Comments on: The Death of Net Neutrality

By: eekygeeky

eekygeeky — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 02:30:18 +0000

I blogged a response to all this nonsense days ago:

Bottom line is that this if not any kind of legal Rubicon. The courts have put this, quite correctly, in the FCC’s hands.

Net neutrality is alive and well and currently de facto in force.

Wake me up when Comcast raises my bill for watching Youtube or Level 3 decides to start overbilling Google.

THAT will be news about net neutrality. This is just less than important, or impressive.

By: Winston

Winston — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:20:13 +0000

“BTW, you CAN blame this on Bush, since it was under Bush’s ‘leadership’ that ISP’s were deregulated in order to provide for increased competition. That worked out well, didn’t it?”

Yes, deregulation almost always works… to the advantage of those deregulated over their customers.

By: NYC

NYC — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:50:38 +0000

Once again you have a government making laws and have no idea of what they are doing.

By: amodedoma

amodedoma — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:38:41 +0000

Yeah, I know the americans live in an american centered universe. But it seems to me that this is between yall. I do seem to recall a certain amount of regulation coming from the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) that would protect consumers from certain abuses that the new FCC posture might facilitate. The most remarkable aspect of this all is the ease with which certain private interests can influence government policy and regulation. The US government is soooo owned.

By: Uncle Patso

Uncle Patso — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 06:37:38 +0000

# 26 Angus:
“If the FCC got permission to regulate the internet, couldn’t they regulate content as well ala the fairness doctrine and public decency standards? [...]”

The Fairness Doctrine is dead. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is the _only_ governmental entity that has pushed for net neutrality, other than the odd Congressman or two, who were quickly shouted down. Whoever is trying to scare you with the Big Bad Bugaboo formerly known as the Fairness Doctrine is lying to you. This fear is being pushed by Robber Barons who want free and unfettered access to our wallets without any inconvenient regulation. This may die down for a while, as most of their efforts in the near future will be spent desperately fighting the coming financial re-regulation and consumer protection proposals. (Watch for the lies about these programs to start up very soon.)

By: steelcobra

steelcobra — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 04:58:12 +0000

Myth: This was a major blow to the FCC and net neutrality.

Reality: There was no ruling on whether or not the FCC has the power to regulate ISP activity. Just that, since the FCC charge was based more on an internal mission statement than actual regulatory policy in place, the FCC cannot enforce it until the rules officially change.
http://extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2362322,00.asp

By: Buzz

Buzz — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 02:26:05 +0000

Steve Jobs: Buy Comcast and fix it.

By: rallenr

rallenr — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:21:51 +0000

As Time Warner is my ISP and cable TV provider (but I don’t take their $20/mo VoIP service), what’s to stop them from 1) throttling down any incoming video, cutting off torrents and 2) perhaps killing my Skype calls?

By: Awake

Awake — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:39:16 +0000

I heard the consequences of the ruling best explained yesterday, basically saying that the ruling is devastating for Comcast in the long term. “Comcast swung an axe at the FCC, and chopped the FCC arm off, but the axe kept going around and is now firmly planted in Comcasts own back.”

The governemnt will reclassify the Internet and it’s ISP’s as a “Common Carrier” (as it should be since it provides phone and TV services), and regulate it in such a way that big ISP’s lose all ability to self-regulate.

BTW, you CAN blame this on Bush, since it was under Bush’s ‘leadership’ that ISP’s were deregulated in order to provide for increased competition. That worked out well, didn’t it?

By: Angus

Angus — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:37:19 +0000

If the FCC got permission to regulate the internet, couldn’t they regulate content as well ala the fairness doctrine and public decency standards?

I’m for net neutrality, but not at all for the FCC regulating it. Giving the FCC the precedent to control net neutrality gives them the right to do alot else with the internet. That scares me.

By: faustus

faustus — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:35:05 +0000

time to overhaul the complete u.s. communications system. we should break up the old bell system… again… and only let them sell wholesale regionally. let google, apple, ms or anyone, even local communities sell services. we are moving back toward a system like with the old tv networks, auto companies, banks, of monopolies that are supposed too big to fail and what they really become are dinosaurs that fail to provide good service or products. the money pissed away on advertisers and all the other bs like big corporate pay should instead go back into the network… make the backbone a public utility with good standards and make it available to all… OPEN SOURCE IT! haha

By: Skeptic of the AOBCCS

Skeptic of the AOBCCS — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:00:10 +0000

Re #21, /T., Thanks for explaining that so well.

By: Cap'nKangaroo

Cap'nKangaroo — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:55:44 +0000

#22 The FCC has jurisdiction over the phone lines also. And they have some jurisdiction over cable companies. What the big cable and Telecom companies desire is for Congress to get involved in dictating what power the FCC has over the internet, because then their legions of lobbyists can write the law to their liking. Once that is accomplished, their stranglehold will be complete and written in law.

By: dcphill

dcphill — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:20:50 +0000

I thought that the FCC was charged with regulating the “AIR WAVES” which is publicly owned, not what is contained within a privately owned cable. We need new rules if
net neutrality is to be controlable as the network is transmitted via cable not the air waves except when transmitted via cell phone or wireless router. Am I missing something here?

By: /T.

/T. — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:44:07 +0000

Very simply, ISPs have built an infrastructure that is big on download and light on upload.

Think small url out, big web page(s), You-tube video in.

P2P sessions, regardless of the content, want to upload to the pipe’s limit.

ISPs HATE this as it congests the outbound URL requests that impact the users experience.

Instead of changing the infrastructure to be more symmetrical, it is far cheaper to throttle instead.

Imagine you’re a caterer and you need to send two boxes to Vancouver, overnight.

One box contains cheese and the other, walnuts.

You go to the shipping company, plunk down your “overnight” money and hand over the boxes.

After you’ve gone, the shipping company looks in the first box and decides that because the cheese is perishable, it goes on the plane to Vancouver.

They look in the second box and decide that the walnuts are not perishable so, they get put on the train to Vancouver.!!

Cheese arrives on time. Walnuts, a week late.

You expect the shipping company to look at the address label on the box, not to open it up and arbitrarily decide how fast your goods will travel.

Traffic management is an absolute must-have for any network and “smarter” network gear may have something to offer.

Traffic needs to be managed based on the packets headers only.

As soon as you look past the headers, it stops being “Traffic Management” and instantly become “Service Management”.

Huge difference !!

Think of it like this …

Traffic Management = “… all vehicles stop at stop signs …”

Service Management = ” … all vehicles with grey carpet in the trunk must turn right …”

It’s by inspecting beyond what is required to complete the task of forwarding the packet that is the problem.

Traffic management … yes !!!

Service management … no !!!

DPI all you want on the outside to catch spam and viruses trying to get in but just forward the customers packets already !!

Extremely poor choice to fund customer facing DPI gear over increasing capacity.

It lazy and (soon, hopefully) illegal.