Thoughtful comments from ZDNet readers on Net neutrality

Thoughtful comments from ZDNet readers on Net neutrality

Summary: We reach some of the most technically sophisticated and aware individuals in the IT industry.

SHARE:

I'll admit it. Sometimes picking on Apple lovers is irresistible. It's like when you were a little kid and you knew you weren't supposed to use a magnifying glass and the sun's rays to fry a bug, but you just kind of had to, anyway. Teasing Apple lovers is like that and the result is often TalkBacks filled with annoyed, man-purse carrying Apple faithful venting their carefully coiffed rage.

But not all TalkBacks are like Apple-related TalkBacks. We also reach some of the most technically sophisticated and aware individuals in the IT industry (and I include Apple lovers, when they're not being goaded mercilessly). As a result, if you read through TalkBack posts, you can often find interesting, well-considered and well-informed perspectives.

That's the sort of gold I found in the TalkBacks from yesterday's article on the death of Net neutrality. It started with a Facebook posting by a friend of mine, Warren Selby. After reading his note, I decided to go back through the TalkBacks and found some great insights.

In this posting, I'm going to start with Warren's comments and then spotlight some of the more interesting comments I found in TalkBack. What follows are their words and their insights.

Warren's comments

I had a feeling you'd be jumping on this when I saw the news today. Having read your article, I know you realize this isn't "the death" of net neutrality. It just means Congress must now pass new laws that explicitly grant the FCC the proper permission to do what they were trying to do with laws that were designed for something else.

Now, about the topic of the story, I'm on the fence about net neutrality. On the one hand, I don't want ISPs to start acting like the cell phone industry (sorry, you have to buy your PC from us, and you're access to our network will only work with a PC you bought from us, or one of our certified partners, ala Apple and AT&T and the iPhone). Comcast blocking traffic to sites they don't like (P2P networks) is, in my opinion, a very bad thing.

On the other hand, I really don't like the idea of government regulation of the Internet. We're talking the FCC here, the government regulatory body that basically gets to decide what's allowed to be broadcast over the air. Suppose they start applying their ideas to what's allowed to be broadcast over the air to what's allowed to be transmitted over the net? Bye-bye online porn industry.

Suddenly, the government decides it's a bad thing for people to able to play video games for 12 hours straight and implements new laws that say ISPs that don't want to lose their ISP license are now required to stop people from gaming once they reach 11 hours of consecutive play? Hey, the MPAA just contributed millions of dollars to my re-election campaign, I should do something nice for them with regards to making it illegal for any ISP to allow P2P traffic on their networks.

You see how this works. There's slippery-slope arguments for both sides of net-neutrality. In my opinion, net neutrality is a good idea. I just wish we could find a way to achieve it without any kind of government regulation.

Kweebia says, "In case you forgot"

All these "new innovations" happened without government regulation. I'm sorry, but most of the places where government gets involved suddenly end up with new fees, you know to help cover the cost of governmental interference.

And the government doesn't have a great track record of creating sound regulation much less understanding most technology. I mean if you really want to talk about blocking innovation, let's talk about software patents. Another great government idea.

There are also a few things everyone is ignoring, like that Comcast didn't block traffic, they delayed BitTorrent downloads.

People also ignore the fact that less than 5% of the active subscribers were causing the problem.

As to the comment that cable companies control what services consumers can even see, I'd like you to name one that consumers can't see. I mean besides phishing sites. Sorry I guess when they block phishing sites they are bad, because they should allow you to become infected and have your data stolen.

Everybody also ignores that these are private networks, they are not paid for by the government. Cable companies, and Verizon for that matter paid for the network and pay to maintain the network.

Comcast wasn't trying to limit your access they were trying to solve a problem caused by a very small minority that was affecting the majority (over 95%).

Oh and as to no innovation, they only brought high speed internet to Millions, oh but I guess that doesn't count even though it enabled most of the services that you are talking about.

And while they didn't invent On Demand, Switched Digital video, Docsis 2.0 and 3.0, they have deployed these innovations so that people have access to them.

I mean honestly, Google didn't invent VOIP, Internet email, Internet maps or Internet documents, they are just popular. For that matter, they didn't invent Internet search. I'm not saying they are not good at those services, but they basically deployed things that were already in use.

And before you flame me, I don't work for Comcast, I just work in the industry and understand the challenges faced by the industry. I don't honestly see ISPs blocking any of these services, there is just too much competition to block them.

If they start blocking services, their competitors will start advertising that they don't. Then Comcast would lose customers. The only reason their competitors didn't make a big deal over the whole BitTorrent thing is because all broadband ISPs have to use some kind of network traffic management.

Even the FCC admitted that providers had to be able to manage traffic on their networks. The "sanction" that they were fighting in court was just a slap on the wrist so the FCC could puff out its chest and say they were doing something about it. Comcast only fought it because it is fundamentally unsound for the government to be able to, without passing any laws, suddenly expand its control of private networks.

Serpentmage on "Amazing how Obama has affected the viewpoint... "

I read all of these comments on how "business is business". Wow, because of Obama and his fight against "free enterprise" everybody has decided that Skype is freeloading and not paying dues.

Well, folks let's work on this metaphor a bit shall we. Imagine a toll road, and you pay your toll, just like like your access fee.

The problem is that Comcast wants to say, "hey you have a semi and hence I want to kick you off the road." Of course the semi is charged more, but the question becomes where do you draw the line?

The toll road has the right to charge the semi more money. But what if the toll road has decided to kick out semi's from a certain company? They made a deal to only allow certain semi companies. Would the toll company be allowed to do that? Answer NO!

The solution in the free enterprise world is to let them kick out the semi. And let the semi build another road. Wonderful idea folks, and that is what caused the railroad collapse about 150 years ago. Because companies were not willing to let other companies use their railways, railway lines were built double and triple. It was not a good idea.

But hey the free market is always better... UNTIL it hurts the pocketbook and people demand regulation!!! You can't have it two ways!

Bruizer on "Skype and VOIP have the most to gain here"

The reality is, in any Network, QoS (Quality of Service) is critically important. VOIP clients are a perfect example.

One of the serious downsides of an "all you can eat" plan like most broadband plans are, is some people will do that. Even when they are not home and this can be detriment to lighter users and degrade the performance of apps that need higher QoS, such as a VOIP app.

So heck yea, I want to be able to assign a much higher QoS to VOIP data than to highly non-time-critical peer-to-peer file sharing (or any ftp traffic for that mater).

What this might mean, is that QoS might actually start costing money.

Thanks, everyone!

This has been a great discussion on a very important topic. Keep the conversation going by adding your comments to the TalkBack section below. And a special thanks to my friend Warren along with TalkBackers Kweebia, Serpentmage, and Bruizer. If your TalkBack didn't get included, maybe it will be in a future "thoughtful comments" posting.

Topics: Networking, Apple, Browser, Government, Government US, Telcos, Unified Comms

About

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in the History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets and is a member of the National Press Club.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

5 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Separate bandwidth provision/ISP's from content.

    Wouldn't two simple rules suffice:
    1) If you supply the bandwidth/connectivity for users you cannot also supply content to those users.
    2) If you supply bandwidth then you cannot censor/interfere with the content being delivered through your "pipe".

    Then apply these to Sat & Cable TV, Mobile Data and Fixed Line internet. That would mean Comcast can't buy NBC and mobile vendors can't block or make "non approved" video services against their terms of service at the same time as charging more for their own mobile TV/video service.

    It would still allow ISP's to charge more for more bandwidth.
    gnickturner
  • Thoughts on Peer-To-Peer

    Every time someone says "NET NEUTRALITY" up jumps the boogieman of Comcast sending reset packets to Bit Torrent users. "They're picking on me" is what we hear the P2P crowd whining. "We need to be able to manage our network as we see fit" cries the ISP. Who's right here? BOTH OF THEM!!!. Comcast does need to be able to manage it's network. When you have 50 subscribers sharing a single run of cable you have some kind of tool to manage the bandwidth. Otherwise you end up with the same situation I had to live with where 4 or 5 users hog 95% of the available bandwidth with Bit Torrent sessions. That leaves the rest of us competing for that last 5% trying to do email, shopping, homework, research, games, ect... The issue stems from trying to provide balanced access to all their customers. Most web activities result in short spurts of data. You click on a link, a session to the server is opened, a block of bandwidth is secured, the page is downloaded and the session is released, the bandwidth is released. This is how shared bandwidth pool networks work, and for your average user or even most heavy users this work fine. Enter the P2P user. You start Bit Torrent, it opens as many sessions as will fit in the available bandwidth, those sessions are persistant sessions and do not release until the P2P service is shut down or reset. So what you have is 20 or 30 customers opening single, short duration web sessions then releasing. Meanwhile you have 3 or 4 customeres opening 30 or 40 persistant sessions which don't release even when they are not transmitting or receiving data. So to balance the service and try to give a better experience to the rest of the customers comcast would send reset packets to the P2P customers. It didn't prevent the P2p customers from accessing/transfering their data. It simply slowed down caused the idle persistant sessions to clear to allow other customers to access the service they were paying for. Everyone on that link paid the same ammount for access. Why is it fair for 3 or 4 customers to hog 95% of the assets. So yes, Comcast was picking o the P2P users. Why? Because they were using all the available bandwidth and preventing other customers (who pay the same ammount for access) from accessing the connection.
    Scubajrr
    • Hear,Hear

      Basically P2P users are inconsiderate pigs when it comes to internet resources. They may not realize they are hogging all the resources, but they are. If they can't learn to control themselves, then the owner of the resource should have the right to force them to share and play nicely with others. Just like Mom does when she forces little "Jimmy" to only take one cookie until all the other children have had their one cookie. As long as this fact is mentioned in the contract no one has the right to complain or litigate. Maybe the ISPs just need to revamp their contracts, and the rest of us just need learn to work well with others. -tsh
      thuffman@...
  • You should have heard an old room mate complain...

    when I limited his monthly bandwidth. After doing P2P for
    several months (after being told NOT to. If he wanted to
    do that, he could pay for his own internet connection
    under his name. That, and he had a botnet spewing email
    all over the place). So I configured the router to limit him
    to 2 GB/month (he had a 2 day warning to stop). He used
    it up in less than a day and could not play Final Fantasy for
    a month. Or do email. Or surf.

    He was so amazingly pi$$ed off. But he did not do any
    P2P after that. And he cleaned his PC to get rid of all the
    evil that had accumulated on it.
    Bruizer
  • RE: Thoughtful comments from ZDNet readers on Net neutrality

    Great!! ! thanks for sharing this information to us!
    <a href="http://www.yuregininsesi.com">sesli sohbet</a> <a href="http://www.yuregininsesi.com">sesli chat</a>
    efsane