Net Neutrality....what does it mean to me

[Ret10Echo]

So what does this mean to the "Rest of Us"? Will your teenage online-gaming neighbors bring your "internet experience" to something just slightly faster than the U.S. Postal Service?

Interesting read...link to the full article is here


By AMY SCHATZ
The U.S. government plans to propose broad new rules Monday that would force Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, seeking to give consumers greater freedom to use their computers or cellphones to enjoy videos, music and other legal services that hog bandwidth.
The move would make good on a campaign promise to Silicon Valley supporters like Google Inc. from President Barack Obama, but will trigger a battle with phone and cable companies like AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp., which don't want the government telling them how to run their networks.
The proposed rules could change how operators manage their networks and profit from them, and the everyday online experience of individual users. Treating Web traffic equally means carriers couldn't block or slow access to legal services or sites that are a drain on their networks or offered by rivals.
The rules will escalate a fight over how much control the government should have over Internet commerce. The Obama administration is taking the side of Google, Amazon.com Inc. and an array of smaller businesses that want to profit from offering consumers streaming video, graphics-rich games, movie and music downloads and other services.
Julius Genachowski, head of the Federal Communications Commission, is also expected to propose in a speech Monday, for the first time, that rules against blocking or slowing Web traffic would apply to wireless-phone companies, according to people familiar with the plan.
Wireless carriers, which have been among the fiercest opponents of such regulation, continue to restrict what kind of data travels over the airwaves they control. For example, earlier this year, AT&T restricted an Internet-phone service from Skype so iPhone users couldn't place calls on AT&T's cellular network. At the time, AT&T cited network congestion concerns.
"We believe that this kind of regulation is unnecessary in the competitive wireless space as it would prevent carriers from managing their networks -- such as curtailing viruses and other harmful content -- to the benefit of their consumers," said Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA, the wireless industry's trade group.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Giving the government MORE CONTROL of the internet...

...so FOX News runs at dial-up speeds? "Hey, they still have 'access'..."

...so they can exert significant control of internet commerce...holy crap...

This is BIG BROTHER in the making...

[Kyobanim]

Contrary to popular belief, online gaming is not the cause of slow bandwith. The game is installed on a server and the local PC, the only traffic that is passed are packets of data that are slightly bigger than the average 'keep alive' packet. This slightly increased packet is usually adjusted through load balancing from your provider. If you are experiencing decreased bandwidth due to gamers then your provider isn't doing their job.

The bandwith hogs are the ones that stream video and music, not to be confused with downloading video and music. Download is a one shot thing and usually is done in seconds while streaming opens up a pipe between host and client and runs as long as required to present the file, and keep you from owning it.

As far as letting the providers limit bandwidth . . .

The infrastructure to provide adequate bandwith with no lag is in place and that's a fact. Between 1999 and 2001 I worked for RoadRunner deploying their networks in 20 states. When we finished it was estimated that we laid enough 'dark fiber' to handle 300% growth over the next 20 years. That includes trunk lines from the providers. The only place that is lacking in fiber is between the NOCs and the residence. Verizon is taking the lead in that area now. DSL is another matter, you're just flat out screwed with that.

There is enough profit in providing internet access to upgrade local infrastructure as needed. Cable companies do it on the cheap by increasing their conversion ratios on their up converters from the installed settings of 2 to 1 to 4 to 1. That sucks but it's their network.

Open access? You bet. This country will grow with open communications.

If you get reduced bandwidth because of open access, then complain to your provider. It's in their power to fix it.

[Ret10Echo]

I don't have real issue with the "wired" side of the industry. There are States that have managed to acquire sufficient dark fiber to create their own networks.
Of course those of us on the fringes of the market take it in the shorts every time this occurs and our provider basically abandons the technology that we are dependent upon. Nothing new there.

The wireless realm has been left alone to a great extent and may be balancing the load through limiting certain applications. That should not be an excuse for excluding certain devices from operation but there are times when the ability to restrict or prioritize can be critical.

W.M. not so much Govt control as Govt regulation. FCC has been in the twililght zone in how they selectively approach different areas...primarily due to political influence or being in bed with industry on certain topics.

[Sigaba]

FCC Chairman Genachowski's comments of 21 September 2009 on net neutrality are available here.

On Friday, 25 September 2009, AT&T sent the attached letter to the FCC. Ostensibly, the purpose of the note is to complain about Google but the larger purpose is to weigh in on the topic at hand.