http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060405-6534.html

I found this highly interesting article on network neutrality posted on ars and I thought it would be something worth discussing in Tech Talk.

4/6/2006 5:03:31 PM

lol, gg

4/6/2006 5:11:09 PM

Summary?

4/6/2006 5:47:13 PM

Sorry, I didn't actually read the article. But it came highly recommended.

4/6/2006 5:56:24 PM

Might as well lock this one too Bobby. I get scolded (or trolled, they seemed the same) for not providing a summary, then this guy goes and trys to prove a point, and when I ask for the summary he resorts back to just being a generic troll again. You guys better be glad I'm not a mod.

4/6/2006 6:08:35 PM

Quote :

"SBC CEO Edward Whitacre accused Google and Yahoo of using AT&T's pipes for free and said that there is "going to have to be some mechanism for these people... to pay for the portion they're using.""

Quote :

"Such legislation would have prevented telcos and other ISPs from selectively throttling or passing through IP traffic on their networks."

So what are the alternatives? A fee-based system for bandwidth which will always be unbalanced? Government regulation? A single private entity who oversees such things?

[Edited on April 6, 2006 at 7:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2006 7:12:51 PM

Basically, the access providers just want to make money off of content providers, since they are delivering content to "their" end-users. The access providers may try to charge content providers a fee for "priority" delivery to the customer. This wouldn't be logical for regular web content, but it would be good for video providers or voip (skype/vonage). If they totally blocked some content providers who don't pay, I doubt it would be effective as customers would just be pissed that they can't get to all of the Internet.

4/6/2006 8:41:07 PM

Save the internet | their blog

take action by writing our reps

Quote :

"How would the gutting of Network Neutrality affect you? Google users—Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer. Innovators with the “next big idea”—Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the “slow lane” with inferior Internet service, unable to compete. Ipod listeners—A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned. Political groups—Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay “protection money” for their websites and online features to work correctly. Nonprofits—A charity’s website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can’t pay dominant Internet providers for access to “the fast lane” of Internet service. Online purchasers—Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices—distorting your choice as a consumer. Small businesses and tele-commuters—When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won’t be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office. Parents and retirees—Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc. Bloggers—Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips—silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets. Blocking Innovation Corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we’ve come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don’t like: In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service. In 2005, Canada’s telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute. Shaw, a major Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers who want to use a competing Internet telephone service. In April, Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme. This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet’s open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they’ll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet."

What is net neutrality?

4/23/2006 12:26:00 AM

Quote :

"Part of the blame for that may lay with Google, Microsoft, and other companies that rely on the Internet for a significant chunk of their business. According to a C|net report, the telecoms are far more invested in lobbying than their opponents, spending over three times the amount of money."

and that's what it really comes down to

4/23/2006 12:35:32 AM

Net Neutrality Not An Optional Feature of Internet via digg

4/24/2006 3:09:14 AM

House Committee Vote Results: The Momentum Shifts in Our Favor

Quote :

"Ok, so the vote on the Markey amendment to protect the internet has happened, and it was voted down, 34-22 . That is a big deal. It’s too bad we lost the vote, but we expected that loss. What we did not expected was the narrow margin. By way of comparison, the subcommittee vote was 23-8, which means we should have gotten blown out of the water. We did not. All four targeted Dems by McJoan on Daily Kos flipped to our side, and many of the Congressmen both for and against this campaign mentioned the blogs and angry constituents.There’s a white hot firestorm on the issue on Capitol Hill. No one wants to see the telcos make a radical change to the internet and screw this medium up, except, well, the telcos. And now members of Congress are listening to us. The telcos have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and many years lobbying for their position; we launched four days ago, and have closed a lot of ground. Over the next few months, as the public wakes up, we’ll close the rest of it. I watched the markup and the voting, and there was noticeable defensiveness among Congressmen on the wrong side of this. They are wrong, they know it, and they are ashamed. Now they know people are watching. So we didn’t win this vote, but this close margin was nonetheless a smack to the jaw of the insiders, and a clear victory for the people. Now the battle moves out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and onto more favorable terrain. As Sean-Paul said to me over email, “today was a victory as a few key players on the full committee changed their votes. Important action is required heading into the Senate but we have created significant momentum and the telco cartel is very afraid of us now. This is not how they wanted it to go down. They wanted this amendment to fail quietly, so the Senate would not take it up. We changed the rules today. Great work.” The fight is not over, and it will come back to the House. Contact your member and let them know how important this vote was to you."

4/26/2006 7:34:01 PM