The End of the Internet
It’s early April of 2010 – welcome to the end of the Internet.
Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner have been conspiring to fundamentally modify the way the Internet is access for some time now, by experimenting with traffic filtering/shaping, packet blocking, bandwidth caps, and variable bandwidth, most of which they have publicly denied using. A new “product” from Comcast, however, entirely changes the situation: the availability of so-called bandwidth meters.
Until recently, using the Internet has been rather simple: a customer pays for access at certain speeds and they’re left to their own devices, unless they miss a bill payment. ISPs began to become more interested in the activities of their users as music and video downloading/streaming became more popular in the mainstream, and they could no longer force the same number of customers onto already overloaded sections of their network – obviously they needed a way to retake higher profit margins.
Their solution was, and still is, to control what their customers are allowed to do with the service they pay dearly for, with the troublesome parameters of what, when, and how much. Besides the incoherent and false justification that ISPs were running out of bandwidth, a business model revolving around disrespecting clientele is never successful in the longterm, and it remains to be seen whether such a strategy will last.
This move by Comcast, allowing customers to determine their account’s status in terms of bandwidth usage, gives the company a legal stance to cancel or suspend accounts with an argument based on self-awareness – provided, of course, that Comcast is even being honest about the actual data transfer used. Other ISPs will inevitably follow once they see that explicit boundaries on what should be an unrestricted flow are not only accepted, but profitable as well.
A basic understanding of the Internet, and computing in general, shows what a fundamental effect bandwidth caps will have on users’ activities. If a 2-hour movie via Netflix runs 1.2 GB, and a 30-minute TV show via Hulu runs 500MB, Comcast’s 250GB limit runs out pretty quickly. Simply considering what ISPs consider to be legal usage, because torrents are somehow inherently evil, regularly watching two half-hour TV shows daily, such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, a once-a-week show such as V, and two movies a week automatically places a user at approximately 10% of their monthly cap. Now factor in online gaming, web browsing, YouTube videos, podcasts, online radio streaming, Skype conversations, and that 250GB number doesn’t look so large.
None of the activities listed above are either illegal or unusual, and yet using them under the coming delivery structure of the Internet will be penalizing at best, crippling at worst. This prioritization of profits over functionality is extremely worrisome, because it will force companies, services, and entrepreneurs, to deeply consider the bandwidth-viability of their products, thereby placing a cap on innovation itself – Cisco’s TelePresence is simply impossible in a future that treats bandwidth as a precious resource.
Without intervention from the FCC or Congress, the digital futures imagined by the likes of William Gibson, Bill Gates, or the Wachowski Brothers are doomed to be forever unattainable. For a service that has so fundamentally changed the world, its restriction and inevitable decreased relevance is a sad event for those who have been liberated, excited, or educated via its wonders.
Welcome to the end of the Internet.
Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] piece adheres to the Code of Ethics subscribe to Self posts: rss – email New column at Technotainment Revelations on True/Slant: It’s early April of 2010 – welcome to the end of the Internet. Comcast, AT&T, and Time [...]
How can all the other countries have better service than we do in the States?
No idea…
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »“If a 2-hour movie via Netflix runs 1.2 GB, and a 30-minute TV show via Hulu runs 500MB, Comcast’s 250GB limit runs out pretty quickly.”
Huh? That’s seven netflix movies a day. Fourteen hours of netflix movie watching, seven days a week. While I agree with the principle behind your argument, the current limits are hardly oppressive or burdensome to the average user.
Those were meant as a precursor to my following math – the setup for the calculation that lead to 10% of the cap being used just on low video usage alone.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »More and more arguments pointing to the need to eliminate monopoly protections for communication providers. Between cell phone providers, cable, and telcoms, a household can typically pay $200 per month or more for the 19th best internet service in the world, at rates 3x what the top 18 countries charge while only providing a fraction of the bandwidth.
Er- was including the cost of voice communications and tv in that $200, but will still stick to the main point as these can be readily replaced by voip and other streaming media.
In response to another comment. See in context »Agreed.
This is something the FCC and Congress is looking at, making it a utility and not a luxury.
If it becomes a utility, then maybe we end up paying per GB, but it entirely changes the quality of service for the better.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »Though I like the idea of utility regulation, it’s further blurred by utilities as producers versus distributors. Nobody argues that pipes cost money, but with wireless distribution and P2P technologies, even their roles as distribution infrastructure comes into question.
I think opening this market allows an enormous potential for local entrepreneurship, not to mention opens a lot of potential applications for highly localized information services…
In response to another comment. See in context »The problem is that all the big companies own the delivery networks, whether it’s cable or phone lines. So even if a startup ISP comes around, you have to pay “delivery fees” to AT&T or Comcast to have that service – which is why there are so few actual ISP options.
Personally, I like the idea of people like AT&T being longhaul distributors with a utility bent, and then smaller companies handling the local delivery – this would divide the work and make being a local ISP much, much cheaper and more viable, stimulating actual competition for once.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »Well its fairly easy to explain why we are behind the curve compared to other countries. We are a victim of our own advancment in tech. The origins of our internet backbone was based on and intergrated with our telephone infrastructure, recently companies built their fiber backbones to increase their viability in the market. Even now there are still segments in areas running on old and slow infrastructure. With a country like S. Korea which i believe is at an average 100mb connection ( Someone correct me if I am wrong ) before this they were damn near 3rd world with a very lacking national backbone, then boom. They almost started from scratch so instead of basing their plans on a dinosaur phone backbone they did it right from the get go, hence a in some cases 10x faster connection.
All this however does come with caveats. Carriers in S. Korea are not making billions like here in the U.S. They have a dramtically smaller customer base, and population. And in some not all, controlled media. Just look at the battle between google & china. America has the ability to offer 100 Mb connection, but why would we? they can easily get 40 bucks a month for a 6mb, and based off this article are trying to find a way to make more off of us even still. you really cant win, both sides of the argument have vailidity. We are in maybe the 3rd chapter in a multi novel series.
It will be a long time before we see speeds like that, no because of lack of tech. or inability but because there is way too much money to be made in the process of getting their. Were the ones paying for the story to be written.
Fantastic data and points, thanks for contributing!
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] So i was reading Kyle Brady’s post about “The End of the Internet”, found here [...]
You are right Kyle but stupidity does not see the obvious untill is too late. In Romania you can have a 3.5 connection to the net at 5 euro/month no caps. At home you can get RDS(cable) for 11euro at 15mb/s. No contract or anything. You can also get free phone on their on voip clients and few free min, and extra costs around .03 euro cents any other carrier. In USA all is about greed and no choice. Its sad. I think EU is the next NEW WORLD!
[...] The End of the Internet – “It’s early April of 2010 – welcome to the end of the Internet. Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner have been conspiring to fundamentally modify the way the Internet is access for some time now, by experimenting with traffic filtering/shaping, packet blocking, bandwidth caps, and variable bandwidth, most of which they have publicly denied using. A new “product” from Comcast, however, entirely changes the situation: the availability of so-called bandwidth meters…” [...]
[...] Attention au début de la fin de la neutralité du web – trueslant [...]
[...] know-how and the financial ability, it’s not that difficult to avoid their services. If Net Neutrality becomes so large and cumbersome an issue that AT&T, Comcast, and the rest of their ilk continue to avoid scrutiny and regulation, [...]
[...] despite their receiving income from the opt-in Hulu delivery system. If Comcast, a company not known for its spotless ethical reputation, is approved to takeover NBC, this would mean that Comcast, not NBC, would hold a large controlling [...]