Tech Manufacturers Rally Against Net Neutrality

An anonymous reader writes "Producers of networking hardware such as Motorola, Corning, and Tyco have come out against Net Neutrality. They support the current senate communications bill, and urge immediate action. 'Don't be confused by these spurious complaints about Net neutrality,' Tim Regan, a vice president with fiber optic cable manufacturer Corning Inc., said. 'Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.'" From the article: "Supporters say the Senate measure, which was approved by a committee vote in June but has since gotten hung up chiefly over Net neutrality, is crucial because it would make it easier for new video service providers--such as telephone companies hoping to roll out IPTV--to enter the market, increase competition for cable, and thus spur lower prices. Among other benefits, they say, it would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services."

Comments

you know

[rice_burners_suck]

I love how people come up with these sophisticated sounding phrases that mean nothing. Would someone here please explain to me what the term "net neutrality" means? Is this to mean that different types of hardware are supposed to interoperate seamlessly or something?

Re:you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, the concept behind network neutrality is to forbid ISPs from doing anything that involves watching the traffic over the network. Doesn't sound that bad, right?

Do you enjoy spam? With network neutrality, it becomes illegal for ISPs to block spam.

Do you like viruses and worms? With network neutrality, it becomes illegal to block attacks coming from these machines.

Do you like DDOS attacks? Again, with network neutrality, it becomes illegal to block DDOS attacks upstream.

Network neutrality would forbid QOS (Quality of Service) from being implemented, which is required for implementing fast and effective streaming video and VOIP.

Essentially network neutrality is a buzz word put out by companies like Yahoo and Google that are afraid that they may be expected to pay to use massive amounts of someone else's network instead of being throttled back to allow more time-sensitive information through.

Re:you know

[whoever57]

I've given an example.

You have given an example of how badly written laws can have negative consequences. Well, Duh! This applies to any law. Should Congress just give up now and go home?

It's up to you to show how NN laws can be written to avoid outlawing legitimate applications like the one I gave, particularly when my linked to JE, proposing the enforcement of minimum standards, also prevents such discrimination without preventing the legitimate scenario I presented.

What you did was extrapolated to an extreme and showed how that could be bad. Neither you (I assume) nor I nor most (or all?) of /. posters have any experience in writing laws. However, just because we cannot write good laws does not mean that such laws cannot be written.

Essentially, your argument is a strawman.