The Future of the Internet...

[~BrightestStar~]

The end of the Internetz?!

06/01/2008 - Every significant Internet provider around the globe is currently in talks with access and content providers to transform the internet into a television-like medium: no more freedom, you pay for a small commercial package of sites you can visit and you'll have to pay for seperate subscriptions for every site that's not in the package...

I Power


At school, discussions about net neutrality and the implications of these sorts of changes have come about a few times in class and amongst my friends, but it still seems to be something that not a lot of people know/talk about. Anyhoo, a friend sent me this link yesterday and I thought it was interesting...

I suppose this could go in FYM but I hear they bite in there
(Mods, feel free to relocate )

 

[melon]

It sounds like the ravings of unsubstantiated conspiracy theorist nonsense. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Net neutrality is important, but people making up histrionic bullshit isn't helpful.

 

[~BrightestStar~]

Well, I hardly believe everything I read on the internetz, ( but this is totally true: http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/9223/birdsurfbo9.jpg - honest!) I merely stated it to be interesting.
And as far as I know, evidence points that it will be an ever growing issue, although perhaps not to the extent of the apocalyptic scenario they paint.
My knowledge of the issue is admittedly limited, however. I'd certainly welcome the thoughts of someone more well versed in the topic.

 

[cobl04]

Hopefully this is like the "send this to everyone or we'll delete your account cos we're trying to see who uses they're account" or the "you'll have to pay $5 to use msn from now on cos it costs to much to maintain" :blah:

 

[Zoots]

you pay for a small commercial package of sites you can visit and you'll have to pay for seperate subscriptions for every site that's not in the package

That would suck beyond belief if true.

 

[~BrightestStar~]

Hopefully this is like the "send this to everyone or we'll delete your account cos we're trying to see who uses they're account" or the "you'll have to pay $5 to use msn from now on cos it costs to much to maintain" :blah:

The net neutrality issue is not some internet scam or folk tale, sadly.

Just some random headlines...


The Angus Net Neutrality Bill
Wednesday May 28, 2008
By: Michael Geist ( UofO Prof and writer for the Toronto Star and some other papers)

NDP MP Charlie Angus introduced his private member's net neutrality bill in the House of Commons this afternoon. The short bill seeks to add transparency, neutral network management, and open devices to the Canadian telecom law framework:

Network operators shall not engage in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on their source, ownership or destination.

The bill includes several notable exceptions to this general principle, including action to provide computer security, prioritize emergency communications, offer differentiated pricing or bit caps, anti-spam filters, handle breaches in terms of service, and to prevent violation of the law.

The bill also focuses on open devices and greater transparency. It provides that "network operators shall not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching any device to their network, provided the device does not physically damage the network or unreasonably degrade the use of the network by other subscribers." Further, it requires that "network operators shall provide and make available to each user information about the user’s access to the Internet, including the speed, nature, and limitations of the user's broadband service at any given time." The bill is hardly the "regulate the Internet" approach anti-net neutrality advocates would suggest, but rather is a measured response that deserves broad support.


Digital Advocacy Comes to Parliament Hill
(same author)
Tuesday June 03, 2008

Last week, hundreds of Canadians descended on Parliament Hill in Ottawa for a public rally in support of net neutrality, a contentious issue that focuses on the need for Internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all content and applications in an equal, non-discriminatory manner. The event succeeded in attracting politicians from two major political parties, labour leaders, independent ISPs, and individuals concerned with the Internet in Canada. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, Ottawa Citizen version, Vancouver Sun version, homepage version) notes that while it is tempting to view the rally as an anomaly, it is more accurately seen as just the latest in a series of advocacy actions around the world that illustrate both how digital issues are rapidly moving into the policy mainstream and how the Internet can be used to mobilize offline advocacy.

The mounting interest in digital issues such as net neutrality comes as the online environment weaves its way into the fabric of the daily lives of millions of Canadians. Whether for education, entertainment, communication, or commerce, the demographic data demonstrates that an ever-increasing percentage of the population is either "born digital" or has been "raised digital." (cont'd...)

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

It sounds like the ravings of unsubstantiated conspiracy theorist nonsense. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Net neutrality is important, but people making up histrionic bullshit isn't helpful.

My thoughts exactly. There are simply too many internet users who wouldn't have any of this.

 

[VintagePunk]

Given that Dr. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, I don't think he's your average internet crazy spouting nonsense.

While there may not be an imminent threat of this occurring, perhaps it's speculated that this is a direction that ISPs could head in the future, so they're striking preemptively.

 

[melon]

Given that Dr. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, I don't think he's your average internet crazy spouting nonsense.

While there may not be an imminent threat of this occurring, perhaps it's speculated that this is a direction that ISPs could head in the future, so they're striking preemptively.

Net neutrality is a serious issue and Dr. Geist isn't a lunatic.

Talk of some secret collusion agreement between the ISPs in 2012 to limit you to few websites is lunacy. It has all the makings of an archetypal conspiracy theory.

 

[Liesje]

Ok, call me an idiot, but I don't even get how this would work? I own and maintain five different domains. How can some other company decides who has access to MY work and who doesn't? Also, Google has cached/caches like the entire friggin Internet, so what's to stop them from undercutting the competition and keeping everything available?

 

[VintagePunk]

Net neutrality is a serious issue and Dr. Geist isn't a lunatic.

Talk of some secret collusion agreement between the ISPs in 2012 to limit you to few websites is lunacy. It has all the makings of an archetypal conspiracy theory.

I agree.

Ok, call me an idiot, but I don't even get how this would work? I own and maintain five different domains. How can some other company decides who has access to MY work and who doesn't? Also, Google has cached/caches like the entire friggin Internet, so what's to stop them from undercutting the competition and keeping everything available?

I don't know a great deal about it either, but the best that I can figure is that ISPs would 'package' access to some major sites in much the same way that cable companies currently do. I'm really not sure if all this is implying that those who don't subscribe to specific packages will be locked out of the sites included in it by their ISP, or if it's just that the ISP's service to those sites for nonsubscribers would be so slow that it would be difficult to load them. I could be wrong, but a lot of it seems to be based on the bandwidth used, those that require higher bandwidth would be more expensive?

 

[~BrightestStar~]

or if it's just that the ISP's service to those sites for nonsubscribers would be so slow that it would be difficult to load them.

I don't know a lot about the how either, out of curiosity I've been trying to read up a bit....but as I understand from discussions I've had before, I think it would be something along these lines?

I've been trying to read back through some of Dr. Geist's older articles to see if he mentions any proposed ways this could be done. The means proposed by that I-power group I think were mostly meant to be illustrative, not practical, and as already mentioned, I wouldn't consider them a reliable source. Personally, I think their main aim was to get the word out - hence why the video takes on such an apocalyptic vibe. I haven't looked through the rest of their site to judge if they always take on such a tone.

I just find the idea intriguing, and thought some interlanders - particularly those who are techy - might be able to shed some light on it.

 

[Liesje]

Hmmm, I guess I'm still confused. ISPs already control our bandwidth. My web sites have their own bandwidth (b/c I pay for hosting, don't run my own servers on my ISP). I can already pay for more or less depending on how fast I want users to be able to load stuff, or how much can be downloaded each month.

So I don't see the point. Bandwidth has been getting cheaper and cheaper...what would prompt them to tighten control and make it more expensive again?

 

[~BrightestStar~]

Can you tell I'm bored today?

Anyhoo, wikipedia has a rather extensive article on net neutrality, (Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) altho some of the discussions are a little too detailed, especially those about how networking works- I think it flew over my head...

Google also has an article on the issue ( Net Neutrality) , and gives this vague mention as to the "how":

"Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet."

 

[ntalwar]

Obama supports net neutrality

YouTube - Barack Obama: On Net Neutrality

 

[VintagePunk]

ISPs already control our bandwidth.

Mine doesn't.

 

[sue4u2]

This is frightening to even contemplate. But then there are those who's genius minds would sabotage, crash and effectively shut down some conglomerates attempt to do this. With or without laws against it. (and I'd work with them)
(Note: If you don't hear from me in a while be sure to check gitmo and get me a lawyer. )

 

[Liesje]

Mine doesn't.

But you are most likely limited by their infrastructure, which controls bandwidth. For example, at home I use Comcast so I get whatever speed I get off their fiberoptic with whatever plan I have. Now at work, we use a T1 line but can't afford full bandwidth. At work we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for our bandwidth. I don't know the exact numbers, but considering my Comcast subscription is $36/mo there are vast differences in bandwidth. One could have a dial-up service with "no limit", but their a physical limitations to that type of connection, regardless of what the ISP is offering.

 

[ntalwar]

The US has among the world's slowest home broadband internet speeds. Japan users average 61Mbps.

 

[VintagePunk]

But you are most likely limited by their infrastructure, which controls bandwidth. For example, at home I use Comcast so I get whatever speed I get off their fiberoptic with whatever plan I have. Now at work, we use a T1 line but can't afford full bandwidth. At work we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for our bandwidth. I don't know the exact numbers, but considering my Comcast subscription is $36/mo there are vast differences in bandwidth. One could have a dial-up service with "no limit", but their a physical limitations to that type of connection, regardless of what the ISP is offering.

Oh, of course they do. I think that I don't fully understand the concept of bandwidth and I was talking more about download limits. My ISP has unlimited downloading, but I see that now, some of the bigger ISPs are imposing limits, and charging extra when you go over your limit.

So bandwidth pertains to not only websites (they have X amount of bandwidth per month, and each person who views it or downloads from it uses up some of that bandwidth, so if the site runs out, it's essentially down till the next month - is that how it works?) but also to the speed in which your ISP allows you to connect to and download from the internet?

But...do the two concepts sort of overlap, because the more I do download, the more I'm also using up the bandwidth of the website and of my ISP? Is that how it works?

I think I went to DSL around 2000 or 2001, and at that time, there was only dial-up and DSL available (and cable, of course, but my ISP didn't offer that at the time). Since then, I see, my ISP has added two lower levels of DSL service, and their speeds are considerably lower than I'm getting.


ETA - Interesting chart, ntalwar. On their website, my ISP says that my service is up to 5 Mbps, but when I used to click my internet icon, it always said it was connected at 10 Mbps. Now that I'm using wireless, it says that it's connected at 54 Mbps. So, I have no idea.

 

[ntalwar]

On their website, my ISP says that my service is up to 5 Mbps, but when I used to click my internet icon, it always said it was connected at 10 Mbps. Now that I'm using wireless, it says that it's connected at 54 Mbps. So, I have no idea.

The 10 and 54 Mbps are the LAN speed. Testing internet speed requires visiting a website specifically for testing speed, such as Bandwidth Place Speed Test.

 

[VintagePunk]

The 10 and 54 Mbps are the LAN speed. Testing internet speed requires visiting a website specifically for testing speed, such as Bandwidth Place Speed Test.

1.71 Mbps, nice.

Is that wholly dependent upon my ISP, or do other factors influence it such as the speed of my computer and the connection being wireless?

 

[Liesje]

Yup you have unlimited bandwidth in the sense that they don't cap out your downloads, but the speed is limited, so you can't really maximize on having an "unlimited" plan. Yes, the two concepts overlap. I think way back in the day, dial-up ISP's had bandwidth/download limitations. By the time we got on the 'net, they did not, but we were still at the mercy of a dial-up speed connection, whereas at work we are at 100MB.

Like ntalwar said, your computer gives you speeds based on the type of connection. You don't ever really get a "perfect" connection though.

I don't know the exact definition of bandwidth, but I understand it as a size/time sort of thing. For example, like you said, one of my websites used to have a monthly limit of 300MB (or something) and when I reached that, my site was no longer accessible to the public. The "speed" of a connection is more like the maximum the technology can handle, and no one ever really gets that.

 

[Liesje]

1.71 Mbps, nice.

Is that wholly dependent upon my ISP, or do other factors influence it such as the speed of my computer and the connection being wireless?

Both. You have DSL? It depends on the ISP, their infrastructure, your phone wiring at home, your hub/router, your computer's networking hardware....

 

[ntalwar]

Bandwidth is to data what pipe diameter is to water.

 

[VintagePunk]

Thanks for the answers, guys.

Whatever the case, I'm reasonably happy with what I have. When downloading a song or something similar in size, very often, by the time the Firefox download box thingy pops up, it's already finished. I was horrified though when I first heard about ISPs imposing downloading limits. Some months I download very little or nothing, while others, I use WAY over what the limits would be. I think the limits seem to be more common with our national ISPs, though. Mine is more of a regional service.


Topic? I don't really understand the rationale for larger websites agreeing to have full access to their websites packaged by ISPs. Aren't they making their money from advertising, and wouldn't it follow that the more people to see their website, the more they would make from advertisers?

 

[ntalwar]

Topic? I don't really understand the rationale for larger websites agreeing to have full access to their websites packaged by ISPs. Aren't they making their money from advertising, and wouldn't it follow that the more people to see their website, the more they would make from advertisers?

The ISPs would act on their own, abusing their position as gatekeepers. Google, which owns youtube, has the following stance on their website:


Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet.

 

[~BrightestStar~]

It makes me think of something that happened...I guess it was earlier this year? Where yahoo, (or one of the big search engines, I can't recall which) forged an agreement with China to block content from various sites that were deemed unacceptable by the Chinese gov't, I believe Yahoo ended up backing out after a big stink was raised on the internetz..
Does anyone else remember this?