arstechnica.com— A new study from the University of Florida suggests that mandating network neutrality would result in more, not less, infrastructure investment and better options for consumers.
Mar 12, 2007View in Crawl 4
I don't work for a corporation, I work with an advocacy group. There are corporations in that coalition, telcos indeed. But there are unions and other non-profits in there as well. And besides, the supporters of Dorgan-Snowe would have to be corporate shills as well -- only, shills for different corporations.Maybe AT&T and Verizon are less "likable" than eBay or Amazon, but that doesn't make them wrong.
"better service comes from greater competition"Absolutely true. However, goverment regulation in a market as wide-open as the Internet will only handicap competition. If one ISP puts the crank on then other ISPs will rush to steal their dissatisfied customers away from them. I'm sick of government solutions for problems that don't even exist yet.
It is and always will be about getting as many dollars as possible out of the public pocket book, irregardless how you package the product.....oh and of course now that have to play the snoop game because of the bogus boogeyman, mr. terrorist...please
As a followup to signal15's comment: I'd bet we would see packages like the ones with cable tv and such. $X/month buys you access to search sites, sports sites, etc. If telcos/ISP want to offer premium service above and beyond Net Neutrality, fine. Seems like reasonable capitalism.
The network neutrality provisions will certainly be needed when you consider the history of broken promises and unfettered avarice in the teleco industry. What happened to the promised 45mb fiber optic broadband promised in 1996 by the telecoms to be delivered by 2006 in exchange for $200 billion in tax breaks, fee increases, and other considerations? The fact of the matter is they delivered none of it! They took the money and cross subsidized other areas of their business operations to compete unfairly and through merger consolidation walked away from their obligations. They essentially stole $2000 from every family in America and gave a few crappy slow DSL. <a class="user" href="http://www.newnetworks.com/scandals.htm">http://www.newnetworks.com/scandals.htm</a> Now this collection of the worlds biggest welfare bums is back for more! If the telecoms get their way then they basically "own" the Internet. The incentive will be to packet sniff and traffic shape every bit traveling their corner of the net. They will set up "deals" with certain content providers that will work wonderfully over their own system. Competitor's bit streams will be channeled low priority therefore discouraging users within their system. As each fiefdom traffic shapes and prioritizes as they see fit the differing decisions play havoc with those users tempted to cross the ether outside their ISP's control. Users will be driven to data stream encryption to get around the constraints imposed on them by the prying eyes of their ISP's. Still the ISP can degrade or block competitors to reinforce the value of their own "services". They can offer premium "packages" that give higher payers less latency and prioritized streams within the ISP's fiefdom. As consumers find it increasingly frustrating trying to connect to content outside the system they will frequent the sites paying extortion for premium connection within the system. Lower tiered subscribers will reluctantly "upgrade" to premium tiers to get the Internet to work the way it used to. Artificially created bandwidth restriction will be too irresistible for ISP's. They have already neglected to invest in the infrastructure of the Internet. The US is ranked about 16th and falling in roll out, speed, and price of broadband world wide. We have diminished economic competitive standing while a handful of Federally anointed duopolies is literally given a license to print money. If you think "competition" will prevent this from happening you are kidding yourself. There are few choices for broadband for most people and the ones available all know the real money is in content delivery. None of the ISP's are interested in a cut-throat competition to just provide bandwidth! If this isn't the business plan the telecoms are setting up right now then why the opposition to Net Neutrality? NN will still allow them to have different broadband tiers and flexibility in pricing and usage fees. ISP's can offer all the content and streams they want. It just says treat all the bits equally as they travel through their network. No playing favorites! After all, the ISP's are paid for every bit of bandwidth that is used. If an ISP's system is inadequate to handle the bandwidth they have charged for then the incentive is to supply more. Those that offer compelling content can expect success. No need to rig the system to essentially compete unfairly. So why the vehement position against Net Neutrality by a handful of corporations? If their intentions were good I would think they would be promoting it to avoid the unfair business positioning of potential competitors. Or is there really competition?<a class="user" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863</a><a class="user" href="http://news.com.com/FCC+changes+DSL+classification/2100-1034_3-5820713.html">http://news.com.com/FCC+changes+DSL+classification/2100-1034_3-5820713.html</a><a class="user" href="http://tinyurl.com/moz3m">http://tinyurl.com/moz3m</a>An explanation why traffic shaping is not the answer: On competition and technologyPosted by mollywood CNET (See profile) - July 11, 2006 8:30 PM PDTGary Bachula is vice president of the Internet2 project, which is, in his words, "a very advanced, private, ultra-high-speed research and education network called Abilene." These guys have, literally, built a new Internet from scratch. And you know what Bachula said in his testimony before Congress on the issue of Net neutrality? I'll quote in entirety below, but here it is in a nutshell: we tried a tiered Internet, and it doesn't work. Packet prioritization is a canard. All you need is bandwidth. To wit:"Having deployed an advanced broadband network to over five million users for some seven years now, we at Internet2 believe our experience will interest Congress as you consider important telecommunications legislation.We are aware that some providers argue against net neutrality, saying that they must give priority to certain kinds of Internet bits, such as video, in order to assure a high quality experience for their customer. Others argue that they want to use such discrimination among bits as a basis for a business model. Let me tell you about our experience at Internet.When we first began to deploy our Abilene network, our engineers started with the assumption that we should find technical ways of prioritizing certain kinds of bits, such as streaming video, or video conferencing, in order to assure that they arrive without delay. For a number of years, we seriously explored various “quality of service” schemes, including having our engineers convene a Quality of Service Working Group. As it developed, though, all of our research and practical experience supported the conclusion that it was far more cost effective to simply provide more bandwidth. With enough bandwidth in the network, there is no congestion and video bits do not need preferential treatment. All of the bits arrive fast enough, even if intermingled.Today our Abilene network does not give preferential treatment to anyone’s bits, but our users routinely experiment with streaming HDTV, hold thousands of high quality two-way video conferences simultaneously, andtransfer huge files of scientific data around the globe without loss of packets.We would argue that rather than introduce additional complexity into the network fabric, and additional costs to implement these prioritizing techniques, the telecom providers should focus on providing Americans with an abundance of bandwidth – and the quality problems will take care of themselves.For example, if a provider simply brought a gigabit Ethernet connection to your home, you could connect that to your home computer with only a $15 card. If the provider insists on dividing up that bandwidth into various separate pipes for telephone and video and internet, the resulting set top box might cost as much as $150. Simple is cheaper. Complex is costly."I urge you to read his entire testimony. It's extremely instructive.<a class="user" href="http://tinyurl.com/moz3m">http://tinyurl.com/moz3m</a>
Screw legislation; increase competition at the internet exchange points and avoid the problem of price discrimination entirely.Net neutrality legislation prevents the telco monopolies from flexing their muscle and allows end-user ISPs to better compete within their domain--yes. Yet it simply fixes a leak in a barrel already full of holes. There are so many more problems associated with this monopoly that venture capitalists ought to look to introduce competition with the major bandwidth points of the internet, not simply end-user ISPs.
ghoti06Mar 12, 2007
I don't work for a corporation, I work with an advocacy group. There are corporations in that coalition, telcos indeed. But there are unions and other non-profits in there as well. And besides, the supporters of Dorgan-Snowe would have to be corporate shills as well -- only, shills for different corporations.Maybe AT&T and Verizon are less "likable" than eBay or Amazon, but that doesn't make them wrong.
Closed AccountMar 12, 2007
"better service comes from greater competition"Absolutely true. However, goverment regulation in a market as wide-open as the Internet will only handicap competition. If one ISP puts the crank on then other ISPs will rush to steal their dissatisfied customers away from them. I'm sick of government solutions for problems that don't even exist yet.
ghoti06Mar 12, 2007
chetanw, can you justify that statement about the "non-compliance fee"? Please try. I haven't the slightest idea what factual basis that could have.Meantime, let me point out that Hands Off the Internet supports the basic principles of net neutrality, and we took out a newspaper ad last year to say so: <a class="user" href="http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/media/HOTI_FCC%20Principles_05.pdf">http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/media/HOTI_FCC%20Principles_05.pdf</a>
lordmetroidMar 12, 2007
What is the matter with you people? So full of paradoxes, you shy the word communism yet you promote the idea of central planning of economic systems!
mojibyrdMar 12, 2007
It is and always will be about getting as many dollars as possible out of the public pocket book, irregardless how you package the product.....oh and of course now that have to play the snoop game because of the bogus boogeyman, mr. terrorist...please
whovianMar 12, 2007
As a followup to signal15's comment: I'd bet we would see packages like the ones with cable tv and such. $X/month buys you access to search sites, sports sites, etc. If telcos/ISP want to offer premium service above and beyond Net Neutrality, fine. Seems like reasonable capitalism.
pooveyMar 12, 2007
So government regulation will improve the Internet? I have to go lay down, I have a paradox headache.
zanzzzMar 13, 2007
The network neutrality provisions will certainly be needed when you consider the history of broken promises and unfettered avarice in the teleco industry. What happened to the promised 45mb fiber optic broadband promised in 1996 by the telecoms to be delivered by 2006 in exchange for $200 billion in tax breaks, fee increases, and other considerations? The fact of the matter is they delivered none of it! They took the money and cross subsidized other areas of their business operations to compete unfairly and through merger consolidation walked away from their obligations. They essentially stole $2000 from every family in America and gave a few crappy slow DSL. <a class="user" href="http://www.newnetworks.com/scandals.htm">http://www.newnetworks.com/scandals.htm</a> Now this collection of the worlds biggest welfare bums is back for more! If the telecoms get their way then they basically "own" the Internet. The incentive will be to packet sniff and traffic shape every bit traveling their corner of the net. They will set up "deals" with certain content providers that will work wonderfully over their own system. Competitor's bit streams will be channeled low priority therefore discouraging users within their system. As each fiefdom traffic shapes and prioritizes as they see fit the differing decisions play havoc with those users tempted to cross the ether outside their ISP's control. Users will be driven to data stream encryption to get around the constraints imposed on them by the prying eyes of their ISP's. Still the ISP can degrade or block competitors to reinforce the value of their own "services". They can offer premium "packages" that give higher payers less latency and prioritized streams within the ISP's fiefdom. As consumers find it increasingly frustrating trying to connect to content outside the system they will frequent the sites paying extortion for premium connection within the system. Lower tiered subscribers will reluctantly "upgrade" to premium tiers to get the Internet to work the way it used to. Artificially created bandwidth restriction will be too irresistible for ISP's. They have already neglected to invest in the infrastructure of the Internet. The US is ranked about 16th and falling in roll out, speed, and price of broadband world wide. We have diminished economic competitive standing while a handful of Federally anointed duopolies is literally given a license to print money. If you think "competition" will prevent this from happening you are kidding yourself. There are few choices for broadband for most people and the ones available all know the real money is in content delivery. None of the ISP's are interested in a cut-throat competition to just provide bandwidth! If this isn't the business plan the telecoms are setting up right now then why the opposition to Net Neutrality? NN will still allow them to have different broadband tiers and flexibility in pricing and usage fees. ISP's can offer all the content and streams they want. It just says treat all the bits equally as they travel through their network. No playing favorites! After all, the ISP's are paid for every bit of bandwidth that is used. If an ISP's system is inadequate to handle the bandwidth they have charged for then the incentive is to supply more. Those that offer compelling content can expect success. No need to rig the system to essentially compete unfairly. So why the vehement position against Net Neutrality by a handful of corporations? If their intentions were good I would think they would be promoting it to avoid the unfair business positioning of potential competitors. Or is there really competition?<a class="user" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863</a><a class="user" href="http://news.com.com/FCC+changes+DSL+classification/2100-1034_3-5820713.html">http://news.com.com/FCC+changes+DSL+classification/2100-1034_3-5820713.html</a><a class="user" href="http://tinyurl.com/moz3m">http://tinyurl.com/moz3m</a>An explanation why traffic shaping is not the answer: On competition and technologyPosted by mollywood CNET (See profile) - July 11, 2006 8:30 PM PDTGary Bachula is vice president of the Internet2 project, which is, in his words, "a very advanced, private, ultra-high-speed research and education network called Abilene." These guys have, literally, built a new Internet from scratch. And you know what Bachula said in his testimony before Congress on the issue of Net neutrality? I'll quote in entirety below, but here it is in a nutshell: we tried a tiered Internet, and it doesn't work. Packet prioritization is a canard. All you need is bandwidth. To wit:"Having deployed an advanced broadband network to over five million users for some seven years now, we at Internet2 believe our experience will interest Congress as you consider important telecommunications legislation.We are aware that some providers argue against net neutrality, saying that they must give priority to certain kinds of Internet bits, such as video, in order to assure a high quality experience for their customer. Others argue that they want to use such discrimination among bits as a basis for a business model. Let me tell you about our experience at Internet.When we first began to deploy our Abilene network, our engineers started with the assumption that we should find technical ways of prioritizing certain kinds of bits, such as streaming video, or video conferencing, in order to assure that they arrive without delay. For a number of years, we seriously explored various “quality of service” schemes, including having our engineers convene a Quality of Service Working Group. As it developed, though, all of our research and practical experience supported the conclusion that it was far more cost effective to simply provide more bandwidth. With enough bandwidth in the network, there is no congestion and video bits do not need preferential treatment. All of the bits arrive fast enough, even if intermingled.Today our Abilene network does not give preferential treatment to anyone’s bits, but our users routinely experiment with streaming HDTV, hold thousands of high quality two-way video conferences simultaneously, andtransfer huge files of scientific data around the globe without loss of packets.We would argue that rather than introduce additional complexity into the network fabric, and additional costs to implement these prioritizing techniques, the telecom providers should focus on providing Americans with an abundance of bandwidth – and the quality problems will take care of themselves.For example, if a provider simply brought a gigabit Ethernet connection to your home, you could connect that to your home computer with only a $15 card. If the provider insists on dividing up that bandwidth into various separate pipes for telephone and video and internet, the resulting set top box might cost as much as $150. Simple is cheaper. Complex is costly."I urge you to read his entire testimony. It's extremely instructive.<a class="user" href="http://tinyurl.com/moz3m">http://tinyurl.com/moz3m</a>
clevingerMar 13, 2007
Screw legislation; increase competition at the internet exchange points and avoid the problem of price discrimination entirely.Net neutrality legislation prevents the telco monopolies from flexing their muscle and allows end-user ISPs to better compete within their domain--yes. Yet it simply fixes a leak in a barrel already full of holes. There are so many more problems associated with this monopoly that venture capitalists ought to look to introduce competition with the major bandwidth points of the internet, not simply end-user ISPs.