Calling all computer geeks

[tombogan03884]

Would those of you who are computer savvy please read this article about "Net neutrality" and comment on whether this is good or bad. My first instinct is that Govt interference, ESPECIALLY by this administration is a bad thing. I don't see anything other than the precedent itself that seems like censorship though.

                 http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090920/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_rules

[piepaned]

The problem with internet neutrality is that, it is a double edge sword.  

I apologies in advance for the complex terminology in this post, but I feel in order to understand the problem one must know the system.

First off, I am a collage student who: plays 'viloent' video games, watch 'violent' movies online via "hulu" and "netflix", run peer 2 peer (p2p) applications, surfs the web and etc.

Now my internet provider is Comcast.  From my experience this internet broadband company service is crap.  The only reason I stay with them is they have a monopoly in the Pacific Northwest.  So, what is internet neutrality? it is the notion of equality of internet data, is the best way I can sum it up.  Someone smarter than me is welcome to correct me.  

Now, how dose this play into information equality?

Comcast in its efforts to provide a service for minimal impact on its bottom line decided to implement 'packet shaping'.  Information sent over the internet is not a continuous file.  The reason why data is not stream continuously is due to corruption of small parts of files, then you would have to resend the whole file.  Therefore, the information is broken up into large chunks of data called packets.  Typically packets contain an embedded code stating what it is.  What packet shaping dose is read what the packet is and determine its priority.  

Now, let's use an analogy here to explain the situation.  let's say it's 6:00 in the morning (peak time) and the people in this building are taking a shower.  The water pipes can provide a flow of 20 gal/min  and the demand is 22 gal/min.  Something has to give.  Well most people will say increase the flow, right?  yeah, that's right, but you have to install equipment which will handle the improve flow, which cost money.  Same for the internet.

Under Comcast packet hierarchy, internet data is divided into categories, normal uses (web browsing, email, blogs), mild uses (gaming, streaming movies) and heavy (p2p).  During peak times Comcast denies the flow of p2p data.  For me video game data is very similar nature to p2p.  What is p2p? Peer 2 Peer is decentralize communication system where each user share a portion of their computation power to send and receive packets.  Unlike traditional methods where one computer manages all sent data per request.  p2p is best used to send a file to many people quickly.  p2p application is took a hit for its ease of uses to swap files, such as music.  And thus, the Anti Piraticy movement was launched by the recording industry to stop p2p.  From my current understanding the military 'Land Warrior' information system is based off of p2p architecture.  Note: military information system is separate from civilian internet.

Currently the way comcast has it residential billing system setup is xx speed for xx a month.  under this all you can eat bandwith system, supply can not meet demand.  And in order to maintain a profitable business comcast has introduced packet shaping, usage cap of 250GB, denied service usage and other schemes.  

And in one instance comcast upon the request of the Recording Industry of America Ass. (RIAA) gave the RIAA the personal information of its customers suspected in piraticy.  And lawsuit began.  You can say you don't pirate anything, but are you sure your teenage kid isn't on your connection?  And there are user out there who are much better at using the computer then me who can clone your digital finger print and do what they want.  

I again apologize for such a long post that might of be seen as a rant.  In my closing toughs, I discussed the current system architecture and packet shaping effects.  That digital information is an intangible object that cant be discriminated against, thus 'information equality' is a joke. I believe in the free exchange of digital/all information, according to the 1st amendment, but who's gonna pay for it?

xxxxxx


author's thoughts
 
I intended this to be an informative post based off my current understanding and I am not the end all expert on internet systems.  I am sure that I am forgetting something in here.  When you limit the exchange of information people being to make rash and uneducated decisions.  One might say p2p dosen't affect me.  Well yes, but who controlling the 'packet shaping' filters? p2p today, gun info tomorrow? who knows?

[Hazcat]

In and of itself net neutrality is not a bad thing BUT it is also not a big problem that a government agency needs to deal with.  It DOES give government a way into regulating the net.  The FCC head has stated that he would like to be able to control content on the net.  This bill would give him power upon which he could expand.

[tombogan03884]

 Thanks Piepaned, that gives me a much clearer understanding of the surface issue, and explains why I sometimes lose my connection, or can't get to a particular site.
Haz does a good job of articulating my concerns for future misuse of the precedent that would be set.

[Pathfinder]

In and of itself net neutrality is not a bad thing BUT it is also not a big problem that a government agency needs to deal with.  It DOES give government a way into regulating the net.  The FCC head has stated that he would like to be able to control content on the net.  This bill would give him power upon which he could expand.

Not to mention the ability to stop all but military/security/DHS traffic. With computers, the difference is between zero (no occurrence) and 1 occurrence, not between 1 and any other number. As soon as you build the infrastructure to allow distinction of one type of transaction, it is a very simple matter to discriminate all forms of traffic.

Getting the first one is the hard part. They have done that, it is only a matter of time. The internet's clock as a purveyor of free and open discourse and knowledge is now ticking down to total control.

[Sponsor]

[fullautovalmet76]

I've been following this issue for the past 15 years and I can say that depending on how the rules are setup 'Net Neutrality is a good thing. But let's explore this issue from the carrier side of things first.

Everyone must understand that the communication systems that are in place are privately owned and the owners of these systems have the right to regulate what can come across their networks. Using Comcast as an example, they should have the right to give their subscribers priority when accessing data that is on their network. And the same applies to AT&T, Verizon, etc. The cost to provide more robust networks that can deliver more content more quickly costs money and the costs are borne by the subscribers of these systems. If Comcast wants to deliver 1 Gb/sec (1 Gb is one billion bits) connections to the desktop of their customers, the customers are going to pay for it. However, the customers of AT&T will not have to pay for it but will benefit from Comcast's upgrade because their traffic gets to cross Comcast's new network free of charge; this is based upon the way the 'Net is currently setup. Remember these companies are publicly traded and the shareholders (owners) of the company are going to demand a fair return for their investment. So the management of Comcast decide they will provided tiered service with non-subscribers getting the bottom of the barrel in terms of service quality. In addition, Comcast will deliver to the higher paying consumers more content that is tailored to the faster system. Sounds like capitalism at its finest doesn't it?

But the consumer can be screwed in this scenario and here it goes. Using a Comcast in a hypothetical situation, Comcast decides to regulate what content their subscribers can access, including web sites that may be in opposition to its business activities. Or Comcast’s board of directors decide their customers do not need to see firearms related web sites (like DRTV) because they are just bad for the community.

One can see how allowing these companies to operate without some regulation is a recipe for disaster. The balance must be struck allowing companies to manage and provide services to their subscribers but without imposing restrictions upon them and non-subscribers that would block access to information. We must realize that the ‘net is now the de facto conduit for the majority of our information in our society. Government does have a role but it must allow for the market to work and allow the free flow of information too. This is a delicate operation which relies upon the judgment of those imposing the regulations. Considering the current and past administration, I’m not sure if our civil liberties will continue to be respected in an online world. I would follow this closely and not allow the typical left-right paradigm govern how you see this issue, because it much bigger than that.

[Hazcat]

But the consumer can be screwed in this scenario and here it goes. Using a Comcast in a hypothetical situation, Comcast decides to regulate what content their subscribers can access, including web sites that may be in opposition to its business activities. Or Comcast’s board of directors decide their customers do not need to see firearms related web sites (like DRTV) because they are just bad for the community.

FA,

I do not know of one instance of this.  Yes, some carries provide family friendly filters and such but you know about them up front.

So I do not see it as a relevant argument for government regulation.

[tombogan03884]

FA,

I do not know of one instance of this. Yes, some carries provide family friendly filters and such but you know about them up front.

So I do not see it as a relevant argument for government regulation.

 Because of the "antipiracy" drive, some providers blocked  some of the P2P music sites if I remember right.

It seems, and I could be misunderstanding things here, that the proposed policy would prevent things like the example I mentioned.

[piepaned]

The RIAA has stated that file swapping via p2p application reduced sales of cd.  And in order for the recording industry to maintain their profitability, p2p must be stopped.  Now I'm for net neutrality, but when you discriminate one form of data just because someone is losing money, you open a can of worms.  When you stop one form of data traffic, whats stopping you from stopping data against your cause or agenda?

[fullautovalmet76]

FA,

I do not know of one instance of this.  Yes, some carries provide family friendly filters and such but you know about them up front.

So I do not see it as a relevant argument for government regulation.

Haz,
It is VERY relevant and Tom is right on both of his points. And here is another: Right after Microsoft launched their Hotmail e-mail service, Yahoo! was accused of blocking messages from Hotmail. This was just an example of one vendor blocking another. But this can be easily done from carrier to carrier. Also keep in mind the Chicoms are legendary for blocking different types of traffic  and sites coming into the country.