One aspect of the net neutrality battle is the discovered potential of deep packet inspection, which presents implications for file sharers and pretty much any user who uploads or downloads from the online network. Deep packet inspection functions as a notification application primarily for those transferring information over the Internet. In a “packet” of information, almost like a letter, there is the general tag line of what the letter or “packet” contains also called the header, and the body itself. When an online service provider moves information from one place to another on the Internet, they have the knowledge of where to transfer the bundle of info because of the header. However, there are companies that exist to sell technologies that can enable the networks with the power to view the actual content within the packet, including Radware, Allot Communications, and Packet Capture Express, although this does not by any means say these companies came into existence for this reason. These companies exist to ensure security, although many individuals are afraid that by allowing the major ISP’s the ability to obtain personal information, they could in turn behold a great power because of DPI. Many argue that access to that much information, which could include examples such as a personal e-mail or video of a family event is a violation of privacy and unnecessary for the providers to possess. However, the providers say that DPI will allow them to divert different types of Internet traffic based on the capacity (bandwidth) they require or the near perfect playback in the form of a live video. However, there are some who are skeptical, and still fear for future yet. Only time will tell if deep packet inspection is the innovative agent of knowledge or violation of privacy aspects.
Archive for April, 2009
Net Neutrality Part Deux
For part two, I’ve included a video version of the basic arguments for the pro net neutrality and anti-net neutrality arguments discussed in my previous post below. The first is a link to a CNET video from March of 2006 in which AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre opposes network neutrality, including the term itself and discusses the possibility of merging with Bell South, which AT&T did gain in 2006. The second is a video that promotes a website also mentioned in the post below, savetheinternet.com, which is in favor of network neutrality.
from CNET
from Youtube
Net Neutrality: Pros and Cons
One of the greatest if not the greatest discussion that is pending legislative action is the issue of network neutrality. The concept of net neutrality sets forth the basic idea that everyone is entitled to free usage of the Internet, assuming of course that each individual is paying for internet connection. Also, when interpreting the term, one must also take into account that his or her usage is not interrupted by outside forces, such as the Internet Service Providers themselves, who are simply the suppliers of the Internet. The conflict arises in the ISP argument that they should be able to regulate certain usage to the extent that they will be able to make the Internet more efficient, while those who advocate the system as it currently exists, free from restriction, see no need for change and do not want to pay for what they already receive for free.
Those in favor of net neutrality present the argument that the Internet as it now exists sufficiently supplies the public with the information at a reasonable cost, basically one that requires a person to own a computer and internet service, two aspects that are not uncommon for many an individual in this day and age. The fight to preserve the system as it currently exists is being put forth by advocates through web in sites such as savetheinternet.com, which provides “fact vs. fiction” statements about the issue, a couple of them being that protection for net neutrality has always been around and that consumers would have to be the ones compensating the costs for the network regardless of whether or not it remained neutral.
The counter opinion, which is held mostly by ISP’s such as Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and AT&T, dictates that the companies should have control over the flow of information or bites through the system since they have the capability to run the system more effectively and can prevent less stalls in accessing web pages or using certain applications such as BitTorrent which requires much bandwidth but does not need to function in regular time since it’s a downloading function. With online gaming, a tiny set back or stall of a partial second could have a significant effect on the outcome and quality of that game, such as with Halo. ISP companies state that they could also potentially regulate this, through the usage of tiered pricing, which is already used for different levels of internet connection, where pricing depends on the speed at which a consumer wants to receive connection, and the price they are willing to pay for that connection. ISP control could potentially allow for two costs for the consumer: one for access to the Internet, and one to access specific content on the Internet channeled through the companies that would have to pay the service providers to keep their site afloat.
Below, President Barack Obama briefly addresses the issue back in 2007 during an MTV video interview, before he was elected President from Youtube.
Does the power of three pose a monopoly threat, or rather greater quality and ease in paying the bills to one company? Verizon, Time Warner, and Optimum, are three companies that provide cable for television, Internet and phone service. They, like other companies, draw in the consumer by offering great deals and savings, however this is usually only for the first year. Purchasing the deal may be contingent on the person signing up for more than a year, during which a company could potentially jack up the rates.
With any of these Internet Protocol service providers, data is transmitted through a cable and passed onto all three mediums through Internet Protocol, or certain groupings of bits. Thus, it can be easier for the consumer who chooses all three because the reception is simple and there is essentially unlimited bandwidth for the companies (thus far), so their is no need to worry about an overload. IPTV, which is Internet Protocol that is specifically passed through television by IP providers, remains on a private network.
Verizon has currently set its rate at $74.99 per month for a year for all three services. However, to find out about later rates, Verizon requires that the buyer put in personal information before they can obtain more detailed pricing information. For Time Warner, their rates are a bit higher but they offer more perks up front such as HD DVR for three months and unlimted calling in the U.S., Canada, and Puerto Rico. If one wanted to purchase all three services, he or she would have to sign up for each for a year to keep the fixed rate of $49.95 a month for cable, $34.95 a month for Road Runner Internet, and $39.95 per month for phone service, a total of $124.85 a month for all three, about $1,500 a year. While this plan may seem enticing, it requires like Verizon that the consumer give personal information before they can obtain long term rates. As for Optimum’s Triple Play plan, they provide great detail up front about the services they offer. For example, they allow the consumer to compare their upload and download rates with other “typical” carriers, granted, Optimum is providing this information. However, when it comes to rates, it also mandates that the buyer to purchase all three for $29.95 per month for a year.
Verizon pic from Google Optimum pic from Google Time Warner pic from Google
While it is easier to pay one bill monthly and receive awesome perks for signing up for a three-for-all, in the long run, sticking with one company for all three might lead to too much power and dependency on that one company by the consumer. On the other hand, for the company, offering television, Internet, and phone for the buyer could yield greater brand loyalty for the consumer/s, especially if they are parents because they could potentially pass that brand loyalty down to their children, who media companies have the hardest time targeting and strive the most towards pleasing.
IP Video, video that is streammed on the Internet, is another form of media with which television has had an axe to grind as of late. Before this and other forms of non-linear (on-demand) programming, viewers were forced to place their behinds on the couch to watch their favorite show at the time it was aired or else they would show up to work the next day with nothing to talk about. However, through mediums such as DVR, VOD (Video on Demand), and IP Video, people have control over what they want to watch, when they want to watch it. This newly-given power to the consumer is largely in part of what is destroying the television industry.
When networks such as Fox, began to stream episodes of their shows online, this drew an influx of popularity from all viewers, particularly those of a younger demographic. People could catch up on missed seasons of Family Guy without having to purchase the DVD’s or take a trip to the nearest video rental store. However, for anyone who missed the most recent episode, they would have to wait eight days before they could view it, and since most shows occurred weekly, this upset the dynamic of viewing shows in weekly order if they couldn’t be caught at the time they were broadcasted.
Thus, the creation of absolute demand sites like youtube.com exploded, particularly for viewing clips of whole episodes. This didn’t last long, however, because there was no revenue for the networks and people were basically pirating and uploading, a marker of huge copyright infringement. Then came sites like hulu.com.
With this sort of a streamming website, viewers could watch whatever, whenever, for essentially “free,” with the exception of having to own a computer, internet, electricity, AND watch advertisements that the site incorporated into its programming, pretty much like the old viewing model of broadcast television but online. The viewer must watch and cannot skip over one to two minute ads of cars and other programming, and second-long slides of advertisers that promote that the show is being brought to the viewer with “limited commercial interruption.” However, this innovative viewing model has one up on youtube for keeping a business model for advertisers while holding the interest of users who are generally younger and have the most things competing for their time.
Family Guy Picture from Google
If networks could find a way to adapt to the viewer’s preferred lifestyle either by adapting the ways of sites like hulu, at least for primetime programming and/or find a way to cut shows that function on expensive airtime that is being backed even less by advertisers, maybe these companies could find a balance in the happiness of the consumers and themselves, instead of trying to compete with non-linear programming with bigger computer screens and less pixelation.
Although TV’s will not become antiques any time soon, broadcasting may emerge in a new form if it so wishes. However, I will be watching the NCAA finals live on my large digital flat-screened television.
