Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 19:16 UTC
Internet & Networking Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, today laid out plans to enforce net neutrality upon the internet. While the FCC is a US-only entity, fact of the matter is that "control" over the internet lies within the US, so whatever the FCC decides, it will affect the rest of the world.
Order by: Score:
Freedoms like pee in a glass or Fanta
by Karitku on Mon 21st Sep 2009 19:46 UTC
Karitku
Member since:
2006-01-12

I say pee.

Reply Score: 1

Excellent news.
by SReilly on Mon 21st Sep 2009 21:09 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

The whole net neutrality debate has me very interested. Basically, I don't think ISPs should be allow to dictate at what speeds I'm allow to watch an online movie, or download a torrent or even just surf the web.

Frankly, I consider ISPs like any other utility company. If my electricity provider where to start regulating my power consumption for me, I quickly change company but if they all started doing it, I wouldn't have much choice, would I?

Thanks to the FCC, Europe will take these concerns of mine for more seriously than before.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Excellent news.
by dindin on Mon 21st Sep 2009 21:28 UTC in reply to "Excellent news."
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

The whole net neutrality debate has me very interested. Basically, I don't think ISPs should be allow to dictate at what speeds I'm allow to watch an online movie, or download a torrent or even just surf the web. Frankly, I consider ISPs like any other utility company. If my electricity provider where to start regulating my power consumption for me, I quickly change company but if they all started doing it, I wouldn't have much choice, would I? Thanks to the FCC, Europe will take these concerns of mine for more seriously than before.


Those who consume more pay more. I don't download that much torrent files or view long duration video's on the web. So I hope my bill goes down and people who hog the network pay more. That would make more sense. Just like for Electricity.

IMHO - This is going to go to court and am not sure if the FCC could prevail. They sold a large chunck of bandwidth for $$$$ and explicitly stated that much of it will not be subject to such regulation. I guess many of the carriers will be asking for a refund.

Edited 2009-09-21 21:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Excellent news.
by tyrione on Mon 21st Sep 2009 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"The whole net neutrality debate has me very interested. Basically, I don't think ISPs should be allow to dictate at what speeds I'm allow to watch an online movie, or download a torrent or even just surf the web. Frankly, I consider ISPs like any other utility company. If my electricity provider where to start regulating my power consumption for me, I quickly change company but if they all started doing it, I wouldn't have much choice, would I? Thanks to the FCC, Europe will take these concerns of mine for more seriously than before.


Those who consume more pay more. I don't download that much torrent files or view long duration video's on the web. So I hope my bill goes down and people who hog the network pay more. That would make more sense. Just like for Electricity.

IMHO - This is going to go to court and am not sure if the FCC could prevail. They sold a large chunck of bandwidth for $$$$ and explicitly stated that much of it will not be subject to such regulation. I guess many of the carriers will be asking for a refund.
"

I'll buy into that pay as you go when all the Telcos in the US [hardlines and Wireless] pay back the hundreds of Billions in Loans outstanding, first.

We don't even have to discuss the hundreds of Billions in US Subsidies right?

Edited 2009-09-21 23:04 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Excellent news.
by BigDaddy on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news."
BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

You're damn right. I had to mod you up because you said it just like I was thinking it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Excellent news.
by SReilly on Mon 21st Sep 2009 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Those who consume more pay more. I don't download that much torrent files or view long duration video's on the web. So I hope my bill goes down and people who hog the network pay more. That would make more sense. Just like for Electricity.

I see where you're coming from and I agree with your sentiment, as far as saving money for you is concerned, but I'm paying for a flat rate internet connection. That basically means I have a no size limit download agreement with my ISP. Network "quality of service" is not something I agreed on when I signed the contract, yet I notice more and more that my connection is severely faster for the first 15 to 30 seconds, then the QoS kicks in and my downloads drop. The amount they drop by depends on the time of day but they always drop. That in itself is already bad enough. For my ISP to start dictating at what speed I use various applications is intolerable.

IMHO - This is going to go to court and am not sure if the FCC could prevail. They sold a large chunck of bandwidth for $$$$ and explicitly stated that much of it will not be subject to such regulation. I guess many of the carriers will be asking for a refund.

Yeah, I doubt they are going down without a fight. The problem is the FCC had their heads up their ass when they let that particular Genie out of the bottle. To suddenly do a 180 is going to cost them in more than just money.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Excellent news.
by wirespot on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 06:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Network "quality of service" is not something I agreed on when I signed the contract,[...]


Are you sure? Because AFAIK all ISPs put a clause that describes quality of service in their contracts. It's usually mandated by law. Now, it may not be in any terms you'd recognize. It's probably something like "these services comply with class X as defined by Whoever". And when you look it up you discover that "class X" means the crappiest possible kind of connection there is, and you're basically paying for wishful thinking.

If they didn't have any such clause in their contracts then yeah, you'd be entitled to get on their case entirely on the merits of their advertising. You can probably still do that, in countries which have strong consumer protection laws and enforcing state-mandated bodies which act in their interest at no cost for them. Which is the case for many EU countries.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Excellent news.
by SReilly on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Excellent news."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I'm pretty sure. You see, I signed my contract before they implemented QoS and as they are the remnants of a state monopoly, they tend to do things their way and tell customers after.

Now, I could give them hell over it but I'm moving to London in a month and I really couldn't be bothered. Frankly, one of the reasons why I'm moving in the first place is to finally get to a place with good customer choice. Luxembourg has a 400k population, with 1/4th living in Luxembourg city. This place is a price fixers dream!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Excellent news.
by corbintechboy on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 07:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
corbintechboy Member since:
2006-05-02

Those who consume more pay more. I don't download that much torrent files or view long duration video's on the web. So I hope my bill goes down and people who hog the network pay more. That would make more sense. Just like for Electricity.

IMHO - This is going to go to court and am not sure if the FCC could prevail. They sold a large chunck of bandwidth for $$$$ and explicitly stated that much of it will not be subject to such regulation. I guess many of the carriers will be asking for a refund.


You people trip me out!

So I suppose you don't use any programs on your computer that are of download nature? Because the very people that may offer you a free program have to upload it somewhere! So that person that gives you a product (with nothing in return) should pay a higher bill then you because you don't use torrents and this happens to be a great way to spread FOSS software (like Linux)?

I don't share in your excitement my friend!

On a side note, liked the article! Seems as if something may be done for the consumer here (what a rarity).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Excellent news. - buy a cheaper plan
by jabbotts on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Your ISP probably provides different plans based on how much per month one may download and what maximum speed it may run at. Select a plan closer to your needs, don't suggest everyone buy the highest plan available then expect the fee to be adjusted because they didn't use all of there allotted transfer rate.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Excellent news.
by ari-free on Mon 21st Sep 2009 21:53 UTC in reply to "Excellent news."
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

the internet is global and unchained and shouldn't be messed around with by the government of any country. I don't want the FCC to censor the internet like they do with broadcast TV and radio.

Edited 2009-09-21 21:55 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Excellent news.
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This isn't censorship, and if you had paid any form of attention instead of kneejerking, you would've seen that the rules do not interfere with the internet, but merely with US ISPs.

Please read the article before commenting. Thank you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Excellent news.
by richmassena on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news."
richmassena Member since:
2006-11-26

I think it is you that need to pay attention. Who says what content gets what bandwidth. Right now it is the ability to pay, and that certainly skews things in a certain, but predictable manner. If your ISP decides OSNEWS is a really low priority site, they can throttle it completely. What good is a globally-distributed network where the "man-in-the-middle" can decide what sites you can reach and at what speeds.

The ISPs and Telecoms will swear until they're blue in the face that this isn't the intent of their plans, that it's only to squeeze more money from already paying customers, but it's not. This is about control of the Internet. This is about putting the cat back in the bag.

Edit: their->they're

Edited 2009-09-22 01:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Excellent news.
by BigDaddy on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news."
BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

Did you read the "Consumers are allowed to access the lawful internet content of their choice." part? That would scare the hell out of me. What is lawful content? That could change on a whim.

Look at Iran blocking the social sites, email, and whatnot. Think that can't happen here? We already have brown shirt tactics where people can anonymously tell the government who was badmouthing the health care plans. We have news that is not being reported, the next step would be marking the people who write on their blogs what they perceive as truth being called dissidents and having their content labeled unlawful content. They did not say legal or illegal for a reason.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Excellent news.
by kenji on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Excellent news."
kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

Did you read the "Consumers are allowed to access the lawful internet content of their choice." part? That would scare the hell out of me. What is lawful content? That could change on a whim.

Look at Iran blocking the social sites, email, and whatnot. Think that can't happen here? We already have brown shirt tactics where people can anonymously tell the government who was badmouthing the health care plans. We have news that is not being reported, the next step would be marking the people who write on their blogs what they perceive as truth being called dissidents and having their content labeled unlawful content. They did not say legal or illegal for a reason.

That was just what I was thinking. We should have access to CONTENT, period. 'Legality' of said content is subjective.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Excellent news.
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 21st Sep 2009 23:38 UTC in reply to "Excellent news."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Frankly, I consider ISPs like any other utility company. If my electricity provider where to start regulating my power consumption for me, I quickly change company but if they all started doing it, I wouldn't have much choice, would I?


To my eyes, a big problem is that the majority of ISPs have vested interests in holding back VoIP (telcos) and online video (cable companies) as much as they possibly can.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Excellent news. - agreed
by jabbotts on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 12:43 UTC in reply to "Excellent news."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I pay my pound of flesh per month for a connection from my wall socket to the internet. I expect a rate of data transfer regardless of what those 1s and 0s happen to be. At the transport layer, it's all one binary streaming blob. Filtering parts of that binary stream based on the ISP'd arbitrary feelings is not acceptable. It's barely tolerable that my upload speed does not remotely match my download speed.

I don't want my ISP's "value add".. It's a simply deal, I give you money every month, you give me a dump-pipe feed. Don't bust my balls over what ports I have open or what order the 1s and 0s happen to arrive in.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Excellent news. - agreed
by pepa on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent news. - agreed"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

It's barely tolerable that my upload speed does not remotely match my download speed.

I agree with your general sentiment, but isn't this a technical characteristic of ADSL?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Excellent news. - agreed
by DrillSgt on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news. - agreed"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"It's barely tolerable that my upload speed does not remotely match my download speed.

I agree with your general sentiment, but isn't this a technical characteristic of ADSL?
"

While it does meet the characteristic of ADSL, it does not meet the characteristics of cable or fiber. Unless you pay much more, you will not get the ISP to make the up and down be the same. Cable is the dominant provider in the US due to the technical limitations of any DSL, mainly distance from the CO.

The providers do not want you uploading things, so they limit the bandwidth. If you have a business account, and pay much more, then you can get them the same. For residential, they just like to rake us over the coals ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Excellent news. - agreed
by phoenix on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news. - agreed"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"It's barely tolerable that my upload speed does not remotely match my download speed.

I agree with your general sentiment, but isn't this a technical characteristic of ADSL?
"

ADSL, yes. Afterall, the A is for Asynchronous.

However, DSL is not inherently asynchronous. There are synchronous forms of DSL, mainly, you guessed it, SDSL.

There are other forms of DSL as well. It's just that ADSL is the cheapest to install and manage.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It's not a technical limitation based on the last time I was working directly with DSL paired modems. We where doing a modem on each end of a security pair. Both ends could send full speed.

With cable, I also don't see a technological reason that send and receive can't run at the same maximum of the hardware potential.

With Dish.. you get a fast download through the dish but slower upload out through dsl lines so in that case, I can accept a difference in transfer rates.

The reason I've heard more often is file sharing. They like home users getting fast downloads but don't want users having fast uploads from there machines. Now, if you buy a business class subscription; fast down, fast up. I'm sure they also claim that home users having full upload transfer rates would overwhelm the network. It's politics and business strategy more than technology.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Excellent news.
by Karitku on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 14:24 UTC in reply to "Excellent news."
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

The whole net neutrality debate has me very interested. Basically, I don't think ISPs should be allow to dictate at what speeds I'm allow to watch an online movie, or download a torrent or even just surf the web. Frankly, I consider ISPs like any other utility company. If my electricity provider where to start regulating my power consumption for me, I quickly change company but if they all started doing it, I wouldn't have much choice, would I? Thanks to the FCC, Europe will take these concerns of mine for more seriously than before.

Your analogy fails, electricity is paid by amount but net speed is bought as slice. Again like I said these freedoms are pee, they look like fanta but it's really pee. That means your heavy torrent traffic can be seen as "harmful", thus you get kicked in nuts.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Excellent news.
by SReilly on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Your analogy fails, electricity is paid by amount but net speed is bought as slice. Again like I said these freedoms are pee, they look like fanta but it's really pee. That means your heavy torrent traffic can be seen as "harmful", thus you get kicked in nuts.

Good point, my analogy is flawed. I guess what I'm trying to say is I signed a contract with my ISP to get a data pipe. Except for breaking the law or purposely damaging the network, nowhere does it say in that contract what I'm allowed and not allowed to use that connection for. I'd much rather it stayed that way.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by re_re
by re_re on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 02:14 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

well, given 100S% free market principals it would be a non issue simply because no business would go with a restricted internet for the simple fact that they would lose market share as a result.

this would only be an issue if it was government regulated. .... non regulated, this will make no difference in the ISP market. in fact it may spur new life into the unregulated market ............. i believe it would put regulated isp markets out of business.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by re_re
by SReilly on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 03:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by re_re"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I really don't see how an unregulated marked could ever work. Frankly, any time I've seen them in action, all you ever get is price fixing until either the bubble bursts, taking all and sunder with it, or the government steps in and forces some sanity on the situation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government gets it right all the time. In fact, I'd say they often get it wrong but I'd rather have bureaucrats looking after their own interests than greedy corporations.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Anon9
by Anon9 on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 02:46 UTC
Anon9
Member since:
2008-06-30

As a libertarian, I oppose what the FCC is trying to do. Aside from ideological reasons, I fear there might be negative unintended consequences. For instance, what if the Internet does get overly congested like some claim it might. Neutrality laws might hinder the free market of ideas on how to deal with the issue best.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Anon9 - potentially
by jabbotts on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 12:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by Anon9"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

My personal concern is that business will do what it's always done in this particular market and seek every way to derive profit at the end user's utter expense. It's not an industry where free market principals have tended to benefit the customer as the ideology hope's for.

As for network congestion, we and the US are falling behind in networking technology. The telco's have been lax in keeping there networks upgraded in favor of shareholder interests dictated by corporate law. Other countries with much higher density and connected populations are easily tripling our transfer speeds. The network congestion issue is more a monster under the bed used to scare us consumers into behaving at bed time than an formidable threat.

In a healthy customer driven market, I'd agree with you since true competition between businesses would result in the best products ant lowest costs.

Reply Score: 3

Net Nutrality (sounds good look deeper)
by redsteakraw on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 03:09 UTC
redsteakraw
Member since:
2009-09-22

The way I see it is this: If the net neutrality passes then the government has a legal precedent to control the Internet. This might seem good at first, with the net neutrality but it can turn very ugly from here on. So supporting net netrality is basically saying "I think the government should have the power to control the Internet".

Many people might be say at this point "Well what about the greedy Corporations they should be able to control everything.". Well the situation is not good either way but at least I could change my ISP. I might pay more but if others do the same the markets would favor net neutral ISPs. It would be much harder to sussed from the government if you didn't like how they were controlling the Internet. The last time that was tried the government violently invaded and waged a bloody war on civilians including brutally burning down full towns and cites.

In the mean time have an idea but I don't know if it is plausible. What if you bring up a ISP on fraud charges if they start to throttle the Internet. You can claim that the Internet isn't throttled and what they are doing is selling you something that is not the Internet any more while still claiming it is.

Reply Score: 2