Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise
An anonymous reader writes: The net neutrality debate has been pretty binary: ISPs want the ability to create so-called "fast lanes," and consumers want all traffic to be treated equally. Now, AT&T is proposing an alternative: fast lanes under consumer control. Their idea would "allow individual consumers to ask that some applications, such as Netflix, receive priority treatment over other services, such as e-mail or online video games. That's different from the FCC's current proposal, which tacitly allows Internet providers to charge content companies for priority access to consumers but doesn't give the consumers a choice in the matter."
AT&T said, "Such an approach would preserve the ability of Internet service providers to engage in individualized negotiations with [content companies] for a host of services, while prohibiting the precise practice that has raised 'fast lane' concerns." It's not perfect, but it's probably the first earnest attempt at a compromise we've seen from either side, and it suggests the discussion can move forward without completely rejecting one group's wishes.
AT&T said, "Such an approach would preserve the ability of Internet service providers to engage in individualized negotiations with [content companies] for a host of services, while prohibiting the precise practice that has raised 'fast lane' concerns." It's not perfect, but it's probably the first earnest attempt at a compromise we've seen from either side, and it suggests the discussion can move forward without completely rejecting one group's wishes.
You mean just like we can do now assuming our ISP treats all traffic equally? Isn't QoS supported by most home type routers, even without having to flash it with dd-wrt or tomato or whatever?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Fuck you AT&T.
How is this a compromise? You hire a thousand people to vote the way you like, net neutrality on their terms. again.
No.
Summation 2
Treat a packet as a packet. Don't play games with the traffic.
I did not RTA, but from the summary it sounds as if AT&T's proposal would allow AT&T to instead charge customers extra based on the applications they wish to use. No, thank you. AT&T, you already charge too much for broadband services which are far below the performance of broadband offered in much of the developed world. Charging consumers even more is an insult to the consumer, and an abuse of your government-granted utility monopolies (at least in may areas of the US).
So would AT&T's proposal let you "fast lane" any site? Or just a select group of major sites that AT&T has "approved"?
Oh, I see. So it's not really "I want X to be fast-laned" and then it is. It's "I want X to be fast-laned", therefore AT&T might possible approach X and demand fast lane payments. This way AT&T can pass the blame for the fast lane charges to the customers (who will also pay for those charges via increased fees for those sites) and can still pocket the money. Also, they are guaranteed that Netflix and the other Internet video companies would top the lists. Just the sites that they themselves would have targeted for extortion... I mean, fast lane payments.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If the consumer can call for some content to be provided faster, the beginning state has to be that all traffic is slowed down; you can't go faster than "fastest". If all traffic is slowed down, you're already violating net neutrality. In other words, this proposal assumes a state in which net neutrality advocates have already lost and gotten nothing.
Old plan:
1. Make all internet slow lane.
2. Require content providers to pay for fast lane.
New plan:
1. Make all internet slow lane.
2. Require content providers to pay for fast lane.
3. Require customers to pay in order to access fast lane.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Why would you request a fastlane for Netflix? As you can just buffer the video. If it's not fast enough you need a better internet connection.
Current internet connections are fast enough, future ones may not be.
Video file size will continue to increase. Connection bandwidth will not increase if ISP's can earn money from not increasing it.
For fast paced multiplayer games you would request a fast lane, or any multiplayer game really.
For games you mostly need low latency, not necessarily high bandwidth (which is what the fast lanes are about).
But what connections can be fastlaned? If Netflix or Valve have to negotiate for users to have fastlanes, then it will still cause the same problems.
That basically sums up the entire problem. Content providers will all pay extra for the fast lanes, as a result all content providers' traffic will be equally fast.
Internet will be just as fast as it would be with true net neutrality but ISP are raking in a lot of money for doing effectively nothing.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
This proposal just serves to muddy the clear definition of the role of an ISP, and they can then use that ambiguity to create problems and extract more revenue by charging to fix their problems. It's critical that there be a clear definition of an ISPs role in the network, and the IETF has maintained those clear distinctions for decades now. Let's not let the business deal-makers muck things up!
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Just the fact that AT&T proposed it is enough to poison the entire proposal. Anything out of AT&T is going to be an attempt to fuck somebody because that's what they truly excel at. After all the taxpayers have done to provide money to build these guys networks and the subsidies they've gotten over the decades it's time for it to end.
Even most of the posts here seem to miss the point that they are trying to keep the argument framed in terms of particular sites like Netflix. I think if they had said something like "allow individual consumers to ask that some applications, such as streaming video , receive priority treatment over other services", then it might be a reasonable attempt at a compromise. As it is, it's a sly bit of marketing to mask the desire to extract money from direct competitors. The last thing they want is the focus to be where it should be--content providers and service providers should not be the same companies.
This assumes that the large telecoms (like AT&T) are going to bargain on an equal basis with their customers.
Anyone with even a shred of sanity will laugh themselves silly over the notion.
The Net Neutrality movement is a collective bargaining tool. Because individuals have exactly ZERO power to influence their telcom provider. And AT&T KNOWS this. Keeping people as individuals in this instance allows them to hide their malfeasance.
Moreover, even if they had any intention of playing the prioritization straight, they're going to try to put a per-MB/GB price structure into place.
This offer should be given the "fuck off" it deserves.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!