×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

U.S. House Rejects Net Neutrality

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the tiered-internet-here-we-come dept.

598

tygerstripes writes "A recent vote in the U.S. House of Representatives has led to a rejection of the principle of Net Neutrality from the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (Cope Act), in spite of massive lobbying from prominent businesses. According to the BBC, the bill '...aims to make it easier for telecoms firms to offer video services around America by replacing 30,000 local franchise boards with a national system overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'. However, according to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, 'telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighway... This strikes at the heart of the free and equal nature of the internet.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How Peculiar (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501385)

When I opened up this Slashdot article in Internet Explorer, the headline read "U.S. House Rejects Net Neutrality" but when I opened it up in Firefox it read "Wealthy Old White Men Reject Yet Another Form Of Equality."

In it's raw form, the internet is a communications device. You section it off--and you're going to piss people off. The more people you piss off, the more hackers you'll spawn. I for one hope that these "toll" lanes are violated right off the bat by the best and brightest of the Ukraine & Russia.

Re:How Peculiar (3, Interesting)

l2718 (514756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501458)

Unfortunately, this won't work that easily -- perhaps that's why the ISPs want to charge the service providers and not the end-users: it's easy to lie about the protocol/content of the packet, but it's very hard to lie about the source and destination address.

Indeed, people are going to be pissed off -- which is why I expect some ISPs to stay away from packet discrimination. People who care about it will simply flock there. The market is a better solution than hackers.

Not a solution (4, Insightful)

why-is-it (318134) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501579)

Indeed, people are going to be pissed off -- which is why I expect some ISPs to stay away from packet discrimination.

How would that make any difference? At some point, those packets are likely to ride over one of the big telco's backbones. At that point it will be subject to QOS.

Using the smaller ISP does not avoid the issue...

Re:How Peculiar (3, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501479)

When I opened up this Slashdot article in Internet Explorer, the headline read "U.S. House Rejects Net Neutrality" but when I opened it up in Firefox it read "Wealthy Old White Men Reject Yet Another Form Of Equality."

Where did you find the euphemism killer Firefox extension? Does it also change bathroom tissue into toilet paper?

Re:How Peculiar (1)

Adkron (907748) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501498)

Wait, didn't it say that the house rejected the bill. Wouldn't that mean that the tolls will not be in place? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I thought for once The House stopped something that it should. Can someone clear me up on this. Am I backwards or are you complaining about a situation that isn't going to come to light since they rejected it?

Re:How Peculiar (3, Interesting)

MooUK (905450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501527)

They rejected an amendment to a bill, and passed the unamended bill. The bill makes it possible for ISPs et al to ignore the entire idea of net neutrality, amongst other thing. The amendment was intended to enforce net neutrality.

At least, I think that's right.

I'm Not Complaining For Naught (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501557)

Wait, didn't it say that the house rejected the bill. Wouldn't that mean that the tolls will not be in place? Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I thought for once The House stopped something that it should. Can someone clear me up on this. Am I backwards or are you complaining about a situation that isn't going to come to light since they rejected it?
The issue here is simply that instead of having something like 30,000 local franchise boards vying for your moneys, there will be an FCC commission dictating what will be the lowest price for you to access certain things on the internet.

If you read the article, this means that users will not have competing services (like how capitalism is supposed to work).

What was struck down was a proposal to make an amendment that would prevent providers for charging more for certain kinds of media & sites being accessed by users. What they wanted to protect you from is a scenario like you stream a lot of videos so you will now pay more than your neighbor who does not stream a lot of videos. The proposal for you to be paying an equal amount has been rejected & now you will begin to see ISPs opening up a salvo of charges to people who are simply accessing large amounts of information or visiting particular sites. It's up to your ISP to essentially decide what is tolled and what isn't now. May god have mercy on us all--because the Slashdot crowd is probably one that demands high bandwidth (if you're anything like me).

Peculiar? (1)

rbochan (827946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501515)

I am shocked... SHOCKED that you'd actually expect elected representatives to actually represent their constiuents.
How silly of you.

Re:How Peculiar (0, Troll)

Greased Monkey (920411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501583)

It's strange how much we detest government regulation in televsion, radio and voice services, but suddenly we're begging for in on the internet.
Why isn't it reasonable that if a company is making money by using someone else's resources- they should have to pay for it? When send my customers packages, I have to pay UPS to deliver them. This isn't any different.
With the increase of bandwidth consumption by sites like google video and youtube, someone is eventually going to have to pay to upgrade the infrastructure. Why not charge the companies that are making money off of it? (as opposed to me, who is only wasting money on it)

What an odd picture to use (1)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501389)

I read the article and I saw a picture of a movie star. Pretty random even though the blurb said she backed net netrality.

Re:What an odd picture to use (1)

Ryz0r (849412) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501461)

In an interview, Alyssa Milano was heard to say "I support Net Neutrality because alliteration is cool. And without it, we'd have to pay extra to host the E-Book of Shadows!"

Call me ignorant, but realistically, what is Alyssa Milano going to know about Net Neutrality and what it means to the average person? They could have chosen somebody who might have a chance of knowing what its on about to advertise their campaign to the masses..

Re:What an odd picture to use (1)

issinho (972774) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501509)

Perhaps, but, then again, at least they threw up a pretty face instead of one of the guys who'll become a target as he's celbrating the "win" for his side in the House.

Re:What an odd picture to use (1)

chrispycreeme (550607) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501538)

I think she was kind of making fun of that fact herself in the quote. "Alliteration is cool"? HA I guess that is a good reason to support Net Neutrality. Besides, this hot famous person thinks it is good so it must be. Im still torn on the issue. I can see how it might be cool to not have to pay for 50 megabits to the whole internet, just to the movie server you want to get movies from. On the other hand once you start down that road whats to stop them from setting the bandwidth to 1kbps on competitors sites? More detailed regulation is needed.

Oh that's just great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501390)

Now my pr0n's gonna be impossible to get.

free as in beer (0, Troll)

darkchubs (814225) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501391)

whhhhat???? the Internet is free????

Re:free as in beer (1)

SamSim (630795) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501559)

As free as the wind blows!

don't get Congress involved please! (5, Insightful)

rjnagle (122374) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501393)

I realize that "net neutrality" is conventional wisdom among geeks, but I remain very skeptical. To summarize:

1)bandwidth is already plentiful; we're talking about hypothetical harms here. (For the record, I actually downgraded my broadband a few months ago, with absolutely no complaints).

2)companies already pay for ISP's and webhosting; tiered service is not anything new. Anyway, webhosting costs have been decreasing in price. I find it highly unlikely that this downward trend won't continue across the board.

3)The thing I find strange is that if anything, tiered pricing, by passing on costs to distributors, could ultimately benefit consumers by lowering subscription costs. Tiered pricing could increase flexibility. I really am not sure. But that should be for private industry to decide. Even if legislators were relatively well-informed and up-to-date, the pace of technology change tends to outstrip that of legislative oversight; this legislation will probably be obsolete on the day it is passed.

4)So what if SBC decides to implement a tiered system of bandwidth! Consumers just stop renewing their contracts if they hate it enough. That's much better than making courts and legislators do a lot of hairsplitting about what legislative intent was/should be.

5)I worry less about tiered service than I do about ISPs blocking p2p traffic. Then again, I see no need to enact legislation merely to keep certain ports open.

6)as an independent content producer (and soon a distributor), I want the Net environment to be as unregulated as possible (even from laws that purport to ensure acess). If some ISPs are going to charge for tiered service, either they better offer substantial benefits to customers or people will abandon them in droves.

7)what concerns me more is restrictive Terms of Service and EULAs. If ISPs offer twice the bandwidth for half the cost, that is great. But if the saving comes with all sorts of extra provisions on TOS, then the battle has been lost.

8)There is a certain arrogance to the notion that consumers can't be trusted to act in their self-interest but require government's "help" to be protected.

9)I think the harm being addressed here is that consumers and businesses need more alternatives for obtaining net access. They shouldn't be in a market where they only have one ISP to choose from. To use myself as an example, the only way I can obtain DSL access in my apartment complex is by getting SBC phone service first. SBC could double the prices of a landline, and I'd have no choice but to swallow it. Then again, I could easily switch to a wireless phone carrier that includes wireless Net service. Or if worse comes to worse, I could obtain satellite. But government regulation would introduce an element of uncertainty and legal wrangling that could deter the offering of new services. For the record, I had a legal dispute with SBC, so I ended up going with a local company for DSL (although I still had to pay for a landline). It's still possible even in the day of semi-monopolies to withhold support from the incumbent ISP.

What's to stop them from downthrottling too? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501429)

)bandwidth is already plentiful; we're talking about hypothetical harms here.

If they can up-throttle comapnies that pay them, what's to stop them from down-throttling traffic from everyone who doesn't?

-Eric

Re:What's to stop them from downthrottling too? (1)

l2718 (514756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501489)

If they can up-throttle comapnies that pay them, what's to stop them from down-throttling traffic from everyone who doesn't?

First of all, we're talking mostly about down-throttling: letting some packets go first and holding the others back. Secondly, there's nothing to stop them except that their paying customers will be pissed if they get slow service. Now the ISPs will try to say it's the website's fault: "MSN is our global partner, while Google declined our king offer to join the family, so of course MSN is faster", but I think people will quickly wise up and switch ISPs if that happens.

Re:What's to stop them from downthrottling too? (4, Insightful)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501550)

I think people will quickly wise up and switch ISPs if that happens.

Switch ISPs to who!? As the bill notes, most US citizens, if they can get broadband at all, are limited to one or two choices... either the local cable monopoly or the local telephone monopoly. We already know AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast were heavily in favor of a tiered Internet, so if your telephone is provided by AT&T and Verizon and your cable by Comcast you are shit out of luck. Welcome your new broadband overlords and prepare to only browse their Premium Content Providers at more than 20KB/sec. If you're lucky enough to have Covad in your CO then you have some more choices for now like Speakeasy, but it's not clear whether they will be able to continue to resell those last mile circuits anymore. Also, say goodbye to Vonage as well. I was debating whether to get a traditional telephone line from AT&T when I move or switch to VOIP with Vonage, but this decision cements my choice back to the traditional POTS line. Vonage will be pushed out of business within 2 years by QoS issues.

Re:What's to stop them from downthrottling too? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501576)

Switch to what, dial-up? In lots (most?) of cases people have a choice between a single DSL provider, and a signle cable provider. What happens when both decide to implement this "tiered internet"? Pay for a T1?

Re:What's to stop them from downthrottling too? (1)

bogado (25959) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501584)

Except that people will not notice this slow down, or they will blame google. Now, with our net neutrality, when a site is slow what do you think is happening? You will prbably think "sure this site has a low bandwidth, or maybe it is slashdoted" and how can you be sure that it is not being throtled down by the weasel ISP?

And even if you realize that you are reciving less service then you're paying to, since you payed for "internet with X bandwidth" and not "internet with X bandwidth to certain services". When you attempt to change ISP do you really think there will be a neutral ISP available? And who is to say that the backbones will not start charging for trafic on them also? When you connect from X to Y you pass for a holle lot of router, if every company on the net that wants to deliver something fast has to worry about avery single router in the world then I guess there will be no way to that company make a profit.

Re:What's to stop them from downthrottling too? (1)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501595)

but I think people will quickly wise up and switch ISPs if that happens.

There's the rub. Many people *can't* switch ISPs, as only one company offers broadband in their area. These companies effectively have government-granted monopolies, they get to build their lines and equipment on public land . . . and now they get to dictate speeds of access for particular sites and services. [Sarcasm] Thank you congress for yet again protecting the desires of the consumer from those who would abuse them . . . [/Sarcasm]

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (5, Insightful)

DigDuality (918867) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501451)

I just love the attitude here who think this is a prime example of "small government" and pro-business and are cheering on this loss. The skepticism of government, this isn't a "government idea". This started from the ground up. This hurts every industry online. Every online content provider, every online retailer, every financial institution with online services, every insurance company running online apps for quoting (business's run off these websites, most insurance companies did away with software applications), every open source project that barely has the funds to function anyway, every independent blogger, even the big media..from fox to the bbc, every activist group is effected by this..from the KKK to the NRA to the Green Party to the Socialist Party, from PETA to the Christian Coaltion, from GLAAD and the Rainbow Coalition, the NAACP, the ACLU, the Libertarian Party, every charity organization that has set up online donations, every file trading service, every university, every public and private school in the US, every government department offering interactivity via the internet, every online application from Google spreadsheet, to Windows One Care, from Flickr to You Tube, this is a loss to EVERYONE. Every individual, every corporation. Every political group, every religious group that reaches out online, this is the begining of the end for individuals to have voice through blogs and websites. How one cannot see that is beyond me.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501577)

The government doing anything other than making sure that isp's offer the same rates to everyone is big government. If microsoft can purchase a given class(the mix of promises about speed and priority make up a class) of bandwidth at $2 a terabyte, then a reseller should be able to also. If it is $400 a petabyte, that's fine, as long as resellers can purchase it at that rate also.

To be perfectly clear, I think it's fine to offer discounts for higher usage customers that purchase larger units, as long as a given unit costs everybody the same amount. Just no sweetheart deals for your favorite political party or whatever.

This doesn't guarantee net neutrality, but it does make it a near certainty, as small users would have plenty of choices and big isps would compete for business from reseller/aggregators. It's still regulation, but it is nice and small, and not particularly offensive.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (5, Insightful)

vishbar (862440) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501452)

4)So what if SBC decides to implement a tiered system of bandwidth! Consumers just stop renewing their contracts if they hate it enough. That's much better than making courts and legislators do a lot of hairsplitting about what legislative intent was/should be.

The Internet has reached the point where it is, essentially, as much of a necessity of modern Western society as the telephone. Therefore, if EVERY telco implements a tiered bandwidth system, there won't be anyone to turn to after they cancel the contract...leaving the consumer high-and-dry without an ISP.

I wouldn't have any problems with a tiered bandwidth system if I didn't think it would be abused by the telecom corporations. However, the purpose of a business is to make money--no more, no less. I don't think they can be trusted to maintain a free and open communications medium such as the 'Net.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501575)

The Internet has reached the point where it is, essentially, as much of a necessity of modern Western society as the telephone. Therefore, if EVERY telco implements a tiered bandwidth system, there won't be anyone to turn to after they cancel the contract...leaving the consumer high-and-dry without an ISP.

But suppose all the telcos banded together to do this, to set limits and impose tolls -- wouldn't that be a virtual monopoly? More importantly, wouldn't that be collusion, possibly prosecuteable under the RICO racketeering statutes? Perhaps there's more than one way to fight this.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (1)

Stud1y (598856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501453)

possibly the most signtful thing i've read in a while.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (2, Insightful)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501464)

Or as with most things capatilist the customer will be offered a limited choice of low quality products.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (1)

whereiseljefe (753425) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501519)

As opposed to the socialist worker being offered 1 choice of an inferior product? :P

I'm just thinking of all the wonderful costs this is going ot incur on us customers. While we may not pay directly in cash, companies are going to need more money to cover the tax, and to point out google: how does google make its money? Advertising! Correct, SO if sites like google that rely on onsite advertising to stay afloat, and new costs (like this net tax) come around, what's the next logical step? More advertising. Granted we won't see the advertising on google itself as they profit from other sites using their adservice more than they profit from running ads on their site, but stil...

I don't know I guess my biggest problem is that the Bush administration doesn't understand the difference between a free competative market and sucking big business's dick. Obviously the fellatio choice is pandering and very anti-capatalist (on the other side of the meter from socialism).

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (0, Flamebait)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501590)

You have a very Starlinist view of soclilsm.

New Nutrality is socialist, in that it imposes a rule of business for the good of the people, and I think it's a good version of socilism. I think they understand the difference between left wing commie socilism and good old American capatilism.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501475)

I think you left out one big point. Net Neutrality is not about stopping ISP for charging different amount for different levels of bandwidth. It is about stopping the ISP from charging content providers for different kinds of content.

It would be as if the phone company charged you one rate for calls where you discussed your family and a different rate if you discussed computers.

In general it is the difference between telephones (where you pay to be connected to someone else) and cable (where you pay for a kind of content) Net Neutrality would guarantee that the Net stay a communication tool and not just a form of entertainment.

Also it is only in the contexts of common carrier status. If an ISP want to take responsibility for the content that it is delivering then it can not get the government protection of common carrier, and jump into the wild.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (4, Funny)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501495)

2)companies already pay for ISP's [Buy Snacky Smores. Snacky Smores are the most nutritious and delicious smore supplement available on the market today. Snacky Smores! This inline advertisement presented to you by AT&T Yahoo DSL] and webhosting; tiered service is not anything new. Anyway, webhosting costs have been decreasing in price. I find it highly unlikely that this downward trend won't continue across the board. I agree, I doubt anything will come of this whole thing. Companies like Google will have to foot the bill to get their data to us, but I'm sure the entrenched telco monopolies will leave individual websites or smaller sites like Slashdot alone and not interfere with their traffic in any way.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (3, Insightful)

w33t (978574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501500)

bandwidth is already plentiful; we're talking about hypothetical harms here. (For the record, I actually downgraded my broadband a few months ago, with absolutely no complaints).

I would replace "already" with "currently". And YOU downgraded your broadband, would you still have no complaints if your were downgraded by your ISP?

2)companies already pay for ISP's and webhosting; tiered service is not anything new. Anyway, webhosting costs have been decreasing in price. I find it highly unlikely that this downward trend won't continue across the board.

It would be likely that the price would continue to fall - unless some kind of artificial system were put into place so that the telecoms could start increasing the price for "extranet-access" and a "media connection". Currently, you host a website, someone in Japan can browse to it. "media connection" is just called "bandwidth" currently.

4)So what if SBC decides to implement a tiered system of bandwidth! Consumers just stop renewing their contracts if they hate it enough. That's much better than making courts and legislators do a lot of hairsplitting about what legislative intent was/should be.

Just like if people hate spam so much they would just stop opening it. Sorry, not a great example. But you do realise that for many there is little other choice than SBC. Additionally, if I decide to go with another DSL provider they will still have to traverse SBC's network - and without nuetrality SBC can charge that ISP what they wish for access to "their" section of the internet

5)I worry less about tiered service than I do about ISPs blocking p2p traffic. Then again, I see no need to enact legislation merely to keep certain ports open. Tiered service and blocking types of traffic are essentially the same thing - except tiered services is much more a hammer than a chisel. How can you less worried about the superset problem?

6)as an independent content producer (and soon a distributor), I want the Net environment to be as unregulated as possible (even from laws that purport to ensure acess). If some ISPs are going to charge for tiered service, either they better offer substantial benefits to customers or people will abandon them in droves.

Microsoft:"as an independent software producer, I want trade to be as unregulated as possible (even from laws that purport free trade)."

A little regulation is neccessary sometimes - I don't like the idea, I think we have too many laws as is. But bandwidth is gold. The internet only operates as it currently does because of neutrality. Remember the internet.

thanks for illustrating the point (2, Interesting)

m874t232 (973431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501507)

They shouldn't be in a market where they only have one ISP to choose from.

Yeah, but we can't legislate additional wires or ISPs into existence. We can, however, legislate that the wires and ISPs exist are used equitably and in a way that protects people from arbitrary pricing and restrictions.

so I ended up going with a local company for DSL

The fact that you have that choice is itself a consequence of a legal framework that gives you that choice. Completely unregulated, your phone company would be the only DSL provider, and they'd charge monopoly prices (actually, completely unregulated, you'd be on a 19.2kbps dial-up line, if you're lucky).

So, legislation like this works, and you have just given another example of that.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (1)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501516)

"companies already pay for ISP's and webhosting"

You don't even know what tiered Internet is all about.

It's not about paying your own network provider, it's paying DESTINATION (whether final or transit) network provider to carry your traffic at different speeds. It's double-dipping defined.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (4, Insightful)

thebdj (768618) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501548)

1) Yes bandwidth is plentiful, and the idea is that ISPs want to charge content providers for the bandwidth. Verizon, Comcast, or whoever want to be able to charge Google for me downloading content from their sites. The idea is stupid because I am already paying for the bandwidth, and this basically amounts to double dipping. They are wanting to get paid twice for the bandwidth.

2) Yes, they pay for their bandwidth and hosting (if they do not host on their own, and most smart and big companies do) from the ISP they get their services through. We are talking about double, triple, quadruple billing companies just so they can have guaranteed access to customers.

3) You are joking right? If you transfer the cost to the content providers, you will be lucky to see any cost drops in user services. Why? Because most telecoms are already having trouble with old business models. They will continue to charge current rates, which honestly may be reaching their minimums sooner rather then later. It will actually probably mean in increase in services we currently pay for online too. If the content providers are paying the ISPs extra money, they will need more money to cover their cost and this ultimately comes from the consumers.

4) Yes, because so many people ISP hop. You know that the reason many people never switch services is because of e-mail addresses? It is similar to the reason people would never leave cell phone companies until after the government said you have to allow people to take their numbers with them. Once this happened, people began becoming cell phone company hoppers and the wars for customers began anew, because now people can change at the end of their contract and have nothing to hold them there.

5) If service providers create a tiered system, where they decide who and what gets the traffic, then your P2P will be shot to hell. Most cable companies will start finding ways to block or increase the cost for VoIP providers to their customers. Remember, most these companies are owned by larger corporations with a variety of interests that conflict with consumer interests. A tiered internet is basically going to turn into a bidding war for what content providers can pay the ISPs the most money. It will kill the concept of a free internet by giving the people with money a means to ensure they are the most accessible and usable sites.

6) I hate government regulation, but before this bill amendment there were regulations in place that helped to ensure this would stay free. I really have a hard time seeing how the concept of net neutrality is ever a bad thing, but I welcome someone to give me an example.

7) What extra bandwidth? What half the cost? Has anyone but a telecom said they will offer you more bandwidth with lower costs if they can spread the charges around? I really do not believe most of what Verizon, AT&T or any of the other companies tell me. Besides, your ToS and EULA are probably already much more restrictive then you realize...including the ability to shut off your connection for abusing the bandwidth, hosting a server (in many contracts for home users), or for using P2P networking, even if you are not breaking the bandwidth abuse.

8) No. The problem is they do not trust the telecoms to self-regulate. Seriously, the telecom industry has to be one of the most untrusted industries, right up there with the oil companies. We have a group that charges mysterious fees (look at your phone bill) and has no real competition. VoIP is hardly competition, since it has its own array of problems and deficiencies.

9) This problem boils down to a lack of competition in most areas. In some cases, the monopolies over the phone lines are locally approved, while in other cases it is just a lack of companies willing to setup their own userbase for DSL services. This could also relate to a name recognition problem. I mean it is sort of hard to compete against Telecos and cable companies for recognition...I mean in some areas there are still only the "major" dial-up ISPs.

You show a lot of faith in the consumers of America. It is noble, but I have learned your average consumer is pretty dim. This is why Intel was able to push MHz and GHz for years, until these crazy numbers came along. People in general seem pretty easily influenced by the ads on tv, in print, or on the radio...I mean if they weren't then companies would waste near as much money as they do on them. I really oppose most regulation, but in this case, I believe an exception can be made...I am not convinced the problem will ever be one, but I also do not want us to look back in 4 or 5 years and say..."Do you remember when the internet was 'free'?"

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501552)

**/There is a certain arrogance to the notion that consumers can't be trusted to act in their self-interest but require government's "help" to be protected./**

There is a certain presumption in the notion that people can understand tiered pricing models without professional help. To put in in terms of Dilbert these are "confusopolies" which thrive on confusion and I would not put it beyond companies to willfuly use tiered and other pricing models to confuse people to bilk them of their money.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (1)

dash2 (155223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501554)

My thoughts exactly. Two fears might be:

1 ISPs will deliberately throttle bandwidth for websites that don't pay up. I doubt this makes sense. In a competitive market, an ISP who deliberately slows down websites will lose customers.

2 ISPs will offer faster access to websites that pay for it, thus forcing websites into a zero sum competition and allowing the ISPs to reap monopoly rents. Well, fast access to consumers is certainly valuable to websites but there is no room for zerosum competition here. Websites will not pay to be "faster than the competition" beyond a certain point (once everyone is reasonably fast, there are better things to compete on). And I don't believe any company has a monopoly on fibre, so websites can always move if they feel they are paying too much.

Bottom line: I see no reason why the market for bandwidth should not be as efficient as any other - say, the market for website design or other things that make your website convenient to your users - so long as there's no monopolist.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501588)

3)The thing I find strange is that if anything, tiered pricing, by passing on costs to distributors, could ultimately benefit consumers by lowering subscription costs. Tiered pricing could increase flexibility. I really am not sure. But that should be for private industry to decide.

That by far is the single most stupidest thing I've ever read. Yeah, it will pass on the cost to distributors who will just raise their prices. It might save the ISP money, but why would they lower their subscription price? Simple microeconomics says that if someone is willing to pay a certain price, it's possible that you can raise that price and they might still pay. Why would Verizon/Time Warner/SBC/Comcast lower their price to lower their profits? Instead, they'll keep the costs the same (because we're already paying it) and reap more money from us. Content providers, OTOH, will increase their prices to compensate for the charges from the ISP (who now will be making more money from the consumer and the provider), meaning the average consumer will be paying more for the content, not less.

Re:don't get Congress involved please! (5, Insightful)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501591)

4)So what if SBC decides to implement a tiered system of bandwidth! Consumers just stop renewing their contracts if they hate it enough. That's much better than making courts and legislators do a lot of hairsplitting about what legislative intent was/should be.

My dad and step-mother live in a small town 120 miles from the nearest large metropolitan area in BellSouth territory. Here are there choices for high speed internet:
The local cable company
There is no 2nd choice. His 2nd choice is dialup. So suppose the cable company decideds to implement tiered bandwidth and my dad doesn't like it. He has no choice because going back to dialup is not a choice.

I suspect that a rather large number of Americans are in exactly the same position as my father. They have one choice for high speed internet where they live, so going with someone else isn't an option.

Rejected (5, Funny)

OSS_ilation (922367) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501395)

I'd try and make a pithy, Slashdot-worthy sarcastic comment, but my ISP doesn't allow that unless I upgrade to the Crusty Cynic Power User Package for an additional $9.95 a month.

USA: Defender of the free world. (0, Offtopic)

telchine (719345) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501400)

I wonder which representatives got paid most for their vote!

Another blow to the people (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501402)

by a government that is supposed to by the people for the people.

Let's see, first we have:

1. An illegal war in Iraq
2. The government spying on its own people (NSA= Now Spying on Americans)
3. An Internet that is no longer free

My name is Winston, your name is Julia.

AC, report to room 101 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501425)

Room 101 for you!

Signed, Ministry of Love.

Re:Another blow to the people (1)

Chicken04GTO (957041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501426)

1) agreed
2) Newsflash...they always have been, and always will.
3) Never was....never was.

Re:Another blow to the people (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501455)

An illegal war in Iraq

Not saying I support or agree with the war in Iraq, but how is it illegal? Last I looked the President was commander and chief of the armed services and had the approval of congress, it is pretty hard to be illegal with those two branches supporting it (especially when the supreme court hasn't heard a case regarding it).

Re:Another blow to the people (1)

beamin (23709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501497)

The President was legally required to present to Congress the evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat to US security within three days of commencing hostilities, according to the legislation that gave him the authority you mention.

It's been three years.

Re:Another blow to the people (2, Informative)

paulyche (970668) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501543)

When the war is held to be illegal people are talking about a supposed violation of international, not domestic, law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,108915 8,00.html [guardian.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/36611 34.stm [bbc.co.uk]

You know - illegal in a greater global sense. After all, no country is an island...
No wait.. ...well you get the picture.

Re:Another blow to the people (1)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501484)

My name isn't Julia.

strikes at the heart! (1)

chroot_james (833654) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501403)

'telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighway... This strikes at the heart of the free and equal nature of the internet.' strikes at the heart and stabs it. stabs it. stabs it.

Huh? (3, Funny)

Tyrsenus (858934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501408)

Why can't I view this article?

Oh wait...

Public vs. private infrastructure (3, Insightful)

l2718 (514756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501417)

I assume we're talking here about ISPs discriminating in favour of their own paid subscription services, as opposed to the backbone operators doing the same. Now the ISP's infrastructure is private, and there seems to be a competition among ISPs. Will they all practice packet discrimination? I doubt it.

You can say that this breaks the "spirit of the internet", but some packet discrimination is essential when routers have to choose which packets to forward first, especially when some traffic should be low-latency, other high-bandwidth, other low-priority. I agree that the best solution is for the end-users to pay for their traffic, not the solution provider, but again -- it's the ISP's infrastructure and they can choose their own business model.

Re:Public vs. private infrastructure (1)

m874t232 (973431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501545)

but again -- it's the ISP's infrastructure and they can choose their own business model.

If there is a compelling public interest, the government can legitimately restrict that choice. That's the case in many domains, and arguably, it should be the case here.

Re:Public vs. private infrastructure (2, Insightful)

l2718 (514756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501585)

If there is a compelling public interest, the government can legitimately restrict that choice. That's the case in many domains, and arguably, it should be the case here

At another thread someone has claimed that the situation is a near-monopoly (only one or two broadband providers in each area). In that case there's certainly a need for government regulation to prevent a monopoly extracting rents for the use of their infrastructure. Perhaps because I'm a city person I thought there was more competition. Probably rural areas will be harder-hit.

Is this the beginning of Internet 2 ? (1)

Chemkook (915402) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501418)



This new level could also be used to spy on Level 1 ?

I am guessing this level has it's own security layer.

Wow!

Re:Is this the beginning of Internet 2 ? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501596)

No, but this could be the start of the GoogleNet; remember, Google's supposedly being buying up dark fiber for a while. Perhaps they saw this coming or at least wanted to be prepared for it.

US = Fuxx0red (2, Interesting)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501419)

Ok, so rather than whine about how our government is corrupt and quickly ruining life in America...I want to talk about solutions.

The telcos will begin the tiered internet pricing, and in the end the price hike will inevitably cost the consumer more.

What I want to know is, how can I get around their speed throttling for sites that do not pay up? I am not that savvy when it comes to coding my own scripts, but are there any tools that will help make things stay the same usage wise (if not price wise)?

Also, can someone clearly list some bullet points of how this will ultimately affect the end user? I'd like to share them with my family and explain to my Republican father how his boys have ruined our countries future.

Re:US = Fuxx0red (1)

l2718 (514756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501504)

What I want to know is, how can I get around their speed throttling for sites that do not pay up? I am not that savvy when it comes to coding my own scripts, but are there any tools that will help make things stay the same usage wise (if not price wise)?

If you ask me, the solution is simple: get a different broadband provider. By the way: do you mind that Verizon charges less when you call in-network as opposed to out-of-network?

Re:US = Fuxx0red (2, Informative)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501546)

"Also, can someone clearly list some bullet points of how this will ultimately affect the end user?

did you RTFA? It's pretty clear, otherwise Save The Internet [savetheinternet.com] dumbs it down for ya a bit.

Re:US = Fuxx0red (2, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501598)

Solutions? simple do what we did in the early to mid 80's.

have lots of linux and BSD machines at key locations creating the "freebie-net" that relay information. Typically if you plop servers at universities you get around most of the BS but ploping a server physically near google, yahoo, etc.. you get to route around these "slow lanes" the telcos create.

Encrypted tunnels from University to University will thwart the best telco attempts to try and detect any subverting of the throttling lanes and you use the grid of freebie-net servers to do your web access.

Now getting a very large group of geeks to cooperate for such a task for free, that is a completely different story.

Don't despair yet (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501422)

It still has to pass the senate. Hopefully they have more sense than the house.

Bad news? Ads attack? (1)

january (906774) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501424)

What I see coming is: you can't use your favorite search engine from your home computer efficiently. Your IP will love to replace Google with something maybe less useful, but more cluttered with advertisements. Of course, ultimatively this engine will use Yahoo/Google/MS search to do the task, but most probably there will be lucrative agreements between these companies and IP providers, who will add their own advertisements to the raw search results.

Am I right? Am I missing the point?

I hope the consequences in Europe will be at worse deleyed, and at best much reduced.

Or maybe new services will emerge -- similar to pay TV like Premiere in Germany -- which, for money, will promise you to filter out all ads and provide you with high quality service.

j.

has/is this happening elsewhere, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501430)

or is it just the US gov't that is doing this?

misnomer? (1)

elohim (512193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501434)

wasn't the "net neutrality bill" actually -against- the principle of net neutrality? and thus, by the bill not passing, hasn't net neutrality scored a victory?

Re:misnomer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501491)

nevermind, i missed the part about the amendment

Re:misnomer? (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501534)

The bill is actually the "COPE Act" (at least read the posting, if not TFA). The Net Neutrality thing was a proposed amendment to the bill, put forward in the light of massive corporate lobbying. It was the amendment that was voted against.

How technically feasable is this. (1)

telchine (719345) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501435)

If video packets were to be encrypted, how could the ISPs tell the difference between a video stream and a (very long) letter to my grandma?

POV (0)

pubjames (468013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501436)

Look at this from the point of view of the telcos for a moment. When everyone has a high bandwidth internet connection, everyone will be able to:

1) Make phonecalls
2) Do video conferencing
3) Access video services
4) Access music services
5) Play games with their friends
6) work collaboratively
7) etc. etc.

And what will the service providers be able to charge? $50 a month (or whatever) for the connection.

Re:POV (1)

QuijiboIsAWord (715586) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501582)

Look at this from the point of view of the gas co's for a moment. When everyone has a high fuel economy car, everyone will be able to:

1) Drive to work
2) Go to the Mall
3) Watch Drive-in Movies
4) Visit their relatives
5) Go to paying sporting events with their friends
6) Carpool to work
7) etc. etc.

And what will the service stations be able to charge? $2.99 a gallon (or whatever) for the gas?

See what I did there?

We will have World Wide Web and US Wide Web (1)

sinij (911942) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501437)

I don't see how rest of the world will stand for US mandating tolls on what should be, by design, nutral grounds. Hopefuly net result will be World-US Wide Web and US Wide Web. usww.theygottobejoking.gov

So that is the end of it. (1)

Enquest (579041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501440)

Welcome to the digital age. I sure hope the united states will come back to there senses in the comming 20 years. Giving up net neutrallity is giving up one of the core principles of the internet. Now internet wil be less easy to innovate and change the world. In return you get more and more control of goverment and Corporations. They should have nothing to do with content. Anyway sounds like all you slashdotters, free software movements and even Microsoft, ebay people should gather and march towards washington in one big protest. TO ALL NERDS GET FROM UNDER YOUR ROCK AND SPEAK OUT

Re:So that is the end of it. (1)

Lijemo (740145) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501549)

Reading comment after comment about how this violates the core principals of the Internet (an obvious truth which I already agreed with) it's beginning to remind me of the cries of "Advertizing on the web?!?!?! But that goes against the core principles of the Internet!!!!)

I hope this can get stopped, rather than go from "unthinkable" to "Just the Way Things Are (TM)"

The One-Two Punch (1)

duerra (684053) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501442)

The House is really on a roll today. Not only did they reject net neutrality proposals, but they also approved a digital licensing bill [com.com] which was discussed on Slashdot before, that has fair-use implications for consumers.

It looks like consumers just can't win in these battles these days.

when and if (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501446)

the internet gets more expensive and restricted than it already is i will be forced to cancel and pull the plug...

Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501450)

For those who do not know what Net Neutrality is, I think this video [youtube.com] sums it up pretty well.

Just what I need... (1)

martinultima (832468) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501469)

Right when I discover my Web site's already acting slow, because of a heavily overworked server, they want to make it run even slower by cutting off my access to it? Look, RoadRunner's already offering probably the slowest, most unreliable broadband connection I can think of – every couple of days I have to restart the cable modem, router, etc. to keep it running, and of course there's no other broadband provider in my area. The last thing I need is for them to make it any slower. In fact, furthermore— CARRIER ERROR hsthth5yu3496345242n4i9pu233e0gjeindggE++

Time to start blocking internet providers (1)

Brittix1023 (933994) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501470)

If net neutrality is not going to be enforced legally, then maybe it's time to start blocking internet providers who behave in such a destructive fashion.

More outsourcing (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501471)

Remind me to buy all the stock I can in non-US web hosts. I have a feeling that market's about to explode.

What does this mean? (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501473)

Ok, from what I understand it means that net neutrality is one step closer to being disregarded and that the internet is becoming more restricted and commercial; correct?

Do these congressmen/women actually think this is going to work? Neutrality is the foundation of the internet. It defines its purpose, its freedoms and its desire. This is a huge reason as to why its so popular. if it is restricted and controlled like it is becoming, people will lose interest and it will either fork or go underground, or worse - end.

For the love of God, can we not stop this?!

Silly people! (2, Insightful)

k98sven (324383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501485)

Of course that wouldn't pass. The Federal Communications Commission doesn't exist to provide government regulation of the communications sector in order to protect consumer interests. That would be patently ridiculous because the USA is a free-market economy, which means you can just run your own copper wire to your neighbor's house and start your own network if you're not happy with the one that exists. And if you don't get a permit to dig you can always use a pair of tin cans and a string.

No people, the Federal Communications Commission exists to censor those communications from swearwords and nudity, which is obviously a much more important thing for government to be doing.

Links to bill and roll call (1)

dave-tx (684169) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501493)

It's a little late to worry about reading the text and contacting your Congressman, but here's a link [loc.gov] to the bill. Here's a link [house.gov] to see how your Congressman voted.

Where do we see the voting record? (1)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501494)

Does anybody know where we can find the voting record? I'd like to see how my representative voted -- I sent him a rather lenghtly letter with a nice executive summary (for quicker reading), and I'd like to be able to tell him I'm either going to vote for him again, or that I'm crossing party lines on my next trip to the polls....

Re:Where do we see the voting record? (2, Informative)

l2718 (514756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501555)

Here's the roll call [house.gov] for this bill. You can also get the full record [loc.gov] of the bill (H.R. 5252), in particular see what happened to particular amendments [loc.gov] .

Upton could mean moron (1)

teslatug (543527) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501496)

"Representative Fred Upton, head of the House telecommunications subcommittee, said competition could mean people save $30 to $40 each month on their net access fees."
Really, well, I'm already paying less than $30/mo, are the ISPs going to pay me for using their services? No more likely they'll charge the content providers and leave me with the slow speeds that I already have. After all, the slower the speed of the user, the more they can charge the content providers.

I can't wait for Google and its dark fiber, we've got to shit out this waste of ISPs.

Should Of Seen It A Mile Away (1)

Aristophrenia (917761) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501513)

The Internet is a form of communication that allows almost anyone to put a message out. For years People In Power (PIP) having been looking for a way to further control this. And now PIP have a method, a road in a manner of speaking, to ensuring that this form of communication can be limited, manipulated, and molded to their liking.

I'm not saying this to cause hate and discontent, or FUD. I'm saying it because I see it as an issue. I truely hope that the House is contacted by enough people to show them that this isn't what people really want.

Check out the Book "Censored: The News That Didn't Make The News - Carl Jenson & Project Censored"

Or go to a libray and ask the libranians about books or online content that have been censored; The good ones really pay attention to that stuff and want to tell people who are interested.

*Please excuse my spelling.

encrypt everything (2, Insightful)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501514)

Couldn't you just encrypt all traffic?

Then they wouldn't have any way to know how to filter it would they?

Maybe by port number.....but they wouldn't be able to parse packets for "google" and slow those down.

My TCP/IP knowledge is rusty...but maybe you can't encrypt the destination port.......yet.

As for this:
Representative Fred Upton, head of the House telecommunications subcommittee, said competition could mean people save $30 to $40 each month on their net access fees.

It's utter bullshit. The ISPs won't lower the bills the end users, they'll just pocket the profits from prioritizing provider content.

Look for a technological workaround to this problem soon.

Is there a list of people who voted. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501518)

Is there a site that list which people in the house voted for and against the bill. I think that would be nice to know so I can determine if I should vote for them (for standing their ground and voting for Net Nutrality, or against them for voting against it.), My personal echonomy and I am sure many slashdotters out there depend on Net Nutrality for their jobs. We don't all work for major corporations who can easilly aford extra costs without blinking an eye.

I thought all /.ers were libertarians... (4, Insightful)

Greased Monkey (920411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501521)

and yet, here is a case where the government has decided NOT to add additional regulation, and just hear the hue and cry! Ultimately, if I or you, or ABC Giant Corporation(tm) pays for the infrastructure and owns the equiptment, don't they have the right to charge as they see fit for access? If I run a dry-cleaner can't I charge more for same-day service? Isn't reasonable that I might charge a frequent customer less, or I might charge more to clean your sequined tube-top? (sissy). The Cato Institue [cato.org] explains a more libertarian perspective on things [cato.org]
"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."
Is it just me, or are a lot of people asking the government to regulate our businesses?

Re:I thought all /.ers were libertarians... (1)

s0abas (792033) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501586)

...or ABC Giant Corporation(tm) pays for the infrastructure and owns the equiptment, don't they have the right to charge as they see fit for access?
Yes, except that it's not ABC Giant Corporation(tm)'s to regulate. Those lines were mostly subsidized by the gov't.

The internet stopped being free a long time ago (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501523)

As soon as private companies got involved, and the internet was opened up for business, it stopped being free. The network owners want to charge as many people as much as possible, so they'll segment the market as much as they can.

This is just the free market in action. It has all the benefits and disadvantages of the rest of the capitalist system.

It's not theirs to regulate (5, Interesting)

s0abas (792033) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501525)

The biggest problem I have with this bill is that the lines aren't the telco's to regulate in the first place. Here's the sequence of events in the form of a chat log:

Telcos: Hey congress, we want to build fiber to have a faster internet for the future. Would you please pay for it?
Congress: Sure! That sounds like a swell idea. Here's some money!
Telcos: (Later) Congress we ran out of money! Can we have some more?
Congress: Sure! Just finish the daggone thing already!
Telcos: (More Later) Congress we ran out of money! Can we have some more?
Congress: Sure! Just finish the daggone thing already!
Telcos: (Even More Later) Congress we ran out of money! Can we have some more?
Congress: Sure! Just finish the daggone thing already!
Telcos: Congress! WTF! We want to be able to charge people more for using these lines you paid for with taxpayer dollars!
Congress: FINE JUST GO AWAY

It's already tiered (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501531)

You can buy faster broadband. Why aren't all of the people paying $15/month griping that their bandwidth is less than those paying $45/month?

Net treats censorship as an error & routes aro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15501536)

I'm with PIPEX UK, is they detect an unencrypted torrent packet they traffic shape my connection down to 20Kbps (from 200Kbps) and everything runs slow. I switched to encrypted packets and it's back up again.
I guess google et al will just have to encrypt their packets. Https anyone. Probably have to use some sort of Onion routing TOR thingy as well as they will block things by IP address.

Maybe its time we all went back to FIDO-NET then we were all ISP's.

If they block Google and Skype then darknets will become universally adopted.

Sigh. (1, Troll)

keyne9 (567528) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501540)

And so ends freedom on the internet. Fuck you, congress.

Verizon does tiered pricing (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501547)

And it doesn't work.

Some people pay twice as much and get half the speed because they're too far out.

It's stupid, and Verizon does very little to fix it.

There is no reason to believe they will do a better job with handling bandwidth across their entire system.

It's simple... (5, Insightful)

Lurker187 (127055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501560)

I'd much prefer government regulation of the Internet than corporate regulation of the Internet, which is what the access providers are angling for. Verizon is my ISP, and they have been quite explicit in stating that they think Google should pay them every time I access Google. I can't say this any more plainly:

THAT'S WHAT I'M PAYING THEM FOR!

I'd rather go back to dial-up than watch them extort content providers.

End result of 'toll lanes' most likely to be (4, Interesting)

MECC (8478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501563)

Large media conglomerates going for the throats of providers.

Why? Because a large media provider will pay extra so their video and other content will get faster downloads. Like for example Disney paying TimeWarner. Then, however, to Disney's surprise, the speed of their media on the Internet only improves a little - very little.

Why? Because in order for the so-called 'toll lanes' or 'fast lanes' to actually make any real difference, each and every piece of equipment in between the provider and the consumer will have to have a compatible configuration - each and every switch, firewall, and router. Ultimately the end ISP has the most ability to impact how much prioritization will improve performance. So, Disney shells out millions to TW, only to find out they got snake oil. Large contracts like that don't get negotiated without SLAs, all of which have rebate clauses. Which will inevitably get enforced. In court.

Each time a packet crosses to another providers network, the treatment of prioritization setting in the packet will change, if respected at all. Who could possibly believe that AT&T will treat Verizon's IP priority settings exactly the same as their own. So, the likelyhood that telcos will be at eachother's throats is a possibility as well. Run a traceroute and see how many providers the takes to get to google, apple, or Disney. Then think about how well those providers will be at deploying effective prioritization amongst themselves. Not very well will be the answer.

Its kind of like locking a bunch of cannibals together in a room with no food. All the better.

Soooo... (4, Interesting)

Mr.Scamp (974300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15501578)

So when google lights up all that dark fiber and goes into the ISP business, will I be able to tell Verizon to stuff their toll lanes or will Verizon still be able to stick their fingers in the pie due to Interconnects?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?