What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
49 Comments
- wayjer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27"legislation that would prevent Internet access providers from charging Web sites more for faster content delivery"
That is enough reading for me, digg. - manfrin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15This has been known for quite some time. The whole net neutrality debate spawned after At&t, verizon, and the other telcos threatened to raise the prices for Google, Amazon, and eBay. The latter three responded with a threat to lay down their own cables (which Google, I believe, has begun to do).
- noneloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Acctually. You're partially correct. Google has bought dark fiberoptic lines, not buried it's own. The difference is small but important. Noone knows what google plans to do with the dark fiber lines yet although your suggestion is obviously a valid option.
- noneloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The same kind of sick greedy thing that the telecommunications companies want to do. They already charge the websites and the end users, and have provided end users with what they call "unlimited" bandwidth. Now that people are starting to use that bandwidth they are trying to charge the websites for what they already promised their end users.
All of this on top of the fact that these companies were subsidized in order to make these networks with Billions of taxpayer dollars spells out nothing but greed greed greed. - Galaeron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It's nice to see a big contender like google stepping into the ring. Maybe they can help with public awareness. When I talk to my friends, techies and non-techies, they all look at me like "wtf is NN?" so yeah, the general public really needs to hear this and hopefully google can deliver more.
- korimickster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@HTMKSteve
There are still people out there who are not aware about NN. There is no need to be a dick just because you have the ultimate power of knowing everything that happens on the internet. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@vermin
Nothing in my above posts states my view on NN, it just states the founder of Google would be against NN as it would (potentially) increase his costs to operate.
Sort of like having an article that says, "death row inmates lobby for an end to capital punishment." No reason to mod me down for pointing out the obvious. - GreenLantern33, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I just don't see how anybody can no be behind this? I mean charging people for faster content delivery? What kind of sick greedy thing is that?
- MasterDwarf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"When I talk to my friends, techies and non-techies,they all look at me like "wtf is NN?" so yeah, the general public really needs to hear this and hopefully google can deliver more."
True. So true. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Are you beginning to understand the picture I am painting?"
I see that you just described a situation that is not a problem in any way, yes. In fact identical to the status quo. And that it is very different from what you started out saying. Namely that the ISPs would "route around the internet" giving their packages preferential routes to remote hosts.
That they will have local content servers is hardly news, nor a problem. - diggdat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree, I hope this issue gets a lot of exposure. It still seems to me that a lot of people do not get this issue. ISP's charging content providers (and I do not mean their connectivity customers) extra to provide faster access (read otherwise they get limited) is not a good thing at all.
For one thing as a DSL/Cable modem user you will see slower access to certain sites that did not pony up to your ISP's margin boosting express (and quite frankly, that is not what you paid for). Just think a few years down the road you could be saying my on-line music site is slow ...is it a problem with my service? My ISP? Is the Internet congested? Oh gee, no, the music site just did not pay the required extortion fee to my ISP this month...
This is just not a good thing....
If you are a content provider and you pay a big fat fee to your own ISP to ensure your content/website gets to the main pipe at XX speed, are you done? Not if the Telcos have their way, they would have you pay each and every Broadband provider extra to reach people on that Internet service or risk being limited....nice.
Realize that we already have slower average broadband speeds by as much as 10 fold when compared to places like South Korea and Japan.
OK ...end rant - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Lets try again. Reserving a part of the backbone for your use only is a violation of network neutrality and the upcoming law is specifically designed to forbid doing that. Which part of that statement do you not understand?
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh, you think the "Hey, this here backbone connected to the Internet is not part of it, so neutrality does not apply" defense will fly. Well assuming massively incompetent law inforcement in order to make your stance make any sense at all is one way to believe you're right.
But you see, the writers of the bill appear to have prepared even for such monumental stupidity:
They are not allowed to offer content in a manner different from that that any other content provider:
"offer communications such that a subscriber can access, and a content provider can offer, unaffiliated content or applications or services in the same manner that content of the network operator is accessed and offered, without interference or surcharges;"
They are not allowed to route "around the internet".
"treat all data traveling over or on communications in a non-discriminatory way."
What a shocker. A bill on network neutrality that forbids discrimination of traffic. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"This is just my opinion and I expect it to be modded down by the pro-NN folks"
Well, considering that your horror scenario is exactly what network neutrality will not allow the ISP to do, it deserves to be modded down.
How you manage to do that logical 180 and claim that a law against violating network neutrality would force the ISP to violate network neutrality is beyond me. It is exactly what a network neutrality law keeps from happening. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If Skype can be blocked for being a server, then so can most modern multiplayer games. Is it OK to block counter-strike for having audio communication sent from the client? How about MSN messenger? Should they get to block that for sending from the "server"?
At least you are not trying to hide what you believe now. That ISPs should get to decide how you may use the internet connection that you payed for. - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Damn HMTKSteve, I am astounded at how much time you spend posting against Net Neutrality... dude, seriously, who do you work for?
This is what it REALLY comes down to: CONTROL
In recent history, people have "downloaded" all of the content they consume, knowledge, culture, news, and entertainment from the radio, television, newspapers, church, elected representatives, etc.
The telcos and isps DO NOT want to be relegated to the role of a dumb pipe that simply swishes zeros and ones across the country. They want to CONTROL the content, they want to CONTROL what you watch, they want to CONTROL your perspective, they want to INFLUENCE your opinion, they want to shove products and services down your throat that you don't need... in essence they want to CONTROL YOU.
Now the internet is providing the unprecedented opportunity for us to "upload" our opinions, culture, news, knowledge, etc. to each other. This is a massive paradigm shift! Now anyone has the opportunity to be a participant in the news, opinions, culture, entertainment, knowledge, etc.
The problem they would have with this is of course the issue of loss of control and the loss of revenue that goes along with being able to control and influence so many people. That's it.... that is what the issue of Network Neutrality comes down to, because if Joe Shmoe from Video Podcast XYZ has to pay extra to deliver his 300mb file to 1000 people in a speedy manner he's going to go broke after the first episode, and no one is going to put up with the slow download if they can get to it at all.
The real solution here, as much as I hate it, is to just charge more to bandwidth hogs. Give everyone a certain number of gigs per month and if they go over, charge them per megabyte... problem solved. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@HMTKSteve
Please read
"(a) IN GENERAL.%u2014A network operator shall%u2014
(1) not interfere with, block, degrade, alter,
modify, impair, or change any bits, content, applica12
tion or service transmitted over the network of such
operator;
(2) not discriminate in favor of itself or any
other person, including any affiliate or company with
which such operator has a business relationship in%u2014
(A) allocating bandwidth; and
(B) transmitting content or applications or
services to or from a subscriber in the provision
of a communications;
(3) not assess a charge to any application or
service provider not on the network of such operator
for the delivery of traffic to any subscriber to the
network of such operator;"
Se the second paragraph? That's where the bill specifically forbid the ISPs doing what you say the bill will force them to do. Go figure. You can safely assume that nobody involved in enforcing this will be so stupid as to fall for the line: "Hey, this here backbone connected to the internet is not part of it, so neutrality does not apply" - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@HMTKSteve
Here you go... this is why we cannot allow them to even think they have complete control over these networks. They are oligopolies after all (because there are only a few major broadband providers) and it is a fact that they need some regulation:
http://www.digg.com/technology/Craigslist_is_being_blocked_by_Cox_Interactive
Am I crazy or is this about control? Making you prefer the Cox interactive classifieds because you can't access the free Craigs List classifieds is about control, control of choices. - vermin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Well given all your past posts, I'd say your stance toward NN is quite clear. About as clear as it is who signs your paycheck.
- vermin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11@HTMKSteve
I guess it's kinda like how it's a no-brainer you're an AT&T employee. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"have yet to see a good argument as to why NN is a good thing that is not based on fear and finger-pointing at "those evil corporations." That's why I'm up in the air on this but leaning towards being anti-NN. If someone can point me to an honest reason why I should be pro-NN I'll listen, but if you're only going to point me at some FUD then please don't waste my time."
You mean people describing exactly the situation that you misleadingly claimed would result from the bill passing, when in fact the exact opposite is true? Now such arguments are FUD because the other side uses them and you have no logical arguments against them?
Oh, and if this is you being "up in the air" on an issue I would _love_ to se you really spin an issue! - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I'm becoming more "up in the air" over the whole NN issue.
On one side I see no problem with an ISP offering a different class of service for a different price.
On the other hand I don't see how they can implement this unless it gets added into every ISP's peering agreement.
The big ISPs see it as a new revenue stream (they are in the business to make money) and the web companies see it as a new (extra) cost to do business and are against it.
What worries me is if a law is passed to kill QOS in it's tracks then the web companies will find themselves in a worse position. Why? Well, if NN passes then the big ISPs will just put high speed routers and switches together in a parallel network to the Internet and use them to deliver their VOIP/VOD services to their customers by connecting at the last mile (right into their broadband equipment in the central office.) This will shut-out any and all competitors as this "parallel" network will not be part of the Internet and thus be off-limits to FCC regulation as well as competition.
So, if you subscribe the AT&T DSL you can get AT&T IPTV and the IPTV content will not travel over the Internet but will instead travel over a private series of routers and switches until it hits the DSL service bay in the central office, then it will just piggyback over your DSL line into your home.
With one fell swoop IPTV will become a service only offer-able by the big ISPs and the little guys will lose out.
This is just my opinion and I expect it to be modded down by the pro-NN folks - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, in his defense, he did say he was new at the whole "lobbying Washington thing"
- bigdc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And according to the Washington Post, he failed miserably:
While Brin aides said he met with at least four senators, he did not see Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), whose committee has the greatest sway over the telecom legislation that Brin is trying to influence. The offices of four other senators said they could not arrange meetings, noting that they were approached late last week.
"It wasn't very well organized," Brin said in an interview, with soft-spoken candor.
Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601723.html - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@SmokedL
I never said I agreed with the ISPs blocking things, I'm just pointing out that if the contract under which you have your broadband says they can... then they can.
As for MMORPG and Counter-strike style games... doesn't everything pass through a centralized server or does that server just "arrange" connections between gamers?
I don't want to see gamers take a hit on this (I use my DS through my router) but... we are bound by the contracts that we agree too...
But, quite frankly, they DO get to decide how you use your connection to the Internet, it's all part of the contract. Read through your contract. If it's in there then you are bound by it, just like every contract. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I found this in the terms and conditions for SBC/AT&T/YAHOO DSL service:
http://sbc.yahoo.com/terms/
*****
RESTRICTIONS ON USE AND PROHIBITION OF RESALE
No Resale.The Service is provided for your use only (unless otherwise specifically stated) and you agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, transfer, trade, resell or exploit for any commercial purposes your membership in the Service, any portion of the Service, use of the Service, or access to the Service, including, but not limited to, reselling capabilities enabled or used by a specific application (including, without limitation, Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP)). All aspects of the Service, except that portion provided by third party providers, is copyrighted and property of SBC and/or Yahoo! as applicable. The Service is intended for access to and use of electronic mail, Usenet newsgroups, Internet relay chat, the Internet and any other proprietary or non-proprietary services that SBC Yahoo! makes available to its Members.
Restricted Use.You agree not to permit anyone else to use your Member Account and that each Sub Account may only be used by one member of your household or business. You agree that the Service is not to be used to host peer-to-peer applications that you are not actively using. You agree that the Service is not to be used to trunk or facilitate public internet access ("Hotspots") or any other Public Use of the Service, except for FreedomLink.
*****
and
*****
You agree that you will NOT use the Service to:
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content (as defined below) that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
harm minors in any way;
impersonate any person or entity, including but not limited to an SBC or Yahoo! official, forum leader, guide or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any Content transmitted through the Service;
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation, except in those areas (such as shopping) that are designated for such purpose;
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any material that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment;
disrupt the normal flow of dialogue, cause a screen to "scroll" faster than other users of the Service are able to type, or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges;
interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;
intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local, state, national or international law, including but not limited to regulations promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any rules of any national or other securities exchange, including, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, and any regulations having the force of law;
provide material support or resources (or to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources) to any organization(s) designated by the United States government as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
"stalk" or otherwise harass another; or
collect or store personal data about other users.
*****
The above did not cut and paste so well...
But, it looks to me like there are quite a few restrictions in place on this companies DSL service...
I did not find anything about hosting a web server except this: http://ask.sbc.com/esh/request.do?session={bb29a220-f716-11da-d177-00096bdd6c41}&event=9&view(0690)=c{6d6b0690-44de-11da-6d17-00025553438b}
Question: "Can I run dedicated servers with high-speed Internet access service?"
Answer Answer last updated: 02-24-06
Yes, as long as you have a static (sticky) IP address.
The best part of AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet is that the larger bandwidth enables you to have an instantly available connection to the Internet. This means that you can run mail servers, web servers or FTP sites from your home or office. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"In the USA you have freedom of speech, but you do not have a right to be listened to. No one has to provide a soapbox for you to stand on."
It's all already payed for. No free ride involved.
The content provider is paying his ISP.
That ISP is paying his backbone provider.
The backbone providers have various peering agreements.
The content consumer is paying his ISPs.
That ISP is paying his backbone provider. - rxbandit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The moment you start legislating FOR or AGAINST net neutrality you've effectively ended net neutrality. I say keep the government out of it entirely and let market forces between ISPs and major websites decide how it should be.
Sergey only wants legislation to ban increased pricing for faster delivery because he is on the side of the fence that profits from it the most. If Google happened to be an ISP he would be lobbying for the other side. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The moment you start legislating for or against vigilante tollbooths being illegal, you've effectively made vigilante tollbooths come about. I say keep the government out of it and let market forces between vigilantes and travelers work it out.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Peer-to-peer blocking by an ISP, from which you purchased a broadband connection that specifically does NOT allow for running a server on that line, has nothing to do with the legality of the content you are sharing. It has to do with the legality of the contract you agreed to.
Now, if your contract says you CAN host a server on your broadband line AND that no ports are blocked, then you can file share until your heart is content and no ISP should be allowed to block/degrade your connection. In that case you would be getting what you paid for.
If you purchased a "personal" class of broadband that specifically does NOT allow for hosting a server then you have no right to complain if the ISP blocks your "server" traffic. If you want to host a server, then upgrade your service!
You get what you pay for.
You chose to save a few dollars a month by purchasing a restricted broadband connection.
As to Skype, I went to their website and their own description of their service sounds like each user is both a client and a server at the same time, and this service should be blocked if you do not pay for a class of broadband that allows you to operate as a server.
Just because you have a drivers license does not entitle you to run a taxi service. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Google is just another entrenched company that fears change. So they go to congress to get laws passed that restrict freedom.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That looks more like a matter of a FUD story.
COX is not blocking access, some security software is (I don't know what the software is other then the name of it Authentium.)
I have no idea what this software is or where it is located but judging by other peoples comments in the story not all COX customers are affected by this. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I saw it. I debunked your implied free ride didn't I?
Considering that what is at issue is how ISPs and backbone providers are allowed to control the flow of data, I just could not believe that you could possibly mean that literally. I thought you were just leading up to your soapbox analogy.
I've tried posting parts of the bill before. You appear to either not read them, or not understand them, but I'm an optimist. Let's try again:
"(a) IN GENERAL:A network operator shall:
(1) not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify, impair, or change any bits, content, application or service transmitted over the network of such operator;
(2) not discriminate in favor of itself or any other person, including any affiliate or company with which such operator has a business relationship in
(A) allocating bandwidth; and
(B) transmitting content or applications or services to or from a subscriber in the provision of a communications;
.....
offer communications such that a subscriber can access, and a content provider can offer, unaffiliated content or applications or services in the same manner that content of the network operator is accessed and offered, without interference
....
treat all data traveling over or on communications in a non-discriminatory way."
"This is not a control issue"
What? - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ok, so you're saying. Yes you can easily find abuses that this law will stop but it's still just FUD that it's needed to stop abuses because the specific abuses you linked to were not in the US.
And skype is a server? Please. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I take Carlos's comment to mean "control" as in thought police, which I feel is not what this is truly about (NN).
I feel NN is, at it's heart, an argument about money and revenue streams. The whole "They are going to block/extort websites" to be FUD.
Any "control" as in thought police issue, is purely an ancillary issue that has been picked up on by the pro-NN crowd to use as a big fat FUD stick.
I completely agree that companies (such as Google) have already paid for the ability to attach their servers to the Internet, I'm not arguing that one bit. Heck, I pay a web hosting company to my server on the Internet too.
In regards to this comment thread I'm responding to Carlo's assertion that this whole debate is about "BIG ISP" wanting to "control" what you can and can not access on the Internet. I believe that premise is entirely false. Why would anyone use an ISP that blocked their favorite website? If I wanted content filtering I'd move to China...
"BIG ISP" wants to get an additional revenue stream out of the Internet, I think that is pretty clear and agreed upon by BOTH sides of the NN debate.
This whole "BIG ISP wants to control what you do on the Internet" is complete FUD.
The only "control" ISPs force on you (that I am aware of) is blocking certain ports when you buy "personal" class broadband and not blocking those same ports when you buy "business" class broadband. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@smokedL
Perhaps you missed the second line of my comment: "This is not a control issue, it's a money issue." - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@SmokedL
Your first link references a British web site and a company that is dealing with European ISPs that are outside of the scope of American Law.
Your second link references a Canadian ISP that is also outside of the scope of American Law.
The only incident (that I know of) dealing with an American ISP would be the AOL blocking of email from a certain website that was critical of AOL, and that was quickly stopped. AOL is also not a backbone (BIG ISP)company.
The other issue (about peer-to-peer blocking) is that most "personal" broadband services specifically tell you that you are not allowed to host a server on your line. So, if they block anything that could be called a "server process" that they are within their rights.
I do recall reading something about Skype operating on a "server" style system where each user was also a server or facilitator for other calls. So, if the service they are degrading/blocking is specifically outlined in the contract as a usage not allowed then they are fully within their rights to block or degrade it. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I feel NN is, at it's heart, an argument about money and revenue streams. The whole "They are going to block/extort websites" to be FUD."
They are already starting to degrade the service of competing providers: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/23/isps_set_skype_limits/
"This whole "BIG ISP wants to control what you do on the Internet" is complete FUD."
ISPs have already started blocking access to sites they disagree with. http://www.opennetinitiative.net/bulletins/010/
That's a Canadian ISP. I couldn't find a link to one of the cases where an American ISP did it in the 5 minutes I figure this post was worth. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bury
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@smokedL
It may be status quo, but it will also be extremely hard for a new company to compete. At least with QOS a new company has the opportunity to pay for QOS and compete, without it their only option is to purchase many caching servers or purchase many fiber connections to bring their content closer to their customers and thereby ovoid the problem of Internet congestion. Though caching servers will not help a VOIP company...
The other thing is that we know why the anti-NN people are against it, they want to make a buck. I'm just not sure the pro-NN people really understand what they are getting themselves into. It's real easy to fall for the "corporations are evil and greedy, we just want the Internet to be free (as in speech not beer)" mantra the pro-NN people keep spouting but you need to dig deeper.
I have yet to see a good argument as to why NN is a good thing that is not based on fear and finger-pointing at "those evil corporations." That's why I'm up in the air on this but leaning towards being anti-NN. If someone can point me to an honest reason why I should be pro-NN I'll listen, but if you're only going to point me at some FUD then please don't waste my time. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@SmokedL
You just don't get it.
You get better throughput from a server that is closer to you then one that is farther from you. What I'm talking about (in the simplest terms) is the big telcos putting their video server closer to the subscriber. Their connection to the Internet will be only one or two "hops" from where the customer gets his DSL signal from. Their "parallel" network will only carry their data just as the Google-side of their ISP connection only carries data dealing with the Google servers.
The big difference is that while Google video will have to hop over twenty or so routers to get to you the telco video will hop over only one or two routers.
AFAIK the Google side of their connection through their ISP is freely administered by Google, no one Else's traffic "has a right" to travel there. Same will go here. The telco will throw up a video server right in the central office (or a connection to the video server located physically elsewhere) and not even worry about QOS. While Google video watchers complain about lag from using the Internet as a medium the AT&T IPTV users will have a wonderful viewing experience.
Are you beginning to understand the picture I am painting? - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@smokedL
How often does government legislation in regards to business ever result in what was originally intended to happen?
A separate (private) network built by the telcos will be outside of FCC regulation and competition. The current NN legislation will cause my "horror scenario" to come to pass, not stop it. I'm not talking about using QOS to add a second tier to the Internet, I'm talking about the big ISPs building a separate and private backbone to distribute their VOD/VOIP services. A backbone immune to regulation and competition! A backbone that no one else gets to ride on.
Some people talk about the need for NN as QOS is akin to taking the existing highway and reserving 4 out of 5 lanes for QOS traffic. Well, what if the big ISPs just built a second highway alongside the existing highway and said, "Only we can drive on this highway, this new 10 lane highway with no speed limits. This special one-way highway... hehehe hahahaha!" This will be the child of NN.
Big business always finds a loophole, always...
Do you know why the telcos have been so interested in deploying fiber to the home? Because it is not regulated. All the copper wires in place before 1996 are regulated and fall under the "common carrier" laws, the new fiber lines do not.
Do a little bit of research and read between the lines of the NN legislation. You may find that my "horror scenario" is the next step when NN passes.
This "new" network would not be subject to the NN laws as the NN laws only effect the "Internet." - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Businesses already pay for the amount of bandwidth they use.
This is not a control issue, it's a money issue.
In the USA you have freedom of speech, but you do not have a right to be listened to. No one has to provide a soapbox for you to stand on. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@smokedL
What part of "They will build a parallel network (not Internet backbone)" do you fail to understand?
The "horror scenario" is all about the telcos building a network designed to only carry their content and services and tie it in at the local broadband facility in the central office.
This scenario will not fall under the net neutrality legislation because this new network will not be a part of the "Internet backbone" I don't know what part of my argument you are failing to grasp. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Shocker!
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@smokedL
(2) not discriminate in favor of itself or any other person, including any affiliate or company with which such operator has a business relationship in—
(A) allocating bandwidth; and
(B) transmitting content or applications or services to or from a subscriber in the provision of a communications;
------
This would still not fall under NN legislation.
By tieing this paralel network in to the Internet at the broadband equipment in the central office they are not in violation of the law as written. This new network would fall under the same rules and guidlines as Google does when connecting to their ISP. Google is free to do whatever it wants on it's side of the ISP connection, so will the telcos. There would be no use of QOS on the Internet, no preferential treatment of packets, they would just be avoiding the Internet as a transfer medium and instead connecting at the closest point to the subscriber as possible!
Also, by linking in via the equipment closest to the (DSL) subscriber they will avoid any and all latency issues involved with transmitting over the Internet. They will get their "faster/better" quality of service and the other companies will be left in the cold... Though I'm sure they could do the same thing (buy dark fiber to every telco/cable office and link directly to the broadband equipment) I doubt many "small" companies will be able to do this.
Face it, NN is a win-win for the ISPs wether it passes or not. - Subcranium, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I don't get it. Why did his Chinese masters tell him to say this?
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Bury.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9Of course he is pro-net neutrality... That's a no brainer!
He's looking at an increase in the cost to do business. This is no more newsworthy then an article where MS says Linux is crap...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is