Welcome to .tom

As the CEO of Nominum, Inc, a leading provider of DNS software to the Internet, our customer base routinely asks us to comment on Internet events. Sometimes these events come in the form of wide scale vulnerabilities, global regulatory efforts, Internet policy, market initiatives and security issues. Other times, these events come in the form of new services or solutions offered by other companies or groups.

In the past, we’ve offered our inputs privately to our customers in the form of advisories, briefings and recommendations. Today, our DNS based solutions speed up and secure the Internet for 500 million fixed and mobile Internet users, around the world, all the time. That’s 30% of the world’s Internet users – many of whom are also beginning to enjoy the added resiliency and other benefits of our cloud and advanced services. With this kind of impact, our views can no longer be purely private matters.

The goal of the .tom blog is to allow other Internet participants to review and understand our perspective. The blog is intended to make available the track record of thought that we share with our customer base on a regular basis.

Our role in the Internet will continue to grow. And, this is a pretty big responsibility that we take very seriously. We work hard every day to build a better, safer, faster and smarter Internet for everyone. But to us, this is not enough. We are also working hard with our customers – in many cases, the world’s top ISPs – to improve security, usefulness and the fabric of the Internet itself. This blog provides a mechanism to share views on how society uses the Internet, how we all can benefit from network level improvements and how protocols and solutions can work even better.

Thank you for visiting this blog. I hope you enjoy the postings and, more importantly, I hope you find them useful and worthwhile. I encourage you to drop me a line to let me know what you think.

.tom

The Omnibox, and Soviets, and Australia OH MY!

I have received a number of recent comments (THANK YOU!) asking for clarification and elaboration on my internet filtering/government involvement views. Hopefully this helps to clarify.  One of the comments was the following from “Brandon” in response to my post I’m a Better Digital Citizen After Australia:

If you provide such technology to a government how do you reconcile with yourself that your technology could enable such governments to block political ideas or other important forms of communication? Does it not remind you of the old Soviet practice of preventing the free flow of communication?

If your concern is for children accessing inappropriate content, isn’t it best to protect them in the digital world just like we do in the real world: by their parents? Who could possibly have more incentive to protect children than their own parents?

To address the first set of questions, let me first say that I think that we should all be careful of oversimplifications and hasty generalizations of what are extremely complex issues and conditions.  In fact, let’s all be very clear – what is ultimately being debated is not whether end users would actually benefit from added protections, but rather who should provide them and their scope.  There are significant commercial interests at stake in the context of this discussion—whether identifying a price for this protection, or the ability to leverage the protections to other services.  This debate is merely a side note, however, to the reality that end users are better served by having the option of using intelligent network level services that deliver added protection.

The issues raised in Brandon’s second set of questions do appeal to me. To expect a parent (or any user for that matter) at the end of the proverbial pipe to fend for their own in dealing with the infinite number of malicious possibilities is inefficient and self-defeating.  I do think parents have more incentive than anyone to protect their children (and even to protect children that aren’t their own if they can).  But saying so does not suggest or imply a specific technological solution.  Parents should have the option to enjoy any service or application – network or client based – that meets their needs and the needs of their children.

By now, you all know that I am not a proponent of big government.  It is impossible to expect governmental bodies to effectively legislate all aspects of a network of networks as complex and diverse as the Internet.  And, sometimes, the presence of the control debate itself stifles innovation.  When this happens the digital citizenry is left to call on our governments to put end user protection (not content providers or ISP’s) first.  This is what I sensed in Australia and, quite honestly, in other areas of the globe.

I imagine that there are still those who think I am advocating an invasion of privacy or an otherwise invasive application of technology. To be clear, I’m against anybody spying. Privacy does not have to be sacrificed in order to adequately protect end users. Please refer to my previous blogs regarding the Windstream Redirection debacle and my views on auto-upgrades and the Omnibox for further technical explanation.

That being said, I hope this has helped. If you have anything more to contribute to this dialogue, please don’t hesitate to send it my way.

.tom

When did search turn into being searched?

I’m just going to come out and say it: I have a beef with the marriage of browsers and search. To be fair, I can see the convenience and appeal of having an improved search function, but I’m suspicious of non-transparent auto-upgrades and the Omnibox.  Allowing users an informed choice and preserving privacy seem to be the casualties in this thinly veiled death march toward gathering more user data.

I understand the commercial and economic catalyst.  By relegating all browser activity to a search, search vendors gain a stronger upper hand in the on-line advertising bargaining model.  And, if they can do it right, good for them.  However, when you consider the manner in which our information is obtained and the uses to which this information is put, I’m not sure we want to be pawns in the glorious conquest of the online advertising market. Consider, too, that the Omnibox (when enabled with the ‘auto-suggest’ feature and Google as the default search vendor) will admittedly have access to any keystrokes entered into the box—even if you don’t press enter.  Even worse, Google has acknowledged they will retain some of that data along with your corresponding IP address. Sure, sure, in some way, shape, or form my browsing activity will be analyzed by someone.  Maybe by the browser, the network, or the service I use.  I get that.  Still, should we be demanding an informed opt-in for these automatic browser updates and non-transparent data storage?

Stand alone, the Omnibox is the least of my worries when it comes to browsers. If it’s a voluntary download, responsible users are presumably aware of the implications of using this interaction model.  For me, the real wolf in sheep’s clothing is an auto-upgrade feature that might automatically change my header bar into a search bar.  An update might be acceptable as it implies an improvement to a program that has already been chosen by the consumer.  And maybe that is the gimmick(?) – they are all updates <snicker snicker>.  But an auto-upgrade takes the big liberty of adding new features without my consent and could degrade consumer experience.  The potential for abuse is a little too real for comfort and definitely not unheard of (as we saw with Safari). There are two options here: simply do away with the automatic upgrade feature, or give consumers an explicit and informed choice of which features they want to enable each time the browser is upgraded.  And yet, nobody seems to do this and can get away with it because they have a quick blurb about it in their terms of service.

I would like to be confident that the next time the auto-update function in Firefox kicks into gear, I am told what is going to happen to my Internet experience.  Whatever happens, I hope whatever it’s installing won’t result in my URL bar being taken over and turned into a data gathering function.  I don’t want to be searched.

.tom

As G.I. Joe Would Say: “Now you Know, and Knowing is Half the Battle”

By now, you’ve all seen the article entitled Windstream Quickly Fixes Google Toolbar Hijack.  The jury is still out on what exactly happened there.  From my earlier posts, you probably guessed that my reaction would be to support any approach that expanded the scope of network-based offerings.  If you did, you guessed wrong.  Of course, if you guessed that I would have a knee jerk reaction to the use of the term “hijack,” you guessed right.  Google doesn’t own all browser traffic any more than Windstream does and any suggestion that they do is a proverbial jump ball (with users as the ball).

Should DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) or proxy devices be used to handle navigation requests? If the commentators are correct, proxying all navigation requests for redirection on an opt-out basis seems overly broad to me.

Nominum offers a DNS based navigation assistance solution and service.  To be clear, we offer something completely different than the redirection system suspected at Windstream.  Our solution provides a rich policy layer within DNS, granular rule sets, white list capabilities and learning algorithms that are designed to make DNS responses and the user experience better, safer and more intelligent.  In the beginning, we recognized the concern that DNS redirection may adversely impact applications, etc.  We made a decision to enter the market because we knew we could do it right and offer large networks a technical solution that works, that’s non-intrusive to users and improves the overall network performance (vs. whatever other DNS solution they have installed).  In fact, when network owners make the move to Nominum’s web error redirection solution, users actually enjoy a faster, more stable, and safer Internet service.

I say all of this because if the goal at Windstream was to handle web errors, inline DPI or proxy devices are not the right technologies for this purpose.  Because DPI and proxies examine all traffic, whether or not a navigation request, these technologies are overly intrusive for a web error application.  Such devices are almost certainly “overkill” from a networking perspective as well because of the obvious performance hurdles that must be overcome to be used in the network.

By contrast, DNS-based redirection is not intrusive, at least not the way Nominum does it.  First of all, our solution is DNS based, which means it never sees traffic users send to web servers.  Second, our solution does not redirect requests generated by client-side solutions (for example, toolbars).  White lists provide additional protection of applications and our adaptive learning algorithms actually allow us to identify malicious traffic (more on this in a later column), something the other systems simply can’t do.

In the absence of any inline device, Nominum’s navigation assistance is available in a fast, reliable, and scalable platform.  In contrast, a DPI box has to be on the critical path for traffic on a network and will become a source of delay and reliability problems.  Of course, a modern router can divert traffic by port. This, though, begs the question of why you wouldn’t prefer an intelligent DNS server to handle DNS traffic rather than a quasi-DNS server in a DPI box (which is probably several steps back in the release and patch cycle of somebody else’s DNS)?

Proxying web traffic on an opt-out basis to get to web errors (or some super set of web errors) is not a useful service element and is not recommended by Nominum.  And, from a network perspective, if the overall network stability or performance is adversely impacted by relying DPI, intrusive technologies or poor DNS solutions as the foundation for a redirection service, such approaches may leave the network owner open to net neutrality complaints.

I will go out on a limb and say the “mistake” at Windstream was just that.  It is not the smoking gun to justify legislation.  In fact, users did a good job of voicing concern and Windstream quickly fixed the issue.

Millions of end users use Nominum’s solutions and services without complaints or issues.  We’ve even worked with many large network owners to establish a general industry consensus of best practices in the web error redirection space.  I’m not asking that anyone just blindly assume benevolence but most users find these services useful.  At the same time, I don’t advocate burning Windstream in effigy.  I’m not reaching for my pitchfork. It is possible to provide this class of service responsibly.

.tom

What happens to Internet policy if we think of it as a content distribution platform?

The recent court ruling determining that the F.C.C. does not have the authority to regulate Net Neutrality seems to have stoked the embers of discourse on Net Neutrality Legislation once again.  But I wonder whether the growing emphasis on such legislation is simply a distraction.

The music industry, more specifically records, radio, tapes, and CDs, were all platforms for content distribution.  As a kid, I grew up listening to the full gamut of what radio stations, tapes and CDs had to offer.  I still have a few records in mint condition that I listen to.  It was the variety of content and choice of medium that provided the soundtrack to my adolescence.

The heyday of broadcasting might have been on its decline by the time I was a young adult but I understood its model.  Enjoying music flourished with little more than the requirement that radio stations pay record labels and, through them, the songwriter royalties to perform their content.  The music industry relied on regional competition to ensure choice for listeners.  The FCC adopted baseline content regulations but otherwise gave the music industry a large creative license over the content they produced and distributed.  Deliver the best and most popular music and you’d reach a wider and broader audience.  Understand your particular market best, and you’d receive the material boom from the generation of kids playing your sounds everywhere.

The development of the Internet followed a similar, albeit more explosive, pattern.  As we all rushed to join the Internet community, and ISP’s invested in expanding and improving Internet infrastructures, connection speeds underwent exponential growth.  So too did the content available online.  The government had, as with radio, been largely hands off with the exception of limiting services that undermined copyright law and adopting guidelines for network openness.  With the advent of high speed Internet (now defined by the FCC in 2009 as data transmission speeds exceeding 768Kbps) the type and quantity of web content is, today, limited only insofar as your imagination.

Against this backdrop, I worry that Net Neutrality legislation (yes, I used the word “legislation” purposefully) is a huge head fake towards the wrong issues.  And, I don’t think I stand alone here.  As users, shouldn’t we ask our governments to focus on encouraging (and requiring) ISPs and content providers (like Google, Facebook and YouTube) to look forward and do more for our Internet service? Shouldn’t governments make it clear to these providers that each has a duty to protect end-users from malware, illegal and universally offensive content?  Honestly, I can’t remember ever being blocked from any legitimate something I wanted to go to on the Internet.  So, to legally mandate an open and free Internet might be as useful as mandating “free air” legislation for everyone.  I think we have that already . . . shouldn’t governments focus on what we don’t have?

The Internet has become something completely distinct from all preceding content distribution platforms.  It is the fastest growing and most efficient means by which all content owners can freely publish and broadcast their creations and the average end user can enjoy content produced globally.  At the same time, safety issues never before considered in other distribution platforms are now very much a real and viable threat to every Internet user.  For example, the idea of a malware program being transferred to unsuspecting listeners via radio airwaves is laughable.  Even the previous music platforms that theoretically could harbor a malicious code — such as a tape or CD were by and large free from such concerns.  On the Internet, however, both publisher and listener face real threats and they are growing every day.

As a user, and citizen, I’d prefer that if governments are going to act, that they focus on making the Internet better.  I think of this as akin to “clean air” legislation requiring networks and content providers to reduce harmful transmissions for the benefit of everyone.  Citizens of the United States, and many other jurisdictions on the planet, already enjoy free and open Internet.  Reaching backwards in time to provide legislation to codify what we already enjoy in the absence of any threat to that freedom seems like a waste of time.  Adopting legislation to make what we currently enjoy better, safer, and free of these new and growing threats . . . well, that would be nothing short of cool.

.tom

I’m a Better Digital Citizen After Australia

I’ve already blogged about the Australia initiative to require mandatory content filtering by ISPs.  But, having just visited there, I realize that even I have been too generalized in my appreciation for the issues being raised down under.

To be clear, most seem to agree that the filtering itself is technically feasible.  Google raised concerns that such blocking might slow the Internet.  Telstra published its report, based on our technology, to show that it would not. More to the point, I am sure there are technical implementations that would slow down the Internet, adding latency and impairing the end user experience.  I shared that, for some time now, Nominum’s recommendation to ISPs has been that broad based service offerings that leverage DNS should be deployed only if the overall quality of network service is improved by doing so.

Some involved in the debate are advocating notice requirements be added, and others an opt-out for end users.  I think both of these measures are sound and, coincidentally, match the advice we give our customers on a daily basis.  Even if the provisions are mandatory for all ISPs, a persistent opt-out for users would be a useful part of such service.  Truthfully, if I lived there, I wouldn’t turn off the protection but some might.

The real debate comes down to two issues: a) should governments engage in passing such regulations, and b) what is the extent of the content to be blocked.  As to the first point, I think the answer is clear.  Internet participants already cast their vote on whether the Internet, as a social medium, is immune from regulation or legal requirements.  We faced this issue in dealing with copyright infringement concerns brought on by the explosion of file sharing services.  I was at a music subscription start up back then and, overnight, music seemed like it was going to be free.  We all agreed that an Internet that preserved the rights of copyright owners was in everyone’s interest.  We all learned that the digital world is very much a part of the physical world, where laws and regulations make us all safer and more productive.  As to the second point, Australia uses the definition “refused classification” to describe the content that might be subject to the new requirements.  I won’t go into the details of that definition here.  Suffice it to say that some believe the definition is too expansive.  Some believe it is reasonable.  To me, this is where the effort should be spent – achieving quick consensus on the content to be blocked on-line.

Reading this, you might think that I am an advocate of a “closed” or “moderated” Internet. I am not.  But neither do I have to spend my time defining what “open” means. I am a pragmatist, believe in the power of users, and have already said that network owners, content providers, and governments should work together to encourage correct action that benefits end users.  I am not afraid of government action anymore than Net Neutrality advocates who call for it in the context of demanding legislation of an open and free Internet.  I’ve got a separate blog addressing that on this site.

More and more governments will enter the Internet landscape and adopt mandatory blocking of unwanted content. The content and scope of these laws will vary.  What will not vary will be their intensions.  They will do so not because anyone is doing anything wrong, or because they want to police our activities, but because we, as digital citizens, demand it.

.tom

Preaching to the Choir? The March Forward to a Secure Internet

DNS security has been on the front burner in the networking industry ever since Kaminsky found his vulnerability in mid 2008.   Since then, consensus has formed that DNSSEC is a much needed mechanism to secure domains and resolution requests in the DNS.  Still, its adoption has been slow.  Google’s recent announcement regarding its public DNS service was even explicit about the omission of this important protection layer.

DNSSEC provides a powerful protection layer in the Internet.  With it, DNS data integrity is guaranteed, regardless of how the data is served.  For example, with DNSSEC deployed, the possibility of cache poisoning attacks effectively drops to nil. Of course, Nominum’s existing layered defenses have stopped Kaminsky cache poisoning attacks for several years now, but we can anticipate the course of even more powerful attacks in the future.

Given the industry progress that has been made with DNSSEC in the last 18 months, I have to wonder why Google did not ensure DNSSEC compliance before launching its Public DNS service.  On the other hand, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.  Some hosted DNS service providers have recently announced “alternatives” to DNSSEC.  These alternative mechanisms, such as DNSCurve, have some industry support.  Still, they are not as effective as DNSSEC and accomplish very different things than DNSSEC.  There are also a few DNS offerings that seem to have abandoned DNSSEC altogether.  And some of these providers have started to promote a completely new protocol.  But seriously, at the bare minimum, all DNS providers should invest in the technological burden of making their software and services compliant with DNSSEC.  If they don’t, we (users, networks, schools and enterprises) should not use them.

Nominum’s DNS software has been DNSSEC compliant for years now.  And, in the recent years, we chose to invest further to make DNSSEC simple to deploy.  With these improvements, the deployment and management process for DNSSEC are completely automated. But we did not stop there.

Nominum actually relies on several mechanisms to secure DNS.  One mechanism secures the data (DNSSEC), another secures the communication between caching and authoritative DNS servers and the third mechanism protects the sever itself. We call the second mechanism DNSAUTH.  DNSSEC and DNSAUTH are resident in all our servers.  The two functions can be used simultaneously and, at the same time, the server can continue to leverage our layered defense mechanism (3^rd layer) as well.  That’s the important part.

Bad guys use multiple attack vectors to compromise defenses that would withstand one.  What DNSSEC does is prevent attacks by hostiles that have the ability to watch packets go by – for example the operator of a rogue WIFI access point or combined attack scenarios that use route hijacking, or router hijacking.  DNSAUTH, on the other hand, extends Nominum’s layered DNS defenses by securing the communication link between caching and authoritative servers.  DNSAUTH allows for server authentication and encryption of DNS data exchanged between the caching and authoritative DNS servers.

I believe the Internet is served only by advancing the capabilities in DNS, particularly combining multiple protection mechanisms to secure the DNS.   This is not a check box feature set.  It should be part of a holistic system to protect the server, caching-authoritative connections and the data contained in DNS.  Users and network owners should not rely on single purpose protection layers.  And, they should not rely on DNS services that are not compliant with DNSSEC.  DNSSEC is of great importance to the Internet.   As an Internet community, we must be ready on both sides of the migration line to secure end user requests and protect them from cache poisoning and similar threats.  Not supporting DNSSEC, and worse actively pushing unproven alternatives, sends us all back too many years.  Can I get an Amen?

.tom

Whose Job is it Anyway?

In Australia, several of our customers are working with the government there to develop new regulations that would mandate filtering of illegal content. It’s a pretty thorny issue, as you might imagine. Other countries around the world are considering similar regulations. And while the notion of mandated content filtering has not really gained ground in the United States, concerns about online safety, especially safety of our children, is huge everywhere.

I think Australia is on to something. Understand that I am not currently advocating legislation in the United States. But I am saying that the network owner in the best position to help make the online experience safer should do so. Think of it this way. Imagine your child is playing in the street when a car careens around the corner at high speed. Would you have a problem if another adult standing much closer to your child moves him or her out of harm’s way? I didn’t think so.

Many critics of online safety regulations argue that as soon as one of the world’s leading democracies mandates illegal content filtering by ISPs, it’s only a matter of time before they all do. I’d prefer to see the global Internet community, especially service, content and search providers, come together and provide practical protections to safeguard children and families online without legislation. These solutions should embrace a mix of technologies, in the network and at the client level to improve the safety and security of the Internet for all users.

Critics also talk about any kind of regulations as a threat to free speech. But, this is disingenuous. First, some search engines have been known to block offensive content, as well as certain “grey” content, such as tobacco and alcohol advertising. Second, even the most liberal democracies today maintain restrictions on certain types of speech that the vast majority of citizens agree is offensive or dangerous. No one can seriously claim this has repressed speech. Third, some critics have willingly complied with far more severe government restrictions for years in other countries without any argument – until now.

The answer may lie in the prospect that some companies and organizations don’t want ISPs to offer value beyond simple Internet access, either for competitive business reasons or philosophical or political reasons. Perhaps, in their eyes, a regulation that gives ISPs any ability to exercise control over admittedly illegal content will naturally give them more influence over how all content and value-added services – everything from search to security to new applications – are delivered to their customers. They might believe it’s a slippery slope. I do not. I like competition and choice and, as a free-Internet believer, my clicks and my dollars go to the one that can provide me the best service. Not to the one who simply has the political pull and better lobbying.

Maybe I am biased too. To be clear, Australia’s largest ISP determined that our DNS technology represents the most efficient solution for complying with the government’s proposed measures because it would have minimal impact on network performance and provide the best end user experience. In fact, we are proud that our technology would allow government, citizens and industry leaders to block web sites that contain already-illegal content. This approach protects end users without resorting to intrusive and controversial measures, such as “packet sniffing,” which we agree could degrade performance and potentially block acceptable content inadvertently.

Ultimately, the network or solution in the best position to provide lasting and valuable protection to end users ought to be encouraged to do so. Such encouragement can come from us, as users, from competitive pressures or, if need be, from government. Protecting and improving the Internet is no more the right of one company than is the obligation of every adult to protect that child on the street. Not all have to run into the street. Some can flag down the car. Some can grab the child. It’s about doing what is right under the circumstances and every Internet participant has a hand in ensuring users are protected. I believe a collaborative approach – that values the contributions of all networks and solutions – is best in all circumstances.

.tom

The Net Neutrality Heresies

Way back in the 1980s – not long after our Chairman, Dr. Paul Mockapetris, invented the DNS – an archaeologist named Robert Bakker published a book called the Dinosaur Heresies. That book turned conventional wisdom about dinosaur science on its head and touched off a passionate scientific debate that continues to this day.

Bakker postulated, for example, that dinosaurs were not cold-blooded, lethargic dimwits. He argued that the available scientific evidence actually proved dinosaurs were warm blooded animals that possessed quick reflexes and uncanny intelligence. Perhaps his most famous claim was that the fearsome Tyrannosaurus Rex – long believed to be history’s greatest predator – was actually nothing more than a huge scavenger, roaming the Jurassic badlands for carcasses and scraps of meat.

How does this relate to the Internet? Well, if Dr. Bakker were an Internet archeologist, I wonder if he might postulate a similar set of theories that put Internet commentators and politicians on their heads (or at least on their heels). Take, for example, the concept of Net Neutrality – the principle that says service providers should make available an open and unaided pipe for all content and services, no matter the source, intention or impact. This concept is on the verge of being codified and, perhaps, extended soon by our very own Federal Communication Commission. However, we, like Dr. Bakker looking back at the evolution of the Internet, might just as well come to the conclusion that Net Neutrality is (or at the very least has become) a huge and terrible scavenger, roaming the digital badlands for something to bite.

Net Neutrality advocates claim that it is an essential component of the digital landscape. It is necessary, they claim, to ensure choice – choice in service, choice in content, choice in the experience. Some argue that we cannot rely on service providers for innovation. To them, relying on service providers is inherently problematic because ISPs, left unchecked, may be inclined toward monopolistic behavior that stifles innovation and competition. To be sure, both sides of this debate employ scores of public policy foot soldiers to ensure that their particular message is heard loud and clear.

Let’s examine the history of communications and information technology to gain some perspective. Several years ago, Morgan Stanley published a study on the future of web-based retailing. Their report included some fantastic data on the number of years it took for various forms of mass media to hit the 50 million user mark: Radio (38 years), TV (13 years), Internet (4 years), iPod (3 years), and Facebook (100 million users in only 9 months). These are amazing figures.

A brand new study from the Pew Research Center study concludes that 61% of news consumers now get their news from the Internet. Traditional media’s numbers are in decline because there is simply so much more and varied information available online from around the world. What’s more, the top search engines (BING, Google and Yahoo) account for 97% of all online searching. Today, even the most conservative estimates show there are upwards of 2 billion Internet users around the world, each of whom access these services freely and without limitation.

In the past 3 years, the Internet has also become one of the most genuinely populist communications and service platforms ever created. Today, Yelp, Twitter, StumbleUpon and other social networking tools allow average users to voice their praise, concerns or even ridicule about specific services, products, companies and organizations.

These services ensure that average users have greater influence over their Internet experience. More importantly, these new tools enable users to tailor the Internet experience in a way that best serves everyone — call it a “Wisdom of the Crowds” approach to shaping the Internet experience.

The technical community too has similar services, like discussion list, Slashdot and other tools that ensure all internet participants are kept honest in their dealings and offerings. The advent of blogs too aids in the creation of this popular voice, heightened by such worthy commentators as Ariana Huffington (Huffington Post), Adam Pash (Lifehacker), and Walt Mossberg (All Things Digital).

The notion that consumers have limited choice in how to connect to the Internet is also suspect. There are at least six primary ways of connecting to the broadband Internet today: 1) a local or regional ISP, 2) a large telecom or cable alternative such as Comcast or AT&T, 3) your mobile phone service provider, 4) a mobile access card (or “Stick”), which, like mine, could be from a service provider that is different than your home service provider, 5) free wifi or similar access offered by established retailers, and 6) new wireless initiatives (such as that offered by Google recently).

Traveling users have additional options for access. Working users have similar options that may or may not overlap with their traveling options. Each approach provides a different experience and a variety of services designed to gain and keep you as a customer. More importantly, the myriad ways that end users access the Internet today shows clearly that users are not at the mercy of their home service ISP. They have choice, and it exists in every corner of their lives.

Against this backdrop, where do we find a place for Net Neutrality? Or is there a place for it anymore? Can we refashion it to fit the new Internet reality? Should we resurrect it to ensure the pace of innovation we have enjoyed for the last few years continues?

I would argue that the pace of innovation, proliferation of content and access mediums and the dynamic transformation of the Internet had little or nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality guarded against the potential for monopolistic behavior, was wholly unnecessary in the explosive growth era of the Internet, and remains so in today’s populist Internet. End users demand for increasingly richer content and services, and more importantly, the expanding availability of end user choice delivered as the consequence of the traditional competitive zeal on the part of all Internet participants was the cause of the wonderful, rich and engaging Internet of today. Net Neutrality was and remains a useful guiding principle. But to take a guiding principle and codify it as a law – to try, as politicians and interested groups do, to use its general precepts to legislate something that has become as dynamic and vital to the world economy as the Internet seems misguided.

To see the fantasies of the Net Neutrality advocates come true, Dr. Bakker might conclude that the fastest growing, most dynamic communication and service platform in history was suddenly stunted by a well meaning T-Rex of the digital age – Net Neutrality.

.tom

A Modest proposal

Technological advancement is the mantra for modern day society. In an age of instant gratification, continuous stimulation, and over exposure to information, choice has become a burden.

In my life, I often wonder why should anyone bother with the petty decisions, such as whether or not to have steak or chicken for dinner? Isn’t there a service to make this choice for me with equally satisfying results? Among friends I joke that having the choice already made for me would even be ideal. At the bare minimum, I argue that the average person is faced with approximately 40 mundane (albeit necessary) decisions per day and will spend an average of 5 minutes contemplating each before arriving at the best option. This amounts to 3⅓ hours each day that could have been spent doing any number of more productive things. I laugh and conclude “Is choice really necessary?” Roll snare drum.

The obvious problem, however, is to whom should my decisions be deferred to? What service is pervasive enough to have the capacity for so many decisions? Is there any entity out there that claims to be reliable and assertive enough to confidently carry out these choices for me?

The answer, my friends, is clear—Google.

Through thick and through thin, Google claims to embody this ideal. And to be sure, Google has already alleviated much of the burden having a choice imposes. There is no need to ponder over which search engine to use, when the verb used to describe such an action is called ‘googling’. There is no need to worry over which phone to purchase, when you could own the Google Nexus One—already equipped with the latest Google tools necessary to make your life easier. True. True. Maybe the last choice I’d ever need to make is to fully embrace this company as my chief decision maker. Hmm…

To illustrate this perfection, imagine that you did take the digital notion of choice-reduction to this ludicrous conclusion and bestowed upon Google this great responsibility. This would mean your ISP is now Google, which runs Google DNS and works in conjunction with your Google Search bar, Gmail, and Gchat. This cohesive web of influence and control would have enough compiled information to perfectly articulate, predict and influence any choice you’d ever need to make. Right? Through this combination of services, Google might even go so far as to try to change your mind and, even more hilariously, respectfully disagree or ignore your intentions, for your own good of course. Of course, Google says its DNS service does not store personalized information (currently). But it does do so with many of their other services. When utilized in conjunction with the plethora of other Google tools, control is achieved and choice becomes obsolete.

I should probably advise that we not be afraid of embracing the ideal. Google will derive the best way to achieve it —with or without exhaustive testing. Trust them, they’ll figure it out. Resistance is futile. Or is it?

.tom