Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Network Neutrality Defenders Quietly Backing Off?

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-you-said-earlier dept.

The Internet 171

SteveOHT writes "Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers. The story claims that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have quietly withdrawn from a coalition of companies and groups backing network neutrality (the coalition is not named), though Amazon's name is reportedly once again listed on the coalition's Web site. Google has already responded, calling the WSJ story "confused" and explaining that they're only talking about edge caching, and remain as committed as ever to network neutrality. The blogosphere is alight with the debate.

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh. *B*acking off. (-1, Offtopic)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118657)

Anyone else misread the title?

No worries. (5, Insightful)

satansmurf (934000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118693)

"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil." We are all fine.

90% of slashdotters prefer injecting saline (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118697)

I buy my saline kits from Chase Union Ltd in Movi, Michigan. The cost of a 1000 cc bag of sterile saline, drip tubing, sterile wipes (to wipe down your sac and all around) and catheter needle is with shipping around $25.
You can call them at +01 (248) 348-8191 and ask for item "MF 100" a scrotal inflation kit.

To do the saline, take the bag of saline and put in a microwave for about 5.5 minutes at low heat to warm to a bit above body temperature;about 100 degrees or so. Unwrap the outer plastic packaging and put the saline bag aside. Unwrap the drip tubing which comes with the kit and move the clamping system down toward the end opposite the vial type thing and CLOSE IT SHUT. Take the larger end of the drip tubing and uncap the protective cap........open the warmed bag of saline and remove the clear cap. Insert the drip tubing nozzle into the saline bag opening. Find a curtain rod, pot rack (which i have and use in the kitchen) shower rod or something elevated above you. Hang the bag of saline with the tubing attached and shut off. THEN VERY IMPORTANT. SQUEEZE SOME OF THE SALINE INTO THE VIAL ABOUT HALF WAY -THEN OPEN THE CLAMPING DEVICE AND BLEED ALL AIR OUT OF THE TUBING. YEAH YOU LOOSE A LITTLE BIT OF SALINE BUT THIS IS A MUST. YOU DON'T WANT ANY AIR OR AIR BUBBLES IN THE DRIP TUBING! REPLACE THE CAP ON THE WORKING END OF THE TUBING.

Before hand, while the bag of saline is warming either take a hot shower, or fill a basin or kitchen sink with very warm water sit in it for 4-7 minutes. The idea is to warm your ballsac skin up and let it get loose and hang.

When you have finished warming your sac, and you have the bag of saline (BLED FROM AIR), you are ready to grow.

With your sac still very warm use the wipes provided with the kit to wipe down your cock and ballsac. By the way, you will want an adjustable leather cock ring , nylon rope, or other type of removable cock/ball ring to wrap around cock and ballsac after inserting the catheter needle.

With you sac still warm and wiped down with antiseptics, sit in a chair with a towel underneath. Open the catheter needle don't get pansy here but with one hand, take the catheter needle and the teflon sheath that covers it and WITH THE OTHER HAND TAKE YOUR BALLSAC MOVING YOUR COCK OUT OF THE WAY AND DECIDE ON THE LOCATION OF THE INTENDED CATHETER NEEDLE. YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON THE AREA EITHER TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR BALLSAC AND UP CLOSE TO WHERE THE COCK CONNECTS. YOU PLACE THE CATHETER NEEDLE RIGHT BELOW THE COCK OR A LITTLE LOWER BUT TO ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF THE DARKER SKIN DIVIDING SKIN WHICH IS IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SAC.

DON'T GET SQUEEMISH BECAUSE THIS DOES NOT HURT. BUT INSERT THE CATHETER STRAIGHT DOWN CAUTIOUSLY INTO YOUR SAC. MOVE YOUR TESTICLE ASIDE YOU ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE BALLSAC CAVITY NOT THE TESTICLE.

YOU WILL EXPERIENCE A PRICK SENSATION,THEN A POP SENSATION AS THE CATHETER NEEDLE PIERCES THE MUSCLE TISSUE OF THE SCROTUM.

KEEP PUSHING THE CATHETER NEEDLE IN. IF IT GOES IN AND YOU FEEL FROM THE OTHER/OPPOSITE SIDE OF YOUR BALLSAC THAT THE NEEDLE IS THERE, THEN STOP.

Pull out the needle itself leaving the teflon sheath inserted into you sac. Tie yourself (cock and balls) off with some sort of removable cock ring or rope or robe tie or whatever.

Sit down, don' t plan to move around too much for the next 30 minutes - hour. Have your beers/soft drinks or whatever already out of the fridge. You will want to stay idle and focused while you do this.

While sitting, and close to the hanging bag of saline and the drip tubing, remove the protective cover of the end of the drip tubing, connect the drip tubing to the catheter sheath in you sac. THEN START ADJUSTING THE CLAMPING DEVICE OPEN TO ALLOW SALINE DRIPPING TO APPEAR IN THE VIAL UP BY THE BAG OF SALINE. ADJUST FOR AN EVEN DRIP DRIP DRIP FLOW AND NOT A STEADY STREAM OF SALINE.

If the saline doesn't drip at first, try pulling the catheter sheath out a bit until you at first experience a small burning sensation;it goes away almost immediately.
Work on the sheath depth and the clamp until you get a good flow of saline going into your sac.

Don't move around too much......or be cognizant of how much you move around while the saline drips into and starts to bloat out your sac. You can always shut off the flow of saline with the clamp, disconnect and move around take a p, whatever......
If you disconnect, take the small stopper thing that is still attached to the needle and plug the teflon sheath to prevent leakage.

I like to use liquid vitamin E on my sac while it stretching and expanding;you should / can put oil or handcream on your sac while it is expanding. The sac is very stretchable but to expand up to 18-20 inches within an hour or so stresses the tissues,so things need to be lubricated somewhat..

GO SLOWLY.DON'T TRY TO REACH A MAX THE FIRST TIME. GO WITH WHAT YOUR BODY/SAC IS FEELING THEN STOP.

When you have finished doing the amount of saline you want to, feel comfortable with, can accept, close off the saline bag with the clamp, and disconnect.

Over filling/stress of the sac can cause osmosis leaking/sweating.. Do an amount of saline at first that is comfortable and not stressfull/hurting by all means. I have over done before and.you don't want to walk around with your sac dripping water out of it.and the after results cause chapping etc which takes a few days to peel and recover from.

Some of the saline is going to migrate into your cock. Your cock girth is going to become much larger than you have ever experienced.

AFTER YOU DISCONNECT FROM THE SALINE BAG, SIT AND WITH "SUPER GLUE", YES SUPER GLUE ON HAND, WITHDRAW THE CATHETER SHEATH.
AND WITH A TOWEL, PLACE SOME PRESSURE OVER THE HOLE THE NEEDLE CREATED......YOU MAY HAVE SOME BLOOD OR BLOOD MIXED WITH SALINE TRYING TO EXIT YOUR SAC! THEREFORE THE TOWELS

DON'T WORRY KEEP PRESSURE OVER AND DOWN ONTO THE HOLE FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO LET THINGS REST AND ANY BLOOD COAGULATE.

REMOVE THE "PRESSURE" TOWEL AND WITH SUPER GLUE, PLACE A FEW DROPS ON THE HOLE TO HOPEFULLY SEAL IT UP QUICKLY. KEEP THE COCK RING OR EQUIVALENT ON DURING THIS AND CONTINE TO LUBE YOUR SAC.

IF ALL IS GOING VERY WELL, IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES, YOUR SAC AND THE HOLE IS SEALED AND YOU ARE DONE.

IF ALL THINGS ARE NOT GOING WELL, YOU MIGHT NOT GET A GOOD SEAL THE FIRST TIME JUST PEAL OFF THE SUPER GLUE RESIDUE AND START OVER.

At first your sac will be very tight,but over the next few hours or over night, keeping the cock ring on less tightly or without a cock ring your sac will relax and begin to stretch.

The saline will take a couple of days or more to absorb into you body. That is okay,Saline is sterile water adjusted to normal body PH.

Enjoy it, flaunt it if you are inclined, watch the perm stretch and sac tissue growth that happens over time.

You will need to p a little more often than regular as the saline absorbs into your body, but just enjoy the weight and feel of what is between your legs.

I hope this helps....If your nuts and sac are normally pretty big or even small and you want more, this will blow you away with the results.

Take care
Read the rest of this comment...

Re:90% of slashdotters prefer injecting saline (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118983)

It's a shame the narrow minded slashdot moderators are censoring this. This is interesting reading. I might try this next weekend :)

Re:90% of slashdotters prefer injecting saline (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119829)

If you do, be very careful about the following:

put in a microwave for about 5.5 minutes at low heat to warm to a bit above body temperature;about 100 degrees or so

This is Fahrenheit, not Celsius! 100 degrees Fahrenheit is about 38 degrees Celsius.

91% off slashdotters prefer poop (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118703)

A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.

Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (2, Funny)

ipX (197591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118705)

Need I say more? They're grabbing headlines once again for confused reporting.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (5, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118813)

I'm glad that Slashdot restores the truth with accurate headlines

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (4, Informative)

ipX (197591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118995)

Indeed, the WSJ confused more than the title; they confused caching with prioritization. FTFA:

Google's proposed arrangement with network providers, internally called OpenEdge, would place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The setup would accelerate Google's service for users.

...

The matter could come to a head quickly. In approving AT&T's 2006 acquisition of Bell South, the FCC made AT&T agree to shelve plans for a fast lane for 30 months.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (2, Informative)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119295)

They also said that Google have changed their stance. If you look at this Google Public Policy Blog post [blogspot.com] from last summer:

Beyond that, we also believe that broadband carriers should have the flexibility to engage in a whole host of activities, including....Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or private network backbone links

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (3, Insightful)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119067)

"I'm glad that Slashdot restores the truth with accurate headlines"

I don't know why such bullshit gets through the slashdot filters, frankly. If you look at the tags on any given article it's clear that most of the slashdot community knows exactly what is going on, even despite attempts to get us up in arms over another misleading headline, or half-baked no-facts 'story'.

Why not just start serving your audience, instead of begging for hits with false, misleading, overblown or just plain stupid headlines.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (4, Interesting)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119245)


I've had a suspicion for a while now that the number of comments a story gets ties into Slashdot's revenue stream somehow. Not quite sure what the specifics might be - maybe ad revenue based on page hits or something, but the unsubtle and often pathetically trollish comments the editors ad to some stories are obviously an attempt to stir up lots of argument and comments. If it's not based on revenue, then it's either boredom or social experiment, but it definitely is deliberate.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119411)

Not quite sure what the specifics might be - maybe ad revenue based on page hits or something

Woah! That's a brilliant idea! Have you ever considered getting into advertising? You could revolutionize the industry!

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119787)

You must be new here.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (2, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120133)

I don't think it is deliberate, I think it's simply that the Slashdot editors are primarily the types of people who believe anything you tell them, so when you go and whisper into their ear "Hey, I heard everyone is backing off from supportung net neutrality", they jump up, run to their PC, find a relevant article submission or make their own and hit submit.

It strikes me more as really careless and gullable editing than something done with malice or intention. I think you're giving the editors too much credit in suggesting they've put any thought into most the summaries/articles they post.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (3, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119287)

I don't know why such bullshit gets through the slashdot filters, frankly. If you look at the tags on any given article it's clear that most of the slashdot community knows exactly what is going on, even despite attempts to get us up in arms over another misleading headline, or half-baked no-facts 'story'.

I'm not sure what bizarro-slashdot you visit, but the one I read generally does not have readers that are aware of what is going on. First, because two or three people tag an article correctly (that's all it took last time I did some testing with the tags) does not mean that even a simple majority of the users/readers understand the story. Second, one need only read through the comments at a low threshold on just about any mildly-confusing story to see that this is the case. Thankfully, we do have a moderation system that generally works pretty well to help filter out the nonsense. And finally, this article is one of those rare instances where an editor here actually did add something to help clarify the issue.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (2, Interesting)

openfrog (897716) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119237)

I'm glad that Slashdot restores the truth with accurate headlines

I'm glad that this is rated funny, but considering the damage that this disinformation, deliberate or not, can cause to the principle of net neutrality, I suggest that we discuss here on Slashdot the ways to make the Wall Street Journal accountable for this dirty info bomb. Let's leverage Slashdot and the Net to turn the table and question the origin of this story. I know: "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence". Well, if it is only incompetence, let's expose the idiot who wrote this story and if it is something else, let's find out.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (2, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119745)

Well, as a (presumably) computer-savvy person, continue to say to any reader of the WSJ that you know that they are not doing their journalistic job correctly. Tell them how confusing caching and prioritization is akin to confusing a company in a bankruptcy state with a company making negative profits and that they should have another information source for technology. It could even make them question the journalists' work in economic matters.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119591)

You can always rely on slashdot to get the headlines right. You just have to wait until they've tried everything else.

- Winston Churchill.

Truthiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26120393)

The truthiness is out there!

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (1)

Kijori (897770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119063)

Nor blogs.

I'm currently studying a variety of blogs as part of a research project - examining their content, presentation and language use.

My main conclusion so far has been that they're God-awful.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119349)

Ok, I have a question for you. I assume you're looking at a number of metrics, accuracy, timeliness, grammar, etc. I think most of us would agree that accuracy is the most important, but it is also the hardest to identify if taken in isolation. So my question is, can a reasonably well informed person identify an inaccurate blog post based on other cues, such as grammar and language use?

The reason I ask is I get a reasonable portion of my news from blogs - and I think I'm pretty good at telling which ones are crap, and which ones get the story mostly right. Even on slashdot where story quality varies dramatically submitter to submitter and from editor to editor, I think I can usually gauge the quality of the story based on the summary (quality is usually inversely proportional to sensationalism). Failing that blog posts usually reference a source which I can double-check. And then there's the badsummary tag...

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (2, Interesting)

ipX (197591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119849)

Here's a theory for giggles:

The quality and relevance of content on any given blog is proportional to its distance from the source of the original information and the author's mastery of the subject. Proper grammar and spelling are taken as a prerequisite to any high quality communication.

Good: Blogging from inside companies about company politics, activities and product development. Blogging from inside or about any source of information from an initial source that has competence and a threshold level of insight about that original information.

Bad: "Journalism" about press releases and product announcements. Blogging commentary on said articles. Blogging on blogs that got the wrong title for an article that has a false premise. Blogging about said blogs regarding how it's all wrong and you have it right. Blog of contending prejudice blogging about how the other blog is wrong.

Neutral: Posting an article to /. about how the blog world is afire over said issue.

Thoughts? I'm not trying to troll; just empty theorizing about something that bugs me.

Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120367)

Here's what I'll say, reporting on press releases is always sloppy, but sometimes unavoidable. Reporting from inside the company is quality neutral: blogging from inside with a grudge is generally bad (exception for whistle blowing), blogging from inside without a grudge, i.e. objectively is good (exception for PR sanitized blogging - which is worse than reporting on press releases AND might be difficult to detect). Real investigative journalism is better than an inside man blogging.

If you don't use decent English, and it doesn't have to be perfect, you either don't care, or you're not intelligent enough to make insightful connections. Either way, a reasonable grasp of the English language is required for me to take someone seriously (comments - which are composed and posted impulsively have a lower standard.)

Metablogging is ok, but should not be confused with actual reporting. Ditto for the traditional media reporting on reporting or blogging.

So Google pays money to the ISPs... (0)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118709)

And I get fast-priority access to Google, but if I want to go visit Yahoo or Altavista instead, my connection gets blocked or slowed? Is that what the end of neutrality means?

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (4, Informative)

JamesP (688957) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118751)

No!

You get "fast-priority" because Google put a server closer to you.

This is similar to what Akamai does.

So it's not unfair around the internet, only that google gets faster because it's closer

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119389)

...and which is also what google have been doing for quite some time, if i remember correctly - they have datacenters around the world _already_.
so, another case of journalist not getting it ?

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119469)

Well, this is why network neutrality is so hard to get right. Of course it's not much different from what Akamai does. Of course anybody could do it. But of course it's going to shut out the majority of sites in favor of those which can afford to get in bed with all the last mile ISPs. If Google and all the other big ones go right to the ISPs, why would any ISP work on upgrading their internet connections? Most users will think that other sites are just slow, when in reality the slowness is caused by a drastically underdeveloped connection from the users' ISP to other networks. In order to compete, you would then have to pay for the fast delivery of the data right to every ISP's doorstep: That's effectively the same as "we throttle you unless you pay up", i.e. not network neutral.

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119607)

It's not really about speed, it's about cost. Edge caching is a way for ISPs to reduce the amount of off-network bandwidth they use. This was done a lot by the BBC in the UK for a long time (not sure if they still do) for all of the video clips they put online. They were only available at all on broadband ISPs who participated in the program. If every customer had had to go directly to the BBC's servers then the BBC would had to pay a huge amount for bandwidth and hosting and the ISPs would have had a huge amount of off-network bandwidth to pay for (or negotiate in peering agreements) and likely had to upgrade some backbone capacity for.

Instead, each ISP hosted a server on their own network for this content. The BBC just sent one copy to each ISP and their customers then fetched it from their local copy. The same thing can be done to a degree by setting the correct cache flags, assuming your ISP provides an HTTP proxy. It only really makes sense for very large sites where a significant proportion of the ISP's customers are going to want to access and get a lot of static data. It's not applicable in the general case.

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119617)

I forgot to say - it's not about the ISP making sites pay, it's about ISPs saving money. Their customers will complain if YouTube is slow or doesn't work, and this is the cheapest way for them to ensure that it's fast.

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119875)

ISPs would have had a huge amount of off-network bandwidth to pay for (or negotiate in peering agreements) and likely had to upgrade some backbone capacity for.

You see, this move relieves the ISPs from upgrading backbone capacity. The network doesn't get faster and the content hosters will eventually have to negotiate with many end-user ISPs to provide an acceptable user experience. q.e.d.

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (1)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119609)

or a traversal service take care of caching for you in a transparent manner, so you pay an ubiquitous fee similar to the hosting bandwidth, but more efficiently and hopefully cheaper.

there is already market for this, http://www.google.it/search?rlz=1C1CHMG_itIT291IT303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=content+delivery+network [google.it] so it makes sense that google would like to purchase datacenter all over the world and jump on the CDN bandwagon.

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (4, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119601)

Which has NOTHING to do with "Net Neutrality", even though the anti-neutrality people don't QUITE seem to get that it doesn't prove their point or that anyone's turning their back on things.

Net neutrality is about applying the same consistent rules for all content and not munging for "quality of service" reasons the stuff. If Google's stuff gets there to you more robustly and quicker, it's because it's spending quite a bit of money putting HARDWARE they maintain closer to you and more of it.

The stuff the net neutrality people are harping on about is where the crap the ISP's are shovelling gets priority unless you pay them protection money.

Re:Correct (1)

skyshock21 (764958) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120035)

Google has already debunked this misconception on their blog - http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutrality-and-benefits-of-caching.html [blogspot.com] Edge cacheing is in the practice of moving some of their infrastructure normally reserved for a central data center closer to the ISP (edge) so that your connections to their services happen faster, rather than taking the additional routing hops out to each datacenter. This is very different than paying an ISP to give preferential treatment to your packets since you are utilizing your own infrastructure in a unique way.

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (0)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118941)

Bug Yahoo and Altavista to put a cache-server in your garage.

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119263)

And I get fast-priority access to Google, but if I want to go visit Yahoo or Altavista instead, my connection gets blocked or slowed?

No, it's not, because Yahoo is paying to ISPs, and so is Altavista.

That's why the ISPs like it so much. It's all working exactly the same as today - if all your customers have "premium" contracts, that means the quality of service is still the same overall, as no-one has priority over anyone else - except that you charge everyone extra for the "premium".

It's like Akamai or Amazon (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119435)

No, it's like how if you download something from Amazon, you download it from a local s3 cache instead of them copying it over the backbone multiple times. This provides MORE bandwidth for everyone, including Amazon's competition.

Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (1)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120447)

You also get marginally faster access to Yahoo or Altavista, because fewer requests to Google are clogging the same backbone links that go to Yahoo and Altavista. Google's just making the network more efficient by moving the data closer to you. They're not squeezing other people out.

Foes or Advocates? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118723)

From TFS:

The story claims that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have quietly withdrawn from a coalition of companies and groups backing network neutrality

Sounds like NN ADVOCATES are backing out.

NN dieing, is anyone surprised? There's just too much money to be made by charging twice for the same bandwidth.

Re:Foes or Advocates? (1)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118757)

The RSS headline I got was "Network Neutrality Foes Quietly Backing Off?"

This was fixed by the time I got to the web.

Talk about confused...

Re:Foes or Advocates? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119221)

NN dieing, is anyone surprised? There's just too much money to be made by charging twice for the same bandwidth.

This can be turned around - there's just too much money to be lost by paying twice for the same bandwidth.

And Google, and Microsoft, and Yahoo, and Amazon are all in the "paying twice" camp, not in the "charging twice" camp. Which is why I'm skeptical about the claims.

Re:Foes or Advocates? (2, Interesting)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119633)

This ISN'T insightful.

This isn't backing out. If you understood what Net Neutrality actually meant, you'd understand that this is quite a bit different.

In the Google story, all they're doing is putting dumb bit shovels closer to you.

In the thing that people for 'net neutrality' are talking about, the ISP gives higher priority to the content THEY provide and unless you pay tribute to each ISP, they do nothing or actually degrade your priority, meaning you stuff gets to you slower or not at all- depending on whether it's the ISP's crap or your content provider paid their danegeld.

Fast lane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118725)

How exactly is a fast lane for Google content supposed to be network *neutral*?

Re:Fast lane? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119021)

Its not, thats the point.

About time! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118741)

The tubes were getting clogged!

google pays (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118753)

This is google paying more to provide a faster service, not paying more to provide the same service. there is a difference.

Spinal Tap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118845)

Google's dial now goes to 11.

Re:google pays (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118875)

So now Yahoo! and Altavista have a worse service than Google. Different method, same result.

Re:google pays (3, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118935)

Google is placing servers closer to you which is why it's faster. The server is physically closer.

Mod Parent Up (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119195)

For actually reading what is going on rather than wild and moronic speculation based on a stupid headline and bad summary.

Re:google pays (1, Redundant)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118957)

Which is exactly the same.

"You can pay extra to be in the fast lane"
is the same as
"If you don't pay extra you'll have to stay in the slow lanes"

because you end up in the same situation if you don't pay and get the same perks if you do pay.

Re:google pays (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118979)

What if you're currently in the middle lane?

Re:google pays (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119051)

it becomes the slow lane since the bigger the difference between the 2 services the more reason for those with deep pockets to pay for the better service.

Re:google pays (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119043)

Excepting of course that google is a free service to anyone who can type google.com into a web browser. This would simply mean there would be fewer hops between users and google's servers, therefore a better quality of service to the user. It has absolutely nothing to do with the user paying anyone.

Its like paying a higher price for a better location if you run a retail store. The customer doesn't pay for it, the business does.

Re:google pays (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119111)

The goal of most (that should be all, but some people aren't very bright) businesses is to get the customer to pay for all expenses, and then some more. Based on that, the customer generally pays for everything, one way or another.

Just to head off some replies: even a business that isn't wildly focused on maximizing profits should at least try to earn a small profit (otherwise, it should organize as a non-profit for the tax advantages).

Re:google pays (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119519)

True,

But a new location can reduce cost if it increases volume of sales.

Look at Walmart's profit percentage is 3-3.5% (pathetically low), but their profits are huge. Similar (but obviously still way different) effects can be had by paying more for a higher volume of business. The increase in rent would then save every customer money.

Re:google pays (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119967)

Sure, it's a phrasing thing. The improvements to the business do end up in reduced costs for the customer, but the business isn't paying for the costs, it is eliminating them, or structuring them more efficiently.

Re:google pays (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119175)

Which is exactly why NN is a good things.
A flat internet favors startups with a good idea.
The idea that you can hook up to the net and your packets get the same priority as anyone elses means that you can compete with big name companies. Hell google is an example. A couple of students with some good code did things better than the giants of the time.
Now imagine the same scenario but where google searches were slowed down because they weren't able to pay for the "fast lane" and you might be hearing the term "yahoo it" or "micro it" instead of "google it"

But if one groups gets a fast lane, one group with money gets to put their shops on the highstreet, then it pretty much kills the chances of that kind of competition.

Google isn't a free service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119289)

Excepting of course that google is a free service to anyone who can type google.com into a web browser. This would simply mean there would be fewer hops between users and google's servers, therefore a better quality of service to the user. It has absolutely nothing to do with the user paying anyone.

Google's customers do pay. You have misunderstood who Google's customers are. When you type into the textbox at google.com, you are not Google's customer. The corporations whose ads appear on the search pages are the customers.

You are not Google's customer. You, the web searcher, are what they sell to their customers. You are their product.

Its like paying a higher price for a better location if you run a retail store. The customer doesn't pay for it, the business does.

That has nothing to do with net neutrality in itself. You could say exactly the same thing if AT&T were charging Google for prioritized packet handling.

I am in favor of net neutrality, but you seriously need to refine your arguments.

Re:google pays (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119123)

Not really. Google didn't say they pay to co-locate with telecoms, and I doubt they do. The telecoms will have to pay for much less bandwidth on their own if they have more caches - which is why they typically pay Akami, etc.

Also, Adding a caching server doesn't slow any other traffic down, so others don't have to pay to play either.

If traffic really got prioritized, then any new start-up would have to pay to even offer any workable service.

Re:google pays (1)

neomunk (913773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119135)

No, it's completely different. In one case, you have cars that have a special lane with a higher speed limit. That would be an un-neutral network. However, in THIS case, that's not happening. Google is effectively putting MORE CARS on the already existing lanes. The cars themselves don't go faster, but there are more of them, meaning when you call for a car, you are likely to get one sooner than before, because there is likely one closer to you than there would have been.

Having more servers doesn't mean they're getting preferential treatment.

Re:google pays (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119507)

Oh I was replying to an earlier post which was basicly saying NN isn't needed.
I don't really have a problem with google adding more servers all over the place.

Re:google pays (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26120173)

Because we all know that putting more cars to the road couldn't possibly slow anyone down...

Re:google pays (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119481)

Except, if I build a fast lane, and use it. The old fast lane is just as fast (in fact faster, I relieved my usage).

Building infrastructure closer to the destination decreases traffic, making everybody benefit, just me more, since it is my infrastructure.

Similar to the "private network backbone links" that google talks about too. Building an additional link to the ISP that I own will decrease usage of the other link, and improve my service.

Re:google pays (-1, Redundant)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119527)

But before when there was one road the push was to improve the whole road. instead of putting your money into improving the whole road all the money goes into improving the fast lane. so no. everyone else suffers.
You're wrong.

Lessig takes the WSJ for task for this article. (1)

lisrael (512547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118835)

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html

Re:Lessig takes the WSJ for task for this article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26118893)

Slashdotted. Couldn't find a copy anywhere.

NN defenders should hedge their bets (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26118981)

I keep hearing how we need NN regulations because there is so little competition, but I also don't see much being done by NN advocates to eliminate local and state franchising laws which make it harder for companies to enter cable and broadband markets. If Google were more libertarian than liberal, I would expect them to be proposing a referendum in California to sweep away all of the franchising laws so that there are no local or state limits on who can enter what Internet or TV market.

Part of the logic behind franchising laws is that they give more revenue to local governments, but so what? Most local governments can do without, and if you really need to help them with funding, then the obvious solution is to give them more latitude to tax their residents.

Re:NN defenders should hedge their bets (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119323)

If Google were more libertarian than liberal, I would expect them to be proposing a referendum in California to sweep away all of the franchising laws so that there are no local or state limits on who can enter what Internet or TV market.

Part of the logic behind franchising laws is that they give more revenue to local governments, but so what?

Might be kinda difficult right now, isn't California (among many others) having some budged difficulties?

Re:NN defenders should hedge their bets (4, Insightful)

mordred99 (895063) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120071)

While I agree with the sentiment, have you EVER known of a government take away a tax? I mean there are toll roads which have been in place around here, and they have been paid off, and the next 50 years of maintenance have been paid off, but they will not remove the tolls. Why? That money goes into the coffers of the government. What about when a government proposes a higher sales tax to pay for a stadium or some such? They have paid it off after a few decades, but won't drop the sales tax, as they can do so much with that "revenue" stream.

Conflict of interest central (5, Informative)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119025)

The WSJ is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns ISPs in Europe. For him net neutrality is a threat to a potential revenue stream. All we're seeing here is the 'editorial independence' of the Murdoch press.

Re:Conflict of interest central (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119213)

Just wait till Murdoch sponsors some research of summer civilization. THEN we will be doomed.

Re:Conflict of interest central (1)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119695)

He's also a major content provider through all ISPs. On balance I would assume that he has more of an interest in neutrality than against it.

This is academic to me since I don't think for a second that the WSJ would bias a story like this in the way you imply.

Re:Conflict of interest central (1)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120285)

Then you should really read Private Eye some.

Re:Conflict of interest central (1)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120497)

Yeah, because as we all know it, Google can do no wrong, and it's always easier to explain this stuff with conspiracy theories instead of reality.

Robin Hood (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119041)

Is this kind of carry on not just asking for a "useful" virus? (Not proposing it)

There are plenty of smart people out there who are for net neutrality and a number of them might consider it lawful (or even their duty) to exploit the infection vectors that have served botnets for so long, to provide an "inoculation" that reverses the effect of this unrequested distortion of the network - "stealing from the rich" so to speak, which will inevitably "give to the poor".

The New Microsoft (-1, Troll)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119047)

Looks like Google is positioning itself to take over MS tactics. I'll await their History Eraser button applet. Oh well! What with Google's admission that they manipulate search results I won't trust them anymore. Sounds like the search engince industry is ripe for a new Top Dog... one that can be trusted.

Re:The New Microsoft (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119375)

What with Google's admission that they manipulate search results I won't trust them anymore.

Hold on... you don't trust someone because they're honest about something? I don't quite follow your logic here... Whether you like or dislike what they do, you can't say they're not trustworthy if they come right out and say "yep, this is what we do" (unless they're lying)

If a company came to me and said, "give us all your data so we can sell it to other companies!", I'd trust them. I wouldn't do business with them, but I'd certainly trust them to do exactly what they said.

Re:The New Microsoft (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119549)

Straight out of political science, one way you can be fairly sure someone's promise is trustworthy is if he tells you something that could in no way improve your opinion of him.

Textbook example: Mondale's promise to raise taxes. I believe he would have done it. Saying it only hurt his electability.

Re:The New Microsoft (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119559)

If they had said they were doing that from the start I'd agree with what oyu are saying but I believe they were purposely vague about how their search works. Didn't you always think Google hits were the result of their search algorithm?

Re:The New Microsoft (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119815)

I still think that the results I get from Google are the result of their search algorithm. However their search algorithm is manipulated by various factors (many of which I'm sure they don't tell me about, and some that they do), and I have no problem with that. If I want information about French Poodles, I'll type "French Poodle" in to a Google search box and get some links to useful information back - honestly, as a "searcher" that's all I really care about. I don't mind that some results may be prioritised over others for any kind of reasons, as long as I get the info that I want. And I especially LIKE some kinds of manipulation such as them storing my search history and then tailoring future searches around it. It means that when I search for "wine" I get results about the WINE project whereas my ex-girlfriend gets results about a rather delicious grape-based alcoholic beverage.

The day you start paying for search results is the day I feel you're entitled to complain about them being manipulated - they never promised they wouldn't do so, so it's only reasonable to expect they would. (especially if you consider that most people such as myself see nothing inherently wrong with them doing so)

Re:The New Microsoft (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120171)

Well, I guess we need to agree to disagree. I've always seen Google's Sponsored Links (which show up shaded at the top of a search) as "weighted" while the rest of the list as being neutral. Maybe i've been wrong for a long time! but I think not. I think most people view search engines as supposing to be neutral. (I know they aren't but I think their ubiquity lends credence to that belief.) My 2 cents.

I don't get it... (2, Insightful)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119101)

struggle to see what the problem is here really. It sounds rather like Google are buying dedicated (virtual) pipes to move data around. Millions of companies already do this and no one complains. Flame away, I get that foot in mouth feeling.

Re:I don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119383)

Example:
http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/10/28/ongoing-updates-from-the-grid-from-fj-linden/

Yes, even the "icky second life" people are doing it

Re:I don't get it... (0, Troll)

ffejie (779512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119683)

The proposal is actually to put servers in the ISPs cloud, close to the edge user. This is a blatant violation of their Net Neutrality position because it is cutting a deal with providers in order to ensure faster Google service.

Shockingly, no Net Neutrality proponent can describe to me why we need Net Neutrality regulations to ensure what we've had for the past ~20 years.

Re:I don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26120473)

This is a blatant violation of their Net Neutrality position

No, it's not.

Car analogy: Network neutrality means the roads don't have exclusive permit lanes that only connect to select businesses. Edge caching means that the mega-mall (20 miles away) now has a miniature outlet store next to your local gas station. Those two are separate issues.

Net Neutrality only protects the underdog (3, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119139)

net Neutrality is like election finance reform. The people trying to gain access are all for it, but once access is gained, the urgency seems to fade away.

Google needs net neutrality where it is weak, but exploits sweet heart deals where it is strong. The ISPs should be careful, in this economy, the infrastructure that they depend on can be bought by Google or Microsoft. More over, if Google or Microsoft could buy or build a few major backbones, they'll be screaming bloody murder FOR net neutrality.

I think Google has done the numbers, though. They are banking on semi-truck sized compact portable data centers and using existing the existing backbone as merely the pipeline for cache coherency. So when you run google apps, you are getting your applications only a few hops away without sprint in the way.

I will paraphrase an old expression, never under estimate the data bandwidth of a semi-truck sized data center driving two days across country. Think about the number of raw terabytes that can be shipped vs transfered over the backbone.

Re:Net Neutrality only protects the underdog (1)

ffejie (779512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119797)

The economics of Google or Microsoft building a backbone doesn't make sense.

A backbone is a commodity provider and if AT&T doesn't play nice with Google, then Google can go to Sprint, or Verizon, or Level3, or any number of cable companies that are increasingly getting into the game.

If Google wanted to build the last mile, you're talking serious expenses, that even Google can't afford. Look at Verizon, who is spending $20B+ on retrofitting some percentage of their footprint with FiOS. The vast majority of this is the truck rolls and actual installs and not the CO upgrades.

The only way that I see Google becoming an "old school" provider is if they slam some wireless connectivity (perhaps coupled with something like Android) to the majority of the country. However, the problem I see with that is that the Google service, while ubiquitous and possibly "free" becomes a second class service behind your super speedy 10Mbps+ service from your traditional provider. Realistically, wireline services will always be faster than wireless services.

Re:Net Neutrality only protects the underdog (1)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120053)

What? NN protects the strong, too. Without NN, ISP's charge extra for people who go to major websites like Google's. Smaller websites can be given more leeway - ISPs don't want to kill them off, just squeeze them for as much as they can. Without NN the strong get their strength cut out from under them. No the only one NN doesn't help are the ISP's.

Re:Net Neutrality only protects the underdog (1)

bjorniac (836863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120435)

I will paraphrase an old expression, never under estimate the data bandwidth of a semi-truck sized data center driving two days across country. Think about the number of raw terabytes that can be shipped vs transfered over the backbone.

I think you're confused. It is NOT a big truck.

- TS

Re:Net Neutrality only protects the underdog (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120467)

I think Google has done the numbers, though. They are banking on semi-truck sized compact portable data centers and using existing the existing backbone as merely the pipeline for cache coherency. So when you run google apps, you are getting your applications only a few hops away without sprint in the way.

I will paraphrase an old expression, never under estimate the data bandwidth of a semi-truck sized data center driving two days across country. Think about the number of raw terabytes that can be shipped vs transfered over the backbone.

I imagine a future when data centers are like mobile home parks, just cheap, flat land with little clusters of pipes poking up every dozen feet.

Trucks makes deliveries & pick ups every day, but some get containers just quietly rust into the concrete until an eviction notice gets plastered on it, to be later confiscated and sold cheaply to somebody overseas. A crazed, methed up guy in a wifebeater bangs on pipes, performs physical maintenance, and stores kiddy porn on an empty in back. Or at least until his common law wife finds it and, during the ensuing argument, trips in his drug lab and the fire takes out a quarter of the park.

Have I ever lived within earshot of a trailer park? Why yes, how could you tell?

Property Rights. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119167)

Is as simple as that. Whoever owns the line, has a say in conditions of how it is used. Take it or leave it, no one forces you to use it if you don't like the rules.

Lay your own cable if you wish, I mean, the other guy did exactly that. Lines do not grow on trees, someone had to pay for the line to come into existence, so now he sets the rules.

Going for anything else would give a worrysome precedent in case there's someone interested in *your* property.

Re:Property Rights. (2, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119597)

So since the US taxpayers paid for that cable that means we should get to say how it's used. I agree with you.

It wasn't just the telecoms that now "own" it that paid into its construction cost you know.

We had a huge hubub about telephone lines some time back and THANK GOD we can actually choose our long distance providers now or else we'd be in a libertarian nightmare of monopolies and high prices.

What's the point in NN? (1, Flamebait)

prndll (1425091) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119209)

It's a contradiction to buy your way into the fast lane with ISP's and then say you want equality for all. I say...the best way to maintain neutrality is for everyone to do nothing except for all ISP's to give all users faster speeds. Any measure of fairness is had at the user level and NOT with content providers or website owners. The best things that site owners could ever do is to maintain the health of their sites, make them easier to use, and make them more desirable to use. ANY manipulation if favor of ANY site at the ISP level defies the very purpose of NN.

evil empire (0, Troll)

mingbrasil (997857) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119249)

Google is becoming the next evil empire that we will all hate.

Re: evil empire (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119965)

That's no moon. It's a Google Data Centre..

Re: evil empire (1)

freddy_dreddy (1321567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120125)

Let me correct that for you:

Google is becoming the first open source evil empire

Is Net Neutrality a Myth? (4, Insightful)

qazwart (261667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119863)

Net Neutrality is somewhat a myth. Network providers already prioritize their own traffic in many ways like edge caching. Or, they might change the way data is serviced to allow a more requested provider better access. Absolute Net Neutrality is a myth.

What we want to prevent is the practice of shoving a provider purposefully shoving third party content aside in order to better highlight their own content. For example, setting up your network in such a way that a Google search takes three to four seconds to return results while the provider's search results are instantaneous. Users will switch to the faster provider's search engine. Or, maybe streaming content from iTunes or YouTube is no longer smooth. You attempt to listen to a song or play a video, and you get a lot of caching going on. However, the provider's own video and music service is smoother with no caching.

This is the true issue. Is the same firm that provides the pipe (or if you live in Alaska, the tube) to your computer using its advantage to push other business they're way.

There were two types of monopolies that the government use to watch over. One was a horizontal monopoly where a single company captures a vast majority of the market and can use their clout to prevent others from entering the market, thus eliminating competition. An example of this was Standard Oil.

The other, lesser known monopoly was the vertical monopoly where the company controls the entire vertical distribution. Two examples: One was the three television networks. They were prohibited from producing their own shows for the longest time. The reasoning is that if they could, they could favor their own productions over third parties. Instead of hundreds of independent production studios, there would be three who could control payments.

Another example is Boeing. At one time, Boeing was not just an airplane manufacturer, but also owned an airline. This meant that Boeing could favor its own airline with newer equipment at cheaper rates, thus giving its airline a cost advantage over other rivals. This was back in the days when airmail was an important revenue stream for airlines, and Boeing could outbid its rivals. The government separated United Airlines and United Technologies from Boeing back in the 1930s.

This is the actual problem. Local providers of service should not be content providers too. Otherwise, their content would have an unfair advantage over other content providers. This should be enforced not just in the Internet, but also with cable and satellite television providers. You can either provide the pipe to the TV, or you can provide the content over that pipe.

If local providers of Internet service didn't have their own content they were pushing, there would be no issues with net neutrality.

Re:Is Net Neutrality a Myth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26120525)

ok!

Lawrence Lessig's response (4, Informative)

sdt (7606) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119911)

Lessig has a response to this article [lessig.org] on his blog. Quote:

Missing from the article, however, is the evidence that my view is a "shift" or "soften[ing]" of earlier views. That's because there isn't any such evidence. My view is the view I have always had -- whether or not it is the view of others in this debate.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>