Recommended Posts

rust never sleeps. some ol burnout rocker told us so and it is so.

just last month the fcc remarkably defended anarchy!

 

The "Open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It's open because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way.

http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet

 

enter madam blackburn, "scurrying on multiple fronts to protect those companies' stranglehold over the U.S. broadband market. For freedom."  freedom apparently only should be for the rich.

 

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150305/11411530218/blackburn-bill-attempts-to-gut-new-net-neutrality-rules-you-know-freedom.shtml

 

http://blackburn.house.gov/

 

The bill is called the Internet Freedom Act, but (shocker!) it would actually destroy Internet freedom. Its champion, Rep. Blackburn, is a longtime opponent of Net Neutrality who has received nearly $262,000 in donations from companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon

 

We knew it would come to this in Congress. In fact, these folks have scheduled five (FIVE!) hearings to debate everything from the process the FCC undertook to the agency’s budget for implementing the rules.

 

The bill already has 31 co-sponsors — and all but two have received money from the very companies trying to kill the open Internet.

 

LET YOUR CONGRESSPERSON KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS

 

freedom for us the enjoyers of an open internet or freedom for the big companies that would turn it into a cable company type of thing

 

one battlefield where anarchy is champion is the open internet. do not let evil extinguish the flame.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that until the people own the means of propigating the Web (the actual cables that carry the signals) the Web will never be 'free'. Corporations that build the physical networks are corporations, and must recoupe their co$t$.

 

Look at how the industry is transitioning away from TV but still trying to employ a traditional media user pay model. Or look at your internet bill. A deeper part of the problem is the concept that art is a consumable and subject to compensation. And not only does this apply to the actual artist but to their descendents (wtf?? see the Gaye family court victory recently) or some corporation (Disney) praxtically in perpetuity.

 

How can culture and information be liberated when it is so deeply tied to commodification?

 

Eventually, or sooner than that, we might see free access to the Web as municipalities make it a public priority, but everything on the net will have a price tag attached, except your Aunts cat videos.

 

8)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't fall for the "net neutrality" ruse. It is a manufactured crisis to justify converting the Internet into a government-regulated public utility. Beware this slippery slope.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't fall for the "net neutrality" ruse. It is a manufactured crisis to justify converting the Internet into a government-regulated public utility. Beware this slippery slope.

you support the Internet Freedom Act ?

@astral monk, i reckon that i am at a disadvantage, i dont have an internet bill to look at.

Edited by zerostao
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@astral monk, i reckon that i am at a disadvantage, i dont have an internet bill to look at.

what I meant was that ppl still pay the same bill to receive media content. In the recent past it was cable and satelite, now its internet. Basically they taking out of your wallet no matter what the medium is.

 

8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't fall for the "net neutrality" ruse. It is a manufactured crisis to justify converting the Internet into a government-regulated public utility. Beware this slippery slope.

??? Howso?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unless and/or until we return to the roots of internet (Arpanet) we will always have to pay for it.

In the event we DO return to the arpanet model where every node is a hub and every hub is a node, it will be free to access, but as stated earlier, online transactions and content will see an inflation of costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry! Yesterday was busy.

 

What follows is just one Bum's opinion.

 

 

We have to start by discussing how the Internet works -- how it developed and how it behaves. Those who have been following along will not be surprised at the phrase, "we need to model it."

 

Think, for the moment, of the Internet as a connection of pipes. Ignore, for the moment, the content of the pipe or the characteristics of that content.

 

The potential flow through a pipe is proportional to the size of the pipe. The fatter the pipe, the greater the potential flow through it. (We'll ignore "real world" things like the hydraulic radius...) In the case of a municipal water system, for instance, the size of the incoming fresh-water pipe directly affects how much water you can draw out in a given time. The flow through the last piece of pipe is dependent, however, on the potential flow through every section of pipe between your spigot and the source (head, pump, reservoir, etc.) In order to fully support the potential demand from your pipe, the municipal water department has to have sufficiently-sized pipes in the ground to handle not only your demand but the combined potential demand from all the other spigots in the entire network, and have pumps & such capable of sustaining the maximum potential demand in a steady state.

 

But that's not how it is done. The water department builds a model -- they estimate (based on historical information) the average real demand patterns from the various consumers and they size their infrastructure accordingly in order to avoid tremendously over-sized systems. They then advertise certain pressure and flow targets and charge the consumer based on both potential demand (there is a higher connect fee for hooking up a factory than for a 2-bed/1-bath home) and for the actual usage.

 

When you buy "data pipes" from a service provider, you generally contract for a certain "size" of pipe and often the agreement includes some language regarding guaranteed dataflow characteristics. The more specific and more demanding the customer's required dataflow characteristics, the greater the infrastructure and oversight requirements the provider needs to satisfy. It is common for there to be language relating to service-level agreements and financial remuneration in the breech thereof.

 

If the "data pipe" is private, the service provider has to ensure connection end-to-end. If it is an Internet connection, the provider may only take you to the nearest Internet POP. At that point, your dataflow guarantee becomes "best effort." The provider may, however, have a large coverage area for its private data network (the network it uses to carry "private data," telephone traffic, etc.) or may have reciprocal agreements with providers in other areas, and may offer to carry its customers' Internet traffic as close to the other end as possible before dumping that traffic into the general-population cloud.

 

This is a significant value-adding proposition, especially if the customer is using the network connection for applications which are particularly sensitive to flow disruptions, such as latency and jitter. The Internet (because it is a dynamic and open environment) has no overall "quality of service" management assurances but the mechanical components (routers, switches, etc.) generally do and, in a private network environment, different "internal service-level-agreements" are configured within the network devices to provide specific flow assurances to certain types of traffic based on the demands of the particular application.

 

So, just as the home Internet user might shop between a couple of available providers (if that luxury is offered in their locale) and might choose between more than one "plan" (which may include a "size of pipe" option and may also include things like bundling telephony and television service through that same pipe), the corporate user also shops between several providers to select the provider and options which best fit their particular operational requirements at a reasonable price. In much of the world, this is the way it works.

 

The "net neutrality" argument basically boils down to a conflation of several different potential concerns. One is the notion that it is unfair for a service provider to provide a higher level of service to a customer who is willing to pay for it. This is really a "one-size-fits-all" position which really means a "one-size-fits-none-well" garment (which is unpleasant) but effecting a solution also means an artificial suppression of innovation, regardless of whether the standardized requirements are stingy or generous (and we can discuss how either scenario plays out in a future discussion, if you wish).

 

The other aspect of the net neutrality argument is the idea that individual users are threatened by ISPs who maliciously throttle available bandwidth or otherwise curtail flow, "discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication." WikiLink

The case typically pointed to is the Comcast example in the first half of the last decade, in which they were hampering the flow of traffic across their network which was in direct competition to additional services they provided. Over the years, there have been a couple of other, smaller cases in which ISPs have blocked VPN traffic or voice traffic, but these have typically been things which have resolved themselves through normal market influences.

 

It is worth noting that the corporate world is largely split in this -- heavy consumers like Microsoft, Vonage & Amazon support the idea of net neutrality because then their financial burden gets spread across the entire population while infrastructure design and provisioning companies (like Cisco, Intel and Corning) oppose it.

 

Wait... What is "it?" "It" -- "net neutrality" -- is the concept of the "dumb pipe." The idea is that the endpoint devices are "intelligent" but the network connecting them is "dumb" -- literally no more than the empty pipes we started with. This is really not at all how it works in reality, though. The entire history of the Internet has been one of developing better and more capable network devices to make the internetworking between endpoint devices more efficient, more robust, more resilient and more seamless.

 

So the "net neutrality" argument is actually counter to the history of Internet and to the technical philosophy upon which it has been built, and specific examples of abuse are relatively rare -- which then begs the question of why it has suddenly become such a hot-button topic.

 

Here's my theory...

 

President Obama has commented on several occasions that too much information is confusing and dangerous unless it is the right kind of information, that we need to have an agreed-upon "set of facts" and he says "we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and talking heads."

 

About a year ago, the Administration drew up plans with a company called Social Solutions International (this firm is a discussion in and of itself) to begin installing FCC monitors in various "media ecologies" to monitor and validate the way information is collected, interpreted and disseminated to "diverse American communities." When the news media and the American public got a whiff of it, the Administration quickly back-pedaled.

 

In the last half-dozen years or so, the US Congress has considered legislation on the topic of net neutrality about as many times, and has rejected it each time. Having a pen & a phone, the President isn't one to let a little thing like separation of powers get in his way.

 

A little history:

In 2005, the FCC claimed authority to regulate Internet communications and published the following four principles. To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:

• access the lawful Internet content of their choice.

• run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

• connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.

• competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

 

In 2010, the FCC issued regulation claiming further authority over Internet providers, adding oversight of transparency, application blocking and content discrimination.

 

In January of 2014, a US District Court ruled against the FCC, stating it overreached its charter. It struck the application blocking and content discrimination rules (but left the new transparency requirement in place).

 

In February, the FCC said it would recast its rules to be in alignment with the court's decision.

 

In April, the FCC announced that ISPs could offer content providers higher-performance dataflow at a higher price.

 

In May, the FCC announced it was reconsidering its rules again.

 

In November, President Obama recommended to the chairman of the FCC Commissioners (a set of five Presidential appointees serving 5-year terms) that the FCC reclassify ISPs as telecommunication common-carriers rather than service providers, a move which would give the FCC full regulatory authority over Internet service providers.

 

In February of 2015, the FCC Commissioners voted (split 3-2 along party lines) to declare the Internet "a public good" and under its regulatory authority as granted by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As the same meeting, it also acted in a judicial capacity by preempting state laws, preventing local governments from establishing broadband networks which crossed state lines.

 

So, what's the end game? I think it is purely about control. Net neutrality is a lever being used to give centralized government regulatory authority over Internet traffic under the guise of fair play but it also positions Internet content to fall into the same category as TV news, which the Administration has recently attempted (and failed, for now) to inject itself into in a nanny capacity. The environment has then been created in which to safely distribute the right kind of information to the masses, to establish and enforce an agreed-upon set of facts, and to establish a comprehensive government-regulated "news business."

 

Gives me the willies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites