Net neutrality... opinions?

Round one in this contest has concluded.

The champ is back in his corner and is looking good, the contender in his corner is bruised and cut and breathing heavy.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2006/tc20060426_553893.htm?chan=technology_technology+index+page_more+of+today's+top+stories

So far the ownership rights of the telcos are intact.

However we have seen erosion of ownership rights come down even from the High Court when they ruled on "Eminent Domain".

For now, though, the rights of telco and cable companies have not been overturn. But as always freedom is earned by constant vigil. This is only 'round one' but there is a long fight ahead.

"Is the Internet a public utility? Or is it an agglomeration of profit-making businesses that have unfettered rights to change, price, and allocate their product?

"I believe how you answer this question (and belive me, both answers have some validity) is quite telling as to your view of marketplaces in general."

http://weblog.infoworld.com/itxtreme/archives/2006/05/net_neutrality.html

"In all of the noise surrounding net neutrality, I have to agree with Christopher Yu, who teaches technology and entertainment law at Vanderbilt University Law School. Rather than stifling innovation as some have claimed, he suggests that guaranteed fast service will actually encourage innovation in new areas. You can see parallels in other business models that have emerged and transformed themselves based on speed. For instance, Federal Express emerged to offer a way of getting physical material to a destination faster. Businesses and customers paid a premium to have that guaranteed overnight delivery. It then encouraged other businesses such as DHL and UPS and even encouraged the U.S. Post Office to offer its own overnight service.

"Cable and telecom companies have invested in technology and backbone to allow the Internet to become faster, more efficient and more robust. As the traffic and basic requirements for this medium have grown, it doesn't make good business sense for all elements to remain equal. Putting the money into the ground and making the services flourish doesn't just happen. The idea of cable and telecom companies charging more for fast and slower lanes is but an extension or evolution of today's Internet."


http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA6339296.html

"The solution engages a three-prong strategy that includes: effective consumer protection measures, sound competition policy oversight, and conditioned tax incentives.

"In terms of consumer protection, the ITIF is calling on Congress to require network providers to state their broadband access usage policies in clear terms that specify level of bandwidth, amount of latency and limitations consumers may face in accessing content or services. The FCC would monitor these policies and take action against companies that fail to comply.

"The ITIF proposal also looks to ensure that network providers refrain from abusing their market power positions by giving the FCC responsibility of "overseeing the use of discriminatory access arrangements to make sure that any such arrangements do not harm competition." The competition model policy would allow the FCC to address competition policy issues after-the-fact and would require the Commission to manage relevant proceedings on an expedited basis."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1970358,00.asp

'Bartlett Cleland, director of IPI's Center for Technology Freedom adds, "No one has produced a reason for action now. If the fears of some become reality government can always step in later and punish bad actors. Prior restraint of hypothetical fears makes for a regulatory train wreck. Technology moves faster than legislation, so the hope that legislation can govern technology without unintended consequences and substantial damage to innovation is wrongheaded." '

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=66739

"Senator Craig believes that net neutrality regs are premature right now...

the best way to promote the development of the Internet is to keep it free from regulation as much as possible."

"The lack of taxation and regulation on the Internet is one of the reasons the Internet has grown so dramatically, improved our economy, and created a forum for unfettered commerce and ingenuity ...

additional government intervention in this matter could slow the deployment of broadband services in rural areas. For these and other reasons that involve better services, less government interference and lower prices for consumers... "

http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A162374

Hmmmmm..... I have not seen it, but the description sounds weighted in favor of legislation and opposed to a tiered internet.

Not surprising coming from PBS, though.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/222/net-neutrality.html

"In the end, the optimal situation is that everything is left as is, without any new legislation being adopted or any new policy towards net neutrality as a design principle. The government should not mandate net neutrality nor should it empower the telcos to exercise oligopoly like gate keeping powers over Internet traffic. Network neutrality as a design principle has worked quite well thus far."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20060602/cm_rcp/post11

"The ultra-left has yet to see innovation-stifling regulation it doesn't like, and net neutrality is no exception," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, an IFC founding member. "Not only is net neutrality Internet regulation, but it flies in the face of Internet providers' property rights."

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060606/dctu022.html?.v=64

"In today's climate, you don't often see such agreement among free-market conservatives," said Jason Wright, IFC co-founder and president of the Institute for Liberty. "But when it comes to Congress approving net neutrality regulations and killing incentive and innovation, our side is remarkably united. Net neutrality is dangerous industrial policy."

Here is a story from ZD Net that includes direct links to the bill and its various amendments being considered.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081614.html

and

Here is a link that shows in delayed-real-time what is happening on the house floor:

http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html

When I went home I thought the House was done for the day. It turns out that just as I was going home that bill 5252 came up for a vote.

The way I read the proceedings the amendment to put in net neutrality didn't even come up for a vote. Instead another amendment was accepted that put all considerations regarding net neutrality in the hands of the FCC.

Anyway, news.com is reporting that the push for net neutrality failed.

I just was reading some of the latest news on 'Net Neutrality' and came across George Ou a Technical Director of TechRepublic.

Wow, it turns out he makes a lot of the same points I have been making in here. (Is anyone out there? Am I being ignored?)

Anyway, here is a link to his column. Very good reading and puts a lot of the issues into common sense and makes the technical less daunting: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/ (If you read this tomorrow, then click here instead: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=243 )

He has a link in there to an article the day before that is also worth reading: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=242

So, what I have learned from this is that people with little or no understanding will not only succumb to Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.... but will wholeheartedly spread it to others.

I was not fearful of the bill that just passed the House as I had a telecom background and some familiarity about how this stuff actually works.

But people who are supposed to be professional have allowed their politics to 'color' (lets not mention which color it was) their reporting (One example is the PBS show that recently aired).

Will journalists have the intellectual integrity to now admit that they let themselves succumb to 'Fear Uncertainty and Doubt' when it came to this issue?

I await to see.

George Ou writes:

"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.

"This is because network applications don't behave in a smooth and consistent way and they tend to burst. It's precisely those bursts that you have to worry about even on a perfectly sufficient pipe that's more than enough to carry all traffic. So say for example you have a web applications and it bursts really quickly, that's enough to ruin a VoIP call. Now if you prioritize that Voice packet, all it does is rearrange the Voice packets in a more predictable manner Prioritizing a tiny Voice packet makes someone's call perfectly smooth and clear, but it doesn't actually slow anyone else down at any noticeable levels.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=244

"In fact, even congressman Markey's proposal doesn't completely outlaw QoS, what he wants to do is say if you implement QoS for one person then you have to implement it for everyone which ensures that QoS is NEVER implemented because no one will ever offer a free service. The problem Russell is that you and the MoveOn.org cause is so utterly and hopelessly confused about the subject that you don't even understand the amendment you're supporting. All you know is that if it sticks it to the Telcos, it must be a good thing."

"The advocates of neutrality suggest, absurdly, that a non-neutral Internet would resemble cable TV: a medium through which only corporate content is delivered. This analogy misses the fact that the market for Internet connections, unlike that for cable television, is competitive: More than 60 percent of Zip codes in the United States are served by four or more broadband providers that compete to give consumers what they want."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100707.html

"there are powerful arguments on the other side. If you want innovation on the Internet, you need better pipes: ones that are faster, less susceptible to hackers and spammers, or smarter in ways that nobody has yet thought of. The lack of incentives for pipe innovation is more pressing than the lack of incentives to create new Web services.

"The weakest aspect of the neutrality case is that the dangers it alleges are speculative. It seems unlikely that broadband providers will degrade Web services that people want and far more likely that they will use non-neutrality to charge for upgrading services that depend on fast and reliable delivery, such as streaming high-definition video or relaying data from heart monitors."

Commerce committee fails to reach agreement on two-tier internet

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2158195/net-neutrality-bill-falters

"The net neutrality bill has faltered in the US Senate after a commerce committee failed to reach agreement on the proposed legislation."

"In a research brief published by the World Policy Institute's Global Information Society Project, K.A. Taipale, executive director of the Center for Advanced Studies in Science & Technology Policy, asks whether imposing strict net neutrality regulation on telecommunications providers could put public safety and economic recovery at risk in times of national emergency."

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/15681/


--------- Related quote and link --------

"Under net neutrality, commercial providers of high bandwidth or latency sensitive applications or content - for example, pay-per-view video providers - are able to provide these premium services to their customers without internalizing the full cost of distribution because all users - even those without a need for high bandwidth or low latency - are forced to pay equally to underwrite the capacity necessary for these premium services."

http://telecom-program.org/net-neutrality/

"Craig Newmark?s site is screwed up and he?s blaming Cox for it - and seeking a new law. That?s taking Internet retardation to a whole new level."

"This is particularity significant since the whole case for the extreme versions of Net neutrality is based on the premise that Internet sites will be blocked without it. Craigslist is the only example of a website being blocked for prolonged periods of time being cited by the Net neutrality crowd and the fact that it has been proven to be a big lie speaks volumes about their position."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=249

"...we have no ax to grind here - this isn't a story about net neutrality - it is basically a story about different approaches to handling data."

John Sharp
Founder & CEO
Authentium

http://www.zdnet.com/5208-12517-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=22215&messageID=422699&start=-47