RE: Internet for All

There really is no intelligent life at the Winston-Salem Journal.

First, my credentials. I've been in IT for over 30 years, professionally. I remember when the web appeared. Those of us who were using things like Archie and Gopher to locate information thought it was an interesting idea, but wondered if enough people would buy into it to make it go. The answer to that one is obvious. Once it started to roar, we all dropped Mosaic like a hot potato and landed on Netscape with both feet. I've been doing web programming, architecture, and project management for about ten years now.

Ok, now we have that out of the way, here are a few brain-dead tidbits from my (least) favorite fishwrap.

Logging onto a Web site now resembles buying a deli sandwich.

What??!! Not even a little bit. It's more like a trip to Sam's.

When customers arrive, they take a number and everyone is served in order. When the Internet is working properly, requests to access Web sites are similarly handled in order, and the user hardly notices the wait.

Not really. Where are they getting this stuff? OK, maybe a few of the smaller servers did this twenty years ago, but most web servers are configured to handle hundreds of simultaneous requests. I have ancient Pentium-II web servers at home that can handle traffic faster than the pipe into my house can feed it.

But companies that transmit information from a Web-site server to the computer user want to charge the Web sites for immediate access. Those who do not pay will get slower access or maybe none at all.

I'm assuming they are referring to the ISPs instituting quality-of-service (QoS) traffic control. I've got bad news for you guys, QoS control is already happening. If you use one of the voice over IP (VoIP) services like Skype or Vonage, your own system is enforcing QoS controls.

The Web, which is now a democratic and grass-roots system that no one controls, will fall under the thumb of the big Internet service providers.

The web is democratic? That's a hoot. The web is the epitome of laissez-faire, politically and economically. If anything, the best characterization would be that the web is feudal in nature. You could equate the ISPs to baronies and counties with all the users as serfs or tennant farmers. The big telcos are the monarchies, always in warlike competition for network topology. Bottom line: the web is already under the thumb of the big ISPs.

The preferential treatment they provide to high-paying customers might drive the small Web sites out of existence.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! What they are talking about is progressive payments for higher QoS values. The technology behind that is pretty bizarre, but you could equate it to a toll road with variable tolls. The more toll you pay, the more time you get to spend in the left lane. That doesn't mean that the guys in the right lane won't get there, it's just that the other guys who are willing to pay higher tolls will get there faster. With broadband service being as ubiquitous as it is, the only people likely to notice are the poor folks who are still on dial-up.

Low-cost Web sites - operations that range from a local quilt-making club to grass-roots political organizations - would almost certainly be relegated to inferior status on the Web. Computer users would find fewer sites created and maintained by small-money groups and more, with more dazzling features, from major corporations.

What utter BS. The web is a consumer service. If you don't ask for something, you don't get it (don't whine about pop-ups, your browser actually asked for them, even though you didn't want them). If you're browsing quilting sites (shudder), Google's QoS value makes absolutely no difference to you. As well, all the other people browsing their favorite sites will still provide a broad spectrum of traffic through your ISP. The only time I could see a detrimental effect would be if you were on a very small ISP and every single other user was browsing Google at exactly the moment you are trying to browse your bee-keeping site.

Low-cost Web sites - operations that range from a local quilt-making club to grass-roots political organizations - would almost certainly be relegated to inferior status on the Web. Computer users would find fewer sites created and maintained by small-money groups and more, with more dazzling features, from major corporations.

And there you have it, folks, the communists at the Journal come blazing in with their simpering appeal to "fairness," demanding action where none is necessary. Once again, the nanny government will step in to regulate something that doesn't need regulating all because some pack of liberal morons who are far too stupid to understand what they are whining about demanded that "someone has to do something."

A pox on your house, WSJ.