion by acknowledging at least this: Writing the regulations that would govern how data traffic travels across the Internet will give an army of Washington lawyers and lobbyists a lifetime guarantee of full employment.

The Internet’s sharks are not only still in the ocean, they’re getting a lot closer to shore. According to Thursday’s Washington Post:

Approximately 5.5 million malicious software programs were unleashed on the Web last year, according to AV Test Labs, a German company that measures how quickly and accurately anti-virus products detect the latest malicious software…. That volume, AV said, forced anti-virus firms to analyze between 15,000 and 20,000 new specimens each day — more than four times the daily average they found in 2006, and at least 15 times as many the company recorded in 2005. In the first two months of 2008 alone, AV Test found more than one million samples of malware spreading online.

“Back in 1990 we were seeing a handful of new viruses each week,” said David Perry, global director of education for Trend Micro, an anti-virus company headquartered in Japan. “Now, we’re having to analyze between 2,000 and 3,000 new viruses per hour.”

Much of this is coming from organized gangs outside the U.S. stealing passwords, credit card numbers and other financial information from unsuspecting Net users.

And speaking of illegal behavior, Paul Sweeting at ContentAgenda reports that FCC Jonathan Adelstein said this week that Net Neutrality would not cover illegal behavior online, including copyright infringement and illegal P2P sharing.

So here’s the latest version of the question that Net Neutrality advocates refuse to face: With Net Neutrality pushing a “dumb network” regulatory structure over the web, just how are network engineers supposed to keep up with exploding challenges from viruses, malware, and other illegal behavior?

Chalk one up for common sense.

At last week’s Internet Video Policy Symposium in DC, Cowen & Co.’s Arnie Berman offered a sharp response to the claim that Net Neutrality would put a “toll booth” on the Internet. According to press reports, Berman noted that video data on the web is like a bus that’s three lanes wide. So to handle all this traffic – and remember that last December, 140+ million U.S. Internet users watched more than 10 billion online videos – you’d need highways that are 30 lanes wide.

Earth to Google: Care to explain how Net Neutrality helps us fund all that?

A recent Denver Post editorial discusses the two sides of the Net Neutrality battle that is returning to Capitol Hill. Citing “a legitimate need [for service providers] to modulate traffic during peak hours,” the Op-Ed urges caution in backing the “stalking horse” legislation proposed by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., as it would restrictively dictate “how service providers are to manage traffic”:

We think a delicate balancing of the interests [of service providers and Net neutrality proponents] is the best course. Congress ought to create a venue for redress if users feel they’ve been unfairly put in the Internet “slow lane.”

But go too far in taking away providers’ ability to shape traffic and tier pricing and you risk removing the economic incentive for capacity expansion.

The evolving nature of the Internet and the potential it has as an economic platform and venue for exchange of ideas must be protected. But it would be foolhardy to tamper too much with the economic structure that has driven its growth.

What follows is an excerpt of remarks from Dan Glickman, chairman & CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, at ShoWest on March 11, 2008:

No one here needs a lecture on what happens when one illegal copy makes its way to the Internet — God forbid on opening weekend — and is instantly available to the world. Today, new tools are emerging that allow us to work with Internet Service Providers to prevent this illegal activity. And, new efforts are emerging in Washington to stop this essential progress.

This effort is being called by its proponents “net neutrality.” It’s a clever name. But at the end of the day, there’s nothing neutral about this for our customers or for our ability to make great movies—blockbuster first-run films—in the future. If Washington had truth in labeling, we’d call this proposal by another name: Government regulation of the Internet.

Government regulation of the Internet would impede our ability to respond to consumers in innovative ways, and it would impair the ability of broadband providers to address the serious and rampant piracy problems occurring over their networks today.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Task Force held a hearing on “Net Neutrality and free speech on the Internet.” The following response may be attributed to Christopher Wolf and Mike McCurry, co-chairs of the Hands Off the Internet coalition (HandsOff.org):

“Free speech is best protected through an unregulated Internet; an Internet where speech and ideas flow freely but also an Internet where more people can join the conversation.

“As we’ve noted before, Net Neutrality stops progress that makes Internet access widespread and affordable. When big companies like Amazon and Google try to push all of the costs to upgrade the Internet onto ordinary consumers the end result is whole classes of people will lose their voice on the Internet.”

The Hands Off the Internet coalition is a Washington, DC-based coalition of companies and nonprofit organizations that believes the Internet has flourished because government has not tried to regulate it. Members include Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, Qwest, 3M, the National Association of Manufacturers, FiberControl, and Cinergy Communications. Nonprofit members include Citizens Against Government Waste, the American Conservative Union and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.