Tag Archives: Net Neutrality

The Open Internet… if you have a wire

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, Google and Verizon announced a shared Internet policy, in an attempt to define Net Neutrality. This seems to be a fist step for the two to change the debate of Net Neutrality form “open access to the Internet” to “open access if you have a wired connection.” What is missing is that while they have stated in their policy that wireless broadband is different this is a bit of a smoke screen. It is true that this uses wireless spectrum that is a finite resources but this is used for the last leg of the journey. If I request a webpage on my phone, it does not magically radiate through the air to my phone for the whole journey. It is delivered from the web server where it is hosted and travels the Internet backbone to my phone companies wired network.  Until finally, it launches into the air from the nearest cell tower, likely by way of a satellite first, to my phone. It is the last leg of the journey that is wireless after it traverses the wired Internet. So, by extension they are seeking to regulate wired traffic, even if by proxy so to speak.

The type of actions that are implied by this policy indicate “evil” to put it in Google terms. Google has a motto of “do no evil” but in this case they are precisely targeting the dark side. Verizon and other communication companies have tried to tread these waters before and it has not set well with the public. When this policy was announced it was under the guise of moving the debate forward. I think that they are searching for the correct words to guide the public down the slippery slope, that  side steps the principles of Net Neutrality. I hope and encourage  the public become involved in the debate because we cannot leave this in the hands of the corporate interests.

The Open Internet

Posted on by
Reply

There was a big buzz over the alleged talks between Google and Verizon. I will have to admit that I was quite nervous as Google has become one of the largest holders of personal data and if they decide that profit is the only motivator it could get messy. The NY Times original broke the story that Verizon was going to grant priority to Google data on they network. And if it is not true as Google has claimed on Twitter, then where did they get their information? More and more it seems, the number stories that are published based on rumor and conjecture is ever increasing.

As a consumer we need to be ever vigilant to address the modern challenges that society presents. If Google houses great pile of our personal information, we can become exposed at any time either by Google’s actions or lack of action. We must also guard against misinformation that is propagated in the media. Many news outlets echoed the Google/Verizon story and had Google not denied the charges, it may have spiraled into a tech news frenzy. Net Neutrality is not a subject that the media or public should take lightly. This time it looks as if the story is false but maybe next time we may not be as fortunate.

Net Neutrality: Why no public concern? – Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

NetPlug2.jpg Will Industry pull the plug on open Internet access?

Many other stakeholders would like to have regulations enacted on Internet traffic. The entertainment companies that produce media content are interested in protecting their works. There are several stories that have covered the trading of video and music content. The media companies want to protect their profits by restricting the illegal trading their content through inspecting internet traffic. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner have all lobbied against Net Neutrality and could be a gatekeeper position without pro-neutrality regulation.

Many companies have announced support of Net Neutrality. Google, Amazon.com, Ebay, Microsoft and many content producing organizations have made officially statements. Educational related institutions such as the Educause and the ALA (American Library Association) have made pro-neutrality statements as have journalist groups. The FCC has taken a pro-neutrality stance as well, reiterating the need to stand up for consumers rights. Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has sponsored a bill, HR 5353, that requires;

High-speed access providers, primarily cable and phone companies, to adhere to nondiscriminatory principles, while still managing their networks to combat spam, child pornography, illegally distributed movies, software and TV shows.

This subject affects the general public but many are unaware of the impact for themselves, if they are even aware of the subject at all. When an ISP’s customers access the Internet, the consumer does not apply much thought to the choses of content they request. Information and service can be requested without thought but what if access to Google, the search engine, was restricted or throttled by the ISP. If it were decided that Google searches were taking up to many resources on the ISP’s network, it’s services could simply be restricted. Then the ISP could offer Google search services as a premium service to consumers and require additional charges for access to Google. This is just one example of a service that could be restricted but “Google search” could be replaced with any service that the ISPs could up-sell to the consumer. This model is similar to the cable television where there is a basic service and then charges for the more desirable services. Is it better for consumers to use this model or a dumb network model? The “dumb” network model is where consumer pays for a connection and data is transmitted through the network from point-to-point with no regard to the content. Consumers have become accustomed to little or no restriction to their Internet access but severe restrictions are a real possibility. This also becomes a social issue because if people cannot afford access to the premium information we will create another division to hold down those less fortunate. Consumers need to be concerned because if Network Neutrality is shelved they will be affected, and the results are not likely to be in the consumer’s favor.

Since the FCC ruling against Comcast they have made a few more anti-neutral moves. They are challenging the ruling from the FCC in the U.S. District court of Appeals in Washington D.C., and I am sure that this will take a few months at least. In additions Comcast has announced a new bandwidth cap for their customers of 250Gb, wheich they stated would only affect 1% of customers. I agree that currently, this would affect only a few but it appears that this is a proactive action limit. As customer start to consumers more online media over the next few years their usage will creep closer if not exceed this limit and Comcast will have set previous prescient that will be more difficult to appose. How do consumer combat these restrictions? Easy, with their wallets! They can purchase their services elsewhere.

The public needs to become familiar with this issues because it has lasting impact for consumers finances and future possibilities of services. This is a complex issue with a scope that goes well beyond what can be discussed here but it need serious study and review. If the content and services are filtered by a few companies this is likely going to inhibit innovation. This is also a First Amendment issue by restricting free speech communication between consumers and independent content producers on the Internet. But if no filtering is implemented or it is limited many more options will be available for consumers and companies alike. The Internet has been compared to the “Wild West” which is not inaccurate. This phrase conjures up visions of exploration and innovation. The western exploration was a exciting time for the country and we now have similar opportunities with the explosion of the Internet. This is not the time to restrict innovation that may inhibit the growth of the U.S. markets and consumer experience.