In recent days, two posts published on this site, a today from colleague elav and other mine last Friday, have raised a series of comments on the issue of internet regulation and the interests behind it. I have carefully read the comments and intervened in some exchanges, but in most cases I have been left with the impression that it is not known exactly what they intend to "regulate", with the aim of clarifying this issue is this post.
As a sample, I will only include 3 of the proposals that are the most significant to me due to their importance and possible consequences.
The proposals
1- That the network, the ISPs or the content generators pay for the traffic something called "termination fees" and that is nothing more than a tax in favor of the telecommunications companies that own the infrastructure for whose use the ISPs YA they are paying.
2- That governments decide how and where Internet traffic is routed, which up to now is done automatically, seeking the shortest (or fastest) path through the current distributed network.
3- That certain information can be labeled as "immoral", "offensive", "contrary to the interests of ...", "harmful to the security of ...", and a long etcetera that automatically implies that it should be excluded from the network .
Who is behind and what are their interests
1- Promoted by telecommunications companies, which have seen their profits reduced due to the decrease in traditional telephone calls from the use of tools such as Skype, etc. which "convert" calls into packet data traffic. At first glance it may seem that its approval would only harm the big content generators like universities, etc., or the big service providers, like Google, etc., but remember, we are in web 2.0 where all we are potential content generators and, in any case, the money will end up coming out of our pockets, one way or another, in addition to the possible loss of access to multiple content.
2- From the technical point of view, it implies that the network would cease to manage itself under technical criteria of efficiency and reliability to be managed by commercial or political criteria; the traffic would be routed through the one that offers the best price or that of the political ally of the government in question. In addition to involving a process of negotiations between governments and the owners of the infrastructure that could lead to a lot of corruption and secret deals, it would make it impossible to avoid traffic "jams", since the ability of information packets would be lost. automatically search for the optimal route. Once again, the harmed will be all the users, condemned to suffer longer waits than those of the era of switched modems.
3- Is it really necessary to explain this? Well, okay; it is simply the establishment of censorship as one of the foundations of the internet. Nowadays there is censorship, but it is basically applied by governments, forcing the ISPs of their nations through filters and / or blocks, otherwise they will withdraw their operating licenses, if the ISPs are not in the hands of their own. governments. Furthermore, ALL the criteria mentioned as "labels" are completely subjective, all the more reason to reject them. What would be the damages for users, I prefer not to mention them, I hope that as good lovers of freedom (not only that of the code), we know how to appreciate it.
To put it in a single sentence, because given the proposals and what they would imply, in all cases, the "remedy" is worse than the "disease."
Starting to discuss at this point whether the network is free or not today is not the most important thing; It is like arguing about the color of the cat when what we are all interested in is that it hunts mice.
And what about "uncomfortable allies"?
This is an interesting point, most of the commentators' criticisms are based on distrust towards those who oppose regulation, not because of what they propose or the reasons why they oppose it, but only because they come from a certain company or government. To me, such an attitude is curious and I consider it the result more of a primary and sentimental reaction than of a reasoning calculated based on the information, but hey, they are within their rights, even if it does not coincide with them. I prefer to reason rather than have "convictions"; If tomorrow the RIAA and the SGAE began a campaign against internet regulation based on the rejection of the aforementioned proposals, they would count on my vote, since they would be supporting my demands, not theirs.
In this battle, all allies are welcome, from a scientist "father" of the Internet like Vinton Cerf, an Internet giant like Google, to the latest and most recent Internet user from anywhere in the world, since the defense of the Internet rests on everyone's shoulders.
I hope it was not too long and hopefully the famous writer Haruki Murakami I apologize for paraphrasing the title of a of his best novels.
Better explained impossible. It is incredible how a small group of people (those who govern naturally) can make decisions over millions, over entire peoples and countries. And what is worse, they believe with the right. ¬¬
Thank you for your comment, which allows me to make a point that I did not include in the post.
In the WICT conference under the auspices of the ITU as an arm of the UN, in addition to the member governments there are 700 “private organizations” that are also members of the ITU, but NONE of them represent internet users. Obtaining membership in such a "democratic" organization costs from $ 2,100 to $ 35,000 USD each year, with the aggravation that these "members" do NOT have the right to vote, usually they are organizations with interests in the telecommunications sector that They actively participate in lobbying, so if Google were interested in getting more power in an organization like this, I don't think that paying the membership fee would be any difficulty for them, do you?
I have found it an excellent article and not only because I think about it more or less the same as you.
What puts me out of the picture a bit is the color of the cat, but it sure is feline susceptibility, making me see a "that the end justifies the means" where there is none.
I would also like to know your opinion about the solution. Pressure governments, organizations ...? As a paranoid cat, I have been thinking for a long time that we should build the Internet for ourselves to free ourselves completely. Little by little, but starting now. At first it would be between nearby nodes, as some user groups already do, but is it impossible that a large enough association / cooperative does not place a satellite in orbit or what do I know?
If we build our own Internet, do you think they will leave us alone? Laws are coming out that affect local networks, we have no escape.
It is that the most difficult thing is to change the mentality of people, even worse that of politicians and governments, who do not quite understand the impact of the network on society, not only in people's lives but also in the growth of the economy; but no, they are there "fucking", of course "on our behalf and to help us" ...
Now you have worried me. Have you not read about the paranoid cat?
It would only be necessary for them to tell us how to be at home.
When you say laws on local networks do you mean "local networks" or "local laws on not-so-local networks"?
Are those laws in Spain? Come on, tell me no so I can continue napping in peace.
Thank you.
HAHAHAHA ... Nothing to see, that "the end justifies the means" has always seemed the worst to me, so I assure you that it is not the intention of the cat example; which is obviously close to you. 😉
As for the solution, I think you ask me a lot, but at least I will try. Maintaining pressure on governments and organizations is always useful, even when apparently they do not take us into account, because in reality they DO, in the worst case, trying to silence the protests of those who claim, in any case, and in view of the experience of how the network arose and has developed and what it has meant for humanity as a whole, if we all have to defend something, it is that it remains free from the intervention of governments and organizations, which is not necessary for anyone (even with the best intentions) try to regulate or control it, that organized chaos is the best state it can achieve and the only one that guarantees its permanent development.
As for "building" an alternative network, I do not see it as feasible, nor do I think it will be solved with a satellite or something like that, the value of the current infrastructure of the network is incalculable (I am talking about the monetary value of equipment and facilities), and It is not a one-day investment, besides, it would be like trying to invent the wheel; that already exists and has been spinning for a long time.
Thank you very much for your comment and for stopping by, I will keep you in mind so as not to make more unhappy allusions about cats ...
Purr of happiness.
Thank you very much for the clarifications, as always your articles and opinions are highly informed and objective.
I agree with you, on many occasions people are carried away by convictions and prejudices to express an opinion instead of evaluating the information and reviewing it to give an informed opinion, in this particular case about some Google practices that involve privacy and the control of information, I understand that there are reluctance but what cannot be reproached is that it seeks economic benefit, it is a company in the same way as any in which we carry out our work. But it is also necessary to see that the arguments for the opposition are correct and the potential result of this happening is much worse than the current situation.
Look, when I hear about "conspiracies" involving Google and its handling of user information, the first thing that comes to mind are all the services and applications that Google has developed, precisely from the analysis of the information collected from its users, while on the other hand, I do not know of a single case in which it has used that information against users; If there is a real and documented case, please have someone point it out. As I think I have said before, people and of course institutions (companies, organizations or governments) should be measured by the result of their actions, not by what they say or what is said about them and, I repeat So far, the result of Google's actions is positive. As for demonizing the search for economic gain, it is a long-standing custom in our lands and requires an anthropological or psychological analysis that I prefer not to attempt.
Thank you very much for your opinion and for stopping by.
True, but there is always the possibility that a government will force Google to provide information about its users or that Google's policy changes course and they decide to use the information they have for less ethical purposes. They have already been forced to censor part of their services due to pressure from governments and power groups. For that reason I think it is not a good idea to put all your information in their hands and use only their services. I have always said that it is not good to bet everything on one card.
I don't think google is the devil. Inside the bad they are the best there is, but they are not angels either and it is better to take precautions just in case. And this is not just for google. The same principle must be followed with all companies.
Well, for the moment, I think it has responded quite well to the pressures, it showed it when it withdrew from China, a pity not to be able to say the same of other "greats" who are not mentioned and who have cooperated with governments like that. . The possibility of it changing (for the worse) always exists, but it is also up to us to prevent it from happening. I agree with you that we cannot bet everything on a single card, in fact, I use different services whenever I can.
As for the categorization into "angels" or "demons", it seems too much like a best-seller title, I prefer to think that, like everything in this world, there are nuances.
I think you have misunderstood me, I meant that I understand that people have some kind of prejudice and reluctance when it comes to Google but at no time was I referring to conspiracies or similar, that Google has a lot of information about those of us who use their services? Yes, who uses it to profit? Probably, that we accept these conditions when using your services? Well, of course it does, but that precisely as you mentioned is what has helped to produce a breakthrough in this type of service. Come on, I don't know what would have happened to the mail without Google, I still remember those 2 mb mailboxes!
No, calm down, I understood your comment perfectly, when I mentioned the subject of "conspiracies" I was not referring to you, but to "people are carried away by the convictions and prejudices" that you mention. I agree with you in what you propose, we really all accept the conditions of use of Google services and the rest of the providers, if we do not do so, we can NOT obtain the services, so in one way or another we accept them. For my part, when I do not agree with the conditions of use of a service, I do not use it or I do it to a minimum, only to achieve my purposes, for example, I made a Facebook account to vote in the Bitácora awards , but I do not use it for anything else or put personal information on it. I am not saying that it is the perfect solution but at least it is the one that I apply with some success.
Thank you very much for all your comments that are really enlightening.
Pal Pirate Party discussion group
Okay, sign me up for that game because I'm already preparing the patch and the accompanying parrot is talked about ... 😉
It is the one from Uruguay. See if there is a pirate party in your country, and if you don't believe it.
Ok, but here where I live something like this is IMPOSSIBLE, neither «pirate» nor «buccaneer» ... 🙁
Absolutely agree with you.
Thank you, it must be because the geniuses coincide ... HAHAHAHAHA 😉
we will see how all this ends
I think, unfortunately, not as well as we wish. If you want more information, I recommend an article published today on Cnet that gives a much more detailed explanation and answers possible questions that may arise on the matter, here is the link:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57557459-38/the-u.n-and-the-internet-what-to-expect-what-to-fear-faq/
Politicians neither believe nor practice freedom. They are only interested in power, understood as "absolute control."
Greetings.
Congratulations on your articles. It seems incredible that there are still people, among internet lovers, who are not clear about all this. Let's see if we wake up and manage to avoid being taken away from what little freedom we have left.
I believe that many efforts have been made to "evangelize" about free software, but very few to "evangelize" about Freedom, with capital letters, as the first and essential foundation in life.
Thank you very much for your comment and for stopping by.
Well we are talking about something unnameable even for us Cubans ... Internet ... many when hearing this word panic ... the pretexts that every day serve as an argument to deny us of this connection, which although 50 years ago did not exist Now it is essential for the human development of our society, and that they do not tell me more than if my grandfather lived without being necessary, or is it that perhaps we refuse to be treated with penicillin when we contract an infection ... in short, I am just saying that the internet It is not something else, since last year if I remember correctly, it is on the list of human rights…. regards…
At some point they will have no choice, there is a lot of pressure from everywhere, and they will be forced, if you do not believe it, look at what has happened with the travel issue, but when they do they will apply many more restrictions than those mentioned For that they have very good advisers; Keep in mind that the entire current communications infrastructure is being installed with the Chinese, with their teams and with their advice. In any case, it will be up to us to circumvent the restrictions, as we do now, when we DO NOT have internet. 😉
Here in Cuba, talking about the Internet is simply a utopia.