It’s probably better spell the whole thing out. Let’s think seriously about the Internet. If it’s just the ‘Net we run the risk of taking it for granted, as many of us do. What is the Internet, then? Do we have quite the same Internet as we did before Brand X? What will we have after the Telecom Rewrite? The stage is set for Whitacre Tiering. Another dimension of the digital divide comes into view. Angela Stuber makes the point well. It’s one piece of a larger issue: communities and communinty leaders have to define the terms with regard to the digital divide.
If the Internet moves from peer basis to tiered basis, should’nt we stop calling it the Internet? Should we stop calling it that now?
I began with a dramatic title: killing the ‘Net. That phrase is meant to bring people to awareness of the gravity of the situation. I’m more inclined to say it’s already done in some respects.
Back to basics… for those who undertand the fundamental character of the Internet: it ain’t what it used to be. As more and more join the Network it resembles itself less and less, and its clue-train promise becomes more distant. It’s not the numbers that are joining, or who they are. It’s how they are being joined to the Network, and on what terms. That is, it isn’t their fault, and they are unlikely to notice what has been broken or stolen.
The rallying cry for those who see it’s been broken or stolen is that we’re going to get it back or build a new one.
The latter is often stated with an underlying sentiment that the political game is already lost because it’s rigged or corrupt or sufficiently kafkaesque that the sane would do better pursuing other means. But we haven’t given up on politics yet. And you can’t kill this Internet idea. We will build it again if it comes to that.
I’m not up on this stuff. What’s tiering? Is this “no Google for China?” What are we talking about here?
Tiering refers to having different “levels”. Imagine certain content or users being privileged and allowed to travel over segments of the network backbone while other content is blocked, or restricted to slower pipes.
What we’re headed towards is that possibility. That is the stated preference of Telecom industry leaders.
It is a violation of network neutrality principles.
If they take the further step of blocking content or content types entirely then the control of content is virtually absolute.
Who controls the backbone?
http://www.saschameinrath.com/2006mar28the_north_american_internet_backbone
As to who owns the Internet and who owns the backbone(s)… perhaps two different concepts.
Also, what is the nature of the ownership held by these backbone providers?
Property is not absolute… and in fact there are various obligations placed upon the owners of network infrastructure. To the extent possible, they wish to be liberated from them. In certain cases they have not met their obligations nor have they always lived up to agreements they have made. Some estimate that Telco’s have broken promises to the tune of $200 Billion in terms of tax breaks they received with a promise to invest in infrastructure. By their promise and receipt of tax-breaks we should have 45Mb up/down just about everywhere in the USA. They were talking about this investment 20 years ago… Fiber everywhere with the capacity to deliver video services. If they kept their promise we’d be the world leader instead of #16 and falling in broadband. Industrial competitiveness isnt something you give away lightly. yet here we are. The metaphor of seafaring routes is apropos… some liken a broadband network in a municipality to a deep-water port. With these metaphors people get it… this matters for our economy.
I’m not in the fight to save the Internet because we’ve fallen behind in deployment of high speed networks… I’m in the fight because I understand communication as central to what we espouse as of value in our political system.