The internet is over!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester
"The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.
" :(
We need to all get together and start a co-op internet.
I have a couple 2400 baud modems and one 9600 baud FAX/modem I can donate.... Oh and some UTP wire...... :rolleyes:
Umm...is PODS and other BBS functionality still in place somewhere? We might need that soon.
This whole thing is just further proof of an earlier posting I made, which posits that the entirety of humanity is seen as nothing more than a cash cow ripe for milking in ever more efficient ways. "Be Rich or Get Screwed" should be stamped on the currencies of all the nations of the world.
Last time I checked, I was already paying someone for my Internet access, but that apparently isn't enough. Right now, Time Warner is sucking over $200 per month out of me for cable, phone and Internet, but that isn't enough, apparently, since I still have enough money to eat and live indoors.
Hell, even reviving BBS's won't help. Back at the peak of BBS popularity, Southwestern Bell was on the verge of charging much higher rates for phone lines which were used to connect to BBS's. Why? Because they decided that such services were "businesses" (despite the fact that virtually all of them were free, and despite the fact that the mere existence of BBS's guaranteed that they would have many more lines in service than they would have otherwise). In actuality, the Phone Company just wanted a bigger piece of the pie, and that was their bullying way of getting it.
So's this.
Isn't the internet really just a conglomeration of privately owned companies anyway? Really, when we pay our ISP for our access, we're also paying them to store our information such as emails, webpages, posts on message boards and any other digital information we look at during our surfing the net etc. This information is stored sometimes for a long time e.g. webpages which we've made using our server provided space, or a short time e.g. emails etc. It's all just information being transferred through ISP's who store the information and pass it on when requested.
I can't see how that's likely to change any time soon other than for larger ISP's to try and create a monopoly and therefore take advantage of us poor saps.
Pfft, if it ever gets to that i would simply just stop using the internet. I'm not paying a fortune for for the thing, everything thats done online for me personally isn't important anyway, and if you need it for work, then that the employers problem (which they can claim on their taxes anyway).
Really, when we pay our ISP for our access, we're also paying them to store our information such as emails, webpages, posts on message boards and any other digital information we look at during our surfing the net etc. This information is stored sometimes for a long time e.g. webpages which we've made using our server provided space, or a short time e.g. emails etc. It's all just information being transferred through ISP's who store the information and pass it on when request it.
Huh? I wasn't aware Comcast was storing anything for me, except my emails until I retrieve them. :confused:
Huh? I wasn't aware Comcast was storing anything for me, except my emails until I retrieve them. :confused:
Well, they might not need to keep it since ...
"...a car in every garage, a chicken in every pot..." has become "...
an FBI agent in every colon..."
The FBI has developed new software, formerly called Carnivore, that allows the FBI to "tap" the Internet.
...
Carnivore, acting like a "sniffer," searches through all traffic on a network on which it is installed, and not just traffic emanating from a particular computer connection. Carnivore supposedly records only information sent to or from a suspect under surveillance. The information Carnivore records is then viewed by FBI agents.
...
The FBI, however, has not released detailed information about how Carnivore works so no one is really sure if what the FBI claims Carnivore does is actually true. Since the government, and not ISPs control Carnivore, there is no way of knowing exactly what information gets through the filter and into the FBI's hands. Since Carnivore is installed directly into an ISP's network, the program literally monitors every piece of information that travels across the network.
From
here.
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail </nyt_headline>
<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> </nyt_byline> by PAUL HANSELL
Published: February 5, 2006
<!--NYT_INLINE_IMAGE_POSITION1 --> <nyt_text> </nyt_text>Companies will soon have to buy the electronic equivalent of a postage stamp if they want to be certain that their e-mail will be delivered to many of their customers.
America Online and Yahoo, two of the world's largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely.
Now Yahoo is a free service, but AOL isn't. If this is simply a case of putting a 'preferred' sticker on certain items, then this isn't really new. If you do a directory search in the Yellow Pages online, preferred advertisers are given a special section above local merchants.
If however, they attempt to degrade e-mail delivery from companies who don't pay, this is a huge issue for paying customers. Not just sales circulars that we want to receive, but important commercial responses such as registration confirmations, e-mails about flight or subscription/account cancellations might be purposely delayed to blackmail companies to sign up for 'preffered' service.
For a free service like Yahoo, the answer is that you get what you pay for. For AOL, if I found out that an important confirmation or cancellation notice from an airline was dumped as spam even though I had previously received them, I would drop AOL like a hot rock.
Huh? I wasn't aware Comcast was storing anything for me, except my emails until I retrieve them. :confused:
When you look at a webpage (like this one for example) you use your terminal to connect to your server. Then you type in a web address, and your server looks for it and finds it on whichever server it's on. The information that you look at on this page is stored on someone's server, and the person that owns the site pays the server for the space. You just get to look at it. :) If you had your own webspace, it would be stored on a server which is paid for somehow, either by you directly, or the space owners (such as geocities) might choose to use advertising to make their money, so that means that they're giving you space for free, but you're advertising their site which puts things like pop-ups etc (which someone has paid geocities to use) on your page.
When I request a web page I'm not looking at it on the server that's storing it. It's downloaded to my PC via the web by my ISP (comcast). Thats why if my cable connection is broken, the page is still displayed on my screen.
Comcast transfers the pages I request but only stores my emails, while I'm offline, untill I request them. As part of there service they set aside two blocks of their storage capacity, that I can use. One for pictures and such and one if I wanted to have a small site. I choose not to use them so they are storing nothing for me, except emails. :headshake
Right. Well that's fairly obvious. I thought you didn't understand what I was saying Bruce. :) Looks like you understand after all. Anyway, my point was that nothing online is free now, so what I don't understand is how people think it can become even more privatised.
People, please. This is the Internet, and we are in charge here.
There is no advantage in being a big company on the Internet. Bigness doesn't really matter on the net. No single entity can hope to truly control any major part of the net; the net won't tolerate it.
This is the internet. Every product on the Internet is one click away from every other product. Companies that charge must actually add value. And as only a select few have learned, on the Internet, it is extremely difficult to gain power by exercising control. Google found that it gained power by giving power away. By doing so it has accumulated more net worth faster than any company in history.
This is the Internet. We are not "consumers", eating products and shitting money. We are all partners. No single company can control you - that is, unless you allow it.
"Preferred Email"? Talk about your euphemisms! Isn't this pretty much "it is alright for you to spam our customers as long as we're making money off of it"?
There is no advantage in being a big company on the Internet. Bigness doesn't really matter on the net. No single entity can hope to truly control any major part of the net; the net won't tolerate it.
We can hope that is true. But reality says such big companies are already manipulating so as to charge more money for new services such as VOIP.
From IEEE Spectrum of October 2005:
A seven-year-old Mountain View, Calif., company, Narus Inc., has devised a way for telephone companies to detect data packets belonging to VoIP applications and block the calls. For example, now when someone in Riyadh clicks on Skype's "call" button, Narus's software, installed on the carrier's network, swoops into action. It analyzes the packets flowing across the network, notices what protocols they adhere to, and flags the call as VoIP. In most cases, it can even identify the specific software being used, such as Skype's.
Narus's software can "secure, analyze, monitor, and mediate any traffic in an IP network," says Antonio Nucci, the company's chief technology officer. By "mediate" he means block, or otherwise interfere with, data packets as they travel through the network in real time. ...
The desire to block or charge for VoIP phone calls extends far beyond the Middle East. According to Jay Thomas, Narus's vice president of product marketing, it can be found in South America, Asia, and Europe. International communications giant Vodafone recently announced a plan to block VoIP calls in Germany, Thomas says. A French wireless carrier, SFR, has announced a similar plan for France. ...
"But there's nothing that keeps a carrier in the United States from introducing jitter, so the quality of the conversation isn't good," Thomas says. "So the user will either pay for the carrier's voice-over-Internet application, which brings revenue to the carrier, or pay the carrier for a premium service that allows Skype use to continue. You can deteriorate the service, introduce latency [audible delays in hearing the other end of the line], and also offer a premium to improve it." ...
U.S. broadband-cable companies are considered information services, which by law gives them the right to block VoIP calls. Comcast Corp., in Philadelphia, the country's largest cable company, is already a Narus customer; Thomas declined to say whether Comcast uses the VoIP-blocking capabilities.
If it's determined that a Comcast is doing this, the resulting bad word of mouth could literally destroy them as a company. Providing IP service is the only business that matters. In 10 years cable TV may be dead :reaper: as everyone will be able to broadcast over IP. No more channels, buy your basketball from Google to play on your video ipod connected to your home monitor.
And market perception is the biggest differentiator. The only differentiator. Anyone can move bits; depending where you're sitting, you may be bombarded with them. You can get broadband wi-fi at your local coffee place, for example.
Cisco has far more sway than any two-bit network-sniffing company and could well treat such packet warfare as network errors in the future, and try to route around them automatically. Remember the axiom, "the Internet treats censorship as network failure and routes around it." Voice is about 64k of bandwidth at the most, trivial to route around. That's why Vonage has a market to begin with.
New phones will even be wi-fi enabled, so if your own bandwidth doesn't match the bandwidth you get at work, or at McDonalds, providers will get complaint after complaint until they get it "fixed" and inferior service will clearly be the road to failure. Even management will understand because of how quickly it will effect their bottom lines.
We are in charge.
If it's determined that a Comcast is doing this, the resulting bad word of mouth could literally destroy them as a company.
If such were true, then APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable would have been out of business long ago - all marketing power strip protectors that do nothing effective and can even contribute to damage of attached computer. This demonstrated in another series of posts. And yet still, naivety lives on.
If your Skype phone does not work on Comcast, but your Comcast provided phone does, then who will most people blame? Comcast? Of course not. Blame will fall on Skype who in turn loses customers to Comcast. Unfortunately I have seen this too often - market forces punishing the innocent because 'so called' experts (power users) did not first learn basic technology. This is the power behind packet skewing. Experts (power users) will only see what they observe rather than first learn the underlying technology - therefore blaming Skype rather than Comcast.
Providing IP service is the only business that matters. In 10 years cable TV may be dead :reaper: as everyone will be able to broadcast over IP.
Long ago on The Cellar, I noted this fact in a series of posts about DSL and the reason for 'the bottleneck'. Back then, I noted copper wire was not a bottleneck - as so many others blindly believed. Bottleneck was circuit switching computers - the Central Office.
Also in that discussion was what DSL could have provided. No need for an ISP. A mailbox is a tiny server in your home. Central Office only provides a copper wire connect (or fiber) to the home for a fixed monthly charge. This (back then) scared the Baby Bells who had just finished upgrading all their CO switching computers. Upgrading computers based upon 'circuit switched' technology rather than 'packet switched' technology. IOW Baby Bells should have been selling only IP service. What Isenberg called a "dumb network" - which was superior to the "intelligent network".
Well we still are not there. Meanwhile, legacy service provider (ie AOL, Comcast, etc) will do everything to stifle the above business model. They want your VoIP business and may do whatever is necessary to stifle upstarts - as they did to new DSL providers back when the Baby Bells would not install even in 1990s that 1981 DSL technology.
I don't believe for one moment that market forces are that informed as to identify games played by 'packet skewing'. I do not have enough faith in consumer being technically literate. Why? How many power strip protectors do you see out there? Wasted money. But the consumer still spends tens of times more money for devices that do nothing effective. Therefore how do we expect the consumer to understand that Comcast is doing 'packet skewing' to make their own services more desireable?
Neither Comcast nor the Baby Bells have any interest in only being IP service providers; leaving others to provide 'next layer' services such as 'on demand movies' and VoIP.
For that matter, how many here really understand what I have posted? Posted was a so simplistic overview of the Internet. And yet those same consumers would see through this big business trick of 'packet skewing"? I seriously doubt that consumers would be sufficiently informed. Everytime I see a power strip protector, then I suspect naviety is widespread.
U.S. broadband-cable companies are considered information services, which by law gives them the right to block VoIP calls. Comcast Corp., in Philadelphia, the country's largest cable company, is already a Narus customer; Thomas declined to say whether Comcast uses the VoIP-blocking capabilities.
Don't be silly...they're not using it yet, but they will soon. They're selling phone service, and at a time of their choosing they'll slam the door and then point out the clause in their ToS that says you can't do that.
They don't want you doing anything that generates significant upstream that doesn't also generate significant revenue.
For them.
I'm totally fed up with Comcast, from their constantly trying to jam digital service down my throat (at a price) to the crappy, sloppy way they insert their own dreary boring commercials into other people's programming. Often in the middle of another commercial.
Our wideband is *provisioned* by Verizon, but the ISP is Voicenet. Comcast's days in our household are numbered; we're shopping for a good VSAT TV service.
Me too, let me know what you find out. (I want to install it myself but I hear they want to do all that for you)
When you look at a webpage (like this one for example) you use your terminal to connect to your server. Then you type in a web address, and your server looks for it and finds it on whichever server it's on. The information that you look at on this page is stored on someone's server, and the person that owns the site pays the server for the space. You just get to look at it. :) If you had your own webspace, it would be stored on a server which is paid for somehow, either by you directly, or the space owners (such as geocities) might choose to use advertising to make their money, so that means that they're giving you space for free, but you're advertising their site which puts things like pop-ups etc (which someone has paid geocities to use) on your page.
When you make such a request, your pc gets the page from SOME server, not always the one hosting the original of the page. Two major technologies, still in widespread use that don't conform to your description are proxy servers (especially for content) and mirror servers, which are explicitly not the same server as the one that holds the original information, but holds a perfect copy (in a perfect world).
My humble solution and only partially tongue in cheek, but also aprtly sincere is that once a year we all send each other paper mail via the usps and figure out whjer we'll meet at forks and conduct all this arguing, trolling, red baiting and back biting in person with shared refershmetns.
it would be like a boyscout jamboree ofr bigv and me and a few others and it wouldn't be like that for xoxoxbruce and a few others.
The all the people sucking money out of you could go piss up a rope.
we'll work out the details in person at the next forks. (not sure if the inch or SWMBO will be ready for forks. nor me for thst mttter.)
Just throught of something - this voice-detection technology can't *possibly* tell the difference between voice used for conversation and voice used for voice communication in gaming. Because it'll be identical. Think the gamers can't put 2 and 2 together? You're wrong.
Just throught of something - this voice-detection technology can't *possibly* tell the difference between voice used for conversation and voice used for voice communication in gaming. Because it'll be identical. Think the gamers can't put 2 and 2 together? You're wrong.
I suspect you are missing one important fact. This voice-detection technology
can identify each Skype VoIP packet and each Comcast VoIP packet. Therefore Comcast VoIP packets remain undisturbed whereas Skype packets are skewed (distorted).
This technology is in use in other countries (ie Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Germany (Vodaphone), France (SFR), and also in South America and Asia) where the local phone monopoly was being undercut by VoIP technology. When used in the US, most consumers would blame Skype for a lousy product; switch to Comcast or the Baby Bell's VoIP instead.
As the article notes, Comcast refuses to acknowledge or deny that they are using software they have already purchased. As the article notes, FCC recently said DSL providers can also do same. Software that can selectively skew competitors IP packets while leaving Comcast packets undisturbed.
Above is in direct contradiction to what UT has suggested - that the internet is nothing more than IP packets. Significant power exists in being a large IP provider. That IP provider can, for example, time shift packets from small competition. That service degradation (to promote a big ISP's higher level products) is all quite legal. All part of an effort by large communication companies to, for example, keep smaller competition from using their existing infrastructure - a reversal of open competition demanded by the 1996 Communication Act.
Most consumers, but all it takes is a small minority of experts to point out what's going on. See the Sony rootkit controversy for an example of how this would work. When the stakes are high the controversy means more to all.
An overnight, sudden loss of 5%, or even 2% of its customer base would be devastating to a large broadband provider. Particularly one that is trying to leverage its size to have an ability to control the Internet.
Firstly the economics: VOIP is cheap to start, with huge potential profits, so if one provider is "broken", two more will pop up in its place. The harder the old companies try to monetize their own VOIP services, the more profit will remain in the industry. Look at how Vonage went from 0 to 60 overnight.
Every IP connection involves not one, but two sides, both of whom have an interest in unhindered packet travel. Every connection involves not one, not two, but several different providers. Just run a
traceroute (to comcast.net for example; don't trace cellar.org, it's having a network problem today) and count how many companies are involved in getting stuff from point to point. Even the shortest routes involve 5 companies. All of those companies demand unhindered packet travel and all have the expertise to identify where network congestion comes from.
Comcast's ability to provide IP services to its customers also depends on its providers interest in providing IP services to Comcast. And everyone in the world's interest in connecting to Comcast customers. Comcast slows Skype? At that point
Skype blocks Comcast, and guess who loses then?
All the models have changed. There is no more Ma Bell who makes both sides of the connection and can act as a sole arbiter. There is no more 7 baby bells to try the same crap. There are now hundreds of infant bells, many of whom have competitive advantages. And now, millions upon millions of switches no longer in the control of a single entity... or even a single regulatory body.
The companies with a lot of customers simply have further to fall. When someone's phone works off their laptop at Starbucks, but not at their home next door, it will be obvious what's happening.
Most consumers, but all it takes is a small minority of experts to point out what's going on. See the Sony rootkit controversy for an example of how this would work. When the stakes are high the controversy means more to all.
Well you tell me what experts saw Comcast doing packet skewing on a selective basis this past year? Or were they? How would these 'experts' know? Packet skewing appears similar to other internet latencies. And this is only one trick we now know about. How many others exist that we don't know about.
Bottom line is that large IP providers have major influence - both technical and legal - to make the business much more than just shipping IP packets. The Sony case was only discovered by Mark Russinovich because it was so badly implemented - not because all such techniques can be exposed as you are assuming.
How many years has George Jr been wiretapping without court approval? How much mail has been seized and opened in direct violation of United States laws? You know they are not doing this because 'experts' would discover it? Your assumption that it will always be discovered is seriously flawed.
Comcast's ability to provide IP services to its customers also depends on its providers interest in providing IP services to Comcast. And everyone in the world's interest in connecting to Comcast customers. Comcast slows Skype? At that point Skype blocks Comcast, and guess who loses then?
Who?
No, really, who?
Your points about the two-ended nature of things are very well taken--and are exactly the reason AT&T's garbage is doomed to failure as long as everybody displays some testicular fortitude.
But what you're saying is that in your scenario Skype users would skip Comcast and use a different provider. But that only happens if there's another broadband provider there waiting to sign up Comcast's disgruntled customers, and in a lot of areas there isn't.
YES, tw, my argument is that they probably weren't doing it because nobody has any indication that they were.
You are suggesting that they were doing it because you can't prove they didn't.
Which of our arguments is more logical, I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Which of our arguments is more logical, I leave as an exercise for the reader.
I am not saying they are or are not. I am saying your arguments are predicated on an assumption that all such truths will be exposed.
According to your logic, all power strip protector manufacturers would be out of business because consumers would learn. According to your assumptions, we know when George Jr is wiretapping and opening our mail. I don't believe it for one minute. Your underlying assumptions are seriously flawed. This is not a question as to whether Comcast IS skewing packets, This is all about your logic and underlying assumptions. They are flawed.
Furthermore Comcast could be selectively using 'packet skewing'. Consumers would blame Skype long before they would blame 'packet skewing'. By doing so, 'experts' would never know the difference. Is Comcast using Narus Inc. software? Probably. Would you know? Could you detect it? Obviously not. So how are those consumers to know?
Furthermore, who are those consumers to change to? Verizon - that also can use 'packet skewing' legally to undermine Skype? There is no one else. So where is this free market force that would punish Comcast? Just too many reasons why free market forces do not punish big IP 'packet movers'. It's legal for them to selectively skew packets. And Comcast has bought the software that does packet skewing.
Your assumptions are based upon a theory that you can tell when they are and are not packet skewing. I suggest they may be and UT could not say so, one way or the other. Therefore the assumptions underpinning UT's assumptions is erroneous. Big IP movers can easily manipulate the market. It is legal for them to skew packets - intermittently - and do many other things which experts could not detect - in direct contradiction to what UT posts.
Meanwhile, the poor little consumer (say, someone like me, for example) is sitting here reading all this diatribe and wondering "Why can't these so-called 'service providers' simply compete by seeing who can offer the best service at the lowest price" instead of figuring out ways to screw each other and their customer base.
Like so much of the current technology, there are no directly comparable historical models to serve as a basis to guide legislation or business practices toward a workable solution. I think UT's comment, which I will sum up as "both sides need the other", is the most realistic. Unless one infrastructure/service provider owns sufficent resources to cover the entire globe (or agreements to use another company's resources), then the utility of IP communications, regardless of type, becomes lessened to the point that it stops making sense to use at all. Take away the usefulness of something, and the market dries up.
So how to forecast the future? Simple. Look to see who is contributing the most money and hookers to which political party, and then expect them to end up as a monopoly with free reign to rape the consumer at will.
Like so much of the current technology, there are no directly comparable historical models to serve as a basis to guide legislation or business practices toward a workable solution.
That just is not true. Start with history of what created the AT&T monopoly to appreciate deja vue. Read Clayton Christensen's "Innovators Dilemma" to appreciate how many different ways this 'conflict' can be resolved.
It always comes down to a bottom line question. What is the purpose of that corporation? Profits? Or is its product the purpose? One well proven historical trend is that when a company has a virtual monopoly, then its purpose changes - from product oriented to profit oriented. The former having customers who are provided innovative services. The latter being companies such as Robert Allen's AT&T (pre- SBC), General Motors, 1970-2000 Xerox, Carly Fiorina's HP, Spindler and Sculley's Apple Computer, Aker's and Cannavino's IBM, etc.
What big IP companies may be doing today has been long and well recorded in history. A long list of government laws and regulations eventually result - that the industry deserves due to becoming profit oriented rather than product oriented.
UT has assumed that market forces will keep broadband providers honest. I wish it were so. Sometimes history says it does. But not always. Actions to subvert small VoIP (and other new technology) services suggests that these large IP companies may become so anti-innovative as to cannibalize on smaller fish (ie Skype) rather than grow and live off of innovation. History of American business repeats that story. Creation of AT&T, as most of us knew it, is a near duplication of what happens when big fish cannibalize little fish rather than compete honestly.
Let me know if you want to place a wager on the Cellar Calendar.
Something like "Jan. 1 2008: major carrier interference is top-5 issue in VOIP industry". If it doesn't come true you have to hit the Paypal jar for $10. If it does, the Cellar tag line is changed to "tw was once again proven correct" for a week.
Who would win if a major carrier tried it and got slapped down not by the market but by Congress?
Me...see the last sentence I wrote about how the consumer gets reamed... :-)
Does this sound like a company that is an IP 'data highway' - or a company that wants control of more 'higher level' services by lobbying (buying) politicans? If UT is correct, then consumers would simply quit Verizon and move to (the only) other broadband provider - Comcast - because Verizon wants more control (profits from) higher level Internet functions.
Verizon and Comcast got independence from legal requirements: opening their networks to CLEC - smaller competitors (ie COVAD). With a duopoloy on broadband services, these companies now want control of content. IP is only data packet traffic. Higher level functions from TCP and above are also known as content. Some examples of content are www, movies on demand, RealAudio, and VoIP. Note how the lowly IP provider now wants control and profits from those who provide higher level services such as Google.
Maybe this is only a trial ballon. But it another puzzle piece along with 'packet skewing'. Little pieces that would explain a larger, overall intent to dominate the business we currently call 'The Internet'.
From Washington Post of 7 Feb 2006:
Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google's 'Free Lunch'
A Verizon Communications Inc. executive yesterday accused Google Inc. of freeloading for gaining access to people's homes using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build.
The comments by John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, came as lawmakers prepared to debate legislation that could let phone and cable companies charge Internet firms additional fees for using their high-speed lines.
"The network builders are spending a fortune constructing and maintaining the networks that Google intends to ride on with nothing but cheap servers," Thorne told a conference marking the 10th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "It is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers."
BTW, there is nothing technically complex in these posts from UT and myself. It's layman's language. If difficult for the lurker, then the lurker is only first learning about what was well understood, expected, and published in newspapers five years ago. This is a contraversy that probably caused Powell Jr to resign as FCC Commissioner when even another Republican commissioner did not agree.
It's tempting to think of Verizon and Comcast as the only players if those are the only ones you can think of.
Firstly, most people do not chose between those two, and in certain locations - more all the time - there are more than two choices. For example, Philadelphia is developing its idea of providing 1MB wi-fi to everyone in the city limits. Their partner: Earthlink.
Comcast wasn't a player at all ten years ago, and Verizon was only a baby bell 10 years ago. Today Comcast is hardly a player, capable of providing VOIP to only
16 million homes. You can bet that, in ten years, the rules will have changed completely once again. And if broadband players can automatically get an extra $30 out of providing a clear 30k or so (all that's required to devote to voice) of their 1Meg to devote to voice, there are going to be a lot more broadband players.
More and more people have the capability to reach their office via VPN and include voice over that connection. Are the providers going to mess with those packets? Think those people won't figure it out?
Can nobody call customer service when they have a problem? Will Comcast lie when people ask why they can't get Skype? What will Skype customer service say?
what the fuck does VOIP stand for? ~freakin nerd lingo....
Voice Over IP (basically telephone over the internet)
It's tempting to think of Verizon and Comcast as the only players if those are the only ones you can think of.
Firstly, most people do not chose between those two, and in certain locations - more all the time - there are more than two choices. For example, Philadelphia is developing its idea of providing 1MB wi-fi to everyone in the city limits. Their partner: Earthlink.
Many, if not most places, only have one broadband choice. In a major metropolitan area, Philadelphia, there are two choices. Furthermore, most other options still must use either the cable company or telephone company facilities. The other option that costs significantly more is satellite.
Earthlink is the exception - mesh networking. However the point here is about choices. The point is about how large IP providers can and probably are manipulating the market to self serving and competitively unfair advantages.
Let's take a look at that Earthlink example. Verizon and Comcast are so fearful of this mesh network as to make it illegal in any other Philadelphia town. By PA law (both Verizon and Comcast bought large numbers of PA Congressmen), only Philadelphia can install that Earthlink mesh network. A Philadelphia exemption is only because Philly had already started to install it.
Comcast and Verizon may be so manipulating the market (without consumer 'free market' influence) as to even get an Earthlink mesh network banned in all other PA venues. Is that a big IP provider with no undue influence on the market? Of course not. Just another example of why regulation of big IP providers may be (and most unfortunately) necessary. UT's Earthlink example only again demonstrates how big IP providers may be rigging the market at the expense of consumers - as that above Washington Post article and 'packet skewing' also suggests.
Can nobody call customer service when they have a problem? Will Comcast lie when people ask why they can't get Skype? What will Skype customer service say?
With packet skewing, who would know it was happening? Skype? No. They could only suspect. Is the consumer denied Skype service? Obviously not. My posts never one even suggested it. The IEEE Spectrum article did not even suggest that. The consumer could get Skype. And with packet skewing, then Skype service would be lower quality. With intermittent application of packet skewing, then Skype would only appear to be a cheap and inferior verson of VoIP. And again, even UT could not tell if Comcast was or was not using packet skewing software. For all we know, Comcast is using the packet skewing software they have purchased. Why would they not be using it? No reason to not use it. It's legal.
Bottom line point: 'packet skewing' to selectively undermine quality of Skype VoIP service is legal. FCC said it is legal for both cable and phone (DSL and fiber) companies to 'packet skew' competitor's packets.
There are already some private networks out there who are limited in scope but have a private internet. The problem with a completely unregulated, unrestricted, and unhampered internet is.....who is going to pay for it. Who will buy the huge switches and pay for the fiber optic cables to be pulled everywhere? And even if you did have the resources to build such a network, the government of America may attempt to claim jurisdiction over you because your cables are within the borders of America. Other nations might try the same thing.
The way I see it, the only way this could really be done is to launch about 36 communication sats owned by a consortium or other such group that would not give records to any government, and would not even keep records and would allow completely free access to their internet. This would allow people all over the world to communicate, but even this wouldn't solve everything.
If I were to transmit to a sattelite from within Vietnam, the cops would show up instantly to cart me off.
This is a sticky issue. I don't see how the government of America, or any other nation, can claim to have any legal jurisdiction over the current, or any future internets since they are private property.
The best solution might be to build a consortium of large businesses who refuse to comply with government rules or regulations on their private networks, and who won't track our every move and who would sign a contract agreeing to such.
One thing is certain, whenever there is an opportunity to make a profit, someone steps up to the plate. I'd certainly pay to be on such a network and I'm sure many others would too.
This is a quick way for Verizon and these other businesses to lose money. They are stupid in thinking they've got control of the internet. The internet is fluid and constantly changing.
tw: After Skype hooks up a simple packet sniffer and evaluates the arrival times of different packet numbers during a call, and compares that data to the packets they themselves have generated from the remote location, they will have all the compelling data they need before lunchtime.
radar: you don't need an entire private internet to circumvent this situation. Anyone can order a private circuit to just about any ISP!! In fact single channel ISDN would be plenty for two-way voice. Now how many choices do you have? Maybe hundreds!!
With an extended WiFi setup you could take that circuit yourself and act as ISP for your entire neighborhood. You could even take the packets on Skype's ports and direct them over a small private network, while directing all other traffic to Verizon or whomever else. The routing would be intense to work out, but the equipment would be less than a grand. And you could make money too!
Thank you for making that point, UT. TW's statement didn't sound right to me, but this is not my area of expertise.
radar: you don't need an entire private internet to circumvent this situation. Anyone can order a private circuit to just about any ISP!! In fact single channel ISDN would be plenty for two-way voice. Now how many choices do you have? Maybe hundreds!!
But how do the ISPs hook up? Don't they have to go through a wire-owner at some point? ISPs don't generally own the copper or fiber. And they certainly don't own all the wire that your packets go through to get to their destination.
I have to say it again...isn't the customer *already* paying for the services they find on the Internet? I pay to connect, not for what comes to me via that connection. Isn't what is being discussed here a little bit akin to SBC demanding a cut of a contract I am awarded because I made the deal over the phone line for which I am already paying?
But how do the ISPs hook up? Don't they have to go through a wire-owner at some point?
Here is a list of backbone providers. Short version:
360networks
AboveNet
Ameritech
AT&T
Btnaccess
Bell Canada
BellSouth
Broadwing
Cogent
Electric Lightwave
Fiber Network Solutions
Genuity
GlobalNAPs
Globix
GT (Canada)
IDT Corporation
Level 3
Multacom
Mzima
Netifice
Oxford Networks
PPL Telcom
Quest (Asia)
Qwest Comm.
SAVVIS
Sprint Wholesale
Telcove
Teleglobe (VSNL)
TeliaSonera
Telstra Inc. (Asia, USA)
Time Warner Telecom
Verio (NTT)
WilTel (Williams Comm.)
XO Comm.
Xspedius
A smart ISP would get a circuit to one of these people. But they might just as well get IP service from someone who got a circuit from these people. Or they could get service from someone who got service from these people. Or they could get multiple services and implement some sort of routing redundancy.
And now the hundreds of leaf nodes become thousands and millions, and the latency penalty of additional routers is still plenty low for voice.
Notice which two names are not on the list.
BTW - I'm a Verizon FIOS customer - and traceroutes to myself show that Verizon is connected via at least three of the above: Level 3, AboveNet, and 360 Networks.
Skype lists its "Carrier Partners" on
this page.
tw: After Skype hooks up a simple packet sniffer and evaluates the arrival times of different packet numbers during a call, and compares that data to the packets they themselves have generated from the remote location, they will have all the compelling data they need before lunchtime.
Good luck. Packet skewing looks like internet latency. Have you every done packet sniffing on large networks?
Furthermore, intermittent application of packet skewing would make detection using packet sniffers even more difficult if not impossible. Skype customers sometimes get bad service which is enough for them to quit Skype. Meanwhile, while you are looking for packet skewing, the IP provider is using the X technique - that is secret so we cannot define it. How are you going to detect the X technique when you don't even know what to look for? Under current law, the X technique to selectively distort service is also legal.
You claimed that IP providers would just provide basic services because if they did not, then market forces would force them to change. Demonstrated are numerous techniques - technical, legal, and secret - that demonstrate that assumption is seriously flawed. Even demonstrated are trends by big IPs to monopolize more of the internet - even blaming Google for earning profits on a 'free ride'. I don't have your faith that a free market alone will provide a fair market because, already, competitive DSL providers were all but driven out of business AND because Verizon and Comcast even got laws passed to stop all future mesh networks in Pennsylvania.
How do you reconcile that law with your original assumptions? How do you reconcile that Washington Post article that says large IP providers want more control and profits of internet business - even at the expense of Google. I just don't have your faith in their integrity and honesty - especially with the number of times they have already demonstrated intent use their large IP infrastructure and 'purchased politicians' to stifle competition.
But how do the ISPs hook up? Don't they have to go through a wire-owner at some point? ISPs don't generally own the copper or fiber. And they certainly don't own all the wire that your packets go through to get to their destination.
It’s called the 'last mile'. Only about 2.5% of backbone fiber was (and probably will be) used is due to limitations created by the 'last mile'. Who are your 'last mile' providers? For dialup, a phone company. For broadband, most only have a phone company and a cable company - or less. UT only has two choices. He can connect via Comcast or he can use Verizon (either DSL or FIOS). No matter who his ISP or backbone provider is, he still must use the 'last mile' infrastructure - Comcast or Verizon.
Earthlink, et al cannot provide a mesh network because it was made illegal in PA. A law passed because those IP providers wanted to respond to consumer demands? I don't think so even though UT disagrees.
So you tell me - who is sitting best in a position of power? The 'last mile' providers 'stuck it' to AT&T. They also stifled 1981 DSL technology for over a decade. They resisted ISDN for how long? They are now vying for more control - not just being IP providers. And they have legal, political, and technical power to do so.
Do you really think these 'powers that be' will not exercise their power? They were the reason why multimedia did not happen in the early 1990s when national providers had installed fiber optic across the nation just for that purpose. The 1996 Communication Act was passed only because the 'last mile' providers (now called cable and telephone companies) would not innovate. And yet we trust them to comply with free market forces as UT claims? I seriously doubt it when their history is to do things despite those free market forces.
We are all at mercy to the 'last mile' providers who have so many options - including 'packet skewing - to manipulate the market, unfairly, to their advantage. In UT's case, they are called Verizon and Comcast. He has no one else to turn to. But still UT claims a consumer forces will make them comply ... when free market forces did not. When we even needed a 1996 Communications Act to make them respond to market demands. Why would they suddenly respond to free market pressure (as UT assumes) when they refused to previously?
You just route the packets you want to see to a place where you can watch them with ease. The only "techniques" they can actually use are introducing latency or dropping packets. Almost every network tool ever written to evaluate broken connections measures those two things in detail over time. (Including the granddaddy of them all: ping.)
The old motel is bypassed by the big highway. In a fit of pique the old motel digs up the entrance/exit ramp next to it. Unfortunately for the motel this dries up the last source of business and fails to hurt the highway one iota. The motel must lean that the highway has more power and the only way to survive is to work with it, not against it.
You just route the packets you want to see to a place where you can watch them with ease. The only "techniques" they can actually use are introducing latency or dropping packets. Almost every network tool ever written to evaluate broken connections measures those two things in detail over time. (Including the granddaddy of them all: ping.)
Your post assumes the latency is always same number in every ping. It is not, as was even demonstrated by web sites such as InternetWeather.com and others who have since taken up that task. That 'always changing' latency makes it simplistic to perform ‘packet skewing’ without detection. When 'packet skewing' is applied intermittently, then it is all but impossible to detect.
Furthermore, 'packet skewing' means pings travel normally whereas VoIP or other type packets are skewed. Just another reason why consumers would cancel Skype service and buy VoIP from the big IP provider.
And then we have techniques X, Y, and Z that are legal. How do you detect them? You don't even know what to look for. And if you detect them, well, so what? It is legal for IP providers to use such techniques. You are making assumptions not even based in technical reality.
UT. Provided are so many reasons legal, political, historical, and technical why IP providers - the 'last mile' providers - can and may manipulate their networks to maximize their products at the expense of competition. They have already done so previously. It was and is legal. Your claim that market forces would prevent this has repeatedly and historically been demonstrated a myth. Again, did we not learn from AT&T? Did we not learn that it took a 1996 Communication Act to get broadband provided? Where were these market forces that made the 1996 Communication Act unnecessary? Where were those market forces that protected AT&T?
Somehow, you still think Comcast and Verizon - your only two providers - will not unfairly manipulate the market using numerous political, legal, and technical techniques? They already have and no one complained? Where is a public up swell because a Philadelphia Earthlink mesh network is not permitted anywhere else in PA? Where is this consumer demand that UT insists will protect the market? Why then should we believe consumer 'free market' selection will keep those IP providers - the 'last mile' providers - honest? UT did not even complain when mesh network service was denied to protect Verizon and Comcast. History contradicts UT's claims. Technical facts demonstrate why even 'packet skewing' can be made all but impossible to detect.
You're over your head and looking bad. But if you're so certain, just make a prediction for the Cellar calendar.
You're over your head and looking bad. But if you're so certain, just make a prediction for the Cellar calendar.
Well if you are going to insult rather than answer technically, then that is proof you have conceded.
But please tell us why those IP providers - the 'last mile' providers - will be honest when so much history says otherwise. You ignore reasons political, technical, legal, and historical when you cannot reply? I suspect you had no idea why the 1996 Communication Act was created - which explains why you pretend I never cited it ... and so many other facts.
Meanwhile, UT, you are fooling only yourself if you think 'packet skewing' and other IP tricks can be reliably proven by 'ping' type testing. You are fooling yourself if you think with only two 'last mile' providers, then market forces will keep them honest.
Good luck. Packet skewing looks like internet latency. Have you every done packet sniffing on large networks?
Even so, at levels in which it would be audible, you have to be losing a fair number of packets. Certainly enough to be subject to statistical analysis.
I would gather an hour's worth of data from point A to point B and then demonstrate what went wrong.
I'd ship other packets from the same point A to the same point B, during that same hour. I'd also ship from point A to point C and from point B to point C and collect that data. Perhaps I'd also ship a different protocol of packets, to see if the protocol made any difference. How about ICMP packets? Good choice, everyone routes them, and every network analysis tool will interpret them, along with the packets used for data transmission of voice. Any latency or packet loss introduced by hardware or most routing problems would affect both protocols. Thus, "ping type" testing - looking at ICMP messages - is a half-decent approach.
Even so, at levels in which it would be audible, you have to be losing a fair number of packets. Certainly enough to be subject to statistical analysis.
Let's say you are Skype. You find that your 'quality of service' using Skype on Comcast is inferior. So what do you do? Do you announce to the world that Comcast is a bad service? Of course not. No advertiser profits from such comments. Spin doctors will say that is a worst you can do. If you announce Skype service is poor on Comcast, then the consumer will use some other VoIP provider.
Will you change IP providers? Who? You only have two choices (in UT's case) - Comcast and Verizon. Others have even less choices. But both are doing things that may degrade Skype quality because - 1) it is legal, 2) they want Skype's customers, and 3) no one can for one minute claim a statistical poorer quality is intentionally due to what Comcast and Verizon are doing.
Yes, you can statistically measure a degradation of IP service - if you know what to look for. So what. That degradation also happens during normal internet operation. Statistical measurement becomes inconclusive if 'packet skewing' is performed intermittently. Furthermore, if you (Skype) complain to Comcast, et al, well, Comcast need not do anything but claim ignorance. You (Skype) have no legal options other than to build your own IP service network - from scratch.
Furthermore, we have only discussed service degradation using packet skewing. What about technique X, Y, and Z? How you measure for degradation by those other methods (X, Y, and Z) which are also legal and that you don't even know exists. Remember you must also prove such degradation is intentional and not due to inferior Skype design. And then how many years will you go about measuring quality of service everywhere? Remember, they can apply service degradation intermittently. You are assuming Skype is a large organization with money to burn on verifying quality of service.
The Baby Bell must provide minimal 'circuit switched' service quality. It’s the law. Unlike IP service providers - the 'last mile' providers - the circuit switched services have specific numerical targets that must be met - as stated in government regulations. IP service providers (ie Comcast and Verizon) are exempt from such standards. UT says they will provide good service anyway because the consumer will blame Comcast and not blame Skype.
UT says they will provide those standards due to consumer 'free market' choices. I say bull. IP providers are not required to, the competition does not exist, and manipulating those IP services for self serving gain is too easy, too difficult to detect, and too profitable. Furthermore the big IP service providers have already demonstrated that they will do such tricks to benefit their company at the expense of potential competition. Trying to prove they are doing so - even statistically - got those other victims squat. Why do you think you - Skype - doing a massive statistical analysis will be any bit more successful?
Even if you statistically detect service degradation, then what are you (Skype) going to do? Sue? Good luck. Consumers meanwhile will simply take the easy way out. Comcast and Verizon provide reliable VoIP service. Since consumers have even less understanding of what I have posted - the technicals - then they will simply shift to Comcast and Verizon for more reliable service.
But UT says those consumers will leave Comcast and Verizon instead - while still using Skype. Why would they? They - like some here - don't even understand these simple technical explanations. The consumer will first abandon Skype long before they will reread (to finally comprehend) what I have posted here. Doing a statistical analysis would cost too much, hopes you know what to look for, can identify such problems as intentional verses normal internet variations, AND assumes the results of that analysis will mean something to the consumer. Good luck meeting all those points.
How many times did I show a statistical analysis would provide little useful information? Eight? Fifteen? I lost count.
I would gather an hour's worth of data from point A to point B and then demonstrate what went wrong.
I'd ship other packets from the same point A to the same point B, during that same hour. I'd also ship from point A to point C and from point B to point C and collect that data. Perhaps I'd also ship a different protocol of packets, to see if the protocol made any difference. How about ICMP packets?
UT - did you read the IEEE Spectrum article? Even simple packet skewing software will identify different packets from different type of VoIP providers; skewing only ones that an IP provider wants to degrade; leave all others undisturbed. While VoIP packets are skewed, those ICMP packets remain totally unaffected. Why would you even bring up ICMP which is not affected by 'packet skewing'? But then you knew that. So why are you trying to confuse others with ICMP? If I did not know better, I would suggest you don't understand the many services that are carried by IP networks. That is what your latest posts imply. Therefore I can only conclude you are trying to confuse others with irrelevant talk of ICMP.
Furthermore you only reply (partially) to technical facts. You completely ignore the legal, political, and historical aspects. I don't for one minute believe consumer 'free market' attitudes will protect Skype and other tiny companies from legal IP data manipulation. For it that was true, then AT&T and Covad would not have their problems even with regulated Baby Bells. Just one of maybe 20+ previous points I made. Point that you ignore to instead discuss irrelevant ICMP. Somehow you claim IP providers will be very responsive to consumer demands - even without laws requiring it. Your proof? Some irrelevant comment about ICMP.
So suggest a wager on the Cellar calendar, if you are so certain about how it will go.
You are assuming Skype is a large organization with money to burn on verifying quality of service.
It's not that hard or expensive, if one knows more than you do about network administration.
But, if you recall, I also suggested that a high price of entry would attract other competition. What if
Google introduced a voice communication service?
Well as Douglas Adams used to say, you don't have to tax your imagination to hard, because
Google HAS introduced a voice communication service.UT - did you read the IEEE Spectrum article? Even simple packet skewing software will identify different packets from different type of VoIP providers; skewing only ones that an IP provider wants to degrade; leave all others undisturbed. While VoIP packets are skewed, those ICMP packets remain totally unaffected. Why would you even bring up ICMP which is not affected by 'packet skewing'? But then you knew that.
If you would have been able to comprehend my post, you would have understood that this was exactly my point. I would send both VoIP packets and ICMP packets, and then compare the two; since as I noted, a hardware or routing problem would affect both. If only the VoIP packets were affected, I would know the source of the problem, right? Ya follow buddy?
So suggest a wager on the Cellar calendar, if you are so certain about how it will go.
UT - again you are reading what I did not post. I predicted no specifics with certainty. I defined the big picture; so many ways that consumer choices would not force big IP providers to compete fairly? What is the benchmark - the exact wording - of a bet that is consistent with these 'big picture' trends? Do we bet on Skype going backrupt? I don't predict that. Do we bet that Congress forces regulation on the IP providers? Then state exactly what that law says. Do we bet on whether Comcast used 'packet skewing' software they have purchased? Even if they were, how would we ever know? Exactly what, from so many points and trends cited, do we bet on?
Clearly I did not say something specifically would happen. I stated the so many options that IP providers have because consumer 'free market' choices are just not that influential. But you tell me. In defining a big picture and by not listing a single specific prediction, what do we bet on?
Let's say Google does provide a VoIP service. Everyone is still stuck with the most famous part of every communication network - whether it is packet switched or circuit switched. You are stuck with those same two big IP providers - Comcast or Verizon - even if using Google VoIP. Those 'last mile' providers have so much power as to even stick it to long distance companies and to upstart DSL providers.
If you would have been able to comprehend my post, you would have understood that this was exactly my point. I would send both VoIP packets and ICMP packets, and then compare the two; since as I noted, a hardware or routing problem would affect both. If only the VoIP packets were affected, I would know the source of the problem, right? Ya follow buddy?
And what would you know? Somehow the VoIP packets are sometimes taking different routes? Or that some switches sometimes handle VoIP packets differently (in time, routing, etc) from ICMP packets? And if you do see service degradation, then so what? How do you explain why the condition does not exist one hour later as service degradation is applied intermittently. Maybe larger VoIP packets are suffering more from S/N problems? That particular characteristic being how that switch deals with higher S/N problems when internet traffic is heavier. How would you know? What are you going to do - sue? Meanwhile the consumer would assume you (Skype) software is to blame. The technical study has too many variables. The consumer does not care. He just goes with someone who provides better VoIP - such as Comcast.
In short, even if you do identify symptoms in a location where packet skewing exists, well, its legal. And you still have not proven that it is packet skewing - or other internet problems. IOW so what? You have identified where service is inferior. Now what does Skype do? Cry? It's all legal.
They can target Skype all they like. They can't target them all. They would be trying to build a sandwall against a tsunami.
Their target would be a moving one, too; Skype controls its own software, so skype can look like something else, if it wants to. It can hitch itself to different ports. It can route through proxy servers. It can pretend to be other data. It can encrypt differently.
And say, who loses the game if Google blocks Verizon?
What history do you care to look at? Examine the history of every company that's planned to 0wn the net in any similar way. This is the Internet, this is the place where hackers found an innocent chat protocol to be the ideal place to swap pirate files. This is the place where people figured out how to send secret messages inside JPG files with no visible difference in image. Legality doesn't enter into it. If I can connect to you, and ship you two 100GB movie files at the same time, I can figure out a way to use 16kb of that traffic for voice. Nobody can stop us. Period.
Nobody can stop us. Period.
I'm sorry. But that reasoning sounds too much like a Mussolini speech. I must be in a funny mood because it drove me to laughing. It sounded too much like a 'mouse that roared'. And now our children will march off to rescue the Holy Lands. You gotta love the spirit.
From Washington Post of 10 Feb 2006:
Charge E-Mailers, but Keep Pipeline Open
A lot of the companies involved in our online experiences must be running short on pocket change this month, because so many of them have been doing the equivalent of looking under the sofa cushions for quarters. To be exact, they're looking under each other's sofa cushions.
Executives at telecom giants such as AT&T and Verizon Communications are talking up the idea of inviting popular Web sites and services to pay extra for better access to their lines -- and some are going further, suggesting that they would demand compensation from the likes of Google and Yahoo for all the bits they send down their lines. Yahoo and America Online, meanwhile, are rolling out plans to charge companies that send large quantities of e-mail to their users. ...
But when some of the largest, most deeply entrenched Internet service providers in the United States alternate between griping about how other firms sponge off their bandwidth and suggesting that they'd merely give Web sites the chance to buy higher-priority access, we have a different situation. ...
Second, these mainstream Internet service providers should think about what, exactly, their customers are going online for in the first place. To use the great search engine Verizon's developed? To get directions and satellite photos using AT&T's brilliant mapping site? To buy songs at BellSouth's wildly popular music-download store?
Here's a neat looking map of the internet backbone and who owns/controls each leg. Via Boing Boing.
Outstanding glatt! My point exactly, and this only covers the routing and not the software aspects. Nobody owns the net, nobody CAN own the net.
From CBSMarketWatch.com of 23 Mar 2006:
Battle over Internet fees unsettled
The long-simmering debate over Net neutrality burst in public view last December after AT&T's CEO said it would be "nuts" for his company to allow firms like "Google or Yahoo" to use big chunks of "bandwidth" on the phone company's network for free.
Generally most analysts don't think net neutrality to be at risk. But there is this fine line between protecting net neutrality and stifling innovation. From The Economist of 11 Mar 2006
… bad, say proponents of net neutrality, since some data packets - from those agreeing to pay extra - would be favoured over others. Once one music-download service paid up, its rivals would have to do the same ... Yet some packets are already favoured even on today's internet. Businesses routinely pay a premium for fast, secure "tunnels" through the network. ... Big companies already pay extra for hosting and "content delivery" services to make their websites download faster. ... Telecom operators insist that they have no intention of blocking or slowing existing traffic.
So why did they buy that software that can do just to Skype and other selective VoIP packets?
The internet map shows so much distant traffic across the net is transferred from little providers to the big carriers. There are numerous little carriers. But most of their traffic outside of their little regions gets carried eventually by the big carriers. Also what that map does not show is whose hardware carries those 'grey' lines. Often the XYZ Internet Company uses Bell South, Verizon, Level 3, Alternet, or Qwest lines. That map would not show whose hardware is being used. And one final point. Who controls the last mile. This was the problem that a myopic AT&T management just could not comprehend and solve. The last mile - again what that map does not show - is carried mostly by Qwest, Bell South, and Verizon. You want to service your customers? There is a separate door in every Qwest, Bell South, and Verizon facility labeled ILEC so that the independent - with permission from the big last mile provider - can service his customers via their hardware, their services, and at their prices.
Currently, the 'powers that be' are not concerned by AT&T’s threat to destroy net neutrality. But it would be so easy for them to do so once we include all those other facts not found in that colored (*.PDF) internet map. Not shown is whose hardware carries so much of that other (grey colored) traffic, who carries most long haul traffic, AND who controls the last mile.
No, it's not over....just being
censored for content like TV. ;)
Man, after reading all this and the thread on bush...
HOW long have you put up with tw?
and WHEN is he coming back? Arguing with him is almost like a sport, it seems, and I want to be, if not a player, then a spectator!
How long? Since 1992 or 3, I think.
Six months later, how has tw's conspiracy prediction held up?
I'm reminded of this thread by
this story in which people are trying and
think they have figured out how to interfere with Skype. But not for profiteering purposes - it's for Euro regulatory and security purposes.
With my ear to the ground I have not heard of one example of VoIP traffic being interfered with for profiteering.
Meanwhile, Vonage had an IPO but continues to be hurt by the market noticing that, while Vonage charges $24.95, others charge $0. Google put "Chats" into Gmail. A bunch of hardware manufactures including Philips and US Robotics have come out with VoIP phones for the consumer market. And the carrier fight remains one of providing the most possible and most perfect connectivity and bandwidth, of which all voice over IP requires a tiny, tiny fraction.
It's not looking good for tw's predictions. Luckily he didn't suggest a wager for the Cellar calendar. But I won't bring up his mistakes here in any other threads. That would be unfair.
It is true that the companies that provide infrastructure for the internet are considering making changes that will possibly affect the basic functionality of the net as we know it, right ??? I could almost swear I heard that on NPR. Was NPR lying?
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.
It is true that the companies that provide infrastructure for the internet are considering making changes that will possibly affect the basic functionality of the net as we know it, right ??? I could almost swear I heard that on NPR. Was NPR lying?
I'm sure they are trying to figure out how to do it. But they would
all have to enforce it. Otherwise downstream isps will just move over to the ones who don't.
But they would all have to enforce it.
As if they all joined an "Association" to represent their industry?
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?
Okay, the maps says it all. Thanks for tolerating my tail-post, and catching me up.
It's all good... the thread was originally about net neutrality, and it hijacked into this whole blocking voice thing.
Sometimes it comes down to "I ain't readin' five pages!"
(It isn't easy to read that much, from my desk, at work.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
Probably 3-M. :confused:
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.
Isn't this a gag from Big Lebowski?
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.
From CBSMarketWatch on 9 Mar 2007:
Tech giants' lobbying effort at a crucial turning point
Allied Microsoft-Google group sets key test in bid for free U.S. Internet access
MSFT prototype, delivered on behalf of the group, is a wireless device that could provide the public with free and more widespread access to the Web instead of relying on networks owned by big telecom and cable firms.
That breakthrough, tapping into an unused part of the nation's airwaves, is politically charged because it threatens to shift the Internet-access business away from telecom and cable companies that are historically well-connected in Washington, throwing open the field to a brand new batch of competitors. ...
The telephone companies are terrified they'll lose 40% of their wireless minutes, because you'll be able to connect from work or home and bypass their wireless networks," said J.H. Snider, research director of the wireless future program at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based policy institute that has long advocated to allow use of white spaces.
Every Congressman in PA gets a 'contribution' from both Verizon and Comcast so that WiFi - as Earthlink has installed in Philadelphia - cannot be installed in any other PA city. Net neutrality?
Officially, the telecom companies and other established Net-service providers stress that they're less concerned about new competition than they are about preventing interference in their service quality.
And officially that is a load of bull.
You've got to admit it's got a righteous ring to it though.:D
From ComputerWorld of 12 Mar 2007:
Comcast: We'll blackball big downloaders with no warning
Comcast has begun canceling the accounts of people who perform lots of downloads, but the ISP refuses to reveal exactly what its download limits are. The Boston Globe {of 12 Mar 2007 Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users } reports that an increasing number of users are kicked off of Comcast for exceeding bandwidth limits. What are those limits exactly...or even approximately? Don't bother asking, because if you do, you'll feel you ended up in a Kafka novel.
According to the Globe, Amanda Lee of Cambridge, MA received a call from Comcast, warning her that she had to cut back on her downloading, or else the ISP would cancel her account for a year. Lee wanted to know how much she could download, so asked what the limit was.
The Globe reports, "When she asked what the download limit was, she was told there was no limit, that she was just downloading too much."
Then, one month later, he account was canceled for -- you guessed it -- exceeding the download limits, even though Comcast refused to tell her what those limits were.
It'll continue until enough people take them to court. :(
I disagree with that title
From the NY Times of 26 Feb 2008:
F.C.C. Weighing Limits on Slowing Web Traffic
The head of the Federal Communications Commission and other senior officials said on Monday that they were considering taking steps to discourage cable and telephone companies from delaying the downloads and uploads of heavy Internet users. ...
Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, has been the subject of a complaint after it acknowledged that it slowed down some Internet traffic of BitTorrent, a file-sharing service, because of heavy use of video-sharing applications.
If you are a heavy downloader on Comcast (ie listen to radio webcasts constantly), then Comcast may terminate your service without any explanation. This has been reported on NPR. If three users consume that much bandwidth, then the other 24 users who share the same coaxial cable will suffer diminished service. Comcast's solution is reported as to terminate heavy user service.
In a free market, Comcast would simply increase bandwidth or make other plans for the so many more who will be demanding more of the internet. Instead, Comcast suggests surcharges for services such as Google.
Earlier in this thread was software purchased by Comcast that can identify packets so as to delay them. Skype was a possible target cited by IEEE Spectrum. NY Times identifies another target - BitTorrent.
TW,
The reason why for Skype: They already provide VOIP services and don't want to provide any space for competition.
The reason why for BitTorrent: They're getting major pressure from the MPAA and RIAA over pirated movies. Even though there are legit uses for BitTorrent, I figure at least 90% of it is for transmitting pirated software and movies.
The reason why for all of this, instead of spending money on technology: MBAs that underestimate the will of people to avoid paying for intangible things and get around artificial technology blocks.
The reason why for Skype: They already provide VOIP services and don't want to provide any space for competition.
The way I read that:
The reason why restrictions on Skype: Comcast already provide VOIP services and don't want to provide any space for competition.That's two years you're waiting for this conclusion of yours to come true.
Be sure and hit the tip jar before it goes.
That's two years you're waiting for this conclusion of yours to come true.
It was not my conclusion. It was a problem noted by
IEEE Spectrum in Oct 2005 when the problem was being created.
It'll continue until enough people take them to court.
From the NY Times of 28 Mar 2008 - or about 12 months after Bruce posted this:
Comcast Adjusts Way It Manages Internet Traffic
Comcast ... said on Thursday that it would take a more equitable approach toward managing the ever-expanding flow of Web traffic on its network.
The cable company ... has been under relentless pressure from the Federal Communications Commission and public interest groups after media reports last year that it was blocking some Internet traffic of customers who used online software based on the popular peer-to-peer BitTorrent protocol.
Comcast said it would change its fundamental approach to playing Internet traffic cop. Instead of interfering with specific online applications, it will manage traffic by slowing the Internet speeds of its most bandwidth-hogging users when traffic is busiest. ...
The change was part of an announcement by Comcast on Thursday that it had been working with BitTorrent ...
The companies said they have been working together for the last year on ways to optimize BitTorrent applications for the Comcast network. They said they would publish their findings to Web forums and standards groups so that other software makers, peer-to-peer services and I.S.P.’s could adopt them. ...
Comcast and BitTorrent said their collaboration showed the corrective power of the market and obviated the need for further federal oversight. But in a public statement, the commission chairman, Kevin J. Martin, vowed continued scrutiny and expressed concern that the old filtering practice would continue at least through the end of the year.
Marvin Ammori, general counsel at Free Press, ... “The only reason Comcast came to the table and made a deal with BitTorrent is because of the unrelenting pressure,” he said.
From the BBC of 18 April 2008:
Action urged to keep net neutral
The meeting was called by the FCC in reaction to the news that US net firm Comcast had been exposed as managing traffic by stopping some of its 13m customers uploading files to BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer networks.
The FCC has started a formal investigation to see if Comcast merits a fine for its actions.
In response to the publicity surrounding its actions, Comcast has said it would change its policy.
A fast bit rate does not necessary mean a fast packet rate.
From the Washington Post of 23 Apr 2008:
Comcast's Network Practices Need Scrutiny, FCC Chief Says
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin ... said in his testimony that it appeared Comcast had singled out content for delay over its network, even when the network may not have been congested with overuse. He also said he doubted the company's statements that it would stop some of its practices by the end of the year.
Why does Comcast just not turn off the software today? Why wait 8 months to stop filtering network content?
The entertainment industry, meanwhile, is divided on net neutrality. Yesterday's panel included Hollywood writers and actors who testified in favor of regulations that would prevent media companies and cable and telecommunications carriers from controlling content over the Internet networks.
"The Internet holds incredible potential to resurrect a vibrant industry of independent creators with free access to, and distribution of . . . content," Patric M. Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America, West, said in his testimony yesterday.
But groups such as the Songwriters Guild of America have argued against net neutrality, saying a network without controls would effectively enable rampant piracy and copyright infringement.
For most part, the computer industry has been responsible. Therefore little government regulation was required. Comcast is a repeated exception. Comcast was even caught subverting Skype packets to self serving purposes. Comcast has bought NBC for reasons that include controlling another potential threat to its business - interactive TV. Ongoing is a Comcast lawsuit.
From the Washington Post of 15 Jan 2009:
FCC looks at ways to assert authority over Web access
The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC's authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers' access to the online file-sharing service BitTorrent. But in an oral hearing last Friday, three judges grilled an FCC lawyer over whether the agency had acted outside the scope of its authority.
The appeals court is still hearing the case, but analysts predict that the FCC will lose and that the ruling could throw all of its efforts to oversee Internet access into question. A loss could undermine the legality of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's push for policies that would prohibit service providers from restricting customers' access to legal Web content -- the concept known as net neutrality -- and throw into doubt the agency's ability to oversee pricing and competition among Internet service providers.
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-encrypt-bittorrent-traffic/ 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.
That's four years you're waiting for this conclusion of yours to come true. Maybe I was right about this one?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ted is on a roll, what did he rant? :D
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.
Ted is on a roll, what did he rant? :D
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.
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.
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.
In other news, bittorrent added encryption to its protocol three years ago.
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.
The internet is for PORN!!!
...or you are somehow saying that the current congress is anti Obama (which makes no sense whatsoever, so I ruled that one out)...
He should have said the republicans in congress, instead of just congress, but I believe he's referring to congress' inability to work on anything bipartisan that would benefit the country (us), because of the want Obama to fail attitude by the disloyal opposition.
Oh. Well that at least makes more sense.
The internet is for PORN!!!
That's right! That's why Patriotic Americans will NEVER let the internet be over!
The internet is for PORN!!!
Please include citations.
Quick! Start downloading whole damned thing "internet" on your hard disks before they start asking for money!