This week has been full of exciting and inspiring energy news. I was first excited to see the 60 Minutes piece on the Bloom Box Bloom Energy Server, they publicly announced their product at a press conference earlier today. Bloom’s solution certainly seems like a viable part of the energy solution and already has major customers lending it credibility. Bloom is exciting and my plan was to write this post on them but then Bill Gates changed my mind.

The solutions wont come from ineffective legislation or meaningless UN conventions, it will come from someone’s garage. We are on our own.

Bill Gates recently spoke at TED 2010, and like his last appearance it was incredibly interesting (although sans mosquitos). His talk revolves around the above equation, making the point that to stop climate change the result of the equation has to be zero. This simple equation creates a painfully clear picture of what has to happen, assuming you can handle basic arithmetic. There is a bigger message in this formula though, and it has been in part illustrated by the setting, and audience of the speech as well as this week’s announcement by Bloom Energy. We no longer live in the time of the Manhattan Project or the Space Race. The days of the government getting together with intellectuals and intrepidly solving the great problems of our day are over. Solutions wont come from ineffective legislation or meaningless UN conventions, it will come from someone’s garage. For various reasons there is nothing the government can really do about any part of the equation. Sure we can regulate consumption or services or energy and pollution, even population has been regulated, but none of these factors can truly be controlled by a government. In fact Gate’s point is that the only truly controllable part of the equation is CO2 per energy unit and this takes a new innovation, something sadly our government nor any other seems capable of spurring.

go to Bloom Energy

Partial map of the Internet based on the January 15, 2005 data found on opte.org

Today FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is giving an address at the Brookings Institution where he is expected to ask the FCC in October to turn the controversial “net neutrality” principles into formal rules. Net Neutrality has simultaneously been hailed as essential for democracy and the killer of the internet. The fact remains the because of the increasing importance of the internet no matter what your stance, net neutrality is one of the most important issues no one knows about. In light of this here’s a quick primer on Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality revolves around a the core principal of a neutral broadband network, a “network that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.” (Wikipedia: Network Neutrality) There are three proposed definitions or levels of Network neutrality:

• Absolute non-discrimination: No interference of any type for any reason.
• Limited discrimination without Quality of Service tiering: Mostly proposed by United States lawmakers this would allow interference as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.
• Limited discrimination and tiering: This approach allows higher fees for higher-quality service as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts.

So with that out of the way, why do we need it? The first and foremost concern is access and control of data. Advocates of Net Neutrality accuse cable and television companies of acting as Internet gatekeepers saying what sites will or wont run and how well. The implications of this are obvious the ability to control traffic allows these companies to filter out competitors, and presumably anything else they are told to. Opponents of Network Neutrality say that the cable providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance making rules about it unnecessary. This of course conflicts somewhat with the facts that Comcast has intentionally slowed P2P communications and others actively employ deep packet inspection to discriminate not only P2P but FTP usage and online games as well.

The next issue is the hampering of competition and innovation, an issue both sides argue but in different ways. Proponents argue that those who provide access to the Internet can decide who gets traffic and who doesn’t by controlling access, and conversely where you can go on the Internet, worse they could charge the owner of a site fees to guarantee access to their site. Additionally the companies can stifle innovation by sidelining competing services by denying access and bundling competing technologies. The argument is that Net Neutrality will ensure an even playing field where sites make it or don’t based on their own merit. Opponents say that with the continuing increase in web traffic they need to filter or at least tier the types of traffic to ensure good quality of service to everyone, arguments along this line go to the very structure underpinning the Internet. Companies furthermore they argue that they have invested billions in the infrastructure and, Network Neutrality will make these investments less profitable and they will be less willing to ensure good access or promote innovation.

One of the last major issues has to do with the effects of government regulation. There are valid fears about the legislature actually understanding the issues and implications at stake. For examples depending on how the legislation is worded it could preclude the filtering of spam. Additionally it is questionable whether the government has the ability to actually enforce any potential legislation.

Until we reach a future where Internet access is wireless and provided by the government like roads, we’re stuck with Comcast and their ilk. We don’t know where exactly we stand here. There is certainly more to the issue that what is presented here, and valid arguments on both sides of the issue. But we do know providers need to make a profit if they are to stick around, and they certainly have a motivation to filter traffic to make this happen, so we are erring in favor of Net Neutrality exactly hat kind and level is still up for debate. More so it’s shameful that there hasn’t been more coverage of this debate (if only we could get Kanye to say something). Access to the Internet is going to prove to be one of the planets most decisive issues in the near future.

OTHER RESOURCES:

Wikipedia
Save the Internet
A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users