Net Neutrality -- Will it Get Sold?

[Kaylee]

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,198610,00.html

Why would an Internet company open its arms to congressional regulation of the Internet?

Speed. There is a movement underway to 'privatize' the high-bandwidth access and I have a feeling eBay would be interested in this issue.

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news...le.php/3607371
Net neutrality.

(This is a split from "Why ebay wants to put poker players in prison.")

So which way do y'all think it will go? Will the net stay neutral or go private?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Let's see, which way would Congress go: vote for the benefit of the people, or vote for the benefit of large, wealthy companies?

Hold your breath!

 

[Grammatron]

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,198610,00.html




(This is a split from "Why ebay wants to put poker players in prison.")

So which way do y'all think it will go? Will the net stay neutral or go private?

Last time I checked I paid to use to Internet; people paid to have their websites registered and hosted; host companies paid to have their data moved through the internet backbones, etc. I am trying to figure out which part is not private.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Let's see, which way would Congress go: vote for the benefit of the people, or vote for the benefit of large, wealthy companies?

Hold your breath!

Neither. Vote for the benefit of themselves is the correct answer.

 

[geni]

Last time I checked I paid to use to Internet; people paid to have their websites registered and hosted; host companies paid to have their data moved through the internet backbones, etc. I am trying to figure out which part is not private.

Various govement and militry networks. Networks in various countries where the local telecom is state owned. That kind of thing.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Last time I checked I paid to use to Internet; people paid to have their websites registered and hosted; host companies paid to have their data moved through the internet backbones, etc. I am trying to figure out which part is not private.

Yeah, you want top line service, you pay for it. Just like people pay for private school. Doesn't mean that the school system is privatized.

Do you really think VOIP is so cheap because of the technology? It's heavily subsidized.

 

[rocketdodger]

Let's see, which way would Congress go: vote for the benefit of the people, or vote for the benefit of large, wealthy companies?

Hold your breath!

Yeah, too bad that the benefit of the companies is the same thing as the benefit of the people in this instance..

The people who are arguing for net neutrality don't have a clue about the nature and operation of the internet.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah, too bad that the benefit of the companies is the same thing as the benefit of the people in this instance..

The people who are arguing for net neutrality don't have a clue about the nature and operation of the internet.

Then kindly explain it.

 

[Rob Lister]

Then kindly explain it.

Yes, I'd like to be given a clue too.

 

[geni]

The main problem is that this gives the various traffic carries more ways to fall out. The upshot of this is that you will end up with a situation where various bits of the web go missing from time to time.

 

[rocketdodger]

Then kindly explain it.

In a nutshell, the socialist ideal doesn't work very well when it comes to internetworking.

1) People should be able to pay for priority service. Since the networks take $$$ to build and run, it only makes sense that providing more $$$ should result in better service.

2) People should not be able to gobble up more than their fair share of network utilization. The only viable metric to base "fair share" on is how much $$$ they pay for the service. As it is, very few networks have any router-centric congestion control because that is virtually impossible to implement fairly without some kind of quality of service hierarchy.


The arguments for keeping the internet "neutral" all revolve around some socialist notion that equal access for everyone is the best scenario and that everyone will play fair if they have equal access. But this is totally misguided.

The internet, like any part of the tech industry, is driven by $$$ and only $$$. Forcing people willing to pay big $$$ for better service to simply accept the same service as everyone else, which at the same time denies the network companies $$$ that they could use to improve technology or infrastructure, is probably the most retarded thing one could do from an economical perspective.

Furthermore, the idea that everyone will play fair is ludicrous. As it is, precisely because quality of service strategies are so sparsely implemented, router-centric congestion control is a rare thing on the internet -- this means that responsibility for avoiding overloading the networks lies with the individual hosts. I don't need to explain why this is a bad idea, especially since the internet is no longer used exclusively by academia. Keeping the internet neutral means it is virtually impossible to police utilization, for the exact reason that there are no contracts to enforce.

 

[Morrigan]

The internet, like any part of the tech industry, is driven by $$$ and only $$$.

Bullsh*t.

 

[rocketdodger]

Bullsh*t.

Ok are you going to provide evidence for why you think my claim is BS or what...

 

[Random]

If we don’t trust the government or individuals to play fair, why would we trust guys like AT&T and Verizon? Once they get the ability to regulate the content of what goes through their pipes, what to prevent them from trying to eliminate competitors? What if AT&T prevented you from sending e-mail to people who used Verizon broadband and vice-versa? What if Bell decided they wanted Jeb Bush to be President in ’08 and cut down access speed to Democratic websites? Right now, these things are impossible due to the concept of network neutrality, but they won’t be if this telecom stuff gets pushed through.

Are there problems with the current system and issues of fairness regarding use? Probably. But I think that before we hand over the whole ball of wax to some multi-billion dollar telecommunication companies we should get something more solid than a vague “Oh, we wouldn’t do that” from these companies.

 

[rocketdodger]

Right now, these things are impossible due to the concept of network neutrality, but they won’t be if this telecom stuff gets pushed through.

No, it is not impossible. It is simply very illegal, which is what they would be if neutrality got canned as well. Of course it might be easier for them to break the law, but on the flip side the networks might be faster and more reliable (if you can pay the $$$ hehe). Antitrust legislation would apply here just as anywhere else.

Are there problems with the current system and issues of fairness regarding use? Probably. But I think that before we hand over the whole ball of wax to some multi-billion dollar telecommunication companies we should get something more solid than a vague “Oh, we wouldn’t do that” from these companies.

Not probably, is. And you are absolutely correct -- we do need much more than a promise. But in my opinion it is a wise decision to risk sacrificing fairness for progress because we can always go back and fix the fairness problems if they occur. We would never have told Microsoft "stop doing what you are doing because you innovation might lead to problems," we simply got after them after they stopped playing fair.

 

[Random]

No, it is not impossible. It is simply very illegal, which is what they would be if neutrality got canned as well. Of course it might be easier for them to break the law, but on the flip side the networks might be faster and more reliable (if you can pay the $$$ hehe). Antitrust legislation would apply here just as anywhere else.



Not probably, is. And you are absolutely correct -- we do need much more than a promise. But in my opinion it is a wise decision to risk sacrificing fairness for progress because we can always go back and fix the fairness problems if they occur. We would never have told Microsoft "stop doing what you are doing because you innovation might lead to problems," we simply got after them after they stopped playing fair.

And we all know how vigorously the government pursues anti-trust actions…

 

[Morrigan]

Ok are you going to provide evidence for why you think my claim is BS or what...

I just have to think about all the independently ran, not-for-profit websites, and all the open-source community out there, to know that "the internet is driven by $$$ and only $$$" is just vacuous.

 

[asmodean]

In a nutshell, the socialist ideal doesn't work very well when it comes to internetworking.

1) People should be able to pay for priority service. Since the networks take $$$ to build and run, it only makes sense that providing more $$$ should result in better service.

I think you've misunderstood net neutrality. It's not about you paying more for better QoS, it's about ISPs being neutral about to where your traffic is going. Without net neutrality, as an example, MS can pay off a number of large ISPs to always give reuests to Google a lot lower priority than requests for MS's own search engine.

2) People should not be able to gobble up more than their fair share of network utilization. The only viable metric to base "fair share" on is how much $$$ they pay for the service. As it is, very few networks have any router-centric congestion control because that is virtually impossible to implement fairly without some kind of quality of service hierarchy.

But this is not net neutrality.

The arguments for keeping the internet
The internet, like any part of the tech industry, is driven by $$$ and only $$$. Forcing people willing to pay big $$$ for better service to simply accept the same service as everyone else, which at the same time denies the network companies $$$ that they could use to improve technology or infrastructure, is probably the most retarded thing one could do from an economical perspective.

Hmm. Really? How long have the $$$ driven the net? middle of 1990? How long since DarapNet was first kicked off? And net neutrality have worked very well so far, and does in no way infringe on IPSs right to charge for QoS.

Seems all your arguments against net neutrality wasn't... really against net neutrality at all.

 

[rocketdodger]

I think you've misunderstood net neutrality. It's not about you paying more for better QoS, it's about ISPs being neutral about to where your traffic is going. Without net neutrality, as an example, MS can pay off a number of large ISPs to always give reuests to Google a lot lower priority than requests for MS's own search engine.

.... which means MS would be paying for a higher quality of service, which is exactly what I said. Why shouldn't this kind of thing be allowed if it is within bounds? I have a few words for you: "postage paid if mailed within the united states.."

Of course there could be exploitation, but thats what the government is here to correct. Microsoft has already gotten its arse in trouble trying to do similar things, they will if they try again.

I also think that you are probably right assuming that net neutrality is the best option for now, but think about this -- what if isps had to give every client some kind of QoS assurance, and if they fail to meet it the client get's their money back for that month (or some refund along those lines). In such a scenario, I couldn't care less if MS pays them for priority because as long as MY personal contract is followed I am happy.

You seem to be proposing the idea that one entity paying for priority implies all others loosing something, which I agree is bad, unless we have a contract that dictates we get our $$$ back in such cases.

 

[rocketdodger]

But this is not net neutrality.

No, but network neutrality implies that people shouldn't be penalized for lack of a QoS, which means anyone and everyone's packets should get fair treatment.

What if, however, people had to pay for all that traffic -- suddenly, the spammers and script-kiddies are out of business.