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

[Otter Escaping North]

Oh for goodness sake...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Re:you know

[Bryansix]

This is exactly the uphill battle we /.ers have. Get to work people and educate the public.

Re:you know

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, that link probably contains information that is beyond parent's level of apparent comprehension. Better start him out with more fundamental information and let him work his way up.

The Internet

Re:you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Net neutrality is when you don't throttle packets based on their remote destination or source. Hardware manufacturers want to sell devices which support fine grained throttling rules, so obviously they are in favor of a tiered internet. From that alone it should be obvious that net neutrality is good for consumers: Hardware manufacturers stand to make more money without net neutrality. Wanna guess who's going to pay the bill? The internet is a success because it is a "dumb network" with the "intelligence" strictly in the communication endpoints. It is cheaper to build a net which is fast enough to carry all traffic than to upgrade routers so that they can throttle "unwanted" traffic.

Re:you know

[poot_rootbeer]

I'll get to work, but since my opinion is that "net neutrality" IS a solution in search of a problem, you might consider my efforts to be counterproductive.

The commercial internet has existed now for over a decade, and the tools to allow carriers to shape traffic at will have existed that entire time. And yet, no one has attempted the kind of favoritism that "net neutrality" is concerned could happen.

It seems to me that market forces have been and will be sufficient to guarantee that the net is as neutral as the people want it to be.

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

[chrismcdirty]

Perhaps we can make it a little easier to understand for him. Remember, it's not a truck you can just dump things on. It's a series of tubes!

Re:you know

[Otter Escaping North]

Come to think of it, even that might be too high-level. How 'bout...

The Internet Made Simple

(C'mon someone was going to do it eventually...)

Re:you know

[chrismcdirty]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Net Neutrality brought about in response to the major ISPs wanting to charge hosts to get their traffic to the consumer at the highest speed possible, thus making it improbable that hosts who don't pay would get good transfer rates?

Re:you know

[aplusjimages]

were you looking for links. Here's one that is good and has some funny videos on it.

Re:you know

[whoever57]

The commercial internet has existed now for over a decade, and the tools to allow carriers to shape traffic at will have existed that entire time. And yet, no one has attempted the kind of favoritism that "net neutrality" is concerned could happen.

It seems to me that market forces have been and will be sufficient to guarantee that the net is as neutral as the people want it to be.

You are being incredibly naiive. Why do you think that the telcos are spending lobbying dollars on trying to eliminate any regulation that would enforce net neutrality if they don't plan on doing traffic shaping that would not be neutral?

The telcos see a new source of revenue: charging Google, Yahoo, etc. to deliver "their" packets. Of course they plan to go after this revenue.

Market forces only work where there is a functioning market. For high-speed Internet, there are no functioning markets -- why do you think Internet access is far more expensive in the US than in many other countries? We have an oligopoly in high speed Internet access in most cities across the US.

Re:you know

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Too advanced. He should research this first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh

Re:you know

[Bryansix]

Uhm, everyone got concerned when [I]n a Nov. 7 interview with BusinessWeek Online, AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre Jr. declared: "What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that." Whitacre and AT&T argue that they need flexibility to exact a toll from Web services that hog bandwidth."

This is a good read on the subject and my source for the quote. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ed-markey/net-ne utrality-and-the-co_b_19056.html

Re:you know

[Retric]

FYI:
A basic form of "net neutrality" already exists in the US because of regulation. Some groups want to destroy this legislation and are willing to lie / misinform people to get this to happen. But only a fool thinks market forces would prevent companies from exercising rights they are spending money to gain.

Re:you know

[squiggleslash]

Unintended consequences.

Congress (or merely the FCC) passes a law (or regulation) which promotes net-neutrality.

Six months later, Apple approaches Earthlink (for example) with a deal. Normal Earthlink DSL subscribers pay for certain amounts of bandwidth, the limits being enforced in software at the DSLAM end. Apple suggests that to make the iTV practical for Earthlink subscribers, they'll pay 0.01c per kilobyte for traffic that doesn't count towards the bandwidth the subscriber pays for.

ie, someone paying for a 256k connection sees no reduction in service when someone else in their home is streaming "Star Wars: The Version Where Chewbacca shoots Greedo In Order To Save Wimpy Han" to their iTV box.

Everything looks great until the FCC unexpected intervenes and rules the practice unlawful under network neutrality rules, because they've been worded too broadly.

I'm concerned about network neutrality not being the panacea its supporters claim it is too. I'm not opposed to regulating the Internet (in terms of service quality, not, obviously, in terms of content), as I wrote here I think the Government needs to intervene to ensure a level playing field, and guarantee reasonable expectations are satisfied. But I have difficulty with the idea of bans on providing better services for those willing to pay for it. We need to make sure the minimum services are acceptable, not that the premium services are unavailable.

Re:you know

[dilvish_the_damned]

Its supposed to mean that you cannot priorotize one site or service over another, the fear is that one ISP might prioritize its service over competition, or more importantly, might extort from google using the fear of unsure delivery. So the neutrality suggest that you have to be site neutral, you cannot accidentally lose, or hinder packets from say, competing sources.
This all sounds good right? Well the router providers are making the point that this has not been a problem in the past, so why borrow the trouble?
I would agree with them if it were not for Bell South.

Re:you know

[Smidge204]

If you have a solution in search of a problem, then clearly there is no problem, and you are fixing something that isn't broken -- which invariably ends up breaking it. So why do they want fix something that isn't broken? Because they can make money fixing it once it is.

What you are advocating is essentially the ability to legally tax the quality of service as well as performance. Sure, they'll sell you that 30Mbps connection, but if you want that speed for anything other than HTTP traffic you'll have to buy our upgrade package too!
=Smidge=

Re:you know

[Anonymous Coward]

This is another example of the failure of libertarianism. What is the difference if we the people are strong armed by a government monopoly or a corporate monopoly?

Re:you know

[dup_account]

Nice taking the issue and reversing it into a touchy feely they only want to help us argument. More likely scenario... Apple goes to Earthlink and offers .01c per Kb to give them priority for iTV over youtube.com traffic. Or it's even Earthlink shopping around... will you pay us x extra per Kb to ensure your traffic doesn't drop into lower priority on the stack.

Re:you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, the idiot moderators (or corporate shills) must be out in force today if a post demonstrating this level of ignorance can get rated as "insightful".

Re:you know

[squiggleslash]

Nice taking the issue and reversing it into a touchy feely they only want to help us argument.

No, I didn't. I gave an example of something that would be perfectly legitimate, a positive thing for all parties involved, that would be outlawed by poorly written laws that attempt to support network neutrality.

My point was doing something about unintended consequences. A service of the type I described would be valuable, and would be something that ISPs and content providers would both benefit from. However, over-broad laws on network neutrality would outlaw them.

As I said in my linked to JE, we need more Internet regulation. "Network neutrality" however is a single issue, which so far the proponents of appear to be unwilling to even consider the possibility of negative consequences. Without something that means a node can send data and expect some predictable QoS for it, many applications will be problematic at best.

More likely scenario... Apple goes to Earthlink and offers .01c per Kb to give them priority for iTV over youtube.com traffic. Or it's even Earthlink shopping around... will you pay us x extra per Kb to ensure your traffic doesn't drop into lower priority on the stack.

FWIW, neither are scenarios that Earthlink's customers would find acceptable.

More importantly though, neither are scenarios remotely relevant, as neither are legitimate services that would be outlawed by over-broad network neutrality laws. We already have a long list of potential abuses that would be outlawed, but at this stage, the question is whether we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've given an example. 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.

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.

Re:you know

[f1055man]

The commercial internet has existed now for over a decade, and the tools to allow carriers to shape traffic at will have existed that entire time. And yet, no one has attempted the kind of favoritism that "net neutrality" is concerned could happen."

I was going to say you're wrong, but this is actually right BECAUSE of net neutrality. Net neutrality principles were in regulations (common carrier) up until 2005, when the industry's bitch, the FCC, did away with them. The push for net neutrality laws is a matter of replacing gutted market regulations with legislation. To say this won't happen is ridiculous. In Canada, an ISP eliminated access for its millions of customers to the website of a telecom union, a union they were having a dispute with(http://www.opennetinitiative.net/bulletins/01 0/). If it's possible to silence competition and critics it will happen. I find it humorous that anyone listens to the hardware manufacturers. No sh!t there against net neutrality. They're the ones that are going to make bank off the filters and traffic shapers.

Re:you know

[squiggleslash]

What you did was extrapolated to an extreme and showed how that could be bad

No, I gave a perfectly reasonable example of something that a law on Network Neutrality would likely ban. It's hard to see a way of wording a law on NN that wouldn't ban it. After all, it is a system where some traffic receives "special treatment" due to a financial relationship between the provider and the ISP. It is the very opposite of network neutrality, yet it is perfectly reasonable and, indeed, even desirable.

I also gave a clear map of how the issue can be dealt with, pointing out that requiring ISPs to live up to minimum levels of service would deal with the issue without tying their hands. My solution is workable. It doesn't prevent any ISP from providing premium services.

What's the problem with my solution, and why is the demonstrably flawed Network Neutrality principle better than it?

Re:you know

[LocalH]

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

Good. I don't want my ISP making decisions as to what mail I can get, based on an imperfect filtering algorithm. I think that spam filtering should be an optional service ISPs are able to provide, rather than something that is done across-the-board and that affects all customers, willingly or not.

Re:you know

[MobyDisk]

Not exactly. Network neutrality has been around for a long time, however the term "network neutrality" is new.

Net neutrality has existed ever since the dawn of the Internet, but it was called the common carrier laws and it originally applied to carriers of parcels as well as telecom companies. Since Internet was run over telephone lines, common carrier laws provided neutrality until the August 2005 changes that states that internet services are not telecom services. Simultaneously, the FCC added a series of network neutrality regulations that are not as strong as the original common carrier laws.

Really, this is about reinstating the network neutrality laws that we already had.

Re:you know

[Anonymous Coward]

For high-speed Internet, there are no functioning markets -- why do you think Internet access is far more expensive in the US than in many other countries? We have an oligopoly in high speed Internet access in most cities across the US.

Well not only did you contradict yourself, but you are also quite wrong. In many areas you have several ISPs to choose from. You can go for DSL, cable HFC, FTTP, or even wireless (yes, sprint has started rolling this out already.)

Rolling out broadband services isn't cheap, but slowly but surely it will start coming around. If you start regulating telecommmunications companies "just because," then you increase their financial burden which in the end only serves to slow down this deployment. You can't expect them to just do this for free either, we aren't communists.

Re:you know

[Anonymous Coward]

ie, someone paying for a 256k connection sees no reduction in service when someone else in their home is streaming "Star Wars: The Version Where Chewbacca shoots Greedo In Order To Save Wimpy Han" to their iTV box.

That would be awesome if only it were true.

Now, show me where that bandwidth Apple is buying for their customer is, so that I can buy it for myself. Oh wait, it doesn't exist! The telcos have stalled network upgrades entirely. As telcos in other countries roll out 10,100, even gigabit networks in both "high density" cities and in smaller towns, our telcos rollouts have completely stalled, with fiber to the home in a few select markets while promises to the rest of the cities keep slipping into the future.

No, it's clear from quotes other replies have given that what the ISPs want is for Apple to pay 0.01c per kilobyte of traffic, or every earthlink subscriber's iTV box gets "no signal".

Re:you know

[EvolveFuzzy]

What's a /.er? Trolling, Trolling, Trolling.

Re:you know

[f1055man]

Again, it has not been a problem in the past, because there were regulations to stop it. Net neutrality is not new.

Re:you know

[dup_account]

I still don't see this as something happening... Ok... Maybe Earthlink has 512K lines, and sells you only 256K of those lines... Then Apple comes along and offers to pay for extra above the 256K part of the line. Technically it's legitimate, but I'd call it dodgy.

Your argument about Earthlink's customers is only true IF they know about it.

Besides, a net neutrality law wouldn't be cast in stone, never to be changed. It often comes to how it's enforced and how it's modified over time... I guess the need all comes down to how much you trust publicly traded companies like ... <your favorite ISP here>

Re:you know

[Qzukk]

The problem with your solution is that ISPs don't have the 256k that John Doe is paying for, much less more bandwidth to set up special deals with Apple to transmit over the cap. Requiring that ISPs live up to the "minimum level of service" would pretty much kill every single one of them overnight thanks to oversubscription and the ISPs refusal to upgrade their infrastructure until they can guarantee that they can make everyone but themselves pay for it.

Re:you know

[Terminal Saint]

I prefer this one myself.

I would totally gay marry John Hodgman in Canada, though strictly for tax and insurance purposes.

Re:you know

[Chris Burke]

It seems to me that market forces have been and will be sufficient to guarantee that the net is as neutral as the people want it to be.

No, government regulation has been sufficient to guarantee that the net is neutral. Now that that regulation no longer applies, I'm extremely eager to hear your theory of what market forces would discourage the telcos from discriminating based on packet source/destination. They have a ton of money to gain from extorting Google and other services.

Re:you know

[DragonWriter]

Essentially, the concept behind network neutrality is to forbid ISPs from doing anything that involves watching the traffic over the network.

False.

Doesn't sound that bad, right?

If by "bad" you mean "inaccurate", yes, it does.

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

False. No version of network neutrality ever proposed would prohibit ISPs from blocking spam on your email account with the ISP. A net neutrality law might, depending on implementation details, stop your ISP from blocking spam on email connections made from your computer to an external server outside their network that never touched your ISPs mail server, but it wouldn't stop the person running the mail server from doing that.

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

No, it doesn't.

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

No, it doesn't.

Network neutrality would forbid QOS (Quality of Service) from being implemented,

It might limit the business protocols through which QoS arrangements could be made, but would not prevent QoS from being implemented.

which is required for implementing fast and effective streaming video and VOIP.

No, adequate available bandwidth is required for that. QoS systems are simply a prioritization scheme which throttles other competing demands on bandwidth to make the bandwidth available. Improving overall capacity is another way to do that.

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.

Yahoo and Google, and their users, already pay, between them, twice for every bit they transmit over anyone's network.

Network neutrality is simple common carrier treatment in the internet arena, which was the law until last year.

Your post is complete FUD.

Re:you know

[nasch]

I gave an example of something that would be perfectly legitimate, a positive thing for all parties involved, that would be outlawed by poorly written laws that attempt to support network neutrality.

What if I'm trying to distribute a competing product from my basement and I can't afford the money that Apple can throw at Earthlink to get fast delivery? Your scenario certainly wouldn't be a positive thing for me then.

Re:you know

[madcow_bg]

Do you enjoy spam? With network neutrality, it becomes illegal for ISPs to block spam.
I always thought that e-mail was send from a host and received from a host. If the hosts "delete unwanted mail", whatever that means , good for them. It is not changing the priotities of the traffic, speed, etc ... your mail provider gets all the spam, and then deletes it. Fine with me.

The rest of your post is the same BS. Be ashamed of yourself.

Re:you know

[Xyrus]

"Get to work people and educate the public."

And after we pull of that miraculous feat, we'll teach sheep how to mine for gold!

The public has made it clear that it does not want to be educated. The American public are quite happy being ignorant and really don't want to be bothered.

Fear and complacency are great ways to keep a populace under control.

Sorry for the cynicism. It's been a long day. :P

~X~

Re:you know

[eraser.cpp]

Honestly if the folks on /. aren't educated on net neutrality it really stands no chance at all. Companies are on the verge of taking such measures in both a traffic shaping fashion and in a blocking traffic to competitors fashion. An example from earlier this year would be an ISP blocking access to Vonage. The two tiered Internet will happen if net neutrality legislation isn't passed. Market forces will not stop a two tiered Internet because options for broadband access are very limited in America, usually to one or two different ISPs for a particular area. No new ISP will pop up as the result of market desire for the network access we've become accustomed to because of the enormous cost to enter the market.

This "solution in search of a problem" nonsense is the result of people not actually looking into the issue or trying to write off all concern over it as alarmism. Stop falling for their crap.

Re:you know

[nasch]

No, adequate available bandwidth is required for that. QoS systems are simply a prioritization scheme which throttles other competing demands on bandwidth to make the bandwidth available. Improving overall capacity is another way to do that.

I'm no expert, but my understanding is things like VOIP need not just bandwidth (actually it doesn't need that much bandwidth), but low latency. You could have an enormous pipe but still not have low enough latency to run good voip, which would then require QOS/shaping. Again, I may not know what I'm talking about so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:you know

[dgatwood]

Basically, yeah. I would add a bit to what you said, though. Several major ISPs pushed for those changes in the laws specifically because they claimed, "Oh, boo hoo. My poor little ISP can't charge big bad Google for the traffic they put on my network." This despite the fact that their own customers requested the content in the first place. Google didn't just put it on their network. It's not a truck. It's a bucket brigade. :-)

LOL! more like Net JEW-trality!!

[Sexual Asspussy]

nah but seriously, the Hebrews really are a huge problem for both telcos and customers. we'd all be a little happier without the sons of David kicking around.

What about telcos?

[conigs]

From the summary:

Among other benefits, they say, it would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services."

Wait, so telcos are rallying for a bill that would allow municipal broadband? I find that hard to believe.

Re:What about telcos?

[Exocrist]

Why would "municipal broadband" be impossible with net neutrality?

Re:What about telcos?

[conigs]

Beats me. I was just responding to that line from the article. Personally, I'd say it's just something they threw in there to get more support for rallying against net neutrality.

Re:What about telcos?

[Kyru]

I believe what he's saying is that "municipal broadband" would potentially hurt the telcos, thus it seems strange that they'd be pushing something that would help create it.

Re:What about telcos?

[Exocrist]

I was responding more to the article, not him; I just decided to tack that on after his post. He's got a really good point, because if local municipalites were going to start providing sevice, from whom would they have to buy their equipment?

Re:What about telcos?

[TubeSteak]

I suspect they really mean "Municiple Broadband: brought to you by Verizon." I can't imagine it'd mean anything else. The Cable/Telcos have fought tooth and nail for true municipal internet services.

Even that line about "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" is a nice bit of misdirection.

"...increase competition for cable, and thus spur lower prices" isn't the freaking point!1!eleven

Re:What about telcos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should it hurt them? Aren't they the uber-specialist providers of...gasp, phone and networking equipment and of administering such equipment?

Who could better develop, install, and administer a muni-network?

Of course they'd have to kiss their big margins goodbye, but that's competition for you.

Re:What about telcos?

[Software]

Wait, so telcos are rallying for a bill that would allow municipal broadband? I find that hard to believe.

This is tech manufacturers, not telcos. Just because both they start with a "T" does not mean they are interchangeable.

How did this get modded to 5?

Re:What about telcos?

[GoodNicsTken]

No kidding, especially since in 2005 the Teleco's pushed bills in most of the states outlawing new entrants from providing wireless service to communities. The Telecos wanted 1-2 years notice so they could deploy the service and bar any competition.

The link is a map showing cities that have setup municipal broadband access BECAUSE the laws were defeated in many states.

Not that I want my Internet service coming from the government. I'm sure my civil rights would be a top priority for the bureaucrats when the NSA comes looking for my data from the city government!

Think about it, Smaller less intrusive government is the solution. Big governement has no business regulating the Internet in the first place. Without the guaranteed monopoly, I would probably have 4 fiber lines running to my house providing me with 10-20 service plans. Other countries are getting 100Mb service, what has kept the US free market from doing the same?

Re:What about telcos?

[John Courtland]

It's just another level of indirection. Once you get that fee built right into the property tax... the sky's the limit. Almost nobody spends the time to find out what people are paying tax for, so they'll just yell at the city and not at the bastards at the telco. It's a clever trick.

Re:What about telcos?

[conigs]

I brought up the telcos because they were some of the first companies to start rallying against net neutrality. I'm aware that this particular article is discussing tech companies, but that line jumped out at me.

Re:What about telcos?

[metamatic]

Without the guaranteed monopoly, I would probably have 4 fiber lines running to my house providing me with 10-20 service plans. Other countries are getting 100Mb service, what has kept the US free market from doing the same?

You might like to ponder the fact that the other countries you refer to have more heavily regulated telecoms than the US.

Re:What about telcos?

[wonkavader]

Typo there, I'm sure: They have fought tooth and nail AGAINST true municipal internet services, not for.

Re:What about telcos?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You might like to ponder the fact that the other countries you refer to have more heavily regulated telecoms than the US."

And the fact that those other countries are considerably smaller and more densely populated, reducing build-out costs by vast amounts.

Re:What about telcos?

[IAmTheDave]

Personally, I'd say it's just something they threw in there to get more support for rallying against net neutrality.

So is this:

Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem

By the way - "x is a solution in search of a problem" - particularly in this case, is an attempt to dismiss anything that's seriously forward-thinking. Like Gonzales trying to get ISPs to retain records for longer periods of time "only" for child pornography, anyone can see that although there are overtures of non-intrusion, such policies, allowed to florish, will undoubtedly be abused in the future.

There is no search for a problem - there is a realization by anyone that is any degree of forward thinking that given the opportunity to squash competition, a company will take it - and the consumer will lose.

Unfortunately, many people are "sheeple", and believe the last (or loudest) thing they heard. Although there have been people complaining that a lack of net neutrality will eventually negatively influence innovation and stifle competition, many in the world hear their favorite companies saying "there is no issue, NN is a good thing" and will make a judgement without introspection or reflection.

Many /.ers seem pretty forward thinking, whether I agree with their politics or not... Which is why net neutrality gets so much play here - because I, and many others here - can see the stupidly big handwriting on the wall.

Re:What about telcos?

[pafrusurewa]

And the fact that those other countries are considerably smaller and more densely populated, reducing build-out costs by vast amounts.

If that were the real reason big, densely populated US cities would have much better connectivity than "those other countries", some of which BTW have a total population that's smaller than the biggest cities in the US.

In short, bullshit.

Re:What about telcos?

[homer_ca]

Who ever said people would pay for municipal broadband our of their property taxes? It would probably be billed by usage just like your water bill which is usually run by a municipal utility. If you don't like the price, don't buy it.

Re:What about telcos?

[MadAhab]

There's also hind-blindness - the ability of people to regard a negative outcome as something which could not have been predicted, despite the fact that they directly opposed and shouted down the voices who did, in fact, predict it.

Example: like, the stifling of innovation on the Internet due to "pay-to-play" schemes in which every ISP is it's own version of the Chinese government.

Another example: the collapse of Iraq into sectarian violence and increased Iranian influence.

Re:What about telcos?

[dodobh]

Or you could have one fibre line, and a bunch of providers on the same line. See?

Re:What about telcos?

[Fred_A]

Even that line about "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" is a nice bit of misdirection.

Especially since (and this is how it's done in Europe where IPTV is a common offering where ADSL2+ is available) the video is streamed within the ISPs own network. So there's no real point in doing any kind of prioritizing. It's already distributed where there's the most available bandwidth.

The amount of FUD on this issue is absolutely staggering. I don't think I've seen one true statement issued yet. :-/

They're right

[XanC]

Net Neutrality, while a wonderful principle, is a poor reason to invite the Feds to regulate the Internet. That always leads to preservation of the status quo, at any cost.

Re:They're right

[Bryansix]

They wouldn't be regulating the Internet per se, but the way in which traffic was controlled by the ISP's. They would make sure all data flowed equally freely.

Re:They're right

[Hijacked Public]

Yes yes, correct, free flow and equal access for all and such. Just like with....

Well, not at all like anything else they are involved in really, but like some new equal free flow that we haven't yet seen out of government.

Re:They're right

[SmokedS]

Lets examine the logic of your argument:

1. The telcos want the power to regulate the internet.
2. Network neutrality forbids regulation so that we retain a free market on the internet.

Handing the power to regulate the internet over to a few large corporations, with no goal except to maximize their own profits, seems a bad idea to me.

Re:They're right

[duerra]

Net Neutrality, while a wonderful principle, is a poor reason to invite the Feds to regulate the Internet.

They're going to regulate the internet anyway. We might as well get them started off in the right direction.

Re:They're right

[Sheik Yerbouti]

WTF are you talking about they already regulate every company involved here. Which is why the telcos are lining there pockets in the first place to get their aproval to bend Vonage over. If they didn't already regulate the cable and phone companies there would be no need to pay the politicans for the telecommunications act at all!

Re:They're right

[cayenne8]

"They wouldn't be regulating the Internet per se, but the way in which traffic was controlled by the ISP's."

Well, that's how it always starts, but, give the govt. a rope, it wants to be a 'cowboy'.

This net neutrality power, would go to the FCC, and we've already seen them trying to overstep their power before (HD broadcast flag anyone?).

I was originally for NN, but, the more I think about it...I'm a bit worrysome about giving the FCC any control over the internet. I do like the 'consumers rights' approach...that seems more towards a goal to me.

Re:They're right

[AndrewNeo]

They're regulating the ISPs from regulating their customers!

Re:They're right

[Just Another Poster]

Lets examine the logic of your argument:

1. The telcos want the power to regulate the internet.
2. Network neutrality forbids regulation so that we retain a free market on the internet.

Handing the power to regulate the internet over to a few large corporations, with no goal except to maximize their own profits, seems a bad idea to me.

What a perverse way to redefine the debate. Define the telcos as the "regulators" and declare government intervention to be "a free market".

Re:They're right

[SmokedS]

Deciding who gets to communicate with whom, and at what speed, is regulation.
Net neutrality forbids it.

What part of that is perverse?

Re:They're right

[Just Another Poster]

Deciding who gets to communicate with whom, and at what speed, is regulation.

To impose regulation, you need a monopoly of violence that only a state can provide. A private company deciding how to operate the network it owns is not regulation.

Re:They're right

[SmokedS]

To impose regulation, you need a monopoly of violence that only a state can provide. A private company deciding how to operate the network it owns is not regulation.

Ah, now I see where you are coming from.
I've been wondering about something. Maybe you can tell me. Do I need to go through some sort of initiation ritual in order to get a license for operating the Anarcho-capitalist word-redefinition-machine? Or can I just go ahead and redefine any word I wish in order to make it fit my preconceptions?

It just seemes so amazingly convenient a thing to be allowed to do, I'll just ignore any regulations, and practice on your favorite distortions of reality:

Tax -> Stealing.
Law enforcement -> Violence.
State -> Evil freedom restricting organization that almost completely without exception does things wrong.

Wow, that was fun! Can I go again?

Rich -> Hard working and deserving of absurd abundance.
Poor -> Lazy and deserving of starvation and exploitation.

I can see how you can come to like that kind of thing, but you do realize it is a fantasy? Right?

Re:They're right

[Just Another Poster]

Ah, now I see where you are coming from.

I've been wondering about something. Maybe you can tell me. Do I need to go through some sort of initiation ritual in order to get a license for operating the Anarcho-capitalist word-redefinition-machine? Or can I just go ahead and redefine any word I wish in order to make it fit my preconceptions?

When ordinary people think 'regulation', they think 'government', not 'corporation'. You are the one redefining terms. Not I.

Re:They're right

[SmokedS]

When ordinary people think 'regulation', they think 'government', not 'corporation'. You are the one redefining terms. Not I.

Now first, the word I used was regulate. Not regulation. They are related, but not the same.

Second, you are doing it again. First you redefine ordinary people to "people in my social grouping". Then you attempt to redefine the very meaning of the the word "mean". You want it to mean: what those in your social grouping use it to mean. That does not fly. Most of the worlds English speaking population are not Anarcho-capitalists, and use the word as defined in English dictionaries.

Here's the definition for regulate: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate

-verb (used with object), -lated, -lating.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

Notice how government or law is not even mentioned?

Let's have a look at the word you brought up as well.
Here is the definition for regulation: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulation

1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct.
2. the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.
3. Machinery. the percentage difference in some quantity related to the operation of an apparatus or machine, as the voltage output of a transformer or the speed of a motor, between the value of the quantity at no-load operation and its value at full-load operation.
4. Electronics. the difference between maximum and minimum voltage drops between the anode and the cathode of a gas tube for a specified range of values of the anode current.
5. Sports. the normal, prescribed duration of a game according to the sport's regulations, exclusive of any extra innings, overtime period, etc.: The Knicks tied the score in the final seconds of regulation, sending the game into overtime.
-adjective
6. prescribed by or conforming to regulation: regulation army equipment.
7. usual; normal; customary: the regulation decorations for a Halloween party.

Note it says "authority". Not government
Notice the alternatives after law that gives at least three meanings that have nothing to do with a government, only an unspecified authority?

According to another dictionary:

      1. The act of regulating or the state of being regulated.
      2. A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.
      3. A governmental order having the force of law. Also called executive order.
      4. Embryology. The capacity of an embryo to continue normal development following injury to or alteration of a structure.
      5. Sports. The standard playing period for a timed game, prior to overtime or a shootout.

Once again, several meanings that are not tied to government.

In fact, the only dictionary that even contains a meaning that require a government to be involved is a dictionary specifically about law.

Re:They're right

[Just Another Poster]

You're arguing bullshit semantics. Your original statement was:

1. The telcos want the power to regulate the internet.

2. Network neutrality forbids regulation so that we retain a free market on the internet.

When ordinary people hear "regulate the Internet", they think 'government', not 'corporation'. You were attempting to twist that around so that "regulate the Internet" means something the corporations do, not something the government does.

You want us to believe that these corporations are a big evil cabal acting as one entity with power far exceeding that of a State, all conspiring to deny you access to the Internet. You want to define government intervention as being part of the "free market", when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Note it says "authority". Not government

Who passes and enforces laws?

Re:They're right

[SmokedS]

When ordinary people hear "regulate the Internet", they think 'government', not 'corporation'. You were attempting to twist that around so that "regulate the Internet" means something the corporations do, not something the government does.

This is the same argument that you just made. The one that I tore to pieces.
You do not address any of my points.
You do not supply any new facts, nor new reasoning.

Here's two clues about rational argument:
    You need to present facts and reasoning.
    You must counter the other sides facts and reasoning.

You do neither, you just supply assertions of truthiness.
You cannot supply anything more rational than "Yes it is! That IS the way it is!"

Your position is doctrinal. Not based on facts and deduction. It couldn't be. As I have demonstrated, facts and logic contradict your position. I suggest you rethink it.

You want us to believe that these corporations are a big evil cabal acting as one entity with power far exceeding that of a State, all conspiring to deny you access to the Internet.

I never said anything of the sort.

You want to define government intervention as being part of the "free market",

Not part of, protecting. And you've yet to present anything remotely resembling a valid argument against that proposition.

when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

I never said it, and your hyperbole version of the proposition is absurd. However, if you believe that large corporations are powerless, or that they are inherently benign, or that they will not place their advantage above yours, you have not been paying attention.

Re:They're right

[Just Another Poster]

This is the same argument that you just made. The one that I tore to pieces. You do not address any of my points. You do not supply any new facts, nor new reasoning.

Google for 'regulate OR regulation OR regulating'. In what context is the term most often being used in the English language? Is it in terms of government regulating something, or is it in terms of a corporation regulating something?

You want to define government intervention as being part of the "free market",

Not part of, protecting. And you've yet to present anything remotely resembling a valid argument against that proposition.

Protecting a free market means enforcing contracts, defending private property and prosecuting fraud - doing the things that ordinary people would do if there was no government. Otherwise, a free market is defined by a lack of government intervention. Having the government dictate to service providers what business models are acceptable is not protecting the free market.

Re:They're right

[SmokedS]

You just don't get it do you. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REDEFINE WORDS SO THAT YOUR ARGUMENT MAKES SENSE.
That's all you've been doing all through this thread.

It's completely pointless to argue with someone who insists that their opinion trumps the dictionary.
I'm done here.

Re:They're right

[Just Another Poster]

You just don't get it do you. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REDEFINE WORDS SO THAT YOUR ARGUMENT MAKES SENSE.

I am not re-defining words. In the context of the original discussion, your use of the term 'regulate' was completely different from how most people use the term when talking about "regulating the Internet".

Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[Otter Escaping North]

It seems to me that telcos would also need a lot of new hardware, supporting more traffic shaping and QoS. I wonder if the tech manufacturers have anything that might help them with that...

You wanna talk about solutions in search of problems?

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[ValiSystem]

Sure they only see a huge market for specific hardware. I'm not a network admin, but i suppose that few and expensive routers are designed to control bandwith depending of paquet destination easily.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[Exocrist]

That's a pretty good point.

A pretty bad point is how net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. I'm pretty sure there are providers that either block or limit traffic for VoIP services, to try to promote their own tack on $15/mo telephone services.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[aleksiel]

of course removing net neutrality will require a lot of new hardware. thats why the hardware manufacturers are against it! removing net neutrality would be a huge financial boon to the industry.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[kgwagner]

Exactly so. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[SailorBob]

There are companies which specialize in IPTV hardware such as Tut Systems. They make video headends for delivering MPEG2 and MPEG4 video over cable and dsl, incuding HD content. There are already a number of cities in the US which have IPTV. This works over the IP network without any prioritizing of the video IIRC.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[don.g]

Traffic shaping, or just more traffic? How many extra packets per second could you route using the cycles / silicon required for QoS? You only need QoS if your network is congested :-)

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[Jabrwock]

There are already a number of cities in the US which have IPTV. This works over the IP network without any prioritizing of the video IIRC.

AFAIK, most IPTV in Canada is provided by the Telco directly over it's own internal hardware. The CRTC mandated that in order to ensure quality TV, the telco must reserve a portion of it's network bandwidth for TV packets ONLY, so the service won't be interrupted by a heavy download. A horrible waste of bandwidth I know.

So they are technically prioritizing their own internal data, just not anyone else's.

I'm not sure if that's how the IPTV in the US works.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[blank axolotl]

I think the 'costly new hardware' issue you propose is irrelevant to the real issue in net neutrality. It seems to me that when people talk about net neutrality, two relatively unrelated issues are often mixed together: 1. Common carriage laws 2. QoS/tiered internet. I don't see how one implies the other. It seems like Common carriage is the only 'important' issue with respect to fragmentation of the internet.

I think maintaining common carriage laws is essential, no question.

What the confusion seems to be is that people think that a tiered internet will give ISPs the ability to discriminate against content providers. However, although I am a layman in this, I see no technical reason why a tiered internet wouldn't naturally be anonymous, giving no easy way to discriminate. All an ISP needs to know is that 'this is a tier 1 packet', and nothing more about what the data is. And anyway, if they want to discriminate, they can already do it now by data analysis (which they would do in the same way on an anonymous tiered internet). So really, having a tiered internet does not change inything with respect to content discrimination. To stop content discrimination, common carriage laws are used. They are working so far, and I see no reason why they wouldn't stop working on a tiered internet. They would be just as hard/easy to enforce as now.

I don't know where the confusion is coming from (or maybe I'm confused?). It could very well be the ISPs who are trying to sneak in the removal of common carriage laws into their proposal for a tiered internet. But really, the issues are unrelated.

-----

Actually it seems to me that a tiered internet could be a good thing, and that common carriage would still apply. Really, what a tiered internet does is add an additional factor in the price of internet services: Latency. If you don't need low latency, you don't need to pay for it. In fact, one reason I can think why internet companies would like a tiered internet is that it would help fix the problems they have overselling their service: They wouldn't need to oversell as much. Consumers should like that too. So, I think it could be an improvement.

As you say, it is not clear whether a tiered internet really is better economically for all involved. I think it could be. But anyway, as I say, this is not the real issue of net neutrality.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too?

[Doches]

Actually, no -- Most routers, even dinky consumer types, already have the ability to do this sort of selective traffic shaping. All that's needed is for everyone to enable it.

Apple "iTV" and the handwriting on the wall

[TheWoozle]

Basically what this all boils down to is that the phone/cable companies want to make more money for offering us "new" services (that are basically services that they offer now, but *over the Internet*). Of course, by extension, the equipment manufacturers will reap profits by selling everyone new hardware.

The whole tiered Internet thing is based on the fact that they want to differentiate these "new" services from what we think of as the Internet right now (e-mail, web pages, etc.). They want to break up the current pricing structures so that they can charge more for certain bits.

They last thing that telcos/cable-cos want is to become generic bit pipes. If moving bits around becomes just another commoditized service (like deregulated electric in some places), then they'll have to compete on price and customer service. Competing on price impacts profits, and competing on customer service...well, I've been a customer of GTE/Verizon, Southwestern Bell, and AT&T at different times and if I were them, I'd be scared of competing based on customer satisfaction.

Re:Apple "iTV" and the handwriting on the wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Right Attitude, Wrong Argument. The Telcos do not neccesarily want to offer new services, they could do that anyway without any reregulation. What they want is to be able to charge more for what they already provide. In other words, if you now have say Skype there is no additional charge from say your DSL provider to use VOIP (Skype). Without Net Neutrality said DSL provider can charge extra or block VOIP, Itunes or any other particular service or website. So if you want a service fee for bidding on Ebay make sure Net Neutrality fails. The equipment providers have now fallen for the Telcos argument that the increased revenue from tiered pricing will go toward "infrastructure upgrades" that the Telcos claim cannot be afforded any other way. There is no guarantee that said profits will go toward infrastructure or any other improvements.

Re:Apple "iTV" and the handwriting on the wall

[sgt_doom]

A thousand thanks, good citizen, TheWoozle (are you related to the Woz, by any chance??) has gotten it exactly right (as usual). The Net Neutrality is a response to FCC moves, initiated by corporate interests, of course. Just one more step to curtail freedom-of-access in this Brave New World (a Brunner-Gibson construct, natch).

[The most popular man in American today, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who wisely is hanging with Fidel Castro - a most despicable dictator - but the only known survivor of multiple CIA assassination attempts.....]

Corning?

[Otter Escaping North]

Tim Regan, a vice president with fiber optic cable manufacturer Corning Inc.

Like I'm gonna trust that guy - with all the spam he's been sending me.

Re:Corning?

[smoker2]

Tim Regan, a vice president with fiber optic cable manufacturer Corning Inc. Like I'm gonna trust that guy - with all the spam he's been sending me.

Eh ?

Oh, sp_a_m !

I know the internet is a series of tubes but that would be the end for me I'm afraid.

Competition

[M0bius]

Why is it that efforts big companies claim will encourage competition and lower prices usually do the opposite? Hmm... It's a mystery!

Everyone knows

[Anonymous Coward]

"Net Neuttrality" is a conspiracy to attack Google

Shocking...

[Anonymous Coward]

The manufacturers of networking hardware are looking to create a market for their fun new experiments in packet prioritizing. Who wants to compete on pure speed and reliability? How boring...

Nothing to see here, move along.

"Neutrality" is about control of who delivers what

[FriendlyLurker]

"Net Neutrality" is about control of the future of media - who can deliver what to the masses, with the power to exclude and/or dampen alternative points of view. Simply following long established history of swaying public opinion through control of media.

Net Neutrality is now!

[erroneus]

Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.

Well DUH! The whole point of the debate is to prevent bad things from happening, not to stop something bad that's already happening. Do these people really understand the issue?

Re:Net Neutrality is now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do these people really understand the issue?

Yes, that's why they don't want it, they want to sell that cool, expensive QoS routing equipment. With Net Neutrality they can only hope to sell cheap imported optical cables which probably have an ultra-thin margin.

Re:Net Neutrality is now!

[wfberg]

Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.

Well DUH! The whole point of the debate is to prevent bad things from happening, not to stop something bad that's already happening. Do these people really understand the issue?

The hardware manufacturers understand this as no other. The thing is, they themselves have been pushing for years their own solutions in search of a problem; MPLS and other Quality of Service schemes. The doomscenarios that the net-neutrality camp sketches are in fact exactly the kind of thing that would sell network companies on multi-tiered networks, which works out great for the hardware manufacturers, since now all their MPLS/QoS/ProtocolAware/StatefulInspection networking gear has a purpose!

Sure, to consumers they'll say "there's no problem", but to their actual customers they'll say "there's no problem... because you will benefit greatly from hurting other businesses and consumers!"

The harder the network neutrality camp shouts, the better the business case for the hardware manufacturers is perceived to be by network operators.

Re:Net Neutrality is now!

[LFS.Morpheus]

Do these people really understand the issue?

Yes, they understand. They know that this will mean they won't be able to gouge customers, and that might mean bad things for their bottom line. This is just their way of doublespeaking.

"Net Neutrality" sucks

[nightsweat]

The name, I mean. Who can get excited about being neutral? The Swiss?

We should start to use "Network Equality" or "Data Non-Discrimination" instead.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks

[aleksiel]

the country likes wars. "the war on information nonproliferation" sounds pretty good to me.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Liberty!! ..but wait, they hate us for our freedom... yeah, right.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks

[PipianJ]

If we can have Pro-Life instead of Anti-Choice and Pro-Choice instead of Anti-Life, it shouldn't be hard to have Network Neutrality and Information Equality...

The EFF should get on this rephrasing, stat!

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks

[deeksizein]

I agree that the name sucks. I'm sick of names being compromised for the sake of alliteration.

However, I think the term "Net Neutrality" is well-enough-known now that it wouldn't be a good idea to rename the concept.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

how about "Operation Packet Freedom"

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks

[SydShamino]

We should start to use "Network Equality" or "Data Non-Discrimination" instead.

Those are awful names. They don't apply at all.

Nothing about net neutrality should limit traffic shaping based on data type. The name "data non-discrimination" makes it sound like it forces ISPs to treat HTML traffic the same way as VOIP traffic, or bittorrent traffic. That is bad ISP policy and bad network design.

Instead, net neutrality is about ISPs treating all traffic of the same type the same way, regardless of source. VOIP on Roadrunner cable from Vonage should get the same bandwidth as VOIP from Time Warner's phone service. The alternative - Time Warner throttling competitors to push its own service - is what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.

So, name it net vendor neutrality, if necessary.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks

[muellerr1]

We could call it Operation Enduring Information Freedom.

I for one think that the Information will greet us as liberators and won't devolve into civil war or widespread insurgency. Once the Information is freely flowing, this war on DRM should pay for itself!

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm sure there's a Futurama joke somewhere ...

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks

[KonoWatakushi]

Nothing about net neutrality should limit traffic shaping based on data type. The name "data non-discrimination" makes it sound like it forces ISPs to treat HTML traffic the same way as VOIP traffic, or bittorrent traffic. That is bad ISP policy and bad network design.

No, net neutrality should completely prohibit classifying traffic on the Internet. Shaping traffic will always unfairly advantages someone at the expense of another. Who are you (or they) to say that VOIP is more important than HTML or torrent traffic? The only solution, is to provide enough capacity, so that everything works.

What you are after with shaping, QoS, simply is not possible on the Internet. The only solution is to build private networks, and run time/rate-sensitive data over them instead. Much like some ISPs have private networks for VOIP traffic, such networks will needed for IPTV and such as well.

There is only one remaining problem, and that is that ISPs are selling bandwidth that does not exist--so, something has to give. QoS is not the solution; ISPs should sell connections by minimum guaranteed rate instead. Only then is it even possible to guarantee anything over the last mile. Note, this does not prevent offering different speeds of service, or allowing customers to make use of excess capacity.

If the proposed network neutrality legislation allows for loopholes like you suggest, it will be completely useless. The efficacy of this law, will be inversely proportional to its complexity. Anything more than "all bits are equal on the Internet" will be abused somehow or other.

The PR war is being won.

[Anonymous Coward]

The momentum to ensure the internet remain a neutral medium has completely died out by this point. Meanwhile, the corps that would benefit from the internet being non-neutral are moving deeper and deeper into a well-funded PR push that just gets more sophisticated and more dishonest all the time. The public, always light on technical issues, is now reaching the point where they don't know what "net neutrality" is, except that it's bad.

Google, if you're listening, you're losing big time here.

Re:The PR war is being won.

[aztec rain god]

I wonder if Google secretly wants this to pan out. They could stand back and watch the telcos play "Break the Internet", enabling them to set up their own wifi network to run the way the 'net used to. Just a thought...

Re:The PR war is being won.

[Xyrus]

I fully expect China, India, Japan, et al. to surpass the US technologically in the very near future.

Before, people/corps were out to innovate to make a buck. Now, people/corps want to make a buck without innovating. And to ensure this, people/corps are pushing ludicrous amount of legislation through so they can be guaranteed no competition and plenty of profits.

The "war on science" that seems to be happening only makes this worse.

I give it another decade or so. We're already trailing most developed nations in education and healthcare.

~X~

Hypocrites

[stufff]

I love how people who would normally hate government regulation of the Internet are stepping and screaming for it over net neutrality.

Re:Hypocrites

[tddoog]

God forbid someone evaluate two different situations and make a decision that in one case it may be preferable to do one thing and in another it may not be preferable to do that same thing. How dare they. People should make hard and fast rules and apply them to everything in their life.

Re:Hypocrites

[oahazmatt]

I love how people who would normally hate government regulation of the Internet are stepping and screaming for it over net neutrality.

Not being sarcastic, but, which people? The individuals who already pay for their Internet service and don't wish to find themselves subject to slow transfers and timeouts due to their favorite site falling victim to a tiered system, or the companies that want to be able to do just that but have already been disciplined by the government in the past?

Re:Hypocrites

[ratboy666]

"I love how people who would normally hate government regulation of the Internet are stepping and screaming for it over net neutrality."

The "Physical Internet" as supplied to people is almost COMPLETELY government regulated. You either access via telco (POTS) with a modem... through a government regulated telco, or via broadband cable... again government granted easements, or DSL... through the aformentioned telco... or fibre... with government granted easements.

About the ONLY way you can get the "internet" without government regulation is if you have a two-way satellite link. And it required government involvment to get the satellite there to make it possible.

And what do you get in exchange for dealing with these natural monopolies, granted by the government? Net neutrality.

If the government wants to do content regulation (the above deals with access), there are checks and measures. Losing net neutrality? Means that the companies who have been granted the monopolies can also regulate content.

You had better be careful of what power is granted to these companies.

YMMV
Ratboy

Re:Hypocrites

[2short]

Yeah, imagine, adjusting ones opinions based on the facts of the debate. They oppose the government doing things they think are bad, then the next thing you know, they want the government to do things they think are good. How can one respect oneself if one changes one's answer just because it's a different question? "Yes" or "No", just pick one and stick with it already!

Out of curiosity, which ballot spot do you vote for? I'm strictly a second- candidate-from-the-top voter myself. Can't wait to see what order they put them in this time so I'll know who I support.

Re:Hypocrites

[HoosierPeschke]

That's because most Government regulation is only good for restricting freedoms and increasing profit margins of large corporations by screwing Joe Six-pack (that poor guy). This regulation, in turn would solidify the freedom we currently enjoy while helping out poor Joe.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you actually have any examples of someone doing that and changing sides or are you assuming everyone participating on slashdot is the same person and you are not directly included in the same grouping although you participate as well?
Did you forgot to take your pill again and now think you were reading slashdot from an exclusive third dimension that is not a subset of slashdot your were initally refering to?

Re:Hypocrites

[SydShamino]

I want the government to maintain a fair playing field for all competitors in all markets. Without this, capitalism dies.

This means the government enforces fraud and misreprentation. It means the government enforces environmental laws so all vendors have the same production costs. It means the government punishes or breaks up monopolies that try to abuse other markets. It means the government enforces the neutrality of mediums upon which business is conducted.

If roads were private, and the vendor of the road to my house decided to charge USPS and UPS trucks $10 a package to drive through (but let DHL and FedEx trucks through with no extra charge), I'd be clamoring for the government to fix that problem, too.

Re:Hypocrites

[DragonWriter]

I love how people who would normally hate government regulation of the Internet are stepping and screaming for it over net neutrality.

Very few people, whatever they ocassionally pretend, are for or against "government regulation" without reference to the content of the regulation. Anyone over about 15 who is still surprised about this needs to grow up.

They are so right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid senate introducing stupid things like Net Neutrality, Broadcast Flags, etc.

Vote with your wallet

[psybre]

Not so easily done by large businesses and organizations who are already locked in, but on an individual basis we can refuse to purchase and use products by Tyco, Corning and Motorola in addition to writing and voicing disgust at their actions.

Can somebody provide a list of subsidiaries and popular products made by these companies please? Are their computer and other electronics hardware vendors that build their motherboards/nics/modems/etc. without any Motorola parts?

~psybre

Re:Vote with your wallet

[Cutie Pi]

Corning sells very few things in the public sector. They do have a serious business in fiber optics, so you can start boycotting any telco or cable company who uses their products. Also, they make photomask blanks for semiconductor (chip-making) companies, so you can boycott IBM, Intel, AMD, Samsung, etc.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[jonwil]

Motorola doesnt make semiconductors anymore.
Thats done by FreeScale semiconductor who are a totally seperate company.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[jackrabbit123]

Freescale is a subsidiary of Motorola. That does not make them a separate company.

Re:Vote with your wallet

[jonwil]

Quote from the freescale web site:
"After more than 50 years as part of Motorola, Freescale started a new life as a stand-alone company in July 2004."

It isn't new services

[Colin Smith]

What they're trying to do is errect what is essentially trade barriers, it'll allow the telcos to charge more for the free trade service that we currently enjoy. It's indicative of a lack of competition in the market. Does the US have the equivalent of the competition commission? Perhaps the telcos should be required to unbundle their exchanges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_loop_unbundling

Looks like they are. In which case it's up to ISPs, entrepeneurs, co-operatives to grab the oportunity and start taking business away from the incumbents.

Re:It isn't new services

[Cutie Pi]

Sorry, but you're wrong. It's about enabling the telcos to provide ipTV in competition with the cable companies, without having to get permission from every single local government. FWIW, ipTV is not the same as Apple iTV.

I'm not a big fan of local governement-sanctioned cable monopolies, seeing how the price of cable is inflating faster than anyhing else.

Re:It isn't new services

[Anonymous Coward]

Net neutrality wouldn't keep telcos from getting into the business of ipTV.

What it would do however, is force them to actually compete in it, instead of just dropping the packets of their competitors.

Re:It isn't new services

[TheWoozle]

I don't see how you can argue that it's about telcos vs. cable-cos because this whole discussion started when the FCC changed the classification of certain ways to connect to the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Neutrality). Under the current regulations, Internet traffic isn't subject to the same rules as either broadcast TV or POTS telephone networks. So nobody has to get persmission from local governments to roll out IP TV, or any other service over the Internet.

As for IP TV not being the same as Apple's "iTV", you're correct, but have entirely missed the point. Can you refer me to the most successful IP TV prodcut at the moment? How many subscribers does it have? If Apple can get 10% of the people who own an iPod to regularly download movies and TV shows, then they'll have a run-away hit compared to current IP TV offerings.

Which brings us back to the whole Net Neutrality issue. If Apple gets to make money off of delivering these downloads, then the telcos/cable-cos that deliver the bits want a piece of the pie. The only way they can do that is if Apple's bits cost more than e-mail bits or Slashdot bits. Once they're able to charge you more for certain bits, the song-and-dance will revert back to their tired old arguments about why they should continue to have government-sanctioned monopolies (cable companies aren't the only ones with those) - because that's how they'll keep their customers locked into the new pricing structure.

Mod Parent 'Astroturf'

[Orrin Bloquy]

Sell crazy next door, sister, we're full up here.

Re:Mod Parent 'Astroturf'

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. It's plain common sense. Here, let's take a definition that was modded "Insightful":

Net neutrality is when you don't throttle packets based on their remote destination or source.

Guess what that also means. It means no spam blocking (since it's based on their destination or source) and no DDOS blocking (again, based on destination or source).

It also disallows throttling based on inspection of packets, so yet again, you can no longer block virus attacks coming from the outside world.

I'm not the only one with these concerns, Bram Cohen, BitTorrent's creator, also warned of these obvious outcomes. BitTorrent is a prime example of an application that would be throttled down using QOS to allow other more time-sensetive services through. If Bram Cohen has no problem with ISPs throttling BitTorrent, why do you?

Network neutrality is a bad idea, period. The Internet has existed just fine without government interference. It doesn't need it now. Regulation is always a very bad thing.

It's not flamebait, it's not astroturfing. It's plain old good old fashioned common sense, something that's sadly lacking on the "network neutrality" side of the debate.

That last sentence was flamebait. But the argument isn't. Don't mod the argument down, don't dismiss it as astrotufing, explain why network neutrality is still a good side given the flaws I've mentioned.

Re:Mod Parent 'Astroturf'

[0xdeadbeef]

The Internet has existed just fine without government interference.

The Internet would be America Online without government "interference".

explain why network neutrality is still a good side given the flaws I've mentioned

Because the Time Cube cancels them out.

Re:Mod Parent 'Astroturf'

[dup_account]

Sunny Days, sweeping the clouds away, something something something, Sesame Street... Wow, stopping viruses and spam! I guess if Outlook traffic were filter out, that would help with both of those... Hmmm...

I think all the people posting these "It's going to blot out the sun if we try to enforce net neutrality" need to look at the posts about the ISPs wanting to charge extra for traffic.

What you should be considering, and working on, is whether this is the correct legislation or just a knee-jerk reaction.

Re:Mod Parent 'Astroturf'

[Anonymous Coward]

It means no spam blocking (since it's based on their destination or source) and no DDOS blocking (again, based on destination or source).

No, that is wrong. Spam blocking is done via things like RBL, SPF and greylisting which works fine with or without net neutrality. The hard part is determining that a message is spam to begin with, not doing the blocking part. That's just a matter of dropping the connection.

As for DDOS, this cannot be for your ISP to decide, since there is no obvious metric for what a DDOS actually is (slashdot effect?). If you do decide that you are under DDOS, you can still contact your ISP and try to convince them to block the traffic based on some criteria, but this has always been possible and will continue to be possible no matter what happens with net neutrality.

It also disallows throttling based on inspection of packets, so yet again, you can no longer block virus attacks coming from the outside world.

No, that is wrong again. You can inspect packets all you want, and if you decide that it looks fishy, you simply drop the connection. Some ISPs will try to do some of this for you with email, but this is normally on a per-pay basis and has nothing to do with net neutrality: you specifically ask for it.

What net-nonneutrality really means is that the folks that own part of the network you are using can simply decide that their customers packets have priority over yours. If they're a phone company, they'll either boost or drop VoIP packets depending on how they feel about it. Some tier-1 ISPs may (and already do) refuse to do peering, because they figure they have enough coverage to more or less go at it alone. What this will lead to is an insane armour-piercing-shells versus shell-proof-armour race as everybody and their brother will start coming up with wacky schemes to tunnel protocols inside other protocols to fool the filters, and wildly inefficient routing to try to get around uncooperative network segments.

It'll be chaos like you've never imagined, and it won't work. It completely goes against the whole design principle of having an inter-net to begin with.

Re:Mod Parent 'Astroturf'

[DragonWriter]

It means no spam blocking (since it's based on their destination or source) and no DDOS blocking (again, based on destination or source).

Spam blocking usually is not blocking packets travelling through a providers network to a remote source based on the destination or source, and so would not be affected at all by net neutrality. Some DDOS blocking techniques might be prohibited by the most naive possible law that would fit the definition of a 'net neutrality' law, but its certainly not an essential feature of such a law: a law that allowed blocking based on some specified legal standard of belief that there was a substantial risk the blocked source was being used in an attack would not fail to be a net neutrality law.

Network neutrality is a bad idea, period. The Internet has existed just fine without government interference.

False. Net neutrality only became an issue when it stopped being the status quo when common carrier regulations stopped being applied to internet services late last year.

Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for fiber to home

[Amid60]

I used to be very much pro-neutrality, but let's face it: amount of fiber deployed into the households is clearly inversely proportional to the amount of playing-field-leveling applied by the government. In countries with almost no neutrality (Korea, Japan) it is pretty common by now to have a 100 Mbps or even 1 Gbps link in the household. In countries with very strict open-wire regulations (many countries in Europe) there is currently no trace of fiber-to-home (FTH) deployments. It seems that no one is willing to commit billions for FTH if they will be forced to open the wire to all comers. I therefore changed my mind, and think that the new wires put into the house should be exempt from any neutrality regulation.

Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.

[husker shiznit]

Sounds screwy, but it's true. If you optimize a network for one type of application, you de-optimize it for others. For example, if you let the network give priority to voice or video data on the grounds that they need to arrive faster, you are telling other applications that they will have to wait. And as soon as you do that, you have turned the Net from something simple for everybody into something complicated for just one purpose. It isn't the Internet anymore.

Quote from worldofends.com which still remains true.

The funny thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing to me is that the biggest part of the argument against net neutrality is the telecoms claiming that they're not going to violate Net Neutrality, so there's no need to pass a law. Since they haven't yet started violating net neutrality, goes the argument, it would be really wasteful and needless to illegalize something they're not doing... yet.

It's kind of like the Bush Administration insisting "We don't torture! But if you passed a law banning torture, it would be really bad!"

I can't help but wonder. If this bill doesn't pass, and in a few years we start seeing telecoms demanding payment from Youtube, or prioritizing their own iPTV packets over Youtube until the latter is no longer usable... what will the argument be then? Will we see people jumping back up and going "see, that stuff we were warning about a couple years back, it's happening now"? Will the people who argued it wasn't going to happen shrug and go, oh, you're right, let's pass a net neutrality law now? I doubt it. More likely the entire subject, the public's attention on it long since exhausted, will be quietly dropped.

Because though at the beginning of the debate I didn't really believe a bill like this was strictly necessary because I saw no signs anyone was intending to violate net neutrality left to their own devices, I no longer expect this to be the case. I think we can expect if this bill does not pass, it is only a matter of time before the internet's current neutral nature is being violated by one program or other at nearly every major ISP. The campaign against net neutrality is just going at this too intensely and too fiercely for this to be just a philosophical objection. They would not fight quite this hard or in quite this manner if they weren't planning to roll out products that this law would block; and the idea the lobbyists' objection is really to the precedent set by one more law passed on an already-heavily-regulated telecommunications industry is just not credible, given the telecoms' essentially complete silence on previous legislation like COPA, the DMCA, laws concerning recordkeeping required by social networking and "adult" sites alike, laws concerning internet gambling...

Re:"Neutrality" is about control of who delivers w

[transami]

Damn straight! This is the real catch behind all of this. How nicely it all works out for them: Greed in the immediate leads to tyranically control in the future. Think about this. The World Wide Web is unprecedendent in it's ability to distribute information --grassroots information that the powerful might not like, reports on products, government activities, 9/11 videos, etc. etc. Their campigns of disinformation are only so effective and I would suspect are becoming less and less so e every day. So it's imperative that the get significant control back over these communication channels. Tiered service is their ticket to 1984.

Solution in search of a problem

[thisnow1]

'Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.'
That sounds like a very spiffy, interesting quote. I bet that vice president came up with that himself...or maybe it was Steve Jobbs

Be Confused By Our Vacuous Statements Instead!

[weston]

'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.'"

Translation: don't be confused by trivial things like facts and details regarding the case. Instead, please be confused by our utterly content-free, shaded, and spun vague assertions!

I think it's interesting that most of the anti-net-neutrality statements don't contain any substance. Those that do certainly don't rebut concerns brought up by net-neutrality advocates. They've clearly chosen to try to win over the public and the senate via obfuscation rather than argument. That *alone* should tell you something.

Re:Be Confused By Our Vacuous Statements Instead!

[RLiegh]

They've clearly chosen to try to win over the public and the senate via obfuscation rather than argument. That *alone* should tell you something.

What should it tell us? That they're going to win? THAT became painfully obvious once the commercials rolled out!

No regulation...

[jscotta44]

The best idea is no regulation. Let the market decide. If people start trying to double up on charges or limit my access, then I'll change ISPs. The Feds need to stay out of this.

How will this help a Telco deliver TV?

[losycompresion]

Can someone please explain how that will even begin to help a Telco deliver TV?

Re:How will this help a Telco deliver TV?

[Cutie Pi]

Currently, cable companies are government sanctioned monopolies whose charter to provide cable service is voted on by the local (municipal) government.

Thus, for telcos to come in and over TV service to a given municipality's residents requires them to go to each individual town and expand the charter. Since there are 10s of thousands of small towns across America, a prospect such as this becomes virtually impossible, even to someone like Verizon.

The proposed bill would eliminate the above restrictions and allow direct competition between the cable companies and telcos to provide TV service.

Re:How will this help a Telco deliver TV?

[Cid Highwind]

Simple. The telco starts offering IPTV for only $95 a month on top of whatever you pay for a local loop and their broadband service. You decide that's a ridiculous price, and choose to buy the 4 TV programs you watch regularly from iTMS instead. The telco notices that nobody is buying their overpriced TV offering, and that they're carrying a lot of traffic from iTMS, YouTube, Unbox, and other video services. They use their shiny new traffic-shaping routers to limit that traffic to a trickle. Even though you have a 15 megabit downstream connection and iTunes videos are hosted on Akami (so they have essentially unlimited bandwidth), it takes hours to download each episode. Frustrated, you relent and sign up for the telco's ridiculous $95 TV service. Thus the tiered internet model that these telcos are lobbying for has helped them deliver TV to you.

Re:How will this help a Telco deliver TV?

[plasmacutter]

The proposed bill would eliminate the above restrictions and allow direct competition between the cable companies and telcos to provide TV service.

My question to you is what "other" provisions in the bill are pissing off people who represent my interest in a neutral internet?

Obviously that particular provision you're paraphrasing is not the one they find objectionable.

Uh, let's see: Corning's biggest customer-Verizon

[postbigbang]

What a crock!

Motorola and Corning have Verizon as a huge customer. Of course they don't want Net Neutrality if Verizon doesn't!!!

Dear web site visitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Your access to this web site has been denied

You appear to be accessing this web site via a telecoms provider who supports tiered internet service. Please contact your ISP and inform them that we have granted $TELCO their wish of a tiered internet and that the bill for accessing our network will be $10,000,000. Congratulations to $TELCO on a job well done.

All the best,

Webmaster
On behalf of the web site team.

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for fiber to h

[Anonymous Coward]

FTH is strongly correlated to population density. Japan's and Korea's population are mostly in cities with extreme population densities. In countries with sprawling suburbs FTH is less economically feasible, regardless of network neutrality regulation. BTW, the "open wire" regulations in Europe are very different from the network neutrality concept that is debated in the US. And, unlike just a few years ago, broadband access is cheaper in Europe.

Once again; they who has the gold, make the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing for us to do but suck it up!

Google?

[ijakings]

I may be missing something here and someone may have alreay said it, but didnt google buy massive amounts of nationwide Dark Fiber a while back? Say someone on ISP A wants to get information from google at B, but they have to pass over backbone C, But google aint playing ball with Backbone C so they restrict their traffic. Couldnt google just send the data directly to ISP A over their Dark Fiber missing out Backbone C entirely? Feel free to flame/destroy me here

Re:Google?

[Tancred]

Good question - yes, they can get around a bad Backbone C. But without network neutrality, the ones that are going to throttle every last dollar they can from their network are the ones controlling the "last mile" to your house - the cable and local telco companies. Google can't get around them without running that fiber to everyone's house - or wirelessly, as they plan to do in the SF area.

Re:Google?

[kickassweb]

Google didn't just buy dark fiber, Google also leased space in NYC in one of its largest buildings that happens to sit right on top of the 9th Avenue Fiber Highway and boasts one of the biggest Global Peering Facilities. From the article:

For the time being, by installing itself above Chelsea's broadband "fiber highway" at 111 Eighth Avenue, St. Arnaud explained, Google can bypass many of the major telecommunications firms and interface directly with Tier 2 service providers such as Level 3 Communications or XO Communications, which also are located in the building. This will significantly cut down the costs associated with reaching business customers on Wall Street and in the media and fashion worlds, and generally throughout the Northeast power corridor from D.C. to Boston. The arrangement also suits the Tier 2 providers, which are "thrilled because they can get content directly from Google and bypass" the major telecom and cable Tier 1 providers, St. Arnaud says.

I think this is Google's way of telling Ed Whitacre to "put this in your Pipes and smoke it." Y'all notice the date on that Voice article, I submitted it here the day after. Oh, and Google's been posting lots of NYC jobs on their website, though none are tech postings.

Zapp Branigan's view on Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Zapp: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Zapp: So, a plan to assassinate some weird looking aliens with scissors. How very neutral of you.

Neutral Alien: Your neutralness, it's a beige alert.
Neutral President: If I don't survive, tell my wife 'hello'.

Change ISP's to whom?

[Travoltus]

How many other DSL/cable modem providers are there in your area?

Re:Change ISP's to whom?

[painQuin]

I use Comcast - why?
is it because of their speed? 6mbps on a device that should be able to do 140 or something? nope.
is it because of service? roughly 10% downtime a year... nope.
or is it because my only other option is dialup... yeah, that was it.

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for fiber to h

[XorNand]

Repeat after me: Coorelation does not equal causation.

What evidence do you have that supports the notion that Americans will get faster access if net neutrality is scuttled? This is equating "faster access" with killing net neutrality is the exact koolaid that the telcom industry has been trying to cram into the collective consciousness. Their real goal has nothing to do with fiber in your home. It's all about being able to wring more cash out of Google, YouTube, and especially Vonage (who directly undercuts them).

WTF

[rmadmin]

it would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services.

Did I read this wrong? Some municipalities already offer their own broadband services. I know this because I'm "Broadband Services Coordinator" at a municipal utility. So I ask.. WTF?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Is local government good at doing anything??? No offense to you I am sure you are very good at your job, but local government sucks at managing most things, and eventually realizes it and then subcontracts the work.

Why is local government and tax dollars even working on this? Let the free market loose!

Re:WTF

[demigod]

Is local government good at doing anything?

I grew up in a small city that handled the water, sewer, electric, gas and trash services. I can safely say it provided better service and cheaper rates than any place I've lived since. My parents still live there and they are still happy to have a single bill for all those services and thier rates are still better than mine on every single service.

I really wish they would take over cable TV and phone.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of a government's role is to provide services and infrastructure for the people under its governance.

I don't know why people in the USA have such a hard time with that concept. They seem to think that government's only role is to screw them.
Let me let you in on a little secret - the war of independance was all about the right of a few rich merchants to avoid paying taxes, so you could set up a government based around the concept of coorporations not paying taxes.

Re:WTF

[DragonWriter]

In many cases, local government is very good at doing things, because local government officials are more likely to have to deal with their actual constituents without layers of flappers insulating them from the people who pay their salary.

No No No

[flink]

So if UUNet is throttling traffic to Amazon how will switching from Comcast to ATT help? It won't. Chances are all routes from your physical location to a given host passes through one of only a few Tier 1 providers regardless of who your last mile ISP is. Don't think in terms of your local ISP charging you to vist websites, think of trunk carriers charging websites to receive traffic from them.

Breaking Net Neutrality violates the End to End Principal. Think of it this way: would you want a phone call from Boston to Florida to cost more than one from New York to California because some regional telco in Georgia wanted to charge Miami more to receive calls? The end of a rational peering system won't be the end of the Internet, it will just be the end of this internet.

Re:No No No

[hr raattgift]

Breaking Net Neutrality violates the End to End Principal.

Principle. The "principal" would be Dave Clark.

"Net Neutrality" and the End-to-End principle are essentially orthogonal.

The Clark/Seltzer/Reed argument was that an open-loop congestion-avoiding datagram mode protocol would perform better as a generic bulk transport than any admission-controlled or per-hop-error-corrected one. Except for unusual corner cases, the argument is generallly considered to be right, and is the basis for TCP and other RFC-2001-style congstion-avoiding transports.

The unusual corner cases which are relevant today are where the open control loop is too long (time-wise) for any retransmitted data to be usefully fresh upon arrival at the ultimate destination, and where there are large numbers of receivers.

In the past -- especially in the original End-to-end argument advanced in 1981 -- there was a great deal of argument about the value of offloading processing from the end systems to intermediate systems, consolidating instead of distributing processing. Distribution has better scaling properties in large networks, and full consolidation was not possible in any event, as even in fully circuit-switched networks the end systems perform the same computational tasks (validating data, recovering from corruption, controlling admission/emission) as between any of the intermediate systems along the path.

End-to-end argues that these computational tasks are only needed at the end systems, and not in any of the intermediate systems. While the "only" part is debated from time to time, the Internet has scaled extremely well surviving not only large increases in the number of end systems and total traffic, but also huge and sudden fluctuations in traffic patterns. In the mid-1990s, there was concern about the then dominant traffic pattern, namely very short TCP connections which would never exit slow start (in this case, HTTP instead of FTP). Earlier there was concern about very bursty, transactional TCP connections (NNTP, for example). Now, the usual mode is TCP bulk transfers of about 9MBytes between entirely arbitrary end systems (file sharing and other P2P apps), while the current concern is for applications whose data become stale within a round trip time between source and destination (VOIP, live (rather than recorded) TV), which is inherently bursty, and which has to navigate paths which can be probed at any moment by a long-lived TCP bulk transfer seeking to reach equilibrium (this involves bottleneck bandwidth exploration and will change the time it takes for traffic to exit the bottleneck's queue).

There are a number of areas where TCP is a poor fit. Some of these problems go beyond the Internet however: go to a sports bar with multiple screens, especially one which is receiving multiple transmissions of the same live sporting event, e.g. standard definition broadcast over the air and high definition over digital cable or satellite... compare clocks. Alternatively, try to have a phone conversation with someone in central Kyrgyzstan from your U.S. mobile phone during periods of maximum solar noise and count the number of person-to-person retransmissions and back-offs ("Say again? I didn't hear that because of the static." and "Oops, go ahead and talk.")

A variety of approaches wherein the network service offering is altered to accomodate these situations exist (and many more are proposed). A handful of end-to-end approaches also exist for many of these problems, are deployed, and are working reasonably well (some aren't easy or beautiful though). Finally, there are hybrid approaches wherein end-to-end RFC-2001-like protocols are carried over links which deal with local congestion and corruption without the participation of the end systems.

End-to-end isn't really concerned about homogeneity of the intermediate systems as much as it is about distributing congestion avoidance and recovery from data corruption to the end

The first rule of slashdot fight club is...

[leoxx]

Correlation != Causation

Net Neutrality Existed

[SquareVoid]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I will try to explain the breif history of this debate as I have understood it since its development.

1) The internet was considered a telecommunication and as thus had to adhere to existing net neutrality regulations. This was the case since the internet existed.
2) At some point, the FCC ruled that the internet was a data service and not a telecommunication. As a side effect of this ruling, Net neutrality was no longer required for the internet.
3) Verizon (I think) started to throtle VoIP, more specificly Vonage traffic.
4) Verizon, Bellsouth and ATT came out and publicly made statements that Google, YouTube, and Vonage have been getting a free ride on their pipes (forgot who started it).
5) The easily defeatable debate of a "free ride" (due to the fact Google/YouTube/Vonage pay for their traffic) made the telecoms change their position and the debate about wanting to serve Television over the internet (TVoIP?). Somehow Net Neutrality would prevent them from offering these extra services to their customers.
6) The "free ride" debate sparked interest in creating a net neutrality bill passed for the internet.

There is a lot more details here, but this is in essence what I have followed. I do not see why it is so hard to see that the greedy bastards are the cable/telecoms? Why are we paying so much for internet access and yet receiving so little when compared to other countries? Where did the $200 billion go to fund a 45mbps duplex fiber line to every home in America? Why do people keep defending the very same companies who tried to rob you of $2/month when the FCC lifted several federal charges on DSL? I am pretty pissed, and everyone else should too!

Re:Net Neutrality Existed

[Anonymous Coward]

> I am pretty pissed, and everyone else should too!

(hic) I'm always pissed (hic)

The Debate Made Easy

[Aqua_boy17]

For me, if I'm ever torn on a candidate for office or a ballot mandate and I don't know or have time to research all of the issues involved, I'll often look at who supports or opposes them. One can often make an informed decision based on this alone.

So, lets look at who supports Net Neutrality: Google, Yahoo, Vonage, Ebay, Skype, Amazon etc. Now take a gander at who is against it: Most (not all) politicians, major telcos such as Verizon, ATT, Comcast, Time Warner and now hardware manufacturers are coming out against it. Now is it so hard to tell who is telling the truth and who is spreading FUD? Who among those mentioned above has the best interests of the consumer and small businesses in mind, and who else is constantly trying to squeeze more and more and more profits from them?

Whitacre is a Liar

[queenb**ch]

What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that."

I can tell you that Google, Vonage and everyone else who has a web presence out there already pays a bill. They're already paying to make sure that their packets get where they're going. How is it the consumers fault that AT&T can't work out a profitable peering agreement with Google's bandwith provider? I can tell you why they can't! Too many AT&T customers sending email, visiting site, etc. that aren't on AT&T's network. Since they can't keep their customers on their own network, they have agreements that let them swap traffic "for free". For example, AT&T swaps with C&W so that everyone stays connected, all the email gets through, and we can all surf where we want. What they really want to do away with is the peering agreements. They're all trying to move to an AOL-ish model where you keep your customers on your 'net and just call it "the internet", even though it's really only sites that are either hosted or cached on their network. Man, this makes the Chinese goverment look like a bunch of role models instead of the censors that they really are.

Well, I don't want anyone telling me "You've got mail!" I want a real internet connection.

I pay my bill to Verizon for a screaming fast 7MB/sec FIOSS connection. If I want to host, which is against my AUP, but I never put up anything that sucks up too much bandwidth, so they've never complained. Still, it is bandwidth that I purchase from my provider. I want to go where I want and do what I want on 'net without some damn pop up saying "Google is over it's service limit with Verizon and so your access to this site is temporarily blocked." If Verizon tries it, I'll be going back to my own T1 with an indie carrier. If the indie carrier tries it, so help me, I'll start my own wireless 'net replacement, invite everyone to join me, and make rude hand gestures at the big boys like AT&T, C&W, etc.

If you don't like this legislation, write your congressman or your sentor and tell them to get their 90 year old heads out of the sand before it's too late.

2 cents,

QueenB

multicast is more useful for IP-TV

[openright]

multicast would be much more useful to allow TV-like content.

Just like the Bill of Rights...

[norminator]

I wonder how many of the Founding Fathers spoke out against the Bill of Rights as a solution without a problem? Sometimes Regulation needs to step in to prevent our rights from getting regulated away.

It's not a solution looking for a problem

[91degrees]

The ultimate problem is hypothetical.

The actual genuine problem is lack of competition.

Find a way to increase competition, and both problems go away.

Ethics

[wonkavader]

On the same day that we see a story that says over 50% of business students cheat, we see an article in which:

Network equipment manufacturers lie, because they want to sell equipment.

Bobby Rush lies, because he's selling his community out to the phone lobby by pushing a law which will "Improve competition between VoIP Intenet-based telephone services and local telephone services" (by adding more restrictions to VoIP companies, which means less competition for the local phone companies, not more). He has the audacity to promote a law which will "Allow localities to retain control of their rights-of-way and ensure local jurisdictions still receive the franchise fees they collected under the current system. Additionally, the FCC will be authorized to step in if a locality tries to unfairly use its rights-of-way authority to block new competitors from entering the local market." which is simple doublespeak, since it claims to give rights but also codifies the giving of them away.

The Telcos lie, because they claim no restrictions will be made, while at the same time DESPERATELY fighting any restrictions on their ability to restrict, which wouldn't hurt them at all if they WEREN'T lying.

Nobody in consumer-friendly (read TV) national news simply calls them on this obvious stuff, because they're in tight with advertisers and telcos advertise.

And if all the above didn't curdle your toes, the average schmoe in business school thinks that mirepresentation is just fine.

Bobby Rush's bill

[wonkavader]

Here's Bobby Rush's bill: http://www.benton.org/benton_files/HR%205252%20COP E_0.pdf

Damned if they do... no matter what they do.

[Roger Wilcox]

Net Neutrality, while a wonderful principle, is a poor reason to invite the Feds to regulate the Internet. That always leads to preservation of the status quo, at any cost.

The federal government is owned by big business, and vice versa. Both of these parties have ulterior motives for regulating Internet communications. Perhaps saying that the party has ulterior motives would be more accurate.

Regulation in itself is not necessarily bad, but in this instance I have a feeling that we, the people, will be losing out regardless of the direction in which this legislation falls.

I'd like to see GW try and say that!

[thegnu]

the country likes wars. "the war on information nonproliferation" sounds pretty good to me.

"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the information nonproliferationists."

"This crusade, this war on information nonproliferation is going to take a while."

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for fiber to h

[sheldon]

It's interesting. Europe has widespread deployment of cell phones. But not so many hardwired lines.

Oh yeah, that's right... they've got all these old buildings and streets and such. Harder to run wires around after the fact, but it's easy to deploy wireless antennas.

Now compare this to the US where we have telephones, but not much broadband or cell coverage. Because the country is so fricking huge, it's expensive to run wires and/or put up that many antennas.

Wait a minute! I think you might have determined causation wrong.

User Friendly had it right.

[stile99]

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060909 Give the babies their bottle. Just when they are in the middle of jumping and hooting for joy, that's when you tell them they just lost common carrier status.

One Simple Phone Call and a few simple letters.

[Irvu]

Now is the time for /.ers and anyone else who favors Net Neutrality to Speak Out While it would be nice to sit back and let google fight the fioght for us that is not how this works. If we want something done, if we want to live in a democracy, we have to take action. Action does not mean posting on /. or angrily croaking amongst ourselves while the water boils. It means speaking to others, explaining net-neutrality to our neighbors and *gasp* taking a hand in politics.

Here's how:

1. Prepare yourself by:
   1. Familiarize youselves with the issues at hand. Wikipedia has a good piece on the topic.
   2. Identify the specific legislation at issue, in this case the major bill in question is (I believe) S 2686 brought to you by Senators Ted (Tube boy) Stevens and Daniel Inouye. Ted has been in office for 37 years and Daniel for 43. Daniel is not the longest serving senator. Do not be fooled by the erroneous wikipedia entry stating that the bill was defeated by the Senate Commerce and Science Committee. Stevens and Inouye head that committee.
   3. You should also note the other relevant legislation especially the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (HR 5417) and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S2917)
2. Then:
   1. Contact your Senator and ask them where they stand on Net neutrality as you do explain why neutrality is a good thing and why they should support it (see below). You can identify them online. You can contact them via e-mail, smail mail, fax, or by telephone. I myself favor the phone followed up by a letter. Over the phone you can ask questions and get more info.
   2. Contact your House Representative . Although this is a senate bill there is a house bill (H5417 above) on this issue and they had better support it.
   3. Write a letter to your local paper. It is a truism that most people in the world do not read /. Many of those people get their opinion fodder from the local newspaper, and more people read the letters to the editor than any other part of the paper. This can likely be done via e-mail and can sway a lot of minds if done right. Those minds can then in turn act for net neutrality.
   4. Tell other people. Surely you know at least one other person who hasn't heard about this threat to their ability to do business and/or just do what they want online as they always have. This person may be friends, family, coworkers, etc. It doesn't matter just tell them.
   5. Repeat the above steps as often as possible.

   In all cases be clear, firm, and polite. Net neutrality is important. Make it clear to any elected official that you will vote based upon their stance and donate money accordingly. You get bonus points if they are up for election this year (Senate).
   
   Keep in mind that you will probably not reach them directly. Most likely your call or letter will be directed to an aide. That aide's job is to tell the individual what to think about an issue. The aide will be loyal to their boss but may be more easy to sway (they don't have to appear omnicient). If you make it clear to them why neutrality is important and why a non-neutral internet will cost them then you can get somewhere.
   
   This tone also goes for letters and for the public.

Common carriers don't operate in a free market

[EMIce]

..repeat after me..

People who argue against net neutrality because they feel government regulation is ultimately bad for development do to not realize that internet access has to exist in a free market for that development to happen. Most places I've been have 1 local telco and 1 cable provider, both of whom will soon be competing to offer the same thing, data service.

Both will also be glad to keep a status quo of nickle and diming for new services, ultimately limiting innovation and increasing their profits massively. One just needs a small taste of experience with Verizon or Comcast to realize this, among other offenders. $2 ringtones, $5 caller id, and giant packages of television channels that must be bought wholesale, or not at all, are just some examples. It is sort of like when you go to CompUSA and buy a printer - they make more on the $20-$30 cable "accessory" than the printer itself. Except in the case of common carriers you can't go shop somewhere cheaper, the options are limited by necessity. If they are charging $X for service Y but it costs only $X/10 to provide that service, why would they possibly lower the price barring any real competition? I don't think 2 competitors counts as a real compeition, especially since the stakes can get pretty high. Not just anyone can go put up their own telephone poles, space is too limited to allow that.

Common carriers will just smile and tell you that such "value added" services justify the cost, even when they are not adding much if any value at all. Just look around on broadbandreports.com, and you'll see plenty of reports that Comcast already manages to "lose" packets from competing VOIP providers, and I imagine it isn't going to get better with the lack of ability for others to enter and compete in this market.

If the number of competitors per market were to increase to say, 5, I think I'd be more comfortable tossing aside net neutrality. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of auction where 5 companies bid to for the ability to become common carriers, and then share the costs of bundling 5 fiber lines along each pole, that they would control individually for the next, say, 15-20 years. Bidding could re-open at the end of the term, making way for infrastructure upgrades. I don't work in the telco industry so I'm not sure how feasible this would be, but something needs to be done.

Nobody will admit the mistake.

[ClosedSource]

I'll give you an offtopic example. In the late 70's in California an inititive passed called proposition 13 which limited property taxes and more importantly added a requirement to the state constitution that a 2/3 majority in both legislative houses was needed for future tax increases.

Proponents argued that the property tax savings would be passed on to renters. Opponents claimed that a lot of state services would eliminated or greatly curtailed.

As things turned out, passage of the inititive didn't reduce rents but did produce even more dire consequences than the worst-case scenarios opponents imagined. Libraries closed, the school system is not longer the envy of the nation, infrastructure is crumbling, affordable housing has disappered and a minority of legislators can control the destiny of the state.

Once the proposition passed the proponents got what they wanted and haven't to this day admitted they were wrong.

Municipalities?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services..."

You mean, like the Town of Norwood does now (and has been doing for years?)

What on earth does net neutrality have to do with whether municipalities offer broadband?

The Town of Norwood has had municipal electric power (and has for the better part of a century). They do a pretty good job. They didn't have much trouble convincing the Selectmen that poles are poles, trucks are trucks, and customer service is customer service... and that if they could do a good job on power wiring they could do a good job on broadband wiring.

Norwood Light Broadband and Comcast compete in Norwood, and an unscientific survey suggests that they have roughly comparable numbers of customers.

Re:Municipalities?

[kimvette]

Start offering your service in Hanover and Rockland please.

Multicast would rock.

[Grendel Drago]

Multicast would rock for a lot of things, not the least of which would be Bittorrent, or any P2P app for that matter. Let the internet multiply your outbound bandwidth for you.

There are probably really clever architectural reasons why multicast is hard to implement, or doesn't scale to the entire internet, though. Darn.

Re:Multicast would rock.

[Tancred]

Widespread multicast I think would negate the need for Bittorrent - one tiny server could produce one stream of data and let the network duplicate it to the millions of clients. I'm no multicast specialist, but I think a major reason it hasn't been implemented is a billing issue. As an ISP, you generally charge for bandwidth. If you offer multicast, your customer may send you a single 1mbps stream and you may have to duplicate that into dozens, hundreds or thousands of streams. How do you keep track of all those streams to bill for them, or do you guess somehow and charge a flat rate for multicast service?

Re:Nobody will admit the mistake.

[erroneus]

To suggest that rent would be lowered simply because owners pay less taxes is ridiculous. Under no voluntary situation would I opt to accept less income simply because I'm paying less tax. I'd rather just buy more or save more money. So what would make property owners charge less for rent? Not lower taxes!

The only thing that would have lowered rent would have been competition. That competition was already balanced and so nothing needed to change there.

It's an interesting insight into a parallel problem.

As far as never admitting they were wrong, this one year alone has witnessed significant change in the US's perspective on global warming. Not only do I no longer hear denial arguments (though no one said they were wrong yet) now I hear California suing car makers!

Well, if we were looking for a reason to get car makers to start producing hybrids and electrics, that's the motivation we were waiting for...

Dancing around the issue

[CustomDesigned]

The Wikipedia article dances around the core issue. Nobody is against QOS. The problem is that certain ISPs want to use QOS to extort money by threatening to degrade service. The intent of QOS technology was that ISPs would offer to honor QOS flags in traffic passing through their network for a fee. These are opposite approaches. The first has the ISP selecting which packets get high priority. The second has the ISP *customers* selecting which packets get high priority. The first approach is evil. The second is needed to make VOIP and other real-time protocols reliable.

It seems to me that ISPs can make plenty of money by simply charging by the real-time packet. End points can make as much or as little of their traffic real-time as they wish. It is probably necessary to reserve a certain bandwidth ahead of time to be guaranteed minimum latency. VOIP and similar applications also need a button or config option to enable real-time priority. Those on a budget may choose to put up with the dropouts and pops. Or they may have reserved a small amount of bandwidth, and need to save it for important calls.

The telco ISP threats to boost/degrade service based on endpoint is just greedy and evil.

Re:Dancing around the issue

[dgatwood]

Except that QoS isn't needed, period. I don't know about you, but I've had excellent reliability with A/V over the net without any QoS routing. If we get to the point where traffic congestion changes this, we have much bigger problems. Dropped packets or heavily delayed packets screw up everything, not just voice traffic. TCP/IP basically falls over dead if latency is over a few tens of milliseconds. That's why satellite internet sucks so badly.

http://ispcolumn.isoc.org/2004-01/latency.html

I'm not convinced that ISPs should be in the business of being anything other than a bulk pipe. If they want to provide special services to their customers, that's fine, but not at the expense of being a bulk pipe.

Re:Dancing around the issue

[Identifiable Coward]

QoS is a solution looking for a problem in my opinion.

• If there is sufficient bandwidth available then QoS makes no noticeable difference.
• If there is insufficient bandwidth available then QoS becomes useful but...
  • Anyone who wants to use realtime protocols now needs to pay extra.
  • Because QoS only works if there are packets it can drop it can only improve connectivity by making other connections slower / less reliable.
  • As non-premium traffic is now being dropped / slowed QoS becomes even more necessary.

I can see why ISPs are interested. They can profit more by providing less bandwidth than we need! Why should I be interested again?

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for fiber to h

[kcbrown]

What evidence do you have that supports the notion that Americans will get faster access if net neutrality is scuttled?

I'll go even further than that: scuttle net neutrality, and Americans will get slower overall access to the internet. The reason is that the telcos will be able to simultaneously advertise very high speeds (since the speed the customer gets for "preferred" traffic will be very fast) while also reducing (through traffic shaping) the bandwidth available to non-"preferred" traffic. The reason for that is to minimize the amount of additional infrastructure

So the question really is: what makes you (the original poster) think that the customer will be able to use the bandwidth he can get even if he does get FTTH? Once the ISPs violate net neutrality, they'll have no incentive at all to improve general internet service, and every incentive to reduce it.

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for fiber to h

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan and Korea have legislated net neutrality.

The Lies - don't fall for them

[Tancred]

Frequent lies:
  - network neutrality would change how the internet works (no, it preserves it)
  - content providers are using network infrastructure for free (bull - if a corp doesn't like its peering arrangements, renegotiate)
  - they want everyone to keep their hands off the internet (no - they want to get their hands on the internet without interference from the public)

Don't buy into the lies. The telco and cable companies are making a power grab, leveraging their (mostly government-granted monopoly or duopoly) network dominance into content. The equipment manufacturers want to be able to sell lots of new equipment the companies that want to restrict and degrade services other than their own. No mystery there. Network neutrality gives us something close to a meritocracy on the internet - the best site wins loyalty from the public.

Not in America

[Anonymous Coward]

n countries with almost no neutrality (Korea, Japan) it is pretty common by now to have a 100 Mbps or even 1 Gbps link in the household.

In America that would equate to everyone having 100 Mbps links but only allowed to surf freely at 56Kbps. The rest of that bandwidth used to sell you television shows, movies and other asorted crap.

A 100 Mbps link would be great if we could use it as we wanted, not as apportioned out by ISP's with dollar signs in their eyes.

As for backbone operators? That is what peering arrangements are all about.

I'm afraid what we are seeing here is Greed knifing the baby.

What about the third alternative?

[istartedi]

What about the third alternative: Congress does nothing.

I know, I know. It'll never happen; but I can dream.

Net Neutrality Misconception

[drwav]

The problem I am having with these companies and government representatives is that Net Neutrality isn't some new thing that some anti-something special interests group is trying to get. It is something that for the most part we internet users already have and all we want is to keep it.

This is what will happen..

[LinuxDon]

Quote: "they'll pay 0.01c per kilobyte"
That's 10 dollar per gigabyte! And who is going to pay apple for delivering the service? You are!
1GB costs less than 1 dollar right now, can you see the increase in costs?
If you want no redunction in service when streaming a movie, you should get a decent internet connection. I promise you, it will be MUCH cheaper in the long run.

Net-neutrality needs to be guarded, or internet providers will implement a pay-per-type-of-usage system.
In which case you will get charged extra for making a VPN connection to your work, because you're using it for business purposes.

Next thing, the RIAA will stalk the internet providers, forcing them to pay up for all bittorrent traffic.
Also, google video will get so expensive that they'll have to cancel it or switch to a subscription based system.

Please remember that the end-user (you!) is going to have to pay for this all! After all, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Next thing you know, you will be telling to your grand children how great the internet used to be! Back in the days, it didn't matter what you did on the internet, all traffic cost the same and you had only 1 fixed amount you had to pay!

Why will it turn out this way? Because company's will always maximize their proffits, given the chance.

Also, there are enough possibilities to get faster/guaranteed data transfers between certain points as it is, i.e. leased lines. Do you remember how -EXPENSIVE- they were?

Required reading

[SanityInAnarchy]

Everyone re-posting the exact same arguments without understanding the whole issue should read the Wikipedia entry before posting. If you really don't see your argument represented, add it.

I am so sick of reading the exact same arguments over and over about net neutrality. "But the federal government never gets anything right! Boo regulation! Yay free market!" Or worse: "Net neutrality is just a plot by Google to get free Internet!" Or still worse: "Don't you want your Internet to be fast?"

Look, people. We know that Government Regulation is bad. We also know that government regulation is a necessary evil when there are practical monopolies afoot, even moreso when censorship is an issue. We know VOIP needs QoS to compete with BitTorrent, and we also know that ISPs should be actually giving us the bandwidth we're paying for, and not BS it by calling it "burst" bandwidth. And furthermore, we all know Google pays for their Internet just the same as anyone else, and we know that the Telecoms have gotten plenty of money from the government to build infrastructure that they aren't delivering. We know the telecoms claim that it's a "solution in search of a problem", and we know specific examples of where it has been a problem in the past.

OK? Can we all stop this stupid debate and get back to our lives?

Net neutrality, OSes (Linux/Windows/Mac/BSD/other), UK spy cams, NSA wiretapping, and probably a few other topics I'll remember 10 seconds after I post this -- all of these seem to inspire about 50% of the comments that are rehashes of the same exact BS we've been spewing for awhile. We should come up with a list of required reading, and we should all read it, before posting the same moronic bullshit every time. That way, the only moronic bullshit left can all be slammed with -1 Astroturf, and we'll actually be having an intelligent, new debate.

Well, new, anyway.

Re:"Neutrality" is about control of who delivers w

[sgt_doom]

TheWoozle had it perfectly correct and so do you, kind citizen FriendlyLurker. You offer the global view while The Wooz offers the detailed, at-present view, but basically one and the same.....

A felon, a fundamentalist and a fascist walk into a bar. The bartender says: "Good evening, President Bush!"

Re:Nobody will admit the mistake.

[ClosedSource]

"To suggest that rent would be lowered simply because owners pay less taxes is ridiculous."

I agree, but that was how they tried to "sell" it to renters.

So this begs the question, why no class actions!

[plasmacutter]

When congresscritters and corporate big wigs are hurt by outright lies in the media they sue for libel, slander, false advertising, what have you.

I want to know where the class action suits on behalf of the EFF, Google, and the general public are?

Politicians, at least the smart ones.. don't sit and take crap like that lying down.. why the heck are these people? Especially when the settlement could fund their own commercials.

If your answer is "there is no specific law this activity falls under".. then I think it's time we got one..

We need laws which directly and strictly prohibit the presentation of propaganda and outright lies as truth.. not just in the "false advertising and fraud" sense when you're selling a product.. but also in the "undermining democratic process" sense when you're selling a political idea.

The first people to prosecute.. DCI.. then this den of liars on net neutrality.

God, I'm starting to *hate* corporations.

[FFFish]

The *only* reason the tech corporations are supporting the Bill is because it puts our money in their pockets. They could not care less about our freedoms, our rights, our desire to share and communicate. They just want to fuck us over.

Re:Nobody will admit the mistake.

[erroneus]

I'd like someone who used to deny global warming to deny it now...

Quick?

[Drakin020]

They only wana do it quickly now because elections are coming up. this will totaly change the ball game.

It's all over but the shouting.

[jafac]

It's BEEN all over since they killed the television/radio/newspaper equivalent of "net neutrality" - called the "fairness doctrine" back in the 1980's.

It's all over but the shouting, which is pretty much why shouting is all we've been able to do since then, because nobody's listening anymore.

Until that time, America was good shephards of capitalism. Now we've let it grow wild and feral. And this force of nature, the "free market" is going to roll right over this country like Katrina rolled through New Orleans.

would it help....

[z3d4r]

the debate if The Rest of The World(tm) began throttling all traffic to and from the USA(pty ltd)

savetheinternet

[BlatOdea]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/ http://www.myspace.com/savetheinternet Get educated, do your part, support Net Neutrality. I have a personal web gallery, I'd rather not have to fight over bandwidth-leftovers after Telco's are done prioritizing contracted websites.

Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, Non-neutrality is a problem

Why wouldn't manufacturers say that?

[BlueDreaux]

I'm not surprised that manufacturers aren't for net neutrality when net neutrality would keep service providers from having to buy as much hardware when they have to make updates to their existing hardware every time a new protocol comes out that the current hardware can no longer effectively/efficently process. Net Neutrality keeps costs down for ISP's by allowing them to invest in bandwidth instead of toll-booths and it allows them to avoid legal battles over not filtering out illegal content. I really don't think telcos have thought this one through and are really only hoping to kill their cableco competition. I personally like competition, it gives me options and provides an incentive for things to keep getting better, something the telcos have lost track of with thier charging exorbant prices for the simplest of phone services. Don't belive me, go check out the free O'Riely book on Asterisk.

say that ugly word: "competition"

[teh_chrizzle]

everyone will go to "over the internet" delivery of everything, it's a no brainer. it's cheaper to build out, cheaper to add new features, and cheaper to enter new markets. the unfortunate thing for the telco's and cable companies is that for new competitors it's cheaper to build out, cheaper to add new features, and cheaper to enter new markets, meaning that the incumbent carriers will be relegated to leveraging the only service they are able to provide: internet access. once the cableco's and telco's have to compete directly, the result is a race to the bottom, and no one wants that (except consumers, businesses, and local municipalities).

so in the minds of cableco's and telco's (and for the people that make equipment for cable and telco's) it's better to keep internet access a peripheral offering to either cable television service or telephone service, even though internet access is all anyone is really interested in. this is where municipal broadband, muni-wifi, wimax, and broadband over powerlines will have to make headway.

Re:So this begs the question, why no class actions

[wonkavader]

Does anyone know if other countries have such laws?

It seems difficult to get such laws because the political machine depends so much on the big lie. Politicians would be undermining themselves to pass such legislation.

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for FTTH

[Amid60]

Funny, Europe is very densely populated - and far behing in deployment. Perhaps, excess regulation still has something to do with that?

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for FTTH

[Amid60]

There is this insignificant force called "market". If someone with wires will try to squeeze too much cash out of Google, someone else will provide wires to Google for less. Until this "too much" is reached, I could care less if Google will have to fork some extra moneys over to Baby Bells. I don't own either Google or Bells stock, so why should I care?

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for FTTH

[Amid60]

--- Repeat after me: Coorelation does not equal causation. ---

Sorry, I see little reason to repeat misspelled mantras, as magic will not happen with badly cast spells. Just to make you happy, I would agree that
Correlation does not equal causation, but frequently hints at one :-)

Just try to get any decent broadband access in Europe, and compare that to Japan, where providers in the middle of bad economy spell are busily laying new wires - and you might be just tempted to agree that a hands off approach of the government is the best.

As for your concerns about Google, I do not see it doing badly under current regulations - could you please tell me again why do we need a new law to improve Google cash flow?