You may not be able to visit eBay, Craigslist, or this web site along with many other

[Soul Reputation]

Unless you and the webmaster pay the Internet service provider more money (which will be optional for both parties). If you and the web master don't pay the extra fee you won't be able to access hundreds, thousands, millions of other web sites. We're talkin' about a virtual filter on the Internet kinda sorta like China has in place. Talkin' Net Neutrality is what I'm talkin'. We'll know if they decide to filter the Internet on 12.21.2010.

That's the day of reckonin'.

It is on that day that the Federal Communications Commission will vote on rules that could stop companies like Time Warner, Comcast and AT&T from blocking where you go on the Internet. The vote is a test for President Obama and Chairman Julius Genachowski. Will they deliver on earlier promises and pass strong Net Neutrality rules, or will they cave to the phone and cable lobby and give us a fake version? Interested in watching them vote on this? Good. Cause we need your support. If you're in the neighborhood go to 445 12th Street, Washington, D.C., Room TW-C305. They'll start voting on it on or around 10:30 AM EST. If you're not in Washington, D.C. you can help the cause by going to SaveTheInternet dot com. And please be sure to a) sign the petition and b) get on their mailing list.

short crash course on net neutrality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U

 

[imagoon]

I would hate to be the stakeholders in the company that decided to block access to ebay, craigslist, etc

 

[spidey07]

Net Neutrality is the worst idea ever. It would be the death of the Internet and halt all progress we've made.

It is simply not in the best interest of ANY provider to forcefully block content, they would lose customers left and right. And those that have tried have been smacked down by the FCC for anti-competitive practices. No new overbearing laws or regulation need be put in place for the tinfoil hat wearing net neutrality fear mongers.

 

[drebo]

Not this again. Uhg.

 

[ScottMac]

The Man-Made Global Warming scare didn't work, so now the panic mongers are going for control of the Internet (or more to the point, unwarranted control of the people that control the Internet).

 

[spidey07]

The Man-Made Global Warming scare didn't work, so now the panic mongers are going for control of the Internet (or more to the point, unwarranted control of the people that control the Internet).

Shamefully it's working, people actually support this insane idea.

 

[Soul Reputation]

I would hate to be the stakeholders in the company that decided to block access to ebay, craigslist, etc

There are many negative ramifications that could develop:

1) Times are tough. Just imagine a homeless person using the computer at a homeless shelter or the library and when they go to a site that is crucial to them finding work or a site that in some way would allow them to get a job and get off the street when they get to that site they see a big, fat DENIAL OF SERVICE message cause maybe the shelter or the city library <i>or the webmaster</i> didn't for whatever reason pay the extra service fee. A service fee that the monopolies will be charging annually or every six months.

That is messed up. That's just one negative scenario. There are many, many others that are easily imaginable if a person uses their imagination.

 

[drebo]

There are many negative ramifications that could develop:

1) Times are tough. Just imagine a homeless person using the computer at a homeless shelter or the library and when they go to a site that is crucial to them finding work or a site that in some way would allow them to get a job and get off the street when they get to that site they see a big, fat DENIAL OF SERVICE message cause maybe the shelter or the city library <i>or the webmaster</i> didn't for whatever reason pay the extra service fee. A service fee that the monopolies will be charging annually or every six months.

That is messed up. That's just one negative scenario. There are many, many others that are easily imaginable if a person uses their imagination.

That is a scenario that will never happen at the service provider level.

Now, private entities can control their networks however they want. If a particular place of business wants to block a particular type of site, they have every right.

That said, a service provider will never, ever, block access to content just because it's not provided by them. This is contrary to the POINT of the Internet, and is illegal under any number of other government provisions, not the least of which is anti-trust law.

 

[Soul Reputation]

Good old Youtube: Aspiring movie makers like the kid that lives down the street or the old lady that lives around the block doesn't want to see Net Neutrality destroyed either cause ya know the Youtube video that you saw recently that had say for example 300 views?

If Net Neutrality fails then look for that view count to be reduced. Maybe in half.

Not sure how much of a reduction it'll be but every web site will suffer a reduction in traffic if Net Neutrality fails. And the reason the reader may not be up on this is because information about tomorrows crucial vote is not being shown on today's television news program. They're ignoring it.

So please go to SaveTheInternet dot com to sign the petition at the link below. Mark my word, SaveTheInternet dot coms webmaster Tim Karr is an Internet activist who does not care to spam people but if you're worried about something like that just give them your secondary e-mail address, thank you.

http://act2.freepress.net/sign/red_phone_net_neutrality/?source=STIhomepage

 

[drebo]

Not sure how much of a reduction it'll be but every web site will suffer a reduction in traffic if Net Neutrality fails. And the reason the reader may not be up on this is because information about tomorrows crucial vote is not being shown on today's television news program. They're ignoring it.

Fearmonger, much?

You have no clue.

Edit: /feedthetrolls

 

[spidey07]

Thankfully we have knowledgeable people who understand networking that are making the policies. Those are the people the FCC is listening to. Those evil telcos, what with their huge staff of evil folks that build and make The Internet. That's why so called net neutrality will never pass, it goes against everything that makes the Internet so good and open.

 

[airdata]

Net Neutrality is the worst idea ever. It would be the death of the Internet and halt all progress we've made.

+1

Worst idea ever. I could understand from the standpoint of an aging congressman who has no idea what the internet is that it could be a good idea to closely monitor everything... etc.

But with a brain that is living in 2010, soon to be 2011. It's clearly a horrible idea to try to impose fees or censor websites.

 

[spidey07]

What's even funnier is net neutrality will FORCE prices to increase for everybody and yet people still say they want it.

If a provider or network operator can't use some form of reasonable network management to control traffic or congestion then they will be forced to have over sized circuits and links and the associated higher cost of those links and interfaces/routing power. What does that mean? The provider has to spend an incredible amount of money for capacity that isn't being smartly utilized.

What does that mean? Higher costs for it's customers. The business of business is to make money.

 

[drebo]

Net neutrality will effectively kill the future of voice and video communications. You could say good bye to many promising features of modern voice networks, such as true number portability, "take your number anywhere", and up-to-the-minute 911 location updates on land-line phones. There's more, too. Unified messaging goes bye-bye. Voice costs will go way up, as packet-switched networks will no longer be suitable for voice traffic.

We'll take a 20-year step backwards into the world of circuit-switched voice networks, ignoring all of the progress we've made.

 

[ScottMac]

There are many negative ramifications that could develop:

1) Times are tough. Just imagine a homeless person using the computer at a homeless shelter or the library and when they go to a site that is crucial to them finding work or a site that in some way would allow them to get a job and get off the street when they get to that site they see a big, fat DENIAL OF SERVICE message cause maybe the shelter or the city library <i>or the webmaster</i> didn't for whatever reason pay the extra service fee. A service fee that the monopolies will be charging annually or every six months.

That is messed up. That's just one negative scenario. There are many, many others that are easily imaginable if a person uses their imagination.

It is not, and has never been, an issue of reducing or denying any access to anyone, from anyone. The issue (from the provider's point of view) is to pay for an IMPROVED access level where the service type can benefit from the improved access (like Netflix / YouTube / VUDU streaming).

Plain ol' web surfing has no requirement for improved access, it isn't affected (positively or negatively). Please stop the hysterical ranting, you're way off base.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Net Neutrality is the worst idea ever. It would be the death of the Internet and halt all progress we've made.

You're kidding, right?

 

[VirtualLarry]

But with a brain that is living in 2010, soon to be 2011. It's clearly a horrible idea to try to impose fees or censor websites.

Didn't comcast demand money from Level3, and get it, in order to gain access to Comcast's subscribers again?

If Comcast tried changing their last-mile internet to a toll road, and it succeeded, who is to say that other providers won't be doing something similar?

 

[VirtualLarry]

It is not, and has never been, an issue of reducing or denying any access to anyone, from anyone.

Bullshit. That's exactly what it's about. It's about turning the internet into a series of privately-owned "toll roads", all seeking to extract what they can from the other parties, in order to complete an end-to-end IP connection.
It really will be the "end of the internet as we know it", if some sort of net neutrality legislation isn't passed. It's not about anti-QoS, it's about stopping the internet from becoming one giant toll road for everyone. If you thought telcos raped you for long-distance calls, you haven't seen nothing yet, for what website owners are up against.

 

[spidey07]

Bullshit. That's exactly what it's about. It's about turning the internet into a series of privately-owned "toll roads", all seeking to extract what they can from the other parties, in order to complete an end-to-end IP connection.
It really will be the "end of the internet as we know it", if some sort of net neutrality legislation isn't passed. It's not about anti-QoS, it's about stopping the internet from becoming one giant toll road for everyone. If you thought telcos raped you for long-distance calls, you haven't seen nothing yet, for what website owners are up against.

Providers have nothing to gain and everything to lose by trying such a model, not to mention the FCC won't allow it.

It's all fearmongering over what ifs that the 2 or 3 times they were tried the FCC stopped it immediately as anti-competitive behavior. The FCC has all the regulation and law it needs to enforce competitiveness which is why the communication industry is one of the most highly competitive ones there is.

Peering agreements where both sides roughly share the same utilization and reachability are still zero cost to both parties because it's beneficial to both. A provider has NOTHING to gain by what you're describing and only customers to lose be they residential or business to lose.

It's complete tinfoil hat hogwash.

Think about why with almost absolute certainty people that know networking and build/run service provider networks think it's a terrible idea? I'm talking about the net architects like myself on the technology and policy problems it would create, not the "those ebil corporations being all corporationy" types.

 

[Fardringle]

The ONLY real effect that Net Neutrality would have is, as someone mentioned earlier, that costs to consumers would increase dramatically. Net Neutrality requires that ISPs NOT use QoS and packet shaping to improve performance on their networks. Without that ability, ISPs will either have to reduce bandwidth to all customers or purchase and maintain larger pipelines and pass the extra costs down to their customers.

 

[imagoon]

In my view, Net neutrality seems to mean different things to a lot of people. IE net neutrality to handle QoS, and the "access to other sites."

QoS: Must be there, if it isn't service is going to be crap over all. The closest "home level" example I can think of it try making a skype call while 3 people are torrenting on your home router. With a little bit of QoS you can talk all day long and it works fine. No QoS and your lucky if you can make the call, let alone understand it.

Blocking access to sites: The big providers would have to be insane to decide to "block youtube" etc. I would expect class action law suits etc to "fix" that problem. Also, the gear that can handle blocking big sites like google is expensive. Unless they really wanted the whole "AOL Walled garden," I can't imagine someone crunching those numbers and seeing a benefit to spend money on firewalls that can handle 30GB/s etc to basically loose customers. With the extra costs another provider could pop in and be "100&#37; unrestricted" cheaper due to lower hardware needs.

The level3 : comcast thing is a peering contract issue. People that have no clue about how a peering arrangement work construe that as the "evil man" but most big peering arangements are based on "free as long as we are trading equal amounts data +- some percent of error." Those circuits are not free however. Typically there is a bill that is simply split 50:50 and as long as each side is trading data evenly, splitting the physical circuit costs is much cheaper than getting a subscriber line. In this case the ratio is skewed on that peering group and according to contract Comcast can ask for compensation or like most companies will do, reconfigure the routing / circuits to balance the load out (if possible.)

 

[her209]

The ONLY real effect that Net Neutrality would have is, as someone mentioned earlier, that costs to consumers would increase dramatically. Net Neutrality requires that ISPs NOT use QoS and packet shaping to improve performance on their networks. Without that ability, ISPs will either have to reduce bandwidth to all customers or purchase and maintain larger pipelines and pass the extra costs down to their customers.

Lets take the example of Netflix for a moment. We all know that Comcast runs its own competing video-on-demand service. Its in Comcast's financial interest to keep as many customers with them and not have them switch over to Netflix which may be cheaper alternative. How are some ways Comcast can achieve this?

1. Shifting some of the cost of operating the v-o-d service to Internet customers. This means charging Internet customers more for Internet service to keep the v-o-d service affordable and thus able to compete. Or to put it more simply, v-o-d traffic, as an example, may be taking up 10&#37; of network bandwidth, but v-o-d customers are only charged to cover the cost for only 5% to keep v-o-d pricing attractive.

2. Since v-o-d is running over Comcast's network, they use QoS on video packets thus giving them better delivery compared to Internet packets. Netflix traffic on the other hand does not get QoS treatment and is subject to the same QoS rules as Internet traffic. Is there a remedy for Netflix to get QoS treatment on their traffic? (see sig)

3. Implementing data caps on Internet usage. Netflix traffic is counted towards the data cap while Comcast's v-o-d is not. It may not be a problem right now because the cap limit is high but as Netflix starts serving better quality, i.e., higher bit rate, movies, customer's will use more bandwidth and are more likely to reach the cap.

 

[ScottMac]

The ONLY real effect that Net Neutrality would have is, as someone mentioned earlier, that costs to consumers would increase dramatically. Net Neutrality requires that ISPs NOT use QoS and packet shaping to improve performance on their networks. Without that ability, ISPs will either have to reduce bandwidth to all customers or purchase and maintain larger pipelines and pass the extra costs down to their customers.

Unless every provider of every segment offers and respects QOS marking (and universally which type, as there are several ways to mark for QOS / COS) there is no QOS on the Internet. SOHO routers and firmware that offer QOS are only regulating the internal LAN switching and the outbound priority ... there is no way to regulate the inbound (since it's sent however the upstream router sends it).

Net Neutrality wouldn't cost the consumer anything directly (i.e., billed form the ISP); the cost, if any would be from the providers that offer services that bought the enhanced service because it improves the content delivery of their product. IF that is the case, then normal competitive forces would act to keep the costs in-line or drive them down/back to original levels.

SO, here we are with another "Does Not" / Does TOO" argument thread. Nothing will be accomplished, no new points will be made, no one will convince any else from the "Other Side" that their argument sux and is wrong ... what a friggin' waste of time & bandwidth.

Give up now and ignore this thread.

 

[spidey07]

This post had 8 retransmissions.

It's the evil corporations doing this to MY god given RIGHT of internet!

 

[spidey07]

Lets take the example of Netflix for a moment. We all know that Comcast runs its own competing video-on-demand service. Its in Comcast's financial interest to keep as many customers with them and not have them switch over to Netflix which may be cheaper alternative. How are some ways Comcast can achieve this?

1. Shifting some of the cost of operating the v-o-d service to Internet customers. This means charging Internet customers more for Internet service to keep the v-o-d service affordable and thus able to compete. Or to put it more simply, v-o-d traffic, as an example, may be taking up 10&#37; of network bandwidth, but v-o-d customers are only charged to cover the cost for only 5% to keep v-o-d pricing attractive.

2. Since v-o-d is running over Comcast's network, they use QoS on video packets thus giving them better delivery compared to Internet packets. Netflix traffic on the other hand does not get QoS treatment and is subject to the same QoS rules as Internet traffic. Is there a remedy for Netflix to get QoS treatment on their traffic? (see sig)

3. Implementing data caps on Internet usage. Netflix traffic is counted towards the data cap while Comcast's v-o-d is not. It may not be a problem right now because the cap limit is high but as Netflix starts serving better quality, i.e., higher bit rate, movies, customer's will use more bandwidth and are more likely to reach the cap.

Except comcast's current direction and is in trial right now is for their set top boxes to have access to all internet based streaming media to offer them a competitive advantage to other ISPs. It would NOT be in their favor to have that video be crappy.

And your other point about QoS, the few times a provider has tried that the FCC told them to stop immediately. They can't do anti-competitive stuffs.

It does a provider NO good to do as your tinfoil hat says.