Save The Internet

[Xmuzik]

Congress is now pushing a law that would end the free and open Internet as we know it. Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. So Amazon doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer.

Many members of Congress take campaign contributions from these companies, and they don't think the public are paying attention to this issue. Let's show them we care - please sign this petition today.

http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the...xZ6RrT2rzw&t=4

[Silver]

yeah I oppose this initiative. Completely. Why should my ISP dictate which sites have prioty of bandwith?

unfortunately money talks and i'm afriad this was inevitable.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Silver

yeah I oppose this initiative. Completely. Why should my ISP dictate which sites have prioty of bandwith?

Uhh, they already do. It's called transit traffic, and most tier 1 ISPs pay each other for access to their network.

[Silver]

Correct me if i'm wrong but if this proposal passes it takes that to a new level. Individual sites would then be allowed to pay for priority access for bandwith from the isps. Not the isps to each others networks. I heard a story on NPR about it but it was a bit ago and granted i don't recall the details. . . aren't they two seperate issues dio ? or are they truley the same? I guess i really don't know for sure

[Dionysos]

They're separate but related. More than anything it's an extension of what already happens now, except that the bill has language regarding specific sites instead of preferring networks. I won't get into the details of it all, but essentially as it stands now the internet as a whole is designed as a system of preferences. ISP1 likes to get to website abc.com through ISP2 instead of ISP3 for any number of reasons. There are myriad reasons why it's preferred one specific way, but one of those could be because there is no transit or peering relationship setup between ISP1 & ISP3(both of which involve one ISP paying the other, depending on traffic levels and such). There are a few reasons why I don't think this legislation is anything to worry about, but I'll stick to 2.

1) It's not going to pass. Internet heavyweights like Amazon, Ebay, & Google are coming out against this bill, and when a company that spends as much money on bandwidth as Amazon doesn't want an ISP they have service with to support a bill like this, it probably isn't happening. The articles I've read on the bill all say that the bill has very few co-sponsors and will likely die in subcommittee before this year is over. It simply isn't very popular.

2) It's not enforceable. It's one of those things like the oft-dreaded "internet tax" where even if the US enacts legislation they can't enforce it without dire consequences. What about companies like Telia, NTT, or Colt that are based in other countries? How is the US going to enforce any of their legislation on these networks? What about US companies with peering points in other countries? Take the ISP I work for: we're an American division of a Japanese telco/ISP with a network that spans 4 continents. Exactly what part of that network are they going to have jurisdiction over? The issue is so hopelessly complex that Congress won't know how to make heads or tails of it.

This isn't even getting into the questions over definitions, peering, transit, QoS traffic, or the international routing standards already in existence.

[Silver]

ahh. . .

Thanx for the info. That does clear it up for me quite a bit.

I'll add it to the list of things not to worry about

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

The issue is so hopelessly complex that Congress won't know how to make heads or tails of it.

Lol, quite true.

I do give them some credit in trying to address the issues raised when some ISP's blocked access to competitors VoIP products though (which has more to do with net neutrality than making popular websites, like moveon (hmm?), pay a premium for bandwidth intensive content)...and lets not forget the not-so-little tiff between L3 and cogent that left their customer's unable to reach the other's network. I think that one was particularly egregious because the manner in which they de-peered didn't even let transit AS's carry the traffic between the two, right? Anyways, some of what I've read suggests the bill would mandate unfettered 'reachability' of any and every device on the internet.

You're right, popular sites already pay a premium to deliver content faster...be it through the choice of a more expensive ISP that has vast peering arrangements and/or through companies like Akamai. I guess all this provision would do is make popular sites pay networks with the most end-points (Verizon, SBC, and Comcast) money to deliver their content faster...That kinda sounds like SBC and Verizon in particular with their recent acquisitions of MCI and ATT would be making money on both sides of the coin. Which is mighty oligopolistic of them, because if it wasn't for the content their trying to charge a premium for their products wouldn't be as popular. It's probably a lot more complicated than that though.


/end nerd psycho babble.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

...and lets not forget the not-so-little tiff between L3 and cogent that left their customer's unable to reach the other's network. I think that one was particularly egregious because the manner in which they de-peered didn't even let transit AS's carry the traffic between the two, right? Anyways, some of what I've read suggests the bill would mandate unfettered 'reachability' of any and every device on the internet.

Fuck, don't remind me. That was such a debacle and it generated complaints in every ISP, ours included. I blame Cogent on that one. Then again I blame them on most everything involving them because most of their people are clueless.