8 ms·

A preview of a world without net neutrality. In the future, your $60 internet connection includes "access to 500 premium websites!" The rest of the Internet isn

A preview of a world without net neutrality. In the future, your $60 internet connection includes "access to 500 premium websites!" The rest of the Internet isn't necessary to the "average" consumer. Like with cable television... Or maybe I'm wrong about the corporate vision.

prawn 12y ago
And they don't need to worry about torrents and piracy and all that hassle. Can see that appealing greatly to big media companies and the politicians they're in with.
prostoalex 12y ago
Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to wired. In wired world, the carriers were granted monopoly to dig the trenches, and the fact that they now abuse that monopoly without giving access to other players is what riles people. Wireless world is fairly fragmented - carriers are separate from equipment companies, which are separate from tower operators. Anybody can buy up some equipment and tower space and just start offering mobile voice+broadband. Or start on MVNO to piggyback existing infrastructure and expand from there.
- twistedpair 12y ago
  > Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to wired. Really? Unless you can participate in the multi-billion dollar spectrum auction, you can't use any of those towers or disparate device providers. The right to use a large block of spectrum in a given geographic area is a monopoly of sorts for that carrier. Given the capital and scale needed to enter the market, it's no wonder we have so few wireless carriers to choose from.
  - superuser2 12y ago
    It would be very expensive for me to start a chip fabrication plant, but that doesn't make the industry a monopoly. Just one that requires a lot of capital to enter.
    - ZenoArrow 12y ago
      Capital that you'll never get as the market is far too risky for any sane investor, and far too much money for an individual to have spare. Semiconductor manufacture isn't a monopoly now as there's more than one player, but you're fooling yourself if you believe it's something more than an oligarchy.
      - prostoalex 12y ago
        You mean oligopoly?
        ZenoArrow 12y ago
        Yes.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to wired. That's actually not all that true. While both the 2010 Open Internet Order and the more recent NPRM for a new version have provided looser rules for mobile broadband, (fixed wireless has the same rules as fixed wired broadband), its been on the FCC radar, and a number of big players pushing for more full neutrality than the current NPRM offers for fixed broadband have also been advocating for the same treatment for mobile broadband as fixed rather than two separate models. > In wired world, the carriers were granted monopoly to dig the trenches, and the fact that they now abuse that monopoly without giving access to other players is what riles people. In the wireless world, companies rely on exclusive monopoly licenses to spectrum, so its an ongoing -- not merely historical -- monopoly on which they rely.
  - prostoalex 12y ago
    Good point on spectrum, but it's artificial scarcity set by the government policy (or lack thereof).
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Good point on spectrum, but it's artificial scarcity set by the government policy No, its not. The particular mechanism for managing scarcity may be a policy choice, but the scarcity is pretty fundamental.
    - opendais 12y ago
      The scarcity isn't artificial. High powered broadcasts on the same chunk of spectrum directly interfere with each other. That is why you can't have two FM radio stations on 106.7.
      - jjoonathan 12y ago
        > High powered broadcasts... FM radio stations on 106.7 are not even close to comparable. Cellphone towers do not use frequencies and powers that travel nearly as far as those employed by radio stations. >The scarcity isn't artificial. Nope, it's artificial. The next generation of base stations performs beamforming for physics-based channel sharing in addition to CDMA ("algorithm-based" channel sharing). Beamforming effectively allows you to employ a sizable number of "virtual antennas", each aimed separately at individual receivers. With multiple base stations it's an even more effective strategy because you can create signals that constructively interfere at a point rather than along a line. Everyone gets their own spatially-localized signal and can transmit their own spatially-localized signal because the same trick works in reverse for reception. So no, there isn't fundamental spectrum scarcity. Perhaps there are too few beamforming base stations installed, but that's a problem to be solved through investment in new technology, not by allowing carriers to impose business models that de-commoditize bandwidth.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Tower space yes, frequency no.
- baddox 12y ago
  Isn't the regulation pretty similar in the wireless world? Wired providers get monopolies to dig trenches, but don't wireless providers get monopolies (or oligopolies) to use certain parts of the wireless spectrum? I'm pretty sure anybody can't just buy equipment and start broadcasting.
  - Istof 12y ago
    It is regulated by the FCC and some frequencies can be used by anybody in the US (but they might not be suitable for a cellphone company) http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf ...
- wpietri 12y ago
  > Anybody can buy up some equipment and tower space and just start offering mobile voice+broadband. That's surprising to me. How can the FCC charging billions for mobile spectrum licences? [1] It would seem to me that there are government-granted monopolies for both wired and wireless. [1] http://www.networkworld.com/article/2307154/network-security/fcc-s-wireless-spectrum-auction-fetches--14-billion.html http://www.networkworld.com/article/2307154/network-security...
pjc50 12y ago
No, you're absolutely right. And in that vision, not only would the user pay for the "premium" websites, but the sites themselves would have to pay to get on the premium list. This is basically the old AOL or CIX model.
- ams6110 12y ago
  Yes. And that's a model that the market rejected in favor of the "dumb pipe" internet service model in the 1990s.
  - collyw 12y ago
    Unfortunately many users don't seem to give a shit these days. As long as they get their new shiny toys.
    - samstave 12y ago
      Users care, but they don't have a choice when the only affordable option at their house is the monopoly over the cable access.
einrealist 12y ago
I'm fine with that. At least they do not label it as Internet. The customers will decide and I expect their vision will collide with the corporate one. It is also a chance for other companies to offer better packages with undiscriminated access.
- Smudge 12y ago
  I'm not entirely convinced that the majority of internet users would really miss the rest of the internet if all but the 500 (or 1,000) top websites disappeared. I could see a world where if we left it up to the consumers, the majority of the long-tail Internet would stagnate and disappear because so few are paying for the packages that include those sites. It's not a perfect analogy, but I'd compare it to broadcast media. The barrier to entry for creating a new TV channel is absurdly high compared to that of creating a website. Imagine a world where suddenly creating a website meant negotiating with Internet providers to get included in the standard packages. It's just a huge step back, but the majority of consumers might not notice the difference. (At least not right away.)
  - XorNot 12y ago
    Yes they would. This is an utterly classic failure to understand averages. The idea that people visit a dozen or so websites regularly doesn't remotely imply that those are the only websites they visit, or even that those are the most valuable websites for them. I can live without any of my most visited websites - they are not business important. But my business web site? The local calendaring etc? My mobile plan loses all value if I can't use those on the go.
  - elwell 12y ago
    Those sites usually have links to less popular sites.
  - einrealist 12y ago
    The average customer may not understand that when he buys the Twitter package, that she/he is not be able to open external resources on any Twitter feed. Watching the Youtube video your friend posted with a Tweet - not possible. This limitation will make such a package unattractive. Another reason for why these offers will fail is status. If you bought such a package, you better not tell your peers, because it lowers your status among them. Well, your peers will know it anyway, because you cannot just open this Youtube video they posted on their Facebook timeline. This is a bigger issue with Sprint's targeted customer: poor people and kids. It would be a good strategy, if Sprint compensates these offerings by also offering an instant access choice. If a customer with a Facebook package opens an external resource, she/he shall see a page where she/he can buy 24h Internet access for less than $2. --- If providers stop offering "undiscriminated" Internet access, others will fill this gap with new "Real Internet Access".
Istof 12y ago
Of course net neutrality is a must but at least with TV I get about 50 free over-the-air DTV channels so I don't need cable...
- zanny 12y ago
  Nothing really stops "us" from making radio based meshnets, either. Besides spectrum regulation hogging all the good stuff.
  - Scoundreller 12y ago
    I want to see someone create an algorithm that automatically arranges fixed point-to-point wireless connections, with a weekly re-aim window to account for new/dropped subscribers and to route heavy traffic sources and sinks. It would automatically avoid interference by ensuring that links are never overlapping (eg: receiving an unintended sender's signal), but ensuring links are either parallel or perpendicular.
nlh 12y ago
You're totally right. And what scares me the most about this is the "reverse auction" logic that they'll use against net neutrality: Say a broadbank link today costs $100/mo for 50Mbit. That will remain. It may even get better. They'll say "Look! We used to charge $100/mo for 50Mbit, and now we give you 100Mbit for the same price! We're innovating!" Meanwhile on the other end, they'll offer the $20 package with 500 Premium Websites, and the $10 package with Facebook & Twitter & Google, but not DuckDuckGo. Or whatever. And then, as you'd expect, millions will sign up for the cheap packages (because when it comes down to it, most people make a decision based on price and that's it). And the cable cos will still say: "We're still offering totally neutral 100Mbit internet - just like the good 'ol days! We're good guys! It's not our fault that people want the value packages. The free market has spoken." And then the new players wonder why they can't get any traction until they too pay up to be part of the "value" packages, and the nightmare is real.
- anoncow 12y ago
  Do you mean to say that Facebook and Twitter have paid to get in to this value package? Or is Sprint offering the package on its own? There have been similar facebook deals in India. There was one in which facebook could be accessed via a special URL for free (0.facebook.com). There are packs available for WhatsApp now.
  - tobyjsullivan 12y ago
    Facebook and Twitter must invest in the deal in one way or other. Facebook's free access in India and some other countries is part of their internet.org project (or the team that deals with that). In that model, Facebook has a partnership with the local telecoms. The telecom opens access to that domain for every customer and Facebook pays the telecom for the data access.
- CmonDev 12y ago
  Maybe humanity will only win if some people are limited to just Twitter and Facebook?
Spooky23 12y ago
Wow. Never thought that we'd make a return to the days of Prodigy. At least AOL had internet access!

prawn 12y ago

And they don't need to worry about torrents and piracy and all that hassle. Can see that appealing greatly to big media companies and the politicians they're in with.

prostoalex 12y ago

Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to wired. In wired world, the carriers were granted monopoly to dig the trenches, and the fact that they now abuse that monopoly without giving access to other players is what riles people. Wireless world is fairly fragmented - carriers are separate from equipment companies, which are separate from tower operators. Anybody can buy up some equipment and tower space and just start offering mobile voice+broadband. Or start on MVNO to piggyback existing infrastructure and expand from there.

twistedpair 12y ago
> Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to wired. Really? Unless you can participate in the multi-billion dollar spectrum auction, you can't use any of those towers or disparate device providers. The right to use a large block of spectrum in a given geographic area is a monopoly of sorts for that carrier. Given the capital and scale needed to enter the market, it's no wonder we have so few wireless carriers to choose from.
- superuser2 12y ago
  It would be very expensive for me to start a chip fabrication plant, but that doesn't make the industry a monopoly. Just one that requires a lot of capital to enter.
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    Capital that you'll never get as the market is far too risky for any sane investor, and far too much money for an individual to have spare. Semiconductor manufacture isn't a monopoly now as there's more than one player, but you're fooling yourself if you believe it's something more than an oligarchy.
    - prostoalex 12y ago
      You mean oligopoly?
      - ZenoArrow 12y ago
        Yes.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Net neutrality is less of a hot topic in the wireless world compared to wired. That's actually not all that true. While both the 2010 Open Internet Order and the more recent NPRM for a new version have provided looser rules for mobile broadband, (fixed wireless has the same rules as fixed wired broadband), its been on the FCC radar, and a number of big players pushing for more full neutrality than the current NPRM offers for fixed broadband have also been advocating for the same treatment for mobile broadband as fixed rather than two separate models. > In wired world, the carriers were granted monopoly to dig the trenches, and the fact that they now abuse that monopoly without giving access to other players is what riles people. In the wireless world, companies rely on exclusive monopoly licenses to spectrum, so its an ongoing -- not merely historical -- monopoly on which they rely.
- prostoalex 12y ago
  Good point on spectrum, but it's artificial scarcity set by the government policy (or lack thereof).
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Good point on spectrum, but it's artificial scarcity set by the government policy No, its not. The particular mechanism for managing scarcity may be a policy choice, but the scarcity is pretty fundamental.
  - opendais 12y ago
    The scarcity isn't artificial. High powered broadcasts on the same chunk of spectrum directly interfere with each other. That is why you can't have two FM radio stations on 106.7.
    - jjoonathan 12y ago
      > High powered broadcasts... FM radio stations on 106.7 are not even close to comparable. Cellphone towers do not use frequencies and powers that travel nearly as far as those employed by radio stations. >The scarcity isn't artificial. Nope, it's artificial. The next generation of base stations performs beamforming for physics-based channel sharing in addition to CDMA ("algorithm-based" channel sharing). Beamforming effectively allows you to employ a sizable number of "virtual antennas", each aimed separately at individual receivers. With multiple base stations it's an even more effective strategy because you can create signals that constructively interfere at a point rather than along a line. Everyone gets their own spatially-localized signal and can transmit their own spatially-localized signal because the same trick works in reverse for reception. So no, there isn't fundamental spectrum scarcity. Perhaps there are too few beamforming base stations installed, but that's a problem to be solved through investment in new technology, not by allowing carriers to impose business models that de-commoditize bandwidth.
fleitz 12y ago
Tower space yes, frequency no.
baddox 12y ago
Isn't the regulation pretty similar in the wireless world? Wired providers get monopolies to dig trenches, but don't wireless providers get monopolies (or oligopolies) to use certain parts of the wireless spectrum? I'm pretty sure anybody can't just buy equipment and start broadcasting.
- Istof 12y ago
  It is regulated by the FCC and some frequencies can be used by anybody in the US (but they might not be suitable for a cellphone company) http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf ...
wpietri 12y ago
> Anybody can buy up some equipment and tower space and just start offering mobile voice+broadband. That's surprising to me. How can the FCC charging billions for mobile spectrum licences? [1] It would seem to me that there are government-granted monopolies for both wired and wireless. [1] http://www.networkworld.com/article/2307154/network-security/fcc-s-wireless-spectrum-auction-fetches--14-billion.html http://www.networkworld.com/article/2307154/network-security...

pjc50 12y ago

No, you're absolutely right. And in that vision, not only would the user pay for the "premium" websites, but the sites themselves would have to pay to get on the premium list. This is basically the old AOL or CIX model.

ams6110 12y ago
Yes. And that's a model that the market rejected in favor of the "dumb pipe" internet service model in the 1990s.
- collyw 12y ago
  Unfortunately many users don't seem to give a shit these days. As long as they get their new shiny toys.
  - samstave 12y ago
    Users care, but they don't have a choice when the only affordable option at their house is the monopoly over the cable access.

einrealist 12y ago

I'm fine with that. At least they do not label it as Internet. The customers will decide and I expect their vision will collide with the corporate one. It is also a chance for other companies to offer better packages with undiscriminated access.

Smudge 12y ago
I'm not entirely convinced that the majority of internet users would really miss the rest of the internet if all but the 500 (or 1,000) top websites disappeared. I could see a world where if we left it up to the consumers, the majority of the long-tail Internet would stagnate and disappear because so few are paying for the packages that include those sites. It's not a perfect analogy, but I'd compare it to broadcast media. The barrier to entry for creating a new TV channel is absurdly high compared to that of creating a website. Imagine a world where suddenly creating a website meant negotiating with Internet providers to get included in the standard packages. It's just a huge step back, but the majority of consumers might not notice the difference. (At least not right away.)
- XorNot 12y ago
  Yes they would. This is an utterly classic failure to understand averages. The idea that people visit a dozen or so websites regularly doesn't remotely imply that those are the only websites they visit, or even that those are the most valuable websites for them. I can live without any of my most visited websites - they are not business important. But my business web site? The local calendaring etc? My mobile plan loses all value if I can't use those on the go.
- elwell 12y ago
  Those sites usually have links to less popular sites.
- einrealist 12y ago
  The average customer may not understand that when he buys the Twitter package, that she/he is not be able to open external resources on any Twitter feed. Watching the Youtube video your friend posted with a Tweet - not possible. This limitation will make such a package unattractive. Another reason for why these offers will fail is status. If you bought such a package, you better not tell your peers, because it lowers your status among them. Well, your peers will know it anyway, because you cannot just open this Youtube video they posted on their Facebook timeline. This is a bigger issue with Sprint's targeted customer: poor people and kids. It would be a good strategy, if Sprint compensates these offerings by also offering an instant access choice. If a customer with a Facebook package opens an external resource, she/he shall see a page where she/he can buy 24h Internet access for less than $2. --- If providers stop offering "undiscriminated" Internet access, others will fill this gap with new "Real Internet Access".

Istof 12y ago

Of course net neutrality is a must but at least with TV I get about 50 free over-the-air DTV channels so I don't need cable...

zanny 12y ago
Nothing really stops "us" from making radio based meshnets, either. Besides spectrum regulation hogging all the good stuff.
- Scoundreller 12y ago
  I want to see someone create an algorithm that automatically arranges fixed point-to-point wireless connections, with a weekly re-aim window to account for new/dropped subscribers and to route heavy traffic sources and sinks. It would automatically avoid interference by ensuring that links are never overlapping (eg: receiving an unintended sender's signal), but ensuring links are either parallel or perpendicular.

nlh 12y ago

You're totally right. And what scares me the most about this is the "reverse auction" logic that they'll use against net neutrality: Say a broadbank link today costs $100/mo for 50Mbit. That will remain. It may even get better. They'll say "Look! We used to charge $100/mo for 50Mbit, and now we give you 100Mbit for the same price! We're innovating!" Meanwhile on the other end, they'll offer the $20 package with 500 Premium Websites, and the $10 package with Facebook & Twitter & Google, but not DuckDuckGo. Or whatever. And then, as you'd expect, millions will sign up for the cheap packages (because when it comes down to it, most people make a decision based on price and that's it). And the cable cos will still say: "We're still offering totally neutral 100Mbit internet - just like the good 'ol days! We're good guys! It's not our fault that people want the value packages. The free market has spoken." And then the new players wonder why they can't get any traction until they too pay up to be part of the "value" packages, and the nightmare is real.

anoncow 12y ago
Do you mean to say that Facebook and Twitter have paid to get in to this value package? Or is Sprint offering the package on its own? There have been similar facebook deals in India. There was one in which facebook could be accessed via a special URL for free (0.facebook.com). There are packs available for WhatsApp now.
- tobyjsullivan 12y ago
  Facebook and Twitter must invest in the deal in one way or other. Facebook's free access in India and some other countries is part of their internet.org project (or the team that deals with that). In that model, Facebook has a partnership with the local telecoms. The telecom opens access to that domain for every customer and Facebook pays the telecom for the data access.
CmonDev 12y ago
Maybe humanity will only win if some people are limited to just Twitter and Facebook?

Spooky23 12y ago

Wow. Never thought that we'd make a return to the days of Prodigy. At least AOL had internet access!