Who's your Daddy?
from the February issue of the Status Register
CUCUG, Champaign, Illinois
No, this is not about Anna Nicole Smith's five month old daughter,
Dannielynn Hope. It's about the parentage of the "Internet" and the
cachet of being it's "father." As noted in the article above Robert E.
Kahn, (born December 23, 1938), along with Vinton G. Cerf, (born June
23, 1943), invented the TCP/IP protocol, the technology used to transmit
information on the modern Internet. What seems odd is that one would be
termed "the father of the Internet" while the other would be deemed
"Google's man in Washington DC."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Kahn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinton_G._Cerf
But then, others have placed a differing emphasis on the paternal
monicker. As reported in the August, 2006 issue of this newsletter, it
was Cerf who was draped with the mantle of Daddy-dom.
http://www.cucug.org/sr/sr0608.html#COMMON.5
Also mentioned in that August piece, "Structuring the Internet," was
"Dave Farber, often called the grandfather of the internet, [who] has
been the most prominent critic." Well, maybe not so much.
On July 17th, the so-called "father" and "grandfather" of the Internet
squared off in a debate over the principle of network neutrality. Vint
Cerf - who developed the network protocols on which the Internet
functions and is now Chief Internet Evangelist for Google - and Dave
Farber - former FCC Chief Technologist and professor of Computer Science
and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University - held forth in front of
an audience at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
In fact, both Cerf and Farber recognized a need for some sort of legal
guarantee that phone and cable companies would not use their duopoly
over broadband connectivity to restrict access to information online.
And although the phone and cable companies that have used Farber as a
foil to fight network neutrality don't like the idea of any government
involvement in the issue, Farber does not agree.
Dave Farber: "The focus of this should not be, in my opinion,
protecting companies against companies. It should be protecting the
users against companies in general."
It should be reiterated that the "So called "Neutrality" legislation" is
merely an attempt to reinstitute the ground rules upon which the
Internet has operated all along, up to about a year ago. Perhaps not all
"Engineers fear rash legislation would inhibit the ability of systems
engineers to improve latency and jitter issues needed to move data at
speed."
http://freepress.net/mediaminutes/transcripts/mm021006.pdf.
Doing away with network neutrality will also diminish the robustness
of the Internet itself. Gary Bachula spoke at the hearing as a
representative of a consortium of universities and corporations that
are developing what's called "Internet2," the next generation of
broadband connectivity, which offers speeds at least 100 times faster
than current broadband connections. Bachula told Senators that data
discrimination does nothing but complicate network design and
increase the cost of network construction.
Gary Bachula: "All of our research and practical experience supported
the conclusion that it was far more cost-effective to simply provide
more bandwidth. With enough bandwidth there is no congestion."
Therefore, so long as adequate broadband capacity exists there is no
need to abandon the principle of network neutrality. However, instead
of providing that capacity, phone and cable companies would rather
skimp on the growth and maintenance of their network infrastructures
in order to squeeze every penny possible out of all network users. In
other words, the corporate drive to abandon network neutrality stems
primarily from claims that broadband bandwidth is in scarce supply.
Vinton Cerf argued that such a rationale is disingenuous. He should
know: commonly called a "father of the Internet," now a vice
president at Google, Cerf co-developed the core protocols that make
Internet-based communication possible. And he says until there is
true nationwide availability of broadband - something major phone
companies in particular pledged to do several years ago - any claim
that a viable bandwidth marketplace exists in the U.S. rings hollow.
Vinton Cerf: "According to the statistics from the FCC in 2004, only
53% of Americans had a choice at broadband access, either from cable
companies or from the telcos with their DSL service....28% have only
once choice - either cable or DSL. And 19% don't have any choice at
all: there is no broadband."
Those who represented the big phone and cable companies at the
hearing seemed to be on the defensive from the public backlash that
has developed over the last month over this issue. Kyle McCormick,
president of the United States Telecom Association - a trade group
that lobbies in D.C. for the likes of AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon,
among many others - made what appeared to be a solemn and significant
pledge.
Kyle McCormick: "Our commitment to you is this: We will not block,
impair, or degrade content, applications, or services."
This was from February of last year. There has been a rather tectonic
shift since then.
From my examination of the topic, I've come away with a few observation.
Others may disagree with this analysis - that's what makes for a lively
debate - but here goes.
No business exists in a regulatory vacuum, nor do they want to exist in
such an anarchy. That's why they are lobbying so ferociously - to
change the rules of the game to their advantage, not that of the public.
Most of these companies were spawned from regulatory monopolies in the
first place.
They have already received billions of dollars in tax incentives and
public investment for infrastructure which they pocketed and, while
lobbying for more, the U.S. has fallen precipitously in world ranking of
connect speeds. It appears to be easier to work to achieve a captive
market than it is to do their real job.
Their quest to charge both consumers and content providers for the same
traffic above and beyond connection fees is nothing more than a grand
scheme of double dipping.
In the end, this is a contest over huge sums of money in which the
combatants are out for blood. The ultimate question is how much is going
to be shed and who's going to pay with it. How the public protects
itself in this clash of titans is ultimately a political decision. It
doesn't take much to see that the sidelines of history are littered with
those who have been crushed. You can raise your voice or pay in silence.
By way of footnote:
Gary Bachula is the Vice President for External Relations for Internet2.
https://wiki.internet2.edu/confluence/dashboard.action
https://wiki.internet2.edu/confluence/display/~gbachula
More can be found on David J. Farber at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Farber.
Also of interest might be the article "Al Gore's support of the
Internet," by V. Cerf and B. Kahn in which Mr. Cerf writes "As you know,
there have been a seemingly unending series of jokes chiding the vice
president for his assertion that he 'took the initiative in creating the
Internet.' Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves
significant credit for his early recognition of the importance of what
has become the Internet."
http://www.politechbot.com/p-01394.html
By the way, the "series of jokes" was deliberate smear champaign.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Why? An excellent piece on the history and motivation of "Did Gore invent the
Internet?" can be found here:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/
which ends:
But the defense of Gore currently underway feels to me less like a
party-line effort than like the repayment of a debt of gratitude by
Internet pioneers who feel that Gore is being unfairly smeared.
That's what you'll hear from Phillip Hallam-Baker, a former member of
the CERN Web development team that created the basic structure of the
World Wide Web. Hallam-Baker calls the campaign to tar Gore as a
delusional Internet inventor "a calculated piece of political
propaganda to deny Gore credit for what is probably his biggest
achievement."
"In the early days of the Web," says Hallam-Baker, who was there, "he
was a believer, not after the fact when our success was already
established -- he gave us help when it counted. He got us the funding
to set up at MIT after we got kicked out of CERN for being too
successful. He also personally saw to it that the entire federal
government set up Web sites. Before the White House site went online,
he would show the prototype to each agency director who came into his
office. At the end he would click on the link to their agency site.
If it returned 'Not Found' the said director got a powerful message
that he better have a Web site before he next saw the veep."
That sounds like a pretty good description of the kind of
"initiative" Gore claimed credit for in the first place. So the next
time you hear an "Al Gore, Internet inventor" joke, think about the
strange twisted path a politician's words can take in other people's
hands -- and be glad we can use the Internet to try to straighten it
out."
|