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

Crown Hall By Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Let me preface this by saying I want the next touchscreen phone, camera, video player, Swiss-army knife as much as the next guy (maybe more, I don’t like the one I have). But for the past I don’t know how long, simplicity has been a rallying cry expertly advocated by John Maeda in his book  The Laws of Simplicity. These rules are embodied in numerous web apps 37 Signals wonderful Basecamp, Twitter, Flickr, and thousands of others. They intentionally limit the offerings of the program, instead continually evolving and improving their chosen set of features. So far this ethos clearly hasn’t moved into the featuritis driven desktop software market, I’m looking at you Adobe.

I think it’s safe to say that the old Mies Van Der Rohe truism “less is more” has never really applied to technology products. Much like in software the common competitive strategy has been adding more features to an existing product to one-up your competitors. But if you look around there seems to be some hints at change in places like the netbook world. For the unacquainted netbooks are less powerful smaller laptops, not because they are the low-end cheap versions of their more powerful cousins, but because they have a different utility. The mode of thought that produced the netbook said that the majority of laptop users only need a word processor/spreadsheet application, a browser for the internet and sometimes an email client. So what is important is internet access, portability and battery life, not processor power. The major front runners compete on these basic attributes. Simple. Along the same lines is the the Kindle (although is a back light too much to ask) and other book readers which focus on doing a better job of allowing you to read. Most recently is the Canon PowerShot G11 which unlike competitors, forgoes megapixel count for improving image quality.

Of course it makes sense for some products to do everything ion the world I like my phone being an Mp3 player and a camera it’s less to carry around with me. Then again perhaps a phone is no longer a phone, but a completely new device with a new feature set? I think the take away is, do what you do well and don’t offer additional features unless they are in themselves a full solution. I know that at the end of the day I prefer my eReader to be a better book, and I prefer my software to do a good job of what I purchased it for. I wouldn’t use a hammer instead of a saw to cut a piece of wood even though it’s capable.