"NET NEUTRALITY"

 

The Public Internet Should be Smart

 

The BLUE Point of View

 

 

 

 

 

What is "NET Neutrality"

It's the neutrality of the basic internet protocols with respect to the different ways they can be used.  Commonly called "Content Neutrality" or "Application Neutrality".  In a neutral network, information would not be inspected as it moves from one destination to another.

 

This has become a contested area of law in the US due to mergers of telephone companies and digital cable providers.  Monopoly of telephone networks have traditionally been subject to "common-carrier" laws, but information on cable networks have been treated as expression that a company or operator can filter at it's own discretion under the First Amendment.

Thus Companies like Verizon and MCI can control different sites and information over the web and charge and allow certain sites freedom.

 

                                    +            

 

 

 

My Argument is going to be why this is a good thing?

An Intelligent or "Smart" Network is one for both fixed and mobile telecommunications.  It allows operators to differentiate themselves by providing value added services in addition to the standard telecoms services similar to that of mobile phones.  It can be also be regarded as an overlay of the core network.

 

 

The Intelligent network has proven to work in the past:

Let's take the phone industry. Intelligent or Smart networks was used to enhance the core telephone services offered by traditional telecommunications networks.  Types of enhancements or services that rose from Smart networks are

While Smart networks has declined in recent years, there are many systems deployed across the world which use this technology.  It's not only proven to be stable but also a continuing source of revenue with new services added all the time. 

 

Economics of it?

 

 

 

 

                                                                                          

 

“Some content providers like Google and Yahoo! would like elected officials and the public to believe that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will shut off consumer access to certain web pages if the content providers decline to pay for premium services,” Arrison said. “In reality, the marketplace will discourage such harmful action and what’s at question is whether ISPs such as Verizon and AT&T can charge content providers more for faster Internet services.

They are currently charging us (user) for this service so why not charge the content providers?

 

http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/rel/2006/pr06-02-07.html

http://en.wikipedia.irg/wiki/Intelligent_network

 

Without a smart or intelligent network, who would intercept malicious code, give the quality of service and so on?

 

David I Senberg (who is widely considered the "dumb network" guru) has failed in many attempts to  argue their most perplex problem.  The denial of Service Attack.  Meaning, if technology is open and information is passed from one end user to another another end-user, who is going to address the denial of service.  If Doug set up a root kit on my computer, and set up a system in which I would block an internet site from my computer, I could be easily monitored, but who would catch Doug?   

                                                              

 

                                                                                                         

REGULATION VS OPEN MARKET

People who Argue for a "Dumb Internet", want no regulation at all.

 

In September of 2005, the FCC created a policy Statement around four internet connectivity principles.

(A) access the lawful internet content of your choice.

(B) run applications and services of their choice.

(C) Connect any legal devices that will not harm the network.

(D) Competition among network providers, application and services providers and content providers.

 

Now Does this sound like regulation to you?

Quick point:

Without the regulations above, what would happen if Verizon or AT&T dominated the market and hiked prices so high that the consumer would be paying all costs of internet access.

So I believe we need some regulation of material through the internet.

Recently the house Judiciary committee approved a bill that would restrict the telephone and cable companies that control broadband internet access from discriminating and dictating the provisions of the service.

What does this mean -  It means whomever owns the cables and wires would be able to dominate the market and allow restrictions on what goes in the internet and what comes out of their and what cost.

                                                    

END OF PRESENTATION BUT PLEASE READ ON.

 

The Agencies Involved in regulation of the internet.

 

The FCC

The FCC adopted a policy statement expressing it's strong preferences and has adopted orders that bind the largest telephone company providers of broadband to preserve the access to content, applications and devices that consumers already use.

 

The FCC concluded it's policy statement by observing "to Foster Creation adoption and use of internet broadband content, applications, services and attachments and to ensure consumers benefit from the innovation that comes from competition, the commission will incorporate the above principles into it's ongoing policymaking activities.

 

 

 

 

No one is arguing that internet "openness" is a good thing because it expands the different levels of competition and innovation that open competition creates.

 

Let's not forget that we need "smart" devices like broadband networks like those that provide DSL and cable modem services.

 

Now lets go to a Net Neutrality Analogy.

 

If network neutrality applied to the delivery of packages, we'd never have FedEx or UPS because they wouldn't be able to offer priority service. That's the wrong analogy, since there's no barrier to entry into that space in the form of a natural monopoly. If the analogy was to hold, it would be a situation where the government sold off the interstate highways to private companies to manage (the Roadcos), in exchange for reasonable rules that since they were given publicly funded infrastructure, they could not discriminate by vehicle owner who drove on those roads. Now, the Roadcos are coming back and saying they need to rebuild their highways to accommodate more traffic, and in doing so, they want to charge FedEx extra to drive in a special fast lane -- while potentially blocking out UPS.

 

http://techdirt.com/articles/20060626/1513210.shtml

 


Why is Net Discrimination Suddenly a Threat?

How did we even get to the point where a few corporate access providers have the power to change the Internet so drastically? This medium, which exploded on the communications scene not much more than a decade ago, used to offer a multitude of online access choices. But advancing technology combined with appallingly bad decisions by the FCC and the Supreme Court have brought us to the current crossroads.

Telephone companies have long been "common carriers" under U.S. law. That is, they supply the wires that allow us to communicate, but they can't control what is said, censor what they don't like, speed things up for customers who are able to pay more, or refuse to allow other providers to use their lines for a reasonable fee. This last requirement proved crucial to the early Internet, when there were lots of competitors vying for our dial-up business.

 

http://www.feproject.org/commentaries/netneutrality.html





It didn't take long for the phone companies to make their intentions known. Just a few weeks after the FCC relieved them of common carrier requirements for DSL, the chairman of then-SBC Communications told Business Week magazine that "there's going to have to be some mechanism" to get companies like Google and Yahoo to pay for Internet traffic to their sites. BellSouth and Verizon executives soon made similar statements.

Focusing on big sites like Google that are heftily supported by advertising is smart public relations for the telecoms, but it didn't take long for web democracy advocates to point out that subscribers are already footing the bill for Internet access, and that millions if not billions of nonprofit sites will not be able to pay the broadband providers for favored treatment.


• • • • •

Cope



 

The House voted on legislation yesterday that could determine the future of the internet and public access television in this country. In a vote of 321 to 101, the House voted to pass the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, known as the COPE bill. This controversial telecommunications legislation would permit phone and cable companies to operate Internet and other digital communications service as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. The bill would effectively end what is known as "net neutrality" which is the concept that that everyone, everywhere, should have free, universal and non-discriminatory access to the Internet. The bill would also cut back the obligation of cable TV companies to devote channels to public access and fund the facilities to run them. And the COPE bill would replace local cable franchises with national franchises.
Democratic Massachusetts Representative Ed Markey had proposed an amendment to the COPE bill that would have included stiff net neutrality regulations and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others but the amendment was rejected.


Rep. Ed Markey (D - MA), speaking on the House floor, June 8th, 2006.

Opposition to the COPE bill came from all corners. The "Save The Internet" coalition, representing musicians, special interest groups, bloggers, and others, delivered almost 800,000 petition signatures to Congress in favor of net neutrality. Internet companies have also spoken out against provisions in the bill. Sergey Brin, co-founder of the search engine Google, met with members of the Commerce Committee to explain the importance of net neutrality for promoting Internet commerce and the CEO of E-bay Meg Whitman took the unusual step of personally e-mailing the auction site's users to ask their support for promoting net neutrality protections. eBay stated that the e-mail reached over a million users.