Deep Packet Inspection Firms Trying To Turn Net Neutrality Satire Into Reality
from the yeah,-good-luck-with-that dept
It's been around for a few years, but those of you who follow the net neutrality debate may have seen the following "example" here or there of what various ISPs would like to do to the internet if they could:![](https://i.imgur.com/YhISJ.jpg)
![](https://i.imgur.com/YpUVg.png)
![](https://i.imgur.com/RRTdB.png)
However, before people get too alarmed about all of this, and start demanding "net neutrality" laws, it's worth taking a step back and recognizing just how unlikely it is that proposals like this ever get anywhere. Would the various mobile operators like to do this? Sure. In fact, for years, they tried to resist more open systems by totally locking down their handsets. Even with so-called "smartphones," the experience was entirely controlled (with tollbooths) by the mobile operators. And what happened? Almost no one used them. It wasn't until Apple broke down that wall (though, it set up its own, slightly more open wall) that smartphone usage really took off. And, these days, with even more open Android systems growing, more people are moving to those as well.
Will some mobile operators sign up for a DPI system like this? Maybe. I can certainly see some of them testing it out. But, I can't see it ever actually catching on. While the operators will claim that this will allow for "cheaper" plans for low level users, history has shown that they don't really mean that. The goal is to get the higher level users paying through the nose. And that won't work -- because people have already learned what can be done with mobile broadband on a device, and simply won't agree to go to a system that charges like this. It's a pipedream for some DPI companies and some mobile operators, but the likelihood of it actually becoming the norm seems pretty damn low.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: deep packet inspection, mobile broadband, net neutrality, wireless
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A real-time discussion of this is happening inside NANOG...
Start here: http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-December/thread.html and note that there are several threads with the string "comcast" in the title, including one long one that's currently near the bottom of the page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A real-time discussion of this is happening inside NANOG...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A real-time discussion of this is happening inside NANOG...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A real-time discussion of this is happening inside NANOG...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the issue turns on the phrase "modest profit"
Companies, and the people that run them are interested in one thing and one thing only, money. They are doing anything to get the _most_ money they think they possibly can _now_. To heck with the country, the economy, people. To heck with even the long term prospects of their companies. These are the people who would burn down their neighbors house to resell the nails.
It's what happens when capitalism is allowed to run amuck. You would have thought we would have learned that lesson after the 'Great Depression'. It one of the primary reasons we are supposed to have a government. Laws were put in place to regulate the unrestrained greed and the country more or less prospered. Sure there weren't as many _super_ rich, but more of the country was better off.
The government (Bush, Obama, it's all the same; government by the rich to the detriment of everyone else) has abdicated it's responsibility. Deregulation (banks back to playing the stock market, magical 'derivatives') and worse 'self-regulation' or 'self-enforcement' (FDA, EPA, etc.) Laws like the 'Micky mouse' copyright extension act, who's only purpose is to funnel more money into the pockets of those paying for laws to be passed. Waging wars we can't afford and should have been in to begin with (Iraq, Afghanistan) so that we can funnel more money we don't have into the coffers of the military industrial complex. To the latest, holding the renewal of unemployment benefits hostage to massive tax cuts for the mega rich.
Until the government; legislative, executive, and judicial, stop pandering to lobbyists, and start doing what's right for their constituents and the country itself things will only get worse before it gets better.
To do that, they will have to forgo getting richer themselves.
To do that, they will have to pass laws that will negatively impact the wealthy (including themselves) for the good of the country.
To do that, they will have to have to apply common sense and enforce the laws equally against the rich and the powerful as they do to the common man.
It would be a nice change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the issue turns on the phrase "modest profit"
In fact, I would bet vital anatomy that such a thing will not come to pass in my lifetime unless it's via violent revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the issue turns on the phrase "modest profit"
I see nothing wrong with making tons of profit, the problem is that these corporations want to rely on the government to provide them with monopoly rents so that they can make tons of money and not do any work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians
Unfortunately, these big corporations do tons of lobbying, and politicians may be stupid enough to buy their argument, due to not understanding anything about technology or commerce. Or they could also be simply whoring for the big companies, I suppose.
I hope the groundswell of regular people is enough to keep net neutrality viable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it really isn't that important, lets just shut down all computer networks for a day and see how well life goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are our legislators really this ignorant about the internet?
Or are they feigning ignorance for the sake of 'campaign contributions' (I believe the colloquial slang is 'hookers, blow, n Benjamins)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me make this perfectly clear.
Would you tolerate UPS opening your parcels and charging you extra money based on the dollar value of the contents?
Fight this. Hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me make this perfectly clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple open ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple open ???
The iPhone solution was orders of magnitude more open than smartphones that came before it. Before the iPhone, if you were an app developer who wanted your apps on, say, a Verizon smartphone, you had to go negotiate a deal with Verizon directly. Just getting in the door was difficult. Then the negotiation was ridiculous since Verizon held all the leverage.
No, Apple is not "open," but it's a lot *more* open than what came before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple open ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple open ???
1. connect phone to PC
2. run installer on PC
3. go through any installer options just like installing any software
4. accept the installation from the phone
5. indicate whether to install to internal memory or storage card
I think that was it. I think some apps you install by putting a .cab file on the phone and running it from the phone. Similar number of steps.
That's what I always liked about it, I could install anything I wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DPI should be illegal.
We clearly need updated privacy laws that take into account how the internet actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encryption.
I gather there are some issues to be solved, mostly having to do with certificates. I don't know certificate architectures very well, and I may be talking out of turn, but I gather there is a need for improvements which allow a certificate authority to declare exactly which facts it vouches for, and which facts it does not vouch for. This would enable a certificate authority to issue certificates on the basis of the facts which it comes to know in the ordinary course of its business, at minimal cost, and minimal legal risk. The browser developer would create logic to determine whether the vouched-for facts were sufficient to close the padlock icon or not. In any case, the browser would use the certificate to set up a SSL session.
Traffic to and from a mobile device does not have to go direct from the nearest hot-spot to its ultimate destination. It can be routed through a fixed gateway belonging to the person the mobile device belongs to, and located in a place where it can reach competing internet service providers; and in that case, the mobile device can be brought within a Virtual Private Network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And DPI is nothing like those things unless an actual person looks at your communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is an obscenely specious argument.
Just because a DPI system lacks Meatware(TM) eyeballs, does not change the basic assault upon my private communications.
Private means Private. Nobody or NoThing opens them up and looks inside.
The reaction to DPI-Non-Privacy will be "Encryption Everywhere". And the carriers boo-hoo about capacity challenges now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy on the Internet
It has already been shown in court that choosing to communicate in a public place invalidates your expectation of privacy. One should not expect communications on the Internet (a public place!) to have anymore expectation of privacy.
Now the computer in your house and the server at the company you are shopping at have an expectation to privacy, but if you communicate in the open, the expectation is potentially lost.
*YOU* have the ability to regain that expectation however. *YOU* have the ability to say I will only communicate using a secured channel (say using SSL). At that point you have potentially made the effort to reinstate your expectation of privacy. The only "access" to the contents of the conversation are at the endpoints where the expectation to privacy likely already exists. Do not expect privacy of a post on a public forum.
DPI is a natural evolution not much different than sampling water in a pipe for quality or validating tickets (and checking bags and purses) at the entrance to a concert venue. It is like the cop that sits on the corner with a radar gun as you drive by. All are forms of legal "deep" inspection making sure that everyone follows the rules.
You may not like it, but the idea is a reality of life and you have choice to attempt to counter such inspection using means and tools like SSL, IPSEC, coded communications, etc... Think of SSL like a sealed opaque wrapper around that beer bottle you are smuggling into the concert. Think of SSL as going into the store and purchasing a product at a private room cash register.
Put in proper context, we can better decide how to react than suggest improperly that DPI is evil (it can be and it can also be useful even to you) or think that we have lost all ability to control who sees what and when.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy on the Internet
Some guy in Europe forward all his boss email to him using an explorer feature and was convicted of wiretapping, no encryption there, granted that even if it had encryption it would have been useless since it was being sent by the program itself which brings us to the second ruling in the U.S. apparently that found that emails are protected by the constitution and police need warrants.
Still I agree if you want some more security you should encrypt everything, but there was this allegation that IPSEC was compromissed somehow and people from FreeBSD are looking into it(A developer claims his ND expired and he was paid to put backdoors on the IPSEC stack so the FBI could spy on it, they wanted access to encrypted VPN connections apparently).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We pay for Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The infra-structure was build decades ago(in the 90's) in the U.S. that is why Google was able to buy tones of "dark fiber" of course it needs expanding but with billions of profits they sure can afford to do it.
Now how is that Australia can do it, China can do it, Japan can do it, Europe can do it, but not the U.S.?
Traffic is traffic people already pay for that, companies pay for it, but now somehow everyone needs to pay more for the same thing?
I'm sorry but you are full of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We pay for our bandwidth already and should be able to access any contact at our sold speed no matter what the kind of content it is. It should not be up to my ISP to decide that any one type of traffic is more important. If they have to do QOS to keep reasonable latencies then they've over sold capacity and lied to their customers.
QoS should only be done on your own router if you're worried about Voice or video traffic not getting enough bandwidth that you were sold because you're also using other types of traffic at the same time. If I get 10Mbps from my ISP then it is my job to mange how I use that 10Mbps. Their job is to make sure I have access to 10Mbps of bandwidth at all times. If they can't offer me 10Mbps then they shouldn't sell 10Mbps.
Content providers already pay for bandwidth as well. Its not as if they're getting it for free. No one is free loading here. Say I'm a content provider and I have 1Gbps of bandwidth. That would allow me to serve 100 customers at 10Mbps. I'm not serving the customer 100Mbps while they are only paying for 10Mbps. They're limited to the amount that they pay for.
Why should a content provider have to pay an ISP to have access to their customers when they're already paying for their connection and the content provider is paying for theirs. Clearly the ISP is trying to double dip on charging for the same bandwidth. This shouldn't be allowed.
What do you mean by "make someone else pay"? Everyone is already paying. No one is free loading anything here. The customer pays for 10Mbps. The content provider pays for 1Gbps in order to serve 100 customers. Who exactly isn't paying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet many other countries provide for it at a much cheaper price than the U.S.
Stop making up the first excuse that comes to your mind just because you think you can get away with it no matter how lame of an excuse it is. These excuses are lies and you would get away with them on the mainstream media because criticism isn't allowed there. Not here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Called AOL 1.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has always been in Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are a threat to innovation and prosperity in America, other places don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how all those little states in America that are counting on bandwidth will couple with increased pay. I don't have a number but I do believe millions are making a living from the internet right now and can only do so because it is cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]