Tech Forum

Has there been any discussion about the need to support net neutrality or to support efforts to deepen broadband's penetration into rural areas. As the church moves more resources to the web (new family search as an example) the need for broadband is even greater. Additionally, the threat of content being metered by big broadband providers is a real threat (imho) to the continued easy of use by members and non-members alike. Has there been any talk of formally organizing the membership to 1) insure that content can be freely accessed/delivered and 2) increase broadband availability across the country, and promote competition/choice? I fear a day when the church might be charged by ISPs for the privileged to deliver content at a suitable speed. The day is already here that members of the church are taking on the expense of high cost broadband from satellite providers because there is simply no other choice in their area. Any thoughts?

In the US there is a huge case known as Docket 07-52 at the FCC, and an updated second pre-rulemaking comment proceeding is currently underway as well.

This actually began in 2004, but really got going in November of 2007 when a citizen noticed fake 'close file' or 'download failed' messages from a very large national ISP appearing when downloading legitimate content on the web. He complained in the above-named docket and lst August (2008) the large provider was ordered essentially to not block or hinder large scale downloads or hinder other access to lawful applications.

They are still allowed to block certain undesirable content or activities such as illegal activities, viruses/malware, spam, pornography, etc.

The proceeding is making it clear that the Internet is close to becoming a common carrier like the telephone is. Ancillary rulemakings are in progress also relating to what you describe, making broadband available to the general public in rural and hard-to-reach areas.

For more info see the openinternet.gov website (US readers).

I am aware of this effort and it is exactly what I am talking about. There are some very big players trying everything they can to stifle any regulation of the internet. There are politicians (on the payroll of big business) that are introducing bills to prevent the FCC from making rules to govern the internet, or to even question their authority to regulate the internet. I can't help but wonder if we, as a body, should join the discussion. As an example, we could promote people going to openinternet.gov and posting their view.

JamesAnderson wrote:In the US there is a huge case known as Docket 07-52 at the FCC, and an updated second pre-rulemaking comment proceeding is currently underway as well.

This actually began in 2004, but really got going in November of 2007 when a citizen noticed fake 'close file' or 'download failed' messages from a very large national ISP appearing when downloading legitimate content on the web. He complained in the above-named docket and lst August (2008) the large provider was ordered essentially to not block or hinder large scale downloads or hinder other access to lawful applications.

They are still allowed to block certain undesirable content or activities such as illegal activities, viruses/malware, spam, pornography, etc.

The proceeding is making it clear that the Internet is close to becoming a common carrier like the telephone is. Ancillary rulemakings are in progress also relating to what you describe, making broadband available to the general public in rural and hard-to-reach areas.

For more info see the openinternet.gov website (US readers).

Speaking for myself, I can't see the church getting involved unless there was a threat of filtering out "unpopular" content. For example if an ISP were to filter/throttle YouTube videos based on content. I doubt if they'd get involved in filtering based on protocol or technology.

This is a tough topic for which the Church to take a side on, as it can become quite political in nature. To me, this issue seems not far removed from the Fairness Doctrine and other similar, recently proposed solutions. Government can get involved through regulation so that big businesses don't take advantage of their large, captive customer bases. But on the same token, government can regulate too much in trying to forward an agenda and end up trampling on free-market, free-speech liberties.

I don't want to take the discussion any farther than that summary of both political sides. My only point is that I personally think it could be difficult for the Church to get involved without taking a side, even if the only intention is to just help ensure that all members of the Church have access to the internet and the great resources the Church provides online.

Broadband should be a utility. Because there is no theoretical limit to transmitting data over the network (you just add fibers and routers), when considering that the human population will always be finite, there is no reason why Internet should be regulated like the analog AM/FM radios.

Because the Internet infrastructure can be built with off-the-shelf hardware that has competitive pricing, it is actually very cheap to build, as compared with an old fashioned telephone network or even a cell phone network.

I know a person who is investing in hundreds of miles of fiber and reams of router/switch boxes; he's creating potential competitor to local monopoly ISPs somewhere in this world (I don't know his/her geographical location).

Because after the initial investment, the fibers actually keep carrying the signals, all you have to do to keep the network running is replace busted off-the-shelf appliances with similar ones. Because all switches/routers know the IP protocols natively, they need little "programming" and all you need is some admin servers to keep the boxes checked for attacks.

Honestly, quite a few big ISPs run DNS servers that are running old BIND configurations running on Linux kernels no longer officially supported (hope they have some in-house support). I have done some dig'ing myself.

BTW, I get 10 MBps (the fiber to our building could carry 100MBps easily, and still provide the same for a bunch of users) for 30€ per month, and have at least three other providers to choose from should the current one start acting up. This is not exactly rural, although we are quite far from the densely populated parts of the country. The urban area has around 220,000 people, while the rural areas inside municipal borders have another 15,000).

Here I'm getting preachy again...

velska wrote:BTW, I get 10 MBps (the fiber to our building could carry 100MBps easily

And in a metropolitan area in Australia you can get 19.2 Kbps on dial up. ADSL is not available everywhere, and the Telco only has to supply a speed of 19.2.

Fiber would be nice.