backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 21 comment(s) - last by alphadog.. on Jun 23 at 2:22 PM

Change of heart attributable to fears of further legislation

A panel of executives from AT&T and Verizon urged the FCC to take action in the ongoing Comcast BitTorrent saga, in order to show that legislation is not necessary in order to enforce “network neutrality” in the way ISPs manage their infrastructures.

Speaking at the NxtComm trade show in Las Vegas, AT&T senior executive vice president Jim Cicconi and Verizon executive vice president Tom Tauke implored the FCC to assert its authority and make a decision in the ongoing Comcast debate, which it has presided over since an investigation and series of town hall meetings earlier this year.

“It's in the best interest of the industry for the FCC to make a judgment on the Comcast/BitTorrent case,” said Tauke. “None of us want to be in a world where there is a sense that nobody is watching what is going on.”

The FCC has the ability to prove that Congress is adequately capable of enforcing the FCC’s policy of openness, agreed Cicconni.

“The Comcast case has brought the debate over Net neutrality into specifics,” said Cicconi, before noting that new laws based around a largely theoretical, hypothetical debate could be “disastrous” for the cellular industry.

An AP report on Comcast’s policy of “data discrimination,” released late last year, turned much of the internet and blogging community upside down as it was discovered that Comcast actively interfered with subscribers’ BitTorrent connections and made it impossible to “seed.” As consumer outrage mounted, theorists behind the ongoing Network Neutrality debate – which centers largely on future predictions of how ISPs choose to run a growing internet – suddenly had a real-world case to cite, adding weight to the arguments of neutrality’s proponents and furthering pressure on telecoms and ISPs.

Amidst fears of moving to a “tiered” internet infrastructure, where certain websites can get “premium” treatment by paying a toll of sorts to ISPs, internet providers are fighting long and hard to prevent the creation of additional laws governing how they run their networks. Traditionally, this also resulted in a hostile attitude towards FCC interference – but it appears that ISPs have begun to change their stance with the FCC amidst what might be an otherwise inevitable change.

While the FCC has yet to decide how it’s going to handle Comcast – a decision is expected sometime this summer – Comcast agreed to end its practice of “data discrimination” sometime within the next year, and announced joint ventures between BitTorrent, Inc – proprietors of the open BitTorrent protocol – and Pando Networks in order to seek ways to further optimize BitTorrent traffic.



Comments     Threshold


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

Piss on tiered networks
By amanojaku on 6/20/2008 10:19:24 AM , Rating: 5
Tiered networks have two purposes:

1) To generate additional revenue for ISPs
2) To cover up the fact that ISPs have crappy networks

Let's get this straight: having worked at ISPs I'm all for the concept of paying for what you use. Infrastructure isn't cheap, and peering always has a cost, no matter how low. Customer A deserves twice the bandwidth of customer B if A pays twice as much. That being said, the idea that someone's traffic gets priority over another's is about as fair as having an exclusive highway lane for people who pay more taxes. ISPs should do one of the following:

1) Upgrade their networks to support all users at peak bandwidth usage
2) Advertise and guarantee lower upload and download speeds with the capability to burst if bandwidth is available

In either case, content provider traffic should be on separate links from content user traffic. QoS wouldn't be necessary, administrators can focus on solving different sets of network problems, and pricing could be tailored to the type of network. I've already done this at successful ISPs less concerned with making executives rich than with meeting SLAs.




RE: Piss on tiered networks
By Alexstarfire on 6/20/2008 12:32:23 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, that'll certainly work, but we both know that's likely never going to actually happen on a wide scale.


RE: Piss on tiered networks
By pnyffeler on 6/20/2008 12:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the idea that someone's traffic gets priority over another's is about as fair as having an exclusive highway lane for people who pay more taxes


Just to play devil's advocate, remember that taxpayers actually own the highway as citizens of this country. We pay for the privilege of using the ISP's hardware.

And as for "taxes," I'd be happy/agreeable to pay a tax or some other temporary/one-time small rate increase if it meant that the money was going to upgrade the network & not go straight into the CEO's pocket.


RE: Piss on tiered networks
By Oregonian2 on 6/20/2008 1:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
As obscene as some CEO's compensation can be, the amount the CEO's of Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc make I suspect are a trivial insignificant percentage of the company's revenue. In other words if they charged you another ten bucks, the portion going to the CEO is probably millicents if not microcents. Of course it depends upon one's point of view. All of your $10 goes to the CEO while most of the rest of us has none of ours going to him. :-) :-)


RE: Piss on tiered networks
By Alexstarfire on 6/21/2008 7:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, try telling that to the Po-Po when you want to take back your piece of the highway.


RE: Piss on tiered networks
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 2:29:08 PM , Rating: 3
> "That being said, the idea that someone's traffic gets priority over another's is about as fair as having an exclusive highway lane for people who pay more taxes"

I guess you don't live in a state that has any toll roads.


RE: Piss on tiered networks
By sxr7171 on 6/20/2008 4:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well clue us in, some of us want to switch.


RE: Piss on tiered networks
By fifolo on 6/20/2008 7:47:22 PM , Rating: 4
Well, as far as the roads and taxes analogy goes:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc....

I just drove that stretch, they are indeed installing the Sunpass sensors to collect the tolls.


A-holes
By Ammohunt on 6/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: A-holes
By amanojaku on 6/20/2008 11:26:14 AM , Rating: 3
Government regulation may be the only solution to the problem of ISPs looking to screw content subscribers (you and me) and content providers (DailyTech, Google and YouTube.) AT&T and Verizon are begging the government to back off because it looks like the FCC will go against the ISPs desires of a tiered Internet where:

1) You and I pay a lot for slow connections
2) You and I are lucky to get any upload capability
3) Content providers get stuck in slow networks by default
4) Content providers have to pay through the nose for decent speed

A private Internet would suck. Deregulation has screwed us time and time again, the result of which is usually higher prices, lower quality of service and less competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality


RE: A-holes
By Ammohunt on 6/20/2008 11:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking more along the lines of the FOSS model of a Network. A citizens Band internet if you will. Just needs some engineers to spend time on creating an appliance that would facilitate it.


RE: A-holes
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2008 11:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
Deregulation is not a bad thing. In this case however since ISPs have government mandated monopolies in their areas, it does. If they were not regulated and competition actually was allowed to exist, then ISPs would be forced to provide better service at a lower cost because you could actually go to someone else. Cable or DSL is not a choice. You should have the ability to choose from any number of cable or dsl providers. If the monopolies went away, Verizon would be able to roll out FiOS nationwide and ISPs would be forced to not only upgrade their networks but offer better prices.


RE: A-holes
By Alexstarfire on 6/20/2008 12:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
Government regulation is never the answer. There does need to be regulation, but the government is simply not the answer. I believe that it should be a third party group with at least some knowledge of the internet that is granted it's powers; which will likely have to come from the government though. Course, the FCC is close enough in this respect, but I have a feeling they aren't really going to change/stop anything.


RE: A-holes
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2008 5:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe that it should be a third party group with at least some knowledge of the internet that is granted it's powers; which will likely have to come from the government though.


How is this an answer exactly ?


RE: A-holes
By alphadog on 6/23/2008 2:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
So, you don't want regulation by duly elected government, but you want regulation by government-elected individuals?

Anyone else see a logic problem here?


RE: A-holes
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 2:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "A private Internet would suck"

A private Internet is pretty much what we already have...and given that Internet growth has occurred at a far faster pace than most any other sector, I'd say it's working out pretty good so far.

Let's keep the government's meddling hands out, shall we? It never works out in the long run.


By Torched on 6/20/2008 10:01:36 AM , Rating: 2
I guess then no one has taken issue with the fact that ATT/Verizon don't allow certain protocols over Cellular data connection. Or how they just terminate your account if you start to run a webcam over a cellular data connection.




By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 10:34:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're referring to Verizon's limits on it's "BroadbandAccess" plan, which bars anything Verizon considers a bandwidth-hogging application, such as P2P.

I don't know that AT&T has done anything similar, however.


By mcnabney on 6/20/2008 10:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
Well, previously, if you read the contract you signed you would know that numerous uses like webcams and file sharing were specifically forbidden.

Now, at least at Verizon Wireless, you can use it for whatever you want. But of course there is now a 5GB limit and anything over that you pay for.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2008 11:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
Verizon is still specifically excluding webcams and other server-type apps, P2P, and a whole host of other apps in their service agreement. They may not be enforcing that for people on the 5GB limit, but theoretically they can still can/


By HrilL on 6/20/2008 11:44:08 AM , Rating: 2
While I can't say anything about Verizon as I have never used their service. I can say that AT&T does block p2p traffic to some degree. I could not use torrents at all. Or it would only let me have 1 connection to a peer and only let you download not upload. Pretty much you couldn't upload anything actually. I wasn't even able to send a friend a file over MSN, AIM, or IRC. But I had not problem downloading things over DCC, HTTP, and FTP. And AT&T also has the 5GB limit that if you go over you will be charged but you get the option to cancel your account if you don't want to be charged for the amount you use over 5GBs.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














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