The end of the internet as we know it

This too shall pass.

The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Apollonius » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:32 pm

Is the U.S. giving up the keys to the internet? - Kierran Petersen, BBC News, 10 April 2014
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26965949



The US government recently announced that it would be handing off the reins of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), an organisation tasked with assigning and managing domain names and IP addresses worldwide.


While the transfer of power won't happen until September 2015 and has been planned since the organisation's creation in 1998, some reactions have been panicked, to put it lightly.

This transfer of power could mean the end of a single united internet, writes Keith Darnay for the Bismarck Tribune.

Darnay wonders what happens if September 2015 arrives and no organisation is ready to take control. Perhaps the US agrees to stay in a leadership position until the new digital overseers are in place, but other countries get nervous and start developing their own internets.

"Indeed, we may be living in the waning days of the Internet's 'Golden Age,'" he writes, "a time when we were tantalisingly close to being united in a single digital world."

John C Dvorak thinks that the US giving up Icann will change the course of the internet forever.

"Enjoy the internet while you can," he writes for PC Magazine. "America has waved the white flag. Decades from now, we will look back at the glory days fondly."

He continues:

Porn, of course, will be the first thing to go. We all know there is too much on the net and it is too freely available. But this is not the job for Icann. Will it become the job of the next group to come along? You can count on it. Forget net neutrality; content neutrality is over.

Others predict that the internet will fall under the sway of governments they fear are uninterested in electronic freedom.

"It's been a good month for Vladimir Putin: He got Crimea and the internet," writes L Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal.

The US has used its level of control to make sure that access to the internet and content is free from political interference, he writes. If the US follows through with this plan, the alternative is a weak international body fending off governments who will try to use their influence to silence their critics.

"China could get its wish to remove FreeTibet.org from the internet as an affront to its sovereignty," Crovitz writes. "Russia could force Twitter to remove posts by Ukrainian-Americans criticising Vladimir Putin."

The editors of the Orange County Register take issue with the explanations behind the future transfer. Along with many commentators, they point to the Edward Snowden revelations about the National Security Agency as the reason behind the US's decision to hand over Icann, the idea being that perhaps the US can buy back some global trust.

"Trading away control in exchange for the ephemeral - or completely illusory - goodwill of foreign governments is unforgivably naive and can only damage the causes of free speech and freedom of information for everyone," they write.

Julian Assange speaks to the BBC's technology programme

Julian Assange, the founder of the anti-secrecy website Wikileaks, counters that a division of the internet might not be such a bad thing.

"I think the impulse to do it is quite important and will lead to good things and should be supported," he told the BBC. "The devil is in the details in terms of how these communications links actually operate."

Mr Assange said that it would be difficult to build a European internet because of the number of backdoor deals conducted between Europe and the US. If those deals can't be stopped, than another organisation - presumably Assange's own Wikileaks - has to step up and publish what these governments are up to.

"For any organisation to be accountable, the buck has to stop with someone," he says.

Others are suggesting that we all try to understand the role of Icann a little bit better.

"The internet is a collective hallucination, one of the best humanity has ever generated," writes Jonathan Zittrain for New Republic. "To be sure, it is delicate in many ways, with its unowned character threatened from many quarters. But rest easy that Icann isn't one of them."

He says that it is almost impossible for Icann to get involved in a way that could prohibit free speech, as all it does is decide who runs each list of names. The US government has had little impact on how the organisation has run so far, he contends, and Icann cannot tax internet usage. If anyone tried to change that, there would be a powerful backlash.

"Anyone trying to tighten the screws too much will simply strip them," Zittrain writes.

Icann chief Fadi Chehade has published a blog post attempting to correct some inaccuracies and misconceptions.

He writes that giving up Icann is not the same as surrendering control of the internet. He adds that the move is not a response to Mr Snowden's information, would not lead to a division of the internet, and would not affect the general public. He believes critics are distracted by all of this misinformation and missing the larger point.

"Instead of politicising the debate over the US government's decision to transition stewardship of the internet's technical functions, let's move forward with the discussion we need to have - how to engage in the necessary discussion to develop an effective transition process, one that continues to ensure an open internet that belongs to everyone," he says.

Hiawatha Bray of the Boston Globe wonders why this transition is necessary. Why fix something that isn't broken?

He says he doesn't expect the handover to be a disaster, as the Obama administration has made clear that it intends to prevent any governments from taking control of the organisation. Ideally, Icann would be a truly independent agency with no motivation to censor or impose restrictions.

"Done right, it might work," he writes. "But today's Icann already works, and I can't think of a good reason to do away with it."

Whatever happens, the editors of the Washington Post think that the US is in the end responsible.

They write that the US commerce department has to ensure that the internet's new stewards are free from outside influences that would make it harder for them to do their important administrative work.

"The commerce department's contract with Icann expires next year," they note. "If the non-profit hasn't organised itself to ensure the continued functioning of an open, free and functional Internet by then, US authorities should not let global politics stop them from extending their supervision."
User avatar
Apollonius
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:32 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby monster_gardener » Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:00 pm

Apollonius wrote:Is the U.S. giving up the keys to the internet? - Kierran Petersen, BBC News, 10 April 2014
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26965949



The US government recently announced that it would be handing off the reins of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann), an organisation tasked with assigning and managing domain names and IP addresses worldwide.


While the transfer of power won't happen until September 2015 and has been planned since the organisation's creation in 1998, some reactions have been panicked, to put it lightly.

This transfer of power could mean the end of a single united internet, writes Keith Darnay for the Bismarck Tribune.

Darnay wonders what happens if September 2015 arrives and no organisation is ready to take control. Perhaps the US agrees to stay in a leadership position until the new digital overseers are in place, but other countries get nervous and start developing their own internets.

"Indeed, we may be living in the waning days of the Internet's 'Golden Age,'" he writes, "a time when we were tantalisingly close to being united in a single digital world."

John C Dvorak thinks that the US giving up Icann will change the course of the internet forever.

"Enjoy the internet while you can," he writes for PC Magazine. "America has waved the white flag. Decades from now, we will look back at the glory days fondly."

He continues:

Porn, of course, will be the first thing to go. We all know there is too much on the net and it is too freely available. But this is not the job for Icann. Will it become the job of the next group to come along? You can count on it. Forget net neutrality; content neutrality is over.

Others predict that the internet will fall under the sway of governments they fear are uninterested in electronic freedom.

"It's been a good month for Vladimir Putin: He got Crimea and the internet," writes L Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal.

The US has used its level of control to make sure that access to the internet and content is free from political interference, he writes. If the US follows through with this plan, the alternative is a weak international body fending off governments who will try to use their influence to silence their critics.

"China could get its wish to remove FreeTibet.org from the internet as an affront to its sovereignty," Crovitz writes. "Russia could force Twitter to remove posts by Ukrainian-Americans criticising Vladimir Putin."

The editors of the Orange County Register take issue with the explanations behind the future transfer. Along with many commentators, they point to the Edward Snowden revelations about the National Security Agency as the reason behind the US's decision to hand over Icann, the idea being that perhaps the US can buy back some global trust.

"Trading away control in exchange for the ephemeral - or completely illusory - goodwill of foreign governments is unforgivably naive and can only damage the causes of free speech and freedom of information for everyone," they write.

Julian Assange speaks to the BBC's technology programme

Julian Assange, the founder of the anti-secrecy website Wikileaks, counters that a division of the internet might not be such a bad thing.

"I think the impulse to do it is quite important and will lead to good things and should be supported," he told the BBC. "The devil is in the details in terms of how these communications links actually operate."

Mr Assange said that it would be difficult to build a European internet because of the number of backdoor deals conducted between Europe and the US. If those deals can't be stopped, than another organisation - presumably Assange's own Wikileaks - has to step up and publish what these governments are up to.

"For any organisation to be accountable, the buck has to stop with someone," he says.

Others are suggesting that we all try to understand the role of Icann a little bit better.

"The internet is a collective hallucination, one of the best humanity has ever generated," writes Jonathan Zittrain for New Republic. "To be sure, it is delicate in many ways, with its unowned character threatened from many quarters. But rest easy that Icann isn't one of them."

He says that it is almost impossible for Icann to get involved in a way that could prohibit free speech, as all it does is decide who runs each list of names. The US government has had little impact on how the organisation has run so far, he contends, and Icann cannot tax internet usage. If anyone tried to change that, there would be a powerful backlash.

"Anyone trying to tighten the screws too much will simply strip them," Zittrain writes.

Icann chief Fadi Chehade has published a blog post attempting to correct some inaccuracies and misconceptions.

He writes that giving up Icann is not the same as surrendering control of the internet. He adds that the move is not a response to Mr Snowden's information, would not lead to a division of the internet, and would not affect the general public. He believes critics are distracted by all of this misinformation and missing the larger point.

"Instead of politicising the debate over the US government's decision to transition stewardship of the internet's technical functions, let's move forward with the discussion we need to have - how to engage in the necessary discussion to develop an effective transition process, one that continues to ensure an open internet that belongs to everyone," he says.

Hiawatha Bray of the Boston Globe wonders why this transition is necessary. Why fix something that isn't broken?

He says he doesn't expect the handover to be a disaster, as the Obama administration has made clear that it intends to prevent any governments from taking control of the organisation. Ideally, Icann would be a truly independent agency with no motivation to censor or impose restrictions.

"Done right, it might work," he writes. "But today's Icann already works, and I can't think of a good reason to do away with it."

Whatever happens, the editors of the Washington Post think that the US is in the end responsible.

They write that the US commerce department has to ensure that the internet's new stewards are free from outside influences that would make it harder for them to do their important administrative work.

"The commerce department's contract with Icann expires next year," they note. "If the non-profit hasn't organised itself to ensure the continued functioning of an open, free and functional Internet by then, US authorities should not let global politics stop them from extending their supervision."


Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Apollonius.

Very Glad that you posted this for discussion.

I did listen to a discussion about this on TV a few days ago......

Seems that other nations & the big Net firms like Google are all for it but I see no good reason to give away something that we/US developed for nothing/alleged good will......

Especially when Net firms have been known to go wobbly when a big clients like the Chinese Dragons confront them....

Am remembering that Chinese blogger who Yahoo betrayed some years ago.... :evil: :roll:

In 2000 and 2001, Wang, who was an engineer by profession,[2] posted electronic journals in a Yahoo! group calling for democratic reform and an end to single-party rule. He was arrested in September 2002, after Yahoo! assisted Chinese authorities by providing information used to identify him. In September 2003, Wang was convicted a charge of "incitement to subvert state power" and sentenced to ten years in prison.[3


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Xiaoning

I have too much respect for The Talented Mr. Putin, President Prince Vlad the Imprisoner of Russia, Crimea and maybe soon much more, to want him in a position to have ultimate influence over the Net........ :shock:

Likewise Xi Jinping, the Paramount Leader of the Chinese Dragons......... :o

And many other foreign powers........

But I doubt that Arrogant, Delusional, GLOBALIST, INCOMPETENT, Lazy, LYING, Willfully Stupid Son of a Bitch Eater obama goes along with this IMHO bad idea......

I suspect it is in his Green Globalist Blood........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
 
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Apollonius » Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:32 pm

Monster Gardener wrote:Seems that other nations & the big Net firms like Google are all for it but I see no good reason to give away something that we/US developed for nothing/alleged good will......


I agree.



U have too much respect for The Talented Mr. Putin, President Prince Vlad the Imprisoner of Russia, Crimea and maybe soon much more, to want him in a position to have ultimate influence over the Net........

Likewise Xi Jinping, the Paramount Leader of the Chinese Dragons.........

And many other foreign powers........



And once again, I agree. Americans, like all that came before them, have made many mistakes, but if the same rules of conduct are enforced that we see the UN General Assembly voting for *, we can expect disaster. China, Turkey, Iran, Russia, from the look of it, India too... What kind of internet will we have when they have international as opposed to strictly national control? It really will be the end of the internet as we know it.





* Example: "No insulting religion." Some religions and religious practices need to be insulted.
User avatar
Apollonius
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:32 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Zack Morris » Sat May 10, 2014 11:17 pm

This was something that was agreed before Obama. And more worrying is the FCC push to create pay-for-play "fast lanes", something that Republicans like John McCain have been fervently in favor of. But that's unregulated capitalism, of course. Preferential access is prohibited by regulation and would otherwise be the natural state of affairs. Likewise, allowing countries to control their own TLDs is in line with market capitalism.

Don't be so pessimistic, guys. Corporations will reach a fair equilibrium through fierce competition and that equilibrium will obviously be what maximizes our happiness and prosperity. Hooray for freedom!
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Miss_Faucie_Fishtits » Tue May 13, 2014 5:13 am

Can't really call it the Commons when the barons of the internets can graze it to perdition. If Adobe, Google and Oracle actually owned it, they might take better care of it....'>>......
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Zack Morris » Wed May 14, 2014 2:13 pm

How is it being "grazed to perdition"? Adobe, Google, Oracle, etc. "owning" the Internet and the right to shape traffic would be an obvious disaster.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Doc » Wed May 14, 2014 4:17 pm

Zack Morris wrote:This was something that was agreed before Obama.* And more worrying is the FCC push to create pay-for-play "fast lanes", something that Republicans like John McCain have been fervently in favor of. But that's unregulated capitalism, of course. Preferential access is prohibited by regulation and would otherwise be the natural state of affairs. Likewise, allowing countries to control their own TLDs is in line with market capitalism.

Don't be so pessimistic, guys. Corporations will reach a fair equilibrium through fierce competition and that equilibrium will obviously be what maximizes our happiness and prosperity. Hooray for freedom!


*Complete nonsense. Just compare the timeline before and after Obama became POTUS

http://whatisnetneutrality.org/timeline

It smells of the Obama FCC not trying very hard to keep network neutrality
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7758
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Enki » Thu May 15, 2014 12:38 am

The Net Neutrality argument is so distorted. Big players get a fast lane? OR the three players who use 50% of the ONLY LANE actually have to pay for it?

The number of lefty bloggers I know who think tehy are going to get throttled for their political beliefs is insane. OMG MY BLOG THAT IS A TOTAL OF 3MB with 1000 visitors loads 200ms slower! IT'S A CORPORATE COUP COMRADES!!!

And yeah, F Obama on Net Neutrality. Don't let him get a pass. Appointing Comcast to run the FCC...
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
 
Posts: 4939
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Doc » Thu May 15, 2014 2:39 am

Enki wrote:The Net Neutrality argument is so distorted. Big players get a fast lane? OR the three players who use 50% of the ONLY LANE actually have to pay for it?

The number of lefty bloggers I know who think tehy are going to get throttled for their political beliefs is insane. OMG MY BLOG THAT IS A TOTAL OF 3MB with 1000 visitors loads 200ms slower! IT'S A CORPORATE COUP COMRADES!!!

And yeah, F Obama on Net Neutrality. Don't let him get a pass. Appointing Comcast to run the FCC...


Comcast throttles connections it does not like. It has been caught doing that. And it is the number one pusher of getting rid of Net Neutrality as far as I have seen.

It is the company I trust least after several dealing I have had with them encluding threaten to bill them $1000.00 for explaining to their upper level tech support how the screwed up my connection and what they needed to do to fix it. At thatpoint they dropped the $85 dollar service call charge that they insisted on doing.

This is all about Comcast and like companies trying to put their cash cows on steroids. Their customers pay plenty for internet access to fund their back bone servers. They don't need any more than that and they don't need to stifle innovation via the internet.

TInker you are not ols enough to remember "princess phones" and addition charges for extra phone in your house. and perhap even ridiculous long distance charges. But if you get a chance look into it. That is what the big player ISPs want -- Ma bell for the 21st century
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7758
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Miss_Faucie_Fishtits » Thu May 15, 2014 3:49 am

Zack Morris wrote:How is it being "grazed to perdition"? Adobe, Google, Oracle, etc. "owning" the Internet and the right to shape traffic would be an obvious disaster.


A problem my neigbour is dealing with right now:

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/PUP

Unlike say..... ten years ago, going on the internet is like an activity toy for hyperactive toddlers. Bells, whistles, pop-ups, video loops, rollovers - endless distractions and annoyance just to look up random sites. Plus endless updates on the plugins and apps for watching all this stuff go, making its claim on the supposedly 'free' internet. So, we can either regulate it as a public good and preserve equal access for all players, or give it to the most aggressively opportunistic parties and hope they take care of it, in their own best commercial interests of course...'>>.......
User avatar
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Doc » Fri May 16, 2014 12:06 am

Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:How is it being "grazed to perdition"? Adobe, Google, Oracle, etc. "owning" the Internet and the right to shape traffic would be an obvious disaster.


A problem my neigbour is dealing with right now:

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/PUP

Unlike say..... ten years ago, going on the internet is like an activity toy for hyperactive toddlers. Bells, whistles, pop-ups, video loops, rollovers - endless distractions and annoyance just to look up random sites. Plus endless updates on the plugins and apps for watching all this stuff go, making its claim on the supposedly 'free' internet. So, we can either regulate it as a public good and preserve equal access for all players, or give it to the most aggressively opportunistic parties and hope they take care of it, in their own best commercial interests of course...'>>.......


It seems to me that Zack and Tinker want something akin to ObamaNet Where everyone pays more so a few more people, that don't have the internet, can have it Even though they may not even want the internet except for being taxed for not having it AND Obama's friends can make a killing.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-18-9_18-14/
9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
-- Luke 18:9 - 18:14
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7758
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Doc » Fri May 16, 2014 4:35 pm

Doc wrote:
Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:How is it being "grazed to perdition"? Adobe, Google, Oracle, etc. "owning" the Internet and the right to shape traffic would be an obvious disaster.


A problem my neigbour is dealing with right now:

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/PUP

Unlike say..... ten years ago, going on the internet is like an activity toy for hyperactive toddlers. Bells, whistles, pop-ups, video loops, rollovers - endless distractions and annoyance just to look up random sites. Plus endless updates on the plugins and apps for watching all this stuff go, making its claim on the supposedly 'free' internet. So, we can either regulate it as a public good and preserve equal access for all players, or give it to the most aggressively opportunistic parties and hope they take care of it, in their own best commercial interests of course...'>>.......


It seems to me that Zack and Tinker want something akin to ObamaNet Where everyone pays more so a few more people, that don't have the internet, can have it Even though they may not even want the internet except for being taxed for not having it AND Obama's friends can make a killing.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013 ... -chairman/
Uh-oh: AT&T and Comcast are ecstatic about the FCC’s new chairman
AT&T calls new chairman an "inspired pick," seeks end to "outdated" regulations.

by Jon Brodkin - May 1 2013, 5:40pm EST


http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-18-9_18-14/
9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
-- Luke 18:9 - 18:14
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7758
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Enki » Sun May 18, 2014 10:06 pm

Doc, I remember all of that. I also remember cell phones charging by the minute and market pressures changing that. I think.Google will make a huge play to compete and destroy a lot of the franchise monopolies.

I don't think it's going back to the 80s phone regime.

If Comcast already throttles then what is changing?
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
 
Posts: 4939
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby noddy » Mon May 19, 2014 5:08 am

the tv series Deadwood about covers it all for those that are confused.
noddy
 
Posts: 5285
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Zack Morris » Mon May 19, 2014 5:24 am

Doc wrote:It seems to me that Zack and Tinker want something akin to ObamaNet Where everyone pays more so a few more people, that don't have the internet, can have it Even though they may not even want the internet except for being taxed for not having it AND Obama's friends can make a killing.


As usual, your poor reading comprehension is handicapping you. Enki appears unconcerned by the new FCC rules. I favor net neutrality. Neither of us favors "ObamaNet", whatever that is. What I favor is the classification of broadband Internet as a telecommunications service and the preservation of content neutrality. Traffic should not be throttled based on content nor should preferential access fees be legal.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Zack Morris » Mon May 19, 2014 5:26 am

Enki wrote:Doc, I remember all of that. I also remember cell phones charging by the minute and market pressures changing that. I think.Google will make a huge play to compete and destroy a lot of the franchise monopolies.

I don't think it's going back to the 80s phone regime.

If Comcast already throttles then what is changing?


If Comcast is throttling based on content, then that is illegal. Although this behavior is marginally better than allowing them to auction off bandwidth to the highest bidder. Don't expect Google to save the day, either.

The United States has some of the shittiest Internet telecom infrastructure in the developed world and it's about to get shittier.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Mon May 19, 2014 1:20 pm

Comcast is upset that their competition, Netflix, is getting a free ride on Comcast's delivery system. Netflix business model is built on having their competitors pay for the delivery of their product.

I'm in favor of net neutrality but the Netflix situation is a valid complaint.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Zack Morris » Tue May 20, 2014 1:20 am

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Comcast is upset that their competition, Netflix, is getting a free ride on Comcast's delivery system. Netflix business model is built on having their competitors pay for the delivery of their product.

I'm in favor of net neutrality but the Netflix situation is a valid complaint.


If Comcast were run by 3D chess players like me, they would have introduced Netflix-powered on-demand television years ago and reinvested some of their profits into building out a higher-bandwidth system for which they could charge a premium.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Doc » Wed May 21, 2014 5:41 pm

Zack Morris wrote:
Doc wrote:It seems to me that Zack and Tinker want something akin to ObamaNet Where everyone pays more so a few more people, that don't have the internet, can have it Even though they may not even want the internet except for being taxed for not having it AND Obama's friends can make a killing.


As usual, your poor reading comprehension is handicapping you. Enki appears unconcerned by the new FCC rules. I favor net neutrality. Neither of us favors "ObamaNet", whatever that is. What I favor is the classification of broadband Internet as a telecommunications service and the preservation of content neutrality. Traffic should not be throttled based on content nor should preferential access fees be legal.


I agree that TInker seems to be unconcerned with the new rules. Which are a disaster. Glad to know you favor net neutrality. They really have no right to throttle band width. They are playing on the fact the big players mostly use their own back bone networks. If they really wanted to charge for faster service, then that is not technically the internet but an intranet. However, given that, then the big players should be forced to pay access fees to get to the internet. If people started talking about that my guess is that the big players would back off the idea of getting rid of net neutrality real fast. But if they really want to play the game their way, then they should pay big for that right. (they are utilities after all)Then let their subscribers decide whether or not they want to pay. MMDS based internet service should be in the mix as well. All it needs is a good backbone to the cloud to get people to provide it AND the Humongous ISPs to stop trying to kill them.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7758
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Zack Morris » Fri May 23, 2014 4:34 am

Well, to be fair, net neutrality is against the tenets of laissez-faire capitalism. A modern-day J. P. Morgan would be monopolizing telecommunications lines.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Doc » Fri May 23, 2014 10:09 pm

Zack Morris wrote:Well, to be fair, net neutrality is against the tenets of laissez-faire capitalism. A modern-day J. P. Morgan would be monopolizing telecommunications lines.


The big ISPs are working to monopolize the internet something created and paid for world wide initially by US Taxpayers.

Laissez-faire capitalism was an abject failure. Just look at which intercontinental railroads went bust and which ones did not. Hint look up the great Norther which received no government subsidies. No government choosing of the winner. ALL the other eventually failed. All of them took government money and or land for building their railroads and as a result were not really railroad companies but property management companies. Which was their down fall in the end. As they were so interested in getting the highest rents possible they failed to make the land worth more by squeezing their tenants as much as possible. That is what happens when you get to much power concentrated in too few hands Be it naked government power or be it the power of interlocking boards of directors. Either way it is a monopoly of power
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 7758
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Zack Morris » Sat May 24, 2014 9:13 pm

Doc wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Well, to be fair, net neutrality is against the tenets of laissez-faire capitalism. A modern-day J. P. Morgan would be monopolizing telecommunications lines.


The big ISPs are working to monopolize the internet something created and paid for world wide initially by US Taxpayers.


No, the corporations own it. It doesn't matter who originally contracted it. It's called freedom, Doc.

Laissez-faire capitalism was an abject failure. Just look at which intercontinental railroads went bust and which ones did not. Hint look up the great Norther which received no government subsidies. No government choosing of the winner. ALL the other eventually failed. All of them took government money and or land for building their railroads and as a result were not really railroad companies but property management companies. Which was their down fall in the end. As they were so interested in getting the highest rents possible they failed to make the land worth more by squeezing their tenants as much as possible. That is what happens when you get to much power concentrated in too few hands Be it naked government power or be it the power of interlocking boards of directors. Either way it is a monopoly of power


That's capitalism for you. The law of nature!
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Sat May 24, 2014 11:20 pm

That's capitalism for you. The law of nature!

Really not fair. Free enterprise works pretty well and so does honest capitalism. The problems caused by greed, fraud, partial reserve banking, central banking, ponzi schemes, cronyism, governmental corruption, usury, etc. are not "laissez-faire" capitalism. Capitalism would probably work if we had just the moral backbone to try it.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Zack Morris » Sat May 24, 2014 11:59 pm

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
That's capitalism for you. The law of nature!

Really not fair. Free enterprise works pretty well and so does honest capitalism. The problems caused by greed, fraud, partial reserve banking, central banking, ponzi schemes, cronyism, governmental corruption, usury, etc. are not "laissez-faire" capitalism. Capitalism would probably work if we had just the moral backbone to try it.


We did try it. And we discovered that we needed a system of rules and regulations to keep children from being ground into sausages in meat factories. Your idea of "free enterprise" is the same as most sensible peoples': a system constrained by the rule of law. The problem is, nobody can agree exactly which laws are necessary and which aren't. Today, the right wing is too proud to admit that this simple fact is true thereby obstructing the political system and refusing to even have a discussion about how to address our challenges.
User avatar
Zack Morris
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: The end of the internet as we know it

Postby Enki » Thu May 29, 2014 5:11 pm

Zack Morris wrote:
Doc wrote:It seems to me that Zack and Tinker want something akin to ObamaNet Where everyone pays more so a few more people, that don't have the internet, can have it Even though they may not even want the internet except for being taxed for not having it AND Obama's friends can make a killing.


As usual, your poor reading comprehension is handicapping you. Enki appears unconcerned by the new FCC rules. I favor net neutrality. Neither of us favors "ObamaNet", whatever that is. What I favor is the classification of broadband Internet as a telecommunications service and the preservation of content neutrality. Traffic should not be throttled based on content nor should preferential access fees be legal.


I am not unconcerned, I just think that the hysteria has obscured the mundane details.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
 
Posts: 4939
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Next

Return to Current Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests