Slashdot Mirror
Network Neutrality Back In Congress For 3rd Time
suraj.sun writes "Ed Markey has introduced his plan to legislate network neutrality into a third consecutive Congress, and he has a message for ISPs: upgrade your infrastructure and don't even think about blocking or degrading traffic. The war over network neutrality has been fought in the last two Congresses, and last week's introduction of the 'Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009' [PDF] means that legislators will duke it out a third time. Should the bill pass, Internet service providers will not be able to 'block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade' access to any lawful content from any lawful application or device. Rulemaking and enforcement of network neutrality would be given to the Federal Communications Commission, which would also be given the unenviable job of hashing out what constitutes 'reasonable network management' — something explicitly allowed by the bill. Neutrality would also not apply to the access and transfer of unlawful information, including 'theft of content,' so a mythical deep packet inspection device that could block illegal P2P transfers with 100 percent accuracy would still be allowed. If enacted, the bill would allow any US Internet user to file a neutrality complaint with the FCC and receive a ruling within 90 days."
Same, but given the choice between that never happening and this having a snowball's chance in hell I'll give the snowball a go and warn the rabbis to keep an eye out for flying pigs.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
"A mythical deep packet inspection device that could block illegal P2P transfers with 100 percent accuracy would still be allowed." Sorry just had to snicker at that line, especially since nothing is 100% , hell some of us aren't even sure if we exist. We all could be a figment of the creator's imagination or some Matrix existence. One thing I am sure of is that I am babbling .... I think ... err ummm
This is exactly what AT&T does with their "UVerse" service. You get a fast enough pipe to get TV, but you have a pitifully slow Internet connection. I'm not sure if they're neutral about how they let you use your open connection, but it seems like it's such a small amount of bandwidth that they don't care if people saturate it.
Is this kind of service reasonable or should the customer at least have an option (perhaps at a significantly higher cost) to use some of the huge fiber connection for other things?
Therefore, if they have a 20-Gbps link to your house, but they offer 7-Mbps of open bandwidth, with 13-Mpbs reserved for their own downloadable movies, they can only advertise 7-Mpbs service.
Makes sense to me... Can anybody poke any logical holes in this (other than "Cable sucks, let's screw them")?
For one thing, 7 Mbps + 13 Mbps is not 20 Gbps
Let me tell you that your application for Verizon marketing department is hereby declined. Thanks. Don't call us, we'll call you.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();