Business takes sides in net neutrality debate

[autorank]

Source: Toronto Star TheSar.com


For most of the past two years, the net neutrality issue, which focuses on equal treatment of Internet traffic, was limited to academics and consumer groups pointing to the dangers to the public of a two-tier Internet. That dynamic changed dramatically this year when Bell Canada began "deep-packet inspection" of its traffic and limited the bandwidth it allocates to certain applications at peak times (a practice known as "throttling").

The fallout from Bell's action — including a formal complaint to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, a protest rally on Parliament Hill in late May and a private-member's bill introduced by NDP MP Charlie Angus — has elevated net neutrality in the public policy hierarchy. Indeed, CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein told an industry group last month net neutrality "is one of the polarizing issues of the day. It will have to be addressed and debated by all of us."

SNIP

While Google's entry into the debate made headlines, it was not alone. The Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance, Canada's largest high-tech association, warned "the measures that Bell Canada is applying to manage the traffic of its Sympatico customers as well as its wholesale ISP customers is interfering with the ability of end-users to telecommute and/or work from their home offices and hindering our members from running their business and providing quick customer services."

Skype, the popular Internet telephony service, cautioned that "for the Internet to remain innovative, and continue to deliver productivity gains for consumers and businesses, the CRTC must act — in this proceeding — to protect the interests of consumers."

Read more: http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/459502

---

So now we have the drill - the phone companies, unworthy guardians of an Internet they did nothing to
create, will do "deep packet" inspections and then "throttle" the traffic capacity on the Internet to
keep their system running in their interests not ours.

It will come here - they'll do this the minute they think that they can get away with it.

The phone companies tried to hinder the internet in the very early days, 1987-88 by putting a surcharge
on anyone who had a modem connected to their phone network. They wanted $2.00 a month for transiting their
network to get to the public data network (aka, Internet). They were beaten down so they just waited
until they could buy the internet backbone and then jack up the charges.

No more telco subsidies. Make them compete!

[tbyg52]

1. In order to throttle only certain kinds of traffic,

they have to *look* at the traffic. Unacceptable. End of story. Bits is bits.

[autorank]

2. They're "previewing it in Canada" then bringing it to Broadway.

Outrageous is becoming commonplace.

[Swagman]

3. I knew this would be coming-fight it like crazy. News Ltd will be first

in the queue to control the internet.

They can't stand citizen based journalism.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Capitulation to the corporate greed is costing us much more than bandwidth. Enough already.

Thanks for the info!

Recommended.

[autorank]

5. I don't think the phone companies have any idea what they're messing with

The Intetnet is the third rail of our society. The resistance they've had every time they've tried
to mess with this has been amazing. If they actually "throttle" specific applications, user groups,
good luck to them. The phone companies would be in huge trouble with out their ties to government.

The last thing the want is a bunch of state legislators on their case, which will happen if they
try this here. I hope they don't but if they do, adios to them.

[EbenezerMcIntosh]

6. The good news is that so many people are technologically savvy.

They'll never be able to stop an underground internet network any more than they could stop the underground railroad freeing runaway slaves.

[annabanana]

12. (The ONLY issue where DU & Freeps have common cause!!). . .. . . n/t

[orleans]

18. however, the freeps would probably be okay with this--just as long as

george says to want it. (freaks!)

[lovuian]

19. I agree they are trying to get control but are unable

this is an attempt to control but this hurts business many businesses because in these days of high gas prices many work from home

[autorank]

21. They get is coming and going

no matter what the vehicle;)

Yep, these phone companies are used to a close relationship with law enforcement in their states. As
a result, they think that they're immune from any accountability.

If they try this here, or more accurately, when they get caught doing this here, there will be a huge
uproar and their day may be done again (like it was after the breakup of ATT).

[ihavenobias]

7. K & R

[JDPriestly]

8. We are going to use a cable internet carrier. Is there any difference,

or are the cable companies also dependent on AT&T services?

[melm00se]

14. think of the internet

as a giant pyramid.

traffic moves up and down the pyramid as it moves from network to network. While you may be on an comcast data network, when you go to access, say, yahoo.com you will move from Comcast's network, up the pyramid, until you touch a telephone company line that provides you with a link to the yahoo network.

to see a representation of this: click "start", run, type "cmd" and open up a DOS window. then type (no quotes) "tracert www.yahoo.com"

you will get an output that shows all the devices and the networks to which they are attached and you can see that eventually all traffic goes up to the largest network necessary and then back down to the local network. In my case, it goes from my corporate network and "peaks" at AT&T's network and then to Yahoo's.

this fact that a lot of traffic hits these large providers on their way to their destinations and any throttling will impact some users at almost all times.

I can understand the telco's and ISPs desire to throttle back certain kinds of internet traffic: it's purely a delaying action to allow for more bandwidth to come on line (yes there are a lot of fiber out there that has a lot of potential but it is unlit and unavailable until it is lit) and to bring that bandwidth online carries a cost and takes time.

[Gman]

15. No. The big companies like Time Warner

have their own backbone but inevitably, the data has to jump off of Time Warner's bb and go to the next to get to where it's going/coming from. TW, ATT, VZ, they're all against net neutrality.

[Popol Vuh]

9. I have a dumb question

After reading in the OP: "The phone companies tried to hinder the internet in the very early days, 1987-88 by putting a surcharge
on anyone who had a modem connected to their phone network." I thought, wait a minute, isn't the telephone wire network paid for by tax-payers? That's my question.

If the answer is yes, then why can't we charge the phone companies up the ass for every watt of usage over our communication lines?

[hootinholler]

11. I don't think they were...

The telcos (and cable) were granted monopolies over areas in return for installing the wires.

-Hoot

[autorank]

20. Paul, good question and there's a good answer

The phone companies had a guaranteed monopoly. That meant they were guaranteed rates to cover costs
plus a certain percentage. This went on for decades and no competition was allowed. Then things
changed and the network was supposed to open up. There is still regulation by public utilities
commissions in the states. It seems the phone companies care less for their regulated network than
they do for more profitable services http://tinyurl.com/567www .

As to your question, the phone network isn't owned by the public but the franchise to operate it is.
However, the wireless communication services, cellular, are owned by the public and we could demand
that they pay for this.

The telephone companies have not innovated at all since the breakup of ATT and the loss of Bell Labs.
They just use their rake off form the regulated service to cash in and buy other properties, which
then they act as though are entitled to guaranteed subsidies.

It's all a matter of political will and courage on the part of politicians to stop these welfare for
the rich companies and their cooperation with fascism.

[meegbear]

10. Let's invade!

We'll be greeted as liberators!

[groovedaddy]

13. It's all about business...and it's monopolization - competition? hah!

They put more money into trying to convince us that they will provide the best service. Then they buy out or kill off the competition and tell us we have no choice but to put up with their lousy service and high prices.

[lldu]

16. Cox is in trouble right now.....

for doing this very thing. I believe a court finding was AGAINST Cox. They had been delaying Peer-to-Peer connections.

[lonestarnot]

17. You said Court. Have any more info on this? ie case number, which Court?

[autorank]

22. Cox in trouble - bit torrent

Here's something interesting:

They actually did get caught interefering with one group of born again Christians who were sharing,
get this, the Bible. They made some lifelong enemies that day, count on it;)

----------------

Study: Cox, Comcast Internet subscribers blocked

By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
http://tinyurl.com/55g5yz

Thursday, May 15, 2008


(05-15) 13:16 PDT NEW YORK, (AP) --

Comcast Corp.'s interference with Internet traffic has prompted a federal investigation and is at the center of calls for "Net Neutrality" laws, but another U.S. cable company appears to be doing the same thing without drawing scrutiny.

A study released Thursday found conclusive signs that file-sharing attempts by subscribers of Cox Communications were blocked, along with customers at Comcast and Singapore's StarHub.

Of the 788 Comcast subscribers who participated in the study, 62 percent had their connections blocked. At Cox, 54 percent of subscribers examined were blocked, according to Krishna Gummadi at the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems in Saarbruecken, Germany. The institute examined the network connections of 8,175 Internet subscribers around the world.

Philadelphia-based Comcast is the country's second-largest Internet service provider, with 14.1 million subscribers. Atlanta-based Cox Communications is the fourth-largest, with 3.8 million. It is part of privately held Cox Enterprises Inc.

[lonestarnot]

24. Wow. Just saw this. Thanks!

[lonestarnot]

25. Son of a bitches!

[Zhade]

23. Hate to tell you this - they already throttle here in the U.S.

It's complete highway robbery, of course.

EDIT: links on how to get around throttling:

http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Optimize_BitTorrent_To_Outwit_Traffic_Shaping_ISPs

http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-bypass-comcast-bittorrent-throttling-071021/

http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r19306810-BT-how-to-get-around-comcast-throttling