If the video doesn’t load, click here.
Imagine…
It’s the year 2010, not long from now, and things haven’t changed much. There are still no flying cars, teleportation devices, or virtual reality porn chambers, but the world remains hopeful. Things seem to be continually advancing as they always have, and you wonder what you are missing. There must be some point or inner reason why I told you to imagine about the future right?
So you do what any rational human being would do and head to the nearest library computer to ask the almighty and omniscient Google for help. You type in the address and hit enter, but wonder of all wonders, nothing comes up but a blank screen and this message:
Yo, you’re trying to access the awesomeness of Google from a library. Libraries are prohibited from viewing any bitchin’ sites unless you are willing to pay an additional fee or you’re on the Preferred Library Book Checkout list. Thanks for your cooperation,
Your ISP of Doom
Your ISP of Doom
”What the hell?” you say to yourself as you desperately type in various web site addresses. “Oh hellz nah.” you mutter as you can no longer play Yahtzee at Games.com. “Fuck!” you shout as you can’t view Lonelygirl15’s newest video on YouTube. “This can’t be happening!” you scream as you realize you’re blocked from viewing nearly 3 years of unread Myspace messages. What could have caused this cyber catastrophe? What evil force is behind it?
You grab the guy next to you and ask him why you can’t check out your favorite sites anymore, and the guy responds, “Whoa brainchild, where ya been runnin’? 1984? It’s the two-tier net, and you’re not preferred.” He says this as he scans his barcode tattooed wrist with the laser mouse and Google’s homepage suddenly appears. “Hey,” he asks, looking at your wrist. “Wheres your scancode? Oh shit, you’re illegal! Someone call immigration!”He tries to grab you, but you click the heels of your ruby red slippers three times while reciting, “There’s no place like home” and bust ass out of this horrible nightmare. You’re glad to be back in good ol’ 2007 and wonder what went wrong to have caused that evil future…
What you just experienced is the result of the two-tiered internet, your internet service provider’s (ISP) avenue of content control over the net. For the last couple years, the concept of a two-tiered internet has been circling online since the recent popularity of media driven tv and video web sites like YouTube.com. ISP’s have noticed this and want to start charging additional fees to users and web sites in order to view them, or create “preferred” services that only certain users can have.
If the video doesn’t load, click here.
Up till recently, the internet has strived under a single principle of equality known as the “network neutrality principle”. This principle asserts that ISP’s provide data to users equally without bias as to what the data/content is or who receives it.
The network neutrality principle has benefitted the internet, and everyone involved in it since the inception of the internet’s creation. Users have always been freely able to visit any site/content they have wanted to without restriction from their ISP. Businesses (especially small ones) have been able to become successful because of the free market the internet creates which allows any business no matter how great or small equal access and usability. Even ISP’s themselves have benefitted from this principle, because they aren’t liable for the content that users see on the net.
A two-tier internet threatens this universality of the network neutrality principle by restricting access to certain web sites/businesses, or restricting access to certain preferential treated users. This would mean that some users would not be able to view some sites unless they paid additional fees, and some businesses wouldn’t receive certain users if they didn’t pay additional fees.
In my opinion, it is unethical, and totally undermines the greatness of the net and the 1st Amendment. It puts at risk the equality, choice, and freedom we’ve all had as users so the ISP’s can gain control to reap the almighty dollar. It makes me sick to my stomach. The fact that the US Justice Department is backing it is ironic to the utmost degree. Justice use to mean fairness, so please someone out there tell me what’s fair about removing freedoms?The good news is that the FCC plays the unlikely hero who may save the internet. The FCC has been enforcing net neutrality among companies who may want to control how a consumer uses the internet. But is there anything you can do to help? Of course! The Savetheinternet.com Coalition is fighting to make sure that net neutrality remains on the internet forever. You can write the FCC and let them know how much net neutrality means to you as they are currently inquiring about protecting it or letting the telcom companies control the internet’s use.
It’s not too late to make your voice heard!
Additional resources:
Wikipedia: Network neutrality
Wikipedia: Tiered Internet
US backing for two-tier internet
Towards a two-tier internet
Why the net should stay neutral
Web inventor warns of ‘dark’ net
How Would Two-Tier Internet Work?
Greed Watch: The Two Tier Internet
Exposing the Justice Department’s Hit Job Against an Open Internet
Your Blog has Been Featured In BlogCarnivals.. Keep Up the good work,
all we ask for is a Technoratti Fave if you like the post.
http://technorati.com/faves?sub=addfavbtn&add=http://blogcarnivals.blogspot.com
Nobody is talking about restricting access to certain websites. This “Save the Internet” group would have you believe that’s the case because they are essentially an anti-business group, and the details are much more mundane.
A tiered Internet only pertains to whether information packet delivery is “best effort” or guaranteed. Currently, all Internet traffic is best-effort, like the US mail. ISPs want to offer guaranteed delivery to companies that want to pay for it. While it doesn’t really matter to you and me, mostly dealing with text on websites, guaranteed delivery could be crucial if you want to stream high-def video.
I’m not a neutral (hehe) observer, I consult on the matter for a group called Hands Off the Internet. Feel free to check out our blog at http://handsoff.org — I think you might find the subject is both more complicated and less interesting than Save the Internet makes it out ot be.
Well, there are lots of people talking about it, but I guess your point is that the ISP’s aren’t specifically talking about restricting access. My point is that what the ISP’s are wanting to do, by regulating the quality of their connections to certain sites/users for a fee opens up a slippery slope in which the consequences people are afraid of are more likely to happen. All it takes is a foot in the door and carelessness by people to lose freedoms. The internet is based on a level of equality, that’s net neutrality. Giving preferential treatment to certain sites or users because they pay more diminishes that equality and net neutrality.
Besides, if it’s streaming high-def video that the ISP’s are worried about, why don’t they develop a faster internet connection technology like fiber optic broadband, or video streaming technology? The reason is, because it’s much easier to charge someone, anyone (web sites or users), the cost to connect faster, then developing a technology that will better a system overall.
My questions is, what’s the greater risk? The possibility of losing net neutrality, or the possibility of not being able to stream that high-def video?
I’ll check out the link to Hand’s Off, thanks for commenting.
Economics and Social Policy - XXXIV…
Welcome to the September 16, 2007 edition of Economics and Social Policy….
Alex, thanks for the considerate reply. You are correct that prioritization of packets is a short-term solution to the bandwidth crunch. The answer, over the long run, is absolutely more broadband capacity.
As you indicate, it can also be very expensive and time-consuming to improve the technologies, and then to actually lay all the pipe. The backbone of the Internet is fast enough, but the real slowdown comes in the “last mile” - where many homes still depend on copper wire. But progress is being made — Verizon, who is not a member of our coalition, has spent billions to roll out its FiOS service nationwide (if you live in the right areas, the commercials with the little kid explaining the technology is impossible to avoid). AT&T, who is a member, has their U-verse service on the way shortly.
One of the concerns with the Senate net neutrality bill, called Dorgan-Snowe, is that by placing pre-emptive restrictions on how ISPs can monetize their pipes, then more investment might be harder to come by. Which stands to reason — if it’s harder to earn a return on an investment, you’ll be less likely to make it.
And to address the “slippery slope” — remember that there are antitrust laws in place to correct anticompetitive behavior. A demonstrable pattern of blocking access to particular websites or web services would fall under that category. Which is itself another reason why new laws just don’t make sense here.
Hey again Dave,
Sorry about the belated reply. Yeah, it’s good that Verizon is implementing FiOS, and I think it is these new technologies that ISP’s should be trying to developing/invest in. I don’t see why it is necessary now that ISP’s think that need to start, “monetizing” their pipes because broadband usage has increased. Any intelligent person could realize that that would be the case, so I don’t think they really have much of an excuse or reason to monetize their pipes. If they failed to prepare, other people shouldn’t have to pay for it.
The internet has been around for decades without ISP’s needing to monetize their pipes in this way, and I don’t think an increase in bandwidth requirements justifies the need to charge the businesses that create the content.
In regards to a slippery slope, it is a problem because it is progressive. Even though there are antitrust laws in place now to correct any anticompetitive behavior, that doesn’t mean that later in the future more laws won’t be passed in favor of ISP’s to gain more control over their pipes and the content that is served. The first steps are happening right now. Maybe ISP’s won’t be able to block any site, but it seems likely they’ll have the choice of who they offer their “guaranteed delivery” to, and certain companies shouldn’t have a competitive edge in this fashion. In the end, if companies do start paying fees to ISP’s for better service, the costs are only going to be handed down to us, the users.
The common saying is that, in the end, the consumers end up paying anyway. In the online age I’m not so sure that’s true. Instead, it may be the advertisers who absorb costs of higher bandwidth. After all, the fact of the matter is that bandwidth is limited, and we need to figure out how to get from here to there without causing pain for consumers.
We are coming to a point here where it’s less and less feasible for ISPs to offer completely unlimited access, because there just isn’t the bandwidth. I have no idea whether Comcast is really slowing down BitTorrent traffic, but it’s hard to argue they don’t have any reason to do so. Every non-BT user is essentially subsidizing the relative few BT users out there.
I’ll be honest, I love BitTorrent — it’s the only way to catch up on shows that aren’t on DVD yet. But the current system isn’t sustainable, and there isn’t a conspiracy theory to it, it’s a real constraint even the telcos and cablecos are up against. There’s a major bandwidth crunch on the way, unless we start building out the next-gen Internet. So FiOS and U-Verse are good steps in that direction, and with those last-mile augmentations, you and I will never experience slowdown from prioritizing packets. As far as we’ll be concerned, the Internet will keep getting faster. (Even if not quite as fast as Japan. But to be fair, they have a fraction of the land we do.)
I see your point that the advertisers may absorb the costs of higher bandwidth, but it still trickles down to someone else.
As far as the BitTorrent users eating up bandwidth for everyone else, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Everyone that has an account with an ISP has limits on their bandwidth anyway (like mine with Earthlink is 4MB downloads), and people should be able to use that bandwidth they are paying for.
I don’t really agree with BitTorrent sites, as they typically distribute content that isn’t legal for sharing, like software, music, movies, and television programs. Oh, and using BitTorrent isn’t the only way to watch missed episodes of your favorite tv shows. Lots of television sites allow you to watch episodes. I watch LOST, Heroes, and several others this way.
[...] Landis presents Cyber Bias: The Threat of a Two-Tiered Internet posted at AlexLandis.com, saying, “A two-tiered internet is getting closer and threatens the [...]
I have been a but confused by the issue, myself. Part of my concern with broadband is that since cable operators are granted effective monopoly by municipal franchise, that they want to be able to have an add-on charge that we really won’t have a choice accepting or not accepting.
And Comcast allready charges for increased bandwidth to users through the Speedboost option. I’ll have to look into this more, and as for now I am leaning towards net neutrality. I do appreciate Dave adding to the discussion, though.
[...] Landis presents Cyber Bias: The Threat of a Two-Tiered Internet posted at [...]
Hi!
Information Security Carnival 3rd edition is up here, and your article was selected!
Comment, link to us! Spread the word!
[...] Landis presents Cyber Bias: The Threat of a Two-Tiered Internet posted at AlexLandis.com, saying, “A two-tiered internet is getting closer and threatens the [...]
Columbus Day Carnival of Principled Government…
About 1435, a baby boy was born who grew enjoying the busy seaport of Genoa, Italy. Inspired by the ships pulling in and out of the harbor, young Christopher Columbus decided he did not want to be a cloth maker like his father. “His education, t…
[...] Landis presents Cyber Bias: The Threat of a Two-Tiered Internet posted at AlexLandis.com, saying, "A two-tiered internet is getting closer and threatens the [...]
[...] Landis presents Cyber Bias: The Threat of a Two-Tiered Internet posted at AlexLandis.com, saying, “A two-tiered internet is getting closer and threatens the [...]
[...] Landis presents Cyber Bias: The Threat of a Two-Tiered Internet posted at AlexLandis.com, saying, “A two-tiered internet is getting closer and threatens the [...]