Net Neutrality?

[asterism]

The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.

no frankly it hasn't, unless your idea of 'net neutrality' is way off ours.


Today's meeting is the first in a series of focused discussions, with ITI serving as facilitator, aimed at developing Internet openness principles that can achieve broad cross-sector support," said Dean Garfield, president of ITI, in a statement. "Over the last few months, much work has been directed at developing such a solution—including by Google—with significant positive steps forward."

Similar negotiations fell apart earlier this month at the FCC after Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. announced their own legislative proposal for giving the FCC authority to be Internet traffic cop. The companies' proposal dealt with the issue of "net neutrality," a shorthand for the principle that broadband providers shouldn't deliberately slow or block legal Internet traffic.

The companies were criticized by some for their proposal, which wouldn't apply net neutrality rules to fast-growing wireless networks.

The proposal also would have given Internet providers wide latitude to create priority lanes of Internet traffic for companies who pay for priority delivery service.

Google isn't involved in the current closed-door negotiations, a spokeswoman confirmed. "We took our best shot at a constructive proposal. This is an important issue and we support any attempt to move the ball forward," she said.

FCC officials also aren't actively involved. "While we're not involved in these new discussions, we're glad that there is ongoing dialogue," a FCC spokeswoman said in a statement.

Along with Cisco and Microsoft, the current negotiations include representatives from AT&T Inc., Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which represents cable companies.

Spokespeople of the companies didn't immediately return calls about their involvement in the negotiations.

The Information Technology Industry Council, which is hosting the talks, represents Dell Inc., International Business Machines Corp. and Microsoft Corp., among other companies.

Phone and cable companies have been trying to reach an industry compromise on the issue of net neutrality in hopes of preventing the FCC from moving forward with a proposal for re-regulating Internet lines so the agency can enforce net neutrality rules.

Telecommunications companies say re-regulating Internet lines under rules designed for old phone networks will discourage new investments in wireless or Internet lines. Internet companies and public interest groups want the FCC to have clear authority to enforce net neutrality rules to prevent broadband providers from deliberately favoring some traffic over others.

rest at-

Lobbyists Resume Talks Over Net Neutrality - WSJ.com

To my knowledge, no ISPs have started prioritizing bandwidth to websites that pay more, or offering "Premium packages" for customers like cable tv - which is the only thing addressed by "Net Neutrality".

The cable companies do. Email and VOIP works fine, large file transfers are slower.

 

[Trajan]

To my knowledge, no ISPs have started prioritizing bandwidth to websites that pay more, or offering "Premium packages" for customers like cable tv - which is the only thing addressed by "Net Neutrality".

I would think you would appreciate the terms 'mission creep' or 'camels nose under the tent'.



Over the past decade, lobbyists have tried to argue that more government control over the Web would somehow result in more freedom. Many in the high-tech world originally supported this view, perhaps because "net neutrality" sounds like the side of the angels. But as other industries have learned, the relationship between regulation and freedom is inverse, not direct. There's not much wrong with the Internet now, but there's a big risk in giving regulators more control of an industry in which even the gurus have little idea what innovations will come next.

Everyone agrees that Internet providers shouldn't discriminate based on content. The question is the role for government. If Comcast, which is in the process of acquiring NBC, started to discriminate against CBS or ABC, its Internet competitors would be quicker than regulators to point to an inferior consumer experience.

To take another example, Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America, points out, "Proponents of net neutrality have long claimed that the Federal Communications Commission needs to lay down some rules ensuring freedom of speech on the Internet. As a songwriter, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept that the FCC is going out of the censorship business and into the protection of free speech."

In the name of neutrality, lobbyists want to stop Internet providers from managing their networks by charging more to providers or users of bandwidth-hogging services such as video and online games. This amounts to a forced subsidy of certain users of the Web at the expense of others. As demands on the Web escalate, speed and reliability will inevitably depend on more management of the network, including through different prices for different levels of service.

rest at-
Crovitz: 'Net Neutrality' Goes 0 for 95 - WSJ.com

 

[Trajan]

from the gov. angle this is about money and power. a huge virtually ( no pun intended) untapped reservoir of commerce that can be taxed, by states and the feds asdie from simplle sales tax collected by some states via net purchases .......

power as to the do gooders whom think they need to manage content etc. , because well, you know we can't and need them to do it for us.

The net has I think untapped potential and may be one of the last frontiers of information production and delivery, to say nothing of creativity, the LAST thing we need is the gov. getting its mits on it.

 

[JBeukema]

You see who is for it, something is wrong with it
They created a strawman argument to choke out unwanted voices under the guise of saving the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE

wait... so the 'net neutrality' bills would create 'fast lanes' for people who can afford them and the Right is rallying against people's right to buy better service if they can afford it?

 

[JBeukema]

Do you know where the internet came from?

Yes, Al Gore invented it.

But on a serious note, yes, it was started up by the military, but the government has basically kept their hands off when it comes to regulation and let it be a free entity. There is no reason to change that, especially with this "net neutrality" plan.

The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.

That would explain the Right's opposition.


But don't I already pay for a given amount of bandwidth when I buy serverspace?

 

[JBeukema]

See:

Net Neutrality vs. Internet Freedom
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: Net Neutrality vs. Internet Freedom

...

The specter of ISPs offering glacial access to certain websites is a smokescreen, designed to obscure the net-neutrality movement's goal: preventing anyone from having superior, unequal access to customers. In the minds of net-neutrality advocates, the Internet is a collectively owned entity, to which all websites have an equal claim and are entitled "equal access." As the title of a leading net-neutrality group proclaims: "It's our Net."

But it isn't.

The Internet is not a collectivist commune; it is a free, voluntary, and private association of individuals and corporations harmoniously pursuing their individual goals. (While it began as a government-funded project, the Internet's ultra-advanced state today is the achievement of private network builders, hardware companies, content providers, and customers.) Because the Internet is based on voluntary association, no one can properly compel others for their ad space, bandwidth, publicity--or data prioritization. Those who create these values have the right to use and profit from them as they see fit. Google has no more right to demand that Verizon be "neutral" with its network than Verizon has a right to demand that Google be "neutral" with its coveted advertising space.

The only thing equal about the participants on the Internet is that all have equal freedom to deal with others voluntarily. This means they are equally free to compete for the bandwidth, dollars, and talents of others--but not entitled to an unearned, equal portion of them.

It is the freedom of participants on the Internet to offer and profit from whatever products, services, or content they choose that has made it such a phenomenal source of content and innovation. Net neutrality would deny ISPs that freedom. It would deny their right to engage in creative, innovative, and profitable activity with those networks--in the name of those who demand their bandwidth, but are unable or unwilling to earn it in a free market.

...

Same old same old. Same argument applied to a new issue. Your either for Net Neutrality and a pinko commie scumbag happy to enslave and murder millions, or (like me) your against Net Neutrality and a true blue "real" American Capitalist freedom loving huger of puppies.

Choose wisely.

not free. I pay for access. I pay for bandwidth if I want one of the big corporations to connect me to the main trunks.

 

[Trajan]

You see who is for it, something is wrong with it
They created a strawman argument to choke out unwanted voices under the guise of saving the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE

wait... so the 'net neutrality' bills would create 'fast lanes' for people who can afford them and the Right is rallying against people's right to buy better service if they can afford it?

no.

In the name of neutrality, lobbyists want to stop Internet providers from managing their networks by charging more to providers or users of bandwidth-hogging services such as video and online games. This amounts to a forced subsidy of certain users of the Web at the expense of others. As demands on the Web escalate, speed and reliability will inevitably depend on more management of the network, including through different prices for different levels of service.

 

[JBeukema]

The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.

no frankly it hasn't, unless your idea of 'net neutrality' is way off ours.


Today's meeting is the first in a series of focused discussions, with ITI serving as facilitator, aimed at developing Internet openness principles that can achieve broad cross-sector support," said Dean Garfield, president of ITI, in a statement. "Over the last few months, much work has been directed at developing such a solution—including by Google—with significant positive steps forward."

Similar negotiations fell apart earlier this month at the FCC after Google Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. announced their own legislative proposal for giving the FCC authority to be Internet traffic cop. The companies' proposal dealt with the issue of "net neutrality," a shorthand for the principle that broadband providers shouldn't deliberately slow or block legal Internet traffic.

The companies were criticized by some for their proposal, which wouldn't apply net neutrality rules to fast-growing wireless networks.

The proposal also would have given Internet providers wide latitude to create priority lanes of Internet traffic for companies who pay for priority delivery service.

Google isn't involved in the current closed-door negotiations, a spokeswoman confirmed. "We took our best shot at a constructive proposal. This is an important issue and we support any attempt to move the ball forward," she said.

FCC officials also aren't actively involved. "While we're not involved in these new discussions, we're glad that there is ongoing dialogue," a FCC spokeswoman said in a statement.

Along with Cisco and Microsoft, the current negotiations include representatives from AT&T Inc., Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which represents cable companies.

Spokespeople of the companies didn't immediately return calls about their involvement in the negotiations.

The Information Technology Industry Council, which is hosting the talks, represents Dell Inc., International Business Machines Corp. and Microsoft Corp., among other companies.

Phone and cable companies have been trying to reach an industry compromise on the issue of net neutrality in hopes of preventing the FCC from moving forward with a proposal for re-regulating Internet lines so the agency can enforce net neutrality rules.

Telecommunications companies say re-regulating Internet lines under rules designed for old phone networks will discourage new investments in wireless or Internet lines. Internet companies and public interest groups want the FCC to have clear authority to enforce net neutrality rules to prevent broadband providers from deliberately favoring some traffic over others.

rest at-

Lobbyists Resume Talks Over Net Neutrality - WSJ.com

To my knowledge, no ISPs have started prioritizing bandwidth to websites that pay more, or offering "Premium packages" for customers like cable tv - which is the only thing addressed by "Net Neutrality".

Should a person or company who's willing to pay not be allowed to pay for their traffic to be handled first, much as we pay for express shipping in the mail or the way we preorder a new video game?

So long as we're dealing with private entities, anyway.

 

[JBeukema]

You see who is for it, something is wrong with it
They created a strawman argument to choke out unwanted voices under the guise of saving the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE

wait... so the 'net neutrality' bills would create 'fast lanes' for people who can afford them and the Right is rallying against people's right to buy better service if they can afford it?

no.

In the name of neutrality, lobbyists want to stop Internet providers from managing their networks by charging more to providers or users of bandwidth-hogging services such as video and online games. This amounts to a forced subsidy of certain users of the Web at the expense of others. As demands on the Web escalate, speed and reliability will inevitably depend on more management of the network, including through different prices for different levels of service.

So it would prevent companies from charging customers differently depending on how much of a drain they are on the system? The old woman across the way who only needs a 1.5kpbs connection to read the news would have to pay the same as someone who needs 15kbps for online gaming?

Shouldn't big business and the Republicans be all over this then, since it would force the old woman to subsidize the rich man or big corporation.

Should the Dems be the ones railing against how this will raise costs for the little guy?

Something doesn't add up.

 

[Trajan]

Yes, Al Gore invented it.

But on a serious note, yes, it was started up by the military, but the government has basically kept their hands off when it comes to regulation and let it be a free entity. There is no reason to change that, especially with this "net neutrality" plan.

The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.

That would explain the Right's opposition.


But don't I already pay for a given amount of bandwidth when I buy serverspace?

your server is a storage park, if your contract says you have say T1 throughput then yes, you are. For instance when I used to game, I had a T1 line, I was guaranteed 1.544 Mbps up and down and virtually no packet loss/lag etc. due to exclusive access into my backbone etc.

 

[Trajan]

wait... so the 'net neutrality' bills would create 'fast lanes' for people who can afford them and the Right is rallying against people's right to buy better service if they can afford it?

no.

In the name of neutrality, lobbyists want to stop Internet providers from managing their networks by charging more to providers or users of bandwidth-hogging services such as video and online games. This amounts to a forced subsidy of certain users of the Web at the expense of others. As demands on the Web escalate, speed and reliability will inevitably depend on more management of the network, including through different prices for different levels of service.

So it would prevent companies from charging customers differently depending on how much of a drain they are on the system? The old woman across the way who only needs a 1.5kpbs connection to read the news would have to pay the same as someone who needs 15kbps for online gaming?

Shouldn't big business and the Republicans be all over this then, since it would force the old woman to subsidize the rich man or big corporation.

Should the Dems be the ones railing against how this will raise costs for the little guy?

Something doesn't add up.

the lobbyists are trying to get the dems to stop co.'s from charging more for services because you may use more...I am not understanding what doesn't add up for you.

 

[JBeukema]

The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.

That would explain the Right's opposition.


But don't I already pay for a given amount of bandwidth when I buy serverspace?

your server is a storage park, if your contract says you have say T1 throughput then yes, you are. For instance when I used to game, I had a T1 line, I was guaranteed 1.544 Mbps up and down and virtually no packet loss/lag etc. due to exclusive access into my backbone etc.

People think that's a bad thing?

 

[JBeukema]

no.

So it would prevent companies from charging customers differently depending on how much of a drain they are on the system? The old woman across the way who only needs a 1.5kpbs connection to read the news would have to pay the same as someone who needs 15kbps for online gaming?

Shouldn't big business and the Republicans be all over this then, since it would force the old woman to subsidize the rich man or big corporation.

Should the Dems be the ones railing against how this will raise costs for the little guy?

Something doesn't add up.

the lobbyists are trying to get the dems to stop co.'s from charging more for services because you may use more...I am not understanding what doesn't add up for you.

What doesn't add up to me is that it seems the big corporations (the ones not themselves ISPs) and other heavy users would benefit the most 'net neutrality' as you present it. I'm surprised the Reps, which tend to side with old money (eg: oil), are against it while the Dems, which tend to side with new money (eg: 'green energy') and make a big show of defending the little guy, are for it.

 

[Intense]

You see who is for it, something is wrong with it
They created a strawman argument to choke out unwanted voices under the guise of saving the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE

wait... so the 'net neutrality' bills would create 'fast lanes' for people who can afford them and the Right is rallying against people's right to buy better service if they can afford it?

NO. The the point is to rally against the encroachment of Government control. The Contract you sign with your provider is between you and your provider. If they want to keep you as a customer, they will look to satisfy you. Government is on a quest to tax you, and use any excuse to increase that load.

 

[Trajan]

So it would prevent companies from charging customers differently depending on how much of a drain they are on the system? The old woman across the way who only needs a 1.5kpbs connection to read the news would have to pay the same as someone who needs 15kbps for online gaming?

Shouldn't big business and the Republicans be all over this then, since it would force the old woman to subsidize the rich man or big corporation.

Should the Dems be the ones railing against how this will raise costs for the little guy?

Something doesn't add up.

the lobbyists are trying to get the dems to stop co.'s from charging more for services because you may use more...I am not understanding what doesn't add up for you.

What doesn't add up to me is that it seems the big corporations (the ones not themselves ISPs) and other heavy users would benefit the most 'net neutrality' as you present it. I'm surprised the Reps, which tend to side with old money (eg: oil), are against it while the Dems, which tend to side with new money (eg: 'green energy') and make a big show of defending the little guy, are for it.

it depends on whose ox is being gored...the reps are I think right, in that they think the markets should decide.......

BUT you have other co's and interests who have to rent lease whatever, bandwidth use which they in then turn, turn around and sell to you, or sell you products from. Other folks who don't have infrastructure to carry their own signals whine they are being 'shut out'.....

 

[Londoner]

Keeping open information systems is an "externality", i.e., a non-market value that some people think is worth protecting, like free speech, which is also a non-market value, e.g., Free speech is protected by the Constitution, not the incentives of buyers and sellers.

If you allow a centralized, concentrated group of interests to monopolize what information reaches the people, you will not only hurt consumers, but also citizens, who require information to make informed political choices. We want our citizens to have access to every point of view, not just the points of view which have the most money behind them. If Net Neutrality gets defeated, a small group of elite interests will be able to limit scientific and political views that hurt their bottom line. They will be able to silence or marginalize any view which might liberate the opinions of their loyal voters.

"The Road To Serfdom", "Capitalism: the unknown ideal", and "Capitalism and Freedom" were all written before business fully owned government and media. In the 60's and 70's these books were used to get rid of an overreaching government. Here is what the talk radio right does not understand: we need a new set of books to deal with a world where big business has gained total control over washington and the media. Democracy requires informed voters. If an elite few lock-up the internet, the FOX'izination of American opinion will be complete. Evolution will be outlawed. School children will be taught that Jesus road a dinosaur. Stories about corporate pollution will disappear. Terrorism warnings will pour out of every media orifice.

Attention Right Wing: we want consumers and citizens to have maximum information choices. You know not what you do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government needs to keep its claws off the Internet. Everything they touch they fuck up.

Do you know where the internet came from?

Do you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you know where the internet came from?

Yes, Al Gore invented it.

But on a serious note, yes, it was started up by the military, but the government has basically kept their hands off when it comes to regulation and let it be a free entity. There is no reason to change that, especially with this "net neutrality" plan.

The Internet has functioned under the rules of "Net Neutrality" since it's creation. The law would codify the current situation, nothing more.

What?

No ISP has ever chocked off torrents to allow normal users to have bandwidth. No ISP has ever charged anyone more for highspeed access than dial up. No ISP has ever placed a download limit on any account.

What planet do you live on?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Companies that own the connections between their customers and the Internet should not be restricted from shaping and managing traffic to provide the services their customers want. I first heard about the concept of net neutrality by an advocate who was miffed at having his torrent downloads slow down.

Exactly.

And if a company suddenly starts charging me to watch MSNBC, and allowing Fox to get through for free, there are already laws in existence to cover that. Not to mention that no one would ever be a customer of said company. Even out in the middle of nowhere there is more competition than that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You see who is for it, something is wrong with it
They created a strawman argument to choke out unwanted voices under the guise of saving the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE

wait... so the 'net neutrality' bills would create 'fast lanes' for people who can afford them and the Right is rallying against people's right to buy better service if they can afford it?

No, the left is.

Net neutrality would make those lanes illegal.