Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

[PhilT]

According to this article, it is!! Does this deal really mean the the rich will start to dominate? I do not have enough knowledge to make any kind of judgement. What do the more knowledgeable KFN members think?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s..._b_671617.html

[Ole Juul]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

I know you asked what the more knowledgeable KFN members think, but I'll answer anyway. We already have more than a two tiered system. You pay more for more bandwith. Also, what is the internet? Everyone has a different idea. Some people think it's their home page, some people think it is major media outlets. It varies wildly. Very few people have the understanding to see it as a "network" which can be host to different protocols. When you get that far into it you've already lost most politicians and business people.

There is a lot of freedom with the internet. I'll always find a way to make it work for me. I can adapt to almost no bandwith and still communicate - I'll make it work. The person writing the linked article is comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand he is talking about big media distribution, and on the other about general communication. My opinion of the article is that it is not well considered. I understand. A writer has to fill the space.

Edit: To answer you question clearly: It is not the end of the internet as WE know it, but perhaps the end of the internet as SOME (perhaps only a few) people know it.

[dibl]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

Net neutrality is widely considered to be a huge deal: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/...Qb8E&wom=false

Personally, I'm not sure whether corporate shenanigans or government regulation is more worrisome -- neither one of them bodes well for freedom lovers.

[askrieger]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

My local congressman (who is on the appropriate committee and strongly supports Net Neutrality) claimed, on one occasion, that the only people in his district who ask about Net Neutrality live or work within sight of Route 128, i.e. "We're in the business." From this, one can conjecture that congressmen who's constituents don't see Route 128 (or San Francisco Bay) don't know what all the fuss is about.

I must admit that I'm surprised that a company whose business model is based on maintaining a reputation of "Don't Be Evil" is getting together with the telephone company that inherited the mantle of "One Ringy Dingy" (if anyone remembers Lily Tomlin). But, the first obligation of every corporation is to make money for their shareholders, and the directors can be held responsible if they shirk that obligation. So, I suppose that this is to be expected. I just wish Yahoo had a better search engine.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

So the Google-Verizon deal can be summed up as this: "FCC, you have no authority over us and you're not going to do anything about it. Congress, we own you, and we'll get whatever legislation we want. And American people, you can't stop us."

That's a fairly accurate evaluation of the situation.

About 15 years ago local governments repeatedly attempted to get cable and telcos to lay down fiber optic cable in their communities so that a very fast and affordable Internet could be available to all, even the poor. The cable and telcos had their copper wire monopoly and felt secure from any competition, so they ignored the requests from local governments.

So, the local governments took matters into their own hands and began laying fiber optic cable themselves. My town, Lincoln, NE., was one of those local governments that laid FO cable. It's buried out there in my front yard as I write this, unused. It is unused because the cable and telcos went to Congress and whined about "unfair competition", and their lobbyists paid a lot of "campaign contributions" to Congress people. Duly paid, and in quid quo pro, Congress passed a law forbidding local governments from laying FO "in competition" to cable and telcos. A strange law indeed because the cable and telcos weren't laying any FO themselves, and at the time the Internet wasn't a playground for TV, movies or video. The multimedia playing was mostly audio music streaming. Another strange part of the law was the section which authorized payment of nearly $300B to the cable and telcos to lay FO, except that the law had no time limit or punishment clauses for failure to perform. The cable and telcos took the money and pocketed it but didn't bother to complete what the local governments started.

Here we are, 15 years later, and the last mile to most PC users homes is STILL the copper wire in cable and telephone lines. Copper wire can't handle the load IF ALL PACKETS ARE TREATED EQUALLY. No one will stand for paying premium prices to watch a movie that pauses every 10 seconds out of every 30 to fill up a cache, or to have a basket ball game freeze just before the game winning bucket is scored. During the last 15 years the cable and telcos have been gradually raising rates and offering more "premium" services, like live sporting events, feature length movies in HD, and interactive games but they needed to improve performance to their premium subscribers. What to do? The cable and telcos created two or more "hiways" on the wire where the bytes in their IP headers identify them to the ISP hardware as those "deserving" of unrestrained throughput. Your packets and my packets don't live as long, forcing the originating box to resend, in affect making the internet appear to be slower, or not as "broad" as it appears to premium content subscribers.

IF the cables and telcos hadn't reneged on their agreements (and stolen the money) but had fulfilled what they promised to do, we'd all have FO going right up to our cable modems. We would be getting 40Gb bandwidths and paying less for it than the $72/mo I pay for 12Mb only, no TV. Already, in Japan, France, the Netherlands, i.e., most of the EU, S.Korea, China, 10 to 40Gb bandwidths are available. In France, for example, $35/mo gets you 10Gb bandwidth (NOT Mb) internet with 200+ channels of HD TV, and a cell phone with free coverage for all the the EU, and 2 cents/min for any place else in the world.

During the last few years, with the advent of 3G and 4G wireless, the US cable and telcos are bypassing the copper wire and the fiber optic by transmitting signals directly to and from their customer's computers and mobile devices via cell phone towers on the frequencies used by the old analog TV industry -- channels 2 through 13 and UHF. Putting up towers is a lot cheaper than stringing Copper wire to individuals homes, and they don't have to supply modems. The iPhone 4G, and other 3G and 4G mobile devices, takes advantage of that cell phone tower technology.

Copper wire is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity. It is so valuable now that farmers can go to bed with a working phone and wake up in the morning with a dead one. During the night thieves took down the copper wire running the 1/4, 1/2 or full mile from the highway to their farm house. They won't however, be so anxious to steal the copper that is in the cable TV cable that lines the streets in most suburbs. The Copper wire is too small, and it is wrapped in two layers of plastic and one layer of steel braid. It is also more securely installed. So, I fully expect the cable companies to continue to offer low bandwidth (RoadRunner calls it "Lite" cable - 750Kb/s) but it will be tiered as well. Just guessing here, but for a mere $25/mo a customer will be able to get a "browser/email only" connection - 125Kb/s. Video and audio packets will be filtered out. $50/mo will give them browser/email and movies in addition but their monthly allotment of video packets will be capped. $75/mo will give them the same but with higher caps on the movie packets. $100-155/mo will give them browser/email/movies AND VOIP, the higher price range being uncapped. All on the existing Copper wire.

The 3G and 4G services will start where the cable companies left off, but with bigger bandwidths, fewer or no caps, and mobility., all for around $155 -250/mo. (You don't really expect "competition" do you?)

What will also happen is that in the near future ENCRYPTED IPv6 packets (IPv4 will be terminated just like analog TV was) will carry the ID number of the person that sent them. When consumers sign up for a service their ISP will FORCED by law to assign to them a key which will PERSONALLY identify them (with copies going to the government). The ISP will encrypt all that person's packets with that key before they leave the ISPs networks and enter the Internet. ONLY the ISP and the government will have the decryption keys. Spoofing a packet in real time will be impossible. Breaking into a packet to change the key will break the parity shipped with each packet, causing it to be stored for forensics and killed. The source of each packet on the Internet can then be determined. Posting anonymously to blogs and forums with packets that don't have an approved key won't be allowed. Governments will love this. Citizens won't be able to criticize government officials without fear or reprisals. They won't be able to criticize their ISP, either, without consequences.

You can see where this will lead to. IPv4 has only 6% of its address space available. In another 1 or 2 years, or 5 if the depression worsens, IPv6 will become the packet standard. The biggest hindrance will be the millions of modems and wireless routers setting at the end of the last mile of Copper wire or Fiber Optic that works only with IPv4. Industry and governments will push to move everyone to 3 or 4G rather than replace the current modems and wireless routers. When you go to the store to by a USB 4G USB modem to plug into your PC you will have to sign a long term contract with a telecom vendor, just like you do now for cell phones, because you won't be able to connect it to just any ISP. Cable companies will leave their RG58U cables to rot on the poles as they go out of business.

Oh, I forgot. Don't expect Microsoft to just stand by and not take advantage of this situation by "persuading" 3/4G USB modem makers to make their modems incompatible with Linux. Some are compatible, but you may not like their plans nor their coverage.

[sithlord48]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

That article was followed by more bad news this morning.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_672472.html

[askrieger]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

A year or two ago, there was a rumor going around to the effect that Google(!?) was surreptitiously buying up "dark fiber" dating from the last boom period when medium-sized ISPs installed fiber optic cable systems in a variety of (mostly affluent suburban) areas. Many of these optimistic enterprises sank with the US economy, leaving the fiber optic cable in place, but unused.

I know that our little town made a bundle licensing the company who installed the fiber, and then went belly up. Fortunately for us, their assets were bought up by another company who is managing (barely) to stay afloat in affluent urban and suburban areas around several east coast and midwestern cites. Their rates are going up, but their service is still pretty good (at least, by American standards). This probably explains why our congressman cares about Net Neutrality. How else can he follow the Pats, the Sox, the Celts, and the Broons from DC.

I just wish he'd point that out to some of his friends from other parts of the country.

[PhilT]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

Thanks for the various very helpful and interesting responses. It seems that the future struggle for net neutrality may well get more and more "dirty" as corporations fight to maintain their monopolies. I must say though that I found GG's observation that future modems could perhaps be designed to block Linux particularly worrying. Where would that leave the whole Open Source movement? Wouldn't US anti-trust legislation prevent such a scenario?

One thing though. How does (or perhaps, how will?) US legislation and the possible negative practices of US corporations impinge on the rest of the world? I live in the countryside in the UK but have a reasonable copper wire 10Mb broadband service - although if often only runs at ~5 to 6Mb during the day. (You can only get optical cable in big cities.) I have friends in France and am quite envious of their level of service. Could the "rest of the world" operate outside the US restrictions if they become more burdensome, or are we all so inter-dependent that we will not be able to maintain (say) EU independence from US domination? It would be nice to think we could maintain freedom from US corporate practice in this area as we are beginning to do by building an independent satellite navigation system!

[Ole Juul]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

It's interesting to note that we're talking about Microsoft competitors, and I just wonder where the original story came from. Not that I trust any of these companies, but here is the latest instalment in this saga: Google and Verizon deny net neutrality deal.

[PhilT]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

Well. that's good news!! I wonder how the NYT got it wrong. If the story had appeared in the Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdock) one could perhaps have had other suspicions.

[Ole Juul]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

The NYT isn't what it used to be. Someone probably gave them the story and they swallowed it. Don't forget that Google has competition who are interested in making them look bad whenever possible. The fact is that Google has indeed been talking for a while with Verison and others. However, what you make of that can be spun into something quite easily. Here is what Google says:

"Both of our businesses rely on each other. So we believe it's appropriate to discuss how we ensure that consumers can get the information, products, and services they want online, encourage investment in advanced networks and ensure the openness of the Web around the world," wrote Schmidt. "We're ready to engage in this important policy discussion."

[blobfish]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

It is going to take more than just some public denial to convince me they are not working on a deal. I am sure companies are posturing for all possible situations. ISP's are the gatekeepers and I don't think the people/government have the intestinal fortitude to keep them under control. After everything that has happened the last few years, people still think government=bad, corporations=good.

[Ole Juul]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

They may not be working on this deal, but they're working on whatever deal they can get away with. I agree Schmidt's words sound as hollow as ever.

[PhilT]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

The smokescreen thickens?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-..._b_676194.html

[GreyGeek]

Re: Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?

The smokescreen thickens?
...

From the article:

Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online.

To put it more succinctly, "net neutrality" means that each IP packet, regardless of the type, is treated equally and given the same amount of bandwidth. This is NOT what Google and Verizon have in mind.

The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

Put another way, Google and Verizon want to create an artificial scarcity of bandwidth, just like software patents create artificial scarcity of coding algorithms by using IP patents to prevent others from using code snippets that any "yomen" of the craft could mentally create without having prior knowledge of them. When I taught programming one of the class room exercises I assigned, to be completed and handed in before they left class (to avoid outside research), was to write code to sort an array. EVERYONE created the Bubble Sort as their solution, as I did when I first studied sorting, without having known about the Bubble Sort. An almost complete neophyte in coding can think up the Bubble Sort without much effort. (Those that can't I gently redirected to a different major.)

Cable companies, with their copper wire running down phone poles next to telephone lines, have pushed hard for two tier traffic so they can maximize their profit on technology that is over 100 years old and completely paid for, even though they were paid $300 BILLION by Congress 15 years ago to plant Fiber Optic in all major cities and town. They kept the money but ignored the Fiber Optic.

Verizon and other telcos are switching to VHF and UHF frequencies (3G/4G) over their cellphone tower networks. They have more bandwidth than copper wire but they are still greedy enough to see the easy money with two, three AND MORE tiers on their transmissions. One rate for texting, another rate for browsing and email, another rate for VOIP, another rate for VOIP+VIDEO (Skype), and another rate for "multimedia" (movies and live events). The "multimedia" will cost the most and get MOST of the bandwidth. Cable will do the same.

The rates for internet service have been steadily increasing WITHOUT a corresponding increase in services or quality. The Google/Verizon "deal", already approved by the Supreme Court when it said that the FCC doesn't have the right to regulate them (because the FCC moved their service out of the "telecommunications" (phone line) category, is a done deal. The hand wrenching is just for show. Why did did the FCC re-categorize the service? To achieve exactly what has happened. Lobbyists paid Congress which put pressure on the FCC to cave to big business. Those same lobbyists will prevent the FCC from moving the Internet back to the old category where they still have jurisdiction.

A friend of mine had me switch his computer from Windows to Kubuntu a couple weeks ago. His cable provider was AllTel. I had heard about their "$84.99 for ever" deal: "high speed" internet, cellphone and HD TV. I asked him how much it cost. "$189". "Why so high?" The $84 package bandwidth was 750Kb, the cellphone had capped texting and limited area coverage and no free times, and the HD TV was the "basic" 16 channels, most of them shopping channels. His coverage was 12 Mb/s Internet (he didn't know if he was capped), calls to or from anyone in the US at any time for "free", and over 200 channels of HD TV. I have a friend in France who tells me that he gets that $189/mo package for $30/mo, except that the bandwidth is 10Gb/s (or 40, I can't remember which) because it is Fiber Optic.

In the US I suspect that full Internet service with all the trimmings for a family of four will reach into the $200-300/mo bracket in the near future.

If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That's why we have Congress and the FCC.

Corporate lobbyists and their bribe money (a.ka. "Campaign contributions") trump Congress and the FCC. That's why the current crop of politicians "campaign" 24/7/365 these days. The more money they stuff into their "campaign chest" the more they can convert to personal use if they retire or get defeated. Our (the USA) Republic is essentially dead because the bribes of corporate powers can nullify the votes of MILLIONS of Americans. Look how easily even the Democrats were bribed to abandon Pres. Obama's mandate to establish single payer universal health care and break the strangle hold the "health" insurance and pharmaceutical companies have on medical treatment in America. We pay the most of any nation and yet 40% are without ANY health care. The Democrats had a super majority in both houses. They could have passed any bill they wanted. They wanted the cash more. The Republicans are even worse. A POX on both their houses.