The internet is over!

[Undertoad]

This is the Internet, and we are in charge here.

While Comcast and the Gummint fight it out, the protocol has evolved to route around the problem. BitTorrent packets can now be encrypted with three mouse clicks. Any other protocol that has ISP filtering problems can adapt the same sort of procedure, at no cost. It's trivial.

http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-encry...rrent-traffic/

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

BitTorrent packets can now be encrypted with three mouse clicks.

Which means that Comcast cannot read the data. Only identify the packet and subvert it. What Narus software did for Comcast. Identify Skype packets. Not read any data inside the packet. Simply identify and subvert Skype packets to pervert the service.

Comcast can simply cancel your internet access without notice should you download what will soon be normal amounts of data? That's what these Comcast efforts are about. To subvert and limit the amount a data a customer can download; to filter where data comes from. Remember, Comcast even wanted to charge Google because so many Comcast customers were using Google. No regulation means Comcast can do just that. If Google does not pay, then Comcast can subvert those packets. Only FCC regulation stopped that.

What did Narus software do for Comcast? Identified patterns unique to Skype. Encrypted or not - those patterns exist. No internet service provider should identify and subvert data packets. And yet that will be legal if Comcast wins in court and if Congress does not regulate Comcast.

Only some industries require regulation because they are irresponsible. Because profits are more important than the product. Comcast has repeatedly earned the need to be regulated. Even encryption cannot solve that problem. Even encrypted packets can be identified and subverted.

[Undertoad]

That's four years you're waiting for this conclusion of yours to come true. Maybe I was right about this one?

[mbpark]

TW,

Comcast bought NBC so that they could own a ton of the original content and charge anyone that is not them a lot of money to use it online. By a lot of money, I mean "make it prohibitively expensive".

Fox is doing the same thing by putting all of their content behind a "paywall", i.e. charging for access to the WSJ, Fox News, and other content of theirs online. Rupert Murdoch makes a lot of money by pandering to the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of the Republican Party and their fans. Since it's "entertainment" and not news, they can officially lie to them, and get them to pay for their fix.

The difference is, Comcast is going to end up with the rights to many classic TV franchises, and the ability to charge competitors a lot of money to view content.

Michael Andreakis, their CFO, will hopefully toss Jeff Zucker out on his worthless, Jay Leno loving ass when this deal closes for blowing millions on that tripe.

In other words, it's not all that bad.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mbpark

Comcast bought NBC so that they could own a ton of the original content and charge anyone that is not them a lot of money to use it online. By a lot of money, I mean "make it prohibitively expensive".

Key to that (which is part of a larger objective) is to get control of interactive TV. The music industry ignored an equivalent future market. Therefore Napster, et al occurred.

Comcast is only a data transfer company. But Comcast hopes to use their 'position' to obtain or control where real money can be obtained and (as noted) to increase the price (and profit). Any effort to control the data (using their position as a data transport company) means Comcast can cut out or out maneuver other competitors. One key objective is to control what would only be, for example, all archive entertainment for lower prices.

Net Flicks and interactive TV are examples of what Comcast fears - equivalent to what Napster did the music industry. If not controlled, then Comcast would be forced to provide more bandwidth for the same price - must respond to market forces rather than control them.

The internet model worked when data providers and data transporters were separate. By controlling both aspects, Comcast can more easily subvert free market competition to favor their bottom line.

GM did something similar by purchasing all Trolley companies.

I would bet most everyone never even considered any of this. Which is why that Comcast FCC lawsuit is so interesting only to those who saw this coming.

[tw]

Scientific American of February 2010 notes another example of why the 2000s were so destructive to Americans; another reason for our reduced productivity and diminished incomes.

At the turn of the millennium, the US had some of the best broadband access in the world. … Ten years later the US is a solid C-minus student, ranking slightly below average on nearly every metric.

Just how the US lost its edge and how it plans to get it back are the issue before the Federal communications Commission as it prepares to announce the most significant overhaul of network policy since the birth of the Web. …

… the decline in the adoption, pricing, and speed of broadband in the US can be traced back to a series of key decisions made by the FCC nearly a decade ago.

These decisions limited most Americans to one of two choices of Internet Service Providers (ISP) – either the cable company or the telephone company. This is not the case in most of the industrial world

… where free market economics was not perverted by bought and paid for politicians.

The article dicusses what Clinton provided in the 1996 Federal Communication act. DSL – a 1981 technology – was still unavailable in America in 1996. Before 56K modems existed – when 2400 baud modems were the best you could have – DSL could have been provided IF innovation was important. Innovation was subverted until a government law required it. (How curious – GM also would only innovate if government law required it.) Microsoft literally sued US West to provide DSL because the ‘last mile’ providers refused to innovate. Even Microsoft could not get DSL without suing because some industries have a long history of stifling innovation in the name of profits and cost controls.

As rules were changed to protect big telecommunications. innovative DSL companies (ie Covad, NorthPoint Communications, Rhythms NetConnections) were even denied access to bathrooms in buildings where their DSLAMs were located.

View AT&T to understand why. AT&T spent about $140 billion on two cable companies. Then discovered those wires would not support any advanced communication abilities. AT&T management so dumb (anti-American) as to not even look at the wires they were buying. Two year later, AT&T sold it all off for about $70billion. Yes, a 50% loss – because AT&T was so technically dumb as to also not understand what innovation was.

Who would rather enrich companies (ie Enron accounting) rather than advance America? Those who don’t come from where the work gets done. The 1996 Federal Communication Act said anyone could provide broadband on existing cable or telephone networks. Perfect example of free market economics. Subverting competition for the benefit of anti-innovators is why broadband is so more common elsewhere in the world. Learn who did it and who will be opposing restoration of free market competition on the 'last mile'.

Laws were subverted to all but guarantee a duopoly.

For example, France Telecom owns the telephone lines, yet consumers can choose from a number of different Internet service providers, each of which leases access from France Telecom’s infrastructure.

In the US, that competition doesn’t exist. The reason is that in early 2002, then FCC commissioner Michael Powell reclassified broadband Internet services as “information services” rather than “telecommunication services”. The ruling allowed DSL (digital subscriber line) and cable operators to avoid falling under the open–access rules mandated by the 1996 telecommunication Act. At the time, Powell justified the decision by saying that it was the best way to fast-track greater broadband deployment. … “When we look at the countries that have the highest speeds and the lowest prices … competition that who entered over the past seven or eight years using open access … catalyze the market.” ….
That openness has recently come under threat from some internet service providers. Citing the strain on their infrastructures from peer-to-peer file sharing, ISPs have expressed an interest in blocking, or degrading some content as it passes through their lines. … What if Comcast, the anticipated new owner of the media company NBC Universal, decides to throttle back video from its competitor CBS? Or what if it requires all video purveyors – even shoestring startups – to pay a monthly transmission fee, least their videos suffer delays in transit?

Comcast also needs to control interactive TV. If you don’t put your videos on Comcast's regional servers, then Comcast may subvert your access – as Comcast has already been caught doing to Skype and bit Torrent. Doing so with tricks that made detection difficult if not impossible. A leak to IEEE Spectrum contributed to exposing that corruption. Did Comcast suddenly reform? (Will some not be able to read this post?)

Comcast can do this because it is now an “information service” (a data content provider). Not a “telecommunication service” (not a data transporter). Changes that will continue stifled economic growth into the 2010s. Same mindset that had White House lawyers rewrite science papers. Who subverted the 1996 Federal Communication Act to the benefit of big brother. Same people passed welfare to big Pharma (protected that 40% higher drug prices). Tariff protection to anti-innnovation big steel. Told big auto it did not have to manufacturer ‘existing in 1999 and paid for with Federal money’ hybrid cars. Was driving fundamental research (ie quantum physics, stem cell, even sold Bell Labs to the French) overseas. Who protected Enron accounting standards and would not prosecute until Oklahoma filed suit. We are not discussing a party. We are discussing those who are America’s enemies; who think the purpose of a company is profits.

Some wonder why America has zero growth throughout the 2000s. Why friends in Europe were saying for years that the American century is over. Why this zero growth has never happened in post WWII American history. They even managed to subvert the Internet’s ‘last mile’ for decades. Another example of why U.S. economy took a dive in the 2000s, a lost decade for workers (from the Washington Post of 1 Jan 2010).

Appreciate how long America's list of problems. Add the Internet's 'last mile' to those who need to be fixed by removing government protection and by requiring free market competition. Why did the powers that be in 2000 create a duopoly? They bought and we voted for diminished free market competition. Comcast now so rich as to build the tallest new skyscraper, buy NBC, and repeatedly subvert internet access. And somehow that is acceptable ... like Saddam's WMDs.

[tw]

From the NY Times of 17 Feb 2010:

Skype in a Struggle to Be Heard on Mobile Phones
In a world where network neutrality has become a rallying cry for advocates of an unfettered Internet, Skype, the pioneer in low-cost and even free online calls, has become a prime example of the limits of wireless freedom.

In the United States, Skype is blocked on mobile networks, and the service is available only on the Apple iPhone over Wi-Fi. AT&T, the exclusive American carrier for the iPhone, has said that it would allow Skype and voice-over-Internet-protocol services to operate on its 3G network, but Skype has not made an application available.

In Europe, Skype is carried by the company 3 in Britain, Ireland, Austria, Denmark, Italy and Sweden. But many other cellular operators still block its calls, prohibit their customers from downloading Skype’s software or outlaw the use of VoIP service in standard sales contracts.

Some carriers are imposing fees to undermine Skype’s attraction. In Germany, customers of T-Mobile can place calls using Skype, but only if they pay an extra 10 euros, or $13.60, a month. German customers of the Vodafone Group can use the service for an extra 5 euros a month.

The Economist further notes threats to net neutrality on 13 Feb 2010

Saturated Mobile Networks ... Breaking Up
No wonder, then, that mobile firms do not believe in “network neutrality”, a much-cherished principle of the fixed internet, which holds that operators should not play favourites with certain kinds of traffic. AT&T reserves the right to cut off heavy users of file-sharing, which is thought to account for almost two-thirds of data traffic on some networks. Even so, thanks to prolific users on flat tariffs, expanding capacity will not necessarily bring in higher revenues.

The politics of wireless networks are also different. The cheapest way to increase capacity is to add more spectrum or to move a network to a lower frequency, which allows radio waves to penetrate walls more easily. So operators tend to lobby governments for more and better spectrum before investing in expensive kit.

AT&T has been particularly guilty of this. Their network containing insufficient hardware to support their customer demands. Their advertisments literally lying about their network's speed after Verizon noted a glaring truth.

Another disincentive to investment is the threat data traffic poses to the industry’s cash cows—voice calls and text messages—which still generate 85% of revenues. Increased data capacity, after all, makes it easier to use alternatives such as instant messaging and Skype, which could become as pervasive on smart-phones as they are on personal computers.

Operators will try to manage traffic in all sorts of ways. One tactic is to offload it to the fixed internet: the iPhone, for instance, switches to a Wi-Fi network whenever possible. Another is to try to get households to install what are known as “femtocells”—wireless base stations for the home. Many European operators already reduce connection speeds for the greediest users. Telefónica, one of the world’s biggest mobile operators, recently said that it is considering charging Google and other big internet firms for access to its network.

They are data transporters. Their job is to transport data - all data - without regard to content. A factor essential to net neutrality.

Companies that seek profits rather than better service are not reaping profits – as anyone would expect. Such companies will have trouble due to that bean counter mentality. Therefore net neutrality must be subverted - to increase their profits. More examples provided above by the New York Times and The Economist.

[TheMercenary]

Ted is on a roll, what did he rant?

[Undertoad]

He said Skype is blocked on some wireless carriers. But it turns out Skype is making deal$ with carriers, and three days after the Times story, Skype signed an exclusive deal with Verizon for Verizon to embed a free Skype app on their phones. Nothing to download, it's just there and works.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ted is on a roll, what did he rant?

I shouldn't even reply to this knowing that you are a troll not a person, but I keep thinking you want to be a human being.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But it turns out Skype is making deal$ with carriers, and three days after the Times story, Skype signed an exclusive deal with Verizon ...

Mobile (cell) carriers that see the future must do this.

In earlier days, a mobile phone contained functions that the mobile carrier might disable before selling it. For example, a wireless carrier might not want a working timer that let you know how many minutes are available before paying 'excess use' penalties. That worked when the Nokia phone was only sold by your carrier. Today, phones from Google, Apple, etc mean any phone must work on any carrier. Phones that permit third party apps.

Carriers are losing more control of their network. Carriers are becoming more data transport companies - less information providers.

Carriers will resist this 'net neutrality' on their networks as much as possible. But the Verizon deal with Skype suggests resistance is futile.

Once you could only connect AT&T equipment on the phone system. Then a court ruling said anyone else's phones could be purchased and used. AT&T tried to restrict modem access by requiring an expensive network interface. Eventually that also went away. Since AT&T made inferior (overpriced) modems, suddenly an entire industry prospered making better, cheaper, and faster modems. Back then it took a Supreme Court ruling to permit innovation. Today (and hopefully), free market forces will change mobile carriers into nothing more than data transport providers.

That is a characteristic of net neutrality - expanding from the internet into telephones.

[tw]

The FCC has tried to regulate net neutrality. As expected, a Federal court says nobody can require net neutrality. From the NY Times:

The decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, specifically concerned the efforts of Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, to slow down customers' access to a service called BitTorrent, which is used to exchange large video files,

This means Comcast can now subvert Skype telephone calls. Means that without congressional action, Comcast and the other duopoly players - the last mile providers - can now subvert internet access to maximize profits. Net neutrality is at risk in with a Congress driven by the objective of "want Obama to fail." A problem created starting in 2000 when Powell and the FCC decided to protect big internet businesses (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner) at the expense of Covad, NorthPoint Communications, Rhythms NetConnections, etc. A problem made worse because the last mile providers can now subvert and control the newest technology - interactive TV.

As posted earlier, this is the data transporters attempting to subvert the information providers. People who wanted to surcharge Google now have the right to (barring a Supreme Court review). Or as the NY Times notes:

The ruling would allow Comcast and other Internet service providers to restrict consumers’ ability to access certain kinds of Internet content, such as video sites like Hulu.com or Google’s YouTube service, or charge certain heavy users of their networks more money for access.

This ruling was expected.

The FCC really had little right to demand net neutrality. Having subverted the 1996 Federal Communications Act (Clinton's effort to created net neutrality and what made a 15 year old technology called DSL possible) and now undermining the FCC, big business has the right to increase America's internet prices which have been rising significantly compared to the rest of the world. Another legacy of the George Jr administration. Despite wacko extremists who will reply, that is when attackes on net neutrality started and were encouraged by the White House.

[Undertoad]

In other news, bittorrent added encryption to its protocol three years ago.

[classicman]

Yes I'm being serious here.
tw - your last post is confusing

Net neutrality is at risk in with a Congress driven by the objective of "want Obama to fail."

Did you mean WAS, still is, based upon something done in the past or you are somehow saying that the current congress is anti Obama (which makes no sense whatsoever, so I ruled that one out)
the last paragraph mixes tenses and . . .

I really cannot follow whatever your point is.

[fargon]

The internet is for PORN!!!