Is Freedom Of The Net In Danger? Net Neutrality.

[gonzomax]

We are missing the point.People own the airwaves.We gave them away for TV and radio.We soon lost control.The internet is in real trouble.Theyn will provide good service if you pay enough.Otherwise it will be degraded or maybe not there at all.It is ransoming off the internet for money.But,once they start picking and chosing who gets service,it will become content too.

[gonzomax]

write.email or call your congressmen and senators immediately.

[AHunter3]

Renob:

Net neutrality is a horrible idea packaged in an attractive name. It’s not about blocking access to certain websites – it’s about whether or not network providers can charge companies in order to offer faster connections to their websites. For example, a network should be able to charge a website that is selling video over the internet more than a website like the Straight Dope, which isn’t causing as much volume over the lines. By putting a price on this service, networks can develop faster connections and help better serve consumers.

That’s not my understanding at all. My understanding is that, for the same consumer (me, let’s say, on my DSL line), the Straight Dope, or, rather, the Chicago Reader, would have to pay a surcharge to be as accessible to me as CommercialCrap.com, which is paying its surcharge with a shrug. Of the available pipeline out there, the carriers suddenly start shunting off packets to/from the Straight Dope to the “slow lane”, reserving the fastest pipes for the companies paying the surcharge.

And if that’s the case, all the non-moneymaking internet presence goes dim.

You know the Chicago Reader’s not going to fork over an annual surcharge to guarantee that we can browse and post.

(Actually, one can hope that the famous speed problems of our board are caused by limitations of the Chicago Reader equipment, so perhaps with that being the limiting factor now, a shrinkage of the efficiency of the pipeline from it to us wouldn’t be so noticeable. But suppose every non-commercial site you like to visit aside from big players like Google becomes as slow as the Straight Dope board?)

[Tyrrell_McAllister]

@gonzomax

write.email or call your congressmen and senators immediately.

At least “they” don’t control all the whitespace. You’re still permitted to place some of that in between your sentences.

[gonzomax]

They,Comcast,SBC(AT&tT)are not interested in giving better service.They want to make more money and control the internet.When you run the market you provide the service that you wish. It is likely that sites that are critical of Comcast or SBC might have trouble.Think about it.I do not want to give anyone that power.

[Shalmanese]

@AHunter3

Renob:

That’s not my understanding at all. My understanding is that, for the same consumer (me, let’s say, on my DSL line), the Straight Dope, or, rather, the Chicago Reader, would have to pay a surcharge to be as accessible to me as CommercialCrap.com, which is paying its surcharge with a shrug. Of the available pipeline out there, the carriers suddenly start shunting off packets to/from the Straight Dope to the “slow lane”, reserving the fastest pipes for the companies paying the surcharge.

And if that’s the case, all the non-moneymaking internet presence goes dim.

You know the Chicago Reader’s not going to fork over an annual surcharge to guarantee that we can browse and post.

(Actually, one can hope that the famous speed problems of our board are caused by limitations of the Chicago Reader equipment, so perhaps with that being the limiting factor now, a shrinkage of the efficiency of the pipeline from it to us wouldn’t be so noticeable. But suppose every non-commercial site you like to visit aside from big players like Google becomes as slow as the Straight Dope board?)

First lets get things straight. The Straight Dope is not going to be affected by this. Amazon and Google search and all other largely text based, low bandwidth sites will not be affect by this. No matter how slow the slow lane is, it will still be plenty fast for the dope. And thats because the dope has eminently ordinary data requirements just like the majority of the internet.

What this is going to affect is high bandwidth sites like Youtube and applications that depend on low or dependable latencies like VOIP apps like Skype. And not in an adverse way, the Youtube and Skype that exists today will still be possible. It’s just that these companies will now be able to offer something like Youtube Premium which creates a virtual channel from the server to your computer and guarentees you that a frame will not be dropped.

All of these examples of Yahoo paying ISPs to degrade Google is absurd, paying to negatively affect another companys product has been and still will be illegal as far as I know. Yahoo can only degrade Google insofar as it can degrade the entire rest of the internet.

[GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams]

Then why is just about every software and internet company except the telcos in favour of NN? It seems to me that the big telcos are trying to carve out some extra revenue at the expense of the technology companies. Double-dipping indeed.

Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Shalmanese

The Straight Dope is not going to be affected by this. Amazon and Google search and all other largely text based, low bandwidth sites will not be affect by this.

Why is that? Oh, wait…you answer it yourself…

No matter how slow the slow lane is, it will still be plenty fast for the dope. And thats because the dope has eminently ordinary data requirements just like the majority of the internet.

Ah, it’s not that they won’t be affected, it’s that the amount of data being transferred is so small that any effects will be unnoticable. These things are not the same.

All of these examples of Yahoo paying ISPs to degrade Google is absurd, paying to negatively affect another companys product has been and still will be illegal as far as I know. Yahoo can only degrade Google insofar as it can degrade the entire rest of the internet.

Why are they absurd? Do you really think that Microsoft (putting aside potential legal issues due to their monopoly position) would not pay money to hobble Google? Granted, they would have to align themselves with a carrier (e.g., SBC or Comcast), but why is that a hurdle? How difficult would it be for a telco to add a “sleep(5000)” statement when a packet’s sender/receiver mask matches Google’s IP address? After all, the filtering must already be in place if QoS is detectable.

[Ludovic]

@Rysto

QoS is diametrically opposed to the fundamental nature of the internet.

Hmmm, I guess I’ll just throw out these stupid RFC’s that have QoS bits in them…

even though they are almost always unimplemented.

It’s been obvious to me for quite some time that actually implementing the QoS bits in network protocols would be an easy(er) solution to VoIP and streaming media. In fact, the only other two ways around getting good VoIP are redundancy and seperate media, both of which could be inefficient compared to same-pipe QoS (then again, they might not, I don’t have firm numbers.)

But something that I hadn’t thought of until this thread is the chance the providers would then use QoS to discriminate against non-affiliated content providers. The technical solution would already be in place.

So I have to rethink my acceptance of implementation of same-pipe QoS. Perhaps VoIP and streaming could be funneled over a separate network entirely.

[spazattak]

@Shalmanese

What this is going to affect is high bandwidth sites like Youtube and applications that depend on low or dependable latencies like VOIP apps like Skype. And not in an adverse way, the Youtube and Skype that exists today will still be possible. It’s just that these companies will now be able to offer something like Youtube Premium which creates a virtual channel from the server to your computer and guarentees you that a frame will not be dropped.

You absolutely right - in the opposite sense though. This sounds all good and well until you realize that YouTube and Skype are competitors to the ISPs - who are alos either already in, or are entering the voice, data and television markets. They won’t use this new found power to give their customers greater choices, they’ll use it to reinforce their stranglehold on the market. Its just smart business. If you don’t believe me, take it straight from the horses mouth. (AT&T CEO Ed. Whitacre on Financial Times)

[spazattak]

@Ludovic

Hmmm, I guess I’ll just throw out these stupid RFC’s that have QoS bits in them…

even though they are almost always unimplemented.

It’s been obvious to me for quite some time that actually implementing the QoS bits in network protocols would be an easy(er) solution to VoIP and streaming media. In fact, the only other two ways around getting good VoIP are redundancy and seperate media, both of which could be inefficient compared to same-pipe QoS (then again, they might not, I don’t have firm numbers.)

But something that I hadn’t thought of until this thread is the chance the providers would then use QoS to discriminate against non-affiliated content providers. The technical solution would already be in place.

So I have to rethink my acceptance of implementation of same-pipe QoS. Perhaps VoIP and streaming could be funneled over a separate network entirely.

No one is saying that QoS is a bad technology - however its being thrust into a role where it doesn’t belong. Now if all the major telecommunications companies and internet service providers want to come together to put forth a universal classification system that will work across all providors, that doesn’t include double-dipping, we’ll have a starting point that would benefit consumers. Until then its just a tool to extort content providors.

[RTFirefly]

Gotta love the way they’re handling like this - they’ve completely dropped the pretense of legislating normally:

WASHINGTON — The House and Senate are preparing to vote on telecommunications legislation that could affect every American who surfs the Internet, watches cable TV or uses a phone.

But no one should waste much time watching the floor debates on C-SPAN. The lawmakers admit their goal is not to pass definitive legislation in public in the coming weeks.

Instead, they want to pass separate bills, regardless of how different they may be. The final version would be negotiated, largely in private, by about a dozen senators and representatives on a conference committee.

The Senate just needs to pass “anything to get us into conference,” where the real decisions will be made, House telecommunications subcommittee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said Tuesday at a telecom forum hosted by National Journal’s Technology Daily.

“It’s not supposed to work like this,” said Celia Wexler, vice president for advocacy for Common Cause, a government watchdog group. “It’s appalling that you can hear a member (of Congress) say that in public.”

While most conference negotiations are closed to public view, lobbyists continue to influence the members and their staffers.

In the case of telecom, the groups say, so many well-financed lobbyists are involved that they may battle themselves to a standstill, leaving Congress flush with campaign contributions but unable to agree on a final bill before adjournment.

The stakes run into the billions of dollars for the central players, including cable operators and regional phone giants, such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., as well as Internet companies, including eBay Inc., Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc.

The telecom legislation is following a well-worn path that Congress often takes to craft spending, tax and other bills out of public view.

[Shalmanese]

@Digital Stimulus

Why is that? Oh, wait…you answer it yourself…

Ah, it’s not that they won’t be affected, it’s that the amount of data being transferred is so small that any effects will be unnoticable. These things are not the same.

No, the majority of the internet is not going to be affected by this because the majority of the internet will be in the slow lane. Anything that cripples this slow lane would just be shooting the carriers in the foot. The carriers still have a vested interest in making the internet experience as good as possible if for no other reason than it makes them more money.

Why are they absurd? Do you really think that Microsoft (putting aside potential legal issues due to their monopoly position) would not pay money to hobble Google? Granted, they would have to align themselves with a carrier (e.g., SBC or Comcast), but why is that a hurdle? How difficult would it be for a telco to add a “sleep(5000)” statement when a packet’s sender/receiver mask matches Google’s IP address? After all, the filtering must already be in place if QoS is detectable.

Intentionally slowing down another companies packet should be illegal and can be adequately dealt with using existing anti-trust legislation. Anti-net neutrality was never about this. If google doesn’t want to pay to go in the fast lane, then a packet of google data should and will be treated exactly like a packet of www.bobscrazycaremporium.com data or www.goatsmutdaily.com data. The only way for MS to gain an edge would be to slow down the entire internet to unacceptable speeds.

[Ms2001]

@Shalmanese

Intentionally slowing down another companies packet should be illegal and can be adequately dealt with using existing anti-trust legislation.

It should be illegal, but I don’t believe it currently is. Can you explain which part of antitrust law you think bans it, or cite a source for this interpretation?

[Shalmanese]

@spazattak

No one is saying that QoS is a bad technology - however its being thrust into a role where it doesn’t belong. Now if all the major telecommunications companies and internet service providers want to come together to put forth a universal classification system that will work across all providors, that doesn’t include double-dipping, we’ll have a starting point that would benefit consumers. Until then its just a tool to extort content providors.

I can’t find a link to the current congress proposal but the wikipedia link above defined net neutrality as:

Non-discrimination means that all traffic over the network (typically or exclusively digital packets or bits) is treated the same by the network, including the traffic originating with the network operator. This principle of ‘bit parity’ means that all bits are treated as ‘just bits’, and no bit traffic is prioritized over other bits, and none is hampered or disabled.

This effectively makes any QoS scheme of any nature impossible.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Shalmanese

Anything that cripples this slow lane would just be shooting the carriers in the foot.

Why is it so difficult to understand that a process that selectively allows faster traffic can be used to also selectively slow traffic down? There’s no need to cripple the entire “slow lane”, only selected IP blocks. Either as a strongarm tactic (e.g., SBC slows down Comcast data) or as a pay-for-play deal (e.g., Gannett publisher pays to restrict Craigslist speeds).

Intentionally slowing down another companies packet should be illegal and can be adequately dealt with using existing anti-trust legislation. Anti-net neutrality was never about this.

As Mr2001 says, should be. The reason I put in the monopoly qualifier was because my point has nothing to do with monopolies. It’s just that MS is the most readily understandable example and I knew that the monopoly objection would be raised.

Furthermore, you’re dreaming (or are incrediby naive) if you really think this is not what anti-net neutrality is about, at least to some degree. Do you think the people who run corporations are stupid? Or just altruistic?

[Shalmanese]

@Digital Stimulus

Why is it so difficult to understand that a process that selectively allows faster traffic can be used to also selectively slow traffic down? There’s no need to cripple the entire “slow lane”, only selected IP blocks. Either as a strongarm tactic (e.g., SBC slows down Comcast data) or as a pay-for-play deal (e.g., Gannett publisher pays to restrict Craigslist speeds).

Because selectively allowing faster traffic for money should be legal whereas selectively allowing for slower traffic for money should be illegal? I have no problems with making the second part illegal. My objection to net neutrality is that it makes the first part illegal as well.

[spazattak]

@Shalmanese

Because selectively allowing faster traffic for money should be legal whereas selectively allowing for slower traffic for money should be illegal? I have no problems with making the second part illegal. My objection to net neutrality is that it makes the first part illegal as well.

Here’s the thing though… You can’t speed up traffic! Traffic moves at the speeds the end-points move it at. You can only give priority to certain traffic. The minute you give priority to certain traffic, you marginize everything else. So in effect, you can’t ‘speed up traffic’ without ‘slowing down traffic’. Your statement either 1) Doesn’t make technical sense or is 2) a paradox.

[E-Sabbath]

To put it another way, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

[Shalmanese]

@spazattak

Here’s the thing though… You can’t speed up traffic! Traffic moves at the speeds the end-points move it at. You can only give priority to certain traffic. The minute you give priority to certain traffic, you marginize everything else. So in effect, you can’t ‘speed up traffic’ without ‘slowing down traffic’. Your statement either 1) Doesn’t make technical sense or is 2) a paradox.

Notice the selectively in the above clause. Sure, traffic is slowing down, but all traffic is slowing down at the same rate. This is not the same as Yahoo paying money to slow down Google traffic only.

Slightly off topic but how is this handled in other media? Is pepsi allowed to pay a movie so that only the bad guys drink coke? Is Ford allowed to pay rap stars to diss GM? It seems to me that this scenario being so rare in other industries means that it’s either heavily regulated or just a really bad idea because of the immense bad PR it would generate.