Jump to content

Can the government really destroy the Internet?


Genecks
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm thinking/hoping that websites could/would just compress all of their data, so that when you go to their website, everything is faster. Then on your recieving end, you automatically uncompress the data.

Quite often this does already happen. When configured properly webservers can send out data compressed to browsers that support this. It is done to save bandwidth (bandwidth costs websites money) and speed up webpage loading.

 

 

You end up having lets say 5X connection ability, but your ISP only lets website Y have one X of connection speed to your computer. Well, you end up connecting to website Y, and it sends you information at one X, but it also connects you to website Z, A, B, C, which also get one X of connection speed with you. Then it transfers it's information to/from those websites to your computer, using the connection of each one of those brother/sister websites, allowing you to get a higher bandwith than allowed by your ISP.

I doubt this could work and if it could it would be impractical to implement. The security implecations could be dire.

 

I believe however, no matter what loopholes you used(including mine), they would find a way to close them off, because it reality it's simply all a matter of control. If you control the media you control what the people percieve, and what they think. If you control what people percieve and what they think, then ultimately you control the people, and the people's actions, which is directly converted into power.

Exactly and you can make more money at the same time. This is why it is so important for people to add links to http://savetheinternet.com and to lobby their Congressman/woman to support network neutrality. Alaskan's particularly need to stand up to Ted Stevens (not that it would do any good).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my main point was that if this proves bad enough, people will undoubtably figure out a way around it. maybe software would be written that allows people with wireless networks to team up. im on NTL; my neighbour might be on BT; i wouldn't mind a piece of software that allowed him to use my router to access sites that would be delivered slowly on BT, if i could use his router to access sites that would travell slowly through NTL (which would require some kind of list of who's-payed-who, and auto-network-switching, hence the need for software). however it's done, im sure net non-neutrality would be side-stepped.

 

Im still not entirely convinced that this should be solved by legislation. I'd be pissed off if i bought a wifi router that my wifi phone could connect to, allowing me to make VoIP calls, free of charge, from my own house, only to find that VoIP was delivered extremely shitely to my house by my ISP (who also provide my telephone), or tried to watch an online program only to find that NTL, who also provide my telly, were slowing that down too, BUT then id just switch ISPs. BT would be unlikely to bog-down IP-TV programs, as they have no financial interests in television of any sort. Im sure there are enough ISPs in the UK that they couldnt be network non-neutral ("get the internet from us -- we bog down half of the interweb" isn't a good selling point).

 

I gather that the situation is different in the US, with less competition. not enough to forse refrainment from greedy net-neutrality, as i gather from the save the internet site, which i guess is where this problem is coming from. seriously, with the ISP competition in the UK, i doubt that any ISP would be anything other than net-neutral.

 

anyway... certain net-un-neutrality...ness... would be bad. VoIP and whatnot. it'd just be pressuring me to refrain from using a free alternative to something that i'd otherwize have to pay for, which would suck.

 

But... i don't like the idea of legislation banning destination- or content-based prioritising, as i feel that it could be genuinely benificial to the internet if used correctly, and so don't think it should be illegalised.

 

a couple of examples:

 

e-mail. >50% of email is spam. crap. something that will probably go strait to the spam box, and never be read. and alot of emails are pinging about the net. why not deprioritise them? the person to whom they are being sent doesn't know theyre on the way, so won't be waiting there for them to arrive -- what's a delay, even of up to a minute, going to matter, espescially when there's a greater than 50/50 chance that theyre just going to delete without reading 'cos it's spam. deprioritise them, and the remaining -- more valuble, and more benifiting of speedy delivery -- will speed up.

 

or take streaming videos. there's definately a benifit to be had by prioritising them so they arrive at the target destination at at least 1 seconds worth of video/second. any slower would result in video stutter/lag. much faster is useless -- the person will only be watching at 1 second of footage/second, so why strain to send it at a minute's footage/second? slow it down, take strain off the network with no adverse effects, and leave the nodes less likely to be able to be bogged down to the point where speed-essential traffic is slowed.

 

or www.coolwebsearch.com. im sure that you've heard of them. the majority of people who visit one of that hacker-groups sites do so 'cos they have malware on their PC that hijacks their browser and points it at that site. there are loads of sites like this. why not deprioritise them? if most people going there dont want to be there, i'm sure they won't complain about getting there a tad slower. make their packets take the long routes, and leave the speedy routs for legit traffic.

 

Hell, you could even have a 'no rush' button on your download box on your browser (or a pop-up if the d/l is estimated to take more than, say, an hour).

 

POP! are you going to have a bath, or go to the pub or something, and just come back expecting this d/l to be finished? if so, it doesnt really matter if we d/l this in one or 1.5 hours, does it? check the 'no rush' box, and take stress of the interweb. thanx.

 

No idea how cunning the above ideas are, but my point is just that im pretty sure that there are situations where prioritisation would be genuinely benificial, so im not 100% sure about a blanket banning of network non-neutrality, as savetheinternet is pushing for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But... i don't like the idea of legislation banning destination- or content-based prioritising, as i feel that it could be genuinely benificial to the internet if used correctly, and so don't think it should be illegalised.

The key is "if used correctly" who is to define used correctly? Without regulations, it is the ISPs that define this and they have an inherent conflict of interest. Network neutrality runs counter to their primary objective, which is to maximize profits. Regulations create a balanced framework that allows businesses to function on a level playing field.

 

Everyone should keep in mind that up until last year network neutrality was part of the regulations, but it was removed. All people are trying to do is get the regulations reinstated, but this time as a law rather than just a government agency regulation. If it had not been for the network neutrality regulations, does anyone really think that Verison, TimeWarner, etc. would have allowed VOIP services from companies like Vonage, when it was cutting into their abilty to sell their own phone services? Come on now, we all know they would have blocked Vonage.

 

It was the old network neutrality regulations that have allowed the Internet to grow and has fostered real innovation on the Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is "if used correctly" who is to define used correctly? Without regulations, it is the ISPs that define this and they have an inherent conflict of interest. Network neutrality runs counter to their primary objective, which is to maximize profits.

 

well, that depends. if there were more ISPs, then maintaining net neurality would be the way to maximise profits. like i said, there are loads of ISPs in the UK, and i can't imagine there ever being a UK net-non-neutral. cos of the competition. tbh, i think that america is just lacking competition in the ISP theater.

 

Anyway, you could always legislate that ISPs cant charge for prioritisation. that'd be ok.

 

 

It was the old network neutrality regulations that have allowed the Internet to grow and has fostered real innovation on the Internet.

 

there were also a few non-american countries involved :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, that depends. if there were more ISPs, then maintaining net neurality would be the way to maximise profits.

This is the big problem, the big ISPs do all they can to buy out/exclude smaller ISPs. Literally in the broadband category the only choices I have where I live is Verison DSL, TimeWarner Cable or Earthlink via Timewarner Cable. There are no other options and DSL is less than 512 kbps down. So if I want true broadband, I must go with TimeWarner Cable. Most of the United states is the same way. They can only get broadband internet via their local phone company or their local cable company, there are no other options.

 

 

like i said, there are loads of ISPs in the UK, and i can't imagine there ever being a UK net-non-neutral. cos of the competition. tbh, i think that america is just lacking competition in the ISP theater.

Don't think this was an accident. The big telcos do all they can to make it hard to enter the market. Telephone companies even used to make it hard for dialup ISPs to get in the market.

 

Anyway, you could always legislate that ISPs cant charge for prioritisation. that'd be ok.

This is what network neutrality is about, not letting ISPs charge for or prioritize content in a discriminatory basis. Or put another way, it is about not letting them deliver their own content faster than they deliver other people's content.

 

Now I personally believe that there could be some middle ground to this issue, for instance ISPs could be required to provide open access up to 10 mbps down and 2mbps up or the maximum speed of the connection they provide to the user, whichever was less. If their broadband connections were faster than 10mbps/2mbps then they could prioritize the higher speeds as long as it did not interfere with the baseline speed. This would allow telephone companies to deliver ultrahigh bandwidth HDTV quality feeds that could compete with cable companies, while still ensuring a reasonable quality of service for Internet traffic. Now obviously under this idea if the speed of the Internet connection was slower than the minimum baseline then the ISP couldn't prioritize traffic would have to provide an open pipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they even want to?

 

Oh, heck that's easy:

 

1. Money: If they control the internet, they can direct your computer into commercials (forcefeed you) they get paid for, deny you access to sites that don't pay them money.. you know.. something similar to the mafia.

 

2. Power, man, power! Knowledge is power, then controlling knowlegde sources is the ultimate power. The world is being controlled by media, and controlling the media - or such huge source of it as the internet - is obtaining almost unlimited power.

 

If they do that, they are acting even worse than China which is totally dispicable.

 

The fact that the chinese regime does it, answer your previous question. And you're right, politicians would surely avoid doing ANYTHING despicable for the sake of power and money. Yes. We should count on it.. ;)

 

it couldn't happen, it would require the collaberation of all the worlds governments and that just wouldn't really happen. even if it is down to, "ahhh we hate the american infidels, we don't want to be like them, KEEP THE INTERNET!"

 

Not really. Most of the internet's backbone and major servers are in america. Cut down america's free-stream of data, and you cut down a major part of the worlds network data fetching abilities.

 

As far as I am aware' date=' they are not planning on banning the internet, but instead are planning on reducing the regulation. They are planning on allowing internet service providers to charge website owners for allowing the provider's subscribers to access the website owner's websites. So, for example, if Microsoft don't pay Verizon a fee, then Verizon could ban its subscribers from visiting Microsoft sites.

 

I think doing such a thing would be market suicide for an ISP though, since everyone would go and sign up with the unrestricted ones instead.[/quote']

 

I would hope you're right, in the case of these ISPs existing right.. if this is about money, then the "major ISPs" might try to kill off their competitors. Plus, if you can get a lot of money by making webpages pay you to allow access, why would anyone NOT do that? Odds are, if this things gets into action, the ISPs that don't ban unpaying sites end up charging A LOT of money from their subscribers...

 

~moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the big problem, the big ISPs do all they can to buy out/exclude smaller ISPs. Literally in the broadband category the only choices I have where I live is Verison DSL, TimeWarner Cable or Earthlink via Timewarner Cable. There are no other options and DSL is less than 512 kbps down. So if I want true broadband, I must go with TimeWarner Cable. Most of the United states is the same way. They can only get broadband internet via their local phone company or their local cable company, there are no other options.

 

In the UK, BT was, for a long time, the only telecoms co. the govournment basically crippled BT for a while, which allowed loads of competetors to come onto the market, leading to the present situation -- loads of telecoms, loads of ISPs etc.

 

Not saying that the UK rules and america should copy us, just that there *are* ways of stimulating competition, which would, IMO, go along way to solving this issue. if the situation is that a few mega-companies have managed to manipulate the situation so that they basically have local monopolies, and the consumers are risking suffering as a result of this, then maybe that's the area that needs to be addressed, not network neutrality as such.

 

This is what network neutrality is about, not letting ISPs charge for or prioritize content in a discriminatory basis. Or put another way, it is about not letting them deliver their own content faster than they deliver other people's content.

 

well, you have no argument from me there. but usually, i dont hear it argued that pay-for-prioritisation should be banned, just the prioritisation itself. and like i said, i think prioritisation could actually be a very good thing.

 

Now I personally believe that there could be some middle ground to this issue, for instance ISPs could be required to provide open access up to 10 mbps down and 2mbps up or the maximum speed of the connection they provide to the user, whichever was less. If their broadband connections were faster than 10mbps/2mbps then they could prioritize the higher speeds as long as it did not interfere with the baseline speed. This would allow telephone companies to deliver ultrahigh bandwidth HDTV quality feeds that could compete with cable companies, while still ensuring a reasonable quality of service for Internet traffic.

 

So a kind of limited pay-for-prioritisation? that could work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a kind of limited pay-for-prioritisation? that could work.

Exactly. The reasons the big telcoms claim they don't want network neutrality is that they claim it would stifle their abilty to roll out ultra broadband connections (e.g. 100 mbps). With a limited pay-for-prioritisation the Internet as we know it would be able to continue to grow as it has as normal broadband speeds would be not be prioritized. At the same time telcoms would be allowed to recoup their investments in ultra broadband connections by making deals with movie studios etc. to deliver HD Movies at the nearly instantly, which can not be done with normal broadband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There already is a 'pay for prioritization', or at least a form of it anyway. If you want faster Internet, you give verizon more money, and they bump your DSL speed up a notch. (I forgot the technical terms for all that mumbojumbo)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your traffic is still given the same priority. If their network becomes clogged, everybody experiences a slowdown, whereas if there was a "fast lane", the sites that paid would get around the clogs.

 

 

Let's just get Internet2 out and widely used so there's no need for prioritization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There already is a 'pay for prioritization', or at least a form of it anyway. If you want faster Internet, you give verizon more money, and they bump your DSL speed up a notch. (I forgot the technical terms for all that mumbojumbo)

 

Yes, but this only reflects one's one access to the Internet, not how fast some ISP on the other side of the connection will deliver one's content. If I only want to pay for dialup, that is all the speed I get.

 

On the other side of the connection a website owner decides how much bandwidth they need to pay for each month. For instance, I pay for 300 gb of bandwidth per month. Now I don't use that much bandwidth, but it allows for excess capacity just in case. What network prioritization is about is the user's ISP charging the content provider a second fee for priority access to their users.

 

Or put more simply. Some user signs up for ISP "A", my website is hosted by hosting provider/ISP "B". We both have paid for access to the Internet and the slowest of our two connections determines how fast my content is delivered to the user. Now ISP "A" wants me to pay a second toll so that their users can have unfettered access to my content. Remember that my content isn't being pushed to their users. It is being pulled by their users. In otherwords I'm not simply consuming the resources of ISP "A" wantonly, my content is only going across their pipes when their users (who paid for access to the Internet) request information from my website. So basically weithout network neutrality, even though users pay for broadband access to the Internet, they might not get unfettered access to the resources on the Internet they want because their ISP is "prioritizing" their own resources or the resources of their partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just get Internet2 out and widely used so there's no need for prioritization.

I think their plan is to make prioritization a realty with Internet2. They want to gain more control over Internet2 than they have over the Internet currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think their plan is to make prioritization a realty with Internet2. They want to gain more control over Internet2 than they have over the Internet currently.

No. The Internet2 network is lead by universities and companies, not individual companies. It simply develops new technologies for use on the Internet. Once its technologies become more widely used, there will be no need for prioritization - the network will be so fast it will be capable of handling increases in bandwidth for years to come, and nobody will have to prioritize traffic to keep things running smoothly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The Internet2 network is lead by universities and companies, not individual companies. It simply develops new technologies for use on the Internet. Once its technologies become more widely used, there will be no need for prioritization - the network will be so fast it will be capable of handling increases in bandwidth for years to come, and nobody will have to prioritize traffic to keep things running smoothly.

 

But how are normal home users going to get to connect to the Internet2? It will be via the same telcoms that are lobbying against network neutrality today. The Internet2 might speed up the Internet, but it will be the telcoms that provide the final mile and they will still use any excuse they can to extract money from any sources they can and this includes charging for prioritization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late reply (just got back from a wife-imposed-no-internet vacation). I thought the point KLB brought up about the partnering of christian groups was interesting -- thanks for passing that along.

 

Regarding Senator Clinton, I know this is a little late, but it's worth noting that froma political perspective, she and her team seem to have identified this issue, along with issues like pornography and (especially) video games as areas where she can increase her appeal with the moderate middle. Since the Democratic nomination is considered all but done, she's working hard on moderate conservatives and these are some of the few areas where a Dem can have any appeal these days. And it's especially important to lay out this ground work early because she'll likely be spending most of the year 2008 working on the "can a female be president" issue.

 

Of course, this will come back to hurt her if Al Gore or someone similar throws his hat into the ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the famous words of "Monty Python's Flying Circus," now for something completely different. A Ninja with a really weird accent explaining network neutrality:

 

It's pretty funny. I thought people could use a little hummor on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

MoveOn.com joining with the Christian coalition? The only people who are for it are SOME of the super-rich, they'll be some degree of rebellion from this.

 

In recent years, states have sidestepped the feds:

 

Remember the governors who drove people to Canada for cheap persciptions?

Arnold spending money for stem cell research & hydrogen?

Seven states have legalised growing hemp?

States pushing renewable energy subsidies without federal matching funds?

 

The states are moving towards a defacto succession from Washington, this is just another step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MoveOn.com joining with the Christian coalition? The only people who are for it are SOME of the super-rich, they'll be some degree of rebellion from this.

Actually, even many of the super rich are actively supporting network neutrality including Bill Gates (Microsoft), Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Google), Jeff Bezos (Amazon.com), etc.

 

Just about the only ones against network neutrality are the the really big telecoms who stand to gain the most from being able to rape everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.