Cable Industry Taking Control of the Net 686
Tompaine.com has a piece warning of measures that cable internet providers are taking to control their users' experiences online. We've touched on this before, but this issue needs a lot of attention and it has gotten very little from the mainstream press.
Must develop p2p over airwaves (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone must develop a way to drop a wire cord outside, or along a window frame for an antenna, and use p2p to access internet, bypassing isps.
Future computing power will be able to handle this.
Tiered Pricing (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason is obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Strange isn't it? Since AOL/Time Warner (a major cable internet provider) controls a ton of the mainstream press.
This is nothing new. (Score:3, Interesting)
ISPs do not control the content.
ISPs do not control the content.
ISPs do not control the content.
As long as you are on the internet, and can connect to IPv4 or IPv6, you cannot be stopped. The technology inherently allows you to move around blockages or outage points.
Now, if you say "Wait! 3 Media Companies control 80% of the US Internet usage", I say 'Duh!' Like AOL, Compuserve, GEnie, controlled the dialup networks back in the day. It's economy of scale -- you're never going to have enough mom and pop goodie two shoe's scattered around the globe to make every locale capable of having yippie friendly internet access. The big companies with the big bank accounts are the ones that leverage access. Nothing new here.
STILL, the technology they provide allows you to sidestep any potential blockages they make. Ok, ok, so they block at the router your attempt at reaching 555.12.12.12. So? You want to get ther badly enough, you arrange with someone for a proxy.
Tired of getting screwed by the cable industry? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm starting to miss the small ISPs that couldn't screw you as bad because there were many more alternatives.
Oh well... long live monopolies!
Hollings SSSCA and Broadband caps (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm.
a bunch of FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
Control with responsbility (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't that be contradictory to the whole idea of being a common carrier? Hands off, except where we want to squeeze customers for revenue?
Re:Tired of getting screwed by the cable industry? (Score:2, Interesting)
Evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll express an unpopular opinion here: ultimately, bandwidth will have to be metered. Bandwidth is a commodity (I think it was the commoditization of bandwidth that is the part of the reason for the telecom collapse) like water or electricity: cheap, but not infinite. The problem, of course, is that if bandwidth is allowed to be monopolized like electricity and telephone service are, prices will be increased far above their levels in a competitive environment. I would like to think the FCC and other government agencies would follow such a policy, but I have no real confidence in it.
Re:This article is a load of FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
He moved to Texas, so there was no real resolution.
I noticed the other day when I fired up Gnutella to grab a Buffy episode I missed that I was disconnected from SBC DSL (aka PacBell DSL), and couldn't connect for about 15 minutes. It's the second time that's happened. I don't use Gnutella except for maybe once a month, and probably haven't used it in the past three months or longer, so I don't know if it's really SBC, or when they started doing it.
--
Evan
Re:This is nothing new. (Score:2, Interesting)
Arrange a proxy with someone who is also behind a similar router?
5GB per month - what a joke! (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, this will at least help in the fight against spam, as it eats away at a subscribers monthly allowance it would probably help make the scumbags pay through the courts.
Glad my ISP [demon.net] basically allow you to do anything - I've served >30GB from the web server on my DSL line in a month before now! I'm pretty sure I've downloaded close to that figure too, leaving ftp sessions to run overnight for ISO's...
they have to do volume based pricing (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question is what the volume pricing should look like. A 5GB limit is too low--if they charge that, they will likely lose lots of customers. Something that would make more sense to me would be:
Yeah, yeah, yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Consumer broadband access
2) Hosting
Sure, in theory it would be great if those were the same thing and the little guy or gal could serve a web site, distribute files or relay mail through a box connected to the cable modem. In real life, 'bandwidth hogs' (scare quotes from the article, not from me) pay the same as the web browsers and email readers while indulging their warezing or the urge to run every last service that shipped with Red Hat.
I have a slow, free dial-up connection at home. How do I manage a web site? I pay $10CDN/month for web hosting, including CGI, PHP, MySQL and anonymous FTP, plus another $10US/year for a domain name.
If you want to reach an audience, or just play webmaster, paying for hosting is far cheaper and more effective than screwing around with cable modems. If you just want to warez, or just generally be a jackass, your complaining is irrelevant to the article's claims of corporate censorship.
(By the way, anyone else wonder where TomPaine.com gets so much money to run those expensive ads (NYT op-ed page!) that are witless enough to be rejected from a college newspaper? Bill Moyers nepotises a huge pile of foundation funding to TomPaine.com, run by his son John. The American Prospect is going to go under so we can get more trash like this.)
Re:The reason is obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
This is funny, because AOL/TW sell (and place) a LOT of ads.
Don't Play Into Their Hands (Score:3, Interesting)
You can stop this by killing the market: Cancel your cable TV subscription. Don't download or play music on your PC. Play DVD's with you TV. You know the drill.
so what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, fuck them. I think people who sit there and download pirated DVDs and mp3s 24/7 SHOULD be charged more because it interferes with my ability to actually go to websites and get information I want. Bandwidth costs money, and to be honest, probably 95-99% of the people using those programs are downloading stuff illegally. I have a fast connection because I like fast connections- i don't download music and i don't download movies- i just like to hop around and get the information i want as fast as i can.
This article makes it sound like because we are having difficulties turning the internet into TV that we are being denied some fundamental right. if I want to watch television, I go into my living room. The internet is about free information- not annoying animations, blinking lights and surround sound.
Get over it (Score:5, Interesting)
The sky isn't falling. This won't kill the Internet, it will just make it more responsible, for once. Bandwidth isn't an unlimited resource. DEAL WITH IT. If you don't like it, start your own ISP and try to give everyone 2Mbit unrestricted connections, reliably, for $40/month. You won't be able to do it. Get all the venture capital funding you ask for and you still won't be able to do it. Look what happened to Excite@Home. If stuff like this ever happens, it'll be a blessing to networks everywhere. Maybe people will actually take some responsibility and secure their machines when their bandwidth is all used up 'cause someone zombified their machines and used them in a DDoS attack, or the next Internet worm uses it all up. That would make the neighborhood a whole lot safer, let me tell you.
People claim that restricting bandwidth in this manner will kill off the Internet economy. Bah, I say. It will save the internet economy. It will make people realize that this stuff costs something. It will make them at least be aware of how they use it. If they want to use it alot, they're going to have to pay for the privilidge. If they don't want to use it alot, they're going to be able to pay less, to only use it when they need to.
I'm all for it. Of course this is all hot air until the cable companies really crack down on it, so I guess let the good times roll as long as they can. That will only make the hangover longer I suppose. I did fine at 56K, I can do it again. No big.
Re:improve service for mainstream users (Score:2, Interesting)
To wit;
> they're handing it out to us for a flat rate for unlimited usage.
> but it's a real pain in the ass to find out that people are downloading gigabytes of
They paid for unlimited usage too. Yet you want them limited?
Perhaps its the cable companies fault that they oversold the bandwidth that they have? Naw. Couldn't be that.
Won't Last Long (Score:3, Interesting)
All it took for me was a family emergency that required me to keep in touch during the trip home. I got the bill, and nearly had a heart attack.
But here's the kicker... You can refuse to answer cell phone calls. You can't refuse incoming data! Even if you have a firewalled setup that drops the packets, they still come through your pipe!
That will be the next attack I'm sure... Don't like someone? Find out their address and packet flood them.
Proof? (Score:2, Interesting)
proper and fair business method (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry to blow your bubbles, but what is wrong with charging per GB of usage? Do you complain that a 1 hour call across the country costs more than a 15 min call?
This article is very biased. All I've heard of cable companies doing is either limiting bandwith, or thinking about charging people based on usage-- not about censoring or charging by making distinctions about content of the bandwidth.
Bandwidth (like phone systems) is a limited resource. It only seems natural to charge based on usage.
Most cable companies which have bandwith limits now have premium service options where you pay more for huge amounts of bandwith.
What nerve do these companies have for trying to get people to pay based on usage? What nerve do food establishments have for not offering "all you can eat"? It discriminates against the hungry.
competition, competition. (Score:2, Interesting)
There's no reason Comcast need be the only provider in town who can send stuff down that coaxial wire. It isn't the same as TV.
Let other ISPs have access to it too, and let me decide how I want my data routed.
Right now it just makes financial sense to act the way they are: every 'heavy' user you boot off can be replaced with a few dozen grandmas who only read email. Much cheaper than putting an infrastructure in place that can support the amount of service they've (over)sold.
Insisting on flat fees also hinders competition (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course they are. Just like a car salesman or a cellular phone plan, their goal is to make the deal as complex as possible to prevent you, the customer, from understanding just how you are getting ripped off.
Sadly, the solution is not to somehow force companies to provide service for flat fees, but to embrace the whipping boy of bandwidth hogs, pay-per-byte.
If you download 100KB, you pay $.0001. If you download 1MB, you pay $.001. If you download Suse 8.1, you pay $.60.
Of course, you say, that sucks because right now you are getting your Internet subsidized by the yuppies next door who only read Slate and Salon, and don't ever trade music or download linux distributions. Get used to it. You will get screwed, eventually, whether you notice it or not.
Paying for your bytes is the only path to useful competition in this market.
Chris Owens
San Carlos, CA
Look at wireless (Score:5, Interesting)
In the Texas Panhandle, it's flat. Really, really flat. It's so flat, that on a clear day, you can look off at the horizon and see all 360 degress of it... faded blue depending on the humidity, but there nonetheless.
Now, what do you need for a good wireless connection? A flat, unobstructed line-of-sight to an antenna or a repeater.
Heh... by sticking atennas and repeaters on top of granaries, water towers, and high buildings, wireless ISPs in Amarillo and the surrounds are getting *amazing* distances with their wireless shots. You can drive 30-40 miles away and still get a good clean connection via a pingle-can antenna. Thusly, Wireless is taking off in a big way here. A good number of the people I work with are already using wireless as their main form of bandwidth and out and out refuse to go back to cable. Most everyone else is actively considering switching. Those who are considering other forms of broadband bandwidth are going to DSL and not cable.
Cable companies and media conglomerates are screaming and making a big fucking deal out of a non-existant problem in the name of gelaning control. What it boils down to is that the technology is changing too rapidly for them to effectively impliment any kind of contols. Sure, they can nail some of the areas in the U.S. where it's impossible to get DSL or wireless, but they can't go everywhere. If my understanding is correct, DSL is getting cheaper and cheaper, and wireless is getting better and better. Cable is a flash in the pan. A bright flash, but a flash in the pan nonetheless.
Re:A simple fix (Score:2, Interesting)
No problem. Your customers will just get themselves an Apple AirPort Base Station, or other PPPoE-savvy gateway device. No muss, no fuss.
Re:proper and fair business method (Score:2, Interesting)
But how do they meter that usage? My broadband connection is used *a lot* more than I use it - by all the crap that is pounding my firewall.
How will they be able to know what *I* use, and what is just the virus/trojan/mole noise on the net hitting my account?
They can't - without monitoring every packet for what it *is*, and not only is that pretty impractical - but I sure as heck don't want them doing that. Then I wouldn't be safe looking at pr0n or
Would e-mail .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Competition != Whining -- reframe the debate (Score:2, Interesting)
But the just objective is fairness. The way economic freedom is most efficiently pursued is regulated competition. The buyers and sellers may want to cheat each other, but competition means each is more likely to get what's fair.
The problem is that you can't say free-market, problem solved. One of the biggest stumbling blocks is monopoly, and cable is one of our most familiar non-public monopolies. We happen use a cable modem (having switched from DSL on price) and its reliability and performance happen to be very good. Yet I wonder what unimagined options we might get if there were any competition. Although we can also access DSL, many in this country can't, and DSL isn't the same thing as cable anyway (our cable, for one has much faster dowstream of over 5 Mbps, another reason for our switch). Then there is also satellite, but as the recent FTC block of the DirectTV/Echostar merger illustrates, competition in the sky is already very limited as well. Then there is often the equipment to buy or abandon when getting or leaving satellite.
So
I believe the common problem to be monopoly and the resulting absence of multiple, competitively-priced package plan providers such as we have in conventional long-distance telephones
There, how many times did I use the word "competition"? I get $5 for each one from the Competition Institute for Competitive Competing Competitors.
Re:MMORPGs (Score:1, Interesting)
Over the air providers needed. (Score:5, Interesting)
When the ability to hook up is a monopoly (like cable, where no 3rd party company is permitted to provide access over the cable company's coax), there is no competition incentive. All these "problematic" uses for the Net get banned, and there's no where else to go.
The situation is not much better with DSL, since the 3rd party providers are at the mercy of the Bells, and are pretty limited to what they can provide because of it.
The air, however, isn't owned by anyone (regulated, yes, but not property). If technology can allow for fast, reliable, two-way Net access through airspace, this removes the telco & cable companies' ability to ignore these undesirable Net services. If they start to lose too many subscribers to over-the-air providers, they will have to back off on the restrictions.
Note that the tone of the article was not an issue of cost: it was an issue of what you are *allowed* to do on the Net *regardless* of cost. If the telcos and cable providers are allowed to continue, they simply will stop permitting P2P usage on their lines, with no option to turn it on (they would rather kill high-bandwidth usage than bother to administer its usage).
End result: if we have other high-speed options, Net access will cost more (as it likely should), but at least we will still have the freedom to do as we wish. But if we do not get other options (through restrictive regulations, likely at the request of the copyright industries), then the article is bang-on.
I wouldn't worry too much. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are actually two providers here in Columbus now that have tiered plans but they're both based on throughput, not total monthly bandwidth used. In fact, it's actually pretty sweet. One of the companies offers 150kbs down and 75kbs up for $4.95 per month. Their "power user" package is 1.5mbit down and 300k up for $15.95. One of my friends is going to try it out for a month or two and compare it to roadrunner. I guarantee if it's as good as it sounds, half my office will be switching within a month.
It's actually tempting to grab the lower tiered service and adjust to the slower speed just for the price savings. $4.95 is stupid cheap for broadband internet acess.
Let's take the net to the airwaves... (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine that in a small community (eg. a college) you could P2P over the air with UWB, without the need to involve any other company network.
Transmission should be encrypted and the bandwidth is virtually unlimited...
Who needs the cable companies, let's turn our computer into routers...
Re:Your post is way off, dude (Score:5, Interesting)
I think if a network is worried about your peak usage rather than total usage they should put a lower threshold on your bandwidth. If you are really only paying for half the bandwidth you are promised then that has to be some sort of fraud. They shouldn't be able to advertise unlimited connections when they really aren't unlimited.
I have no problem with a company deciding to cap connections in one way or another, but at least be honest in your advertising and mention that you are capped.
Re:Evidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
But isn't bandwidth fundamentally different from electricity and water, in that the latter 2 cost money to generate or pump? With broadband, once you lay the pipe, it doesn't cost anything to actually pull data up and down. Or is there a significant overhead for the ISP in managing all these bits flying around? So that more traffic takes more computing power, and would therefore have to be supported with more money?
Someone care to fill me in?
FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
First, the current Time-Warner service is quite good. The system runs nearly 24/7. I have seen only 2-3 outages lasting about 4 hours each since I bought the service about 3 years ago. My electric service from AEP has been less reliable than this (the 1920s era electric wires in the neighborhood can't handle the load increase from all of the computers and other new electric gadgets). I work from home and only one of the ISP outages caused a minor inconvenience with a customer deadline. Second, the bandwidth is plenty enough to meet my needs - mostly surfing for manual pages and news stories and dl of source code and the occasional shn concert. The bandwidth only seems to slow a bit when kids get out of school in the afternoon and I suspect that the occasional slow speed I see when retriving files is due to bandwidth limitations on the server side, not my local pipe. The so-called "bandwidth hogs" are not causing me any problems. Third, I run the odd service or two on the box in my dmz and have yet to recieve any complaints from Time-Warner. Fourth, the service has actually gotten better in the past year. All of the competition has forced TW to add dial-in service to the net for road warriors who need occasional access.
Given the three lines behind my house and the six or seven companies offering broadband cable or DSL over those lines, I'd be surprised if competition doesn't keep prices pretty close to cost + normal profit. I looked into some of the other companies a few months ago and there are some tiered pricing plans. But they are mostly for SOHO users who want symmetric ul/dl speeds w/ fixed ip addresses or gamers who want to have the fastest speed they can get.
MOD THIS GUY UP!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whoa (Score:1, Interesting)
Move to Norway (Score:3, Interesting)
You can get 704/384 ADSL (actually it's 864/384 but they advertise likely actual speeds) for the price of 5 super sized Big Mac menus a month from my ISP. [nextgentel.com] Latest news on the site says that 9/10 of their users are telling everyone about how great they are. And one of their advertising points is about how you'll be able to surf the web with just a flat fee, because the local calls you make to your dial-up ISP here in Norway cost money.
Or move to Korea, 'cause I hear you get like 8 mbps optic really cheap there.
Re:This is nothing new. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, I have ONE (count 'em, O-N-E) access point to the internet. How are you supposed to "move around blockages or outage points" when the blockage is on the single access point you have?
Sure, I could establish an ssh tunnel to another machine and route everything through it... but... that requires that I have access to another machine which is NOT BLOCKED!
Are *YOU* going to give me a proxy? No? Well then, don't be such a smug little know-it-all and try looking at the world without the rose-tinted specs for a while.
I happen to have access to a machine on a fixed network connect that I could use for that purpose, MOST people do not. And as that machine is on a fractional T1, the extra latency induced by the tunnel would make game playing laughable -- which is at least half the reason I have broadband at home to begin with. (If all I cared about was downloading, I'd go back to using removable hard drives and my car).
No Problems (Score:1, Interesting)
So they want to now allow bandwidth hogs, that's fine, find a different ISP that does allow them. What? There aren't any that allow them, well then there's either a open market that needs filled, or that much bandwidth can't be supplied at that price and you just need to buy your own damned T1 if you want that much.
Don't like them limiting your content, also fine, find a different ISP.... see above...
Stop whining already, will you please? (Score:3, Interesting)
cable co.s to cap access (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Look at wireless (Score:3, Interesting)
That was the first thing I thought: you just need to set up ad hoc networks between people in a community, and do an end run around the cable/telephone companies. However, as soon as this starts happening, and the cable/telephone companies start losing noticable numbers of subscribers, guess what will happen. Reg-u-la-tion. The government agencies that deal with such issues, such as the FCC, are in the pocket of the companies they're supposed to regulate. Neither the agencies nor the elected officials are about to let their pay-masters take a bullet.
Re:Not the only one (Score:4, Interesting)
1)Main T-x or even OC-x connection to server room with webserver, mail server, etc.
2)From server room, depending on number of seperate physical buildings, Gigabit or Fiber connections to sub-servers/routers in the diffrent buildings
3)From building wire rack, 100Base-T wires going to every unit, possibly every room
That would make a complete network/ISP for an apartment complex, and would enable it to use the service to turn an additional profit (beyond the installation of the lines and cost of servers etc). Not to mention being convienent for the people living there. Add approx. $20-40/mth to the rent, enable unlimited bandwidth, throw in on-site technical support for computer issues....I don't know many people that wouldn't jump on this.
The problem with running a wireless network is:
1)Unsecure unless you have someone that knows what their doing
2)Expensive for new tenents (having to buy a wireless network card, or if the complex rents them to tenents, replacing stolen ones)
3)Slower than 100Base-T, or possibly even Gigabit
4)Problems with wireless during storms/possible electical wire interferance (depending on age of complex)
If anyone knows a complex that is interested, tell them to get ahold of me!
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Exactly, you should get what you pay for... (Score:1, Interesting)
I was a Buckeye-express user. I was accused of cable modem uncapping. And my Home Office was raided and over $100k worth of intelectual property, 8 computers, and all of my business documents were taken. This was 90+ days ago.
I live in a small backwards community, but there are rules that apparently the ISP's don't have to follow.
If you want to help me get my computers, in Developement Software, and Company assets Back feel free to drop me a line. I can use Legal help, monetary help, moral Support, whatever...
bwirtz@griffin-digerat.com
And before you flame me. Or tell me I Deserved it. Also consider the possibility I may not have done anything. that I have been out of business for 3 months. My Employees have been out of work for 3 months. And my clients haven't been able to be serviced for 3 months.
Cable in my town isn't worth stealing. There is 802.11 that is faster than you can uncap the noisey cable lines for, and it is on $10 more a month. And they almost encourage you to run servers off it.
The "tragedy of the commons" issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Since then, there's been some loose talk about the "tragedy of the commons" from people who know a little economics but not much network design. These people usually seem to have a bias in favor of markets as a solution to a wide range of problems. Their arguments are not compelling.
Sometimes a market isn't the solution. The feedback loops implicit in a pricing model are usually far too slow to regulate a datagram network without introducing instability. Realize that markets are control systems, and are subject to the stability problems of control systems. Most economists don't get this. Classical economics assumes that if there's an equilibrium point, the system will stabilize at or near it. That's not true; all you're really guaranteed is that if it oscillates, the oscillations will pass through the equilibrium point now and then.
In addition, a pricing system itself imposes costs. In telephony, billing now costs more than transmission. Billing, setup, and support typically cost an ISP more than their backbone bandwidth. There's so much underutilized fibre installed now that backbone bandwidth just isn't a problem.
Most of this talk is an attempt to justify a price increase by an incumbent monopoly.
As a "bandwidth hog" and cable ISP employee... (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see metered bandwidth being the wave of the future; but tiered packages most certainly should be.
1) We already block port 80.
2) If you tell us you're losing thousands of dollars a week running a home business (usually in a misguided attempt to get an earlier service call), and we don't like you... our TOS allows us to now charge you a business rate.
3) Our TOS also prohibits your running a server of any sort for any purpose (yup, "business" too.) And yes, I realize the lunacy of this clause, but it stands printed.
For the vast majority of our customers, who consider themselves skillful after setting up Outlook Express and making the AOL browser work with "yous guys", the above three examples are non-factors.
For the minority who read Slashdot, who would max out a T3 if given access, who agree that blocking ports is dubious, there should be a different package with less draconian TOS.
If you want to charge me $100 a month, let me do what I damn well please with my computer, and change my upstream cap to a nice 256 kbps compromise, done and done.
Try catching a clue if you're capable! (Score:3, Interesting)
In the USA, citiLECs been selling 1-10 mbps via fiber optic to the curb for rates comparable with dialup ISPs. Unfair competition? Your friends at the cable companies and telcos seem to think so, they've lobbyied legislatures into making future systems illegal in more than one state. California, for instance. Los Angeles and the City of Alameda just got in under the wire. Cable companies think regulation is wonderful, as long as its used to shut out potential competition.
So you think it's OK for cable companies to buy laws designed to interfere in the marketplace but not for laws in the public interest to interfere with their activities. Well, the politicians agree with you.
Your version of fundamental civil liberty as implemented by politicians has put the entire US economy at risk. [cnn.com]
When you find yourself asking "Do you want fries with that?" and wondering if you'll get to keep that job because nobody can afford the "Happy Meals" your employer is selling and hearing from your friends who emigrated how great things are in IT anywhere but here... just remember your devotion to Libertarian theology... and what it's done for you and your nation.