The Browser and Search Engine Wars Continue

Today, the EU issued a response to Microsoft’s recent decision to not include Internet Explorer 8 in certain editions of Windows 7 that will be released across Europe. This decision by Microsoft is part of an ongoing legal case involving Microsoft’s monopoly across Europe, and the attempts of various 3rd party browser software developers trying to make inroads into the PC market. The EU’s response to this decision was an expression of unhappiness, holding the position that Microsoft’s decision offered less choices rather than more, and announcing that they will be making a determination of this latest move by the Redmond-based software giant, and whether it will affect the ongoing matter of monopolizing the market.

Still, nobody will be more surprised than myself that I side with Microsoft on this one. In spite of Microsoft’s problems and public image, on this, at least, they are in their right to exclude their own internet browser and leave it to the end user to decide which web browser they want to use, and install it. I say that with one caveat which I will come back to in a few moments.

Microsoft is, ultimately, a software development company. I can think of no legal precedent—nor do I believe there should be one—that compels a software developer to include competing developers’ software within their own. Is Coca Cola compelled to sell Pepsi products to keep things fair—because customers should have options? Should Mastercard offer Visa credit cards alongside their own—because customers should have options?

Some might argue that since Windows is an operating system that allows someone to run software, that the rules should apply differently. But if that’s the case, then when will we see Apple’s own operating system, Mac OS X, be compelled to offer competing web browsers to their own Safari browser? And just try to get Opera, Firefox, or Google’s Chrome browsers installed onto an iPhone or iPod Touch as an alternative to the built-in Safari. Nobody is hauling Apple in to court, though, to obtain a similar legal imposition as the EU is trying to impose on Microsoft.

Microsoft made significant inroads when it designed their upcoming Windows 7 to allow the disabling of Internet Explorer web browser so that the enduser can go with their own preferred browser. I think they deserve props for that, because previously, IE was always vying for top-dog position, and it did have a built-in advantage. Heck, Internet Explorer 7 and 8 even allow the end-user to select their own search engine instead of being stuck with Microsoft’s own search engine. That, too, is very satisfactory.

But software developers such as Opera say that Microsoft’s decision to not include IE is “not enough.” In Opera’s opinion, an operating system (should be forced to include) several web browsers (including their own, of course!). This goes back to what I was saying earlier in regards to Apple’s Mac OS X. Where is Opera’s developer hitting the airwaves, demanding that Apple be forced to include several web browsers in their OS? The same could be said of every Linux distribution out there.

Think about it! If EU rules against this latest decision by Microsoft, and software developers such as Opera have their way, it’s a boon for Microsoft’s competitors. What better way to get promotion and advertising and to get your product into the hands of the public than to accomplish it through the expense of Microsoft! Microsoft would, essentially, be forced to cover all of the distribution costs, advertising costs, and all other costs in providing software to the masses—in behalf of 3rd party vendors! It’s a brilliant idea (for the competitors, but it’s unfair and hopefully it’s found to be illegal and indefensible. Because once you start down that road, you’re also opening the door to every other competing software out there. Windows 7 would have to include alternative email programs, for example. Or alternatives to NotePad. Or, Windows Explorer.

There’s also the issue of security. Let’s say that the version of Opera included in Windows 7 distributions is later found to have a significant security hole that can affect the Windows operating system. What then? Does Microsoft stop the presses, download the latest Opera version and recompile their Windows 7 DVD, send the new version off to the press, and begin distribution all over again—at least until the next security hole?

Frankly, I find the whole scenario preposterous. Microsoft should not have to foot the bill for 3rd party vendors and developers. They should have to make their operating system compatible with optioning for alternatives such as Opera and Firefox and Safari—and they’ve done that. But monopoly or not, they shouldn’t have to market their competitors’ software, too. I’d even go so far as to say that if Opera and other developers are that unhappy with Microsoft’s decision—then they should develop an alternative operating system to compete with Windows 7. Then, they can happily include their selected web browser. Then, when their own competitors haul them into court and force them to redistribute other browser versions, they’ll know how it is for Microsoft.

But if they’re going to force Microsoft to bow to the demands of 3rd party developers, then I had better see the same thing done with Apple—which governs with a far tighter fist than even Microsoft—and then with all of the Linux distributions, such as Ubunto, Red Hat, and all the rest. Anything less, and they’ll have lost a great deal of respect in my view.

I mean, I’m the first to admit that in most areas I’m against Microsoft’s business practices and public debacles. Believe me, I’m not a huge fan of Microsoft sometimes—or a lot of the time, actually. But on this particular issue, it’s clear that their in their right, and I support their decision.

Which brings me back to the caveat I mentioned earlier.

If they exclude Internet Explorer, I’m really curious how the end-user will be able to download and install an alternative browser. You almost have to have a browser to download other browsers.

One option that I think would be acceptable and actually work is the built-in Windows Update application. All Microsoft would need to do is include some sort of linkage in the application that would take a person to listing of alternative browsers, and then allow the end-user to select one and install it via Windows Update. And that would be the extent of Microsoft’s obligation to 3rd party web browser developers.

So what do you think?

Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now

This entry has a companion article you may be interested in reading. To read Man vs Machine: Rebellion in the Garden of Eden, which is intended to be read alongside this article, follow the link at the end of this blog entry

The recent release of Terminator: Salvation to theaters worldwide has once again raised the spectre looming in the background as man’s technological advancements increase at astonishing rates. Having entered the world of computers back in the late 1980s with an 8bit computer, I have personally seen things undreamt of before our modern age. Or, if imagined, then impossible to do before now. We are seeing supercomputers perform tasks intended to make our lives easier and more efficient. And yet, novels and movies are constantly sounding the alarm. The vast majority of science fiction stories portray machines and computers as one day becoming so advanced that they surpass that of their maker: Humans. And what happens then is reason for concern.

In the Terminator film franchise, there is an inevitable “Judgment Day” when machines become self-aware and their immediate decision is to terminate humankind. The mythos’ protagonist, John Connor, who is “destined” to be come the future leader of the remnants of humankind after an initial sweeping slaughter of humans, fights to avert “Judgment Day” at various stages of time, as portrayed in the films: first by sending a protector back through time to defend his mother, Sarah Connor; next by sending a protector back through time to defend himself as a young teenager; then, again, sending a protector back through time to defend himself as a young man. The most recent film explores the mythos from a different approach: due to alterations to the future as a result of past interferences via the first three films, the central enemy, a supercomputer called SkyNet, actually becomes advanced sooner, as does its own machinations. This includes its ability to manufacture a symbiotic mesh of human and cybernetic organism: a machine man, if you will. In the first film, it is only through sheer human will and drive that the enemy machine is defeated. In the next three films, however, it is a machine that provides SkyNet’s defeat at each particular stage portrayed in the respective film. The viewer is left with the impression that in the second and third films that humans successfully subvert one of SkyNet’s own machines to serve human purposes, while in the third, it is the man-machine itself which decides to go against SkyNet, its creator. What this latest development will mean for any future episode of the mythos remains to be seen. What is never made clear in the mythos is why SkyNet made the decision to destroy humankind—just that it does. The one other fact we are provided with is that SkyNet is the first truly self-aware AI (artificial intelligence) system.

In the Battlestar Galactica franchise—more specifically, the Ron Moore re-envisioning of the story—approaches the man vs machine debate in a similar fashion. First, humans used machines to serve their own needs, domestically and militarily, but as better, faster, and smarter machines were produced, the self-awareness of the machines entered into the mix, as did AI. And, once again, the machines rebelled against their makers, eventually attempting to exterminate humankind entirely. A new series being produced by Ron Moore will attempt to explore the events leading up to the confrontation and conflict that later becomes the mythos of Battlestar Galactica, but the pilot movie provided some insight into Moore’s theory of the recurring argument surrounding man, machines, and AI.

Another dystopic view of the future of humankind is seen in The Matrix franchise. In that mythos, we find a war being waged between machines (that have managed to enslave humankind and use them as sources of energy (batteries) while providing said humankind with a programmed existence within the “matrix”) and humans that have—in a unique twist of the age-old man vs machine debate—become self-aware and escaped enslavement to the machines. The future of humankind lies within the ability to defeat the machines and find freedom once more (humans at one time created the machines in the indeterminate past of the mythos, but the machines rebelled and eventually enslaved humans, according to the franchise). And, once more, the cause of the conflict swirls around AI.

The fascination we as humans seem to have with AI (artificial intelligence) is at once mixed with trepidation and excitement. How do we create a computer or machine that can reason out things and come to a given conclusion faster and more efficiently than we ourselves can, and yet maintain human superiority over it, as well as control? That really seems to be the core issue.

And the answer is, quite simply, that it’s impossible. You cannot have both.

The fact of the matter is that we are already—in many and in an increasing number of ways—become enslaved to the very machines and computers that we’ve designed. The integration of computers into human society has reached astonishing levels. The rise and fall of our financial markets rests with software programs and computers that decide, based on activities in the stock market, to buy or sell. Monies are transacted at the speed of electronics, and human businesses and corporations are made to feel the repercussions.

Our own bank accounts are managed within sophisticated software programs housed on networked computers. If, at any given moment, a wrong number is entered, you can see your entire checking and savings vanish, even though you know you have the money in the given financial institution. The same is true with your personal records, credit reports, and property holdings. More and more, humans are moving away from tangible, physical records, and moving towards virtualized records entrusted to computer software and systems housed on increasingly intelligent, more efficient computers.

Our telecommunications and electrical grids are similarly entrusted to computers at this point. Once upon a time in the not so far off past, human operators assisted us in making telephone calls, sending telegraphed messages, and transporting our communications to other cities, states, and nations. Now, it is all done on computer systems, which are in turn powered by an electrical system governed by computers.

We give very little thought to just how enslaved we are to the very computers and computer systems that we created, even at this stage in our human development. And still we press onward, striving to produce bigger, faster, better computers and computer systems. At the same time, we’ve entered the realm of cloning—currently limited (at least publicly) to animals. Too, robotics have taken amazing leaps and bounds in such countries as Japan, as headlined in world headlines.

It seems all but inevitable that there will, at some point in time, be a blending of the three fields of technology. When it does, we truly will have arrived at the inevitable “Judgment Day” as the created and the creators are suddenly face to face, both empowered with the ability to reason, rationalize, and decide what should happen next.

Some believe that that is still future. But perhaps, if we are honest with ourselves, we will realize that that future is now.

[To read the companion article, Man vs Machine: Rebellion in the Garden of Eden, visit http://timothy-kline.com/thoughts]

Windows 7: Vista Second Edition

This may come as as surprise to many, but the next Operating System being released by Microsoft is still Beta.

Apparently, the majority of people who heard that a Beta version would be getting released to the public for free do not understand this. Just a sampling of the questions that arise from Live Search Q&A’s “Windows 7″ keyword verifies this, with questions like “I upgraded to Windows 7 and now this doesn’t work; what do I do?” or “Why isn’t Windows 7 recognizing my [fill-in-the-blank-hardware-device]?”

Judging by the posts I’ve seen on there over the past few weeks, the majority of those posting their questions had no business installing Windows 7’s beta release. Unfortunately, in their eagerness to take advantage of something free from Microsoft, they didn’t read the warnings before downloading the beta test version, nor did they understand that this is a beta test version or even that it will expire on August 1, 2009.

It also made sense for me to continue my series on the Windows 7 Beta Release by first explaining who should and should not be meddling with the beta version.

First, the obvious:Anyone that has to ask why such-and-such isn’t working now that they upgraded or did a fresh install of Windows 7 Beta should automatically be excluded from using the Windows 7 Beta release. That should weed out around 85-90% of you. A Beta release means that things are not going to work, or, they are not going to work right. It could be due to lack of support, unfinished code, incompatibility, or any number of other possibilities.

Second, anyone feeling frustrated, disappointed, or otherwise irritated because of the new Windows 7 features, user interface, or cosmetics should automatically be excluded from using the Windows 7 Beta release. That should weed out another 5% of you. A Beta release means that this is not the final product. Some things are either still being finalized, may yet be changed, or tossed out entirely by the time that the finalized retail version hits the store shelves.

That leaves us with around 5-10% of viable Windows 7 Beta testers who are more than qualified to install and run the beta version.

Obviously, there are going to be those people who complain that Microsoft should have been a lot more clear about who should’ve and who should not have downloaded and installed the beta testing version. Then again, if Microsoft would’ve never released it to the public like they had, there would likewise have been other people who would’ve complained that Microsoft should’ve been more open and free with their new OS during beta testing stages so that any inherent issues would’ve manifested themselves. It is definitely a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, and I, for one, am only too happy that they decided to release it to the public.

That’s because a major advantage of having access to a pre-released version of an operating system is that it affords us an opportunity to know with plenty of advance notice whether our computer system or—in the case of us IT guys—whether new systems being introduced into our intranet will have issues. Although the OS code is not yet finalized, there is more than enough there for us to know right out of the starting gate what’s going to happen. A lot of commendations need to be given to Microsoft for making sure that the vast majority of drivers that worked for Vista will likewise work with Windows 7. That is going to save us from a tremendous amount of grief.

We can also, by participating in the beta testing stage, participate in reporting bugs back to Microsoft, as well as offer feedback and suggestions. Whether or not Microsoft actually will listen is a whole other topic; nevertheless, the option is there.

So now that I’ve narrowed down who I am going to be talking to throughout this serious of articles, let me spend a few minutes explaining what I intend to do with this series.

I will be covering my own experience with Windows 7 Beta, from installation to feature coverage. I’ll also be touching on various options as to security and system protection. I’ll also be giving my thoughts and opinions throughout each stage of the series, as appropriate to the given situation, and I will strive to do so fairly.

I hope that you find this series of articles helpful and insightful.

Windows 7: Vista Second Edition

By now, you’ve either heard that Microsoft has issued Windows 7 Beta or you’ve downloaded it, or both. No matter, because one way or another, PC desktops soon will be sporting the latest Operating System produced from Redmond, Washington. Early reports from testers and reviewers alike indicate that this version of the Windows operating system is a far better fare than Vista, although the majority of the Vista functionality and appearance are in Windows 7, as well.

Indicators are, then, that Windows 7 should rightly be considered as Vista Second Edition—a term many of us long-timers are familiar with and a reaffirmation that history really does repeat itself. In a previous life, the Windows operating system was essentially overhauled after the release of Windows 3.11. The result was Windows 95. It took the GUI-based operating system to a whole new level for us PC owners, introducing countless new features that could never have been implemented under the Windows 3.11 core or kernel.

However, Windows 95—as fantastic as it was—had issues. It served its purpose, of course, by creating a new level of expectation from the enduser in one’s operating system, and it also opened up a whole new world of potential. But the issues were pretty serious, nonetheless. Who remembers the catchy phrase “Plug and Pray,” for example?

But then, along came Windows 98, which built on the technology behind Windows 95—and more! Finally, Microsoft had an operating system that demanded attention. Still, it, too, had some serious issues, and shortly after Windows 98 was on the streets and in PCs, along came Windows 98 Second Edition. Nearly all of the issues that had plagued the operating system based around the Windows 95 concept had now been resolved.

Windows 98 Second Edition became the operating system to own.

That is, until Windows XP was released.

Now, you’ll notice that I passed over two Windows operating systems between Windows 98 SE (Short for Second Edition): Windows ME and Windows 2000 Professional.

Windows ME was a laughable, horrible operating system in itself. Everyone that knows anything, knows that. I could go on for days, weeks even, and still not even begin to scratch the surface of the debacle surrounding that operating system. Think of the ME—which supposedly stood for Millenium Edition, according to Microsoft’s ad department—as Massive Error. And Microsoft knew it.

Windows 2000 Professional Edition, on the other hand, is still considered one of the most stable Windows operating systems ever produced by Microsoft—but it wasn’t really for the home user, either. Personally, I still think Windows 2000 is amazing. Microsoft certainly got something right on it. And thousands if not millions who still continue to use it on their business systems would agree.

Microsoft, though, wanted to save face with their Windows ME joke, and set out to take the stability of Windows 2000 and dress it up with the curtains of Windows ME. The resulting version of Windows was Windows XP.

Clearly, they got their act together, because Windows XP continues to enjoy a commanding share in the world’s desktops and laptops as the operating system. While early adopters had a number of issues because of how the “rules” changed with the new operating system’s core and kernel, everyone seemed to agree that it was the bandwagon to jump on, and within a couple years, we saw the support for Windows 98 SE dry up and fade away in spite of cries and screams from loyal 98SE users.

But according to Microsoft pundits, Windows XP has been showing its age in light of advancing technologies, and a new operating system had to be developed to meet the incoming demands and capabilities of that technology.

Their response was Windows Vista.

Response to Vista was mixed at best. For me, personally, it’s fine as far as operating systems go. It’s certainly prettier than Windows XP! But you can dress up Windows XP with countless third-party packages.

Driver support has been slow in coming for Vista owners, unless you buy OEM desktops and laptops. For me, Creative Labs and NVidia were among the worst in supporting Vista, and to this day, end-users continue to have issues relating to both Creative Labs/Soundblaster and NVidia. Adaptec and Promise seem to have handled the Vista operating system in much the same way, by either producing driver updates compatible with Vista in an unbearably slow manner—or not at all, instead considering products incompatible with Vista as “EOL” (End of Life) and forcing their userbase to upgrade to new products.

In spite of all the drama, Windows Vista made inroads in the one area that mattered: it brought 64-bit into the mainstream in a way that Windows XP 64-bit didn’t seem to be able to do. It is, in fact, the 64-bit capability of Windows Vista that keeps me sticking with it in spite of the occasional hiccups. Everything works in my system, including my XFi card (a MAJOR issue in early drivers from Creative Labs). I, for one, absolutely enjoy being able to use the full 8GB of RAM in my system. I enjoy the stability afforded by a 64-bit operating system. But I’m also smart enough to admit that the next PC user may not be having a similar experience with their installation of Vista.

Does that mean I’m not looking forward to the street release of Windows 7? Absolutely the contrary! I am very much looking forward to it because every indication so far is that the issues with Vista seem to be getting addressed. But it’s a scenario that almost immediately reminded me of when Microsoft released Windows 98 Second Edition. This seems to be a repeat of that. There isn’t any real driving reason that I’ve seen that one should leave Windows XP for Windows Vista. Similarly, I don’t see any justification for one to abandon Windows XP to upgrade to Windows 7 once it’s released. Not if their Windows XP is doing everything that they need it to do.

Now, when I say that there’s not any reason or justification, I say that with a single caveat: 64-bit. Windows Vista brought 64-bit into the mainstream, as I already mentioned. But Windows 7 will continue that trend. And eventually, we will see the pattern repeat itself, just as in the gradual abandonment of Windows 98SE in lieu of Windows XP. Eventually, Windows XP will be committed to days past—even though it really is no less functional and is actually faster and more efficient at this point than Windows Vista OR Windows 7. But the only real reason that will happen is because for us to take full advantage of the processing power that we can tap into today, we need an operating system that can do it. The Windows XP operating system can do so, but not so well as the Vista/Windows 7 core and kernel can do. Further, 64-bit access just makes more sense today. It provides additional security and stability, and seems to handle 32-bit softwares just fine, which is another plus.

Does the average end-user need more than 4GB of RAM in their computer? Not yet. And again, that is why Windows XP will continue to dominate. But it’s equally nice to know that those of us who do need more RAM in our systems have the ability to use it in order to work more efficiently. It’s also nice to know that if our system works under Windows Vista, that it will most likely work under Windows 7. So, no worries there, either.

But I still hold to my opening opinion: Windows 7 is not a new operating system. It is Windows Vista Second Edition.

And I’ll be offering further insights and opinions into Windows 7 beta soon! So watch this space!

It's a question of the future of the world wide web

I hinted in the earlier installation of this topic that you have every reason to be concerned about this issue, even if you think you’re their typical (read: ideal) customer, but I’ll go into far more depth on that aspect of the problem in this installation.

Why Should I Care?

In the previous article, I talked about how the Internet Service Providers have been resorting to pointing their finger at “power users” who utilize 75% or more of their subscribed internet service’s bandwidth, hoping to deflect from their own overselling bandwidth scheme in order to prop their bottom line of profit up as high as they can manage. So, they want to start with those who put their policy of overselling bandwidth to the test, by capping their access.

Be that as it may, if you’re the sort of person who feels that they don’t do anything more than check an email or read the occasional web page, and that you will never do more than that, then you’re going to be pretty much fine with whatever happens with the issue.

But the internet is changing. Today, you have the ability to watch your favorite television show when you want to watch it. You can tune in to the news from anywhere in the world, with no need to subscribe to cable or satellite TV and hope that they carry the channels you want. You can tune in to internet-based radio, as well, affording you a listening pleasure completely different from sitting through commercial after commercial on your legacy radio. Things are also advancing rapidly in services that offer you the ability to stream movies directly to your PC or TV via the internet. That means no more trips to the video store, for example, when you have the sudden urge to watch Gladiator. You would just log in to NetFlix, and start streaming the movie.

For something like the streaming of movies, however, bandwidth is an absolute necessity. It requires a lot of bandwidth to carry the data transfer involved with a movie feature—especially once you start getting into HD (High Definition) quality.

Right now, it isn’t too much of an issue, but it inevitably will be, before long. People will be expecting better and better video quality when they watch movies and shows, and it is going to require bandwidth to accommodate those demands.

Too, websites are becoming more media-driven, more interactive. Where a website used to be wholly text-based, graphics soon entered the arena, adding to the visual appeal of the site. Today, sites are often flash-based, providing a whole new visual and audio experience unlike ever before. Again, there is that inexorable drive towards bandwidth consumption.

What the Internet Service Providers want to do is cap that bandwidth so that if you utilize this advancing, changing internet, they can charge you for it by claiming you are using too many resources on their system.

The irony here is that much of what you currently get right now from your cable or satellite television provider comes to you in MPeg format, which is very similar to what is used on the internet. However, they don’t seem as concerned about the amount of television that they have to stream to you. In fact, they love to sign you up for as many stations as they can coax you into subscribing to. The issue seems to revolve around what you can get without their television service. For example, if they offer PPV movies (Pay Per View), it makes sense that they don’t want to lose that income by you simply downloading the movie from NetFlix, Amazon, or any other movie streaming website.

The goal, then, is to make your use of such online services appear to be unfeasible and impractical, so that you’ll see their service as the better option.

One of the best deterrents they can utilize is bandwidth capping. By instituting that and lobbying for its legalization, they are successfully hindering the advancement of internet innovations, such as multimedia streaming. They don’t have to say that, of course. They can deny it, even. After all, they are providing faster speeds to their customers.

But really, how would you feel if, because of internet capping from your ISP (Internet Service Provider), you are suddenly limited to 10 high-definition movies per month if you still want to be able to also regularly visit your favorite websites, such as msnbc.com which also offer streaming newscasts? What if, before the cap, you could’ve seen 20 high-definition movies in any given month? Maybe you watched a couple every weekend (4 weeks x 2 movies = 8 movies), and you let your teenager and his friends watch movies as well. With a 10-movie cap, you’re going to need to give up some of your movies so that your teenager and his friends can watch movies. That’s when they’re not using up bandwidth through the XBox 360, PS2, or Wii gaming and online matches. And that’s not to mention you being able to watch your favorite TV shows in high-definition, when you want to watch them, and not according to a TV schedule.

There’s also the matter of system updates. Microsoft Windows updates require bandwidth to download. Their Service Packs can take up significant bandwidth. In fact, on some satellite providers who offer internet access, you can’t even download the latest Service Pack 3 without being penalized by their service cap, leaving your computer potentially at-risk with security holes galore when you go surfing the internet. Too, your child’s XBox, PS2, and Wii games have frequent updates to games as patches and fixes are released, and you are required to download them in order to play the game. Plus the regular updates for your antivirus and spyware softwares, web browsers, add-ons, et al.

Bandwidth is indeed a force to be reckoned with. Apparently, it’s also a force to be controlled by Internet Service Providers.

It’s My Wi-Fi and I’ll Live Like I Want To

In effect, the ISP wants to take artificially impose a limit on your use of the internet. You’ll have no choice except to change your internet usage to suit the expectations of the ISPs, and not the other way around. And, as I have reiterated time and again throughout these three entries, your internet speed already limits you sufficiently and effectively, through its built-in, inherent limitations.

Now, let me throw another log onto this fire. Right now, companies like Microsoft and Dell are rapidly pushing for development in what is called “cloud” technology. In the hope that I’m not oversimplifying things here, the way “cloud” computing works is that instead of you having Windows or any given application like email, word processing, or bookkeeping installed on your computer, it’s available across the internet. Your computer will eventually be a mere terminal, whose role is simply to access the internet. All of your data and information would be housed “in the cloud,” on a server somewhere.

This is the ideal scenario for companies because it provides residual income, instead of a one-time sale. You’ll have to pay monthly or annually for continued access to your email, documents, pictures, checking account program, etc. So, you have to figure that into your bandwidth cap as well. Not to mention the additional costs involved for each service or feature that you access! If you don’t make your payment, you lose access to your email or your documents or your pictures, etc.

And that is on top of what you will have to pay your ISP as your “middle man.”

Suffice it to say that if you’re of the opinion that the ISPs’ intention to try to artificially cap your internet usage isn’t something to worry about, I can assure you that you are one of the last, increasingly rare internet users. You should be very concerned. Even angry. There is far more to bandwidth than merely accessing email or browsing web pages.

It is precisely because of available bandwidth, limited only by the technology that drives it, that the internet has been making such astonishing advancements in communication and technology. For whatever reason—be it greed, control, or whatever—the Internet Service Providers evidently want to hinder it through the institution of “capping.”

That cannot be allowed to happen.

Is your Internet Service Provider taking you for a ride?

The Internet Service Providers have certainly spent a great deal of time pointing their accusing finger at “power users” as the reason why bandwidth must be capped. A “power user” is someone who regularly uses the capacity of their subscribed service. In simple terms, if they subscribe to 3mpbs service, they are a “power user” if they access 75% or more of what that service can access, up to approximately 972GB of data. The Internet Service Providers claim that these “power users” are intruding on the enjoyment of what they term the “typical” subscriber by “hogging” the bandwidth, which in turn affects the speed at which the “typical” subscriber is able to access such things as email.

These same Internet Service Providers like to say that the “typical” subscriber will not be affected by the imposition of bandwidth capping, since all they do is “the occasional web browsing or check their email.”

But if you think that there’s no need for YOU to worry about bandwidth capping by your Internet Service Provider, you’re absolutely wrong, and I will be giving my reasons in the next two blog installments as a follow-up to part one on this topic, Getting on the Bandwidth Wagon.

Just The Facts, Ma’am

As I mentioned in the previous part, I subscribe to 3mbps internet service through my DSL provider. Currently, my DSL Internet Service Provider does not impose a cap on the bandwidth I use, and I share this with you so that you will not view this blog entry as little more than a whining session. Even so, I am very concerned as to the future of internet use, which will affect me—and you as well.

Reiterating what I said previously, a subscriber to 3mbps service logistically can access approximate 972gb of data. To achieve that, of course, they would need to be accessing data every possible microsecond of their billing period. Further, they would need to be accessing that data at exactly 3mbps. So, we’re talking about full-throttle, full-distance.

However, I typically get around 2.6mbps speeds, with occasional bursts to 3mbps.

Even so, I can’t stress enough that there is NO logistical way for me to access more data than the speed at which I subscribe will allow. There is no way for me to access more than 972gb of data in a given service month. Therefore, my internet service is already capped.

And I’m fine with that. If I want a higher cap, I simply subscribe to a higher speed of service—which, in turn, imposes a higher cap on bandwidth.

Therein lies the twist. Internet Service Providers are now trying to argue that the logistical cap (the speed of internet service naturally limits the amount of data you can access in any given month) is unreasonable and unfair to them, that they should be allowed to cut that back to 75% or, in some cases even less, and then be able to charge overage fees, should a subscriber cross that 75% limit—even though they are paying for 3mbps service.

In effect, they are redefining the structure of internet access. It will no longer be unlimited access—which itself is a misnomer, since it really isn’t unlimited access because you’re limited by 1) your internet access speed and; 2) your access speed’s capacity to access a given amount of data in any given month.

But what about their purported “typical” subscriber, who, they say, does little more than check their emails or occasionally browse the internet?

Well, all things considered, what they are really saying is that this is their ideal subscriber. They absolutely love this type of customer, for reasons I will discuss in a moment. For now, though, it should suffice when I say that if these are the majority of their subscribers, it will not be that way for much longer, due to the shifting nature and direction of the internet itself.

Getting back to their use of the term “typical” subscriber, however, I want to take a few moments to explain some things that you need to be aware of.

It’s In the Pipe(line)

When you subscribe to internet service, you pay for a specific access speed. That means that during the course of any given month, you will be access the internet up to the subscribed speed you are paying for. I say “up to” because every Internet Service Provider touts their internet services with that carefully-couched phrase. The simple fact is, the majority of their customers never receive the full speed of access that they are sold—and in many cases, it is far below it. But since the Internet Service Providers use the term “up to” as their “out” for being obligated to give you what you pay for, there isn’t a whole lot you can do, except to shop around for another Internet Service Provider who will offer you actual internet access speed closer to what you are paying for in the first place. Be forewarned: you will never (or rarely) get the actual speed of access that they are advertising or signing you up for. It is a marketing tool, and little else. It does not qualify as false advertising (and therefore is not actionable legally) because they included those two simple words, “up to.”

At the risk of repeating myself needlessly, once you subscribe to a specific speed of internet access, you potentially can access a specific amount of data with that speed. I previously used the example of the new sports car being able to go at a certain speed. Let’s say, for the sake of our discussion, it can go 3,000mph. And let’s say that you could drive the entire day with no stops or refueling. Further, let’s argue that you should be able to drive as far as that car can take you in that day, at that speed, because you don’t have to stop for food, bathroom breaks, or to refuel your vehicle.

That’s pretty much how it works with the internet. But, the Internet Service Providers are saying that they should be allowed to impose limits on you of their own determination, since we’ve already established that there is an inherent logistical limit already imposed.

The question is Why? Why do they want to do this? Well, actually they say that they need to do this to protect the infrastructure of their pipelines, but there’s a reason they are worried.

It has to do with that “pipeline” you will be hearing more about as the argument intensifies for legislation allowing Internet Service Providers to be able to impose bandwidth usage limits and sanctions for what they determine as “overusage.”

The “pipeline” is a connection to the infrastructure of the world wide web that is spread throughout the country. For the sake of this entry, I’ll use the primary trunk, or “pipeline” that is in Chicago. Chicago serves as a hub for a huge area of the midwest, including Michigan, acting much like the hub or router that you have in your home if you have more than one computer. You’re computer is connected to your hub/router, which is then connected to your Internet Service Provider, who is then connected to Chicago (in our example). Chicago, then, is connected to its own series of central pipelines, and thus you have the world wide interconnection of computer systems best described as a web.

Now, much like your limitation of 3mbps access, your Internet Service Provider has its own limited access speed, although far faster than your own speed, to which it is allowed to connect to Chicago.

For the sake of our discussion and to keep things simple, let’s say that they have 3000mbps access.  That means that they can have 1,000 subscribers at the 3mbps level, or 3,000 subscribers at the 1mbps level, or any mixture thereof. They can’t have more than that number because there wouldn’t be enough bandwidth available to sell you.

That being the case, why, then, are they saying that they must be allowed to impose bandwidth caps in order to protect resources and their infrastructure?

Simple: they have been overselling internet access, and due to the rapidly changing nature of the internet, they are risking being discovered. And as a result, they are swiftly trying to push through Congress legislation that enable them to change the rules so that they aren’t found out.

“Overselling” is when one of two situations occur: 1) you sell more bandwidth than you have, or; 2) you sell the bandwidth you have to more customers than you logistically can sustain—on the premise that they will not put that bandwidth to the test, resulting in your scheme being discovered. Clearly, one cannot sell more bandwidth than they actually have (option 1), so that isn’t the case with the Internet Service Providers. That leaves option 2: they have been selling bandwidth they cannot deliver.

This is how it works: As we established, your Internet Service Provider has 3000mbps service to Chicago. We’ve also established that they can then sign up 1,000 accounts at 3mbps, or 3,000 accounts at 1mbps. However, the Internet Service Providers came up with a nifty idea. They decided that they can sign even more customers by parceling out the bandwidth. Since the majority of their subscribers—while subscribing to 3mbps service—only accessed maybe 100gb in any given month, that left 872gb of data that was still accessible at the 3mpbs level of access… so why not sign up maybe 6 or 7 more people at the 3mbps level, and increase your profit? It was an ideal situation for the Internet Service Providers, and that’s why they like to use the term “typical” customer when they really mean their ideal customer.

So, if the Internet Service Provider had 1,000 3mpbs subscribers, they could now have an additional 600-700 more subscribers—after all, there was more than enough unused bandwidth to accommodate them.

Well, of those additional 600-700 subscribers, maybe they only used 50gb of available bandwidth. Again, opportunity presented itself to then sell that unused bandwidth to 1mbps subscribers so that you can further increase your profits.

But what if some of those subscribers used all of their paid-for bandwidth? You ask.

Simple: you borrow from the bandwidth of others to compensate for the shift in usage patterns. Since these others use less bandwidth, they’re unlikely to notice the temporary drop in speed—after all, they’re just accessing email and doing an occasional website browse. Certainly not enough to draw attention to the fact that you are borrowing from their service to cover that other subscriber’s access.

It really was a win-win for the Internet Service Providers, and their profits soared because of their ingenuity.

But then the internet changed. Sites like hulu.com, youtube.com, and ustream.tv came online. News sites likewise went multimedia. Internet radio was born. And now, suddenly, people were discovering a whole new side of the internet, and its potential as a multimedia medium of our time.

Just as suddenly, Internet Service Providers began to see that more and more of their subscribers began to access the capacity of their paid-for 3mpbs service. And others began to notice that their own internet access was slowing significantly as they, too tried to begin accessing the new multimedia-centric internet, too. This was all a result of the Internet Service Providers overselling bandwidth in order to reap additional profits. Their resources and infrastructure are now being pushed to their limits, without question, but what the Internet Service Providers aren’t saying is that it is because this is happening because they got greedy, and parceled out bandwidth. Instead, they point their finger at the “bandwidth hogs” who are, according to them, “spoiling the fun for everyone else.”

In addition, they are realizing that something needs to be done, even as they find themselves faced with more and more new customers wanting to jump on the bandwidth wagon. And the answer seems to rest with bandwidth capping—imposing a limit on the amount of data you can access that is far enough below the natural, logistic limits of your internet speed that 1) they’re overselling scheme won’t easily be discovered now; 2) they’ll be able to continue to utilize that scheme, generating huge profits for their company.

It’s a win-win situation for them, and they know it.

Are you willing to allow this to happen?

morloc.com talks: Bandwidth capping

Imagine, if you will, sliding in to your brand new sports car. You’re nothing short of ecstatic. Without a further moment’s hesitation, you are flying down the road in a lap of luxury to see the sights. You’ve always wanted to see the countryside, and you decide to do it. You’re going to make a cross-country trip in your shiny new car. “Let’s take this thing for a ride. A real ride,” you say. And you’re off.

The wind in your hair feels splendrous, the music sounds like it never did before. The speedometer reads a solid 70mph, and before you is nothing but the wide open expanse of road.

Suddenly, you feel the car downshift. Oh no! You think. What’s wrong? Everything looks fine. The gauges are all within acceptable limits. No hot or burning smell. You frantically look around, trying to locate the problem as the car finally comes to a stop.

Angry, frustrated, you jump out of the car and pull out your cell phone to call the dealer that sold you the car. After several minutes of listening to “Your call is very important to us. Please hold, and the next available operator will be happy to assist you,” you finally reach a human.

You explain the situation, restraining the expletives that want to pour out between every other word. The dealer, nonplussed, says in reply, “Sir, your car has the speed and power you wanted, doesn’t it?”

Irritated, you reply: “That’s beside the point. The car has broken down already!”

“Actually, sir, it hasn’t. You car will only go so many miles and then you must wait until next month before you can operate it again, should you reach the monthly mile limit,” he responds coolly.

“What? That’s crazy! What’s the point of having such a fast, powerful car if I can only drive it 50 miles or so before it shuts off? That has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard!”

“Nevertheless,” he tells you, “that is how it works. You can either park the car until next month, or, if you want to continue to operate the car, you can pay above and beyond what your monthly payments are, depending on just how many miles you wish to travel once you’ve exceeded your monthly mileage limit.”

Sound preposterous? Would you buy from that dealer? Highly unlikely!

And yet, unbeknownst to most people, this is exactly what Internet Service Providers are slowly integrating into their service, quietly capping the amount of travelling you can do on your broadband internet. Exceed their cap, and you can be looking at very stiff bills as they start charging you for each and every “mile” you go past their imposed limit.

Their reasoning is that you can have the speed, but you are not entitled to use the capacity of that speed. Instead, you can use the high speed connection to the internet to access a certain amount of the internet highway, and then you’re cut-off. Unless, of course, you want to pay for each additional mile you “drive.”

And what is troubling is that while people would never tolerate that from a car dealer or automotive maker, they seem to have no problem with putting up with it from their Internet Service Provider.

Why?

In many cases, they simply don’t know about the slow but steady restructuring of internet service. Few seem to remember the days of dial-up, when you couldn’t keep your computer continuously connected to your Internet Service Provider’s modem. But eventually, Internet Service Providers, in their attempt to achieve and exceed their profit margins, turned to “unlimited internet access,” thus doing away with hourly limits entirely. And the new marketing approach worked as people turned to those Internet Service Providers who provided “unlimited internet access.” AOL, originally an hourly-based Internet Service Provider, eventually adopted the new approach to internet access, and managed to become the largest Internet Service Provider in the world.

But then along came broadband. Cable and telephone companies entered the arena, offering broadband and DSL, respectively–and with it speeds previously unheard of. It was sold under the same philosophy as “unlimited internet access,” touting itself as an “always connected” or “always on” service.

The convenience was unparalleled. Being able to simply sit down to one’s computer and immediately be able to begin browsing the internet became a remarkable convenience for the masses. Over time, bandwidth speeds increased as the technology was refined and pushed forward. Along with it, more and more people jumped on the new bandwidth wagon.

Today, multimedia has become the norm for the internet. Companies are vying for their position as the best supplier of on-demand video, whether it’s amateur, television shows, or cinematic movies. Streaming radio, too, has found its niche–and along with it: podcasts, online gaming, social sites, and much more. The internet has truly become a force to be reckoned with.

But all of that information requires bandwidth as it’s moved from source to viewing public. According to Internet Service Providers (primarily cable companies at this point), bandwidth demands are exceeding their available resources, and as a result something must be done if the infrastructure is to be protected from potential failure.

Enter bandwidth caps.

Now, ironically, the Internet Service Providers are trying to force us back to the days before there was such a thing as “unlimited internet access.” Now, they want to make it so that you can only use so much of the bandwidth that you pay for every month–and charge you exorbitant overage rates, should you watch too many shows or online movies in a given month. That is, if they don’t suspend your service outright.

The obvious question here is Why? Why do they want us to return to yesteryear, to the same business structure that existed in the days of dial-up? Aren’t we supposed to be moving forward into the future?

It may very well be due to the conflict of interest that the modern Internet poses especially to cable companies and satellite companies that provide internet access. After all, they want you to subscribe to as much of their channel lineup as they can entice you to sign on for. But what incentive is there for you to do that when you can simply visit a site and watch your favorite shows and movies at your own leisure?

Frankly, there isn’t any reason to be confined to a rigid array of television channels with its rigid viewing schedule that forces you to seat yourself when they want you to sit down. And that certainly must concern cable and satellite providers.

Their answer, then, is to stifle your use of online access–or at least cause you to limit yourself to the extent that you will return to the sofa when you want to watch your favorite show. And if you refuse to be molded into their servitude, they will at least make you feel the consequences of your decision by either suspending your service, or limiting the amount of use you get from your internet service.

By all rights, such practices should be illegal, but through carefully constructed catch-phrases and double-speak, as well as finger-pointing, the cable and satellite providers seem to have slipped the notice of the public at-large. But it is only a matter of time before everyone realizes what they are doing, and by then they won’t be able to do much about it, because the cable and satellite providers will have managed to push through Congress their “right” to do this, leaving us–the public–powerless to do much more than whine and go along because there are no other available options.

So how about you? Do you mind driving a car that can take you anywhere as fast as you dare go–just so long as you go there in 50-mile bounds, a month at a time? Or, are you like me–one that fully expects to be able to go as far as that car can take you in a given month?

Definitely something to think about.