Net neutrality finished in the United States?

[shamrock_uk]

If ever there was a reason to wrest control of the internet away from America to an international organisation, this is it! Bloody Republicans and their vested interests! (it was a Democratic amendment to ensure that the principle was kept in the new legislation)

I still can't quite believe this has been passed - net neutrality is the most fundamental principle the internet as we know it is based on.

Lets just hope that by a miracle the Senate doesn't rubber stamp it...

Simple background to why this is important.

Link to the article on todays events.

[ 06-09-2006, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Sythe]

And the government takes one more step towards despotism....this has to be unconsitutional!

[Bungleau]

Make sure you understand what's being discussed... it's not about censoring the net or anything like that. They're talking about implementing a requirement that ISPs treat all traffic equally.

The fear is that ISPs will give priority to their own customers, thereby slowing things down for everyone else. If I'm an AT&T customer, they route my packets through bigger pipes with better performance, in effect creating a toll road. Or I pay a premium for faster access.

The flaw is that all ISPs would have to agree on it, or else AT&T would put me through quickly, but Earthlink, since I'm not one of their customers, would put me back on the slow road.

The net effect would be that everyone is on the slow road somewhere, and nobody is on the fast road all the way there.

End result... no benefit to paying to be on the fast road since you're going to be in the same traffic jam.

[shamrock_uk]

Sorry to disagree, but...

The fear is that ISPs will give priority to their own customers, thereby slowing things down for everyone else. If I'm an AT&T customer, they route my packets through bigger pipes with better performance, in effect creating a toll road. Or I pay a premium for faster access. The flaw is that all ISPs would have to agree on it, or else AT&T would put me through quickly, but Earthlink, since I'm not one of their customers, would put me back on the slow road.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I admit, that if this were only ISP's, then a problem wouldn't exist.

The big telecom companies however, physically own huge swathes of internet infrastructure, leasing the use of it to individual ISP's. The capability to create a two speed internet is certainly within their power.

Of course, their defense is that enough bandidth exists for all and it wouldn't make market sense for them to do so in any case.

However, with the principle of neutrality rapidly disappearing from US law, we have no guarantee that when it does make market sense to discriminate that they won't do so.

The exact wording of the amendment was:

An amendment sponsored by Rep.Edward Markey (Mass,D) to ensure that broadband providers "do not block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive or offer lawful content, applications or services of the Internet" was defeated by 269 votes to 151, the split falling down party lines.

Even if net neutrality is a "solution looking for a problem" as the teleco's allege, it's an amendment that any reasonable person would agree was in the public's interest.


But if there are dissenting voices, I'll edit the title to be a little less definitive

Edit: Lots of 'em as I think I misunderstood Bungleau

[ 06-09-2006, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Bungleau]

I haven't read the actual proposed legislature yet, and I'd want to read that before trusting that a newspaper got the details all correct. No matter how good they are... [img]smile.gif[/img] Heck, other ought to read it themselves before they decide if I know what I'm talking about or not.

I agree that they focused attention on more than the ISPs. They're looking at the whole infrastructure, but there's no one company that owns the whole infrastructure. They may be few, but they are multiple.

The issue as I understand it is in treating all data equally. Now, that's a noble principle and well worth following, but tell me... does that mean that by having express checkouts, grocery stores are not treating all shoppers equally? Or by having special check-in lines for frequent guest club members, hotels and airlines aren't treating all guests equally? Since Chicago tollroads have different toll rates if you pay cash or via a pass card, are they not treating all drivers equally?

I don't have an issue with them creating a standard level of service, and then offering a premium service to those who wish to participate. I think the issue is that if they do that, they have to offer the premium as an up-tick. They can't offer the premium as a standard, and downgrade you if you don't participate (even though that's what's happening).

IOW, there's a minimum level of expected service, and you can pay more to get that level. Not pay more to get to the minimum level.

Not sure about your final comment... I think I misunderstood it [img]smile.gif[/img]

BTW, the US doesn't control the telcos that manage the infrastructure, to my knowledge. So removing ICANN from US control won't do anything for this issue, delightful though the prospect may be.

[Timber Loftis]

You know what's nice about the net? So few laws governing it. You know what sucks about the European approach to life the universe and everything? An insane and inane fetish with red tape and writing laws, and regulations, and principles, and.... you get the point.

Less rules = better internet, and it's always been that way. One day we'll recall when freedom existed online, because it won't last forever.

Especially if useless Euros or US Liberals have their say.

[shamrock_uk]

Have I understood you right here Timber? You're basically saying that the net neutrality thing should have been left out because it's just extra red tape?

That's not the case here - net neutrality was originally legally applicable to the internet, but then the FCC rescinded this:

For many years, the essential principles of network neutrality were enforced by common carrier requirements. These guidelines prevented telecommunications companies from offering preferential treatment to specific content providers in exchange for a fee. However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified cable modem and DSL services as Information Services rather than Telecommunications Services, replacing common carrier requirements with a set of four less-restrictive "net neutrality principles"[1]. This sparked a debate over whether or not Internet Service Providers should be allowed to discriminate between different content providers, possibly by offering more bandwidth to higher-paying companies, which would in turn cause certain services to become more accessible to users.

This isn't about adding extra red tape - it's about re-applying a fundamental principle that has applied to the internet since its conception and that should never have been removed in the first place.

For those who are still sceptical and think that market forces will stop this from happening, here are some examples that have already occurred in America and Canada:

Below are examples listed by SaveTheInternet of past examples of abuses by ISP companies where they blocked rivals or unfavorable opinions about themselves. In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service. In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute. Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by making their opponents seem worse than they really are. In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This isn't just scaremongering - it's happening now.

[ 06-09-2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Zebodog]

What's next? Everyone has to drive the same car so that way no-one will be able to faster than anyone else?
Let's also make sure that every job pays the same amount so that we all have the same amount of money.

If I remember correctly communism hasn't really proven to be all that successful in the past.

[Mozenwrathe]

Talk about a confusing issue.
All I want is to get what I pay for as we speak now. The ability to go to the sites I choose without major hassle and issue. The right to go between companies for the best packaged prices and service. Pretty much the same way that one goes shopping for a car or groceries. If they do decide to change all these amendments, will they also enforce accompanying requirements to these companies such as:

- be entirely accurate as to what you are offering at what prices
- be honest when stating what websites you will and WILL NOT be able to access
- be accountable at all times for any and all data flowing through their network in terms of speed and reliability of completion (meaning how fast it gets from A to B and is it the whole data package and not missing chunks)

Probably not.
After all, that wouldn't be profitable, now would it?

[Hivetyrant]

If you don't understand what it's all about, check out this site