Posted on 05/12/2007 5:58:40 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Imagine pulling out of your driveway one morning to find that once-familiar streets have been completely switched around.
You want to go borrow a book from the library, but the roads leading there have suddenly become narrower, congested and filled with stop lights. But straight ahead, on a wide and fast-moving highway, is a big, commercial bookstore.
This could be the new shape of the Internet, according David Parter, a director in UW-Madison's computer sciences department, depending on how an ongoing fight over "network neutrality" turns out.
Net neutrality -- which basically means keeping the Internet running like it does now -- has faced an ongoing melee. Major telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon, as well as the cable company Comcast, want to see the Internet restructured so that those who pay the most get the fastest ability to send and receive data. So, in other words, doing away with Net neutrality could make it easier and faster to browse a giant online retailer than digging through, say, a neighborhood's listserv or an independent blog.
With bipartisan support to reshape the Internet, the fight to maintain neutrality has been losing ground. The House recently considered the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, sponsored by Joe Barton, R-Tex., which many have complained is weak in protecting a neutral Internet.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., has been a strong supporter of Net neutrality legislation. She sponsored the Markey Network Neutrality Act by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., which failed to pass in last year's congressional session. Baldwin says she'll continue to push.
"I believe the federal government must continue to play a critical role in safeguarding the open and nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet," Baldwin said in statement. "I know that Wisconsinites want telecommunication policy that protects consumers and ensures the Internet remains open to all."
Parter said he is concerned that without the legislation, major telecom companies that own nationwide networks will start to strike up money-making deals giving certain Web sites faster service. This could significantly change the structure of the Internet, according to Parter, and everyday users wouldn't even know what was happening.
"What they'd like to do is control the roads so that when I want to get a book, their road will take me to the store they have a deal with, not to the library," Parter said, using his analogy. "And if I want to get to the library I can get there, but suddenly I'm on a different kind of road. I'm on a smaller road with more stop lights, and I have to keep stopping because the traffic going to their preferred store gets priority."
"The problem is for the consumers, they can't see any of that. If you're driving your car you can see the roads, you know where you are, but if you're on the Net, you don't know what route your traffic is taking," Parter said.
In the past two years, major telecom companies have been moving toward charging content providers for the ability to load more quickly than others, and have been lobbying for laws that would allow it.
But this kind of pay-for-performance system would be hugely problematic for a number of reasons, Parter said.
The Internet is made up of literally thousands of networks that provide access to users, according to Parter, and because of this it would be nearly impossible for a Web site owner like the UW to pay for faster service. "We wouldn't even know which providers to pay because the network is so large and the university as a whole has visitors from all over the world," he said.
The university already pays a great deal for its connection to the Internet network as a whole, Parter said.
Currently, network owners monitor and tailor the way Internet traffic flows over their wires to fit users' needs. But Parter is concerned that if the Internet becomes geared toward money-making services, many of the other functions of the Internet like visiting the UW Web site or doing research will be degraded by slow access, even if users have paid for high-speed service.
While large, nationwide Internet service providers stand to gain from a non-neutral Internet, small local providers like Madison's ResTech services could actually face higher costs.
Bryan Schenker, director of ResTech, explained that the Internet has traditionally functioned by network owners "peering" with each other. This means that owners have connected their networks under a kind of quid pro quo that says, I'll let your data pass over my network if you do the same for me.' It is this web' of connected networks that constitutes the Internet.
But, Schenker said, "Even the large companies are considering doing away with the peering arrangement."
The alternative national telecom companies are interested in a system of fees that works on both ends, similar to the "caller pays" system on cellular phone networks, Schenker said.
This could mean that ResTech would be required to pay more for traffic that flows from its networks out to others, and similarly, that Web site owners would have to pay for bandwidth on every network their data passes over.
Similar costs would also be felt by the UW without Net neutrality, according Brian Rust, communications director at the university's Department of Information Technology.
Currently the UW pays for a connection to a large nonprofit network called Internet2. But if these peering arrangements break down, the large volume of Internet traffic that the university generates could translate into large fees from commercial network owners.
Internet access fees for UW-Madison this fiscal year were approximately $446,000, Rust said.
"Anything that we would have to pay in excess of what we do now is a concern, because it would mean that much less grant money available for pure research," he said. Rust added that increased access fees could also be felt by students, who help pay for university Internet access through a small portion of their tuition.
Increased costs for Web site owners could also trickle down to the everyday user, said Schenker, of ResTech.
"Right now people only pay for the service they connect to, I think Net neutrality keeps it that way," said Schenker. "Most people don't want to have to pay extra to use a service like Yahoo or Google."
Schenker said that this style of pay service would also significantly raise the barrier to entry on the Internet, and gave the example of a streaming video Web site whose popularity has exploded YouTube.
"A company like YouTube would not have been able to start up" under a non-neutral Internet, Schenker said. The videos that YouTube provides eat up a lot of bandwidth, he explained, but because of the open structure of the Internet, the company was able to offer them with very low cost.
"If you start charging YouTube, then you no longer have an open network," said Schenker.
If this restructuring occurs, you wont see me on the web and I will kiss my hi speed goodbye.
I dont need to be manipulated any more than I am in this country.
She's from WI, you're from WI: Your take?
That’s a good explanation of net neutrality. I didn’t understand it before now.
I wouldn’t leave the Internet if it happened, though. It would take several sticks of dynamite under my chair to knock me off the Web.
Headline clarified.
While I don't live in Wisconsin, I can see this as just another reason Verizon REFUSES to put broadband in where I live.
I can’t believe that the Feds have kept their fingers out of the Internet this long.
Kiddies, enjoy it while you can … won’t be long before the Gov’ jumps in and begins to restrict what you can and can’t do on the Internet.
Here’s the key line — “Net neutrality — which basically means keeping the Internet running like it does now...”
That means that if things are left to the companies (who currently supply the Internet connections) — they are getting ready to place “tolls” on connections, everywhere you go. Tolls for special services, tolls for web sites who have larger bandwidth (like Free Republic for example), tolls on getting “service” that you were used to normally getting, but now you won’t get it — unless — you pay extra for it. The companies are getting ready to levy tolls on all the different parts of the Internet and their services — that’s *on top of* — your current Internet connection you already pay for.
So — if you like things that way that they are *now* (i.e., no extra tolls beyond what you already are paying) — then this is “net neutrality”. In other words, it’s going to take government legislation to keep the Internet from turning into one massive toll road, everywhere you go — or — if you don’t pay extra, all your connections stall, and hang, and go nowhere for maybe five minutes at a time (just like a traffic jam on a side road). You’ll be put on the “side road” if you don’t pay tolls.
Net Neutrality keeps it as it currently is....
The three biggest net-grabbers are/will be government, advertisers, and cyber-criminals.
I’m not entirely certain which group I hate the most, they are so much alike.
Which country would be better to be “manipulated” in?
Guess it’s France for you then... say hi for us to all the actors who went there when Bush was elected.
And one more thing, like the article says — once you get into the “toll road” set up, and that all gets put into place (if a “Net Neutrality” law fails to pass) — then — you will see all sorts of “backroom politics” involved with these companies that supply you with Internet connections.
They will decide who gets a *premium* and *fast* connection to a business web site — in order to *direct* you over to it. And you’ll tend to go there, first — because you’ll find that you cannot connect with the one that you want to go to. You wait for a minute and you get no web page. But, their *preferred* website loads *instantly* (because they have a *deal* with that web site and they slow down all the other connections you might want to make that competes with it).
Thus, you can hardly get into the web site that you want, but their “preferred” company (that pays under the table) you connect to *instantly* and *always*.
So, that will be another consequence if a law *fails* to pass which *insures* Net Neutrality.
It’s entirely possible that “under the table deals” can then be made with these companies (that supply Internet services) on the basis of “politics” — and if Free Republic is not the “political persuasion” that they want people to have access to, you’ll find that people will have *great difficulty* connecting to Free Republic (the connection will have been relegated to a “dirt road” on the Internet highway system).
Those are the consequences of failing to insure “Net Neutrality.”
You said — “I can’t believe that the Feds have kept their fingers out of the Internet this long.”
—
That’s a mistaken impression that you have. They have not kept their fingers out of the Internet. They’ve had them right in the middle of it from the beginning. In fact, by acting *against* taxing Internet sales — they government has been *active* in the Internet. It’s “active” precisely because they passed legistlation expressly for that purpose.
By the government maintaining U.S. control over certain aspects of the Internet, the government has had their fingers in it from the beginning. The fact that they have their fingers in it does not mean that they will mess it up — but that they can also prevent *others* from messing it up, and that’s precisely what we’re talking about doing here — with Net Neutrality.
It’s time for the government to once again, step in to keep *others* from messing up the Internet (exactly like the government has stepped in, in the past, and kept others from messing things up) — and have them (i.e., the government) prevent anyone from *changing* the “toll-free” nature of the Internet now — and simply continue what has been done all along — in that the user and the website simply pays for the amount of bandwidth that they use — with *no favoritism* to any special group or service. That is what the government needs to *maintain* — the services *exactly as they are* now....
Thank you for raising my Internet IQ. I shall investigate further. (I love a challenge).
You said — “Thank you for raising my Internet IQ. I shall investigate further. (I love a challenge).”
—
You’re welcome.
The fact of the matter is that the government is going to become more involved whether anyone likes it or not. The *key* is whether it’s some big interests (like political or big-monied interests — against the common person like you or me) that get the government to go along with their ideas and set up “toll roads” on everything — or — whether the “Net Neutrality” activists get the government to maintain it as it is — and no extra fees for either services or websites, no matter who they are (no favoritism for services or websites).
Those are really the two choices...
what’s wrong with republicans? why are they at the bottom of so much of this legislation? CALLING ORRIN
The big telcos selling DSL and the like are going to get a lot of complaints from their customers if personal web access becomes unreasonably poor.
Is there a model for this kind of trouble anywhere else in the globe? I would think that the debate on net neutrality would immediately bring up instances of the problem in other prosperous areas of the world. But I don’t hear kvetching from the European Union, Australia, Canada, Taiwan, etc.
I believe the Feds created it.
Not to say they can't also screw it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.