[LINK] Fwd: Google vs. the Internet? AND Mobile vs NBN
tomk at unwired.com.au
Sun Aug 8 02:10:48 AEST 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of
> Richard Chirgwin
> Sent: Saturday, 7 August 2010 10:03 AM
> To: link at anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Fwd: Google vs. the Internet?
> Isn't neutrality a somewhat nostalgic concept?
> Example: Practically every mobile broadband network "interferes" with
> traffic in some way. Not only do people like mobile BB, they
> it so strongly that the Libs can use mobile networks as a
> reason not to
> build the NBN.
> I'd be interested to have someone with expertise enumerate how many
> different ways the Internet has already stopped being neutral!
Curiously, the very foundation of the Net was the Person to person (P2P)
non central - diverse path routed communications
That Telco's have fought so hard against since deregulation.
As all charging models from Telco's, all interception laws and all
filtering regimes rely on a central distribution server to :
And Count packets/frames/cells;
The very design of the internet needs to be technically [politically]
broken for us to return to the dark information lack-lustre newspaper
editorial oversight opinion ages of pre-net.
As that will not be possible because of the many diverse independent
oversight Net bodies... E.g.: NANOG, IETF, RIPE, Chancellors of .....
Commercial interference is the next logical attack on Net "Neutrality".
Google have managed to offer a number of services that re-centralises
certain communications/interests back to a group of central servers.
If I was Government, I would either infiltrate Google quietly, or buy it
after the 1000MB/psec network is built.
The world urgently needs competitive new players in this space.
I refer to :
The new emerging amateur video industry
The existing text search industry
And of course, the backbone of our consumerist economy - the consumer
retail advertising industry. (Which in Australia, minus advertising
eliminated P2P downloads was worth an approximate 240 million per week
to the Australian economy.
(Reduced advertising induced buying patterns because people are leaving
FTA [free to air TV] and Foxtel for net VOD options means the economy
will suffer for longer.)
Advertising is not our only problem.
On the topic of cellphone based mobile broadband, we need to analyse
"real" broadband and bonded ersatz broadband that is over-taxing the
physical existing cell resources.
For example, Australian carriers will be insisting on HSPA/HSPDA
so-called ersatz 4G wireless delivery instead of wimax.
In this regard, thank-god for Kerry Stokes and his vision for the future
As HSPA uses a stacking algorithm for its bandwidth, we already know
that there is insufficient spectrum available in the current and
proposed ACMA Spectrum plans for HSPA to service more than 1/20th of
Australia's Mobile population using wireless on HSPA.
As Unwired do not have dibs on all the necessary bandwidth (with the
exception of Perth - zero capital city 3.6 GHz coverage), we can safely
assume that there will be no viable wireless alternative in Australia
until the current licences expire and amalgamation takes place in about
Therefore the Libs can't really turn off the NBN and fallback to
wireless because the carriers preferred technology charging platform,
HSPA, will require a twenty year infrastructure build-out to deliver
the same level of speed and reliability as the FTTH.
Sorry Richard, a circuitous answer, but I venture I have presented an
We need to retain the FTTH NBN plan regardless of who is steering the
ship, and, we need to promote [support] wimax as a technically superior
wireless product to Telstra, Optus and Vodaphone insistence on control
at all costs.
The easiest way to do that is if we all move to Perth and sign up to the
new wimax 3.6 service.... :-)
Disclaimer: I have no fiscal interest in anything from Channel seven,
but watch their developing and inspired en passant with great interest.
(I am a current Unwired subscriber.)
> Jan Whitaker wrote:
> > MoveOn, the US big brother of GetUp!, is taking on Google/Verizon.
> >> Click here to sign the petition to Google:
> >> Say no to the reported agreement with Verizon to
> >> kill Net Neutrality and the open Internet."
> <http://pol.moveon.org/google/?id=22362-7221053-cd1TJDx&t=3>Sign the
> >> petition
> >> Dear MoveOn member,
> >> Big news: according to reports, Google is about
> >> to cut a terrible deal with Verizon that would
> >> end the fair, open Internet as we know it.1
> >> The reported Google-Verizon deal would allow
> >> giant corporations to control which websites
> >> load quickly and easily on the Internet and dump
> >> everyone else onto an Internet slow lane. This
> >> is exactly the kind of unequal playing field
> >> that Google itself has opposed in the past.2
> >> We only have a few days to stop it, so we're
> >> launching a grassroots protest calling on Google
> >> to scuttle the deal. Will you sign our emergency
> >> petition to Google? Click here to sign:
> >> l.moveon.org/google/?id=22362-7221053-cd1TJDx&t=4
> >> The petition says: "Google: Say no to the
> >> reported agreement with Verizon to kill Net Neutrality and
> the open Internet."
> >> The Internet was founded on the principle that
> >> all data is equal-and that no corporation should
> >> be able to decide whose data goes faster or
> >> slower. It's this principle, called Net
> >> Neutrality, that has made the Internet such an
> >> amazing platform for individual speech,
> >> democratic action, and entrepreneurial creativity.3
> >> And until now, Google-which uses the corporate
> >> motto "Don't Be Evil"-has been a staunch
> >> defender of Net Neutrality.4 But now, Google is
> >> threatening to turn the Internet into a closed,
> >> pay-to-play, cash cow for large corporations.
> >> This move is evil, and Google knows it.
> >> Here's why this is a big deal. President Obama's
> >> new Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
> >> chair initially came out strong for Net
> >> Neutrality, in line with the President's
> >> campaign promises.5 But the big telecom
> >> companies launched a lobbying frenzy, and soon
> >> the FCC was meeting with them behind closed doors.
> >> Because Google and Verizon are two powerhouse
> >> corporations that have historically been on
> >> opposite sides of this issue, an agreement
> >> between them will put enormous pressure on the
> >> FCC to go along with their recommendations.
> >> Essentially, two giant corporations may be
> >> deciding the future of the Internet-if the Obama
> >> administration goes along, and if the public
> >> doesn't push back right away. Click here to help stop them now:
> >> l.moveon.org/google/?id=22362-7221053-cd1TJDx&t=5
> >> Google was once a champion on this issue-Google
> >> chief executive Eric Schmidt once attacked
> >> "phone and cable monopolies" who "want the power
> >> to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes
> >> and whose content gets seen first and fastest."6
> >> But today's news stories report that under the
> >> new deal, Verizon could be allowed to give some
> >> sites preferential treatment. Even more
> >> ominously, it appears that Verizon would have
> >> free rein to discriminate on the mobile Internet
> >> (smartphones, cell phones, etc). Since that's
> >> where most people will access the Net going
> >> forward, this would essentially spell the end of Net Neutrality.
> >> Google has issued a short, carefully worded
> >> statement challenging some of the details in The
> >> New York Times story, but it hasn't denied that
> >> it is going along with this agreement to kill
> >> Net Neutrality.7 So much for "Don't be evil."
> >> Will you sign our petition today and tell Google
> >> not to be evil on Net Neutrality?
> >> l.moveon.org/google/?id=22362-7221053-cd1TJDx&t=6
> > Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> > jwhit at janwhitaker.com
> > blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
> > business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
> > Our truest response to the irrationality of the
> > world is to paint or sing or write, for only in such
> response do we find truth.
> > ~Madeline L'Engle, writer
> > _ __________________ _
> > Link mailing list
> > Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/lin> k
More information about the Link