Protect End–to–end Design Principle in New Communications Technology

The following is cut from a submission to the federal parliament's Heritage Committee.

Re: Study on the Emerging and Digital Media: Opportunities and Challenges

The technical protocols that are used to make the Internet, TCP/IP, have a central design principle called the end–to–end principle. The idea is that when communicating between a sender and a receiver that the technology at the endpoints of the communication would have all the smarts, and the network itself would be dumb.

This means that any two endpoints of a communication can agree on how to communicate in new ways, without requiring the permission of the providers of the intermediary services. This also required that it be the owners of the equipment at the ends of the communication, and not some third party, that determined what software (and thus what logic) would be followed by that endpoint.

While this is a technological principle, it is this principle that enabled the innovation we have seen built on top of this network. Whether we speak of Tim Berners–Lee who created the protocols behind the World Wide Web, or we speak about Google, this innovation happened without needing to seek permission from the incumbent intermediaries. This is critical because, as economic textbooks would have predicted and we have seen, these intermediaries would not have granted permission — or if they had granted permission, it would have come at a prohibitive price.

A number of threats exist that seek to end the end–to–end design principle. This comes from corporate or government policies which propose a radically different structure be imposed.

The phone system was designed with pretty much the opposite design principle as the Internet. The phone system uses dumb endpoints connected to a very smart network. It should not be surprising that phone companies wish to redesign the Internet to operate much more like the phone system, and to bill customers on a per–transaction basis as they have in the past.

The broadcasting system is designed to have one endpoint (Sender/Broadcaster) and/or the network (BDU) to be smart, and the endpoint be dumb. It should not be surprising that Broadcasters and BDU's wish to redesign the Internet to operate much more like traditional broadcast services, with BDU's wishing bill people based on service bundles as they have in the past.

The third major threat comes from the question of who sets the policy on the technology of the endpoints. If a third party controls the endpoints, they are able to effectively recreate the broadcast or phone system while at the same time possibly replacing the control that the incumbent broadcast and phone companies traditionally had. The idea is to deploy endpoint communications devices where the manufacturer of the device, rather than the 'owner', hold the digital keys which lock the device. It then becomes the manufacturer, not the owner, that is ultimately in control of the device. This model is not only a threat to the independent innovation of the Internet, but is also a threat to the incumbent phone and broadcasting providers.

I have given a presentation in many public forums as well as at Heritage Canada, Copyright Policy Branch, on Protecting property rights in a digital world. If there is interest I can discuss this in more detail for the committee.

I offered a solution to the network provider aspect of this question in an intervention in front of the CRTC on December 9^th. I would be willing to discuss this proposal with the Heritage Committee as well.

CRTC intervention on December 9^th
Canadian Radio–television and Telecommunications Commission

There are other terms that are used to describe these various threats. When talking about the underlying network, the phrase "network neutrality" is often used. When talking about non–owner control over the endpoints in communications, phrases such as "technological measures" or "Digital Rights/Restrictions Management" are used. These phrases often hide both the core issues and the potential solutions, which is why I recommend policy makers focus on the principles rather than getting stuck in the details.

If we want the innovation that the Internet has made possible to continue then we need to maintain and possibly even enhance through government protection the end–to–end principle. This includes ensuring that our laws protect the owners of the endpoints of these communications, and do not allow any third parties to lock communications hardware/software without the express informed consent of the owner.

If third parties wish to exert ownership–like control over technology, then they should be required to retain ownership with all the rights and responsibilities which come with this. For other owned property we have concepts such as rental and loaning which would grant these companies the control they desire without dismantling the clarity of our existing legal system. The Federal government should also avoid meddling in areas of property and contract law, given these are provincial jurisdictions.

Federally we should modernize our competition and copyright laws to not allow copyright holders or content distributors to condition access to content on audience usage of non–owner locked communications technology.

This study asks questions such as the impact on incumbent and emerging cultural industries, as well as the question of how to ensure that creators and other innovators are adequately paid for their critical contributions. It also asks questions about foreign ownership and Canadian content rules. I have opinions on these matters which I would be happy to share with the committee, but felt the need to focus on the above higher–level design principles. I am available to answer any questions which committee members may have.

Comments

SimonRuggier — 2010–07–03 02:45:56 EDT wrote

This is a long read, but also a good explanation of why end–to–end design is so important. Also, the second–last paragraph is a great suggestion that perhaps deserves to be split off into its own idea posting.

Russell McOrmond — 2010–07–06 08:14:47 EDT wrote

Thank you for the comment, Simon.

That paragraph is actually taken from a petition to parliament. I have added that petition as a separate idea which you may want to vote up. I hope you will also consider signing the petition, and coordinating to have others sign as well.

Protect Information Technology Property Rights