Net Neutrality' Would Be Democrats' Pet( grr hate the headline)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Internet-Equality.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

October 23, 2006
'Net Neutrality' Would Be Democrats' Pet
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 2:57 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Democratic takeover on Capitol Hill would be good news to those who say the government should prohibit telecommunications giants from playing favorites with Internet content.

The idea, known as ''network neutrality,'' is about preventing those who control traffic on the Internet from allowing well-heeled Web sites to in effect buy their way to the front of the line in a world where data flow can be as congested as Los Angeles traffic. Proponents say it should be a bipartisan issue.

But lobbyists for the big companies that control most of the Internet in the United States are worried that the Democrats might pick up the seats they need to take over one or both chambers of Congress.

....

WFT "Pet" how about Belief.......

It's the Repubs that are into fetishes and pets!

It was spouting some silliness about making the little people pay for functions & services they don't use. I'm not sure how they figure that requiring that the backbone providers and ISPs not run miltiple performance tiers translates into paying for services you won't use.

The reality is that network performance is enhanced much more by simply providing adequate bandwidth than by running some sort of prioritization scheme. Adding capacity is also far more cost effective than running prioritization methods (primarily because of the labor intensity of the prioritization methods).

The thing is that until you hit somewhere around 80% utilization, there is no significant gain to network performance found by prioritizing traffic, and after 80% saturation, the network is too congested for prioritization to make any significant difference. This isn't about providing services that people don't want, it's about filtering out or restricting access to content the ISP and backbone providers find offensive.

tubes to slow down our internets one to the other...

Here are some links for a blog post I'm preparing:

From the Wall ST Journal:
"well, allowing innovators to create wealth and help us all out. Why should the FCC or Congress fool with that? We've seen that the telecoms don't need more privileges, they need to get serious about using their existing resources.

We're not talking about "one size fits all," since we need improvements to Internet tech for stuff like video. Please do note that the big guys don't innovate much, it's pretty much all from small business. I can't think of any innovation from them. They usually run infrastructure well, not much new.

Even Mike's clients have confessed that they intend to discriminate. They consistently forget who owns the airwaves..."



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=axYctQv7XBS8&refer=home bloomberg article on moyers pbs show


Mises Institute http://blog.mises.org/archives/005177.asp Bunch of rightwing bullshit "property rights" crap

Markey Amendment http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/specialrules2nd109/hr5252/109hr5252_markey20.pdf
Rollcall: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml#N

Democratic nays: partial: ackerman, boca, barrow, berry, bishop, boren, boswell, brady, c. brown, butterfield, cardoza, carnahan, clyburn, costa, cramer, crosby, cummings, davis (sc) (tn)....

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Also, an article on NN

No Room for Neutrality on Net Neutrality
http://www.ucimc.org/node/160

Imagine the Internet as being like cable television. To access websites of your choosing, you’ll have to pay extra to your Internet service provider (ISP). To put up your own website or blog, you’ll have to pay an additional surcharge to ensure that your website is easily accessible to your friends. If your ISP has a special relationship with, for example, Barnes & Noble, then you may not be able to easily access its rival Amazon.com, or independent booksellers like Pages for All Ages. There’s even a chance that your ISP will decide to block certain content (like political websites challenging its authority) or ban certain devices (like free Internet phone service)––all for your own good, of course.

If powerful interests get their way, this nightmare scenario could easily become the new reality. Up until now, a safeguard called “net neutrality” has prevented this from happening. But at this very moment, the fate of net neutrality rests on legislation pending in Congress.

<full article at http://www.ucimc.org/node/160>