Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phones Presage Future of Non-Neutral Internet
An anonymous reader writes "The US cell phone network has no network neutrality. This story on NewsForge takes a look at the obstacles to getting a third-party application running on cell phone networks, and explains why the same obstacles could ruin a non-neutral Internet." (NewsForge and Slashdot are both part of OSTG.)
I think competition alone at this point would gaurentee net neurality. That is if one company starts limiting access to the web then customers will switch to other providers. If they all try to do it at the same time I am sure they would be breaking some collusion / monopoly laws.
Philosophy.
I don't think it's the best argument for net neutrality. I think the average person might look at that statement and think, "Well, even though different cell companies are linking different networks together - everything seems to work fine. So why not do the same thing with the internet?"
Of course, we know why. Competing companies would squeeze competitor's offerings unfairly, and that would stifle the current net's model of natural selection. Sub standard service would result.
So, while I agree with the article I don't think it should be used in arguments about net neutrality. It's possibly misleading to non-geeks.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
O2 only allows HTTP and blocks TCP and UDP
You mean HTTP runs on something besides TCP? That's news to me.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
I assume that if it was profitable for cell phone companies to find a way to create a net neutral infrastructure, there would already be steps in that direction. It seems to me that the biggest reason that they are insisting on controlling their own networks is that it is simply more profitable to them, no surprise the telcom giant want to do the same to the internet. Imagine if ISPs had the same amount of control over the internet that cell phone companies have over their networks now. I dont think what we know as the internet today would have ever gotten as large or productive as it currently is.
The backbone networks that the Internet runs on were funded in part by massive public subsidies, so it seems the public should get a say in who gets to use them, not just the company that "owns" them.
If we were talking about an actual free market with no externally imposed restrictions, I'd be right there with you. But the fact of the matter is, my cable and phone companies do not have to buy the land they dig up at will to lay cables, and my local government grants them a competition-free marketplace by legal decree. Not exactly a level playing field to begin with.
Excelent article, i think it make a very valid point and without intervention, that is a plausible future for the Internet.
The way I see the argument pro-non-netrality is mainly that the big ISP's don't want to invest large amounts of money into new technologies unless they get a piece of the action (control, basically) over those developments. They see it as a way to get back their investments (and I believe that they would have a decent return without all this, just by gaining subscribers and by the simple fact that the internet is not free to the end user).
So they are asking for control in exchange for innovation, that's not a new concept, not even on the internet. (under different forms but with the same basic concept, networks like Netzero allowed access to the net for free, gaining a bit of control on your computer).
The difference is that we know how the internet is today, and I'm not sure the end user is going to stand for less than that, It's easy to switch a paradigm when you give people something better, suddenly they don't stand for what it was before, if you change it for something less good, people complain, and markets shift, if a given ISP chose to be more neutral than others, there's a chance they'll attract more customers.
Before all the replys come in, I don't like the idea of a non-neutral Internet, we see what happens in China and other countries that block traffic, we look upon them as something dirty and low, ISP's need to realize that they may be looked upon that way if they choose to go too far with their efforts to make extra money.
The future will take care of itself.. It has in the past
I think his point is valid. Anyone who has a cellphone knows how these companies cripple their phones and basically limit their customers to very few expensive, poorly designed, services. It seems pretty obvious to me that verizon would love to be able to control their landline network with the same stranglehold. How else could they get people to actually use their shitty services?
Like what? Any network involving wires would pretty much have to work with the telcos, because no one else can or will spend billions of dollars to build out a new network. So, the only other option is some sort of peer to peer wireless network, which would work except that the telcos already have the FCC in their pockets, so it wouldn't take long for such a thing to be regulated out of existence.
Sure, the airwaves technically belong to the people, but the FCC and Congress sold them to the highest bigger a long time ago, and have long since stopped paying anything but lip service to the idea that the new owners have any sort of obligation to the public trust.
SMS uses the, rather limited bandwidth, control channel for transport. That puts a lot of pressure on the kinds of applications that can be supported.
Look at the price per megabit for messages outside a package to get an idea of the cost (k$).
Not the same at all!
But some cell carriers are far from neutral on IP as well. I'm not sure they are clear on how that affects their market share.
>O2 only allows HTTP and blocks TCP and UDP.
Please explain how HTTP works with TCP blocked.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
So, no net neutrality is a bad thing - I've felt this in my guts for a long time and this article gives me some very good arguments to articulate it (yes, I should have done my own thinking, but I'm lazy).
It's easy to understand WHY cell phone companies are doing this, though. Too much money was lost in creating a transparent, neutral internet; some companies and executives may have gotten rich but as an industry, global telecommunications has an appaling performance record.
Cell phone providers are one of the potential providers of the "next net" (depending on who will win the technology battle - the cell phone providers with 3g/4g, broadband providers with WiMax or whoever else can float a business model for some cool technology). So, the folks in strategy and marketing of Verizon/AT&T/ have figured that net neutrality is a bad thing 'coz they need to get some ROE on their investor's buck.
The question is - how are we as consumers (or better - potential entrepreneurs?) going to prevent this from happening? I'm not sure Joe Average is smart enough to understand he shouldn't be buying his UMTS minutes from a company that doesn't offer him a neutral service.
The balance of the arguments is so out of kilter I can barely treat it as an argument of merit. Currently, the net is a (mostly) impersonal collection of linked devices. ISP providers take their chances and either succeed, or fizzle.
... which the net will do. End Of Line.
I am paying Verizon for the cabeling that allows data to flow. That is their revenue source, fair and square. There is no way Verizon should ever get *content control* over what flows ON their net cable. Yes, they have somehow achieved this lock on the cell phone side, to the pain of the article author.
The second any of these big carriers gets content supervision rights that somehow pass a court appeal, then they gain a completely corruptible level of power. Why? Because the NEXT thing that happens is they start making deals.
"I'll block Atheist traffic for a cut of your action, Mr. Robertson."
The Slashdot review word for this post is Dissolve
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If having paying customers is not enough incentive to build the next generation networking infrastructure, I don't see what else is enough.
The only case where non-neutral Internet makes sense is to have ad-supported Internet, so that content providers pay for end user's Internet bills from advertising revenue. If this is the case, then you get what you didn't pay for. But I don't see this coming.
In the current model where end users do pay for their own Internet access, eliminating net neutrality actually poses risks to the ISP. If they happen to choose the wrong premium partner, they will lose customers. In fact, some people will be dissatisfied for every choices of partnership. Remaining neutral is probably the best way to make most people happy.
I once had a signature.
Need I say more?