network neutrality

[easyeye]

Do you agree or disagree on this new FCC proposal? In short the proposal suggests that data packets should move impartially without interference from ISPs such as ATT, Verizon, Comcast etc.

[POLICESTATE]

Awesome, I won't have to use as much encryption as I do now for some things if they do that.

[sfwdiy]

Do you agree or disagree on this new FCC proposal? In short the proposal suggests that data packets should move impartially without interference from ISPs such as ATT, Verizon, Comcast etc.

ISPs should definitely not be able to prioritize traffic based on content. I should get the bandwidth I pay for, whether I'm bittorrenting the latest Ubuntu distro, making a VOIP call or reading VCC's cat threads in Off-Topic.

Prioritizing traffic will end up screwing the average consumer.

--B

[lazyworm]

I voted "agree" However, I think some traffic prioritization based on
technology/technical reasons is important. For example, video usage
has been increasing the last few year and likely to continue to do so.
It would be perfectly fine with me to prioritize video traffic over other
less time sensitive traffic, e.g. email.

As long as the prioritization or interferences based NOT based on
business reasons and business relationship, it should be okay.

[odysseus]

I would like to know more about the ground rules of the proposed QOS traffic prioritization. We could see it then become just another tool of marketing and an attack on traffic not deemed profitable to the ISP. For example say Verizon or ATT want to better stream VOIP, especially their VOIP product, or stream media - especially their media content packages at a cost to slowing non ISP web, mail, and peer to peer like torrents.

It's not a good premise, and while I of course understand the technical merits and needs of correct packet prioritization, I would not off hand back any policy for this unless neutrality of some type is also employed into this type of policy.

[sfwdiy]

I voted "agree" However, I think some traffic prioritization based on
technology/technical reasons is important. For example, video usage
has been increasing the last few year and likely to continue to do so.
It would be perfectly fine with me to prioritize video traffic over other
less time sensitive traffic, e.g. email.

As long as the prioritization or interferences based NOT based on
business reasons and business relationship, it should be okay.

The problem with prioritization of certain traffic is that by definition it means de-prioritization of other traffic. Remember, it's the ISPs that are going to be deciding what traffic gets prioritized and you can bet that the only data getting fast-tracked is the data that generates a revenue stream for them.

This is in direct opposition to what is best for the consumer.

--B

[easyeye]

I think a lot of it has to do with bit torrent. I'm actually OK if there is a cap/throttle on bit torrent usage.

[lazyworm]

Giving this more thoughts...

I think the most ideal solution is to let the market sort it out itself.

For example, Comcast got caught for mucking with bit torrent traffic
2 years ago. There was an outcry from the tech world. Comcast didn't
want to be the bad guy so they stopped mucking with the traffic. Perfect
example that the market worked itself out.

If there has to be some legislation from the FCC, all traffic treated equally
is what I'd vote for. However, it's not without cons. For example, ISPs
despite their best efforts, run out of bandwidth at certain places from time
to time (bad capacity planning or equipment failure) when there is a
congestion, something's got to give. Prioritization planning could tell
the network gears what type of traffic to drop to maintain the best level
of service for all customers. But as others have pointed out above,
ISPs could use this as a business tool to penalize competitors, which I think
is the specific thing that the proposal should discourage.

[odysseus]

I think a lot of it has to do with bit torrent. I'm actually OK if there is a cap/throttle on bit torrent usage.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The devil is in the details.

[lazyworm]

The problem with prioritization of certain traffic is that by definition it means de-prioritization of other traffic. Remember, it's the ISPs that are going to be deciding what traffic gets prioritized and you can bet that the only data getting fast-tracked is the data that generates a revenue stream for them.

This is in direct opposition to what is best for the consumer.

--B

Only true if there is not enough bandwidth for both traffic types,
unless the ISP is artificially limiting one type of traffic.

[sorensen440]

I am not for regulating the internet

[sfwdiy]

I think a lot of it has to do with bit torrent. I'm actually OK if there is a cap/throttle on bit torrent usage.

Most of the data available from various bittorrent networks is also available through traditional server-client download methods, e.g. Rapidshare, Usenet bins, etc. Should this type of traffic be throttled as well?

Does it depend on the type of file being downloaded? Is it OK to throttle P2P when the data is likely pirated content? What about legitimate P2P traffic like linux distros? What if the traffic is encrypted, like most subscription Usenet services?

Should your ISP be allowed to inspect your traffic at this level in the first place?

Once you go down that road it gets sketchy in a hurry.

--B

[berto]

Less govt involvement in the internet the better.

[artherd]

Ideally we'd somehow have net neutrality without oppressive government involvement.

If we can't - it may be one of the few cases in which government regulation is a good thing(tm)

[JDay]

I voted "agree" However, I think some traffic prioritization based on
technology/technical reasons is important. For example, video usage
has been increasing the last few year and likely to continue to do so.
It would be perfectly fine with me to prioritize video traffic over other
less time sensitive traffic, e.g. email.

As long as the prioritization or interferences based NOT based on
business reasons and business relationship, it should be okay.

That's not the same thing, the ISPs are against net neutrality because they want to make content that is provided by the competition run slower. Video isn't time sensitive either btw (it can buffer before playback starts) but things like VoIP and gaming are. You can always setup QoS on your home network to prioritize traffic if you want.