Net neutrality (moved)

About: net neutrality to win big on capitol hill?

seth: 2007-01-05 10:55:26

Tags

  1. net neutrality
  2. netneutrality
  3. item 5593

Comments


Mark de LA says
This is one where the devil is in the details - not yet fleshed out - only posturing.  In general my libertarian knee-jerk reaction is to get rid of as much government regulation as possible.  Rarely, if any, regulation has been good for the people - just more bureaucracy.
The same people who are crying for net neutrality are also trying to tax the internet.

Seth says
so you are undecided about your web site being religated to the slow lane of the internet ?  You should also check out what TBL says about net neutrality.  The internet has up till now been a great equalizer where big media plays on the same field as the little folk like us ... net neutrality is all about keeping that plaground level.

Mark de LA says
Just like healthcare & social security, Ted would like to force the people who create the technology & innovation to give it away free everyone - just to be equal. The original article from slashdot is a lot more interesting than this puffed-up, often drunken, pol.
I predict that if this passes, an unintended consequence will be that the ability to expand high speed cable to deliver more TV like products will be stunted. He just wants the blogs & high speed internet to be more prevalent for his demographics. We are already taxed to provide internet to those area that don't have it long after most of that problem has been solved. Notice that special taxes are rarely repealed.  Check your telephone bills & internet provider charges & see if you don't have a charge of 4-$5 each month to provide what should have been provided long ago thru this taxation.

Seth says
BoingBoing points to a video.

Mark de LA says
"Leveling the playing field"  is just a liberal mantra that has no illative force for me!

Seth says
Its hard for me not to understand "net neutrality" as a wise principle.  Specific legislation is another question and should be looked at specifically.  You seem to be conflating netneutrality, taxation and liberalism in one glob against which to rail.  But it would be more coherant to point to specific legislation that is on the table and discuss the merits of that.  I haven't really studied the issue nor the legislation.  If you want to cooperate on a analysis of specific proposals, i would be glad to join you.  Otherwise this is my last comment on this item.

Mark de LA says
I don't think there is any legislation yet - just a lot of bloviating.

Mark de LA says
What's the incentive to an ISP to invest lots of $$$ in infrastructure & technology if he can't charge extra for it. You could argue for TV neutrality so that all TV users should have equal access to TV (even cable & satelite) for the same price? The argument is mostly over ISP's getting into being content providers such as TV & VOIP. Should the government squelch a market just to give poor people the same services as rich people. Should we then all have equal access to the Mayo Clinic for health care ?

Seth says
M 2007-01-05 12:36:41 5593
What's the incentive to an ISP to invest lots of $$$ in infrastructure & technology if he can't charge extra for it. 
That has nothing to do with net neutrality.  Net neutrality is:
source: Tim Berners-Lee
"If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level."

Mark de LA says
Aparently the legislation showed up yesterday as S.215. Slashdot had an article with more discussion on it here. Neither NYTimes nor Slashdot had the direct link to the text nor anything substantive. That is because:

The text of S.215 has not yet been received from GPO

Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed. 
... AND

S.215 : A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.
Sponsor: Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] (introduced 1/9/2007)      Cosponsors (8)
Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Latest Major Action: 1/9/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


... so watch for it near the link above (Thomas) - meanwhile enjoy the bloviation & rhetoric at slashdot .

Seth says
M 2007-01-18 13:38:00 5593
Upstream & downstream baud rates have always been different. I have always been able to read the internet faster than I can upload to it.
You may be missing the point here.  Listen to TBL and study the definition of Net neutrality.
"If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level."
IOW, as TBL said, it is up to the technology to make that connection possible ... up to now they have been able to sustain that ... perhaps the text of the new bill is just legislating that the telcoms must continue to do so.  For example our server has greater bandwidth than a T1, yet Winnie can still connect to it with a 56k modem.  The telcos must continue to support that kind of connection accross all products.

Mark de LA says
Well, the language & content seems to be fairly neutral. I always suspect regulations to have unintended consequences. This one doesn't prevent a provider from raising the rates for all of it's customers as long as they all get treated the same in terms of service.

Mark de LA says
See also this article from Technology Review.
source: ...

The single biggest future barrier for advocates of strict network neutrality could be simple technological change. The Internet's newest killer apps--digital video, Voice over IP, and online gaming--chew up much more of the ISPs' available bandwidth than previous generations of applications did. Video is the biggest bandwidth hog, and it isn't just coming from commercial sites like iTunes and YouTube. It's also generated by consumers, who are exchanging unprecedented amounts of video and other data over peer-to-peer file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent but are still paying flat monthly access fees.

Networking researchers say it's unrealistic to expect ISPs to transport all this extra data for free. "The guys who move these huge amounts of data around have to be compensated somehow," says Hui Zhang, a Columbia University computer scientist who heads a startup, Rinera Networks, that's focused on giving ISPs more control over the data flowing through their networks. "This whole discussion about net neutrality is going to have to lead to another discussion about usage-based charging."


...


Mark de LA says
Doesn't our current ISP charge more for higher bandwidth?

Seth says
M 2007-01-20 09:45:15 5593
Doesn't our current ISP charge more for higher bandwidth?
Sure they do ... that's not the point ...
source: Tim Berners-Lee
"If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level."
... net nutrality mean you must be able to connect with highter bandwidths.


Mark de LA says
So as mentioned in the article from TR what happens when the volume of videos & high bandwidth tech data gets to the point that it degrades your services ?

Mark de LA says
Co-inventor TCP/IP has his say on net neutrality logged in slashdot.

Seth says
M 2007-01-22 21:44:23 5593
Co-inventor TCP/IP has his say on net neutrality logged in slashdot.
Interesting ... me thinks that s.215 need more study.  I don't want Internet applications to become like cell phone applications where you can't use a Singular application on a T-mobile phone ... remember BBS back before the advent of the Internet.  Most of the time that a compnay develops a application to run on a sub net and not the entire internet, it is to manipulate the marketplace, not to innovate.  But i remain undecided and need a more detailed study.

Seth says
at BoingBoing today.

Seth says
Google's take on net neutrality

Mark de LA says
I don't see how it is constitutional for the government to regulate how the Internet flows any more than it should regulate how the Colorado & Mississippi rivers flow which are also used for interstate commerce. This WSJ article thinks that Internet net-neutrality will be a boon to those who want high bandwidth applications given the same service as low band width ones. As with the health care debate there are the pros & cons & unintended consequences.  I predict that your Comcast, AT&T or other broadband service Internet bills will go up! -OR- your services will degrade.  Why should Comcast be forced to give Netflix the same service as it's own pay-per-view & on demand services? Just like health care someone has to pay the cost to upgrade the services & with all corporations that & taxes are passed on to the customer.


Seth says
Perhaps the administration via an FCC ruling is going to settle this for the moment ...
source: washington post
The Federal Communications Commission is poised on Tuesday to pass so-called net neutrality regulations, first-time rules that prevent Internet service providers from blocking or giving preferential treatment to Web sites on their networks.

The FCC's proposal will receive support by a majority of the five-member commission and come amid intense lobbying. Telecom and cable companies are watching the order, saying it could deter them from expanding broadband Internet connections and bolstering speeds. Internet giants such as Google and Skype have for years pushed for such regulation, along with public interest groups, saying the increased importance of the Internet call for clear rules that ensure consumers get equal access to all legal Web sites and applications.

The rules would prevent Internet service providers from blocking Web sites and applications on Internet lines feeding into American homes. Those carriers -- such as Comcast and AT&T could not deliberately slow down one Web site over another. The rules frown on the practice of charging Web sites for better or faster delivery, but observers say that practice is not strictly prohibited in the order.


C says
Seth, you should probably learn that the pea soup distinction is not a club or an excuse to beat the drums of the RWG. There is another point of view on this one which is in the context of government regulations always lead to stifled growth.
Read it here in the WSJ.
source: ... 

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.


...  Why regulate something that is already growing nicely except for this administration's  desire to have  "power over" things.  What happens when the administration suddenly decides that the FCC has the power to require biasing government propaganda in equal proportion & measure to all other media criticizing it, eh?


Seth says
So, Mark, let me know when your through bonding with all the tel-com artificial barriers and cell phone contract plans and roaming fees and such and just how soon you really want that kind of stuff to start happening on the internet. 

C says
seth 2010-12-20 15:09:46 5593
So, Mark, let me know when your through bonding with all the tel-com artificial barriers and cell phone contract plans and roaming fees and such and just how soon you really want that kind of stuff to start happening on the internet. 

It will be the same time that you are forced by reglations to sell all of your products regardless of how much it costs to handle them or the maker requires to make them at the same price, .... say exactly $5 a piece!

Mark de LA says
& to crisp it up:


Seth says
source: House Republicans Vote to Overturn FCCs Net Neutrality Ruling
The House of Representatives has voted to overturn a controversial FCC ruling on net neutrality, though it's not clear whether or not the resolution will advance much further.


See Also

  1. Thought Net Nutrality -VS- Pay per Byte with 2 viewings related by tag "net neutrality".
  2. Thought Net Neutrality with 0 viewings related by tag "item 5593".
  3. Thought A Political Touchstone with 0 viewings related by tag "netneutrality".
  4. Thought Internet Neutrality with 0 viewings related by tag "net neutrality".