Anyone buying into the net neutrality notion that “a bit is a bit is a bit” should check out this New York Times article on the dangers of international cyberattacks:

Attacks on the Internet itself, say, through what are known as root-name servers, which play a role in connecting Internet users with Web sites, could cause widespread problems, said Paul Kurtz, the chief operating officer of Safe Harbor, a security consultancy. And having so many nations with a finger on the digital button, of course, raises the prospect of a cyberconflict caused by a misidentified attacker or a simple glitch.

Still not convinced? Read on:

Still, many in the security community and the news media initially treated the digital attacks against Estonia’s computer networks as the coming of a long-anticipated new chapter in the history of conflict — when, in fact, the technologies and techniques used in the attacks were hardly new, nor were they the kind of thing that only a powerful government would have in its digital armamentarium.

This much is clear: Global security risks are rising in tandem with the broadband web. That in turn points to the necessity of deploying networks capable to recognizing threatening data in the form of viruses, Trojan Horses or whatever malware tomorrow’s hackers invent.

Someone once said that a libertarian is a conservative who’s just been arrested. Probably true. But in that same spirit, it will be interesting to hear how the net neutrality crowd describes one of its favorite bogeyman, deep-packet inspection, the next time it helps stop a major denial-of-service attack.

This month’s zombie attack on Estonia’s economy was only the latest example of the growing dangers on the Net. It will assuredly not be the last.

(Washington) Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a staff report entitled, “Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy.” The report states, “In evaluating whether new [net neutrality] proscriptions are necessary, we advise proceeding with caution before enacting broad… restrictions in an unsettled, dynamic environment.” (page 9)

The report further states, “While there is disagreement over the competitiveness of the broadband Internet access industry, there is evidence that it is moving in the right direction. Specifically, there is evidence at least on a national scale that: (1) consumer demand for broadband is growing quickly; (2) access speeds are increasing; (3) prices (particularly speed-adjusted or quality-adjusted prices) are falling; and (4) new entrants, deploying Wi-Fi, Wi MAX, and other broadband technologies, are poised to challenge the incumbent cable and telephone companies. Although this is merely a high-level snapshot of a dynamic, evolving marketplace, such evidence challenges the claims by many proponents of network neutrality regulation that the broadband Internet access market is a cable- telephone duopoly that will exist for the foreseeable future and that the two primary broadband platforms do not compete meaningfully.” (pp. 155-156)

In response to the FTC’s report, Mike McCurry and Christopher Wolf, co-chairs of the Hands Off the Internet coalition (www.HandsOff.org), issued the following statement:

“Once again, independent experts have looked at the net neutrality issue and asked, ‘Where’s the beef?’ There’s an explosion in broadband deployment in America now, which is creating jobs and making high-speed connections more affordable. With consumer protection laws already in place, this is no time for government to raise prices with heavy net neutrality regulation.”

The Hands Off the Internet coalition is a Washington, DC-based coalition of companies and nonprofit organizations that believes the Internet has flourished because government has not tried to regulate it. Members include Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, 3M, the National Association of Manufacturers, FiberControl, and Cinergy Communications. Nonprofit members include Citizens Against Government Waste, the American Conservative Union and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

Free Press’ Ben Scott was on C-SPAN last Saturday talking about our favorite subject. Some of what he said was on target – for example, that expanding bandwidth is the best way to protect the open Internet, which we’ve been saying for months.

But throughout the show his key mistake was to keep repeating the idea that tomorrow’s Internet has to be financed by the same rules as today’s Net. With Internet technologies changing at hyperspeed, the idea that federal regulations on content and financing that were designed for a 56KB modem make any sense is, well, quaint.

Specifically, consider his advice to Congress about a national broadband strategy: He claims the “cornerstone” should be net neutrality while “step two” should promote higher broadband speeds and lower costs.

But of course he has this precisely backwards! Net neutrality explicitly shifts costs away from heavy corporate content users and onto consumers. So it makes broadband more expensive, which in turn slows progress in home broadband adoption. What’s so ironic about Scott’s strategy for Congress is that it undercuts his own (correct) observation about protecting consumers through expanding bandwidth.

As Roger Crockett, Business Week’s ace telecom reporter, recently showed, the Digital Divide is finally – finally! – starting to close. Prices have fallen while network deployment has kicked into high gear. By refusing to acknowledge net neutrality’s real-world impact, Scott’s ideas threaten this progress.

And incidentally Ben, your friends at Google don’t agree with your “simple” definition of net neutrality.

Like The Sopranos, we all knew this saga had to end eventually – so without further ado, we present the last of the Deadly Sins of Net Neutrality:

“Net Neutrality puts the Federal Government in charge of deciding which innovations will be allowed on the Internet and when.”

Unlike the proverbial father of sitcom stardom, the federal government does not always know best (not even when they tip you off to Phil Leotardo’s whereabouts). Even when they have the best intentions, our friends in Washington have rarely been known to exercise a light touch when it comes to regulation. As Dr. David Farber, who Wired magazine once called the “Paul Revere of the digital revolution,” stated,

“The problem is that it can be difficult, if not impossible, to determine in advance whether a particular practice would promote or harm competition. Blanket regulation, which some network neutrality initiatives support, is not a good policy choice.”

Congress is simply not in a position to predict and set the future course of the Internet, as supporters of net neutrality are asking it to do. And by legislating what the Internet can and cannot do, net neutrality legislation will only serve to stifle future evolution and innovation, which is the grandest sin of them all.

This past week, the Hands Off the Internet participated at the 2007 NXTcomm convention in Chicago, Illinois. NXTcomm is cosponsored by the US Telecom and Telecommunications Industry Association and is one of the most well attended telecommunications trade shows of the year, featuring more than 450 exhibitors and 20,000 attendees.

Hands Off educated NXTcomm attendees and hosted a booth on the expo floor and a net neutrality reception on Wednesday, June 20th where Co-Chair Chris Wolf spoke to a large and attentive crowd. Pictured below are Wolf and the winner of the iPod Raffle, Benny Sun of InfoEX World Services, Ltd.

Communications Daily
June 18, 2007 Monday

Net neutrality rules would harm consumers and thwart competition, according to a preliminary review of groups’ responses to the FCC’s call for comments on whether network access rules are needed. Most groups responding were telecom-related businesses, free-market advocacy organizations and trade associations. All said imposition of regulation would hinder development of the next-generation Internet and contended there’s no need for the rules since current govt. regulations can punish any discriminatory behavior.

“There is no current or anticipated content discrimination or service degradation justifying new regulation by the Commission,” said a filing by Hands Off the Internet, which represents business opposed to net neutrality and has former Clinton press secy. Mike McCurry as a spokesperson. The group released a study it said documents the problems that regulations would cause. “Current regulation and consumer protection laws are sufficient to address any potential harms, which have been greatly exaggerated by those advocating net neutrality regulation,” the filing said.

“For nearly two years, we have heard calls based on nothing but inflammatory hypotheticals to regulate the Internet,” said USTelecom Pres. Walter McCormick. There is no evidence to justify the need, and the FCC needs to “move beyond the overblown rhetoric.” Verizon agreed “there is no history of problems that could indicate a need for regulatory intervention.” Competition in broadband services is growing, making it less likely that the Commission would need to prescribe a “regulatory cure,” Verizon’s filing said. The Commission should reject proposals for “net neutrality” obligations and keep the Internet unregulated, AT&T said in its filing.

NCTA said the Commission’s hands-off approach has stimulated competition between networks. Changing course would be a mistake, the cable group’s filing said. Regulation, no matter how well-intentioned, “almost certainly would reduce competitive investment and constrain growth in networks and the services that depend on them.” The Fiber- to-the-Home (FTTH) Council, which also opposes net neutrality, said there isn’t evidence that network platform providers are engaging in anticompetitive behavior. On the contrary, there’s a “heightened state of vigilance” regarding discriminatory practices on the Internet, FTTH’s filing said. Networks with increased bandwidth are less prone to congestion and have little need to prioritize transmissions, the filing said, concluding that “greater capacity makes the non-discrimination debate recede.”

“There simply isn’t a problem that needs to be regulated,” said U.S. Internet Industry Assn. (USIIA) Pres. Dave McClure: Calls for regulation are based on “fears and speculation,” not facts. If the Commission bases its regulatory decisions on “unfounded speculation,” the result will be stifled investment, slower broadband deployment and harm to consumers, he said. The National Assn. of Manufacturers (NAM) also opposes the regulations, saying they’re necessary only when markets fail. The FCC should “stay the course,” said Marc-Anthony Signorino, NAM dir- technology policy.

Smaller groups weighed in with similar arguments. MovieFlix and Doctors TeleHealth urged the FCC not to adopt net neutrality regulations because it would have “unintended consequences.” The free-market group Americans for Prosperity, along with other members of the Internet Freedom Coalition, said in their filing that regulations aren’t needed. — Anne Veigle

Folks, we couldn’t have scripted this one any better. It’s been almost two years since Google kicked off its net neutrality push with a call for “lightweight but enforceable” government regulation – easily written and simple to apply.

Looks like someone forgot to remind Google’s corporate bloggers of the company line.

One of the first entries on the company’s new blog is a call-to-arms on net neutrality, claiming the Net should be “free and open to all comers.” OK, antitrust and unfair competition laws already guarantee that but it’s a nice sentiment.

Then it gets interesting: The blog argues that government should not prohibit broadband carriers from “managing their networks to, for example, block certain traffic based on IP address in order to prevent harmful denial of service (DOS) attacks, viruses or worms.”

By using “prevent”, it sounds like Google approves of a carrier taking action to protect the Net before an attack starts. Given today’s threats to online safety, that’s logical – EXCEPT that it means neutrality regulations would have to include legally binding definitions for when and how a broadband carrier may take such action without fear of liability. The regulations would also have to define DOS attacks, Trojan horses, worms and viruses.

These regulations would have to be specific enough to deal with current problems but also broad enough to cover new threats.

And Google thinks all of this will be accomplished with “lightweight” regulation? Right, and Ozzy Osbourne is a correspondent for The 700 Club.

For our part, we don’t have special insights into how DOS attacks and malware will continue evolving. But there’s no doubt that the best way to repulse these challenges to Internet safety is through allowing carriers to respond rapidly and without huge liability threats.

In short, Google’s talking out of both sides of its mouth. It’s claiming neutrality rules will be “lightweight” while also acknowledging growing and complex challenges to online safety.

A cynic might say that Google’s contradiction indicates the likelihood of an ulterior (read: financial) motive for supporting neutrality rules. But hey, that’s cynicism for you.