This link has been bookmarked by 66 people . It was first bookmarked on 29 Aug 2006, by craftypants.
-
01 Oct 14
-
02 Oct 12
-
-
30 Aug 12
Miriam de CastroArtículo sb la neutralidad en la red
-
22 Jul 12
-
messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority ...—An act to facilitate communication between the Atlantic and Pacific states by electric telegraph, June 16, 1860.[26]
-
Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination....The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.
-
Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success.—Vinton Cerf in testimony before Congress February 7, 2006[36]
-
Proponents of net neutrality argue that allowing for preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or tiered service, would put newer online companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation in online services
-
Opponents to net neutrality have also argued that net neutrality regulation would have adverse consequences for innovation and competition in the market for broadband access by making it more difficult for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks.
-
wanson says that YouTube streams as much data in three months as the world's radio, cable and broadcast television channels stream in one year, 75 petabytes. He argues that today's networks are not remotely prepared to handle what he calls the "exaflood" (see exabytes). He argues that net neutrality would prevent broadband networks from being built, which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger innovation.[67]
-
-
18 Feb 12
-
20 Jan 12
amit_kaundinyaNet should be same for all and governments and Internet Service providers should not block content.
Citizens around the world should drive change of internet and not governments or ISPs. Internet should have an architecture of freedom.
Net should be like electricity and not like TV providers where different people based on their subscriptions get different channels to watch. -
21 Sep 11
Dante-Gabryell Monsonis a principle that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached, and modes of communication.
-
11 Apr 11
-
11 Dec 10
-
06 Nov 10
-
29 Sep 10
-
14 Sep 10
-
28 Aug 10
-
12 Aug 10
Michael DuffThe principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.
-
06 Aug 10
-
20 Jul 10
-
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.[1][2][3]
-
-
07 Jun 10
-
useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally
-
He has proposed regulations on Internet access networks that define net neutrality as equal treatment among similar applications, rather than neutral transmissions regardless of applications.
-
-
03 May 10
-
27 Feb 10
-
Neutrality
-
Neutrality
-
Neutrality
-
Neutrality
-
Neutrality
-
Neutrality
-
Neutrality
-
Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services
-
At its simplest network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally
-
quality of service discrimination as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service
-
allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts
-
- access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
- run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
- connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
- competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
-
any lawful content, any lawful application, any lawful device, any provider
-
Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success.
-
Advocates warn that by charging "every Web site, from the smallest blogger to Google", network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay
-
Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use
-
prioritisation, or in other words product differentiation, "is generally considered to be beneficial for the market so long as users have choice to access the transmission capabilities and the services they want" and "consequently, the current EU rules allow operators to offer different services to different customers groups, but not allow those who are in a dominant position to discriminate in an anti-competitive manner between customers in similar circumstances.
-
"Thanks to the new transparency requirements, consumers will be informed—even before signing a contract—about the nature of the service to which they are subscribing, including traffic management techniques and their impact on service quality, as well as any other limitations (such as bandwidth caps or available connection speed)”
-
-
17 Feb 10
-
20 Nov 09
-
09 Jun 09
-
25 Apr 09
-
19 Dec 08
-
14 Dec 08
-
09 Sep 08
-
23 Apr 08
-
The term "net neutrality" was coined only recently, but advocates argue that the concept existed in the age of the telegraph. In 1860, a US federal law subsidizing a coast-to-coast telegraph line stated that
...messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority.
—An act to facilitate communication between the Atlantic and Pacific states by electric telegraph, June 16, 1860 -
In 2003 Tim Wu published and popularized a proposal for a net neutrality rule, in his paper "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination."[15] The paper considered Network Neutrality in terms of neutrality between applications, as well as neutrality between data and QOS sensitive traffic, and proposed some legislation to potentially deal with these issues. In early 2005 the FCC enforced network neutrality principles in a documented case of abuse involving Madison River Communications, a small DSL provider that briefly blocked VoIP
-
In 2005, the FCC adopted a policy statement stating its adherence to four principles of network neutrality. In November 2005 Edward Whitacre, Jr. then CEO of SBC stated 'there's going to have to be some mechanism for these [Internet upstarts] who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using', and that 'The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment';[16] sparking a furious debate. SBC spokesman Michael Balmoris said that Whitacre was misinterpreted and his comments only referred to new tiered services.[17]
-
The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 would have made it a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act for broadband providers to discriminate against any web traffic, refuse to connect to other providers, or block or impair specific (legal) content. It would also have prohibited the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority. The legislation was approved 20-13 by the House Judiciary committee on May 25, 2006 but was never taken up on the House floor and therefore failed to become law. A bill called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 was introduced in the US House of Representatives, referencing the principles enunciated by the FCC and authorizing fines up to $750,000 for infractions. It was passed 321-101 by the full House of Representatives on June 8, 2006 but failed to become law when its companion measure was filibustered in the Senate.
-
On February 25, 2008, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Kevin Martin said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' internet access.[18]
On March 27, 2008, Comcast and BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic[19]. Comcast will adopt a protocol-neutral stance "as soon as the end of [2008]", and explore ways to "more effectively manage traffic on its network at peak times."
-
-
18 Apr 08
Aaron DNN
-
The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 would have made it a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act for broadband providers to discriminate against any web traffic, refuse to connect to other providers, or block or impair specific (legal) content. It would also have prohibited the use of admission control to determine network traffic priority. The legislation was approved 20-13 by the House Judiciary committee on May 25, 2006 but was never taken up on the House floor and therefore failed to become law. A bill called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 was introduced in the US House of Representatives, referencing the principles enunciated by the FCC and authorizing fines up to $750,000 for infractions. It was passed 321-101 by the full House of Representatives on June 8, 2006 but failed to become law when its companion measure was filibustered in the Senate.
On February 25, 2008, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Kevin Martin said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' internet access.[18]
On March 27, 2008, Comcast and BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic[19]. Comcast will adopt a protocol-neutral stance "as soon as the end of [2008]", and explore ways to "more effectively manage traffic on its network at peak times."
-
-
08 Feb 08
-
07 Nov 07
-
24 Jun 07
-
13 Mar 07
-
In early 2005, in the Madison River case, the FCC for the first time showed a willingness to enforce its network neutrality principles by opening an investigation about Madison River Communications, a local telephone carrier that was blocking voice over IP service.
-
2006- over 1,000,000 signatures were delivered to Congress in favor of a network neutrality
-
He proposes allowing broadband operators to make reasonable tradeoffs between the requirements of different applications, while regulators carefully scrutinize network operator behavior where local networks interconnect.[16]
-
Opponents argue that (1) Network neutrality regulations severely limit the Internet's usefulness; (2) network neutrality regulations threaten to set a precedent for even more intrusive regulation of the Internet; (3) imposing such regulation will chill investment in competitive networks (e.g., wireless broadband) and deny network providers the ability to differentiate their services; and (4) that network neutrality regulations confuse the unregulated Internet with the highly regulated telecom lines that it has shared with voice and cable customers for most of its history.
-
"[These companies] want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all"..."tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data."..."to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors"..."to reserve express lanes for their own content and services.[11]
-
"allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success."[20]
-
- In 2005, Canadian telephone giant Telus blocked access to voices-for-change.ca, a website supporting the company's labour union during a labour dispute, as well as over 600 other websites, for about sixteen hours.[22]
- Shaw Cable, a major Canadian internet provider, offers a "quality of service" upgrade for their VoIP service. A number of competing VoIP providers have issued complaints that Shaw may be downgrading competitor's traffic[citation needed] No evidence has been offered to support any such claim.
- In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. An AOL spokesman called the issue an unintentional glitch.[23]
- In February, 2006, some of Cox Cable's customers were unable to access Craig's List because of a confluence of a software bug in the Authentium personal firewall distributed by Cox Cable to improve customers' security and the way that Craigslist had their servers misconfigured. Save the Internet said this was an intentional act on the part of Cox Cable to protect classified ad services offered by its partners. The issue was resolved by correction of the software as well as a change in the network configuration used by Craig's List. Craig Newmark stated that he believed the blocking was unintentional.
-
created by DARPA
-
In Britain and Norway telecommunication companies block access to websites that depict sexually explicit images of children.[25]
-
The service provider groups, including "Hands off the Internet," have been labeled "Astroturf" for accepting corporate money to create the false appearance of grass-roots support for their issue.
-
In the U.S. in 2004, a small North Carolina telecom company, Madison River Communications, blocked their DSL customers from using the Vonage VoIP service. Service was restored after the FCC intervened and entered into a consent decree that had Madison River pay a fine of $15,000.[15]
-
Worldwide, the Bittorrent application is widely given reduced bandwidth or even in some cases blocked entirely.[27]
-
In the Stupid Network, the data would tell the network where it needs to go. (In contrast, in a circuit network, the network tells the data where to go.) In a Stupid Network, the data on it would be the boss. . . .End user devices would be free to behave flexibly because, in the Stupid Network the data is boss, bits are essentially free, and there is no assumption that the data is of a single data rate or data type.
-
in that end users and content providers are charged a flat fee for access to the entire highspeed infrastructure. They claim that regulations maintaining this dynamic would reward the best ideas rather than the most well-funded ideas.
-
In essence they believe that the economics would be likely to make the network providers deliberately erode the quality of best effort traffic as a way to push customers to higher priced QoS services.
-
its implementation of best effort generally favors file transfer and other non-time sensitive traffic over real-time communications.
-
Network neutrality
-
Carriers want content providers who support bandwidth-intensive multi-media Internet traffic to pay the carriers a premium to support further network investments.
-
as bandwidth-intensive peer-to-peer applications such as BitTorrent become commonplace, the traditional Internet congestion management system, which was not designed to handle continuous, high-bandwidth usage, may no longer be viable, so alternate methods may become necessary. These alternate methods include bandwidth limits and priority-based Quality of Service for voice and video.
-
limit incentives to upgrade networks and launch next-generation network services
-
"a solution in search of a problem"
-
"Sweeping and rigid net neutrality legislation could: hinder public safety and homeland security; complicate protecting Americans privacy; erode the quality and responsiveness of the Internet; limit consumers' competitive choices; and discourage investment in broadband deployment to all Americans."[16]
-
-
27 Feb 07
-
04 Feb 07
-
03 Feb 07
-
11 Jan 07
-
07 Jan 07
-
12 Sep 06
fabiangpastorColumbia University law professor Tim Wu popularized the phrase network neutrality as a term designating a network that does not favor one application (for example the World Wide Web) over another (such as online gaming or Voice over IP).[1] Wu claims tha
-
17 Jul 06
-
25 Jun 06
-
03 May 06
-
08 Apr 06
-
05 Apr 06
-
25 Feb 06
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.