Boiling the Frog – a Net Neutrality Metaphor
There are some lessons in Net Neutrality to be drawn from a gross, but accurate metaphor. And from a small U.K. company called Be. You have to Be there.
We may be as little as a week away from a vote in the House on Net Neutrality. At this point, it’s uncertain whether there will be a vote on a legitimate Net Neutrality amendment to the bill (HR 5252) that passed the House Commerce Committee.
The telephone and cable companies have been going all out to smooth the way by proposing what appears at first to be a reasonable policy, which, on further review, doesn’t hold up quite so well. Rachel Maddow on her radio show recently used a nicely descriptive phrase when talking about how politicians phase in gradually policies they don’t think would meet with public approval if introduced all at once. The phrase is “boiling the frog.”
The metaphor goes like this: If you throw a frog into boiling water, it will jump out. But if you put a frog in warm water, and gradually raise the temperature, it will become acclimated, until it becomes cooked. Gross, but accurate. This is what the telephone companies and their allies who sell them equipment are doing. The metaphor was on display last week when Verizon Executive Vice President Tom Tauke testified before the Senate Commerce Committee. Verizon is not trying to do away with the current Internet, Tauke said. (Water warm).
Verizon argues we have had “a real change in the paradigm” in dealing with network issues. (Water warmer.) Through its fiber offering, Verizon will put three separate channels into the consumer’s home, one for the Internet, one for video and one for whatever else Verizon wants to use it for, through its “virtual private network.” (I feel those bubbles.) We want to draw the distinction, Tauke said, between offering Internet services and other access, which would be services for which Verizon “may provide some unique arrangements.” (Rare, medium or well done?)
Let’s be clear about what Congress will create in telecommunications legislation. There will be today’s plain “Internet access” and this other, “general access” service equipped with “unique arrangements.” That is a two-tiered system, with the telephone or cable company in complete control. And what will happen if those allowed on the supposedly “private network” are chosen by the telephone or cable company? As Tauke asked, what if Verizon wants to enter into a heart-monitoring arrangement with Johns Hopkins?
What about George Washington Hospital, or Georgetown, or any other hospital or medical company. When the telephone or cable company picks what goes onto a network, the telephone or cable company, not the customer, and not the company the customer might want to reach, is in charge. The telephone and cable company will do what they can to improve their new toll road. And today’s Internet? Wouldn’t be as attractive in the future, would it, if companies feel they have to pay extra for “special arrangements” or be left behind.
What the telephone and cable companies are saying, is “trust us” not to disrupt the Internet. They, after all, are in the transmission business. But “trust us” only goes so far, particularly when we look at other parts of the world and see how far behind our telephone and cable companies have left us. Here in Washington, Verizon takes out full page adds to tout their DSL service of 768 kbps for $17.99 per month.
This is in a telecommunications regulatory regime in which the telephone companies do not have to share their broadband networks with competitors on the theory that they will invest in the network. On a recent trip to London, I was astounded by an ad I saw on a billboard in the Tube (subway) for a company called Be. It advertised 24 mbps service at 24 British pounds per month – about $50. To get something comparable here, say Verizon’s touted 30 mbps, you would have to pay about $180 per month. That 24 pounds is for the heavy-duty service. A service with less upload speed and supposedly more limited usage is available for 14 pounds – about $30 per month. See for yourself at www.bethere.co.uk.
Dana Pressman, managing partner of Be, told me they can offer this phenomenal service by leasing lines from British Telecom (BT) and renting space in BT central offices while using their own electronics to provide what’s called “ADSL 2+” service. Be is a company of 25 people, offering a service around London, Manchester and Birmingham that no telephone company in the U.S. is offering, and which a competitor couldn’t offer.
That’s because in the U.K., there is a program called LLU –leased lines unbundling – exactly what we got rid of. Pressman said that her small company has a good relationship with BT, which established a wholesale unit to sell the leased lines. “They are quite reasonable and fun to work with. They enjoy helping us grow,” Pressman said, although there are still issues that crop up from time to time in provisioning. Be isn’t the only company offering fast service.
There are more than a dozen companies offering service faster than what we have here at rates much lower than we pay because of leased lines program – which are part of a European Union directive. Ofcom, the British regulatory agency, said in a recent report: “The most important driver of competition in consumer broadband has been the process whereby BT has undertaken to allow service competitors access to the local network at wholesale prices, within the regulatory framework.”
And BT? In their earnings release on May 18, the company said its earnings were up, driven in part by revenue from leasing their wholesale lines, and it boasted about the number of leased lines it was providing. As our legislators contemplate the fate of Net Neutrality legislation, they may want to consider the win-win situation abroad and adjust their thinking. (Water warm).
The EU could actually be good for something? In Britain? What a shocking thought. Heresy even.
I really hope the US telcos won't get away with their idea of "tiered Internet". The concept has so many built-in dangers that I shudder to even think about it. As always, it is an issue of control, and I'd think there should be plenty of historical reasons to give the telcos as little control as possible.
OT: Is that thing with frogs and boiling water actually true? I'd like to know so I have to ask, because I am not going to find out experimentally.
May 31, 2006 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
When they say 'competition' in the US. what they mean is 'monopoly'.
Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com
May 31, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Snopes, the boiling frog legend is just that -- a legend.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.htm
May 31, 2006 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another solid debunking of the frog legend, with a lovely title: Next Time, What Say We Boil a Consultant.
May 31, 2006 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Sweden you can get 24/1 Mb/s DSL (if you live close enough to the central) for around $50 too. For just about the same reasons as in GB.
If you're lucky enough to be living in a neighbourhood with optical fiber you can get 100/10 Mb/s for a wee bit more, say like $53.
Yup, $53/month for a 100/10 Mb/s optical line, no traffic charges, if available. I'm not envious, not at all. Neither should anyone in the US be. Those Swedes are a bunch of Eurocommie bastards after all ...
May 31, 2006 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found Mr. Tauke’s testimony to be particularly insulting. When he spoke about needing bandwidth for heart monitoring and things like “communication for the disabled” I think he made a great case for the government to take over Verizon’s portion of the internet for the sake of the public good.
Seriously if Mr. Tauke is so concerned about these altruistic uses of the internet should his company even be delivering TV over it? Did he happen to mention how much bandwidth Verizon channel 821, Wealth TV HD, would take up when he spoke before Congress? Did he offer to trade the bandwidth used by Verizon channel 421, Playboy TV En Espanol, so that grandmothers all over the country could have their doctor perform tele-diagnosis, when he spoke before Congress? No, of course he didn’t.
That’s the problem; these guys are making a huge mistake by using Astroturf tactics and false public good arguments instead of talking frankly about their concerns. They are going to piss off the wrong person sooner or later and they’ll end up heavy handed legislation instead of some form of self-regulation.
I’d personally like to see the telcos feet held to the fire on Net Neutrality when they apply for IP cable TV franchises. That offers them a way to commit to Network Neutrality without having new legislation rammed down their throats. I’m trying to push for that in my town and state but I’m sure there are other ways, such as at investor meetings, to question the telcos on their plans. I think they can be hemmed in without the need for new legislation, but the choice really is theirs.
-- Tom http://www.redbanktv.org
May 31, 2006 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
same thing with germany. about 50 euros a month gets you extremely fast internet and reliable internet service, and that usually comes bundled with basic telephone service as well. and they've managed to develop this service--complete with competition--in the shitty, recently-infrastructureless former East in the past four years.
this all said, doesn't the fact that the US had developed its internet service on the basis of different technology platforms account for the speed and expense of the switchover to broadband?
May 31, 2006 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Tauke is lying about tele-medicine.
Tele-medicine is an acronym for telephone medicine.
You don't need the internet to monitor a persons health. All you need is a telephone.
In fact, there are companies that can monitor your heart, lungs, blood pressure, etc., without the need of the internet.
Let me say this again. You do not need the internet to monitor the health of an at-home patient - all you need is a telephone.
May 31, 2006 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote:"I’d personally like to see the telcos feet held to the fire on Net Neutrality when they apply for IP cable TV franchises."
We know that this dog and pony show is basically the Telcos and their lap dogs acting "concerned" for the sake of the voters. The question that I keep asking myself is this. If they (our congress) are so concerned about the public good, why GIVE the Internet to the Telcos in the first place? Duh! We should be RAGING against this plundering of a public resource! Half-hearted measures after the fact are meaningless once OUR Internet is STOLEN by these CRIMINALS in CONGRESS.
May 31, 2006 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tele-diagnosis? Is that legal?
May 31, 2006 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it such an awesome metaphor...
May 31, 2006 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Art's Boiling the Frog.
I liked it better when we called it "Loopholes".
My money is on the telcos. My magic 8-ball tells me you don't have enough money or clout to stop them.
Prove me wrong,... I dare you.
May 31, 2006 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Telemedicine involves the running of medical applications over telecommunications facilities, which certainly are not limited to telephones. Indeed, it may not be practical to do a wide range of applications over the limited bandwidth available with a telephone. These do include at-home applications that involve visualization, not just numerical or graphical readout.
Electrocardiography is a low-bandwidth application. Einthoven's original demonstration used mechanically moving parts to write the tracings. These are simple line graphs, not images.
There are a wide range of telemedicine applications that could not be done using telephones. Simply to scan through a set of images from mammography, SPECT, CT, etc., needs megabit-rate bandwidth to be able to change or rewrite the screen in a reasonable time.
Telepresence is a subset of telemedicine, which allows the clinician to control, in real time, diagnostic or therapeutic equipment operating on the patient. This can be relatively simple, as a dermatologist using a remotely steered television camera to examine a rash, to distant control of actual surgery.
You don't need the public Internet to do this. You do need high-bandwidth, secure communications. I've designed and implemented telemedicine services since around 1970, and bandwidth has often been the factor that most limited us.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
May 31, 2006 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
May 31, 2006 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
Please quote to me the federal legislation that makes "tele-diagnosis" (to be more specific to this discussion) internet diagnosis, legal?
Don't forget to include the current laws of each and every state - not to mention the doctrines of the Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy from every state.
Can ya do that?
May 31, 2006 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If someone needs round-the-clock monitoring to such a dgree as to keep them alive, why would a physician send them home in the first place?
Are they itching for a lawsuit?
May 31, 2006 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no Federal law that regulates diagnosis, in person or remotely. There are FDA approvals for diagnostic devices to be used by qualified personnel. A physician is quite free to use a drug for an "off-label" indication, if, in his or her professional judgment, it will benefit a patient. Prevailing standards are the general rule for the art of medicine,
You can quote, if you like, FDA approval or drugs and medical devices. Let me know when you find the FDA, or any other agency, requiring preapproval of surgical procedures.
I've recently worked with FDA approval of telemedical sensors, and the only requirement was that we reliably transmitted the oxygen saturation within the limits of pulse oximetry, or the flow rates and alarms of an IV pump, or many other things that must be evaluated by a professional. Telemedicine devices don't diagnose, although they can warn. They act as distance adjuncts to professionals.
Very few small hospitals in Australia keep radiologists present on the night shift, but they retain their accreditation because the images are remotely read, during prime time, in Iowa. The US military makes extensive use of telemedicine to support such things as forward surgical teams, special operations medical specialists, etc.
I can point to any number of studies that argue the significance -- or not -- of ST segment changes in myocardial infarction. Diagnosing cardiac problems rarely takes a single device. Biochemical tests are relevant, and some may be approved under CLIA. Some years ago, the transaminases were the standard of care, which moved to CK-MB, and now is probably more troponin levels.
Not every state has a college of medicine or pharmacy. Perhaps you are trying to refer to the state licensing boards?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
May 31, 2006 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You don't need the public Internet to do this. You do need high-bandwidth, secure communications. I've designed and implemented telemedicine services since around 1970, and bandwidth has often been the factor that most limited us. "
You might want to investigate Private Networks.
May 31, 2006 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to share some of your bibliography showing your deep understanding of networking? Perhaps some appreciation that IP networks, public and private, are virtualized onto the same physical plant? That VPNs can be ad hoc using the public Internet as a transport?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
May 31, 2006 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mourning a metaphor? That seems premature. As Snopes remarks, the metaphor serves its purpose regardless of whether it's fact-based or not.
May 31, 2006 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still trying to understand the issue, so please don't think I'm arguing back. This isn't a rhetorical question, but a real need for help. But should I be relieved that they're not cutting off the Internet, just proposing to add something to it? And how does that differ from, say, that now some Web sites make you pay for subscriber access? If there were a world in which anyone who wanted to could put stuff on TV, I wouldn't begrudge premium cable. Not that I truly get angry that I'd have to pay to get those HBO programs I like, but you see the question. Thanks!
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 1, 2006 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that anyone is terribly concerned about appropriate fees for access to new services, where there's a consumer choice. The concern iw much more that the existing bandwidth providers will enter into selective deals with content providers, and then impose surcharges or deliberate technical efficiencies to those content providers that aren't part of the deal.
While best Voice over IP performance really does require that the access channels are engineered and prioritized for it, a reasonably designed Internet connection can provide an acceptable voice service. Some carriers appear to be degrading or blocking VoIP services other than their own.
Another way to look at it is the non-neutral carriers do not believe in grandfathering.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 1, 2006 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink