It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Two tier internet
page: 1share:
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 knew it'd be only a matter of time before communication, government and other like companys got their hands in as well as on the internet for their own exploration. I saw a show the other night where the lady was just sooo glad for the internet and was saying how much it is good for everyone. My thought? Wait until the gov takes it over. The LAST thing that the US corrupt government wants is for it's citizens including the world to have access to such a powerful tool and means of communication.
Before long the internet will be just another great thing that the government has stuck its corrupt and depressive hand into. The business world along with it's highly paid crooks at the top are nothing but a tool for government to help take away from citizens and give to the elite.
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.
Above, an example of what Google really is about and how business is nothing but a collection of crooks, thieves and shysters. ISPs such as local ones here in coastal SC have been charging customers for what they call DSL but it is NOT as fast as many of their "business service" DSL options. That means that residential homes pay more or the same for slower service. This has been going on for many years but until recently it has not been widely known. Believe it or not some of the first dial up connections were actually the same speed or faster than what some phone company based ISPs are offering today under the label of "dsl"!
Source & rest of the story
[edit on 8/27/2010 by mikelee]
Any ideas what can be done about it though?
We seem to be powerless to stop or confront such a thing. When was the last time the people actually got a say over government and the ultra rich corporations that decide everything?
We seem to be powerless to stop or confront such a thing. When was the last time the people actually got a say over government and the ultra rich corporations that decide everything?
reply to post by pirhanna
I agree with your question and I too feel the same way. Unless we all amass and make a determined effort to change what we do not like, agree with or know is wrong. The PTB will have their way unchallenged.
I agree with your question and I too feel the same way. Unless we all amass and make a determined effort to change what we do not like, agree with or know is wrong. The PTB will have their way unchallenged.
No mater how much I hate it, it’s inevitable.
It is made inevitable by the action of end users. Mainly the P2P people. It cost real money to maintain networks across the US. They don’t magically appear out of some monkey’s butt. People scream “I pay for internet access!!!!!!!!” But they are forgetting part of equation.
There is two ends to every connection. In the normal paradigm, the information is downstream. From central servers down to users all across the network. That is why home connections are usually asymmetric. The one that pays for the capacity is the ones producing the data that flows on it. That is why a business T1 cost a lot more than a DSL link that may have equivalent or higher capacity. The business is the one making money off the use of the capacity, so they are the one that pays the majority of the bill. A home could have a 100Mbps connection, but if he never uses it, then it doesn’t take any capacity to support it. If he is using it, then he must be pulling data off a business which is paying top price for the capacity to deliver the data to their customers.
The P2P are taking advantage of that loophole. There is nothing stopping them from talking directly to each other, so they do. But the cost to support capacity to support that data flow is not figured in to the price of the home user, because he is not an intended data generator.
That leads to a problem. People that are fully willing to pay top dollar for reliable capacity are having the capacity they are paying for, being used up by P2P users.
That leads to a general rule. If someone is willing to pay for something, then there is someone out there that will be willing to provide them with what they want. We can write all the laws we want. But if the internet is clogged by low paying users, and companies want a unclogged network to deliver services on. Then a networking company will step in to build them the network they want.
There is no way to stop it. It’s the law of supply and demand. If there is a high enough demand, then a supply will be found.
In my own opinion they should change the way internet service billing is done. Price won’t be on inflow, but how much data outflow “to the network” your connection produces. You get a base amount with your account. But, if you go over that, then you get charged per GB. Charge enough to properly support the capacity the data is flowing on. Then everyone would be happy. But the P2P people would scream bloody murder because you would be taking away theirfree lunch.
It is made inevitable by the action of end users. Mainly the P2P people. It cost real money to maintain networks across the US. They don’t magically appear out of some monkey’s butt. People scream “I pay for internet access!!!!!!!!” But they are forgetting part of equation.
There is two ends to every connection. In the normal paradigm, the information is downstream. From central servers down to users all across the network. That is why home connections are usually asymmetric. The one that pays for the capacity is the ones producing the data that flows on it. That is why a business T1 cost a lot more than a DSL link that may have equivalent or higher capacity. The business is the one making money off the use of the capacity, so they are the one that pays the majority of the bill. A home could have a 100Mbps connection, but if he never uses it, then it doesn’t take any capacity to support it. If he is using it, then he must be pulling data off a business which is paying top price for the capacity to deliver the data to their customers.
The P2P are taking advantage of that loophole. There is nothing stopping them from talking directly to each other, so they do. But the cost to support capacity to support that data flow is not figured in to the price of the home user, because he is not an intended data generator.
That leads to a problem. People that are fully willing to pay top dollar for reliable capacity are having the capacity they are paying for, being used up by P2P users.
That leads to a general rule. If someone is willing to pay for something, then there is someone out there that will be willing to provide them with what they want. We can write all the laws we want. But if the internet is clogged by low paying users, and companies want a unclogged network to deliver services on. Then a networking company will step in to build them the network they want.
There is no way to stop it. It’s the law of supply and demand. If there is a high enough demand, then a supply will be found.
In my own opinion they should change the way internet service billing is done. Price won’t be on inflow, but how much data outflow “to the network” your connection produces. You get a base amount with your account. But, if you go over that, then you get charged per GB. Charge enough to properly support the capacity the data is flowing on. Then everyone would be happy. But the P2P people would scream bloody murder because you would be taking away theirfree lunch.
well talk is fine ,but action is much better, so what do we the web/ net users do? we could stay away from our computers and the www. for... like that
would work .lol just like not driving your vech for the price of gas is to high , no my slaves the deal is done TPTB have us were they want us , over
a, (pardon the pun)barrel. if they want to charge, tax, and commercialize it, they will, and there is nothing you and i can do but to pay up, or say
it was fun. Google has the free call on the Email, wonder how long before it is a "pay as you call" app? BTW i know it is pay for over seas, i am
saying all calls.
[edit on 28-8-2010 by bekod]
[edit on 28-8-2010 by bekod]
The Internet is the new opiate of the masses. It is the all knowing, all seeing Oracle of sedation.
To think that those in power would ever try to ween us from the very thing that makes us docile just doesn't make sense. With this arena, we can all voice our disgusts and outrages from the comfort of our own living rooms, without ever even having to get dressed. We sate our anger in digital diatribes and then sleep feeling as though we've done our duty. Meanwhile Cyberspace takes our rage and spreads it so thin and into such a sea of information that it cannot ever become threatening.
Those in charge might try to tweak or modify things to try and protect Hollywood and the media moguls - but not at the price of the sanctity of our electronic babysitter.
To think that those in power would ever try to ween us from the very thing that makes us docile just doesn't make sense. With this arena, we can all voice our disgusts and outrages from the comfort of our own living rooms, without ever even having to get dressed. We sate our anger in digital diatribes and then sleep feeling as though we've done our duty. Meanwhile Cyberspace takes our rage and spreads it so thin and into such a sea of information that it cannot ever become threatening.
Those in charge might try to tweak or modify things to try and protect Hollywood and the media moguls - but not at the price of the sanctity of our electronic babysitter.
reply to post by Mr Tranny
I would have any issues with for, lack of any better term I know, create a second internet for those bandwidth hogs. Like Skype, the myriad of instant messenger programs, on line games etc.
But the US or any governments do not need to be trying to regulate, oversee, control, police, interfere with the damn internet.
The P2P are taking advantage of that loophole.
I would have any issues with for, lack of any better term I know, create a second internet for those bandwidth hogs. Like Skype, the myriad of instant messenger programs, on line games etc.
But the US or any governments do not need to be trying to regulate, oversee, control, police, interfere with the damn internet.
reply to post by Hefficide
I agree with you 100%.
But the internet as many people tend to forget or just do not know is a bunch of computers that can link together then send or recieve information in many different formats. Proprietary technology is out of the reach of many law enforcement agencys so the notion of some distant agent having the ability to turn on your computer's webcam without you knowing it, is just a dream to them.
But...
If those agencys could somehow impose a few dozen lobbyists upon lawmakers in order to get them to see the benefits of a surveillance nation, then we'd start to see & feel the "new net" really quick. Just my thoughts anyway.
I agree with you 100%.
But the internet as many people tend to forget or just do not know is a bunch of computers that can link together then send or recieve information in many different formats. Proprietary technology is out of the reach of many law enforcement agencys so the notion of some distant agent having the ability to turn on your computer's webcam without you knowing it, is just a dream to them.
But...
If those agencys could somehow impose a few dozen lobbyists upon lawmakers in order to get them to see the benefits of a surveillance nation, then we'd start to see & feel the "new net" really quick. Just my thoughts anyway.
Do you mean 3-tier Internet? Or do you not realize the replacement for the current Internet is not already in the works?
www.internet2.org
I pay more for my phone service than I do access to the Internet, by about a ratio of 2:1. My Internet access comes across copper and I pay as much for my DSL as the cable 'net guy next door yet somehow have more consistant, and faster overall, download speeds than he gets and he's paying near twice my cost.
Having said that, I buy access from someone, use their lines and am happy to get what they allow. Far be it from me to tell someone what they should do with their wires.... As long as I get the download speed I pay for, regardless of what I'm doing, I could give less than a rat's arse if they charge someone else a bit more for something faster.
[edit on 8/28/2010 by abecedarian]
www.internet2.org
I pay more for my phone service than I do access to the Internet, by about a ratio of 2:1. My Internet access comes across copper and I pay as much for my DSL as the cable 'net guy next door yet somehow have more consistant, and faster overall, download speeds than he gets and he's paying near twice my cost.
Having said that, I buy access from someone, use their lines and am happy to get what they allow. Far be it from me to tell someone what they should do with their wires.... As long as I get the download speed I pay for, regardless of what I'm doing, I could give less than a rat's arse if they charge someone else a bit more for something faster.
[edit on 8/28/2010 by abecedarian]
reply to post by mikelee
And in return I also agree with you 100%.
What eases my fears or concerns in this area is the size of the Internet and the amount of data that flows through the pipelines daily. Thanks to smart phones and portable devices this data traffic is doing nothing but growing exponentially. That raw amount of data severely limits the amount and the type of surviellance that can be randomly done.
Keeping an eye on 10,000 webcams is feasible - but trying to keep up with a few billion?
Personally I think it'll be a long time before my PC might be compromised in any meaningful way.
But anything portable - that can track my physical location... That's where I think the Orwellian abuses might wind up being focused.
And in return I also agree with you 100%.
What eases my fears or concerns in this area is the size of the Internet and the amount of data that flows through the pipelines daily. Thanks to smart phones and portable devices this data traffic is doing nothing but growing exponentially. That raw amount of data severely limits the amount and the type of surviellance that can be randomly done.
Keeping an eye on 10,000 webcams is feasible - but trying to keep up with a few billion?
Personally I think it'll be a long time before my PC might be compromised in any meaningful way.
But anything portable - that can track my physical location... That's where I think the Orwellian abuses might wind up being focused.
reply to post by abecedarian
*Snip*
I hear ya. I got a dedicated dsl line here to this box and it is really speedy. of course I also run quad processors so its quick even with dial up!!
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 8/28/2010 by semperfortis]
*Snip*
I hear ya. I got a dedicated dsl line here to this box and it is really speedy. of course I also run quad processors so its quick even with dial up!!
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 8/28/2010 by semperfortis]
Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by abecedarian
But now some very powerful interests want to change all that. The idea is to have the Internet much more closely resemble cable television.
I hear ya. I got a dedicated dsl line here to this box and it is really speedy. of course I also run quad processors so its quick even with dial up!!
You reply to me and quote / ex tag something I didn't say?
Bad monkey.
reply to post by abecedarian
I didn't imply you did say that. The external quote is from an external source, thereby making it the proper manner to reply to your post.
[edit on 8/28/2010 by mikelee]
I didn't imply you did say that. The external quote is from an external source, thereby making it the proper manner to reply to your post.
[edit on 8/28/2010 by mikelee]
Pro net-neutrality: all internet service should be treated equally. At face value that sounds great. I was for it under that strict definition.
However, when one digs down into how that can exist, we find the federal government lurking in the shadows. It would take government regulation and
oversight (taxpayer dollars) to make it work. I don't want the government interfering in my information gathering.
Anti net-neutrality: all internet service is regulated by the service provider and the government is neutral. Well this is good: the government stays out of it! But now we have service providers chopping bandwidth, despite you signing a contract with them saying that you have x amount of bandwidth available to you per second for the duration of the terms of service. They will also censor anything they feel like censoring, and you have to live with it.
The whole thing is lose/lose for the user.
/Q
Anti net-neutrality: all internet service is regulated by the service provider and the government is neutral. Well this is good: the government stays out of it! But now we have service providers chopping bandwidth, despite you signing a contract with them saying that you have x amount of bandwidth available to you per second for the duration of the terms of service. They will also censor anything they feel like censoring, and you have to live with it.
The whole thing is lose/lose for the user.
/Q
reply to post by Mr Tranny
I would say the exact opposite to tell you the truth. P2P has been a major driving force in the expansion of the net and helped push companies to offer faster speeds across the whole of the net.
My ISP Virgin media offers 50megabyte connections, if you think that they are offering them so that people can read forums and send the occasional email then you are dead wrong, they know exactly what they are being used for and make massive profits out of selling it to people, virgin media made £356 million profit in the last 4 months to be exact. If they wanted to block P2P traffic then they already can quite easily but strangely they choose not to.
In the UK the government has just passed a bill allowing users to be cut off for downloading copyrighted material, the service providers were vehemently against the introduction of this bill because they know that a lot of their customers use their connections for just this purpose and would have no need of their 20-50mb expensive packages if they did not offer it.
[edit on 28-8-2010 by davespanners]
I would say the exact opposite to tell you the truth. P2P has been a major driving force in the expansion of the net and helped push companies to offer faster speeds across the whole of the net.
My ISP Virgin media offers 50megabyte connections, if you think that they are offering them so that people can read forums and send the occasional email then you are dead wrong, they know exactly what they are being used for and make massive profits out of selling it to people, virgin media made £356 million profit in the last 4 months to be exact. If they wanted to block P2P traffic then they already can quite easily but strangely they choose not to.
In the UK the government has just passed a bill allowing users to be cut off for downloading copyrighted material, the service providers were vehemently against the introduction of this bill because they know that a lot of their customers use their connections for just this purpose and would have no need of their 20-50mb expensive packages if they did not offer it.
[edit on 28-8-2010 by davespanners]
reply to post by mikelee
Garth,
I did not PLAGIARIZE anything. Stop being so quick on your edit/snippy button. The quote was from this thread and its already been sourced.
Mike
[edit on 8/28/2010 by mikelee]
Garth,
I did not PLAGIARIZE anything. Stop being so quick on your edit/snippy button. The quote was from this thread and its already been sourced.
Mike
[edit on 8/28/2010 by mikelee]
My suggestion to everyone is get a good tracert program like ping plotter and poke around the world, to see what networks you jump across to get
there.
It will be more educating to you than any reading you can do.
Real world application of principles.
You will quickly see that there is more than one way to get from here to there. If your on provider X, you traffic may be quickly dumped to some other carrier after it hits key points. Or before it takes key transitions, like across the ocean.
Each network has it’s own loss statistics, cost per bit moved, and in route delays.
What controls the jumping of data from network to network?
Peering agreements.
When you connect two networks at a point, you set up a contract to determine what the settings is for data flow across that connection.
When the data reaches a California interchange, If it is going to Alaska, then you don’t shoot the data to the other network. You let it go on your own system until it reaches it destination. If it is going to japan, then you push it to ntt telecom for the ride across the ocean. The agreement sets the price per GB and what target destinations that you will push data across the connection for, and what the caps for data throughput is.
If you have two trans pacific carriers to chose from, and you have a data flow to push to japan. One carrier cost more than the other. You will try to push more data across the lower priced carrier, until that bandwidth cap is reached, or they tell you to back off. Then you will shift the remainder of the traffic to the other carrier.
Usually, if both ends is on the same network, and there is a complete route between them, then it will usually stay on the home network.
Like att. If you are going to a non att. They will usually dump you at Chicago interconnect, or the one in texas or California. If you are going to another ATT costomer, then it will usually stay on the ATT/SBC/Ameritech backbone.
OK.
Lest say that you want to serve real time high speed interactive content, and you find that the delays and loss statistics of all the existing networks is too high to make the new system useable. So, you set up your own network to deliver that data to your user, and your users only. You set up peering agreements with most of the major networks across the country to drop the data back to the regular net for the “last mile”
Is it against the law to build a computer network? To build your own computer network? Is it against the law to hook your network up to any other network when and where you want? To force net neutrality in it’s strictest sense, then it would make illegal for a company to build a cross country high performance network to carry data between their own installations. It would make a large portion of existing networks illegal.
That would make everything else a second level network.
That is the constant problem I see time and time again. The most vocal of the freedom people want to undercut everyone’s freedom but their own. In the name of freedom they want to pass laws to make more things illegal.
The network neutrality people are just using the public as pawns to gain control over the operation of the internet.
When the pawns finally get tired of it and try to start a new network from scratch, then the people they once supported will be coming to shut them down, because it will be a limited access network that won’t allow the “regulators” to have full control over it.
[edit on 28-8-2010 by Mr Tranny]
It will be more educating to you than any reading you can do.
Real world application of principles.
You will quickly see that there is more than one way to get from here to there. If your on provider X, you traffic may be quickly dumped to some other carrier after it hits key points. Or before it takes key transitions, like across the ocean.
Each network has it’s own loss statistics, cost per bit moved, and in route delays.
What controls the jumping of data from network to network?
Peering agreements.
When you connect two networks at a point, you set up a contract to determine what the settings is for data flow across that connection.
When the data reaches a California interchange, If it is going to Alaska, then you don’t shoot the data to the other network. You let it go on your own system until it reaches it destination. If it is going to japan, then you push it to ntt telecom for the ride across the ocean. The agreement sets the price per GB and what target destinations that you will push data across the connection for, and what the caps for data throughput is.
If you have two trans pacific carriers to chose from, and you have a data flow to push to japan. One carrier cost more than the other. You will try to push more data across the lower priced carrier, until that bandwidth cap is reached, or they tell you to back off. Then you will shift the remainder of the traffic to the other carrier.
Usually, if both ends is on the same network, and there is a complete route between them, then it will usually stay on the home network.
Like att. If you are going to a non att. They will usually dump you at Chicago interconnect, or the one in texas or California. If you are going to another ATT costomer, then it will usually stay on the ATT/SBC/Ameritech backbone.
OK.
Lest say that you want to serve real time high speed interactive content, and you find that the delays and loss statistics of all the existing networks is too high to make the new system useable. So, you set up your own network to deliver that data to your user, and your users only. You set up peering agreements with most of the major networks across the country to drop the data back to the regular net for the “last mile”
Is it against the law to build a computer network? To build your own computer network? Is it against the law to hook your network up to any other network when and where you want? To force net neutrality in it’s strictest sense, then it would make illegal for a company to build a cross country high performance network to carry data between their own installations. It would make a large portion of existing networks illegal.
That would make everything else a second level network.
That is the constant problem I see time and time again. The most vocal of the freedom people want to undercut everyone’s freedom but their own. In the name of freedom they want to pass laws to make more things illegal.
The network neutrality people are just using the public as pawns to gain control over the operation of the internet.
When the pawns finally get tired of it and try to start a new network from scratch, then the people they once supported will be coming to shut them down, because it will be a limited access network that won’t allow the “regulators” to have full control over it.
[edit on 28-8-2010 by Mr Tranny]
As the old quote goes.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
(Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller)
They go for the big companies.
They go for the media companies.
The go for the internet service providers.
You cheer them on.
When they come for you, who is left to stand for you?
Who will stand between you and them?
Will your service provider stand firm and say they won’t hand over the information without a warrant. Or will they hand it over graciously without a complaint.
Ow ya, that’s right, they won’t have to hand it over, because the government will already have full control of the network…….. Duuuhhhhhhhh……….
[edit on 28-8-2010 by Mr Tranny]
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
(Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller)
They go for the big companies.
They go for the media companies.
The go for the internet service providers.
You cheer them on.
When they come for you, who is left to stand for you?
Who will stand between you and them?
Will your service provider stand firm and say they won’t hand over the information without a warrant. Or will they hand it over graciously without a complaint.
Ow ya, that’s right, they won’t have to hand it over, because the government will already have full control of the network…….. Duuuhhhhhhhh……….
[edit on 28-8-2010 by Mr Tranny]
new topics
-
AI phrenology
Science & Technology: 22 minutes ago -
4/27/24 New Jersey Earthquake
Fragile Earth: 5 hours ago -
Fun with extreme paints
Interesting Websites: 7 hours ago -
CIA is alleged to be operat social media troll frms in Kyiv
ATS Skunk Works: 8 hours ago -
Rainbow : Stargazer
Music: 9 hours ago -
I sleep no more.
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 11 hours ago -
Canada caught red-handed manipulating live weather data and make it warmer
Fragile Earth: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Canada caught red-handed manipulating live weather data and make it warmer
Fragile Earth: 11 hours ago, 16 flags -
Why Files Our Alien Overlords | How We Secretly Serve The Tall Whites
Aliens and UFOs: 13 hours ago, 12 flags -
Curse of King Tuts Tomb Solved
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 14 hours ago, 9 flags -
4/27/24 New Jersey Earthquake
Fragile Earth: 5 hours ago, 6 flags -
CIA is alleged to be operat social media troll frms in Kyiv
ATS Skunk Works: 8 hours ago, 6 flags -
What allies does Trump have in the world?
ATS Skunk Works: 14 hours ago, 5 flags -
I sleep no more.
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 11 hours ago, 4 flags -
Fun with extreme paints
Interesting Websites: 7 hours ago, 2 flags -
Rainbow : Stargazer
Music: 9 hours ago, 1 flags -
AI phrenology
Science & Technology: 22 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media • 372 • : TheWoker -
AI phrenology
Science & Technology • 2 • : BeyondKnowledge3 -
Today I am 8
Members • 24 • : RAY1990 -
I sleep no more.
Philosophy and Metaphysics • 17 • : stonerwilliam -
So this is what Hamas considers 'freedom fighting' ...
War On Terrorism • 276 • : TheWoker -
Blast from the past: ATS Review Podcast, 2006: With All Three Amigos
Member PODcasts • 2 • : Dalamax -
4/27/24 New Jersey Earthquake
Fragile Earth • 4 • : LuciusDriftwood -
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 14 • : covent -
Gov Kristi Noem Shot and Killed "Less Than Worthless Dog" and a 'Smelly Goat
2024 Elections • 92 • : cherokeetroy -
Big Storms
Fragile Earth • 19 • : lilzazz