p2p news / p2pnet: American politicians have blocked efforts to enshrine net neutrality in legislation and, "Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use," says the BBC, going on:

"The rejection of the principle of net neutrality came during a debate on the wide-ranging Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (Cope Act).

"Among other things, this aims to make it easier for telecoms firms to offer video services around America by replacing 30,000 local franchise boards with a national system overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)."

The bill would give telephone companies a national license to deliver TV to compete with the cable industry and, "The vote came shortly after the House rejected by a 269-152 tally an amendment by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., that would have given the Federal Communications Commission broad powers to regulate network neutrality, the principle that all Internet traffic should be delivered on a first-come, first-served basis," says the San Francisco Chronicle.

"There is going to be a fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet," it has Markey declaring, "predicting that the bill would lead to the creation of fast and slow lanes on the information superhighway, and would stifle online innovation.

"We’re disappointed, but I can’t say we’re surprised," the story has Public Knowledge’s Gigi Sohn, saying. "We are hoping for something a lot better in the Senate."

The debate over the issue now moves to the US Senate where the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will vote on its version of the act in late June, says the BBC, adding:

"The debate in that chamber is also likely to centre on issues of net neutrality."

Net Neutrality is an international issue, says Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee on his blog, going on:

In some countries it is addressed better than others. (In France, for example, I understand that the layers are separated, and my colleague in Paris attributes getting 24Mb/s net, a phone with free international dialing and digital TV for 30euros/month to the resulting competition.) In the US, there have been threats to the concept, and a wide discussion about what to do. That is why, though I have written and spoken on this many times, I blog about it now.

Twenty-seven years ago, the inventors of the Internet[1] designed an architecture[2] which was simple and general. Any computer could send a packet to any other computer. The network did not look inside packets. It is the cleanness of that design, and the strict independence of the layers, which allowed the Internet to grow and be useful. It allowed the hardware and transmission technology supporting the Internet to evolve through a thousandfold increase in speed, yet still run the same applications. It allowed new Internet applications to be introduced and to evolve independently.

When, seventeen years ago, I designed the Web, I did not have to ask anyone’s permission. [3]. The new application rolled out over the existing Internet without modifying it. I tried then, and many people still work very hard still, to make the Web technology, in turn, a universal, neutral, platform. It must not discriminate against particular hardware, software, underlying network, language, culture, disability, or against particular types of data.

Anyone can build a new application on the Web, without asking me, or Vint Cerf, or their ISP, or their cable company, or their operating system provider, or their government, or their hardware vendor.

It is of the utmost importance that, if I connect to the Internet, and you connect to the Internet, that we can then run any Internet application we want, without discrimination as to who we are or what we are doing. We pay for connection to the Net as though it were a cloud which magically delivers our packets. We may pay for a higher or a lower quality of service. We may pay for a service which has the characteristics of being good for video, or quality audio. But we each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me.

When I was a child, I was impressed by the fact that the installation fee for a telephone was everywhere the same in the UK, whether you lived in a city or on a mountain, just as the same stamp would get a letter to either place.

To actually design legislation which allows creative interconnections between different service providers, but ensures neutrality of the Net as a whole may be a difficult task. It is a very important one. The US should do it now, and, if it turns out to be the only way, be as draconian as to require financial isolation between IP providers and businesses in other layers.

The Internet is increasingly becoming the dominant medium binding us. The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.

Let us protect the neutrality of the net.

Also See:
BBC - Defeat for net neutrality backers, June 9, 2008
San Francisco Chronicle - Setback for Internet coalition, June 9, 2006
Berners-Lee - Neutrality of the Net, May 15, 2006

==================

p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

NOTE: p2pnet is being sued by Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming, ceo of p2p application Kazaa. "The suit is a little odd, since P2PNet.net is a champion of peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is the same business that Kazaa is in," says The Globe & Mail. If you’d like to help p2pnet, or find out more, please go here.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 9th, 2006 at 8:47 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 1764 times