backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 33 comment(s) - last by Wwhat.. on Jun 30 at 6:22 PM
Two groups propose new alternative for net neutrality that seems promising

The controversy over net neutrality has received what could be a real alternative. Two groups, one called Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the other group called New Yorkers for Fair Use are both proposing a new plan that will allow broadband service providers to create tiered networks but only for specific customers and applications.

The two groups are comprised of technologists and business people and their proposal seems to have turned some heads. The CDT issued a statement claiming:

We believe that companies investing in broadband networks should be free to use those networks for a wide range of non-Internet services on terms and conditions of their own choosing. For that reason, we believe that “Internet” neutrality better reflects the proper scope of the issue than does “network” neutrality. Our recommendation is to distinguish between “networks” and “the Internet” and to focus the policy debate on the latter.

Splitting the net neutrality debate down the middle is a proposal to distinguish what is "network neutrality" and "Internet neutrality". According to both groups, service providers should not be allowed to create a tiered Internet but should be allowed to customize their networks and bandwidth.

The New Yorkers for Fair Use similarly agreed with the CDT, saying that tiered networks would be acceptable if it did not impede on the competition. In fact, the plan proposed by the CDT would allow Congress to monitor networks to see if service providers were violating the agreement -- although privacy advocates would be up in arms on this one. Both companies said that Congress needs to look over net neutrality and re-examine in detail the factors that apply to the Internet and not other network types. DailyTech previously reported that Congress is proposing a new act called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE) that would give more funds over to the government and allow service providers to create tiers in limited conditions.

Despite COPE and all the fuss over net neutrality, analysts say that the new proposals by CDT and The New Yorkers for Fair Use may just be the right answer for the future of the Internet.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
We are all forgetting something
By vingamm on 6/27/2006 8:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
This is a business decission. And by rule, can not be good for the consumer.

This bill is designed for current networks. I am not sure about you but I know I do not have fiber to my house yet. Tell what happens when that becomes available (if ever). How many of you want to be stuck with a 5M/384K when there is a 1Gb connection available? With a teired network that conclusion is entirely possible. reserving the newer higher speed connections to for business. Giving the consumer access only when something faster and newer is available to the business or government consumer.

I appreciate that Broadband now offers so much to our lives (VoIP and IPTV) but, we are paying for those services. When I first got broadband the business community laughed at it. I managed a computer hardware store back then and our network connection was a cable modem. When I tried to interest several other local businesses in the idea, telling them how much cheaper it was they thought we were foolish. To slight us, the consumers that made it possible, for the more profitable "big business" is just bad business to me.

There is no way you can show me this is good for the consumer. I remember when they broke AT&T up because it was suppose to be better for the consumer. Have any of you seen your phone bill go down? Or, are most of you like me and switched to VoIP phone? Think about it. These kinds of decissions are never as "good for the consumer" as they claim them to be.




RE: We are all forgetting something
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 9:19:08 AM , Rating: 3
> "How many of you want to be stuck with a 5M/384K when there is a 1Gb connection available? With a teired network that conclusion is entirely possible"

I have news for you-- it's "entirely possible" already. It always has been. There is no law requiring DSL or cable connections to your home. The industry did that on its own.

When you understand WHY companies spent hundreds of billions to outfit homes with the fastest connections technology allowed-- without being forced to-- you'll understand the weakness in your argument.

> "I remember when they broke AT&T up because it was suppose to be better for the consumer. Have any of you seen your phone bill go down? "

Lol, this is the most insanely ridiculous statement I think I've ever seen on this board. Have we seen our phone bills go down? Before the AT&T breakup, long distance calls used to run over a dollar per MINUTE during business hours. I myself paid phone bills of over $1000/month a few times. Now, they give away free LD cards with Happy Meals, and you can purchase unlimited service for dollars per month.

Why do you think AT&T went from the largest company in the world, employing over one MILLION employees, to (at it lowest point), employing less than 40,000? The revenue from long distance vanished...because the cost went to near-zero.

So anyone who "didn't see their phone bill down" was either not yet born then, or never used a phone.


RE: We are all forgetting something
By rcc on 6/27/2006 11:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Masher, all true. But, if you limit the perspective a bit more.....

In the old AT&T days, if you didn't use long distance much, or at all, you got an $8.80 bill each month. Today you *might* be able to match that with lifeline service, etc. etc., but it's unlikely.

However, from a long distance standpoint, we have it made now.



By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 1:04:00 PM , Rating: 3
> "In the old AT&T days, if you didn't use long distance much, or at all, you got an $8.80 bill each month. Today you *might* be able to match that with lifeline service, etc. etc., but it's unlikely."

Adjust those 1984 dollars for inflation, and you were paying closer to $20/month. So local service is about the same, and long distance is far, far cheaper.

Local, by the way, was not deregulated. Only long distance. That's why "last mile" service is still so expensive. Voip-over-cable is the first hint of competition the RBOCs have had since their inception.


RE: We are all forgetting something
By vingamm on 6/27/2006 1:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Masher every bit of what you said is off base and bogus. Let me set you straight on the AT&T (since I work for a communications company and MIGHT know what I am talking about).

One Long Distance did not go down because of deregulation. The cost of most people's LD remained the same and at one point in the middle 90's actually rose because there were no cooperation between the child companies after deregulation.

Also the service went to crap. No centralized company meant not centralized support and many others to blame for the issues you were having. Bell South (where I live) is still one of the highest priced telcos there is. If you paid (and I doubt that you ever did) $1000 for LD calls then you talk to darn much. I have never seen a bill that high and I have family that lives on the opposite coast. They (AT&T) crashed because people turned to alternatives like cellular, IMs, Email, internet calling and more recently VoIP to combat the price of LD. There are so many other forms of communication now that telcos has to drop prices to compete. Deregging may have help in some small part but it was not the immediate solution to the pricing and you get far less for your money.

For the individual that referred to the $8.80 charge on is bill for service, look at your bill more closely next time before you speak. The charges are still there just named differently. They are now called "wire maintenance" and BTW the little extra they charge you because have the "free long distance" is bogus as well. The infrastructure has not really changed since the 70's so tell me what you are paying for?

Lastly about the connection speed; my statement was do you want to be relegated to the having ONLY that choice and your service provider offers more. Again working for a communications outfit, we are pushing everyday to make the FTH idea a reality. It will happen in the next 5 years. If a tiered network it established, do you honestly think any provider will offer that kind of BW to average Joe consumer when they can charge 3 times as much and say it is only for commercial use?

Wake up man even you can not be that slow!


RE: We are all forgetting something
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 1:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "One Long Distance did not go down because of deregulation. The cost of most people's LD remained the same and at one point in the middle 90's..."

Utterly and completely false. From the AT&T breakup to the late 1980s, peak per-minute rates dropped from over $1/minute to one quarter of that amount. Rates dropped so fast, in fact, that small players were shook out of the market completely, and the FCC became worried that competition might vanish.

So tariff regulations were reinstituted, and *minimum* rates were set, along with maximum. Prices then slowly rose from there to about the mid 1990s, to about 35 cents/min peak. The FCC then modified the tariff structure again, and rates began to drop once more, down to about 7 cents/minute in the early 2000s. Today, they're lower than that. Gasoline, medical, case and real estate might be far more expansive than they were in 1982...but LD rates are about 1/20 of their original rate.

> " Let me set you straight on the AT&T (since I work for a communications company"

Trust me; I know far about this than you, having been a Bell Labs researcher for many years.

> "They (AT&T) crashed because people turned to alternatives like cellular, IMs, Email, internet calling and more recently VoIP to combat the price of LD."

Once again, totally and demonstrably false. AT&T consumer LD revenue has declined monotonically since the breakup. Not many people were using cellular and Email in the late 1980s.

Worse for your "factoid", is that total AT&T LD *traffic* has increased dramatically since the breakup. Revenues aren't down because people are making fewer calls; they're making far *more* today than they were twenty years ago. The profit margin per minute, though, is a tiny fraction of what it once was.



RE: We are all forgetting something
By vingamm on 6/27/2006 2:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
It is amazing how our time lines follow each other but our margins are way different. You work for Bell Labs. I worked for a competitor. That may explain it


By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 3:17:40 PM , Rating: 3
> "You work for Bell Labs. I worked for a competitor. That may explain it... "

Ah, no no no. You don't get off quite so easily. I wasn't referring to margins, but tariffs. Averaged, across the entire industry. Long distance rates dropped dramatically following the breakup, a slide which has continued to present day.




RE: We are all forgetting something
By rcc on 6/28/2006 11:35:20 AM , Rating: 2
ving, please read before you comment.

My total local bill pre AT&T breakup was $8.80 per month, that's it, it wasn't called wire maintenance or anything else, that came much later. All my family lived in my local calling area, so no LD.

So, I would look at my bill, but I threw it away 20 years ago, or whatever it was. My point to Masher was that while LD came down, local calling in this area went up, almost instantly. Fortunately not a lot.

I'd take a shot at responding you your last sentence, but you had wandered so far from the trail by then that there would be no point.

Cheers,

>>For the individual that referred to the $8.80 charge on >>is bill for service, look at your bill more closely next >>time before you speak. The charges are still there just >>named differently. They are now called "wire maintenance" >>and BTW the little extra they charge you because have >>the "free long distance" is bogus as well. The >>infrastructure has not really changed since the 70's so >>tell me what you are paying for?




RE: We are all forgetting something
By vingamm on 6/27/2006 1:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and I forgot one thing

quote:
When you understand WHY companies spent hundreds of billions to outfit homes with the fastest connections technology allowed-- without being forced to-- you'll understand the weakness in your argument.


One they are being forced to. It is called a profit margin. if they did not the consumer would turn to another source for the service. Two that is the crux of my argument. If it comes a time where the telcos can legally say "we can not offer you this because your level of service does not allow for it," you will see that the newer technology will not make it to the consumer. It is business. No comapany will just give you something because the like you.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 1:42:16 PM , Rating: 3
> "One they are being forced to. It is called a profit margin..."

Thank you for making my point for me. Companies don't need governmental regulation to force them to provide high-speed service. Market forces (the "profit margin" you refer to) will do it for us. And do a far better and more efficient job of it than any bill Congress is likely to write.



I must be missing something..
By Rob94hawk on 6/26/2006 11:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Is the internet broken? If not, why dick around with it.

Democrat, republican, whatever. Somehow, someway, the gov is going to try to sneak something in to try and suck money out of the whole thing.

When congress gets involved in anything that's already free it's always a bad sign.




RE: I must be missing something..
By RogueSpear on 6/27/2006 12:39:06 AM , Rating: 2
I can tell you how they're going to suck money out of this. The telecom companies will never go for this "compromise" because it will defeat the entire purpose they originally had of price fixing their pipes for the high bidders. The money is going to start flying into the pockets of congress to defeat this and to reinstate the original measure.

I've never seen anything as bipartisan as the pay raise they just gave themselves last week. The day after they gave themselves their raise, I think it was the same day that they voted down an increase in the minimum wage, I got my Vonage bill with something new in it - sales tax. The party is ending.


RE: I must be missing something..
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 3:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
> "I've never seen anything as bipartisan as the pay raise they just gave themselves last week."

Ever try to live in Washington D.C. on the salary of a Congressman? And people wonder why they all take bribes. I won't even go into the fact that most of them could make five times as much in private industry.

Personally, I think a Congressional pay raise is a good investment in the nation. It just might allow them to resist a little temptation.


are you jokeing?!
By drwho9437 on 6/27/2006 7:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
Umm I live in DC on less than 26K a year (student). Last I checked congress gets payed 165k a year, I think they can manage.


RE: are you jokeing?!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 9:08:12 AM , Rating: 2
> "Umm I live in DC on less than 26K a year (student)"

Are you seriously trying to compare the budget of a student to a US Senator?

A job as a congressmen is no different than any other position. If the pay is high, you'll attract the best and brightest. Right now, though, anyone who runs for Congress winds up LOSING money on the proposition. So we only get two classes of people in office-- the independently wealthy, hoping to do some good. Or those trying to GET wealthy, through bribes and influence selling.

You get what you pay for. It's time people learned that.

> "Last I checked congress gets payed ..."

Not an English student, are you? :p


RE: I must be missing something..
By Wwhat on 6/30/2006 6:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
Congressmen making 5 times as much in private industry? doing what? talking to themselves on the street? or do you mean lobbying? because that's the only job I ever heard a congressman get.
And to suggest you cannot live on 165K and therefore have to sell out is a bit over the top but perhaps a sign of why america is getting so fucked up, if people actually say such things.


RE: I must be missing something..
By qdemn7 on 6/27/2006 7:07:54 AM , Rating: 2
If you think that members of Congress are so overpaid, why don't you run for Congress? That way you can see how they really work, or don't and tell everyone all about it. Hey, maybe you can even refuse your salary, donate it to the Treasury and help reduce the Deficit.


RE: I must be missing something..
By drwho9437 on 6/27/2006 7:10:04 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps he isn't motivated by money. I know I'm not. Congress as it acts currently is a huge waste of time. Take it from someone who has lived near DC his whole life.


RE: I must be missing something..
By OrSin on 6/27/2006 7:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
Please most Congressmen are millioniares. And the few that are not are just hiding the Money. I live and work in DC. I work directly for the Treasury as a contractor and I will tell you the number of lobbiest that just throw money at Congress is disgussing. Believe me Congressmen did it for the money and power. They never look a bill an think its good or bad thing. They think will them get me re-elect or line my pocket. And for the record most lobbies don't even have has a voting base, just cash. If a lobby defeaded a bill your congress got brided.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 9:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
> "Believe me Congressmen did it for the money and power."

They sure didn't do it for the salary. Because, compared to what they could make elsewhere, it stinks.



One tiny little possible problem...
By Xenoterranos on 6/26/2006 12:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
I've been saying this since the begining. As long as the telcoms are not allowed to degrade service from anyone to anyone else, there shouldn't be any problems. And while this proposal seems to embody that cause, I would be wary if it did not include a provision that prevented the telcoms from "re-assigning" current bandwidth for private (contracted) use, thereby allowing them to strategically remove bandwidth from the general internet backbone and effectively degrade service. They should be allowed to lay as much line (read: actual wires) as someone is willing to buy, and let that line be used only by the contractee (sp?).




By jtesoro on 6/27/2006 5:50:24 AM , Rating: 2
Still, this seems promising. Although I'm still hazy on what exactly falls under "the Internet" and "network" (the terms used in the article), I'm thinking that somewhere here there might be a good balance struck between 1- allowing innovations based on the "tiered internet"; and 2- protecting against abuse by network operators.


By One43637 on 6/28/2006 3:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've been saying this since the begining. As long as the telcoms are not allowed to degrade service from anyone to anyone else, there shouldn't be any problems. And while this proposal seems to embody that cause, I would be wary if it did not include a provision that prevented the telcoms from "re-assigning" current bandwidth for private (contracted) use, thereby allowing them to strategically remove bandwidth from the general internet backbone and effectively degrade service. They should be allowed to lay as much line (read: actual wires) as someone is willing to buy, and let that line be used only by the contractee (sp?).


that was what i assumed it would be when i first heard about Net Neutrality. i too am worried about internet providers finding a loophole to screw over the average broadband customer.


democrat whining
By rika13 on 6/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: democrat whining
By number999 on 6/26/2006 2:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Usually, if an economic entity can freeload then it does. It's good business practice not to spend money when one doesn't need to. Who doesn't like a free lunch.

As for communist, when some of the people who want this are huge companies like MS and Google I don't think communist and I never got anything from uncle Bill that I didn't pay for.

Lastly don't bring politics into this. Some of the bills for net neutrality have been sponsered by Republicans and it just makes people mad and adds nothing to the discussion.

Republicans
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin),the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) sponsored the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) introduced the Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006

more info at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality


RE: democrat whining
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 3:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Despite our past differences, I have to say-- good post.


BS
By johnsaw on 6/26/2006 4:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
Net neutrality is BS. As far as I see it, some providers just want to provide QoS for their triple play.
You just have to have Qos for VoIP and IPTV. Of course it wouldn't hurt if the telcos opened QoS for IPTV and VoIP services to other non-telco providers.




RE: BS
By OrSin on 6/27/2006 7:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
You are very right. They will just try to charge extra for those high-bandwith direct dollar services. Not sure its its a bad thing. Google makes money off ads not off the bandwith. VOIP and IPTV (I love VOIP) use a large amount of bandwith over a free meduim to make cash. I can see providers taxing them somewhat. But not that VOIP is getting taxed i don't see it necessary for the providers to collect money too.


At first glance...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 12:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
This certainly appears to be a large improvement over the original "net neutrality" proposals.




Internet
By Alphafox78 on 6/26/2006 12:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
If they take away from the general Internet bandwidth and there are speed issues people will be so upset; This whole thing will backfire and then they will have to add more bandwidth anyways to appease the angry masses.




By number999 on 6/26/2006 1:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
I've read some stories of high speed optical networks developed in Asia and was wondering if any laws similar to this one were discussed or deployed.




Your big chance
By Nanobaud on 6/27/2006 12:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, there's still time to get a patent on some part of this, even if that part has been done before (not too hard with creative phrasing, really), wait a couple of years, then... KaCHING

http://lw.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm...




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki