Google vs. neutrality, part 3

[nerd stuff, bear with me]

Richard Bennett points out that Google has applied for a patent on QoS, which for non-techies means a way of making sure certain Internet traffic has priority over other traffic. Seems to be the precise opposite of net neutrality, no?

The present invention provides efficient and effective quality of service for information that is time sensitive (e.g., real time data) [...]

In one embodiment of the present invention time sensitive information is cut through routed on a virtual channel and pre-empts non time sensitive information.

Interesting: information that "pre-empts" and "cuts through". I wonder whose traffic they intend to give this sort of priority treatment?

Google has no interest in neutrality of any sort, be it on the content level or the physical network. By cynically backing net neutrality regulation, they hope to subdue potential competitors through force of government. At the same time, they work to build advantages that are theirs alone.

If you believe that net neutrality is in some way a noble or progressive concept, take some time to understand the goals of its biggest proponents.

----

As much as I love to bash Google's hypocrisy, I support their right to develop any and all technology that gives them advantage. They understand the technical advantages of being able to prioritize traffic. The best way to tune this priority is to let folks pay for it to the extent they believe it important.

You might recognize this as "the market". In the real world, the market ain't neutral. It makes real decisions, all day, every day, to express the pluralistic will(s) of the people. The result is wealth and freedom for more people than any other system, plus an extraordinary ability to adapt to changes.

I'd like a similar wealth and dynamism on our networks. In the same way that socialism helps to ensure a roughly equal level of poverty across a society, network neutrality promises a similar stasis for the Internet. I think we can do better.

Comments

[Kevin]

You needn't wonder whose traffic gets priority treatment. Since Google is neither an ISP nor a carrier of any kind, it's implementation of QoS won't affect anybody at all.

But even if it would, the questions you raise make no sense when looked at on a network.

Time-sensitive traffic is stuff like phone calls and video conferencing. If the packets are delayed the users' experience will be degraded noticeably.

Non-time-sensitive traffic is stuff like downloading this web page. If a Vonage packet, or several or a hundred, "preempted" or "cut through" the packets that transported the web page you are viewing right now, you would never have noticed it.

See, it's really not evil.

Now, the telcos - doesn't at least Ed Whitacre say Google is getting a free ride and ATT should be able to charge Google? I don't know what that is but it's not QoS.

Kevin

[Bo]

If Google gets this patent, can they sue ISPs for patent infringement if the ISPs violate net neutrality? That may be the point.

[mark]

No offense, but I was looking through your blog and I thought you said somewhere you were a computer professional. Now if you are you either don't know much about networking/the internet, or like most Republicans are willing to lie (or at least ignore the truth) whenever necessary to support your party.

If you have a home network, many routers and switches allow you to use QoS as well. That would be useful for VoIP like Vonage or if you play multiplayer games a lot. They don't influence get any special advantage outside your own network, but the router will treat it as a priority. By that logic if I did that, I would be doing the same as AT&T wants to do! Doing something with my internal network isn't the same as changing the way the whole internet operates.

Net neutrality is more like the first amendment than wealthy redistribution. Anyone can pay for more bandwidth, and of course people will choose which sites become popular or not. In fact, what the telcos want is more like communism than net neutrality, some outside authority choosing who gets to be seen and heard and who doesn't.

[RAN]

"You might recognize this as 'the market'. In the real world, the market ain't neutral. It makes real decisions, all day, every day, to express the pluralistic will(s) of the people. The result is wealth and freedom for more people than any other system, plus an extraordinary ability to adapt to changes." I will not be as hostile as those who posted above me simply because I think it stifles dialogue. My area of concentration in college was theoretical economics, which simply is a double major in economics and philosophy. I have worked as an economist and am now studying intellectual property law. I stumbled upon your blog and read some of the articles. I can't help but feel you have more of a dogmatic stance on economics than an understanding of it. The passage above is a good example. Though it starts out being somewhat true, the statement of it being an expression of wills is so out there that it makes me wonder where on earth it came from. I suppose that "the market" could be a pluralistic expression of folks, however, it ignores almost all research concerning market mechanics and seems to assume that "the market" is a place of unfettered exchange. I don't know, I just thought I would point that out. Seeing as that you seem to be very interested in the subject, you should research that particular concept more. Beyond Mankiw and Friedman, you should probably try to read Schumpeter and Veblen. The calculation debate is also useful to understand "the market." I suppose the last area I would point you to is game theory, which I personally find to be a great deal of fun when used to flesh out economic theories and "laws." Well, enough of that rant.