backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by HighWing.. on Oct 26 at 5:30 PM

Senator John McCain has introduced Internet Freedom Act of 2009 as alternative to FCC regulations

Net neutrality is one of the top technology topics that President Obama has focused on for his first term and was one of his big topics while campaigning. Obama feels that the neutrality of the internet must be maintained, as does the FCC.

The FCC voted to begin drafting rules yesterday that would require ISPs to treat all web traffic the same. The proposed rules would prevent ISPs from blocking or slowing the bandwidth available to high demand traffic like streaming video or other applications that can strain networks. The proposed rules would allow ISPs to block illegal material like child pornography and spam.

Republican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would block the FCCs proposal for regulating the neutrality of the Internet. The AFP reports that McCain said, "the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 [will keep the internet] free from government control and regulation."

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said, "reasonable and enforceable rules of the road [are needed] to preserve a free and open internet." Genachowski points out that these rules are needed because of "some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications."

Naturally, companies that make their money from the internet are supporting the FCC's proposal. These companies include Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and several other internet firms. McCain calls the FCC's proposal "onerous federal regulation" and calls the proposed rules a "government takeover" of the internet.

ComptuerWorld also reports that McCain does not support including wireless broadband providers in the net neutrality rules saying, "[The wireless industry] exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation."

McCain said of his Internet Freedom Act of 2009, "Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation. It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."



Comments     Threshold


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

Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By Looey on 10/23/2009 4:38:55 PM , Rating: 1
Net neutrality as defined by the FCC is a proposal for all data to flow over the network equally. If all of an ISP's customers start downloading multi gigabyte files at the same time they will be treated with the same priority as someone sitting at his keyboard waiting on a response from a web site. The FCC (Obama & Google) want to treat bulk data the same as traffic generated by a person.

If a person is making $100 an hour and has slow response because an ISP has his connections choked, it makes no sense to prioritize all the data the same and never has. This will force ISPs to add more hardware and bandwidth to speed up response time. The cost will be passed on to the customers. For ISP haters, don't say sign up fewer customers and there will be more bandwidth to go around. That will raise the costs or make the ISP quit the business.

Technically, net neutrality is bad business. To stop an ISP from setting high priorities to keyboard users and make them fall in with bulk data transfer is asinine.

Net neutrality will not lower anyone's connection costs. Just the opposite, it will enable companies like Google to make a lot of money on consumers backs. The FCC is only doing what it is told. The FCC is not thinking for itself, it is doing what it is being told to do. It is all politics and about money to be made by a few companies and will not benefit anyone but them.




RE: Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By Awk on 10/23/2009 5:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
The rules being considered specifically allow for "reasonable" traffic shaping to maintain QoS. Throttling users' total network usage isn't contrary to the concept of network neutrality at all, as long as ISPs don't discriminate against certain packets. In other words, Comcast can slow down your internet connection because their tubes are full, but not because you're downloading eight gigs of Norwegian midget clown porn.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


RE: Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By Awk on 10/23/2009 5:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
Also, they would be required to disclose the fact that they will throttle you in the case of full tubes.

Imagine, ISPs being required to tell you the secret rules you're operating under.


By Bateluer on 10/23/2009 5:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
Perish the thought.

Net Neutrality is a good thing and the FCC should implement it.


RE: Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By HrilL on 10/23/2009 7:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get why people defend ISPs so damn much. First off it cost them on average less than $1 (this is a 2002-3 estimate it is likely even lower now days) per subscriber per month. I currently pay $50. That is a hefty amount of profit for these companies to offer a lack luster services at best.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3453...

I say all data is treated equally. If an ISP needs more capacity then they need to build their networks to support the users they sell a service to. If I pay for a 10Mb/s line then I should get 10Mb/s non stop worth of bandwidth. It is a known fact that ISP's over sell capacity quite a bit and want to use management techniques instead of upgrading their networks like they should be. Simply put they want to make an even larger profit then they are currently making.

And just because I am doing bulk data transfers doesn't mean I want don't want it to go just as fast as someone else loading a web page. Who is to say Joe bob going to a porn site is more important then me downloading the latest linux distro? I don't think we should allow the IPS's to make that choice.

The cost shouldn't be passed on to anyone. They should have been using their massive profit to build out infrastructure to stay ahead of the trends of users. If you have a user base that consumes a lot then that is likely what more and more users will be consuming in the future. Its not rocket science. Its proving a damn network. I mean damn a network is considered full at 80% utilization and a routers CPU is 70% utilization according to cisco. Its networking 101 stuff these ISP don't want to follow.

The only traffic that should have a higher priority is VoIP traffic since packets don't always make it to their destinations in order. VoIP degrades easily when latency fluctuates too much.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Related Articles
Verizon, Google Talk Net Neutrality
October 22, 2009, 9:40 AM













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