Net Neutrality

Not My Hard Drive

Image

A lot of talk has been going on lately about this thing called “Net Neutrality”. What is happening is that the FCC is considering new rules to allow Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) to make allow different companies to pay to stream their service faster than others. This makes a terrible world for small websites and startups such as Not My Hard Drive. Netflix would stream at X mbps and Not My Hard Drive, because of it’s inability to pay large sums of money to ISP’s would be streaming at a much lower speed than a large company such as Netflix who has a very large amount of cash on hand and an ability to pay an ISP for faster speeds. This violates the free market and declares the web as not neutral. The neutrality being that every website has the rights to the same speeds, regardless of their ability to…

Ver la entrada original 471 palabras más

Publicado en Uncategorized | Deja un comentario

Here’s Why Killing Net Neutrality Makes You Pay Twice

SoMeLaw Thoughts

This matters. A lot.

I’m not going to recap the wealth of discussion and debate over Net Neutrality.  You know how to use Google, so use that to find more information.  Or for the most basic of primers check out this great video from the New York Times on How Net Neutrality Works.  It explains the concept well and has some great points from David Carr (who, according to this video, has a head so huge I’m afraid it might snap his neck any second) about controlling content as well as access.

But even if the debate over Internet innovation doesn’t motivate you to take action then perhaps this will.  Killing Net Neutrality will make you pay more money not once but twice.  Here’s how.

First, for the large bandwidth services like Netflix and Hulu and Amazon Instant Video, paying for access will be an absolute must.  Take a…

Ver la entrada original 517 palabras más

Publicado en Uncategorized | Deja un comentario

Is net neutrality dying? Has the FCC killed it? What comes next? Here’s what you need to know

Gigaom

The issue of net neutrality is back in the news again, thanks to some proposed rule changes by the Federal Communications Commission, changes that the regulator says are aimed at protecting a “free and open internet.” A chorus of critics, however, say the commission is trying to eat its cake and have it too — by pretending to create rules that will protect net-neutrality, while actually implementing what amounts to a pay-to-play version of the internet, one that favors large incumbents.

It’s a complicated topic, and one that is prone to a certain amount of hysteria and hyperbole. So what follows is a breakdown of what you need to know, and what some legal experts, technology insiders and advocacy groups are saying about it:

Why is the FCC changing its rules?

The regulator’s ability to monitor and punish breaches of net neutrality was thrown into limbo by a court ruling…

Ver la entrada original 1.783 palabras más

Publicado en Uncategorized | Deja un comentario

Net Neutrality Important to Education

Pilant's Faculty Senate Page

!!@@#dddddd444193mNet Neutrality Important to Education

We educators depend on the internet to communicate with our students, share files, and sometimes teach classes entirely through the medium. We depend on having a good workable service.

That is now under threat. The end of net neutrality and the relegation of secondary purposes like ours to the slow lane threatens our work. It’s not just that almost everything we do will get slower, we will also be forced to pay a premium for some services.

There are few professions to which net neutrality is as important as it is to educators. We need to realize its important and act in its defense.

James Pilant

Why Net Neutrality Matters to Education

https://www.edsurge.com/n/2014-04-29-why-net-neutrality-matters-to-education

For education, this presents a dangerous precedent where the content and tools that schools, teachers, students and learners (of all ages) use may be subject to corporate interests. These new rules are…

Ver la entrada original 267 palabras más

Publicado en Uncategorized | Deja un comentario

The Rotten Roots. Summary of Issues and Sources on Net Neutrality

 
Origin of the problem

The timeline of the Net Neutrality issue has been detailed here: http://gigaom.com/2014/05/15/net-neutrality-2014/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

‘Wheeler said that peering is “an issue that we are investigating, it’s an issue we are very interested in, but it’s not the issue here today.” ‘ http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5721198/the-fcc-is-battling-imaginary-fast-lanes-while-ignoring-the-ones-we

Refreshing some concepts

What is net neutrality: http://www.vox.com/cards/network-neutrality/whats-network-neutrality

Why is important for the end user: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/today-the-fcc-will-vote-on-the-future-of-the-internet-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/

All the key issues and key players: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/05/14/fccs-net-neutrality-vote-what-to-watch-for/

Further details about net neutrality: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/05/14/fccs-net-neutrality-vote-what-to-watch-for/

Net neutrality timeline: http://gigaom.com/2014/05/15/net-neutrality-2014/

From horse’s mouth: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fact-sheet-protecting-and-promoting-open-internet

Today’s problem

For fast realization of the problem: the video made by the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-approves-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet/ or http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/business/technology/why-net-neutrality-matters/2014/01/16/b3fe69dc-7f02-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_video.html

“You might remember the incident earlier this year when Netflix paid Comcast for a direct connection to its network. Netflix signed this deal after a months-long standoff in which the quality of Netflix videos on the Comcast network steadily declined. Netflix has blasted these payments as unfair “tolls” that undermine the open internet.” http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5721198/the-fcc-is-battling-imaginary-fast-lanes-while-ignoring-the-ones-we

In February 19, 2014, Tom Wheeler made this statement about open network: http://www.fcc.gov/document/statement-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-fccs-open-internet-rules

“Wheeler, who was appointed by Obama last year to lead the agency, signaled early on that he preferred light regulation and would encourage new business models such a paid prioritization. ” http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/net-neutrality-issue-puts-fcc-at-center-of-a-firestorm/2014/05/14/245a3e70-dad1-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

“Net neutrality became part of public conversations in the United States after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down previous FCC regulations that prohibited Internet providers from selectively slowing Internet traffic. In an attempt to fill the gap left by the court’s rejection of previous regulation, the FCC then proposed its new plan for regulation.” http://csis.org/publication/brazil-global-leader-internet-governance

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerns “network neutrality,” the concept that Internet service providers should treat all Internet traffic equally, even if it comes from a competitor. But the rules, while preventing ISPs from blocking content outright, would allow ISPs to charge third-party Web services for a faster path to consumers, or a “fast lane.” http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

“…there are no rules at all against Internet service providers blocking traffic or prioritizing some content over others. That’s because a federal appeals court this year overturned the FCC’s previous net neutrality order, issued in 2010.  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/the-fcc-doesnt-have-to-authorize-internet-fast-lanes-theyre-already-legal/

“While the FCC’s latest proposal doesn’t specifically authorize fast lanes, it didn’t have to: they’re already legal. ISPs can charge Web services like Netflix (“edge providers” in regulatory parlance) for a faster path to consumers over the last mile of the network because there aren’t any enforceable rules against it.  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/the-fcc-doesnt-have-to-authorize-internet-fast-lanes-theyre-already-legal/

“When asked by a reporter whether edge providers can purchase a faster path beyond the performance levels a consumer has paid for, Wheeler dodged. “You’re going off and inventing hypothetical paths to the Internet,” he said.  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/the-fcc-doesnt-have-to-authorize-internet-fast-lanes-theyre-already-legal/

“favoring affiliated content would be OK if unaffiliated providers are given the same offer. Go ahead and favor your own content as long as you allow others to buy the same special treatment, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/the-fcc-doesnt-have-to-authorize-internet-fast-lanes-theyre-already-legal/

“In 2010, the FCC adopted regulation that was later challenged in court by Verizon. The FCC lost the lawsuit, and the rules, which many in the digital advocacy world believed were too weak anyway, were thrown out on a legal technicality.” http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-opens-controversial-net-neutrality-proposal-up-for-debate/

“The stronger net neutrality rules the FCC passed in 2010 (and which courts struck down earlier this year) wouldn’t have helped either. In fact, Comcast has already agreed to respect network neutrality until 2018 to help it win approval for its merger with Time Warner Cable.” http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5721198/the-fcc-is-battling-imaginary-fast-lanes-while-ignoring-the-ones-we

“broadband providers could charge content companies a fee for priority access to the network. For instance, Netflix or Amazon could pay extra to ensure their traffic is delivered more expeditiously for a better quality of service.” http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-opens-controversial-net-neutrality-proposal-up-for-debate/

“Reclassifying broadband as a Title II service or creating a brand new category of service as Mozilla has suggested are approaches that will likely be met with much resistance from broadband providers, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. These companies fought off earlier attempts by the previous FCC chairman to reclassify broadband traffic and impose telephony-style regulation.” http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-says-it-has-a-fix-for-net-neutrality/

“Broadband providers say such a move would be a mistake. They argue changing the classification of broadband would subject their networks to regulation similar to the old telephone network, which they claim would stifle innovation.” http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-opens-controversial-net-neutrality-proposal-up-for-debate/

” If the agency elects to use Title II authority to regulate network neutrality, it would have to adjust or eliminate some of the requirements that Title II puts on ISPs that are harmful or irrelevant to how their businesses operate. Title II is from an era of landline and copper networks, so requirements associated with elements like forcing ISPs to open their networks would cause them to go all-out nuclear on the agency. The FCC would have to tweak those rules. It might do so on a case-by-case basis or might investigate whether applying Title III regulations to wireless carriers would make more sense.” http://gigaom.com/2014/05/15/net-neutrality-2014/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Statements made by Tom Wheeler:  “If a network operator slowed the speed of service below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited,” Wheeler aid. “If the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no-blocking rule and therefore be doubly prohibited.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-approves-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet/

“…consumer advocates say the agency needs to more aggressively rethink its entire philosophy on broadband Internet regulation.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/net-neutrality-issue-puts-fcc-at-center-of-a-firestorm/2014/05/14/245a3e70-dad1-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html (the page includes tons of political opinion about the whys and hows related to the issue)

“Michael O’Rielly said the commission hasn’t tried to identify any market harm and thus shouldn’t issue the rules in the NPRM. He also argued that the FCC has invented new authority to regulate the Internet by exaggerating its Section 706 authority. The federal appeals court ruling in the Verizon case contradicts O’Rielly’s argument, however. The judges said the FCC “has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic.”” http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

Who is Who on this game

“Michael Powell is the president of the NCTA, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which is the cable industry’s largest lobbying group. He is also the former chairperson of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. His target: net neutrality. The battleground is in Washington, D.C., inside the FCC’s nondescript headquarters. The largest Internet service providers — companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T and Verizon — are joining forces to kill net neutrality. Millions of citizens, along with thousands of organizations, companies, artists and investors, are trying to save it.”.  http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/5/15/wheelering_and_dealing_at_the_fcc

Worst case: Digital Divide

“Many of those critics see the new proposal as an about-face on the part of the FCC. Rather than preserving net neutrality, these regulations, so say their critics, will divide the Internet into slow and fast lanes. And concerns abound over the ambiguous definition of “commercially reasonable” traffic management, with many questioning the discretionary nature of such language.” http://csis.org/publication/brazil-global-leader-internet-governance

How process will develop in the U.S

“Chairman Wheeler is encouraging the public to share their views now. He intends to have rules of the road in place before the end of the year to protect consumers and entrepreneurs. He will be listening, and your comments will help inform the final rules.

Please send your thoughts to openinternet@fcc.gov.” http://www.fcc.gov/page/fcc-establishes-new-inbox-open-internet-comments

“This process, known as “notice-and-comment rulemaking,” allows the administrative agency (in this case, the FCC) to propose a rule that is then published and available to the public in the Federal Register. After a period of public commenting, the agency then published the new regulation.” http://csis.org/publication/brazil-global-leader-internet-governance

the FCC will ask the public whether it should bar paid prioritization completely. It will ask whether the rules should apply to cellular service in addition to fixed broadband, whereas the prior rules mostly applied just to fixed broadband. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

The NPRM will also ask the public whether the FCC should reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. This will likely dominate debate over the next few months. Classifying broadband as a telecommunications service would open it up to stricter “common carrier” rules under Title II of the Communications Act. The US has long applied common carrier status to the telephone network, providing justification for universal service obligations that guarantee affordable phone service to all Americans and other rules that promote competition and consumer choice.  The full text of the NPRM is not public yet http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

The FCC will accept initial comments from May 15 until July 15 and reply comments until September 10.  Here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=z5unw

The proposal is here:  http://www.fcc.gov/document/fact-sheet-protecting-and-promoting-open-internet

“While the two Democratic commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel each supported the item, they admitted that they weren’t entirely happy with the firestorm that erupted around the chairman’s approach.” http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-opens-controversial-net-neutrality-proposal-up-for-debate/

“During the meeting, Republican Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Reilly, who not surprisingly each voted against the order, expressed their concerns with respect to the proposal.  Commissioner O’Reilly, the newest member of the commission, said he doesn’t think the FCC has the authority to impose these rules.” http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-opens-controversial-net-neutrality-proposal-up-for-debate/

“That public comment period begins today and will run for 60 days, until July 27th, at which point a second phase of commenting will open up. That second phase will run for 57 days beyond that, until September 10th, and is meant to allow the public to reply to comments that the FCC received during the first phase. ” http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/15/5720730/how-to-comment-on-fcc-net-neutrality-proposal

If you want to send a long comment to the FCC: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=9dmf6

For short comments: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=h1ur0

“or email them to openinternet@fcc.gov. Your email address will then become part of the Open Internet Rule docket. ” http://e-pluribusunum.com/2014/05/15/fcc-faq-on-net-neutrality-and-proposed-open-internet-rules/

Word games and their meaning

“FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, despite weeks of backlash, still wants to allow Internet Service Providers like Comcast and Verizon to “offer” different levels of service to internet companies, although he refused to call them a “fast lane” and a “slow lane” and refused to recognize how those arrangements up the food chain affect consumers and a neutral internet.” http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fcc-proves-yet-again-that-its-out-to-kill-net-neutrality/

“By allowing for “commercially reasonable” traffic management, the FCC sought to get around the court’s issue with a blanket prohibition on management, allowing the FCC to determine on a case-by-case basis what is acceptable under the new regulations.” http://csis.org/publication/brazil-global-leader-internet-governance

“The basic question is what would be regulated… No, the Internet wouldn’t be regulated. The telecommunications service that allows the Internet to exist would, as services did before now which made the early online world possible.” http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fcc-proves-yet-again-that-its-out-to-kill-net-neutrality/

these new rules do indeed allow for so-called fast lanes, though again, it’s unclear how slow the “slow lane” will be. ” http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/15/fcc-proposed-net-neutrality-rules-telcos-react/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000589

Wheeler has said he would consider using Title II rules if it turns out that ISPs discriminate against smaller companies. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

if the proposal simply enforces a baseline level of service and doesn’t take a position on whether third-party services can pay for more than that.  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

“In an explainer document, the FCC said that it “tentatively concludes that priority service offered exclusively by a broadband provider to an affiliate should be considered illegal until proven otherwise.” This could mean agreements are allowed as long as each third-party service is offered similar, commercially reasonable terms.  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

“The fact sheet says the FCC is going to “Enhance the transparency rules to provide increased and specific information about broadband providers’ practices for edge providers, consumers.” This could include disclosing information on network practices, performance characteristics like upload and download speeds, latency and packet loss, and data caps.  But the important thing regarding fast lanes is that the FCC said it has “tentatively” concluded that disclosures to the public should include “congestion that may adversely impact the experience of end users, including at interconnection points, and information about new practices, like any paid prioritization, to the extent that it is otherwise permitted.” http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/the-fcc-doesnt-have-to-authorize-internet-fast-lanes-theyre-already-legal/

“What he did say is that broadband providers will not be able to block services, and they will have to give consumers access to services at the level of quality they pay for. I literally this weekend just dealt with my broadband provider to make sure that I had sufficient capacity,” Wheeler said. “I buy a pipe. I buy a pathway. Nobody can mess with that. They can’t degrade it, they can’t tell me I can’t access something, they can’t tell somebody you can only get on to Tom’s pathway if you pay me a price. They can’t block.” http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/the-fcc-doesnt-have-to-authorize-internet-fast-lanes-theyre-already-legal/

“Companies will be allowed to create fast lanes so long as they do so in a “commercially reasonable” manner, but what exactly defines a commercially reasonable manner isn’t clear yet…” http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/15/5720730/how-to-comment-on-fcc-net-neutrality-proposal

Real technical problems related to guaranteeing a specific speed

“But Wheeler is saying that although his plan allows a tiered Internet with faster lanes, the floor will be set at whatever service a customer has bought.

“This potentially puts you in control of the speed of your own slow lane. Your experience of the Internet will still be powerfully shaped by what plans your broadband provider offers, and what their network policies are (e.g., whether they decide to speed up video traffic faster than e-mail, for instance). But if you buy, say, a 35 Mbps broadband plan, your ISP will be required to deliver all content to you at at least that speed. Astute Internet users will point out that speeds on some broadband services — particularly cable providers — varies depending on network load and time of day; sometimes that speed might dip below a company’s advertised speeds. The question is whether this would be a violation of the FCC’s proposed rules, or whether ISPs could write it off as simply a function of the business.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/the-only-quote-you-need-to-read-from-the-fccs-net-neutrality-meeting/

“regulating the terms of interconnection on the internet is even more complex than regulating classic network neutrality. It’s relatively straightforward to say that a network provider can’t prioritize one type of traffic over another on its network. But writing rules to govern when two networks must connect with each other and how much they can charge is really difficult. So FCC policymakers may have decided to tackle the easier problem first.” http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5721198/the-fcc-is-battling-imaginary-fast-lanes-while-ignoring-the-ones-we

Rotten roots: Carriers (Access Service Providers) behaving as Content Service Providers

All are named as ISPs… but… are they all equal? Is this the mother of all troubles?

“…big ISPs can cause traffic congestion, demand tribute to fix it, and get away with it.” http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fcc-proves-yet-again-that-its-out-to-kill-net-neutrality/

“…to deter broadband providers that might otherwise be tempted to abuse their control of the last-mile Internetnetwork. ” http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-opens-controversial-net-neutrality-proposal-up-for-debate/

Messages straight from horse’s mouth: what Telcos/Carriers say.

AT&T:  “Going backwards 80 years to the world of utility regulation would represent a tragic step in the wrong direction. Utility regulation would strangle investment, hobble innovation, and put government regulators in charge of nearly every aspect of Internet-based services. It would deprive America of the world’s most robust broadband infrastructure, and place a cloud over every application or website that delivers products and content to consumers. In short, it would place government in control of the Internet at the expense of private companies, inventors and entrepreneurs, and ultimately at the expense of the American people.

“Such an approach would also send an alarming message to the rest of the world-a message that says the United States believes it is appropriate for governments to place onerous regulations on the Internet. This could encourage other countries to pursue their own goals, whether to suppress ‘dangerous’ speech or extract economic value from American Internet and content companies.” http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-policy/att-statement-on-the-fccs-proposed-open-internet-rulemaking/

Verizon: “But one thing is clear: For the FCC to impose 1930s utility regulation on the Internet would lead to years of legal and regulatory uncertainty and would jeopardize investment and innovation in broadband.” http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/05-15-statement-on-fcc-proposed-rules-for-open-internet/

Comcast: “As strongly as we believe in the propriety of legally enforceable open Internet rules, however, we have an equally strong belief that any proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Communications Act would spark massive instability, create investor and marketplace uncertainty, derail planned investments, slow broadband adoption, and kill jobs in America.” http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/fcc-begins-process-to-establish-strong-legally-enforceable-open-internet-rules

ISPs have argued that common carrier rules would force them to spend less on network upgrades and be less innovative. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

Saints and Demons… the blurred line

“… Google, one of the 100 or so companies signing a pro-Net Neutrality letter to the FCC, caused some of this mess by cutting a deal with Verizon… Google has a big business in YouTube, which streams video. They don’t want to pay the Wheeler Tax, so now all of a sudden, they are back in the fold. The same goes for Amazon, which wants to be a streaming competitor…Microsoft and Yahoo! were early supporters of Net Neutrality, but bailed when the fight got serious in Congress eight years ago. Now they are signing anti-FCC letters…” http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fcc-proves-yet-again-that-its-out-to-kill-net-neutrality/

How it should have been.  A lesson and a recipe for today’s problems

“…every… Web site is carried over high-speed connections, wired or wireless. It’s those connections that are the service. ” http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fcc-proves-yet-again-that-its-out-to-kill-net-neutrality/

“Wired, Amazon, Netflix and on and on are the content that is the Internet.” http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fcc-proves-yet-again-that-its-out-to-kill-net-neutrality/

“As Internet access continues to skyrocket all around the world, governments will face increasing pressures to provide the kinds of protections that the Marco Civil already intends to guarantee.” http://csis.org/publication/brazil-global-leader-internet-governance

Consumer advocates say that common carrier status is needed for the FCC to impose strong network neutrality rules that would force ISPs to treat all traffic equally, not degrading competing services or speeding up Web services in exchange for payment.  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

Other stakeholders show up

“A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans,” Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement.  I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission’s nebulous Sec. 706 authority. http://www.infowars.com/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adventure-in-net-neutrality/

Aftermath.  Outcome of the battle.

“The proposal has sparked a massive fight between two of the most powerful industries in the country — on one side, Silicon Valley, and on the other, companies such as Verizon and AT&T that built the pipes delivering Web content to consumers’ homes. The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-approves-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet/

“The lack of a clear signal from the White House means the agency is likely to stick to its guns on using Section 706, unless public sentiment rallies so far in favor of Title II that Congress or the president push for a change in tactics.  If that happens, expect an epic battle behind the scenes as ISPs and web giants fight to carve out Title II to meet everyone’s needs.” http://gigaom.com/2014/05/15/net-neutrality-2014/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

“But the reality is that banning one kind of fast lane without banning the other isn’t going to accomplish very much. If net neutrality supporters want to preserve a level playing field online, they’re going to have to go back to the drawing board.” http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5721198/the-fcc-is-battling-imaginary-fast-lanes-while-ignoring-the-ones-we

Summarized by Javier Rodríguez.  Lima, Perú.

Publicado en Uncategorized | Etiquetado , , , | Deja un comentario

2050: The Internet Odyssey. How we lost it and a way to get it back.

The Internet was replaced by a dual system created in 2014: a fiber optic network called “Net2Cash”. It has a speed of one hundred Petabits per second (equivalent to 100 million Gigabits per second or 100,000 million Megabits per second). We no longer talk about Megabytes or Gigabytes because that is old school. Nowadays a couple of Exabites store the content of all written by man, from books and newspapers to the Sumerian clay tablets; from Inca quipus and Egyptian hieroglyphs to all homework made by kids registered in elementary school. All written or recorded material stored in just two Exabites. All big cities are connected with fiber to home since many years ago. That was the job done by the only three worldwide megacarriers with the help of central governments. We pay the price to get it at home so we must be the owners of our fiber network but it belongs to the megacarriers no matter if we pay during decades, month by month. We were told it was a pay for the content not for the fiber installation or property. The fiber optic network can transmit thousands of channels of what was called television and radio; millions of movies are shown at the same time for all kind of global users. Billions of personal conversations are transported too in a service that replaced the outdated phone system. All simultaneously. For practical purposes its carrying capacity is infinite.

THE IMPROVED NET. JUST FOR THE RICH

“Net2Cash” is based on an automatic payment system which deducts all expenses from our master account in the global banking unified system. All residents of large cities have an account because we are automatically registered at birth. This single account manages all our revenue and expenses throughout our whole lives. Using other means is a punishable offense; it goes against the established system and is forbidden across the globe. My account is deducted daily for all kind of public services I consume: water, electricity, gas mileage, tickets for transportation and toll payments to use the physical or the neural highway (formerly called “digital highway” or “information highway”). Licenses for bikes, motorcycles, personal cars, small boats and planes are also paid automatically. Since ten years ago we all pay a fee for air consumption. It is used to cover the expenditures made to maintain a clean and healthy air in the big cities. Global positioning systems, still based on satellite tracking, locate immediately any individual, any vehicle, any computer, tablet or cell phone that is registered in the system. Costs to access public information are also automatically collected: libraries, museums, documents on universities and research institutes, all are included. No protest since the last two generations were born under the neural network and they know that “Net2Cash” network is the only permitted communication tool in large cities. Any other way of interfacing was banned because it was polluting the environment or it was used to hack and did not respect copyrights. Worse case is that some free Wi-Fi systems were used for subversive purposes and anti-system protests. Today the wireless channels are used for the localization network and to have full access and control of the personal economy and the whereabouts of individuals and devices. All this is made thinking on the common good for all people.

 Here, in the Neural Network, all services are allowed to be charged, the same with the access speed (from 1 Gigabit to 100 Terabits) and content type (video premiere is charged at a higher price than the later releases). Films are also charged according to the circuit system rotation, a system that already is more than 150 years old. Price is different if the movie is seen on a cellphone, a tablet, or we use the new acceleration system that comes with the inserted nanochip we all have from birth. This chip allows us to view the film without external devices. Hence the name “neural network”. But everything has its price. It is natural.

The neural network has been designed to provide efficient services and charge for them. Income earned in “Net2Cash” is spread over some hundred mega companies. These are the content providers that work only on this network. Wireless networks were banned ten years ago on the grounds that they were out of control and facilitated crimes, piracy and unauthorized use of services that are fully and legally provided by the fiber optic network. Unfair competence they call it and closed all free wireless networks. Governments, which never allowed the free use of wireless frequencies, claimed all that were previously assigned. We were told they were prone to lack of system control and tools for social disorder. Finally pirated books and movies are out of the government revenue system and do not pay taxes.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OLD INTERNET

The Internet as was originally known is gone. Gone are televisions, radios, cinema, theater or concerts. Everything is transmitted directly to the receiving unit that the person has at hand. All costs are deducted from the overall account. “Net2Cash” is a free fiber optic network that is paid as much as you use it. Of course its cost is deducted from the overall master account of each person. Yet you have to pay for all information received, all must be paid, including private videos, from individual to individual… if they are sent by the network they pay a transportation fee. The worldwide mega-carriers are only three. Presidents and top level government officials directly manage the issues that matter to governments with the CEOs of the mega-carriers. This infrastructure companies became, more than four decades ago, from highway builders to content providers, then to content provider watchers, then to guardian watchers of all kind of the packets that are carried by the network: if something happens without their control they are accountable to governments. It is the price they were eager to pay to differentiate Net2Cash from the old and “too-unmanageable” Internet.

The “charged by your access speed” system began over forty years ago when some big carriers in North America started to charge for transmission speed in what was called the “kilobits” race: 64k, 128k , 256k, etc. And no one complained. Then the collection mechanism was ‘improved’ with the emergence of the mobil Internet and the smartphones: people were charged for “megabyte “of transmitted information. Soon the “good idea” prospered and was replicated by virtually all worldwide companies that provided access to the Internet. Free market, fair competition, social development or technological… no cause was heard: toll bridge rights on the Internet were firmly established. I build a bridge over a river and collect different if you spend walking or running (speed rate toll) and I will charge different if you pass walking with a small pack in your hands or with a cart full of packages (amount of information transported). If you transport one kilo of potatoes you will pay different than when you pass with one kilo of diamonds, or one kilo of books… you will pay different (content payment).

This is the information and entertainment highway for rich people and all kind of wannabees. Gone are concepts such as free pass for all humans on the roads and highways. This is a cultural heritage from when companies, under the guise of free market and the inability of governments to meet public services, got rights to ask a price for water, electricity, roads, air, highways. The new feudal lords re-installed the old and very lucrative “tolls”.

THE NET FOR THE POOR

There is another parallel world located outside of the big cities. It is located generally in rural villages around the planet: there lays the remains of the old Internet. Using free wireless technologies, this people, who rebelled against the system, mount micro portable antennas, nail sized, that emit signal for a few seconds and then turn off automatically. They do this to avoid triangulation that was used to detect the location of unauthorized broadcasters. They use a system derived from the old “torrent” protocol or “peer to peer protocol”. This P2P protocol has been transformed ant it no longer transport just books and movies but it carries all kind of packets (the base of the old and good TCP/IP system). The TCP/IP packets are transmitted between “peers”, no “tiers” exist because that was the root of all evils: in this Internet all are peers as it was in the beginning of the Internet. These packets carry any kind of information (personal email, web browsing, video sharing, tv, radio and phone systems… all are included and possible). Packets are relayed from user to user, from peer to peer, as it was on the origins of the Internet. A BGP efficiency routing protocol was revived, put on steroids, to optimize the system.

In order of avoiding extreme nationalism excuses that were used to grab control of the net, users located all around the planet have got global denominations based in a number system. For example all people in my region use the domain “.323” that means “Planet Earth” (since the first number, “3”); then the second number, “1”, means “European Continent”, and the last digit “3” means the region where I am located. No ISO table was chosen to represent countries or regions because we saw from history how governments use this fact to claim rights over the local internet resources (ip numbers and domain names) assigned to the regional users and not to any form of established political power.

In this secondary world there are no Internet access providers (formerly called ISPs) because all users got Ipv6 numbers and they can mount and offer any service without the need to pay to any mega company. All are users and all have the opportunity to be providers, carriers, or service providers in any moment. It is their right and the capacity they got when Ipv6 was globally established. They transport the packets at the same speed, no filtering of packets, no big brother control. It is a mess or a mesh? Hell or paradise? But it is up to you.

THE COME BACK TO THE BEGINNING: PEER NETWORKING.

The original system, inherited from the original Internet, is known as P2PN (Peer to Peer Network). Lately it was updated with some down to earth solutions taken from Africa (the sneakernet network | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet) and Colombia (the biblioburro | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioburro).

When no relay points are available in a remote village, they use a system of people traveling from town to town carrying complete collections of books, videos , movies, and documents of all kinds, recorded in the nano devices called “Pico-Neurals”. These replaced the USBs, SD cards and similar devices.

The “Pico-Neurals” are built emulating the human brain: on a nurturing housing mass, electrons are stored and sorted in a particular way that represents the information you want to keep. Its storage capacity is close to infinite. That’s why they were banned and rejected for use on the fiber optic network: a single “Pico-Neural” has all the information that a person can consume in lifetime: They were called unmanageable, not profitable and not monetizable. The Peer2Peer Network plus the Pico-Neurals do not permit information be metered trickle delivered.

All these elements are inexpensive and easily available. The problem is transportation. Only a fiber optic network could carry all the information of a “Pico-Neural” device to the next relay or storage point. And fiber optic transport is controlled: you have to pay to have it installed, you have to pay for maintenance and you are fully registered. Of course you must pay a daily fee for all that is received and sent over the fiber optic network, even your daily family conversations with your kids. Storage capacity is infinite and all recorded data can be searched by the megacarriers and governments. That is the reason why the “Pico-Neurals” are used based on peer to peer networking. We do not like to use the “Pico-Neurals” on the mega-carrier optic fiber networks because all our information is sold by lots and used as a trade card with governments in a “quid pro quo” fashion.

DIGITAL DIVIDE FOREVER.

Practically this segregation of two worlds, two cultures, has recreated the American slave society in force until the sixties mixed with the surveillance society from the Far East where emperors and military leaders were worshiped and with the centralized regimens in the frigid steppes that assign block commissioners who monitor everything that happens with their neighbors and report to a central power. The very same that happened with some tropical governments that conquered power more than 100 years ago. All these, together, have been surpassed by this new apartheid system.

Today, these two worlds are different: first the “Net2Cash” were you pay as you go, keep walking around and consuming more. Water and air you have to consume, necessarily. And you have to pay for them. Information, entertainment, communication… you have to consume too! And you have to pay. On the other hand, the surviving network, the “Pico-Neural”, is free, but has limitations and problems: only exists in rural areas far from big cities and is allowed in small towns that are not of economic interest to central governments.

Those born in the year 2050 have no choice. If you are born in a big city then you are from the very first moment in the “Net2Cash” system. If you are born in the rural sector, as a any children hardened by poverty and hard circumstances, you will have to learn to cut firewood, purify your water, install your portable antennas for the “Pico- Neural ” network Internet , manage mobile nodes in the “Peer to Peer Network” and been non accountable for the mainstream society. Governments and megacarriers are fighting strongly against the isolated groups trying to stabilize networks the “Pico- Neural” in the large cities. There dissidents are segregated by gender, income level, race, beliefs, and his stubbornness to use unauthorized networks. To return them to the fold the governments and the mega carriers make special promotions for these groups: discounts, a full shopping package and equipment at discounted prices. The objective is to get them as part of the system and drown its disruptive behavior.

THE MESSAGE

We are relaying this message to the year 2014. It is done thanks to the technology of spatial temporal transport. That was the year where “Net2Cash” was created and the old Internet were put in shackles and anchored in time. If you can do something to change the law of exclusion within the transport networks of information, known to you as the breakdown of net neutrality, please do it today. Whether you belong to the public or private sector, if you can envision and foresee what will happen, do something today. Otherwise your children and grandchildren will live with the new apartheid system that has been implemented throughout the world.

This is a message for the children of freedom, the descendants of Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine… come together with the sons of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy.. all together with the heirs of Gandhi, San Martín, Bolivar and Tupac Amaru… with the support of every human being who wants to live in a free society… decide, once again, to throw out the English tea. Today. Tell the FCC and Tom Wheeler they shall not pass.

“I’ll send an SOS to the world …
Seems I’m not alone
at being alone.
A hundred billion castaways
Looking for a home”.
Message in a bottle.
The Police. September 1979

Publicado en Uncategorized | Etiquetado , , , , , , | Deja un comentario

Odisea en la Internet. Como la perdimos y el camino para recuperarla.

Año 2050. La Internet ha sido reemplazada por un sistema doble que se creó en el año 2014: la red de fibra óptica llamada “Net2Cash” por la cual se hace un pago automático que se descuenta de nuestra cuenta maestra del sistema unificado bancario mundial. Todos los habitantes de las grandes ciudades lo tenemos porque somos inscritos automáticamente al nacer. En esta única cuenta que se depositan todos los ingresos que percibimos durante toda nuestra vida. Usar otro medio es un delito penado, va contra el sistema establecido y es perseguido en todo el planeta. De la cuenta se deducen diariamente los servicios públicos que consumimos: el agua, la energía eléctrica, el consumo de gasolina, los tickets de transporte, el pago en los peajes para usar las carreteras y autopistas físicas y también las carreteras de la información, las antiguamente llamadas “digitales” y ahora reconocidas como “neurales”. Las licencias para bicicletas, motocicletas, carros personales, botes y los pequeños aviones también se pagan automáticamente. Sistemas de localización global, todavía basados en los rastreos satelitales, permiten ubicar a cualquier individuo, a cualquier vehículo, a cualquier computadora, Tablet o teléfono celular que esté registrado en el sistema. Nadie habla ya de Megabytes o Gigabytes. Un par de Exabites almacenan todo el contenido de todo lo escrito por el hombre, desde libros y periódicos hasta los trabajos escolares de la escuela primaria, más todos los blogs y sitios web creados y por crearse. Desde hace diez años todos pagamos una cuota por consumo de aire. Sirve para cubrir los gastos que se hacen para mantener aire no contaminado y mínimamente respirable dentro de las grandes ciudades. El acceso a la información pública también es cobrado automáticamente: librerías, museos, documentos en universidades e institutos de investigación. Nadie protesta, nacieron bajo la red neural y la red “Net2Cash” es la única realidad permitida en las grandes ciudades. Toda otra manera de intercomunicarse fue prohibida porque contaminaba el ambiente, era usada para piratear y no respetaba los derechos de autor, era usada para fines subversivos y antisistema. Peor aún, congestionaban los canales inalámbricos que hoy en día son usados para que la red tenga pleno control y acceso de la economía y la data social de los individuos. Todo está pensando en el bien común.

LA RED MEJORADA. SOLO PARA LOS RICOS.

La Internet como fue en sus orígenes ya no existe. Ya no existen televisión, radio, cine, teatros o conciertos. Todo se transmite directamente hacia la unidad receptora que la persona tenga más a la mano. Y se descuenta de la cuenta global. “Net2Cash” es una red de fibra óptica que se paga según se use. Se descuenta de la cuenta maestra global de la persona. La red de fibra óptica puede transmitir miles de canales de lo que era la televisión y la radio, millones de películas, cientos de miles de conversaciones de lo que era el sistema de telefonía. Todo simultáneamente. Su capacidad de transporte es, para fines prácticos, infinita. Sin embargo por toda información que se recibe hay que pagar, inclusive los videos privados, de individuo a individuo, que se envían por esta red pagan una tarifa de transporte.

Los megaoperadores en todo el planeta son solo tres. Sus presidentes y gerentes de máximo nivel gestionan directamente los temas que les interesan a los gobiernos y responden directamente por lo que transporta por la red. Se convirtieron, hace más de dos décadas, de constructores de infraestructura en vigilantes de los paquetes que transporta la red: si algo pasa sin su control ellos son responsables ante los gobiernos. Es el precio que tuvieron que pagar para poder diferenciar la Net2Cash de la antigua y obsoleta Internet: aquí, en la red Neural se les permite cobrar los velocidad de acceso (desde 1Mbit hasta 1 Terabit) y por tipo de contenido (un video de estreno es cobrado a un mayor precio que los re-estrenos). También se cobra según el circuito de rotación del sistema de películas y videos que ya tiene más de 150 años de antigüedad: un precio para la película vista en celulares, otro precio si es vista en una Tablet, otro si es vista en un nuevo sistema de aceleración mediante un nanochip que todos tenemos insertado desde el nacimiento. De allí lo de “red neural” puesto que este dispositivo nos permite visualizar la película sin necesidad de dispositivos externos. Todo tiene su precio. Es natural.

Los ingresos obtenidos en “Net2Cash”, la red neural pensada en hacer eficiente el brindar servicios y cobrar por ellos, se reparten entre algunos cientos de grandes empresas que proveen de estos servicios solamente en esta red. Las redes inalámbricas fueron prohibidas hace diez años por considerarse que estaban fuera de todo control y facilitaban los delitos de piratería y facilitaban el uso no autorizado de servicios que se brindan mediante la red de fibra óptica. Los gobiernos, que nunca permitieron el libre uso de la frecuencias, reclamaron las que habían sido asignadas. Eran sistema proclives a la falta de control y al desorden social.

LO QUE PASÓ CON LA ANTIGUA INTERNET

Existe otro mundo paralelo, por fuera de las grandes ciudades y, generalmente, en las zonas rurales de los pueblos de todo el planeta: los restos de la antigua Internet. Usando libremente las tecnologías inalámbricas, personas que se rebelaron contra el sistema, levantan micro antenas portátiles que emiten señal por algunos minutos y luego se apagan automáticamente. Hacen esto para evitar la triangulación que se usaba para detectar la ubicación de estaciones transmisoras no autorizadas. Y usan un sistema derivado del antiguo protocolo conocido como “torrents”, donde ya no solamente se transmiten libros y películas entre “pares” sino que todo tipo de información (correo personal, navegación por la red) es retransmitido de usuario a usuario (como en los orígenes de la Internet). En este mundo secundario y olvidado no existen proveedores de servicio de transporte, no existen proveedores de acceso a Internet (los antiguamente llamados ISP). El transporte es de usuario a usuario, en postas, en un sistema conocido como P2PN (Peer to Peer Net). Cuando no hay puntos de retransmisión disponibles en un pueblo alejado, recurren a un sistema de personas que viajan de pueblo en pueblo y tienen colecciones completas de libros, videos, películas, y documentos de todo tipo, grabados en nano dispositivos llamados “Pico-Neurals”. Estos reemplazaron a los USBs, tarjetas SD y dispositivos similares de inicios del siglo XXI. Los “Pico-Neurals” están construidos emulando el cerebro humano: sobre una masa neutra que alberga electrones, estos son ordenados de una manera particular que representa la información que se quiere conservar. Su capacidad de almacenamiento es infinita. Por eso fueron prohibidos y desechados para ser usados en la red de fibra óptica: un solo “Pico-Neural” tiene toda la información que una persona puede consumir en diez vidas: inmanejable, no rentable, no monetizable. No permiten entregar la información dosificada y a cuenta gotas. Los “Pico-Neurals” mantienen viva a la antigua Internet y al sistema de transmisión “Peer2Peer Net”. Son económicos y están disponibles. El problema es el transporte. Solamente una red de fibra óptica podría transportar toda la información de un “Pico-Neural” hacia el siguiente punto de retransmisión o almacenamiento. Y el transporte por fibra óptica está controlado (hay que pagar para que te lo instalen, hay que pagar su mantenimiento, hay que pagar una cuota diaria por todo lo que se recibe y envía a través de la red de fibra óptica.

El sistema de cobrar de acuerdo a la velocidad de acceso empezó hace algo más de cuarenta años cuando algunas grandes empresas de transporte de información de Norteamérica comenzaron a cobrar por “kilobits” de velocidad de transmisión (64k, 128k, 256k) y nadie se quejó. Luego “mejoraron” su mecanismo de cobranza (con la aparición de los celulares que accesaban a Internet) cobrando por “megabyte” de información transmitida. Pronto la “buena idea” prosperó y fue replicada por prácticamente todas las empresas que brindaban acceso a la Internet. No sirvió el tema de competencia, libre mercado, ni el, así llamado, “perfeccionamiento de los mercados”: los derechos de pontazgo en la Internet quedaron firmemente establecidos. Yo construyo un puente sobre un rio y cobro diferente si pasas caminando o pasas corriendo (la velocidad de transmisión) y también cobro diferente si pasas con un paquete en tus manos o con una carreta llena de paquetes. Atrás quedaron conceptos como que los caminos y las carreteras son de libre circulación. Esto es una herencia cultural procedente de sociedades que, con la excusa del libre mercado y de la incapacidad de los gobiernos para cubrir los servicios públicos, los licitaron y concesionaron: agua, luz, carreteras, en todo lugar se colocaron “tolls” o casetas de peaje que no eran otra cosa que, como ya se explicó, el antiguo derecho de pontaje de los señores feudales.

LA BRECHA DIGITAL. PARA SIEMPRE.

De manera práctica esta segregación de dos mundos, dos culturas, ha recreado la sociedad esclavista norteamericana vigente hasta los sesentas, ha recreado la sociedad vigilada del lejano oriente donde se rendía culto a emperadores y luego a líderes militares que se hicieron del poder, o a la sociedad tropical centroamericana o de las gélidas estepas de la zona este del planeta, donde los comisarios de cuadra vigilan todo lo que sucede con sus vecinos e informan a un poder central. Hoy en día, estos dos mundos son diferentes: por un lado la “Net2Cash”, pagas por todo y según vayas consumiendo. Agua y aire tienes que consumir, obligatoriamente. Y tienes que pagar. Información, entretenimiento, comunicación, tienes que consumir. Y tienes que pagar. Del otro lado, la sobreviviente red “Pico-Neural” es gratuita, pero tiene sus limitaciones y problemas propios: sólo existe en las zonas rurales alejadas de las grandes ciudades y para poblaciones pequeñas que no son de interés económicos para los gobiernos centrales. Los que nacen en este año 2050 no tienen elección. Si nacen en una gran ciudades están desde el inicio en el sistema “Net2Cash” o si nacen en el sector rural tendrán que aprender, desde niños a cortar leña, potabilizar su agua, instalar sus antenas portátiles para la red “Pico-Neural” de Internet, administrar sus nodos móviles de la “Peer to Peer Network”. Los gobiernos y los megaoperadores combaten fuertemente a los grupos aislados que tratan de estabilizar redes “Pico-Neurales” dentro las grandes ciudades. Hay disidentes del sistema, son segregados por género, nivel de ingresos, raza, creencias, y su terquedad en usar redes no autorizadas. Para regresarlos al redil gobiernos y megaoperadores hacen promociones en ciertas zonas de las ciudades y para estos grupos: descuentos, paquete de compras, equipos a precios rebajados, lo que sea. El objetivo es que pertenezcan al sistema y no sean disruptivos del mismo.

EL MENSAJE

Estamos retransmitiendo este mensaje, gracias a la tecnología de transporte temporal espacial, hacia el año 2014. Allí donde nació la separación y la “Net2Cash” fue creada. Si usted puede hacer algo para cambiar la ley de exclusión dentro de las redes de transporte de información, conocida por ustedes como el rompimiento de la neutralidad de la red, hágalo hoy. Sea usted del sector privado o público, si visiona y entiende lo que va suceder haga algo. Hoy. De otro modo tendrán sus hijos y nietos, que vivir con el nuevo sistema de apartheid que ha sido implantado a través de todo el planeta.

Este es un mensaje para los hijos de la libertad. Los descendientes de Washington, King, Kennedy, sumados a los de Gandhi y Bolívar, con el apoyo de todo ser humano que quiere vivir de pie, en una sociedad libre y justa… decidan, una vez más, botar el te de los ingleses. Hoy. Díganle a la FCC y a Tom Wheeler que no pasarán.

 “I’ll send an SOS to the world… …Seems I’m not alone at being alone…  A hundred billion castaways … Looking for a home…”.  Message in a bottle. The Police. September 1979

Publicado en Acceso libre, Free & Open Internet USA, Net neutrality, Neutralidad de la Red, World Wide Open Internet | Etiquetado , , , , , | Deja un comentario