PDA

View Full Version : Net Neutrality... Time Warner might slow your connection to the Planet


jAZ
04-24-2006, 09:38 PM
http://www.itworld.com/Man/2681/060424netneutrality/

Disparate groups join to form net neutrality coalition
IDG News Service 4/24/06

Grant Gross, IDG News Service, Washington Bureau

A self-described coalition of "strange bedfellows," including groups representing gun owners, librarians, religious leaders and liberal activists, has joined to advocate for a U.S. law to bar broadband providers from blocking or slowing content and services provided by potential competitors.

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition formally launched Monday as a U.S. House of Representatives committee plans to debate and amend a telecommunications reform bill that has weakened net neutrality requirements in earlier drafts of the legislation. Among the groups joining long-time net neutrality advocates Free Press, Public Knowledge, Consumer Federation of America on the coalition are the Gun Owners of America, the American Library Association, liberal group MoveOn.org, the Interfaith Council for Social Justice, and Afro-Netizen.com, a Web community for black people.

The groups argue that a net neutrality provision is needed because a small group of large telecom and cable TV companies control most broadband networks in the U.S.

Without an unfettered Internet, grass-roots lobbying groups such as the Gun Owners of America could have their messages blocked or slowed when trying to get members to contact lawmakers, said Craig Fields, director of Internet operations for the conservative group.

"It used to be there were some fights we couldn't even get into because there wasn't enough time to set up a snail-mail campaign," Fields said. "In today's world, the politicians can't hide behind time any more. In today's world, every person is a keyboard activist."

Although the group generally supports the conservative idea of small government, a new net neutrality law is needed, he added. "We have the necessity of government intervention to ensure the free exchange of ideas," Fields added.

In recent months, officials from AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. have all complained that some Internet companies are "riding free" on their networks, and BellSouth officials have advocated for a business plan that would allow broadband providers to charge a new fee to companies that want faster broadband speeds than everyone else.

AT&T and Verizon officials have repeatedly said they have no plans to block or degrade services from competitors. They and other broadband providers have argued that a net neutrality law isn't needed because there's no evidence of a problem.

"AT&T has repeatedly and consistently made clear that consumers will get tomorrow what they have today," AT&T spokesman Michael Balmoris said last month. "They will be able to reach all the content and applications they want. ... AT&T will not block, impair or degrade access to any legal Web site, application or service, nor will we intentionally degrade the customer experience or the service delivery of content or application providers."

As the House Energy and Commerce committee debates a wide-ranging telecom bill Tuesday and Wednesday, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition is contacting every member of Congress and asking them to support a strong net neutrality provision, organizers said. They also have collected more than 200,000 signatures on a petition supporting net neutrality, they said.

Grant Gross is Washington correspondent for the IDG News Service.

jAZ
05-03-2006, 03:33 PM
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/03/network_neutrality_w.html

Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Network neutrality - why it matters, and how do we fix it?

My friend Tim Wu (presently guestblogging at Lessig) has a great essay on why "network neutrality" matters -- that is, why it's a bad for the Internet for the cable companies and Bells to charge money for "priority" delivery of some companies' packets. A non-neutral ISP could guarantee better delivery to Yahoo than Google, for example.
I agree with net-neutralists -- the Bells' and cable-companies' plans to put toll roads on the Internet's pipes are evil incarnate, and the Bells' arguments that they're currently delivering packets for Google "for free" are steaming BS. Google pays for its bandwidth, and pays handsomely.

That said, I remain skeptical of the idea that this is a problem with a regulatory solution. The FCC is slow, often captured, and breathtakingly dumb about technology (this is the agency that passed the initial Broadcast Flag rule, after all). Asking them to write a set of rules describing "neutrality" and then enforce them seems like a recipe for trouble to me.

For example, say that your university maintained a pool of DSL lines for students, and a data-center for courseware, and created dedicated connections between them -- is that "neutral?" What about Akamai: they put servers in ISPs' NOCs around the world, and then sell mirror-space on those servers to people who want optimized delivery to those ISPs' customers. Is that "neutral?" How will you tell, from the outside, whether an ISP is delivering slow packets to you because it's "non-neutral" as opposed to badly managed, overloaded, or staggering from some kind of net-quake?

At the end of the day, we're talking about a set of rules governing networking configurations. Network configurations aren't something that we have ongoing, permanent consensus on -- rather, they're a hodgepodge of each admin's idea of the best way of provisioning her network for her customers and users. Trying to write a regulation -- or even comprehensive best practices -- for a "neutral" network is going to be really hard. Getting it wrong could mean screwing things up even worse -- imagine if the FCC could be convinced to create a neutrality rule that preserved Akamai's business-model but punished their innovative competitors.

The plans to put toll-roads on the Net are terrible and we need to do something about them. I just don't know what we should do.

This is the basic case for network neutrality—to prevent centralized control over the future of the Internet. But there's a long-standing rebuttal that goes like this: A broadband company already has incentives to make the network neutral, because it's a better network that way. If AT&T makes money on an exclusive deal, they'll lose it somewhere else. Whatever money AT&T earns by prioritizing Google rather than Yahoo!, it will lose by making its product—broadband service—less attractive to consumers. By this logic, regulating the Bells is a waste of time. AT&T and Verizon also say that they must be free to discriminate to justify their investments in building networks. If you don't let us discriminate, they say, we won't build.

It's true that the Bells might make extra cash by discriminating. But AT&T can extract cash in other ways, too, like charging its customers higher prices. I believe that it's better to have consumers pay more for service than to have AT&T picking and choosing winners on the network. Both are a cost to the economy, but the latter is a double cost. It creates costs that are passed on to consumers anyhow, and it also distorts competition between eBay, Yahoo!, and the like. Building networks at the expense of network applications has a logic O. Henry would enjoy, for it's akin to selling a painting in order to buy a better frame.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/fr/rss/

JBucc
05-03-2006, 03:34 PM
Summarize?

Stinger
05-03-2006, 03:41 PM
Summarize?

Bush is the Debil .....






Just kidding Jaz :p

jAZ
05-03-2006, 03:43 PM
Summarize?
This isn't simple stuff, so it escapes the for-profit media, but a handful of broadband providers have successfully lobbied congress to change the laws that define how information travels across the internet. These companies have fiber optic "pipes" that create the "backbone" of the internet. They are trying to gain permission to charge different people different prices for the same service.

An example would be Time Warner... if you have TW cable, and this law goes into effect, TW could sign an agreement with Yahoo to provide "premium" search services to TW customers. As part of the agreement, TW would be allowed to agree to degrade or even block the speed to use Google's site instead. Yahoo likely wouldn't get better service for their contracted payments, they'd get the same service, and Google is screwed. And so are you if you prefer google. Your searches will take noticably longer to return, their pages will take longer to load, etc.

The Google/Yahoo is just an example. In reality, both those sites are certain to fork over the money to all providers to obtain premium access (though it will cost them much more than it does today).

The sites that are are real risk of being locked out are independant sites like Chiefs Planet. Our board will load and run much slower than say <a href="http://chiefsplanet.com"><a href="http://chiefsplanet.com">WPI</a></a> if AustinChief can't affort to pay the premium to all of our various access providers... where as <a href="http://chiefsplanet.com"><a href="http://chiefsplanet.com">WPI</a></a> (being part of a network) might survive but lose money.

The idea of "net neutrality" means that the network does not descriminate where the traffic is going and who is providing it. It's all treated (and priced) equally.

Hope that helps.

jAZ
05-03-2006, 03:44 PM
Bush is the Debil .....






Just kidding Jaz :p
In this case, so are a lot of Dems.

JBucc
05-03-2006, 03:45 PM
This isn't simple stuff, so it escapes the for-profit media, but a handful of broadband providers have successfully lobbied congress to change the laws that define how information travels across the internet. These companies have fiber optic "pipes" that create the "backbone" of the internet. They are trying to gain permission to charge different people different prices for the same service.

An example would be Time Warner... if you have TW cable, and this law goes into effect, TW could sign an agreement with Yahoo to provide "premium" search services to TW customers. As part of the agreement, TW would be allowed to agree to degrade or even block the speed to use Google's site instead. Yahoo likely wouldn't get better service for their contracted payments, they'd get the same service, and Google is screwed. And so are you if you prefer google. Your searches will take noticably longer to return, their pages will take longer to load, etc.

The Google/Yahoo is just an example. In reality, both those sites are certain to fork over the money to all providers to obtain premium access (though it will cost them much more than it does today).

The sites that are are real risk of being locked out are independant sites like Chiefs Planet. Our board will load and run much slower than say <a href="http://chiefsplanet.com">WPI</a> if AustinChief can't affort to pay the premium to all of our various access providers... where as <a href="http://chiefsplanet.com">WPI</a> (being part of a network) might survive but lose money.

Hope that helps.So you're saying AustinChief is a bum. I get it now.

sedated
05-03-2006, 03:45 PM
your summary is more complicated the the article.

remember, your at the Planet. you can't use words with more than 3 syllables.

htismaqe
05-03-2006, 03:47 PM
The sites that are are real risk of being locked out are independant sites like Chiefs Planet. Our board will load and run much slower than say <a href="http://chiefsplanet.com"><a href="http://chiefsplanet.com">WPI</a></a> if AustinChief can't affort to pay the premium to all of our various access providers... where as <a href="http://chiefsplanet.com"><a href="http://chiefsplanet.com">WPI</a></a> (being part of a network) might survive but lose money.

This is fear-mongering, pure and simple.

sedated
05-03-2006, 03:47 PM
now that I've actually read some of your drivel...

that's bullsh!t

penguinz
05-03-2006, 03:49 PM
If this happened it might improve performance of the server here since not as many people will be hitting it at any given moment. :p

jAZ
05-03-2006, 03:53 PM
This is fear-mongering, pure and simple.
Not really, but I'd be curious why you feel that way.

htismaqe
05-03-2006, 03:56 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=137819&highlight=google

htismaqe
05-03-2006, 04:01 PM
Not really, but I'd be curious why you feel that way.

Well, first of all, our server is hosted. The hosting company buys ISP bandwidth, not us.

Second, the amount of bandwidth any one site can consume is ALREADY limited. What we're talking about here is a change in the way traffic flows are engineered and enforced. That doesn't necessarily mean an increase in cost.

jAZ
05-03-2006, 04:10 PM
Well, first of all, our server is hosted. The hosting company buys ISP bandwidth, not us.
Yes, and depending upon the hosting provider, that surcharge will either passed along as increased premium fees to everyone hosting with them or the service will degrade. In either case, the independant website like this one is likely to be the hardest hit given the complete absence of revenues to offset the costs.
Second, the amount of bandwidth any one site can consume is ALREADY limited. What we're talking about here is a change in the way traffic flows are engineered and enforced. That doesn't necessarily mean an increase in cost.
It doesn't necessarily mean so, but it almost certainly means so. The laws could change and businesses could keep doing what they do, but given that they are lobbying hard (and spending millions of dollars) to implement this change in regulation, they are certain to make changes and begin price descrimination at the backbone level creating a two tier "haves" and "have-nots" above and beyond what we know today.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 07:45 PM
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/5/25/133711/749

Bipartisan Bill for Net Neutrality Passes House Judiciary Committee, 20-13
by Matt Stoller, Thu May 25, 2006 at 01:37:11 PM EST

Here's the roll call vote for the House Judiciary Committee. This is an amazing turnaround, from a bipartisan stance against net neutrality, to a bipartisan stance for net neutrality. The battle isn't over, but enjoy this victory.

Democrats
Conyers - yes
Berman - yes
Boucher - yes
Nadler - yes
Scott - yes
Watt - not voting
Lofgren - yes
Jackson-Lee - yes
Waters - yes
Meehan - not voting
Delahunt - present
Wexler - yes
Weiner - yes
Schiff - yes
Sanchez, Linda - yes
Van Hollen - yes
Wasserman Schultz - yes

Republicans
Sensenbrenner - yes
Hyde - didn't vote
Coble - no
Smith - no
Gallegly - no
Goodlate - yes
Chabot - no
Lungren - yes
Jenkins - yes
Cannon - yes
Bachus - no
Inglis - yes
Hostetler - no
Green - no
Keller - no
Flake - not voting
Pence - not voting
Forbes - no
King - no
Feeney - no
Frank - no
Gohmert - not voting

jAZ
05-25-2006, 07:46 PM
Summarize?
An overview of Net Neutrality and it's impact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U&eurl=

KC Jones
05-25-2006, 07:58 PM
simplest explanation:

Companies that build and maintain roads, will begin being able to charge Walmarts, etc. for the amount of traffic arriving at the store via their roads. This in turn is passed along to the consumer in addition to a price they already pay at least one road operator for access to all roads. The internet will cease being 'free' like it once was, and become more like your traditional teleco service (ostensibly). I'm not sure that what the road operators want to do is so wrong, but I'm concerned about the outcome. The costs of hosting Chiefsplanet could increase signifigantly.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 08:12 PM
The costs of hosting Chiefsplanet could increase signifigantly.
The ability for the little-guy to drive innovation like Google did 6-10 years ago and Yahoo, eBay, Amazon (etc) a few years before that... will be greatly hampered.

The truely unbelievable innovation that's been present over the last decade on the net is driven in large part by the net neutrality regluations that currently exist. Compare that to the desktop where innovation is largely driven by and dependant upon Microsofts whims with their OS.

Removing the concept of net neutrality on the net will give the established players in the market (with the deep pockets to buy premium access) a major advantage.

unlurking
05-25-2006, 09:02 PM
You won't see any specific websites hampered by this, at least not early on. What you WILL see almost immediately is specific "services" hampered. If Time Warner decides to provide VOIP to there customers, I GUARANTEE that 3rd party services like Skype and Vonage will be degraded.

unlurking
05-25-2006, 09:07 PM
htismage...

I've read your comments in the other thread, and if you don't think telcos have their eyes on content delivery monopolies, you are seriously misplacing your trust.

greg63
05-25-2006, 09:44 PM
This does not at all surprise me.

htismaqe
05-26-2006, 07:33 AM
htismage...

I've read your comments in the other thread, and if you don't think telcos have their eyes on content delivery monopolies, you are seriously misplacing your trust.

unlurking,

I've read your comments, and if you think the telcos don't ALREADY DO STUFF LIKE THIS, you are seriously living in a dream world.

Deberg_1990
12-21-2010, 06:57 AM
Net neutrality: US expected to ratify new rules on internet access


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/dec/21/net-neutrality-us-new-rules-internet-access

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is today expected to formally approve controversial new rules on how internet users access content such as YouTube and Skype.


Dubbed by one US senator as "the most important free speech issue of our time", the rules drawn up by the country's media and telecoms regulator would effectively create two levels of internet access – one delivered by traditional fixed-line broadband, and another by wireless and mobile providers.


FCC members Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn last night said they would support the proposal laid out by chairman Julius Genachowski. The five-member FCC panel is expected to approve the proposal in Washington later today.


Fixed-line internet providers will be prevented from blocking content and online services from rival companies or providing preferential treatment to paying clients under the new rules.


However, the new framework would allow mobile internet service providers to charge content companies for more efficient delivery to US homes. Wireless providers will also be allowed to block applications or services, providing that they are not competitors. Fixed-line and wireless provider Verizon, for example, would not be allowed to block access to Skype because it provides a rival voice service.


The new rules also open the door for providers to charge customers more for using high-bandwidth services such as downloading or streaming videos on YouTube or online movie rental site Netflix.


Today's vote represents the first time the principle of net neutrality – where all internet content is treated equally – has been formally ratified in the US. It is the culmination of five years of heated discussion over the future of the internet.


In the UK, communications minister Ed Vaizey will have a close eye on the US regulatory framework as he looks to implement new rules governing how internet service providers such as BT and BSkyB deliver content to UK homes. A number of internet companies, including eBay, Skype and Yahoo wrote to Vaizey earlier this month urging him to enshrine the principles of net neutrality into law.


Public interest groups and technology companies called the framework "fake net neutrality" and said the rules "create a vague and shifting landscape, open to interpretation", rather than enshrining principles of the open internet. Netflix, Skype and Amazon have also previously expressed reservations about the plans.


Al Franken, the Democrat senator, said the vote would decide "the most important free speech issue of our time".


"Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited only to Comcast's video-on-demand service. Imagine if a cable news network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your favourite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could decide who wins or loses online," Franken said on Monday. "The internet as we know it would cease to exist."

beer bacon
12-21-2010, 07:16 AM
This is fear-mongering, pure and simple.

Not really. I don't see how revoking net neutrality helps the average person. It is really something any average voter should be upset about, and it is epitomizes what is wrong with our legislative system. Companies that stand to personally profit from this legislation are lobbying, IE legally bribing, congresspeople. This legislation is bad for the general population, but good financially for the companies that control this infrastructure.

Guru
12-21-2010, 09:00 PM
unlurking,

I've read your comments, and if you think the telcos don't ALREADY DO STUFF LIKE THIS, you are seriously living in a dream world.

Damn thread bumps. I thought htismaqe was back for a minute there.

Taco John
12-21-2010, 11:34 PM
This fear mongering thread is amusing. Oh noes everybody! They're coming to get the planet! Up in arms! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU!

Taco John
12-21-2010, 11:35 PM
Oh wow. Interesting bump. Looks like this fear mongering has been going on for over half a decade now, and the world still hasn't ended.

googlegoogle
12-22-2010, 12:09 AM
I hope they raise rates and cut bandwidth.

It might encourage more competition then in broadband.