The internet is over!

[Undertoad]

If it's determined that a Comcast is doing this, the resulting bad word of mouth could literally destroy them as a company. Providing IP service is the only business that matters. In 10 years cable TV may be dead as everyone will be able to broadcast over IP. No more channels, buy your basketball from Google to play on your video ipod connected to your home monitor.

And market perception is the biggest differentiator. The only differentiator. Anyone can move bits; depending where you're sitting, you may be bombarded with them. You can get broadband wi-fi at your local coffee place, for example.

Cisco has far more sway than any two-bit network-sniffing company and could well treat such packet warfare as network errors in the future, and try to route around them automatically. Remember the axiom, "the Internet treats censorship as network failure and routes around it." Voice is about 64k of bandwidth at the most, trivial to route around. That's why Vonage has a market to begin with.

New phones will even be wi-fi enabled, so if your own bandwidth doesn't match the bandwidth you get at work, or at McDonalds, providers will get complaint after complaint until they get it "fixed" and inferior service will clearly be the road to failure. Even management will understand because of how quickly it will effect their bottom lines.

We are in charge.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If it's determined that a Comcast is doing this, the resulting bad word of mouth could literally destroy them as a company.

If such were true, then APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable would have been out of business long ago - all marketing power strip protectors that do nothing effective and can even contribute to damage of attached computer. This demonstrated in another series of posts. And yet still, naivety lives on.

If your Skype phone does not work on Comcast, but your Comcast provided phone does, then who will most people blame? Comcast? Of course not. Blame will fall on Skype who in turn loses customers to Comcast. Unfortunately I have seen this too often - market forces punishing the innocent because 'so called' experts (power users) did not first learn basic technology. This is the power behind packet skewing. Experts (power users) will only see what they observe rather than first learn the underlying technology - therefore blaming Skype rather than Comcast.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Providing IP service is the only business that matters. In 10 years cable TV may be dead as everyone will be able to broadcast over IP.

Long ago on The Cellar, I noted this fact in a series of posts about DSL and the reason for 'the bottleneck'. Back then, I noted copper wire was not a bottleneck - as so many others blindly believed. Bottleneck was circuit switching computers - the Central Office.

Also in that discussion was what DSL could have provided. No need for an ISP. A mailbox is a tiny server in your home. Central Office only provides a copper wire connect (or fiber) to the home for a fixed monthly charge. This (back then) scared the Baby Bells who had just finished upgrading all their CO switching computers. Upgrading computers based upon 'circuit switched' technology rather than 'packet switched' technology. IOW Baby Bells should have been selling only IP service. What Isenberg called a "dumb network" - which was superior to the "intelligent network".

Well we still are not there. Meanwhile, legacy service provider (ie AOL, Comcast, etc) will do everything to stifle the above business model. They want your VoIP business and may do whatever is necessary to stifle upstarts - as they did to new DSL providers back when the Baby Bells would not install even in 1990s that 1981 DSL technology.

I don't believe for one moment that market forces are that informed as to identify games played by 'packet skewing'. I do not have enough faith in consumer being technically literate. Why? How many power strip protectors do you see out there? Wasted money. But the consumer still spends tens of times more money for devices that do nothing effective. Therefore how do we expect the consumer to understand that Comcast is doing 'packet skewing' to make their own services more desireable?

Neither Comcast nor the Baby Bells have any interest in only being IP service providers; leaving others to provide 'next layer' services such as 'on demand movies' and VoIP.

For that matter, how many here really understand what I have posted? Posted was a so simplistic overview of the Internet. And yet those same consumers would see through this big business trick of 'packet skewing"? I seriously doubt that consumers would be sufficiently informed. Everytime I see a power strip protector, then I suspect naviety is widespread.

[MaggieL]

U.S. broadband-cable companies are considered information services, which by law gives them the right to block VoIP calls. Comcast Corp., in Philadelphia, the country's largest cable company, is already a Narus customer; Thomas declined to say whether Comcast uses the VoIP-blocking capabilities.

Don't be silly...they're not using it yet, but they will soon. They're selling phone service, and at a time of their choosing they'll slam the door and then point out the clause in their ToS that says you can't do that.

They don't want you doing anything that generates significant upstream that doesn't also generate significant revenue.

For them.

I'm totally fed up with Comcast, from their constantly trying to jam digital service down my throat (at a price) to the crappy, sloppy way they insert their own dreary boring commercials into other people's programming. Often in the middle of another commercial.

Our wideband is *provisioned* by Verizon, but the ISP is Voicenet. Comcast's days in our household are numbered; we're shopping for a good VSAT TV service.

[Undertoad]

Me too, let me know what you find out. (I want to install it myself but I hear they want to do all that for you)

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

When you look at a webpage (like this one for example) you use your terminal to connect to your server. Then you type in a web address, and your server looks for it and finds it on whichever server it's on. The information that you look at on this page is stored on someone's server, and the person that owns the site pays the server for the space. You just get to look at it. If you had your own webspace, it would be stored on a server which is paid for somehow, either by you directly, or the space owners (such as geocities) might choose to use advertising to make their money, so that means that they're giving you space for free, but you're advertising their site which puts things like pop-ups etc (which someone has paid geocities to use) on your page.

When you make such a request, your pc gets the page from SOME server, not always the one hosting the original of the page. Two major technologies, still in widespread use that don't conform to your description are proxy servers (especially for content) and mirror servers, which are explicitly not the same server as the one that holds the original information, but holds a perfect copy (in a perfect world).

[footfootfoot]

My humble solution and only partially tongue in cheek, but also aprtly sincere is that once a year we all send each other paper mail via the usps and figure out whjer we'll meet at forks and conduct all this arguing, trolling, red baiting and back biting in person with shared refershmetns.

it would be like a boyscout jamboree ofr bigv and me and a few others and it wouldn't be like that for xoxoxbruce and a few others.

The all the people sucking money out of you could go piss up a rope.

we'll work out the details in person at the next forks. (not sure if the inch or SWMBO will be ready for forks. nor me for thst mttter.)

[Undertoad]

Just throught of something - this voice-detection technology can't *possibly* tell the difference between voice used for conversation and voice used for voice communication in gaming. Because it'll be identical. Think the gamers can't put 2 and 2 together? You're wrong.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Just throught of something - this voice-detection technology can't *possibly* tell the difference between voice used for conversation and voice used for voice communication in gaming. Because it'll be identical. Think the gamers can't put 2 and 2 together? You're wrong.

I suspect you are missing one important fact. This voice-detection technology can identify each Skype VoIP packet and each Comcast VoIP packet. Therefore Comcast VoIP packets remain undisturbed whereas Skype packets are skewed (distorted).

This technology is in use in other countries (ie Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Germany (Vodaphone), France (SFR), and also in South America and Asia) where the local phone monopoly was being undercut by VoIP technology. When used in the US, most consumers would blame Skype for a lousy product; switch to Comcast or the Baby Bell's VoIP instead.

As the article notes, Comcast refuses to acknowledge or deny that they are using software they have already purchased. As the article notes, FCC recently said DSL providers can also do same. Software that can selectively skew competitors IP packets while leaving Comcast packets undisturbed.

Above is in direct contradiction to what UT has suggested - that the internet is nothing more than IP packets. Significant power exists in being a large IP provider. That IP provider can, for example, time shift packets from small competition. That service degradation (to promote a big ISP's higher level products) is all quite legal. All part of an effort by large communication companies to, for example, keep smaller competition from using their existing infrastructure - a reversal of open competition demanded by the 1996 Communication Act.

[Undertoad]

Most consumers, but all it takes is a small minority of experts to point out what's going on. See the Sony rootkit controversy for an example of how this would work. When the stakes are high the controversy means more to all.

An overnight, sudden loss of 5%, or even 2% of its customer base would be devastating to a large broadband provider. Particularly one that is trying to leverage its size to have an ability to control the Internet.

Firstly the economics: VOIP is cheap to start, with huge potential profits, so if one provider is "broken", two more will pop up in its place. The harder the old companies try to monetize their own VOIP services, the more profit will remain in the industry. Look at how Vonage went from 0 to 60 overnight.

Every IP connection involves not one, but two sides, both of whom have an interest in unhindered packet travel. Every connection involves not one, not two, but several different providers. Just run a traceroute (to comcast.net for example; don't trace cellar.org, it's having a network problem today) and count how many companies are involved in getting stuff from point to point. Even the shortest routes involve 5 companies. All of those companies demand unhindered packet travel and all have the expertise to identify where network congestion comes from.

Comcast's ability to provide IP services to its customers also depends on its providers interest in providing IP services to Comcast. And everyone in the world's interest in connecting to Comcast customers. Comcast slows Skype? At that point Skype blocks Comcast, and guess who loses then?

All the models have changed. There is no more Ma Bell who makes both sides of the connection and can act as a sole arbiter. There is no more 7 baby bells to try the same crap. There are now hundreds of infant bells, many of whom have competitive advantages. And now, millions upon millions of switches no longer in the control of a single entity... or even a single regulatory body.

The companies with a lot of customers simply have further to fall. When someone's phone works off their laptop at Starbucks, but not at their home next door, it will be obvious what's happening.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Most consumers, but all it takes is a small minority of experts to point out what's going on. See the Sony rootkit controversy for an example of how this would work. When the stakes are high the controversy means more to all.

Well you tell me what experts saw Comcast doing packet skewing on a selective basis this past year? Or were they? How would these 'experts' know? Packet skewing appears similar to other internet latencies. And this is only one trick we now know about. How many others exist that we don't know about.

Bottom line is that large IP providers have major influence - both technical and legal - to make the business much more than just shipping IP packets. The Sony case was only discovered by Mark Russinovich because it was so badly implemented - not because all such techniques can be exposed as you are assuming.

How many years has George Jr been wiretapping without court approval? How much mail has been seized and opened in direct violation of United States laws? You know they are not doing this because 'experts' would discover it? Your assumption that it will always be discovered is seriously flawed.

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Comcast's ability to provide IP services to its customers also depends on its providers interest in providing IP services to Comcast. And everyone in the world's interest in connecting to Comcast customers. Comcast slows Skype? At that point Skype blocks Comcast, and guess who loses then?

Who?

No, really, who?

Your points about the two-ended nature of things are very well taken--and are exactly the reason AT&T's garbage is doomed to failure as long as everybody displays some testicular fortitude.

But what you're saying is that in your scenario Skype users would skip Comcast and use a different provider. But that only happens if there's another broadband provider there waiting to sign up Comcast's disgruntled customers, and in a lot of areas there isn't.

[Undertoad]

YES, tw, my argument is that they probably weren't doing it because nobody has any indication that they were.

You are suggesting that they were doing it because you can't prove they didn't.

Which of our arguments is more logical, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Which of our arguments is more logical, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

I am not saying they are or are not. I am saying your arguments are predicated on an assumption that all such truths will be exposed.

According to your logic, all power strip protector manufacturers would be out of business because consumers would learn. According to your assumptions, we know when George Jr is wiretapping and opening our mail. I don't believe it for one minute. Your underlying assumptions are seriously flawed. This is not a question as to whether Comcast IS skewing packets, This is all about your logic and underlying assumptions. They are flawed.

Furthermore Comcast could be selectively using 'packet skewing'. Consumers would blame Skype long before they would blame 'packet skewing'. By doing so, 'experts' would never know the difference. Is Comcast using Narus Inc. software? Probably. Would you know? Could you detect it? Obviously not. So how are those consumers to know?

Furthermore, who are those consumers to change to? Verizon - that also can use 'packet skewing' legally to undermine Skype? There is no one else. So where is this free market force that would punish Comcast? Just too many reasons why free market forces do not punish big IP 'packet movers'. It's legal for them to selectively skew packets. And Comcast has bought the software that does packet skewing.

Your assumptions are based upon a theory that you can tell when they are and are not packet skewing. I suggest they may be and UT could not say so, one way or the other. Therefore the assumptions underpinning UT's assumptions is erroneous. Big IP movers can easily manipulate the market. It is legal for them to skew packets - intermittently - and do many other things which experts could not detect - in direct contradiction to what UT posts.

[Elspode]

Meanwhile, the poor little consumer (say, someone like me, for example) is sitting here reading all this diatribe and wondering "Why can't these so-called 'service providers' simply compete by seeing who can offer the best service at the lowest price" instead of figuring out ways to screw each other and their customer base.

Like so much of the current technology, there are no directly comparable historical models to serve as a basis to guide legislation or business practices toward a workable solution. I think UT's comment, which I will sum up as "both sides need the other", is the most realistic. Unless one infrastructure/service provider owns sufficent resources to cover the entire globe (or agreements to use another company's resources), then the utility of IP communications, regardless of type, becomes lessened to the point that it stops making sense to use at all. Take away the usefulness of something, and the market dries up.

So how to forecast the future? Simple. Look to see who is contributing the most money and hookers to which political party, and then expect them to end up as a monopoly with free reign to rape the consumer at will.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Like so much of the current technology, there are no directly comparable historical models to serve as a basis to guide legislation or business practices toward a workable solution.

That just is not true. Start with history of what created the AT&T monopoly to appreciate deja vue. Read Clayton Christensen's "Innovators Dilemma" to appreciate how many different ways this 'conflict' can be resolved.

It always comes down to a bottom line question. What is the purpose of that corporation? Profits? Or is its product the purpose? One well proven historical trend is that when a company has a virtual monopoly, then its purpose changes - from product oriented to profit oriented. The former having customers who are provided innovative services. The latter being companies such as Robert Allen's AT&T (pre- SBC), General Motors, 1970-2000 Xerox, Carly Fiorina's HP, Spindler and Sculley's Apple Computer, Aker's and Cannavino's IBM, etc.

What big IP companies may be doing today has been long and well recorded in history. A long list of government laws and regulations eventually result - that the industry deserves due to becoming profit oriented rather than product oriented.

UT has assumed that market forces will keep broadband providers honest. I wish it were so. Sometimes history says it does. But not always. Actions to subvert small VoIP (and other new technology) services suggests that these large IP companies may become so anti-innovative as to cannibalize on smaller fish (ie Skype) rather than grow and live off of innovation. History of American business repeats that story. Creation of AT&T, as most of us knew it, is a near duplication of what happens when big fish cannibalize little fish rather than compete honestly.