Everytime I get confused about what it stands for I just remember to it is like Clubbing Seals

All the old skool people don't want the scheme named Clubbing Seals and all the Myspace Web 2.0 do want the scheme named Clubbing Seals.

Google are in favour of Clubbing Seals , AT&T do not like Clubbing Seals.

what a surprise.

a corporate lobbyist right-wing nutjob in a regulatory role in this administration, placed in a position to create highly suboptimal government policy (suboptimal for most of the citizens, that is).

really, we haven't seen this repeated anywhere before?

i suppose we could ask Mr. Abramoff if he's seen anything like this. he has much experience in government, surely he'd know...

to allow users to buy fixed and guaranteed bandwith that they can use freely. This way the service providers could allocate bandwidth for premium services, but they must provide the fixed bandwidth for those who prefer to use an open network, the internet.

In Hungary this is done by using multiple vpn-s for each home broadband access point. The normal network traffic runs in the open lane with a fixed and paid bandwidth, while other services like voip and iptv run in a completly separate network. They share the same cable but if someone buys the closed system iptv to their existing network access, this new traffic won't affect the download speed of their internet connection. Those who prefer open content, only but internet access. The home routers are organised in a way that one ethernet port provides the internet, while other ones provide various closed services. (iptv, voip, etc.) The guaranteed bandwidth has to be provided to the public backbone connection of the provider, so they can't prioritize packets because the closed system is not directly connected to the internet.

Imho, this is the correct way to provide premium services and maintain the open nature of the internet. This also has the added benefit that pc-s can't connect to the premium services, only proprietary settop devices so content protection is not a problem. In short I pay for a 2 Mbit connection and i have to get 2 Mbit sustained speed for my money (14 euro/month). This also stops companies from overselling their bandwidth while the users always get what they paid for, without any private traffic priority policies or govermental regulation.

I think many of the Reg writers don't understand what is meant by net neutrality. ISPs already do charge and always have charged different amounts for different levels of service. Consumers are used to the tiered model. If you want high data rates, you pay more. You pay a premium for a static IP. You pay extra to remove the cap on the amount of data you can transfer in a month. What the comms companies want to do is to be able to charge whatever they want to whomever they want. They want the government to give them the OK to price gauge companies like Google and Yahoo! Services companies pay extra to get fast connections. They pay just as much as anyone else who wants a fast connection. AT&T wants to be able to give Google a "special" price because they know Google can pay it and will pay it or it will go out of business.

Supporters of net neutrality say that ISPs should not be allowed to filter traffic in this way. Their pricing models must be "neutral" to the source of the traffic. I hope this helps.

and we'll be seeing Michael Moore's documentary on how the Republicans let the web go down the same moral sewer as US "healthcare", effectively creating a two-tiered system that only caters for the companies....

Any stabs at potential names for it? :)

A Bush official in charge of communications who gets his point across by shouting and drowns out the opposition in the same time.

Nothing out of the ordinary here folks, move along.

"We need numbers on spam, but where do you get numbers on spam from"

From your inbox. Or from a large number of inboxes you set up for the purpose of colelcting spam, addresses posted on a google indexed web page.

Or from the honeynet project, or from your own honeynet.

Like, duh!

So will the telcos/cables charge themselves for providing services such as IPTV versus somebody like CBS (unless they set up some sort of exclusive deal with them)? This would provide an enormous advantage to the telcos. And they get to charge more to their customers who want these service. I see it as a win/win for the telcos. They collect from both ends.

what a surprise.

a corporate lobbyist right-wing nutjob in a regulatory role in this administration, placed in a position to create highly suboptimal government policy (suboptimal for most of the citizens, that is).

really, we haven't seen this repeated anywhere before?

i suppose we could ask Mr. Abramoff if he's seen anything like this. he has much experience in government, surely he'd know...

"""They want the government to give them the OK to price gauge companies like Google and Yahoo! Services companies pay extra to get fast connections. They pay just as much as anyone else who wants a fast connection. AT&T wants to be able to give Google a "special" price because they know Google can pay it and will pay it or it will go out of business."""

The really interesting part of this comment is that Google doesn't buy /their/ access from at&t, or if they did buy some of it, that isn't the point. What was at one time proposed, though I don't know if this is the current plan, was for at&t to charge Google &etc to access at&t's customers, while Google had already paid to access 'The Internet.'

The whole term 'Internet' gets horribly jumbled once two systems can be connected to it and still not access eachother without paying a premium.

Anyway I'm pretty sure that we all need to forget net neutrality all together, because #1) it was just a diversion so that the at&t / Bell South merger could sail past un-noticed and #2) telecoms companies are just going to get more rich and screw the consumers more and more, and theres nothing that anyone can do about it, since they pay loads for lobbyists, and the lawmakers themselves rely on the telecoms' services.

Theres really no way out unless some legislation was passed to reduce the required investment to start competing in the market. I mean there are honestly about 3 big telcos left in our country at this point, and this monopoly is worst than Ma Bell, since now in addition to land lines, the telcos control mobile telephone and a gigantic portion of the internet.

Face it, the only people worse than the telcos are the oil companies, and they're all just screwing us because they can, and they want another yatch or two. Or 90.

- Nex (Reality, it's a bitch)

A "pugnacious Bush commerce official" "began shouting back at Supernova 2007 attendees..." Astonishing.

"Increasingly, it seems, those companies will be allowed by the Government to charge for different levels of internet service - ending net neutrality."

In my part of the country I can choose dial-up, DSL, Cable or Satellite with a dizzying array of download/upload speeds available--all charging different rates for "different levels of internet service".

I can choose from $8 a month to a few hundred dollars a month for a service that satisfies my needs. Please keep the government out of those choices, I'll pick my own out of these free-market alternatives.

"Identifying delegates as "application providers", he said it was their responsibility to compete with broadband incumbents by offering their own service, founded initially on portions of the 700Mhz spectrum. This spectrum will be sold under auction once terrestrial TV providers complete their move to digital in February 2009."

It is the responsibility of would-be providers to compete in a free-market economy. They must have the financial backing to be able to develop the 700 Mhz part of the spectrum and competitive bidding will weed out those who are lacking in that respect.

A point to keep in mind is that at 700Mhz, two-way communication is limited by some restrictions such as line-of-site, man-made and natural obstructions, need for specialized (directional) user antennas and therefor it is of limited use for many rural areas as well as urban areas where cable and DSL are economically viable today.

And this: The Bush administration, meanwhile, was challenged to donate a portion of the spectrum to academic institutions for research purposes. Speaking after Kneuer, a researcher for Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) expressed frustration that there's currently no reliable way to gather independent data on the internet."

My evil twin is tempted to say: WTF?(twice)

1. What "research purposes" would be advanced by donating a portion of the 700Mhz spectrum to academic institutions?

2. How does allocation or non allocation of the 700Mhz spectrum affect in any way a "reliable way to gather independent data on the internet." ?

Furthermore this: ""We need numbers on spam, but where do you get numbers on spam from - anti-spam vendors. These aren't the people you want to be getting numbers from when setting policy," she said."

Perhaps the author knows of no other providers of "numbers of spam". If so then I suggest further research.

Quote: ""Let's look at what a public network is really used for. We cannot answer that. And the carriers are about to ask us to pay for traffic, 99 per cent of which is spam!

I'm not sure how the author defines a "public network". If it is a network easily accessed by the public for the common good then we can answer that.

I don't know the author's personal email hygiene habits but if 99% of Gavin's email is spam I would suggest that Gavin seek help from professionals.

And finally this: "If the Commerce Department really wants to help us they will provide the research community with a really open network we can all study."

Here's my thought, the Commerce Department is in no way restricting your access to a "really open network". Including the heretofore secret "IPV 6"

Feel free to study it to your heart's content.

"Bush operative mistakes himself for Jack Bauer"

Easy to understand given the similar names.

Net neutrality is against ISPs creating a "premium content provider" class, which would in reality make every other website on the Internet second-class. If an ISP's network experiences congestion, prioritization will allow you to use Google without any noticeable slowdown, but the other 99.99% of sites will suffer a much larger slowdown than without prioritization. Instead of an ISP expanding their network to handle the increased traffic (which would benefit all end-users and websites), they could demand that content providers (websites) pay them for priority access.

On the other hand, services such as VoIP, IPTV, and online gaming can benefit from such prioritization. In these cases, prioritization can increase the reliability and minimize delay of these time critical services.

when the government mandates net neutrality I hope you dont have a heart attack and try to call 911 on your voip phone that keeps breaking up because your next door neighbor is downloading his daily gigs of porn

thanx,

bill

Won't make any difference the way insurance

companies manipulate health care hell be

operated on and sent home and die the next day.

Happened to my brother they call it drive by

operating it's also called death by

spreadsheet. Try to understand everything is screwed

up here the internet is the least of our worrys.

Where do these guys some from?

You have to be dead between the ears to believe that the telecom monopoly is some sort of market.

Are the kickbacks that good?

All the Telecom companies want to do is try to build some Toll Roads. You pay more to use them, but they get you where you want to go faster. There's still plenty of regular roads for everybody to use, but they don't go as fast. Do they take resources away from public roads? Some, but this isn't like a private school / public school thing. You still get everything that was there before, but now there's something faster if you can afford it. If it works it'll pay for itself and nothing else will change.

Most of the Telecom companies have been very clear that they have no ability to regulate usage at the level the doomsayers are predicting, not that it would really help them. They *want* you to surf more. Why block or slow up the sites people like? That'll only make them come back less often.

What's likely to happen is that much like Cell phone companies, they'll fight over who gets the most customers by trying to attract people to new and exciting phones, or in this metaphor, dedicated connections to their favorite sites.

One thing I can tell you, is that without something like this, internet TV will never truly happen.