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?