Save Network Neutrality unless you want to pay more to use the Internet!

[NVMojo]

Want corporations to have more money out of your wallets when you use the Internet? Believe it or not, there were 7 Dems who are pushing this crap along. Go here and write your reps! I can't tell you how important this really is. I am surprised we are not getting more support to save Network Neutrality. Is the issue hard to understand? Let me know.

http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet?rk=a7whYKn1mBzvE

[CountAllVotes]

1. double kick!

Done!!

:dem: :kick:

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. I'd been putting this off (I know, very bad)

because I didn't realize there was a quick online mail-your-rep form available and I didn't have time to write a letter.

I realize now that your message basically says that, but some of us need to be hit over the head with it. ;)

[Freedom_Aflaim]

3. Qualiy of Service is a good thing if done right

99% of the people talking about this issue don't understand it.

Im for opening up "express lanes" on the Internet for a fee. Its called QOS or Quality of Service traffic management

Right now everything is best effort. Thats sounds fine until your voip calls or your video feeds are crappy.

QOS is simply about allowing folks to pay extra to get best effort for time critical traffic.

If you are happy with the service you have now, then this doesnt affect you.


Heres a link to a brief overview of QOS if you're intersted.

http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/tech/tk759/c1482/cdccont_0900aecd80295ac3.pdf

[iconoclastNYC]

12. This isn't QOS

QOS is to give priority for time sensitive packets over non-time sensitive packets.

What's being proposed is that you discriminate based on the originator of the packet and that's wrong for so many reasons.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

13. Qos is a number of things

One of which is that which you mentioned. QOS is essentially of suite of tools used to priortize traffic according to a number of things (including TOS bits, DSCP, port, protocol or even source/destination)

QOS can certainly be based on the originator of the packet when those packets travel with millions of other streams (and originators).

From a technical and scaling standpoint, it would be difficult to "discriminate" against originators you didnt like. Sure you can do it on a small scale, but doing this on an Internet scale would be a massive job.

Lets say that you want to slow down only Dem sites. First you need to indentify those Dem sites by source. That itself is a big job. This list would naturally be very very long. Then you build that into a list on each backbone router and take action based on that list. This is quite processor intensive which means more $$$ being spent on hardware. Quite a silly business proposition.

Here's the thing, the gear isnt built to slow traffic down, its built to get in and out as fast as possible. There are some rate limiting features in routers, but those are also processor intensive.

Most of what the opposition to QOS is saying is simply wrong, or boiled down to such simple elements as to be unrecognizable from reality. There's quite a bit of tin-hattery going on as well.

FWIW, I don't work for any of the telcos, but I do have a relationship with most of the big backbone providers. If you are interested in discussing any of this with the very folks (i.e. engineers) who run the network, check out www.nanog.org Theres open mailing lists for just these kinds of discussions (The folks on it are a mix, but definitely lean liberal)

Having said all that, I don't believe in giving the Telcos free license either. They WILL screw us over if given the chance. But from what I don't see the problem that some are imagining.

[iconoclastNYC]

14. So you are calling the EFF tin foil hatters?

There is no reason for AT&T to screw with the packets coming in over my Cable Modem connection except thier greed --- they want to shut out competition over thier lines.

Then there is this....

"Earlier today we found out that the EFF had sued AT&T over their secret work with the NSA on surveillance of millions of US citizens without wiretaps. We learned that paragraph 65 of this complaint shows EFF is trying to turn it into a nationwide Class Action suit covering all current and former customers (any after 9/2001) of AT&T. And we learned that a retired AT&T technician had stepped forward and disclosed the installation of secret NSA spy equipment in the San Francisco trunk facility. As well as the belief that similar equipment is in place in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

Specifically, this equipment was the Narus ST-6400, a machine that was capable of monitoring over 622 Mbits/second in real time in May, 2000, and capturing anything that hits its' semantic (i.e. the meaning of the content) triggers. The latest generation is called NarusInsight, capable of monitoring 10 billion bits of data per second."

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/28476/

[Freedom_Aflaim]

15. No: You must understand that the spying issue is a different issue

And is unrelated to QOS or Network Neutrality (other than both related to the Internet of course)

I have serious problems the spying, but it has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.

If AT&T should succeed in shutting out competition to "their lines", they'll put themselves out of business within 24 hours. Not much point in a carrier that doesnt connect to anything else. Heck for that matter they could do that today...Just disconnect from their NAPs and call the whole thing off. Carriers are greedy - Not Stupid.

[AndyTiedye]

4. kickee/recomendee

:kick:

[CountAllVotes]

5. another kick

:kick:

[Asgaya Dihi]

6. Good issue

Unless we want the same thing on the internet that we now have on TV, this is an issue to back. I think most people understand the issue just fine, those who can pay a premium get better service and start-up activist groups with little money will get the slow lane.

We already pay for our bandwidth, it's not their business who we connect to and companies like Yahoo are paying already for their end too. It's just a money grab, a need for more profit.

[Bonobo]

7. BFK (Big F-cking Kick)!!!!!

This is some big shit with some long, long, long reaching consequences.

There will be no closing the barn doors after this one, friends!!

[NVMojo]

8. There is alot covered up in this bill too ...

More info on it available here for those of us who don't understand as noted above:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/network-neutrality

[NVMojo]

9. More info on this issue is here:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/network-neutrality

[AtomicKitten]

10. ---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2580555&mesg_id=2580555

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended!

:kick:

[fishwax]

16. By revoking Net Neutrality, they control the internet

no longer will it be easy to spred alternative voices through the web. They will be able to price alternative voices out of business. It's a huge issue.

[Bonobo]

17. This really should be kicked again...