B
B1ackwater
Guest
CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- In 1995, the first warning was raised: The throngs of
people swarming to the Internet would overwhelm the system in 1996.
For more than a decade, that fear has proven untrue.
Until right about now. The growing popularity of video on the Net has
driven a traffic increase that's putting strains on service providers,
particularly cable companies. To deal with it, they have had to change
the way they convey Internet data.
And they've done this in secret, raising concerns -- by Web companies,
consumer groups and the chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission -- that the nature of the Internet is being altered in ways
that are difficult to divine.
But as traffic grows, there are signs that these subtle and secret
controls are insufficient, and will give way to more overt measures.
For instance, we could find ourselves paying not just for the speed of
our connection, but for how much we download. Already, some ISPs are
hindering file-sharing traffic, and AT&T Inc. is talking about
blocking pirated content.
The issue is coming to a head this year, as the FCC is investigating
complaints from consumer groups and legal scholars that Comcast Corp.,
the country's largest cable ISP, secretly hampered file sharing by its
subscribers. File sharing, which allows Internet users to download
movies, music and software among each other with software like
BitTorrent and KaZaa, has been a haven for piracy, though legal uses
are proliferating as well.
By interfering with traffic, the groups said, Comcast is determining
what will and won't work, violating the Internet's unwritten tradition
of "net neutrality" -- the principle that traffic be treated equally.
The FCC has adopted a broad policy that Internet service providers
can't block specific applications. But its interpretation of that
statement is not clear, because it hasn't had to rule on a similar
case. Crucially, the policy makes an exemption for "reasonable traffic
management," which Comcast says its practices fall under.
The FCC case will be closely watched by ISPs, because it appears that
most of them use some kind of traffic management, slowing down less
time-sensitive traffic, like file sharing, to keep Web surfing snappy.
Whereas earlier doom scenarios for the Internet mostly concerned the
"highways" that move traffic around the country, the chokepoints that
are appearing are actually close to our homes. It's your neighbors
that are the problem.
- - - - -
Well ... it's actually been pretty impressive - how
long technological fixes could keep up with net access
and bandwidth demands. Alas those demands keep growing
faster than the fixes can fix, so there had to be a
point where supply would fall behind demand.
Seems that's NOW.
The other day I happened across a webcam showing what
looked to be a kind of 'internet cafe' in Budapest.
A couple-dozen people were in the field of view. While
you couldn't see exactly what was on their screens
you COULD tell that every single one was watching
videos. No doubt this scene is replicated in umteen
million businesses and homes across the world. There's
surely a bunch of guys in outer Mongolia watching
porn movies from a server in Los Angeles.
There's a limit.
Yes, that limit IS being pushed back - but not FAST
enough anymore. Com links and servers are overloaded
and ISPs have to make certain choices about WHAT
to keep ultra-fast and what to slow down or eliminate.
They may also consider HOW to make these choices ...
for everybody all of the time - or maybe they could
reduce traffic by charging a premium price for full-
speed unlimited service.
Pay more, get more ... not exactly a new or unusual
business concept.
But then there's the OTHER side of "less" ... less WHAT ?
From the article, it sounds as if thinking is going beyond
just "less speed" and into the realm of "selective content".
That would mean that average users would get not only a
slower internet but a SMALLER internet.
Who decides what to make "smaller" ? What are their criteria
likely to be ? Whose servers and/or web pages and/or files
get disconnected from the mainstream ? What WON'T you get
to know, what WON'T you get to do ?
Will Homeland-S, the FCC and spooks get involved - try to
censor "ideologically undesireable content" ? Will big biz
act to censor anything they'd rather make money from ? Who
will whisper in their ears - Jerry Falwells ghost ? Holy
Huckabee ? Ultra-'left' ? Ultra-'right' ? The military ?
Your Mommy ?
A slower mainstream internet is an acceptable consequence
of extreme bandwidth demands ... but a smaller internet is
just NOT acceptable because that makes some people "more equal"
than others in terms of the information they can access and
the potential manipulation and abuse of content restrictions.
NEW YORK (AP) -- In 1995, the first warning was raised: The throngs of
people swarming to the Internet would overwhelm the system in 1996.
For more than a decade, that fear has proven untrue.
Until right about now. The growing popularity of video on the Net has
driven a traffic increase that's putting strains on service providers,
particularly cable companies. To deal with it, they have had to change
the way they convey Internet data.
And they've done this in secret, raising concerns -- by Web companies,
consumer groups and the chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission -- that the nature of the Internet is being altered in ways
that are difficult to divine.
But as traffic grows, there are signs that these subtle and secret
controls are insufficient, and will give way to more overt measures.
For instance, we could find ourselves paying not just for the speed of
our connection, but for how much we download. Already, some ISPs are
hindering file-sharing traffic, and AT&T Inc. is talking about
blocking pirated content.
The issue is coming to a head this year, as the FCC is investigating
complaints from consumer groups and legal scholars that Comcast Corp.,
the country's largest cable ISP, secretly hampered file sharing by its
subscribers. File sharing, which allows Internet users to download
movies, music and software among each other with software like
BitTorrent and KaZaa, has been a haven for piracy, though legal uses
are proliferating as well.
By interfering with traffic, the groups said, Comcast is determining
what will and won't work, violating the Internet's unwritten tradition
of "net neutrality" -- the principle that traffic be treated equally.
The FCC has adopted a broad policy that Internet service providers
can't block specific applications. But its interpretation of that
statement is not clear, because it hasn't had to rule on a similar
case. Crucially, the policy makes an exemption for "reasonable traffic
management," which Comcast says its practices fall under.
The FCC case will be closely watched by ISPs, because it appears that
most of them use some kind of traffic management, slowing down less
time-sensitive traffic, like file sharing, to keep Web surfing snappy.
Whereas earlier doom scenarios for the Internet mostly concerned the
"highways" that move traffic around the country, the chokepoints that
are appearing are actually close to our homes. It's your neighbors
that are the problem.
- - - - -
Well ... it's actually been pretty impressive - how
long technological fixes could keep up with net access
and bandwidth demands. Alas those demands keep growing
faster than the fixes can fix, so there had to be a
point where supply would fall behind demand.
Seems that's NOW.
The other day I happened across a webcam showing what
looked to be a kind of 'internet cafe' in Budapest.
A couple-dozen people were in the field of view. While
you couldn't see exactly what was on their screens
you COULD tell that every single one was watching
videos. No doubt this scene is replicated in umteen
million businesses and homes across the world. There's
surely a bunch of guys in outer Mongolia watching
porn movies from a server in Los Angeles.
There's a limit.
Yes, that limit IS being pushed back - but not FAST
enough anymore. Com links and servers are overloaded
and ISPs have to make certain choices about WHAT
to keep ultra-fast and what to slow down or eliminate.
They may also consider HOW to make these choices ...
for everybody all of the time - or maybe they could
reduce traffic by charging a premium price for full-
speed unlimited service.
Pay more, get more ... not exactly a new or unusual
business concept.
But then there's the OTHER side of "less" ... less WHAT ?
From the article, it sounds as if thinking is going beyond
just "less speed" and into the realm of "selective content".
That would mean that average users would get not only a
slower internet but a SMALLER internet.
Who decides what to make "smaller" ? What are their criteria
likely to be ? Whose servers and/or web pages and/or files
get disconnected from the mainstream ? What WON'T you get
to know, what WON'T you get to do ?
Will Homeland-S, the FCC and spooks get involved - try to
censor "ideologically undesireable content" ? Will big biz
act to censor anything they'd rather make money from ? Who
will whisper in their ears - Jerry Falwells ghost ? Holy
Huckabee ? Ultra-'left' ? Ultra-'right' ? The military ?
Your Mommy ?
A slower mainstream internet is an acceptable consequence
of extreme bandwidth demands ... but a smaller internet is
just NOT acceptable because that makes some people "more equal"
than others in terms of the information they can access and
the potential manipulation and abuse of content restrictions.