Net Neutrality – Part 2

Before proceeding, be sure you’ve read my first post on Net Neutrality. Done?  OK.

Net Neutrality Image

Part 2.

I’m going to use a really simplistic analogy to explain what’s happening on the Internet and what brought about the need for Net Neutrality.

GEEK WARNING: As in part 1, I warn my more technically knowledgeable readers that I am going to greatly oversimplify things here. If you have a way to explain this in words that non-technical-geniuses can understand, go for it.

Analogy #1 – The Highway System:

Since so many people refer to the Internet as “The information superhighway”, I have to use this analogy.

When the Internet was created, it was designed as a transport mechanism with equal access. All bits were created equal. No matter what type of data you transmit, it is to be relayed and carried the same as all other types of data.

If you think of our nation’s highway system, you can drive any brand or color of vehicle on the highway that you want. Car, truck, motorcycle, red, white, black, all are treated the same. I know, being stuck behind a big old broken down RV going up a big hill is annoying, but you get the point.

On the US Interstate highway system, there are 3 basic components: On-ramps, Off-ramps, and the highway. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the highway itself has infinite capacity. Obviously, that’s not true of the Internet, anymore than it is of I-95 around our nation’s capital. But, stay with me here.

With this assumption, the only limitations are the size (capacity) of the on-ramp to get data onto the highway, and the size of the off-ramp, to get data off.

When we talk about companies and individuals paying for the Internet, by and large we are talking about paying for the size of your on-ramp and/or off-ramp. For now, we are going to ignore the highway itself (the Internet backbone).

Content providers such as web sites (Facebook, AOL, Yahoo!, etc.) and streaming media providers (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) pay for on-ramps. How much they pay depends primarily on the amount of data that they are sending to the highway via their on-ramps.

Consumers pay for off-ramps, again based on the amount of data they pull off the highway.

[Side note: Although not always the case, on-ramps and off-ramps are typically priced based on their maximum capacity, not the amount of data actually traversing them. Essentially, you are paying to put data onto the Internet, or to take it off.]

Where this gets tricky is that we, the end user consumer, don’t live on the off-ramp. We live in neighborhoods fed by the off-ramp. Your ISP (cable, DSL, telelcom, etc.) manages the off-ramp. The ISP acts as a middle-man to the Internet backbones, aka the highway.

What makes Net Neutrality of interest is that the ISPs are getting tired of moving large amounts of traffic across their off-ramps from certain high-volume content providers. Those providers (Netflix is only one, but the most often mentioned), have created a demand for their content that is exceeding the ISP’s off-ramp capacity.

That leaves the ISPs with a challenge. How do they pay for the work it will take to increase the capacity of their off-ramp?

The easiest way is for them to charge the end users based on the amount of data that they consume.  Another way is that they can charge users based on the TYPE of traffic/data they are consuming. And that is the root issue behind Net Neutrality.

Again, to make this simple, let’s say Netflix is the red cars coming off the highway. MegaCable Off-Ramp Services (MORS) notices an unusually high percentage of the cars using their off-ramp are red. There are so many red cars that other cars are having trouble getting off the highway.

Now MORS has a choice. Do they increase the capacity of their off-ramp, which is going to cost them money?  Do they just let the cars coming off the ramp fight it out, and whoever gets through wins?  Or, do they start limiting how many red cars are allowed to use their off-ramp.

What started happening was that ISPs were taking that third option. Some were actively limiting traffic on their off-ramps based on the type of data (limiting red cars, for example). Others were getting ready to do so.

Unfortunately, the customers, the end users who are paying to be fed by that off-ramp, want red cars. And they want lots of them.

And there you have it. The root of the issue.

Net Neutrality says that ISPs cannot limit the flow of cars across their off-ramp based on the color of the car.

Any questions?

 

Net Neutrality

There has been a lot of talk about Net Neutrality lately and people are finally waking up and taking the topic seriously. Unfortunately, there is an enormous amount of misinformation circulating. Some of that is intentional, some of it is simply a lack of understanding on the topic. And some of it is because, as with many issues of this nature, the term itself has changed over time such that nobody fully understands what it means anymore.

Net Neutrality Image

I’m going to take a crack at it anyway.

Many years ago, back when I was heavily involved in network operations for a major player in the Internet world, I sat on an international industry council whose purpose was to discuss and develop new models of operations for the global Internet. It was a pretty cool experience and somewhat humbling to be part of such an august group of very smart people from all around the world.

WARNING: I am going to greatly oversimplify some very deep technical concepts. I apologize in advance to my more technically astute readers.

As the work of this council progressed, it became more and more driven by the desires of a small number of large telecom providers who were members. To oversimplify the main topic of discussion at that time, the council set out to create new standards that would enable QOS across carriers. While ultimately the motivation of the carriers was to make more money, they were trying to do this by finding a way to get heavy users of the Internet to pay more for their usage.

QOS = Quality Of Service.

QOS is a way of prioritizing data moving across a data network. Using QOS can be a useful tool in making high priority applications operate correctly. But, there is a big problem with it.

Many people think of QOS as a way to get their data to move across the network faster. And, in a way, that is correct. But, it’s not that simple.

A data network connection has a fixed maximum speed. All data traversing the network share that path and essentially take turns sending packets of data.

QOS does not work by making data move faster. A given network connection has a physical maximum capacity. No, QOS works by allowing certain types of data to be treated with higher priority than others. Often, this means ignoring lower priority data, or worse, actually discarding it.

So, QOS does not make high priority traffic move faster. It makes lower priority traffic move slower, thus providing a clearer path for the higher priority traffic.

There is a bit of an analogy, albeit a crude one, with express lanes on a crowded highway.  It’s all fine and dandy if you have access to the express lanes. But, if you don’t, you get bogged down crawling along with everyone else.

Perhaps a better analogy is the FastPass at Disney and other theme parks. The overall rate at which riders can be loaded onto the ride is fixed. But, if you have a FastPass, you get to skip to the head of the line. Again, great if you paid that extra price, but for everyone else? Really annoying. Especially if it’s late in the day and despite waiting for over an hour, the ride closes before you get your turn.

OK, so I can hear the voice in your head. Shouldn’t I be able to pay more if I want faster network delivery? Shouldn’t those who consume large amounts of network bandwidth pay more for using more?

If only it were that simple. The problem crops up when your Internet provider, let’s call them MegaCable, doesn’t like your content provider. For content delivered across the Internet, MegaCable does not receive any revenue from the content provider, e.g. NetFlix.  Conversely, on a traditional cable TV service, MegaCable does receive revenue from providing you a specific channel of content, e.g. HBO.

You see the problem?

Delivery of NetFlix content to MegaCable Internet customers consumes a large (and ever increasing) amount of the overall bandwidth at MegaCable. In order to continue delivering good service to their customers, MegaCable has to keep increasing the size of their Internet connections. And that costs money. But they get no compensation for this.

What to do?

Simple. MegaCable implements QOS across their delivery network, essentially limiting the amount of bandwidth that can be consumed by NetFlix (in our example). As more customers tune in to the latest edition of House of Cards, or start binge-watching Sons of Anarchy, QOS starts throwing away data, customers see “buffering” issues, frustration increases, etc.

Or, you could simply increase capacity until you have enough that QOS is no longer needed. The question is, who should pay for that extra capacity? Not so simple.

In the beginning, all data traversing the Internet as we know it was treated equally. As we say in the techie world, “bits are bits”. The goal of Net Neutrality, in its original context, was to continue to this equal treatment, giving all types of data equal priority. It was a movement. A campaign to encourage fairness.

The carriers did not listen. They continued down the path of putting limits on certain types of traffic. And now the result is the government getting involved.

Who is right? That is a topic for a later post.

Choosing your clients

The Indiana State Senate passed a bill this week that clears the road to outright discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. Welcome to last century.

To paraphrase, the bill would make it legal for businesses to refuse service to married same-sex couples on the grounds that same-sex unions violate the business owner’s religious views on that subject.

This is lunacy.

In response to this, I have instituted a new policy at I’m No Dummy Productions LLC.  My business will no longer serve companies who refuse to serve married same-sex couples based solely on their being a same-sex couple.

For more, read the press release.

Don’t get me wrong. I fully support the right of a business, especially a privately held business, to select their clientele. When we can only serve a limited number of clients, we need to choose the clients who are a best match for the services that we provide. But, the choice must be made in a way that makes the most sense for the business.  Not, as this bill allows, in a way that perpetuates bigotry and ignorance.

I support this bill on one condition: If a business, on religious grounds, chooses to refuse service to a customer based on their sexual orientation, then they must refuse service to all clients who violate any tenet of their religion.  You’ve sinned?  Sorry.  Next!  You use birth control?  Next!  This needs to be an all or nothing package deal. You don’t get to pick and choose.

We must not allow individuals to hide behind their religion to support bigotry and hatred. Especially not a religion based on love and acceptance.

 

Getting through the difficult days

Why do you do what you do? What drives you to keep going on your most difficult days?

This video has been making its way around social media.  Check it out.

Some of you have heard me speak and share why I do what I do. You know that there is an underlying motivation in my work that transcends making people laugh.

In my case, the ah-ha moment came from one person who spoke to me after a show. Like Michael experienced, this conversation transformed my entire perspective.

I’m sure you have experienced difficult days in your work. There are days when you question your sanity and wonder why you should bother to continue to toil away at whatever it is you are doing.

And then you remember that one conversation, or that one moment, when you realized that,  “It’s not about me.”

Carry on.

 

3 Tips For A Better Company Holiday Party

It’s time for the annual holiday parties. Is your company hosting one for your employees?

Allow me a moment to play “Captain Obvious” and provide a few tips. None of these are earth shattering, but they are often overlooked

1. Make it count – How often do you get your whole crew together? If you’re like most of my clients, not very often. 1-3 times per year is pretty typical. So, it’s really important to make it count when you do. Splurge a little on your guests and make them feel special.

2. Greet your guests as they arrive – This might sound obvious, but you’d be surprised how effective this is and how often it is overlooked. Assign 2-4 people the role of official greeter and position them near the doors. A warm smile and a hand shake will do wonders to get your event off to a great start.

3. Get your leaders to mingle – Let’s face it. We’re all human, even the company leaders. That means we tend to be most comfortable hanging out with our friends. Some company leaders are natural minglers. Others, not so much. Encourage your leaders to step outside their normal circle of colleagues and have them make a point of mingling and talking with people they don’t see on a daily basis.

And one more bonus tip …

4. Book your entertainment early – You knew that was coming. My advice? 6 months minimum, especially for events during major holiday seasons, like December and January.

I hope your event this year is your best one ever.

 

Move on

Have you ever felt guilty about leaving a job? Have you ever allowed this guilt to hold you back from moving on, whether to another company or simply another position within the same company?

hand in water

Perhaps you’ll appreciate this advice given to me by an HR manager at a company I was working for at the time:

“Picture a bucket of water. Imagine putting your hand into the bucket of water. Now pull it out. See how quickly the water fills in the space where your hand was? That’s how long you’ll be missed.”

Ouch!

But, he was right. In the instance that prompted the above conversation, I took the new position. Amazingly enough, my former department did not implode. They did not fall apart. Life continued. In fact, my departure created an opening, an opportunity, for someone else to step up and grow. It was good for everyone.

So many times we hold ourselves back from new opportunities out of some misplaced sense of responsibility. Sure, we might be missed – for a while. However, moving on when the time is right provides us with new challenges, new insights, and new avenues of personal growth. And, just as important, it creates opportunities for growth in others as they step in to fill the role we are leaving.

Next time you find yourself hesitating to jump because you are worried about those you’ll be leaving behind, picture that bucket of water. Make the jump.

 

Take the stage with confidence

When you present your ideas to your boss, what is your approach? Are you sheepish, shy, subdued? Or are you bold, confident, maybe even brash?

Having been on both sides of that exchange, I can say that confidence wins every time.

Exude confidence
Exude confidence

If you ever have the opportunity (or burden…) of standing on stage to present, the single most important thing you can do to ensure success is to mount the stage with confidence and a smile. What you display, the audience will assume.

If you appear confident, the audience will presume you know what you are talking about. The opposite is equally true.

The same applies when meeting with your boss and your peers. A smile and a positive posture of confidence will gain you more leverage and leeway in whatever it is you wish to do.  Have a harebrained idea you want to act on? Present it boldly, with confidence and a smile.

As a comedian, I have found that how I take the stage, and how I present each joke, is far more important than the words in the joke. If I deliver it with intention and courage, even a bad joke will have more likelihood of scoring a good laugh. However, if I deliver it with a voice and presence that suggests I’m not so sure of the joke, it will invariably fall flat.

Be bold. Make your case with confidence.

You’re So Lucky

Recently someone said to me, “How cool that you get to do what you love. You’re really lucky.” Yeah, it is cool and I do feel quite blessed.

But, here’s the deal: If you only do what you love, you’ll go broke.

You’ve likely seen the Life Is Good company’s motto, “Do what you love. Love what you do.” To me, the most important aspect of that motto is the second part.

If you truly want to do what you love, it is far more important to love what you do.

Perhaps you’ve heard the quote:

“If you do what you love, you’ll never work a day in your life.”  – Marc Anthony

Here’s a better version:

“Love what you do and you’ll be doing what you love.”  – David Crone

The reality is that there will always be aspects of doing what you love that feel like work.

At every phase of my career, from software engineering, to systems and network operations, to management, to what I’m doing now, I have always done what I love. But, it was only when I truly loved what I was doing that I saw success.

What would you love to do if you could? Are you willing to love doing what it takes to make that a reality?

Lifeboat

Imagine you are the leader of a team of 15 people. You are told the company needs to make cuts and that you only get to take 5 people forward with you. Your team will still be responsible for doing everything they do now. There will just be less of them to do it. Who would you select from your team?

Raft

Oh, wait. You get to take 7.  No, make that 10.

This is called the Lifeboat exercise. And I’ve done it. Numerous times. Sometimes it was theoretical; a way to rank the people on the team. Other times, sadly, it was not and I had to let people go.

The value of the lifeboat exercise is that it forces you to think about what individuals bring to the team in a different way. So many times when hiring people we get caught up in looking for individuals who have done specific tasks in specific environments, both of which closely match what they would be doing in the position we are seeking to fill. The lifeboat exercise points out how flawed this approach is.

When you have fewer people to do a job, you need people who are adaptable and who can learn new skills quickly. You need people who demonstrate the appropriate attitude and aptitude.

Specific skills can be taught. People with the right attitude and aptitude can learn specific skills quickly.

On the other hand, I’ve always found attitude and aptitude to be much more difficult to teach.

Sure, raw skills are helpful for the task that currently needs to be done. But, what about next week, six months from now, or next year?

Prepare for growth and change. Focus on attitude and aptitude. Train for everything else.

 

Culture vs Competence

In my most recent blog post, I suggested that making sure there is a good cultural fit between the employer and employee is an important consideration.  And that during the interview process, it is equally important for both the company and the individual applying for a position to ask questions around this topic.

The very next day, Dilbert started a series of comics making fun of the whole concept of hiring based on cultural fit. I won’t violate Scott Adams’ copyrights by pasting his actual comic strip here, but you can click on this link to see one of my favorites in that series. Or do a search on the Dilbert site. My favorite of the series ran on September 29, 2014.

Some people would say, “Well, he told you!”  I would say, we’re both right.

In the comic, a good cultural fit is being held up as an alternative to a competent employee. Understand that competence, to me, is a basic level of qualification. Being competent is your permission to even interview for a given position. This is not an either/or, mutually exclusive decision. Obviously, employers need to find competent candidates.

But, once competence has been established, chances are very good that there will be several candidates still in the running. That is when cultural fit comes into play.

You can have both.