DSL Prime: Policy

Policy debates resolve so little that we've left this to end, reporting the mistakes being made into law, and engineering ignorance at the highest levels in D.C.

by Dave Burstein of DSL Prime and Future of TV [February 28, 2008]

Policy at end
I'm sick and tired of "net neutrality" debates, which are almost always boring and predictable. Most DSL Prime readers are in the industry. They oppose open access because they believe government interference is likely to do more harm than good. That's a reasonable opinion, but the D.C. crowd goes beyond reasonable opinions to ridiculous mistakes worth correcting. Happy to catch up with people in D.C. Friday, ideally to talk about any other subject. I'll be in the iGrowthGlobal Capitol Hill Forum at the Rayburn House Office Building noon to 2 PM on Friday, February 29. db

In Boston Monday, true pioneers of the internet enlivened an FCC hearing on the most boring topic in our business, open access. David Clarke and David Reed collaborated on the 1984 paper that defined the end to end architecture of the Internet. Comcast's David Cohen could have offered the ideal solution: an upgraded network that's at least 12 times as fast as what they have now. The real issue is not some abstract notion of neutral bits whether every Internet user can do what she wants, not some abstract idea of neutral bits. If Comcast and Verizon offer a 20 megabits without degradation, HD TV gets through. If they offer 50 mbps, several channels of HD and almost everything else is fine. We still need to address issues of affordability and universal access, of course, and plan for the day when 50 meg isn't enough. We also need to make sure that crippling video competition in other forms is unacceptable.

The issue at hand, Comcast's traffic shaping, should be easy to resolve. Verizon confirmed Friday they don't shape or intend to, and AT&T tells similar to Om Malik. If Verizon doesn't need it, Tony Werner at Comcast can find a solution. He's a good engineer who has been directly involved with DOCSIS 3.0 for several years. Traffic shaping just doesn't save enough money to go to war, perhaps ten cents/month/subscriber. Verizon just confirmed don't shape traffic or expect to do so in the future. Everyone's fighting so hard because they are afraid of a bad precedent.

Verizon, AT&T: We Don't Use or Need Traffic Management
Honoring promise not to degrade
Tom Tauke of Verizon and Jim Cicconi of AT&T did a joint press conference almost two years ago. They both promised not degrade traffic to the Internet. Verizon VP Eric Rabe confirms this week, "We don't shape or degrade traffic. The only 'management' we do is to assure the network works for all users – spam control, efficient traffic routing, that sort of thing." An AT&T (T) spokesperson e-mailed Om Malik with "AT&T does not treat P2P traffic any differently than other Internet traffic."

Comcast Case: Please Begin With Facts
Million dollar attorneys making too many mistakes
"Some issues are neither right nor left, Dave," Kevin Martin advised a while back. Facts are facts, and should be supported with falsifiable data. For example, one big name lobbyist asserted at a recent panel that shaping was "necessary" for all carriers. In the next seat was a top exec of one of the world's largest networks, and he doesn't need to shape. AT&T was sitting a few feet over, and also finds traffic shaping unnecessary. The ten lawyers on his company's FCC brief made the same really dumb mistake. They should have replaced one of the lawyers with an engineer. Many of the filings on this case are astounding in how many errors they make. Millions of dollars spent on eloquent arguments wasted because the first premises are false.

Here's a few simple things I believe true. If you have any facts to the contrary, please send them over.

It is possible to run a large broadband network without traffic shaping like Comcast, because Verizon, AT&T, and Free.fr do it. A key Comcast claim in the FCC filing is that this is impossible. Source: Verizon SVP Tom Tauke, AT&T SVP Jim Cicconi, AT&T CEO testifying at the Senate, numerous technical sources.

Internet growth rates per subscriber are little changed for the last five years at 35 to 45 percent, not increasing or a crisis brought on by video. Source: Odlyzko's excellent MINTS page and Comcast's filing with the 40 percent number for 2007

Over that same period, the costs of delivering that bandwidth have gone down at a Moore's Law pace of 25 to 40 percent per year (switches, routers, etc.) The result is that the carrier's cost of bandwidth has been flat to down for five years. The total bandwidth cost is typically $1/month/customer. Multiple sources

It is possible to affordably build a network that virtually never seriously degrades even demanding applications like high quality web video. It's probably impossible to build a network that never degrades even in emergencies like 9/11 or Katrina. Evidence: Free.fr, Verizon FIOS, AT&T U-Verse, and my home DSL line do that today, by company claim and all reports I've found.

My conclusion, which allows one to be in favor or opposed to NN, is that neutral networks aren't free, but are practical at a definable price. I respect the opinion that getting the government involved could create even more problems. My opinion is grounded on my research that almost any likely scenario puts the maximum cost of upgrading to a neutral network less than $1/month/customer, and it's easy to project costs of a few dimes on a $30 to $50 per month service.

Corrections welcome. Special thanks to Eric Rabe of Verizon, Charlie Douglas at Comcast, and the folks at Free Press who made an extra effort to help me get the facts straight even when our opinions differed, including on the weekend.

Telecom, McCain, and Honest Politicians
Plus a quick look at Presidential candidates on broadband
The New York Times had a nasty piece on John McCain. It suggested he was influenced by Vicki Iseman, who "represented telecommunications companies ... whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led." I checked a list of her clients for familiar names. According to official records only one of about 40 companies she represented were in telecom. Many were broadcasters. The Senator did write one letter for a TV station owner, who provided a ride on a private jet for them to a fundraiser. Steve Labaton followed up with more favors McCain had done for businesses that supported him, and the Washington Post discovered broadcaster Bud Paxton contradicts McCain's story. The article is controversial because near the top they talk about a romantic relationship between the Senator and the lobbyist, but they offer no proof and the parties deny it. The Times "public editor," Clark Hoyt writes "if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."

The team later in the article wrote something worth correcting. "By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning 'soft money,' the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws." American politics are still desperately tainted by money, despite the well-intentioned bill. They have not been transformed. In California, where AT&T has just announced price increases from 20 percent to 100 percent on some services, both Republican Governor Schwarzenegger and Democratic leader Fabian Núñez have very substantial financial ties to AT&T. Democratic Congressman Elliott Engel's wife works for a telco-funded advocate, and Verizon is usually his largest contributor. These two Democrats and one Republican have often supported telco legislation that I believe is not good for their constituents. Contrary to popular belief, many politicians are honest, as are all the leaders I've met at the FCC. Unfortunately, far too many in the U.S. are for sale. The headline story this week is corruption in Asia, but I could supply a dozen examples from the U.S.. Take a look at Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush, whose voting pattern is consistent with the million dollars from AT&T to his foundation.

The U.S. candidates
McCain is a conservative Republican who generally votes in favor of the Bells. He has shown no depth in telecom issues over the years, often echoing the plausible but misleading positions of the lobbyists. I've no reason to suggest any corruption, because his votes on telecom are consistent with his pro-business beliefs.

Hillary Clinton is a liberal Democrat whose positions are generally pro-consumer but too often superficial. On broadband, she talks like the proverbial politician, making empty promises. Supporting funding for rural service sounds good, but the proposals she endorses would actually put money in telco pockets while doing little for the areas that do need support.

Barack Obama has consumer-friendly policies, with comments that suggest he has looked at the issues. Readers should know I personally strongly support Obama. I would also happily vote for Clinton, although the little I know suggests ambition too often overrides her beliefs.

Ralph Nader has long been a key supporter of the open internet. He received less than 1 percent of the vote in 2004 and will probably do no better this time.

My personal politics are Democrat and on the left.

Full Disclosure: Travel from telcos, contribution to Lessig
For the record, and a few opinions
Friday I'm joining a panel about Net Neutrality in D.C.. The sponsor, iGrowthGlobal, is covering my expenses, which will be New York train fare and a night in a D.C. hotel. The organization's major sponsors include Cisco, Verizon, and AT&T, about whom I often report. Some papers (I believe the NY Times included) have a policy against taking expenses. I, like most of the trade press, do accept expense money, and report it if substantial. This one is modest, but the money comes indirectly from companies I cover often.

I also contributed to the Congressional campaign of Stanford Professor Larry Lessig, one of the most intelligent and decent folks I've met in this business. He ultimately decided not to run, so the money will instead go to the fight against political corruption. Larry's books are required reading for anyone considering Internet and technology policy. I have, and will, report on his work and ideas. The contribution was $10, really just a note of encouragement. That's so little I usually wouldn't mention it, but political contributions by reporters are controversial in the business.

Advocacy by reporters is also an ethics question, with many opposed. I disagree and get involved when I feel strongly about an issue. Recently, I've shared information at length both publicly and privately on the subject of Net Neutrality and the current FreePress and Comcast issue. I'm also happy to share what I know with the people who disagree with me on the subject, and often have. Readers know my opinion is strongly in favor of open access. I believe all reporters have biases, especially those who claim they don't. Readers will have to judge whether I report based on the facts.

Copyright 2008 Dave Burstein.
The DSL Prime Newsletter is reprinted with permission.

"The power of the printing press belongs solely to those who own the presses"
—A.J. Leibling

The Internet is the cheapest printing press ever invented.