an alarming article

[karellen]

http://rudd-o.com/archives/2007/06/13/say-goodbye-to-the-internet-you-knew/
...I don't like the direction in which the things go, and it's happening now, in USA

[Adamant1988]

That is FUD pure and simple. It's roots are in truth, but it goes off on a wild tangent about what will actually come of these actions.

[ButteBlues]

http://rudd-o.com/archives/2007/06/13/say-goodbye-to-the-internet-you-knew/
...I don't like the direction in which the things go, and it's happening now, in USA
You're telling me!

I now use AT&T thanks to the merger with Bellsouth! :(

[DeadSuperHero]

Yeah, but people are always expecting the worst.
That said, if this happens, someone will be smart enough to make a new internet, where we'll all go, and the new internet would block these two companies!

[H.E. Pennypacker]

That is FUD pure and simple. It's roots are in truth, but it goes off on a wild tangent about what will actually come of these actions.

Gotta say the same. I am not worried about the future.

[The Noble]

I still see this as a very plausible end to our very open beginning. I really hope it doesn't come to this. They are stupid for limiting iTunes and Google though. If they had stuck to their guns ond only limited p2p then they would at least have a plausible excuse for doing what they are doing (illegal lol!).

[Adamant1988]

I still see this as a very plausible end to our very open beginning. I really hope it doesn't come to this. They are stupid for limiting iTunes and Google though. If they had stuck to their guns ond only limited p2p then they would at least have a plausible excuse for doing what they are doing (illegal lol!).

Nothing has come of it yet, this article is kind of paranoid.

[FuturePilot]

All that just seems too outrageous and ridiculous to be true.

[karellen]

well, I shouldn't really care, as I'm in Europe in some far-away country which most of the people have no idea where it is (Romania)

[jiminycricket]

ISPs in Canada are also considering similar plans to the US. Luckily, there's some competition through businesses like 3Web, Sentec, and TekSavvy. BTW most of our ISPs like Rogers, Bell and Shaw (although not the other three I listed) already do deep packet inspection and it really kills Bittorrent and FTP and 3rd party VoIP. It's too bad that the US government let AT&T rebuild itself, since from what I've heard, they control most of the US network.

Dogged by costs, Internet providers seek price hikes (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070613.wrinternet13/BNStory/robNews/)

The Canadian ISP Telus blocked a union domain name a few years ago.

[LightB]

Paranoid or not, the internet will definitely be different once it comes of age. And it will continue changing as long as it exists. I'm sure there will be times when those who push censorship for whatever reason will have the upper hand.

[igknighted]

Ron Paul FTW? Last I checked he was very much for net neutrality... lets rally the power of Ubuntuforums to get a candidate elected ;)

[Tundro Walker]

Yeah, but people are always expecting the worst.
That said, if this happens, someone will be smart enough to make a new internet, where we'll all go, and the new internet would block these two companies!

Unfortunately, while your logic seems good in the short-term, in the long-term this is exactly what large Telecoms want. They don't want one single internet, that everyone can roam free on. They want a divided internet, with each Telecom having it's own area. So, they can start doing with it what they do with cell phones...charge you roaming fees to cross boundaries and go to sites on other internets. The next step after that would be for them to start "packaging" internet for you. Much like cable TV, you'll get access to a set of domains, some of which would be "public access" (peoples personal sites), but most coporate ad-laden crap that isn't really innovative.

The sad part is, Government (federal, state and local), gave the Telecom company free access and use of government land to build out their networks (since the internet is an "advanced technology" tool used to increase communications, much like phone lines and ham radios did back when). So, with all that free-handout, the Telecoms are turning around saying "these are our lines" and "we'll control them as we see fit". Basically saying "we see more and more folks need bandwidth, and instead of being smart and building out more fiber, we're going to be cheap and simply ration what we have at huge costs to consumers...we need to focus more on profit and less on consumer well-fare."

The stupid thing is, Telecom are already getting paid for "their line" use. ISP's have to route traffic along fiber all the time, so they're signing agreements to pay Telecoms for traffic capability. But the Telecoms want to cry like they're not making any money off this. They basically want to cut out the ISP middleman, and directly control what the internet is and how you use it, so they can sub-package it like crap cable TV & way expensive cell phones.

If you'd like to learn more, and would like to do something about this, check out this site: Save the Internet. (http://www.savetheinternet.com/?gclid=CMzC7ruK24wCFRQkgAodD3-mZQ)

[DoctorMO]

I got a plan to create a giant global mesh network with millions of OLPCs ;-)

Besides there is always the possibility of dismantle anything these telcos think their doing with policy; perhaps once we fix that part companies can be kept in check~

[runningwithscissors]

Oh yeah. People will just say "this won't happen" and "wer're bloody free" and "the invisible hand of the free market will strangle them" or whatnot.

But just remember what happened with Satellite Television. You now pay to watch hours upon hours of idiotic advertisements just to catch your favourite show at the weekend, and what you can watch, what people can broadast is all controlled by the ******* distributors.

Soon, you won't be able to run a home server because that would be a "premium" service.

[mips]

Not to be pessimistic but I can see this happening in the future. Don't be so trusting of big business.

[vanadium]

Do not be overly optimistic: humanity never got freedom for free. If society stays inert, things like that will happen. Proof is: they are already happening now.

[Adamant1988]

Ron Paul FTW? Last I checked he was very much for net neutrality... lets rally the power of Ubuntuforums to get a candidate elected ;)

He is FOR net neutrality and AGAINST government regulation of things that he feels they have no power to regulate. Which is why he voted the Net Neutrality bill down.

[jgrabham]

I heard that file sizes grow so much, that soon we wont be able to use the internet at all, because the underseas cables cant take it!


Why would anyone use that ISP??

[visionaire]

Actually here in my country some ISP's already blocking p2p applications, so, i think is not too paranoid at all...

[Adamant1988]

My ISP 'slows p2p packets, but somehow encrypting them makes my Bit torrent download rates skyrocket. I get the feeling that technology available to us will allow us to circumvent this 'fast-lane' that they plan to put in place.

As for presidential candidates who would not vote this down, Barack Obama has very openly said that net neutrality is needed to preserve the internet as we know it today.

[bonzodog]

The way I see it, the future of the net is a dark one.

I can see a future where a two-tier internet exists. One tier is a 'walled garden' that contains all the commercial sites and big company sites, and you will need to pay your ISP extra to use all sites within the walled garden IP range.

The lower tier will contain hobby websites, free stuff, the greater majority of the linux community, and you will get access to this with your basic connection fee. It would also include ftp, IRC, and usenet, and email.

However, when this happens, I suspect there will be a world-wide rebellion of sorts, and each continent will demand it's own IP range, with it's own governing body, much like ICANN, and total control over the tld's and DNS for its country. This would split the net into about 4 parts - America, north and south, Europe, Australasia(Australia, Japan, China, Thailand etc) and Africa.

You would initially only get access to the net in your own region and to get access to another region will require you pay an extra fee to the ISP. This they will say will mean you can have packages to suit your needs.

Maybe, you live in the US, and want access to the free section, but worldwide. they would then charge you extra for each region you want to get into.

If you wanted the walled garden section on top of that, then that would also be split into regional areas.

Effectively, to get total access to the entire world web would cost a fortune, but they would market it as a 'total access' package, much in the same way that satellite channels are currently controlled.

They could then shape the traffic, and even blacklist certain domain-names outside their region that are known to be p2p traffic domains.

[arvevans]

Take a minute and think about what overselling is and how it works. If the highway department did not do "overselling" then there would have to be a complete set of highways for each individual car. Instead they "oversell" highway construction on the basis that not all cars are on the road at the same time, and that not all cars are going the same place at the same time. Overselling is just a way to make more cost effective use of available network backbone links. Without it you could not afford to use the Internet.

Traffic shaping is done in routers at entry and exit points in the network. It involves several configurable methods. It can give priority to traffic that has the best chance of getting to it's intended destination. It can give time sensitive data (VoIP, streaming video, etc.) a higher percentage of available bandwidth, or give it the faster network links. Without this capability you would probably not be using the Internet for voice, video, or credit card transactions.

It appears that the author of that FUD article does not really understand how things work, but is writing about them anyway. These situations are dangerous because others (news media, corporate managers, etc.) read those erroneous posts and think that they are fact.

That article is not "alarming" as the post said...it is just ordinary old "bad info". It probably does not serve any good purpose to give such bad info any publicity by posting about it here on the Ubuntu forum. A better tactic may be to ignore bad information and let it die a natural death.
_._

[mips]

Take a minute and think about what overselling is and how it works. If the highway department did not do "overselling" then there would have to be a complete set of highways for each individual car. Instead they "oversell" highway construction on the basis that not all cars are on the road at the same time, and that not all cars are going the same place at the same time. Overselling is just a way to make more cost effective use of available network backbone links. Without it you could not afford to use the Internet.

Everybody uses network contention ratios and I have no problem with it as per your above example. What I do have a problem with is companies that have VERY high contention ratios 50:1+. I also have a problem with how they advertise their service, don't sell a service as 6Mb/s or whatever if it will never reach 6Mb/s.


Traffic shaping is done in routers at entry and exit points in the network. It involves several configurable methods. It can give priority to traffic that has the best chance of getting to it's intended destination. It can give time sensitive data (VoIP, streaming video, etc.) a higher percentage of available bandwidth, or give it the faster network links. Without this capability you would probably not be using the Internet for voice, video, or credit card transactions.

Some companies do the oposite, our local beloved telco prioritized shite like email & http. Video, voice was given a lower priority. I mean email ? Thats not a time sensitive service, 10sec delivery delay on a email is no biggie.

Other people here also mentioned others things that are valid like seperate nets for commercial, additional charges etc.

[jgrabham]

I also have a problem with how they advertise their service, don't sell a service as 6Mb/s or whatever if it will never reach 6Mb/s.
.

Yes but everyone does that - have an 80gb Hard drive thats only 75gb, wifi and 54mbps which runs at 10mbs, Dial up at 56kbps which runs at about 30kbps.

[runningwithscissors]

Is there any reason why anyone's phone sex over VoIP should be given higher priority over regular data?

As far as I am concerned, the network should do nothing more than transport packets.

[mips]

Is there any reason why anyone's phone sex over VoIP should be given higher priority over regular data?

As far as I am concerned, the network should do nothing more than transport packets.

Some traffic is very sensitive to latency, voice, video etc. If you are on a congested net then you need to prioritise them.

[Nekiruhs]

Yes but everyone does that - have an 80gb Hard drive thats only 75gb, wifi and 54mbps which runs at 10mbs, Dial up at 56kbps which runs at about 30kbps.
The reason that a 80 GB HD shows up as 75 is that we measure GB as 1000 MB. But a Computer measures it as 1024 MB, and an MB is 1024 KB, and so on and vice versa. So its naturally going to show up as a few gigs short. Its truly 80 GB, just not the way your computer counts.

[Nitayh82]

I am studying sociology... and we study about the how the world come to what it is now... hearing this again and again... (corporation goverments they rules us by violent and financial pressures taking our freedom eventually the some people will make pitches notes merchandise for saying La you'll have to pay one dollar because someone will have copyright for this note )... we just sudied today about the first political border (between france and spain)... internet is becoming like countries they are building political borders in the internet.

[RAV TUX]

That is FUD pure and simple. It's roots are in truth, but it goes off on a wild tangent about what will actually come of these actions.
Thank You! for being a voice of reason.

[ticopelp]

Alarmist article is more like it.

"Think this is avoidable?! Think again!"

That author clearly has emotional issues.

What's doubly funny is that one click over on that same site, there's information on how the 9-5 work day is dead, and we have entered a glorious new information age (which this article says is completely over). The quality just got worse from there. Basically, this is another of a million sites featuring some idiot blathering about petty things that bother him, as if anyone cares.

Yeah, that was a waste of two minutes of my life.

[a12ctic]

I've been seeing articles like this sense I started to become interested in computers as a young kid in 1999, people have been predicting this stuff for years, its not going to happen.

[Polygon]

even if this did happen, there would be massive protest and outrage from the public. Im confident that this wont be a problem.

[Tundro Walker]

However, when this happens, I suspect there will be a world-wide rebellion of sorts, and each continent will demand it's own IP range, with it's own governing body, much like ICANN, and total control over the tld's and DNS for its country. This would split the net into about 4 parts - America, north and south, Europe, Australasia(Australia, Japan, China, Thailand etc) and Africa.

Ah, yes...the "Cyberpunk / Shadowrun" net model...

I found it interesting that the person who found their p2p was slow until they encrypted it. Networks will pick up on that, and it'll be one more reason for them to just generally tier / caste-system their service.

"Oh, we found out that folks doing p2p can bypass our filtering by simply encrypting it. Well, we'll just slow everything down from them then. If they want faster service, they'll have to pay for a premium package."

This is really a catch-22, because sometimes industry leaders do a great job creating standards. But when greed becomes the goal, they find ways to slow innovation or put roadblocks in peoples paths, so they can charge more to remove those roadblocks.

Off topic, but a bit related...it's like the highway construction that happens on a road I drive to work. The city decided to do a whole lot of construction on this highway, and it's always congested during rush hour. So, folks get frustrated, and find all kinds of ways to circumvent the traffic (cutting through store parking lots, taking service roads, etc.) So, what happened recently is the cops wait like wolves, picking off tons of folks who do things to try to get out of that traffic jam. Folks cutting across grass to reach a less congested street, folks using the side of the road to bypass, folks speeding on the side street, etc. Granted, I'm all for keeping the peace, but I think some concessions need to be allowed.

My gripe is that for the city, it's a win-win...they get their construction done by the lowest bidder during the day, AND they generate tons of traffic fine revenue from folks who just want to get where they're going. Instead, they should halt construction during rush hours, and pay the workers extra to work at night, which would free up the road during peak hours. This is what they do on a toll road (which is more of a toll highway) I drive, and it works brilliantly. They only do night-time construction, and before rush hours show up, they make sure as many lanes as possible are freed up. I've never experiences congestion on that road.

So, my analogy is that for the cable / telecom companies, it's a win-win for them. They use their current capabilities to slow down your traffic, for whatever reason (today's current excuse is that it's "p2p" and "p2p is nothing but a bunch of software/mp3 pirates", but tomorrow, they'll slow down your porn traffic, then your digg / slashdot traffic, then...you get my point, they'll keep taking away your freedoms in layers they think you can live with, until they reach that critical point where you complain.) By slowing your traffic, they don't have to spend as much building out more fiber, and can charge more for setting up premium services, which is really just the same service, but with preferential treatment of your traffic. It ridiculous!

[Tundro Walker]

What's doubly funny is that one click over on that same site, there's information on how the 9-5 work day is dead, and we have entered a glorious new information age (which this article says is completely over).

I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that, yes, I'm still working a 9-5 job, so yeah, the guys article seems laughable. However, I do computer / programming / database work...nothing I can't do from home, sitting in my underwear, at 2am in the morning. But, the company I work for insists I come in, 9-5, and suck up valuable cubicle space in their over-priced building.

I think we're at that stage in evolution when a lot of folks could do their work from home, but a lot of companies don't want to admit it. Jakob Neilsen, long-time web-usability advocate, wrote an article on this, stating that during the Industrial Revolution, people migrated inwards to the city, because that was where the factories were. These days, however, more and more work is telecommutable. As companies realize they don't HAVE to HAVE their workers on site to do telecommutable work, he predicted that more and more folks will move out to suburb or even more remote locations to live/work from.

There will always be jobs where you need to be on-site to do it. But for a lot of computer, project-oriented folks, it's a waste of commute time, and a waste of office space. Personally, my company is limiting the work I do for them by a) keeping hourly instead of salary, and b) making me come in to work. They don't want me to do over-time, so I only put in my 40 hours. However, at home, there are times I would like to keep working on a project, because I want to do something on it better. There are tons of things I like to optimize and such on my systems, but I can't, because I'm not allowed to work on it unless I'm clocked in and at work. Oh well.

[Adamant1988]

even if this did happen, there would be massive protest and outrage from the public. Im confident that this wont be a problem.

Actually, people might be very happy with it as it MAY pave the way for services like Skype to work more effectively. If people can download files a little faster, have a clearer skype call, maybe watch a movie and have it download quicker, to them things will have improved.

I have seen no evidence introduced that shows these companies want to give priority traffic to certain sites but rather to specific kinds of traffic. I think that these businesses have a right to offer tiered internet to their users, but I personally feel that it should be an option rather than the default.

[Polygon]

Actually, people might be very happy with it as it MAY pave the way for services like Skype to work more effectively. If people can download files a little faster, have a clearer skype call, maybe watch a movie and have it download quicker, to them things will have improved.

I have seen no evidence introduced that shows these companies want to give priority traffic to certain sites but rather to specific kinds of traffic. I think that these businesses have a right to offer tiered internet to their users, but I personally feel that it should be an option rather than the default.

the whole point of this "issue" is that if this stuff does happen, everyone is no longer equal on the internet. Sure you are limited to the physical limitiations of your connections to the internet (aka 56k, cable, dsl, etc) but then you have the ISP deciding which traffic gets highest priority.

and then the ISP can also decide which traffic to completely slow down or stop, like youtube, torrents (which CAN be used for legal reasons) downloading files from non ISP approved sites etc.

and also businesses can pay to have the ISP speed up their traffic more then anyone else's, when everyone is supposed to be getting the same exact service (once they are actually connected to the internet)


and i can almost assure you, if this does happen, you will know about it as it will be ALL over the news an the talk of basically everyone.

[forrestcupp]

The future is tied to the internet even more than things are now. With everything becoming more and more dependent on a good internet connection, do you really think this is the natural evolution of things? No way! Even if certain providers try things like this, it will never last because the system depends on the internet working properly.

Do you know how many businesses depend on Skype? Do you think they would stand for something like this?

[steven8]

The thing is, the 'powers that be', will do whatever they want, and the world will just have to adjust. The way it's always been. . .the way it will always be. There may be an uproar, like when some folks did not want cable tv in the beginning, yet there it is. I did not want unleaded gasoline, but I had to adapt. TV was once free, barring the need to buy an antenna and a TV, then there was cable TV - awesome. Buy access, plug in that cable - all the TV in the world commercial free! Well ,that changed in fairly short order. . .and people just adjusted.

They, 'the powers that be', will do whatever they want. And we will be stuck adjusting. Businesses will get special business packages, etc. They will adjust.

I don't like it. I hate it. Using Ubuntu and FOSS is my little way of fighting back, but I know that whatever is going to happen will happen, and we will have to adjust.

[runningwithscissors]

The thing is, the 'powers that be', will do whatever they want, and the world will just have to adjust. The way it's always been. . .the way it will always be. There may be an uproar, like when some folks did not want cable tv in the beginning, yet there it is. I did not want unleaded gasoline, but I had to adapt. TV was once free, barring the need to buy an antenna and a TV, then there was cable TV - awesome. Buy access, plug in that cable - all the TV in the world commercial free! Well ,that changed in fairly short order. . .and people just adjusted.

They, 'the powers that be', will do whatever they want. And we will be stuck adjusting. Businesses will get special business packages, etc. They will adjust.

I don't like it. I hate it. Using Ubuntu and FOSS is my little way of fighting back, but I know that whatever is going to happen will happen, and we will have to adjust.
We have to adjust due to the mind-numbing inertia or desperation of certain people. I mean, are idiotic pranks filmed and uploaded on youtube really important enough to tier the current network?
Even after being repeatedly kicked in the balls by the *AA's people rush out to buy the latest DVD, latest iPod and songs.
Packets carrying your ****** weekend soap over the network should not have more priority than my source files making their way to my FTP server.

[Dokatz]

http://rudd-o.com/archives/2007/06/13/say-goodbye-to-the-internet-you-knew/
...I don't like the direction in which the things go, and it's happening now, in USA

Oh well. I guess I'll have to take up less healthy habits again...Like D&D...

[steven8]

We have to adjust due to the mind-numbing inertia or desperation of certain people. I mean, are idiotic pranks filmed and uploaded on youtube really important enough to tier the current network?
Even after being repeatedly kicked in the balls by the *AA's people rush out to buy the latest DVD, latest iPod and songs.
Packets carrying your ****** weekend soap over the network should not have more priority than my source files making their way to my FTP server.

Well, we done't even know how it would be tiered, if it gets tiered at all. . .but I never once said common sense would enter into the decision making process. Just that we'd be stuck with the end result.

[steven8]

Not everyone wanted cable TV at all, let alone tiered cable TV. From 1971:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6X3HyuT1-g

Didn't work though, did it. . .