2012: The Year The Internet Ends

[Nirvanadragones]

Hmmmn, interesting.

What say you?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The internet already ended.

I couldnt read my email until the OBAMA ad played itself out. This is the future of the internet. All ads, punctuated with email and posts.

 

[scheherazade_79]

So we're going to have the Rupert Murdoch thing going on with the internet? Great

Why does everything in life have to be about making a profit?

 

[impressive]

Bleh. Won't surprise me at all if it comes to pass, though. Pity.

 

[rgraham666]

Not news to me. Even though I have an independent ISP I've been noticing speed problems between the hours of two and seven.

It turns out that's when the phone company indulges in 'data shaping'. They scan all the packets and shunt 'unimportant' ones into a 'slower lane' as it were.

Paul Krugman wrote a column on the subject several years ago. Most interesting is he compared the internet to the railroads rather than the highway system. And if you're familiar with the history of railroads, we're in for a very bumpy ride ahead.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Relax, friends. This is nothing but political propaganda, exploiting the public's/media's current fascination/romance with Doomsday-ism.

Net neutrality is a scam whomped up by a group of powerful and sophisticated corporations (google, amazon, etc.) who are lobbying for a legal privilege that will give them an unfair advantage in the marketplace. The correct label for it is "internet regulation by the government." They've wrapped this in a mantle of "consumer protection," but it's pure "rent seeking" (wiki that).

How do I know this? The "fear" the scam exploits is the fear of monopoly power should one entity control access to the net. Question: How many platforms do you have available to you for getting online? I have at least three - cable, phone lines (DSL) and wireless. I'm using the latter these days - a Sprint card sticks out the side of my lappie. Until January I had DSL. I get mailings every few weeks from the cable company throwing good deals at me. All three are competing vigorously. It's genuine competition, and it's likely to increase - some communities in my state are getting the first 'net through power lines, I read recently. IOW, the railroad analogy is false - I now have three "tracks" owned by three companies coming to my door, and that will only increase.

Why should providers be able to prioritize content? Good network management. If I'm sending email or downloading big files, I can wait a second or two, but if I'm using VOIP I can't - I need to hear the next word right now. Given a certain amount of bandwidth, management must make these choices.

The goal is to increase bandwidth. Net neutrality takes away an important incentive for these competitors to do so. It essentially creates "regulated competition," which means none at all. The fear it seeks to exploit would be closer to true with it than without it.

In the meantime, given the amount of bandwidth that exists, there are good reasons for providers to prioritize content, and possibly to price it differently. If I only do minimal video why should I subsidize someone who is non-stop down-and-uploading mega-streams of high-def video, given that their use consumes scads more bandwidth than mine?

With the providers all rapidly adding bandwidth to improve their competitive position, this will eventually become irrelevant. If government regulation of the internet takes away that incentive to add bandwidth, it becomes a chronic problem.

Think about the geometric increase in bits flowing over the net as video use increases. The numbers are staggering. Maybe someone will dig them up for the last few years, and the next few. I gotta run.

 

[Recidiva]

Coincides with the Maya end date of all time.

So two prophets in that corner.

 

[rgraham666]

Ya know, Roxanne, for someone who cares so much about freedom you don't seem to mind too much when it's restricted by certain segments of society.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Ya know, Roxanne, for someone who cares so much about freedom you don't seem to mind too much when it's restricted by certain segments of society.

Read my post, Rob. Read it yet again, with an eye toward whether any particular facts or concepts are untrue or invalid, rather than with an eye toward how you can spit at Roxanne. If you have a point to rebut, feel free to make it. If all you have is insult, there's "spit venom" thread for that.

To repeat: Net neutrality is rent-seeking ploy wrapped in a false "consumer protection" mantle. Big corporations are using that false-flag to manipulate the public. This should make you angry at them, not at those who are trying to expose the scam.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I personally believe the internet won't change all that much. There will be more ads, more pop-up and jerk-off hackers, that's it.

However, if there were going to be a change... I would propose that all users are give and "Asshole Quotient" that determines his/her personal access to the net.

Say if you are a 1 or a 2 you can access as you please.

If you are a 3 or 4 you can only access Kiddy Sites like Disney.com

If you are a 5 or 6 you can only access the new sites for one hour per day

If you are a 7 or 8 you can not access the internet at all and if you try your computer blows up.

If you are a 9 or above you can only access porn sites 24/7

 

[Stella_Omega]

So we're going to have the Rupert Murdoch thing going on with the internet? Great

Why does everything in life have to be about making a profit?

Because that's the sole function of the human race, duh...

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

If that happens, I won't be using internet anymore, and I'll be even more isolated than I already am.

 

[rgraham666]

Because that's the sole function of the human race, duh...

Well, according to some people your worth as a human being is only as great as your contribution to the economy.

In other words they agree with Marx's analysis on how a capitalistic society works. Odd considering how much those people hate Karl Marx.

I'd be in the same boat as you, Crim.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

If you believe this...then I have a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy from me.

It'll never happen.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

So we're going to have the Rupert Murdoch thing going on with the internet? Great

Why does everything in life have to be about making a profit?

Mainly because of capitalism.

 

[popcorn2721]

Hmmmn, interesting.

What say you?

Ive been watching this one for a while...when it does happen (corporations are already licking their chops over the money involved), I will simply unplug my network card and go on with life.

 

[elsol]

The goal is to increase bandwidth. Net neutrality takes away an important incentive for these competitors to do so. It essentially creates "regulated competition," which means none at all. The fear it seeks to exploit would be closer to true with it than without it.

In the meantime, given the amount of bandwidth that exists, there are good reasons for providers to prioritize content, and possibly to price it differently. If I only do minimal video why should I subsidize someone who is non-stop down-and-uploading mega-streams of high-def video, given that their use consumes scads more bandwidth than mine?

The goal is not to increase bandwidth... that can only be done by INCREASING bandwidth. The goal is to make better use of the bandwidth they have so they don't have to INCREASE bandwidth.

The answer seems quite simple to me and it's stupid that access companies haven't jumped on the bandwagon -- Charge the customer for the bandwidth used.

Oh wait, I know why... Because the access companies WANT you to go to them for everything -- your phone, your tv, your news... therefore charging for bandwidth goes counter to their efforts, but charging for you going to someone else's content that makes sense.

-----

 

[JagFarlane]

So we're going to have the Rupert Murdoch thing going on with the internet? Great

Why does everything in life have to be about making a profit?

Because as people age, they tend to forget the simple joys in life. Skateboarding down a road, the feel of a fresh breeze, the taste of a fresh picked orange. The list goes on...why? Because a need to feel important.

 

[Liar]

Why should providers be able to prioritize content? Good network management. If I'm sending email or downloading big files, I can wait a second or two, but if I'm using VOIP I can't - I need to hear the next word right now. Given a certain amount of bandwidth, management must make these choices.

Of course, the bogeyman scenario in that link is rubbish, but there are instances whehn we vould need better rules for a level polaying field on this market.

You're seeing no risk at all of infrastructure/service cartels, in which one VoIP gets prioritized over another, in all other regards equal competitor? Doesn't affect the ISP bandwidth concern a smitten, but it affects their bottom line, thru shareholding or kickback. And a service provider with a good product but no affifliation with ISPs have a much harder time gaining foothold.

Just asking.

You should be able to answer monosyllabically even, if you're in a hurry. Yay or nay.

Or am I paranoid? Not really. Not sure what the current laws in the US says about it, but I know of cases in Norway, Sweden, France and Germany where ISPs went into grey areas in order to curb competition. Laws weren't clear enough to convict anybody though, since the Internet wasn't well enough defined legally, where the difference between different market segments went.

(IT biz is my main field as a journalist, I'm not this geeky by my own admission. )

Seriously, I see tin foil hats on both sides of this argument. On one side we have "Bill Gates and AOL are coming to eatcho! We need Net Neutrality!" and on the other we have "Bill Gates and AOL are coming to eatcho! Stop Net Neutrality!" And actually, both have a point.

 

[elsol]

You're seeing no risk at all of infrastructure/service cartels, in which one VoIP gets prioritized over another, in all other regards equal competitor? Doesn't affect the ISP bandwidth concern a smitten, but it affects their bottom line, thru shareholding or kickback. And a service provider with a good product but no affifliation with ISPs have a much harder time gaining foothold.

You're going too Machiavellian.

They don't have to prioritize their VoIP service over someone else's VoIP service... they simply have to priotize THEIR VoIP service over 'everything else'. CC-A company knows all the elements composing THEIR service so they can make a perfectly legitimate business decision that their customers would want X service prioritized over Y service and over 'everything else'.

Would I want my porn prioritized over my neighbor's 911 call because they use a foreign VoIP... obviously not... but I also wouldn't hand over a verdict to the foreign VoIP or the government if the CC-A is 'just' prioritizing the things they know which *gasp* just so happens to be their own product offering.

 

[neonlyte]

Won't happen universally. Expect some division along bandwidth/speed lines. Corps like Google, who depend on volume traffic for income, will not restrict volume (and hits) except for specific sectors - other corporate bodies - who will be offered a premium service targeted to their needs. For most 'home users' the general improvement in service and delivery will more than compensate for peak hour restriction on band width - who remembers dial-up? Who remembers when you had the choice of using your telephone or the Internet? It was less than a handful of years ago.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The goal is not to increase bandwidth... that can only be done by INCREASING bandwidth. The goal is to make better use of the bandwidth they have so they don't have to INCREASE bandwidth.

The answer seems quite simple to me and it's stupid that access companies haven't jumped on the bandwagon -- Charge the customer for the bandwidth used.

Oh wait, I know why... Because the access companies WANT you to go to them for everything -- your phone, your tv, your news... therefore charging for bandwidth goes counter to their efforts, but charging for you going to someone else's content that makes sense.

-----

I'm back (was in Lit-free office all day).

The critical element missing from your analysis is competition. As I said, I currently have three totally separate platforms with totally separate owners beating their brains out to get my business. The primary means they have of accomplishing that is to provide me with "faster, faster, more, more." To do so they need to add bandwidth, not just properly manage what they have now (although they need to do that also). All of them are terrified that the other guy will steal a march on them in the bandwidth race, so they are all pouring billions into building their own infrastructure.

What happens when net neurtrality goes into effect? They can all relax, stop spending all that money to expand bandwidth, and carve out nice gentleman's agreements on who gets how much of the stagnant pie. Guess who gets screwed by that outcome? (Hint: Look in the mirror.) Under that scenario, government regulation of the internet - cleverly named "net neutrality" by some very sharp marketing types - becomes necessary. But note what caused that outcome - net neutrality.

You're seeing no risk at all of infrastructure/service cartels, in which one VoIP gets prioritized over another, in all other regards equal competitor? Doesn't affect the ISP bandwidth concern a smitten, but it affects their bottom line, thru shareholding or kickback. And a service provider with a good product but no affifliation with ISPs have a much harder time gaining foothold.

Just asking.

I'm not sure I totally understand your question, but I'll try.

Back up a step - What's the bottleneck? Bandwidth - that's why network management is required in the first place. Where's the bottleneck? In the platforms that deliver internet - cable, phone lines, wireless, and electric lines. Even if there is just one provider of each of those platforms, they are all energetically competing against each other to supply internet, so there is not even close to a monopoly.

Now VOIP is just one of many services that needs one of those platforms - one of those "train tracks" - to deliver it. If I'm the owner of one of those "tracks" I primarily make my money by charging the consumer a monthly fee to run the line into his house and keep it live. I'm not primarily in the VOIP biz. But lets's say I'm also in that biz, and want to make you use my overpriced VOIP. What prevents you from saying, "You're fired, ATT! <slam> "Hello, Comcast? I want mega-bandwidth and cheap VOIP - do you want my biz? Because Sprint is my next call if you don't . . ."

The pot of gold for all these companies is the monthly revenue stream that they only get from signing up lots of customers. As long as customers have the ability to "terminate" the provider using one kind of platform and replace him with one of the other platforms, all those scary "captive audience" scenarios are pure horsepucky.

And becoming more so - because at the present time the number of platforms is increasing, not going down. So what does all that say about "net neutrality?" That it's nothing more than rent seeking - "firms seeking to make money by manipulating the regulatory/legal environment rather than by trade and production of wealth."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Won't happen universally. Expect some division along bandwidth/speed lines. Corps like Google, who depend on volume traffic for income, will not restrict volume (and hits) except for specific sectors - other corporate bodies - who will be offered a premium service targeted to their needs. For most 'home users' the general improvement in service and delivery will more than compensate for peak hour restriction on band width - who remembers dial-up? Who remembers when you had the choice of using your telephone or the Internet? It was less than a handful of years ago.

Very elegantly saying in one brief post what it took me two long ones to say.

 

[Handprints]

You're seeing no risk at all of infrastructure/service cartels, in which one VoIP gets prioritized over another, in all other regards equal competitor? Doesn't affect the ISP bandwidth concern a smitten, but it affects their bottom line, thru shareholding or kickback. And a service provider with a good product but no affifliation with ISPs have a much harder time gaining foothold.

Just asking.

Huh. I though I was one of the ones helping them to gain a foothold by paying through the nose to a good-product service provider with no ISP affiliation. I get business class service (ie lightning fast no matter what time of day) and they get a creamier profit margin with which to develop product improvements... Maybe the airline model isn't the right way for me to think about this.

H

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Huh. I though I was one of the ones helping them to gain a foothold by paying through the nose to a good-product service provider with no ISP affiliation. I get business class service (ie lightning fast no matter what time of day) and they get a creamier profit margin with which to develop product improvements... Maybe the airline model isn't the right way for me to think about this.

H

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying there, but my understanding is that VOIP is not that much of a bandwidth hog, and so isn't really affected by these issues so much. (Even with network management/prioritization, VOIP won't be put at the "back of the line" because it can't be - you need that next word right transmitted now - and because there's no need for it to be - it's not a "hog.") It's video that's the 800 lb bandwidth gorilla. Hi-def video the 8,000 lb gorilla coming down the pike . . .