Net Neutrality

Comment

Comment by Wolf Ludwig on August 30, 2010 at 6:09pm

For your info:
Global Media Journal - Canadian Edition
International Perspectives on Network Neutrality
2010, Volume 3, Issue 1
Edited by Jeffrey Layne Blevins & Leslie Regan Shade
http://www.gmj.uottawa.ca/current-issue_e.htm

Table of Contents

Editorial: 
International Perspectives on Network Neutrality --
Exploring the Politics of Internet Traffic Management and Policy
Implications for Canada and the U.S.
Jeffrey Layne Blevins and Leslie Regan Shade

Regulatory Lessons for Internet Traffic Management from Japan, the
European Union, and the United States: Toward Equity, Neutrality and
Transparency
John Harris Stevenson and Andrew Clement

Net Neutrality: Media Discourses and Public Perception
Christine Quail and Christine Larabie

Ends and Ways: The Algorithmic Politics of Network Neutrality
Fenwick McKelvey

Policy Reviews:

Network Neutrality: A Thematic Analysis of Policy Perspectives Across the
Globe
Christine M. Stover

Review Articles:

La neutralité de réseau: Un trompe-l’œil des rapports de pouvoir inscrits
dans l’infrastructure du réseau?
Virginie Mesana

Book Reviews:

Net Neutrality: Towards a Co-Regulatory Solution
by Christopher Marsden
Reviewed By Gregory Taylor

Internet Policy and Economics: Challenges and Perspectives
Edited by
William H. Lehr and Lorenzo Maria Pupillo
Reviewed by Heather Polinsky

Comment by Atty. Elias Laurente Espinoza on August 10, 2010 at 6:34pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599200954100. i just read from this link the possible violation of google on NN in its desire to merge or acquire verizon.

Comment by Virginia (Ginger) Paque on August 9, 2010 at 2:02pm

Last week in Quito we discussed the 'rumors' of a deal between Google and Verizon ... yes, no, maybe? Is Google abandoning NN?

Here is an excerpt from the beginning of a New York Times article, A Net Game for Google about the issue:

MY three young sons never hit each other. They may poke, push, graze, bump or even slap, but they never hit, because Mom says hitting isn’t allowed. This same semantic technique fits the mind-set of technology companies like Google. The geekier these companies are, the more tactical is their use of language.

And so in last week’s controversy over whether Google and Verizon are hatching a deal to undermine net neutrality, it pays to look closely at their words. Both companies maintain that there is no deal and that no money will be paid for faster transmission of data. This is probably true in a literal sense, though something is clearly happening between the companies. I think Google has just found a way to fool Mom.

Read the full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?_r=1&...

Here is the rest of the article in case you do not have access:

Net neutrality is the concept that all data packets are created equal and Internet service providers should not give priority to one kind of data (say, video conferencing) over another (say, e-mail). Internet partisans love net neutrality while telephone companies tend not to. Why not allow e-mail to run a little slower, they argue, if that lets services that need higher performance run faster? The difference is payment: users and the Federal Communications Commission worry that once a differentiation is made, the service providers will start charging for faster service and poorer users will suffer as a result. It’s a slippery slope.

Google has always been firmly on the side of net neutrality. So the news of a deal between Google and Verizon — one of the country’s largest broadband service providers — has caused consternation throughout geekdom. Has Google turned on its principles? The company says no, but then Eric Schmidt, its chief executive, has been making murky statements differentiating between wireless and wired data, suggesting to some a repudiation of neutrality. The truth is probably that Google has found a way to get special treatment from Verizon but without actually compromising net neutrality.

To see how it could work, you need to know a little about Google’s network of data centers, those windowless buildings around the country containing the servers that answer search queries, show maps, provide e-mail service and download YouTube videos. Several years ago, the company found a way to build a data center quickly and easily by simply filling a warehouse with stacked shipping containers — each one filled with computers. You just plug the containers together and flip the switch. Clever.

Google actually borrowed the shipping container concept from The Internet Archive, a digital library, which envisioned using such containers to replicate its archive in locations all around the world. Once Larry Page, a co-founder of Google, learned how they could work, he saw shipping containers as a way for Google, too, to get its data closer to users.

Proximity to users is important because of the way that data moves around the Internet — by hopping from one router to another. Each router looks at the packet of data and sends it on in the appropriate direction; the average data packet hops 18 times as it makes its way across the Internet. Because each hop takes time — only a matter of milliseconds, but still measurable time — the best way to speed transmission is to reduce the hops. This can be done either by creating a figurative fast lane, which violates net neutrality, or by simply putting the data closer to the user, which doesn’t.

Google’s agreement with Verizon could very well be merely a way for Google to get its data closer to users, by dropping its shipping containers into Verizon data centers, or perhaps their parking lots. The phone company’s data centers, after all, are typically only one or two hops from Internet users.

With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay. This would save space for other traffic — and money for both Verizon and Google, as their backbone bills decline (wishful thinking, but theoretically possible). Net neutrality would be not only intact, but enhanced.

Ideally, Google would pay Verizon not for priority carriage but for holding and powering its shipping containers. And the differentiation between wired and wireless networks may well be about the phone company not wanting to give shipping container access to its wireless data centers, since they could flood the limited wireless capacity.

Why wouldn’t the companies just tell us what they’re up to? If my guess is right, then I would think they’re silent because it’s a secret. They’d rather their competitors not know until a few hundred shipping containers are in place — and suddenly YouTube looks more like HBO.

Don’t tell Mom.

Robert X. Cringely is the author of the blog “I, Cringely.”

Comment by Vladimir Radunovic on June 30, 2010 at 6:26pm

Please share as much as possible.

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public...

Public consultation on the open internet and net neutrality
Deadline: Thursday 30 September 2010

DG Information Society and Media has launched a public consultation on key questions arising from the issue of net neutrality. European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, announced in April 2010 her intention to launch this consultation in order to take forward Europe's net neutrality debate. The consultation is part of the Commission's follow-up to its commitment – one of the prerequisites for the successful conclusion of the 2009 EU telecoms reform package – to scrutinise closely the open and neutral nature of the internet and to report on the state of play to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

The consultation covers such issues as whether internet providers should be allowed to adopt certain traffic management practices, prioritising one kind of internet traffic over another; whether such traffic management practices may create problems and have unfair effects for users; whether the level of competition between different internet service providers and the transparency requirements of the new telecom framework may be sufficient to avoid potential problems by allowing consumers' choice; and whether the EU needs to act further to ensure fairness in the internet market, or whether industry should take the lead. All interested parties – service and content providers, consumers, businesses and researchers – are invited to respond to the consultation by 30 September 2010. The consultation will feed into a Commission report on net neutrality, which should be presented by the end of this year.

Comment by CRAVO, VANESSA on April 20, 2010 at 4:30pm

Net Neutrality in Brazil.

As you may Know, Brazil is discussing a cyberlaw bill to regulate several issues regarding the Internet (not the criminal ones).

The bill (potuguese only) is available for public consultation at: http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/
I believe that it will have available in english and spanish very soon.

The article 2 establishes in its provision IV the preservation and assurance of Net Neutrality as a principle that will guide the Internet use regulation in Brazil.

The article 12 states that the provider responsible for transmitting, switching or routing has the duty to treat equally all data packages, content, service, terminal or application.

It also imposes that is forbidden the establishment of any traffic discrimination or degradation, which cann't be justified by technical requirements to preserve the quality of service contract.

Comment by Diplo IGCBP on April 19, 2010 at 4:34pm

This was shared by one of our members of the Diplo network:

http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/pdf%20files/NetNeutrality.pdf
Christopher Marsden - Net Neutrality: towards a co-regulatory solution

Comment by Mojito on April 8, 2010 at 12:14am

Yes-yes, this is about the balance of power over the Internet between commercial companies and FCC. The first want the money, the latter wants control.
There is anotehr similar article: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/06/2658828/us-court-rules-against-fcc...
My favourite phrase from the article: "The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service".

Comment by Vladimir Radunovic on April 6, 2010 at 6:19pm

This time ComCast was victorious:

"A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
Tuesday’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for the Comcast Corporation, the nation’s largest cable company. It had challenged the F.C.C.’s authority to impose so called “net neutrality” obligations.
The ruling marks a serious setback for the F.C.C., which is trying to officially set net neutrality regulations."
(From "The New York Times" of 6 April)

This goes in line with current "war" between dominant providers and the state over extending the FCC authority by reclassifying broadband as a heavily regulated telecom service.

This court decision on NN does not, in fact, resolve anything regarding rights for a network management, but only regarding the legal power of FCC. Let's see what "Obama's" next move will be.

Comment by Ljubisa Gavrilovic on February 10, 2010 at 1:10pm

Large internet content providers united on Net Neutrality issue (names like google, amazon, etc.) have joined together in Open Internet Coalition as their proposal to FCC ruling on Net Neutrality.

Comment by Vladimir Radunovic on December 24, 2009 at 3:38pm

Jorge, friends,

the full video coverage (3+h) of the NN workshop at the IGF in Sharm is now available here.

The report(s) should follow soon, I will let you know.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page