Center for Digital Democracy – Network Neutrality — The process is called “deep packet inspection.” The idea is for the phone and cables companies to gain full control of the Internet, consolidate around one or two companies, then run the newest servers that can see what you are doing on the net and charging you based on their discoveries. Use Skype? Pay more.
This is what I keep referring to on Cranky Geeks and TWIT. Here’s some documents for you.These are the links to the whitepapers that openly describe the process and it’s potentials.
It seems to be the natural evolution of any industry to end up controlled by a few conglomerates. By the way nice picture of you John. I can easily imagine you in a Dickensian sort of way. 😉
John, just this weekend ads began running on local TV (in South Florida) that attempt to confuse the issue. They are misleading and try to convince the viewer that Net Neutrality will hurt consumers choices. They urge viewers to contact your Representatives and say No to Net Neutrality.
The ads are paid for by TV4US. If you go to their website http://www.wewantchoice.com/ you can read the coalition members. One of which is AT&T. Big surprise!
“They urge viewers to contact your Representatives and say No to Net Neutrality.”–DaleHuber
Somehow the image of average American tv viewers, sitting on their sofa eating donuts and drinking beer, picking up their phone to call their representatives to ask them to say no to Net Neutrality is just hilarious.
The moment your service provider starts charging tolls, cancel your subscription. If a date coulsd be established as a protest where “everyone” was to cancel tte decision would be reversed in a hurry. If only 20% followed through, I think that would be enough. I know it’s not a simple thing to organize, but it could be done… couldn’t it?
Here’s an ‘off the wall’ idea. Unionize.
Stop the Madness!!!! This uproar about net neutrality (NN) is bull, and the usual commie diatribes on the postings is starting to get to me.
1. There is SO much competition in the ISP market for most Americans that the marketplace will keep the net neutral. Let the laws of this country keep the ISP’s from colluding with each other; and NN will continue.
2. The possibility that consumers and other entities can to some extent bypass the alleged bad ISP’s will also keep it in check. The ability easily (and relatively cheaply) create a new wireless ISP (currently being done by some cities) will keep the ISP’s in line. Imagine if NY, Boston and DC decideded to put in free wireless access in the three cities (and put their own non-aligned backbone between the cities)? That’s a threat the cable and telephone companies can not take lightly.
3. I’m still not convinced that Internet should be net neutral. For example, I think charging for email (in some form) would be a start to eliminating spam! If my ISP said that the first 1000 emails I send per month are free, with each additional one costing 1/2 a cent, I’d be fine with that. And if email #1001 would require one of those only-a-human-can-read them verifications from my ISP, it would eliminate my computer from being a (major) spam zombie.
I also believe that if the supposed majority of internet traffic is spam and illegal file trading by a minority of users, how can making them pay their fair share of an ISP’s cost be wrong?
And lastly, as usual, government regulation should ONLY be used as a last resort.
Commie diatribe? Where? I see only democratic opinions.
Charging 1/2 a cent would set a precedent. If 1/2 cent is accepted, then why not 5 cents and 25 free emails a year from now? In the future when regular mail costs 60 cents, will 30 cents be unreasonable for email? After all, you accepted that it was ok to pay for it. Don’t underestimate the greed of big business.
If they have the technology to track where we go on the net, why not go after the spammers with it? The fine could be 5 cents per illicit email instead of ruining the net for everyone.
And it’s not the ISP’s that are the threat here. It’s the owners of the infrastructure. Free wireless only get’s you connected. That would be of no concern to the phone and cables companies. The “free” wireless providers will get the whopping bill for tolls and that will be the end of that.
Really, do people still use the word “commie” and expect to be taken seriously?
Only 15 percent of online U.S adults are very satisfied with their current number of ISP choices. According to a March survey by the Consumer Electronics Association.
So, Lou — at least now you know how narrow a demographic defines your rant.
I can see it now…it’ll be just like my Time Warner Cable television service. Connect to RoadRunner and bam, 40 Internet site choices to choose from – you know AOL, etc… Small sites will be so excruciating slow to load that it won’t be worth it. No more blogs for hillbillies like myself.
I flew down to the Bay area on May 20th, for my Uncle’s memorial service, and answered the phone at my Mom’s house [Vallejo] – the next day.
A woman was on the line – with the background sounding like she was in a busy call-center – asking me a leading question about net neutrality, and asking me to leave a “No on net neutrality” voice-mail [which they would then forward to my elected representative].
Their leading question was asking me if I wanted the “big corporations” to pay for net upgrades instead of passing the costs on to consumers…
Apparently they are trying to get public support for this by spinning it as: “if we can’t charge them for the large volume of traffic in our pipes, we’ll charge you for it…”
They’ll help us send a [predictably self-serving?] message to Congress, because they know weM aren’t willing to pay any more $$ than we already are for access.
Comcast used to charge me for 1-Mbps, and offered me the chance to pay more for 3-Mbps – no thanks…
But when Comcast feels competitive pressure from Verizon DSL, they bump-up everyone’s bandwidth to 3-Mbps with no increase in price
They triple everyone’s bandwidth – for free – and then bitch about how much bandwidth people are using, and that commercial websites aren’t paying their “fair share”???
Corporate policies on lying as part of marketing are endemic enough to be considered part of American business DNA. If your car is a piece of technological crap, try to sell the style [Saturn so-called hybrid]. If your car [for example, Toyota’s Prius] has greater capabilities, e.g., plug ‘n play, that you’re already selling abroad and you dare not offend your peers in Detroit — you remove the dashboard switch that enables it.
If your cigarettes kill people, sell people on old-fashioned flavor. And on and on. It’s become so embedded in our economy that ad and marketing departments no longer question the truth of what they’re offering.
BTW, Mike — Comcast in my neck of the woods gave me 3 mbps when they signed me up — offering 6+ as an upcharge — until Qwest fired up their DSL. Now I have the larger number for free, too. I trust these lying creeps as far as I could throw George W. uphill into a heavy wind. With his draft dodging paperwork weighing him down!
Lou, first I’m not a commie. Now, you might be a fascist, but we’ll leave that for now. Geeze, heaven forbid, you might even be, gulp, a conservative (shudder).
There is so LITTLE competition in the ISP field. Sure, I could get on-line with any of a dozen ISPs. But for broadband, there is only one available where I live. I am fortunate that my cable company is relatively good and gives me a 4 Meg D/L for a reasonable price. In fact most areas don’t any any real competition, unless you think DSL is comparable to cable. Satellite is a none starter.
The majors control most of the backbone right now. The local ISPs all tap into the major’s trunk lines at some point and get billed accordingly. As for putting a new fiber optic line around the country, the cost would be astronomical as well as redundant. The right of ways are controlled by the same major companies that the cities would be competing against.
And as pointed out elsewhere, open the door to charging for email, then there is no control. Expect the cost to spiral out of control. And because we would have to go by the ISP’s records, it would be impossible to dispute the amount of emails sent. Also consider that most spam originates from zomby computers, the ISPs would have little incentive so shut down the spammers if they can make a profit.
Government regulation should be used whenever there is the possibility of behavior NOT in the public interest. We don’t need no stinking company playing with nuclear material next door to my house just because it is unregulated. Or maybe you could suggest an area where government regulation is totally over the top. Some obscure regulation in Two Outhouse Tennessee about having indoor plumbing doesn’t count.
Charging for e-mail sounds like a good example. Companies right now can charge for e-mail if they want. They don’t need any laws from Congress to do it (you guys really have the law backwards). So why aren’t these greedy companies doing that?
1. I use the word commie, just to get attention to my point, which is, the general anti-capitalistic nature of the people who comment on this blog. I am definitely not facist (which means gov’t control). Define me as a libertarian (which is definitely *not* conservative in this US of A).
2. Love the stories about how competition lowered prices and increased bandwidth. Proves my point.
3. Those that want regulations: pick your numbers for speed, bytes per month, latency, for net neutrality (and cost per month if you want). THEN STICK TO IT. Then let those consumers (and sites) that want to pay more, and those ISP’s and backbones that want to offer more, do it. Network equipment and upgrades cost money, and someones gonna have to pay for it, so let the actual people who use and need to the bandwidth pay for it.
4. Love the stats about only 15% of online are VERY satisfied. Pretty high standard there! (what would it take, free service to get that number up)? And what percentage is just “satisfied” (which means GOOD)? How bout this (probable) stat? Only 2% of americans are VERY SATISFIED with the price of new houses and cars! I have an idea, when you want to sell your house, you must sell it at the price someone who needs it can afford (cause its in the public interest).
5. Take it from a person that knows TCP/IP in its glorious details: There will *never* be a practical-consistant way for the backbone ISPs to charge for content. Disguising content is just too easy (as any net administrator who ever managed a firewall or filter knows). Encrypting content will also defeat most attempts to determine content (SSL traffic goes on a separate IP “port” which is effectively content neutral). Decrypting 128 bit SSL at “wire speed” on the backbones (tens of gigabits per second) would be virtually impossible with today’s hardware available.
6.Now assume that the ISP’s do decide to charge for speed between source and destinations? Ever do a trace of the route your packet takes between you and its destination? The ISP’s would have to be in complete collusion to enforce it, which might very well be illegal.
BOTTOM LINE: There is NO evidence that the market system for Internet access is *not* working, and in fact, the evidence clearly points otherwise (less cost, more speed, more choices). If the government has to get involved let it offer MORE choices (such as opening up frequencies for wireless ISPs), not price fixing.
In the usual business structure a source, Nike say, creates something, a distributer, Sears say, buys it from them, and makes it available to their customers who reimburse Sears for the item and all the distribution costs.
In the Internet world, Google, Yahoo, and others create something, Verison, say, pays no money at all for it, and makes it available to their customers who reimburse Verison for the all the distribution costs but not the cost of the item since Verison got it for free.
If Sears, Wall Mart, and other major distributors baned together and told a supplier that it would have to pay for having them as distributors, they would be engaging in extortion, and would be subject to severe penalties since this is a criminal offense,
However, when Verison, AT+T, and other major Internet distributors ban together and request that their, free, sources have to pay for having them as distributors, people actually take them seriously!
Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning.