Net Neutrality

[Gemini Cricket]

What are your opinions/comments on this issue? It seems to be gathering some steam on the internet. My eyebrow's raised on this issue.
Thoughts?

[€uroMeinke]

I heard a commentary about it on MPR and am still not sure what it all really means

[Gemini Cricket]

What is network neutrality?

Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

This is from www.savetheinternet.com.

[scaeagles]

From that description, I can not see how any rational person would want to be rid of net neutrality. However, that description is obviously slanted to get that reaction from readers.

The thing that makes the internet wonderful is the even playing field for the average joe blogger and the giant media conglomerate.

Anyone messing with the way various pages are accessed and the speed at which the data is transferred is no a good idea. Political speech will be stiffled. It won't be necessary to block any sites, just make the data transfer rate so slow that users won't want to wait the hours it takes to load web pages. Nothing good can come of that. It sounds a lot like the major media is trying to figure out how to take influence away from the little guy and regain some power they are obviously losing. They will have the ability to control content, just as they do on the major networks.

[€uroMeinke]

I still don't get what it really means. As it is already their are tiers of service that I'm fine with, I pay more for DSL for better speeds than dial-up, likewise, I pay more for more server bandwidth. So if these means everybody has to access the internet at dail-up speeds becasue that's more "fair" then I'm against it.

I guess I wonder just what are these "new" tiered services the phone companies are thinking of delivering at different speeds and couldn't they do that anyway by controlling the bandwidth allocated to their existing hibs & servers.

[Moonliner]

Here's the deal..

Right now the Internet is essentially neutral. You pay your ISP for a pipe to the Internet and then you can use it all you want. An analogy would be you fill you tank with Exxon gas and then drive where ever you want.

What at&t/Verizon want to do is create virtual toll lanes and change you extra for their use. So let's say you have a DSL connection at 1.2mb up and 720 down. If you go to Google video your connection might be throttled back to say 500kb (1/2 speed) unless you paid extra to at&t/Verizon. It's like filling up at Exxon and them billing you extra based on where you want to drive. If you go to Safeway it will cost you more than if you drive to Starbucks. They want to charge you EXTRA for visiting web sites that do not belong to them (like Google).

Ok, you say, no problem I just won't use AT&T for my ISP. Ahh but your earthlink or other ISP traffic will still flow over at&t routers and so still be subject to their extra fee and it's not just at&t of course ANYONE that owns a router between you and your site of choice will be able to tax you. In fact Cisco is developing a new line of routers just for this function.

Google and other providers are trying to nip this idea in the bud before it becomes an issue with "net neutrality" AT&V/Verizon are saying that Google is trying to block "net freedom" by which they mean the freedom for them to charge you whatever they want regardless of whether or not you are their customer.

[Alex]

There is a difference between Net Neutrality in the sense being talked about here and the difference in performance levels between types of connections.


Imagine if you will the highway system in the greater Los Angeles area. There are roads that have different speed limits and you can make choices about which speed limits are best for you (I know, nobody would but you could). However, once you've chosen a particular road, the speed limit is the same for everybody. It doesn't matter what kind of car you drive, where you actually live, or how much money you make. The speed limit is still the same.

But Anaheim wants to make some more money so they say if you live in Anaheim the speed limit is 20 miles per hour higher on every street and non-Anaheim residents must pull over to let Anaheim residents by. For $500 a year, non-Anaheim residents can purchase a sticker that will let them act like an Anaheim resident.

The road network is no longer content neutral. It was never path neutral (I-5 through Anaheim was faster than Katella) but it was content neutral.

That is what is being proposed by the backbone operators. They want to be able to decide who gets treated like an Anehim resident (and charge for the privelege). So, both YouTube and Google Videos hit the market at the same time. Both provide content and service that is preferred by 50% of users. However, Google uses its massive wealth to reach a deal with Comcast so that its content will be preferred over YouTube's. As a result, an identical video being requested by the same Comcast customer might take three times as long to download from YouTube as from Google Video.

It is then made even muddier because to get to you from the Google server it may go over backbone owned by many different pipes (AT&T to Sprint to Comcast, for example) and each could have reached a different deal with the content owner. Kind of like taking a drive through Somalia and having to stop at a check point every five miles to pay a different bribe.

There is already some dings to network neutrality. For me, content from Comcast downloads much faster than similar content from other parts of the internet but this is a mixing of network neutrality and path neutrality issues.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm bumping this ancient thread because I don't want to fully explain net neutrality if I don't have to.

Comcast takes the first shot. (http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/08/21/comcast-is-starting-the-tiered-internet-whether-we-like-it-or-not/)

I know this may be confusing but I really want everyone to think about this. Have a look at savetheinternet.com . It's really a scary prospect - the internet could become just like cable, with providers choosing what you can and can't see, how much each "package" costs ("Honey, if we get Package III for an extra 7 bucks a month we can get an extra 10 megs per second, plus access to both Digg.com AND imdb!").

If you have Comcast, please write them an email, send a real letter, make a phone call, cause some ruckus. I'm going to write them a letter myself even though I don't have their services. If we're not on the ball they could slay the golden goose right in front of our eyes.

[RStar]

Wow, this really sucks! Thanks CP, I never understood it until I read this. I'll take a look at what I can do.

I shudder thinking about how they will get us to pay taxes on internet purchases outside of the state we are in. Now this.....

[Moonliner]

Moonliner: Proudly Comcast free since June 2007.

[Snowflake]

I'm sbcglobal, but I do find this worrisome. Thanks GC and CP and ML, I'm adding my voice.

I only have Comcast cable and it sucketh, bigtime. That is another matter entirely.

[blueerica]

Too many hits on that site or something? I'm not entirely sure.

The idea that the internet would stop being free - in the sense that it is today - is awful.

[innerSpaceman]

And, I hate to say it, inevitable.


When is anything free? Don't most of us pay for water now? Television?

'nuff said.


We pay for internet access right now. But as long as money can be squeezed (or squeezed tighter) out of something ... it will be.



I'm not to going to expend much energy fighting the basic facts of life. I always preferred the sun rising in the west, but there's just not much I've been able to do about it.