The internet is over!

[Flint]

Originally Posted by dar512

But they would all have to enforce it.

As if they all joined an "Association" to represent their industry?

[dar512]

And following through. Imagine the profits to be made if all the others try to enforce this and your company is the only one who doesn't. All the isps coming to you. You'd be nuts not to defect.

On the other hand, what would happen if they all do manage to stick together? All it would take is some other company with deep pockets and an interest in a free internet to bankroll another backbone.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't put money on it. *Come to think of it neither did tw* If it was possible to do wouldn't ATT, MCI, and Sprint have done it when they "owned" the backbone? Now go back and look at the backbone map that glatt linked to. Do you really think all those companies will join together?

[Undertoad]

That's the net neutrality question, which is different from the blocking voip question. Net neutrality is providers wanting to make extra profit by giving some packets priority so that streaming movies, etc., operate as expected.

Net neutrality is like making the passing lanes and driving lanes a different speed limit. But voice takes so little of the road that it can live on a bicycle on the shoulder lane.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's the net neutrality question, which is different from the blocking voip question. Net neutrality is providers wanting to make extra profit by giving some packets priority so that streaming movies, etc., operate as expected.

Net neutrality also means having plenty of choices - no monopoly. But then Comcast and Verizon got PA state laws changed so that the Earthlink system in Philadelphia could not be duplicated in any other PA city. Is that net neutrality or net neutrality threatened?

Once I hear a claim that something could never possibly happen - and that is a commonly held consensus - then I get suspicious. Skype example obviously was not a prediction. It was another example of how net neutrality could so easily be compromised. UT somehow got so caught up in the details as to forgot why that example was provided. it was only another example of how net neutrality can be compromised when we are not looking.

If Comcast and Verizon, et al were trying to compromise net neutrality, then it would not happen in six months as UT suggests. It would occur slowly over a decade plus. But again, UT forgot the purpose of that Skype example. It demonstrated but another example of how net neutrality could be compromised.

I don't believe for one minute that companies such as Verizon, Comcast, and Bell South would be satisfied only being data carriers - curators of dumb networks. Repeated threats to apply surcharges to large net providers such as Ebay remain real. Meg Whitman of Ebay is quoted in CNet:

"The telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet," Whitman wrote. "It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future." ...

On May 25, one House of Representatives panel voted in favor of formal Net neutrality regulations bitterly opposed by AT&T, Verizon Communications and other broadband providers--while another House panel rejected such regulations on April 5.

For their part, network operators from the telephone and cable industries, now allied with some of the nation's largest hardware makers, have said repeatedly that they have no intention of blocking, degrading or impairing content. They say they're protecting their right to manage their networks as they see fit, which could mean charging extra to heavy bandwidth users, such as video providers, that expect to have their content shuttled at priority speeds.

That is not net neutrality. Therefore so many companies inclusing Google and Amazon have good reasons to concerned. If net neutrality was not threatened, then why are these largest companies all proclaiming a fear that net neutrality was slowly being threatened? (And obviously not in six months.)

Verizon, Bell South, Comcast, etc all want to be content providers as well as controller all the channels. Currently they are data movers - curators of a dumb network which is why net neutrality existss. They are not yet content providers on the Internet. They already control what you can access on TV and can do with phones. Why would they not want to do same on that other technology - Internet.. Cable TV never was neutral which is why cable TV prices rise from $8 per month to $60 - and will only increase. It took court orders to permit connecting things such as fax machines to the phone network. These channel providers would be willing to leave the only 'open' network alone? I doubt it.

Again, the Skype example was but another example of how net neutrality can slowly be compromised - one step at a time. Just one of maybe hundreds or thousands of methods available in a technical bag of tricks. Six months to compromise Skype everywhere? Absurd. Not how net neutrality would be compromised.

[tw]

A rather intriguing idea so necessary to promote an open network - and yet not completely undermine major internet providers. From the BBC News of 31 Aug 2006:

Norwich pioneers free city wi-fi
More than 200 antennas are positioned around the city, mainly on lampposts, creating blanket wi-fi coverage.

The city is one giant hotspot, utilising a mesh network which means users can get seamless internet access as they wander the streets.

[tw]

Some discussions about VoIP and the data 6 Jan 2008:
By Jim Krane from Associated Press:

When the telecom regulators in this country cut access to the popular Internet phone program Skype, the price of international calling skyrocketed.

The shutdown triggered an uproar among foreign residents who form about 80 percent of the population of the Emirates, a wealthy country with some of the world's highest levels of internet penetration.

As the ban was phased in, Internet voice connnections that costs about 2 cents a minute went dead. The remaining option was bitter one: pay about 75 cents per minute to phone Britain and 60 cents to call the United States during peak hours. ...

Etisalat, the Emirates' chief telecom and Internet provider, began to block Skype and other Internet phone providers this summer, arguing they had no license to sell phone service. ...

"People don't understand the harm of a provider that has no obligations to this country," said Mohammed Ghuaith, director of technology for the Emirates Telecommunicaton Regulatory Authority. "Are conversations secure" Are they being recorded? Will they steal information? Will they sell it? These are the things we need to look at."...

Other nations, too, have blocked Skype and similar VoIP services, generally using filtering software sometimes developed by U.S. companies. Internet telephony is illegal in most Gulf Arab states except Bahrain. .... other governments that practice Internet censurship, mainly in North Africa, China, Southeast Asia, and former Soviet republics.

By contrast, U.S. regulators will not tolerate efforts by phone companies that provide Internet access to block their customers' use of competing VoIP services. Madison River Communications Corp, a North Carolina company, agreed to a $15,000 fine last year to settle Federal Communication Commission allegations.

In 2002, Panama's government tried to block Internet-based phone calls, but its Supreme Court later struck down the effort.

Does this sound just like the RIAA verses music downloading?

From CNET of 3 Mar 2005 entitled "Telco agrees to stop blocking VoIP calls":

Port blocking isn't reserved for high-profile VoIP carriers like Vonage. Nuvio, a small Net phone service provider based in Kansas City, Mo., says its customers' calls have been affected by at least one cable operator. Nuvio has yet to make any formal complaint to the FCC, however. In September, Nuvio told the FCC that port blocking was inevitable, given just how easy it was to do and the economic incentives for doing so.

On 25 Mar 2005, from Network Computing:

In what the company claims is an effort to preserve the performance of its pre-standard WiMAX network, Clearwire says it reserves the right to prohibit the use of a wide range of bandwidth-hungry applications, a list that apparently includes VoIP as well as the uploading or downloading of streaming video or audio, and high-traffic Web site hosting. According to the company's terms of service, Clearwire reserves the right to restrict access or terminate service to customers who don't comply with its rules.

While a company executive claimed the restrictions were necessary to ensure network performance reliability, Clearwire could not explain how that issue would be resolved when it offers its own VoIP services in the near future. Earlier this month, Clearwire signed an agreement with Bell Canada under which Bell Canada will provide VoIP systems and services for Clearwire, at a date and price yet to be announced.

By Michael Hiltzik in Los Angles Times of 30 Jan 2006:

Virtually since the Internet’s creation, its most devoted protectors have been wondering how long it would take for the forces of unrestrained commerce to throttle its freedom and innovation.

Now they have a date: Some people believe the breakpoint will come as early as Jan. 6, 2008.

That’s when the telecommunications marriage of Verizon Communications and MCI marks its second anniversary and sheds an important restriction imposed by the Federal Communications Commission when it approved the deal in November: a requirement that Verizon comply with the principle known as “network neutrality” for two years following the completion of its acquisition.

[Flint]

Okay, the maps says it all. Thanks for tolerating my tail-post, and catching me up.

[Undertoad]

It's all good... the thread was originally about net neutrality, and it hijacked into this whole blocking voice thing.

[Flint]

Sometimes it comes down to "I ain't readin' five pages!"
(It isn't easy to read that much, from my desk, at work.)

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

Time Magazine's Person of the Year: You

Well, well, well. The mainstream is starting to notice.

[Elspode]

I wonder if the cover of the hardcopy mag will have a mirror on it? I'm a subscriber, so I guess I'll let you know...

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

I wonder if the cover of the hardcopy mag will have a mirror on it?

Previous issue's cover said George Jr would listen to the Iraq Study Group. We know that did not happen. Maybe by putting a mirror on their issue, then Time would have better credibilty with their readers?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Probably 3-M.

We chose to put a mirror on the cover because it literally reflects the idea that you, not we, are transforming the information age. The 2006 Person of the Year issue—the largest one Time has ever printed—marks the first time we've put reflective Mylar on the cover. When we found a supplier in Minnesota, we made the company sign a confidentiality agreement before placing an order for 6,965,000 pieces. That's a lot of Mylar.

[Flint]

Isn't this a gag from Big Lebowski?

[tw]

From the New York Times of 9 Jan 2007:

Congress to Take Up Net’s Future
Senior lawmakers, emboldened by the recent restrictions on AT&T and the change in control of Congress, have begun drafting legislation that would prevent high-speed Internet companies from charging content providers for priority access. ...

Despite the flurry of activity, the proposals face significant political impediments and no one expects that they will be adopted quickly. But the fight promises to be a bonanza for lobbyists and a fund-raising tool for lawmakers. It pits Internet giants like Google, Yahoo, eBay and Amazon, which support the legislation, against telecommunication titans like Verizon, AT&T and large cable companies like Comcast. ...

While the debate has broken largely along partisan lines — with Democrats among the staunchest supporters and Republicans the biggest foes — there remains considerable Democratic opposition. Last June, a vote on an amendment by Mr. Markey similar to what he plans to introduce failed by 269 to 152, with 58 Democrats voting against the measure.

Many of those Democrats have been allied with unions, which have sided with the phone companies because they believe that the lack of restrictions will encourage the companies to invest and expand their networks.

Does this sound like net neutrality need not be protected? How can one support the pipeline companies (ie Verizon, AT&T, Comcast) who have a long history of stifling innovation? When was DSL demonstrated? 1981. What did it take to finally force those pipeline companies to provide DSL? 1996 Federal Communication Law. They would not innovate until forced to by government laws.