Six Republican Senators Oppose Net Neutrality

[Cry Havoc]

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/

Six Republican senators have introduced an amendment that would block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its recently announced Net neutrality policy.

Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced the amendment to an appropriations bill. It would prevent the FCC from getting funding for any initiative to uphold Net neutrality. According to The Hill, the co-sponsors are Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

The move appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the FCC's expected new policy to ensure that Internet service providers don't discriminate between different types of information on their networks.

On Monday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a speech in which he outlined the FCC's plan to enforce Net neutrality, a position President Barack Obama held during his campaign for president.

In recent years, concern has grown that some Internet service providers are slowing down "access to high speed Internet for things like Internet-based voice calls, video streaming, and legal file sharing (that carriers might wish to block or at least charge extra for)," writes Ian Paul at PCWorld magazine.

While Net neutrality is supported by Internet-reliant companies such as Google and Microsoft, it is opposed by major Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. Those three have come out against Genachowski's plan, ChannelWeb reports.

The part of Genachowski's plan that ISPs are most opposed to, according to PCWorld's Paul, is that it would apply to mobile carriers as well -- cellphones, Blackberries and the like. Bandwidth for wireless is not infinite, and some carriers have argued that they need to shape some traffic on their networks in order to make sure there is space available for everyone.

But, as the experience of other countries has shown, that is not necessarily the way "traffic shaping" is used. In Canada, throttling some types of traffic on the Internet -- not on wireless -- has become commonplace. It is used to slow down peer-to-peer file sharing networks.

"Broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications," Genachowski said in his speech. "Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed."

“I am deeply concerned by the direction the FCC appears to be heading,” Sen. Hutchison said in a statement. “Even during a severe downturn, America has experienced robust investment and innovation in network performance and online content and applications. For that innovation to continue, we must tread lightly when it comes to new regulations."

A Net neutrality bill is expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives this fall.

----

:bang

Idiocy.

[2centsworth]

It will never pass, but the info is still relevant. I'm for outing stupidity irrespective of political party. Perry is horrible and now hutch with this nugget makes me ill.

[baseline bum]

Why oh why can't a bomb go off in the senate and just fucking clean the earth of all those douchebag low-lifes? Maybe that sounds harsh, but who here would weep a tear?

[LnGrrrR]

Why oh why can't a bomb go off in the senate and just fucking clean the earth of all those douchebag low-lifes? Maybe that sounds harsh, but who here would weep a tear?

I wouldn't shed a tear, but I certainly don't wish violence upon my enemies. If anything, that would make martyrs of them.

No, the best course of action is to defeat their ideas in the political arena.

[LnGrrrR]

This is an interesting question. Do telecom companies have the right to control traffic? At first glance, one would think yes. However, it raises issues of fairness and censorship as well. What if AT&T does not like a certain website, and chooses to block it? Do users have a right to access said website if the parent company chooses not to allow links to it?

Finally, if we allow those with higher pockets an 'express' form of the internet, will we degrade the ability of the poor to access information?

Here's an article stating some basic arguments for and against. http://www.reason.com/news/show/36708.html (Note: It seems most libertarians are against net neutrality, but some are for.)

I lean towards against, taking the libertarian view that if a company messes with their customer, they can go to a different ISP.

[spursncowboys]

Why oh why can't a bomb go off in the senate and just fucking clean the earth of all those douchebag low-lifes? Maybe that sounds harsh, but who here would weep a tear? Then their family members will take over. That never ends up good.

[spursncowboys]

This is an interesting question. Do telecom companies have the right to control traffic? At first glance, one would think yes. However, it raises issues of fairness and censorship as well. What if AT&T does not like a certain website, and chooses to block it? Do users have a right to access said website if the parent company chooses not to allow links to it?

Finally, if we allow those with higher pockets an 'express' form of the internet, will we degrade the ability of the poor to access information?

Here's an article stating some basic arguments for and against. http://www.reason.com/news/show/36708.html (Note: It seems most libertarians are against net neutrality, but some are for.)

I lean towards against, taking the libertarian view that if a company messes with their customer, they can go to a different ISP. That's a great point. Another, less extreme, is google putting their sponsors on the top of search results. It is a good idea but anytime govt. intervenes they create more problems than they solve.

[spurster]

I think the telecoms are against net neutrality on their wireless phones, but ok with it on the wires and fibers.

[boutons_deux]

"intervenes they create more problems than they solve"

and we know that problems are magically solved with no intervention other than the magic, all-knowing, good-willed Magic Hand of the free market.

[LnGrrrR]

There's a good reason they're against net neutrality on phones. Applications such as VOIP and Video Teleconferencing require packets in real-time much moreso than email or internet packets. If you don't get your internet packets on-time, it just slows down the loading of the page. If you don't get them in time on a phone or video application, you could see stutters, miss what someone said, or drop the connection entirely if enough packets are lost. It's tjhe reason why ATM is still in use... the always-53-cell size of the packets ensures uniformity.

Most businesses set up their network so that time-critical applications have priority over other traffic.

[Cry Havoc]

I lean towards against, taking the libertarian view that if a company messes with their customer, they can go to a different ISP.

This would make sense except for the obvious fact that EVERY ISP will be catering to businesses if this happens, leaving the common customer so low on the totem pole of priorities that we'll be lucky to have pages load at speeds barely faster than dial-up.

[nuclearfm]

KBH is losing stock. She's siding with wealthy rather than individuals. Texas have had enough of it.
Next thing we'll hear is that shes proposing a Texas Trans Net Corridor Toll connection.

[coyotes_geek]

"intervenes they create more problems than they solve"

and we know that problems are magically solved with no intervention other than the magic, all-knowing, good-willed Magic Hand of the free market.

All that freedom sounds scary. Mommy government will keep me safe though.

[nkdlunch]

I vote for a public option neutral ISP funded and managed by the goverment :tu

[angrydude]

If a company decides to block all p2p traffic so that it can provide average users with more bandwidth why shouldn't it be able to? Won't that create room for another ISP to come in and fill the void?

The only way that doesn't happen is if the govt. makes it illegal or cost prohibitive for others to come in and compete. But seeing as that is probably very possible given the way things operate nowadays I'm on the fence.

[nuclearfm]

I'd be ok with this, if the internet was developed by private entities. But it wasn't. Our tax dollars created the internet for the general use. We shouldn't just give regulation of it away to those who seek to maximize profit.

[baseline bum]

I vote for a public option neutral ISP funded and managed by the goverment :tu

That would be a great option for San Antonio; Road Runner cable internet is $50-$60 a month because hardly any of the city is covered by Grande, and thus the only competition is AT&T (which also doesn't cover some areas). They can do whatever the hell they want in SA (i.e., the bandwidth caps they weren't considering anywhere else). Yet go to Los Angeles and you can get Verizon DSL for $14.95 a month, because you have tons of options if you don't like their service.

[LnGrrrR]

This would make sense except for the obvious fact that EVERY ISP will be catering to businesses if this happens, leaving the common customer so low on the totem pole of priorities that we'll be lucky to have pages load at speeds barely faster than dial-up.

Yes, but if that's the case, then another business should take advantage of that property, and spring up in order to serve those dissatisfied customers. I don't think it would be so apocaltyptic.

I say, let the ISPs prove first whether or not they would be shady without net neutrality. If they misstep to the point where it's seriously affecting the US consumer, then take another look at it.

[spurster]

If a company decides to block all p2p traffic so that it can provide average users with more bandwidth why shouldn't it be able to? Won't that create room for another ISP to come in and fill the void?

The only way that doesn't happen is if the govt. makes it illegal or cost prohibitive for others to come in and compete. But seeing as that is probably very possible given the way things operate nowadays I'm on the fence.

That's not what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is that you get to use the bandwidth you paid for the way you want with no slowing down web sites or internet services that don't pay off your ISPs for special service. This still allows ISPs to degrade your bandwidth if you "overuse" your connection, meaning that the ISP can slow you down in order to make it fair to other users.

The idea is that each user (you, Google, Spurstalk, etc. are all users) pays its own ISP for bandwidth, but doesn't pay any of the other ISPs.

[NoOptionB]

Medina!

So you will get yelled at for killing your baby. Who cares. Save the netz!

[spursncowboys]

I'd be ok with this, if the internet was developed by private entities. But it wasn't. Our tax dollars created the internet for the general use. We shouldn't just give regulation of it away to those who seek to maximize profit.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet-start.htm So how did the Internet really get started? Believe it or not, it all began with a satellite (http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite.htm).
It was 1957 when the then Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first man-made satellite. Americans were shocked by the news. The Cold War (http://people.howstuffworks.com/the-cold-war-timeline.htm) was at its peak, and the United States and the Soviet Union considered each other enemies. If the Soviet Union could launch a satellite into space (http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-channel.htm), it was possible it could launch a missile at North America (http://maps.howstuffworks.com/maps-of-north-america.htm).
President Dwight D. Eisenhower created the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in 1958 as a direct response to Sputnik's launch. ARPA's purpose was to give the United States a technological edge over other countries. One important part of ARPA's mission was computer science.
In the 1950s, computers (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/) were enormous devices that filled entire rooms. They had a fraction of the power and processing ability you can find in a modern PC (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/pc.htm). Many computers could only read magnetic tape or punch cards, and there was no way to network (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/home-network.htm) computers together.

ARPA aimed to change that. It enlisted the help of the company Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) to create a computer network. The network had to connect four computers running on four different operating systems (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/operating-system.htm). They called the network ARPANET (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/arpanet.htm).Luck_The_Fakers_
Without ARPANET, the Internet wouldn't look or behave the way it does today -- it might not even exist. Although other groups were working on ways to network computers, ARPANET established the protocols used on the Internet today. Moreover, without ARPANET, it may have taken many more years before anyone tried to find ways to join regional networks together into a larger system.
...
In 1990, Tim Berners-Lee developed a system designed to simplify navigation on the Internet. In time, this system became known as the World Wide Web. It didn't take long for some people to mistakenly identify the Internet and the Web as the same thing. The Internet is a global interconnection of computer networks; the World Wide Web is a way to navigate this massive network. In sailing terms, it's like comparing an ocean to a ship.

[symple19]

Why oh why can't a bomb go off in the senate and just fucking clean the earth of all those douchebag low-lifes? Maybe that sounds harsh, but who here would weep a tear?
:tu

[nuclearfm]

Eh, You know, govt contractors helped NASA with the Apollo missions too. I guess they are responsible solely, all of that govtmoney is secondary.

[LnGrrrR]

SpursNCowboys, you kinda proved his point. ARPA was the main driver behind the creation of the internet as we know it today, and ARPA was a government funded group.

The World Wide Web is just a useful way to get around the internet, by using DNS to resolve names to IP addresses. But it'd be useless without the actual internet.

[sabar]

Net neutrality must exist because ISPs operate as monopolies in so many areas. Even in parts of very large cities like San Antonio, you have 1 or 2 picks. You can't just go to the competition if they kill off access to your favorite website.

[Wild Cobra]

Net neutrality must exist because ISPs operate as monopolies in so many areas. Even in parts of very large cities like San Antonio, you have 1 or 2 picks. You can't just go to the competition if they kill off access to your favorite website.
I haven't seen anything in writing on the subject that I trust, but doesn't the Net Neutrality prevent those who provide the internet structure from charging for the service?

Is it right to require they give it all to the government?

Who's going to maintain the internet infrastructure with no revenues?

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't seen anything in writing on the subject that I trust, but doesn't the Net Neutrality prevent those who provide the internet structure from charging for the service?Are you saying you think net neutrality would mean ISPs couldn't charge for internets access?

That didn't make much sense.

[Cry Havoc]

Are you saying you think net neutrality would mean ISPs couldn't charge for internets access?

That didn't make much sense.

He'd have to actually read and understand what's being discussed before making sense.

[Wild Cobra]

He'd have to actually read and understand what's being discussed before making sense.
No, I just misunderstood what was going on.

In reading the wiki writeup, I don't see how it's feasible to enact such a law. For example, Comcast gives me 25 megabit service, but if 100,000 people tried to use it at the same time to say, New York, then that would require a 2.5 terra-bit path to New York.

Now I agree that local users to local locations should be able to use unimpeded rates, but even that is technically impractical at times. Comcast gives me a cable internet connection across a cable that sweeps to 3 gigahertz. The same cable is split to at least three dozen other places. If everyone tried to use the 25 megabit at the same time, that's 900 megabit. The spectrum for the internet is just a tiny slice of that 3 gigahertz and probably wouldn't support more than 500 megabits under the best QAM encoding techniques because of the signal to noise ratios.

To require guaranteed rates would make the service go down to guaranteeable levels, or require a huge infrastructure project to support the greater rates, and end up costing us all more.

P.S.

I was a communication technician for 10 years.

[spursncowboys]

You guys in SA do not realize how good TW is. I am here in Clarksville, TN and was previously near Killeen, TX. Both places have horrible server speeds.

[spurster]

No, I just misunderstood what was going on.

In reading the wiki writeup, I don't see how it's feasible to enact such a law. For example, Comcast gives me 25 megabit service, but if 100,000 people tried to use it at the same time to say, New York, then that would require a 2.5 terra-bit path to New York.

Now I agree that local users to local locations should be able to use unimpeded rates, but even that is technically impractical at times. Comcast gives me a cable internet connection across a cable that sweeps to 3 gigahertz. The same cable is split to at least three dozen other places. If everyone tried to use the 25 megabit at the same time, that's 900 megabit. The spectrum for the internet is just a tiny slice of that 3 gigahertz and probably wouldn't support more than 500 megabits under the best QAM encoding techniques because of the signal to noise ratios.

To require guaranteed rates would make the service go down to guaranteeable levels, or require a huge infrastructure project to support the greater rates, and end up costing us all more.

P.S.

I was a communication technician for 10 years.

No, no. no, no, no. That's not what net neutrality means.

Here's an example. Spurstalk.com pays an ISP for bandwidth. Net neutrality means that other ISPs can't demand money from Spurstalk.com to improve Spurstalk's connections to their customers. Each customer pays its own ISP, and the ISPs make agreements about how to handle internet traffic between each other.

Here's another example. I pay my ISP for bandwidth and access Spurstalk and Spursreport. Net neutrality means that my ISP can't favor Spursreport packets over Spurstalk packets, even though they own Spursreport or want to make some deal with Spursreport.

Net neutrality does not mean that if an ISP promises you bandwidth, that it must deliver that bandwidth no matter what; that is covered by truth-in-advertising.

If an ISP becomes saturated, then it has to make a decision about how to allocate bandwidth. Net neutrality does not prevent the ISP from limiting bandwidth of heavy users, but you can't favor one kind of packet over another; they all get slowed down equally.

[Wild Cobra]

No, no. no, no, no. That's not what net neutrality means.

<snip>

Do you have a writeup of the actual directive or law? That's not how I read what I've seen.

[Winehole23]

Why don't you post what you've seen WC? That way, maybe we can figure out what you're talking about.

[Wild Cobra]

Why don't you post what you've seen WC? That way, maybe we can figure out what you're talking about.
I've only thoroughly read read the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality) that I can source without searching for past articles I read, and applied that with my firsthand knowledge of DACS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_access_and_cross-connect_system) and similar equipment.

[Cry Havoc]

Do you have a writeup of the actual directive or law? That's not how I read what I've seen.

Too bad. That's exactly what net neutrality means. It prevents ISPs from favoring one type of packets or one connection over another.

[LnGrrrR]

I haven't seen anything in writing on the subject that I trust, but doesn't the Net Neutrality prevent those who provide the internet structure from charging for the service?

Is it right to require they give it all to the government?

Who's going to maintain the internet infrastructure with no revenues?

No, I believe it just means that they can't throttle bandwidth on certain packets, like P2P filesharing.

It usually is against assigning 'tiers' of quality to bandwidth service as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad. That's exactly what net neutrality means. It prevents ISPs from favoring one type of packets or one connection over another.
Then how do they decide a priority when bandwidth is exceeded?

[LnGrrrR]

Too bad. That's exactly what net neutrality means. It prevents ISPs from favoring one type of packets or one connection over another.

How would this work with time-sensitive packets like VOIP though? There are legitimate reasons for elevating the priority of some packets.

[LnGrrrR]

Then how do they decide a priority when bandwidth is exceeded?

They wouldn't.

Proponents of net neutrality cite two things: one, in many cases ISPs were given money by the government to develop the infrastructure to handle larger loads. And two, ISPs shouldn't throttle some users bandwidth, or certain applications, in order to provide service to others. The assumption is if you pay for the service, you should receive a certain quality of service.

Opponents of net neutrality state that elevating some packets priority might make traffic flow faster. But even more so than that, most ISPs absolutely despise people who buy large pipes and then spend all day dloading movies/music/etc, because they're using more than their 'fair share' of the tubes. (They're a series of tubes! They're not a big truck!)

Of course, those same ISPs aren't refunding anyone who uses LESS than their fair share...

[LnGrrrR]

I was a communication technician for 10 years.

Another year and I'll have you beat. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Double post

[exstatic]

Net neutrality must exist because ISPs operate as monopolies in so many areas. Even in parts of very large cities like San Antonio, you have 1 or 2 picks. You can't just go to the competition if they kill off access to your favorite website.

EXACTLY. It isn't a true open market. If Joe's WWW Shack could come wire up to your house, that'd be different.

[mogrovejo]

Net neutrality is basically a huge subsidy to companies like Google, Amazon or eBay, giving their customers the impression that their services are free.


EXACTLY. It isn't a true open market.

This is the most hilarious argument that I hear from net neutrality proponents. They favour legislation that basically prevents the existence of an open market citing as a reason the fact that market isn't open. Truly orwelian.

[baseline bum]

Net neutrality is basically a huge subsidy to companies like Google, Amazon or eBay, giving their customers the impression that their services are free.



This is the most hilarious argument that I hear from net neutrality proponents. They favour legislation that basically prevents the existence of an open market citing as a reason the fact that market isn't open. Truly orwelian.

Your ideas about economic fairness are a good approximation to our supposed system of capitalism/lemon socialism in America. They almost mirror the whole situation we got into with the banking industry. The public took all the risk by being there to rescue the banks when they screwed up and dug their own graves with the CDS fiasco. Yet the profits were all privatized. Same thing with the internet. Our tax dollars go to DARPA, go to researchers at UCLA and Stanford where the early protocols were invented, to Cal Berkeley where the universally used sockets API was created, etc. The public takes all the risk and then here comes AT&T wanting to use OUR technology under their rules so they can charge us extra to use google instead of bing, after Microsoft offers a huge bribe to them to get their search engine some market share. Then Microsoft controls information and only returns horror stories about Linux and Mac on the default search engine, pushing them even closer to monopoly on the desktop market because people aren't going to pay the extra $10 a month just to use the alternative search. Why don't you just come out and say your preferred form of government is oligarchy?

[mogrovejo]

Your ideas about economic fairness are a good approximation to our supposed system of capitalism/lemon socialism in America.

No they are not.


They almost mirror the whole situation we got into with the banking industry. The public took all the risk by being there to rescue the banks when they screwed up and dug their own graves with the CDS fiasco. Yet the profits were all privatized.

Correct. Although I don't understand how my ideas mirror that whole situation. I thought that the bailouts were a disgrace.



Same thing with the internet. Our tax dollars go to DARPA, go to researchers at UCLA and Stanford where the early protocols were invented, to Cal Berkeley where the universally used sockets API was created, etc. The public takes all the risk and then here comes AT&T wanting to use OUR technology under their rules so they can charge us extra to use google instead of bing, after Microsoft offers a huge bribe to them to get their search engine some market share. Then Microsoft controls information and only returns horror stories about Linux and Mac on the default search engine, pushing them even closer to monopoly on the desktop market because people aren't going to pay the extra $10 a month just to use the alternative search.

Admitting your reasoning is correct, why do you want to give huge subsidies to Google and Microsoft then? That's what net neutrality is, that's what Genachowski proposal comes down to (plus giving the federal government the power to exercise censorship). You're against private profits and public costs unless it's Google et all making the profits?

(Your reasoning is wrong though; unless the net neutrality was only applied to networks owned by the government. The technology used in the internet was developed by thousands of governments, companies and individuals. And there was lots of technology created before the "invention of the internet").


Why don't you just come out and say your preferred form of government is oligarchy?Because it's not (I usually don't answer to ad hominem arguments, so take this as an unique exception).

[ElNono]

Net Neutrality is what we have right now. Packets flow freely, and you also have temporal priority for certain packets. Most modern Operating Systems, routers and high end switches include Quality Of Service (QOS) modules that will temporarily prioritize things like VOIP packets while a call is taking place, throttling other connections in the process.

What ISPs that oppose the current system really want is to double-dip.
They want to throttle service providers like Google, Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo, etc unless they pony up money to move to the 'fast lane'.
Unfortunately this tiered system also screws up the little guy. Sites like You Tube would simply not have been possible in a tiered system like these companies propose.

Last, most of these companies that want a tiered system claim that they need that revenue in order to improve their infrastructure based on the ever increasing bandwidth demand. This obviously flies in the face of a company like Verizon that is laying out fiber to everyone's home right now and are still turning a more than healthy profit.

[mogrovejo]

The public takes all the risk and then here comes AT&T wanting to use OUR technology under their rules so they can charge us extra to use google instead of bing, after Microsoft offers a huge bribe to them to get their search engine some market share. Then Microsoft controls information and only returns horror stories about Linux and Mac on the default search engine, pushing them even closer to monopoly on the desktop market because people aren't going to pay the extra $10 a month just to use the alternative search.

By the way, there are lots of misinformation about this issue (I guess it should be expected, being those that control the information - googles, microsofts, media, etc - a very interested party on it).

The Genachowski and the current usage of the net neutrality term isn't about non-discrimination (something that already exists and can be assured by using existing laws, like the threat of eminent domain). The problem is the intent to prohibit ISPs from offering different tiers of service, basically making the internet a eat all you want service, basically giving a huge subsidy in the form of a free-ride to the big internet service providers like Google or Amazon at the cost of the little guy who simply writes his mails, reads the sports forum and downloads a couple of musics and to give the government the power to regulate network management disagreements (the law vaguely excludes "reasonable network management", but it will obviously be the bureacrates to decide what is reasonable or note).

And of course, Microsoft is one of the biggest proponents of net neutrality legislation, unlike one would think by reading baseline bum's post.

[nuclearfm]

I can't believe you guys are debating this. You might as well argue that most of the constitution needs to be repealed. Net neutrality exists for a variety of strong reasons.

[spursncowboys]

A good explanation with visuals.
n-8bokMWido

[ElNono]

Now I agree that local users to local locations should be able to use unimpeded rates, but even that is technically impractical at times. Comcast gives me a cable internet connection across a cable that sweeps to 3 gigahertz. The same cable is split to at least three dozen other places. If everyone tried to use the 25 megabit at the same time, that's 900 megabit. The spectrum for the internet is just a tiny slice of that 3 gigahertz and probably wouldn't support more than 500 megabits under the best QAM encoding techniques because of the signal to noise ratios.

Cable companies use fiber for their networks. Only the end run to the homes is actually coax. DOCSIS 3.0 is the latest standard that defines how the coax bandwidth is split up. The limits are 160 Mbit/s downstream and 120 Mbit/s upstream (They use QAM-64).

That's why Verizon is laying out Fiber To Home (FTH) everywhere.
Some Cable Co's have started to do that too.
Verizon uses a GPON (Gigabit Passive Optical Network) layout that shares 2.4 Gbit/s downstream and 1.2 Gbit/s upstream, up to 32 homes.


To require guaranteed rates would make the service go down to guaranteeable levels, or require a huge infrastructure project to support the greater rates, and end up costing us all more.

I don't disagree with you on that assessment, however, my personal view on net neutrality is not about guaranteeing equal bandwidth, but guaranteeing equal access opportunity to the available bandwidth.

[ElNono]

The problem is the intent to prohibit ISPs from offering different tiers of service, basically making the internet a eat all you want service, basically giving a huge subsidy in the form of a free-ride to the big internet service providers like Google or Amazon at the cost of the little guy who simply writes his mails, reads the sports forum and downloads a couple of musics

What subsidy? Both Google and Amazon already pay for their network access just like everyone else.

[mogrovejo]

Unfortunately this tiered system also screws up the little guy. Sites like You Tube would simply not have been possible in a tiered system like these companies propose.

Of course You Tube would be possible. As long as it could generate enough revenues to finance the bandwidth they use (or find a philanthropist to subsidise it). I can't see a good reason to make those that don't care about Youtube to pay for it.

[mogrovejo]

What subsidy? Both Google and Amazon already pay for their network access just like everyone else.

Yeah, but their usage is not like everyone's else.

[ElNono]

Of course You Tube would be possible. As long as it could generate enough revenues to finance the bandwidth they use (or find a philanthropist to subsidise it). I can't see a good reason to make those that don't care about Youtube to pay for it.

But YouTube already paid for the bandwidth they used. At least what their ISP advertised and charged them for said bandwidth.

[ElNono]

Yeah, but their usage is not like everyone's else.

They sure don't exceed whatever bandwidth was sold to them by these same ISPs.

[mogrovejo]

I can't believe you guys are debating this. You might as well argue that most of the constitution needs to be repealed. Net neutrality exists for a variety of strong reasons.

Hmm.. if it exits, why the need for new legislation? As it's frequently said, “net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.”

[spursncowboys]

My biggest problem with this is why is the FCC doing something like this? This is something our elected officials should be doing, not some bureaucrat who was appointed by a president who has the lowest approval rating after one year in office.

[mogrovejo]

I don't think most proponents of net neutrality legislation truly understand what they are defending and what legislative initiatives are being made under the banner of "internet neutrality". The scaremongering, instillating the fear of a hypothetical discrimination, was quite effective. Currently, the FCC have the power to prevent discriminations: see the Comcast/BitTorrent case. They want to avoid discrimination, with the riches getting a hyper-fast internet access and the poor classes condened to slow and innefective connections, when currently the internet providers offer different price plans to different consumers with different needs. Again, they want solutions for merely fictional problems.

[mogrovejo]

Another thing that most proponents of net neutrality forget is that with their efforts to preserve "the internet" they're basically screwing the development of future architectures. Thank God the government didn't remember to regulate the internet 20 years ago. Do you also favour that the government prohibits the Postal Service to offer a "fast lane" in the name of fairness, non-discrimination and mail-neutrality?

[spursncowboys]

FCC May Rip Up Your Cellphone Contract

Until recently, wireless network management has been of little concern to consumers or regulators. But with data usage booming thanks to Web-enabled phones and applications like games and video streaming, phone companies are having to consider reining in heavy users, a potential tactic the FCC wants to scrutinize.
Genachowski was studiously vague is his descriptions of the impending FCC regulations. The FCC will "analyze fully the implications of the principles of mobile network architectures and practices--and how, as a practical matter, these may be fairly and appropriately implemented," Genachowski said.
Still, if the FCC decides that wireless companies like Verizon (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=VZ) ( VZ (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=VZ) - news (http://search.forbes.com/search/CompanyNewsSearch?ticker=VZ) - people (http://people.forbes.com/search?ticker=VZ)) unit Verizon Wireless, AT&T (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=T) ( T (http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=T) - news (http://search.forbes.com/search/CompanyNewsSearch?ticker=T) - people (http://people.forbes.com/search?ticker=T)) and T-Mobile must allow perpetually unfettered access to all Web applications, the phone companies will have to reconsider how they sell wireless access.
Most wireless providers have historically sold unlimited data service for a flat fee. This practice has been profitable and easy to manage, as people generally relied on their phones for low bandwidth applications like sending text messages and e-mail. Recently, the explosion of Web traffic has strained wireless networks to the point that customers in some big cities claim the quality of their phone calls has deteriorated.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/21/fcc-wireless-genachowski-business-media-neutrality.html?partner=whiteglove_google

[ElNono]

I don't think most proponents of net neutrality legislation truly understand what they are defending and what legislative initiatives are being made under the banner of "internet neutrality". The scaremongering, instillating the fear of a hypothetical discrimination, was quite effective. Currently, the FCC have the power to prevent discriminations: see the Comcast/BitTorrent case. They want to avoid discrimination, with the riches getting a hyper-fast internet access and the poor classes condened to slow and innefective connections, when currently the internet providers offer different price plans to different consumers with different needs. Again, they want solutions for merely fictional problems.

The problem with the FCC having the power as opposed to be written in law is that the FCC changes stances just as quickly as they appoint a new commissioner. Today, we have a guy that likes to preserve the current anti-discriminatory system, but tomorrow, you can have a guy that can flip entirely around.

I would actually like to see legislation that simply guarantees the equal access to the available resources.

Now I also understand your concern and share it, in that normally when legislation gets pushed, there's a lot of crap tacked into it that stinks.
Unfortunately, this is what politics amount to these days.

[ElNono]

Another thing that most proponents of net neutrality forget is that with their efforts to preserve "the internet" they're basically screwing the development of future architectures. Thank God the government didn't remember to regulate the internet 20 years ago. Do you also favour that the government prohibits the Postal Service to offer a "fast lane" in the name of fairness, non-discrimination and mail-neutrality?

How so? Most every ISP providers I know are developing and installing new architectures. From FTH to 4G networks, innovation hasn't stopped one bit. Furthermore, all those guys are still making quite a chunk of profit WHILE they're building up their infrastructure...

[ElNono]

FCC May Rip Up Your Cellphone Contract

Until recently, wireless network management has been of little concern to consumers or regulators. But with data usage booming thanks to Web-enabled phones and applications like games and video streaming, phone companies are having to consider reining in heavy users, a potential tactic the FCC wants to scrutinize.
Genachowski was studiously vague is his descriptions of the impending FCC regulations. The FCC will "analyze fully the implications of the principles of mobile network architectures and practices--and how, as a practical matter, these may be fairly and appropriately implemented," Genachowski said.
Still, if the FCC decides that wireless companies like Verizon ( VZ - news - people ) unit Verizon Wireless, AT&T ( T - news - people ) and T-Mobile must allow perpetually unfettered access to all Web applications, the phone companies will have to reconsider how they sell wireless access.
Most wireless providers have historically sold unlimited data service for a flat fee. This practice has been profitable and easy to manage, as people generally relied on their phones for low bandwidth applications like sending text messages and e-mail. Recently, the explosion of Web traffic has strained wireless networks to the point that customers in some big cities claim the quality of their phone calls has deteriorated.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/21/fcc...teglove_google

The bolded part is actually not true. If you read the fine print on your wireless carrier data plan contract, you do have a usage cap. Yes, even for an 'unlimited' contract. Which actually takes us to another hot topic of this conversation: false advertising. Something ISPs have been doing and getting away with for the longest time.

[spurster]

The problem is the intent to prohibit ISPs from offering different tiers of service, basically making the internet a eat all you want service, basically giving a huge subsidy in the form of a free-ride to the big internet service providers like Google or Amazon at the cost of the little guy who simply writes his mails, reads the sports forum and downloads a couple of musics and to give the government the power to regulate network management disagreements (the law vaguely excludes "reasonable network management", but it will obviously be the bureacrates to decide what is reasonable or note).


I despair of trying to explain anything here. Google and Amazon already pay for bandwidth. Somehow idiots think they have free internet connections.

[Wild Cobra]

Cable companies use fiber for their networks. Only the end run to the homes is actually coax.
Yes, I know, hence the 3 dozen figure.

DOCSIS 3.0 is the latest standard that defines how the coax bandwidth is split up. The limits are 160 Mbit/s downstream and 120 Mbit/s upstream (They use QAM-64).

I don't know the latest standards. My quick guess of 500 was a touch high assuming you are correct. I worked with T3 via QAM 20 years ago. Thought they'd do better than 160.


That's why Verizon is laying out Fiber To Home (FTH) everywhere.
Some Cable Co's have started to do that too.
Verizon uses a GPON (Gigabit Passive Optical Network) layout that shares 2.4 Gbit/s downstream and 1.2 Gbit/s upstream, up to 32 homes.

Yep, wish I had fiber laid where I live. When I move, it will be to an area with fiber. Fiber is also upgradable as technology improves for the transmitter modulation and receiver demodulation.


I don't disagree with you on that assessment, however, my personal view on net neutrality is not about guaranteeing equal bandwidth, but guaranteeing equal access opportunity to the available bandwidth.

As long as they allow different price structure for different priorities when the bandwidth is exceeded, I'm OK with insuring there is no favoritism by carrier or company. For a company to be favored more, they pay more.

If you think I'm wrong, then show me a scheme that allows everything to work fair when the demand for bandwidth exceeded the availability.

[Wild Cobra]

Currently, the FCC have the power to prevent discriminations: see the Comcast/BitTorrent case.
Yep. Nothing new is needed.

Please Sheeple. Don't request unnecessary regulation. Congress will always find ways to add strings!

[ducks]

Why oh why can't a bomb go off in the senate and just fucking clean the earth of all those douchebag low-lifes? Maybe that sounds harsh, but who here would weep a tear?

does that include the whitehouse?

[exstatic]

This is the most hilarious argument that I hear from net neutrality proponents. They favour legislation that basically prevents the existence of an open market citing as a reason the fact that market isn't open. Truly orwelian.

Nope. Two different markets. One is the actual person or entity that brings the internet wiring to your door. The other is who controls what goes over those same wires, and to what extent. To put it simply, in deference to you, it's like saying that there is one market for highways, when it's really an infrastructure company like VK Knowlton building the roads, and car companies that build what rides on it. Net neutraility keeps VK Knowlton from building roads that can exclude a specific brand of automobile. Your argument is that VKK should be able to limit the brands of automobiles driving, because that would make the highway market open? I don't think so. That's not "open market" by any definition I've ever heard of. Limiting or eliminating limitations by companies is what opens markets.

Right now, best practices, popularity, and desired product drive the internet. It should stay that way.

[exstatic]

According to The Hill, the co-sponsors are Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

This grouping is kind of funny, and a measure of how unpopular it is to go against NN. This is all that Big Telecom could get as shock troops?

KBH - resigning to run for Guv
Brownback - resigning
Ensign - in trouble, infidelity and related campaign cash issues.
Vitter - in trouble, infidelity, prostitution

[baseline bum]

does that include the whitehouse?

A year or two ago, sure.

[mogrovejo]

The problem with the FCC having the power as opposed to be written in law is that the FCC changes stances just as quickly as they appoint a new commissioner. Today, we have a guy that likes to preserve the current anti-discriminatory system, but tomorrow, you can have a guy that can flip entirely around.

So, why do you want to give more powers to FCC? Wouldn't that merely aggravate that problem?

Why have so much faith in a couple of bureaucrats? It always baffles me how people place so much trust in politicians and their employees, when they are so permeable to special interests. Wouldn't we be better served if the power remained disseminated among millions of consumers instead of concentrated in the hands of a few guys in DC if the goal is to prevent abuse from special interests groups?


I would actually like to see legislation that simply guarantees the equal access to the available resources.

That's extremely vague.


Furthermore, all those guys are still making quite a chunk of profit WHILE they're building up their infrastructure...

I don't see how is that relevant. Google and others service providers work with 80% gross margins. They also make quite a chunk of money. What's the point? If they're not taking advantage of anti-competitive practices or government subsidies, I don't see the problem. Anyway, impose a one-tier internet and in the long-run you'll have a one-tier infrastructure.


I despair of trying to explain anything here. Google and Amazon already pay for bandwidth. Somehow idiots think they have free internet connections.

Who thinks that here?


Nope. Two different markets. One is the actual person or entity that brings the internet wiring to your door. The other is who controls what goes over those same wires, and to what extent. To put it simply, in deference to you, it's like saying that there is one market for highways, when it's really an infrastructure company like VK Knowlton building the roads, and car companies that build what rides on it. Net neutraility keeps VK Knowlton from building roads that can exclude a specific brand of automobile. Your argument is that VKK should be able to limit the brands of automobiles driving, because that would make the highway market open? I don't think so. That's not "open market" by any definition I've ever heard of. Limiting or eliminating limitations by companies is what opens markets.

Funny, when the net neutrality movement started more than a decade ago, and I was part of it (I think I created the first european based blog dedicated to net neutrality), the primary goal was to avoid anti-competitive practices from incubents. Now that it has turned into a scheme to provide corporate welfare, and pretty much the absolute negation of what it was, people are still using free-market arguments.

Yeah, VKK should be able to build highways for which riders pay a higher toll and other roads for which riders pay a smaller toll and free roads etc.


Right now, best practices, popularity, and desired product drive the internet. It should stay that way.

If it should stay that way, why is the need for new legislation? Nobody has yet provided a single real example that justifies that need. And that reasoning is the negation of everything internet is about. Net neutrality proponents seem to forget that by "staying this way" they aren't preventing bad things to happen in the future (in fact, they are encouraging it), but more probably that better things may happen. The internet has been driven by best practices and the consequence to extrapolate is that we need a huge regulamentary framework to change those practices? It's surreal.

[mogrovejo]

Have people ever wondered why companies like BitTorrent are staunchly against net neutrality even though they're the ones that, according to the reasons presented here, would have the more to benefit from it while companies like Microsoft, which according to the same arguments should fear it are the biggest supporters?

I think a lot has to do with the name (that was a good fit to the original intents). If instead of a word with positive connotations like "neutrality" it was more accurately called "coercively imposed pay-all-you-eat one-tier internet with networks disagreements being solved by government officials" the general public view would be different.

[Wild Cobra]

Have people ever wondered why companies like BitTorrent are staunchly against net neutrality even though they're the ones that, according to the reasons presented here, would have the more to benefit from it while companies like Microsoft, which according to the same arguments should fear it are the biggest supporters?
I haven't done hardly any research and don't know who they are. However, nobody has, to my satisfaction, explained or shown me real language of what would be accomplished. Nobody has answered my question about paid for priorities.

How can any sane person, without the knowledge of important facts, support something? especially when it's in an authoritarian form?

[ElNono]

So, why do you want to give more powers to FCC? Wouldn't that merely aggravate that problem?

Why have so much faith in a couple of bureaucrats? It always baffles me how people place so much trust in politicians and their employees, when they are so permeable to special interests. Wouldn't we be better served if the power remained disseminated among millions of consumers instead of concentrated in the hands of a few guys in DC if the goal is to prevent abuse from special interests groups?


The FCC already has the power. I actually want to take it away from the FCC by formally codifying the equal access into law.



That's extremely vague.


Not vague at all. Simply codify the current system into law.


I don't see how is that relevant. Google and others service providers work with 80% gross margins. They also make quite a chunk of money. What's the point? If they're not taking advantage of anti-competitive practices or government subsidies, I don't see the problem. Anyway, impose a one-tier internet and in the long-run you'll have a one-tier infrastructure.


It is relevant in the sense that the status quo has not prevented building up the technology and infrastructure as you claimed.

[ElNono]

I haven't done hardly any research and don't know who they are. However, nobody has, to my satisfaction, explained or shown me real language of what would be accomplished. Nobody has answered my question about paid for priorities.

How can any sane person, without the knowledge of important facts, support something? especially when it's in an authoritarian form?

I support keeping the status quo with the caveat that I want to take away the power from the FCC to enact a for profit multi-tier access system.
That last part I would like codified in law.

[Cry Havoc]

Have people ever wondered why companies like BitTorrent are staunchly against net neutrality

Please show your source if you're going to make claims like this. I have several articles and references that state the exact opposite.

[spurster]

Have people ever wondered why companies like BitTorrent are staunchly against net neutrality even though they're the ones that, according to the reasons presented here, would have the more to benefit from it while companies like Microsoft, which according to the same arguments should fear it are the biggest supporters?


mogrovejo made this up, which goes a long way toward explaining his posts.

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-stands-up-for-net-neutrality-090801/

BitTorrent Stands Up for Net Neutrality
Written by Ernesto on August 01, 2009

In a late submission to the Canadian network management hearings of the CRTC, BitTorrent Inc. debunked some P2P myths and asked the committee to decide in favor of a neutral net. ISPs should look for other methods to deal with network congestion rather than discriminating against BitTorrent users, they say.

...

[mogrovejo]

Bram Cohen, the 'ubergeek' who gave us BitTorrent, is right up there in the pantheon of Internet gods. But unlike such luminaries as Shawn Fanning and Tim Berners Lee, Bram still hopes to make money from the fruits of his intellect. To which end he's done a deal with Warner Brothers to help them to distribute their movies on BitTorrent.



One of the things that's hoped might sweeten the deal is a new kind of faster torrent which the makers hope will make the current version look like paint drying. At the same time it will also unblock those congested pipes, so that his invention can avoid getting banned from networks quite so often.



The new version is currently trialling as a collaboration between Bram, NTL and a company called Cachelogic here in Britain. Cachelogic are offering a series of data stores strategically placed around the Internet which the new BitTorrent system talks to. Whenever they see a commercially approved BitTorrent, they make a copy of the data.


The next time someone on the Internet requests that data, it comes not from the original sender but from the Cachelogic store, only this time massively accelerated.
You can see where this is going. The companies who subscribe to the service will see their data race down the toll roads much faster than everyone else's can travel. What then for network neutrality?



We asked Bram about network neutrality. He told me "I most definitely do not want the internet to become like television where there's actual censorship... however it is very difficult to actually create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity like making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop... (hacker) attacks. "



Does the Cachelogic proposal violate network neutrality? "Depending on how you define net neutrality that violates some definitions of it," says Cohen.
And would he feel comfortable if a media company using BitTorrent did start seeking network priority for its data?


"It depends really on the nature of the whole thing... I'm against net censorship. However when you're talking about large file transfers going to very large numbers of people there frequently are significant costs involved... (the media companies) are frequently bearing a lot of costs already today. They make some stuff available and pay for bandwidth on it so it's just a question of the download costs as well as the upload costs."


He has a point. Big media corporations already pay a fortune for powerful internet capacities so that you can more easily read articles like this one. This would just be the logical next step - rather than merely improving their capacity to send data out the door, the companies upgrade your ability to receive it as well.



To go back to our analogy, it's not that your car will necessarily slow down when you head to Homebase. It's just that you'll suddenly start travelling at several hundred miles per hour if you go to the rival store. They're not doing anything to harm your surfing.



Objectively they're making it better. Even if you don't want to download their movies you might still benefit from the relief in congestion over the whole internet. And if capital wants to build something and people want to pay for it, well, chances are it's going to get built.



Which is exactly what you'd say about a toll road.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5017542.stm


Once again, people should stop using the original intents of the "net neutrality" movement and the principle of non-discrimination to avoid anti-competitive and cartelization practices as a justification to the network neutrality laws being proposed.



Maybe people here should actually read HR 3458 or the FCC President speech at the Brookings Institute last week.

[mogrovejo]

The FCC already has the power. I actually want to take it away from the FCC by formally codifying the equal access into law.

What do you mean by equal access? You don't think the ISPs should be able to offer faster lanes to those willing to pay a premium? And the current proposals give additional powers to the FCC, to the point of allowing them to come up with the new regulations and to be the ones solving network management problems.


Not vague at all. Simply codify the current system into law.

The vague part is equal access to the resources.


It is relevant in the sense that the status quo has not prevented building up the technology and infrastructure as you claimed.

No, although we don't know what has the current system prevented or not, I claimed that changing the status quo by using the law to force a one-tier internet ad aeternum would prevent innovation.

I simply don't understand how can people who defend the current system and the status quo be also in favour of new legislation. It doesn't make sense whatsoever.

[Cry Havoc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5017542.stm


Once again, people should stop using the original intents of the "net neutrality" movement and the principle of non-discrimination to avoid anti-competitive and cartelization practices as a justification to the network neutrality laws being proposed.



Maybe people here should actually read HR 3458 or the FCC President speech at the Brookings Institute last week.


That article is from 2006. Are you seriously using that as evidence that BT is against net neutrality?

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-stands-up-for-net-neutrality-090801/

Note the title of the article. BitTorrent is clearly not vehemently against Net Neutrality, as you suggested.

[mogrovejo]

Note the title of the article. BitTorrent is clearly not vehemently against Net Neutrality, as you suggested.

I can't go on about this forever. What exactly do you mean by "net neutrality"? Have you read anything besides the title of the article? For example, the actual submission? BitTorrent is against discriminatory network management in nature to applications and defends the discrimination against heavy users instead. Me too. As I said, the problem isn't the principle of non-discrimination: once again, the Comcast vs. BitTorrent case proves that.

[LnGrrrR]

Again, I'm wondering:

If Net Neutrality eliminates the ability to set a higher priority for some packets as opposed to others, what about services that actually have a valid need for priority, such as VOIP or VTC traffic?

[spurster]

To repeat: Net neutrality does not mean that heavy users can swamp the network. It means that if an ISP limits a heavy user (or any user), the ISP can't pick and choose which applications to limit. All the user's packets must be subject to the same conditions. The problem with Comcast is that Comcast was focusing on limiting torrents.

[spurster]

Again, I'm wondering:

If Net Neutrality eliminates the ability to set a higher priority for some packets as opposed to others, what about services that actually have a valid need for priority, such as VOIP or VTC traffic?

Internet packets already have a magic bit that indicates whether a packet deserves higher priority. However, any old application can set that bit, so internet routing usually (almost always?) ignores it.

[LnGrrrR]

Internet packets already have a magic bit that indicates whether a packet deserves higher priority. However, any old application can set that bit, so internet routing usually (almost always?) ignores it.

I'm not sure about internet routing; I'm only familiar with generic network routing.

So how do those packets get higher priority? Or do they not do so once they get on the internet?

Part of me leans against net neutrality, because I'd rather see a commercial response (ie, if AT&T is throttling P2P traffic, then Verizon could market based on that fact)

However, a real problem is that a city will/can only allow so many providers to rip up ground to place copper/fiber to run the networks. So the free market is restricted in a very real way. Something to consider.

[Wild Cobra]

I have a problem with any legislation, laws, etc. that aren't necessary. I can only agree with a concept of enforcing Net Neutrality ideas if they are limited to the real problems, and tempered with sane solutions.

Here is a list of issues from Network Neutrality FAQ (http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html):


1. Blocking

Blocking is the worst deviation from neutrality. Some economists might think it justified, but the basic problem is a distortion of competition between the blocked and unblocked companies.
What would the reason for blacking be?

I'm not sure what type of blocking they mean here. Blocking for not payment and illegal content should be allowed. Anyone know what is meant here?


2. Termination Monopoly Pricing

Since broadband service providers have a "termination" monopoly over the end user, they can use that to charge termination fees to those who wish to get access to the user.
Now I agree there should not be a monopoly, but it is hard to avoid. For large high speed customers, there are other solutions. We little people, are often paying too much, or not having high speed access. Are there any sensible solutions?


3. “Playing Favorites” or MFN (Most Favored Network?) violations

Where carriers offer exclusive, preferential treatment to one application provider over others. Also distorting, though obviously less than blocking.
This can simply be made illegal.

4. Transparency Failures

Where carriers fail to tell customers and application developers what, as far as they know, service they offer – i.e., estimated bandwidth, latency, etc.

In addition, a group have proposed rules on what can be called “Internet” service. Those might be considered a form of transparency regulation.This is a technical issue that is hard to quantify. Each path has a specific bandwidth, the switching equipment can handle so many packets per second, and that even varies as routing changes. So does latency. I don't think anything but a best guess of a low to high range is possible.

[LnGrrrR]

What would the reason for blacking be?

I'm not sure what type of blocking they mean here. Blocking for not payment and illegal content should be allowed. Anyone know what is meant here?

If I understand it correctly, think of it this way. Say AT&T makes a deal with NBC.com... suddenly, AT&T companies can no longer access ABC.com. Something like that.


Now I agree there should not be a monopoly, but it is hard to avoid. For large high speed customers, there are other solutions. We little people, are often paying too much, or not having high speed access. Are there any sensible solutions?

Doubtful, besides waiting for technology increases to bring the cost down for bandwidth requirements (fiber, servers, routers, etc)


This can simply be made illegal.

Related to blocking, but instead of actually blocking, they just make page A load faster than page B.


This is a technical issue that is hard to quantify. Each path has a specific bandwidth, the switching equipment can handle so many packets per second, and that even varies as routing changes. So does latency. I don't think anything but a best guess of a low to high range is possible.

I think they're talking about advertisers claiming "unlimited" plans that aren't really unlimited, or 'guaranteed' bandwidths that really aren't, things like that.

[Wild Cobra]

Part of me leans against net neutrality, because I'd rather see a commercial response (ie, if AT&T is throttling P2P traffic, then Verizon could market based on that fact)

This is true.

I'm not sure throttling it is a bad idea. With all these new applications that are P2P, they are in essence using a fixed bandwidth of the net. If applications and demand are growing faster than the infrastructure, something has will be slowed down. If you don't favor P2P, many of those applications may as well be turned off. If you favor P2P, then everything else may suffer.

How can this be addressed? Everything I think of isn't a solution I'm willing to run with. We simply need more bandwidth, or start charging a premium for ceratin types of application, or premiums for guarantee of service.

[Wild Cobra]

If I understand it correctly, think of it this way. Say AT&T makes a deal with NBC.com... suddenly, AT&T companies can no longer access ABC.com. Something like that.

What you imply is what AOL used to do. I think that's been made illegal already.

That's #3's concern, playing favorites. This is something else I think.


Related to blocking, but instead of actually blocking, they just make page A load faster than page B.
Well, if that's the case, I'm for making it illegal. Allow a premium to be paid for a guaranteed rate, but it should be illegal to purposely slow someone else down.


I think they're talking about advertisers claiming "unlimited" plans that aren't really unlimited, or 'guaranteed' bandwidths that really aren't, things like that.

Truth in advertising already covers such things. It was specifying developers and applications. It looks bad on a product company if once they make something, it cannot sync properly because of latency or speed. I'm sure there are some great ideas out there waiting for a more efficient internet that developers are waiting to spend time and money on. What's the point if it wouldn't work.

Now personally, seems to me they are asking the provider something that unreasonable. It's too dynamic. I see this as setting up a provider to be at fault if their application fails. All they need to do is real world testing of packets between various locations. Buy server time at multiple places to test the applications.

[spurster]

So how do those packets get higher priority? Or do they not do so once they get on the internet?


In IPv4, each packet has a differentiated services field (8 bits). In
IPv6, which is very slowly replacing IPv4, each packet specifies its
traffic class (8 bits) and flow label (20 bits).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

[LnGrrrR]

In IPv4, each packet has a differentiated services field (8 bits). In
IPv6, which is very slowly replacing IPv4, each packet specifies its
traffic class (8 bits) and flow label (20 bits).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

I am NOT looking forward to remember IPv6 addresses...

I guess my point is, some packets will be labeled higher priority than others anyways. I don't see how net neutrality could work, given the very real need for some packets to get through quicker than others. (Sorry if I'm not intelligent enough to make my point clearly; this is the best I can do. :)

[Wild Cobra]

I am NOT looking forward to remember IPv6 addresses...

I guess my point is, some packets will be labeled higher priority than others anyways. I don't see how net neutrality could work, given the very real need for some packets to get through quicker than others. (Sorry if I'm not intelligent enough to make my point clearly; this is the best I can do. :)
Made perfect sense to me and I agree.

[spurster]

Yes, some packets should have higher priority, but no ISP will be able to trust applications to set priorities correctly.

What an ISP could do is ensure that you get a certain amount of high priority bandwidth, and then leave it up to the user to decide how to use it. Likely, the user would need a router that sets VOIP packets at high priority and everything else at low priority (or something like that) because you probably can't trust your own computers to set priorities.

If you leave it up to the ISP to decide on what's high priority, few ISPs will be able to resist the temptation to slow down competitors, e.g., slow down VOIP competitors, slow down Google in favor of Yahoo, slow down video in favor of your ISP's cable channels, etc. Now the ISP can try to sell faster service to its customers, even though everyone is already buying access to the internet, and the ISPs already have agreements to transfer traffic between them.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, some packets should have higher priority, but no ISP will be able to trust applications to set priorities correctly.

What an ISP could do is ensure that you get a certain amount of high priority bandwidth, and then leave it up to the user to decide how to use it. Likely, the user would need a router that sets VOIP packets at high priority and everything else at low priority (or something like that) because you probably can't trust your own computers to set priorities.

If you leave it up to the ISP to decide on what's high priority, few ISPs will be able to resist the temptation to slow down competitors, e.g., slow down VOIP competitors, slow down Google in favor of Yahoo, slow down video in favor of your ISP's cable channels, etc. Now the ISP can try to sell faster service to its customers, even though everyone is already buying access to the internet, and the ISPs already have agreements to transfer traffic between them.

I get where you're coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying you're willing to accept degradation of some services that require high QoS (VoIP, VTC) in order to protect the equality of other services that are considered undesirable to ISPs (P2P).

Surely though, another ISP could spring up to take advantage of the disaffect P2P and gaming customers? Their only big stopping point would be the very real limit on how many cables a city will allow to run through their city.