They're Killing the Internet!

(Begun April 17, 2000, last updated 10/27/2003.) There are factions out there who would love to destroy the Internet. There are others whose greed simply overwhelms any concern for the survival of the Internet. Who are they, and what can we do to stop them?

Right now you are probably saying to yourself "That's ridiculous. The Internet is too large and important to ever die." Well, if you're saying that, you are fooling yourself. The very nature of the Internet is what makes it vulnerable. The Net is the finest example of decentralization and group ownership in existence, which means there is no large corporate or governmental agency watching over it, as is the case, for example, with the telephone network.

The survival of the Internet is based on 2 assumptions: The continued growth of the user base, and reasonable financial returns for the corporate investors who provide the connections and servers, not to mention millions of hours.

Continued user growth is dependent on the same things that have brought the Internet this far: the unfettered access to information and the unparalleled availability and ease of acquisition of merchandise and services. More users go online because they need information and nothing comes close to the Internet for sheer volume and ease of access. Similarly there is no place else to shop that is easier, cheaper, and more convenient.

All of the things that drew millions of us to the Internet are in jeopardy. If they aren't addressed, the end result could be the disappearance of the Internet, as impossible as that sounds.

What could make the information on the Net unavailable? The threats can come from many directions:

Security and Risk

If the risk becomes too high from identity theft, credit card fraud, or personal privacy violations, large numbers of people will stop going online. By the same token, if the institutions that provide the information, goods, and services that attract users are damaged by thefts of their data and other attacks that cause their involvement with the Internet to become too expensive to sustain, they will go offline.

The Internet world is flush with examples of the how the lack of security is making it harder to transact business on the Internet. One frightening example involving the PayPal Internet payment service is cited in a Newsweek article. (View it on PayPal's site.) In the article, which appeared in the July 16, 2001 issue, the story is told of two Russia-based hackers that invaded "U.S. banks and e-commerce sites in 10 states" and " stole tens of thousands of credit-card numbers". The article goes on to say that PayPal's service is a favorite of criminals and that these two alone took over $100,000! Further, it mentioned that PayPal's competitors: "BankOne's eMoney Mail, PayMe and PayPlace were vastly curtailed or closed al-together in the face of widespread abuse". Possibly worse yet, PayPal employees described their response to the high-incidence of fraud, which involved wiring unauthorized amounts into subscribers bank accounts, and freezing other accounts due to suspicions raised by their security software. Many of their present and former clients are currently irked by PayPal's actions, as can be readily discerned upon visiting related sites www.paypalsucks.com and www.paypalwarning.com.

PayPal is significant because they represent a method of paying for goods and services that would make it significantly easier than traditional methods, such as checks, money orders, and credit cards. In addition, exchanges could be made by individuals who don't have merchant accounts allowing them to accept credit cards as payment. The failure of PayPal and similar services to provide simple, safe, and quick distribution of payments is a significant hindrance to commerce on the Internet. In addition, people who got caught up in the typhoon of fraud, accusations, and abuse may have lost their enthusiasm for the Internet as a whole.

Other payment methods on the Internet have not been immune to problems. We have all heard the true stories of identity theft (when someone gets enough information about you to open accounts and possible commit criminal acts in your name for their benefit) as well as the old favorite of using your credit card numbers. These are alive and well on the Net, but there are even more chilling possibilities involving the monitoring of any information that you choose to expose to the Internet. Recent examples are thefts of video signals from wireless cameras (who's watching who?), eavesdropping on wireless phones and internal email, and tapping into wireless networks.

Stagnation

In addition, new information, goods and services need to become available in the future in order to maintain the interest of current users and attract new ones. But these products may not become available because of business strategies, resistance to paradigm shifts, or other less honorable motives, such as greed.

Access Problems

Even the notorious blockheads in the U.S. Congress realize that for the Internet to be successful, all users must have high speed connections. Some of you "late adapters" out there may dispute this fact, but nearly every facet of the computer industry is building the future of the Internet depending on the assumption that all users will be connected at high speeds. In fact, a large contibutor to the current industry slow down is due to the fact that communications companies have over built high speed backbones in anticipation of demand that hasn't arrived yet.

In any case, Congress is taking steps to try to ensure that broadband access will be available in all areas, but there are still some very high hurdles to be negotiated. Dial up service is convenient and accessible everywhere there is a phone, but it is too slow. How long will it take to make broadband access as easy and affordable? Ethernet networks and wireless 802.11 access appear to have the most promise today, but they require installations separate from the phone system and their is no effective way to meter the usage and get paid.  

Industry Resistance/Sabotage

One good example of information that is not available to Internet users is music. For a while, users could realize at least a glimpse of the possibilities for the free distribution of music during the Napster era. And volumes have been written on how the music could be distributed on the Internet, protecting the rights of all parties concerned. But it isn't happening. The music industry has good reason to want the Internet to die - there is no scenario they can envision that would allow for the reasonable distribution of music that would maintain their powerful and lucrative hold over all aspects of the industry. By attempting to withhold their product from the Internet, they hope to kill it and thus maintain the status quo. The same will be true of the Movie industry once the hardware and software for distributing and playing videos is as efficient as it is for music today. The same is true of the publishing industry.

The television and telephone industries would also like to see the Internet die. When people can view television shows on their computers whenever they want, how will the networks sell advertising? They haven't figured it out yet, and until they do, their content will not be available directly. All local and long distance phone companies are severely threatened by voice and video over IP. Think about it, that video phone they have been touting since the 60's is now available on your PC, and they don't make a cent on it. Right now corporate users can avoid the phone companies entirely by leasing capacity on fiber optic networks and using voice over IP switches from all of the major vendors. What if everyone did it? Bye-bye Ma Bell.

Profitability

Hundreds of dot-com merchants have failed for every one that has succeeded, if in fact any of them would be considered successful, compared to the profit margins of traditional brick-and-mortar businesses. The Internet must provide an environment in which legitimate businesses of all sizes can be established at low cost and operate without having to fight a constant battle with unethical practices of other businesses. Most businesses are used to fighting an uphill battle with larger companies using pseudo-monopolistic practices to give them the upper hand in the real world. Unfortunately, such practices are much more devastating on the Internet given its narrower theatre of operations. There must be fair search engines and directories that indicate the true relevance of sites that cannot be bought. As much as it pains us to say it, government intervention may be required because just about every company that runs a search engine today has already sold out.

Government Intervention

While the Federal government has so far protected the Internet, for the most part, from the voracious appetites of it's own branches, like the IRS, and those of other governments, notably state and municipal, this protection is not all-encompassing nor permanent. At some point, restrictions and taxation could swamp the Internet and chase away corporate and individual users. If the states and cities manage to impose their thousands of retail tax rates that currently plague mail order businesses, commerce on the Internet will be dealt a serious blow.

If pending Federal legislation passes, the distribution of copyrighted material will become so difficult that legal owners will be shut down while illegal distribution will continue to prosper. Many of the anticipated and lucrative uses of the Internet will be closed forever. The convergence of computers and entertainment media will never come to pass, which alone could kill the Internet.

It would be easy to say that in order to stop government intervention from ruining the Net, we all must be vigilant, and protest, and write our elected representatives. But that never happens. What you should do is get rid of computer illiterates by not voting for them, and by voting with your dollars to make sure that the kinds of businesses that you like on the Internet survive.

Quality

Recently, Woody Paige, a writer for the Denver Post, penned an article about the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. In the article, he made comments about the "Mormons", which some took to be offensive. The next day, the author and the paper printed a retraction. But the Denver Post took another action that has a profound effect on the Internet as a legitimate archival resource - they removed the article from their web site! Unless the Internet is treated with the same respect as any other repository of historical information, it will have no value. If someone searches the Web today for articles concerning Salt Lake or the "Mormons", they may find the retractions, but not the original article, which they can only get by going to the library or obtaining a reprint.

It may even be worse. Electronic digital storage opens the door to the revision of history as well. What if the Post decided to leave the article on their site, but edited out the offending passages? It is hard to say which is worse, because either action strikes a mortal blow to the quality and dependability of information on the Net. How reliable is the information, even from seemingly reputable sources on the Internet? If we can't trust the information out there, it has no value. A large percentage of Internet usage is for research purposes. If the information is compromised, either by the legitimate caretakers or by hackers, research activity will cease. Go to the Internet Research FAQ for information about the accuracy of information on the Net and what to do about it.