Archive for the ‘Network Neutrality’ Category

Newer Entries »

Network Neutrality on Steroids: Enter the Hackintosh

Thursday, May 29th, 2008

Anyone who knows me for 2.5 seconds knows: 1) that I cannot leave well enough alone and 2) that I cannot stand Microsoft operating systems.  So, I am curious to see what happens when you run network neutrality full speed into 18th Century copyright law.

Network neutrality is a broad, sweeping concept intended to maintain the open and interconnected characteristics of the Internet.  One of the central principles of network neutrality is the freedom to attach any “legal” device which does not harm the network and run any application over it.  I am not quite sure what an illegal network device is, perhaps a digital Kalashnikov (though if the Supreme Court reinterprets the Second Amendment, even that might not apply).

Enter the Hackintosh.  A Hackintosh is a PC which, with a few a modifications, can run the Mac OS X (called OSx86 for the IBM/Intel 8086, 386, 486, 586, etc., architecture). This is apparently not hard to do since Apple started using Intel chipsets. Moreover, the modifications are made to the bios and harddrive of the underlying computer, and not to the Mac OS. However, it is Apple’s contention that it is violation of its copyrights to run OS X on anything but one of their machines.

So, if a computer is attached to the Internet, would Apple’s prohibition violate the principle of network neutrality?  Well, it turns on whether the Hackintosh is a legal device. I am not an expert in intellectual property law anymore, but to my mind it would be illegal tying and bundling to require that OS X could only be run on Apple machines. Can you imagine if Sony sold me a record (vinyl or shellac) and in the liner notes stated that I do not have permission to play it on a Victrola, only a Sony turntable?

Next, let’s consider the DMCA.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it a crime to circumvent technical prevention measures (TPM) in order to illegally copy copyrighted electronic materials. Running OS X on a machine other than a Mac does not necessitate an illegal duplication.  Under the first sale doctrine, one can buy a valid copy of OS X Tiger on eBay for about $75.FN Apple cannot say that it is an illegal copy to put the OS on a computer – that’s purpose the software was sold for.  Further, they cannot restrict the device with which you read the OS, back to the Victorla… could GE prevent you from reading a book published by NBC Universal under a Sylvania light bulb?

So, let assume that Apple does not sell their operating system (but they do), rather they license a complete device, called a Macintosh. Presumably, then the operating system is part of a useful article, and not a writing. It would therefore not be copyrightable. So, Apple would not have any valid copyrights to be violated by duplication and modification of the OS.  Further, since duplicating it is not illegal, the DMCA does not apply. Loading OS X on a machine other than an Apple might be breach of contract, but not a copyright violation.

Insight: I am not sure that Hackintosh is a legal device, but it probably is not an illegal device. I am curious to hear the opinions of the network neutrality and copyright experts. So, in this high speed collision between the broad, sweeping principles of network neutrality or arcane copyright law which survives?

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Cool Stuff, Network Neutrality | View Comments

Network Neutrality vs. Network Management

Saturday, May 24th, 2008

There is no generally agreed upon definition for Network Neutrality and deviations or violations against the principal.  Network neutrality is something of a catch-all phrase that has come to reflect a number of potential behaviours that some have considered to be anticompetitive.Network neutrality implies that all IP packets should be treated more-or-less the equally, and the debate reflects concerns that they might not be in the future – that a network operator might somehow apply different treatment to IP packets (or datagrams) associated with different services, applications, destinations or devices.

Insight:  The term network neutrality is a loaded one. It implies that any deviation from its principals is not neutral, and in some way unfair. In many instances, it is perfectly fair to provide preferential treatment to some network uses, say premium customers or emergency services. Well, the highly-paid lobbyists have returned with their own term to redraw the chalk lines on the level playing field. In recent discussions involving the US FCC, the term network management practices has come to take the place of the term network neutrality.  While the semantics of this term are more objective, it does not accurately describe the nature of the problem.  Network management refers to a much broader scope of activities including business practices, sales and marketing, security, fault tolerance, and capacity planning. Since the issues present in this debate represent only a narrow slice of network management, what term should be used?  How about false and deceptive advertising or anticompetitive practices?  Somehow that lacks the sexiness of Net Neutrality.

Posted in Network Neutrality, Proper English | View Comments

Better than Best Efforts

Monday, March 24th, 2008

In hearing the Network Neutrality debate, does it strike you as odd when you hear the term ‘best efforts’? Most classes of Internet service are billed as being best efforts; however, if you want guaranteed delivery of your packets, you have to pay more. Why should you have to pay for something which is better than the best?! I know what it means colloquially, but this drives me crazy. Wiktonary defines effort as: noun, 1. The amount of work involved in performing an activity; exertion. 2. An endeavour. Since best is a superlative, you cannot have really something which is better than your best exertion. Can you? Well Okay, what about endeavor? Endeavor: noun, 1. A sincere attempt. A determined or assiduous effort towards a specific goal. Ah yes, always be sincere whether you mean it or not. If your best attempt doesn’t guarantee service what would more could you do?

Insight: Isn’t false advertising, if not a grammatical impossibility, to label a lower class as being “best”?

Posted in Network Neutrality, Proper English | View Comments

Next Generation Spectrum Policy

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

I am very pleased to announce that the FCC has just published a suite of papers which I worked on while I was there. This work sought to tackle some of the intractable problems facing spectrum policy. For nearly a century, spectrum policy has focused on “scarcity” and resolving “harmful interference”. This was largely due to limits of the technology of the day. Now radios fueled by semi-conductor processing power, are enabling spectrum policy to evolve. We can now focus on a much more efficient principal of “use coordination”. The first paper in the series, OSP Working Paper #41, examines the Tragedy of the Commons and how economic protocols might be employed to alleviate this problem, while preserving the openness and innovation associated with unlicensed operation. It achieves this by coordinating competing demands on the spectrum. There are several different means for assigning priority to allocate use. However, allowing would-be users to express their willingness to pay seems to be the most economically efficient. Through an economic coordination protocol, usage at any given time is awarded to those with the highest value. OSP Working Paper #43, looks at how the set of rights which underlie this regime can be assigned through auctions.

Insight: Of all the work I have done in my professional career, this is the product of which I am most proud. The future of spectrum policy will be one of “use coordination”, where the “exclusiveness” of a license will be determined at an auction along with which entities are assigned the license. We are back to First Principles. This work holds the promise to wrestle the spectrum from the hands of a few powerful entities and put it back in our hands. In addition, it is likely to increase efficiency and hence the benefit we all receive from its use. The beauty of the system is that if the current spectrum arrangement is the most efficient, then it will emerge as such. At the very least, we will have exposed society to a huge upside with very little downside risk. It also would allow us to grant priorities to those whose ability to pay is diminished, such as public safety and financially disadvantaged users.

As a body of work, it has far reaching implications. At the recent FCC field hearing on network management (viz. Net Neutrality), there was much reasonable debate on what constitutes reasonable network management. There were many views as to how to handle competing demands on limited network resources. To my mind, the most efficient way will be some variation on willingness to pay, perhaps through an economic coordination protocol.

Posted in Broadband, Network Neutrality, TV White Spaces, Wireless Communications | View Comments

A flawed analogy for wireless Carterfone rule for Network Neutrality.

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008

Walt Mossberg, Tim Wu, and others have recently been calling for a Carterfone decision for wireless networks. In 1959, Thomas Carter (no relation) introduced a device which allowed mobile radio systems to be interconnected with the Bell System landline telephone network. The device was in fact a mere acoustic coupler and not hardwired to the network. AT&T attempted to stop Mr. Carter from connecting his radio-wireline equipment. In the ensuing litigation, the FCC opened the telephone network to the interconnection of non-Bell System equipment.Drawing this logic to the fixed and mobile Internet, Mossberg asserts, “You don’t have to get the permission of your Internet service provider to do so, or even tell the provider about it. You can just pack up the old machine and set up the new one.” Therefore, he argues, you should be able to use any wireless device on any mobile network. Well, Verizon and AT&T are making steps in that direction. However, what Mr. Mossberg does not mention that his cell phone contains two parts: 1) the radio and 2) all the other cool stuff in there. The radio handles all of the modulation/demodulation necessary to connect the phone to the network. The parallel in the wired world is your cable or DSL modem. It is to this box that one connects his router, PC, or other Internet appliance. In most cases, you get the modem from your ISP and there is less consumer choice for broadband modems than there is for cell phones. So, in order for this argument to stand, it must not lose sight of the fact that in the wireless world these devices are in the same box, while in the wireline the same box.
Insight: I am not arguing against wireless Network Neutrality; however, the analogy comparing cell phones to PCs is only half correct. So, a proper analogy might be comparing the flexibility of the PC and wireline Internet to the ability to connect any IP device or other cool stuff to your data-enabled cell phone.

Tags: ,
Posted in Network Neutrality, Wireless Communications | View Comments

Newer Entries »