| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Fryer and Levitt on Race and Intelligence | Main | Viswanathan's Apology »

April 26, 2006

Congress Considers E-Enclosure

Lindsay Beyerstein on proposed legislation that threatens to change the internet for the worse:

Phone companies must treat all calls equally, regardless of where they come from, where they're going, or what the callers are saying. Historically, the same non-discrimination policy also covered Internet communications.

Now, a handful of giant telecom companies and their allies in Congress are on the verge of abolishing net neutrality for broadband internet. (Video)

Art Brodsky explains:

The telephone companies, which carried all of the Web traffic until relatively recently, had to treat all of their calls alike without giving any Web site or service favored treatment over another.

(Matthew Yglesias also writes on the issue in The American Prospect.)

Posted by Robin Varghese at 10:40 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d83485c8f653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Congress Considers E-Enclosure:

Comments

An understanding of TCP/IP packet traffic transfer protocols would get this non-issue off the radar screen.

Internet traffic data is encapsulated in numbered packets. The requestor process reassembles these packets, requests retransmission of damaged packets, and then presents the product to the user. This is not an issue when dealing with email, or even file transfers. This becomes a major issue when you are trying to view video or hold a two-way voice conversation.

'Net neurtality' actually presumes that the TCP/IP design was perfect, and requires no improvement. Nonsense.

This area is ripe for demagoguery. Beware.

Posted by: Don McArthur | Apr 26, 2006 11:29:57 AM

Phone companies must treat all calls equally, regardless of where they come from, where they're going, or what the callers are saying.

I don't think this is actually true. I seem to recall that because the cell phone network was jammed in NYC on 9/11, cell phone companies implemented a way for certain cell phones to have network priority. And I wonder whether the cell phones of the upper management of a given cell phone company get prioity nonetheless. Can anyone speak to this?

Posted by: Eric | Apr 26, 2006 2:31:19 PM

Eric, Common Carrier requirements prohibit discrimination, and much of telecom services are classified as common carrier by the Telecommunications Act of 1934 (and upheld in the 1996 ammendments)>

Posted by: Robin | Apr 26, 2006 2:51:42 PM

"I don't think this is actually true. I seem to recall that because the cell phone network was jammed in NYC on 9/11, cell phone companies implemented a way for certain cell phones to have network priority. And I wonder whether the cell phones of the upper management of a given cell phone company get prioity nonetheless. Can anyone speak to this?

"

NYC was an emergency situation, rules go to hell when the shit hits the fan.

Posted by: Ben | May 19, 2006 12:27:43 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Norman Costa on The Insanity Virus

Dave Ranning on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

Sundar on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Sundar on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

musafir on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Lusine on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on Gezi Park

Raza Husain on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on The Insanity Virus

billy on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

rafiq on The Insanity Virus

Ben Schwartz on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

JonJ on Moving books

musafir on My Father: A Veteran's Story – Part 2

omar on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Norman Costa on My Father: A Veteran's Story

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

jo smith on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Dredd on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

Dredd on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

R. Michael on Moving books

Brad Wilson on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed