Is a pay-for-bytes consumed internet in our future? 99.9% think ‘Net Neutrality’ issues have gone away. Wrong. Rest assured, the issues and debates are going to get ugly — and who ends up on the receiving end may be you.
Here are eight stories that present a solid insight into where we are today, and were we might end up in the next decade.
Is a Pay-for-Bytes Consumed Model in Our Future?
What would we do without apps? With the consistent growing demand for bigger and better as far as applications are concerned, developers should expect to see some convergence in platforms, according to Stu Elby, vice president of network architecture for Verizon.
As for Elby’s outrageous prediction, he predicted the entire industry would move to a pay-for-bytes consumed model to remove all concerns over fairness, cost of bandwidth expansion and usage asymmetry.
* continue reading :: Susan J. Campbell, TMCnet Contributing Editor
Net Neutrality Debate: Complex
The crux of the debate for those seeing paid-peering-agreements as essential to increased participation by innovative content, application, or service providers, whether they be start-ups or seasoned, seem to be an open ended interpretation which would ban prioritization.
“We understand the term (nondiscriminatory) to mean that a broadband Internet access service provider may not charge a content, application, or service provider for enhanced or prioritized access to the subscribers of the broadband Internet access service provider, as illustrated in the diagram below. We propose that this rule would not prevent a broadband Internet access service provider from charging subscribers different prices for different services. We seek comment on each of these proposals. We also seek comment on whether the specific language of this draft rule best serves the public interest.” [end quote]
* continue reading :: Leonard Grace, Expert Opinion
What is true neutrality in the network?
The answer to the question in the title defines the battle over the soul of the Internet and the definition of “Net Neutrality”. While few people can give you a concrete or consistent definition for the meaning of Net Neutrality, most people can probably agree that a “neutral network” should be a “fair network”.
Yet for some reason, many proponents of Net Neutrality want to define the “neutral network” as a “dumb network” that operates on a first come first serve basis, and they have managed to get the FCC to prohibit good network management techniques.
* continue reading :: www.digitalsociety.org
Policy: Battling over Neutrality
Attempts to guarantee net neutrality through federal legislation failed in 2006 and again in 2007. The FCC believes it has the authority to introduce net neutrality rules under its existing mandate, but Senator John McCain has moved to block the commission by introducing the Internet Freedom Act, legislation that would expressly prohibit it from making such rules.
Some critics of net neutrality claim that it could reduce quality of service, especially if it is applied to mobile operators, who are already struggling to control congestion caused by bandwidth-hogging smart phones. A vote by the commission is expected by fall 2010.
* continue reading :: Erika Jonietz for Technology Review
Wireless Investment, Innovation and Competition
The wireless sector has been identified as a key component of increased broadband deployment and penetration. At the same time, the wireless service sector is under increasing scrutiny from antitrust and regulatory officials. Yet, analysts claim there may be too much competition. Would increased regulation of wireless markets be necessary or counter-productive?
Ruth Milkman, Chief of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, outlined steps the agency plans to take to support competition and innovation in the wireless industry. These include, “unleashing spectrum for broadband, removing obstacles to 4G deployment, preserving the openness of the Internet while recognizing the differences between wired and wireless technologies, and empowering consumers by supporting a vibrant, transparent and competitive mobile marketplace.”
* continue reading :: Amy Smorodin – The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Apple Media Plan Hits Your Cable Company Where it Hurts
Big change in TV distribution is in the wind, if the Wall Street Journal’s reporting on Apple’s “all you can eat” iTunes television plan is true. According to the WSJ, CBS and Disney are considering allowing their entire television lineup to be sold on a single-fee, all-access subscription basis. Consumers will love this, but many traditional cable companies will probably feel as though Apple shoved coal in their stockings.
Expect the hardest pushback from companies that provide both TV and internet service. Some will even employ internet bandwidth restrictions or tactics that violate the principles of net neutrality. They’ll also claim that since Apple isn’t a Multiple System Operator as defined by the FCC, Apple is an unfair competitor. Unlike cable companies, Apple isn’t bound by “Must Carry” rules, and the cable companies will cry foul.
* continue reading :: Dave Greenbaum – The Apple Blog
Comcast To Compensate Throttled BitTorrent Users
Comcast has decided to settle one of the lawsuits brought about over their use of the Sandvine BitTorrent throttling hardware to “manage” their network. For those who were affected, there is the possibility of receiving a payment from a $16 million fund set up by the Internet service provider.
The Comcast BitTorrent throttling story is one of the major case studies for net neutrality. More than two years have passed since we broke the story that led to an FCC investigation and even lawsuits from affected users.
* continue reading :: Ben Jones on Dece for torrentfreak.com
Google posts manifesto on open Internet
Yesterday, Google’s senior vice president for product management, Jonathan Rosenberg, cleared the air. In a letter to employees posted on the company’s official blog, Rosenberg wrote what read like a manifesto of the company’s philosophy on what open Internet means to Google. And we quote: . . .
At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important.
* continue reading :: Jonathan Rosenberg, Google
Thanks for reading…
Editor / Publisher: InfoManager
Network with your peers:
The User Group Network welcomes your press releases and reviews of books and software for publication in the UG Network News and the InfoManager.
POST: www.ugnn.com
Contact: http://www.ugnn.com/contact/…
or, just grab the UGNN feed here 
