Quantum Statement

The New Internet, the New World

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: Net Neutrality Broadband

Advertisements

April 9, 2006 - Posted by | Authors, Bruce Kushnick, Internet Speed, net neutrality

8 Comments »

  1. 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.

    Comment by jeremy | April 10, 2006 | Reply

  2. 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.

    Comment by rfid4dna | April 10, 2006 | Reply

  3. 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.

    Comment by pkp646 | April 19, 2006 | Reply

  4. 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.

    Comment by The Decider | April 19, 2006 | Reply

  5. I’m with Decider…I just don’t see an coming crisis that the market won’t solve on its own.

    Comment by Happenstance | April 20, 2006 | Reply

  6. 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.

    Comment by John Rice | April 20, 2006 | Reply

  7. 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.

    Comment by rfid4dna | April 20, 2006 | Reply

  8. 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.

    Comment by Bennyfibre | April 20, 2006 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: