Net Neutrality

[Bearded Frog]

Aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Sorry if theres a massive thread somewhere on this I dont know about.

Okay so I am having trouble keeping up with everything the Obama Administration is trying to slide in. I have ALWAYS supported the idea of Net Neutrality and now there is legislation being put through to finnaly act on it. However Obama is supporting it and that right there makes me question what's really going on. That and a friend of mine happens to be very against this current legislation and is telling me theres more to it than meets the eye. That somehow its giving the FCC power?

Where am I missing the boat (asuming I am). I want the internet to be the free open competitve innovative marketplace it currently is. Cable companies like Comcast know that internet TV and sites like eztv are the future and are killing the sales on their big expensive cable tv packages. I dont want them to be able to limit or restrict access to those things as they see fit. However I dont want the FCC to have control over these things either. Technically if it really is Net Neutrality no one would have the control/power to limit these things right?

[old82]

they'll probably start saying we can't cus and can't have a hot babes thread and all sorts of other nonsense.

[Kamlanie]

we will turn into china

[AeroSim]

If I read it right, this is about business competition- not privacy rights (although there is some overlap). What this means is basically that a company like an ISP can not restrict reasonable services from another company- even if it is a competing ISP.

Because of our internet "Domain" structure, it is relatively easy for an ISP to restrict or delay the throughput of another ISP. This is a pretty hot button item as you have some services like bit-torrent that burden a system's bandwidth. Many throttles and restrictions are in place to actually help the provider give their paying users preference so that there is less impedance for their useage of video links, etc. Many times the "lag" you have in games is due to this throttling which can actually be a physical limitation on the system or an ISP giving preference to its users.

Technological advances in routing and standards (like IPV6) should help throughput immensely, but like we say in the industry- demand tends to eventually consume all available resources.

There are also competing applications among ISPs like anti-virus packages or firewalls, etc, etc, one ISP may use domain resources that are not available in another ISP. etc. etc.

It's a needed conversation and one not easy to handle.

[AMDScooter]

Not to worry.. once we turn control of ICANN over to the U.N. the issue will fix itself just as Kamlanie suggests.

[otoc]

I don't know what china (that got google to install filters) or the UN (UNDS?) has to do with this debate that has been going on for years, but for a look at the issues and players via the articles written about the situation over time....

http://www.freepress.net/newsroom/

It's interesting that Verizon has broken ranks with ATT and Comcast.

Make up your own minds.

[AeroSim]

Not to worry.. once we turn control of ICANN over to the U.N. the issue will fix itself just as Kamlanie suggests.

The Chinese are more addicted to it than we are.

Makes you wonder if that's necessarily a bad thing- generating a democratic revolt as well as better hackers against the system.

[otoc]

Odd, no mention of the UN here, and wasn't this the guy who proclaimed not being on top of technology during the last election? lol, the Internet Freedom Act will allow ATT to stop VoIP from being used over their network and for Comcast to decide what we download?

Tony Bradley, PC World | Friday, October 23, 2009 7:02 AM PDT
McCain Moves to Block FCC Net Neutrality


The FCC voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with the debate in an effort to formalize net neutrality guidelines. Senator John McCain followed up by introducing a bill that would prohibit the FCC from governing communications.

In the wake of FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's initial announcement of his intent to pursue formal net neutrality rules, a group of GOP lawmakers already initiated a similar attempt. However, that amendment was retracted almost as quickly as it was filed.


McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, seeks to do the opposite of what its name implies by ensuring that broadband and wireless providers can discriminate and throttle certain traffic while giving preferential treatment to other traffic. Basically, those in power or those who pay more will have better access. Apparently we have different definitions of ‘freedom'.


According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." Isn't that what the FCC does? Isn't that sort of like introducing a bill to prohibit the Treasury from printing money, or a bill to prohibit the IRS from collecting taxes?


Oddly, the bill also contains text stating that any regulations in effect on the day before the Internet Freedom Act is officially enacted are grandfathered in and exempt from the provisions of the Internet Freedom Act. The implication seems to be that if the FCC can formalize net neutrality rules before McCain can get the Internet Freedom Act signed into law, the net neutrality rules would still apply.


Net neutrality opponents claim that the free market can police itself and that any net neutrality restrictions will stifle innovation and competition. However, Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and only changed policy after the threat of FCC net neutrality rules. AT&T sought to block customers from using VoIP services from its wireless network, but changed policy out of fear of the net neutrality rules. The trend seems to be that these providers only do the ‘right thing' when the net neutrality gun is pointing at their head.


What the FCC voted on yesterday is simply to start the debate. Its an open discussion, so what are net neutrality opponents afraid of? They have 120 days to gather information and collect data and present their case. If there are valid issues that need to be resolved, then go ahead and bring them to the table. Don't initiate legislation that seeks to pretend the table doesn't exist.


During the Presidential election campaign last year the differences between the two candidates was stark. While Obama was attached surgically to his CrackBerry and his staff leveraged social media from their Macbooks, McCain admitted having little or no knowledge or interest in modern technologies like email or the Internet.


It seems suspicious that the Internet is suddenly a major concern for him. Maybe he just missed seeing his name in the paper.
Tony Bradley is an information security and unified communications expert with more than a decade of enterprise IT experience. He tweets as @PCSecurityNews and provides tips, advice and reviews on information security and unified communications technologies on his site at tonybradley.com.

[AeroSim]

Odd, no mention of the UN here, and wasn't this the guy who proclaimed not being on top of technology during the last election? lol, the Internet Freedom Act will allow ATT to stop VoIP from being used over their network and for Comcast to decide what we download?

I think there has been so much overlap with these issues that the lines have been blurred.

Privacy Rights
Network Nuetrality
and Internet Names and Numbers control (ICANN)

These are really separate issues. However, Big Brother is seen in all of them by everybody, so you have what you have today.

[JustinC939]

Aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Sorry if theres a massive thread somewhere on this I dont know about.

Okay so I am having trouble keeping up with everything the Obama Administration is trying to slide in. I have ALWAYS supported the idea of Net Neutrality and now there is legislation being put through to finnaly act on it. However Obama is supporting it and that right there makes me question what's really going on. That and a friend of mine happens to be very against this current legislation and is telling me theres more to it than meets the eye. That somehow its giving the FCC power?

Where am I missing the boat (asuming I am). I want the internet to be the free open competitve innovative marketplace it currently is. Cable companies like Comcast know that internet TV and sites like eztv are the future and are killing the sales on their big expensive cable tv packages. I dont want them to be able to limit or restrict access to those things as they see fit. However I dont want the FCC to have control over these things either. Technically if it really is Net Neutrality no one would have the control/power to limit these things right?

So tell me how Obama's stance on a topic can make you instantly question your own?
However, if you're a capitalist; you would be against Net Neutrality.

[Bearded Frog]

So tell me how Obama's stance on a topic can make you instantly question your own?
However, if you're a capitalist; you would be against Net Neutrality.

Because I haven't agreed with a single thing hes done ever. I think hes a terrible person, a terrible president, and I dont care for his disgusting tactics as a president. Therefore when he says something I agree with I have to wonder what and where his alterior motive is, because so far there has always been one hiding.

I really don't see how it is being un-capitalistic (is that a word) to oppose unfair business tactics. An example: This isn't a case of Comcast being better than Hulu and winning out. Its Comcast not allowing Hulu to have fair competition. It's hard to relate it to normal competition because normally your competitor doesnt control access to your product.

Maybe I am crazy and have read into this all incorrectly. Maybe I am drinking Obama's cool-aid on this one but I am not seeing it.

[otoc]

Because I haven't agreed with a single thing hes done ever. I think hes a terrible person, a terrible president, and I dont care for his disgusting tactics as a president. Therefore when he says something I agree with I have to wonder what and where his alterior motive is, because so far there has always been one hiding.

I really don't see how it is being un-capitalistic (is that a word) to oppose unfair business tactics. An example: This isn't a case of Comcast being better than Hulu and winning out. Its Comcast not allowing Hulu to have fair competition. It's hard to relate it to normal competition because normally your competitor doesnt control access to your product.

Maybe I am crazy and have read into this all incorrectly. Maybe I am drinking Obama's cool-aid on this one but I am not seeing it.

Perhaps if you simply threw out the ODS and looked at it from 2 perspectives...

One, this debate has been going on for several administrations.

Two, what Comcast and ATT are proposing is that they will decide what you can and can not access via their services not that a competitor has access to their product.

The "product" under discussion is internet access. Do you wish it to be something that is censored? Or something that allows you to use any features you wish to access?

If I use a peer to peer or a VoIP service, I am not accessing duplicate systems of that nature that Comcast and ATT have in place, I am accessing top level access to the internet.

Your original post is in conflict with your original post, for what the FCC is doing is not controlling what you access, just proposing to stop anyone else from doing it.

The issue at hand is cutting off services. It's a good debate that needs to realize the infrastructure that companies invest in, while acknowledging what public systems they use. In other words, what you get from ATT and Comcast when you use them is more than what you just get from their direct investments. If they can decide without oversight what public portions you can use and not use, well, that is one way to not protect the public and private investment in the infrastructure. Another way is to allow all use and assume that competition will breed competition with peer to peer, on demand video, and VoIP services.

[AeroSim]

Perhaps if you simply threw out the ODS and looked at it from 2 perspectives...

One, this debate has been going on for several administrations.

Two, what Comcast and ATT are proposing is that they will decide what you can and can not access via their services not that a competitor has access to their product.

The "product" under discussion is internet access. Do you wish it to be something that is censored? Or something that allows you to use any features you wish to access?

If I use a peer to peer or a VoIP service, I am not accessing duplicate systems of that nature that Comcast and ATT have in place, I am accessing top level access to the internet.

Your original post is in conflict with your original post, for what the FCC is doing is not controlling what you access, just proposing to stop anyone else from doing it.

The issue at hand is cutting off services. It's a good debate that needs to realize the infrastructure that companies invest in, while acknowledging what public systems they use. In other words, what you get from ATT and Comcast when you use them is more than what you just get from their direct investments. If they can decide without oversight what public portions you can use and not use, well, that is one way to not protect the public and private investment in the infrastructure. Another way is to allow all use and assume that competition will breed competition with peer to peer, on demand video, and VoIP services.

That is about my read on it too. And it's not an easy process as ISPs want to offer unique values and do things like block ports to protect their constituents (I know Comcast blocks a number of ports for good reason- but may be a restriction to another ISP). My main issue with my ISP is it's restrictions on some VPN resources. So it's a question of what changes to make it work.

Once they have a standard for everyone to work with, things should stablize- but it also gives hackers known quantities to work with too.

Stay tuned.

[Bearded Frog]

Perhaps if you simply threw out the ODS and looked at it from 2 perspectives...

One, this debate has been going on for several administrations.

Two, what Comcast and ATT are proposing is that they will decide what you can and can not access via their services not that a competitor has access to their product.

The "product" under discussion is internet access. Do you wish it to be something that is censored? Or something that allows you to use any features you wish to access?

If I use a peer to peer or a VoIP service, I am not accessing duplicate systems of that nature that Comcast and ATT have in place, I am accessing top level access to the internet.

Your original post is in conflict with your original post, for what the FCC is doing is not controlling what you access, just proposing to stop anyone else from doing it.

The issue at hand is cutting off services. It's a good debate that needs to realize the infrastructure that companies invest in, while acknowledging what public systems they use. In other words, what you get from ATT and Comcast when you use them is more than what you just get from their direct investments. If they can decide without oversight what public portions you can use and not use, well, that is one way to not protect the public and private investment in the infrastructure. Another way is to allow all use and assume that competition will breed competition with peer to peer, on demand video, and VoIP services.

I think you missed my tone in the original post. I wasnt saying that it would give the FCC power to control these things. I was simply asking the question and making sure it didnt. Im fairly sure at this point regardless of whos backing it I am all for net neutrality and I cant understand what the arguement is against it (unless you are an ISP of course).

[otoc]

That is about my read on it too. And it's not an easy process as ISPs want to offer unique values and do things like block ports to protect their constituents (I know Comcast blocks a number of ports for good reason- but may be a restriction to another ISP). My main issue with my ISP is it's restrictions on some VPN resources. So it's a question of what changes to make it work.

Once they have a standard for everyone to work with, things should stablize- but it also gives hackers known quantities to work with too.

Stay tuned.

Ahh, that security issue again. We truly need more organization and standards applied to security. The acknowledged negative to that is someone in the know using the info to do harm. Somewhere, sometime back we had a discussion on that issue and I or someone else placed a link on a study, perhaps when Obama was trashed for looking at network security or when Powell was talking about it during his time at the FCC. I don't remember. But even with the cat and mouse game that will always be in place, there are absolute minimum standards that are not being followed. Either by those setting up home/business networks, or by those in corporate/public IT departments. I read and hear horror stories on a regular basis.

OT: Here's a list of Comcast blocked ports if you haven't seen it. I didn't notice the standard VPN port of 1723 being on it, but I have seen different set ups (open/closed ports) by Comcast on different nodes in the same community that required lengthy tech support discussions to settle out. Usually the issue at hand is the router at the home or hotel.

more specially GRE 47

I think you missed my tone in the original post. I wasnt saying that it would give the FCC power to control these things. I was simply asking the question and making sure it didnt. Im fairly sure at this point regardless of whos backing it I am all for net neutrality and I cant understand what the arguement is against it (unless you are an ISP of course).

Sorry for my misunderstanding.