arstechnica.com — For users with broadband caps, the Venice Project could easily consume a month's worth of bandwidth in short order. Even users without caps could be affected if they "trip" unpublished limits on so-called "unlimited" services and get a call from Mr. Friendly ISP.
Jan 6, 2007 View in Crawl 4
bigslackerJan 7, 2007
Power grab because it's the government wanting to take back over regulation of the Internet. They want to decide how connections are made and what people are allowed to do with their routing. That also of course means they'll be able to install monitors to make sure people are complying with their demands. Basically a couple hundred lawyers that know little about the technology will be deciding how to manage it. That's bad for everyone that actually has to use it.High bandwidth services need priority routing to work. You simply can't run a good video service if there can be delays along the pathway. All this is easily configurable in existing equipment but the government wants to say what you're allowed to configure.
bigslackerJan 7, 2007
Nope. The last mile is not the issue. It's the hops farther down the line where entire regions share the same connection.
Closed AccountJan 7, 2007
The real key to net neutrality is in the name: neutrality. That says when you get on the internet, put up a website, video service, etc, no matter how big you are, you DO NOT have any more weight on the net than the little guy just starting up. No one has a leg up over anyone else. Yahoo doesn't get all the bandwidth because they pay more and Digg gets little bandwidth because they can't afford the fees that Yahoo can pay. Everyone is equal. This is exactly how it should be. We all depend on the net. I'm sure everyone here can agree that the internet has become a central part of their entertainment experience, video, music, IPTV, etc, everyone is incorporating it into their lives more and more. Then you have businesses: ecommerce is growing at exponential rates. Just this past Christmas, I don't think I bought a single gift at a store that i physically visited. I did all my shopping online. So, why should Wal-Mart be able to pay more and get better bandwidth to handle more customers, while Joe's Electronics gets choked out and hardly anyone can access his site because he can't afford the higher fees? Why is that fair? It's not, and it should NOT be allowed. People are calling net neutrality a power grab? It is not. It's a protection. Are laws against murder a power grab by the government? No, it's to protect innocent people's lives. Net Neutrality is no more of a power grab than that because it protects everyone's ability to use and experience the internet in exactly the same way. If ISPs want to make more money, then they should upgrade their equipment and make fiber optic lines mandatory in all regions, then they will have more customers coming in, adding to their revenue. And if small businesses can are able to have the same capability to handle traffic as a larger company, without extra costs, then more businesses are going to be willing to set up their ecommerce, thus adding even more revenue for the ISPs. The scariest part is the ISPs ability to restrict sites bandwidth based on content. There is where you will have the greatest threat. Because Bellsouth and AT&T have re-merged, you now have a communications giant that can control information flow to an incredibly large part of the country. Obviously, the FCC doesn't care about monopolies anymore. And that means that they are going to be less apt to protect the free flow of information in the face of big kickbacks by the telcos. If net neutrality isn't protected, our free flow of communication will cease very quickly.
kryptobs2000Jan 8, 2007
I am for net nuetrality, but I think that if IPTV were given more bandwidth that wouldn't really be an issue. The main issue is limiting specific things bandwidth, not really the reservation of bandwidth for things. The govt. could regulate IPTV and set requirments for telcos to offer this and I think it would be fine.
Closed AccountJan 8, 2007
@SonekThanks for the response. It either looks like there isn't a bandwidth cap, or it is huge, and/or they don't care. :)
mabhatterJan 8, 2007
I'd rather be charged by usage than have the ISP/telco restrict what I can do with it. Websites already pay by usage amounts and it works just fine. ISPs will be raking it in with the VOIP or video services but it's a matter of WHICH ISPs.... that's what the Telcos want to change. They got locked out of the first round, nobody serious like Google would go to ATT for a Internet connection... so they are trying to monopolize the end users and make profits from external businesses. What we should be pushing for is our upstream bandwidth to be less restricted... You see the telcos/ISPs gamed the system by getting all the customers lined up... i'd bet better than 60% of all broadband goes thru ATT at some point, probably higher... they want to hold customers hostage with "cheap" broadband so they can fleece the businesses for more... Customers won't notice what they don't have as it's "too geeky" but business will get raped. the side affect of information control is secondary to returning the "Ma Bell" monopoly to working order.
ghoti06Jan 8, 2007
That is sort of what we do already -- paying for cable Internet vs. DSL vs. wireless vs. dial-up, we get different speeds. More choice in this area would be pretty nice, of course.However, it still makes sense to tier on the producer side, considering they need to send out video and VoIP to everybody who requests it. I know this is where the "double-dip" charge comes in, but really, if you're getting significantly more reliable services, well, that IS worth paying for.