Vint Cerf on Net Neutrality

[herzogsbuick]

Dr. Cerf, I disagree with your approach: without legislation to either define or subsidize a bad business model, it won't persist.

So what if we have even several years of companies trying out the proposals of the exchanges, if it's bad and decreases accesibility they will lose money and revert. Contrast this, to submitting a bill to Congress, that can have god-knows-what attached and hidden etc etc...the approach is like trying to cool a stove with your face. Just let it cool down I say.

[hyperseauton]

The Architect (from the Matrix and in real life)!

[brentpieczynski]

He did seem to communicate that Google isn't large enough at this time, to take over the entire-Internet. Which is by my inference an active avoidance of those, future plans of Google, with some people might interpreting this as a lie by omission.

[mvp111MCA]

so far it s cool but i know that net will definitely be like your phone..you pay for any site beause the hungry capitalist can not leave this free for ever...let us enjoy now ....though i am afraid they already blocking p2p sharing ending my RIGHT to KNOW

[KlaxonCow]

The biggest pragmatic problem I see is the creation of an unequal Internet.

America would actually be badly shooting itself in the foot. It would actually be willingly making itself uncompetitive in a global market.

What I mean is, if the American Congress removes Net Neutrality, then they only have legal jurisdiction over America. It'd be an American law, only applying to America.

This is not just a legal triviality, because it has pragmatic ramifications.

[KlaxonCow]

As we're on this site, let's take it as an example.

YouTube streams videos. This is an application that requires high bandwidth. It is driving yet another "revolution" on the Internet.

But it was started by two guys - Chad and Steve - in a garage.

If Net Neutrality wasn't around when YouTube was founded, then, simply, it very likely just wouldn't have happened at all.

[KlaxonCow]

At least, not in America.

Because here's the REAL concern.

American start up businesses, like Chad and Steve putting together YouTube, would have to pay vastly more than anyone else in the world to get the high bandwidth "premium service" needed for their service.

They'd have to get "permission" from all the ISPs and probably pay each of them for that privilege.

[KlaxonCow]

Meanwhile, over in Norway, two guys - Bjorn and Sven - have the exact same idea as Chad and Steve. They're also just a start up running out of a garage.

But they don't have to get any "permission" or pay any fees to start up their YouTube-alike.

They hit the market first. They establish themselves first. Sorry, but they win. Easily.

America's an important market, of course, at 300 million people who are "rich" in global terms.

[KlaxonCow]

America's an important market, of course, at 300 million people who are "rich" in global terms.

But, well, there's vastly more people outside America, than in it. You know, 6 billion or so people.

The American economy is vast. But the combined non-American economy is far vaster.

Will non-American businesses be prepared to put up with the crippling and the costs?

Well, some will. But others won't (and for small start ups, possibly just can't).

[KlaxonCow]

Then you create a divided 'Net, where the world starts leaving America out. Avoids America. Excludes America.

When the rest of the world can deal with each other at high bandwidth, with no red tape nor "permission" nor additional costs, but there's this "crippled", expensive island - America - sitting in the middle of the Internet, it makes doing business with America difficult.

And that works both ways as it'll be more difficult for America to do business with the rest of the world too.

[KlaxonCow]

The bleeding edge of new technologies will, therefore, start happening outside America.

The jobs and finest brains will drain out of America, because the bleeding edge is happening elsewhere and that's where they'll follow.

With the Internet already a potent economic force and it can only become more so, to start to lose business, lose the bleeding edge, be "crippled", have additional costs that no-one else pays, then America will gradually fall behind in this crucial global market.

[KlaxonCow]

I mean, the American economy is already not exactly having its finest day. To hit it with this would be a form of economic and technological suicide.

As no-one would understand better than Vint Cerf, the Internet is essentially a gigantic "peer to peer" network.

If some "peers" choose to cripple themselves (the American part of the Internet), this has no effect on the "peers" who don't and communicate directly with each other.

[KlaxonCow]

Indeed, these "backward" peers would prove to be an annoying and expensive hindrance to passing the bits around for the 'Net as a whole. Expect America to be increasingly "re-routed" around, wherever possible.

And this is just the simple "architecture" pragmatics of removing Net Neutrality, without yet even mentioning the impact it'd have on freedom of speech, censorship, destruction of consumer choice, the division of the global 'Net into effectively ISP "intranet" islands, etc.

[KlaxonCow]

It's purposefully shooting yourself in the foot. It's deliberately choosing to be uncompetitive and backward in a global market.

It's just pure, pure, pure unadulterated insanity.

[saltjoe]

Also, notice he chose his words carefully: "Sounds As If".

Oh, how Vint & Bob Kahn (anti-NN) have parted ways since ARPA. With the latter stays true to himself & CNRI, a non profit for the advancement of internet infrastructure.

[Xaves511]

Well said, Greg Solomon.

[burnvictim77]

Hmmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google gives preference to websearch results for sites who PAY THEM MORE for special priveleges?

[chievres]

Net neutrality will only involve more Government regulation. Government regulation of the telecomms industry is already the main reason the US lags behind South Korea and other countries in Internet services and infrastructure. It's competition that improves access and services to customers, not Government intervention! If we do away with the legal constraints we already have on what services communications companies are allowed to provide, Internet neutrality becomes a moot point.

[tooltalk]

I'm not sure if South Korea model really applies here; for the gov't of Korean heavily subsidies all things electronics, be it cell phones, broadband, etc (actually their whole economy). The South Korean model, while looking like a success model, is not something you can emulate here (or elsewhere). Just ask development economists.

[GringaBonita]

Save THE INTERNET.

[Cronyx]

Why isn't this getting more views? This is really important shit.

[tamangandapio]

Class!