Net Neutrality -- Will it Get Sold?

[Kaylee]

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,198610,00.html
Why would an Internet company open its arms to congressional regulation of the Internet?

Speed. There is a movement underway to 'privatize' the high-bandwidth access and I have a feeling eBay would be interested in this issue.

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news...le.php/3607371 (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3607371)
Net neutrality.

(This is a split from "Why ebay wants to put poker players in prison. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58155)")

So which way do y'all think it will go? Will the net stay neutral or go private?

[TragicMonkey]

Let's see, which way would Congress go: vote for the benefit of the people, or vote for the benefit of large, wealthy companies?

Hold your breath!

[Grammatron]

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,198610,00.html




(This is a split from "Why ebay wants to put poker players in prison. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58155)")

So which way do y'all think it will go? Will the net stay neutral or go private?

Last time I checked I paid to use to Internet; people paid to have their websites registered and hosted; host companies paid to have their data moved through the internet backbones, etc. I am trying to figure out which part is not private.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Let's see, which way would Congress go: vote for the benefit of the people, or vote for the benefit of large, wealthy companies?

Hold your breath!

Neither. Vote for the benefit of themselves is the correct answer.

[geni]

Last time I checked I paid to use to Internet; people paid to have their websites registered and hosted; host companies paid to have their data moved through the internet backbones, etc. I am trying to figure out which part is not private.

Various govement and militry networks. Networks in various countries where the local telecom is state owned. That kind of thing.

[Art Vandelay]

Last time I checked I paid to use to Internet; people paid to have their websites registered and hosted; host companies paid to have their data moved through the internet backbones, etc. I am trying to figure out which part is not private.Yeah, you want top line service, you pay for it. Just like people pay for private school. Doesn't mean that the school system is privatized.

Do you really think VOIP is so cheap because of the technology? It's heavily subsidized.

[rocketdodger]

Let's see, which way would Congress go: vote for the benefit of the people, or vote for the benefit of large, wealthy companies?

Hold your breath!

Yeah, too bad that the benefit of the companies is the same thing as the benefit of the people in this instance..

The people who are arguing for net neutrality don't have a clue about the nature and operation of the internet.

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah, too bad that the benefit of the companies is the same thing as the benefit of the people in this instance..

The people who are arguing for net neutrality don't have a clue about the nature and operation of the internet.

Then kindly explain it.

[Rob Lister]

Then kindly explain it.

Yes, I'd like to be given a clue too.

[geni]

The main problem is that this gives the various traffic carries more ways to fall out. The upshot of this is that you will end up with a situation where various bits of the web go missing from time to time.

[rocketdodger]

Then kindly explain it.

In a nutshell, the socialist ideal doesn't work very well when it comes to internetworking.

1) People should be able to pay for priority service. Since the networks take $$$ to build and run, it only makes sense that providing more $$$ should result in better service.

2) People should not be able to gobble up more than their fair share of network utilization. The only viable metric to base "fair share" on is how much $$$ they pay for the service. As it is, very few networks have any router-centric congestion control because that is virtually impossible to implement fairly without some kind of quality of service hierarchy.


The arguments for keeping the internet "neutral" all revolve around some socialist notion that equal access for everyone is the best scenario and that everyone will play fair if they have equal access. But this is totally misguided.

The internet, like any part of the tech industry, is driven by $$$ and only $$$. Forcing people willing to pay big $$$ for better service to simply accept the same service as everyone else, which at the same time denies the network companies $$$ that they could use to improve technology or infrastructure, is probably the most retarded thing one could do from an economical perspective.

Furthermore, the idea that everyone will play fair is ludicrous. As it is, precisely because quality of service strategies are so sparsely implemented, router-centric congestion control is a rare thing on the internet -- this means that responsibility for avoiding overloading the networks lies with the individual hosts. I don't need to explain why this is a bad idea, especially since the internet is no longer used exclusively by academia. Keeping the internet neutral means it is virtually impossible to police utilization, for the exact reason that there are no contracts to enforce.

[Morrigan]

The internet, like any part of the tech industry, is driven by $$$ and only $$$.
Bullsh*t.

[rocketdodger]

Bullsh*t.

Ok are you going to provide evidence for why you think my claim is BS or what...

[Random]

If we don’t trust the government or individuals to play fair, why would we trust guys like AT&T and Verizon? Once they get the ability to regulate the content of what goes through their pipes, what to prevent them from trying to eliminate competitors? What if AT&T prevented you from sending e-mail to people who used Verizon broadband and vice-versa? What if Bell decided they wanted Jeb Bush to be President in ’08 and cut down access speed to Democratic websites? Right now, these things are impossible due to the concept of network neutrality, but they won’t be if this telecom stuff gets pushed through.

Are there problems with the current system and issues of fairness regarding use? Probably. But I think that before we hand over the whole ball of wax to some multi-billion dollar telecommunication companies we should get something more solid than a vague “Oh, we wouldn’t do that” from these companies.

[rocketdodger]

Right now, these things are impossible due to the concept of network neutrality, but they won’t be if this telecom stuff gets pushed through.


No, it is not impossible. It is simply very illegal, which is what they would be if neutrality got canned as well. Of course it might be easier for them to break the law, but on the flip side the networks might be faster and more reliable (if you can pay the $$$ hehe). Antitrust legislation would apply here just as anywhere else.


Are there problems with the current system and issues of fairness regarding use? Probably. But I think that before we hand over the whole ball of wax to some multi-billion dollar telecommunication companies we should get something more solid than a vague “Oh, we wouldn’t do that” from these companies.

Not probably, is. And you are absolutely correct -- we do need much more than a promise. But in my opinion it is a wise decision to risk sacrificing fairness for progress because we can always go back and fix the fairness problems if they occur. We would never have told Microsoft "stop doing what you are doing because you innovation might lead to problems," we simply got after them after they stopped playing fair.

[Random]

No, it is not impossible. It is simply very illegal, which is what they would be if neutrality got canned as well. Of course it might be easier for them to break the law, but on the flip side the networks might be faster and more reliable (if you can pay the $$$ hehe). Antitrust legislation would apply here just as anywhere else.



Not probably, is. And you are absolutely correct -- we do need much more than a promise. But in my opinion it is a wise decision to risk sacrificing fairness for progress because we can always go back and fix the fairness problems if they occur. We would never have told Microsoft "stop doing what you are doing because you innovation might lead to problems," we simply got after them after they stopped playing fair.
And we all know how vigorously the government pursues anti-trust actions…

[Morrigan]

Ok are you going to provide evidence for why you think my claim is BS or what...
I just have to think about all the independently ran, not-for-profit websites, and all the open-source community out there, to know that "the internet is driven by $$$ and only $$$" is just vacuous.

[asmodean]

In a nutshell, the socialist ideal doesn't work very well when it comes to internetworking.

1) People should be able to pay for priority service. Since the networks take $$$ to build and run, it only makes sense that providing more $$$ should result in better service.

I think you've misunderstood net neutrality. It's not about you paying more for better QoS, it's about ISPs being neutral about to where your traffic is going. Without net neutrality, as an example, MS can pay off a number of large ISPs to always give reuests to Google a lot lower priority than requests for MS's own search engine.

2) People should not be able to gobble up more than their fair share of network utilization. The only viable metric to base "fair share" on is how much $$$ they pay for the service. As it is, very few networks have any router-centric congestion control because that is virtually impossible to implement fairly without some kind of quality of service hierarchy.

But this is not net neutrality.

The arguments for keeping the internet
The internet, like any part of the tech industry, is driven by $$$ and only $$$. Forcing people willing to pay big $$$ for better service to simply accept the same service as everyone else, which at the same time denies the network companies $$$ that they could use to improve technology or infrastructure, is probably the most retarded thing one could do from an economical perspective.

Hmm. Really? How long have the $$$ driven the net? middle of 1990? How long since DarapNet was first kicked off? And net neutrality have worked very well so far, and does in no way infringe on IPSs right to charge for QoS.

Seems all your arguments against net neutrality wasn't... really against net neutrality at all.

[rocketdodger]

I think you've misunderstood net neutrality. It's not about you paying more for better QoS, it's about ISPs being neutral about to where your traffic is going. Without net neutrality, as an example, MS can pay off a number of large ISPs to always give reuests to Google a lot lower priority than requests for MS's own search engine.


.... which means MS would be paying for a higher quality of service, which is exactly what I said. Why shouldn't this kind of thing be allowed if it is within bounds? I have a few words for you: "postage paid if mailed within the united states.."

Of course there could be exploitation, but thats what the government is here to correct. Microsoft has already gotten its arse in trouble trying to do similar things, they will if they try again.

I also think that you are probably right assuming that net neutrality is the best option for now, but think about this -- what if isps had to give every client some kind of QoS assurance, and if they fail to meet it the client get's their money back for that month (or some refund along those lines). In such a scenario, I couldn't care less if MS pays them for priority because as long as MY personal contract is followed I am happy.

You seem to be proposing the idea that one entity paying for priority implies all others loosing something, which I agree is bad, unless we have a contract that dictates we get our $$$ back in such cases.

[rocketdodger]

But this is not net neutrality.


No, but network neutrality implies that people shouldn't be penalized for lack of a QoS, which means anyone and everyone's packets should get fair treatment.

What if, however, people had to pay for all that traffic -- suddenly, the spammers and script-kiddies are out of business.

[Random]

No, but network neutrality implies that people shouldn't be penalized for lack of a QoS, which means anyone and everyone's packets should get fair treatment.

What if, however, people had to pay for all that traffic -- suddenly, the spammers and script-kiddies are out of business.
In the end, somebody is paying for that traffic right now. An ISP that provides more service than its revenues can pay for will quickly go out of business. The services may be getting paid for by subscribers, advertisers, or whatever, but somebody is paying for it. If AT&T is loosing money on transmission of internet data across their lines, they can raise rates, or they can get out of the internet business.

Why should we had over regulatory authority to the baby Bells is beyond me.

[asmodean]

.... which means MS would be paying for a higher quality of service, which is exactly what I said. Why shouldn't this kind of thing be allowed if it is within bounds? I have a few words for you: "postage paid if mailed within the united states.."


No. They do not pay for better services. They pay the ISP to enforce what they think I should use for services irregardless of what I pay for QoS fees, if any. To go on your post-anaology, do you think it would be OK if a company pays the post office to delay mails to a competitor, or maybe even drop the competitors mail off at their place, irregardless of what services you paid for when posting your letter?


Of course there could be exploitation, but thats what the government is here to correct. Microsoft has already gotten its arse in trouble trying to do similar things, they will if they try again.

Ah yes. The dreaded government intervention. Sure worked on the CPU tax.

.
I also think that you are probably right assuming that net neutrality is the best option for now, but think about this -- what if isps had to give every client some kind of QoS assurance, and if they fail to meet it the client get's their money back for that month (or some refund along those lines). In such a scenario, I couldn't care less if MS pays them for priority because as long as MY personal contract is followed I am happy.

Which is what net neutrality ensures.

.
You seem to be proposing the idea that one entity paying for priority implies all others loosing something, which I agree is bad, unless we have a contract that dictates we get our $$$ back in such cases.

Or, by simply keep net neutrality. There's a working system there. It doesn't stop ISPs from implementing QoS. So why "won't it work"?

[asmodean]

No, but network neutrality implies that people shouldn't be penalized for lack of a QoS, which means anyone and everyone's packets should get fair treatment.

Got a problem with treating packets fair? Whatever have the poor packets ever done to you? :P

Seriously though, it means that if I pay for a certain bandwidth, for a certain QoS that is what I will recieve, at least within my ISPs network. It doesn't force an "all packets are created equal" policy, only that no third party can cut off certain sites or services, or downgrade access to a given site, despite what I pay to receive.

Example, A pay 150SEK/Mo to receive a certain QoS. B pays 50SEK/Mo for a lot less QoS. Both A and B book their flight travels at www.elcheapoflying.com. However, Ye Olde Expensive Flights do not like the competition and pay ISPs to block elcheapoflying, or to direct traffic over to their own website. This is what net neutrality is supposed to protect against. Not to stop ISPs from adopting QoS services, existing or future.


What if, however, people had to pay for all that traffic -- suddenly, the spammers and script-kiddies are out of business.

Afraid not. Mass mailings: spam once, reach thousands. Doesn't eat much bandwith for spammer. Plus, charging per MB of data sent is not unherd of as it is.

[rocketdodger]

To go on your post-anaology, do you think it would be OK if a company pays the post office to delay mails to a competitor, or maybe even drop the competitors mail off at their place, irregardless of what services you paid for when posting your letter?


Absolutely not, but is that going to happen?

I must be confused, because I thought removing neutrality was all about implementing QoS across the board and accepting the implications of that. I did not think it implied making monoplistic situations, like you describe above, legal. I could be wrong though... what exactly are we talking about here?

[rocketdodger]

Afraid not. Mass mailings: spam once, reach thousands. Doesn't eat much bandwith for spammer. Plus, charging per MB of data sent is not unherd of as it is.

I am talking about packets not email :)

I think if everyone had a QoS contract rather than just some kind of connection, dealing with botnets and DoS attacks would be alot easier.

[asmodean]

Absolutely not, but is that going to happen?


It is one possible outcome of removing net neutrality.


I must be confused, because I thought removing neutrality was all about implementing QoS across the board and accepting the implications of that. I did not think it implied making monoplistic situations, like you describe above, legal. I could be wrong though... what exactly are we talking about here?

Ah, my apologies. Seems it was me who have set my sights to narrow and only targeted a particular part of net neutrality, i.e


Definitions

Non-discrimination means that all traffic over the network (typically 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.

Interconnection means that network operators have both a duty of interconnection and a right of interconnection to any other network operator. Networks must be constructed so that there are a reasonable number of accessible interconnect points; that traffic is carried to and from rival networks at reasonable rates; and that the network is built with sufficient excess capacity to accommodate the reasonably foreseeable traffic that may be presented at the head-ends or peering points. Proponents of neutrality regulations argue that without a right of interconnection, there is no network.

Access means that any end user can connect to any other end-user. End users may be people, but the term could also mean devices (modems, routers, switches) or even other networks. Access means that a piece of content, say, an email message, has a right to enter the network, and if properly addressed, be received by the other end user, even if said user is on another network. In other words, traffic can begin at any point on the network and be delivered to any other point.

And that I've missed a the first part of the definitions. Mea culpa.

So, I agree that the first part seems wrong. Clearly an ISP should be allowed to use different QoS and bandwith classes for access to their network. But since QoS protocols and technologies is already developed and in use in some places (RSVP, IntServ, DIffServ, MPLS plus that IPv6 have QoS classess buildt in IIRC) I don't think anyone is arguing this point. I am prepared to be shown wrong though =)

The Interconnection and Access parts is definitely the ones that have me worried, and is what I've been harping on about in this thread. No interconnection and the reason an ip-infrastructure is as robust as it is vanishes. One congested router, and every other ISP have you on their ignore list... Same for access, ISP one decides that their uses do not need to access JREF, better that they get rerouted to Sylvia Brownes website. AIG don't like t.o much, so pay off a few ISPs to deny all traffic destined for t.o or reroute it AIGs site. Which is definitely one part of net neutrality I'd like to keep.

[asmodean]

I am talking about packets not email :)


Ah, right. And email is sent as? :P
My point is of you only need to send an email once, or a few times, to have the mail server you use as relay to send out to millions, then you wont be highly affected by QoS demands.


I think if everyone had a QoS contract rather than just some kind of connection, dealing with botnets and DoS attacks would be alot easier.

Possibly. I'll remain doubtful though that DoS and DDoS attacks will be significantly easier to fight with QoS enabled. However, might get rid of a few of those 24-hr-a-day downloaders that exists (you know the type, spend every waking hr filling their pipe with movies and music, never having time to listen or watch, just to dl more and more) if they had to pay per byte of traffic rather than flat rate for a given bandwidth. Already know that there's a number of swedish ISPs doing just that. For the flat rate you get a certain bandwidth and a certain amount of traffic included. If you send more traffic than the one given, you pay more.

[rocketdodger]

The Interconnection and Access parts is definitely the ones that have me worried, and is what I've been harping on about in this thread. No interconnection and the reason an ip-infrastructure is as robust as it is vanishes. One congested router, and every other ISP have you on their ignore list... Same for access, ISP one decides that their uses do not need to access JREF, better that they get rerouted to Sylvia Brownes website. AIG don't like t.o much, so pay off a few ISPs to deny all traffic destined for t.o or reroute it AIGs site. Which is definitely one part of net neutrality I'd like to keep.

Well we completely agree then, it seems. I would definitely NOT support removing complete interconnection and access, even if I had alot of borg stock.

Although I can see how maybe an ISP could offer a basic contract where equal access was NOT enforced and a more expensive one where it is. Then, they could get the $$$ from the greedy companies AND we (the users that actually care) could retain our guarantee of equal access.

[rocketdodger]

Possibly. I'll remain doubtful though that DoS and DDoS attacks will be significantly easier to fight with QoS enabled.

Well I just think that forcing QoS across the board will sort of force everyone to pay more attention to traffic, which could certainly put a big dent in botnets.

[rocketdodger]

Ah, right. And email is sent as? :P
My point is of you only need to send an email once, or a few times, to have the mail server you use as relay to send out to millions, then you wont be highly affected by QoS demands.


Well yeah but as a software engineer and a gamer, I don't care about email spam, I only care about packet spam clogging my networks ("aye... its mine").

[Random]

It’s not surprising that there is some confusion about net neutrality. The telecom companies are spending a fortune to make it that way. All over the internet are banner ads that tell you to watch out for the evil multi-billion dollar companies such as Google, Microsoft, and eBay. The fact that these ads are paid for by other multi-billion dollar companies like AT&T and MCI is not mentioned.

The original telecom plan was to bribe a bunch of politicians, then get them to hand over the internet in the dead of night with a “midnight special” bill. This didn’t work, so they hired a PR firm and have begun a massive disinformation campaign. The goal is to create enough smoke with talk of “freedom”, “choice”, and all the other buzzwords that have been stripped of meaning recently to get their hands on the internet. And then they will never ever let it go.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I haven't done enough homework researching how exactly non-net neutral protocols will be implemented. It kinda smells like a US centric concept though. Not unlike the banning of all internet gambling.

Charlie (logging on to place a bet for net neutrality) Monoxide

[asmodean]

Well we completely agree then, it seems. I would definitely NOT support removing complete interconnection and access, even if I had alot of borg stock.

So it seems. Takes a lot of steam outof the debate, this agreeing thing though. :P


Although I can see how maybe an ISP could offer a basic contract where equal access was NOT enforced and a more expensive one where it is. Then, they could get the $$$ from the greedy companies AND we (the users that actually care) could retain our guarantee of equal access.

Could be a possibility I guess. But, I wonder how long it would last if a big company (none named, none forgotten =)) wanted to stop access to a smaller competitor. Or an ISP offering the basic at a very low price, but the unlimited access/interconnection deal at such a high price few will be able to afford it.

[asmodean]

Well I just think that forcing QoS across the board will sort of force everyone to pay more attention to traffic, which could certainly put a big dent in botnets.

True. Possibly force both users and providers to adopt technologies to watch out for malicious use of bandwidth. Users to not pay for others distributed attacks, providers to save bandwisth they can sell.

[asmodean]

Well yeah but as a software engineer

Oh, another engineer. Mind if I ask what area you're in? Used to work for a company making financial transaction software myself, but moved over to telecom working on phycial layer software on UMTS telephones (WCDMA).

Never thought I'd end up in that kind of work after leaving Uni. :)

and a gamer,

Mmm. TFC? Was a long time since I logged onto a TFC (or TF for that matter) server. Kinda miss that. Used to play SWG but once they [rule8]ed the social game, the crafting game and most of the combat, for the second time, I gave up on it.

I don't care about email spam, I only care about packet spam clogging my networks ("aye... its mine").

Mmm, spam. procmail ftw! ;)
And yeah, both bots and erronously configured hardware tends to clog the pipe with unwanted traffic. And to tie back to the original topic, with pay-per-byte and QoS technologies maybe people'd be a bit more careful when configuring their stuff.

[rocketdodger]

Oh, another engineer. Mind if I ask what area you're in?

The almost graduated still looking for a job area. My speciality is graphics, though, so hopefully I will get picked up by a gaming company.


Mmm. TFC? Was a long time since I logged onto a TFC (or TF for that matter) server. Kinda miss that. Used to play SWG but once they [rule8]ed the social game, the crafting game and most of the combat, for the second time, I gave up on it.


I don't really game that much anymore because I am really working on my resume, but when I did yes I played both of those. Hopefully once I land a decent job I can return to my beloved games.

[asmodean]

The almost graduated still looking for a job area. My speciality is graphics, though, so hopefully I will get picked up by a gaming company.

Difficult area to get into. Most comapnies seems to think a minimum of ne shipped title is a good requirement for entry level positions. :)

Do a bit of OGL programming at home. A left over from the c64/msx/'miggy days I suppose.


I don't really game that much anymore because I am really working on my resume, but when I did yes I played both of those. Hopefully once I land a decent job I can return to my beloved games.

I whish you luck. And a job with a lot of spare time for gaming, or a boss for whom "I played TFC 'till 5 in the morning" is a good excuse for low performance. :)

[rocketdodger]

Difficult area to get into. Most comapnies seems to think a minimum of ne shipped title is a good requirement for entry level positions. :)


Tell me about it. But I figure that if every company wants people who have worked on a shipped title, then at least some of them must be lying, because then nobody would ever be able to get their foot in the door lol.

I have been working hard on my own 3D engine and it is coming along nicely, so I think I will be pretty marketable. I know alot of team leaders look for fresh blood with crazy ideas in addition to burned out vets, hopefully I just get lucky and submit resumes to those companies hehe.