backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by Obadiah.. on Jun 21 at 6:47 PM

The new COPE act threatens the previously approved net neutrality bill

Previously DailyTech reported that the US House Committee approved the net neutrality bill which secured a solid future for consumers and prevents large telcos from creating tiered networks. However, a new update on the initial proposals is making progress, which promises to add a price increase for Internet services and possibly threaten net neutrality. Called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), the act plans to allow local governments to collect up to five percent to put towards developing high speed broadband access.

The COPE act goes beyond local municipality interests and also gives telcos and cable companies the ability to create franchises on a national scale. However, what if a telco is the only company offering broadband access in a local area? COPE addresses that too. To keep monopolistic practices at bay and keep prices fair, the COPE act plans to regulate what a service provider can and cannot do when it is the only presence in a local area. This is of course good news for users who rely on a sole company for Internet access.

Interestingly, many Internet advocate groups oppose the COPE act indicating that it is a new threat to net neutrality. The groups indicated that while the act did prevent certain things from happening, it did not have enough details about regulations defined. Many companies including Verizon however disagreed, saying that the COPE act does not say anything that would give a telco power over what goes across its network. In the end, many feared that while the net neutrality bill had been passed, the COPE act steps in the way with ambiguity and uncertainty.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Paying for doing something already paid for...
By InternetGeek on 6/19/2006 11:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
Tiered networks are like having to pay for your car working even though you already bought it. And then having to pay extra if you wanted the car to go faster, save gas, etc.

ISPs around the world get paid to service and run their networks on a subscription basis. Media companies get paid to deliver quality content over these networks.

Why is there need for ISPs to get paid extra to do their work?




By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2006 11:20:59 AM , Rating: 1
Tiered networks are like having to pay more for a faster car...or, more appropriately, paying extra if you want your package delivered overnight, instead of sometime next week.

Let's look at the four major policy statements in COPE:

quote:
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice."

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network."

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."


Anyone have a problem with any of these? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. COPE also has some provisions to require 911 service by VOIP operators, and it (partially) replaces the antiquated and monopolistic "local franchise" system of cable operators, with a national system that allows competition witin a single area. Sounds good to me also.


RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By Xavian on 6/19/2006 1:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
the big fear is, without net neutrality. Sites that were previously free, become off-limts to all those who dont pay extra, or even basic services. Do not underestermate the Telco's appitite for money.

If they can get away with charging extra for something thats already free, they will. This is what net-neutrality is supposed to prevent.

I'd hardly call it a step backwards for consumers, i'd rather pay a single fixed fee and be allowed everywhere on the internet, rather then paying a tiered charge to find out i cant go here or there.


RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By dead1ne on 6/19/2006 3:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
The tiered pricing structure is also on the content providers side aswell. What the ISP really want to do is have Google or whatever company pay their ISP for their high bandwidth line and then also pay all of the consumer ISPs like Cable internet and DSL for that same level of bandwidth to reach the consumer. The problem with this is that the consumer is paying for that bandwidth to be delivered to him already. The ISPs are claiming that they aren't being paid for it which would be true if you only paid a small fee for access to the internet that did not have a advertised speed. I currently pay 75$/month for 8MB/512B connection to the internet. The ISPs are basically saying that I'm not even though I have a bill that proves it.


By SteelyKen on 6/19/2006 4:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Net Neutrality does not ban creation of any services. It is not about services, it is about banning the creation of a tiered internet.

The telcos are in the business of providing the bandwidth for the internet. Now they want to go into the business of providing content. So they need to upgrade their networks to provide the increased bandwidth it will take, right? Not if they get their way. By creating a tiered internet, they can decrease the bandwidth in some areas to provide the bandwidth needed to run their new "premium" content. It is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul. It gives the telcos another reason to stall upgrading the network and has the added plus of a government guarantee of profit for going into the content business.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2006 5:50:21 PM , Rating: 1
> "Net Neutrality does not ban creation of any services"

It bars creation of any new service UNLESS it can be provided at the exact same rate as all existing services. Which is obviously a flawed model. New, faster services should cost more.

The current model of the Internet is antiquated...all data services are treated equally. That means data streams which require low latency can't step ahead of other requests....and so your Voip call or streaming video stutters, because of people downloading Vista.

A far more efficient model is to prioritize traffic by its time sensitivity. There's plenty of Internet data which would work just fine if it showed up in 200 ms instead of 20. But prioritization is useless without pricing to match. If the "high priority" lane was no more expensive than anything else, every server on the Net would flag their content "super-dooper important" and we'd be right where we are today.

So what does "Net Neutrality" do for us? It tells telcos they're free to roll out new, high-speed technologies....they're just not allowed to charge for them. They have to provide them instantly to everyone, at the same cost. If everyone doesn't want to pay a higher rate (which they won't), then that new service doesn't get rolled out at all. Not until its gotten so stinking cheap that offering it for free is trivial.

Such a law is so alien to basic market principles, it's amazing it ever saw the light of day. If I want to send a package faster-- I pay more. If I want to send a packet faster....I can't. It has to go the same speed as every other packet in the world.

Some dreamers believe that'll result in all packets moving faster. What is really results in is them all moving the same slow rate we have today.




By AxemanFU on 6/19/2006 6:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. No Telco or long haul company is going to build infrastructure necessary for increasing bandwidth for advanced services without getting compensated for such services monetarily, to offset the expense, and heaven forbit, get a little profit for the stockholders as well. Without some sort of ability to segregate the current plain jane internet from advanced high priority bandwidth on a seperate physical or virtual network, the telcos and long hauls just won't invest. They don't exist to bleed out and lose money just to satisfy consumer parenoia and provide charity bandwidth increases. They can't operate that way. If you don't want change and improvement, the surest way to leave the internet stuck with the status quo for the next generation is to discourage investment into advances. Forcing telcos to give every provider access to the sum whole bandwidth available at the same cost doesn't give any provider OR telco an incentive to go a little farther. Instead, you get the classic cable tv model with a slow creep up in rates, and little or no technology advances for decades until there is competition. Trust me the prices aren't going to go out of control, because when providers want you to access their sites, they will ensure the consumer's cost to access is minimal.

I can sort of buy the "small provider gets hurt" theory..but aren't they obligated to try to invest and compete also? The internet isn't a charity. And God forbid the government steps in any more than it already has, ergo Chinese "PC" internet policy. You get it, but you can't do much with it.


RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By Obadiah on 6/19/2006 6:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
So what does "Net Neutrality" do for us? It tells telcos they're free to roll out new, high-speed technologies....they're just not allowed to charge for them.

That's baloney. Today you can purchase high-speed connectivity with specific service-level agreements. Companies like Akamai and InterNAP are two of many that fit that market niche.

The problem with the telcos is that they want turn the internet into cabletv. They want own the wires and own the content. That kind of vertical monopoly is not at all in the public interest - it leads to stagnation and overpricing just look at how overpriced and prosaic cabletv is today.

The difference between the line-owning telcos and companies like Akamai and InterNAP is that the later are pure connectivity providers - they have no desire to compete with their own customers in the content market.

If the telcos feel they must be allowed to sell traffic prioritization, then by virtue of being government-regulated monopolies, they need to be limited to being pure bandwidth providers. They should not be allowed to leverage their monopoly position in end-user connectivity to unfairly compete with other businesses in the content industry.

You can't have a free market if the government gives one of the merchants control over all the roads to the marketplace.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2006 6:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "That's baloney. Today you can purchase high-speed connectivity with specific service-level agreements"

You need to look up just what those vendors are offering...as well as understand exactly what "net neutrality" means. Today, all data on the Internet are-- within any given pipe-- transmitted at equal speed, at equal price per bit. Net Neutrality writes this into law. Telcos are barred from prioritizing data, or for charging for tiered services.

> "[Telcos] want own the wires and own the content"

Oops, Net Neutrality doesn't prevent Telcos from owning or distributing content.

> "[Telcos] should not be allowed to leverage their monopoly position in end-user connectivity..."

I agree..and the COPE legislation specifically prevents this, and in fact opens up competition in the local cable markets. Why not read the bill yourself?




By Obadiah on 6/20/2006 12:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
You need to look up just what those vendors are offering...as well as understand exactly what "net neutrality" means. Today, all data on the Internet are-- within any given pipe-- transmitted at equal speed, at equal price per bit.

I know what they are offering, I have been a share-holder in both for many years. Their services are quantatively different, but the end result is often the equal of or better than anything this so-called 'tiered' pricing could hope to provide.

Your focus on 'any given pipe' is misleading. InterNAP sells virtual 'pipes' that are effectively single-user - one per customer - and provides throughput and connectivity SLAs.

Oops, Net Neutrality doesn't prevent Telcos from owning or distributing content.

I never said it would so skip the strawman argument please -- what it does do is prevent them from playing favorites.

> "[Telcos] should not be allowed to leverage their monopoly position in end-user connectivity..."

I agree..and the COPE legislation specifically prevents this, and in fact opens up competition in the local cable markets. Why not read the bill yourself?


It most certainly does not prevent them from leveraging their monopoly position either on their own behalf or on the behalf of a favored partner. If you really believe otherwise, you are going to have to back that up with a specific citation, because after reading the bills, I don't see anything like what you claim.


RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By Xavian on 6/19/2006 10:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
for such things technology like Multicast becomes an option.

Multicast allows the ISP themselves to download only one copy of whatever the large media is and thus 'broadcast' it to the network. This means when someone clicks on a Multicast link (as bbc.co.uk have started doing/testing to deliver high quality channels on demand) the file is streamed from the local ISP's network, meaning less bandwidth needed (a considerable drop) and less costs all round.

The only problem is Multicast is in the testing stages right now and it'll take 6-7 months atleast for the final product to come out. Check www.bbc.co.uk/multicast for more details.

Its technology like that, that should be pushed here not some form of tiered internet, which will ultimately cost more to the consumer and threaten the very nature of the WWW (even Tim Berners-Lee is for net-neutrality and he created the WWW).

Technology is the answer, tiered internet/WWW is NOT.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2006 11:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "for such things technology like Multicast becomes an option."

And what happens when you're the only person on your ISP receiving that stream? Such as realtime video conferencing or video-on-demand? Multicasting becomes useless. What about high-speed VPN services? Multicasting doesn't help there either. Real-time remote device control over the Internet? Sorry, multicasting doesn't apply there either.

> "Its technology like that, that should be pushed here not some form of tiered internet"

Who pays to upgrade the entire Internet to support all these advanced technologies? In a tiered Internet, the people using the new services pay extra...everyone else pays less. Without that, the upgrades just don't happen. As another poster pointed out, it locks us into the cable TV market model-- little to no innovation for decades at a time...just a slow inevitable creep up in rates.

Cable providers didn't start to innovate until broadband came along. Why? Because it wasn't regulated...there was a profit motive for them. Instead of set government rates they had to apply equally to all customers, they were allowed to charge some customers MORE. And charge them based on how fast a service they could supply. New revenue streams! The cable market exploded overnight. Companies spent billions to upgrade their networks...so they could sell TIERED service. And suddenly the US was a nation of broadband access.

Now we want to do to the Internet what we did to cable TV and broadcast radio. Lock it into a regulatory straightjacket so tight it'll never breathe again. Profit motive for upgrading your network? Heaven forbid! You must charge everyone equally, and give them the exact same service. You must find the least common denominator...and force every customer to adhere to it.

We never learn from history.


RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By kanliot on 6/20/2006 1:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And what happens when you're the only person on your ISP receiving that stream? Such as realtime video conferencing or video-on-demand? Multicasting becomes useless. What about high-speed VPN services? Multicasting doesn't help there either. Real-time remote device control over the Internet? Sorry, multicasting doesn't apply there either.


This is the 10th time you've done this masher2. You throw out and issue and then back away from it.

We all know, the FDA has a regulation about how much rat feces can appear in a box of cereal. This COPE act would allow for MORE METAPHORICAL FECES to appear in the internet service that we all pay for.

As a bittorrent user, I have no doubt that the protocol will be blocked, slowed, capped, logged and lagged.
:(

With the COPE act, Time warner will be free to spend all of it's infrastructure budget for new capacity dedicated to proprietary content. Since none of this conent is free, I am effectively chained into paying for it twice.

Note that they could bring this capacity online anyhow, it just wouldn't be as profitable as a monopoly over a public resource would be.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 7:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
> "As a bittorrent user, I have no doubt that the protocol will be blocked, slowed, capped, logged and lagged"

Oops-- telcos have been able to legally do this for years. None have ever done so. You're inventing fantasies of problems which don't exist. If a company ever blocked a popular service like bittorrent, they'd lose a large number of customers overnight. And for those few cases where consumers still don't have choice in broadband access-- fix the PROBLEM. Require competition. Don't stick a bandaid on monopoly acess.

> "With the COPE act, Time warner will be free to spend all of it's infrastructure budget for new capacity dedicated to proprietary content"

With or without COPE, a company is always free to spend its "infrastructure budget" in any way they choose. Your mistake is in assuming that budget is a fixed number. It's not...its dependent on the amount of profit a company believes to be inherent in those upgrades. If new infrastructure isn't able to generate new profit-- the budget becomes zero. Why spend money for nothing? It doesn't happen. And neither do the upgrades.

> Since none of this conent is free, I am effectively chained into paying for it twice.

Now you're just being silly. You're not "chained" into paying for proprietary content even once, much less twice. Or are you actually going to sit here and say with a straight face that you believe Time Warner will say, "buy our movies-on-demand or we're going to shut off your cable connection?"

With Net Neutrality, however, you ARE chained to something. The same least-common-denominator service as is the rest of the country. Want to pay a little extra for more service or functionality? Sorry, no can do. Want to pay a little less, and buy just what you need? Sorry-- can't do that either.



RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By Obadiah on 6/20/2006 12:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "As a bittorrent user, I have no doubt that the protocol will be blocked, slowed, capped, logged and lagged"

Oops-- telcos have been able to legally do this for years. None have ever done so. You're inventing fantasies of problems which don't exist. If a company ever blocked a popular service like bittorrent, they'd lose a large number of customers overnight. And for those few cases where consumers still don't have choice in broadband access-- fix the PROBLEM. Require competition. Don't stick a bandaid on monopoly acess.


Demonstrably false claims like that really undermine your credibility.

Many telcos have been and continue to block, slow and cap bittorrent - and because a very large minority of users don't have a choice in high-speed ISPs, the bittorrent development community has had to respond with measures like bittorrent protocol encryption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_protocol_E...


By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 1:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "Demonstrably false claims like that really undermine your credibility."

Oops...did you read your own link? Click through to the references:

quote:
Some ISPs have simply reinvested in their networks and allowed BitTorrent to flourish, while others report that Shaw Cable and Rogers Cable in Canada have made their BitTorrent experience excessively slow and intolerable.


No major US telco operator blocks-- or even degrades performance of-- bittorrent traffic. Some smaller US ISPS (not Telcos) reportedly do so. But they're not prevented from doing this by "Net Neutrality" either, so your point is doubly incorrect.

I notice you failed to respond to all my other points also. Why is that?


RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By Obadiah on 6/20/2006 5:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
Oops...did you read your own link? Click through to the references:

Yes I know that Canadian ISPs do it. So do American ones like RCN, the article is not comprehensive, just proof of the falsehood of your initial statement.

No major US telco operator blocks-- or even degrades performance of-- bittorrent traffic. Some smaller US ISPS (not Telcos) reportedly do so. But they're not prevented from doing this by "Net Neutrality" either, so your point is doubly incorrect.

So now you want to distinguish between "major US telcos" and ISPs and you are claiming that the net neutrality proposals won't apply to ISPs? That's ridiculous. The ISP function - and their monopoly position - is what this is entire conflict is about - the backbone only providers aren't interested in tiered access, they already sell it. In fact, I challenge you to cite a single backbone-only provider (i.e. no residential or office ISP services) that is challenging net neutrality.


I notice you failed to respond to all my other points also. Why is that?

Because they are pretty much self-evident strawmen and anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence can recognize that simply by reading them. However your claims about bittorrent traffic shaping sound plausible enough that they require clear refutation.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 5:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "just proof of the falsehood of your initial statement. "

Don't be asinine. My statement was "no major US telco operator". RCN is a minor ISP...and even they don't block Bittorrent, they simply limit the number of active connections a user can have at one time.

> "ISP function - and their monopoly position - is what this is entire conflict is about "

Look, if you want to remove the monopoly position of some ISPs and Telcos, I'm all for it. One hundred and ten percent. But Net Neutrality doesn't do that. Do I need to repeat that again? Net Neutrality does not remove monopoly protection for those providers that currently enjoy it.

COPE now takes a few baby steps in that direction. Not a big step, but its a start.

> "Because they are pretty much self-evident strawmen... "

Ah, the usual excuse for those unable to construct a reasonable rebuttal. "I don't need to disprove it...its self evident!"



By Obadiah on 6/21/2006 3:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be asinine. My statement was "no major US telco operator". RCN is a minor ISP...and even they don't block Bittorrent, they simply limit the number of active connections a user can have at one time.

Funny that your ORIGINAL statement was not that. Weave and duck my friend.

Ah, the usual excuse for those unable to construct a reasonable rebuttal. "I don't need to disprove it...its self evident!"

You are living in a HUGE glass house there.

Before you throw that stone you had better get back and respond to every single point that I and the other posters have made in rebuttal. You can start with a post of mine in which I asked for an actual citation, because I could find no proof of your claims in the text of bills that you oh so generically referred me to.

My gut says that you haven't read the bills yourself. So far, all of your hand-waving supports that belief.


RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By jtesoro on 6/20/2006 2:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see anything necessarily wrong about the COPE policy statements above. But the specifics have gotta be more debatable than that because it looks too generic to me. Almost like drafting a bill saying, "lets all be nice to each other". I'd like to read the actual COPE act but unfortunately I don't have the time, so no comment on COPE from me :(

I have an opinion on Net Neutrality though. I understand the benefit of the tiered internet is that it supports the "you get what you pay for" model. You want speed, you pay for it. But one of the dangers is that operators can play God in deciding what services or businesses become viable.

For example, they may decide that Skype will get less bandwidth from now on. All of a sudden, Skype becomes essentially unusable unless a subscriber pays an additional 10 bucks a month. Maybe Skype can try to "bribe" the operator by paying $100K a month to bump up his bandwidth. Either way, the operator gets too much power.

It gets even trickier if the operator comes up with a VOIP service of their own. They could put that on the high-speed area, so their service becomes so superior to Skype all of a sudden. I think this is dangerous, leading me to support Net Neutrality.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 7:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
<quote?> " they may decide that Skype will get less bandwidth from now on. All of a sudden, Skype becomes essentially unusable unless a subscriber pays an additional 10 bucks a month. Maybe Skype can try to "bribe" the operator by paying $100K a month to bump up his bandwidth...

Telcos have had the power to do just that since the Internet began. Yet they haven't done so. Why not? Because the moment they began trying to "hold hostage" some service, that service owner pulls up ship and moves elsewhere...and so do the customers of that service. There are very few cases where a business or consumer doesn't have at least two choices for Internet access. And those few cases are best fixed by removing the current "last mile" regulations that guarantee monopoly power...rather than simply tacking new requirements onto the same antiquated structure.

Competition drives the market. And you don't create more competition by telling companies what they can't do...you tell them what they CAN do, and you let as many companies as possible do it.

Is anyone so truly naive to believe that, under "net neutrality", a new competitor to existing telcos could ever spring up? When they're banned from charging anything but the same "lowest-common-denominator" service as already offered by existing telcos? No way...there isn't enough profit there to finance a whole new network. Likewise, does anyone believe telcos are going to spend billions to implement new high-speed technologies...when they're not allowed to charge anyone for them? No again.


RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By jtesoro on 6/20/2006 12:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
I've got an inside view of telco organizations. I can't take on all of your points on due to confidentiality reasons. But some I can...

One of your key premises is that the current situation inhibits innovation. Well, new services are coming out and they can be priced at a premium if the content provider wants to. We don't need a tiered internet for that.

quote:
Competition drives the market...

Agree. But this is what drives the market to keep increasing bandwidth to accommodate all the new services. Granted, maybe the new services will tend to choke up the lanes once in a while. But if a telco doesn't push for new technologies and roll them out to increase bandwidth, then they're in trouble because the competition will.

And I'd still want to see what your thoughts are on my Skype scenario. To further elaborate, in a market where competition DOES exist, what chance do you think Skype has when telco A rolls out his own VOIP services, and telco B rolls out his own VOIP services? In a tiered internet, Skype is screwed. This is a bad thing, as this applies to a slew of other innovative services out there.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 1:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "Well, new services are coming out and they can be priced at a premium if the content provider wants to. We don't need a tiered internet for that."

No. Sorry, but this reveals a basic misunderstanding of net neutrality. New services involving data prioritization are banned. Period.

Sure, a telco can offer "new service". As long as it treats data exactly the same as the old service. One lane...all running at one speed. New technology to enable low-latency connections, for instance. Banned...unless you give all traffic on the Internet the exact same benefit (and worse, do so at the exact same price).


By jtesoro on 6/20/2006 11:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you're saying. But please tell me how the Skype's of this world will be able to thrive under this kind of model? Operators will squeeze innovative companies once the operator copies them and makes their own version. And don't say competition from other operators, because that other guy will do the same thing.


RE: Paying for doing something already paid for...
By jtesoro on 6/20/2006 12:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
Just got to absorb your last paragraph.

quote:
Is anyone so truly naive to believe that, under "net neutrality", a new competitor to existing telcos could ever spring up? When they're banned from charging anything but the same "lowest-common-denominator" service as already offered by existing telcos? No way...there isn't enough profit there to finance a whole new network. Likewise, does anyone believe telcos are going to spend billions to implement new high-speed technologies...when they're not allowed to charge anyone for them? No again.

Interesting you say that, considering that Google wants to make their own free network in SF. Lots of similar efforts all around.

So the money will be in the services, not in the network. Existing telcos are forced by competition to increase bandwidth. And they will roll out their own versions of innovative services (e.g. Skype) to grow revenue. And without Net Neutrality, the guys like Skype who create the innovations are dead.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 1:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "Interesting you say that, considering that Google wants to make their own free network in SF. "

Glad you brought that up. Let's look at why Google is doing this, eh? The city gives Google free access to thousands of rooftops to base a network from. Google, in exchange, runs a limited free service, and makes its profit off a higher-value service offered to businesses.

Tiered pricing, all over again. That's the whole rationale behind the plan.


By jtesoro on 6/21/2006 12:02:46 AM , Rating: 2
From your post, it seems that Google will implement its service with the tiered internet model (some services will be intentionally get a fast lane, some services will get the slow lane). If this is correct, then does this mean that they should close up now since Net Neutrality stops them from doing this? From what I know, they're still pursuing the effort.

Another possible interpretation of your post is that users can only do certain things on the Google network (you can't do things or access services Google doesn't want you to do).

From my understanding, what Google is doing is NOT the tiered internet in any shape or form. I can't find anything which contradicts this, so I would appreciate links which show this limited free service model you mention (and that it is effectively some sort of tiered internet).


You"re Right
By gmallen on 6/19/2006 9:42:18 AM , Rating: 1
The bill passed out of the House committee prevents regulation enforcing Net Neutrality. This is a cinsumer-hostile bill that allows favored delivery for a price.




RE: You"re Right
By TTowntom2 on 6/19/2006 10:21:59 AM , Rating: 3
> "This is a cinsumer-hostile bill ..."

Have you even read the bill? Somehow I doubt it. There are good and bad privisions in COPE. Calling it "consumer hostile" is just parroting the neo-socialist rants of the lobbyists against the bill.


the best legislation money can buy
By kanliot on 6/21/2006 7:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice."

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network."



These 3 paragraphs just suck... Like Hell do I have the right for my system to be audited, so B.B. can check for legal devices on my network?

quote:

"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."



Back in the day, it was all point and click, hunt and peck. Now we have providers, who will network our content, and service our application. I remember Gopher, command line ftp, and websites that you had to search through yourself. Amazing how fast things change isn't it?




By Obadiah on 6/21/2006 6:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
This one is particularly bad:

quote:
"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."

When did our government forget that the police exist for society's benefit, society does not exist subject to the will of the police.


Hardly so.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/19/2006 9:19:51 AM , Rating: 1
> "which secured a solid future for consumers..."

The so-called "Net Neutrality" bill was a large step backwards for consumers. COPE is more of a mixed bag....there's some good in there, and some bad also.




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki