Re: [News] [Rights] It's over. Net Neutrality is dead. - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] [Rights] It's over. Net Neutrality is dead. - Linux ; In article , "[H]omer" wrote: > This, in effect, means the end of Net Neutrality in the US. > > And since the US is the primary hub of the vast majority of the Internet > and its content, that ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: [News] [Rights] It's over. Net Neutrality is dead.

  1. Re: [News] [Rights] It's over. Net Neutrality is dead.

    In article , "[H]omer" wrote:
    > This, in effect, means the end of Net Neutrality in the US.
    >
    > And since the US is the primary hub of the vast majority of the Internet
    > and its content, that means Net Neutrality world-wide is over. Period.
    >
    > .----
    > | Federal appeals court decision is a victory for big telephone
    > | companies
    > |
    > | In a victory for big telephone companies, a federal appeals court
    > | has upheld a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission that
    > | effectively deregulated high-speed Internet access service provided
    > | over traditional telephone lines.
    > |
    > | In its September 2005 ruling, the FCC relieved telephone companies
    > | of decades-old regulations that required them to grant competing
    > | Internet service providers "nondiscriminatory" access to their
    > | wirelines in order to reach consumers.
    > |
    > | Challenging the ruling in the three consolidated appeals, captioned
    > | Time Warner Telecom Inc. v. FCC, were independent Internet service
    > | providers, competing telecommunications service providers, cable
    > | modem providers and several public interest organizations.
    > |
    > | The FCC's order now allows telephone companies to enter into
    > | individually negotiated arrangements with companies that seek
    > | access to their broadband wireline facilities.
    > |
    > | In the appeals, the independent providers argued that the FCC's
    > | order effectively allows telephone companies to deny competitors
    > | access to their wirelines, thereby resulting in decreased
    > | competition and consumer choice in the market for broadband
    > | Internet service.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1192525413109
    >
    >
    > We can now all gleefully look forward to the day when access to Google
    > and Wikipedia requires a credit card, assuming we can access it at all.


    You've mixed up a couple separate things here. Net neutrality generally
    is about whether an ISP discriminates against some sites. E.g., if your
    ISP gave faster access to search engine A over search engine B, unless
    search engine B paid the ISP.

    The FCC ruling you are referring to is about ISP access to phone lines
    and central offices. Say you have DSL from your phone company, company
    X. Your connection goes over a copper pair, owned by X, to a central
    office, also owned by X. That copper pair is plugged into a piece of
    equipment called a DSLAM (owned by X) at that central office. The DSLAM
    interfaces to some data network operated by X, probably their ATM
    network. Your data ends up, via that ATM network, at ISP equipment
    owned by X, where they provide the usual ISP services.

    Suppose that company Y would like to offer you DSL. The issue here is
    whether X has to allow Y to put a DSLAM of their own in X's central
    office, and use one of X's copper pairs to connect that DSLAM to your
    site, and somehow connect transport your data between that DSLAM and
    their ISP facilities.

    Before the 2005 ruling, the answer was yes, X had to allow that. The
    answer now is that this is up to X and Y to work out.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: [News] [Rights] It's over. Net Neutrality is dead.

    Tim Smith did eloquently scribble:
    > The FCC ruling you are referring to is about ISP access to phone lines
    > and central offices. Say you have DSL from your phone company, company
    > X. Your connection goes over a copper pair, owned by X, to a central
    > office, also owned by X. That copper pair is plugged into a piece of
    > equipment called a DSLAM (owned by X) at that central office. The DSLAM
    > interfaces to some data network operated by X, probably their ATM
    > network. Your data ends up, via that ATM network, at ISP equipment
    > owned by X, where they provide the usual ISP services.


    > Suppose that company Y would like to offer you DSL. The issue here is
    > whether X has to allow Y to put a DSLAM of their own in X's central
    > office, and use one of X's copper pairs to connect that DSLAM to your
    > site, and somehow connect transport your data between that DSLAM and
    > their ISP facilities.


    > Before the 2005 ruling, the answer was yes, X had to allow that. The
    > answer now is that this is up to X and Y to work out.


    Ah, you could've simply condensed that lot into 3 words, y'know.
    Local loop unbundling. (or the reverse of, in this case)
    We've been having the reverse happen here for the past few years, because BT
    was the state-owned monopoly gone private, they are forced legally to allow
    other isps to use their copper for a reasonable price.

    It's a slow process in some areas, but, if sky broadband has reached
    swansea, it's not THAT slow a process.
    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  3. Re: [News] [Rights] It's over. Net Neutrality is dead.

    spike1@freenet.co.uk espoused:
    > Tim Smith did eloquently scribble:
    >> The FCC ruling you are referring to is about ISP access to phone lines
    >> and central offices. Say you have DSL from your phone company, company
    >> X. Your connection goes over a copper pair, owned by X, to a central
    >> office, also owned by X. That copper pair is plugged into a piece of
    >> equipment called a DSLAM (owned by X) at that central office. The DSLAM
    >> interfaces to some data network operated by X, probably their ATM
    >> network. Your data ends up, via that ATM network, at ISP equipment
    >> owned by X, where they provide the usual ISP services.

    >
    >> Suppose that company Y would like to offer you DSL. The issue here is
    >> whether X has to allow Y to put a DSLAM of their own in X's central
    >> office, and use one of X's copper pairs to connect that DSLAM to your
    >> site, and somehow connect transport your data between that DSLAM and
    >> their ISP facilities.

    >
    >> Before the 2005 ruling, the answer was yes, X had to allow that. The
    >> answer now is that this is up to X and Y to work out.

    >
    > Ah, you could've simply condensed that lot into 3 words, y'know.
    > Local loop unbundling. (or the reverse of, in this case)
    > We've been having the reverse happen here for the past few years, because BT
    > was the state-owned monopoly gone private, they are forced legally to allow
    > other isps to use their copper for a reasonable price.
    >
    > It's a slow process in some areas, but, if sky broadband has reached
    > swansea, it's not THAT slow a process.


    He's wrong, though. The debate was about differentiated quality of
    service, it was not about a pure and simple LLU deal.

    It is Timmy - why would you believe him?

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

+ Reply to Thread