Upon reading my blog titled “What Network Neutrality is Really All About” a myspacer responded with the following:

 “Network neutrality is about keeping the huge media conglomerates like Fox, NBC/GE, ABC/Disney, etc. from setting up a many-tiered system which would put individual internet users on a slower system which we would have to pay extra to get off of and onto the fast track, which the giant media corporations would try to keep for themselves while charging more and more to the little guy to use. It's about keeping the internet from falling into total control of the mega-corporations. It's about maintaining the equality of access to the internet that now exists. If you want the internet to become the province of the rich, then keep fighting against net neutrality.”

Another replied,

“I do not agree with a single thing you said in your blog, and rather than waste time "debating" about it, I'd rather just say "have a nice day". I do not agree with a single thing you said (and this issue is not open for discussion) because I view "free markets" as one of the worst threats to the world. Since the basis of your blog is built upon the idea that "a truly free internet can take care of itself", we really have nothing more to discuss.  Have a nice day.”

A many tiered system is not possible.  Either the people who support Net Neutrality don’t understand the infrastructure of the internet or they don’t care about the truth.

For those who don’t know, below is as brief and concise a breakdown I can give of the incredibly diverse, complex and ever evolving internet and the reasoning why it cannot fall ’into total control of the mega-corporations’. 

The Internet for Dummies

First we must differentiate between the web, the internet, its providers and protocols and the infrastructure used for all of the above.

The Web

The World Wide Web is the data and the information we get on the internet.  This includes pictures, video, audio, web pages, etc.  Everything from the page we can read at the Library of Congress to the link to lasagna recipe that your aunt sends in an email.  If there is a link to it somewhere, it is part of the world wide web.  It is not physical.  It is the data on the internet, and the data that takes you to the data.  In short, the WWW is the content of the internet.

The Internet

The physical connections from node to node are what constitute the internet.  A network of computers at a college, a computer in a home, a laptop at Starbucks, a server used by a local internet provider, the servers used at the bank, the radio base stations your cell phone logs onto; these are what make up internet.  Satellites and the cables that run on the bottom of the ocean are part of the internet.

Protocols

The protocols used on the internet, or ‘modes’ are basically the computer languages and methods of operability and data transmit and exchange.  These obviously require appropriate equipment to operate.  Wireless frequencies, packet transferring, USBs; these all require language and protocols to be able to communicate with something else.  Whenever you turn on your computer or connect it to something, it sends out a query to see if it can communicate with something through the connection.  If it can’t communicate, your computer tells you that you have a problem.  In this case, what you are connected to is ‘not recognized’.  From connecting a memory strip to connecting to the internet, both ends must be able to communicate through an appropriate language and transfer protocol.

Protocols are often refined and upgraded.  These upgrades which add features or fix bugs are usually made to enhance existing equipment.  Makers of video processing cards or network adapters for example, often provide upgraded versions of the software needed for their products that can be downloaded from the internet.

Less often, but inevitably, public demands for greater speed, higher definition, expanded capability, etc. call for improvements that require new equipment to operate.   This may simply be a chip upgrade, a peripheral or whole system upgrade.  While for some this can be costly, requiring it of everyone is foolish.  Even though most consider Windows NT to be too problematic to maintain, still the upgraded versions of Windows will recognize it in connectivity and format.

And even less frequently, programmers and manufacturers determine that the present mode, language or a device’s approach to processing is insufficient to support required growth.  Such is the case with storage.  Originally, IBM desktop computers used true floppy disks that were 10” and then 5.25” and then came the 3.5” hard sleeve disk.  While these disks are still in use, they are of little use with modern programs because of their limited capacity.  The nine-pin serial port was widely used for desktop and laptop peripherals, but the USB has almost completely replaced them.  The benefits of this improvement were immediately recognized by manufacturers and programmers worldwide, and were literally adopted prior to the release of the innovation without any need of contracts. 

Whether local or omnipresent, whether through the internet or from your motherboard to your monitor, computers require thousands of different protocols to operate.  Without appropriate protocols, the world would not be connected.  Without advances in protocols, the internet stops growing.

Much of the internet modes and protocols are a result of interoperability and interconnectivity agreements between corporate networks, between manufacturers and internet providers.  Everyone agrees to a standard, often without written contracts.  These peer contracts establish the operational modes we use, and consist of mutually beneficial approaches to modes and protocols.

“The phrase "settlement-free peering" is sometimes used to reflect this reality and unambiguously describe the pure cost-free peering situation.” (2)

Operating systems have needed to perform radical changes to service demands by the public for more productivity.  Try connecting an IBM 8086 computer running on Windows 2.0 to the internet using a 300 bit Smartmodem.  The protocols may still function and you may be able to connect through your phone line, but with only 640 kilobytes of memory and only 4Mhz of power, a standard Myspace page would freeze your system after it tried for an hour to load it. 

Try running a DOS program on a modern Windows XP or MAC operating system.  It won’t work!  Net Neutrality calls to require protocols in all aspects of the net to still accommodate the slower and outdated technology to be “fair”.  How much will it cost and who will pay for it in the end?  What does that require of a myspacer who wants everything on their page?  It has to be able to be truncated so that it will load on the Fred Flintstone computer.  How much will that cost and how much will it slow down the system for the rest of us?  Only time will tell.

The Infrastructure

When connecting the computer in our home or office to a candle maker’s website in China, there follows a hierarchy of network hubs:

Point of Presence (POP)- wire service connected to your building (phonelines, cable etc.)  This may be AOL, NetZero, Verizon, Pacific Bell, etc.

Network Access Point (NAPs)– these are huge high capacity connectivity ports owned by corporations, government, universities and private entities.  This is the last strait line your internet connection may see.  In the NAP are the routers that send information throughout the world and back to your computer.

Backbone- The best description is that a backbone consists of the high-capacity trunk lines that make up an interstate or international highway for information, and the NAP routers are the onramps.  Once only colleges and government owned and maintained these, now corporations build them for their own and public use.

New technology allows us to bypass local POPs, NAPs and Backbones with service provided by direct satellite or cellular wireless connections.

Once on a backbone, our transmission goes back down another line of hubs until it reaches a site or network we are accessing whether that’s Google or jansvacationphotos.com.

As far as where they lie in the internet, websites we visit are no different than our computers.  They may be in a large building with lots of servers and routers, just as the website I may start at freewebsites.com, but they are outside the hub and are visited by going through the hubs.

All of this has been built without restriction and cannot grow any other way.

“Meanwhile, over the course of the decade, the Internet successfully accommodated the majority of previously existing public computer networks … This growth is often attributed to the lack of central administration, which allows organic growth of the network, as well as the non-proprietary open nature of the Internet protocols, which encourages vendor interoperability and prevents any one company from exerting too much control over the network”. (1)

Where Does It Go From Here?

Now I’m going to warn you.  If only a few entities gain control of the architecture of the internet, that is, the technology, protocols, POPs, NAPs, Backbones, and the content, then the world will be in trouble.  Especially if they see this control as a way to nickel and dime us to death.

The internet does not belong to anyone, it belongs to everyone.  Individuals and corporations develop technology and protocols which they incorporate into the internet by agreements and by the demands of the market.  Competition has invigorated these people to expand the internet at the exponential rate we have seen since its inception.  Chunks of the infrastructure are owned by thousands of entities.  Everyone Should Control the Internet.

The Market

Once “the premier entry point to the internet” with 30 million subscribers, AOL was the unstoppable IP.  Due to their aggressive advertising techniques, at one point 40% of their subscribers didn’t even have computers but believe they should be able to get online.  AOL discovered this and then deliberately advertised to these people even more.  AOL is guilty of extensively using the very site trapping techniques the Net Neutrality proponents keep warning us about.  But it was the competition of the free-market that brought more ethical, affordable and diverse IPs that took their market share from 24.3% in 1997 to about 13% in 2006.  (3,4)

An intelligent analyst that is interested in making money for his corporation is not going to recommend taking control of the internet.  An intelligent analyst would come up with Myspace.com, google.com, ebay.com, Voice-over-internet-protocol, wireless-internet-access, etc.  What the people want, that is what controls the internet.

Corporations

Corporations invest billions of dollars into research and development to expand the internet and make the best use of it.  Technology, the interactivity and user-friendliness of programs and web sites, the innovations of individuals are brought to world on a silver platter.  Corporations are what build the internet.

Government

Yes, I said “government”.  Government can promote the internet by enforcing existing monopoly laws.  Cracking down on internet trapping crimes, phishing, spam, etc.  Government is not what should run the internet, but it should protect it.

Conclusion

The many-tiered-system some are inarticulately posing is not possible.  Corporations cannot gain control of all of the physical aspects of the internet because some of them are government controlled and some are government subsidized and owned privately by entities that cannot sell them.  Some, such as satellites are governed by special communications laws that preclude them from being used for profit.  Much of the cable infrastructure is required by original contracts to be the property of local governments. 

Corporations cannot gain control of internet protocols because it is too vast and requires too many agreements.  Everyone on the internet is not going to wholly accept protocols that only benefit one corporation or one group.  And even if they did, everything would change the next day.

I warned about letting control of the internet fall into the hands of a few.  With the present freedom, the net has shown that it can take care of itself with relatively few stumbles.  But the more Net Neutrality is used to create the legislation it calls for, the more power government will have over technology, protocols, POPs, NAPs, Backbones, and web content.  Even if they drive the internet into the ground, just as they have shown with things like education (the average American public school student is being beaten out by kids in Belarus), they’ll never let go, ever.

Corporations cannot control the internet because the people will simply not buy into it.  They cannot control the internet because other corporations will simply provide a better, cheaper and freer product competitively.  They cannot control the internet because the federal government will break them up like they did Ma’ Bell.

Government control and taxation of the internet is not freedom.  It is a socialist utopia that will do nothing but shackle mankind.

While I personally don’t like seeing corporations having so much influence in our lives, I’m not willing to give up my freedom to those in government in order to stop them.  Even if that did occur, there are proven ways of dealing with it.

I could just as easily say that the affiliates to the progressive movement that are pushing for Net Neutrality (yes, there are a few Republicans) have not changed their stripes and are still only interested in placing absolute power over our entire lives into the hands of a few in the name of “the people”, and are determined to deny everyone a chance to prosper.

The internet is not one thing.  The only way to stop it is to regulate and tax it.  At first the infrastructure ran strictly through phone lines and through college server equipment.  Now it runs through fiber optics, cable, satellite and the cellular industry.  Soon AccessBPL (Broadband-over-power-lines) will bring the internet into every home, in every community, right through a house’s electrical system and out of every outlet.  This will occur because of legislation signed by congress that eases restrictions on corporations. 

Fewer restrictions on those who build the internet are what the government can do to help.  Restrictions on monopolistic power in the U.S. have been in place since 1890.  Government enforcement of the laws against fraud will keep the corporations on the internet honest.  Net Neutrality is about something completely different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering_agreement

http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=164401

http://www.watleyreview.com/2004/111604-3.html

Network neutrality is a regulation principle for broadband.  It is the face being put on a much broader idea.

The public is being told that it is about keeping the internet free from service switching scams that might restrict users to certain providers or force them to use other providers, whether it is an Internet Provider or any subsequent providers. 

First, to address what everyone is constantly being told about Network Neutrality; it actually calls for broadband networks to have no equipment or mode restrictions.  That is a good thing because when new technology comes out that allows me to have 3D holographic interface games with 10,000 people around the world, I'm there.  However, there are no restrictions on this now.  Let me repeat that: THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS NOW!

So if Network Neutrality proposes to do something that is already being done, what else is it for?

The fact that there are no restrictions now can be seen in the rapidity with which we and the internet are growing together.  So Network Neutrality is like saying, we should pass laws that allow us to drive down the street, across town or across the nation.  We can already do this.  When I say that Network Neutrality is the face of a much broader idea, I mean it is being used to scare people with stories of provider switching and service manipulation.  In other words, to induce fear that we will be taken advantage of.  When these things happen now, they are already against the law or a law is simply tweaked to recognize it.

So since everyone is already free on the net to grow as we desire and are able to, and since we are already protected by laws from switching scams, what else does Network Neutrality do?  Glad you asked.

First, Network Neutrality will REQUIRE ISPs and other service providers to still support old equipment and modes.  So with the slogan of "Network Neutrality" Congress is attempting REGULATE the internet by bringing portions of it under the Telecommunication Service regulations. 

They plan to do what was done to the cellular industry.  At one point in the advancement of cell phone technology, everyone moved on to GSM (digital) and then UMTS (HiSpeed).  But the federal government required cell phone companies to maintain all the old TDMA (analog) so that those with analog phones can still use them.

So while the cell companies are willing to give digital phones away, they are still required to renew accounts with TDMA customers.

If you ever see a cell tower with it's antennas arrayed in three directions walk over and look inside the fence.  You'll see a bunch of metal cabinets that are bigger than refrigerators.  The biggest ones are usually TDMA.  As cell companies see this, the old technology takes up 10 times the space of the new technology, and they have to pay for the space and maintain the equipment that often only 1 person uses a month, while the new technology is handling everyone else's 200,000 calls a month. 

This would be equivalent to spending $1000 a month on a car that does not even run, while you spend $100 a month on the car you drive every day.

So what's the big deal?  So they maintain old equipment for a decade or so.  I have all the latest technology, let the slow people do their own thing.   Well, with only a few people using all that old stuff, guess where the cell company gets its money to maintain it all.  Yup, you and everyone else who is moving up the technology escalator!  Perhaps your cell plan could be costing $42 instead of $62. 

Network Neutrality – Strike one!

Network Neutrality also says to infrastructure companies like AT&T that even though Google uses far more bandwidth than most other internet companies, AT&T and other infrastructure providers cannot charge them for it at a rate proportional to their use.

For example; if I owned a woodshop and charge people $10 dollars to come in and use my tools.  Google comes in and stays there 24 hours a day, using my equipment to make a killing in the unfinished furniture industry.  Network Neutrality says I can only charge Google $10 dollars, just as if he were some guy who simply makes a birdhouse.

As AT&T must, I have to spend my own money to accommodate his increased production with a greater capacity and constantly upgraded equipment, forever.

Further, and more importantly, Network Neutrality support vlogs are not addressing its farthest reaching implications.  With the internet under federal regulation it is subject to further regulation.  Sort of like the FDA who regulates the processing and distribution of food in America.  The FDA has grown so much and people are so accustomed to it regulating the food we buy, it may one day tell us what we cannot put in our bodies.  Wait, it already does that. 

What have members of the congress been trying to do to the internet ever since Al Gore invented it?  That's right, TAX it! 

Like your telephone bill, what can be regulated can be taxed.

The first Internet Tax Freedom Act specifically put a moratorium on internet taxes for the purpose of holding off long enough so the internet could get strong.  Only after it grew into a monster did they intend to go after us, as though it is the right of government take money from us.  Personally, I'm amazed they had enough restraint and patience to pass such an act.  Although many have tried to let this bill expire, fortunately it has been extended and we are still free from most e-taxes.

A new bill has been introduced called (S.156) the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007 that simply makes this ban on internet taxes permanent.  The bill has not been scheduled for debate and likely will not get even debated, let alone voted on.  The intention behind the ITFA was not to ban taxes on the internet, but to have a ban that would expire one day.

What keeps us from being taxed in the first place?  In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of revenue, decided in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the Federal Constitution prohibited a state from imposing a use tax collection obligation on a mail-order seller with no physical presence in the state.  In 1992, 25 years later, in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the court reaffirmed the essential holding of the 1967 decision, that states may not require a mail-order seller to collect the use tax due with no physical presence.  This holds true for "all" types of out of state sellers regardless of the vehicle being used to sell.  (1)

Just look at the government fees and taxes on your home phone and your cell phone.  All justifications aside, it is still a bunch of taxes.  You can stay up to date with the following sites and others: 

http://www.cfif.org
http://www.nointernettax.org

Network Neutrality – Strike three!

And still there is more.  Ever heard of the Internet Society?  ISOC is an international organization consisting of 100 organizations and 20,000 members.  It's largely associated with the United Nations, and in close association with the UN World Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) which proposes a new form of government called e-Government.

WGIG conducted the World Summit on the Information Society with the stated aims of getting the internet to everyone in the world.But the answers in the two resulting reports were all about getting the internet under the control of an international government.  Their 2003 Digital Solidarity Agenda Plan of Action, and the resulting Tunis Agenda for the Information Society claims to assume governance of the internet for the common good.  But it claims governance of the internet nonetheless.

I'm not going to go into all the conspiracy theories.  Everyone knows the heart of the UN.  The Internet Society has commissioned reports for Congress and other nations to learn how the internet is functioning.  But while WGIG and ISOC may largely refer to problems associated with getting the internet to poor people, and protecting societies from fraud, all of the answers to these problems seem to involve methods of standardizing and controlling the internet and helping governments get money from its users.  While ISOC mostly reviews and reproves policies, information and opinions about the internet, its' recommendations involve constructing a legal framework around it. 

All one needs to do is read these organization's long winded reports.  ISOC released a statement on 30 October 2001, titled "ISOC RECOMMENDS EXTENSION OF US MORATORIUM ON INTERNET TAXATION" where it stated that ISOC "believes that taxation on use of the Internet would have a negative effect on its continued growth, and the Society opposes any form of taxation of this type."   

Let freedom ring brother!

But right in the same release they made clear that this is only a temporary plan until they have an appropriate structure that taxes the internet without destroying it; "Realistically, it will take time to reconcile the diverse range of potential and existing legislations and apply these to the "borderless" nature of Internet commerce. A continuing moratorium in the United States is a key factor in allowing time to balance the interests involved."

In other words -  a temporary moratorium on internet taxation.  Tax the internet, but not yet.

The American Registry for Internet Numbers (arin.net) is one of the few organizations that has been warning us about these dangers.  They are obviously interested because ISOC has continually recommended that internet registry follows a global standardization under one international authority. 

ISOC refers to problems associated with electronic transfers of funds such as un-traceability in money laundering and other fraud, and potential problems with national and regional economic stability.  But the greatest affect of theirs and the WGIG's recommendations are fees and taxes.  How do they propose taxing a  Chinese retailer who avoiding taxation by going through America to sell to a Japanese customer?  A worldwide internet taxation authority.  Based where?  Switzerland of course!  What would this authority do?  It would require ALL internet transactions of THE WORLD to pass through it to finalize disbursement of all funds based on local, national and international laws.  The ultimate fraud prevention system?!

Obviously this blog does not address all the issues concerning Network Neutrality and internet freedom, but the main public debate is, I think, laid bare. 

I believe that a truly free internet can handle itself.  People and companies are solving transaction issues themselves on the net and the crimes that people commit on the net are still considered crimes and are still being prosecuted.  We don't need anyone, not corporations, congress or the UN to control the internet any more than we need them standing over our shoulder when we send a letter, walk down the street or buy a box of lemon drops.

Oh, and by the way, I still refuse to vote for any Republican who doesn't believe in all points of the Republican platform, no matter how much the compromised conservatives think he can win.

(1) http://www.ecominfocenter.com/index.html?page=/newsletter/issue8/issue8.html