How to break the back of the Internet
Strange and gifted, fifty-eight year old author Bruce Kushnick of Teletruth.org made some startling prognostications about the future of the Internet. At a conference held in DC called Freedom to Connect, Kushnick railed against the Bells for scrapping the deployments of numerous fiber optic Internet infrastuctures around the country even though they promised a highspeed network. Notes of his talk are posted on DanaBlankenhorn.com. These are frightening in their implications, given the recent defeat of an amendment [via] to The Telecommunications Act that would have prevented the Bell(s) from commodotizing bandwidth on the Internet’s network backbone. It suggests that some time in the near future, The Bells will be making an already slow Internet even slower for those content creators who cannot afford to utilize their HOV lane on the information superhighway. Reminds me of the bit by comedian Patton Oswald describing the end of the world.
F—ing volcanoes spewed menstrual blood into the sky and it formed into Avril Lavigne’s face and she recited the ‘Good Will Hunting’ screenplay and the words turned into sentient razors that bored into your flesh, and George Bush was president, and mediocrity held sway! [via]
Full Disclosure: I am a volunteer for Teletruth.org
Technorati Tags: authors Bruce Kushnick Net Neutrality Broadband
8 Comments »
Leave a comment
Top News- Sacha Baron Cohen's team says redacted versions of Rebel Wilson's memoir are 'clear victory' following harassment allegations
- Ex-Barclays CEO Bob Diamond Chairs TikTok Challenger Triller
- What type of reference do you give a former crazy ass employee to a new employer who needs that reference for hiring, when legally you can't say much?
- Why blow the account yourself when someone else can do it for you
- Will the completion of Canada's Trans Canada Pipeline reduce the cost of consumer goods to the west coast?
- France’s Mediawan, Germany’s Leonine Merge to Form Euro Mini-Major
- ITV News Anchor Rageh Omaar Issues Statement After Taking Ill On-Air
- PayPal: Buy, Sell, or Hold?
- DOJ Opposes Dismissal of Tornado Cash Case, Worrying Crypto Traders
- Bitcoin entering most likely 2 weeks for new BTC price dip
- Recently added Youtube Favorites
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- A Deal a Day
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Overheard in New York
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Quantum Statement 
Why would the Bells want to make a slow internet slower? There are already several options available to dodge the phone companies (i.e. cable modems, DSL (still pretty fast) and mobile broadband. Sounds like you and your buddy just want something to complain about. Get a job, you hippie.
Ed Whitacre CEO of AT&T says its okay for an Internet carrier to block content if they own the pipes. Well, the Bells own almost all the pipes, which were built with public money from regulatory fees and numerous tax breaks. These fees were granted to the Bells in good faith that they would be used to deploy a 45mbps Fiber Optic network.
Why would the Bells want to make the slow Internet slower? If I built all the TV sets in America, and they can only get UHF reception, I could use it to my advantage. I would simply charge TV stations more money to use the channels that get good reception. PAX, Home Shopping, and Christian Broadcasting Netoworks will be crystal clear while PBS looks as fuzzy as Andy Rooney’s memory. (This is what happens when you grow up without cable)
Applications that might utilize more bandwidth on the Internet, such as Voice Over IP and Hi-Def Video (which would work beautifully on the promised fiber) are a threat to the Bell Companies. Its a huge threat. Especially given the fading doctrine of network neutrality which posits that the information traveling on the Internet whether its e-mail, websites, or your favorite porn is just bits and bytes traveling around a network. My ones and zeros will be choked on the Internet while larger media companies get their data moved faster. It means it will take an hour to upload a video e-mail to grandma while some 12-year-old downloads the latest Coke commercial starring Shakira in twelve seconds flat.
Also, whether you’re using cable, dsl, or dial-up, the network is nowhere near as fast as promised by the Bells. In Japan and South Korea, you get symetrical 100 Mbps standard for around $40 a month. While in the U.S., the fastest service you can ever get is 35 Mbps for around $200 a month.
I don’t know about hippie claims, but that aside Jeremy makes a good point. Since telcos already face heavy competition (and will be facing more with the growth of wi-fi and satellite) why would they further jeopardize their market share? It just wouldn’t make any sense.
I’m not buying the Armageddon scenario – because as soon as somebody tries to mess with my Internet, I’m taking my money to someone that won’t. And I’m really not convinced they’ll try anyway. They haven’t yet…so let’s wait till there’s an actual problem before we invoke the name of Avril Lavigne.
I’m with Decider…I just don’t see an coming crisis that the market won’t solve on its own.
This is classic “fear drives favor” politics. The internet is not going to implode with the introduction of the The Bells, and increased competition. It is so naïve to ignore the obvious reality that more internet providers will lead to a better product being offered to the public. The Armageddon type attacks of this new Internet market are surely coming from those who enjoy monopolistic control over the current situation. I say bring on the competition and make the service providers earn our business.
I am not a tin-foil hat kind of guy, but there is something deceptive and nefarious about the business practices of the Bell companies. They spend so much on lobbying and supporting astroturf groups to support measures that are not at all good for the consumer. And realistically, nobody really has a choice of how they connect to the backbone.
I’m confused. I thought one of the problems in the US was too much dark fiber, fiber that was laid during the late 90’s and never got lit. Meanwhile, Verizon and at&t are beating on the doors of politicians all over the US seeking permission to pull fiber to every house on every block. I can’t believe they’d be taking that gamble if they didn’t have fiber behind the last mile. As for the Net Neutrality argument, it doesn’t wash. I’ve been hearing that “they’re” going to discriminate so I can’t go where I want to go, do what I want to do on “my” internet. When that happens, I’ll worry about it. Meanwhile, I think the Federal Government should stay out of regulation of the ‘net. The FCC has marching orders to watch out for discrimination against service and content providers, and so far that’s been all that was needed.