Six Republican Senators Oppose Net Neutrality

[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-s...rality-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-compe ive 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 Ins ute 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-compe ive 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 Ins ute last week.

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

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-s...rality-090801/

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

[mogrovejo]

Note the le 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 le 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 :

1. Blocking

Blocking is the worst deviation from neutrality. Some economists might think it justified, but the basic problem is a distortion of compe ion 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 compe ors, e.g., slow down VOIP compe ors, 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 compe ors, e.g., slow down VOIP compe ors, 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.