Cute cartoon, but it’s totally inaccurate. Rather than go point-by-point on the misrepresentations, let’s just consider BoingBoing’s hypocrisy: this site is hosted on a CDN, Cloudfront. Thus, this cute denunciation of Internet “fast lanes” comes to us over an Internet fast lane.
Do the BoingBoingers even understand why this is funny.?
CDNs are more of a passive prioritization methodology while an ISP like Comcast uses active prioritization for their part of the network. CDNs are relatively competitive, cheap, etc. and accessible to small businesses that need them. As the small business grows, they can scale up as needed. CDNs are not an Internet “fast lane” as you suggest that slow other traffic down. Also, as I mentioned, CDNs are currently competitive and unlike the ISP duopoloies and oligopolies throughout the United States, there’s more competition within the CDN sphere coming down the road in the short, middle and long term as well.
I do have some concerns with behemoths like Comcast now getting into providing a CDN on their own network, however. I think Comcast would love to massively undercut the smaller competition (cheaper to put a CDN on your own network), destroy said competition and then raise prices after their competition is destroyed and price gouge small business. That very situation is yet another reason we need to properly regulate these ISP duopolies and oligopolies before they end up using their monopolistic powers to create CDNs that shut out competition and affordable access to cheap CDNs down the road (although I do admit it’s debatable that Comcast could do this, but if anyone could figure out a way to jack with CDNs in the long term, it’s Comcast) . So, yeah, I’m a little nervous about CDNs in that regard, but that’s only tangently connected to Network Neutrality.
There’s no hypocrisy on Boing Boing’s part by utilizing a third party CDN. Boing Boing can’t utilize their CDN to slow down my anti-ukulele videos because they don’t like them. And, if my anti-ukulele videos get popular and require it, I can use growing revenue to utilize a scalable CDN structure as needed to maintain speeds as I go/grow. That is, as long as Comcast doesn’t barge in and ruin that situation down the road.
I will, sir, one day destroy Boing Boing with my provocative anti-ukulele videos and there’s not a damn thing those poor bastards can do about it. And, the hilarious thing is that Boing Boing is shooting themselves in the foot by not helping ISPs to shut me out. Those poor bastards have ethics. HAHAHA! My anti-ukulele rebellion is coming.
Soon.
Prioritization is prioritization, there’s no such distinction as “active” and “passive” in this sphere any more than there is such a thing as “active time” and “passive time”. According to the cartoon (I love the respect Boingboing shows its readers by expressing important policy debates in cartoon form, BTW), a fast lane inherently sabotages the traffic in the slow lane (“the rest of the infrastructure”). So Boingboing, by choosing use put their packets in a fast lane, is sabotaging the rest of the infrastructure, the very thing they accuse the ISPs and the FCC of wanting to do.
As I said, I doubt that they understand how hilarious this is because they don’t actually understand the implications of managing application traffic by priority, they’re simply fronting.
[quote=“iPolicy, post:43, topic:36467”]
As I said, I doubt that they understand how hilarious this is because they don’t actually understand the implications of managing application traffic by priority, they’re simply fronting.[/quote]
I think you’re referring to Net Neutrality extremists who don’t have a nuanced, realistic approach to Network Neutrality. AFAIK, Boing Boing hasn’t expressed extremist views, nor has the cartoon.
The thing is, while there is some potential downsides down the road via ISPs and CDNs, most CDNs in their current, third party form don’t sabotage the rest of the infrastructure and actually benefit it overall.
You mentioned the FCC.
While you and I certainly don’t agree with everything every individual at the FCC says, the FCC as a whole has said that CDNs improve the end-user experience by reducing overall Internet traffic (which benefits everyone). Also, the FCC has said that CDNs reduces the overall costs of delivering traffic (good for small businesses, in my opinion) and doesn’t violate their interpretation of Net Neutrality.
A video on my little, low-traffic website is going to be delivered just as fast as any video on a high-traffic website like Boing Boing via its CDN. If my little website gets extremely popular, I can monetize that popularity and purchase scalable CDN services to meet demand as it increases. That doesn’t slow down other websites in the process.
I don’t have a problem with purchasing a CDN to help deliver content if my website gets a huge amount of traffic, because it’s not at the expense of other, less popular websites. If anything, sensible Network Neutrality regulations can protect against CDN abuse by ISPs.
You mentioned Cloudfare…
Like most CDNs, it’s scaleable: Our Plans | Pricing
(It starts at free, then 20 bucks a month and so on)
Unless someone already has a super popular website with video streaming, they don’t need any of the Business and Enterprise plans.
I appreciate your expertise on this subject, but where I think you may be mistaken is that Boing Boing has some sort of extremist, unrealistic position on Net Neutrality.
If you can show me some quantifiable examples of where Boing Boing’s usage of a CDN slows down other less popular websites, then I would certainly adjust my opinion.
I said CloudFront, not CloudFlare. BoingBoing’s CDN promises “low latency, high data transfer speeds, and no commitments”. CDNs are effectively paid prioritization services that allow users to pay CDN and transit networks for high capacity, low latency paths through ISPs by reliieving ISPs of some bandwidth costs that hot-potato routing would otherwise impose on them. I think CDNs are good, but they don’t work for all applications. The cartoon says they’re sabotage, which is an extremist position that BoingBoing endorses.
When Netflix made their deal with Comcast, traffic from all of Cogent’s other customers to Comcast got faster. That’s not sabotage.
The cartoon doesn’t directly mention CDNs, much less the kind of third party CDN Boing Boing utilizes.
That’s one way to look at it, and here’s another:
Except when Boing Boing uses them? Earlier you said that Boing Boing is sabotaging the rest of the infrastructure by using a CDN. That sounded rather extremist to me.
Or, are CDNs only good when Comcast sets them up on its own infrastructure for some reason?
My mistake. Like CloudFlare, CloudFront is scalable as well.
Again, can you please show me some quantifiable examples of where Boing Boing’s usage of a CDN slows down other less popular websites or is “sabotaging the rest of the infrastructure”?
I also have to respectfully ask, since you’ve repeatedly assumed bad faith in Boing Boing. Are you willing to disclose any and all ties you may or may not have with Comcast?
For example, the Comcast Corporation does, indeed, donate resources to the Heritage Foundation which you are affiliated with, correct?
I, myself, will disclose that I have no conflicts of interest nor ties to any of the parties involved and I’m approaching this merely as a consumer and end-user. Are you?
You seem to have a problem with facts, Mr. Cowicide. Read the cartoon again, taking note of the charge about sabotaging the infrastructure. That’s not my claim, it’s Boingboing’s. I’m simply applying the charge they make to the services they use, which are indistinguishable in effect from the ones they complain about. If you have a problem with the “sabotage” language, take it up with BB.
The “hilarious graph” you cite actually makes my case: not only does customized service not degrade the infrastructure, it improves it. But you have to understand what’s being measured.
The only connection I have with Comcast is the bills I pay them, and I have no connection with the Heritage Foundation at all; nor am I lkely to, since they’re pro-Tea Party and I’m not.
My interest in this topic comes from 30 years of network engineering, a general dissatisfaction with the over-simplified lawyer’s notion of net neutrality, and a desire to elevate the tone of policy debates.
Cartoons and cable network comedy doesn’t help.
http://www.itif.org/people/richard-bennett
I’m sure @doctorow will be glad you stopped in.
Let’s remind the little happy mutants of all the good work ITIF has done.
Ars: DC think tank tells Americans that their broadband is really great
‘Broadband is a natural duopoly,’ counters Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank. Proposals to create a third competitor to take on the telecom and cable companies in most markets, he says, are ‘misguided.’
Huffpo: Keep the Sock Puppets Out of Your Stimulus
It’s hardd to tell from ITIF’s Web site or the group’s financial disclosures exactly who’s funding this operation. Whether Atkinson, Ph.D., is already on the industry payroll – or just auditioning for the gig – the beneficiaries of his efforts will undoubtedly be the biggest phone and cable companies."
Daniel Castro from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is the guy who has been highlighted for coming up with the idea of censoring the internet to deal with copyright infringement online. In 2009, he wrote a whitepaper suggesting just such a strategy, and since then has been a vocal champion of the approach that mimics China’s Great Firewall.
Techdirt: Oh, let’s not forget the TPP!
ITIF, the think tank that was often credited with coming up with the basic idea behind SOPA’s horrifying plan to censor websites and break key parts of the basic DNS system (and, which we recently discovered, gets funding from the MPAA) is back and pushing for support of IP maximalism in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. It has re-released a report about how the TPP must be “the gold standard” in trade agreements – with a key focus on stronger and more limiting IP rules.
What part of the term “non-affilated” do you not understand, Mr. Funruly? I’m a visiting fellow at AEI and a former consultant to ITIF. Neither organization tells me what to say, and neither one has ever told me what to say.
On the subject of disclosure, I notice you hide your real name. Why is that?
I’m guessing Mr. Funruly understands every part of the term “non-affiliated”. Say it isn’t so.
So what relevance do the views of an organization with which I am not affiliated have to me? Everyone who has ever spoken at an ITIF event is listed in their web site as “non-affiliated,” including members of Congress, FCC officials, and a number of academics.
The more one expresses that they’re not affiliated, the more it erodes their non-affiliation. I have nothing to do with this argument.
A variety of reasons, the most prominent is that I prefer to lead my recreational internet arguments with logic and citations rather than an appeals to authority.
For example of a logical argument, consider this:
If you look like a duck…
via TD.
and if you quack like a duck…
via Broadband for America, considered by some to be a lobbying front.
and if you have webbed feet like a duck…
…then it does not seem like a leap for me to conclude that you smell like astroturf.
Wow. You could not be more non-affiliated if you put explosives up your ass and reached escape velocity.
I know tl;dr. What’s the lingo for “not long enough”; “read it all and wanted”?
I get it, you can’t discuss the questions of fact I’ve raised, so you simply want to smear by quoting the estimable TechDirt blog, calling names, and making silly pictures.
I’ll take this as an admission that I’m right and you’re wrong, thanks for playing.
Given that the New York Times published the op-ed that BfA blogged about, are you denouncing them as Secret Lobbyists too? Just curious how far your conspiracy theory stretches.
I’ve not had much reason to care since September of 1993. I mean, how does it matter when the masses have a collective IQ that utterly explains how a “like” button could supplant complete sentences?
Are you seriously trying to invoke the credibility of the New York Times?
Few here will blindly accept anything published by the paper of record for Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, Bill Keller, Maureen Dowd, and Thomas “6 months” Friedman.
I didn’t enter this thread to talk about net neutrality at all. I only only weighed in when you tried to paint yourself as an enlightened and dispassionate observer with a…
I’ve adequately demonstrated that you have sufficient vested financial interest in entering those policy debates.
And you’ve adequately demonstrated that you’re willing to engage in various ad hominems and/or deflections to avoid the accusation that your posts here contribute toward your financial well being.
Most major cities in America lack a viable high-speed alternative to cable operators that provides the same level of service to all homes. In one of the few competitive markets in which Verizon’s fiber-to-the-premises and Cablevision actually compete for customers, you see a lack of bandwidth caps or tiering, lower prices per Mbps, and a general display of true competition. In other markets, not so much.
Seattle isn’t the boonies and while Comcast is fine, it has no true competition. The local CLEC that provides DSL-based service is terrible and its market declining. In parts of Seattle, Comcast doesn’t even provide cable, and residents in about 15% of the city have to choose between two poor alternatives.
Let’s not get started on, say, the Bay Area. AT&T’s fiber isn’t to the home, although it’s better then all copper to the home.
I can’t believe you write about this market and make this sort of ridiculous statement. What we actually need in America more than net neutrality, to be honest, is the uncoupling of infrastructure from service, which is the case in many countries, and leads to infrastructure improving rapidly in order to feed retail brands which compete on service offerings and bundles built on top of wire and fiber they don’t have to maintain.
