Want to see most of the Internet artificially throttled?

No one here has yet mentioned what I see as one of the biggest arguments against this proposal: the amount of lost efficiency it would lead to. Treating all packets as identical turns out to be, by far, the most efficient way to run a network. Introducing any sort of prioritization algorithm creates significant overhead on every packet transaction. That would make the net as a whole a lot slower than it could be, for no good reason.

I will bring up another big point that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread: The giant subsidies the ISPs got to build that capacity in the first place. The only reason they want to change net-neutrality laws is simply to up their own profit margins (and of course, not really do anything about raising QOS).

With the amount of money the US govt pumped into infrastructure, you should all have fiber to the curb by now.

One minor correction. The debate is not about changing net-neutrality laws. No such laws exist. The debate is about enacting them in the first place. Right now,there is no law enforcing net neutrality.

Ah yes, you’re right. But it is an official FCC policy.

Apparently in the U.S., if no such laws exist, it’s not illegal. Why else would they patch laws all the time to make huge lists of exceptions?

“Including… but not limited to…”

The backbone carriers are the ones pushing for it. They aren’t looking to screw each other necessarily, but they are looking for law-backed potential to screw others. For example: AT&T (tier 1) could then legally charge a premium on all VOIP traffic, except it’s own. So as an end-user/consumer, you will either pay a higher fee with Vonage/etc, or you will… wait for it… switch to AT&T!

I’m pretty sure that’s not what they want to do. If they’d wanted to do that sort of crap to each other they could have started it years ago. They don’t want to get more revenues out of competing with each other, they want to get more profits by charging service/content providers more for premium access. Instead of fighting each other for a bigger share of the pie, they want to make the pie bigger.

To continue the VOIP example, the backbone carriers will collectively go to Vonage and tell them that if they want high-priority high-QOS guarantees for their VOIP traffic then they have to pay extra. Switching tier-1 connections wouldn’t help, because all the tier-1 backbone providers would start doing this at once.

How is that good for the customer? Do you want to pay more for your Vonage service? I know I don’t.

This is all attached to a law package that makes the DMCA look consumer-friendly, as well.

It’s good for the customer because most of the premium service is going to be aimed at businesses who can afford to pay more for special service. It would be similar to how businesses subsidize phone service for residential phone users in the U.S.

I saw “businesses subsidize phone service” but that strikes me as odd. Forgoing the wrong usage of the word subsidize, what about acts like the Universal Service? I somehow remember the government contributing to phone service much more than anyone else.

Sorry Nick, it’s a really bad idea. Really bad. And if it gets passed, expect bad things to come of it. Not the nice happy, I’m a good corporation that would never screw you things.

Well, they’re up to 400,000 signatures.

They’re trying for a half-million. That should actually get some attention, as opposed to your typical petitiononline silliness.

So if you haven’t signed yet, hop on over and do so! I’d find it hard to argue that putting net neutrality into law would be in anything but beneficial for Internet users.

I’m not following man. If what gets passed?

Frankly, I’m just not seeing the doomsday scenario here that has everyone all riled up.

I think the problem is that while in itself poses no immediate problems, it makes it much easier for further horrors to occur. Alone, maybe not a problem. But it is being promoted by telcos, at enourmous expense, who would benefit if such hypothetical future evils were to pass. It is therefore not unreasonable to suspect the telcos’ motives in pushing for this legislation is to prepare the playing field for the aforementioned naughtiness.

It’s a little bit like when a new employer demands you hand in an undated letter of immediate resignation when you start work. It might never mean anything, and the conditions where it could become an issue might never arise. But in doing it, you know that at any point, you’ve already handed your employer both awesome power over the circumstances of your employment and the ability to rid themselves of you whenever they should choose.

I saw this video of Moby tree hugging and accosting strangers in the name of Internet neutrality recently added to youtube. So I’m thinking someone probably is trying to pass the laws again. The corporations don’t stop vying for control. So it’s up to us to keep letting congress know we don’t want it to happen. Here’s the video link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xOJnKgsWPGw

And the site where they want you to sign a petition is now http://savetheinternet.com

Ted Stevens: Senator, Statesman, Idiot.

Wow, that was just a lot of incoherent crazy talk.

It isn’t totally incoherant. It sounds like he’s giving his interpretation of what somebody told him, except he doesn’t quite understand it, so it all came out garbled.

Here’s Google’s page in favor of net neutrality: Google Public Policy Blog: Net Neutrality

Is that the same senator who had a meltdown on camera last year? He didn’t want money for his bridge to nowhere to get diverted to katrina relief IIRC

Edit: ah yes, it is.