An English Cartoonist worries on Net Nutrality

[Plane]

 

21/05/06
Alright. So, I'm afraid I'm going to talk a little bit (by a little bit, I mean my longest blog ever) about this Save the Internet thing. If any Americans are reading this you're probably yawning, because this has been multi-talked-about in the US - but as a pretty unconnected UK citizen I've only just heard what's going on. And I know for a fact that some of people reading this are even less interested in internet-y stuff than me, so I think it's worth mentioning.
So, yeah. My Dad always said that one day, someone's going to come up with a way of controlling the internet, because there was no way it was going to continue as it is. And I always wondered if it would be a sneaking thing, or whether I'd see it coming. Now, maybe I'm wrong (or pessimistic?) but I think I've just spotted it coming over the hill waving a great big flag and saying 'HELLO! HERE I AM! STANDING RIGHT HERE!'.
It seems that several of the major internet distribution-y companies (no, I don't know what they should be called) in America are putting forward the idea of offering a higher speed service to those sites / servers / whatever who will pay them. So the sites which pay more will load faster (or load at all? I'm not sure ... but the time a site takes to load is a huge factor in how much it's visited, so ... ). Basically, the companies that get the internet to your house will have control over which sites you look at. The ones that pay will be the ones you see. Okay, that's probably a gross oversimplification, but I'm not an expert by any means. Please don't rely on me, check out the site if you're interested.
I guess it will be something like, oh I don't know, let's say every other industry - publishing, film making, TV, you name it - in that the distributors get to choose what they distribute. At the moment the Save the Internet people (a bizarrely diverse collection of groups) are trying to get a Network Neutrality bill passed which will say all sites are created equal and should be treated equally by the network. Yeah, I don't think it's going to work either. Equality is a wonderful thing, pity no-ones ever manages to put it into practice. This is not just small companies / sites supporting this, but big ones like Google, Microsoft etc. because obviously they didn't get where they are today by just agreeing to give people large wads of cash. But the American government seem to quite like the idea. And I can see why.
These companies must know what they're letting themselves in for. Previously, there hasn't been any one to blame (or anyone visiable anyway) when your search engine throws up random horrible shit. Now, someone's going to be in charge of what turns up on your computer, so it will be Their Fault. I would imagine they are selling it as a way of policing the internet - which it is, except the police will be privately owned. Whoo-hoo. But I have to tell you that what surprises me most about this is not the fact that ...

http://kaspall.xepher.net/archive/pg93.html

[BT]

One day we will hear a song titled video killed the internet.

Then we will hear one called VoIP killed Ma Bell.

It will be a remake of email killed the postoffice.

Both side have their strong points in this debate.

Would you pay $5 a month over your current VoIP rates of @24.95 in order to get guaranteed landline quality and at the same time save $35 dollars on phone tolls?

That is the issue.

[Plane]

I am not clear about what specificly the change being proposed is.

How are we getting along with the present fee structure?

Is there competition going on?

[BT]

The current setup gives spam the same weight as a movie on demand.

The backbone providers are proposing an express lane for high bandwidth content providers for an additional fee so that their products like video and telephony will be given a priority over spam for delivery. Right now they are getting  a relatively free ride. These fees most probably would be passed on to the consumer. I would consider these additional fees similar to what truckers pay for use of the highways.

If you don't view  subscription videos or use VoIP, these changes won't affect you.

[Brassmask]

As with anything that corporations propose, this is about making money and nothing more.  Sure, they'll try to sell it as "We're helping you" but it is really about helping themselves.

And anyone who thinks that they will only keep spam on the lowend and allow movies to come down faster is crazy.  If Net neutrality goes the way of the do-do, we're basically all Jews handing a Nazi a .45 and saying, "protect us".

The internet should stay the one true democratic technology we have today.  It empowers every person who uses it.  Empowering Sony to move more product is dangerous.  It would be the same as allowing Sony more access to elected officials than me.

[BT]

Brass,

Give me one reason why these evil corporations should pump billions into providing the backbone to the internet and not expect anything in return?

Ma Bell is taking a severe beating from people dropping their landlines and switching to VoIP and though VoIP is an idea whose time has come,  they are getting a free ride on the internet, not paying for the very infrastructure that allows them to profit.

If Sony doesn't want to pay a premium for preferred delivery status, they don't have to.

But if Miramax does, more power to them. Computers and TV are merging. That is the nature of the beast.

[Brassmask]

Give me one reason why these evil corporations should pump billions into providing the backbone to the internet and not expect anything in return?

Ma Bell is taking a severe beating from people dropping their landlines and switching to VoIP and though VoIP is an idea whose time has come,  they are getting a free ride on the internet, not paying for the very infrastructure that allows them to profit.

If Sony doesn't want to pay a premium for preferred delivery status, they don't have to.

But if Miramax does, more power to them. Computers and TV are merging. That is the nature of the beast.

Hey, dude, they get their 24.95 a month from a lot of people who have the internet.  I know I pay Bellsouth 80 bucks a month to use their wires.  They make money hand over fist on those T lines they put in for corporations.  The phone companies make plenty.  They just want to make more.  They aren't dying and you know it.  I don't remember them coming up with all kinds of cute plans when the freaking FAX MACHINE came around.

If they keep crying about the use of their lines, someone in the government should just mention eminent domain to them and tell them that their poles and wires could be acquired in the interests of the country.  If they don't shut up about it, we should make the information superhighway the property of the US just like regular highways.

Keep the internet democratic.  Everyone is equal on the internet.  Corporations have no more pull than I do.  What happened to leaving the power in the peoples' hands?  You can't pay a higher amount of taxes and drive 100mph on I-40.  Why give corporations that power on the internet?  If they want to make it faster for people then create faster wires for everyone.  Invent faster modems that people can then go out and buy.  Not only is this about money, but it is also having power over detractors and dissentors. 

Drudge would have an advantage over DailyKos.  That's what this boils down to.  Having power over content.

[Amianthus]

Corporations have no more pull than I do.

And yet, they pay much more than you do.

[BT]

There is nothing stopping you from opting to pay a preferred delivery price for content you want to share. Nothing stopping Kos either if it makes business sense to do so.

[BT]

Look at it this way. A democratic internet is the equivalent of saying the only way mail and packages can be delivered is by the post office. And those packages will get there when they get there or not at all, with no way to track them. In your world there would not be a UPS or a Fedex.

In my world there should be diverse options. Let the seller and or buyer choose.

[Plane]

I wouldn't mind SPAM being a little expensive , if it can be defined well.

Defineing SPAM seems to be the thing , I only know it is SPAM if I don't like it.


On the other hand I never woould have known about the huge number of relations I used to have in Nigeria , who all have died in horrible Plane wrecks, if it had not been free to tell me .

[Brassmask]

Look at it this way. A democratic internet is the equivalent of saying the only way mail and packages can be delivered is by the post office. And those packages will get there when they get there or not at all, with no way to track them. In your world there would not be a UPS or a Fedex.

In my world there should be diverse options. Let the seller and or buyer choose.

Now, you know that is not true.  You have the choice of DSL, Cable, Dialup, Satellite, T1, etc.  You can buy from NetZero, Bellsouth, Roadrunner and all the rest.  Make the machinery faster and let the buyer choose if he or she wants to speed up that way.  Don't give the corporations the choice.  Corporations aren't trustworthy with that kind of power.  They'll abuse it and we all know it.

The thing is that I think they can already decide who is slower and faster and abuse that power already.  What they want to do is for us to PAY them for abusing that power.

[BT]

Brass,

I think you misunderstand the issue.

The folks who will pay more will be the Googles, the Disneys, the Vonages, the Amazons. Drudge if he wants to , Kos if he wants to.

You as a consumer will not have to pay a penny extra for your hookup.

Now if you subscribe to Disney, Vonage or buy something from Amazon, you may pay for their increased costs one way or another but you aren't being forced to do business with them.

You act as if the cost of DSL will go up $10 per month per household and that isn't the case.

I don't think it is your fault that you don't understand the issue.

I think that rhe proponents of "Net Neutrality" have framed the issue poorly. I think their rhetoric is full of half truths and worst case scenarios and is generally alarmist in nature. And I think if you asked them specifically how a two tiered system would directly affect you they would not be able to show a case where you suffered.

[Brassmask]

I think you misunderstand the issue.

If you thought that was the way I understood it, then I should have tried harder.  The danger I foresee and oppose is the idea of a smart network controlled by the internet providers.  If they know that one entity gets to go faster or is preferred then that means that someone is then shafted.  Not that there is only so much internet for use and that there will need to be decrease in some to give increase to others.

No, my issue with it is that if they can make someone faster, then they'll also know how to make someone slower and when it behooves them, they will make someone slower.

The internet should be a flat field with all packets flying with on regard for who they are from or who they are going to.

As for the whining companies saying they are losing money because people are using voip, tough shit.  Technology becomes obsolete sometimes.  Just because they put up phone poles and the like for people to have analogue phones or whatever and now they are using them in a different way, doesn't mean they should get to charge differently.

The way out of this for everyone is to nationalize the phone companies' land lines.  Then it belongs to everyone like the parks and roads and health care system.

Don't let them lie to you and tell you this is about choice, BT.  It isn't.  It is in fact about restricting choice.

[BT]

These are questions you need to ask whoever is misleading you.

Who owns the backbone to the present internet?

Who would own the express lanes to a two tiered system?

Where in any existing law are there provisions to stop anyone from slowing down your access now?