Obama On Technology

Starfox

I saw this today. It's the first I remember seeing anything about any candidates' technology platforms.
My favorite bit:

Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet...

Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment... Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others.

It sounds good, but I'm a little skeptical as to how much of this would actually get implemented if he were elected. Thoughts?

HMTKSteve

Too bad what is actually happening is not the blocking of websites but the throttling of traffic.

Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)

I sawthistoday. It's the first I remember seeing anything about any candidates' technology platforms.
My favorite bit:
Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet...

Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment... Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others.

It sounds good, but I'm a little skeptical as to how much of this would actually get implemented if he were elected. Thoughts?

Well, first, Net Neutrality is being implemented right now on your very own internets, if I'm not mistaken. The question is, how much of it would Barack be able to save from giant communications corporations.

...

Net Neutrality is being implemented right now

It's already there. From the moment the word Internet existed. The big cable companies want to charge site owners also money to be delivered faster to your computer. So that they can make twice the money on the same cost.

@ HMTKSteve, they're not throttling afaik. At least, for the bittorrent protocol. Were they send a kill signal to you and your peers whenever you want to seed. This can be solved by encrypting the protocol header. Try µTorrent.

Hank

Too bad what is actually happening is not the blocking of websites but the throttling of traffic.

I actually don't object (in principle) to an ISP throttling or not any sort of traffic. What chaps my ass is them doing it secretly. If they say "pay $N per month for full access, except we will choke your bittorrent.", I can make a decision. If they do it behind the scenes, or don't lay out the policy explicitly, I can't.

Says the guy who doesn't use torrents.

So how about arguing for Full Disclosure over Net Neutrality? I can think of arguments an ISP could make for not wanting to serve various types of customers (for example, I could imagine someone being scared of legal harassment if they have a lot of torrent-using users), but they should say so up front. That would allow ambitious ISPs to make money (if there's any to be made) providing a better level of service.

Apreche

So how about arguing for Full Disclosure over Net Neutrality? I can think of arguments an ISP could make for not wanting to serve various types of customers (for example, I could imagine someone being scared of legal harassment if they have a lot of torrent-using users), but they should say so up front. That would allow ambitious ISPs to make money (if there's any to be made) providing a better level of service.

In principle, I agree. The only thing the government should be getting on the ISPs case about is the false advertising. However, there is an additional problem, and that is that ISPs are monopolistic. Pretty much no matter where you are in the US, you are lucky if you have more than one choice for ISP. Here, we are lucky. I can choose between the cable company and the phone company. There are no other choices except for paying ludicrous amounts of money for a real deal business connection.

As long as there is no last-mile competition between ISPs, I think it is necessary for the government to to regulate them. Of course, the government should also be doing something to try to get more competition, so the regulation can be removed. Either way, the false advertising needs to stop.

Rym

However, there is an additional problem, and that is that ISPs are monopolistic. Pretty much no matter where you are in the US, you are lucky if you have more than one choice for ISP.
There is a further additional problem.  The majority of the high-speed links between major cities are owned by a small number of companies.  Most of your Internet traffic travels over paths you cannot control or choose.  If one of these midpoint service providers decides to extort Skype for money, or throttle them secretly while backing a competitor, there's nothing we could do even if they were perfectly open about it.

cosmicenema

The internet has turned into national infrastructure. Just like our power grid, water works, roads, and telephone lines, the internet is vital to the way our country runs. It's just as capitol intensive which makes it just as monopolistic as these other vital resources. This means we need the same anti-monopoly laws in place and artificially encourage competition by requiring owners of infrastructure to sell bandwidth at wholesale prices.

I'm not one for government control as a rule, but in this case it's a necessary evil. No one would tolerate the electricity industry acting like the internet industry.

...

The internet has turned into national infrastructure. Just like our power grid, water works, roads, and telephone lines, the internet is vital to the way our country runs.

Try telling that to the senate. Good point though. Don't know how that's here, we got choice though, I can think of 4 available broadband providers from the top of my head. Most of which also do telephone and cable if you want. Problem with that is that if one thing fails, all things fail. The moment there's a problem with our internet, the telephone stops working.