Net Neutrality Poll

Is net neutrality a good thing?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Can't say either way.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Don't know what it is.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
cecilia said:
This is what Senator Schumer has to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bumping this. And I'm glad to see there's a Senator who knows a little about the importance of freedom when it comes to innovation.

I was surprised that this topic didn't generate much debate since it is so very important to ... well, everything including sites like this.

Imagine for example having to wait 10 seconds for a response from the server not because the server is slow but because microsoft's traffic is given priority, or ...

The application I worry about, in particular is VoIP. Once the push to legislate traffic starts, the next thing the Telecos are going to want to do is bill VoIP like regular long distance (which is rediculous, but lucrative). When that happens, if they can't actually intercept and bill skype packets or whatever, then they will find some pliable senator to make it illegal to send VoIP packets that aren't clearly identifiable as VoIP. And after that it is trivial to legislate any kind of packet and therefore control information flows by taxing certain information differently from others.

And the worst part would be the effect on innovation. Imagine someone coming up with something new and interesting and never being able to capitalize on it because he'd be stuck in negotiations with the Telecos for years as they try to decide how to bill for it (and eventually, with lawyers and foot dragging, wear the guy down until they can just buy the technology from him for next to nothing).
 
cecilia said:
This is what Senator Schumer has to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bumping this. And I'm glad to see there's a Senator who knows a little about the importance of freedom when it comes to innovation.

I was surprised that this topic didn't generate much debate since it is so very important to ... well, everything including sites like this.

Imagine for example having to wait 10 seconds for a response from the server not because the server is slow but because microsoft's traffic is given priority, or ...

The application I worry about, in particular is VoIP. Once the push to legislate traffic starts, the next thing the Telecos are going to want to do is bill VoIP like regular long distance (which is rediculous, but lucrative). When that happens, if they can't actually intercept and bill skype packets or whatever, then they will find some pliable senator to make it illegal to send VoIP packets that aren't clearly identifiable as VoIP. And after that it is trivial to legislate any kind of packet and therefore control information flows by taxing certain information differently from others.

And the worst part would be the effect on innovation. Imagine someone coming up with something new and interesting and never being able to capitalize on it because he'd be stuck in negotiations with the Telecos for years as they try to decide how to bill for it (and eventually, with lawyers and foot dragging, wear the guy down until they can just buy the technology from him for next to nothing).
 
cecilia said:
This is what Senator Schumer has to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bumping this. And I'm glad to see there's a Senator who knows a little about the importance of freedom when it comes to innovation.

I was surprised that this topic didn't generate much debate since it is so very important to ... well, everything including sites like this.

Imagine for example having to wait 10 seconds for a response from the server not because the server is slow but because microsoft's traffic is given priority, or ...

The application I worry about, in particular is VoIP. Once the push to legislate traffic starts, the next thing the Telecos are going to want to do is bill VoIP like regular long distance (which is rediculous, but lucrative). When that happens, if they can't actually intercept and bill skype packets or whatever, then they will find some pliable senator to make it illegal to send VoIP packets that aren't clearly identifiable as VoIP. And after that it is trivial to legislate any kind of packet and therefore control information flows by taxing certain information differently from others.

And the worst part would be the effect on innovation. Imagine someone coming up with something new and interesting and never being able to capitalize on it because he'd be stuck in negotiations with the Telecos for years as they try to decide how to bill for it (and eventually, with lawyers and foot dragging, wear the guy down until they can just buy the technology from him for next to nothing).
 
cecilia said:
This is what Senator Schumer has to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bumping this. And I'm glad to see there's a Senator who knows a little about the importance of freedom when it comes to innovation.

I was surprised that this topic didn't generate much debate since it is so very important to ... well, everything including sites like this.

Imagine for example having to wait 10 seconds for a response from the server not because the server is slow but because microsoft's traffic is given priority, or ...

The application I worry about, in particular is VoIP. Once the push to legislate traffic starts, the next thing the Telecos are going to want to do is bill VoIP like regular long distance (which is rediculous, but lucrative). When that happens, if they can't actually intercept and bill skype packets or whatever, then they will find some pliable senator to make it illegal to send VoIP packets that aren't clearly identifiable as VoIP. And after that it is trivial to legislate any kind of packet and therefore control information flows by taxing certain information differently from others.

And the worst part would be the effect on innovation. Imagine someone coming up with something new and interesting and never being able to capitalize on it because he'd be stuck in negotiations with the Telecos for years as they try to decide how to bill for it (and eventually, with lawyers and foot dragging, wear the guy down until they can just buy the technology from him for next to nothing).
 
the internet is the last place we really have democracy and (at least up to a point) have free speech.

if we let the bastards kill it, we are truely lost.
 
the internet is the last place we really have democracy and (at least up to a point) have free speech.

if we let the bastards kill it, we are truely lost.
 
the internet is the last place we really have democracy and (at least up to a point) have free speech.

if we let the bastards kill it, we are truely lost.
 
the internet is the last place we really have democracy and (at least up to a point) have free speech.

if we let the bastards kill it, we are truely lost.
 
the internet is the last place we really have democracy and (at least up to a point) have free speech.

if we let the bastards kill it, we are truely lost.
 
the internet is the last place we really have democracy and (at least up to a point) have free speech.

if we let the bastards kill it, we are truely lost.
 
Perhaps people just aren't aware. Here's a link to a wiki entry: Network Neutrality

Columbia University law professor Tim Wu popularized the phrase network neutrality as a term designating a network that does not favor one application (for example the World Wide Web) over another (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).[1] Wu claims that the Internet is not neutral "as among all applications" as it favors file transfer over real-time communication.

Additionally, large Internet content and network providers maintain that network neutrality primarily concerns the question of whether or to what extent networks should be able to favor or disfavor certain subdivisions of applications, such as certain websites (e.g. Google[2][3]) in the case of the World Wide Web or certain brands of Voice Over IP or any other application.

Network neutrality also designates a contemporary controversy mostly local to the United States regarding the role that government should take relative to Internet access providers providing multiple levels of service for different fees. This controversy, which emerged following regulatory developments in the United States, is extremely complex, as it mixes technical, economic, ideological and legal arguments. In essence, network neutrality regulations proposed by Senators Snowe and Dorgan[4] and Representative Markey bar ISPs from offering Quality of Service enhancements for a fee.

Network neutrality is sometimes used as a technical term, although it has no history in the design documents (RFCs) describing the Internet protocols. In this usage, it is claimed to represent a property of protocol layering in which higher-layer protocols may not communicate service requirements to lower-layer protocols, a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of protocol engineering. (In conventional network engineering practice, each protocol in a layered system exposes Service Access Points to higher layers that can be used to request a level of service appropriate to the needs of higher-layer protocols.)

So now we all know. :-)

- Mike
 
Perhaps people just aren't aware. Here's a link to a wiki entry: Network Neutrality

Columbia University law professor Tim Wu popularized the phrase network neutrality as a term designating a network that does not favor one application (for example the World Wide Web) over another (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).[1] Wu claims that the Internet is not neutral "as among all applications" as it favors file transfer over real-time communication.

Additionally, large Internet content and network providers maintain that network neutrality primarily concerns the question of whether or to what extent networks should be able to favor or disfavor certain subdivisions of applications, such as certain websites (e.g. Google[2][3]) in the case of the World Wide Web or certain brands of Voice Over IP or any other application.

Network neutrality also designates a contemporary controversy mostly local to the United States regarding the role that government should take relative to Internet access providers providing multiple levels of service for different fees. This controversy, which emerged following regulatory developments in the United States, is extremely complex, as it mixes technical, economic, ideological and legal arguments. In essence, network neutrality regulations proposed by Senators Snowe and Dorgan[4] and Representative Markey bar ISPs from offering Quality of Service enhancements for a fee.

Network neutrality is sometimes used as a technical term, although it has no history in the design documents (RFCs) describing the Internet protocols. In this usage, it is claimed to represent a property of protocol layering in which higher-layer protocols may not communicate service requirements to lower-layer protocols, a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of protocol engineering. (In conventional network engineering practice, each protocol in a layered system exposes Service Access Points to higher layers that can be used to request a level of service appropriate to the needs of higher-layer protocols.)

So now we all know. :-)

- Mike
 
Perhaps people just aren't aware. Here's a link to a wiki entry: Network Neutrality

Columbia University law professor Tim Wu popularized the phrase network neutrality as a term designating a network that does not favor one application (for example the World Wide Web) over another (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).[1] Wu claims that the Internet is not neutral "as among all applications" as it favors file transfer over real-time communication.

Additionally, large Internet content and network providers maintain that network neutrality primarily concerns the question of whether or to what extent networks should be able to favor or disfavor certain subdivisions of applications, such as certain websites (e.g. Google[2][3]) in the case of the World Wide Web or certain brands of Voice Over IP or any other application.

Network neutrality also designates a contemporary controversy mostly local to the United States regarding the role that government should take relative to Internet access providers providing multiple levels of service for different fees. This controversy, which emerged following regulatory developments in the United States, is extremely complex, as it mixes technical, economic, ideological and legal arguments. In essence, network neutrality regulations proposed by Senators Snowe and Dorgan[4] and Representative Markey bar ISPs from offering Quality of Service enhancements for a fee.

Network neutrality is sometimes used as a technical term, although it has no history in the design documents (RFCs) describing the Internet protocols. In this usage, it is claimed to represent a property of protocol layering in which higher-layer protocols may not communicate service requirements to lower-layer protocols, a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of protocol engineering. (In conventional network engineering practice, each protocol in a layered system exposes Service Access Points to higher layers that can be used to request a level of service appropriate to the needs of higher-layer protocols.)

So now we all know. :-)

- Mike
 
Perhaps people just aren't aware. Here's a link to a wiki entry: Network Neutrality

Columbia University law professor Tim Wu popularized the phrase network neutrality as a term designating a network that does not favor one application (for example the World Wide Web) over another (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).[1] Wu claims that the Internet is not neutral "as among all applications" as it favors file transfer over real-time communication.

Additionally, large Internet content and network providers maintain that network neutrality primarily concerns the question of whether or to what extent networks should be able to favor or disfavor certain subdivisions of applications, such as certain websites (e.g. Google[2][3]) in the case of the World Wide Web or certain brands of Voice Over IP or any other application.

Network neutrality also designates a contemporary controversy mostly local to the United States regarding the role that government should take relative to Internet access providers providing multiple levels of service for different fees. This controversy, which emerged following regulatory developments in the United States, is extremely complex, as it mixes technical, economic, ideological and legal arguments. In essence, network neutrality regulations proposed by Senators Snowe and Dorgan[4] and Representative Markey bar ISPs from offering Quality of Service enhancements for a fee.

Network neutrality is sometimes used as a technical term, although it has no history in the design documents (RFCs) describing the Internet protocols. In this usage, it is claimed to represent a property of protocol layering in which higher-layer protocols may not communicate service requirements to lower-layer protocols, a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of protocol engineering. (In conventional network engineering practice, each protocol in a layered system exposes Service Access Points to higher layers that can be used to request a level of service appropriate to the needs of higher-layer protocols.)

So now we all know. :-)

- Mike
 
Perhaps people just aren't aware. Here's a link to a wiki entry: Network Neutrality

Columbia University law professor Tim Wu popularized the phrase network neutrality as a term designating a network that does not favor one application (for example the World Wide Web) over another (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).[1] Wu claims that the Internet is not neutral "as among all applications" as it favors file transfer over real-time communication.

Additionally, large Internet content and network providers maintain that network neutrality primarily concerns the question of whether or to what extent networks should be able to favor or disfavor certain subdivisions of applications, such as certain websites (e.g. Google[2][3]) in the case of the World Wide Web or certain brands of Voice Over IP or any other application.

Network neutrality also designates a contemporary controversy mostly local to the United States regarding the role that government should take relative to Internet access providers providing multiple levels of service for different fees. This controversy, which emerged following regulatory developments in the United States, is extremely complex, as it mixes technical, economic, ideological and legal arguments. In essence, network neutrality regulations proposed by Senators Snowe and Dorgan[4] and Representative Markey bar ISPs from offering Quality of Service enhancements for a fee.

Network neutrality is sometimes used as a technical term, although it has no history in the design documents (RFCs) describing the Internet protocols. In this usage, it is claimed to represent a property of protocol layering in which higher-layer protocols may not communicate service requirements to lower-layer protocols, a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of protocol engineering. (In conventional network engineering practice, each protocol in a layered system exposes Service Access Points to higher layers that can be used to request a level of service appropriate to the needs of higher-layer protocols.)

So now we all know. :-)

- Mike
 
Perhaps people just aren't aware. Here's a link to a wiki entry: Network Neutrality

Columbia University law professor Tim Wu popularized the phrase network neutrality as a term designating a network that does not favor one application (for example the World Wide Web) over another (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).[1] Wu claims that the Internet is not neutral "as among all applications" as it favors file transfer over real-time communication.

Additionally, large Internet content and network providers maintain that network neutrality primarily concerns the question of whether or to what extent networks should be able to favor or disfavor certain subdivisions of applications, such as certain websites (e.g. Google[2][3]) in the case of the World Wide Web or certain brands of Voice Over IP or any other application.

Network neutrality also designates a contemporary controversy mostly local to the United States regarding the role that government should take relative to Internet access providers providing multiple levels of service for different fees. This controversy, which emerged following regulatory developments in the United States, is extremely complex, as it mixes technical, economic, ideological and legal arguments. In essence, network neutrality regulations proposed by Senators Snowe and Dorgan[4] and Representative Markey bar ISPs from offering Quality of Service enhancements for a fee.

Network neutrality is sometimes used as a technical term, although it has no history in the design documents (RFCs) describing the Internet protocols. In this usage, it is claimed to represent a property of protocol layering in which higher-layer protocols may not communicate service requirements to lower-layer protocols, a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of protocol engineering. (In conventional network engineering practice, each protocol in a layered system exposes Service Access Points to higher layers that can be used to request a level of service appropriate to the needs of higher-layer protocols.)

So now we all know. :-)

- Mike
 
ps: Is the poll closed? I can't vote. Either way, put me down for "Yes", and who's the fool that said "No"????

- Mike
 
ps: Is the poll closed? I can't vote. Either way, put me down for "Yes", and who's the fool that said "No"????

- Mike
 
ps: Is the poll closed? I can't vote. Either way, put me down for "Yes", and who's the fool that said "No"????

- Mike
 
ps: Is the poll closed? I can't vote. Either way, put me down for "Yes", and who's the fool that said "No"????

- Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top