Print

Welcome, Guest

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NightmarePatrol]

So what does it really mean? In a nutshell what it means is network providers such as Verizon, AT&T, Roadrunner, Comcast, Windstream, Cox and a plethora of others want to be able to provide quality of service to the highest bidder. How does that affect us? Well if Windstream decided would like to be able to charge YouTube, Vimeo, Amazon, and mom and pop more if they want a faster connection to their site. One side says this is capitalism, the other side says that the internet should be treated like a utility with government oversight and regulation. Even the Christian Coalition and moveon.org are together on this one.

What I find most interesting about this is that internet connectivity is not considered a public utility. I'd hate hit the web some day only to find out my provider has a big chunk of its bandwidth dedicated to the highest bidder and watch my http requests get put on the back burner and served up when they feel like it. The implications are huge and so is the money. I for one (being a mom & pop site) would really hate to get choked off because I can't pony up the dough to put myself on a level playing field.

Julius Genachowski (charman of the FCC) will make a speech today on this very topic. I may have to write another politician.

So yeah, I'm all for net neutrality.

[TiFeMb]

I'm there with ya. NP. Maybe we need to start our own server farm for the mom & pops....

[NightmarePatrol]

It's not the servers as much the bandwith issues. It's all in the plumbing. Imagine if your neighbors ponied up the money to allocate 50% of the sewage pipes in the city for themselves. That would leave you and the rest of your neighbors knee deep in you-know-what that wouldn't go anywhere.

[lifefeedsonlife]

I think net neutrality is important - however, I don't trust the government to be neutral. If they regulate, fine. But there's gotta be a limit - cuz quite frankly, I can see the FCC doin' all kinds of shit to control the free flow of information.

[NightmarePatrol]

They can screw it up no doubt. The inside track (whoever they really are) think the government will sway in the direction of regulation.  I'm actually more worried about what's going on with ACTA as the implications of that are very far reaching.

[CindyLouWho]

Why do they have to screw with something that is fine just the way it is?  Someone bored?

[CindyLouWho]

The bottom line has to be cash in someones pocket.

[NightmarePatrol]

Courtesy of the LA Times.

Reporting from Washington -  The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission today called for more aggressive action to keep online traffic moving freely, proposing two new government policies to prevent telecommunications companies from restricting websites and other services on the Internet. FOR THE RECORD:  An earlier version of this article said the FCC had had four Internet principles in place since 2004. Actually, the principles were proposed in 2004 but not put in place until 2005.

The two new FCC rules would govern how Internet service providers such as AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc. manage their networks, enshrining so-called "network neutrality" into the agency's policy. Under the proposal from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, network operators would be prohibited from discriminating against the type of data traveling through their systems and would have to be clear about how they manage their networks.

The rules would apply to Internet access no matter how it is delivered -- over coaxial cable, fiber-optic lines or wirelessly on mobile devices.

"The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised," Genachowski said today in a speech at the Brookings Institution think tank. "Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation and a vibrant marketplace."

Genachowski's proposals, which would have to be approved by the FCC, follow President Obama's support for network neutrality during the 2008 presidential campaign.

The issue has become a major cause in recent years for Internet activists and many Democratic lawmakers who worry that large telecommunications companies will squeeze out competitors offering video and other services or charge websites fees to have their pages delivered faster to users.

Since 2005, the FCC has had four Internet principles assuring that Internet users can access any legal content, application or service and allowing them to attach any device to the Internet as long as it doesn't harm the network.

Genachowski proposes to strengthen those guiding principles by making them formal rules and add the two new rules prohibiting network operators from slowing certain applications or website access and mandating that operators clearly state their policies. He also wants to extend all the rules to wireless Internet service.

Genachowski, a former Internet industry executive appointed by President Obama, said the Internet has become "such a powerful engine for creativity, innovation, and economic growth" because its original architects decided to make it "an open system."

Telecommunications companies oppose nondiscrimination rules for the Internet because they believe those rules will limit their ability to manage their networks to keep them running smoothly, such as preventing some large users from eating up so much bandwidth that it slows down service for others. Restricting how networks run will make it harder for companies to get the funding they need to expand their networks, they said.

But Genachowski dismissed those concerns, saying history has shown that a fully open Internet promotes investment. And he cited some recent incidents that have raised concern about how telecommunications companies run their networks, including FCC action last year to order Comcast Corp. to stop blocking customer access to file-sharing technology.

"This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It's about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet," he said. "This is not about protecting the Internet against imaginary dangers. We're seeing the breaks and cracks emerge, and they threaten to change the Internet's fundamental architecture of openness."

Genachowski said the FCC would deal with online discrimination of content case by case. When networks are congested, for example, telecommunications companies might be allowed to limit use by "very heavy users" so other customers would not be prevented from using the Internet.

[Puffin]

The inside track (whoever they really are) think the government will sway in the direction of regulation

I think the gov't will go with the highest bidder, they will definately follow the money, or the lobbyist who offers the most.

[lifefeedsonlife]

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5453

The 5th and 6th Principles of Net Neutrality.