WNU Editor: First things first .... a little background on what I know about the internet, and the hardware that drives it. To begin .... I still remember my first modem .... a 2400 baud box, which was then followed by the 4800 baud modem .... which I did not buy because I knew was it was going to be quickly followed by the introduction of 9600 baud modems. This was then followed with 14.4Kpbs modems, a 28.9Kbps modem, and then the holiest of all modems ..... U.S. Robotics and their 56k modem. There was no turning back then. The first stock that I invested in was Northern Telecom .... around 1995-1996 .... because I knew that their products would be in demand as the internet became more known and accessible. Ditto with Cisco. And did these companies fly until they crashed in 2000 (I bailed out in 1999). But even though these companies disappeared .... new companies emerged that made the web faster, efficient, and easier to use. Ditto with the explosion of websites and projects on the web .... starting with Netscape (around 1994-1995 if I am correct) .... to where we are today. In my own case .... I started a computer hardware company with some friends in the mid 1990s in Canada, as well as starting a number of web projects. We even had a project that bought the domain names of major companies (before they realized the value of these web addresses).... knowing too well that they would be wanting to make a deal with us to get those domain names back. And yes .... each and everyone of these companies did come to us. I also backed my cousin's husband who started with his friends an internet service provider in Moscow .... as well as web projects .... including an amateur attempt to do a YouTube type of project .... but we were ahead of our time .... the bandwidth/storage/and technology to do this was not available. But that is the point .... with time companies saw this limitation as an opportunity, and eventually they did develop the technologies that made these opportunities possible. As for governments .... aside from a U.S. agency that assumed the role of determining who owned their web address .... during this time their involvement on the web was minimal at best.
A personal experience made me realize that this golden age of the web was coming to an end ... and it happened in Russia when the Russian government made the decision to regulate the web like a utility with its own version of "Net Neutrality". Not surprising ... that brief explosion of innovation and excitement in Russia died when these rules became enforced .... and the reason why is simple .... we all knew that we could not make money in an industry that was regulated by the Kremlin, because we knew that they would only favor the big web companies and their friends. This was followed by Y2K, hacking scares, network vulnerabilities and how important these networks are to keep the economy humming .... yup .... everything started to change then, and yes .... governments started to position themselves to play a bigger role.
Flash forward to today ... the debate on what should be the role of government in regulating how the web should be managed is raging. From my own long personal and business experience .... I can say unequivocally that the web grew and developed because market forces were at play. I learned in the 1990s that for new technologies and ideas to be developed for the web by risk takers and entrepreneurs .... they need to operate in an unregulated environment, because if it is not there .... like in Russia when it imposed their rules .... they will go elsewhere. Unfortunately .... with today's FCC vote .... the media in the U.S. and elsewhere is not focused on what I am saying. It is focused on the premise that companies will not act fairly, and that users will be punished. And I understand that point .... a dozen years ago a Canadian communications company blocked one of their union's website during a strike. But that example also proved that if a company does behave like this .... there will be a backlash, and in this case the company in question .... Telus .... was condemned in public, in the media, and in government. Talk about bad publicity. But it should be noted that Telus is an exception to the rule .... not the rule.
Where do we go from here? This debate is not over. The Silicon Valley giants want the web to be regulated and controlled .... Here's how tech's responding to the net neutrality vote (CNet), and they have the money, resources, and patience to revisit this issue in the future. And this issue will be revisited.
9 comments:
@wnu your last sentence is wrong, I think. Should read: Silicon valley giants -don't- want net to be controlled, regulated
ANon,
No. Most Silicon Valley companies support Net Neutrality .... which is basically government imposing rules and regulations on how the web conducts itself.
Wnu , as far as i understand , net neutrality mean that ISP has to treat all data equally , so they don't throttle some websites in favour for other , by making fast lane and large bandwidth and charge custemers to get in and slow other . websites will have to pay according to visiters and bandwidth consumed . Most of innovation in the internet is experimentation by individual as hoppy or project ,which need time to grow and find there way . Allowing ISP to differentiate between data according to there judgment which cost what is a very bad idea . Even giant like google cant afford to provide services like mails , social , bloggs , news , searchs and many other for billion of customer free of charge and relaying on ads if the consumer have to pay higher charge to get to there favourite site , and site pay to get to large bandwidth . System of subscription will have to be implement . And startup will be crushed . While i understand the idea of free market and inovation that it could spur . It equaly important that basic set of role must be implemented .Access to internet is monopoly in many part of the US , and the idea that the market force can correct this is contradicted by the simple fact that the internet was not a market invention , the basic tech for the internet was gov funded programs in the US ( ARPANET ..) and Europe , as it unfeasible for corporation to take the risk to develop it . The closest think we can use as example is utility like phone service , you get to charge for using the service and not what you uses for . And finally in this climate it easy to imagine what will happen to blogs, Websites and individuals who happen to fall in the unfavorite side .
Net Neutrality regulations in the USA have nothing to do with what ever the Russians pulled. The ONLY thing net neutrality (in the US) meant was that ISPs have to act as common carriers: they cannot offer preferential treatment or throttle content. That is it. And that is how the early internet worked. The 2015 regulations were only finally put in place after ISPs continually tried to throttle services and provide preferential treatment to their own services. Those regulations were meant to preserve the open function of the internet and the only people who benefit from their repeal are monopolistic telecom companies.
Yup, already recieved a notice from my ISP provider, ( Sat ISP Datateck), that to view WNU, will require a $50 monthly upgrade, as of Jan. 1, 2018.
One of the sites I regularly visit, ARC, had been told by ComCast that for a mere $27 USD a month, their streaming speed on the Comcast network, ( 56 million ''Murkins), their streaming speed won't be affected by the end of Net Neutrality.
Google, informed Alternet, that their ranking on google search terms, would be affected, by if they ran Google Ad Sense or not, as an advertiser.
Yup
Jay. Change your provider.
As for everyone else ....
The internet is where it is today because of new technology being developed and implemented. 10 years ago the speeds that were offered would make today's users commit suicide in frustration. And here is an easy prediction .... bandwidth speeds 10 years from now would make today's concerns on speed and bandwidth and throttling users also silly in comparison.
The internet is also not free. The research, manpower, and resources that are necessary to maintain the web and to develop new technologies to make it better is enormous. 15 years ago I was more than happy to spend a good deal of money on having a T3 connection instead of giving money to my dial-up provider. Were people upset/jealous/envious that I had a better service .... you betcha .... and they said the same things then that they are saying now .... it is not fair and it is not right that people like myself have a "better service". But guess what .... I was paying for it.
Flash forward to today .... the current speed on my personal fibre network for download is 32Mbps (just did the test) .... and for this I pay Bell Canada $60/month unlimited bandwidth .... something I could only dream about 15 years ago. And why is this the case .... because of consumers like myself who were willing years ago to pay more for the newest tech, and large communications companies willing to take the risk to provide something better to consumers like me. But it does not stop there. Researchers are now testing tech via through electrical utilities that will be able to deliver web speeds that are 50 to 100 times faster than my current service. I know that it is not going to be cheap when it is introduced .... but I am more than willing to spend that type of money for what I am doing. Is it unfair if I end up having speeds/bandwidth 50 to a 100 times faster than everyone else (even if I am willing to pay for it) .... if the debate on net neutrality is any indication, the answer appears to be yes.
Bottom line .... in technology .... especially when it comes to the infrastructure that supports the web .... progress is not free. And if there is some who want to pay more to have something better .... and I am someone who is always looking for something better .... why should I be punished if I am willing to make that financial sacrifice when others are not.
As to the the issues raised in this comment thread .... Google, monopolistic practices of telecoms, etc. .... I understand everyone's concerns on that .... because in the case of Google I have suffered financially because of their ranking practices .... but that is a debate for another day.
People act like net neutrality has been the internet protector since its inception. Fact is there was no NN before 2015. The internet has done nothing but get better for decades without NN. People get all upset about it because the daily show host told them so.
You can change provides at the drop of a hat. Not the same for an unelected FCC chairmen.
Amen to that Anon. And I would add one more thing .... if it is not broken, do not fix it. What also frustrates me is that today's problem is not with those who provide the infrastructure that the web uses, it is companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, etc... who use the web and are using their dominant position on the web to charge, censor, and punish those who they do not conform to their point of view. Not surprising .... President Obama's NN regulations left these companies alone.
Post a Comment