Must read "Death of Free Internet"
0 views
Skip to first unread message
RICHARD DORNER
Jul 23, 2008, 9:39:31 AM7/23/08
to Members
Bill Mayhew
Jul 25, 2008, 11:23:47 PM7/25/08
to Akron Linux Users Group
Anybody who has tried to hold information hostage for pay has not
achieved success. Microsoft, AOL and others have tried to either
wholly disregard the Internet or create captive portals. Customers
have voted with their feet by leaving providers who do not abide by a
sense of net neutrality. If providers make web access too onerous or
expensive, people will simply reinvent a technology to bypass the
telcos and PTTs the way they did with 1200 Baud modems and fax
machines in the 1980s.
Even China, who devotes enormous resources to its censorship efforts,
has trouble reigning in information flow. For instance, fax
transmissions relayed through the United States were instrumental in
the organization of the 1989 uprising.
People are so addicted to information that they'll put up with a
crappy low bandwidth channel if they have to. To wit: the popularity
of text messaging on cell phones. If net neutrality dies, may well
see the resurgence of BBSs and 56K modems. Ugh! But if that's what
it takes...
Bill
On Jul 23, 9:39 am, RICHARD DORNER <rdor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> http://www.realitycheck.typepad.com/
achieved success. Microsoft, AOL and others have tried to either
wholly disregard the Internet or create captive portals. Customers
have voted with their feet by leaving providers who do not abide by a
sense of net neutrality. If providers make web access too onerous or
expensive, people will simply reinvent a technology to bypass the
telcos and PTTs the way they did with 1200 Baud modems and fax
machines in the 1980s.
Even China, who devotes enormous resources to its censorship efforts,
has trouble reigning in information flow. For instance, fax
transmissions relayed through the United States were instrumental in
the organization of the 1989 uprising.
People are so addicted to information that they'll put up with a
crappy low bandwidth channel if they have to. To wit: the popularity
of text messaging on cell phones. If net neutrality dies, may well
see the resurgence of BBSs and 56K modems. Ugh! But if that's what
it takes...
Bill
On Jul 23, 9:39 am, RICHARD DORNER <rdor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> http://www.realitycheck.typepad.com/
Jim Showalter
Jul 26, 2008, 6:28:40 AM7/26/08
to Akron Linux Users Group
I certainly agree with you, Bill, but could you elaborate on this
statement?
"If providers make web access too onerous or expensive, people will
simply reinvent a technology to bypass the telcos and PTTs the way
they did with 1200 Baud modems and fax machines in the 1980s."
statement?
"If providers make web access too onerous or expensive, people will
simply reinvent a technology to bypass the telcos and PTTs the way
they did with 1200 Baud modems and fax machines in the 1980s."
Jim Kvochick
Jul 26, 2008, 11:32:29 AM7/26/08
to Akro...@googlegroups.com
I seldom weigh in on these topics, but please consider the many facets of
"net neutrality"
"net neutrality"
Before I begin my "rant", let me proclaim that the following commnets are
mine, and do not reflect the position of my employer, my dog, or my car.
Net Neutrality has been distorted to make it seem to be something that it
really isn't. The bottom line is that carriers (who provide the backbone
structure for the thing we call "The Internet", would like to charge users
who purchase bigger and faster connections more money to use those services.
This has virtually nothing to do with the end user, like you or I. However,
since those large scale users don't want to pay any more money than you or I
do, they have helped rally around this cause.
There never has been anything even closely resembling a "free lunch", and
there still isn't. You will always, again in my opinion, need backbone
services to support our addiction to what has become possible. Unless you
live under a rock in the middle of the Sahara, there isn't a day that goes
by that you don't save time, money, energy, and effort by using the
worldwide collection of resources brough to your PC, whatever the variant.
None of that is "free", we all pay for it in many different ways.
EOR (End Of Rant)
Jim
Jim Showalter
Jul 28, 2008, 12:21:50 PM7/28/08
to Akron Linux Users Group
After reading your post Jim, I'm not sure where you stand on the
issue, but you are certainly right when you say "Net Neutrality has
Just looking at who's for and against net neutrality is quite
revealing.
For: Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook,
Skype and Yahoo. Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law
professor Lawrence Lessig, every major Democratic presidential
candidate, and FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein
have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.
Against: the largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T,
Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner.
issue, but you are certainly right when you say "Net Neutrality has
been distorted to make it seem to be something that it really isn't".
Here's a link to a good net neutrality FAQ: http://savetheinternet.com/=faq
Just looking at who's for and against net neutrality is quite
revealing.
For: Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook,
Skype and Yahoo. Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law
professor Lawrence Lessig, every major Democratic presidential
candidate, and FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein
have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.
Against: the largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T,
Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner.
Bill Mayhew
Jul 30, 2008, 12:01:31 AM7/30/08
to Akron Linux Users Group
I tried to use the term, "neutrality," advisedly. I think of it in a
somewhat different context than the sense in which it has become
a political football - now meaning, "Us versus the Evil Telecoms
That Charge More than We Feel Like Paying." I'd like to think
of it more as content neutrality in that you let me use a boring
non-branded browser and I can look at whatever I feel like without
being steered to an obnoxious portal with lots of flashing icons and
meaningless embedded videos (contrast Google home page versus
the MSN home page, for example.)
I don't really mind paying for some premium content if it is
meanngful, or I might even consider clicking a banner ad for
something compelling related to the topic I'm searching at the
moment.
The death of the Internet fear has roots that go back to the
Modem Tax e-mail rumors of the late 1980s.
My point was that if the telco-content merged companies try to
steer their customers and box them in too much, those customers
will simply find some other way to get what they want wihtout
so much burden and sheparding by the telco-content company
that wants to hold them hostage.
The BBSs of the 1980s, Gopher and the web were essentially
reactions to expensive, inflexible dedicated information sources.
Anybody remember the expensive OCLC for-pay cataloging
system libraries were using? The web was clunky and slow in
1993, but it didn't take long for libraries to start getting their
catalogs on the web. OCLC had a great system, but you needed
a dedicated terminal and a leased circuit. Anybody remember
Telenet for dial access? AOL didn't go to their databases, but
AOL let you go lots of ohter places, maybe not as content rich,
but cheaper. Microsoft almost blew it with MSN - what Internet?
We don't need that, we have your dial-up right here and you can
look at Encarta. Who needs anything else? In the 1970s there
were dedicated TTY networks, and that gave way to BITNET
and then SMTP over the Internet.
Every time consumers get boxed in, they find loop holes and
ways to make those narrow minded providers irrelevant. My
example was text messaging on cell phones which is an
immensely awful medium with terrible human interface and
a tiny screen and tortured spelling and grammar. None
the less, texting is immensely popular becuase it fills a need
and is largely unregulated (though you may pay message units
to use the service.)
The other content boxer-inner that comes to mind is the music
industry, and they are being made irrelevant by MP3s, thogh
they are kicking and screaming as they go down.
I don't know what the technology might be, but if the Internet as
we think of it now becomes too repellant or too expensive,
somebody will figure out a way to get around it. At first, the
interface may be ugly, but it will get the job done. My thought
was that if the public had to go back to 56K modems they
would probably do it - not that I would wish for that!
Bill
somewhat different context than the sense in which it has become
a political football - now meaning, "Us versus the Evil Telecoms
That Charge More than We Feel Like Paying." I'd like to think
of it more as content neutrality in that you let me use a boring
non-branded browser and I can look at whatever I feel like without
being steered to an obnoxious portal with lots of flashing icons and
meaningless embedded videos (contrast Google home page versus
the MSN home page, for example.)
I don't really mind paying for some premium content if it is
meanngful, or I might even consider clicking a banner ad for
something compelling related to the topic I'm searching at the
moment.
The death of the Internet fear has roots that go back to the
Modem Tax e-mail rumors of the late 1980s.
My point was that if the telco-content merged companies try to
steer their customers and box them in too much, those customers
will simply find some other way to get what they want wihtout
so much burden and sheparding by the telco-content company
that wants to hold them hostage.
The BBSs of the 1980s, Gopher and the web were essentially
reactions to expensive, inflexible dedicated information sources.
Anybody remember the expensive OCLC for-pay cataloging
system libraries were using? The web was clunky and slow in
1993, but it didn't take long for libraries to start getting their
catalogs on the web. OCLC had a great system, but you needed
a dedicated terminal and a leased circuit. Anybody remember
Telenet for dial access? AOL didn't go to their databases, but
AOL let you go lots of ohter places, maybe not as content rich,
but cheaper. Microsoft almost blew it with MSN - what Internet?
We don't need that, we have your dial-up right here and you can
look at Encarta. Who needs anything else? In the 1970s there
were dedicated TTY networks, and that gave way to BITNET
and then SMTP over the Internet.
Every time consumers get boxed in, they find loop holes and
ways to make those narrow minded providers irrelevant. My
example was text messaging on cell phones which is an
immensely awful medium with terrible human interface and
a tiny screen and tortured spelling and grammar. None
the less, texting is immensely popular becuase it fills a need
and is largely unregulated (though you may pay message units
to use the service.)
The other content boxer-inner that comes to mind is the music
industry, and they are being made irrelevant by MP3s, thogh
they are kicking and screaming as they go down.
I don't know what the technology might be, but if the Internet as
we think of it now becomes too repellant or too expensive,
somebody will figure out a way to get around it. At first, the
interface may be ugly, but it will get the job done. My thought
was that if the public had to go back to 56K modems they
would probably do it - not that I would wish for that!
Bill
RICHARD DORNER
Jul 30, 2008, 9:32:02 AM7/30/08
to Akro...@googlegroups.com
Exactly, not free, as in a monetary sense, but free, as in your freedom. Have you've heard, that Bill Gates, has bought up a lot of small newspapers? More than a few, sounds sinister to me. Have all that money, but I'll buy some control. More of the same story "Death of Free Internet" http://www.infowars.com/?p=3502 /
Bill Mayhew <wtma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill Mayhew <wtma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 9:39 am, RICHARD DORNER wrote:
>
> >http://www.realitycheck.typepad.com/
k...@att.net
Jul 30, 2008, 9:49:52 AM7/30/08
to Akro...@googlegroups.com, RICHARD DORNER
Bill & Richard;
I personally agree with MOST of what you have written. As a long time techno-geek and information systems professional, I have watched the world change before our very eyes.
The "Net Neutrality" that is being bantered around these days isn't quite so focused on our freedoms, and far more focused on who pays for things. It's no surprise that the carriers are against this, because in their business models, those folks consuming higher bandwidths, requiring more carrier resources, more technical support, and in general, use more of everything than us "users", should be paying more money.
This business plan has been in place for a number of years, (remember, a 1FR (single line residential line) is billed at a lower rate than a 1FB (single line business phone), even though they cost the same money to implement), and the "extra" revenue allowed carriers to support more charitable works, by using some of their money, and some of the extra revenue garnered by charging businesses "more" to support consumers who may not be able to afford a phone line.
This model works for just about everything. I was just on the Ohio turnpike this morning, and the charge a truck more money than a car to use the road....pretty straight forward in my mind.
Those folks providing content don't want to pay more money....that's pretty simple. These folks don't care about your "rights" or "freedom", they only are concerned about not paying more for consuming more.
Don't get confused by anything else. A large user of complex services wants to spend less money than you do, but receive greater benefits for it....period.
BTW, the comments above express my own opinion on the topic, and do not reflect those opinions of my employer, my sister, or my cat.
Jim
-------------- Original message from RICHARD DORNER <rdo...@sbcglobal.net>: --------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Akron Linux Users Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to Akro...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to AkronLUG+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AkronLUG?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Bill Mayhew
Jul 31, 2008, 11:29:18 AM7/31/08
to Akron Linux Users Group
I think my opinons are pretty much in alignment with what Jim said. I
think the net neutrality issue may be a little distorted by both sides
of the camp. To add to the frustration the fact state utility
commissions and the FCC are always implementing regulations on the
telcos that those agencies think results in some sort of fairness -
usually for the sake of home landline users (which are rapidly
disappearing anyway).
If Internet information portals are evenly spread around, then on
average any one telecom provider should win as much by getting
customers delivered to its network as it gives up dlivering its own
customers to other networks.
What I see as a risk is that somebody like AT&T starts buying up as
many information portal services as it can, then charging premium
transit fees to everybody else to get at those portal services from
other networks. From a business perspective for AT&T, I'm sure that
sounds like a great idea.
I think we see essentially the same thing with cable TV - something
else which is now becoming a business for AT&T. Time-Warner owns
quite a few of the cable media outlets, and darn if cable rates don't
keep increasing well ahead of inflation. AT&T, for now, is at a
competative disadvantage along with Dish and DirecTV because they have
to buy content from the traditional cable media companies.
The FCC decision to let Sirius and XM join up to result in one company
that controls 100$ of satellite car/portable radio is surpising to
me. I guess the FCC takes pity on them becuase neither XM nor Sirius
is currently profitable - but hey, that's what can happen in the real
world. That's a huge amount of spectrum to sell (for federal
government revenue) to a single company.
I hope that content seekers will continue to be inventive in creating
technology that gets around megalithic companies that try to hold all
the marbles.
think the net neutrality issue may be a little distorted by both sides
of the camp. To add to the frustration the fact state utility
commissions and the FCC are always implementing regulations on the
telcos that those agencies think results in some sort of fairness -
usually for the sake of home landline users (which are rapidly
disappearing anyway).
If Internet information portals are evenly spread around, then on
average any one telecom provider should win as much by getting
customers delivered to its network as it gives up dlivering its own
customers to other networks.
What I see as a risk is that somebody like AT&T starts buying up as
many information portal services as it can, then charging premium
transit fees to everybody else to get at those portal services from
other networks. From a business perspective for AT&T, I'm sure that
sounds like a great idea.
I think we see essentially the same thing with cable TV - something
else which is now becoming a business for AT&T. Time-Warner owns
quite a few of the cable media outlets, and darn if cable rates don't
keep increasing well ahead of inflation. AT&T, for now, is at a
competative disadvantage along with Dish and DirecTV because they have
to buy content from the traditional cable media companies.
The FCC decision to let Sirius and XM join up to result in one company
that controls 100$ of satellite car/portable radio is surpising to
me. I guess the FCC takes pity on them becuase neither XM nor Sirius
is currently profitable - but hey, that's what can happen in the real
world. That's a huge amount of spectrum to sell (for federal
government revenue) to a single company.
I hope that content seekers will continue to be inventive in creating
technology that gets around megalithic companies that try to hold all
the marbles.
paron
Aug 7, 2008, 10:19:33 AM8/7/08
to Akron Linux Users Group
On Jul 30, 9:32 am, RICHARD DORNER <rdor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Exactly, not free, as in a monetary sense, but free, as in your freedom. Have you've heard, that Bill Gates, has >bought up a lot of small newspapers? More than a few, sounds sinister to me. Have all that money, but I'll buy >some control. More of the same story "Death of Free Internet"http://www.infowars.com/?p=3502
(not to say cynicism, not to say paranoia) about issues where what's
being asked is OK, but what could be asked is addressed with "They'd
never do that."
(I couldn't really decide which of the preceding posts to cite; I
think everyone struggles with the issue, so this is not meant to apply
to any particular poster.)
Anyway, I think this applies here -- not too far OT -- The
"Information Patriot Act" is all written and just waiting for an
incident severe enough to justify its passage.
http://www.yff365.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2162281:BlogPost:5863
Lawrence Lessig is a brain. You might love or hate his conclusions,
but there's no doubt he's a brain.
Ron
paron
Aug 7, 2008, 10:29:31 AM8/7/08
to Akron Linux Users Group
> Anyway, I think this applies here -- not too far OT -- The
> "Information Patriot Act" is all written and just waiting for an
> incident severe enough to justify its passage.http://www.yff365.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2162281:BlogPost:5863
, except with corrupted grammar and punctuation.
paron
Aug 12, 2008, 2:42:49 PM8/12/08
to Akron Linux Users Group
From: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/372888_bandwidth31.html
Americans today spend almost as much on bandwidth – the capacity to
move information – as we do on energy. . . If we aren't careful, we're
going to repeat the history of the oil industry by creating a
bandwidth cartel.
______________________
I think this is also on-topic; perhaps not. Interesting POV at any
rate.
Ron
Americans today spend almost as much on bandwidth – the capacity to
move information – as we do on energy. . . If we aren't careful, we're
going to repeat the history of the oil industry by creating a
bandwidth cartel.
______________________
I think this is also on-topic; perhaps not. Interesting POV at any
rate.
Ron
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages