Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

How your cellphone portends the future

Posted by Deanna Zandt at 8:40 AM on July 25, 2006.


What will happen to your Internet if the freedom to connect is taken away from you.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

There's lots of theory running around the Internet about what things might look like if Net Neutrality is taken away from us. The free-market-willy-nilly folks seem to think that an Internet stripped of basic connection requirements -- my network can talk to your network at a fundamental level -- will inspire loads of innovation and whiz-bang tech to knock our socks off.

If only we had a real-life example to show them just how silly that idea is... Wait! We do! Our cellphone networks!

NewsForge has an excellent article that details what happens when private companies control what goes out on the network, and prevents users from making those choices. They compare starting a peer-to-peer news service (like Slashdot or Digg) on the current Internet (total time: about two hours), to the hell one must sludge through to get a new service onto various cellphone networks. Some excerpts:

The first step would be to contact a company known as an aggregator. This company manages your relationships with the cell phone carriers -- and that's carriers, plural, because making an agreement with just one carrier ensures that your service will fail because it cannot effectively spread via word of mouth. The first requirement from an aggregator is a service charge, which starts at $1,000 per month. Then, you must buy a shortcode (which kind of serves as your Web site name) for an additional $500-$1,000 per month. But you're not done.

[...]

Some carriers also have "decency" restrictions that are so silly and restrictive that they make the production code that governed movies between 1934 and 1967 seem quaint. Verizon is the worst offender in this case: It prohibits dating services, images that are suggestive (the same images would be acceptable if aired on prime-time network TV), and any use of "crude" words, including such shockers as "fornicate" and "genital."

In practical terms, you'd never get approval for your brand new peer-mediated news service. Even if you were able to set up filters to block images and bad words, you'd still be sunk: Verizon prohibits "un-moderated chatting, flirting and/or peer-to-peer communication services."
Do you really want your Internet to look like this? Now, go SaveTheInternet if you haven't already.

Digg!

Deanna Zandt is a contributing editor at AlterNet.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Look No Further Than Cable TV
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 25, 2006 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the TelCos & Cable Giants get their way, the internet will start to look a lot like your Cable TV: lots of me too, lame crap recycled 500 times on 200 channels controlled by a handful of well-heled providers. The same companies that control your cable content want the 'net. Who are they?

Time Warner-onmimedia onmivore with cable systems, publishing, broadcasting, a Network,a movie studio, multiple cable channels, etc.
Viacom/CBS- omnimedia omnivore. Don't be fooled by the separate stocks, Sumner Redstone still controls both.Two broadcast networks, cable channels, lots of billboards, hundreds of radio stations, publishing, a movie studio
NBC/Universal (read GE)- music, broadcast & cable TV, a movie studio, etc.
Liberty Media- a stand alone controlled by a consortium of others on this list.
Disney- radio, TV, Network & Cable TV, a movie studio, publishing, etc.
NewsCorp/Fox- TV, Cable , Movies, Newspapers, magazines, fake news channels, satellite TV systems, etc.
Comcast- Largest cable operator in the US. Holds significant stock & control in a number of the companies listed above.

What has made the net a wonderful place will be replaced by the same kind of crap that they shove down your throats currently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Look No Further Than Cable TV Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Who's behind the need for this?
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Jul 26, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The need for tiered service is supposedly predicated by demand for bandwidth. The pipelines are full because of people that play hi-res video games on-line and watch real-time streaming video. I don't know anybody who watches TV or movies as they are downloaded, and I know only one person who plays real-time video games against distant rivals.

But, when I go online, the home page has a text box for me to enter my user name and log in. If I immediately place the cursor in that area, the screen loads up more content about one second later and a link to a streaming video commercial follwed by gossip news is in that location on the screen. If I don't wait for the page to finish loading, placing my cursor in the log-in box fetches streaming video advertisements.

No doubt this makes that spot on the page the highest price real estate for advertizing. I could live without it, though. I could also live without all of the other stuff they've added to the home page over the last 3 years or so. NONE of it interests me. And it's all high-bandwidth garbage.

And my provider is one of the leading advocates for tiered service. Twenty years ago I paid extra for the American Movie Channel because, among other things, it was commercial free. Well, they're still mostly showing the same movies twenty years later, and now they have commercials. But they're still a premium channel, not basic cable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best real world example I've seen yet
Posted by: Techubus on Jul 26, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never occured to me how similar a cellphone network is to the internet, technology wise. This just further solidifies the fact that without Net Neutrality the internet loses the one thing that makes it so appealing: No central controls, total freedom.

The more I think about it though the more I worry that net neutralities day's are numbered. Not because of the lobbying pressure from telco's mind you, but from a general understanding amongst the elite that the internet is the one place where they don't rule. History shows that those in power always insist on control over information and knowledge.

This is literally the first time in history the masses have a decentralized source of information that cannot be controlled or censored by any world power or elite group (unless you're from a few holdout nations like China). I've often wondered how long we have before the elites get fed up with their loss of control and seek to clamp down on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very telling
Posted by: talkville on Aug 1, 2006 2:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The small number of comments on this alarming issue is very telling. Private capital is rapidly expropriating all aspect of internet. Now we pay ISP's for access; soon we'll have to pay at every site. It's the familiar trajectory of enclosure, transferring the public to the private, whether virtual or actual the same old story. Being free is very different from assuming one is free because they're told they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]