DrewWilson
August 9th, 2008, 11:46 PM
According to narrow-minded ideologues on both sides of the increasingly childish debate over net neutrality, Comcast's infamous BitTorrent throttling is all about, well, net neutrality. But it's not. It's about Comcast lying to its consumers, the press, the FCC, and everyone else with even a passing interest in getting what they pay for.
In November, after The Associated Press confirmed reports that the big-name American ISP was blocking certain peer-to-peer file sharing traffic, two net-neutrality-loving watchdogs - Free Press and Public Knowledge - went running to the FCC. Soon, Pro Net Neuts and Anti Net Neuts the world over were bickering like Hatfields and McCoys, each ignoring any facts that might conflict with their particular version of the truth. The Pro camp said that ISPs can't discriminate against individual applications. And the Anti camp said that sometimes discrimination is the best way to avoid some serious network congestion.
This farcical squabble even extended to the FCC itself, with fellow commissioners making a right mess of government policy by issuing an order that some of them didn't have time to read.
After a split vote, the FCC officially censured Comcast, saying the big-name ISP ran afoul of "federal policies that protect the vibrant and open nature of the internet." The Pro Net Neuts are pleased. And the Anti Net Neuts are peeved. But in the epic tale of Comcast and its BitTorrent choke hold, net neutrality is a red herring.
More... (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/06/comcast_lies/)
Sometimes, it's good to read an awfully written story. This is why I never rely on 'The Register' as a source.
If the author had even bothered to do a little research, he'd realise that the premise of 'BitTorrent and Comcast has nothing to do with Net Neutrality' is flawed at best. The first paragraph on Wikipedia pretty much drives the steak right through the premise of his argument.
Network neutrality (equivalently net neutrality, Internet neutrality or simply NN) is a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.
There's so many errors in the story, I'm not sure if I should even bother picking it apart even further.
PS: I can't put the source in the subject because it's too long.
In November, after The Associated Press confirmed reports that the big-name American ISP was blocking certain peer-to-peer file sharing traffic, two net-neutrality-loving watchdogs - Free Press and Public Knowledge - went running to the FCC. Soon, Pro Net Neuts and Anti Net Neuts the world over were bickering like Hatfields and McCoys, each ignoring any facts that might conflict with their particular version of the truth. The Pro camp said that ISPs can't discriminate against individual applications. And the Anti camp said that sometimes discrimination is the best way to avoid some serious network congestion.
This farcical squabble even extended to the FCC itself, with fellow commissioners making a right mess of government policy by issuing an order that some of them didn't have time to read.
After a split vote, the FCC officially censured Comcast, saying the big-name ISP ran afoul of "federal policies that protect the vibrant and open nature of the internet." The Pro Net Neuts are pleased. And the Anti Net Neuts are peeved. But in the epic tale of Comcast and its BitTorrent choke hold, net neutrality is a red herring.
More... (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/06/comcast_lies/)
Sometimes, it's good to read an awfully written story. This is why I never rely on 'The Register' as a source.
If the author had even bothered to do a little research, he'd realise that the premise of 'BitTorrent and Comcast has nothing to do with Net Neutrality' is flawed at best. The first paragraph on Wikipedia pretty much drives the steak right through the premise of his argument.
Network neutrality (equivalently net neutrality, Internet neutrality or simply NN) is a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.
There's so many errors in the story, I'm not sure if I should even bother picking it apart even further.
PS: I can't put the source in the subject because it's too long.