Comments on: House panel votes for Net neutrality
In surprise result, handful of Republicans joins Democrats in voting for "nondiscriminatory" bill backed by Net companies.
Photos: Senators on Net neutrality
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Escaped convict continues to update Facebook
December 27, 2009 9:15 PM PST
- AT&T ceases online iPhone sales in NY area
December 27, 2009 7:45 PM PST
- Flexing the boundaries of flash memory
December 27, 2009 4:50 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
suspect you're thinking about net neutrality as a means of
regulating the relationship between big businesses.
If so, you're probably missing an important element: charging
for content delivery seriously impedes the communication ability
of nonprofit content creators, including universities, open
source programmers, and citizen journalists.
If it's a fight between Verizon and Google, net neutrality is
probably still valuable but not really all that important. But once
you consider the relatively socially desirable content that will be
squelched (including: stuck in the <3Mbps slow lane forever,
while user expectations zoom by) because nonprofits cannot
afford to pay intermediary fees, you see the real cost of failing to
implement net neutrality.
I urge you to read my article on this, which will be published in
2007 by the Federal Communications Law Journal. The current
draft is online at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902071
Hulshizer: I'm genuinely interested in reading your work on this
topic, too. Please post a link.
The problem I see is that the providers want to charge users different rates for using the same pipe. That is not with out precident in this country, (the US Post Office offers reduced rates to bulk users, the electric & water utilities offer reduced rates to large users, and telcos charge more for business phones than residential service,) but, as is also true of those precidents mentioned, it would be highly unfair and create an artificial & unnecessary communications "class system" that does not currently exist.
As a result, it would be one more step away from Democracy.
That is all we needed to know, so we can safely ignore your opinion.
Those who think we'll have a 2nd desktop or a 2nd NIC are just in a different reality. In my sight of more physical pathways, I see the users who've paid for the new pathways demanding that they don't have to switch desktops to do different net actions and that will force the owners of those pathways to provide net neutrality. Others, please check with your Tech. before worrying too much about big business taking over the Internet.
Phil
If telcos want to build faster pipes, build faster pipes and charge for the OVERALL new speed, but DO NOT set up throttles or block sites.
Lately, too many people think the internet is something to replace cable TV. I hope I do not need to extrapolate how disappointing that is. The good thing though? Better compression algorithms.
I've done ACTUAL WORK with an ISP and more work with internet-based service sales. I've surfed everything from a 2400 baud phone modem to a T3 line. I've helped fix (literally) tens of thousands of computer and internet connectivity problems.
How is Net Neutrality bad? Because people forget that it's not about the SPEED of the connection, it's the CONTENT of the connection.
Your example of one person watching a video and the other downloading music; yes, this person need a higher Tier of SPEED for reliable service. ISPs already DO tiered SPEED levels. If you don't like your speed? Pay more! If you want more, pay more. I do it myself, to get a broader bandwidth. It's just and fair. I can think of THREE separate ways off the top of my head to make sure that the people in your example get better speeds without changing the foundation of the internet.
Net neutrality is about preventing tiered CONTENT levels, not SPEED levels. Making things accessible to EVERYONE EQUALLY. The things I can publicly watch should be available to ANYONE at all. What I see, you see. If I want Google, I GET Google. If I want http://www.purple.com , I don't get blocked when others can surf there. When you understand that it's about the idea of freedom of speech and personal equality, it really IS as cut-and-dried as it seems.
I hope you do well with your MBA. Please don't get into Tech. You'd go "down the tubes".
suspect you're thinking about net neutrality as a means of
regulating the relationship between big businesses.
If so, you're probably missing an important element: charging
for content delivery seriously impedes the communication ability
of nonprofit content creators, including universities, open
source programmers, and citizen journalists.
If it's a fight between Verizon and Google, net neutrality is
probably still valuable but not really all that important. But once
you consider the relatively socially desirable content that will be
squelched (including: stuck in the <3Mbps slow lane forever,
while user expectations zoom by) because nonprofits cannot
afford to pay intermediary fees, you see the real cost of failing to
implement net neutrality.
I urge you to read my article on this, which will be published in
2007 by the Federal Communications Law Journal. The current
draft is online at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902071
Hulshizer: I'm genuinely interested in reading your work on this
topic, too. Please post a link.
The problem I see is that the providers want to charge users different rates for using the same pipe. That is not with out precident in this country, (the US Post Office offers reduced rates to bulk users, the electric & water utilities offer reduced rates to large users, and telcos charge more for business phones than residential service,) but, as is also true of those precidents mentioned, it would be highly unfair and create an artificial & unnecessary communications "class system" that does not currently exist.
As a result, it would be one more step away from Democracy.
That is all we needed to know, so we can safely ignore your opinion.
Those who think we'll have a 2nd desktop or a 2nd NIC are just in a different reality. In my sight of more physical pathways, I see the users who've paid for the new pathways demanding that they don't have to switch desktops to do different net actions and that will force the owners of those pathways to provide net neutrality. Others, please check with your Tech. before worrying too much about big business taking over the Internet.
Phil
If telcos want to build faster pipes, build faster pipes and charge for the OVERALL new speed, but DO NOT set up throttles or block sites.
Lately, too many people think the internet is something to replace cable TV. I hope I do not need to extrapolate how disappointing that is. The good thing though? Better compression algorithms.
I've done ACTUAL WORK with an ISP and more work with internet-based service sales. I've surfed everything from a 2400 baud phone modem to a T3 line. I've helped fix (literally) tens of thousands of computer and internet connectivity problems.
How is Net Neutrality bad? Because people forget that it's not about the SPEED of the connection, it's the CONTENT of the connection.
Your example of one person watching a video and the other downloading music; yes, this person need a higher Tier of SPEED for reliable service. ISPs already DO tiered SPEED levels. If you don't like your speed? Pay more! If you want more, pay more. I do it myself, to get a broader bandwidth. It's just and fair. I can think of THREE separate ways off the top of my head to make sure that the people in your example get better speeds without changing the foundation of the internet.
Net neutrality is about preventing tiered CONTENT levels, not SPEED levels. Making things accessible to EVERYONE EQUALLY. The things I can publicly watch should be available to ANYONE at all. What I see, you see. If I want Google, I GET Google. If I want http://www.purple.com , I don't get blocked when others can surf there. When you understand that it's about the idea of freedom of speech and personal equality, it really IS as cut-and-dried as it seems.
I hope you do well with your MBA. Please don't get into Tech. You'd go "down the tubes".
Phil
PBechtel@bechtelnet.com
The point most are missing, is there is no bandwidth shortage. that's the argument behind the multiple path ways argument. QoS or any sort of traffic discrimination is only needed if you have more traffic than pipe. We have FIOS running at up to 30 Megabits and some cable modems are running right up there with them. So, if the consumer wants to download DVDs while surfing they can do it, right now. (I know its not avilable everywhere).
So someone, is telling a good story about the fabricated need to QoS traffic to the consumer, and thereby create a new revenue stream by taxing...errr charging, the content providers.
Phil
PBechtel@bechtelnet.com
The point most are missing, is there is no bandwidth shortage. that's the argument behind the multiple path ways argument. QoS or any sort of traffic discrimination is only needed if you have more traffic than pipe. We have FIOS running at up to 30 Megabits and some cable modems are running right up there with them. So, if the consumer wants to download DVDs while surfing they can do it, right now. (I know its not avilable everywhere).
So someone, is telling a good story about the fabricated need to QoS traffic to the consumer, and thereby create a new revenue stream by taxing...errr charging, the content providers.
People tell me, if you don't like it, leave. you know, I would, but where would I go? Millions of people a year, from hundreds of other countries, plop down here in the good ol' USA. So far, only a hand full of countries will allow a US citizen to gain resident status, and that is AFTER you can speak the language, prove you can support yourself, and prove you are of good moral character. Well, we are Americans, morals are not our priority, our families are broken, our kids are dis-respectful, tatooed, and full of holes.
Blame it all on the Government? Yeah, no doubt about it. While I am ranting along, I wonder if anyone could possibly tell me, since our government is so great, why doesn't EVERYONE have it? And I am not talking about Iraq, the only reason they are seeking democracy is because our good friend Georgie Bush is forcing it on them. Speaking of a dork with a job, George is the poster child.
- nop gop
- by dipnip May 26, 2006 10:14 AM PDT
- I see no indication in this article that the politicians who voted understand the technology and protocol that determines the practice of measuring out and reserving bandwidth across heterogeneous routers. Why does that matter? They don't know what they've voting on. This isn't being presented as an anti-trust issue and it is clear that IP6 RSVP protocol distributed routing has not played out it's course in terms of internet dynamics. Can somebody give these guys a chart with some laser pointers so they can wrap their heads around it? Otherwise they are arguing about nothing but party graft from corporate interests who never bothering to explain what the money was for- just vote right or left. Duh.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Money Talks in DC.. not you
- by 4man1 May 30, 2006 6:17 PM PDT
- You know, you hit the nail on the head. There is not ONE politician in the US that gives a rats behind about ANY American Citizen. As a friend of mine once said (a state senator) The only honest politician that cares about the American people is a dead politician. Your vote doesn't count, your voice doesn't count, and most of all, YOU don't count.
- Like this
-
(50 Comments)People tell me, if you don't like it, leave. you know, I would, but where would I go? Millions of people a year, from hundreds of other countries, plop down here in the good ol' USA. So far, only a hand full of countries will allow a US citizen to gain resident status, and that is AFTER you can speak the language, prove you can support yourself, and prove you are of good moral character. Well, we are Americans, morals are not our priority, our families are broken, our kids are dis-respectful, tatooed, and full of holes.
Blame it all on the Government? Yeah, no doubt about it. While I am ranting along, I wonder if anyone could possibly tell me, since our government is so great, why doesn't EVERYONE have it? And I am not talking about Iraq, the only reason they are seeking democracy is because our good friend Georgie Bush is forcing it on them. Speaking of a dork with a job, George is the poster child.