OT: Update: AT and Ts Perversion Of Internet Free Speech

Hi All

Could affect all of us -

From the Independent newspaper: UK -

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 44907.html

Mars

Hi,

I have been on the Internet since 1984. People have been predicting the end of the Internet as we know it almost continuously since that time. I recall when the 10th site joined, and folks predicted that it would collapse from having too many servers. Then the great renaming happened (everything was dot-net back then, and dot-com, dot-edu, and dot-mil were added), and folks predicted that confusion would cause the end of the net. Then total net volume exceeded 100-Megabytes one day, and folks thought it would collapse from volume. Then PC Pursuit closed (they had cheap phone rates at night), and folks said it would cost too much. Then Delphi joined the Internet, and folks said the idiot factor would kill the net. And on, and on, and on. Every time someone says that the Internet is going to die, it gets twice as big.

-john-

I agree with John.

... the beginning of the end of the internet as you know it

happens every day.

jweeks wrote:Hi,

I have been on the Internet since 1984. People have been predicting the end of the Internet as we know it almost continuously since that time. I recall when the 10th site joined, and folks predicted that it would collapse from having too many servers. Then the great renaming happened (everything was dot-net back then, and dot-com, dot-edu, and dot-mil were added), and folks predicted that confusion would cause the end of the net. Then total net volume exceeded 100-Megabytes one day, and folks thought it would collapse from volume. Then PC Pursuit closed (they had cheap phone rates at night), and folks said it would cost too much. Then Delphi joined the Internet, and folks said the idiot factor would kill the net. And on, and on, and on. Every time someone says that the Internet is going to die, it gets twice as big.

-john-

The changes to the Internet you referenced do not appear to be in the same category as this...

"Telecoms companies argue that being allowed to charge more to heavy-traffic internet companies will bring in the money needed to increase network capacity. Opponents fear a two-tier web, in which start-up companies and individual bloggers will be frozen out, and where prices for consumers could rise sharply."

Based on history, I can almost guarantee that the big corporations will get what they want, and if we, the customer, want to "play" we'll have to pay for it.

Personally, I would rather everyone pay a little more than have a 2-tier system, as long as the "little more" is used to "increase network capacity," and not just the corporations bottom line.

Hi All

Here is the latest from CNET

Google, Verizon propose Net neutrality framework
by Marguerite Reardon and Tom Krazit

CEOs from Google and Verizon Communications on Monday announced a proposal to policymakers for keeping the Internet open.

The companies jointly suggested a legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers. The major breakthrough in the proposal is an agreement that the nondiscrimination clause that the Federal Communications Commission has proposed as part of its regulatory efforts would be enforceable.

"We agree that, in addition to these existing principles, there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices," the proposal states. (See entire document embedded below.) "This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications, or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition."

In September last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed turning the commission's four principles of network openness into official regulation. And he suggested that the FCC add two more "principles" as part of these new rules.

The existing principles can be summarized this way: Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching nonharmful devices to the network.

Broadband service providers, such as AT&T and Verizon, have said they can live with these existing four principles becoming enforceable, and Verizon reiterated that in its joint proposal with Google. But the biggest sticking point in this debate has centered on one of Genachowski's additional principles. Specifically, the one that prevents Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications.

Broadband providers have argued that without specific definitions and parameters, this nondiscrimination clause could prevent carriers from selling any kind of differentiated service.

But based on the policy statement issued by Verizon and Google, the two sides have reached an agreement on how best to handle nondiscrimination, while protecting broadband providers' right to provide differentiated services. In exchange for agreeing to not discriminate or prioritize traffic on the public network, the phone company wants there to be safeguards in new regulations or laws that protect a broadband service provider's right to develop new services.

"Our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today," the companies' policy proposal states. "This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services...Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules."
"We said we agree that there should be no paid prioritization of traffic over the public Internet. Google (and others) will continue to innovate, and we have to feed that cookie monster. All we have asked is that we are allowed to offer services like Fios."
--Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg

Some examples of services the companies mention include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. During a conference call with reporters, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg further explained that Verizon wanted to keep the option for broadband providers to sell network capacity to companies willing to pay for that service to deliver higher quality service.

Because the Internet is a best effort network--meaning no traffic get priority and is instead first come first serve--some bandwidth intensive services, such as high-definition or 3D video, would benefit greatly from having their own dedicated slice of bandwidth. Seidenberg said he has no intention of selling priority traffic slots over the public Internet. But he wanted to make certain that Verizon had the option to sell dedicated capacity to potential customers over its dedicated network.

Verizon already runs its Fios TV over such a dedicated network. And for years, Verizon and other phone companies with nationwide IP network coverage have sold premium, dedicated bandwidth services to corporations.

"We have to be flexible," said Seidenberg. "Verizon is standing tall. We said we agree that there should be no paid prioritization of traffic over the public Internet. Google (and others) will continue to innovate, and we have to feed that cookie monster. All we have asked is that we are allowed to offer services like Fios."

The companies have been working together on the Net neutrality issue for almost a year. In October, they issued a shared statement of principles on Net neutrality. And then, a few months later, they submitted a joint filing to the FCC. In late March, the CEOs discussed their interest in an open Internet through an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

Reports had surfaced that the two companies were contemplating some sort of commercial business deal as they developed their joint proposal for policy makers, but Google CEO Eric Schmidt insisted during the conference call that there was no such deal, and that the announcement released Monday was just a "a joint policy announcement."

"There is no business arrangement, and reports that there were a business arrangement were false, misleading, and not correct," Schmidt said. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg reiterated Schmidt's comments, saying "there is no prioritization of any traffic that comes from Google, period."

Schmidt also discounted speculation that Google may be considering launching new services that would use some of Verizon's dedicated bandwidth. He said Google does not plan on developing products or services that run over anything but the public Internet. "We like the public Internet and we're going to use it," he said.

As previously mentioned, the principles in the proposal would not apply to wireless networks, which Seidenberg said are "in a slightly different place" compared to wireline networks. Verizon was concerned that new regulations on wireless networks before they were completely evolved could present problems in optimizing their performance, he said.

"We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly," the companies said in their policy statement." In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement."

cheers

Mars

And more on this troubling issue from PC World

If you buy more gasoline than the guy in line behind you, don't you expect to pay more for it?

If your lawn is twice as big as your neighbor's, do you not expect to pay more to have it mowed?

If your neighbor uses the city water to fill his Olympic-sized pool and you don't have a pool, don't you expect your neighbor to pay more for water than you do?

It is hard to tell from the articles, but this is all about Google not wanting to pay more for its YouTube video traffic which consumes large amounts of internet resources.

Do you want Johnny Goodman to have to pay as much for this low-internet-resource-utililization forum, as Google does for the heavy-resource-usage YouTube videos? Google does. Google wants to make an unholy deal with our government to entrench their position and keep their profits up.

Let the market determine the prices and keep the government out of it. The internet has done quite well without the government. Once the Feds decide to setup a large regulatory bureaucracy and start promulgating internet regulations, we will all be screwed.

Get educated before you vote.

Hi All

Here is an update from the BBC -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11892142

cheers

Mars

roster wrote:The internet has done quite well without the government. Once the Feds decide to setup a large regulatory bureaucracy and start promulgating internet regulations, we will all be screwed.

Interesting you should say that. The Internet owes a lot of its history and communications protocols to work done under the direction of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the 1960s. Hard to be more government than that.

idamtnboy wrote:

roster wrote:The internet has done quite well without the government. Once the Feds decide to setup a large regulatory bureaucracy and start promulgating internet regulations, we will all be screwed.

Interesting you should say that. The Internet owes a lot of its history and communications protocols to work done under the direction of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the 1960s. Hard to be more government than that.

Please tell me you know the difference between an agency with no regulatory powers and a regulatory bureaucracy.

Amigo wrote:And more on this troubling issue from PC World

and still more -

http://www.pcworld.com/article/213150/AT and Ts_perversion_of_free_speech_would_let_it_control_the_internet.html?tk=nl_dnx_h_crawl

Mars

The world wide web as we know it spontaneously reinvents itself several times a year.

A much more serious threat to the web are malicious denial of service attacks, which are becoming increasingly more common events

Cheers,

Bill

The Internet is responsible for many of us spending money where we never would have otherwise.
To limit consumer access would be, at this point, very, very bad for business.