The following text is
copyright 2006 by Network World, permission is hearby given for reproduction,
as long as attribution is given and this notice is included.
Blocking the power of the
Internet
By Scott Bradner
The Internet succeeded because no one in the traditional
telecommunications industry believed in its underlying technology or its design
philosophy. They still do not, but
are being backed into a corner and in response are trying to change the
Internet into something that they can better control.
Executives from AT&T, which was the US
telecommunications industry at the time, were present at the first major demo
of the ARPANET in 1972. The
ARPANET, like its successor the Internet, was a connectionless packet-based
network -- a technology that few in AT&T believed would ever be useful.
According to Ethernet developer Bob Metcalfe, the executives were pleased when
the demo crashed. Two years later
AT&T turned down the offer to run the same ARPANET. A few years later the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), one
of the major standards development organizations for the traditional telephone
industry, turned down a formal offer to adopt TCP/IP as basis for future
telecommunications.
AT&T was happy to sell wires to the silly geeks building
these packet-based networks but saw no future in such technology. This attitude meant that the
Internet was left alone by the telecommunications industry. It was also largely left alone by US
regulators until quite recently.
This neglect meant that developers were free to experiment with new
applications over the Internet. There
was no carrier telling the user what applications they could or could not run,
no carrier that you had to get permission from before you were able to deploy a
new Internet-based service. The
Internet was just a collection of wires, most of which were bought from the
telephone companies by Internet service providers (ISPs) who paid what the
telephone companies determined was a reasonable fee for use of the wires. The cost of the wire did not depend on
what Internet services were running over the wire just like the cost of your
car does not depend on who you were going to transport in it. ISP customers paid the phone companies
for the wires and paid ISPs for Internet service based on the size of the wire
they were using -- everything was simple.
But some of the telephone companies now want to change
this. They want to charge Google
and others to send packets to you.
The fact that you have already paid for the wire and the Internet
service that Google is using to send those packets is ignored. The phone companies currently say that
they want to let Google pay more to make Google's packets get to you
"better" but this is the blunt end of the camel well into the
tent.
The only way for the telephone company to get Google to
agree to pay again for what their customers have already paid for is to
threaten, directly or indirectly, that if Google does not pay their packets
will not get to their customers.
It's a very small step for the telephone company to refuse to transport,
or to badly impair traffic from companies or people that have not paid the
phone company an extra fee.
It would be rather hard to innovate under these rules.
In most situations this is called extortion but the phone
companies are asking us to believe that it's a service improvement.
disclaimer:
Extortion is not a normal Harvard course topic (as far as I can tell) so
the above view is my own.