Quote :

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication."

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

Quote :

"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote on a principle known as net neutrality; a tenet that ensures all web traffic is treated equally."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12046874

Kind of funny to me that the FCC backs non-restrictive internet surfing. That wasn't the point of this thread, however. What is TWW's opinion on this?

12/21/2010 1:57:33 PM

I would think that if ISP's could begin to selectively limit traffic to certain sites based on how it impacts their business it could be a very bad thing.

12/21/2010 2:18:34 PM

tww is doomed

12/21/2010 2:20:09 PM

^^ they've already done that in some cases

12/21/2010 2:21:48 PM

I once found out my mother was against it, because she heard that it would allow the government to limit speech on the Internet. I and corrected her. I don't know if she believed me (she typically takes Fox News to be gospel).

12/21/2010 2:25:38 PM

It does allow the FCC to regulate how ISP's operate, though, which is a form of power in and of itself.

It's basically un-privatizing bandwith access to the internet. If I'm interpreting this correctly.

[Edited on December 21, 2010 at 2:46 PM. Reason : asdlfasjkd]

12/21/2010 2:45:26 PM

Quote :

"I would think that if ISP's could begin to selectively limit traffic to certain sites based on how it impacts their business it could be a very bad thing."

I'm against this also. But I'm confused. Does the passage of net neutrality allow ISPs to start doing this (or allow them to continue)? Or does it stop them?

12/21/2010 3:02:29 PM

I believe it stops them. Or is supposed to.

Quote :

"The concept of “net neutrality’' holds that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally. It has been the center of a debate over whether those companies can give preferential treatment to content providers who pay for faster transmission, or to their own content, in effect creating a two-tier Web, and about whether they can block or impede content representing controversial points of view. Currently, Internet users get access to any Web site on an equal basis. Foreign and domestic sites, big corporate home pages and low-traffic blogs all show up on a user’s screen in the same way when their addresses are typed into a browser. The Federal Communications Commission had come out in favor of keeping things that way, but its ability to do so was put in doubt by a federal appeals decision in April 2010 that restricted its authority over broadband service. In late December, the F.C.C. prepared a compromise that would broadly broadly create two classes of Internet access, one for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net. The new approach won widespread acceptance among Internet providers, developers and venture capital firms. But a wide swath of public interest groups have lambasted the proposal as “fake net neutrality” and said it was rife with loopholes. Notably, the rules are watered down for wireless Net providers like AT&T and Verizon, which would be prohibited from blocking Web sites, but not from blocking applications or services unless those applications directly compete with providers’ voice and video products, like Skype. F.C.C. officials said there were technological reasons for the wireless distinctions, and that they would continue to closely monitor the medium. The rules also would discourage but not expressly forbid something called “paid prioritization,” which would allow a media or technology company to pay the provider for faster transmission of data, potentially creating an uneven playing field. The F.C.C. compromise followed a proposal made in August by Google and Verizon, which called on regulators to enforce net neutrality on wired connections but not on the wireless Internet. They also excluded something they called "additional, differentiated online services.""

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html

[Edited on December 21, 2010 at 3:19 PM. Reason : i fail]

12/21/2010 3:15:51 PM

If I understand it correctly, Net Neutrality allows the FCC to regulate ISPs so that they cannot regulate bandwidth. So it is regulating to keep from regulating, if that makes sense.

12/21/2010 3:18:18 PM

the problem is that i understand and agree with the most fundamental complaint of ISPs: users (or companies) that use the most bandwidth pay the same as those who use far less

in theory, i agree that you should pay based on your usage

in reality, i don't want that to happen because 1.) i'm selfish, and 2.) ISPs are far from altruistic and it is a slippery slope

12/21/2010 3:39:11 PM

What it really means is no more free internet porn.

12/21/2010 3:43:21 PM

That is exactly the opposite of what it means

12/21/2010 3:44:24 PM

It has more to do with delivery speed of content of sites, not the usage of the individual web user.

The elimination of Net Neutrality that is..

[Edited on December 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ...]

12/21/2010 3:44:55 PM

This doesn't have anything to do with paying for your bandwidth usage. This is about TWC charging you more per megabyte transferred watching Netflix (or using packet shaping or whatever to prevent you from doing so) than for other services because they own a cable company and would rather you watch your shows on cable.

12/21/2010 3:45:56 PM

^no...netflix pays the provider for their content to be delivered effectively. Netflix then upcharges you.

[Edited on December 21, 2010 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .....]

12/21/2010 3:47:46 PM

If TWW doesn't pay their provider to have their pages load quickly, it could take up to 10 minutes for an image on TWW to load for you

12/21/2010 3:50:11 PM

Quote :

"netflix pays the provider for their content to be delivered effectively. Netflix then upcharges you."

that was my understanding, too...which i agree with, being that netflix's business model requires more bandwidth per person than does, say, slickdeals...i mean, they're both websites, but one transfers a helluva lot more data per person than the other

the net neutrality bit comes into play because (i think) that TWC would only impose this on competitors for services TWC already offers (movies on demand and cable television)

12/21/2010 3:53:08 PM

^ This is where the FCC ruling comes into play. It disallows TWC and line internet companies to do this while, for some reason, allowing wireless providers to continue to have this option.

Quote :

"The proposed rules of the online road would prevent fixed-line broadband providers like Comcast and Qwest from blocking access to sites and applications. The rules, however, would allow wireless companies more latitude in putting limits on access to services and applications... ...Citing the wireless proposal, Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, said over the weekend that the F.C.C. was effectively allowing discrimination on the mobile Net, a fast-growing sector. “Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” Mr. Franken said on Saturday on the Senate floor. “If the F.C.C. passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.” He added, “If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.” Mr. Franken and other critics say the rules come with major caveats; for instance, they would allow for “reasonable network management” by broadband providers. And they would discourage but not expressly forbid something called “paid prioritization,” which would allow a media or technology company to pay the provider for faster transmission of data, potentially creating an uneven playing field. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/business/media/21fcc.html?_r=1&ref=netneutrality

In my opinion, I haven't really noticed ISP's, fixed-line or wireless, operating in this fashion. Seems to me that they shouldn't if they want to keep customers from switching to other means of accessing the internet if they start. (Hope that made sense.)

[Edited on December 21, 2010 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2010 4:08:28 PM

I'm leery of allowing the federal government to get their foot in the door with Internet regulation. Once that becomes an open frontier for the FCC, we'll be seeing the government protecting us from ourselves sometime down the line.

12/21/2010 4:32:04 PM

Basically, everything I've been reading/watching on this subject is under the impression that this FCC ruling is going to go to litigation and then eventually be over turned. I'm actually against the FCC controlling how ISP's function because they haven't really been blocking content in the first place. The fact that they could is why the FCC is deeming it necessary to regulate.

It's a free market, right? So if TWC or Verizon (each of whom currently provide online services to me) start blocking sites from me or start severely regulating my bandwith I will switch to another service provider. My point is, I haven't noticed them doing this yet, so why does it need to be regulated in the first place?

12/21/2010 4:37:40 PM

Quote :

"It's a free market, right?"

Not for me. Either I use Comcast in my apartment building or I don't get internet. Verizon and U-verse aren't available, and we aren't allowed to have satellite dishes.

I guess I could move but that seems like a hassle to move just to change ISPs.

12/21/2010 4:55:35 PM

Quote :

"I'm leery of allowing the federal government to get their foot in the door with Internet regulation. Once that becomes an open frontier for the FCC, we'll be seeing the government protecting us from ourselves sometime down the line."

So, you would prefer it if your ISP regulated what you can see? Another user put it best, it's regulation to keep the internet unregulated.

Hell, the Internet is already regulated to a degree by shutting down kiddy porn sites and copyright infringement sites (that are within their borders, of course). The RIAA/MPAA/private copyright olders are already regulating the Internet by suing anyone who violates their copyrights.

And this isn't Internet regulation anyhow. It's ISP regulation. They're not regulating the content of the Internet, but rather how the ISPs treat traffic.

12/21/2010 5:00:12 PM

Quote :

"and we aren't allowed to have satellite dishes."

If you are in NC, there is a law that says an apartment complex can not prohibit you from having a satellite dish. You may not be able to mount it to a wall or drill holes, but they must allow you to, at minimum, use a bucket pole mount and flat cables to come in a door or window.

12/21/2010 5:03:03 PM

One problem is the cable companies attempted to leverage their existing copper lines (which were no doubt subsidized in the past via tax payer monies) as long as possible by selling everyone a connection that if all used simultaneously would crawl the network. This worked until applications were invented to use all the bandwidth. This caught the cable companies with their pants down. And rather than invest the capital that won't pay off for decades (and lets be honest, will just be a not nice hit to the bottom line which takes makes CEO bonuses less) they have been going the throttle, DPI, legislation route to keep their cash cow alive as long as possible.

12/21/2010 5:07:43 PM

also, net neutrality is more than just preventing an ISP for charging certain providers or charging users for one type of data over another.

It is also supposed to be about preventing an ISP from slowing packets for certain services. IE: they can't throttle your bit torrents or Netflix movies while leaving their own streaming service un-restricted to encourage you to subscribe to their service.

Basically, with the progression of cable companies becoming ISPs, there is a conflict of interest in that the delivery network that company A owns to distribute its content is also used to distribute company B's content. Company B is Company A's competitor. This regulation is to prevent Company A from hindering the delivery of Company B's content, effectively taking Company B out of the market, or at least hindering Company B's access to the market.

12/21/2010 5:08:53 PM