A Two-Tier Internet?

By Michael Snyder, on August 27th, 2010

The Internet as you know it is in serious, serious danger. Some of the most powerful communications companies in the world have been involved in negotiations and have been making agreements that would throw net neutrality out the window and would move us toward a two-tier Internet. So exactly what would that mean? It would mean that the big corporate giants that have a virtual monopoly on other forms of media and entertainment would be able to buy access to the blazing fast “next generation” Internet that communications companies are developing and the rest of us (like this site for example) would be stuck on the decaying “gravel roads” of the old Internet. The threat that this poses to freedom, liberty, Internet commerce and the free flow of information should not be underestimated.

I want you to take a few moments and imagine with me what the future of the Internet could look like if something is not done. Imagine a world in which your Internet service provider gives you more “choices” regarding your level of Internet access. For a “budget” price, you can get email and access to several hundred of the hottest and most popular websites (controlled by the big media conglomerates of course) on the incredibly fast “next generation” Internet. For a bit more, you can get access to thousands of websites (once again, controlled by the big media conglomerates) on the new blazing fast version of the Internet that has been developed. Or lastly, you can get the “premium package” which will give you access to the entire Internet, including the millions of websites that are still chugging along on the “old Internet”.

Wouldn’t that be great?

Of course not.

Isn’t it obvious what would happen?

The millions of websites that are unwilling or unable to pay the exorbitant “tolls” to get on the new blazing fast version of the Internet would rapidly start losing traffic and would eventually fizzle out almost altogether.

After all, in this day and age who is going to stick with technology that is slow and outdated?

For example, how many people still use “dial-up” anymore? There are a few, but it is just not that many.

For years, the big Internet companies have been dreaming of getting permission to sell access to an Internet “fast lane” to the highest bidder. The potential profits to be had are staggering.

But right now there is one thing that stands in the way of those profits and that must be eliminated according to them.

Net neutrality.

Up until now, any information sent over the Internet has been treated more or less equally. When a data packet enters the Internet, it is directed to its destination regardless of the identity of the customer or the importance of the information.

But now some very powerful interests want to change all that. The idea is to have the Internet much more closely resemble cable television.

In particular, a recent agreement regarding net neutrality between Google and Verizon is causing alarm among Internet users.

The following is how The Daily Mail described the recent agreement between Google and Verizon….

Technology giants Google and Verizon have today paved the way for a future ‘two-tier’ internet in which companies can pay extra to make sure their services get through.

Whenever anyone starts using phrases like “pay extra” when it comes to access to the Internet, alarm bells should start going off in your head.

Once we start going down that road, the big media companies with the deep pockets will do all they can to gain a “competitive” advantage.

The future of the Internet is at stake. Are we going to continue to have a free and open Internet with millions of choices, or are we going to have an Internet dominated by “toll roads” where there are only a few thousand choices which are all tightly controlled by the giant media conglomerates?

Already, there is a lot of talk about the new “high bandwidth” Internet that is coming.

According to The Daily Mail, even Verizon’s CEO admits that the agreement between his firm and Google would create a “separate” high bandwidth Internet….

The new high bandwidth internet would remain separate from the normal public internet and would probably include services such as healthcare and 3D video and gaming, according to Verizon’s chief executive, Ivan Seidenberg.

So what do you think is eventually going to happen if a new “high bandwith Internet” is set up?

Well, everyone will want to move over to it of course.

And that is exactly the idea.

Over the past several years, the big media conglomerates that dominate television, newspapers, radio, movies and even video games have come to realize that they have completely and totally lost control over the Internet.

The Internet has given the common man a voice in the world, and it is probably the greatest breakthrough for the free flow of information since the printing press was invented.

But to the big media conglomerates there is a big problem.

They have lost their monopoly.

People are not forced to come to them for their news and entertainment anymore.

The rise of the alternative media has been one of the most incredible stories of this past decade, and today information flows more freely around the globe than ever before.

But now there are some very powerful corporate interests that would like to force alternative websites, radio programs and television shows to shut down for good.

They realize that they need to make their move quickly, because we are rapidly approaching a critical turning point for the Internet.

You see, the truth is that virtually all communications will eventually go through the Internet. Phone service, television service and Internet access are rapidly merging into one.

The battle for control over this media pipeline we call the Internet is only going to heat up even more. Literally trillions of dollars will be made or lost depending on the direction that the Internet takes in the years ahead.

So will we allow the Internet to become a network of private toll roads where the big media conglomerates control what we see and hear and think?

Or will we stand up and demand that the Internet remain a free and neutral platform where information flows freely and where we can all have our say?

As for me, I choose to stand on the side of Internet freedom.

What say you?

http://www.deathbytechnology.us Morpheus

Wake up People! – Join the Revolution! Talk is cheap “we need action now” – We don’t have to live like this anymore.

Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )

FIGHT THE CAUSE – NOT THE SYMPTOM
Slavaja

We must protect the Internet at all costs, as it is our only savior right now!
Brad

I don’t get it.

In your prior post you say the entire world economy will collapse and people will be reduced to virtual 16th century paupers. And in this one you imply everyone will have the money to blow on Internet access – thus they should argue for net neutrality.

So which is it?
Spencer

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Firstly, they aren’t building a second internet moron, the cost for that would be outlandish. Everything is about optimizing the current internet.

The internet was based on best effort for delivery (send a packet, it might get to the destination, might not, who knows how long, which routers it will go through, etc…).
With all of our advancements in fiberoptics, faster routers, better optimizations…the underlying concept of best effort delivery still remains.
By definition, you can’t have real-time requirements on a best effort system.

We’ve started putting real-time traffic(voip, tv, gaming) on the internet. It was terrible at first, but to have a good user experience, you can’t just grow the pipe and see real-time delivery of information. It takes a smarter network then that. Now that most people only use the internet as their portal to everything, the means of delivering content needs to be smarter.

Consider this example: A gamer in south africa is connecting to his XBox live account in California, at the same time as he’s sending a few e-mails and browsing the web. There are 2 ways that his data will get there, a pipe that runs at the bottom of the atlantic, or across europe, to alaska, then down the coast to California. On a best effort network, there is no way to determine which direction his gaming, his e-mail and his web browsing data will go: across Europe/Asia or across the ocean. All gaming traffic which goes through Europe/Asia will have lag because of the sheer distance, but he won’t experience lag if the traffic goes across the ocean. The dumb best-effort internet might do things right, might not…he might have no lag in his gaming, and he might. In effect, his e-mail and web browsing might go across the ocean and be faster then his gaming! If you make the network smarter, you pipe the gaming traffic (which has real-time requirements) across the ocean, and non real-time traffic across Asia.

This isn’t media conglomerates trying to squeeze out the freedom of information. This has to do with the cost of doubling the size of a network vs. optimizing the same network. The cost of optimization is massively lower and MUCH quicker.

People won’t migrate to a new internet, the internet will just get better and smarter.

In the end: what difference does it make to me if your blog takes an extra 0.5 second to load? None. What difference is it to me if there is a 0.5 second lag on my phone call to 911? MASSIVE.

read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_effort_delivery
Pete

Spencer, you may be right and I hope you are, but I think it is better to be suspicious and initially critical of this proposal. Every proposal made in this country over the past few years has wound up being bad for the people and good for multi-national corporations. When the details are finally understood there we find lots of fine print that spells out a motive different from what the proposal was advertised as being about. For example look at the terrible impact on small farmers and potentially even backyard gardens in the “food safety bills” and the awful 1099 requirement slipped into the “health bill”. So I wouldn’t be so quick to criticize the author of this article; he may be right, even though technically you make good points about what this proposal should be about. I think it is much smarter to not trust our leaders regardless of how good something sounds initially.
Vicki

Thx Spencer for your view, and I assume your education on this subject. But don’t dog our watchdogs. We will always need them to keep the dishonest walking, at least, a semi-straight line!
Re: Spencer

That’s great, Spencer. Thanks for the lesson on best-effort packet delivery.

Now WHAT does that have to do with the packet *discrimination* the big telecoms want to impose? There’s no ‘best effort’ if you’re throttling traffic selectively (and then conveniently charging for non-throttled traffic).

Enjoy your bundled internet services, sucker. You really love the cable tv package model, huh?
http://www.scifi-babe.com trisha

First, the Google/Verizon deal is limited to wireless internet delivery, not the last mile wired connection to your home. What they are, in effect, offering is a Gateway function similar to the one Microsoft was trying to impose during the late nineties – and that was abandoned. Second, for this to move onto the Internet at large would require the roll out of a kind of ‘class of service’ type of priority routing across the entire global net, including every router and every ISP. Apple and AT&T have been oddly silent over this Google/Verizon initiative. It would not help their business model if it became a fact. Third, there are a multitude of ways in which this kind of service gateway could be circumvented. For instance, satellite feeds could be taken from non-US providers, until the US Gov. made it illegal.

All this will end up doing is to isolate the US from the world at large. Perhaps, given the corrosive and corrupt nature of American culture, this might prove to be a good thing!
Not so Mad Max

The internet would be once more fee based service, along with cable, and cell phones. The trouble is with the present erosion of the global economy, who’s going to be able to afford it?

Cable subscriptions have not dropped but I would love to see how many people now have just basic cable. The only reason in my opinion Cable and Cell Phone Companies have not seen a drop in subscribers because there are three payments people will make out side the basics (Food, and heat) cable and cell phones and cars.

We’ll see once more join the ranks of the 99ers, and cable and cell phone bills start becoming delinquent. They many try this but it will not last.
Joe

Despite no network company regulating ‘net neutrality’ law for the past 20 years broadband internet got cheaper,faster and more widespread. If the government restricts how network companies operate their own networks that will raise prices not lower them.

The reason huge content providing companies like google support ‘net neutrality’ is because they don’t want diversified content competition from gaming,voip and other startups.

The reason some cell companies are pro net neutrality, is almost certainly because they believe they have more to fear from wimax and other startups than they do from government regulation. Wimax related and other network startups have the best chance of diversifying network choices, and for that reason even the cable companies will eventually support net neutrality, to stop upstart competitors.

Google and the cell companies want you to have only one choice with one high bill in how you connect to the internet.

When big companies and government agencies say they want to reduce your choices to help you, be skeptical.
JP

I work for AT&T’s internet department and I can’t give details but lets just say tiered internet is the future and no ammount of protest and complaining will stop it. The reason why no one knows exactly how it will work is its still being tested. People like to say its to “crush the little guy” but to be honest its much more simple…its about money. How do you talk someone into paying $100 a month for something they are only willing to pay $20 a month for?
In the end it will be similar to Cable TV in which what you get will depend on the tier your paying for. Kinda like if instead of HBO you can pick FaceBook. The truth is we have this down to a science and whichever option brings in the most money is the option that will be rolled out. Either way it WILL happen and there is not a thing any of you can do to stop it. Sorry.
Scott M.

You should all watch a film called Orwell Rolls In His Grave. It’s probably available at the library or through some torrent.

It talks about how some of the major conglomerates media companies own not only the web sites but the means of delivery and they’re not interested in dissent. THAT is the reason for a two tiered internet; your money!!! We the people, even in a fake democracy, should get our way once in a while.

http://www.amazon.com/Orwell-Rolls-Grave-Charles-Lewis/dp/B0008237AA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1283026939&sr=8-1
Jim Bean

@Pete and Vicki, I agree with your statements, watchdogs are necessary to make sure the people with money don’t end up controlling things to a point where it hurts the average citizen.

@Spencer. YOU KNOW YOUR STUFF!! – I think everyone here should read up a little more and understand how the internet works. Spencer knows how this stuff works and he’s just explaining what some companies will be paying for.

What you all need to understand is that there are right now on the current internet companies who pay for leased lines with specific connections to whatever location they need. This is necessary for businesses to operate. What spencer was discussing was the need for very very reliable business internet with a predefined route. I am all fine for that because they can afford to pay for that. The way a watchdog helps is by looking to make sure these type of agreements don’t mean that an average citizen is hurt by getting traffic refused (highly unlikely).

Now, about the 2 tier internet or having two internets (if that would be the term). The author and many people need to look at how an internet frame works and exactly what is being proposed with having another tier in the internet. ISPs control the size of the packets we can get across the internet. What changes is whats inside of that packet or frame. So there is technically no speed change. What can change a lot of speed is the route the frame takes to reach is destination.

Which leads to who sends what. Having a 2 tier scheme as proposed would lead to the internet having 2 zones. An anonymous zone and a zone where everyone is identifiable. This makes it much harder for people to do the nasty stuff on the internet since some authority figure can know who you are. What will stay the same is that the data you transmit will still be encrypted so you will have your privacy but no anonymity. That’s the short description.

Overall, Spencer, good points. Everyone else needs to stop going with the heresay and start to read up on how this technology stuff works before you just agree to what others are talking about. I don’t know it all, but I will take the time to verify what someone posts… specially on topics like this. I suggest you all do the same.

Take care everyone
Monty

@
“Brad
August 27th, 2010 at 11:51 am”,

Can’t you answer that for yourself, buddy?
http://www.asiadedicated.com Lim Boon Chuan

I feel that we already lost a large part of our freedom when we allow the large and dominant search engines to dictate where we are going. The moment we are dependent on them means that a large part of our freedom disappears simply because they can lead us to web sites that they have a vested interest in.

Two Tier Internet is simply a physical manifestation of what had already happened.
El Pollo de Oro

When you think about it, the two-tiered Internet concept is quite symbolic of everything else that is occurring in this Third World hellhole called The Banana Republic of America (formerly the USA). The BRA is becoming, more and more, a two-tiered society. There is the upper tier–the 5% of the population that is filthy rich and getting richer by the minute–and there is the lower tier, the 95% that is getting poorer by the minute. The more desperate conditions become for the 95% poor majority (the peasants and neo-peasants), the more power the despotic ruling class oligarchy will have over their slaves. The ruling class despots are all about control, and that includes the Internet.
sharonsj

to Not So Mad Max: Cable HAS lost subscribers–something like 700,000 people who can’t afford it anymore. I’m trying to figure out how to lower my satellite TV bill because it’s getting too expensive.

As for the Internet, what they’re trying to do is give a greater advantage to companies and people with money (what a surprise!). So if you are a small business and can’t afford a faster connection, you will be unable to compete with the bigger corporations. Or you will be forced to come up with the money in order to stay in business. So it looks to me like just another scam for those with money and power to stay that way.
jc

posters like Spence are reminders of how all these things tend to work. They hide behind seemingly reasonable arguments in order to take something away, regulate it to death, and suck more $$ from us.

The fact is, with high-speed equipment and applications written a bit smarter than they were years before, best-effort delivery actually works pretty well. My son can turn on the wireless feature of his Nintendo DSi and within minutes he’s playing kids from all over the world.

Latency is usually about the weakest link in the path, which is usually the web/app/service host you’re trying to access. The truth is, there’s *plenty* of fibre out there that can be lit up any time they need more capacity. In the 90’s they laid down more cable than anyone uses. For most, the issue is the last mile, the internet drop to your house – and they know it. It’s also about aging phone company infrastructure, which is why more people don’t have DSL.

This stuff all about increasing control and $$. Don’t let shills like Spence convince you it’s any other way. Read Spence’s posts and you get a pretty good idea what he’s all about.

The Economic Collapse

New DVDs By Michael Snyder

Recent Posts

Archives

Archives

A Two-Tier Internet?

DVDs By Michael

Pages