(CNN) -- Most Americans believe that if you play fair and work hard, you'll get ahead. But this notion is threatened by legislation passed Thursday night by the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow Internet service providers to play favorites among different Web sites.

Here's a real world example that shows how this would work. Let's say you call Joe's Pizza and the first thing you hear is a message saying you'll be connected in a minute or two, but if you want, you can be connected to Pizza Hut right away. That's not fair, right? You called Joe's and want some Joe's pizza. Well, that's how some telecommunications executives want the Internet to operate, with some Web sites easier to access than others. For them, this would be a money-making regime.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/index.html?section=cnn_topstories


-

I was just thinking about posting something about this, I'm amazed it took this long for this to come up.

It looks like the future of the internet is in peril thanks to the corporatist politicians who sold us out again.

When are people going to do something about the Plutocracy we live in?

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 239
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 5252 RECORDED VOTE 8-Jun-2006 9:22 PM
AUTHOR(S): Markey of Massachusetts Amendment
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment


Ayes Noes PRES NV
Republican 11 211 8
Democratic 140 58 3
Independent 1
TOTALS 152 269 11

I'm guessing there will be competition for the fair marketplace. It will only take one service provider to break ranks and then everyone will have to do it. I can see it now...AT&T (or someone else) is advertising internet "freedom". I think that would be a good gimik to get customers.

It does kinda suck, tho...

I'm guessing there will be competition for the fair marketplace. It will only take one service provider to break ranks and then everyone will have to do it. I can see it now...AT&T (or someone else) is advertising internet "freedom". I think that would be a good gimik to get customers.

It does kinda suck, tho...

The bottleneck exists in the connection between the network and the end-user. Each ILEC has monopoly control over the last mile connection within its area, and the only competition comes from cable. The network neutrality debate is based on the premise that the cable/telco duopoly in the last mile is not competitive.

As far as I can recall, every single one of the articles I've read about net neutrality was based on second- and third-hand summaries provided as a public disservice by people (on both sides of the issue) whose positions are based more on affiliation than principle. Many bloggers see themselves as, or want to be seen as, more like Amazon than Verizon. Many of them work at content providers now, or have done so, or know people who do, so of course they'll side with Google over SBC. I'm no more convinced by their self-interested arguments than by those of paid bandwidth-provider lobbyists. What I am convinced by is reading the actual text of the Markey amendment (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp109&sid=cp109Pr1br&refer=&r_n=hr491.109&item=&sel=TOC_27391&). Most of the provisions are fairly innocuous, except that they duplicate what's already settled in anti-trust law etc. The part that's most at issue is this:
(b) In General- Each broadband network provider has the duty--

`(1) not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet;

`(2) to operate its broadband network in a nondiscriminatory manner so that any person can offer or provide content, applications, and services through, or over, such broadband network with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of a charge for such nondiscriminatory network operation;

`(3) if the provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service;
I object to part 3. "Quality of service" (QoS) is a term with specific meaning to people who work with networks. It's perfectly reasonable to require that bandwidth providers must provide access to QoS features on a non-discriminatory basis, but to require that they do so "without imposing a surcharge or other consideration" is an unwarranted intrusion in the market. Let them charge. Let them compete on the basis of what QoS guarantees they provide, and at what price. Providing enhanced QoS is not free for them, nor should it be free for their customers.

Consumers do lack choice regarding bandwidth providers. That's true, and should be addressed, but this form of "network neutrality" doesn't do so. The Googles and Amazons of the world who are pushing for it have many providers to choose from. They also have a higher market cap (http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/2006/06/net_neutrality_whos_david_whos.html) than their opponents, so don't give me that "David vs. Goliath" BS. It's Goliath vs. Goliath, astroturf vs. astroturf. The net's biggest freeloaders have no particular right to demand that the government secure their business models (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14778336.htm) via legislation, not in this industry any more than any other.

I haven't written about this issue here before, but I already addressed it from both a political (http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/?p=1098) and a technical (http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/?p=1122) perspective elsewhere. Don't submit to groupthink. Don't allow yourself to be misled by those who misrepresent the significance of having or not having this kind of requirement codified into law. Look at the law yourself, apply your own knowledge (if any) of how networks work at both a technical and a business level, and reach your own conclusions.