Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

    Doesn't this legislation open a Pandora's Box of legal liability? I had understood that Internet Service Providers had successfully withstood claims that they should filter content (porn, hate, abuse, pick your poison). The basis that they had used for their legal defence was that they were so-called "Common Carriers". This meant that they could not be successfully sued for a Web site that someone, anyone, didn't like. The analogy was to the Post Office, which cannot be sued for the content of a letter. The Post Office is a Common Carrier and is not responsible for the content of letters. That meant the effective end of content suits against ISP's. Now it seems that this legislation is opening that legal door again. Am I missing something? This sounds like it could be a real problem.

  • #2
    Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

    There's a good article debating this on WSJ.com. Mike McCurry takes the well-wishing Mr. Newmark to school.

    Having the FCC regulate net neutrality (and what exactly is the definition of "net neutrality" anyhow?) will dampen investor interest in building bigger, faster, smarter pipes -- Wall Street has already made that clear. The best protection for the "little guy" is a robust market with lots of competition that will force those with "power" to make the best deal available to the consumer. ...

    I don't think you are being straight about what advocates of regulated neutrality want. You are asking that the federal government mandate certain performance criteria of the Internet based on how it works today in order to protect against some hypothetical problem that might occur down the road, isn't that right? Is there a real problem now with discrimination on the Net? It looks to me that companies are rushing to provide faster connections for Internet users, not looking how they can slow someone down (which would be a nutty thing to do from a business perspective.) Where is the problem that needs to be solved?

    And doesn't the FCC have authority already (under Title I) to step in and act if necessary? Or how about the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department. I'll be the first to admit that the current administration does not seem to think much of antitrust law, but if you recall I tried to do something about that in 2004. [Mr. McCurry was a senior adviser to Sen. John Kerry in the final weeks of the 2004 presidential campaign.]

    Comment


    • #3
      Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

      Well, I think to some extent the ISPs have some good reasons; however, the part I don't like is what they don't say. They don't say what they think a reasonable investment is. They don't say what reasonable competition is. They don't say what costs will be passed on. And they don't say exactly what is going to be "chargeable". Nor do they say exactly how much performance is going to be provided. With all the media scrutiny and their high-powered lobbying, you would think that some decent metrics could be provided. Instead, we get Mike McCurry who is not only not all technically inclined but tends to speak about "ifs" without any real solutions. It's sort of like going to a doctor who says, "hey, you need to take these antibiotics, antidepressants, and anti-arthritis pills now because you're gonna get old and sick at some point; and oh by the way, it's going to cost you XXX dollars but really it's ok (because you're going to get old, for sure,...I think)". I don't like complete net neutrality because some reward/incentive is required but what they're proposing now really doesn't provide for the future. It's really just an bigger blank invoice. Here, in L.A., we don't have broadband competition. It's labeled as such but no such thing exists. Instead, the city/county allocates "areas" for broadband providers to rule over. There's really no bidding for "last-miles" or central locations. So, the "competition" is between the cable providers vs. DSL providers. And that is really poor because the cable guys game the system with their ads saying they provide 512k or 768k service without stating what the true link speeds (up/down) are. In addition, there's no QOS at all. Just doesn't exist. I get phone calls from Adelphia where some poor phone joker gets to claim that Adelphia's broadband speed "blows" away the DSL providers. So I ask what they have; the answer? 384K!!!! I tell them ok, I get 512k uplink, 3 Meg downlink through dynamic DSL at SBC. Verifiable monthly through broadbandreports.dom. Which is better? The guy goes, "blub, blub, blub". There really is no competition because the Adelphia is struggling right now and Time Warner, Adelphia's future owner/operator, isn't ready to take over. Even if, TW does take over, there's still no competition. I can't choose another cable provider because no other provider is allowed in my area. Personally, I think that the fee structure charged by the federal, state, and local governments covering broadband communications is too low and doesn't go back into the infrastructure. It's poor management (or maybe, corrupted management) because the technical decisionmaking is left virtually entirely up to the ISPs. And about the FCC claims by McCurry , the FCC gave up its' technical expertise long ago. It's been pretty much solely a legal post. They couldn't decide a technical issue about a battery if a D cell hit them in the heads. That's why they deal strictly in generalities and couldn't tell anyone a thing about the Net. Furthermore, the Net is already performance limited and performance charged. I don't see why the ISPs need to charge based on media content; it's a bogus reason. For instance, why the hell would I really want to watch TV on my PC? It just doesn't have that kind of performance and simplicity as a standard DTV or Tivo console provides. If I want more bandwidth, I can pay for it. Plus, how many people really want to reload MS MediaCenter every time it gets buggy or virused? I would like my future PC to be multitasking but if I'm sitting in front of it, I don't think watching TV is going to be high on the priority list. It's just too static. Come on, get real, people! If we really want Net performance we need to set some high goals and standards. And the government SHOULD be doing that because if we leave it solely to ISPs and privateers, we're not going to happy with the outcome.

      Comment


      • #4
        Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

        And the government SHOULD be doing that because if we leave it solely to ISPs and privateers, we're not going to happy with the outcome.
        That's a laugh, don't you think? Governments are run by politicians. When are we happy with government-created outcomes? Free markets give people what they want. Government takes it away.
        I don't see why the ISPs need to charge based on media content; it's a bogus reason.
        You got it. It's a bogus idea invented by the scare-mongers to get you to vote for more government control. Some people like more governmental control. Unfortunately for them, the market has been doing just fine. Things are getting cheaper and cheaper, and I can't remember the last time there was a major 'net-wide outage. Individual ISP quality is another matter, of course. But on the whole, things move ahead when there's a profit motive, and stagnate when there's not. Technology, which has been largely free from government intervention, is a great example.
        So, the "competition" is between the cable providers vs. DSL providers.
        What about wireless broadband? Yes, it's not as widespread as the others, but it's available in many places. If you take away the ability for companies to charge market prices, you'll create/perpetuate monopolies from the companies that have already built their infrastructure, because there will be no incentive/ability to cut into their territory. We'll all be stuck in the slow lane, and it will be illegal to get out. Yuk!
        I can't choose another cable provider because no other provider is allowed in my area.
        Do you think a bunch more will move in when the profit potential is gone? Here's another good article on CNet on why "net netrality" is a bad idea. If you look at Cnet's round-up page, you can see that a lot of the argument for net neutrality comes from companies that make money using the infrastructure of other companies. It's a fight between big businesses, and if government steps in, we'll be the losers. The newbie companies who rose to prominence on the infrastructutre of other companies want to preserve their gains. Understandable, but why make new laws about it. As a further example of the silliness, I like this one: Google's Brin lobbies for Net neutrality. What about "search neutrality"? I mean, aren't some things higher in the results than others? That's not fair. Even further, paid entries get precendence and are higher in the results. The horror! Look, I dislike the phone and big-media companies as much as the next guy, so it's weird to argue seemingly on their behalf. But it's purely selfish reasons that I argue, because I like the value, innovation, and the possibilities put forth by the free market. Unlike the government, companies have to earn money to survive, and if they do something stupid like throttle access in a way people don't like, customers will vote with their feet, one way or the other. One thing that is important, though, to preserve interoperability, is ready access to the IPv6 address space. That's where the beauty of the internet comes in - universal accessibility. Not uniform, but universal. I guess it's too late for IPv4, but if we have to have some regulatory intervention, that's where I think it might need to be. If you want to continue the discussion, can you define exactly what is meant by "net neutrality" and explain how it might be legislated? And is the debate about wires, or something more? Brian

        Comment


        • #5
          Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

          well, I like this Wiki description for starters (the Crawford version). My personal view is that we already have media content based pricing; if I want PPV via TV or Web, it's up to me to pay for that access. I really shouldn't have to pay for the fact that it is a movie vs. fight night UNLESS the promoter wants it that way (separate agreement between the promoter and the access provider). If I want to see HBO HD then I'm going to pay for it. HBO HD is already digital and delivered over existing infrastructure with existing equipment. Most of my providers' material is already digital. My receiver is Cisco under the covers and it has already IP addressing; it's been there for the last couple of years at least. So what's the big deal about "innovation"? There's no innovation in delivering stuff repackaged with new pricing. If the claim is that everyone in the world is going to want to see TV on massive digital wall screens and needs to have optical level broadband inside the house, then we all better start saving because we're going to have to pay for more than just central station gear. There's no way that any of us have the right gear to accept last mile performance broadband inside our houses.

          Comment


          • #6
            Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

            BTW, I don't have a problem paying for more performance or better service. But for TV or movie viewing what I'm paying now is quite enough. There's no reason for me to pay more for streaming movies that I will never see; I'm already maxed out in attention span. If the providers (movie studios, etc.) want to stream libraries, fine. If it means that I have to have a Media Center PC system in the house with 8 terabytes of disk, I dunno. That doesn't sound too efficient. I don't think that paying more for text (like fancy websites) is going to get me excited. So "net neutrality" or no, I'm more a show-me person. None of these parties have defined exactly what we are supposed to be paying more for; that's what I'm unhappy about. The doomsaying occurs on the providers part as well; it's "the future is going to be gigabytes of data online, etc. etc." Great but who really has the time to view all that? Maybe housewives! Now there's a thought; streaming "Days of our lives" ad infinitum. WooHooo!

            Comment


            • #7
              Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

              The Washington Post has an editorial that I think explains it pretty well. Here's the conclusion:
              The weakest aspect of the neutrality case is that the dangers it alleges are speculative. It seems unlikely that broadband providers will degrade Web services that people want and far more likely that they will use non-neutrality to charge for upgrading services that depend on fast and reliable delivery, such as streaming high-definition video or relaying data from heart monitors. If this proves wrong, the government should step in. But it should not burden the Internet with preemptive regulation.
              And here's a Washington Times editorial that's also against government meddling. Update: One more question. If there's 'net neutrality', does that mean all spam has to be delivered and that programs designed to block it would be violating someone's 'net neutrality' rights and therefore illegal? I can already see the phalanxes of lawyers, preparing for battle. Let's not give them a venue. How do proponents of government control feel about the NSA and all that 'wire-tapping' jazz? I bet they don't like it, but it seems to me they miss the irony of advocating for more controls. Brian

              Comment


              • #8
                Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

                Hi Brian, Government meddling? The government agency DARPA mandated and nurtured the invention of the internet. From scratch. Government meddling. The government mandates to this day that telecoms carry internet traffic at a low cost as part of their responsibilities to be a licensed telecom. That is the only reason all telecoms didn't gouge internet pioneers like AOL did on their private network. Government meddling. The government broke up AT&T to allow the efficiencies of telecoms that we have today. Government meddling. The issues are a little more complex than just simple corporations are good, government is bad free market thought. While you are sure government is bad, I am sure that corporations unchecked by government market manipulation to preserve or create competition between those corporations are even worse. We've brought the internet to where it is today with both mandates and protection, that is, government meddling as we the people expect and require of them. The few examples I've seen from afar on this subject sounds like corporations trying to switch the internet to a paid for service, with them being the ones paid. If it's one of their own networks, many have been built to support 3G cellular and business digital traffic, then wonderful. If we paid for it, it's not. rd

                Comment


                • #9
                  Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

                  How do I feel about the NSA data collection? I think it's easy and doesn't work and that's sadly what we've come to in this country. rd

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

                    If it's one of their own networks, many have been built to support 3G cellular and business digital traffic, then wonderful. If we paid for it, it's not.
                    I concur. Private property should be just that.
                    The few examples I've seen from afar on this subject sounds like corporations trying to switch the internet to a paid for service, with them being the ones paid.
                    Other examples linked to above seem to me to be like once-disruptive-now-mainstream companies like Ebay, Google, Craig's List, etc. trying to seal their newly acquired positions. The trouble with more government rules is that they're often subjective and heavily influenced by lobbyists and others. The less of that, the better. In general, the alternative of allowing people the freedom to make their own choices is far preferable in my opinion. Take care, Brian

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

                      from a ZDNet blog, which is also, coincidently, where the rumor got started.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

                        Hmmm. Craig Newark of Craigslist says it was a bug in the firewall software used by Cox (made by Authentium). However, he is quite light on details. That ZDNet blog said it was an IP misconfigruation on Craiglist's part that caused the trouble.

                        Hmmm. What to do? Two hypotheticals to chew on.

                        We can:

                        A: Call the IP Fairness Committe (IPFC) to get IPFC Form 10-289/a filed right away! There's a 6 month delay in getting an investigation started. The investigation will cost about a million, and take a lot of time and energy on everyone's behalf. Time and energy that could be spent moving forward.

                        Or,

                        B: Shine a light on the problem and have people get it fixed.

                        The net has greatly enabled the latter. Let's use that - it's faster, cheaper and better. And it involves fewer lawyers, which can't be a bad thing. ;-)

                        It seems to me from the details I've seen that Craiglist might be getting some special treatment from Authentium, since it seemed like it was Craiglist's misconfig. Whatever. It'll get fixed. Negative PR is a powerful tool.

                        Here's another interesting article offering a good description of the whole net neutrality issue and a scary proposition as a solution: No one to root for in the net neutrality debate.

                        Brian

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

                          OK, I'm all right with all this anti-net neutrality hubbub. But none of you people have really said anything of substance about what you would like to see in your Internet connection. Are you all absolute free-marketeers and perfectly content to let any ISP decide on how the Internet behaves in your neighborhood? If so, why? If not,why? Myself, I would like to see fiber-optic all the way up to my houses' demarc; at one point, in the '90s, PacBell had a fair percentage of fiber installed in my area but not plugged up. For the better part of a decade, the fiber was hanging off the poles and rotting. Then they decided to pull it off and sell it. Now, I get to pay $100+ bucks a month for blocked digital "TV" access and then $28 a month for 512k/3Mbps copper DSL (ATT). For $50 a month, I can "share" broadband cable, whooee!!! As far as I can tell, the ISPs (re, telcos) have really pulled the wool over on those people who think that there is going to be some kind of awesome performance in the future. It's all BS; we coulda had that 6-8-10 years ago but the government gave that up and the businesses decided to "keep" the money for buyouts. And as for my opinion on ISPs and corporations/businesses being forward thinking, let's be honest. That forward thinking is only relevant to the bottom line; it's not in terms of technology rollouts. I can't fault them for being that way; the US public has asked them to be that way with quarterly reports et al. Why would anyone in their "right" mind spend a lot of money on something that is a decade away in making money (maybe)? All of you guys who BELIEVE in private enterprise forget that most of the "infrastructure" that built a lot of the US is actually paid for by us citizens through the government. And that government set some kind of standard for what they were building at that time. If private enterprise were SO great, we wouldn't have highways or integrated power delivery (even if it were unwieldy or dilapidated) or modern aircraft funded by the government. Most of the modern technology we have IS derived from government influence in some manner. I don't think it's fair that we flame at the civil service when we allow it to be degraded on the basis of our decisions or lack of decisions. In general, the old saw of "you get what you pay for" stands the test of time. So, I have no big problem with paying for better Internet stuff; I do have a problem with no one saying what ought to be the result of those dollars!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

                            boomer400 wrote: In general, the old saw of "you get what you pay for" stands the test of time. Well then, for a one-time fee of about $6k we could get Internet Routers and connect directly to the backbone. It's not so far fetched. These routers cost $10k just a few years ago, and a few years from now, the price could be considerably less. Dave

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Who Built the Internet, and Is It for Sale?

                              ok, y'all, here's a nice example of our government dollars at work! And this is from people who support the corporations! I wonder who's informing who? Yea! Freedom to do whatever you want on the "net" as long as government "controls" don't exist. Sorry, B_Sing, but your evidence just doesn't click with me. I don't like government controls any more than you do but the lack or neutering of government control is not an answer either. If someone needs to send realtime heartrate monitoring over the Web, I would seriously consider another health provider. If critical stuff like that needs to go out, I don't think that the existing setup can support the QOS required; nor do I think that it should. Critical/secure life-threatening stuff belongs on internal networks, not on the Web.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X