NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Have a Seat, Please! - Corporate Distortion 101: Net Neutrality Blogging Tactics
Have a Seat, Please! - Corporate Distortion 101:
Net Neutrality Blogging Tactics
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000794.html
Greetings class. Everyone settle down, please. Can we lower the
volume on the media players to a dull roar? OK, thanks.
Well, you'll recall that the original topic of today's discussion was
to be "How to fleece your telecom customers and have them begging you
for more."
But in light of today's FCC vote regarding net neutrality, I'm going
to switch topics for now, and explore something of equal value to all
you prospective communications tyrants. We'll see how to write a blog
posting that skillfully distorts issues in such a way that most
observers will never realize they're being manipulated with false
premises and misleading information.
Feel free to interrupt me with questions at any time, as usual!
Let's take a look at this slide -- those of you watching via the Web
can visit the URL for "FCC Net Neutrality Legislation Impact
On Procera" ( http://bit.ly/gzu9gu [Procera] ).
This is today's corporate blog entry from Procera Networks, a major
manufacturer of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) apparatus for ISPs.
Please read it over now.
OK, you all know what DPI is used for, right?
Well, Amy, I don't think it's entirely fair to call it simply
"spying." Yes, it can certainly be used to observe any data being
sent to or received from any site -- by any customer of an ISP -- when
that customer isn't using encryption.
Yes, Phil, I do know that some ISPs have expressed interest in using
DPI gear in abusive ways -- and some have actually already done so --
but it can have legitimate network management applications as well --
keep repeating that last part to yourself over and over until it's
second nature if anyone should ask.
Go ahead, Bob. Yes, I agree that if everyone was smart and encrypted
all their data DPI would be much less useful -- though there are still
traffic analysis and other tricks that can be played, but ... yes? ...
Well no, actually Procera probably used the wrong wording when they
said "Net Neutrality Legislation" -- it was an FCC vote not a
legislative package per se. But really now you're splitting hairs
Bob, most people don't know the difference, right? Remember, don't
tell customers more than they really need to know.
Now, most of the Procera blog entry is sort of bland boilerplate, but
I want to draw your particular attention to their paragraph
numbered (4). It's a true work of art to explore. Let's go over it
piece by piece, shall we?
4) Tiered Services are allowed - although allowing for tiered
services might be controversial, the positive outcomes of
tiered services should prevail. Service Providers can now
create lower cost plans to expand the reach of broadband to
those who cannot afford even the lowest cost plans available
today, while raising the price for users that consume high
volumes of data (and negatively affect the broadband experience
for other users).
OK, who wants to go first? Go ahead Steve. Correct, the wording
assumes that "positive outcomes should prevail" then proceeds to
ignore possible negative outcomes. What did I just say? Only
tell 'em what they need to know! There's a good example for you.
A little louder please, Ian? Right you are! The text suggests that
the FCC ruling now permits tiered services for financially
"disadvantaged" customers, but in reality there's been nothing
stopping any dominant ISP from creating low price services with
various limits right now. And of course this is already common --
though the main limiting factor in the U.S. is usually the maximum "up
to" speed promised, not the total amount of data that can be
transmitted or received -- but even the latter wasn't prohibited, and
various caps have already been present in some cases.
Would you repeat that please, Bill? Well, yes, that's "up to" speeds.
Yes, Bill, I know that most customers rarely see those speeds. You
think you're the only one? Do you know how long it's been since I've
actually gotten 10 Mb/sec from Time Warner, even though they promised
me 15 and are now advertising 20? That's why you always want to use
the term "up to" -- right?
Let's move on. Who can point out the real gem of "logical distortion"
that comes next?
Susie, go ahead. Bingo! That's it:
"... users that consume high volumes of data (and negatively
affect the broadband experience for other users)."
That's correct. Their statement is organically equating "high usage"
with "negatively impacting other users," and asserting that as a major
justification for higher prices. In other words, since it's unlikely
that an ISP would have a tier with higher prices only for higher
volume users who *actually* negatively impact other users, Procera has
skillfully framed the debate to imply that high volume always equals
negative impact on others!
Pretty slick, huh?
Yes, Jim. Go ahead. Well of course, ISPs themselves decide how much
capacity to provide at every level of their infrastructure, so they
have a free hand to determine all metrics. They define what "high
volume" is. They define what "negative impact" is, they decide how to
place and charge the tiers, they decide ...
Yes, Marcie. Definitely, the ISPs choose the bandwidth allocations.
But, well, let me explain it this way. You've seen how lately the
examples of "abusive" high volume Internet users we hear about more
from ISPs are just ordinary folks watching videos from the Net?
You've noticed that we hear less and less about Torrent "pirates"
chewing up bandwidth, and more casting of YouTube and such as the
villains? Why do you think that is?
What Bob? They hate Google? Well, nothing quite that simple. Yes,
Julie. You've got it! Content! That's the key. The dominant ISPs
are now big time content providers. Pretty soon after the Comcast/NBC
merger goes through they'll be major content producers too.
Now, say you're a giant ISP. You've spent decades and a fortune in
lobbying to leverage your original monopoly era franchises, and
suppressing effective large-scale competition -- even going so far as
pushing through laws to prohibit municipalities from setting up their
own public Internet access networks.
Do you want your customers watching movies from Netflix over the
Internet, or buying from your own pay-per-view and video-on-demand
systems where there's a direct profit center to you? Are you going to
sit by quietly while your subscribers spend all their time watching
free TV channels from the Net rather than subscribing to your lineup
of directly delivered channels?
Gene, go ahead. Right, you're going to structure your network so that
the bandwidth allocations, tiers, rates, caps, and everything else
will tend to push subscribers into buying content from you, rather
than from outside entities. It's just basic business sense, straight
off the ol' spreadsheet.
OK, let's move on to the last part of that Procera paragraph:
"This is no different than utility services in the US, such as
electricity and water utilities, that bill based on usage, and
there can be penalties for high usage during peak hours."
Yes, Dave. Yep, utilities like electric, water, and gas are
enterprises where customers are typically directly consuming physical
natural resources in direct proportion to how they're being billed.
But someone using twice the data as another user on the Internet
isn't, for example, using any more electricity in any realistically
measurable sense.
Steven ... well yes, certainly. Overall you need to spend more on
infrastructure and supporting functions as your customers use more
data. But much the same applies to traditional utility distribution
networks. And remember, for gas and water and such when subscribers
turn on the gas or the tap, they're consuming actual physical
resources. The more electricity people use the more generators you
need to run, and unless you're solar or hydro or some such your fuel
is gone forever. That's a pretty good justification for charging by
the unit for those resources. It's much harder to sensibly argue that
bits and bytes should be charged in the same "usage sensitive" manner,
as if they were physical items in limited supply.
Harold ... yes, that's a good point too. Traditional utilities don't
have the content conflict that drives the dominant ISPs. The gas
company by and large doesn't need to game the system to drive
customers toward ordering "value added" services from them rather than
from some outside firm. The utilities' overwhelming purpose is
transport, so distortions like "Netflix vs. ISP pay-per-view" simply
don't apply.
Look, we've got to wrap this up, but isn't there one major aspect of
Procera's utilities comparison that we've missed?
Larry -- exactly! At least in the U.S., the vast majority of
utilities are highly regulated! They usually can't willy-nilly decide
to raise rates, change services, make drastic infrastructure changes,
or much else without detailed formal approval processes involving
government, consumers, sometimes public hearings, and so on. Their
charges, rates, and profit levels are often specifically mandated by
law.
But any kind of real regulation, no matter how trivial, is exactly
what the dominant ISPs and the anti-net-neutrality forces at large
have been fighting hardest to prevent. So for Procera to invoke a
utilities comparison as they have, takes a lot of chutzpah indeed.
And that's what makes their blog posting today such a gem for you all
to emulate in the future.
OK, remember -- closed network quiz on Thursday. Next week we'll
cover DMCA financial exploitation techniques.
Class dismissed.
- - -
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz