Cell Phones Presage Future of Non-Neutral Internet 155
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.)
Competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Competition (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Post your zip code and I'll show you one reason that is the case -- the State (meaning the government at some level) requires that one to be the sole monopoly provider. Numerous regulations, restrictions, licensing and mandates prevent competition.
The government can not fix ("net neutrality") what it broke ("regulating one monopoly.")
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:2)
That is the reason why, but "practicality" is the given reason it's legislated so. Do you really think the only reason the giant behemoth that was the old AT&T didn't roll through those few areas contr
Re:Competition (Score:2)
They're talking about creating a new law to oversee the abuses that the NSA has performed on recording phone records of citizens. Reviewing the text of the bill shows that the new law would give the NSA complete power to record anything they want -- with a secret court "watching" over them.
The law, if created, will o
Re:Competition (Score:5, Informative)
Two... (Score:2)
Of course, in many cases the telco tends to be more accessible to rural areas (no cable TV, no cable internet), and the really rural areas often have weird ways of getting access such as airwave (wireless) or sattelite.
Re:Competition (Score:2)
The telephone company can and does undercut our prices. Anyone buying the survice solely on the monthly service price will go with the telephone company.
The only difference is the service. We go out of our way to help our customers when they need it. For example, one customer called me on a Sunday afternoon and told me that the mouse on his computer had quit. I was headed his direction anyway and so I dropped a mouse off for him to use in the meantime.
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Offtopic FYI (Score:2)
Re:Offtopic FYI (Score:2)
You only get four hits, and Hatch's site is one of them. It made me smile.
Re:Offtopic FYI (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Competition is so aggressive that some are predicting that in 2 years, the rates for cell calls will be lower than those of fixed landlines, which is already true, in many cases, for long distance calls.
Actually, there are many households around here that no longer have a landline. They only have cell. You can have a cell phon
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:2)
In an ever-increasing number of areas, mobile phone providers offer broadband internet access cards.
Many DSL providers, One Cable, Cell, Satellite (Score:2)
But if you've
Re:Competition (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a situation where competition will magically make things better.
Re:Competition (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges. The PSTN and all the stuff that uses its copper and fiber could be subject to collusion because it's a common and known entity. Private networks are not, and can't be regulated that way. The bright side of this is that the PSTN can't be held hostage without a lot of government help. It's only now (and not 50 years ago) that we're seeing enough "help" from the government to bring this about, and it may not last. We can only hope.
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Competition (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah! That's why AOL never got off the ground... wait...
but history dosen't repeat itself, I'm sure this time around the average public will be much smarter...
Well, People will make informed decisions based upon sound engineering principles, not marketing....
crap, we're all doomed
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Well, I think those half-billion people across the pond might be less interested in those chunks of the internet that are non-neutral than in the restricted chunks; and with that kind of market just sitting there, really, what kind of company with international interests is going to bother putting all their eggs in chunks of the internet that are guaranteed to be both restricted and restrictive? I suspect the prestige will remain with the neutral internet. (Not to mention nearly four billion people in Asia
Re:Competition != Benefit (Score:2)
I'm not talking about java games here, I'm talking third-party mobile services.
So, why would a privatized internet be different?
Re:Competition (Score:3, Insightful)
If the companies open pandora's box and begin to unleash that darkness and destruction on the interne
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:2)
> How many backbones are there?
None.
The public peering points are a joke that are ignored by the network engineers at all of the big ISPs. All of the big ISPs have private data exchange agreements with each other.
I appreciate the metaphor, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I appreciate the metaphor, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Now if you'll excuse me, another internet has just come through the tubes for me.
Re:I appreciate the metaphor, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Ringtones: $2.49 Full songs on Internet: $0.99 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I appreciate the metaphor, but... (Score:2)
It's 2006...
There are only about 100 websites total you can view, of course those websites vary depending on what internet carrier you use. You're charged by how long you view the website, not necessarily how much you download. This is on top of the base charge of $50/month for internet accesses.
You can also E-Mail too, but there is a $0.10/fee per message.
No other internet services such as instant messaging, MMRPG's, multipl
O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:4, Interesting)
O2 only allows HTTP and blocks TCP and UDP. Sucks, aparently it is to prevent people using VOIP but it prevents hundreds of legitimate uses.
Then again they probabbly dont want people to play or use 3rd party free apps.
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2, Informative)
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2)
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2)
My next thought is, why are you modded down? You are correct for near 100%.
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2)
always remember if you can get a connection on any one port then you can get them all if you really try.
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2)
The provider could get really nasty and limit the number of bytes transferred per session. Web pages would work fine. Calls would drop periodically, and there'd be a 500 ms delay for new connections which would be practically insensible while web-surfing but would wreak havoc upon voice calls.
-b.
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean HTTP runs on something besides TCP? That's news to me.
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2)
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2)
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2)
Changing the phone's ne
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2, Insightful)
>O2 only allows HTTP and blocks TCP and UDP.
Please explain how HTTP works with TCP blocked.
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2)
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:3, Informative)
To one of the other siblings: TCP is not blocked, but a firewall can look at the first line of the packet and if it is not HTTP it will drop the packet - I've dealt with firewalls that do this - quite irritating if you're sending a POST request through the firewall only to have any request larger than a single TCP packet (typical M
VOIP wouldn't be blocked (Score:2)
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:2)
Re:O2 blocks TCP & UDP (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.filesaveas.com/gprs.html [filesaveas.com] (O2 settings at the top, but this is UK information, I don't know about the rest of the world, but it's worth looking in to).
After that I also had to contact the network to get them to lift the blocks on certain ports. This involved them doing an age verification check for some reason or another, maybe to stop kids running up huge data bills using such services).
Incidentally, I had to find this information out for myself on the web, speaking to vodafone without being armed with the information did not yield results.
Excuse me if I'm ignorant... (Score:2)
Re:Excuse me if I'm ignorant... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Excuse me if I'm ignorant... (Score:2)
Re:Excuse me if I'm ignorant... (Score:2)
If the people who control the physical wires over which your new-fangled network would run would have the ability to effectively disable your access to those wires, there would be no way to bulid a whole new communications network except to replicate the vast amount of wiring infratsructure.
It would be impossible to compete with them or set up anything in parallel without spending
You've got it backwards. (Score:2)
We already made the leap.
Now we're talking about letting the telcos control and bastardize it.
Its all about the money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Its all about the money (Score:2)
A) Wireless companies are expensive to operate and thus the main focus is on operational effeciency - how to maintain towers, basestations, manage customer churn, deal with handset procurement, etc. The CEO's of wireless companies focus on these issues, for good reason I suppose.
B) Wireless companies have employees who would like to open up their infrastructure, provide open services, open API's, etc. However, these people are few a
Re:Its all about the money (Score:2)
I used to be an Orange customer, but I left because they have no customer-retention skill; as a customer of several years, and a contract customer of 12-months, I was not entitled to the same deals as a new customer, even
Re:Its all about the money (Score:2)
Cellphone networks desperately need to increase their revenue per user. They need to encourage users to do things with their phones other than just make occasional voice calls and send a few texts. For a long time all sorts of people have been predicting an explosion of applications... but it hasn't happened.
The reason it hasn't happened is not because it's hard to write phone apps. It's the same reason why businesses fail to th
Re:Its all about the money (Score:2)
The problem is that this assumption is wrong. Their proprietay network will make more immediate money, but an open network as a higher probability to develop (for example, the internet).
If the telcos had had that kind of power over the internet 10 years ago, we would *STILL* use modems to connect to BBS
Is it about the money? (Score:2)
The whole regulated monopoly mindset, built around gaming the system instead of attracting customers (because customers are captives), doesn't go away in only one generation.
What a great analogy! (Score:2)
Re:What a bad analogy! (Score:2)
Anyway, having got that out of the way, why is it a bad analogy?
The article asks why there is a dearth of innovative applications on cellular phones and answers: It's simple. Because the cell phone carriers control what services are allowed to use
Re:What a bad analogy! (Score:2)
I think you've gotten your terms crossed here. Net neutrality would mean that no one is "cut off". The loss of net neutrality would allow a telco to block, say, Google or YouTube.
Re:What a bad analogy! (Score:2)
Re:What a great analogy! (Score:2)
Some.big.com rents an OC12 from a provider. Some.big.com is Provider's FIRST customer! Provider provisions an OC12's worth of backbone to their border with SomeOtherProvider.
Then, I decide to rent a T1 from that Provider. They take a look at their backbone load, with their one existing customer... and see that it's only 60% utilized by him. Plenty of room to add me to it, and they do not need to "re-provision" anything.
Wash, rinse, repeat until their backbon
I Agree, but not completely (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
point is valid (Score:2, Insightful)
Application locking in 'doze for Smartphone (Score:2)
SMS is not IP (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
What's the alternative? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 t
Article gets premise wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Incorrect. They are not *required* to do anything. There aren't any laws that specifically prohibit data discrimination.
"It's simple. Because the cell phone carriers control what services are allowed to use their networks. There is no net neutrality on the cell phone network."
And this is much like how AOL used to be (in the past: Prodigy, CompuServe, and many bulletin boards).
What's next, water pipes?
Re: Instant Annihilation of Freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
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 pa
Re:Article gets premise wrong (Score:2)
nice article (Score:2)
Of course its the money (Score:2)
much of the article was a stretch however this is slightly disturbing and believable:
He is writing the article pseudonymously because the cell phone companies have the power and freedom to crush his company by block
Re:Of course its the money (Score:2)
"who are we to stand in the way of congress?"
incentive (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:incentive (Score:2)
Oh, they already got a better deal: the government paid them already in tax deductions and incentives to build that fast internet they claim can only happen with no net neutrality.
In effect, they will be paid *TWICE* and probably still wont deliver.
Re:incentive (Score:2)
Of course, in this kind of a price-war environment it is impossible for any DSL prov
Re:incentive (Score:2)
But I do wish that sometime in the future, all business DSL plans are bundled with at least one static IP address. If it were phone, nobody would accept dynamic phone numbers (it changes everytime you pick up the phone). Why would people put up with dynamic IP addresses?
Separate the network from the application (Score:2)
There is some guy who's name escapes me (and who is also I believe famous in geek circles) that said that if you take away features from a protocol, you'll increase innovation. I'm paraphrasing a bit as I don't know the quote or the man who said it, but look at the phone network.
Phone companies do phoen calls really w
Re:Separate the network from the application (Score:3, Informative)
Could be Richard Stalllman
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview [linuxdevcenter.com]
Nonfree software is controlled by its developer. The developers often implement malicious features--for example, to spy on the user or to restrict the user. Sometimes they keep the malicious features secret. But they also figure that people will be so des
As an example (Score:2)
The Daily Show Hit this on the head on the 19th... (Score:2)
Good argument (Score:2)
Furthermore, I already went to a DSL ISP that rents pair from the local telco monopoly rather than be subjected to the abuses of network neutrality that Telus has already perpetrated bly blocking Union websites [michaelgeist.ca].
When I called Telus to disconnect, the service rep tried to tell me that they were posting content unlawfully (like addresses of Telus execs, blabhlabh). I said "You guys don't bother blocking all the rest of the illegal stuff out there on the net, why the hell are you starting
Article brings a good point.... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the number one thing that pisses me off about all cell providers in the states. One example is Verizon Wireless seems to block a wap site outside of thier network. Why? I don't know, but the site I am talking about provides subway train info via wap browser. I can get to the site from my laptop outside of thier network, but on the phone I get nothing. I can get to google and I can get to gmail, but this subway thing? No dice. The reason? I don't really know, but I am guessing that maybe they are going to start selling a app that does the same thing and they'd rather me pay them instead of get it for free.
Seems like a poor analogy (Score:2)
I think it's
Re:Outrageous! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Outrageous! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Outrageous! (Score:2)
If they were allowed to do this, what would prevent a company like Comcast from making it so that all traffic from Time-Warner Cable, COX, etc. would be red
Re:Outrageous! (Score:2)
Oh, Comcast definitely will, first chance they get. They continually run commercials here talking about how Net Neutrality is evil and will destroy the internet.
Unfortunately, nobody has the money to put counter-advertisements on the same channels. So Comcast is basically going to purchase public opinion without nary a single dissenting voice.
Wonderful world we live in.
Re:Outrageous! (Score:3, Informative)
Considering they built the networking infrastructure with a large amount of public funds, then no, they don't get to set the terms.
The companies themselves invested quite a bit, that's true. But they certainly accepted hundreds of millions of tax dollars to work on this new-fangled intar-net thing, and that puts them in poor negotiating position when it c
Re:Outrageous! (Score:2)
This decision has already been made on the POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) network. The decision was two-fold: Subscribers got to choose their long distance service provider, and subscribers got to connect any equipment they wanted to the network as long as it met the electrical and signalling standards.
The result was a competetive landscape for long distance service, and an explosion in the variety of subscriber equipment.
Right now, in the US market,
Re:Outrageous! (Score:4, Funny)
Well, duh! It is a series of tubes.
Re:Outrageous! (Score:2)
# Follow the only tube,
Follow the only tube!
Follow, oh follow, oh follow, oh follow,
Oh follow the only tube!
We're off to internet the prime minister,
The prime minister of Canada
Re:WTF??? (Score:2, Informative)
This is arguable. Except for the bearer medium and the connection-oriented principle of phone-to-GGSN, 3G technologies like UMTS have a routed IP backbone at the core of it just like a "traditional data" network does.
I'm seeing loads of people on the subway and at the airp
Re:WTF??? (Score:2)
"Washington Times says Net Neutrality will destroy the internet." - Comcast commercial, 3 days ago.
Seems to me that when one side wants to grossly lie through their teeth in order to distort public opinion, your only choice is to do the same thing, the opposite direction.
The general public is not smart enough to understand most technical issues. A single individual WILL unde