Crying Network Neutrality WolfEvery technical hiccup is not a neutrality violation.... ( old news - 10:18AM Monday Dec 17 2007) tags: competition · business · hardware · networking · net-neutralityLast year BellSouth users complained they couldn't access MySpace and YouTube, leading some to issue cries of network-neutrality violation. As it turns out, the problem was completely unintentional routing issue. Similar cries of network neutrality wolf have been commonplace; Cox users who couldn't hit craigslist thought it was a secret Cox cabal to stop them from selling their junk (it was flaky security software), and Comcast users who couldn't reach Google assumed the worst (it was a DNS glitch). Apparently the same thing happened over the weekend when T-Mobile customers couldn't access Twitter. Thanks in part to some confusing communications from T-Mobile, bloggers immediately assumed it was a network neutrality violation. In the end though, it was a now-resolved technical problem. As Techdirt notes, crying wolf does a disservice to the concept of network neutrality: It changes the debate away from one that concerns the actual issues (competition and what is best for innovation) to one that involves lots of needless finger-pointing and blind accusations. So, next time there's a problem on the network, before shouting "network neutrality," at least wait until the details come out.
Related:- Verizon Wireless Preps 'Open Access' Tier
- Ooma Drops Device Prices
- Comcast Ads Mock Unsightly AT&T U-Verse Cabinets
- New Buzz Phrase: 'Protocol Agnostic'
- Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass
- Time Warner Cable To Start Per-Gigabyte Fee Trial On Thursday
- Comcast, Like AT&T, Takes Heat For Neighborhood Cabinets
- Friday Morning Links
|
 
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
02101
| No problem, we got this covered If you can't cry network neutrality, you can most certainly cry Sandvine!
Sandvine killed my dog. And my mother.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
| 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| The best way to kill the debate...... Why would companies want to spend money arguing against it? Just start up their own astroturf orgs that will point out every BS neutrality claim, leading to no one caring when the real violations come along.
Oh wait.....the opposition is already doing that for them.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
| |  | | | | | 
JasonD
@comcast.net
| HCT- If Ed Whitacre and Sen. Stevens hadn't made their remarks public in the way they did (Ed was inflammatory, Sen. Ted bumbling), bittorrent could have been put out of business by now.
Sometimes they gotta realize when not to put their problems up for public debate, not drawing attention to possible solutions, and keeping oxygen away from these net-neutrality fanatics.
Ultimately though, I think it will all work out. AT&T (and everyone else eventually) is preparing a surgical strike on pirated files, which should eliminate some 99% of bittorrent and other p2p traffic. | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: It is too late to put Humpty Dumpty back together again said by JasonD :
AT&T (and everyone else eventually) is preparing a surgical strike on pirated files, which should eliminate some 99% of bittorrent and other p2p traffic.
And what method of surgical strike is that? | |
| | | | | | | | | 
MrMoody
Under the black helicopters
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: It is too late to put Humpty Dumpty back together again That may stop some things from getting on Youtube, etc, but it won't even make a blip in P2P.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
| | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| I don't see AT&T (or pretty much anyone) being able to effectively tell the difference between a pirated video file, one that falls under Fair Use (e.g. »cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentar···use-tale ), or one might be somewhat similar to another copyrighted film but is permitted to be distributed online (either because it is in the public domain or because the copyright owner permitted the distribution).
I foresee many false positives and false negatives in AT&T's future. Many innocent consumers (whose videos are either Permitted or Fair Use) will be negatively impacted by false positives. Meanwhile, the pirates will quickly find a way around it and their videos will generate plenty of false negatives.
In addition, AT&T might lose their Common Carrier ISP status and might become liable for everything coming through their pipe. So even if they are successful at slowing down movie pirating on their network, they could all of a sudden be liable for every child porn website, threatening e-mail sent/received, and hacking event that crosses their routers.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Considering how the ISPs lie anyway... ....why should we think any different?
You call up with a problem only to be told to reboot your system and modem because it must be your problem. 
I had Comcast tell me that I shouldn't be receiving ANY digital TV channels and yet both of my TVs were getting them and then one day, they stopped coming in. CSR told me my antenna must be the problem. | |
| | 
DownTheShore
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Edison, NJ
clubs:
| Re: Considering how the ISPs lie anyway... said by moonpuppy  :....why should we think any different? You call up with a problem only to be told to reboot your system and modem because it must be your problem. I think these companies are reaping what they've sown due to their ofttimes shoddy customer service responses, as moonpuppy mentioned.
A great number of us have gotten told that the fault for the problem was on our end, when it turned out that the fault was on the provider's end - which WE knew right from the start. We've all seen the providers dance around giving honest answers to questions about capping, throttling, redirection, etc., that our willingness to believe them unquestioningly is long gone.
There is no automatic trust anymore. A siege mentality has developed. We know that a lot of the big providers are not proponents of net neutrality because it can cut into their revenue stream. So, since we no longer trust their first explanations for problems anymore, it's natural that the net neutrality issue is going to be the first one raised.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
| 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | This article... Is clearly a violation of Network Neutrality, as are your shoes and whatever you had for breakfast. Karl, you go sit on the Bad Boy Bench.
My brain shall now explode. | |
| 
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR | No One Been Crying Fire, Fire, Here at BBR More Than You
Seems a little hypocritically if you ask me.
| |
| | 
Yauch
join:2005-06-24 | Re: No One Been Crying Fire, Fire, Here at BBR More Than You Personally I think leading the "Too much NN news!" crusade could be a good way to make up for past transgressions. | |
| | | |
|
|
It is too late to put Humpty Dumpty back together again
·
