Net Neutrality Links
I’ve added these links to the Net Neutrality Page today.
two things: first the internet is the most democratic medium in the history of all media.
caveat, there are still vast swaths of population without access.
secondly, the internet is democratic because it’s end-to-end. the internet was designed with no gatekeepers. it’s based on a layered end-to-end model with no central control (inventor of the internet said that, no not al gore, but i didn’t get the guy’s name).
consumers take it for granted that every application and website are treated equally because it’s always been that way. title 2 of the communications act provides for non-discrimination of information.
the problem is that these rules are about to change in the communications language moving through congress.
the communications company want to get into video over broadband, and turn the internet into a cable tv model.
Our own VoIP blogger Russell Shaw has decided to rebut my position on Net neutrality. Here is my response to Russell.
Russell Shaw says:
George then adds that if everyone is contending for the same bandwidth on an Internet backbone at the same moment in time, then the priority-service packets should never exceed half the total available bandwidth. He feels no network provider that uses their senses would violate such a policy, because that would cause service to degrade to the point that many customers would be alienated.
Here’s where I differ. I don’t think the designation of priority packets should be permitted. That opens up at least the possibility of favored Internet access to content partners. Plus, because of hubris, as well as the law of unintended consequences, I think that network providers may overestimate their ability to maintain system-wide quality for those packets that have not been blessed with what I could colloquially call “most favored packets” standards.
Russell, of course you don’t think this is a good idea when you have no understanding of traffic engineering. One of the comments made to me in my blog was that instead of implementing QoS, a Telco should simply add bandwidth to solve the problem. The knee jerk reaction to this would be “this sounds great” but the problem with this line of thought is that you can add 10 times more bandwidth and you’ll still need QoS.
Although Rep. Cooper did vote for the Markey amendment, which would have codified Net Neutrality into law, that amendment did not pass and yet Mr. Cooper went ahead and voted yes on HR 5252, aka COPE (Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006). In other words, he voted for a piece of legislation that does nothing to protect consumers and democracy and is, as many have pointed out, just another a boon to big business. . . .
. . . . Under COPE, one provider, like Comcast, can be given control of cable service in a city (letÃ¢â¬â¢s say Jackson, TN) and eliminate all the competition, which means they will be able to charge whatever fees they like. Jackson would have no say in the arrangement – the FCC will dictate the terms. . . .
–ME “Liz” Strauss
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE