Debate over net neutrality

[nabetse]

Article from WSJ.com (The Wall Street Journal Online)
Should the Net Be Neutral? (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114839410026160648-M3wlxcUPk357fsGiHNM3BsUiCKY_20060622.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top)

The article features a discussion between
Craig Newmark (of Craigslist) who a proponent of net neutrality
and
Michael McCurry (anti-net-neutrality lobbyist) who opposes net neutrality

Newmark argues that net neutrality will protect the small businesses and websites from unfair competition. McCurry argues that the telecoms need to be able to charge different rates for different levels of service in order to support the internet infrastructure.

What do you think? Personally, I'm all for net neutrality. It seems to me to protect freedom and diversity. Giving too much control to the telecoms is a scary thought to me. Also, if the telecoms got more money, there's no guarantee that they'll use if for infrastructure. They will simply count it as extra profit for all I know.

Wikipedia article on Net Neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality)

[Sepero]

This is irrelevant rubbish. None of this will matter in Web 2.0. The internet will be held together by P2P networks and no one will have control over it.


Click on: What is Freenet?
http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=faq&PHPSESSID=90e487678b5829f7ecab57b7d454cba0

[hard candy]

It's the size of the pipes they want to differentiate, Company A has a 20MB/s transfer rate for you to browse with, Company B has 5 MB/s for you to use. This will be important when you are watching a movie brought to you by Universal Studios for $8.95 over your cable connection.
And if Company B has a torrent that will only max out at 5 MB/s, and Company B has the same torrent brought to you at 20 MB/s, which one are you going for? They will be able to control the torrents and p2p via coded signatures, at least the legal ones, and if they have no legal coded signature, then your ISP will not let it pass through.
That's one reason the media companies are siding with ISP's to really bear down and discourage open community wireless networks and municipal networks.
Wireless Communiity Network List (http://www.toaster.net/wireless/community.html)
Free Press:Community Internet (http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/)
Texas Telecos Want To Kill Municipal Internet (http://www.unicom.com/chrome/a/000721.html)

[nabetse]

I guess I don't really understand what it entails to run a website, but I thought that the ISPs already offer different prices for different bandwidth. At least at the consumer level, you can get phone line, cable, DSL, and even different speeds within those categories. Also, the companies that offer hosting services often offer different packages with different storage capacities and bandwidth. If I've got this all wrong, please let me know.

Aren't there other ways to prevent the spread of illegal software and media? Those methods are probably more difficult than giving the ISPs control over which packets to send through but maybe it's worth it to preserve freedom over web content. I would hate for the Internet to become another TV, which is largely based on content that can generate a profit. Not to say that profit is bad but it would really suck if justlinux.com and wikipedia.org was displaced by Elimidate, Survivor, or LOST just because the ISPs would rather give them more bandwidth.

From a consumer standpoint, community broadband would be a good thing. But how would the ISPs get their money. Maybe, the cities would pay the ISPs themselves. In that case, we'd be paying with our tax dollars anyways and the telecoms will still get their money.

There is something I am not seeing here.

(YAY! There are wireless community networks in San Diego)

[bwkaz]

This cartoon seems relevant:

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060521

:D

None of this will matter in Web 2.0. Hmm, I can't help but wonder if you might be a bit confused there. I've never heard of "Web 2.0" referring to anything other than basically AJAX code running at the client. (Everything from gmail to Google Maps to that horrible ripoff at Windows Live Local is calling itself "Web 2.0".)

Perhaps you're thinking of Internet2? Though that's more of an entire second high-speed network between the large universities; it doesn't really have anything to do with P2P networking or information freedom.

That Freenet thing sounds a lot like Tor (which is distributed by the EFF).

I guess I'm just confused about what you meant...

[hard candy]

Web Neutraity Act (http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/hr5417-109.pdf) a pdf file, this is the act that passed the U.S.A. Judiciary Committe of the House of Representatives by a vote of 20-13 just today. Still has to go to the floor and pass and then a Senate version has to be approved and passed and then the differences worked out.
"The "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006" would amend antitrust law to include provisions banning incumbent broadband providers from discriminating against unaffiliated services, content and applications."
The idea is that say Bellsouth could have, as an example, Universal Studios movies going through a dedicated server while Warner Brothers (WB) movies would be passing through another server that would aslo have all the other traffic going through it. As a consumer you can order different levels of bandwidth but this would be the ISP throttling the bandwidth at their end.
Another example, you open Firefox and choose Google. It would take say 10 seconds to find "Justlinux.com" and then you click on the link, another 10 seconds to connect to Jupiter networks, and another 10 seconds to load up the page. But say Bellsouth has an aggeement with Microsoft, you are instantly connected to MSN Search, in 2 seconds you find Justlinux.com, then in another 2 seconds the page is loaded. 30 seconds versus 6 seconds, not much difference but since we like instant gratificatiuon, we may tend to use the MSN Search more frequently. And MSN Search would benefit by having their "Ad views" increase while Google has their "ad views" go down.

[nabetse]

Thanks hard candy. Very illuminating. I'll give the Web Neutrality Act a good read.

[paj12]

I think tiered content is a great idea. The ISPs can give different sites different priorities and, in return, they lose their common carrier status. It will take a while, but eventually they will be buried under a constant barrage of lawsuits for failing to censor pornography and violence. Once all the ISPs are forced to declare bankruptcy and liquidate their assets, Google can swoop in, buy up all the infrastructure, and give us all free, neutral Internet access, just as long as you agree to have a small AdWords box on your screen. I think it's a win for everyone... except maybe the telcos and cable companies.

[Parcival]

Also, if the telecoms got more money, there's no guarantee that they'll use if for infrastructure.

Before they complain about a lack of money that prevents them from upgrading their scarce resources/bandwith, they better take a tougher grip on all those crackers and spamers that are blocking the lines.

[ArgPirate]

I guess I don't really understand what it entails to run a website, but I thought that the ISPs already offer different prices for different bandwidth. At least at the consumer level, you can get phone line, cable, DSL, and even different speeds within those categories. Also, the companies that offer hosting services often offer different packages with different storage capacities and bandwidth. If I've got this all wrong, please let me know.


Well, yes one can order diffrent speed packages on the consumer level, but thats you choosing your speed. Other than that though, all internet traffic should flow at, more or less, equal speeds. See when you order bandwith for a website or something, its not the speed your are ordering its the amount of data transfer per month. So the cheap package gets the same speed as the expensive package, the expensive package just gets more data transfer per month.

[nabetse]

but eventually they will be buried under a constant barrage of lawsuits for failing to censor pornography and violence
Americans are sue-happy. Maybe -- just maybe -- it'll work!! (pinky finger at the corner of mouth)

its not the speed your are ordering its the amount of data transfer per month
Yeah, I guess {amount of data}/month and {amount of data}/second is a big difference.

[IsaacKuo]

I think tiered content is a great idea. The ISPs can give different sites different priorities and, in return, they lose their common carrier status. It will take a while, but eventually they will be buried under a constant barrage of lawsuits for failing to censor pornography and violence. Once all the ISPs are forced to declare bankruptcy and liquidate their assets, Google can swoop in, buy up all the infrastructure, and give us all free, neutral Internet access, just as long as you agree to have a small AdWords box on your screen. [...]

...and as long as you use Windows, of course, since Google's AdWords software will only run on Windows. (The high bandwidth mission-critical AdWords servers will all run on Linux, of course.)

[paj12]

...and as long as you use Windows, of course, since Google's AdWords software will only run on Windows. (The high bandwidth mission-critical AdWords servers will all run on Linux, of course.)
I must be thinking of the wrong thing. What is the small, unobtrusive box in web pages that contains text-only ads from Google? I thought it was called AdWords. Maybe I'm mistaken.

[AaronD]

Perhaps you're thinking of Internet2? Though that's more of an entire second high-speed network between the large universities;

Isn't that because it is still in the testing phase? I thought it is supposed to start to become available to the public by the end of the decade.

If this is the case, Internet2 scares me. The coming of a new internet and new infrastructure will mean all those telcom and media companies who missed the money train the first time around will make Internet2 a much more restricted place. Governments will be all too willing to help so that users will be protected from those scarier downsides of the net.

[thaddaeus]

Internet 2 initiative (http://k20.internet2.edu/index.php)

"Internet2 is a government controlled internet style massive network for primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, libraries, and museums to extend new technologies, applications, middleware, and content to all educational sectors, as quickly and connectedly as possible."

From my understanding this is never going public outside of a public school or library, and this is as well just an american thing, or very limited international.

As far as NET neutrality, Not all will jump on the band wagon to raise rates, from some searching and and questioning it looks mostly like the telcos with their dsl are the ones who will be the jerks and control your bandwith, I emailed comcast and their rep says they don't have plans to restructure the current system if this passes, I actually trust this for the time being as they have been the most decent cable provider to rule the denver area in the past 10 yrs I've been here.

Untill a decision is made hold on to those land lines and don't go net/voip for phone service just yet :)

[Sepero]

This cartoon seems relevant:
Hmm, I can't help but wonder if you might be a bit confused there. I've never heard of "Web 2.0" referring to anything other than basically AJAX code running at the client.Again, media hype rubbish. AJAX has been around for years and is nothing new. If you believe that media garbage, then I've got a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

Web 2.0 is going to be the new distributed-server http.

[hard candy]

Web 2.0 has already come, it is a business model, it is not limited to internet structure.
O'Reilly-What is Web 2.0? (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1)

[Sepero]

Media-Hype!

:)

[dark_moon]

it always suprises me how little Linux users or computer users understand the open network and how it evolved. The internet is essentially an offshoot of the US free speech movement as is Linux and the open source software movement itself.
Doing away with net neutrality would destroy the internet as we know it and make the internet private space instead of public space.
This goes hand and hand with the fascist movement in the US in general that seems to be running out of steam thank goodness.
As hard candy pointed out we were able to defeat the proposal to this point but more work is needed. Those who say this issue is media hype and would not effect the fundamental nature of the web appearently understand neither the media (which has been totally silent on this issue) nor the nature of the fascist corporate deregulation beast.

[bwkaz]

So am I the only one laughing when I read "fascist" and "deregulation" both used in the same phrase? :p

(BTW: I doubt that Sepero was calling the net neutrality debate "media hype". I bet he was applying that phrase to "Web 2.0", which is what many of us have been talking about in this thread for a while now...)

[Parcival]

So am I the only one laughing when I read "fascist" and "deregulation" both used in the same phrase? :p

Maybe, because in my case it makes me frown.

[hard candy]

"Meg Whitman, chief executive of the Internet auctioneer, called on more than a million eBay members to get involved in the debate over telecommunications laws and "send a message to your representatives in Congress before it is too late."

"The telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet," Whitman wrote. "It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future."

This is the first time that eBay has used e-mail to urge its members to weigh in on a national issue, and also the first time Whitman sent it out under her own name, the company said Thursday.

eBay--which has been active in a pro-Net neutrality coalition for years--confirmed that more than a million e-mails have been sent out so far, but declined to offer a more specific number. The campaign is ongoing. "
Cnet:Ebay joins net neutrality figh (http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6079291.html?part=rss&tag=6079291&subj=news)

[Sepero]

Interesting fact:
The starter of this thread is nabetse. nabetse spelled backwards is Esteban. I believe that's spanish for Stephen.

[thaddaeus]

The internet is essentially an offshoot of the US free speech movement as is Linux and the open source software movement itself.

What are the other essentials...The internet was first concieved (before being called the internet) by the US government as a secure way to communicate between locations (DARPA NET I believe). What late became the internet was formed from this same technology/idea to replace the time consuming sneaker nets for data transfer between businesses, office, locations. It has slowly evolved with aid from the government and corporate commities to regulate and help the internet progress into the information superhighway we see today.

At least this is what you learn in AP CompSci when the teacher is tired of teaching and just shows a video.

[nabetse]

Interesting fact:
The starter of this thread is nabetse. nabetse spelled backwards is Esteban. I believe that's spanish for Stephen.

"Esteban" was a nickname that I had when I was 7 or 8 years old--all due to a cartoon that was on at that time. Strangely enough, I'm Chinese, not Hispanic. And all of my cousins pronounced "Estevan" instead of "Esteban".

Regarding Net Neutrality, I was simply shocked that there was even such a debate. I had taken the freedoms that we had for granted and was saddened that a few powerful entities would take it away from all of us. I believe that freedom is what made the internet as rich as it is. Taking freedom away would make the internet a hollow shell of what it is now.

(I recently finished reading "The Giver" by Lois Lowry, which I believe is now making it into the 9th grade English curriculum. It's a compelling story.)

[Parcival]

I had taken the freedoms that we had for granted and was saddened that a few powerful entities would take it away from all of us.

Have you ever played Wing Commander IV?

The price of freedom is watchfulness.

[thaddaeus]

(I recently finished reading "The Giver" by Lois Lowry, which I believe is now making it into the 9th grade English curriculum. It's a compelling story.)

Wow I havn't read the book sense the 4th grade! (Im a sophmore in U now) A good book at that but it shows us that a non free as in choices, society will fall because of a rogue know it all and a kid, maybe we need somthing like this to take the power from coporations?

[nabetse]

Have you ever played Wing Commander IV?
Haha, no but I'll look into that.
maybe we need somthing like this to take the power from coporations
I don't think our society is as fragile as the one described in the book. Our current power holders will fight tooth and nail while the people in the book didn't know what was comming to them. They just kept following the "rules".

Oh, and a little update: Cnet: House rejects Net Neutrality bill (http://news.com.com/House+rejects+Net+neutrality+rules/2100-1028_3-6081882.html)
Darn! But it seems like there are more bills that are making its way through our government.

[dark_moon]

So am I the only one laughing when I read "fascist" and "deregulation" both used in the same phrase? :p



well the word fascism was coined in italy where musalini himself defined it as government for and by corporations. corporations by definition are not interested in regulating or restricting themselves or their ability to take us all for a ride as in the internet censorship toll road.
so fascism and deregulation are in fact very related if not the same thing.

deregulation as used in US politico speach only means deregulation of buisness.
individuals get more and more regulations and restrictions.
Example: In Colorado high desert it is technically illegal for an individual to catch a bucket full of rain water and drink it. (hyper personal regulation) If individual drills a well on their own land they cannot draw over a certain amount of water from it or use the water in certain ways. In the same spot in Colorado an individual cannot legally drain his or her kitchen sink into a potted housplant to keep it alive.
In contrast on the very same high desert land through "deregulation" of the corporation not the individual. A natuaral gas (Halaberton) company can legally poison the entire water table on anyones land they please. by injecting benzene, toluene, xylene, 2-butoxyethonol, and whatever carcinogen, neurotoxin, endocryn disruptor, or whatever else they care to inject. No need to even disclose what they put in the water. They are free from clean water restrictions and need not disclose "trade secrets". If in fact they find an aquifer is in their way (the same water the individual must be so carefull with) they can waste the entire auqifer on the surface. Even if it takes years to do so.
freedom in US politico speach only means freedom for buisness to rob people blind, poison and kill without accountability.
but the individual people go to prison in the middle of the night without charge.
more individuals without basic freedom locked away in US prisons per capita that any other nation on earth.

so yea deregulation = fascism and it's quite obvious to anyone who cares to see with realeyes whats going on.

[dark_moon]

What are the other essentials...The internet was first concieved (before being called the internet) by the US government as a secure way to communicate between locations (DARPA NET I believe). What late became the internet was formed from this same technology/idea to replace the time consuming sneaker nets for data transfer between businesses, office, locations. It has slowly evolved with aid from the government and corporate commities to regulate and help the internet progress into the information superhighway we see today.

At least this is what you learn in AP CompSci when the teacher is tired of teaching and just shows a video.

well to say DARPA way back in 1958 has much to do with the internet seems rather absurd.
ARPA in 1969 was one link between UCLA and Stanford that was the beginning internet. 1969 was the same year we first see "hacker" culture and the year unix was created. 1969 was the year the first RFC was puplished. 1972 Unix was rewritten in c. 1973 first international arpanet connection. 1977 Bill Joy at Berklee creates BSD. When you consider not untill 1990 did there exist web browsers or web pages it becomes rather clear that buisness nor the US government created the internet but rather hackers did. and hacker culture has its roots in the free speech movement.

This stuff is the origin of the internet.

[dark_moon]

well it seems this debate will be a mute point quite soon.

midnight deal and the destruction of net neutrality is half done. One would imagine a deal struck that goes something like "you give us access to all phone and intrnet traffic so we can spy and collect data on US citizens and we will give you the internet even though you had absolutely nothing to do with its creation or evolution"

whatever the internet will become as private intertainment/add space for the telecoms is whatever it will become. No great loss i guess we now can just go create something new
to use as open communication. Music i think sounds like a good one. Until someone figures out how to charge money for and controll vibrating air.

[dark_moon]

I don't think our society is as fragile

sorry so many posts but interesting points

current society is like bactrium in a petri dish
they do great till all the substraight is eaten then they crash and all 100% die.

oily hydrocarbons are our substraight.
we have just eaten through exactly half.
now supply dwindles slowly as demand continues to rise and the crash begins.
fragile is putting it mildly.