It's the Tubes, Stupid

by publius

When Uncle Ted Stevens famously called the Internet a “series of tubes,” many of you foolishly ridiculed him. While cleverly disguised as senile rambling, Uncle Ted’s visionary statement illustrates why Verizon’s text-messaging drama matters. Despite all its charms and complexity, the Internet (and communications networks more generally) still rely on old pipes and wires. For that reason, the net neutrality debate is, at bottom, a debate about infrastructure. Or tubes, if you prefer.

To understand Uncle Ted’s point, imagine that Congress was debating whether to privatize the federal interstate highway system. And let’s say that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Comcast) justified privatizing our roads on the House floor by citing the rich diversity on our highways. Regulation, Barton argues, is no longer necessary because multiple trucking companies compete for our business; multiple car companies compete; etc. This argument, however, ignores an important point. We have lots of trucks and cars because there are federal laws that secure access to the highway (i.e., the underlying network infrastructure). Competition on the top “layer” cannot justify eliminating the “lower-layer” regulation that makes this competition possible in the first place.

The same principles apply to communications networks. Yes, the Internet is a richly diverse place. But that competition was made possible by underlying common carrier regulation – i.e., access to the tubes. In the old Computer Inquiries proceedings, the FCC regulated and secured access to the underlying physical networks (i.e., the highway), but left the higher-level services unregulated. Thus, when people say that the Internet’s success stems from the lack of regulation, that’s completely and utterly false. The Internet exists today because of regulation.

This then brings us to Verizon. While it’s true that Internet services (and to a lesser extent wireless services) are competitive, all of those services depend on access to underlying physical networks (wires, etc.). And old networks at that. Voice and data communications – regardless of how novel or cool they may be – ride over old copper networks that trace back nearly a hundred years. Or, they ride over cable lines that most companies built decades ago. Both sets of “tubes” were built with government subsidies and monopoly protections. And for that reason, they’re impossible for a private company to replicate. (On an aside, what makes Christopher Yoo’s arguments so absurd is that he ignores these – and other – barriers to entry and pretends alternative communication networks will sprout up like lemonade stands).

It’s true that fancy new digital fiber lines are out there. But these lines do not (generally speaking) run all the way to your house. Your house has three lines running to it – a phone line (copper), a cable line (coaxial), and an electricity line. Because the latter is not even close to ready for prime time, you can (at best) get broadband either from the phone company or the cable company.

You may know all this already – what you may not know is that wireless service (the Messiah; the One, Godot, etc.) also depends on these old wires. Wireless needs wires. True, wireless service doesn’t need wires to connect to your device. But, to connect to the larger network, wireless towers purchase access from these legacy incumbents (almost always incumbent phone companies like Verizon and AT&T who inherited the legacy monopoly copper networks). What they purchase is called “special access” and it’s likely the most important telecommunications issue you’ve never heard of. Essentially, all wireless service – from WiFi to voice to WiMax – depends on these old legacy networks to provide service (networks the wireless providers can't replicate).

The 1996 Act tried to force the old monopoly providers to open their networks. The 96 Act, though, is pretty much dead – emasculated by the DC Circuit. When it died, AT&T and MCI were forced to sell out to the big boys (SBC and Verizon) because (among other things) they couldn’t afford special access. Again, the tubes mattered. It’s also no accident that the two biggest wireless providers (Cingular and Verizon Wireless) are affiliated with the two bigger copper incumbents – they need access to the tubes. Wireless needs wires.

This is getting technical, so let’s get back to the Verizon text messaging. Yes, text messaging is competitive (though not as much as you might think). But, what really matters is not text messaging, but the underlying networks it depends on – networks controlled by Verizon. Thus, it’s not troubling that a text messaging provider refused to deal with NARAL. It’s troubling that the network infrastructure owner did. Even if it’s a dumb thing to do, they still did it. And if you own the underlying infrastructure, it’s an easy thing to do in the absence of nondiscrimination laws.

Communications networks are the lifeblood of our economy. And I, personally, think the Internets are pretty cool. There’s simply too much at stake to leave the everyday administration of the greatest invention since the printing press to companies who (quite rationally) aren’t worried about anything but the bottom line. It’s not a matter of evilness, it’s a matter of incentives and externalities.

And so the lesson is clear – leave the Internet to Verizon, and they will screw it up. And there’s too much at stake to let them do that.

[Update - non-PG-13 word changed]

Comments

[CMatt]

Publius, this is probably my favorite Publius post at ObWi. Please make the last paragraph work-safe; the post should be distributed. Many thanks.

[publius]

thanks - i thought a lot about using that actually. i used f-bombs fairly regularly at the old place, but not here. and for the better. but, if rarely used, they add emphasis -- and i really couldn't think of a word that better conveyed what i think verizon et al. will do to the internet.

[publius]

eh, i folded. word changed

[ladan]

Are you proposing the nationalization of the telephone companies? Cause I don't really understand what you want here.

[trenchboy]

Sorry to disrupt the thread...but an issue came up of pressing importance and I would like to give a heads up to everyone.

Thanks for your understanding...

I came across a fascinating story via Juan Cole:

The Time Has Come To Rid Ourselves of Saddam.

I've only posted an unformatted first draft of an English translation someone gave me. It is supposidely the transcript of a meeting that Bush had with Aznar prior to the Iraq War.

But I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could help me verify its authenticity; and if the story checks out, I think it would be wise to get a full English translation posted on the web ASAP.

Once again, sorry for the interruption.

Have a nice day everyone!

[trenchboy]

I apologize once again. I forgot to credit the source in my last post. It comes from El Pais.

Happy Hunting :)

[Gary Farber]

"eh, i folded. word changed"

I've given up on the posting rules, myself -- it's clear that unless they're posted in a large font under every post, they're generally not noticed, and thus pointless -- but I'm considerably confused by why a blogowner would have any doubts about obeying the rules. Do you, yourself, oppose them, but merely consider this choice to have been optional?

I'm not getting why you're clearly suggesting you had a choice. Are you lobbying to eliminate the profantity rule? Or what?

And, of course, having missed it, I'm now wondering what you said, darn it.

[cleek]

it's clear that unless they're posted in a large font under every post

believe me, even that wouldn't work.

there's a programming site i frequent, and one of the boards is reserved for non-programming questions. when you hit the form to post a message, there is a BIG RED, BOLD warning right above the message box that says No Programming Questions In The Lounge!!. people still post programming questions there; they get flamed mercilessly, but that's after the fact.

[DaveC]

Here's your tubes.

via Lileks' buzzmn, sort of.

[ThirdGorchBro]

Gary, my guess would be the offending word was replaced by the word "screw" in publius' last paragraph.

If I understand the argument, ladan, publius is not suggesting that telecommunications companies be nationalized, but rather that owners of the physical infrastructure on which the Internet runs be prohibited from denying access for political reasons. Or perhaps any content-related reasons, although if NAMBLA dedided to offer text messages showing Butters taking one for the team we might need to authorize Verizon to deny them access.

[Incertus (Brian)]

Are you proposing the nationalization of the telephone companies? Cause I don't really understand what you want here.

I'm certainly not publius, but I don't see anything to suggest he's in favor of nationalizing.

[publius]

yes, precisely. just impose a nondiscrim requirement on them, just like we do to amtrak or virtually any employer

[Model 62]

Speaking of fancy new tubes, the Verizon FiOs salesman dropped by yesterday to let me know they are ready to run fiber into my house.

I think the cable company is in for a surprise.

[publius]

fios is obviously an exception (sort of). even though they're building new fiber, etc., they still get to take advantage of their existing right-of-ways, street infrastructure, etc. All of these benefits stem from the old monopoly era.

that said, fios sounds great, and if i could get it i would. though it's not widely available -- i'm guessing you live in a fairly dense suburb on the east coast (is the best coast)

[Dantheman]

I had a visit from Verizon last week, in my suburb of Philly. Remarkably pushy, as if he was selling aluminum siding. I almost had to throw him off of my doorstep, which several neighbors also reported. Since we are generally satisfied with Comcast's cable modem, we weren't buying Verizon, who my parents had issues with.

[A.J.]

Publius,

If you think we have a competitive wireless market in this country, I have an unlocked Verizon phone to sell you...

[Model 62]

My neighborhood is a fairly dense suburban neighborhood on the West Coast -- in Long Beach, Ca.

[a cornellian]

Re: post
This is a discussion that you can not have with out getting technical, other wise you are left with pretty weak analogies which can almost always be pushed to absurdity with out much trouble.

re comcast vs verizon
I have never had any trouble with verizon, but am convinced that comcast is populated by idiots. They also couldn't determine that my apartment existed. Comcast also does some nasty filtering to control what protocols are used:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18323368-Comcast-is-using-Sandvine-to-manage-P2P-Connections
which is just not cool. They also limit how many devices you can put behind one IP address (to 5) so they are banning the logical activity of sharing a connection (split a $60 bill 6 ways and it looks alot better)

Given my choice I would go with verizon over comcast at a hat drop. Unfortunately in hyde park the choice is between at&t and comcast, same price, but comcast is twice as fast so i'm giving this cable thing a try but I suspect that I will be back to dsl next time I change.

[a cornellian]

Right, that link didn't work. Just google "comcast sandvine"

[dutchmarbel]

yes, precisely. just impose a nondiscrim requirement on them, just like we do to amtrak or virtually any employer

Frankly, I think it is dumb of them, because they now make themselves liable for all the content they 'transport'. I wouldn't want that, if I owned infrastructure.

[dutchmarbel]

I ment to say that it is dumb of them to discriminate, not that it is dumb to impose a nondiscrim requirement on them. On rereading that might not be clear.

[bago]

Two things. First, you can send data down power lines. The power is run at 60 hz and any other freq is completely open to usage.

Secondly if data is encrypted at the packet layer no packet sniffing program can touch it or rate it other than putting it into the unknown category. If packet layer encryption becomes commonplace then you cannot use packet sniffing to prioritize traffic in your routers, thus rendering discrimination concerns moot, as they will all look like noise to the packet analyzer. If packet encryption becomes popular, then any ISP that chooses to downgrade the perf of encrypted packets will suffer as people switch to carriers that do not share that policy. Of course this is only viable if you are able to choose a service provider over the established media actually making it to your house. If the owners of the current fiber lines collude, we are screwed, unless someone makes a massive infrastructure investment and lays down their own wires.

[Melinda]

A couple of things about encryption: 1) it's already pretty common (the use of VPNs, for example), and 2) there's always going to be a destination address that can be used as a basis for packet filtering (in fact, it's probably the most common, easy-to-implement packet filtering basis in widespread use today). Ubiquitous use of crypto not only doesn't make the problem go away, it doesn't even make the unwanted behavior that much more difficult for the service providers to implement.

Also, while in some networks SMS is carried over IP and messaging over IP will be the standard in the future, today it's not in CDMA, GSM, etc. networks.

Anyway, I'm pretty clear on why the service providers don't want common carrier regulations applied to them, but does anybody have a sense of why consumers aren't pushing for it? It seems to me that common carriers are pretty well-defined, the regulations that cover them are not unreasonable, and that it might be a decent starting point in the discussions about how to protect consumer interests. Am I wrong about that?