[BNM] Net Neutrality
Martyn Fagg
neutrality:
http://www.internetofthefuture.org/
--
BNM info/subscription/archives: http://www.brightonnewmedia.org/
BNM archive search: http://www.roddis.org/bnm/search.php
BNM Del.icio.us tag: http://del.icio.us/tag/bnm/
BNM Flickr group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/bnm/
BNM powered by http://www.screen-play.net/
Dave Phelan
> Cartoon from the big telcos in the US who are trying to get rid of net
> neutrality:
> http://www.internetofthefuture.org/
Huh?
I've not been following this, so forgive me if I'm a bit behind.
Is Congress about to rule on ISPs providing IP QoS (differentiated services)?
And the telcos are for it and the bloggers/content providers are against it?
>From reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality the whole
debate seems totally insane. Routers have always prioritised one
packet over another (or rather in the net neutrality terminology,
*discriminated* against some packets), even if it's a just simple
first-in-first-out queuing mechanism.
Maybe I'm a bit naive, but since when has the net been a level playing
field? I can afford broadband, Joe Pensioner has to walk to the
library to eek out his one-hour-access-and-10p-a-sheet-printing. I
have 256 kbps feeding my blog to the world up an ADSL line. Yahoo has
multiple gigabit connections a few hops from the default-free
backbone...
Oh. It looks like the ISPs prevailled in Congress:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5063072.stm
"The amendment was defeated by 269 votes to 152 and the Cope Act was
passed by 321-101 votes.
The debate over the issue now moves to the US Senate where the
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will vote on its
version of the act in late June"
/me rolls eyes, shakes head
Dave Ph
--
Dave Phelan CCIE#3590 ICQ: 50180416 GSM: +44 (0)7776 168561
dave....@gmail.com http://www.davephelan.org
"I think rock 'n' roll and science fiction were in a
very real sense all the culture I had." -- William Gibson.
Alex Farran
> On 6/22/06, Martyn Fagg <li...@muphi.com> wrote:
>> Cartoon from the big telcos in the US who are trying to get rid of net
>> neutrality:
>> http://www.internetofthefuture.org/
> Huh?
> I've not been following this, so forgive me if I'm a bit behind.
> Is Congress about to rule on ISPs providing IP QoS (differentiated services)?
> And the telcos are for it and the bloggers/content providers are against it?
Not exactly, at least not as I understand it from reading Tim
Berners-Lee's blog http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 and
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/132 (worth reading the
comments on this one). Net Neutrality doen't mean you can't
discriminate between different types of service for quality of service
reasons. It means that you can't discriminate based on the source of
the packets. eg: You can give VOIP services higher priority than
HTTP, but you can't give your own VOIP service higher priority than
anyone elses.
--
__o Alex Farran www.alexfarran.com 01273 474065
_`\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Dominic Mitchell
> Cartoon from the big telcos in the US who are trying to get rid of net
> neutrality:
> http://www.internetofthefuture.org/
Wow. Talk about misinformation. I had to give up for laughing half way
through.
-Dom
Martyn Fagg
> I've not been following this, so forgive me if I'm a bit behind.
> Is Congress about to rule on ISPs providing IP QoS (differentiated services)?
> And the telcos are for it and the bloggers/content providers are against it?
My understanding of it is that the telcos want to create a tiered
internet where content *providers* pay to have their content provided
faster than if they didn't pay.
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/internet/ecommerce/0,39020454,39273632,00.htm
james
there's this seemingly limitless commercial potential and then on the other
a culture of the gift economy and the boundless virtual community full of,
cripes alive! people! Sadly when corporate America is confused it generally
just wades in willy nilly, gets its wallet out and sits on top of everyone.
I've often had a sense that we have all been enjoying the halcyon days of
the Internet as a general "free for all". Truth is they will chop it up,
sell it to each other, then sell it back to us. What we know as the Internet
now, content wise, the quirky, the marginal, the obscure, the good bits will
most likely become some kind of marginal subscription service that few
gateways will bother carrying. Like public access television.
Jim.
Nick Tong - TalkWebSolutions.co.uk
http://succor.co.uk/index.cfm/2006/6/8/Net-Neutrality--Take-Action
<quote>
Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter
how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal
access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all
Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to
high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They
want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who
can't pay
</quote>
--
Nick Tong
web: http://talkwebsolutions.co.uk
blog: http://succor.co.uk
short urls: http://wapurl.co.uk
linkedin: http://linkedin.com/pub/0/a70/502
Dave Phelan
> What we know as the Internet
> now, content wise, the quirky, the marginal, the obscure, the good bits will
> most likely become some kind of marginal subscription service that few
> gateways will bother carrying. Like public access television.
You underestimate us. Maybe because you never got to use fidonet? The
internet will survive the corporate balkanisation. How? Well, probably
by a lot of wet string and benevolent individuals, but here's a phrase
to play with:
WiFi UnderNets.
:-)
Dave Ph
--
Dave Phelan CCIE#3590 ICQ: 50180416 GSM: +44 (0)7776 168561
dave....@gmail.com http://www.davephelan.org
"I think rock 'n' roll and science fiction were in a
very real sense all the culture I had." -- William Gibson.
--
Dave Phelan
> Not exactly, at least not as I understand it from reading Tim
> Berners-Lee's blog http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 and
> http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/132 (worth reading the
> comments on this one). Net Neutrality doen't mean you can't
> discriminate between different types of service for quality of service
> reasons. It means that you can't discriminate based on the source of
> the packets. eg: You can give VOIP services higher priority than
> HTTP, but you can't give your own VOIP service higher priority than
> anyone elses.
Why on earth not?
TBL says (http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144):
"Net neutrality is this:
If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service,
and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then
we can communicate at that level. "
That's pretty simple. If that doesn't work, then the net is
balkanised. But the marketplace wont stand that. Already balkanisation
is routed around. I have fast connects to the net at work, but I'm not
allowed to ssh, so I pay for net access at home...
And he says (http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/132):
"Twenty-seven years ago, the inventors of the Internet[1] designed an
architecture[2] which was simple and general. Any computer could send
a packet to any other computer. The network did not look inside
packets."
It might not have done so, but the intention was there from the start.
The IP precedence octect was intended to allow the expidited
forwarding of certain traffic types. That it wasn't idely implented
was down to the performance cost of high-touch activities on packets.
With modern ASIC-based routers, this sort of activity can be perfomed
at negligible impact to the packet forwarding.
But this is a confused and confusing issue. In the comments to the
post above, mention is made of ownership of the root nameservers, the
issue of media impartiality, connectivity levies, and exclusive
content delivery, to name but a few.
Anyone got a pointer to a simple guide to what the legislation
actually calls for, rather than what people think 'net neutrality'
means?
Dave Ph
--
Dave Phelan CCIE#3590 ICQ: 50180416 GSM: +44 (0)7776 168561
dave....@gmail.com http://www.davephelan.org
"I think rock 'n' roll and science fiction were in a
very real sense all the culture I had." -- William Gibson.
--
Dave Phelan
> I have a couple of links on my blog where you can sigh a petition:
> http://succor.co.uk/index.cfm/2006/6/8/Net-Neutrality--Take-Action
>
> <quote>
> Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter
> how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal
> access.
But that's not the case at all.
Please explain how this is so?
Dave Ph
--
Dave Phelan CCIE#3590 ICQ: 50180416 GSM: +44 (0)7776 168561
dave....@gmail.com http://www.davephelan.org
"I think rock 'n' roll and science fiction were in a
very real sense all the culture I had." -- William Gibson.
--
james
daniel said
> Hell, I hope not.
>
> This is all vaguely confusing for those without a low-level knowledge of
> the
> net. Who are the goodies and the baddies? Does it apply to England?
to which i reply!
lol! me too :)
we're all complicit, the companies want to make money we fancy the idea of
video on demand, cheap VOIP phone calls, world cup goals on our mobile etc
etc
somebody's gotta pay for the network and whoever is paying for the network
has to make it pay for them
in the broadband era connectivity is no longer the only currency, it's
bandwidth and if that bandwidth is delivering paid for movies on demand
there's gonna be more of it and it'll be better maintained than say a free
website with hilarious singing hamsters or dancing babies [insert popular
internet meme of choice here]
this has begun already, 2 years ago few broadband subscriptions included a
download cap, now most do, 5 years ago you could assume an ISP would carry
usenet, now you can't
the prediction is that the internet will simply become a number of massive
intranets pushing selective content. More akin to what we perceive as "one
to many broadcasting" = TV!. All the marginal stuff will still be there but
it'll just get overlooked
well maybe
jim
>
> Quoting james <aqr...@dsl.pipex.com>:
>
>> The Internet confuses the hell out of corporate America. On the one hand
>> there's this seemingly limitless commercial potential and then on the
>> other
>> a culture of the gift economy and the boundless virtual community full
>> of,
>> cripes alive! people! Sadly when corporate America is confused it
>> generally
>> just wades in willy nilly, gets its wallet out and sits on top of
>> everyone.
>> I've often had a sense that we have all been enjoying the halcyon days of
>> the Internet as a general "free for all". Truth is they will chop it up,
>> sell it to each other, then sell it back to us. What we know as the
>> Internet
>> now, content wise, the quirky, the marginal, the obscure, the good bits
>> will
>> most likely become some kind of marginal subscription service that few
>> gateways will bother carrying. Like public access television.
>>
>> Jim.
>>
>
--
Martyn Fagg
> Please explain how this is so?
Theres some more info here:
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
and here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
joe aliferis
The internet is not really the sum total of its technological parts - it
is more the product of the minds and wills of individuals, acting with
consensus... As long as a consensus for a 'freeNet' exists, 'freeNet',
in some form will exists, regardless of the development of corpNet...
reason not to panic 2:
The highways of the world are laid, owned and regulated by Govs - but I
can ride my bike down em for free, or I can drive a car down em -
unlicenced, untaxed and undetected (for the most part - not that I
choose to !)
reason not to panic 3:
Corps and Govs will always be doing this shit to free movements and free
movements will always find spaces elsewhere to exercise freedom...prob
cause free movements are more innovative...and inspired !
Panic not, the corp assholes merely offer the people another chance to
beat them at their own game...
joe
Dave Phelan wrote:
>On 6/22/06, Nick Tong - TalkWebSolutions.co.uk <nick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I have a couple of links on my blog where you can sigh a petition:
>>http://succor.co.uk/index.cfm/2006/6/8/Net-Neutrality--Take-Action
>>
>><quote>
>>Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter
>>how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal
>>access.
>>
>>
>
>But that's not the case at all.
>Please explain how this is so?
>
>Dave Ph
>
>
--
BNM info/subscription/archives: http://www.brightonnewmedia.org/
Tom Hume
akamai to have locally cached copies of their content near to its
destination? Isn't the end result the same?
--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom....@futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 870 0055924
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org
Dave Phelan
> > Please explain how this is so?
>
> Theres some more info here:
> http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
That google link is just another restatement of the assertation that:
"Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no
matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has
equal access."
But I maintain that this is not the case.
I do not have equal access to Mr Modem in the developing world or to
Mr fibre-to-the-aprtment in South Korea. I do not ahave equal access
to the default-free backbone with the ability to inject my own /28 or
anycast /32 route. I do not have equal access to latency-sensitive
services in the US that a US net user has.
So can someone please explain what the objection is about before I end
up having to read HR5252 and work out what is wrong with it myself?
Dave Ph
--
Dave Phelan CCIE#3590 ICQ: 50180416 GSM: +44 (0)7776 168561
dave....@gmail.com http://www.davephelan.org
"I think rock 'n' roll and science fiction were in a
very real sense all the culture I had." -- William Gibson.
--
james
jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Phelan" <dave....@gmail.com>
To: "Brighton New Media" <bnm...@brightonnewmedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [BNM] Net Neutrality
Nick Tong - TalkWebSolutions.co.uk
information as the next person?
--
Nick Tong
web: http://talkwebsolutions.co.uk
blog: http://succor.co.uk
short urls: http://wapurl.co.uk
linkedin: http://linkedin.com/pub/0/a70/502
--
Alex Farran
> reason not to panic 3:
> Corps and Govs will always be doing this shit to free movements and free
> movements will always find spaces elsewhere to exercise freedom...prob
> cause free movements are more innovative...and inspired !
That's all well and good, but net neutrality affects commercial
services as well. The fear is that telcos and cable companies will
use their local monopolies to keep competitors out of the market.
There's a pretty good run down of the issues in this weeks New
Scientist.
--
__o Alex Farran www.alexfarran.com 01273 474065
_`\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Ian Barber
A meg a second streaming video is technically accessible by modem I presume,
and I suppose if you use some forwarding you can watch a UK only BBC stream
in the states. You can even play Quake 4 on a US server if you want to, but
I don't think it'll be much cop. I remember AOL blocking that webgame
planetarion for a while, for traffic reasons (allegedly). You definitely
can't watch the beebs multicast videos without being on the right ISP.
Ian
james
some lads moving a load of stuff in and out of Forfar's garage with a van,
I'm bored so I'm watcing them.
They just pulled out one half of a big sign that with it's other half
presumably read
FORFARS
SUSSEX BAKERY
but this half just read
FARS
SEX BAKERY
hahahahahahahahahaha
.
.
.
is it really good for you working on your own ... discuss
jim
Martyn Fagg
> Scientist.
You can see the start of the article here:
http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg19025576.500.html
Dave Phelan
> how is this not the case - can you not access the same public
> information as the next person?
Absolutely not.
When I dial into the net on my 9.6kbps mobile phone connection, I can
just about use Gmail. Yootube is right out. Most heavy graphic sites
just timeout.
When I dial in at 33.6kbps over a hotel phone line, Flash sites and
MP3 downloads are difficult to impossibly slow.
And then when amnesia kicks in, and I forget how to read English,
making do with basic French, I lose access to a large part of the
internet.
So already access is balkanised.
Saying otherwise is disingenuous.
So what is the real opposition to this bill?
Nick Tong - TalkWebSolutions.co.uk
and you pay to connect with the equal or greater quality of service,
then we should communicate at that level - ALA net neutrality. Its up
to the ISPs to interoperate.
to quote Tim Berners-Lee:
Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the
fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based
on it.
Companies that say what you can and can't see at certain levels is the
problem. An example could be:
Content X is not avaiable on 3G but is on BB as the content can't be
handled. What then happens when your 3G network gets upgraded. If it
can then handle the content from BB you still can't access the data
(i.e. vodafones recent 3g upgrade (3.5G (3GBB))).
On 22/06/06, Dave Phelan <dave....@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Nick Tong
web: http://talkwebsolutions.co.uk
blog: http://succor.co.uk
short urls: http://wapurl.co.uk
linkedin: http://linkedin.com/pub/0/a70/502
--
Tom Coady
An explanation of sorts, in the second half of
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060615.html where it mentions
that "those opposing Net Neutrality have in mind VoIP, and nothing but VoIP.
Those in favor of Net Neutrality seem to think it means equal treatment
under the Internet, which it doesn't really."
daniele...@onetel.com
happen. The only 'leveller' would be the SEs. If you can get your site linked
and ranked, you can outsmart the 'channels', especially to those users who
treat google as the only portal to the internet.
Dave Phelan
> sure, but if I pay to connect to the internet at my level of service,
> and you pay to connect with the equal or greater quality of service,
> then we should communicate at that level - ALA net neutrality. Its up
> to the ISPs to interoperate.
Okay. But is that not a matter of definition? If you can't
interoperate it's not the internet? For example, if I use a 3G phone
from 3, I can see lotsa webbish sites, but it's behind a walled
garden. Same with vodafone live.
> to quote Tim Berners-Lee:
> Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the
> fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based
> on it.
But that's abjectly utopian, and wildly untrue.
Many many people connect to the internet through work, behind
restrictive firewalls, netnannies and screening proxies.
And that freedom of connection *only* existed after NSFnet removed the
anti-commerce AUP on traffic crossing it's backbone. Before then it
was explicitly not permitted to conduct commercial activities over a
substantial part of the internet.
> Companies that say what you can and can't see at certain levels is the
> problem. An example could be:
> Content X is not avaiable on 3G but is on BB as the content can't be
> handled. What then happens when your 3G network gets upgraded. If it
> can then handle the content from BB you still can't access the data
> (i.e. vodafones recent 3g upgrade (3.5G (3GBB))).
But do Voda say that their 3G broadband service *is* the internet? I
haven't seen that. Even O2's imode adverts talk about specific sites
(ebay etc) rather than the internet. As well they must, since imode is
a protocol ghetto of it's own...
I feel like I'm missing the point here.
Help!
Nick Tong - TalkWebSolutions.co.uk
this whole issue. It shouldn't be termed as it is but better still
something like who should invest in networks, and who should benefit
from them. I'm not saying that I don't want to pay for any
architecture behind the Internet, if i want teh web to get better and
I want to use the better service then I'm happy to pay for that but i
shouldn't have to pay for that. ISPs should allow content i want to
view to be passed over their network if I have paid them for access.
Just because ISP A has better infrastructure then ISP B why should we
suffer?
On 22/06/06, Dave Phelan <dave....@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Nick Tong
web: http://talkwebsolutions.co.uk
blog: http://succor.co.uk
short urls: http://wapurl.co.uk
linkedin: http://linkedin.com/pub/0/a70/502
--
Tom Hume
On 22 Jun 2006, at 13:43, Dave Phelan wrote:
>> to quote Tim Berners-Lee:
>> Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the
>> fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based
>> on it.
> But that's abjectly utopian, and wildly untrue.
> Many many people connect to the internet through work, behind
> restrictive firewalls, netnannies and screening proxies.
Can I just chip in and point out that TBL ain't necessarily the fount
of all wisdom?
Sure, he's done a fantastic thing but that doesn't make him a priori
right. I seem to recall him arguing against the <IMG> tag, for
instance...
> But do Voda say that their 3G broadband service *is* the internet? I
> haven't seen that. Even O2's imode adverts talk about specific sites
> (ebay etc) rather than the internet. As well they must, since imode is
> a protocol ghetto of it's own...
Cough. Actually, I-mode uses very standard webby protocols (a
slightly cut-down HTML over standard HTTP etc.). WAP is slightly more
ghettoised...
--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom....@futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 870 0055924
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org
--
Nick Wilsdon
>So what is the real opposition to this bill?
Good write ups here Dave -
Znet (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=243)
Threadwatch (http://www.threadwatch.org/node/6874)
If the core issue is about different ISP's being able to treat some packets
differently from others depending on their content - then I can see why
Google would be worried. They are pushing most of the rich-media product
line out there at the moment with all their 20% projects. They probably
don't like the idea of having to pay for each of these to be sufficiently
resourced up at the ISP ends (across the US).
If it about forming a barrier to innovation by reserving resources for the
big companies - well that's not great but being a realist that is already
happening people. Money buys connectivity. I have trouble thinking that the
majority of 'small guys' would need enough data transfer to warrant the
ISP's attention on this. If they did then they are probably in a position to
pay for it (VC money).
I agree that it's feasibly the ISP's could launch their own search engines
and sites - and give them premium access at the expense of the large SE's
etc. but like you say Dave, you have to think that would just open them up
to competition from other ISP's offering 'open access' - or even widespread
WiFi networks.
I'm not sure I'm sufficiently aware of the issue to sign a petition either
way at the moment but I'd be interested in your opinion having read the
HR5252 ;)
Best Regards,
Nick Wilsdon
Managing Director
e3internet
http://www.e3internet.com
Dave Phelan
> Can I just chip in and point out that TBL ain't necessarily the fount
> of all wisdom?
>
> Sure, he's done a fantastic thing but that doesn't make him a priori
> right. I seem to recall him arguing against the <IMG> tag, for
> instance...
And wasn't he just *so* right about that? Bloody inline images got us
into this mess...
:-)
Actually, having googled this, it seems to me that what he was arguing
was against a special tag for inline iimages, prefering it just to be
another instance of the A tag:
http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0186.html
> > But do Voda say that their 3G broadband service *is* the internet? I
> > haven't seen that. Even O2's imode adverts talk about specific sites
> > (ebay etc) rather than the internet. As well they must, since imode is
> > a protocol ghetto of it's own...
>
> Cough. Actually, I-mode uses very standard webby protocols (a
> slightly cut-down HTML over standard HTTP etc.). WAP is slightly more
> ghettoised...
Yes, indeed. But Just using webby protocols doesn't make it the
internet. When you are 'seeing what you can do', you don't (as far as
I understand i-mode) hit e-bay's internet site via an HTML-cHTML
transcoder, you hit a special i-mode ebay site within the walled
garden. Is that not the case?
Dave Ph
--
Dave Phelan CCIE#3590 ICQ: 50180416 GSM: +44 (0)7776 168561
dave....@gmail.com http://www.davephelan.org
"I think rock 'n' roll and science fiction were in a
very real sense all the culture I had." -- William Gibson.
--
Dave Phelan
> Znet (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=243)
> Threadwatch (http://www.threadwatch.org/node/6874)
> If the core issue is about different ISP's being able to treat some packets
> differently from others depending on their content - then I can see why
> Google would be worried. They are pushing most of the rich-media product
> line out there at the moment with all their 20% projects. They probably
> don't like the idea of having to pay for each of these to be sufficiently
> resourced up at the ISP ends (across the US).
This piece seems most coherent so far:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2006/tc20060202_061809.htm
Amazon and Google are fretting that the telcos won't deliver bandwidth
to the net, preferring to use it for more profitable enterprises (TV).
I can see their concern, given statements like this from AT&T chairman
Ed Whitacre:
"Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be
free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an
investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect
to use these pipes [for] free is nuts."
Now, I might be missing something hee, but I pay my ISP (hi guys!) for
my access, and they then pay transit fees to pay for my traffic onto
the default-free backbone; and Google pays their ISPs, who pay (or
have peering agreements) for passing the traffic onto the default-free
backbone. So it's all paid for already. Mr Whitacre seems to want to
charge for this traffic twice, which seems unfair to me.
I suspect all the emotive stuff is just a stalking horse for this.
It's not about equal access for me and thee, it's about cost control
for the big content providers, and that they don't trust the current
regulation to prevent AT&T and co from abusing their monopoly
(ownership?) of the content providers' customers.
> I'm not sure I'm sufficiently aware of the issue to sign a petition either
> way at the moment but I'd be interested in your opinion having read the
> HR5252 ;)
See my other post.
I'm going to look at the draft senate resolution when my eyes have
stopped bleeding :-)
Alex Farran
> On 6/23/06, Nick Wilsdon <n.wi...@e3internet.com> wrote:
> Now, I might be missing something hee, but I pay my ISP (hi guys!) for
> my access, and they then pay transit fees to pay for my traffic onto
> the default-free backbone; and Google pays their ISPs, who pay (or
> have peering agreements) for passing the traffic onto the default-free
> backbone. So it's all paid for already. Mr Whitacre seems to want to
> charge for this traffic twice, which seems unfair to me.
I think perhaps they oversold the 'unlimited broadband' and were
surprised when people actually started using it. Now they need to
find the money to pay for it.
> I suspect all the emotive stuff is just a stalking horse for this.
> It's not about equal access for me and thee, it's about cost control
> for the big content providers, and that they don't trust the current
> regulation to prevent AT&T and co from abusing their monopoly
> (ownership?) of the content providers' customers.
Well that's a slightly cynical view, but probably about right. Users
ought to be concerned too, since they're caught in the middle. Plus
companies are always looking for ways to lock in consumers such as
proprietary data formats and DRM encryption. I'm sure some of them
would find ways to partner with ISPs in a similar anti-competitive
fashion.
Nick said:
>> I'm not sure I'm sufficiently aware of the issue to sign a petition either
>> way at the moment but I'd be interested in your opinion having read the
>> HR5252 ;)
The Net Neutrality part is in the Markey amendment [1], which was
rejected by congress, hence the need for the senate resolution.
According to the NS article net neutrality has become an issue because
of the Supreme court's ruling on National Cable & Telecommunications
Assn. V.Brand X Internet:
> Until recently telecommunications laws ensured that all internet
> service providers had to give users access to all content on the
> internet without prioritising any. But in June 2005 a Supreme Court
> ruling known as "Brand X" ruled that a broadband internet connection
> via cable television lines to a user's computer was not subject to
> these laws, giving telcos new freedoms to influence how a user
> interacts with the internet.
Meaning, I think, that cable companies can discriminate, but telephone
companies can't, yet.
[1] http://markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/Markey%20Net%20Neutrality%20Amendment.pdf
--
__o Alex Farran www.alexfarran.com 01273 474065
_`\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Tom Hume
On 23 Jun 2006, at 08:10, Dave Phelan wrote:
> Yes, indeed. But Just using webby protocols doesn't make it the
> internet. When you are 'seeing what you can do', you don't (as far as
> I understand i-mode) hit e-bay's internet site via an HTML-cHTML
> transcoder, you hit a special i-mode ebay site within the walled
> garden. Is that not the case?
Well, it's usually available on the public internet. Conceptually
quite similar to having a separate netscape and IE version I guess.
--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom....@futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 870 0055924
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org
--
Dave Phelan
>
> On 23 Jun 2006, at 08:10, Dave Phelan wrote:
> > you hit a special i-mode ebay site within the walled
> > garden. Is that not the case?
>
> Well, it's usually available on the public internet. Conceptually
> quite similar to having a separate netscape and IE version I guess.
Oh cool.
So if I could get access to a suitable client, I could do real web (or
ssh) from an O2 i-mode phone?
Dave Ph
--
Dave Phelan CCIE#3590 ICQ: 50180416 GSM: +44 (0)7776 168561
dave....@gmail.com http://www.davephelan.org
"I think rock 'n' roll and science fiction were in a
very real sense all the culture I had." -- William Gibson.
--
Tom Hume
yer standard netty stuff.
--
Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom....@futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 870 0055924
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org
--
Nick Wilsdon
> I think perhaps they oversold the 'unlimited broadband' and were surprised
when people actually started using it. Now they need to find the money to
pay for it.
Very true - Over here we pay by the MB/GB for download and upload, that
seems the approach that many countries have taken. Everyone knows that
*someone/somewhere* pays for this and it is a limited resource. While many
operators in the West can push 'Unlimited Use' - that doesn't ring true for
me (especially with so many rich media products coming on the scene).
The option to hit up 'heavy users' for content they produce may save your
ADSL bill having to become metered. So think about that before you sign your
petition, equal access for content providers may mean higher bills for you
;)
Best Regards,
Nick Wilsdon
Managing Director
e3internet
http://www.e3internet.com
--
Danny Hope
http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/archives/2006/06/rb_06_jun_23.html
On 6/22/06, Martyn Fagg <li...@muphi.com> wrote:
>
> Cartoon from the big telcos in the US who are trying to get rid of net
> neutrality:
> http://www.internetofthefuture.org/
>
> --
>
> BNM info/subscription/archives: http://www.brightonnewmedia.org/
>
> BNM archive search: http://www.roddis.org/bnm/search.php
> BNM Del.icio.us tag: http://del.icio.us/tag/bnm/
> BNM Flickr group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/bnm/
>
> BNM powered by http://www.screen-play.net/
>
--
Regards,
Danny Hope
Hobo Internet
+44 (0)845 230 3760
http://www.hobointernet.com
39-40 Bond Street, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK