Net Neutrality

[filkertom]

As the NY Times puts it today:

One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But this democratic Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access, and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.

That would be a financial windfall for Internet service providers, but a disaster for users, who could find their Web browsing influenced by whichever sites paid their service provider the most money. There is a growing movement of Internet users who are pushing for legislation to make this kind of discrimination impossible. It has attracted supporters ranging from MoveOn.org to the Gun Owners of America. Grass-roots political groups like these are rightly concerned that their online speech could be curtailed if Internet service providers were allowed to pick and choose among Web sites.

Find out more and sign the petition.

Comments

[unkbar.livejournal.com]

Sorry, Tom, that's not for me. As I read it, this bill would prohibit network providers from charging different rates for different qualities of service.

Why does that bother me? Because it imposes a one-size-fits-all model on all networks. Packets for highly time-sensitive packets - like those used for on-line gaming, VOIP, and streaming media are routed indiscriminately along with those of applications that are more lag-tolerant: email, web pages, torrents, backups, and bulk data transfer.

With a working end-to-end QOS system senders of high-value, time-critical packets could pay a higher rate for faster transmission, for minimum latency. First class versus bulk mail.

In this world of laggy online games, jerky streaming video with unsynchronized sound, and flaky VOIP connections, tiered service sounds pretty good to me.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Speed isn't everything, m'friend. I just edited the main post with a quote from and a link to an editorial in the NY Times which explains the problem more succinctly.

[unkbar.livejournal.com]

I think we're talking about two different things here.

The articles you point to seem to be about what I'd call "web neutrality" -- giving equal service to all web traffic. Possibly "smtp neutrality" as well -- equal service for all email traffic.

What I'm concerned about is that this may leave us with a one-size-fits-all Internet that leaves certain services greatly disadvantaged. In years past it worked fine to treat the Internet as a single fat pipe that handled all packets the same. With the emergence of more time-synchronous kinds of traffic, like VOIP and streaming video, as well as high-volume, lag-tolerant services like Bittorrent, it makes sense to permit carriers to segregate traffic and provide a fast lane for the lag-sensitive stuff when the pipe is not fat enough. Think of it as the extra truck lane on the highway on the uphill side of the mountain. It allows better service with a smaller capital investment by the provider than a brute-force fat pipe solution. That keep their costs down and, one would hope, keeps prices down too. Despite the popular wisdom, bandwidth is *not* free.

[popefelix.livejournal.com]

As I read it, network providers are free to prioritize time-sensitive traffic. They simply are required to prioritize all time-sensitive traffic, rather than only time-sensitive traffic from certain networks (i.e. those who pay the fee).

I really don't like the idea of prioritizing traffic at all, though, at the backbone level. It takes away from the Internet being all about the ends, and puts a lot more thought into the pipes. Give me pipes that are fat & dumb rather than pipes that are skinny and clever. Leave the QOS to the small nets. Geeks are ingenious folk. I'm sure they'll figure a way around the lag.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

I'm really, REALLY sorry to interrupt, Tom, but...

I think you'll want to see this!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tPWv_6A7VtE&search=joey%20styles

Just TRUST me on this one, okay?

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I read about this on the Torch this morning. Many thanks, Lumpy!

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

I already contacted my Congresscritter personally rather than through a mass emailing. I believe firmly that if money will decide priority, then the top priority items will become ads and actual content will just have to hope for the best.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

It won't accept non-US postcodes, unfortunately (or possibly fortunately: one of my friends has told me, rightly or wrongly, that it's a phish).

[giza.livejournal.com]

> One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small
> political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as
> accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page

Damn straight! That helped save some historic buildings in my town from abusive use of eminent domain.

I just signed the petition.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

It certainly used to be the case that if there was any sluggishness in your Internet connection, it was because either the path from your computer to the backbone was too thin, or the site at the other end was cheaping out (either on bandwitdh to the backbone or on their server capacity). In other words, the backbone itself has plenty of bandwidth for everyone. Is this not still the case? If it is, then any attempt by backbone providers to discriminate on the basis of content is money-grubbing, and even if they don't consciously intend it to be the evil media corporations taking control of our Internet, that is what it would end up being.

Negotiating a higher QOS for your own traffic through your local ISP should be allowed. If the local cable company can get away with charging a higher price for interactive gaming response time than web-surfing response time, that is in principle OK. For AT&T to give their own customers' packets priority over other people's on the backbone is totally not OK.