Is the Internet "FREE" in your opinion?

[gunug]

One of my carpool riders is almost violent in support of the idea that the internet is free!  As a philosophical concept I like it but
as a practicality it seems to me that some companies and governments have paid for the backbone and they really do "own"
it in some real way.  The EU wants to say that broadband is a right:

QUOTE

The European Commission (EC) may establish that broadband internet access is "a universal right" during a review of its Universal Service Obligations (USO) for the region's telecoms companies.

  Fixed line standards for "functional internet access" are now set at dial-up speed (28.8 kilobits per second), but may be re-written to force telecom firms to make broadband available to all, reports the BBC.

 Between 2003 and 2007, broadband use in its member nations tripled to 36 percent of households, with a 20 percent annual growth rate, said the EC.

http://www.marketingvox.com/eu-commission-...l-right-041191/

I'm not really looking for a survey; just opinions from my "learn-ed" colleagues!  

[Xairbusdriver]

I agree that 'companies' paid to run lines/connect servers/add servers so that most of us can access the various servers. But the idea was built on a need of the military (US, in fact) and they are 'owned' by the Government, who, in turn is 'owned' by you and me. If the EU wants part of the 'action,' let them buy their own. Does that sound enough like an "Ugly, Arrogant American?!" The point is, many people from many countries have contributed to not just the "Internet" but what and how we use it. While the 'backbone' is essential, it wouldn't be very useful "to the rest of us" without TCP/IP, FTP, browsers, HTML, PHP, Perl, MySQL, Apache, etc. and the thousands of pieces of soft/hardware we all use everyday without even knowing it.

I guess a good analogy is radio/TV? No body 'owns' the 'air,' but without the hardware (transmitters) our receivers would be nice dust collectors. So, to prevent over-crowding the 'air' with signals, we have regulation (with its benefits as well as its foibles). All that hardware, orders of magnitude more than what the military first needed, has to be paid for somehow. If one can successfully argue that the 'Internet' must be 'free,' then why should we have to pay for telephones, electricity, oil, water, even food?! Many would argue that all of those are more critical to survival than the interweb.

"There ain't no free lunch." Be it Freedom or the Internet (whatever that is, anyway).

[jwboyd]

The Internet is "free" in much the same way that TechSurvivors is "free." Somebody pays the bills, and we all get to use it.

Heartfelt thanks to whoever you are!

Joe

[gunug]

SHE was saying that it was a lie that the world could ever run out of bandwidth and that the internet was a free utility!  A lot of back and forth on this and my opinion is, from a practical standpoint of hardware and economics, there has got to be a limitation sometime in the future if we go on with our twittering and streaming and watching of YouTubes and so does the rest of the world.  The things we seem to enjoy the most on the internet are not things we might be willing to pay a lot for (* the guilty pleasures); maybe we enjoy them the most because we're not paying.  Rupert Murdock seems to think we'll pay for online newspapers and he's probably correct but maybe not as much as he might wish to charge!

* this was added after the comments below!

[Xairbusdriver]

QUOTE

The Internet is "free" in much the same way that TechSurvivors is "free." Somebody pays the bills, and we all get to use it.

Heartfelt thanks to whoever you are!

What?! Aren't you getting a monthly bill?!!! Where is our mail clerk and the financial secretary??? Get this guys address! Now!

I think you've hit the proverbial nail right between the eyes, gunug!

[gunug]

If it ever came down to it I would pay for TS; there is elsewhere on the web that isn't worth wasting bandwidth on!

[kimmer]

The Internet isn't a right, regardless of what the EU says. And who are they to start running everyone's lives, anyhow?

The original net wasn't free either. The schools had to set up the servers, and the end user had to buy the router and dial in. Then when the net started expanding to private bulletin boards, someone had to own the computer and install the software and pay for the phone line to set it up. And if it was long-distance, then the end user had a long distance charge on their phone bill. And if you screwed up and crashed the "server", some boards would send you a bill if parts were needed.

So nothing was free even in the beginning. And it was all TEXT and you had to learn commands and it was geeky fun, but it's so much nicer now.

I don't see the net as a right anymore than I see watching TV or listening to the radio as a right. Some people are just ... well, never mind what I think.

[kbeartx]

IMO, this discussion is 'muddied' by lack of clarity regarding the concepts mentioned:

"Free" - are we talking about lack of cost or lack of constraint?

"Right", as in a privilege?  

AFAIK, the US Constitution [or any other similar document] does NOT grant every person the right to a Television, Automobile, Telephone, or Broadband connection.  The lack of constraint to pursue all manner of material and technological goals is NOT the same as a guaranteed right to do so [such as Life, Liberty, and the Purfuit of Happineff].  Has Congress recently legislated such and I missed it?  Or is that what the EU is proposing to do?

[tacit]

QUOTE(gunug @ May 8 2009, 05:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SHE was saying that it was a lie that the world could ever run out of bandwidth and that the internet was a free utility!

She does not know how the Internet works. I'm guessing that her technical computer knowledge is limited; am I right?

A Cisco DSL switch costs about $2,000 and can support up to six DSL subscribers.
A Cisco DOCSIS uBR switch (which is what you are connected to when you use cable modems) costs about $60,800 and supports 8 cable slot cards. Each cable slot card costs about $12,000 and supports one local loop (one neighborhood, essentially--it depends on the speed of the cable modems).

When the number of people in some area exceeds the amount of hardware available to support them, then the broadband service company must either reduce everyone's broadband or buy more hardware. What does she think is on the other end of her DSL or cable modem, elfin magic?

[kimmer]

QUOTE(tacit @ May 13 2009, 05:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does she think is on the other end of her DSL or cable modem, elfin magic?

You get the prize! You made Sneakers and I both laugh out loud.

[gunug]

"Elfin Magic!"  

I also thought there was some interesting information here:

http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/200...09-johnson.html

[kbeartx]

"Elfin magic"??  Couldn't be, not for an instant!!  This stuff is obviously driven by arcane, or maybe shadow power...

QUOTE(gunug @ May 8 2009, 12:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... the internet was a free utility! ...

I'm sure many ppl would like this to be the case.  But wanting it to be so and saying that it IS so, does NOT make it so....Kb

[kbeartx]

QUOTE(tacit @ May 13 2009, 08:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...When the number of people in some area exceeds the amount of hardware available to support them, then the broadband service company must either reduce everyone's broadband or buy more hardware.

And that's only considering the 'little pipes' that service our homes and offices; at some point, and I'm sure someone has thought this through and run some numbers, there might be a point at which the traffic to and from all the subscribers of a particular ISP would effectively fill-up , or overload, that ISP's connection to the larger 'backbone' that connects all the big telecom companies together.  

As an early adopter of broadband, I no longer expect sites to take more than a few seconds to load, as they did back in the old days of dialup.  I occasionally notice slow response from sites that normally seem almost instant.  I don't know if this is the case, but I suspect that the sometime sluggish performance I experience online is due to such an overload on my local 'loop' or at my ISP [or upstream from them].

Logic suggests that there could come a time in the predictable future when the number of broadband users and the aggregate of their uploading/downloading outmatches the capacity of the entire internet.  

Or some event, [either environmental, technological, social, or political] that causes nearly everyone to try to access certain bandwith-heavy content on the 'net during the same time window, which might 'bring the 'net to its knees'?

Does anybunny know of information sources dealing with this kind of info/analysis?

Kb

[Highmac]

QUOTE(kimmer @ May 9 2009, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... And who are (the EU) to start running everyone's lives, anyhow?

I'd love to answer that, but it would be getting into very dangerous political territory

[Xairbusdriver]

I'm sure (sort of, anyway) that the "EU" has everyones (even the rest of the world) best interests in mind. And part of their efforts are simply similar to what certain other 'super-powers' have done for centuries. But, until there is an agreed to and totally supported 'world' government/law system, there will always be conflicts between those who have and those who don't have what they want. Note, of course, that what we want is often different from what we need.

Neither the "EU" nor the "US" nor the "X government" (excluding some, of course!) are all evil and selfish. And more fortunately, in many cases, most governments do not actually reflect the attitudes of the governed! As long as that's the case, there's still hope. However, IMHO, I do not believe that there will ever be lasting 'world peace.'

OTOH, Pfizer's latest announcement will, undoubtedly make many in the US 'happy,' at least for a time...