By now, you might have heard that Google is being sued by an association of newspapers in Europe known as Copiepresse. The reason? The plaintiffs think its great that Google has indexed their news stories in the regular search engine. But as soon as they created a news portal out of several thousand newspapers that publish their work on the web, Copiepresse decided to take action. Here are a few links to get you going:
Greed is Suicide for Belgian Press
Copiepresse Upset Ruling On Google Wasn't Visible Enough
Here they go after Microsoft, too.
And then, there's the Register for their pointed commentary.
One thing that really bothers me about this suit: they want to be paid for indexing. To paraphrase, "we don't mind being in their search engines, but when they present themselves as a news portal with our news, we have a problem." I guess they're upset that Google doesn't show any advertising on their news portal. It seems schizophrenic. They want it but they don't. They can't really decide. Google has already stated flat out that they don't pay for news. Perhaps they're in a better position to bargain than Copiepresse. You think?
My fear is that news organizations will use this to force search engines to only show news stories that are politically acceptable. Yes, that's right. I think it is yet another veiled form of censorship. They just can't wait for us to accept their own custom utopia (you know, the Road to Serfdom). Better that we don't get any countervailing news. Never mind that the purpose of journalism is to question the prevailing wisdom.
Of course, the article in the Register, like many others, have pointed to a standard that is more than a decade old: robots.txt. This is just a tiny little text file letting robots (and people) know if they can index the article and/or cache it (store it locally on disk at the server where the robot returns the information it collects). Copiepresse refuses to use this tool. They believe that if they choose to exclude robots from their website, they will be excluded from the search results. But if they don't use this tool, then they will be included in the search results and in news portals such as Google's. They believe there is a better solution than choosing between death and life. There must be a middle ground.
Well, I don't know. They want to be in search engines but they don't want to be in a news portal that drives traffic to their sites. Lithium anyone?
My hope is that if news associations decide that they're the final arbiters of what search engines can show and be included in search indexes, that this will give rise to a large wave of people who want to get the news out - independently. Bloggers will fill the void like never before. I don't think bloggers will mind showing up on the news portals.
Copiepresse is being irrational. Copiepress got what they wanted - Google stopped indexing. But now they are upset because they've been shut out. Oh, you can still find them if you already know their website address. And then maybe you can search their website locally with their own search engine. But they have already noticed a significant decrease in traffic to their sites. Get ready for their screams of bloody murder when Yahoo and Microsoft avoid them like the plague, too.
A lawsuit was already tried here in the US. The plaintiff was found to have not used the robots.txt tool intentionally so that search engines would crawl his site with their robots. Then he had planned to sue for copyright infringement all along. The court found in favor of the defendant with the reasoning that he could have used the robots tool but refused to do so. Something about the clean hands doctrine.
One other thing they don't seem to anticipate: the search organizations could get together and start de-listing Copiepresse as a whole. Perhaps then, Copiepresse may see reason. When that happens there will be another lawsuit forcing the search engines to give them equal time. Not.
Censorship is already a problem as it is. Why can't these nuts just be happy with the way things are?
Scott Dunn
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
The Price of Liberty
It was Ben Franklin who said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." We are "they", aren't we? How many liberties have we given up to the terrorists and to our government? Who *asked* us to do this? Who said that the security we enjoy now is permanent? The people who were screaming for the security the most - those who have the most to lose.
I point you now to the Bush Administration. I see that Bush thinks the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. He's really hot on the trail of terrorists and though there are a billion Muslims, he's determined to find every last Muslim terrorist (and no, not all Muslims are terrorists). And he'll do that much better if we'd just give up a little more freedom this year. And next year. Remember, it's for your own good.
I find it interesting how politicians love to talk about their grand ideas in general terms. Like, when they talk about terrorists. They talk about apprehending terrorists and treating them as if they don't have any rights as a good thing. Sure, they're terrorists and we already know that, they say. So don't give them access to lawyers, charge them with a crime, or show them the evidence against them.
This sounds like it's a great idea doesn't it? So now lets drill down a little. Imagine for a moment, that it's your son. You haven't seen or heard from him for a few days. Then weeks. Two months go by and your family is in a panic. He's Latin and he has brown skin. And he's in Guantanamo with a lot of other men. Men who've been there for a year or more. Your son has disappeared. He has no access to a phone. He can't access a lawyer. No charges have ever been leveled against him. He'll be late for Christmas.
Is that what you call security? Maybe in East Germany. You know, that fallen communist country that no ever one really liked?
Now, lets say you're an activist politician. Then you're declared a terrorist. Your political career comes to a quick, if temporary end, once you're detained. Who knows, maybe when you get out, you can write a book about your experience, and then run for president. Okay, scratch that. Try for a talk show. Even Martha has one now.
Who is watching the watchers? How do we know we'll be treated fairly? How do we know if the action is motivated by politics, budgets or real safety?
Oh, and don't forget their religious agenda. You know, the one that says they are on a mission from god to impose, er... promote... the Christian Worldview. Hmmm. That's funny. Didn't they just spend the last 8 years emasculating the Environmental Protection Agency? This is an agency that was created under the Nixon Administration to protect the environment. And now they want to take it down, you know, for the economy. Never mind the fact that their god says that we are caretakers of the earth. What will their god say to them when they have to answer questions like, "So what did you do to your beautiful earth?" Well, we sold a hell of a lot of SUVs.
The funny thing about religious agendas is that they are operating on what they call the truth: a message from god to take action. Unfortunately, there's no scientifically objective way to verify the message. It could be anything. Say, remember how the 9/11 terrorists believed that they were on a mission from god, too? The similarities are eerie, aren't they?
How many people can still remember the press mocking President Bush for his terrible speaking skills? How many remember him as unable to pass a bill prior to 9/11? That was what he was afraid of. He's afraid of not being remembered. Oh, we'll remember him alright. We'll be looking out for others like him, too.
Now there was a man whom the press laughed at. And then, after 9/11, everyone shut up. Suddenly, it was time to be nice to Mr. President. Better to be with him than against him, eh?
Too bad Bush didn't listen to Winston Churchill:
Given that we're not very good at picking political leaders, perhaps it's time to enlist the Psychopathy Checklist. This is a diagnostic checklist for subclinical psychopathy. I think it would be very handy to screen our potential politicians. For some reason, psychopaths from both dominant parties seem to rise to the top in our country. We could stop that rather quickly with this checklist. The best part about this list is that it is nearly impossible to fool since the impulses of psychopaths are hard for them to hide under the intense scrutiny of this checklist.
So I watched the news today. And as I did so, I recalled how we never heard a dissenting voice for 5 years on who, what, how and why of 9/11. At least, not if you read any papers, or watch TV.
But if you look at the internet, you will find a Google of dissent from people warning of the impending disaster and the other people trying to calm their collective nerves. Go ahead, do a search and see what you find for "9/11 conspiracy theories". It's interesting how network news doesn't talk about them.
It took nearly 5 years for Bush to admit there was not a single tie between Al-Quaeda (there seems to be a million ways to spell and pronounce that) and the dictator of the century, Saddam Hussein. Why did it take him five years? What else is he omitting from his press conferences?
Look around and you will see blogs and articles about why the World Trade Center towers fell straight down instead of falling over like a tree. That is one I want to know. Or how about explaining why President Bush sat in a classroom reading a story to children instead of excusing himself politely and handling the situation?
Whatever your feelings about Bush, consider this: why is it that the disbelievers are shut out of the press and being told to shut up? Why do they wind up unemployed, demoted, on paid leave, or transferred to Siberia? Why isn't there an honest, public debate on the subject on network television? No one would pay for the commercial time? Puh-lease!
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. That's why. So consider what we are doing here and why we are motivated to do it. If you support the president, have you questioned his motives, reasoning or accounting of the facts? Why can't we have an open discussion on the air, with the people who were there?
There is an interesting show on KPFK here in LA. It's called Uprising. They are uncompromising liberals, and at least they are not afraid to say it. I don't agree with everything they say, but at least they are upfront about where they stand. They introduce the show by saying this: The purpose of journalism is to question the prevailing wisdom.
When was the last time you heard Tom Brokhaw, Dan Rather, 60 Minutes or perky Catie Couric question the prevailing wisdom?
People worry about the way Bush and his administration violate the Constitution on a daily basis. That is because most of us are asleep with our various addictions: work, sex, tv, coffee, gambling, debt...you name it. We've got it here. Those addicts sure know how to keep the economy going. Until we wake up from our collective sleep, a small minority will seek to impose their will upon the rest of us. The irony? They want us to believe as they do so that we'll be saved. Heh.
"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." --- Judge Learned Hand.
So when I think of my desire for security, I think of Alan Watts. In his book, The Wisdom of Insecurity, he shows that the more security a man has, the more he wants. And then there is never enough. So what does he do? He unplugs his computer, locks his door and curls up with a nice book in bed, hoping for the best. Bush appeals to the insecure among us. That's George W. (Wuss) Bush.
There are more books on the subject, but that book says more about the spirit of liberty to me than just about any other. Once we can have faith in our existence and the universal power, then security becomes a second thought. We rely upon the universe for what we need and nothing more. For our putative brains and our unaided will can be flicked from the earth at any time.
Remember to breathe and everything else will follow.
Mr. Scott
(sorry, transporter is out of order today)
I point you now to the Bush Administration. I see that Bush thinks the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. He's really hot on the trail of terrorists and though there are a billion Muslims, he's determined to find every last Muslim terrorist (and no, not all Muslims are terrorists). And he'll do that much better if we'd just give up a little more freedom this year. And next year. Remember, it's for your own good.
I find it interesting how politicians love to talk about their grand ideas in general terms. Like, when they talk about terrorists. They talk about apprehending terrorists and treating them as if they don't have any rights as a good thing. Sure, they're terrorists and we already know that, they say. So don't give them access to lawyers, charge them with a crime, or show them the evidence against them.
This sounds like it's a great idea doesn't it? So now lets drill down a little. Imagine for a moment, that it's your son. You haven't seen or heard from him for a few days. Then weeks. Two months go by and your family is in a panic. He's Latin and he has brown skin. And he's in Guantanamo with a lot of other men. Men who've been there for a year or more. Your son has disappeared. He has no access to a phone. He can't access a lawyer. No charges have ever been leveled against him. He'll be late for Christmas.
Is that what you call security? Maybe in East Germany. You know, that fallen communist country that no ever one really liked?
Now, lets say you're an activist politician. Then you're declared a terrorist. Your political career comes to a quick, if temporary end, once you're detained. Who knows, maybe when you get out, you can write a book about your experience, and then run for president. Okay, scratch that. Try for a talk show. Even Martha has one now.
Who is watching the watchers? How do we know we'll be treated fairly? How do we know if the action is motivated by politics, budgets or real safety?
Oh, and don't forget their religious agenda. You know, the one that says they are on a mission from god to impose, er... promote... the Christian Worldview. Hmmm. That's funny. Didn't they just spend the last 8 years emasculating the Environmental Protection Agency? This is an agency that was created under the Nixon Administration to protect the environment. And now they want to take it down, you know, for the economy. Never mind the fact that their god says that we are caretakers of the earth. What will their god say to them when they have to answer questions like, "So what did you do to your beautiful earth?" Well, we sold a hell of a lot of SUVs.
The funny thing about religious agendas is that they are operating on what they call the truth: a message from god to take action. Unfortunately, there's no scientifically objective way to verify the message. It could be anything. Say, remember how the 9/11 terrorists believed that they were on a mission from god, too? The similarities are eerie, aren't they?
How many people can still remember the press mocking President Bush for his terrible speaking skills? How many remember him as unable to pass a bill prior to 9/11? That was what he was afraid of. He's afraid of not being remembered. Oh, we'll remember him alright. We'll be looking out for others like him, too.
Now there was a man whom the press laughed at. And then, after 9/11, everyone shut up. Suddenly, it was time to be nice to Mr. President. Better to be with him than against him, eh?
Too bad Bush didn't listen to Winston Churchill:
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."Mission accomplished, right?
Given that we're not very good at picking political leaders, perhaps it's time to enlist the Psychopathy Checklist. This is a diagnostic checklist for subclinical psychopathy. I think it would be very handy to screen our potential politicians. For some reason, psychopaths from both dominant parties seem to rise to the top in our country. We could stop that rather quickly with this checklist. The best part about this list is that it is nearly impossible to fool since the impulses of psychopaths are hard for them to hide under the intense scrutiny of this checklist.
So I watched the news today. And as I did so, I recalled how we never heard a dissenting voice for 5 years on who, what, how and why of 9/11. At least, not if you read any papers, or watch TV.
But if you look at the internet, you will find a Google of dissent from people warning of the impending disaster and the other people trying to calm their collective nerves. Go ahead, do a search and see what you find for "9/11 conspiracy theories". It's interesting how network news doesn't talk about them.
It took nearly 5 years for Bush to admit there was not a single tie between Al-Quaeda (there seems to be a million ways to spell and pronounce that) and the dictator of the century, Saddam Hussein. Why did it take him five years? What else is he omitting from his press conferences?
Look around and you will see blogs and articles about why the World Trade Center towers fell straight down instead of falling over like a tree. That is one I want to know. Or how about explaining why President Bush sat in a classroom reading a story to children instead of excusing himself politely and handling the situation?
Whatever your feelings about Bush, consider this: why is it that the disbelievers are shut out of the press and being told to shut up? Why do they wind up unemployed, demoted, on paid leave, or transferred to Siberia? Why isn't there an honest, public debate on the subject on network television? No one would pay for the commercial time? Puh-lease!
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. That's why. So consider what we are doing here and why we are motivated to do it. If you support the president, have you questioned his motives, reasoning or accounting of the facts? Why can't we have an open discussion on the air, with the people who were there?
There is an interesting show on KPFK here in LA. It's called Uprising. They are uncompromising liberals, and at least they are not afraid to say it. I don't agree with everything they say, but at least they are upfront about where they stand. They introduce the show by saying this: The purpose of journalism is to question the prevailing wisdom.
When was the last time you heard Tom Brokhaw, Dan Rather, 60 Minutes or perky Catie Couric question the prevailing wisdom?
People worry about the way Bush and his administration violate the Constitution on a daily basis. That is because most of us are asleep with our various addictions: work, sex, tv, coffee, gambling, debt...you name it. We've got it here. Those addicts sure know how to keep the economy going. Until we wake up from our collective sleep, a small minority will seek to impose their will upon the rest of us. The irony? They want us to believe as they do so that we'll be saved. Heh.
"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." --- Judge Learned Hand.
So when I think of my desire for security, I think of Alan Watts. In his book, The Wisdom of Insecurity, he shows that the more security a man has, the more he wants. And then there is never enough. So what does he do? He unplugs his computer, locks his door and curls up with a nice book in bed, hoping for the best. Bush appeals to the insecure among us. That's George W. (Wuss) Bush.
There are more books on the subject, but that book says more about the spirit of liberty to me than just about any other. Once we can have faith in our existence and the universal power, then security becomes a second thought. We rely upon the universe for what we need and nothing more. For our putative brains and our unaided will can be flicked from the earth at any time.
Remember to breathe and everything else will follow.
Mr. Scott
(sorry, transporter is out of order today)
Saturday, May 13, 2006
The End of the SSN
It seems that Congress is getting a little antsy about identity theft. They know that things have gone too far when people are selling SSNs for fun and profit. They know that the use of the SSN has gone too far when people can discriminate against you because you refuse to reveal your number. But when a treasure trove of identity information is found on a server on the internet, you know that Congress wants to cover their behind.
So they're writing legislation. It appears they now want to limit the sale and use of the SSN. How nice. Oh, wait. They also want to make it illegal for people to refuse to do business with you if you refuse to reveal your SSN. But only in certain cases. Still, it's a start.
Everyone has a number. And even though that number is required as a matter of survival in this country, it's required to be disclosed in so many places that often, it lands on public documents. On the Internet.
Now it looks like they are so bold as to stash huge stores of identity information on FTP sites. You may be familiiar with websites, but long before there was the web protocol, http (Hyper Text Transport Protocol), there was FTP (File Transfer Protocol). It appears that Webroot has found a hoard of stolen identities ready for sale. Where did all this come from?
It came from an army of zombie computers compromised to the point of being useless. And it came from careless users and programmers. First the programmers. It is well documented that Windows is running on 90% of the world's PCs. It is also well documented that Microsoft has long preferred to program for convenience over security. And now they're paying for it. And so are we.
The other half is users. Most users, without really being properly informed, are running as administrators on their machines. "Administrators?" There are essentially two classes of users in Windows (and linux): admins and users. Admins run the show. They can make any changes they desire to the computer. Users can't do squat. They can only create, manage, and modify documents. But they can only dream about installing software on your computer.
When you run as an admin and surf the web, malware (viruses, trojans, adware, spyware, etc.) can install itself on your computer without telling you. You may be prompted to click okay to install software, but it is unlikely you will get any warning. Then once it's installed, it's difficult if not impossible to remove the buggers.
Now if you run as regular user, and you run into something trying to install itself on your computer, you will be prompted to do so with administrators privileges. If you don't have this power, the virus, trojan, whatever, can't install itself on your computer and you get a warning that something is happening. In order to do so, privilege escalation has to occur. That means that the virus has to elevate its privileges from user to administrator. On most systems, remote privilege escalation is difficult if not impossible.
The point of this article is that sure, identity theft is a real threat to your well being, and yes, programmers need to do a better job of protecting your computer. Like Microsoft programmers. But what really needs to be done is better education of the people who use the computers in the first place. And if people do not actively seek out this information, in the end, they have to take responsibility for their own brains. Siimply legislating the problem away is not enough.
Scott Dunn
So they're writing legislation. It appears they now want to limit the sale and use of the SSN. How nice. Oh, wait. They also want to make it illegal for people to refuse to do business with you if you refuse to reveal your SSN. But only in certain cases. Still, it's a start.
Everyone has a number. And even though that number is required as a matter of survival in this country, it's required to be disclosed in so many places that often, it lands on public documents. On the Internet.
Now it looks like they are so bold as to stash huge stores of identity information on FTP sites. You may be familiiar with websites, but long before there was the web protocol, http (Hyper Text Transport Protocol), there was FTP (File Transfer Protocol). It appears that Webroot has found a hoard of stolen identities ready for sale. Where did all this come from?
It came from an army of zombie computers compromised to the point of being useless. And it came from careless users and programmers. First the programmers. It is well documented that Windows is running on 90% of the world's PCs. It is also well documented that Microsoft has long preferred to program for convenience over security. And now they're paying for it. And so are we.
The other half is users. Most users, without really being properly informed, are running as administrators on their machines. "Administrators?" There are essentially two classes of users in Windows (and linux): admins and users. Admins run the show. They can make any changes they desire to the computer. Users can't do squat. They can only create, manage, and modify documents. But they can only dream about installing software on your computer.
When you run as an admin and surf the web, malware (viruses, trojans, adware, spyware, etc.) can install itself on your computer without telling you. You may be prompted to click okay to install software, but it is unlikely you will get any warning. Then once it's installed, it's difficult if not impossible to remove the buggers.
Now if you run as regular user, and you run into something trying to install itself on your computer, you will be prompted to do so with administrators privileges. If you don't have this power, the virus, trojan, whatever, can't install itself on your computer and you get a warning that something is happening. In order to do so, privilege escalation has to occur. That means that the virus has to elevate its privileges from user to administrator. On most systems, remote privilege escalation is difficult if not impossible.
The point of this article is that sure, identity theft is a real threat to your well being, and yes, programmers need to do a better job of protecting your computer. Like Microsoft programmers. But what really needs to be done is better education of the people who use the computers in the first place. And if people do not actively seek out this information, in the end, they have to take responsibility for their own brains. Siimply legislating the problem away is not enough.
Scott Dunn
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality. That's the current buzzword these days. Most people are hardly aware of such a concept, though they hear it in the news. Internet Service Providers claim that companies like Google, Vonage, Microsoft and Yahoo are getting a free ride unless the ISPs can charge customers of those same companies, more money for their services.
What sort of services?, you might ask. Video, voice and streaming music communications. To take an example, lets look at voice. With voice communications, internet phone companies like Skype, Vonage, and Yahoo (yes, Yahoo offers voice service), help their customers setup and use voice communications over the internet. Users will purchase their own headset which plugs into a USB port, and then they run software that records the voice, breaks it up into little packets, and sends those packets to the recipient over the internet, encrypted and secure.
For many people this has been working well. Until now.
The link above is to a story about how the Vonage service was working great until Comcast got in the way and decided that their service was going to run better than any competitor's service running over their wire. See, Comcast has the ability identify the source and type of traffic going over their wires. They can selectively throttle the service for other competitors. Of course, they're going to deny it because they can. But the link above is just one point of proof.
Why is Comcast doing this? They believe they can make more money by charging for tiered services. Ladies and Gentlemen, tiered service is already here. Ever heard of a T1? T3? Oc-3 or OC-192? Those are fat pipes - really fat pipes - for data. Large internet companies have to buy this kind of bandwidth to provide access to their web servers.
They are not cheap, either. Sure, we all gripe about how we pay $30-50 per month for our broadband connection. Now the cable/phone companies want more. But only if you use a competing service for video or voice. You see, if you use *their* service, it will work better. You won't notice any delays or dropouts because the cable/phone companies can ensure more reliable service since it's their own network.
But the one thing that cable/phone companies aren't telling you is that they are common carriers. A common carrier is like a taxi. A taxi cannot refuse service to just anyone. Now if the customer is waving a gun in your face, then sure, you can drive away. But if he's peaceful and willing and able to pay the toll, then he gets a ride. No questions asked except "Where to, bub?".
So the next time you hear the cable companies bleat about how Google is getting a free ride, consider that Google is *already* paying for high speed internet access. The ISPs are trying to get you to pay more for it. Again.
So lets have a look at it another way. We pay a monthly bill. We only use our connection for a small part of the day. The ISP is overselling their service because they know that most of us have day jobs just so we can pay the bill. If everyone got on at the same time, we'd feel it. But most times, only a fraction of the subscribers are online. That is just one way they're making their money. Banks do this, too, but that is another story for another day.
If cable/phone companies have their way, they will balkanize the internet. That means that the internet will break up and fragment. No more easy access to the information you really want, unless you are willing to pay more than you already do.
You know how Congress regulations interstate commerce? They prohibit sales taxes between states to ensure free trade among the states. Congress needs to step in and do the same thing with net neutrality. Net Neutrality will help to prevent the fragmentation and balkanization of the internet. It will also prevent the IPS from using the perfect excuse for censorship: bandwidth use.
The ISP behavior towards net neutrality has prompted Google to start buying their own infrastructure. This is more evidence that the net is going to be fragmented unless a firm policy regarding net neutrality is adopted. Fortunately, there is competition afoot for the cable and phone companies. Ethernet over Power lines is the next big thing. People will be able to get their internet connection through a power outlet. The work is still ongoing, but it's only a matter of time before we see it everywhere.
And then there is wireless. WiMax is due to come out strong in 2007-2008. There are municipal networks popping up all over the country with the help of Google and Earthlink.
So the phone companies want stomp on net neutrality? The cable companies want Skype to run a little slower then their own, branded service? Welcome to the perfect excuse for municipal networks. Any city will be able to claim that the municipal networks became neccessary for the betterment of the general public because the dominant ISPs wouldn't play nice with others. We have roads, don't we? Just imagine what would happen if the cable companies owned the roads. *shudder*!!!
So get on the horn and write your CongressCritter. Send them an email so that they know you are personally affected, and that you have money to back up your words. Not that you will make a donation, but that you will vote with your pocketbook.
Whew. Sure glad I got that off of my chest. See you next time.
Scott Dunn
What sort of services?, you might ask. Video, voice and streaming music communications. To take an example, lets look at voice. With voice communications, internet phone companies like Skype, Vonage, and Yahoo (yes, Yahoo offers voice service), help their customers setup and use voice communications over the internet. Users will purchase their own headset which plugs into a USB port, and then they run software that records the voice, breaks it up into little packets, and sends those packets to the recipient over the internet, encrypted and secure.
For many people this has been working well. Until now.
The link above is to a story about how the Vonage service was working great until Comcast got in the way and decided that their service was going to run better than any competitor's service running over their wire. See, Comcast has the ability identify the source and type of traffic going over their wires. They can selectively throttle the service for other competitors. Of course, they're going to deny it because they can. But the link above is just one point of proof.
Why is Comcast doing this? They believe they can make more money by charging for tiered services. Ladies and Gentlemen, tiered service is already here. Ever heard of a T1? T3? Oc-3 or OC-192? Those are fat pipes - really fat pipes - for data. Large internet companies have to buy this kind of bandwidth to provide access to their web servers.
They are not cheap, either. Sure, we all gripe about how we pay $30-50 per month for our broadband connection. Now the cable/phone companies want more. But only if you use a competing service for video or voice. You see, if you use *their* service, it will work better. You won't notice any delays or dropouts because the cable/phone companies can ensure more reliable service since it's their own network.
But the one thing that cable/phone companies aren't telling you is that they are common carriers. A common carrier is like a taxi. A taxi cannot refuse service to just anyone. Now if the customer is waving a gun in your face, then sure, you can drive away. But if he's peaceful and willing and able to pay the toll, then he gets a ride. No questions asked except "Where to, bub?".
So the next time you hear the cable companies bleat about how Google is getting a free ride, consider that Google is *already* paying for high speed internet access. The ISPs are trying to get you to pay more for it. Again.
So lets have a look at it another way. We pay a monthly bill. We only use our connection for a small part of the day. The ISP is overselling their service because they know that most of us have day jobs just so we can pay the bill. If everyone got on at the same time, we'd feel it. But most times, only a fraction of the subscribers are online. That is just one way they're making their money. Banks do this, too, but that is another story for another day.
If cable/phone companies have their way, they will balkanize the internet. That means that the internet will break up and fragment. No more easy access to the information you really want, unless you are willing to pay more than you already do.
You know how Congress regulations interstate commerce? They prohibit sales taxes between states to ensure free trade among the states. Congress needs to step in and do the same thing with net neutrality. Net Neutrality will help to prevent the fragmentation and balkanization of the internet. It will also prevent the IPS from using the perfect excuse for censorship: bandwidth use.
The ISP behavior towards net neutrality has prompted Google to start buying their own infrastructure. This is more evidence that the net is going to be fragmented unless a firm policy regarding net neutrality is adopted. Fortunately, there is competition afoot for the cable and phone companies. Ethernet over Power lines is the next big thing. People will be able to get their internet connection through a power outlet. The work is still ongoing, but it's only a matter of time before we see it everywhere.
And then there is wireless. WiMax is due to come out strong in 2007-2008. There are municipal networks popping up all over the country with the help of Google and Earthlink.
So the phone companies want stomp on net neutrality? The cable companies want Skype to run a little slower then their own, branded service? Welcome to the perfect excuse for municipal networks. Any city will be able to claim that the municipal networks became neccessary for the betterment of the general public because the dominant ISPs wouldn't play nice with others. We have roads, don't we? Just imagine what would happen if the cable companies owned the roads. *shudder*!!!
So get on the horn and write your CongressCritter. Send them an email so that they know you are personally affected, and that you have money to back up your words. Not that you will make a donation, but that you will vote with your pocketbook.
Whew. Sure glad I got that off of my chest. See you next time.
Scott Dunn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)