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.

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.

Below is the letter sent to the FCC today by the Hands Off the Internet coalition:

November 7, 2007

The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
The Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Re: Request for FCC Review of Comcast actions involving BitTorrent

Dear Mr. Chairman:

During your tenure as FCC chairman, you have supported the free market over government regulation as the best way to preserve free expression and speech while also bringing new benefits to Internet users.

The Hands Off the Internet coalition has supported this view, as we believe it is consistent with America’s traditional “light regulatory touch” Internet policies that have enjoyed strong bipartisan support for more than a decade.

As you know, the cornerstones of today’s open Internet are the four principles embedded in the FCC’s August 2005 net neutrality policy statement:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

These principles are the necessary safety net to protect consumers and the openness and freedom of the Internet.
(more…)

Now this is timely news:

Operators who infected more than 15 million computers with destructive, intrusive spyware will give up $330,000 in ill-gotten gains from their venture to settle FTC charges that their scam violated federal law.
–Federal Trade Commission News Release, October 1, 2007

For those keeping track, October is “National Cyber Security Awareness Month” and anyone who wants some truly sobering news about the web should consider this:

• The global market for cyber crime, including botnets, phishing, spyware and other attacks, is $100+ billion – more than drug trafficking. (Source: Department of Homeland Security)
• From October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (U.S.-CERT) handled 37,006 incidents, compared with 23,993 the previous year. (Source: U.S.-CERT)
• According to a report released Tuesday by the Georgia Tech Information Security Center, online videos are the newest threat to your PC, as hackers use spyware embedded in streaming video to steal your information. (You can download the report in PDF here.)

All of this serves two functions. First it’s a reminder of the evolving threats to Net users. As the Georgia Tech report states, “[T]he battlefield will become increasingly anonymous and decentralized, making traditional security approaches less effective.”

Second, it shows the full-blown foolishness of net neutrality’s notion that the federal government should oversee Internet technology. With the constantly changing threats, consumers need the latest in end-to-end network protection. Period.

Net Neutrality threatens to seriously impede the adoption of more secure network technology. The result: Less security online. More regulatory expenses passed along to net users.

If there’s an award for the dumbest historical reference of the week, it would surely go to The Seattle Times for its editorial in favor of net neutrality, “Free the Internet.” It begins:

Democracy is meaningless without structure. It requires support and infrastructure to become a word capable of giving entire nations voice and freedom.

The architects of America’s democracy knew this. The Founding Fathers made sure newspapers and magazines were widely distributed by allowing periodicals to utilize low postage rates.

Come again? Saying that the Founding Fathers encouraged newspapers by allowing them to “utilize” low postage rates is like saying that the USC Trojans are undefeated because the players are encouraged to wear cleats.

The obvious irony, no doubt lost on The Seattle Times editorial board, is that the Founding Fathers truly protected newspapers by prohibiting Congress from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Yet The Times’ editorial is actually a cri de coeur for a law giving federal regulators and judges the ultimate say over today’s Internet.

The editorial gets even better: “Constructive regulation is needed to allow the Internet to grow and mature.” Really? For more than a decade, the Net has grown rather nicely without a lot of “constructive regulation” so it seems odd that the editorial doesn’t even offer a reason. Here’s a wild guess why: The deafening silence is The Seattle Times’ admission that there is not a single problem facing net users today that could be resolved with net neutrality.

Finally, the comment that “there is nothing stopping” a carrier from “degrading content from competitors” is an eye-roller given all the antitrust and other laws protecting Net users from online discrimination. For more on this, click here [PDF].

On one point, we do agree with The Seattle Times: The Net requires “support and infrastructure.” Our view is that this should be a shared responsibility involving individual and large corporate users. The Times would exempt the corporations through net neutrality and put the costs entirely on Net users.

That’s their right of course, but it seems an odd way to claim that you’re on the side of the little guy.