EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Obama Did It For the Money
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Big Brother Is Blocking
Should your cell phone company decide who can send you a text message? Should your Internet service provider block your Internet movie because it doesn't like the file-sharing service you're using?
We suspect that most consumers would say no. When people sign up for a communications service, Big Brother shouldn't come with the deal.
Two recent incidents, however, show that some corporations are willing to stick their noses in their customers' business. The Federal Communications Commission should tell them to butt out. If the FCC won't, Congress should.
The first involved Verizon. Last September, the phone company blocked a text-message subscription service offered by the pro-abortion-rights group NARAL. The key phrase there is "subscription service." Phone companies do a service for subscribers by blocking a lot of text-message "spam" - unwanted commercial come-ons that drive e-mail users crazy. But the NARAL service wasn't that. Cell phone users had to sign up to get the messages.
Politicians and interest groups of all stripes are using text messaging to rally their supporters. A study by Princeton University and the University of Michigan found that text-mail reminders raise voter turnout by 4.2 percent among young people.
In rejecting NARAL, Verizon cited its policy against services that "promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." This is the phone company acting as your mother.
NARAL speaks on one of the most divisive issues of our time. Abortion sways elections, and NARAL's advocacy is the essence of free speech. If phone companies can control such speech, they can shrivel the First Amendment and distort democracy.
After The New York Times reported the story, Verizon rescinded its decision on NARAL. But it's time for the FCC to make it clear that political speech is not to be trifled with.
The other case is less political but has more potential to disrupt free communications on the Internet. The Associated Press reported in October that Comcast, the giant cable company, secretly was slowing or blocking access to peer-to-peer file-sharing services such as BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella. Such Internet services usually transmit music and videos, although they share other content, too.
Internet service companies consider them bandwidth hogs and suggest that as file-sharers grow in popularity, they'll slow service for everyone. It's the same issue that three years ago caused AT&T to float the idea of imposing extra fees on big Internet users, including the likes of Google and Amazon.com.
Much of the Internet actually is private property, as are phone company switches, wires and routers. Right now, all items traveling over the Internet are treated the same and move at the same speed. But AT&T would have created fast and slow lanes, with companies paying extra to move to the fast lane.
The idea was opposed stridently by so-called "net neutrality" advocates. A year ago, as a concession to win FCC approval of its bid to buy BellSouth, AT&T agreed to give up its two-tier proposal for two years. Expect it to pop up again.
The Internet has been a transformative development for information and commerce. It developed that way precisely because it is egalitarian. Anyone with a good idea could put it on the Web and watch it catch fire. Companies such as YouTube and eBay sprang from nothing. That's less likely to happen if big Internet companies can favor some participants over others, based on the size of their checkbooks or the character of their content.
The FCC soon will consider a complaint against Comcast for blocking access to file-sharing services. The commission should make it clear that the information superhighway is not a tollway.
Copyright © 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch L.L.C.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

17 Comments so far
Show AllPeople better start standing up to these companies. The Internet is next on their list. If we hadn't had the Internet, we would all be goose-stepping and shouting "Sieg Heil" by now.
EDWARDS '08
The ability to communicate is crucial to a democracy. Unfortunately, MikeBinSC, a lot of people don't know or care how concentrated the ownership of our media and communications are. One flick of switch and the Internet is dead. Phones are dead. Gee, who else used to pull that kinda crap?
Splitting the net to a Two-tier (tears baby) system is the equivalent of divide and conquer.
Once they get 2, … they're going for 4, … 8, 16, 256, 2k, 8M, 16G, 32T subdivisons.
¿ Guess where CD rates on the politically correct bandwidth allocation ?
1 / ∞
PAC"LIBERTY or DEATH"PLYER -- I'll work with my ham buddies and explore the available alternatives.
"Our" FCC still has jurisdiction over any and all RF transmissions (like WiMax),and the challenge is bridge whatever coverage gaps occur and to link eventually to the extra-net (non-USA sponsored profit).
The international community is growing independent of anything USA-related, but much of the world's entire connectivity flows through USA nodes.
Because the internet is robust, and designed to skip over bad or broken nodes, the entire set of USA nodes could die, and only reduce the effective bandwidth (signals might have to route cuba-EU-India-Australia, going around the earth the long way).
Because the M$M/telecos control the nodes, this is major international banking connections and the life blood of commerce, and would be extraordinarily unlikely to ever go down for seconds (even then, costing millions).
It is local ISP (service provider) that is slated to do the filtering and share the profits of connecting (selective bandwidth) to the big data pipelines (that likely their owner owns).
If we lose the internet, the peaceful revolution may not be very peaceful.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch is full of hypocrisy. Their Forum, St. Louis Today eliminates posters who do not follow the beliefs of their Jewish management. Speech is limited there all the time. Discount their articles.
Not really lost, just ssssllllooooowwwwweeedddd down by a factor of perhaps as little as 10-fold.
If I have to wait 10-s for checking every character typed or page advancing line, I would likely give up after a while working in "real-time".
The solution will be slowly loading (web crawling) the CD sites pages as we sleep, or are at work - we'll always be at best one day behind the pace and interchange we have grown to expect. There would no longer be the fast repartee of minutes or hours, but more likely days and weeks.
Uploading postings would have to be composed separately, and pasted in for submission (likely w/o seeing it for ~ 24 hours).
The strategies might change with the time dilation factor, but the message and responses would over time converge. Learning is driven by rapid interchange of ideas, stimulus / response, so many would become board or overwhelmed.
When you do, just consider what it would be like writing messages on little strips of paper and using carrier pigeons to move the data.
Everything would take months, instead of hours, to percolate around through dozens of people.
totaljoke, they can't (or wouldn't) just flick the switch on the Internet, because all business in America, and not just Internet Cyber Businesses, would grind to a halt. But, what they can do, is incrementally regulate us off of it.
I hope the open source people will fight back. There has to be a way to use Short Wave and Ham Radio to bypass internet "property" that seeks to censor content or free speech. Going Wimax (computer to computer) means we own that part of the net and can block all gov and Fortune 500 traffic in favor of the little guy.
This Boston Tea Party is just getting started!
pac "liberty or death" plyer
I noted that Comcast is blocking e-mails from YouTube in my serice area. Not merely "throttling" traffic, but completely blocking it.
I'm certain that the internet would have long been shut down as a subversive thing, and there's not a damned thing any of us could do, vocally, to protest it -- except for one particular aspect: the internet is far too engrained in modern industry, business, etc. to be simply shut down. It would probably be the single most destructive act to our economy.
But that doesn't mean it won't happen. Bush has self-destructed our national image (what was left of it), his brother and father were there when S&L's collapsed, he was at the helm during Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, the housing bubble, the illegal invasion of Iraq, etc. There's no reason to believe that he won't take American down to its knees in other ways.
So if Jesus, Cheney, Rockfeller, the Rothschilds, Kissinger, the Bilderbergs, or whoever it is that he listens to says "shut down the internet at any cost", but jove he probably will. While TCP/IP is in many ways a decentralized topology, ownership of the hardware and cabling is not.
Paul B and others, I don't know if you are old enough to remember life before the Internet, but I assume you are. Just before the internet took off, many of us were blogging on "Bulletin Boards", remember those, and they were connected to other boards. Nearly every computer has a dial-up modem in it that allows connection to other computers over standard telephone lines. Though much slower, it is still an option to being totally frozen out. Maybe the progressive community should look at setting something up now as a contingency plan.
Hey nspire ,
We had a power outage so I couldn't respond.
Man I'm glad you're on this thread. This kind of thing is right down you alley.
Can you talk more about the extra-net? I'm afraid I know little more than the confusing world net domain map done by dartmouth unv.
Maybe you can read the article and comments here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/09/6283/
Sorry for the off topic comment but -
It's official, Kucinich is dropping out of the race! He says that he is not endorsing anyone, but he needs to endorse Edwards, and he needs to do it NOW, while it can still make a difference!
If you were a Kucinich supporter, tell him to endorse Edwards NOW!
EDWARDS '08
MIKE BIN SC -- Yes, that's a very good point.
One computer peer calling another peer, is a bit different than calling into a common BBS (Bulletin Board systems). The recipient's receiver modem settings would have to be configured for the reverse of the usual peer, for handshaking signal detection, and data rate negotiation.
The beauty of BBS is that any PC could add the needed hardware (for example a 16-channel modem card, for 16 simultaneous "telephone" connections). There is also likely some new tech that will connect BBSs direct to wideband LAN, to act like having 16+ phone lines.
A key factor in adapting to lapses of connectivity could be store and forward algorithms, so that the data could move upon re-establishment of "network" connectivity. Like a bucket brigade line used for fire fighting.
PACPLYER -- Yes, I had followed you comments on these, and much liked the idea of WiMax interconnections along with customized filtering and node access points, along with ham radiation over longer distances.
The hams already an X-perimental class that allows them to do all sorts of weird things, without FCC permission, so this might fit in.
I just today came up with the term extra-net (external to USA control), and now recall reading (after going back to your previous postings) your term "undernet". In both cases, we're likely covering ideas that have already been around for a long time, and coupling them into possible solutions for how to surmount what ever non-net neutrality imposition are forced upon us.
If necessary, a small group of people can incorporate themselves, and create an entirely separate network - which would have tie points back into the main drag. BTW, the telecos did this for the US military in the 30s, so that they had their entirely own set of phone infrastructure.
Today, it is very cheap to use VPN (Virtual Private Networks) encryption to "tunnel" safely over the regular internet services, between two or more secure locations (also open source code available).
The actual topology of the net is multi-dimensional, so the idea of a map is really tough to visualize (our 2D minds' eye). The TCP/IP algorithm uses dynamic routing tables to be adaptive to changing nodes, being added or subtracted or re-routed (so is mostly automatic and irrelevant).
From what I've read, most of the pinch of non-net neutrality would be data rate charge$ for various service (if you use bittorrent or other P2P, you pay more than the dude with just email). The shut-off and elimination of sites contrary to some bsn interests, or national security - will be a parallel effort.
The gov't shlubs would have to be very careful not to force disincentives that would constrain net growth and productivity, as that would hurt them big time. They just don't like one size fits all, and know they can makes lots more money by slice and dicing the pie (to hide fees and charges)
information superhighway morphs into a mis-information goat-trail
NSPIRE AND FRIENDS,
Interesting. The internet "goat trail" is already narrowing in the USA as we are now about number 16th I read in worldwide broadband availability. As the very brilliant Paul Bramscher points out, the last thing corrupt individuals (gov and Fortune 500) want is videos of themselves caught red-handed surfing through cyberspace. This is why, I believe, broadband is slated to be a corporate-only affordable luxury item, and filtering of content like youtube is likely to become commonplace over corporate owned net equipment.
So I submit, that censorship of the masses is already in subtle play.
The problem with VPN or even telephone modems is that the questionable data (free speech calling bush a monkey, for example) has to transit anti-liberty telecom property to get to it's peers or nodes. The gov is good at hiring big corps to sift through random cellphone calls or, in this case, random net data packets to identify free speech that they find objectionable. And I should point out that they find that data objectionable from an illegal political viewpoint (Not national security, but rather just a high-tech version of NIXON breaking into the DNC headquarters at WATERGATE.)
Electronically suppressing free speech, as is electronically altering presidential votes, is a crime.
So we can expect, as more of their more serious crimes get out, an internet filtering crackdown is likely since their Telecom CEO's saw what happened to Quest when they baulked at illegal wiretapping orders from the white house. Quest's growth stopped. All their competitors were allowed to merge together and thrown huge DHS contracts.
So I favor, what we call in the airline world a totally separate redundant system which we control all the nodes locally and all the connecting transmission methods as individual private property. Just like private PC's after the Apple and Commodore microcomputer movement freed users to put whatever they felt like on THEIR computer without the interference of a corruptible CEO or MIS database administrator. I feel forming a corp is no good since now you're subject to corp laws and corp warfare (lawsuits/buyouts) like Napster Kazza and others fell prey to.
We would all own the free software distributed by the open source community for free. Everybody would have a share in free speech!
Do you know of efforts like that underway in the programing soft/hard worlds, nspire?
Can you point me to any links?
Many Thanks,
pac