domino Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Let's start off by defining Net neutrality. Some broadband providers proposed to start charging content providers in return for higher levels of service. Packets originating from providers who pay the additional fees would in some fashion be given better than "neutral" handling, while those content providers who do not pay the higher fees would get a lesser level of service. Given this ability to accelerate the handling of selected packets, the service providers would perhaps give Quality of Service guarantees to given senders or recipients. This points out that once the net moves away from common carrier rules there are at least two levels of pricing: the price an ISP charges consumers for access and the price the ISP could charge Websites by varying bandwidth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality I was just watching a re-run of CSPAN's coverage on the debate with Vint Cerf, who co-developed the Internet's backbone protocols and Dave Farber, a Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist widely considered to be a "grandfather" of the Internet. - C|NET Article To me, we are heading into a new era of The Internet. The Carriers have just about tapped every means to make money form the consumers and now targeting business to pay bandwidth charges. This is definitely bad news to small companies and start-ups that don't have the capacity for additional overhead. Dave Farber proposed that no one country (congress) should control content. I agree with him and it will be a sad day if "nondiscrimination rules" on the Internet is abolished. The Senate Committee narrowly rejected the proposal 11-11. To me that was a victory to the Internet companies. I can only think of one reason that prompted this. GREED... Souces: Net neutrality debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Sounds like a great idea. Now, access to ads and spamware and products you dont want will be blazingly fast, while access to torrents and homepages and blogs will be relagated to the hell of null routing. I cant wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 What the Senate defeated was a bill that would legislate the way internet traffic is distributed by commercial entities. This is a bad idea. Why do the same people that {censored} about the Bush administration having too much power want the government to regulate the internet. In five years the capacity and speed of the internet will change and why should there be some archaic law from 2006 hindering progress? It may sound like a sexy idea to endorse 'net-neutrality' but by making law to regulate something so dynamic that the legislatures don't even understand is counterproductive. I believe the market will keep companies from restricting certain kind of traffic by means of profit. By choosing your ISP, you vote for their policy. If any of them do it then don't use them and get service with their competitor. Seems simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted July 23, 2006 Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 I believe the market will keep companies from restricting certain kind of traffic by means of profit. By choosing your ISP, you vote for their policy. If any of them do it then don't use them and get service with their competitor. Seems simple to me. I can only wish that were true. There is one thing that I can think of that will make that impossible for many people. Multiple broadband companies aren't available in every city in the US. If you only have one ISP that chose to filter packets, you have no choice to move to another company. It's not as easy as changing browsers and operating systems. It was discussed that , the Internet is an untapped resource. Once congress finds out how far they can dip there fingers in the Internet, things will change. One reason they aren't able to now is because they (congress) are ignorant and aren't as knowledgeable as the record and movie company folks. They are congress' brains and voice and the FCC will be stuck right in the middle of it all. In five years the capacity and speed of the Internet will change and why should there be some archaic law from 2006 hindering progress? Counties like Japan, S. Korea, and few places in Europe is already there. 100 megabit is normal in those countries for well below USD$100/mo. They are not the richest countries in the world, yet they managed to provide unregulated bandwidth for everyone in the country. I think the problem in the US, with the exceptions of few, is that Capitol Hill still have not embraced technology and it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 It was discussed that , the Internet is an untapped resource. Once congress finds out how far they can dip there fingers in the Internet, things will change. One reason they aren't able to now is because they (congress) are ignorant and aren't as knowledgeable as the record and movie company folks. They are congress' brains and voice and the FCC will be stuck right in the middle of it all. So, you want these same politicians to regulate the internet to protect it from themselves? This doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Isn't it a misnomer to call it "net neutrality"? I mean, the plan calls for certain sites to be given a definite advantage by paying a fee. Hardly neutral for all parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted July 23, 2006 Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 So, you want these same politicians to regulate the internet to protect it from themselves? This doesn't make sense. That's the furthest from the truth. I want the politics to stay far, far away from Internet freedom. that's the last place we can state our opinions and not get punished for it. It's one of few places where us small companies can raise income and not get additionally charged for our services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Net neutrality is like "women's suffrage" to me - I think it's a cause that has a bad name that eventually confuses a lot of people. I say the gov't should get stay far away too. But that's how I am about most things... (Moved this great thread to the Internets forum) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted July 23, 2006 Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 I'll play devil's advocate. What if: - congress says that ISPs can give "VIP" treatment to companies that pay. The "VIP" treatment would be 1 gigabit bandwidth as oppose to 100 megabit bandwidth. Would you agree to that? - congress does approve some legislature one day that, say.. mandate a service that they know can not be attained by the normal consumer? Do you think it's a win-win for both parties? thanks for moving the thread chief... :B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 If what you're saying is that Congress allows an ISP to give such and such company a lot more bandwidth, I cant disagree with that. But that happens now. What I have a problem with is the potential abuse of "VIP" companies getting router priority, thereby squashing out those sites that dont pay the piper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 That's the furthest from the truth. I want the politics to stay far, far away from Internet freedom. that's the last place we can state our opinions and not get punished for it. It's one of few places where us small companies can raise income and not get additionally charged for our services. No new law was made. Lets keep it that way and my startup can go toe to toe with yours. I'll be here in the us, you have yours in southeast Asia, but keep telling me how {censored} should be. No prob. --I still am here Lee R. I will not let you down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If what you're saying is that Congress allows an ISP to give such and such company a lot more bandwidth, I cant disagree with that. But that happens now. What I have a problem with is the potential abuse of "VIP" companies getting router priority, thereby squashing out those sites that dont pay the piper. If you are insinuating that the US government has the ability to grant a 'VIP' company better use of the small percentage of the resources they are using (dark fiber is waiting), I want to know. I will help expose them and humiliate them. Otherwise this hypothetical potential {censored} is hyper-endowed with adjectives. Go back to dissin Israel and campaigning your socialist, self-rightous (by thinking you are a visionary by challenging your govenment's status quo) agenda. (Have you ever traveled out of the G-8?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 First of all. I said I'm against a set of activities. I didnt say those activities were the plan. If the government wants to create a law that says "everything stays the same", I dont have a problem. I have a problem if congress passes a law the says "only companies that pay for router time will be allowed to use them". If the controversy is whether or not a law should be passed that changes nothing, or a law shouldnt be passed and everything should stay the same, well... why have a law if it doesnt do anything? As for the "Isreal dissing", I dont think it's being biased against Isreal to say that Isreal has a right to do what it's doing, but the palestinians shouldnt just roll over. I'm a both-sideser. Because that is a crazy issue for crazy people on both sides, Pro-Palestinians call me a Muslim-hater, and Pro-Isrealis call me an anti-semite. It's easier to fling names than to try to figure stuff out, isnt it? Each side is equally at fault in the current crisis. EDIT: Maybe I should clarify my position. If a Backbone ISP wants to sell more bandwidth to a content provider... what's stopping them? Sounds good. If I pay $10,000 a month for a T3, and I want to scale up to two T3s at $20,000 a month... is some law stopping me? I dont think so. What I think domino is suggesting is that say... Comcast High Speed Internet will now be allowed to determine what packets receive what priority on it's network. So, if Spamware.com gives Comcast a lot of money, it will get first switching onto my computer, whereas a site that DIDNT pay Comcast is delayed and slowed, having nothing to do with it's bandwidth limitations. These are serious concerns. And as much as I'd like to trust in the Invisible hand, when every ISP simultaneously decides that selling routing priveleges is a nice cash cow for them, everyone is f*cked. Soandsoblog.com (or www.osx86project.org) doesnt have the budget to pay the extortion. Mediaclick.com does. The internet shouldnt exist as a just another way to trick people into spending all of their money and living a life of $100,000 credit card debt. This is my impression of what domino is saying. If you disagree with my interpretation of his idea, feel free to ask him if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted July 24, 2006 Author Share Posted July 24, 2006 You hit it on the nose gwprod12. That's exactly the type of company I was talking about and that's exactly the situation that I'm against. If I worked my ass off for 6 years acquiring clients who are on RR, CC, and AT&T. Why should they gain from something I worked my ass off for ? We are in the exporting business and it's my job to get the information to retailers, distributors, and anyone one else who takes interest in our services. I also manage servers that have just under 150 accounts each. No new law was made. Lets keep it that way and my start-up can go toe to toe with yours. I'll be here in the us, you have yours in southeast Asia, but keep telling me how {censored} should be. The internet is one place where there are no governing powers and no borders. Every little bill concerning the IT sector, whether it's in Taiwan, China, or New York, affects me in one form or another. Unrestricted access to our servers if vital to our company and it ensures my family income in the next generation. So whether you are based in China or New York, it does affect our company and the people working for us. PS, let keep the war {censored} out of this thread. I watch enough news and I'd like to go some where that doesn't remind me how pathetic my generation is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Agreed on the war. Though I felt I had to respond to a rather baldly put accusation of bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I'm sorry for the loaded posts. I was kinda drunk and now I wish I didn't post them. I understand the concerns domino and net neutrality proponents have, well witten gwprod. I don't really know what should be done and if some kind of law is made, I just hope it is worded correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 When I get drunk, I jump on anything that moves. So I guess it's alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted July 24, 2006 Author Share Posted July 24, 2006 It didn't sound like it was in your character jc. Don't worry about it.. I wish I had time to get drunk.. I'm just afraid that if some law was ever to make it through the system, it could be abuse. We all have already witnessed something like this happen all the time with the DCMA. If the US is to be the pioneer in this, other countries will follow suite and I don't think the politicians in country I'm in can handle that much responsibility. It's bad enough that there are only 2 companies that run the ISP industry here. All the rest are either mother, father, brother, and sister companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassJAw Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 No one in Congress knows how the internet works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P83FGtPCuvc This is proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 Speachless... How did these guys get appointed? It's like appointing hill billy joe to represent the nation at the G8 Summit or the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts