The future of the internet?

[inova]

Funny cat :shrug::hihi:

[DougF]

New post dated July 19 2007 please read.

 

Save the Internet Blog » Blog Archive » New Report Busts Telco Myths about U.S. Internet

 

These same companies – including AT&T' date=' Verizon and Comcast – have unveiled plans to block or degrade Internet users’ access to Web sites and services by erecting new toll booths on the Internet. This threat to Net Neutrality has compelled more than 1.6 million Americans to write [b']Congress[/b] demanding legal protections for Internet freedom. [/Quote]

 

then write congress with this easy link. (above in bold) :eek2:

[LaurieAG]

Is it possible to have....

 

another internet?

 

Hello Orb,

 

In Australia we already have what you refer to, check out the download limits.

 

ADSL Plans - ADSL Modems - ADSL Broadband Internet - Telstra BigPond

[CraigD]

Is it possible to have....

 

another internet?

Hello Orb,

 

In Australia we already have what you refer to, check out the download limits.

 

ADSL Plans - ADSL Modems - ADSL Broadband Internet - Telstra BigPond

The link you provice, Laurie, is simply one to a DSL provider. These are common in the US, and, I suspect, in nearly every country with a large installed base of telephones, and simply provide access to the usual tcp/ip internet.

 

The “A” in ADSL stands for “asymmetrical”, a variation that allows providers to exploit the fact that most users download much more data than they upload. Needless to say, this is not a good idea if this assumption is not true of you.

[DougF]

I received a response from Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite today and I am posting it for those outside the US (or those that didn't wright and wouldn't get a response) :hihi:

 

 

Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite [[email protected]]

 

Dear Douglas:

 

 

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.

 

 

Introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R - TX)' date=' H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE), amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and contains several provisions that will lower cable prices, increase competition, and provide safeguards for consumers. However, there have been many misleading conceptions about the COPE Act written in the media, and I wanted to take the time to shed some light on the mistruths some liberal groups are spreading.

 

 

H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location. Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slowing deployment of cable service and increasing prices for the consumer. Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they do today. Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable companies will be in direct competition with one another.

 

 

As we move forward in the telecommunications era, companies are offering more services than just basic cable. Cable and telecom companies alike now offer broadband service, voice over IP (VOIP), and other digital services. Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the company.

 

 

However, the most often misunderstood section of H.R. 5252 is the "network neutrality" provision, which is the principle that a consumer has equal access to all sites. The bill directs the administrator of the FCC not to make any rule or law that would establish Internet network neutrality. However, the term "network neutrality" is misleading.

 

 

The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet. Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach, when in fact their changes would be the first major government regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely unlikely to use.

 

 

It is worthwhile to note, though, that H.R. 5252 does indeed uphold the basic principles of network neutrality. For one, the bill prohibits any service provider from denying or degrading access to any legal website . Users of the network are also entitled to any service or device of their choice as long as it does not harm the network. If any company violates those principles, the FCC will hit them with a penalty of up to half a million dollars for each offense .

 

 

America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16 th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts. Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competition from broadband deployment and led to the removal of any incentive for providers to invest in new networks. This decision has since stymied broadband deployment in the United States .

 

 

The reality remains that Congress passed the Telecommunication Act in 1996. In the past decade, the world's communication devices of evolved from foot-long, analog cell phones and spotty dial-up Internet service to razor-thin digital cell phones and video conferencing through voice over Internet protocol services. If changes are not made to the 1996 Act , America will continue to lag behind nations such as Korea , Sweden , and Canada .

 

 

H.R. 5252 passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 321-101, but the Senate failed to take action on the measure before Congress adjourned this year. Rest assured that as we revisit telecommunications legislation in the 110 th Congress, I will continue to listen to the opinions of the experts and my constituents. I appreciate your comments and hope to receive them in the future.

 

 

Throughout my tenure in public service, I have always kept an open door and an open dialogue with my constituents. As the 109th Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and views with me. Accordingly, I encourage you to visit my website at Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite to email me and find useful information about our 5th Congressional District.

 

 

It is my honor and privilege to serve the people of Florida 's 5th Congressional District and my offices and staff are here to provide you with any assistance you may need.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Ginny Brown-Waite

Member of Congress[/Quote]

 

I hope this will answer any unanswered questions that you my have. :hihi:

[Buffy]

I received a response from Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite today and I am posting it for those outside the US (or those that didn't wright and wouldn't get a response) :)

 

I hope this will answer any unanswered questions that you my have.

Other than that she's reprinting the statements of AT&T's lobbyist, no, it does not answer any questions....

H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location.

This is false: Cable is tied to the physical wires into your house. The cable and telco providers have already won the battle of not having to sell space on those wires, forcing you to use whoever owns those wires no matter what. This has cause the ISP business to start dying quite quickly, so that AT&T and Verizon don't have to worry about competition except for Cable (more about that in a minute).

Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slowing deployment of cable service and increasing prices for the consumer. Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they do today.

More efficient for the Cable/Telco's for sure! They now can ignore what any locality wants and pay them all a flat fee. Many localities now can force cable providers to deal with unique local situations, and will no longer be able to do so. Rural areas especially will suffer, because often these deals are of the form, "you want to have rights to do business in our county, you have to provide access to our citizens way out in the boondocks where you wouldn't other wise find it "profitable" to string lines."

 

If you want to give up any local leverage whatsoever, go ahead, make it easy for the Cable/Telcos, I'm *sure* they'll pass on the savings to you instead of increasing their profit margin to the folks that buy their stock...

 

And a Conservative who's against States Rights. Knock me over with a feather.

Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable companies will be in direct competition with one another.

Again, patently false: as stated above, entry into a market is dependent on owning the wires, and now *no one* will have any benefit in laying any more except in high-profit markets!

 

Moreover, we're talking about less than a half-dozen companies left in this business total: that's an Oligopoly and they're already in "passive-competition" mode, which means they're all acting in their own best interests as a group: they're *not* competing, its not in their interest to do so! Read some Game Theory!

Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the company.

Competing legislation does this already: its no reason to vote for this really bad bill.

The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet. Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach, when in fact their changes would be the first major government regulation of the Internet.

This is so misleading its sick. "large Internet Sites" are going to besiege the Internet and suck up all the band width and make it hard for the cable companies and telcos to use it for themselves to deliver HD content! But no, blame it all on these mysterious "large Internet Sites" who will make it "hard for the little guys": and whoa, get this, the "liberals" who are pushing net neutrality are in the pockets of these conglomerates! And they're pushing the "first regulation" of the Internet! Do you realize how many dozen pieces of legislation have already been passed governing the Internet? Can she really lie like this with a straight face?

Moreover, the changes that telephone and cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely unlikely to use....he bill prohibits any service provider from denying or degrading access to any legal website . Users of the network are also entitled to any service or device of their choice as long as it does not harm the network. If any company violates those principles, the FCC will hit them with a penalty of up to half a million dollars for each offense .

"Unlikely to use?" Why shouldn't a small business be able to stream HD content too without having to pay exhorbitant--and by the way, completely unregulated--fees?

 

And if you read the bill, the words "deny or degrade" are not defined. Its not "denial" if you charge a huge fee to be able to use the service at all. And if you *define* the package that's being paid for to be "you get your packets through at 1/1000th the rate of the big boys" its not "degraded", its just that your site will run as slow as molasses.

 

This is incredibly anti-competitive. But the real chutzpah is yet to come:

America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16 th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts. Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competition from broadband deployment and led to the removal of any incentive for providers to invest in new networks. This decision has since stymied broadband deployment in the United States.

The opening of lines created *tremendous* competition, it sprouted thousands of ISPs who helped define the services that we enjoy today and lowered prices dramatically through *real* competition, not that "let the three boys at the country club who own it all decide what to do."

 

There was tremendous activity to lay lines everywhere--which there were to the point where we have far more bandwidth available today than we can use for at least the next 5 years (thanks dot-com boom!).

 

The only real limitation on the Telcos was that they could not charge "put your competition out of business" rates. But they got paid for every account opened, making gobs of money while having to spend almost no money themselves because the ISPs had to install all their own equipment. This entire argument is completely false and is right out of the Telco's crocodile tears.

 

Moreover, the Bush Administration's FCC has since ruled that the Telcos don't have to share their lines, completely eliminating competition and causing DSL rates to go up, and *still* folks in the boondocks get lousy service if they get it at all.

 

Where's the competition going to come from to make this rural service available now?

H.R. 5252 passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 321-101

That was *last* year's overwhelmingly Republican Congress. The Senate let it die. Thank goodness, but we've still got AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time-Warner pushing to let just the four of them control the entire market for Internet distribution according to who ever is willing to pay them the most money.

 

How long are you going to let your representatives help these companies rip you off because they make sure to get them re-elected?

 

Follow the money,

Buffy

[freeztar]

Great rebuttal Buffy!

But are you claiming that a politician is actually lieing to us?!?!

:)

[DougF]

How long are you going to let your representatives help these companies rip you off because they make sure to get them re-elected?

 

Follow the money' date='

Buffy[/Quote']

Good old Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, dame she's a talker ain't she.

you know I but she could sell ice to Eskimos.

 

Ya she made it sound good but I get the impresion that it's going to go through, I went to Save the Internet Blog » Blog Archive » New Report Busts Telco Myths about U.S. Internet and signed Petition -- Don't Let Congress Ruin the Internet, do you know anywhere elce to go?

I'll sign more.

[InfiniteNow]

Great rebuttal Buffy!

But are you claiming that a politician is actually lieing to us?!?! :)

 

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume she doesn't know enough about what she's saying, and hence is not technically "lying," just wrought with misundertanding.

 

 

You can always tell when they're not lying... their lips aren't moving. :warped:

 

 

:cup:

[freeztar]

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume she doesn't know enough about what she's saying, and hence is not technically "lying," just wrought with misundertanding.

 

Ok...then she's an idiot. (Is that what you call somebody who speaks of things they have no knowledge of?)

You can always tell when they're not lying... their lips aren't moving.

 

:)

[Buffy]

Ok...then she's an idiot.

I wouldn't say she was an idiot at all! I think she just knows where her own personal best interests lie!

 

Now as to the constituents who voted for her....

 

People get the kind of government they deserve, :)

Buffy

[TheFaithfulStone]

You will know the truth, and the truth will make you mad.

 

 

This senator brought to you by: AT&T.

 

TFS

[alexander]

Buffy, I love you =D

That is by far the most awesome post i have read in a long, long while. If giving you rep points actually increased your rep over the 25 limit, i would and still will give you a rep point, that is just too great a response.

 

I do have some thoughts on that congress wooman response too, and will now share:

 

First and foremost, i can give you 100% guarantee that there is absolutely no way in hell that she actually wrote that response. That uses computer jargon that is above the level of any congress person! (unless buffy ran for congress, i would soo vote for you)

 

secondly, some corrections:

clog the pipelines of the Internet

She goes against her own comrades in that statement, listen to Senator Stevens speech on net neutrality found here: Senator Stevens Speaks on Net Neutrality | Public Knowledge

The internet is a series of tubes not pipelines dammit!

 

Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the company.

buffy is right, they have that already, but just like with the current legislation on it, companies will do the same thing they are doing already, call it a "package". As in "sir we only sell service packages: basic cable, phone and internet".

 

large Internet sites are planning to offer high-definition video services

no they are not, large vendors like apple are and already have high-def video services, large websites like youtube are not going high def because they are consumer-oriented, consumers want a 10 minute quick home-made video, not an HD one that takes an hour to stream before it plays, and with bad vendors like AT&T it will literaly take that, hours!... So instead of focusing on finding BS reasons to cut hometown ISP resellers out, you know the ones that have an oc55 coming to them and resell it to everyone in the neighbourhood, and as a result you get a 14mbit down 5mbit up line coming to your house (which would nice) that is not restricted on services that you run on them. As a result you have AT&T and their all famous disconnects for a few minutes (those drive me insane). I mean you still get pretty sweet deals with verizon fiber, its i beleive 25 down 5 up or 15 down 5 up, you can research it if you choose to.

 

The opening of lines created *tremendous* competition, it sprouted thousands of ISPs who helped define the services that we enjoy today and lowered prices dramatically through *real* competition, not that "let the three boys at the country club who own it all decide what to do."

Thank you Buffy, I am not the only one that is pissed off about this then... Put it quite simply, a big AT&T company comes into town of many small ISPs, they buy them out or simply run them out of business, now where you had 3 ISP's competing for a market by offering great deals (like $150/mo for a T1) AT&T comes in and goes "What deal on your connection? We are the only internet provider in the area, we dont have to compete with anyone for the business, so we charge however much we like and there is nothing you can do about it, oh and all those accounts that were transfered from the small ISP, yeah, you guys are pying in full now too..." Hope everyone can see that the telecom business since the clinton administration decision and the gov-t inability or unwillingness to controll this whole telecom service provider deal has lead to a monopolistic or biopolistic world with an agreement between 3-4 giants (namely AT&T is the monopoly in telecom Comcast, Cox are the biopoly in cable Verizon upcoming power in telecom and in all reality Quest wich is a tiny competitor)that have the country divided into parts that one or the other controls.

[hamihaha]

The future of the internet is free wifi on the whole earth surface!

The world is waiting for the first Worldwide provider...

[CraigD]

The future of the internet is free wifi on the whole earth surface!

The world is waiting for the first Worldwide provider...

For most US urbanites – urb including even low-population density but high-tourism – this future is the present, due not to intentional providers (although several municipalities, eg: Philadelphia, PA, have provided free wifi), but to the presence of unsecured wifi connections in countless homes and small businesses. In the suburbs, one can accidentally unplug one’s modem or router, and not even notice your network devices switching over to neighbors’. Freeloading is ubiquitous, and arguably legal – I know several poor folk who’s internet access is via a neighbors’s wifi and a business throw-away or cheap Wal-Mart wifi card in and old commodity (eg: Win98+) PC.

 

Still, however, with the exception of a small number of geekish hobbyists, there’s usually a $30-40/month DSL or Cable ISP one step upstream of the wifi. I’ve never encountered a complete DNS on a residential machine. I find the idea, however, intriguing – imagine if, rather than people subscribing to ISPs, commercial content providers had to beg or buy their way into networks consisting of people’s wifi routers. See the “present” and “future” diagrams sketches in the attached thumbnails.

 

In addition to some serious practical questions – especially DNS hosting and updating – an intensely peer-to-peer network like “future” raises the appreciable issue of “community censoring” – what if none of you neighbors subscribe to DNS, or worse, actively block IP addresses they don’t approve. A few longer-range radio connections might circumvent such censorship.

 

I’ve not thought this out in much detail – it’s mostly based on random musings, observations the ubiquitousness of home and small business unsecured wifi, and worries about the looming monopolies of big US communication companies (eg: Verizon). I’m dubious of how well the present installed base of commodity wifi router hardware is suited to the “future”. But it looks like fun to implement on a small scale, eg: within one’s home/office/lab.

[hamihaha]

Thanks for your so acurate reponse!

And how long will it take for we can subscribe to a internet wifi access, wich will work in the world main cities? Just as mobile phone netword interreact (I can phone in China with my French mobile... but very expensive)

[CraigD]

And how long will it take for we can subscribe to a internet wifi access, wich will work in the world main cities?

In the US, this has pretty much been the case for a couple of years. In the majority of places I’ve visited the built-in wifi on my ordinary, cheap laptop – which appear to me to be less sensitive than those that can be added to a desktop PC – finds several strong, unsecured wifi connections.

 

In some areas, this is due to local government providing it to promote local business. In some cases, these aren’t completely open, but put you through a short login sequence that directs you to a local webpage featuring information and adds for local merchants, etc. I like these, especially when traveling, and interested in stuff to do.

 

Other times and places, individual business provide it. Most coffee houses provide free wifi, as people taking advantage of this to get an internet connection are likely to buy coffee and other stuff they sell. I suspect the prevalence of this is having a retarding effect on the “municipal wifi” described previously – many local governments must be, quite sensibly, considering why they should spend money to provide a service that local business will provide on their own initiative. For the same reason, I don’t that a central, state or federal government-funded, wifi provider is very likely, or a very good idea.

 

Finally, a lot of unsecure wifi exists because the people owning the routers either don’t know how or don’t want to go to the effort to secure them, or purposefully set up some unsecured “guest” connections. This is often the case in residential neighborhoods, or office complexes. Some etiquette applies to these situations – knowing the people and knowinf they don’t mind you using their connection, and avoiding bandwidth-intense activity such as streaming or downloading large files that would noticeably impact the performance they see on their machines.

 

A lot of this is possible because current broadband ISPs are very permissive about “allowed use”. For example, my Verizon DSL EULA explicitly says I can connect as many devices as I want via whatever means I want – visitors, neighbors, folk stopping on the street to check a map service to find out where they are (I’m near the end of a street that has a bunch of stores, a small university, and a hospital toward the other end, and get a good bit of “turned the wrong way” traffic) , a home office – the only limit is that my connection averages about 500Mb/s, so more than a few connection (I’ve not configured any connection to have limited bandwidth), and performance becomes noticeably slow on all. If the ISPs became alarmed that they were losing money because many neighbors were share a single DSL line, this permissiveness would likely cease. At present, though, Verizon doesn’t want to piss off customers who could chose to subscribe to a cable TV ISP. If DSL and Cable providers collude – cease to compete with one another – we customers and freeloaders alike could be screwed.

 

Hence my musings about displacing the network into a lot of small, short-range radios connections, reducing the role of central providers to supporting large, high-volume content (video, etc) and communication (VoIP, etc) providers with the performance they need to attract paying customers. With our current critical dependence on the continued permissiveness of a small number of large ISPs, we are, IMHO, very vulnerable to having internet access become as expensive as the market can bear.

 

How much my US experience applies to other countries, I’m uncertain. Hypography has a lot of members in a lot of countries – perhaps they can share their first-hand experiences on the subject.