Legislation could threaten network neutrality

Iria · Dec 2, 2005, 07:01 AM

Early in November, the House Energy & Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet began hearings on revisions to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Much of the draft legislation, the Broadband Internet Transmission Services (BITS) (PDF), is a fight between cable companies and phone companies over dominance, but on at least one topic they may agree: network neutrality.

The concept of network neutrality holds that information carriers should be impartial regarding content when moving data across networks, but gigantic, faceless telecoms are asserting those networks belong to them. As an example, SBC's CEO Edward Whitacre believes SBC should be able to charge websites, like Google or AOL, for using "their pipes." Smaller sites could effectively be shut down, priced out of business by the page view. Contemplating such possibilities, one could almost embrace the position of BellSouth CTO William L. Smith.

Mr. Smith doesn't want to violate network neutrality at all, rather he supports a "pay-for-performance marketplace to develop on top of a baseline service level that all content providers would enjoy." Really, it's no different than choosing a seat on a plane or mailing a package.

"If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket," Smith said. "In the shipping business, I can get two-day air or six-day ground."

You know you could put a lot of English majors to work if there was a law requiring corporations to employ them for the sole purpose of making analogies and metaphors. Everybody on the plane gets there at the same time--except maybe on Lost. As for likening web surfing to package delivery, one wonders how Mr. Smith would feel about charging people less if they have to wait longer for the news or porn.
_____________
Read More / Source: Ars Technica

Matth · Dec 2, 2005, 03:56 PM

Crazy!

Websites already pay their hosting providers for hosting and bandwidth usage, while customer pay for their package bandwith allowance at the other side.

And the respective providers also pay for cross-network bandwidth, or have reciprocal carriage agreements.

Actually, it would be far better to have a common core, based purely on best paths and backup paths, into which all providers would be linked.

The great ideal of a network that was impossible to break, by virtue of being able to route around any failure, has been mutilated by commercial fragmentation.

Dec 2, 2005, 07:01 AM	#1
Iria DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 7,275 Rep Power: 89	Legislation could threaten network neutrality Early in November, the House Energy & Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet began hearings on revisions to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Much of the draft legislation, the Broadband Internet Transmission Services (BITS) (PDF), is a fight between cable companies and phone companies over dominance, but on at least one topic they may agree: network neutrality. The concept of network neutrality holds that information carriers should be impartial regarding content when moving data across networks, but gigantic, faceless telecoms are asserting those networks belong to them. As an example, SBC's CEO Edward Whitacre believes SBC should be able to charge websites, like Google or AOL, for using "their pipes." Smaller sites could effectively be shut down, priced out of business by the page view. Contemplating such possibilities, one could almost embrace the position of BellSouth CTO William L. Smith. Mr. Smith doesn't want to violate network neutrality at all, rather he supports a "pay-for-performance marketplace to develop on top of a baseline service level that all content providers would enjoy." Really, it's no different than choosing a seat on a plane or mailing a package. "If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket," Smith said. "In the shipping business, I can get two-day air or six-day ground." You know you could put a lot of English majors to work if there was a law requiring corporations to employ them for the sole purpose of making analogies and metaphors. Everybody on the plane gets there at the same time--except maybe on Lost. As for likening web surfing to package delivery, one wonders how Mr. Smith would feel about charging people less if they have to wait longer for the news or porn. _____________ Read More / Source: Ars Technica

Dec 2, 2005, 03:56 PM	#2
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	Crazy! Websites already pay their hosting providers for hosting and bandwidth usage, while customer pay for their package bandwith allowance at the other side. And the respective providers also pay for cross-network bandwidth, or have reciprocal carriage agreements. Actually, it would be far better to have a common core, based purely on best paths and backup paths, into which all providers would be linked. The great ideal of a network that was impossible to break, by virtue of being able to route around any failure, has been mutilated by commercial fragmentation.