What is Net Neutrality

[billydkid]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/swanson7.html

[AgeGap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

This from Wikipedia but I havn't a clue.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119728

This from the Forum. Not read it.

Should I be concerned?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes you should be concerned unless you don't care that without it you can expect to see the Net turn as milktoasty as the TV is. Large corporate interests want to control influence your content access.

[GodMark2]

It's all in the name. It is the idea that the network should be neutral, and not be biased for or against any entity or information. Specifically, that each company providing the network must be 'data neutral'.

There are multiple issues with 'Data Neutrality'.

The first is simple: The data I request should be the data I receive.

Currently, when you request the page "forums.randi.org", your ISP could decide to access the page as normal, or not. The could simply say "You can't access that page from here", or they could even put up a completely different page like "answersingenesis.org". There is nothing currently disallowing that (except the theoretical free market).

The second isn't so simple: My priority (and, by extension, my data's) should be only related to my contract, not my requests.

Currently, your ISP, or anyone else along the way, could decide that any data coming from forums.randi.org is low priority, and simply not relay those packets to the next router, until (by their estimation) their 'high priority' traffic has been sent. They could even look inside the packets at the information contained and delay your data based on what they see there. Keyphrases such as "Bush Sucks" or "AT&T stock crashes" could be used to delay your information (or block it altogether). They could look at where the packet originated. QWest could delay a packet because it originated on AT&T. There is nothing currently disallowing that (except the theoretical free market).

On a related note:
When things like piracy became prevalent on the internet. The networks involved wanted no responsibility for what people are doing on their network (safe harbor). The courts and congresspeople said that would be OK, as long as the networks could maintain plausible deniability, and didn't do any inspection of the information(DMCA).

Now the networks want to keep their lack of responsibility, while also being able to inspect the information and act on the results of that inspection.

[ShowerComic]

On a related note:
When things like piracy became prevalent on the internet. The networks involved wanted no responsibility for what people are doing on their network (safe harborWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/safe%20harbor)). The courts and congresspeople said that would be OK, as long as the networks could maintain plausible deniability, and didn't do any inspection of the information(DMCAWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA)).

This being what frustrates me in the Comcast case, Aug. '08. Briefly Comcast is caught blocking Bittorrent, a protocol easily used for the purpose of piracy, but also used for legal reasons. -- Freely Distributable Linux distros, Public Domain movies, and Quotes, and E-Books.

Comcast which offers it's own VoIP residential phone service could in theory block other vendors of residential VoIP. (ex: Vonage, skype, or Magic Jack) which would be a clear violation, in an effort to force the consumer to work with them only, for that service. Howerever who is to say if the Bittorrent data is legal or not?

-- Comcast would have to examine evey piece of content, to monitor it. That should be the role of the police, not the ISP.

[Wudang]

2 issues need to be separated here. There's blocking and there's network management - throttling certain packet types at peak times. A lot of people are so hysterical about the former they're making the latter difficult and we want the latter.

[GodMark2]

2 issues need to be separated here. There's blocking and there's network management - throttling certain packet types at peak times. A lot of people are so hysterical about the former they're making the latter difficult and we want the latter.

No, some of us don't want the latter. If I pay for 10 MBps of bandwidth, I should be able to use 10MBps of bandwidth, regardless of when I use it, or what I use it for. I shouldn't be throttled for 'network management'.

If they sell ten people 10 MBps each, they should expect to need to provide 100MBps. If they can only provide 50MBps total, they should only sell 50 MBps. If they want to sell a lesser 'as available' service, that's fine, but it should be sold as 'as available', like flying standby on airlines. The airlines will at least provide you a free upgrade to first class if they oversell a flight and you have to get bumped.

[Talash]

So, you would not mind risking a VOIP user's emergency 911 call getting dropped just so you and others can download a tiny bit faster during that call? How about doctors doing remote operations?

Did anyone actually read the article linked in the OP? I'd be very interested in any possible counter-arguments on the points it makes.

[TheDaver]

So, you would not mind risking a VOIP user's emergency 911 call getting dropped just so you and others can download a tiny bit faster during that call? How about doctors doing remote operations?

Did anyone actually read the article linked in the OP? I'd be very interested in any possible counter-arguments on the points it makes.
Those vital datatypes should have their own dedicated services to prevent that.

You don’t complain that the municipal bus is too packed/slow to bring patients to the emergency room – you use an ambulance.

[Talash]

When those services exist, I'll agree with you. Until that time comes, they have to go through the internet.

If ambulances didn't exist, and (for some odd reason) patients could only be moved through the municipal transit system, would you complain about some buses having less passenger space to make room for patients?

[soylent]

Is there a reason to believe that "net discrimination"(or whatever the opposite to neutrality is) won't just degrade everyone's service? I would expect that trying to shoe-horn guaranteed service into the net would be a net loss even to privileged traffic over just spending the same amount of money to build more infrastructure.

[Hellbound]

No, some of us don't want the latter. If I pay for 10 MBps of bandwidth, I should be able to use 10MBps of bandwidth, regardless of when I use it, or what I use it for. I shouldn't be throttled for 'network management'.

If they sell ten people 10 MBps each, they should expect to need to provide 100MBps. If they can only provide 50MBps total, they should only sell 50 MBps. If they want to sell a lesser 'as available' service, that's fine, but it should be sold as 'as available', like flying standby on airlines. The airlines will at least provide you a free upgrade to first class if they oversell a flight and you have to get bumped.

Actually, if you read the contract, what you pay for is, most likely, 'as available' service.

Every one I've ever seen reads 'up to XMbps', and in the fine print somewhere it will list a minimum speed they'll offer (sometimes, I've never seent hat for residential service); most do NOT garauntee any minimum level of connection speed.

With the exception of dedicated lines (i.e.-T1, ATM, and similar) I haven't seen anything that's sold at a garaunteed speed. And anything that does have a garaunteed speed is MUCH more expensive than what you're paying for residential. For example, a T1 line that offers garaunteed 1.5Mbps bandwidth (<37ms delay, 99.95% delivery, 100% availability) comes with a $1000 installation fee. You have to call them for pricing, which can be flat-rate or usage based. I can say that something like 1.5 Mbps dedicated ran close to $1000 a month when I last checked (about 4 years back). All of the residential products I've looked at are sold as 'up to' speeds, generally with a statement like this one:Advertised services and Internet speed options not available in all areas. Offers may be modified or discontinued at any time without notice. Other conditions may apply to all offers.

Not to mention that proper network management is going to improve service for everyone. Some applications, such as the aforementioned VoIP, simply do not work if the packets are delayed. VoIP packets are typically just droped if the latency is over 400ms. Loading a web page or downloading a file, by contrast, can sit for a second or two without any real problem.

[Wudang]

Those vital datatypes should have their own dedicated services to prevent that.

You don’t complain that the municipal bus is too packed/slow to bring patients to the emergency room – you use an ambulance.

Hmm, in the UK ambulances use the same road as everyone else but they have these flashy light things that tell others to get out the way.

I take Godmark2's point as that was part of the case aganst Comcast - that they were not providing what they sold. But why does that mean that some packets should be throttled back at peak times if it helps to preserve the agreed service levels?