Net Neutrality issue

S

shirish

Explorer
Hi all,
There's a fantastic article at SFGate about Net Neutrality which explains the complex issues which are there . It's a sort of longish article but puts the main points eloquently. I for one 'm for Net Neutrality for the simple reason tht if they have to pay then everything goes pay. As it is there is no QOS norms on mails or anything for us. Even now with the Unlimited plan tht BSNL gives there is no QOS so in this context should somebody pay them more & have more power over the NET. I think not.
 
Sirish I have just read ur article and also kingkool comments over dere. I also support net neutrality, and article is really good one
 
Aditya said:
Can any1 explain in a short sentence what is Net Neutrality?
I really didnt get anything, from that read :S.
Click to expand...
O.k. Aditya will try to put it down simply.
The Net is comprised of 3 kinds of people
1. Us : - the users, the ones who browse the web, use e-mail & all the services.
2. content providers :- This could be anybody who's providing a service, for e.g. TE, google, yahoo, msn, all webmail, basically every site is a content provider.
3. The telcos :- This are the major telecom providers. People who own,sell & build the last mile infrastructure so tht we can access the Net. In our e.g. it could be BSNL or any other ISP.

Now as of today we're paying for the bandwidth as well as all the content providers are paying for the servers. Both the guys are paying money to the telcos one for accessing, the other for serving.

Now the telcos who're making money want to extract more money from the content providers saying tht if u pay us more we would guarantee that packets from u'r site reach to the consumer.

This is bad for us. How, the big guys like MSN, yahoo may be able to pay the exhorbitant money that these guys ask but what small sites who're in the make-break ratios. For e.g. TE where it's only the passion which keeps the guys doing & they're not really makin money of it & the same applies for other forums, sites. Not being able to pay would enlarge the time taken to load the page. So perhaps it might take u 2 sec. to open up MSN & a whole minute to open up TE. -ve

So we have discrimination happening while at the same time killing of innovation. As cost of doing business or leisure goes up all the free sites would either be forced to pay up & become paid in term or have more commercials to stay afloat. Either way is not good for us. -ve

Also these telcos would become monoliths, cash cows who would be able to dictate terms & would have tremendous clout over us. If people say BSNL doesn't give good service if this goes through they will become billionaires worldwide as would VSNL (both of them have huge server farms) so they can blackmail or extract more money from them. Again -ve for us.

Of course being a liberal, I'm somehow clouded in my judgement & can't really hear any truth in the other side & believe me I've tried. That's why the article as it tries to have a NPOV.
 
No, Aditya Net neutrality is for it, it's the telcos who're against Net Neutrality, the way the things are. They want to have tiered internet. Net Neutrality is short for Network Neutrality. See this site savetheinternet & then see the video on youtube on the same issue which is linked from there. I think it answers the same queries but in a better way.
 
In fact, if he wants he can download the whole thing in a PBS NOW - 2006 Net Neutrality, Patriot Act and Libraries. It's a .torrent file about 173-175 MB which can be found out on various .torrent tracker sites. Mininova.org has it.
 
Great work Shirish!!! that article is really good. Have not read it fully but read the introduction and understood what net neutrality is.

And damn good explanation there!!!
 
Some examples this time around to show how good (scarcasm icon here) the telcos are :-

1. Madison River, an Internet service provider located in North Carolina, blocked its customers from using rival broadband phone services actually it was Vonage. The Federal Communications Commission fined Madison $15,000 and ordered them to open their system to the competition.

Source :- too many to give. Just for reference DonZeigler .

2. In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.

Source :- Again many but would use the people effected. Voices for Change you can see the whole drama unfolding month by month there.

3. In April this yr, AOL blocked a site for its users/subscribers DearAOL

Source :- Again u'll find the story being repeated among many sites but better to go at the affected site itself.
 
Some examples this time around to show how good (scarcasm icon here) the telcos are :-

1. Madison River, an Internet service provider located in North Carolina, blocked its customers from using rival broadband phone services. The Federal Communications Commission fined Madison $15,000 and ordered them to open their system to the competition.

Source :- too many to give. Just for reference DonZeigler .

Actually Network operators do have the tools to block content and services.

The easiest way to block applications such as voice-over-IP service is by turning off certain Internet Protocol ports on network servers and routers that feed consumers’ computers.

For example, "cable operators using Motorola Inc.’s Broadband Service Router cable-modem termination system units can program them to accept or drop traffic coming from a specific source and aiming for specific IP ports — such as Port 80, which is often a target for hackers to deliver viruses" , said Mike Cookish, director of product management for Motorola’s Connected Home Solutions unit.

But then Port 80 is used for http:// as well as there are couple of port 80 torrent trackers also so they will get effect.

Content from specific providers or Web sites also can be blocked through a device that can inspect the contents of packets of information being shipped through a network.

Called a deep-packet inspection device, it can block traffic headed to any IP port on a network server, or it can block requests for Web site access based on a list of Web addresses the network operator supplies.

2. In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.

Source :- Again many but would use the people effected. Voices for Change you can see the whole drama unfolding month by month there.

3. AOL blocking mails to a critic site . Could give many sites but would use the beautiful anti-AOL site DearAOL

4. What about our own BSNL, AFAI remember they had also done something similar in case of VOIP. Lots of people had complained for the same. When private ISP's came there were directives so that people couldn't use VOIP services. Ports

used to be turned off many a time.

Edit: These are supposed to be one-off isolated examples by anti-neutrality backers but then we know better :bleh:
 
Oops, I seem to have double posted there. Perhaps one of the mods can delete the 11th post There is some good added content at pbs also. Just to quote from the page

pbs.org said:
To Bob the issues surrounding Net Neutrality come down to billability and infrastructure. While saying they are doing us favors, ISPs are really offering us services they can bill for. Nothing is aimed at helping us, while everything is aimed at creating a billable event. Take WiFi hotspots, for example. Why should the telephone or cable company care about who connects to my WiFi access point? They are my bits, not the ISP's. I paid for them. If I can download gigabytes of pornography why can't I share my hotspot with someone walking down the street wanting to check his e-mail? Frankston's analogy for this is accusing someone of stealing your porch light by using it to read a street sign.
Click to expand...

There are some interesting suggestions these guys give. For e.g. see this pdf . Also a pretty good email which talks of a community-owned network in Sweden. Here's another one on Net Neutrality I hope we can learn something from these guys. There used to be an Internet User's Club or something similar some years back bug didn't gather speed due to money issues as well as not good organization.



Ultimately the moot point is tht there are several types of alternatives & we as consumers need to be aware of what those alternatives are. Also what these guys are really saying. Then only can we make a stand.
 
Just to add some more fuel to the fire, now it seems there is going to be an Internet Governance Forum or IGF whose inaugural meeting would be happening in Greece . Consultations have been extended till 2nd August 2k6 & as a responsible Net citizen would be nice if one can give some suggestions or feedback. The forum is being chaired by UN & States. For people who had been following the story for quite some time know tht Net Governance had become a prickly issue. Till Jon Postel was alive things were going swell. After his death IANA

(The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, the guys who give the IP4 or IP6 addresses as well as does DNS root mgmt among other things) was given to ICANN which resulted in controversy as it was under the contract of Department of Defense & people who were choosen by the net community were later thrown aside. Things to a head last yr. or early this yr. when the US refused to give up control over the IANA. A little more recent news was when ICANN in turn gave a contract to Verisign which resulted in them being given the right to raise fees by something like 7% annually. Source :- CNET News

Joey Alarilla over at CNET has given this fantastic article which talks of some other things & issues which would be facing the community today as well as tomorrow.

I've just tried to give a preface to the whole thing in the para above as well the articles before tht. This tale/saga/drama is going to have many a turn before it turns sweet. Let's be awake friends & understand & make choices. Some of the alternatives are being talked about which I could perhaps share another time. While some are plain absurd but there are others which seem cool. Of course it should be the whole community which should decide. Just throwing it out in the open :)
 
Hi all,

Wow, I didn't have idea that the Net Neutrality is just one facet of the whole thing. This article is about 5 yrs. old (circa 2k6) where Courtney Love talks about how the M*AA literally screws artists . No doubt she's called the 'most controversial women in Rock' by Rolling Stone magazine. Look at her biography at wikipedia & u'll see what I mean. Something inspiring happened yesterday, 3 of my well-earning friends donated part of their proceeds ($10) to wikipedia. One of the most uplifting things in a long time :)

[OT] Another thing I found out, that nowadays there is so much commercialization taking place that something like if somebody wants to have a trouble-free good TV tuner card driver one has to fork some money & the same goes for the app. I'm not a conspirancy theorist but this looks a good business to me, sell the hardware & give buggy drivers. Then when u fix it, don't provide it on the site but let others sell it. Then also improve the app. & also don't give the link to it. Let others sell it & make money of you. Just like somebody said in a hindi movie "What is a gun without catridges, its nothing but iron" Same analogy works here :( If there was no GNU/Linux & no file-sharing these guys would be not only rich but also so dominant. [/OT]

Now for some indian twist to things . Look at this Saubhik Chakrabarti's article in Express today as well as the proposed Broadcast Services Regulation Bill (circa 2006) . Some articles/opinions on the same here & here . If these things push through, god only help us & this wasn't the right time to do anything with the recent stuff just happened :cry: I'm just feeling sad for what these babus are doing in whatever name they're doing it. DNA tries to put in a positive light here
 
Back
Top