Please God, don't let this become another burden like SOX has....you may take my firstborn, please, All Powerful God, don't let it become another SOX.....
The fate of free (open) global communication should not be decided on by 5 people.
Here's the thing about this ruling...always before, the push for "net neutrality" by the doom-and-gloom crowd was that providers were going to start doing tiered networks. Always before, those who knew how telecom worked knew that service providers establishing tiered networks was an anti-trust issue and thus would never implement such a service.
This "ruling" by the FCC formally codifies that it's OK for service providers to implement tiered networks...thereby establishing the precedent to do exactly what they were afraid of.
It makes no sense to me how people can want this sort of stupid involved in something as monumental as the Internet.
Wozniak then cites his role in co-founding Apple as an example. "Imagine that when we started Apple we set things up so that we could charge purchasers of our computers by the number of bits they use," he wrote, asserting that "the personal computer revolution would have been delayed by a decade or more."
When asked to "sign on" to the Net Neutrality cause, Wozniak realized that "every time and in every way that the telecommunications careers have had power or control, we the people wind up getting screwed."
Wozniak concludes his letter by asking the FCC to be the good guy. "We have very few government agencies that the populace views as looking out for them, the people. The FCC is one of these agencies that is still wearing a white hat. Not only is current action on Net Neutrality one of the most important times ever for the FCC, it's probably the most momentous and watched action of any government agency in memorable times in terms of setting our perception of whether the government represents the wealthy powers or the average citizen, of whether the government is good or is bad."
how does this regulation sponsor tiered networks? i actually dont see the connection
This ruling says that it's OK for service providers to charge customers extra for "premium access". That is tiered networks. That was the entire goal behind what "net neutrality" was supposed to protect against, and instead it's going to set the precedent that it's completely OK.
Wozniak then cites his role in co-founding Apple as an example. "Imagine that when we started Apple we set things up so that we could charge purchasers of our computers by the number of bits they use," he wrote, asserting that "the personal computer revolution would have been delayed by a decade or more."
This ruling says that it's OK for service providers to charge customers extra for "premium access". That is tiered networks. That was the entire goal behind what "net neutrality" was supposed to protect against, and instead it's going to set the precedent that it's completely OK.
Imagine if we charge the same price to people who mail one envelope per year through the post office, as someone who ships 100 packages every day.
Imagine if we charge the same electricity costs each month so that the person who just uses 3 CFL bulbs pays the same price as his neighbor who runs 20 old-school lightbulbs, 3 plasma tvs, and a mini-network of 5 computers turned on 24/7!!!!!
Imagine if the water bills were a flat-fee, the person who showers once a day pays the same price as the guy who fills his backyard swimming pool every day. To deny our *rights* is holding back the swimming pool revolution this country so dearly needs!!!!!!!!!
I'm confused. Everyone in this thread is reading the same articles, and coming up with opposite conclusions. Can someone explain what tiered-service is exactly? Providers already have tiers set up I thought...i.e. slower service costs less, higher speed more, and things like fios/xfinity even more than that. I am really confused now. From what I can see this bill doesn't allow for the censorship of sites, so what's everyone pissed about?
ooooh ok, and the 4th bullet point in that previous post seems to allow for that
No. A provider cannot harm or slow down traffic for the purpose of a competitive advantage. The 2 or 3 times an ISP has tried that the FCC smacked them down. This ruling further codifies that an ISP can't do that. Only that they can use reasonable network management to ensure quality of service for all customers and applications.
This is a good thing. This is good for all internet users.
Ever wonder what Comcast's connections to the Internet look like? In the tradition of WikiLeaks, someone stumbled upon these graphs of their TATA links. For reference, TATA is the only other IP transit provider to Comcast after Level (3). Comcast is a customer of TATA and pays them to provide them with access to the Internet.
1 day graphs:
Image #1: http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/78/ntoday.gif [imageshack.us]
Image #1 (Alternate Site): http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=13-224638L&rand=6673&t=gif&m=12&y=2010&srv=img4 [glowfoto.com]
Image #2: http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/749/sqnday.gif [imageshack.us]
Image #2 (Alternate Site): http://www.glowfoto.com/static_image/13-205526L/4331/gif/12/2010/img6/glowfoto [glowfoto.com]
Notice how those graphs flat-line at the top? That's because they're completely full for most of the day. If you were a Comcast customer attempting to stream Netflix via this connection, the movie would be completely unwatchable. This is how Comcast operates: They intentionally run their IP transit links so full that Content Providers have no other choice but to pay them (Comcast) for access. If you don't pay Comcast, your bits wont make it to their destination. Though they wont openly say that to anyone, the content providers who attempt to push bits towards their customers know it. Comcast customers however have no idea that they're being held hostage in order to extort money from content.
Another thing to notice is the ratio of inbound versus outbound. Since Comcast is primarily a broadband access network provider, they're going to have millions of eyeballs (users) downloading content. Comcast claims that a good network maintains a 1:1 with them, but that's simply not possible unless you had Comcast and another broadband access network talking to each other. In the attached graphs you can see the ratio is more along the lines of 5:1, which Comcast was complaining about with Level (3). The reality is that the ratio argument is bogus. Broadband access networks are naturally pull-heavy and it's being used as an excuse to call foul of Level (3) and other content heavy networks. But this shoulnd't surprise anyone, the ratio argument has been used for over a decade by many of the large telephone companies as an excuse to deny peering requests. Guess where most of Comcasts senior network executive people came from? Sprint and AT&T. Welcome to the new monopoly of the 21st century.
If you think the above graph is just a bad day or maybe a one off? Let us look at a 30 day graph...
Image #3: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8917/ntomonth.gif [imageshack.us]
Image #3 (Alternate Site): http://www.glowfoto.com/static_image/13-205958L/4767/gif/12/2010/img6/glowfoto [glowfoto.com]
Comcast needs to be truthful with its customers, regulators and the public in general. The Level (3) incident only highlights the fact that Comcast is pinching content and backbone providers to force them to pay for uncongested access to Comcast customers. Otherwise, there's no way to send traffic to Comcast customers via the other paths on the Internet without hitting congested links.
Remember that this is not TATA's fault, Comcast is a CUSTOMER of TATA. TATA cannot force Comcast to upgrade its links, Comcast elects to simply not purchase enough capacity and lets them run full. When Comcast demanded that Level (3) pay them, the only choice Level (3) had was to give in or have its traffic (such as Netflix) routed via the congested TATA links. If Level (3) didn't agree to pay, that means Netflix and large portions of the Internet to browse would be simply unusable for the majority of the day for Comcast subscribers.
Excellent find. I hope everyone here reads this article.
Excellent find. I hope everyone here reads this article.