The end of the internet as we know it

[Arktis]

Well now, looky what we have here (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester).

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.

[WildTangent]

Not exactly new news, I've been hearing things similar to this in one way or another since I first got the internet, almost a decade ago. Besides, it would never fly. You saw what happened to Sony with the rootkit fiasco...this is on an even grander scale.

-Wild

[Iandefor]

What's to stop someone or some company building an alternative network?
It's entirely feasible.

[dickohead]

Despite what telephone/cable companies plan to do, or say they are going to do, they will always be answerable to their customers, which in the case of the modern world, we have the choice to go elsewhere. As long as changes such as this do not happen through a world-wide government endorsed system, they will never happen. It's just FUD for now.... Personal RFID's anyone? How about paying for oxygen?

[Iandefor]

Despite what telephone/cable companies plan to do, or say they are going to do, they will always be answerable to their customers, which in the case of the modern world, we have the choice to go elsewhere. As long as changes such as this do not happen through a world-wide government endorsed system, they will never happen. You certain of that? Microsoft seems to be doing a good job of making it's customers bend over backwards to accomodate their products' limitations and requirements.
Consumers are too docile to lash out against them if what the article describes happens.

[Arktis]

The simple fact that the plans are there shows that there's seriousness about making the transition in the first place. So you can bet that top players will work towards it as best they can. If there's one thing you can learn from history, it's that centralization is a dominant force in the key strategic areas of politics, religion, economics, and information. Therefore, it's important to be aware of things like this.

[ardchoille]

I just don't think that there would be a large number of private users willing to pay to use the internet. If my phone company required me to pay to use the internet, I'd switch phone companies. Then, when the phone started losing customers left and right, they would see what a stupid idea it was to charge people to use their internet. Big companies like Best Buy, Amazon.com, New Egg.com, etc. won't stay in it for long when they see that private users aren't willing to pay to use it - these big companies aren't going to throw their money down the drain for any substantial period of time.

My opinion? It might get off the ground at first, but it's going to crash and burn quickly.

[cvcaelen]

Aren't we allready paying for the use of internet?
At least here in Belgium it costs to get acces to the internet,
it can cost as little as 1 Euro per month or as much as 60Euro per month, depending what speed/download/upload you want.

for me, that's paying to get to the internet

Christiaan

[Vlammetje]

Aren't we allready paying for the use of internet?
At least here in Belgium it costs to get acces to the internet,
it can cost as little as 1 Euro per month or as much as 60Euro per month, depending what speed/download/upload you want.

for me, that's paying to get to the internet

Christiaan

That's paying for your connection. The article suggests paying for the content as well. Much like modern cell phone providers already do. You connect through their portal, surf their services for free, pay for every download, and all your traffic is stored for 'marketing purposes'

[cvcaelen]

Oh,
great :-k

life isn't expensive enough :confused:

Christiaan

[TechSonic]

Good thing I'm launching my own DSL company in 2007. Like hell I would allow that crap to happen.

[MetalMusicAddict]

Not exactly new news, I've been hearing things similar to this in one way or another since I first got the internet, almost a decade ago. Besides, it would never fly. You saw what happened to Sony with the rootkit fiasco...this is on an even grander scale.

-Wild
Man I pray your right, and Im a agnostic. I just sent a letter to my MD senator. Its a start.


I just don't think that there would be a large number of private users willing to pay to use the internet. If my phone company required me to pay to use the internet, I'd switch phone companies. Then, when the phone started losing customers left and right, they would see what a stupid idea it was to charge people to use their internet. Big companies like Best Buy, Amazon.com, New Egg.com, etc. won't stay in it for long when they see that private users aren't willing to pay to use it - these big companies aren't going to throw their money down the drain for any substantial period of time.

My opinion? It might get off the ground at first, but it's going to crash and burn quickly.
Maybe these are the people we should be writing letters to.

"If the telecoms do this I wont have internet service thus I wont be able to shop at your online store."

Maybe?

[Bandit]

US Government still own the internet. And in that respect the goverment is trying to get it out to more people at zero cost one day.
The phone companies as just FOS.

[mstlyevil]

My understanding is that there are Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the isle considering new legislation to prevent this from happening. The American public will just not tolerate this kind of a limitation after having free use of the content on the internet for so long.

[Deaf_Head]

AOL wanted a peice of this with their walled garden concept.

At anyrate, it becomes more and mroe possible as more and more tech related legistlation favors large companies. The first big step in this direction is verizon trying to charge websites for favorable bandwidth alocation.

[Deaf_Head]

My understanding is that there are Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the isle considering new legislation to prevent this from happening. The American public will just not tolerate this kind of a limitation after having free use of the content on the internet for so long.

yeah right, you and I might not tolerate it ... but joe blow still thinks AOL = the internet.

[dickohead]

The Internet is not, or at least should not, be owned or controlled by anyone, it should reamin a channel for information to travel down, whether or not that information requires a fee or a subscription. Freedom of information is what the Internet should be all about. For PRIVATE companies in one country (the US) to even attempt to control something that represents world wide freedom of information is a dog act.

In Australia we pay to get connected to the Net, that's about it. We don't have the folley of services such as AOL shoved upon us by bigger companies, most of our Internet is done through Telstra (the company that owns all of our phone lines) or through independant ISP's offereing basic services like e-mail etc.

The Internet will eventually be an entertainment super-highway just as it currently is for information, but that should not be controlled by any one company, individual or country. People should always have the right to access services or not. All of us for example, obviously appreciate that which is free, in more ways than one. How many of us pay for web based services currently? Not me, why pay when there are equivelant services for free? If the Internet is controlled, that basic right to choose will be taken away from us, and services like iTunes, MSN Live and paid for e-mail will be forced upon us. What a joke.

I think we need to start the Internet 3 - an entirely free medium just like local wireless groups (ie in Oz we have Melbourne Wireless, Syndney Wireless etc etc), only done with satelites in space... anyone got access to space...? Mark... wanna lend me a hand here? I can make antennas from pringles cans, we're half-way there! :D

[mstlyevil]

yeah right, you and I might not tolerate it ... but joe blow still thinks AOL = the internet.

Excuse me but over 60% of internet users in the United States use broadband. I think you are under estimating the intelligence of the average joe blow consumer. AOL has change their bussiness model to become more like Yahoo and Google because they have lost so much of their market share to broadband.

[Deaf_Head]

Excuse me but over 60% of internet users in the United States use broadband. I think you are under estimating the intelligence of the average joe blow consumer. AOL has change their bussiness model to become more like Yahoo and Google because they have lost so much of their market share to broadband.

I wasn't being literal, but regardless, people are dumb. (the reason for war, racism etc. haha)

[mstlyevil]

I wasn't being literal, but regardless, people are dumb. (the reason for war, racism etc. haha)

I would just say polititians are dumb myself.:p

[Bandit]

The Internet is not, or at least should not, be owned or controlled by anyone, it should reamin a channel for information to travel down, whether or not that information requires a fee or a subscription. Freedom of information is what the Internet should be all about. For PRIVATE companies in one country (the US) to even attempt to control something that represents world wide freedom of information is a dog act.
The truth is the internet was designed for military use. US Military.
The US will not ever give up control of the internet ever..
This is not saying I personally dont think each NATO contry should not have a person voted in to a commity to manage it. There should be a board of people with equal say so nowa days.
But honestly speaking there will be hell and high water before the US will release control of it.
Truth sucks..
Cheers,
Joey

[Deaf_Head]

You all see what nav air is doing? I talked to a recruiter from their company at a college career fair ... the navy wants to electronically link every ship, sub, airplane and missle electronically.

Skynet? lol

(I dunno if navair sitll has the contract though, but occationally you see bits about it's progress in teh news)

[dickohead]

Are they really "In Control" of it? Can anyone person every have "Control"? And the internet, if you must know, was not designed for the military, nor by them entirely, it was one of those "the time had come" things, were mutiple people all experimenting with packets for sending data instead of just circuits got together and decided they were all brilliant and started stickdeath.com.... okay maybe not, but it wasn't developed for the military, they just saw the most logical use for it at the time.

And what the hell does "each NATO country" mean? Sureley if we (earthlings) are to hand-over the control of this resource to anyone it should be an organisation such as the UN or similar? Perhaps even extend the range of the ISO?

The US may have been the biggest contributor to the development and roll-out of the internet, and should profit greatly from it's genius, but - they should not be allowed to control it, or any globally free technology... but then again i've been called a hippy, commy and marxist before... but don't we (earthlings) appreciate freedom and free things above all else?

I know i'd much prefer to use something that is for the bettering of everyone than one company, even if its functionality is limited... (linux 4 years ago).

[Bragador]

1) Wasn't the internet invented for universities instead of the US army ? Arpanet ?

2) If there is such a thing as a non open internet, there will be an undernet and I shll truly be part of it and if I need to learn how to program stuff and walk around with cables and tons of geeky stuff and become one of those "mythological" hackers depicted in movies, I shall become one.

There is already some people working on alternatives like I2p so it might be the future "undernet" of the "commercial" internet.

[dickohead]

You all see what nav air is doing? I talked to a recruiter from their company at a college career fair ... the navy wants to electronically link every ship, sub, airplane and missle electronically.

Skynet? lol

(I dunno if navair sitll has the contract though, but occationally you see bits about it's progress in teh news)

HAHAHAHA, when will people learn! Arnie knows best!!!

Systems representing Skynet are becomming all to frequent, and the only way to stop that is to hope that one of them blows up and destroys a lot of valuable crap (not people), that way they'll rethink having a system of control that is so widely unified....

[Deaf_Head]

1) Wasn't the internet invented for universities instead of the US army ? Arpanet ?

2) If there is such a thing as a non open internet, there will be an undernet and I shll truly be part of it and if I need to learn how to program stuff and walk around with cables and tons of geeky stuff and become one of those "mythological" hackers depicted in movies, I shall become one.

There is alreayd some people working on I2p so it might be the future "undernet" of the "commercial" internet.


Colleges created tibut i'm pretty sure it was government funded. And don't we already have the undernet? (warez sites) lol.

[twowheeler]

I don't think we quite have the concept here. The telcos own major chunks of the high speed backbone of the Internet in the US. Up until recently, the FCC had a rule that required them to provide nondiscriminatory access to all users. But the FCC caved. The telcos lobbied hard, and got the FCC to repeal the rule. Right now, today, they are free to begin to discriminate on the basis of price for traffic that crosses their networks.

The fight has moved to the Congress, where Google, Yahoo and similar internet companies are trying reimpose the nondiscrimination rule through legislation, and the telcos are using their huge campaign contributions and "don't regulate the Internet" baloney to keep their current powers to control the net.

They don't necessarily want to charge you as a user more for access, directly. Essentially, they consider companies like Vonage to be "freeloaders" on their networks. The telcos want to be able to slow down some traffic, and speed up other kinds of traffic. If Google pays Verizon for high speed service, then our access to Google will be snappy. If Google does not pay for premium service, then our access to Google will be slow, and we might decide to switch to Yahoo. This is what is meant by discriminatory service. They can also give preferential treatment to their own services (like, Verizon's own VOIP phone service) and make Skype and Vonage service awful, unless those companies pay up.

If this works, we in the US will pay more for some things, lose access to currently free services, and/or be forced to use crappy services that used to work well. Corporations can shut out a lot of little startups this way, and we lose a lot of freedom in the process.

The scary part of this is that it is already happening, it is legal, very few people understand it, very few of us will even notice its effects until it is too late, and the power of the telcos to protect their monopolies in Congress is huge.

Yes, write to your congressmen, quickly. If they hear enough of an outcry they might decide not to just bend over.

[Deaf_Head]

I don't think we quite have the concept here. The telcos own major chunks of the high speed backbone of the Internet in the US. Up until recently, the FCC had a rule that required them to provide nondiscriminatory access to all users. But the FCC caved. The telcos lobbied hard, and got the FCC to repeal the rule. Right now, today, they are free to begin to discriminate on the basis of price for traffic that crosses their networks.

The fight has moved to the Congress, where Google, Yahoo and similar internet companies are trying reimpose the nondiscrimination rule through legislation, and the telcos are using their huge campaign contributions and "don't regulate the Internet" baloney to keep their current powers to control the net.

They don't necessarily want to charge you as a user more for access, directly. Essentially, they consider companies like Vonage to be "freeloaders" on their networks. The telcos want to be able to slow down some traffic, and speed up other kinds of traffic. If Google pays Verizon for high speed service, then our access to Google will be snappy. If Google does not pay for premium service, then our access to Google will be slow, and we might decide to switch to Yahoo. This is what is meant by discriminatory service. They can also give preferential treatment to their own services (like, Verizon's own VOIP phone service) and make Skype and Vonage service awful, unless those companies pay up.

If this works, we in the US will pay more for some things, lose access to currently free services, and/or be forced to use crappy services that used to work well. Corporations can shut out a lot of little startups this way, and we lose a lot of freedom in the process.

The scary part of this is that it is already happening, it is legal, very few people understand it, very few of us will even notice its effects until it is too late, and the power of the telcos to protect their monopolies in Congress is huge.

Yes, write to your congressmen, quickly. If they hear enough of an outcry they might decide not to just bend over.
'

yup

[Bragador]

As a canadian that tought the network was a sharing of conectiosn between users I am shocked that one country could decide what to do with the Internet.

I want a planetary lan network ! US citizens start writing to your government for the love of humanity !

[dickohead]

Damn right! Give control of the Internet to an organisation with the interests of the planet in mind, not their bottom line or retirement nest-eggs.

@TwoWheeler - thanks for clarifying that, not being from the US I don't see these things in action, we're an isolated lot down-under.

[mstlyevil]

Damn right! Give control of the Internet to an organisation with the interests of the planet in mind, not their bottom line or retirement nest-eggs.

And the UN has the interest of the planet in mind? Please. I do not want China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and almost the entire Middle East to have any control whatsoever of the content on the internet. Honestly it is much better off in the hands in the US if that is the alternative.

[MetalMusicAddict]

And the UN has the interest of the planet in mind? Please. I do not want China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and almost the entire Middle East to have any control whatsoever of the content on the internet. Honestly it is much better off in the hands in the US if that is the alternative.
Maybe it should be US government. Right now Id almost feel better about the internet in Federal hands than just the telcoms. This situation is sickening. Id like to think in a free market this wouldnt work and we would win but Im not holding my breath.

Excuse me if I mess this up but arent 5 of like 7 major hubs (dont know the name) in the US? Whatever they are called (correct me) it worried me when I heard that. I would much rather they be more decentralized.

I do to an extent understand the reasoning but dont like where it will go.

And good post twowheeler. :)

[dickohead]

I didn't specify the UN, just that it should be taken away from a country who is undeniably leaning towards capitalism, when any changes they make have a global impact, which is not only unfair to other countries, but unfair to businesses and users worldwide.

And it being in the hands of the US is from your perspective, one person of 250,000,000 which is still only 4% of the planet..... and I have no doubts that if countries such as China and North Korea have a small input to the future of the Internet it will be a very different picture, but can you be so sure it will be a bad thing? Each country should be given preferential control in a democratic voting system based on users and contribution to the Internet, so the US would still be a heavy weight, but would not have the ability to make indefinate decisions unless they were in the interest of all.

Another thing too, if the Internet is controlled by organisations or countries, how can it or other countries grow technologoically, especially poorer countries (which the ideals of Ubuntu are based on), since they will not be able to have input into it's future direction, and will either have to adopt to it's bias usage policies which preference US based companies and information, or attempt to develop their own internal networks, just like China is attempting.... If companies are allowed to control access based on capital, the future is very bleak indeed.

[Bragador]

But then again, the Internet is now a way to communicate around the world. I don't think such a system that transcends the limits of a country should be owned or controlled by any country.

If you live in the United States I can understand that, but if you come from another country, the idea is unsettling.

Give the internet to the people !

[MetalMusicAddict]

But then again, the Internet is now a way to communicate around the world. I don't think such a system that transcends the limits of a country should be owned or controlled by any country.

Give the internet to the people !
Perfectly said.

[dickohead]

Give the internet to the people!
Here I was trying to say exactly that... Thanks bragador!!!

[LoathRevolver]

Most of us are talking like the internet is FREE or something. If I'm not mistaken most of us already pay more than we should have to for our internet connections... For instance I was paying nearly $45 a month of Earthlink DSL (until I switched to SBC @ $17.99). I mean, I see the crappiness of the original post, but the internet was never FREE, lets not kid ourselves.

[dickohead]

Two different kinds of freedoms, one freedom being control, the other "free" being price. Just like Linux is free (as in beer) and free (as in speech).

[mstlyevil]

I didn't specify the UN, just that it should be taken away from a country who is undeniably leaning towards capitalism, when any changes they make have a global impact, which is not only unfair to other countries, but unfair to businesses and users worldwide.

And it being in the hands of the US is from your perspective, one person of 250,000,000 which is still only 4% of the planet..... and I have no doubts that if countries such as China and North Korea have a small input to the future of the Internet it will be a very different picture, but can you be so sure it will be a bad thing? Each country should be given preferential control in a democratic voting system based on users and contribution to the Internet, so the US would still be a heavy weight, but would not have the ability to make indefinate decisions unless they were in the interest of all.

The problem is there already is a international organization that controls domain names. (ICAAN) The extent of the control of the US is that it provides funds to ICAAN. ICAAN is still independent of the US government and has representatives from freedom loving nations all over the world. True control of the internet lies with the ISP's in each country that offers internet service. So the US can not make indefinite decisons about the internet because they do not control the servers or the ISP's in every nation around the globe.

I can also assure you that letting China and other freedom hating nations having a say so on the content of the Internet would be a bad thing because everyone would have to agree to censor the net to fit their policies.

The US has never censored the internet and if you pay attention to todays news it is not inclined to do so in the near future. The main gripe of the EU is control of the domain names and not of the net itself. Yet the EU has representatives on the board at ICAAN that have a vote in the decisions regulating domain names.

So I say it is better to leave the net the way it is (the world wide free flow of information without censorship.) than to risk a new international governing body that censors and restricts that information.

[dickohead]

The current situation is good yes, because those with control aren't abusing it. But once they start to 'throttle' certain services, it stops being free, so I wasn't saying we need to give control to someone else, just that it's a better alternative to an unfair system based on companies bottom lines.

[twowheeler]

Here I was trying to say exactly that... Thanks bragador!!!

That would be nice, some day. In the short run, we need to deliver the message to clue-impaired congress persons that regulation is a good thing in this instance, because the backbone should be considered a public resource, managed by private companies for the public good. There used to be a concept in US law that certain functions are public utilities. The companies would own the infrastructure and operate it at a profit, but only if they acted in a nondiscriminatory way, in the pubic interest. That concept has been swept away over the last 30 years as almost all public systems have been privatized. In some cases, that has been good (like oil), but in others it has been bad (like electricity). The internet needs to be seen as a public good, not a private asset.

[dickohead]

We have the exact same situation in Australia, as we sold off our Water, Gas, Electricity and now phone lines (Telstra, was Telecom, used to be owned by the government; and aworld leader in technology, now it's privatised and getting ****) some services improved, Electricity for example, while others got worse; Water and Communications. The Internet is indeed a public assett, but also hard to "define" and "control", so regulating private companies in the interest of the many (democratically) is a very good idea, but not where things are now heading.. :(

[C J Pro]

All I can say is, if this occurs, I am starting my own network here in my hometown. I have almost everything I need sitting here behind me. All I need now is just couple miles of cabling, some more routers, and permission to put new cables up on the phone poles (this last one might be tough...). But other than that, I can create one with the first server being Ubuntu.

[mstlyevil]

That would be nice, some day. In the short run, we need to deliver the message to clue-impaired congress persons that regulation is a good thing in this instance, because the backbone should be considered a public resource, managed by private companies for the public good. There used to be a concept in US law that certain functions are public utilities. The companies would own the infrastructure and operate it at a profit, but only if they acted in a nondiscriminatory way, in the pubic interest. That concept has been swept away over the last 30 years as almost all public systems have been privatized. In some cases, that has been good (like oil), but in others it has been bad (like electricity). The internet needs to be seen as a public good, not a private asset.

I can agree with this concept as long as the law passed guaranteed the free flow of information. Also I would like the companies providing the connection to stay private busineses but they must allow content from other places to be available at the same speed and free of extra charge.

[poofyhairguy]

Ever since Napster broke onto the scene I have been dealing with the fact that the "party" called the Internet as it is would be limited.

Now many years later I see the potential for it to happen (trusted computing combined with service providers that might be willing to give into content provider's demands for a larger piece of the pie) but it still seems to be a long way off.

But if the party does end I know that three parties are to blame: the companies that hate its open nature, the politicians for listening to the lobbiests of these companies, and people like myself who download intellectual property without paying for it because I give the other two parties a scapegoat to pin it on.

So since it is partially my fault, I feel like I can't fight it. I just hope that I see most of my days before something like the Great Firewall of China is actually successful.

[twowheeler]

In case anyone reading this wants more info on this subject, here is an article that is exactly on point.

"Google Is The Big Loser In AT&T-BellSouth Deal"
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/google_is_the_b.html

[Bandit]

You all see what nav air is doing? I talked to a recruiter from their company at a college career fair ... the navy wants to electronically link every ship, sub, airplane and missle electronically.

Skynet? lol

(I dunno if navair sitll has the contract though, but occationally you see bits about it's progress in teh news)
Can you say SPAWAR (Space and Warfare center)
Everything is linked already.. I know.. I am in the navy....
Hehe just not for to much longer.. I gained 30 pounds so they will kick me out...