Blackhacker

The following is the best description of what Net Neutrality is about:

If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.(link)

Dap: Cobb

Others still don’t understand, when people who are “barely” aware of how technology works are allowed to make policy that effects it. This WSJ Opinion piece is an example of such cluelessness.

Meanwhile, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other Net neutrality proponents seem to want it both ways. They insist both that this is pro-consumer legislation and that the best thing is for consumers to pay for things that Google and other content providers would rather not. Net neutrality only became a cause of these companies and of the Moveon.org crowd when some phone companies suggested they might want to charge Google or other content providers for priority access to their networks.(OpinionJournal )

Understand what the enemies of Net Neutrality want to do. They want to be able to examine data packets as they come to and from their customers to determine what kind of applications/services they are using. (IE VOIP) This is called deep packet inspection. The ISPs then route those packets through faster, less congested routes if they are using “preferred” services provided by the them or business partners, (ie VoiceWing) or slower more congested routes for everybody else (IE Skype), or even block them altogether. This is called traffic shaping.

Lets be clear. nodes that are closer together can “talk” much faster than nodes that are farther apart. So if you are on VerizonDSL, I would expect that any service provided by them would have a technical advantage that services hosted outside of Verizon do not, but Verizon and other ISPs who appose Net Neutrality want to to be able to do is banish non sanctioned communication to the “surfaces roads” leaving the express lanes clear for only those who have paid a little extra.

You might hear tech people talk about how dumb the Internet is. This is true. ALL the intelligence of the Net is at the “Edges.” That means what make the Internet cool are the people, applications and services you can connected thought the Internet. The net’s jobs is simply move bits from point A to point B. And up until now the ‘net has used what is called “best effort” in determining how those bits get moved around. Now best effort will go out the window in favor what business agreement the ISPs have made with the content providers or application hosts. This is some old Microsoft bull. The ISPs want to leverage their position as the “platform” on which the Internet runs to skim of the profits of those that ACTAULLY INNOVATE. In much the same way that Microsoft leveraged its position as the dominate OS on which PC applications ran. Those that will not pay the ISP tax will suddenly have competition from some Comcast or AT&T sanctioned service to punish them or simple have there service diminished or out right blocked. And it will all be legal.

Coming off a disaterious IPO, Vonage must now defend itself in a Patent suit from Verizon.

This seems to jive with what Bobby X, has talked about in is latest column, where he feels that the whole Net neutrality debate, at least from the Telecoms POV is all about VOIP. I would tend to agree, that for the moment, the Telecoms, appose Net Neutrality because they they want to protect their businesses from these VOIP upstarts, and the success of VOIP really depends on the amount and quality of consistent bandwidth. I also believe that if not stopped hear the Telecoms won’t stop. The next logical service to hijack would be VOD.

PS:
That Bobby X link also has his thoughts on Bill Gates stepping down from duties at Microsoft. A good read for anyone who wishes to understand the inner working of Microsoft.

This weeks pulpit Bob Cringely, thinks that he’s solved the technical & fiscal challenges of IPTV. His idea is for each of the local PBS stations get a server at one of their local broadband ISPs and deliver content from there:

PBS | I, Cringely . June 8, 2006 - Local Heroes
Though you might not always know it from reading this column, PBS is a television network. And as a TV network, PBS is facing the same sort of technical challenges as its more commercial competitors. At this moment, that includes deciding how to play in the emerging world of digital downloads and IPTV. But there is an aspect of this that most people don’t think about, and that’s the difference between national and local strategies, between how the network might want to run IPTV versus how local station managers see the opportunity. Up until now, IPTV has seemed to appeal more to the network than to its affiliates, but that’s just because people aren’t thinking clearly. IPTV might, in fact, lead to a renaissance in local television.

Like the title of the post says, their is only one problem. The same technical model will work without the PBS affiliates. Assuming broadband companies can get the servers to the local data centers, they could approach content providers directly to get the content on the local servers. PBS would be relegated to another content provider. Or if you are cable company pirate content that that TV producers have to send you anyway.

I am sure that the IPS have already thought of this, which is why they want to kill any government enforced net neutrality, they wish to be the center of the content distrobution universe. I would even agree as long as communication between any two nodes on a subnet, not just content providers who rent boxes in the data center, are given the benefit of greater bandwidth that exist within the ISP intranet. But of course we all no that is not what they want to do, but I digress.

I think the BEST solution would be an enhanced bittorrent solution where the clients can prioritize its peers based on what network they are on. The TV producers would simply put a server, on each segment of each the ISPs network voila instant TV distribution. ISP’s could rent the boxes. TV producers sell ads, and we the public watch for FREE, or at least for a LOT less that what we pay for cable and satellite these days. unfortunately this leaves PBS stations out in the cold just like all of the local affiliates, not totally. They would not have to run entire stations, just produce content a to be delivered to the various ISPs.

House rejects Net neutrality rules | Tech News on ZDNet
By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.

The Bill in question is Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006(CORE) it must now go to the Senate. I assume that it will first be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee And from there to the floor. Contact the members of the committee, especially if you are one of their constituents. Let them know you want fairness preserved and protected on the Internet.

Also Check here to see your Congressmen voted.

A New telecom bill lacks any Net neutrality provisions also throws a bone to the MPAA & RIAA outlawing digital receivers that allow you to record with out any DRM.

Net neutrality missing from sweeping telecom bill | Tech News on ZDNet
Included in the massive proposal is, however, one requirement sure to please the recording industry: authorization for the FCC to start the process of outlawing digital over-the-air radio and digital satellite receivers sold today that permit users to record broadcasts. Those would be supplanted with receivers that will treat as copy-protected anything with an “audio broadcast flag” in the future.