Ross Mayfield's Weblog

Protect the Internet Bill

Instead of constantly playing defense against congress, we should pass a Protect the Internet Bill.

SOPA and PIPA are very dangerous symptoms of an underlying problem. Powerful embedded interests from the entertainment to the telecom lobby will continue to introduce legislation that threatens the net. Congress will continue to be driven by these interests and their technical illiteracy will only make it worse.

While I can dream about a Protect the Internet Bill that would build upon the Framer's intent for Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly -- a modern legal framework to support our basic right to connect would overreach.

Instead, I would build upon the US State Department's recognition of the role the internet plays for freedom and development of civil society. A bill that seeks enshrine Net Freedom as our National Interest, which begins at home. 

A bill that says congress shall pass no law disrupting the fundamental technical underpinnings of the net. That's it. 

By going on offense to introduce a bill that defines the technical boundaries of regulation, By going on offense, we reduce political risk to unleash further growth not only of net freedom around the world, but jobs at home. By going on offense, we can raise the net literacy of congress, beyond a series of tubes.

Net Neutrality was a great example of going on offense (albeit, when we were on our heels). Let's start again with more basic protection of today's net.

Remaindered links:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/internet-inventors-warn-against-sopa-and-pipa
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/netfreedom/index.htmhttp://americancensorship.org/

The Network Core Wants You

New research from Andrew Odlyzko, perhaps the best source on these matters, reveals that the net isn't getting overloaded with torrents and non-neutral applications, but instead is growing sustainably.  If not below its potential.  Andrew suggests that carriers move to stimulate demand:

"...there is not a single sign of an unmanageable flood of traffic. If anything, a slowdown is visible more than a speedup. This suggests that the industry might benefit from shifting its emphasis towards methods of stimulating traffic growth."

In fact, the 2007-2008 growth numbers are some of the weakest in recent memory. While growth remains healthy at around 50 percent a year, growth rates are dropping in many places. Overall, the most recent growth rate is the lost since 2003...

"Now, annual traffic growth rates of 50 percent, when combined with cost declines on the order of 33 percent, result in no net increase in costs to provide the increased transmission capacity," he wrote for Internet Evolution. "In a competitive environment, that means no increase in revenues, which is hardly a cheering prospect for the industry. If traffic growth could be pushed back towards 100 percent, where it used to be for many years, we would have pressure for increased revenues, and also for new technologies."

I find this fascinating because it is the opposite of what I've been hearing lately.  At least from carriers.

Nate Anderson of ArsElectronica righly points out that the choke point is the local loop for most carriers.  Is the reason carriers want to break Net Neutrality is to seek a subsidy to build their local infrastructure?  Or just a subsidy in general...