Politicos divided on need for 'net neutrality' mandate

TalkBack 12 of 22:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

You're adding non-issues. Stay on the subject.

I agreed previously that QoS being pushed to the consumer would be a problem. It won't happen. The proposed concept will be fixed on that note, the internet would be seriously impacted if it were not. Not an issue.

I also agreed previously that there is an implication that it would eliminate tiers of service from a single broadband provider (ie: broadband speed packages) available to be bought by the customer, no matter if the consumer is a home user or a service such as a web-store, VoIP, etc. Again, it won't happen. The proposed concept will be fixed on that note, the internet would be effectively useless if it were not(Google having the same size pipe as, say, a mom-and-pop shop? Won't happen). Not an issue.

That would be why the article did not go into those concerns; although I'll grant you, this is ZDnet, so maybe the author didn't consider them. Either way, they're non-issues. Won't happen.

The primary issue discussed by the article, and therefore the primary item discussed in the talkbacks, is if the broadband provider can set priorities within the customer's pipe for one vendor over another. This is why services are requesting "net neutrality", and would be the primary focus of any such bill should it be written. The operational aspects on which you have focussed, of course, need to be yet addressed and written into the proposal when it gets written. The core goal of net neutrality is to get all packets of the same classification to be treated with equal delivery priority within the consumer's pipe. Yes, the senator's one line quote (note: NOT a bill yet) is stated very poorly, and will be changed for the reasons I mentioned above. That is not the reason that Google, Vonage, etc have requested net neutrality, and they would, I'm sure, also lobby against the literal interpretation of the senator's wording.

"Network neutrality is the idea that the companies that own the broadband pipes should not be able to configure their networks in a way that plays favorites--allowing them, for example, to transmit their own services at faster speeds, or to charge Net content and application companies a fee for similar fast delivery." This is discussing the speeds within the consumer's pipe. If the consumer wants to purchase a higher tier of service themselves, the core concept does not rule it out. Likewise, the core concept does not rule out QoS by the broadband provider. The bill, when written, will of course need to make allowances for these, or be worded to avoid the issues.

If those issues are not addressed when the bill is written, then even the vendors who want net neutrality will fight the bill - doing otherwise would cripple them. They are the ones requesting net neutrality. Without their efforts to lobby for it, the bill would either die, or be fixed to correct those problems.

Posted by: ac2_z   Posted on: 02/08/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... Download Now
• Busting the myths about QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions and IBM Smart Business IBM So you already know there aren't actually any alligators in the New York ... Download Now
• Driving Business Agility through SOA Connectivity & Integration Whitepaper from IBM IBM In this whitepaper, you will learn how to work smarter so you can solve ... Download Now