Network Neutrality

[wbarnhill]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

Basically if Congress does away with the ideal of network neutrality, you're probably going to see a decline in your internet service. Your email to a friend on another network might be delayed. Your Vonage service might act up (and Verizon or Bellsouth will be right there to let you know you won't experience the same problems on THEIR service). Yes, a lot of these scenarios are hypothetical. But when it comes to these companies and profits, what do YOU think is going to happen if they're given free reign to degrade access at will? This is honestly no different than common carrier regulation, and needs to be protected as such.

 

[SCCutler]

What he said!

 

[Maverick]

What he said!

I agree!

 

[mikea]

http://www.ipaction.org/

 

[jesse]

Eh. This is already a somewhat common practice.

Many companies place AOL ip addresses as the lowest priority, or in some cases I've delt with, intentially delayed the packets.

Now.. you are wondering..why would I care about that? When half of your client base used AOL it became a major issue.

Essentially my clients were getting real high latency to my server. There were several hops that had increased the latency significantly. Other ISP's using the same hops were fine.

It took a lot of arguing with providers..as they denied that they did it..and eventually the issue just "went away"

 

[wbarnhill]

Eh. This is already a somewhat common practice.

Many companies place AOL ip addresses as the lowest priority, or in some cases I've delt with, intentially delayed the packets.

Now.. you are wondering..why would I care about that? When half of your client base used AOL it became a major issue.

Essentially my clients were getting real high latency to my server. There were several hops that had increased the latency significantly. Other ISP's using the same hops were fine.

It took a lot of arguing with providers..as they denied that they did it..and eventually the issue just "went away"

Not as common as you think. Under FCC policy, companies can be fined for violating the Network Neutrality ideal. One of the great things that Michael Powell did while at the FCC was to promote that ideal. Now under Kevin Martin, things are a whole new game. While they still have that ability, look at what Chairman Martin has said on the topic:

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment. While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing." When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds.

Of course connection speed != quality of service, but Mr. Martin feels we should be satisfied with this response. Personally, I want it written in the Telecommunications Act.

 

[jesse]

Not as common as you think. Under FCC policy, companies can be fined for violating the Network Neutrality ideal. One of the great things that Michael Powell did while at the FCC was to promote that ideal. Now under Kevin Martin, things are a whole new game. While they still have that ability, look at what Chairman Martin has said on the topic:

The problem is you have to prove it.

I'm not neutral agaisnt any provider. If a provider wants me to be neutral they need to take care of their own issues and the (bad) customers in which they serve.

Until that day. I won't treat all traffic as the same.