Comments on: Fixing our fraying Internet infrastructure

Is the United States foolishly ignoring a question that will impact its future? For UCSD's Michael Kleeman, it's time to stop debating the obvious.

[LarryLo]

The Elephant in the Room

I agree that changes to the way Americans get their internet are necessary but have we forgotten the $200 billion we have already given them in the form of tax perks, higher phone charges? Based on the promises and commitments of the telecoms in the early 1990s 86 million homes should be wired with fiber by now, and they are not. Google ?The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal? for more info.

Suddenly we wake up and realize that the world is surpassing us with new, faster and more ubiquitous broadband technologies and our answer is to give more money to the people that are responsible for our current situation?

The only way we can foster innovation, and increase markets served by our stagnant broadband infrastructure is to break up monopolies and promote competition. But you don?t have to believe me, Vint Cerf, Father of the Internet said in the Washington post "The experience of the last seven years shows that sometimes you need a strong federal regulatory framework to ensure that competition happens in a way that is constructive,"

So please do not suggest that anything less than taking away Telco and Broadband operator monopolies which they have so easily abused for profit at the cost of our nations competitiveness, and allowing competitive carriers on the new (to be built ) fiber infrastructure will fix our problem?.and don?t get me started on the 700Mhz auction.

In South Korea where our two garage inventors will make the next great internet company, they will do so because their choices for a broadband connection were not limited to local cable or local bell. (CNET has a great article on South Koreas rise to broadband power (South Korea Leads The Way ? July 28. 2004)

[Mister C]

Oh No!

What we really need is one giant company to run the
entire system, like what we have with the computer
desktop. Look at how well that is working, always
innovating to give the customer just what they want!
I am just not quite sure who "they" are? :)

[Leria]

We really should have had better internet by now

The main reason that we do not is because the companies who are providing our internet service have no competition because in most areas, they are one of only two or three choices.

Two or three choices is NOT competition, not in my book and not in anyone else's if they were honest.

[Mister C]

What!

American Politicians and Industrialists sacrificing
long term stability for short term benefits? No!
That must be some other America! :)

[throwaway123]

accepting low quality

very odd inclusion of iTunes on the 5th paragraph. Low quality being unacceptable? If you've seen AVC encoded video you would think youtube is worse than low quality, even google video offers high quality videos and people stay with the low quality youtube.

[disco-legend-zeke]

If you only have 1.5 Megs, you have little choice.

HDV, the consumer version of HD, uses an MPEG stream from 1440 X 1080 picture.

The Mini-HDV recording format uses 25 Mbps.

More advanced compression gets us down around 10 Mbps.

Bill Gates came late to the internet table because he thought people would not accept the fare deliverable by a dialup.

What he missed was that content IS king. People will accept whatever quality is available if the information is important to them. As better delivery becomes available (replacing VHS movies with DVD, for example) an electronic Gresham's law pushes the inferior product out of the marketplace.

[ricperry1]

Respectfully, I disagree

Although many people reading this article may think that broadband internet is a very important component of our nation's infrastructure, broadband internet is not going to make or break 90% of Americans. The LAST thing we need is for the federal government to start making more and more laws, regulating the internet. Why can't we invest in companies that are actually doing something to improve the infrastructure, as well as adopting IPv6? I find it very difficult to believe that if the government was involved, things would actually get better!

Your point that infrastructure needs to improve is well taken, however. I totally agree that broadband speeds are pathetically slow. We are not as bad off as India, but we are certainly no South Korea or Japan!

[chash360]

Comminication IS important, essential to everyone.

This country (nor any other) could not operate without Communication. The Internet is the last refuge of truly free communication. The airwaves are dominated and monopolized, the TV dominated and monopolized, Telephone networks the same. Newspapers and magazines all owned by just a few huge media corperations. (Did you know you had to have direct Presidential permission to publish a newspaper?)
The point you appear to be missing is that the Internet is largely carried upon the big telco's networks, and if that breaks enough, yes it will break all of America! There needs to be a change, and Communication needs to be to all, not in the hands of the few. The Government can improve things by setting device protocol standards, such that devices, not companies, provide services and do so for the cost of the device and the energy to run and maintain it only. When you dial your cell phone, do you think a single human has been involved in making that connection? Manage the Communication infrastructure just like the highway system. Each requires periodic inspection, maintenance and upgrades. Each requires construction contrators to actually perform this work (of which telco's could bid for just like road builders do). In fact many of the network routes are along Highways...hmmm a lot can be leveraged. With the governement taking ownership of the communication infrastructure, there would need to be measures put in place to ensure privacy, but we already have those problems in our current system, that need to be fixed.
There is absolutley NO reason why the we can not ALL have service fee free wireless bi-directional interactive communication for everyone, everywhere, that we will never out grow, and at the same time reduce 'RF polution' by using a lower power shorter range, physical location (~GPS or equivalent) addressed and routed, mesh network that consists entirely of the devices theselves, without high level servers, routing tables, or the hierarchial addressing structure of todays internet. Devices can be dynamically adjusting (just like cell phones) making and routing connections based upon their neighbors and physical locations of source and destination of packets. It can be made completely fault tolerant, such that information and packets get routed around power outages, etc. just by its very nature of efficient dynamic physical location routing. As long as the units are specified to carry several times the bandwidth and routes that a single unit provides to the end user (Example: A hub provides me with 1 channel at 100MByte/second bandwidth access, should also provide 8-10 times that many channels in tranfer and routing capability, we will never outgrow the network, even with a density of 1 unit per every 1 square meter or less. The cost to the individual, is the cost of the Hub Unit, and the cost of the energy to run it. The Gov can do this, and for a lot less than the telco's because the Gov does not have to make a profit. It does not violate free enterprise because the telco's can still do the work (through gov contract), build and sell devices, etc.

[linkerjpatrick]

e-mail needs to be totally reengineered

The Internet protocols need to be totally reengineered. People use e-mail like a team of horses when they need a car, bus or train. The whole fact the spam is a problem is a sign that something is broken. We should not have to concern ourselves with spam blockers, filters, etc. nor should be have to concern our self with Anti-Virus programs. These are all band-aids on open and pouring wounds when it should have a suit of amour in the first place.

Despite the fact we have file upload services, ftp and things like Flickr for photo sharing people still continue to send large files and attachements within e-mail. By default anytime someone send a large file it should go to server space and the e-mail program should create links automatically.

Finally despite the face we have the ability to sign and secure e-mails with certificates etc. it's a system a majority of the people don't uses. Let's change that as well.

[chash360]

The SMTP standard is fine.

The SMTP (simple mail transport protocol) is just fine. The problem is the client software. Until M$ came along with Outlook Express, it was secure because no idiot would automatically execute arbitrary code attached to an E-Mail, and no E-Mail client would do this by default. This was a security measure put in place by the DOD when it was their network, and was done for good reason. The intenet was designed to be open, and allow anonymous readonly access to publicly published resources. Every one of those security measures have been abandoned by M$. The biggest problem is that M$ essentially did unofficially re-engineer the internet protocols, and all of these security issues are the result of that deviation from established protocols that have stood the test of time for over a decade, before M$ even though about the Internet. Secondly, most E-Mail hosts put a size limit on attachments, such that they have to be broken into smaller parts, and reassembled by the end user. This method has worked for years to keep E-Mail sizes managable. Raw FTP still works but few offer it directly, do you know why? Because its a free protocol, that does not allow the provider to insert advertisements, or collect personal infomation. Same goes for IRC, NNTP, and all of the other pre-HTML Web protocols. Until M$ began using their own set of HTML protocols, adding several security undermining options all over the place. Now everyone interfaces to these other protocols and resources through an HTML interface which in turn undermines the essential security of any unlying protocol. The result: complete insecurity, your computer can be monitored, controlled and even ruined, by properly crafted web-sites, images, videos, E-Mails, etc. that are summoned from the Internet. You do not have to execute anything, you do not have to even save anything, and it can happen with out you even knowing.

[ecsd]

Spam is not SMTP's problem

Email is only slightly broken. What's really broken is law enforcement, the political will to tell rich domestic spam Companies to screw off, and thanks to mass corruption in China. See my remarks concerning SPAM (and why getting RID OF MICROSOFT is THE BEST THING TO DO to stop it) at http://www.internetevolution.com/messages.asp?piddl_msgthreadid=183365&piddl_msgpage=1#msgs
(about four articles all told.)

[jrintels]

Report: The Case For Universal Broadband in America: Now!

The Center for Creative Voices in Media just released a report that uses qualitative and quantitative research to document that universal and open broadband deployment in our nation would unleash half a trillion dollars in fresh economic development, create over a million new, good jobs, and provide too many other economic, social, and cultural benefits to list here. It's available at our website: www.creativevoices.us

Jonathan Rintels, Executive Director
Center for Creative Voices in Media

[disco-legend-zeke]

To fix the Internet, get the greedy telcos out.

Everyone in the United States (and the world for that matter) can have access to the next generation of Information Infrastructure.

Is it free? Of course not. But once a consumer pays the $150 to buy a rooftop hub, he gets the 500 MHz bandwidth for no extra charge.

A modern MIMO, GPS-ROUTED, mesh is self forming, self healing and virtually unbreakable by terrorist or natural disaster.

What's holding us back? The telcos, useing their unlimited anti-competitive war chest, blocked the 802.11N standard for so long that the WI-FI association had to go around the standards committee just to get first-generation MIMO out to the public.

Now they want to OWN the 700 Mhs spectrum which, if used for public access (like 2.4,) would bring GHz bandwidth to every nook and cranney of America.

CALL, EMAIL, or WRITE YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE, and urge them to make 700Mhz public.

What do YOU want? a free modem and $50 a month bandwidth? Or a $150 modem and free bandwidth?

If the telcos continue to "own" the airwaves, we will always be a third world country in the Information Age.

Remember there is absolutely NO technical reason to assign information spectrum to a single entity.

The BILLIONS the treasury would get from the upcoming FCC auction will be extracted from you and me, built into the $59.95 per month you pay (thats AT&T's current price for an air card BTW) for Internet Access.

Another billion or two will be extracted from stockholders of communication companies that go chapter 11 while clinging to a business model based on limited availability of bandwidth.

Radio waves and light are identical, the photons follow the same laws.

Imagine that the FCC auctioned the visible spectrum. Red, because of its superior propagation charactistics, would fetch a very high price. Perhaps Trillions. But the winning bidder would quickly recover his investment by charging a monthly fee to every traffic signal. and aircraft warning beacon radiating red light.

[chash360]

Have you been reading my designs?

You are absolutely right. We need to treat and manage our communication system just like the highway system, they in fact have many of the exact same infrastructure needs. They actually often follow the same routes (for wired networks). The first amendment would have been freedom of communication, had there been anything other than speech and print at the time when the bill of rights was written. The EM Spectrum is a finite resource that needs to be managed with standards, not bandwidth sales. Write the FCC, write your congressman. The airwaves need to be free. A wireless, GPS routed, mesh network can be implemented and never out grown, providing service fee free access to all. Al the FCC has to do is specify a standard for equipment to comply with. It can be made backwards compatible with legacy RF devices by not using frequencies that legacy devices are using (by active detection). As legacy devices disappear through attrition, the new bandwidths can be utilized. And it could allow the FCC to dynamically manage the EM Spectrum allocation, completely simplify the emergency broacast system, and be completely fault tolerant of regional failures, if properly designed. Free Communication=Free Knowledge Knowledge=Power Power to the people! Free the people!

[ecsd]

Fiber is the Future - not "wifi"

First: we can build our own community fiber networks RIGHT NOW, regardless the FCC. See http://communityfiber.org and see if you like that model.

Second: Until we DO fix the FCC, forget talking about using the EM spectrum. That's an even more closed-off version of the rich boys' playbox.

Third: reform at the FCC can't happen in our current political climate. The media already control common access to ideas such as appear here. We need to make them tell OUR truths, on an equal footing with Federal and Corporate PROPAGANDA. We need political REFORM and media REFORM, before we (the People) control our country properly. Mark my words: whoever wins the presidency in 2008 WILL NOT ADDRESS THE FCC's STRANGLEHOLD IN FAVOR OF CORPORATIONS. WE THE PEOPLE have to FORCE THE ISSUE.

[gunplay]

Why don't we just rename ourselves Chinia and get it over with

Yeah, because socialism will definitely solve all our internet issues. Michael Kleeman, you dolt. Just like socialism solved housing for the poor, and retirement for the elderly here at home. Oh wait housing for the poor in this country sucks more because of government intervention and social security pays nothing and will go bankrupt and won't be there for my generation. Oh and the government slows down progress and creates monopolies in every single industry it touches, everytime. I can't even believe I have to sit here and write about why socialism is bad for America. What the hell America, honestly, what the hell? Why don't we just start with the "5 year" plans right now, there are people already going around saluting flags like idiots. I for one welcome our new 5 year internet plan. Michael Kleeman, you chump.

[chash360]

Where do you get Socialism?

How do establishing and improving standards and infrastructure equate to socialism? The government creates monopolies when it lets core infrastructure industries (things we all have to have for the country to operate) to be completely privatized, and directly charged to the public, without regulation (Telcom, Insurance, Health Care, Pharmecuticals, Federal Reserve and the Media). Think how absurd the idea of a company like AT&T owning the roads you drive on, every road would be a toll-road. Then they would find a way to charge pedestrians and bicyclists. And of course they would be selling lots of advertising space, and charging you for the paint and workers used to make those advertisements. Enter into special contracts with the automakers, so that GM owners have an express lane, or that certain models of cars can only travel on certain roads. And special roads just for Hummer drivers. This sounds absurd right? They are doing this, or at least trying to, with the internet. I mean come on, you would not even have the internet at all if it was not created by a government initiative within the DOD of all places. What has screwed it up is the Governemnt handing it over to money grubbing, greedy telco's and the like, so what was once nearly free is now charged up the wazu! Free Enterprise would never come up with something like the internet, a free, common, open resource. In fact you can see what happened to those that tried to mimic it, remember AOL, CompuServe, etc. before they actually connected to the real internet? They were isolated, incompatible systems, that if they did not change and connect to the real internet they died as a business. Standardization and regulation of core infrastructure industries is not socailism, its good common sense. It does not undermine Free Enterprise, it ensures that providers live up to minimum required standards, and compete for business with bids on Governemnt contracts, rather than gouge the public directly because they have already monopolized the industry.
I have yet to hear there are huge monopolies and abuses in the highway construction and maintenance industry, maybe there are, but it seems unlikely using the bid process.

[ecsd]

Socialism is better than Sex

Socialism works fine when (a) it's what the citizens want and (b) people pay attention. Sweden and Norway lead the world in quality of life and they are hybrid socialist/capitalist economies.

The only people who Don't like Socialism are (a) people who have no adequate idea what it is, based on hearing antiSocialist propaganda in this society from birth, and (b) people who make, or dream of making, TONS OF MONEY by being Capitalists.

If Socialism never worked here, it was because (a) it was never tried, and (b) whenever it raised its head, it and its adherents were viciously attacked by the media, the government (dominated by capitalists), and the capitalists themselves, with strikebreaking goons.

Considering that "Government" is a collection of named individuals, let us never hear again that "Government is the problem" - by definition it can't be. The "problems" are given to us by particular individuals - who, if we were allowed to, we could refute. Government is necessary, but so is PAYING ATTENTION and REMAINING INVOLVED and FEEDBACK. We can't just sit back and let "someone else" run our whole economic system as if we had no input, and then just complain about the results. Make people compete to do the best jobs running public agencies, force the administrators to answer questions and challenges, in public, and everything will run great in not long at all.

[dondarko]

don't fix it if it ain't broken

that's the attitude we have with everything. By the time we start fixing it's too little too late.

[dondarko]

Google ?The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal?

nuff said

[solrosenberg]

Academia aka Welfare Mamas

No doubt the solution involves lots of research grants to senior fellows at UCSD.

[phrelin]

Me paying for infrastructure is Un-American

Civil engineers bemoan the fact that we are literally trillions of dollars behind in maintaining and updating our infrastructure - roads, water and sewer systems, solid waste disposal, power supply, telcom, and now the internet.

Frankly, the problem is me - me buying more consumer goods versus my money used in investment in the general good. The latter means paying for something with no immediate apparent direct benefit to me or, even worse, benefit to someone else who is not as deserving as me. I'm an American and I deserve a new iPhone because it does one more thing than my several-weeks-old iPhone or it is in my latest color preference.

The fact that in some vague 20 year future the then newest iPhone successor won't work in many (or most) areas in this country is irrelevant. In my case, that will be my grandkids problem. They can pay for those huge infrastructure costs, and their parents' (my kids') Social Security, and Health Care, and the debt on the Bush war in Iraq....

I'm a geezer. What many don't know about my own parents' generation - the so-called Greatest Generation - is that they not only fought WWII, but were taxing themselves in the 1950's with a federal income tax upper bracket of 90%. That attitude is how the initial construction of the American Interstate Highway System, potable water systems, sewer systems, power grids, phone systems, etc. was funded. And it was assumed that in some fashion that the middle, upper-middle and upper classes would pay for infrastructure before we would even think of buying a new Lexus to replace a 3-year-old Accura, throw away a one year old phone, send our kid to private school, and live in a closed community with a private police force.

Utilities associated with the internet (which are merging reminiscent of a time comparable to when telcom had the AT&T group and few others) need to be directed not by Wall Street Analysts but by rate oriented regulators that allow reasonable profits but require heavy infrastructure reinvestment and R&D investsment. Plus rates that "tax" the profits of bandwidth hogs like Google and other commercial users more than the individual are necessary. As an individual, I am certain that the commercial users will recover those extra costs each time I use their services, so that I too will be paying for the bandwidth I use.

By the way, as a Californian, I can tell you that the Gubernator is not proposing to collect higher taxes for water, highways and levees. He's proposing higher debt without higher taxes or other rates so that my grandchildren can figure out how to pay for them. Now that's an American approach.

It is not the approach used by America's "Greatest Generation" but the approach used by my and my kid's generation - the "Buy Stuff Generations" or BS Generations. The BS Generations barely paused at Bush's commandment to support the war against terrorism - keep on shopping. As good Americans, we have continued to buy things we don't remotely need and which provide minimal marginal hedonistic benefit to us. Fortunately for us, we have plenty of talking heads to help rationalize this approach to living.

[ecsd]

Let us build our OWN networks and get what we want NOW

See http://communityfiber.org. Citizens can build their own networks, town by town, and

1. Get GIGABIT speed to _start_ with, for UTILITY RATES
2. No more PRICE GOUGING/FIXING
3. No more threat to NET NEUTRALITY
4. No more Telcos, ultimately, making America a much nicer place to live.