Perserving Network Neutrality

[ecoli]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

 

this is something that seems to be the real deal. Big corporations could have a lot to gain by deciding who gets to visit what websites and how quickly.

 

edit:perhaps we should consider getting SFN at the end of this list: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=members

[bascule]

Net neutrality is a touchy subject. I personally believe that, as common carriers, telcos shouldn't use their networks anticompetatively (i.e. block Skype traffic because it competes with phone/their own VoIP offerings)

[RyanJ]

The net should remain neutral... once they get control over one thing whats to stop them actually going further? Draw the line before anything actually starts...

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Dak]

I think that, in and of itself, prioritising traffic could actually improve the internet.

 

The only question is, could prioritisation be allowed whilst preventing the users essentially being shafted by corporatoins who wish to deprioritise competition, rather than prioritising intelligently.

[ecoli]

I think that' date=' in and of itself, prioritising traffic could actually improve the internet.

 

The only question is, could prioritisation be allowed whilst preventing the users essentially being shafted by corporatoins who wish to deprioritise competition, rather than prioritising intelligently.[/quote']

 

I don't see how... it's just a way for companies to make more money, without giving you anything extra. You'll have to pay to access websites that aren't 'in-league' with you ISP.

 

The whole point of prioritazation is to shaft people. Think about it... no more easy access to open source software, because then you wouldn't paying for alternatives, no more wikipedia, and perhaps no more SFN!!!

 

 

Obviously, they couldn't legally get rid of these websites, but your ISP could make it so it would take 5 min. for the page to load, if you don't buy a special package. Even then, it'll probably be advertised and spy-ware-ed to all hell. That's so they can make people buy the 'ad-free' versions.

 

I think we need to nip this in the bud before it gets started.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't see how... it's just a way for companies to make more money' date=' without giving you anything extra. You'll have to pay to access websites that aren't 'in-league' with you ISP.

 

The whole point of prioritazation is to shaft people. Think about it... no more easy access to open source software, because then you wouldn't paying for alternatives, no more wikipedia, and perhaps no more SFN!!!

 

 

Obviously, they couldn't legally get rid of these websites, but your ISP could make it so it would take 5 min. for the page to load, if you don't buy a special package. Even then, it'll probably be advertised and spy-ware-ed to all hell. That's so they can make people buy the 'ad-free' versions.

 

I think we need to nip this in the bud before it gets started.[/quote']

 

I believe the idea was to give "priority" service to those who pay up, and give regular service (no downgrades) to those who don't. Not to give everyone ads and spyware and dialup speed.

[Dak]

indeed, and to, say, de-prioritise VOIP software (what with lots of ISPs being telecom's companies. in fact, some ISPs have allready blocked traffic bound to the port that (I think it was) skype uses).

 

As to what I meant... if it was done in with the genuine interests of the interweb in mind, prioritising could* be useful by, say, prioritising communications based on the distance they have to travel, deprioritising prefetch http requests, prioritising bittorrent communications on a newly starting torrent, deprioritising traffic to sites that are known to generate alot of automatic traffic by via malware, setting the priority of video's being watched-as-downloaded either up or down to what is needed to download at 1second of film/second, deprioritising emails etc.

 

but... if networks prioritise, I can't see all of them putting aside their own interests and refraining from, say, deprioritising voip, or adopting pay-to-prioritise policies, which would suck all round.

 

--------

 

*I'm by no means knowledgeable enough about the internet to know of how much benefit this would all be, but it sounds asif the whole system could be made more efficient by prioritising.

[ecoli]

I'm sorry if I exxagerated then, it's just the way that the website made it sound.