With yesterday's news that Apple has approved OperaMini as a browser in the iPhone app store, competition in the mobile browser space took a big step forward.
http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20002310-12.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0
Everyone at Skyfire was heartened by this decision by Apple, and sends congrats to Apple for being open to innovation and competition on the AppStore, and to the Opera team. It's a great step forward to highlight the value of server-assisted browsing, which both OperaMini/Turbo and Skyfire have long advocated. It also raises awareness of the value of consumer choice in browsers. As of this morning, OperaMini is the #1 download in the Apple App store. It's certainly great news for the browser space.
The Skyfire team has been watching the Opera submission and the iPhone/iPad market closely, and this will certainly accelerate our investigations. Nothing to announce now, but stay tuned for news. If you want to stay updated, please follow Skyfire on Facebook or Twitter and be the first to hear.
OperaMini will bring big speed improvements to browsing on the iPhone, thanks to proxy-server compression. We at Skyfire bring more than a focus on speed alone, but also a rich tradition of multimedia browsing, and so we are excited by what we can bring to all the mobile OS platforms that have adopted default Webkit browsers (Android, iPhone, Symbian v4, Blackberry soon, etc.). Starting with Android as we've announced (look for news shortly), we want to bring our tradition of great rich media and video in browsing to these devices. Our philosophy is that enhanced speed AND all the rich media of the web can be together in one browser, with a boost from cloud computing.
Skyfire and Opera are often categorized together as server-assisted browsers, and we both are. But at the same time, Opera has optimized their technology for speed, stripping out rich media, and since they don't support even mobile video (RTSP), users will quickly discover that speed on Opera is wonderful, but is not paired with video, AJAX, or other web 2.0 experiences. With Skyfire 2.0 coming soon, Skyfire will ally with the technology direction of html5, plus Flash and Silverlight support, webkit, AJAX, adaptive streaming to protect networks, and more. We're excited for the competition, and what we can add.
Congrats again to Team Opera. Well done, and leading the way for others.
Jeff
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Mobile Warming Heats Up
Think Your iPhone Internet Is Flaky Now? It's Only Going To Get Worse.
[Note: The post below has been published as an Op-Ed at BusinessInsider.com.]
2010: The Year of 'Mobile Warming': The Inconvenient Truth about Telco Network Bandwidth and How It’s Failing You
Have you or anyone you know ever experienced a dropped call on the AT&T network in a major US city? If so, you may be a victim of mobile warming. Whether you’re a leftist liberal or a die-hard conservative, we all know Mobile Warming is happening now and will only get worse.
Mobile Warming is the biggest problem facing mobile providers and users in the next two years. Wireless networks are melting down. Thanks to the explosive growth of demand for mobile video and data traffic, top metro areas in the US are already full of frustrated users with constantly dropped calls, slow connections, long video buffer times and an inability to connect to mobile apps at peak times. And if you think it’s bad now….just wait. New applications like video calling and the addition of Adobe Flash on some high-end phones mean that networks will feel more strain than ever. A recent research report released by Cisco found that mobile video will represent 66 percent of all mobile data traffic by 2014, increasing 66-fold from 2009 to 2014.
Operators Drop it Like it’s Hot (Your Call, That Is)
In 2010, as Google and Apple duke it out, with scores of Android and iPad devices coming to market, the heat is on. Anyone in San Francisco or New York with incessantly dropped calls knows that data congestion is only increasing. AT&T even temporarily stopped selling iPhones in New York City and was ripped in the press and at CES for constant outages. Meanwhile, “Fake Steve Jobs,” a prominent blogger, was warned by the FCC after calling for a protest dubbed “Operation Chokehold,” a digital flashmob that the government agency described as a “public safety concern.” Also, according to Reuters, Apple is building a 500,000 square-foot data center in North Carolina while trying to introduce video calling, which will further strain networks.
In a recent New York Times article, Ralph de la Vega, AT&T’s chief executive for mobility, was quoted that video and mobile web browsing have grown wireless data use on their network by nearly 7,000 percent since late 2006. And as Android phones come to Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, don’t think their networks are immune. It’s not just the iPhone.
Mobile warming is getting worse, not better. No next-generation system, like 4G or LTE, will have a true national footprint until well into 2011. Adding capacity to wireless networks is just too slow and expensive. Furthermore, it’s only adding another lane to a congested highway – 4G and LTE will help for a bit – until drivers start driving more and jams return. Despite long awaited next-generation networks, carriers will still have a hard time keeping up with the explosive growth in demand for data.
Unsustainable Growth
According to an Allot Communications report issued in Q2 2009, mobile video data use is growing at a global rate of over 60% quarter-over-quarter. Meanwhile, major telecom vendor Alcatel-Lucent projects that the cost per user for mobile carriers will quadruple between 2009 and 2012. Subscriber demand will outweigh the savings from improving technology.
What’s even worse is that these studies do not account for new ‘bandwidth hogging’ applications coming to market. Adobe Flash 10.1 (full Flash, not Flash “lite”) is rumored to be on tap for a handful of very powerful smartphones sometime in 2010, especially on Android ‘superphones’ like the Nexus One and the Motorola Droid.
Adobe Flash could open up a host of content that has previously not been accessible to smartphone users, including Flash video, animations, banner ads, and more – but it may further strain networks, and that may mean users experience choppy videos and painfully slow—or crashing—animations and Flash applications. 80% of the video on the web today is encoded in Flash. In the past, Flash content failed to load on cell phones, since the iPhone does not support it and other smartphones could not yet run the powerful program. But, when Flash finally arrives, most video and content will still not be optimized for mobile. Users will even be able to try to click on HD video files. No matter how you encode it, HD video will not be able to stream down congested cell towers. Just trying to download it will jam cell towers.
A few commentators have cited that HTML5, an emerging alternative to plug-ins like Flash or Silverlight, might make Flash irrelevant shortly. I do not believe that millions of web sites will convert to HTML5 overnight, especially because HTML5 video, and the h.264 codec, is not yet universally supported by browsers. Even if HTML5 were to arrive faster, the bandwidth issues would not be solved. HTML5 for now requires publishers or users to pick a “high quality” or “low quality” file, rather than supporting “adaptive streaming” that tailors video quality to what your phone and network can handle, second by second. When users pick “high quality,” or HD video, kiss your your local cell tower goodbye! HTML5 browsers could conceivably develop true adaptive streaming, but it’s not available yet.
Keeping our Heads in the Clouds
If anything will solve data congestion, increase speed, and enhance user experience, it is cloud computing. The mobile industry needs to realize the potential of server-side rendering to ease the data burden on already-strained networks. Cloud servers can respond to mobile phone requests by analyzing the content and the device instantly, and compress web video by over 70%, speed video start times, improve user experience, protect battery life by offloading the strain of rendering, and protect wireless networks from meltdown.
Cloud computing solutions can help in both in a Flash or HTML5 context, for the reasons described above. Both will need ways to help networks cope with Mobile Warming.
‘Bars’ Don’t Matter
What mobile users may not understand is that the number of ‘bars’ on their phone only indicates the signal strength from the nearest cell tower. Even with “full bars,” the nearest towers may be overloaded, and so a full signal won’t mean you can pass data through the logjam at the tower. Download speeds will slow to a crawl in actuality, calls will drop and texts will stall.
So just because you have three or four bars, don’t think Mobile Warming can’t happen to you.
The fact is, this kind of meltdown will happen more and more until the carriers realize the potential of the cloud. Mobile warming isn’t going to cool anytime soon. Sadly, it could mean the end of unlimited data plans while carriers try to balance supply and demand. Enjoy the free love and data while it lasts.
[Note: The post below has been published as an Op-Ed at BusinessInsider.com.]
2010: The Year of 'Mobile Warming': The Inconvenient Truth about Telco Network Bandwidth and How It’s Failing You
Have you or anyone you know ever experienced a dropped call on the AT&T network in a major US city? If so, you may be a victim of mobile warming. Whether you’re a leftist liberal or a die-hard conservative, we all know Mobile Warming is happening now and will only get worse.
Mobile Warming is the biggest problem facing mobile providers and users in the next two years. Wireless networks are melting down. Thanks to the explosive growth of demand for mobile video and data traffic, top metro areas in the US are already full of frustrated users with constantly dropped calls, slow connections, long video buffer times and an inability to connect to mobile apps at peak times. And if you think it’s bad now….just wait. New applications like video calling and the addition of Adobe Flash on some high-end phones mean that networks will feel more strain than ever. A recent research report released by Cisco found that mobile video will represent 66 percent of all mobile data traffic by 2014, increasing 66-fold from 2009 to 2014.
Operators Drop it Like it’s Hot (Your Call, That Is)
In 2010, as Google and Apple duke it out, with scores of Android and iPad devices coming to market, the heat is on. Anyone in San Francisco or New York with incessantly dropped calls knows that data congestion is only increasing. AT&T even temporarily stopped selling iPhones in New York City and was ripped in the press and at CES for constant outages. Meanwhile, “Fake Steve Jobs,” a prominent blogger, was warned by the FCC after calling for a protest dubbed “Operation Chokehold,” a digital flashmob that the government agency described as a “public safety concern.” Also, according to Reuters, Apple is building a 500,000 square-foot data center in North Carolina while trying to introduce video calling, which will further strain networks.
In a recent New York Times article, Ralph de la Vega, AT&T’s chief executive for mobility, was quoted that video and mobile web browsing have grown wireless data use on their network by nearly 7,000 percent since late 2006. And as Android phones come to Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, don’t think their networks are immune. It’s not just the iPhone.
Mobile warming is getting worse, not better. No next-generation system, like 4G or LTE, will have a true national footprint until well into 2011. Adding capacity to wireless networks is just too slow and expensive. Furthermore, it’s only adding another lane to a congested highway – 4G and LTE will help for a bit – until drivers start driving more and jams return. Despite long awaited next-generation networks, carriers will still have a hard time keeping up with the explosive growth in demand for data.
Unsustainable Growth
According to an Allot Communications report issued in Q2 2009, mobile video data use is growing at a global rate of over 60% quarter-over-quarter. Meanwhile, major telecom vendor Alcatel-Lucent projects that the cost per user for mobile carriers will quadruple between 2009 and 2012. Subscriber demand will outweigh the savings from improving technology.
What’s even worse is that these studies do not account for new ‘bandwidth hogging’ applications coming to market. Adobe Flash 10.1 (full Flash, not Flash “lite”) is rumored to be on tap for a handful of very powerful smartphones sometime in 2010, especially on Android ‘superphones’ like the Nexus One and the Motorola Droid.
Adobe Flash could open up a host of content that has previously not been accessible to smartphone users, including Flash video, animations, banner ads, and more – but it may further strain networks, and that may mean users experience choppy videos and painfully slow—or crashing—animations and Flash applications. 80% of the video on the web today is encoded in Flash. In the past, Flash content failed to load on cell phones, since the iPhone does not support it and other smartphones could not yet run the powerful program. But, when Flash finally arrives, most video and content will still not be optimized for mobile. Users will even be able to try to click on HD video files. No matter how you encode it, HD video will not be able to stream down congested cell towers. Just trying to download it will jam cell towers.
A few commentators have cited that HTML5, an emerging alternative to plug-ins like Flash or Silverlight, might make Flash irrelevant shortly. I do not believe that millions of web sites will convert to HTML5 overnight, especially because HTML5 video, and the h.264 codec, is not yet universally supported by browsers. Even if HTML5 were to arrive faster, the bandwidth issues would not be solved. HTML5 for now requires publishers or users to pick a “high quality” or “low quality” file, rather than supporting “adaptive streaming” that tailors video quality to what your phone and network can handle, second by second. When users pick “high quality,” or HD video, kiss your your local cell tower goodbye! HTML5 browsers could conceivably develop true adaptive streaming, but it’s not available yet.
Keeping our Heads in the Clouds
If anything will solve data congestion, increase speed, and enhance user experience, it is cloud computing. The mobile industry needs to realize the potential of server-side rendering to ease the data burden on already-strained networks. Cloud servers can respond to mobile phone requests by analyzing the content and the device instantly, and compress web video by over 70%, speed video start times, improve user experience, protect battery life by offloading the strain of rendering, and protect wireless networks from meltdown.
Cloud computing solutions can help in both in a Flash or HTML5 context, for the reasons described above. Both will need ways to help networks cope with Mobile Warming.
‘Bars’ Don’t Matter
What mobile users may not understand is that the number of ‘bars’ on their phone only indicates the signal strength from the nearest cell tower. Even with “full bars,” the nearest towers may be overloaded, and so a full signal won’t mean you can pass data through the logjam at the tower. Download speeds will slow to a crawl in actuality, calls will drop and texts will stall.
So just because you have three or four bars, don’t think Mobile Warming can’t happen to you.
The fact is, this kind of meltdown will happen more and more until the carriers realize the potential of the cloud. Mobile warming isn’t going to cool anytime soon. Sadly, it could mean the end of unlimited data plans while carriers try to balance supply and demand. Enjoy the free love and data while it lasts.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Flash is Always Greener
Posting a link to my guest Op-Ed on VentureBeat today, about why Flash will be better for consumers, carriers, and device makers with a little help from the Cloud.
http://mobile.venturebeat.com/2010/01/26/flash-iphone-skyfire/
It's centered on why you won't see Flash on the iPhone anytime soon, even if some high-end devices over the next few months get Flash 10.1. And anticipates some of the problems coming with native Flash going live on superphones like the NexusOne and the Droid.... for data congestion on wireless networks, phones slowing down from ads and animations and HD video, battery life depletion, and more.
Sure, I have a point of view because I think Skyfire can help. But that's why I took this job, because Skyfire has technology that can help stave off a looming crisis I call "mobile warming"... the inconvenient truth that cellular networks will start melting down with all the new streaming video, video calling, and Flash applications coming live.
http://mobile.venturebeat.com/2010/01/26/flash-iphone-skyfire/
It's centered on why you won't see Flash on the iPhone anytime soon, even if some high-end devices over the next few months get Flash 10.1. And anticipates some of the problems coming with native Flash going live on superphones like the NexusOne and the Droid.... for data congestion on wireless networks, phones slowing down from ads and animations and HD video, battery life depletion, and more.
Sure, I have a point of view because I think Skyfire can help. But that's why I took this job, because Skyfire has technology that can help stave off a looming crisis I call "mobile warming"... the inconvenient truth that cellular networks will start melting down with all the new streaming video, video calling, and Flash applications coming live.
Monday, January 18, 2010
QoS and the potential of censorship
I had an email question from a reader asking if QoS opens the door for censorship. I’m not an expert on QoS, but it does seem unlikely that it would be implemented that way, but it's a valid question.
If QoS rules were implemented badly, it could give big telco and cable companies the right to slow down bits or block web pages from a source they don’t like (for political reasons, hence censorship or bias in the media pipes, or more likely say a Hulu or YouTube or Netflix if it competed with their cable and VOD offerings and revenue --and if such company didn’t pay ‘protection money’). But I would note that you could have some forms of QoS where there was no censorship per se, it would just favor those with lots of cash to buy “fast lane” access. I think most rational proponents of QoS would not admit they favor the right of ISPs to just ‘block’ material they disagree with, outright block it. I doubt that would fly.
Now blocking BitTorrent or other P2P, if they accused those services of being almost all piracy and theft, that is more possible. Net Neutrality never was supposed to protect anything but ‘lawful’ traffic. So it’s a grey area, where IP and copyright rights are at tension with ‘privacy’ rights. But you do have to have some small empathy for the companies spending billions to upgrade networks that get eaten up by illegally downloaded movies.
Anyway, censorship bad, yes.
If QoS rules were implemented badly, it could give big telco and cable companies the right to slow down bits or block web pages from a source they don’t like (for political reasons, hence censorship or bias in the media pipes, or more likely say a Hulu or YouTube or Netflix if it competed with their cable and VOD offerings and revenue --and if such company didn’t pay ‘protection money’). But I would note that you could have some forms of QoS where there was no censorship per se, it would just favor those with lots of cash to buy “fast lane” access. I think most rational proponents of QoS would not admit they favor the right of ISPs to just ‘block’ material they disagree with, outright block it. I doubt that would fly.
Now blocking BitTorrent or other P2P, if they accused those services of being almost all piracy and theft, that is more possible. Net Neutrality never was supposed to protect anything but ‘lawful’ traffic. So it’s a grey area, where IP and copyright rights are at tension with ‘privacy’ rights. But you do have to have some small empathy for the companies spending billions to upgrade networks that get eaten up by illegally downloaded movies.
Anyway, censorship bad, yes.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
A less open, less democratic internet?
I'm flying home to (my new home in) Silicon Valley after participating in a 3 hour workshop held by the FCC yesterday in Boston. The topic was the future of the "open internet" and also whether Net Neutrality rules that have guided the internet for most of its life should extend to the emerging "mobile internet."
I was lucky enough to be one of two start-up entrepreneurs invited to speak at the Forum, and represent mobile application developers in general and the barriers we still face.
I'm trying to keep an open mind to some of the proposals that are being floated but I find them still in my gut to be deeply troubling.
My concern is that the internet has fostered incredible wave of new companies, innovation, job creation, and better products for Americans (and people around the world). It's been a pretty open place. Google, Ebay, YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, Skype and others are great new companies that began often in dorm rooms or garages. They didn't have a lot of capital to start, and when they got venture backing, the costs of building an internet service was relatively low compared to the potential audience.
Under conditions where a big company like Google (now a goliath) or NBC gets to buy 1st class transit, what happens to start-ups and small businesses? Their applications will likely load even slower than today (network capacity is fairly zero sum except in the long term), since an "express lane" has been carved for the fat cats. Remember, most jobs in the US are with small business, and all the net job gains lately are from small business. It's risky to the tradition of the internet as an open forum for competition and new ideas to make it harder for new entrants, especially those that need to prove themselves and get to scale before they can fire up a revenue model (think Twitter or YouTube, or in our case Skyfire).
This "quality of service" billing is under serious consideration. Industry working groups and big cable and telephone companies, along with their equipment vendors and software vendors, want the FCC to clarify rules so they can start doing this. What's held them back has been fear of FCC action. Since the 1990s the FCC has in one form or another held internet carriers to rules or guidelines preserving open access, and in 2005 these open access rules were codified by the FCC into "net neutrality" principles, which basically means everyone's bits on the internet get treated equally, with no discrimination, as long as they are lawful (spammers or viruses, not invited). 2005 was not a change; it basically codified how things have been since the 1970s and the birth of the internet.
These new "Quality of Service" proposals seem quite worrisome for competition by start-ups like mine, and would favor big established companies with lots of cash to “buy up to first class.” Since it’s a fixed pie of bandwidth in many ways, it will have the impact of degrading throughput for data in "steerage class" for the rest of us. Now the proponents of QoS do acknowledge that it should not be a totally unregulated caste system. Based on what Alcatel and Camiant proposed at the FCC workshop, there could be rules to keep this class system somewhat fair. For instance, telcos would have to publish pricing and offer it to any buyer, with no volume discounts or favoritism, so little companies can buy in to first class at the same prices as say Google/YouTube or NBC… but I don’t know that we’d have the money… or at least, start-ups would have to raise more money if they wanted to do video or low latency applications, and that would make it harder for the next YouTube to emerge.
I do want to express sympathy for the private companies like cable and telco players that have invested billions to give us the wonders of the internet, and interconnect to each other to make the information superhighway possible. They have created a wonderful public good. And like any public good, there is a risk of the "tragedy of the commons," as in an open ocean fishery that gets overfished, a common pasture that gets over-grazed, a free highway that gets congested, or now wireless and fixed bandwidth, especially in the local loop. Skyfire has long said that the growth in wireless data consumption is exponential and it's impossible for spectrum and networks to expand fast enough to keep up. Something does have to change. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Rather than a radical solution, how about trying a more incremental solution that can probably solve the problem, but stay closer to the openness that has fueled competition on the internet since the beginning? My modest proposal is this: Nondiscrimination should remain the hallmark of network management. Allow ISPs and access providers to offer CONSUMERS the option to buy tiers and flavors of service, by the month or by the minute. Prices can vary for peak and off-peak. It's usage-based pricing. If the user wants really high quality Skype video conferencing, or fast Hulu video, or a "gaming mode" which gives small packets fast transit (low latency), then they can buy that on the spot. Browsers and applications can tie into open APIs to resell this upgraded service to consumers. I do NOT think that publishers or applications should be allowed to buy this higher tier for consumers, as that will distort the level playing field.
Several benefits:
(1) In the industry, it's well known that a few "data hogs" among users really tax the network at the expense of the rest of us. Some of them are doing unattractive things (like uploading hundreds of pirated videos, adult content, spam or viruses). Some are running small businesses or organizations from consumer accounts. Some are music or entertainment fanatics who download huge HD files in high quantity. I'll set aside as a separate topic that the open internet and net neutrality have always been about "lawful" content and so I don't have much sympathy for full-time pirates. But just saying to intense users, "you have to pay up for a "pro" edition of access level," would probably restore market incentives, fund increased bandwidth, and cut down on abuse. And the 98% of users who aren't data hogs will be better off in service and pricing.
I heard from a Cisco friend that a few hundred users in Germany at one point were over 50% of the network data! Those folks should pay for Pro access. Unlimited one-size-fits-all consumer rate plans are unsustainable and ripe for abuse. That's true of both mobile and fixed-line internet both.
(2) The "user pays for faster service" model is as non-discriminatory and close to the open internet as possible, while starting to create tiering. If sold by the hour or minute, it probably won't be that expensive for a casual user. And it won't bias the system in favor of big established companies with lots of cash to buy an "express lane" all the time for their products. And it can have flavors-- some may want "big bandwidth" mode, others "low latency" mode for gamers.
Marcus Weldon, the CTO of Alcatel who spoke at the forum, is a very smart professional and while I may not fully agree with everything he proposed, I completely agree that bandwidth usage is exploding and some way to balance supply and demand is needed.
I'm glad I made the trip, and at least made my case on behalf of entreprenuers and VC investors. Kudos as well to Barbara and Shane, two professors at the workshop who made much more scholarly and erudite presentations that concorded fully with my view. Thanks for your good work.
I'll try to post soon about bringing Net Neutrality to extend to the mobile web, which is still under debate before the FCC. Right now, there really are no rules on wireless. And I want to write a bit about my impressions from CES last week. Off to a start on my blog.
Thanks for reading.
I was lucky enough to be one of two start-up entrepreneurs invited to speak at the Forum, and represent mobile application developers in general and the barriers we still face.
I'm trying to keep an open mind to some of the proposals that are being floated but I find them still in my gut to be deeply troubling.
My concern is that the internet has fostered incredible wave of new companies, innovation, job creation, and better products for Americans (and people around the world). It's been a pretty open place. Google, Ebay, YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, Skype and others are great new companies that began often in dorm rooms or garages. They didn't have a lot of capital to start, and when they got venture backing, the costs of building an internet service was relatively low compared to the potential audience.
Under conditions where a big company like Google (now a goliath) or NBC gets to buy 1st class transit, what happens to start-ups and small businesses? Their applications will likely load even slower than today (network capacity is fairly zero sum except in the long term), since an "express lane" has been carved for the fat cats. Remember, most jobs in the US are with small business, and all the net job gains lately are from small business. It's risky to the tradition of the internet as an open forum for competition and new ideas to make it harder for new entrants, especially those that need to prove themselves and get to scale before they can fire up a revenue model (think Twitter or YouTube, or in our case Skyfire).
This "quality of service" billing is under serious consideration. Industry working groups and big cable and telephone companies, along with their equipment vendors and software vendors, want the FCC to clarify rules so they can start doing this. What's held them back has been fear of FCC action. Since the 1990s the FCC has in one form or another held internet carriers to rules or guidelines preserving open access, and in 2005 these open access rules were codified by the FCC into "net neutrality" principles, which basically means everyone's bits on the internet get treated equally, with no discrimination, as long as they are lawful (spammers or viruses, not invited). 2005 was not a change; it basically codified how things have been since the 1970s and the birth of the internet.
These new "Quality of Service" proposals seem quite worrisome for competition by start-ups like mine, and would favor big established companies with lots of cash to “buy up to first class.” Since it’s a fixed pie of bandwidth in many ways, it will have the impact of degrading throughput for data in "steerage class" for the rest of us. Now the proponents of QoS do acknowledge that it should not be a totally unregulated caste system. Based on what Alcatel and Camiant proposed at the FCC workshop, there could be rules to keep this class system somewhat fair. For instance, telcos would have to publish pricing and offer it to any buyer, with no volume discounts or favoritism, so little companies can buy in to first class at the same prices as say Google/YouTube or NBC… but I don’t know that we’d have the money… or at least, start-ups would have to raise more money if they wanted to do video or low latency applications, and that would make it harder for the next YouTube to emerge.
I do want to express sympathy for the private companies like cable and telco players that have invested billions to give us the wonders of the internet, and interconnect to each other to make the information superhighway possible. They have created a wonderful public good. And like any public good, there is a risk of the "tragedy of the commons," as in an open ocean fishery that gets overfished, a common pasture that gets over-grazed, a free highway that gets congested, or now wireless and fixed bandwidth, especially in the local loop. Skyfire has long said that the growth in wireless data consumption is exponential and it's impossible for spectrum and networks to expand fast enough to keep up. Something does have to change. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Rather than a radical solution, how about trying a more incremental solution that can probably solve the problem, but stay closer to the openness that has fueled competition on the internet since the beginning? My modest proposal is this: Nondiscrimination should remain the hallmark of network management. Allow ISPs and access providers to offer CONSUMERS the option to buy tiers and flavors of service, by the month or by the minute. Prices can vary for peak and off-peak. It's usage-based pricing. If the user wants really high quality Skype video conferencing, or fast Hulu video, or a "gaming mode" which gives small packets fast transit (low latency), then they can buy that on the spot. Browsers and applications can tie into open APIs to resell this upgraded service to consumers. I do NOT think that publishers or applications should be allowed to buy this higher tier for consumers, as that will distort the level playing field.
Several benefits:
(1) In the industry, it's well known that a few "data hogs" among users really tax the network at the expense of the rest of us. Some of them are doing unattractive things (like uploading hundreds of pirated videos, adult content, spam or viruses). Some are running small businesses or organizations from consumer accounts. Some are music or entertainment fanatics who download huge HD files in high quantity. I'll set aside as a separate topic that the open internet and net neutrality have always been about "lawful" content and so I don't have much sympathy for full-time pirates. But just saying to intense users, "you have to pay up for a "pro" edition of access level," would probably restore market incentives, fund increased bandwidth, and cut down on abuse. And the 98% of users who aren't data hogs will be better off in service and pricing.
I heard from a Cisco friend that a few hundred users in Germany at one point were over 50% of the network data! Those folks should pay for Pro access. Unlimited one-size-fits-all consumer rate plans are unsustainable and ripe for abuse. That's true of both mobile and fixed-line internet both.
(2) The "user pays for faster service" model is as non-discriminatory and close to the open internet as possible, while starting to create tiering. If sold by the hour or minute, it probably won't be that expensive for a casual user. And it won't bias the system in favor of big established companies with lots of cash to buy an "express lane" all the time for their products. And it can have flavors-- some may want "big bandwidth" mode, others "low latency" mode for gamers.
Marcus Weldon, the CTO of Alcatel who spoke at the forum, is a very smart professional and while I may not fully agree with everything he proposed, I completely agree that bandwidth usage is exploding and some way to balance supply and demand is needed.
You can find his presentation and mine on this FCC page:
http://www.openinternet.gov/workshops/innovation-investment-and-the-open-internet.html
I admit that I have more to learn about Quality of Service proposals and there are certainly better and worse ways to implement them. But from the many people who came up to me after my presentation to thank me, I feel I'm right to be wary of QoS. At the very least, it deserves a lot of scrutiny and debate to shape it. What do you think? Comments welcome.I'm glad I made the trip, and at least made my case on behalf of entreprenuers and VC investors. Kudos as well to Barbara and Shane, two professors at the workshop who made much more scholarly and erudite presentations that concorded fully with my view. Thanks for your good work.
I'll try to post soon about bringing Net Neutrality to extend to the mobile web, which is still under debate before the FCC. Right now, there really are no rules on wireless. And I want to write a bit about my impressions from CES last week. Off to a start on my blog.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
