BitTorrent's Bram Cohen against Network Neutrality 269
wigwamus writes "BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen warns on potential 'absurdity' of Network Neutrality laws and concedes that his hook-up with Cachelogic is creating a system that might contravene Network Neutrality. He suggests there'd be no difference between big media footing the bill for their own upload costs of their offerings and subsidizing the consumer's download costs of the same."
Net Neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
Net Neutrality (Score:2)
That's not to dismiss having the government run
totally free markets will never work until... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "free" market is one of those things that it is easy to say and might sound sort of good in theory, but it won't ever fly or work as advertised without tremendous negative effects. For an example of an area with more or less "anything goes free markets", look at the horn of africa.
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not true. The reason we have MEGABIGCO is because of preferential treatment such as:
1. Regulations -- Creates a very high barrier to enter a market
2. Subsidies -- Creates a financial incentive for the cronies of the law
3. Licensing -- Creates a cartel that prevents the proper number of competitor
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:3, Informative)
Quick question. (Score:2)
The biggest polluter in the country is the US government, by the way.
It's not that I don't believe you, but you wouldn't happen to have a reference for that lying around, would you?
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:2)
Barriers to entry or not, companies can make more money if they collude or merge rather than compete. In a fully free market, you probably wouldn't have one company growing into MEGABIGCO; the several existing smaller companies would merge into MEGABIGCO, and new entrants would also merge into MEGABIGCO so they can charge the monopoly prices.
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats all well and good except that the barrier to market entry and not government created. They are fundamental to capitalism. Since it costs initial capital to enter a market, a company can not enter the market and be competitive immediately. There is a reason you or I couldn't start making cars that ran on butter tomorrow.
"Monopolies ONLY occur due to government licensing."
Ridiculous beyond comprehension. Learn about economics and its history. See: John D Rockefeller and Standard Oil [wikipedia.org]. In an unregulated system, the natural equilibrium is monopoly.
"Not true. A provider of a product or service will provide what the consumer wants, including making sure that they abide by whatever environmental restrictions the market demands. Pollution is better covered by trespass and realistic tort laws than by regulation -- regulations of the environment today just move polluters around. The biggest polluter in the country is the US government, by the way."
First of all, a dichotomy between "tort laws" and "regulation" is patently false and intellectually shallow. Furthermore, pollution is not well-suited for tort law. Not only are harms that occur due to pollution often societal, but they are difficult to trace to individuals or companies as the cumulative effect brings about such negative consequences. Tort law focuses on private property and pollution harms the common good, public property and society in general.
"No, child labor has occured during the beginning of markets because the older workers were not able to adapt to the new markets. In most situations, children will be less productive if the government stops restricting how it pays employees. Minimum wage laws create unemployment because they rob uneducated non-productive people from finding jobs that won't pay them what they're worth until they prove their worth as employees. Many foreigners come into the country to work illegally for less than minimum wage, but quickly start earning much more than minimum wage once they've proven their worth."
Factually wrong. Its that simple. Child labor did not occur because older workers were not able to adapt. Its insulting that anyone would actually post such tripe. Children [hrw.org] are not working in South East Asia for three generations because the older people couldn't adapt. Children [loc.gov] didn't work in Western Europe and the United States from the start of the Industrial Revolution until nearly WWII because their parent's couldn't adapt. The children of children who were forced to work were also forced to work, are still forced to work at the same jobs.
"Go read Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and Goethe. You'll drop your Keynesian theories right quick."
Ah it all becomes clear. How about this - don't try and drape ideology as economics. The Austrian School is all about how economics 'should' be. Its horrible at predicting how things are. Its also fundamentally anti-labor (relying solely on the marginal utility to produce value has no fundamental origin of the system). There's a reason the Austrian school has been a fringe theory of economics in every society (except ironically under the National Socialists).
Re:Wow. (Score:2)
The only thing I disagree with is that the natural equilibrium point of any market is a monopoly. In a perfect (i.e., practically impossible) free market, it takes just one person to break up the monopoly. Furthermore, the idea that the natural equilibrium for markets is a monopoly requires humans to be completely rational beings, which many studies have shown they are not. The simplest example of
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Funny)
Fine. I'll take the air as my property. Don't breath unless you want to pay me. You steal my air, I will send my private guards to force you to stop stealing my property.
What a tool you are.
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:2)
You know, I've seen you post this drivel time and time again. I just want to know one thing: do you actually understand how markets work? Are you even willing to rethink previous positions that are patently false, or are you just interested in preaching? Because of all the complete falsehoods that you manage to come up with from time to time, this takes the cake. Do you understand the concept of a natural monopoly? Would you care to explain why you think
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:5, Insightful)
mmm... and are there no exceptions?
If I remember correctly the East India Company used to maintain a private army to enforce its self proclaimed monopoly over trade in India. Eventually Britain came to depend on that trade so much it sent its own troops to protect British interests, and ended up conquering the place. But in the beginning, the East India Company enforced its own monopoly. In blood, if need be.
MEGABIGCO won't occur in a free market if there are no barriers to entering that market.
In a purely deregualted market, MEGABIGCO will create it's own barriers to entry. Quite possible by sending men round with hammers to break up your equipment and hospitalise your staff.
But if you pass law against organised violence and intimidation, then you're interfering with the market. That may not be the primary intent of the law, but if you have a business model that relies on violence and intimidation for income then you probably won't see it that way.
From that, I think it's clear that some level or regulation is required, unless we want the the markets to be dominated solely by the vicious, brutal and unprincipled.
On the other hand, I don't think this completely invalidates your points either. Bad regulations can be abused, and often seem designed to be abused, in order to enable monopolies.
I think the problem is binary thinking. The question is not "is regulation good or is regulation evil?" The question we should ask is "what level of regulation best serves the public interest, and while we're at it, how do we thing the public interest is best served?"
Incidentally, please don't take this personally. I agree with a lot of hat you write. On this occasion though, I think you're arguing mainly from theology.
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. The sad thing is that I am not anti-government as some people believe. I am a Unanimocrat -- I believe that people should be free to pick which government they live under, and are free to secede if the government they chose doesn't meet their needs. Of course, contracts with governments you choose might have exit costs, but I'm pro-contract, so that i
you have just described (Score:2, Insightful)
It does no good if all or most (reall
Re:totally free markets will never work until... (Score:3, Insightful)
But what does the mining
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:3, Insightful)
Telephone (Score:2)
Infrastructure needs to be either inherently socialist, or it needs to be so completely deregulated that anyone can set up their own set of phone lines, and start competing.
Encourage telcos to go under (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly the biggest problem with the 'net neutrality' debate is a mass lack of understanding of how prioritized services would be implemented. It has little to do with hardware. One can forgive mere journalists for such a network faux paus.
The thing about prioritized traffic is that the last mile makes the biggest difference. So, if come big media company pays its ISP to prioritize its video traffic, it won't amount to very much unless each and every last-mile provider on the Internet everywhere configures their equipment to treat that traffic with the same priority.
In fact, even on the backbone, its the same story. As soon as a packet crosses onto another provider's network, it may no longer be routed with any priority at all.
The only thing that can be know for sure about the effect of prioritizing IP traffic is that other traffic will slow down. Like VOIP 911 calls, for example.
The most, and possibly only, practical way to improve the performance would be for the telcos to make good on promises made 10 years ago to run high capacity to every home. Promises used to get lots of money from the government, which they never delivered on.
Perhaps the best thing would be to support "fail fast" [netparadox.com] for telcos. Never bail them out - the sooner a telco goes under, the better. Artificially keeping them in business supports investment in outmoded technology and outdated business models and managment structures. The 'dumber' a network is, the better it works. By allowing telcos to go under, investment in newer, faster technology is naturally encouraged.
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:3, Insightful)
So buy VoIP services from your ISP instead of Vonage or some other random net entity. Your ISP can guarantee their VOIP services have sufficient QoS so you get excellent quality phone service. Most cable companies are already starting to offer VoIP.
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, often at *substantially* higher costs than what is available from the independent VoIP providers, and with no guarantee that QoS can be maintained once the packets leave your provider's network.
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is, with their system, your packets don't leave your provider's network at all! From their FAQ [mountaincable.net]:
Q. Is this another 'Internet phone service'?
A. No. With Mountain's Digital Telephone your call will never go over the Internet. It is securely relayed over Mountain's state
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
I don't know for certain that they route calls over the
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
I thought this wasn't about slowing down competing services, it was about reserving bandwidth for your own services that could otherwise have been used by your competitors. This is basically what my cable company is doing.. they've laid a 'virtual' network that their services run on nice and fast, while their competitor's services are forced to share the common, clogged internet pipe.
They're usin
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
If my reading is more accurate, I do see a slight advantage for the ISP owner
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
And independant VoIP providers can gaurantee QoS? Nope. They can't even gaurantee the service within your own network since they don't control the transport lines. The extra cost from cablecos is that little convienence fee of having it appear on the same bill as your cable TV and data and having the phone serv
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
The extra cost from cablecos i
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
Re:Encourage telcos to go under (Score:2)
Having first experienced the Internet through a large proprietary provider (Compuserve) it became immediately clear to me back then that whatever additional services/features CIS offered didn't matter much to me as long as my TCP/IP link was availble.
That's all that mattered: The Internet Protocol.
IMO raising other higher-level protocols in importance over general IP traffic means that provider is no longer in the Internet business.
Yet, there is scan
Re:Encourage telcos to go under-Fraud. (Score:2, Informative)
Just Google for "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal" by Bruce Kushnick. It's not exactly a secret.
Bram's A Fuckin' TARD! (Score:2, Interesting)
He makes dark deals with the movie and music monopolies and now claims he can circumvent Net Neutrality.
Just let him bob and weave in his dark corner with his soiled money and let the rest of us move on to the real world please!
This aint about the big guys... (Score:5, Interesting)
Killing the goose for more gold... (Score:2)
We NEED net neutrality more than we need VoIP people! QoS can wait.
Example:
Free Speech.
Specific loop holes and ignored violations have been added during "maintenance" as they were "needed", some were rolled back, but the base policy is still there on paper.
Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The Court's opinion can be found here [akamaitech.net]. (PDF file)
Cohen's reasoning: (Score:4, Insightful)
"[Cohen] concedes that his hook-up with Cachelogic is creating a system that might contravene Network Neutrality"
Only an idiot would want legislation to pass that would make his current business project fail.
Re:Cohen's reasoning: (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the same can be said about everybody who has been "against" network neutrality. Cisco has the most to gain because they make routers and... guess what... all those QoS things that the telcos propose will require them to buy new routers.
Thus far, everyone against net neutrality legislation has had a profit motive. Most of the people against it do not, though some (like Google) have a "we don't want to bleed red" motive. Most folks want net neutrality because a lack of net neutrality allows big telcos like AT&T who have lots of end users to strong-arm smaller companies like hosting providers and similar for what amounts to protection money to avoid having the performance of their customers' access to those end users artificially degraded. The result will be less availability of services, and a gradual compartmentalization of the Internet by ISP, and eventually a complete breakdown of the power of the Internet to serve the consumer.
Net neutrality should be mandated. As for future technologies, the LAST thing we ever want in the future is a technology that would regress us back towards a pay-per-bandwidth system. As a consumer, I won't do it (which is why I don't have a data plan on my cell phone). I want to see MORE swing away from pay-per-[insert unit of measurement here] and towards flat rate services. Flat rates are good for the consumer because they encourage people to try new technologies that otherwise would not be affordable.
Would the iTMS be here if we had to pay our ISP per kilobyte for those downloads? Doubt it. Would we have things like Google Video/YouTube? Nope. In fact, I would say that all of the companies that are actually innovating in the technology space (as opposed to leaches like Cisco and AT&T that do pretty much the same thing year after year, only faster) benefit greatly from net neutrality.) When those companies benefit, innovation increases, and the consumers ultimately get cool new technologies that simply would not exist if companies like AT&T had their way.
Of course, flat rate services are the last thing AT&T and friends want. They'd like to sell those downloads themselves. They'd like to be the only ones who can afford to do so just like with their cell phones. Too bad for them. They can take my net neutrality when they pry my DSL modem from my cold, dead hands.
Missing a point (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
This is precisely what he is trying to do. And he does take all those things about smaller sites, etc. He signed up with the big boys now. He want to clear the way for his "new" friends. He has no interest in what happens to the small timers. Make no mistake, he's using he "geek clout" to convince us that what's good for WB is good for the internet. I hope that nobody falls for it. Ah, the power of money. Quite a bear trap it is.
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Quite frankly (Score:2, Interesting)
Er... Excuse me Bram... (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, laws on this subject need to very carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences. And the American Lawmakers have a long record of messing up in that respect. But I believe -- with all the above-mentioned organizations, that Net Neutrality has to be respected.
Re:Er... Excuse me Bram... (Score:2)
MoveOn lists the Gun Owners of America as a supporter of the Net Neutrality initive, Andy Carvin may have mixed up the two but that doesn't mean that they're the same group
LK
Re:Er... Excuse me Bram... (Score:2)
And the alternative is putting our trust in telecommunications companies like AT&T to do the right thing that's best for American citizens and Internet users? Riiiiigggghhhhttt. Let me know when they stop charging me a $5+ federal access charge disguised as a tax and stop giving my personal information to the NSA.
Re:Follow the money, as usual (Score:2)
The real issue here is that once net neutrality falls apart, there are no limits to how much damage a single ISP that serves a large number of end users can do.
Actual victims of non-neutral network practices (Score:3, Interesting)
But there are. There's the email delivery [slashdot.org] problem, as well as providers which block ports essentially for their convenience, with no oversight (not just SMTP ports but also e.g. web ports). While that would be fine if there were a free market, and you could just pick a competing provider, that's usually not the case when it comes to a high-bandwidth connection. Providing hi
This is what neutrality is really about (Score:5, Insightful)
While it would be terrible for an ISP to block Google or Amazon, it probably won't happen because neither service puts a strain on their resources. But there are internet uses which do put a strain on an ISPs resources. For example, while this isn't true today, it is quite possible that we will download DVDs which, even compressed using XVID or something, will still be a couple gigs a piece (maybe as low as 1GB). Imagine a Netflix/Napster-like subscription service for video downloads!
Currently, ISPs oversell their capacity because most of the time, we use very little of it. Like while I'm writing this comment, I'm using 0kbps and when I submit it, my connection will burst up to give me a fast experience. But if I was using a lot of this connection a lot of the time, my ISP would have a problem - and I don't think it's too hard for us to imagine IPTV or the like for the future which would present such a problem.
Personally, I would prefer usage charges (charges per GB levied against the user) than charges to the content provider. I'd rather pay for it myself than just get the content that a company will pay for, but it seems like Bram has realized that, with high-bandwidth services becoming more and more prevalent, there will be a point at which ISPs need to do something about that extra used capacity - whether that means charging the users sucking all that capacity or charging the content providers enabling the users to suck all that capacity.
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:3, Interesting)
right now the consumer pays but rates are as high as the market will bear. isp's sre not going to be able to raise rates, so they are looking to the beneficiaries of the extra bandwidth to pay for the costs.
gooogle makes more profit than comcast on a much smaller revenue base. the internet content providers get a r
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:5, Interesting)
The consumer always pays, by definition. This is about adding billable layers to skim more profits from those consumers. I mean us consumers.
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. So google shells out 10% of their profits to help comcast. Then they shell out 10% of their profits to help ATT. Then they shell out 10% of their profits to help AOL... When does it stop?
When did capitalism become so communist? If comcast needs more money then it should charge its customers more, not demand companies who have no connection to comcast's network at all to pay them more money.
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:2)
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:2)
Video on Demand (Score:2)
While it would be terrible for an ISP to block Google or Amazon, it probably won't happen because neither service puts a strain on their resources. But there are internet uses which do put a strain on an ISPs resources. For example, while this isn't true today, it is quite possible that we will download DVDs which, even compressed using XVID or something, will still be a couple gigs a piece (maybe as low as 1GB). Imagine a Netflix/Napster-like subscription service for video downloads!
Last night, I saw a
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:2)
I mean if the money goes towards improving the broadband infrastucture within the United States, that seems like money well spent. Much better than the various other cr
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:2, Informative)
Virtually all major innovation in the telco arena has come from competition and startups
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:2)
Re:This is what neutrality is really about (Score:2)
Government control? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how a govNET would be very much a different decision than the highway situation was...get the government to lay out tons of fibre optic cable to every home, and then the only upgrades you have to make are to the infrastructure. What a campaign advantage it would be to boast of pushing for fibre optic to every home, school, and office, for a REASONABLE cost. Considering the benefit we all get out of our highways, we don't pay that much tax to keep them useable. I think the same could go for the internet.
Re:Government control? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, dear god, no...
I don't know where you live, but here in Chicago our roads are notoriously poor, constantly under construction, and never built to last. Am I going to have to check the TV news first thing in the morning to make sure there's enough bandwidth through the construction zone of the Dan Ryan backbone for my telecommute to work?
Re:Government control? (Score:2)
Here's why: perfect information is requir
As much as like Bitorent (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet has proven to be wonderful tool for people to communicate. TV and radio were supposed to fulfill these promises but big business has subverted them.
We have seen that bloggers can actually force big media to carrry there stories, that the internet is an invaluable research tool, and that it gives voice to the voiceless, from Iranian dissedients to disgruntled corporate employees.
The free music is a nice side beneift, but let's not lose track of our priorities.
I believe Bram Cohen is just very naive (Score:5, Insightful)
If there would be no Network Neutrality anymore, the following could (and probably will) happen:
- Netcache has to pay to the user's provider as well as for it's own upload costs it already has.
- The user still pays the same amount of money he does now.
- There is no incentive anymore to upgrade those main pipes, the company's that want good network performance to the end-user will just have to pay up extra.
- PROFIT (For big providers like AOL).
In the end, there will be no (speed) advantage to anyone. Everything will just get more expensive! This is what history should have taught us by now.
Network neutrality should be guarded!
I think Bram Cohen is just making a BIG mistake here! (Or he is simple misquoted)
Re:I believe Bram Cohen is just very naive (Score:2)
Caching violates net neutrality? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the ISPs want to create a second network of their own to push their own media services at much higher speeds, let them. I equate it to getting your internet access from your cable company. Your TV and your net access come down the same wire, and TV is a media service, so that's really nothing new. If you don't agree with that, then you can think of it as whatever the ISP wants to provide being on a faster LAN (since it originates "locally"), whereas the rest of the internet is still on a WAN.
That said, the article's analogy to toll roads was an excellent choice, as anyone in the Northern Virginia area can tell you. When they first open, the toll roads are significantly faster but cost a fortune to use, with the promise that the prices will go down once it's paid for. But then it fills up to the point where it's only a tiny bit faster than the equivalent free roads, and the prices go up even more to cover the costs of expansion. After a few years, your choices are completely clogged free roads where you go 15mph, or a $3/each way 15 mile road where you go 35mph after the fourth or fifth mile.
The conclusion that it doesn't matter if the media company buys more bandwidth the old fashioned way or pays the ISPs for the use of a secondary faster network is spot on. However, the customer will end up paying the same amount either way, which means there is no advantage for the customer by switching to the new tiered network model.
Re:Caching violates net neutrality? (Score:2)
And by the way, net neutrality of spam is acceptible if we can sue the bastards, both the spammers and the people who own zombies.
Misleading summary of a misleading article (Score:4, Insightful)
Bram points out, rightly, that one must be very careful with legislating network neutrality, to keep from forcing ISPs to deliver all traffic (DDoS, spam, etc.). He acknowledges that with a sufficiently broad definition, the Cachelogic scheme could violate network neutrality.
Of course, so would Akamai, in this case. The article gets the entire topic wrong. What they're discussing is not a QoS tier at the network level, but a single company's caching architecture that makes their clients' data go faster.
And the company isn't even a network provider.
Close, but no cigar.
Re:Misleading summary of a misleading article (Score:2)
Indeed. These are two completely different issues; QoS for specific protocols vs. QoS for generic protocols to _specific destinations_.
It's same-treatment-for-everything vs. same-treatment-for-everyone. I havent seen any suggestions about legislating for the former, only the latter.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's got good reason to oppose it (Score:4, Insightful)
Its very frustrating listening to both sides when the solution is really simple:
1. Run big pipes to every home/office
2. Cap usage (not bandwidth) daily.
3. Charge users who use more (like your cellphone)
I work from home/office and need a fat pipe with big upload. Joe suburban kid wants to peer-to-peer stuff. No problem. When the traffic reaches the cap, either suspend service, or charge more for the extra traffic -- according to pre-existing arrangements. (Remember your cellphone business model?????)
I do the same for hosting now and the hosting providers seem to be happy with what they make from me. I would get the burstable traffic that I want so I can download a distro, or other large files occassionally at great speeds. Joe suburban kid can download the media that he wants from Youtube, and the ISP's can get into the business of providing all the content that they want as well.
What's wrong with that? It's capitalism, they can build out all the capacity that they want, and pass the buck onto the consumers.
But no, that's too simple for everyone to understand... What they want, is to build the big pipes and use it for their own traffic to us. Exclusively. Except that's not the way how the internet works. We want to watch Youtube or listen to iTunes or download the latest viral Lazy Sunday. They want to give us Verizon channel 5. Sure, give us Verizon channel 5, if its any good, we will watch it.
I only wish network neutrality advocates could stick to the simple position outlined above. It works for everyone. The ISP's content providers, and the consumers.
Re:He's got good reason to oppose it (Score:2)
Re:He's got good reason to oppose it (Score:3, Informative)
And how did we ever end up with DSL and Broadband? If I was still using 300 Baud dialup, then you might have a case. But I don't, and your argument holds no water.
Why should Google, Microsoft, etc. be allowed access to that bandwidth since it's not impeding their ability to provide their services? Not allowing the telecoms and other large ISPs to do this would akin to n
Whatever... (Score:2)
Want to put a cache server closer to the customer, so you're only competing for the local link and not the long haul links? Fine, as long as you put it in line with your o
Subsidizing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Subsidize? Subsidize?! I have to wonder what Cohen is thinking. If he thinks that the telco's plans will result in cheaper internet access for consumers, then he's an amazingly naive optimist. Only competition will force prices down and quality up, and its just not happening. My choices here are roadrunner, which goes out for days at a time versus SBC dsl, which for about $40/mo tops out at about 2.5Mbit at my range from the CO. Meanwhile I can only look on in envy at my friends in verizon markets who are on FIOS, while SBC/ATT continue to pledge lightspeed for my city "real soon now".
Re: (Score:2)
how would this be different... (Score:2)
Re:how would this be different... (Score:2)
Otherwise.. yeah. Walmart already pays their own phone company. They don't need to pay mine too, especially when that extra cost will come out of my pocket in the end either way.
Re:how would this be different... (Score:2)
i'm sorry.. he's a moron in this arena (Score:2, Informative)
Vested Interest (Score:2, Interesting)
Anybody with a vested interest cannot add anything other than personal slant to the discussion.
Re:Vested Interest (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting response from Cohen considering... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting response from Cohen considering... (Score:2, Insightful)
the argument is moot (Score:4, Interesting)
Never a fat enough pipe (Score:2)
1 good idea doesn't make you infalible (Score:3, Insightful)
Needs to rethink... (Score:2)
Umm - yes there would be.
Because they'd be paying for their own upload costs plus the consumer's download costs. This increases their costs, which in turn would increase our costs.
Of Laws and Men (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't work.
No law can be rigid enough to be interpreted flawlessly by everyone and yet be flexible enough to catch the exceptions that eventually crop up.
It requires human judgement to really tell if something contravenes the spirit of the law, and yet we tie the judges' hands with specific, rigid definitions of how to judge the case. We attempt to remove human judgement from the equation because we do not trust it. This is utterly stupid.
The only way to get Net Neutrality to work is to establish an ideal scenario of how the Internet should work, and giving judges the leeway to decide whether certain cases that crop up go against those established ideals. Yes, this also means selective enforcement, which is only a bad thing if you have bad people making the enforcement decisions.
If people would stop electing corrupt and otherwise untrustworthy invidviduals to positions of power, we would not have to worry so much about these things. It is the responsibility of the people to weed out the political landscape and leave only the trustworthy. Obviously we have been slack.
Judgement calls in cases like Net Neutrality are necessary, and if made by trustworthy and integrous people, will solve a lot of these bickering problems we have trying in vain to construct a law so perfectly worded that it can bend both ways backwards at the same time.
Get A Clue!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
There are many ways to get internet data from source to desitinantion. If a company wants to buy into a faster or better connected network, that is the choice they make. That has always been the choice the content providers make. The customer does not have any implicit rights to the best path unless the content provider has made the choice to be on the best path.
As for building a fast lane, that is jus
Cohen audio available (Score:2, Informative)
It's simple. (Score:2)
They're talking about a service that won't even tolerate as much overbooking as airline
Consumer should decide his own priority (Score:2)
A consumer should be able to mark his packets as high/low priority, and the ISP should treat them as such. If a consumer marks too much of his traffic as high priority, it should automatically get downgraded to low priority.
Which packets that should be prioritized or not should be completly up to the consumer and his programs. The ISP deciding which network traffic gets low and which gets high priority is a big no-no.
If someone wants to use his priority bandwidth t
Net Neut Nuts, please read this (Score:2)
Digital Discrimination or Regulatory
Gamesmanship in Cyberspace?
The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential "gaming" of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general.
The Internet is the success it is today because the FCC did not regulate it. Let's not screw that up.
A quick question: (Score:4, Informative)
Pardon me, but isn't the subscription fee for the DSL/Cable Modem/T1/Microwave connection supposed to cover bandwidth costs?
Yes, you say?
Ah, thought so. In that case, net neutrality is the only thing that makes sense. What the providers can do is, hmm, let me think. . . oh wait, I know! How about offering tiered connection speeds? E.g., 768 Kbps/128 Kbps for a small monthly fee, 3 Mbps/768 Kbps for a slightly higher monthly fee, and 7.1mbps/1.5mbps or faster for a higher fee?
What, providers already offer tiered services, you say? Oh my fucking GOD, they already HAVE their solution in place! Here's a hint Verizon/comcast/TW/Adelphia/Cox/Rogers/Etc: how about realizing you offer tiered services (or if you don't already, OFFER them) then you have your solution. Don't pile on yet more fees. If your subscription prices don't cover the costs of your infrastructure, then you need to revisit your pricing structures to begin with.
Re:Introducing Bram Cohen, the ECONOMIST (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:greedy telcos (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it doesn't. It covers what the ISP believes the average user with that connection speed will use. If every user of that ISP consumed the maximum amount of bandwidth 24/7 the ISP would have to raise prices significantly.
I might agree with you...... (Score:2)
It's the paradox of the net.