There was more outrage over K.O.'s suspension than there is over "Net Neutrality"

[deacon]

It's unbelievable. No phone campaigns, no massive email campaigns, no MoveOn outrage - why? And this has nothing to do with party lines. ALL politically involved message boards should be lit up. Internet access won't be the same. Amazing.

[EFerrari]

1. Amy did a segment this morning.

No link until a little later, though.

[myrna minx]

2. Senator Franken is all over this issue.

http://www.switched.com/2010/12/20/al-franken-takes-fcc-to-task-for-net-neutrality-proposal/

Why not create a thread informing us about the issue?

[rainy]

3. I was thinking the same thing. Nt

[BzaDem]

4. Perhaps because K.O.'s suspension was actually something to be outraged about?

You make it sound like they are about to DEREGULATE the Internet. That is nonsense. They are about to add significant regulation to the Internet -- just not as much as you would like. The idea that such added regulation will destroy the Internet is ludicrous. The Wall Street Journal is saying the same thing.

[no limit]

5. The fastest growing internet service type (wireless) will be unregulated

I truly find people like you amazing. You honestly don't stand for a god damned thing, do you?

[Recursion]

7. "Fastest-growing" but still a substantial minority of IP allocations

In addition, the technical reality facing wireless carriers is very different from those facing cable and DSL ISPs. Hell, Vint Cerf thinks the bill is acceptable.

Also, so-called "4G" devices use an IP6 backbone, for which the neutrality concept doesn't even apply.

[no limit]

8. About half of the country says they use their mobile devices for internet daily

The number of users using wireless broadband doubled last year and will probably over take the regular internet in the next year or 2.

And if you are talking about IPv6 yes, net neutrality does apply to that. The protocol might be different, but it's still the exact same internet.

[Recursion]

9. Well, no, it's specifically not "the exact same internet"

IP6 has QoS rules built-in; the issue with net neutrality is that IP4 doesn't so there wasn't some RFC to guide all the carriers.

[no limit]

10. It is the exact same internet with additional space in the headers

The QoS rules are not built in. But the additional header space makes QoS more efficient.

You are trying to confuse the issue, I'm not sure if it is intentional on your part or not. But ipv6 is delievered on the exact same lines as ipv4. And eventhough the protocol is different it's still the exact same internet.

[Recursion]

11. CHAOS and Banyan Vines can share the physical level with the Internet, too

The QoS rules are not built in.

Sigh. Start here: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2460.html

It's a long read, but it might clear things up for you.

But ipv6 is delievered on the exact same lines as ipv4.

As I point out in the title, any number of protocols can share the same physical medium; that doesn't make them the Internet. Phones, at any rate, use HSPA and EHSPA (or WiMAX) for their data-link and transport levels. QoS issues are also addressed on the technical side for these protocols (see http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/mobile/wimax.html for instance).

There really is a lot of technical background to this decision that it might be good for people to catch up on before we all start assuming the sky is falling.

[no limit]

12. What in the specification did you want me to read?

This part:

-------------
The 8-bit Traffic Class field in the IPv6 header is available for use
by originating nodes and/or forwarding routers to identify and
distinguish between different classes or priorities of IPv6 packets.
At the point in time at which this specification is being written,
there are a number of experiments underway in the use of the IPv4
Type of Service and/or Precedence bits to provide various forms of
"differentiated service" for IP packets, other than through the use
of explicit flow set-up. The Traffic Class field in the IPv6 header
is intended to allow similar functionality to be supported in IPv6.

It is hoped that those experiments will eventually lead to agreement
on what sorts of traffic classifications are most useful for IP
packets. Detailed definitions of the syntax and semantics of all or
some of the IPv6 Traffic Class bits, whether experimental or intended
for eventual standardization, are to be provided in separate
documents.

-------------

Because that says exactly what I just told you. it is a field in the header. It is up to the router to decide what to do with that field. QoS is not built in and the RFC specification says nothing about how you need to handle this field.

Yes, multiple protocols can share the same physical medium. The physical medium we are talking about in this case is the internet. And when it comes to the internet for all intensive purposes of this discussion (net neutrality) the internet is the same whether it is being delivered using ipv4 or ipv6.

[sudopod]

16. IP4 vs IP6 has nothing to do

with whether or not some traffic is favored over other traffic. :(

[BzaDem]

13. I would love it if regulation was added for wireless Internet service.

I'm simply pointing out the obvious -- that adding some regulation (but not as much as we would like) does not "destroy" the Internet relative to today, given that we have no regulation today.

Your position is very similar to that of the liberals of FDR's time who said we shouldn't pass Social Security because it didn't address healthcare. :shrug:

[no limit]

15. It doesn't destroy the internet of today, just the internet of tomorrow

a couple more years and there will be more people online using wireless broadband than there are people online using wired services. Verizon, Sprint, and all the other major carriers that will provide this service will be free to discriminate against traffic as they wish.

People should be pissed at this. The reason they aren't is that the Obama administration is hoping that most people simply won't udnerstand what this means.

[Recursion]

17. They're *currently* free to discriminate against traffic as they wish

This bill doesn't address that; it adds regulations to physical-carrier ISPs.

The physical and data-link realities of wireless are so different that it probably does need a separate regulatory regime, which will get addressed when enough people care about it.

[BzaDem]

18. Except prior to this regulation, the Internet of tomorrow was ALREADY unregulated.

Prior to this regulation, Sprint in 2020 was ALREADY able to discriminate for wireless.

Regulating the wired Internet does not destroy tomorrow's wireless Internet anymore than enacting Social Security destroys the social safety net (for not addressing Healthcare).

[no limit]

19. No, they weren't allowed to do this until a couple months ago when the supreme court

said the FCC rules were unconstitutional because congress never gave the FCC authority to regulate the internet.

So how do they respond? Instead of putting real pressure on congress to pass the damn law they caved and gave companies pretty much everything they wanted.

[BzaDem]

21. So? You seem to be against the regulations set to be imposed today. That would return us to NO

regulation (not the pre-court-ruling regulatory regime). Your baseline is incorrect.

[no limit]

22. Yes, because they will claim mission accomplished and leave it there

I want them to actually put up a fight.

[BzaDem]

23. If we don't enact the regulations, they will simply say that the pro-net-neutrality folks are

impossible to satisfy, so there's no point in bothering to try. Which results in NO regulation.

[no limit]

24. Again, they will claim mission accomplished and leave it there

you can make all the bullshit excuses you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they won't even put up a fight.

[jayfish]

27. Not only that...

The rules are so bad that in the aftermath anti-net neutrality types will point to them and exclaim "see, we told you net neutrality was bad for the internet." And in the form presented they would be correct.

[BzaDem]

28. Repeating your claim doesn't make it valid.

The same nonsense was repeated when SS was passed. The whole "mission accomplished" theory is bullshit (not just in this area).

[no limit]

30. I'm sorry, I am sick of hearing this bullshit healhcare argument

don't worry, you need to support this now because they will fix it later. How many fixes to the healthcare law have even been proposed since it passed?

And the reason I repeated my claim was because you ignored it. You are not telling me how if they couldn't get the right thing done with 58 democrats in the senate and control of the house how they can get it done in a couple of years when they wont have anything close to that.

[BzaDem]

31. I didn't ignore it at all.

I highly doubt they will enact wireless regulations within the next couple of years.

Your problem is assuming that if we don't enact the wired regulations, that will result in a BETTER outcome than if we do.

But that is obviously false, even if we assume for the sake of argument that there will NEVER be wireless regulations. Having no wired regulations is far worse than having wired regulations.

"I am sick of hearing this bullshit healhcare argument"

If I were making specious claims, I too would be sick of hearing obvious counterpoints to those claims. Truth sucks sometimes. That doesn't make it not the truth. I'm not talking about the current healthcare bill -- I'm talking about liberals who were against Social Security in the 30s because it didn't deal with healthcare. Your entire line of "let's not do X because of the "mission accomplished factor" is generally false, even outside this area of net neutrality.

[no limit]

32. Again, by declaring mission accomplished they have no incentive to go after wireless

and as you seem to think they won't. So in the next few years the majority of the internet will actually be unregulated. And you want us to pretend that this is better than nothing.

[BzaDem]

33. Why would they have any incentive to go after wireless even if this proposal were voted down? n/t

[no limit]

34. Because then Obama couldn't say that he kept a campaign promise

[BzaDem]

35. But according to people here, Obama routinely breaks campaign promises and couldn't care less

about them.

So if that common interpretation here is true, and your incentive actually doesn't exist (since Obama wouldn't care), I will ask once again. How does leaving the wired Internet UNREGULATED incentivize future action on wireless regulation?

[no limit]

36. I don't see how "according to people here" qualifies as an argument on your part

as I already told you, if they do nothing Obama will be beat over the head with this issue in 2012 by his base. So instead of doing nothing they are hoping we are too dumb to notice that they changed the very definition of net neutrality.

[BzaDem]

37. Well you should see, since you routinely make such arguments.

The truth is, if your views about Obama are true, then you yourself can't seem to name any incentive to regulate wireless if wired regulations fail.

Of course, maybe your arguments about Obama are false, and in reality he is generally doing the best he can to enact progressive legislation. But I doubt you would admit that.

[no limit]

38. Which of my arguments specifically are you refering to?

Because I'm pretty sure I never said that the president doesn't care about the fact that he breaks campaign promises. I'm sure that I said that he breaks them, because obviously he does. But I don't think I ever argued that he breaks these promises at absolutely no political cost. I'm sure you can give me a link real quick since you seem so sure of what you just said.

[BzaDem]

39. Oh, I'm not saying you ever said there was no political cost to breaking promises.

I just said you (and many others here) believes Obama doesn't generally care about potential political costs from "alienating his base" -- not that you believe such a cost doesn't exist.

[no limit]

40. And I asked you to give me an example of where I said that

because saying a politician that happens to be the president of the united states doesn't care about political impacts of his decisions doesn't sound like something I would say.

[BzaDem]

41. You frequently say Obama is happy to piss off the base if it means pleasing corporations/etc

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9264768

"That this administration is willing to screw us over as long as it means making their friends in big business happy. Whether it was hospitals that told them to scrap the public options, or the pharmaceuticals that told them to scrap reimportation, or Goldman Sachs teling them to drop real financial reform, this administration happily did it while lying to our face."

If Obama will happily lie to your face while pleasing business, then why do you think that leaving the wired Internet deregulated will incentivize future regulation for the wireless Internet?

[no limit]

42. Right, they are happy to lie to our face. which is exactly what they are doing here

I still don't see how that means they don't care about the political backlash of breaking their campaign promises.

[BzaDem]

43. If (under your theory) they cared, wouldn't they... not do that? n/t

[no limit]

44. Again, the president made a campaign promise that he would support net neutrality

the FCC is about to break that promise. So what do they do? They redefine what net neutrality means.

You can keep going on about what "some" around here think. But the fact is if the FCC has the power to do what they did today they could have made it apply to the entire internet. They chose not to. Unless you want to explain why to me this discussion has really become useless. I guess I do command you for not posting detailed and totall irrelevant ipv6 specifications though, kudos.

[blondeatlast]

26. "The WSJ says the same thing." And the WSJ is soooo friendly to progressives... nt

[BzaDem]

29. That's my point.

If you are arguing for the failure of a proposal and the WSJ agrees with you, you might want to re-examine your position.

[Recursion]

6. Because going from "no regulation" to "not quite enough regulation" doesn't bother people so much

It's not like there's some FCC-enforced net neutrality rule out there now; it's just always been the SOP of the carriers. The fact that the administration just decided to regulate carrier neutrality, but did not include mobile devices in that regulation, doesn't get people worked up.

Plus, most Americans (including most people I've seen blogging about it) simply don't understand the technical issues here. Anybody can relate to someone being fired; relating to the interpretation of Quality-of-Service RFCs and the difference between unicast and multicast packets is less general.

[BzaDem]

20. .

[redirish28]

14. I'll admit I dropped the ball. The last I heard it was stuck in committee

and than SLAM it is moving so fast now.

[prairierose]

25. There are organizations that have been following this issue...

I have written letters almost weekly and signed several petitions. It is a very important issue but many people do not understand the concept or how changing it could affect their use of the internet or their wallet for that matter.