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!

The Telcos' Secret Anti-Net Neutrality Strategy

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the net-brutality dept.

The Internet 457

NoMoreHelio writes "The political blog ThinkProgress lays out big telecom's plan to attack net neutality. The blog obtained a secret PowerPoint presentation from a telecommunications industry front group (PPT) that outlines the industry strategy for defending against regulatory attempts by the FCC. The industry plans to partner with two conservative 'astroturfing' groups, best known for their work seeding the Tea Party movement. Today's revelation from ThinkProgress comes as Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) joined various telecom-funded front groups to unveil an anti-net neutrality bill."

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

ZOMG!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176102)

The Illuminati, they're here!!!! Run!

Hooray! (0, Troll)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176112)

I guess having the TelCos decide what can and can't be on the Internet is right up the Teabagger's alley when it comes to "smaller government".

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176122)

Are they saying I cant be in the government because I'm 6foot8?

Re:Hooray! (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176302)

It isn't smaller government. The telecoms still use public land and got a -ton- of funding from the government.

All net neutrality should be, is the people who had their money taken from them by the government and given to the telecoms receiving what they paid for essentially.

Re:Hooray! (1, Insightful)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176354)

You can't give someone money and then later impose conditions on what you must do with it, that violates rule of law and the very idea of exchange and contracts. Government cannot go around telling people what they must do with their property, that's central planning, and it makes it impossible for private owners to regulate how their property is used efficiently.

Re:Hooray! (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176418)

Yes, but the entire point of giving them money is to provide internet access, so long as we define that the internet is by definition neutral, and has always been, it doesn't add any new restrictions.

Government cannot go around telling people what they must do with their property, that's central planning, and it makes it impossible for private owners to regulate how their property is used efficiently.

And I never said that they should go around telling people what they can do with their property. I'm absolutely opposed to government control, however, if they are going to take my money, I should have a say what it is used for. The internet implies neutrality by definition. When we paid these millions of dollars to telecoms we weren't wanting non-neutral internet connections because such things were nearly impossible with the technology level. However, with deep packet inspection and the like, its becoming a threat.

If a company wants to not use public land and public funding, fine, do whatever you want. However, the moment you use public land or public funding, you should be subjected to the will of the people. The will of the people is pro-net neutrality, and the lack of net neutrality has almost no positives and many negatives.

Re:Hooray! (3, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176664)

I'm absolutely opposed to government control, however, if they are going to take my money, I should have a say what it is used for.

That kind of tenuous reasoning could lead to people organizing and shutting down big corpulent wastes of money like HEW, the EPA, etc.

And if public money has gone to National Public Radio (a certain amount has and can be documented) where's my open mike?

Re:Hooray! (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176834)

That kind of tenuous reasoning could lead to people organizing and shutting down big corpulent wastes of money like HEW, the EPA, etc.

The HEW and EPA -are- large wastes of money for the most part. History has proven that the largest polluters aren't corporations but rather the government. Pollution is generally caused by inefficiency, when technology catches up pollution ends up resolving itself. The department of health ends up really only working because of economies of scale, and most health care problems are caused by the government (patents, etc). Private firms unencumbered by government-created problems usually end up producing more workable, safe solutions.

And if public money has gone to National Public Radio (a certain amount has and can be documented) where's my open mike?

Radio is no longer as big of a deal. You are much more likely to gain an audience through the internet or TV. You might not be able to get an open mic because it is limited, on the other hand if you and a lot of other members of the public opposed a certain section of NPR or wanted to add in something and NPR refused, you might have a case.

Plus, I don't think NPR is making billions of dollars at taxpayer expense like ISPs are (you don't have to pay to get NPR directly, you do to get internet access)

Re:Hooray! (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176478)

No, but we sure can impose conditions on future money or land use rights. If the telcos want to lease the space for each and every pole let them do what they want. If they want to use right of ways provided by the public they need to learn to deal.

Re:Hooray! (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176702)

How are the right of ways provided by 'the public'? I am sure that a certain percentage of it is on publicly owned land. Most of it is on private property however. Perhaps issues of eminent domain enter into it, and the fairness of that needs to be considered. So let's just shut it all down and let the litigation begin, eh?

Re:Hooray! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176820)

The land owner is not paid for the land that is within X feet of the road being used for these poles.

If they telcos want to act like they own the ball, I say let them pay for it.

Re:Hooray! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176490)

Government cannot go around telling people what they must do with their property, that's central planning

What are you talking about. Gov't tells you what to do with your property EVERY DAY! Your house required a building permit to build even though you may have already purchased the land. Your car has to be registered and insured, and you have to follow a long list of rules while driving. The government says that you have to have electrical wiring inspected, and that structures built must conform to the building code. I'd like to turn my backyard into a feedlot to increase the efficiency of my income, but I'm sure the gov't would have something to say about that.

Property rights, uber alles! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176876)

You're wasting your time, they don't believe in society. If someone wants a nuclear waste dump in their backyard then by god they should have one!

Re:Hooray! (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176816)

"Government cannot go around telling people what they must do with their property, that's central planning"
Its a telco with Tier x network 'rights' and they got tax payer funding and regional competition locks.
If you want to run an ISP or a Bell and offer "internet" services, every packet is equal just as every other ISP or a Bell will treat yours as equal.
No slow downs, caped streaming rates, priority for your big media partners.
If the government was asking private banks, rail, power or other private optical networks to "open" you might have a point about "later impose conditions".

Re:Hooray! (2, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176334)

I'm taking that as sarcasm. I am wondering though, is net neutrality going to end up a victim of partisan politics? The FCC under Obama says "Net Neutrality good" so the GOP leadership says "Net Neutrality bad" for no reason other than taking the opposite side of Obama seems to be their strategy? While taking a good chunk of telecom money, of course. Combine that with the fact that many elected democrats aren't exactly the staunchest supporters of net neutrality, and obviously also take money from telecoms.

Re:Hooray! (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176430)

so the GOP leadership says "Net Neutrality bad" for no reason other than taking the opposite side of Obama seems to be their strategy?

No, I think the GOP has always come down on the "net neutrality bad" side ever since there was a question of it starting back in 2005 with the SCOTUS ruling in NCTA vs Brand X. For far too long now, the GOP SOP has been "Corps good. Privatize the public commons, better!"

Re:Hooray! (1)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176528)

Its more than that, the republicans have hated the internet regulations ever since Clinton burned the RBOCs back in the 90s with open lines. This is the backlash from that. Heck fiber roll outs themselves are backlash from that, not because they want to provide better service, but because they want to be the only ones providing that service.

Re:Hooray! (3, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176562)

For far too long now, the GOP SOP has been "Corps good. Privatize the public commons, better!"

And that should be a reason for supporting net neutrality. We've given the telecoms tons of money, tons of land, etc. its a myth that all these ISPs got to be so large because of their own work and its the big evil government who is regulating them. That is completely false. It is the big evil government who said "here have a few million dollars, 'modernize' America, give it internet access" and then handed out public land left and right so its citizens could have internet access. However, now the internet access is no longer internet access but rather dumbed-down media portals in essence.

If it was privatized we sure wouldn't have these huge ISPs who can conspire to block net neutrality but instead smaller, regional companies competing for your business.

Really, if arguing from liberal, conservative, libertarian, green or just about any other political ideology, net neutrality in the US makes sense for the majority of ISPs.

Re:Hooray! (1)

VValdo (10446) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176536)

I am wondering though, is net neutrality going to end up a victim of partisan politics? The FCC under Obama says "Net Neutrality good" so the GOP leadership says "Net Neutrality bad" for no reason other than taking the opposite side of Obama...

Ya [crooksandliars.com] think [mediamatters.org] ?

Warning: These links contain dangerously high levels of Glenn Beck.

W

Re:Hooray! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176704)

The fact that this guy can get on TV and have people believe his shit makes me sad for this country. Honestly this will lead to America becoming a "developing" nation in short order.

Re:Hooray! (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176548)

The FCC under Obama says "Net Neutrality good"

The FCC is playing it's own political game. Broadband Reports has been covering it for quite awhile now. Essentially they plan on ignoring the recommendation of their own study groups. The studies they've done have concluded that "open access" (i.e: Verizon/Time Warner/etc are forced to let competitors use their fiber and copper plants) is the best way to increase competition. They have ignored these studies in favor of moving forward with a "third way" that won't do anything to address the mono/duolopy of ISPs.

Re:Hooray! (-1, Flamebait)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176338)

I guess having bureaucrats decide what can and can't be on the Integer is right up the Libtard's alley when it comes to "bigger government".

FWIW i'm not a tea party member.

You guys seriously want to have a bunch of bureaucrats go in and regulate something that has been so successful and has provided so much information and knowledge (along with p0rn and nutshot videos), that hasn't really been regulated thus far, out of fear that companies might do something that would drive away customers?

Re:Hooray! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176400)

Yes. Just like we had bureaucrats mandate the seat belt, fire alarm, and safety elevator.

Re:Hooray! (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176466)

The internet in the US should be under government regulation like the other bandwidth is.

Re:Hooray! (1, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176778)

Should the bandwidth on the thin-net (10Base-5) in your moms basement connecting all your Linux boxes together be under government regulation like the other bandwidth is? How about the wire leading to your doorbell button? And don't get me started on that electric fence out there surrounding that cornfield...

Why should any of it be under government regulation? We're not a socialist State.

Re:Hooray! (1, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176852)

For the same reason as other government regulations.

What does our economic system have to do with rational regulation? Even the father of capitalism favored a regulated market. Before you use that big S word again, how about you go read a book, ok?

Re:Hooray! (4, Informative)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176504)

The regulation would be to keep things the same. To prevent things from getting worse. Not to change the internet.

Re:Hooray! (4, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176678)

Except that the internet is not and has never been "the same". If the internet was kept "the same" we'd be having this conversation on Usenet over a period of days while we each waited for the UUCP batch job to run and update the posts.

Do you think that we would have seen all of this innovation on the internet if it had been regulated since day one? Regulation tends to protect the status quo. I'm not sure if it's really the way we want to go with regards to the internet. I've maintained for awhile now that it would be better to remove the legal/regulatory barriers that keep new upstarts from entering the ISP market. I would much rather see a multitude of companies competing for my business than a regulated duopoly that buys off regulators to protect it's business model.

Teabaggers are not for small government (0, Flamebait)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176472)

They are against government doing things for other people. Note that they blaim Obama for the rescue plan, that was enacted by Bush and the result of republican policies, the neo-conservative movement started with Reagan.

The most important skill in politics is NEVER to take the word of a party about what it stands for. You don't believe countries with the word democratic in their name are democracies do you?

It is like financial regulation, the banks are dead against that, but want very strict laws that enable them to collect on debts. Freedom is me telling you what I can do and you can't.

Re:Teabaggers are not for small government (2, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176812)

Never, ever, ever, believe what you hear anybody say about a particular group when they call it 'the teabaggers.' You might as well be talking about the Mario Brothers or Elmer Fudd. They're made-up parodies, too.

On the other, hand if you like teabagging why skirt around the issue. Suck it in, dood.

Re:Teabaggers are not for small government (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176870)

Fine, then I'm going to blame Bush for 9/11. Happened when he was president so must be his fault.

Will They Ever Learn? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176120)

PowerPoint is just like a jack-in-the-box, waiting to popup and reveal secrets. First a war in Afghanistan [nytimes.com] and now a war against internet users.

Re:Will They Ever Learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176250)

One thing is for sure... when you want to spin the truth so that the intention is taken backwards, use Libertarian and Republican political backing.

Corporations are good for you. There is no such thing as global warming. Net Neutrality will make it not neutral. These wars are for democracy.

Gotta love the ignorant voter base that comes with it. No sense, no questions, no problem!

Re:Will They Ever Learn? (2, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176450)

Corporations are good for you. There is no such thing as global warming. Net Neutrality will make it not neutral. These wars are for democracy.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
- George Orwell

With each passing year, he becomes more the prophet.

It's no secret (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176136)

This isn't so much about Net Neutrality as it is about them not wanting the government to have control of the situation. It wouldn't matter what the government wanted to do, the Telecoms want to be the ones in charge.

Re:It's no secret (2, Informative)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176312)

At this point, we need to decide who we want to be in charge of the internet. Letting it evolve on its own has gotten us to where we are now, but I can't see that continuing much longer.

So, we now need to choose between an oligopoly (relatively unregulated) and "government takeover" (unspecified regulation).

I don't trust either side right now ....

Re:It's no secret (5, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176520)

So far we have seen all manner of attrocities. ISP companies lying to its users and the government about its activities with regards to blocking and tampering with traffic is just part of it. Hijacking DNS and all sorts of other nonsense is just the beginning of what ISPs want to do to make even more money than ever before. They want to regulate what applications you can run and, who knows, maybe even what operating systems you can use.

The push for net neutrality is to stop what they are trying to do and prevent them from doing even worse. Think back to how the phone networks were handled before various regulations were placed on it. You couldn't even own your own phone!! You had to use theirs and it had to be leased! Even now they still charge for stupidity like "tone dialing service" and crap like that. How would you feel about getting charged extra for using https or ftp? It took more than the application of regulations to clean up the mess that was the phone network -- it took the courts system to break up the phone company and then serious regulation. And what did the public "suffer" from this? We suffered regulations like minimum quality of service requirements among others. We all got better service and better flexibility and you could use your own phone! I would expect nothing less from net neutrality regulations.

Re:It's no secret (0, Flamebait)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176330)

So? What's wrong with that? Do you actually believe that government control never leads to unforeseen problems? And really? Telco's only? Many places have copper pair, coax, satellite, and cell network access to the Internet. Not to mention many large cities are now getting fiber. In the office building I work at an ISP pulled fiber to the building (10GbE) and is offering business class 100mbit/s service for $800/month. The closest thing to that previously was 10mbit/s10base-TL service (kind of a super DSL) for $900/month.

I think most of the wining is people that want to p2p a lot and complain that they get shutdown. If you want a network what services 100% of bandwidth to all customers 100% of the time, go build one.

Re:It's no secret (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176434)

What is business class 100mbit?
Is that like cable, where you may get 100mbit at some point or like my T1s where I know exactly what I get?

Re:It's no secret (1)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176586)

Never had a problem with this ISP before. The existing 10Base-TL has worked very, very well. Even if it does go down, I can afford secondary links that provide better bang for buck than the government regulated T1's provide.

Re:It's no secret (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176752)

What you mean is reliable T1s that actually give the advertised speed and uptime.

I understand competing with such a good product is hard, and probably selling such service is something the telcos would rather not do. I do hope you are being paid well for your claims here.

Re:It's no secret (2, Insightful)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176446)

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, some of us are trying to fix it earlier than that, you are not helping.

The reason the internet exploded like it did, is not because of government stand off, far from it. If you believe that, go Google the story behind ISDN, and the telecommunications acts.

Re:It's no secret (0, Troll)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176868)

We're not ignoring history. We're just observing people out there 'trying to fix it' again, like happened repeatedly in the 20th Century, with very messy results. In fact, we're very cognizant of history, and see no reason to repeat it. Your old big Government ideas are discredited.

Re:It's no secret (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176686)

Do you actually believe that government control never leads to unforeseen problems?

Do you actually believe that corporate control never leads to unforeseen problems?

Many places have copper pair, coax, satellite, and cell network access to the Internet.

Satellite: unworkable for gaming. Cell: expensive, dependent on coverage, and subject to the whims of the network operator ("we sell an unlimited package, but will cut you off if you download too much"). Copper pair: rarely a competitive environment, even when considering coax a competitor. Often shoddy quality. Coax: do you really want Comcast in control of your internet access? Fiber: expensive, coverage sucks.

Yeah, competition my ass. And $800 for 100 mbit/s connections is ridiculous. Is that the price we pay to have respectable Internet connections?

I think most of the wining is people that want to p2p a lot and complain that they get shutdown.

No, I want a connection that is up-front about what it does, provides access to all ports, and has a pricing structure that isn't the laughing stock of the developed world.

You sound like the perfect mark for the scam that the ppt is trying to pull. Overly enamored with the Free Market ideals, ignorant of the state of the Telco market or their potential for monopolistic abuse, and naive when it comes to messaging.

Speaking of messaging: slick site. I was wondering why they wanted a Chinese blog, but the way they presented it on the site made sense. Hey look - even the dastardly Chinese are agreeing with us! We must be doing something right!

Leave a message on the site, spread the word that that campaign is astroturfing at its best, and move on.

Re:It's no secret (0, Troll)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176352)

This isn't so much about Net Neutrality as it is about them not wanting the government to have control of the situation

Come on, man, your bosses at comcast are expecting a better effort than that!

That's the Republican version of "laissez faire" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176746)

not wanting the government to have control of the situation

Except they do want the government to be in control of the situation. Repeal all the cable TV franchises? Get rid of all the government-forced easements on other people's property for phone lines?

When we're talking about Republicans, laissez-faire just means, "Pass a shitload of laws to strengthen government's power to take away from people and give to campaign contributors." Democrats do that too, but they don't lie about what they're doing.

brutality (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176160)

Net Neutrality? more liek net BRUTALITY am i rite?

seriously, who writes this crap?

A La Carte (5, Funny)

1310nm (687270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176164)

Dear AT&T,

How much for the Slashdot / Reddit / Gmail / Gaming Bandwidth package? Just planning ahead...

Re:A La Carte (3, Insightful)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176270)

Dear AT&T, How much for the Slashdot / Reddit / Gmail / Gaming Bandwidth package? Just planning ahead...

A la carte? You wish. Be prepared to pay for a package of 500 sites you do not want to access Slashdot.

Re:A La Carte (5, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176292)

Dear loyal customer,

Slashdot is now part of our classics package which comes with Geocities, ICQ and
Reddit is available as part of our social notworking package along with facebook,
digg and twitter. Unfortunately Gmail is only available a pay per view service as
we couldn't strong arm Google into subsidizing it.

The gaming bandwidth service is not available in your area. We can however sell you
our gaming plus package which offers upto 44% lower ping times (*) and a free subscription
to Steam.

The total cost of your service will be $71.99 or only $70.49 if you sign a 60 month contract.

(*) Based on off-peak usage

Re:A La Carte (1)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176502)

This is probably the best explanation I've seen, do you mind if I use this in official meetings?

Re:A La Carte (2, Informative)

foxtyke (766988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176326)

Slashdot doesn't qualify to be on our Premium network however Digg is available for only $1.99/mo. however, if you get our 50-sites Package** you can have high-speed fast lane access to any 50 websites in our Tier 1 provider category for $59.99/mo. atop your $49.99 Basic Internet Access* package when you also switch to our world-class VoIP services.

*does not include YouTube or any online video streaming service access, attempted accessing of such services will automatically upgrade your package to the Video+ service for a monthly fee of $89.99 in addition to your existing Premium Sites package.

**Premium sites which contain content from other sites not included within our Premium network will incur extra surcharges per access of .001/KB transferred from foreign network sites

Re:A La Carte (1)

novakom (1667041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176404)

Well...
$30 for basic (abc, cbs, fox)
$20 for standard (espn, cnn)
$30 for premium (youtube, hulu)
$10 for tech bundle (slashdot, Digg)
$10 for education bundle (anything ending in .edu)
$10 per company for gaming (Blizzard, Activision, EA; say goodbye to anything smaller than Rock*) or $100 for the bundle
$100 for some sanitized and obviously useless branded P2P client
$20 bucks for their version of Google (which just forwards your query to Google and presents the results in a branded window)

Oh, and depending on where you live your ISP may not be able to offer access to some websites due to local rates of use/interest making them less profitable.

Re:A La Carte (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176610)

That would likely be suicidal for an ISP, as has pay-per-byte access (except for the most contained of transfer mechanisms like cellular data). But, that said, is it really acceptable to tell a network owner what they have to do their network? AT&T has every right to conduct business like that if they so desire to.

Re:A La Carte (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176768)

Not if they want to use public rights of way, if they want anything goes let them lease the land for each fucking pole.

Re:A La Carte (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176794)

But, that said, is it really acceptable to tell a network owner what they have to do their network?

A Democrat would say that it is acceptable because we gave them tax credits/land grants/franchise agreements to help them build their networks. Of course it's this bastard marriage of Big Government and Big Business that is slowly eroding all of our personal/economic liberties and I don't regard further codifying this marriage into law with regulations that will protect the duopoly as an improvement.

Re:A La Carte (1)

Calithulu (1487963) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176850)

That would likely be suicidal for an ISP, as has pay-per-byte access (except for the most contained of transfer mechanisms like cellular data). But, that said, is it really acceptable to tell a network owner what they have to do their network? AT&T has every right to conduct business like that if they so desire to.

They would have every right to do so if they hadn't been taking government handouts (i.e. my tax money and yours) and been given special dispensation for years. No, for doing that they will have to play by the rules that are put in place for the public benefit, and that includes net neutrality. If AT&T desires to do business as if they had never taken the money or preferential treatment there will have to be some compensation to the citizenry that has paid for it. Privatizing the gains derided from public money is not acceptable.

Those wascally conservatives! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176212)

They favor small government when it helps big business. They favor new legislation when it helps big business. They are experts at fooling average hard-working folks into voting against their own best interests.

Re:Those wascally conservatives! (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176344)

Conservatives != Republicans today

Similar to how Liberal != Democrats.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties of the US simply favor government to the highest bidder, they really -have- no consistent ideology other than to oppose the other side if it is politically convenient.

Re:Those wascally conservatives! (2, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176382)

No, they both agree to fight about certain "key" issues that they ensure cannot be resolved. Abortion is a good one, it lets you get the fool on one side and the other to vote for their designated party while both parties sell the government to the highest bidder. We have only 1 party that simply use these fake issues to make it look like we have 2.

Next election I am voting for whatever third party is doing the best. Since they cannot win I do not care what their ideology is.

Our Outcome (1)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176214)

Web Page Traffic: 200 visitors in 3 days.

Oh yeah, we're gaining some real traction here! Better get started installing that OC3... /snicker

Re:Our Outcome (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176290)

Web Page Traffic: 200 visitors in 3 days.

I'm sure they didn't break out the number of visits from their own offices, their web developer, their mom, the intern using their site as his new home page, their dog chewing on their iPhone ... actually, I'm surprised it was only 300!

What is to stop how ISP's peer? (4, Interesting)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176222)

Okay... so let's say I'm an ISP. I don't shape any traffic. A small percentage of my customers are slamming my transit connection with p2p traffic. What if I setup peering connections to large content providers (google, Netflix, Directv, yahoo, large hosting company networks, voip providers, etc)? Now all non-peered BitTorrent traffic will go through the transit link where is could get clogged up. All the sites the most of my non-peering users are interested in get nice fast connectivity. I also setup an alternate network for my own VoIP services -- no QoS, but traffic gets routed off congested points on my network.

If an ISP does this, are they violating net neutrality? Does the government get to tell me which networks I peer with? Is peering now a *bad* thing if the government has too much control over the "neutrality"?

Re:What is to stop how ISP's peer? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176336)

Shaping has nothing to do with this.

This is about you deciding that you will lower the QoS on or drop vonage packets so you can make sure your users use your VOIP service.

Another good example would be TWC dropping all traffic to hulu to protect their cable tv lineup.

Re:What is to stop how ISP's peer? (1)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176458)

Re-read my example. It does just that! I didn't need to "lower" anything. I just route traffic to peering links. If I'm a big enough ISP, I don't even need to pay for the peering links! Are you telling me that the government will tell me which networks I can or can't peer with because I don't upgrade my transit connection? Are they going to *force* me to upgrade my transit link?

Re:What is to stop how ISP's peer? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176516)

I would think in this example the issue would be did you turn down peering offers. If you did so in a manner to make sure vonage did not work then yes that is anti-competitive and you should be forced to peer.

Re:What is to stop how ISP's peer? (1)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176730)

Peering is driven by demand. I can't peer if I can't make it worthwhile to the network I want to peer with. If a lot of my customers want vonage, then I peer with vonage. If another VoIP provider wants my customers, they could peer with me, but they have to make it worthwhile for themselves. Barriers to entry are nothing new to markets. People have figured out ways around them. There is no reason the government has to get involved here.

Re:What is to stop how ISP's peer? (1)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176462)

Is peering now a *bad* thing...

Peering sounds good, but it made it harder for new content providers to rise up and become competitive before. It has the same effect now. While I might appreciate having faster service to the provides that you hand-pick for me, there's really not a lot of people that I'd trust to do that hand-picking. Will my ISP have the sense to stop peering with provider XYZ when they become dominant and evil and no one else can enter the market?

Re:What is to stop how ISP's peer? (1)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176526)

Your ISP probably already does that. Or, maybe your ISP doesn't do that, but their upstream does. They notice that a lot of their customers go to those networks, so hey... peer with them. If the content provider turns "evil" then traffic will not go over that peer link anymore and drop to the point that it is not worthwhile to keep around. That is the way it works. Are we going to have the government decide peering now? Yeah, like that is going to work out just fine!

Re:What is to stop how ISP's peer? (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176550)

here is a clue - Don't offer unlimited bandwidth if you can't handle it.

Re:What is to stop how ISP's peer? (1)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176806)

And companies are now doing that. All I hear is people complaining about traffic being capped. Boohoo, the people that complain the most are the ones that caused the ISP to resort to capping. They also probably have their little Internet router set for QoS so their mommy doesn't complain about browsing the intertubes when they are downloading pr0n over p2p.

At worst the government or the Better Business Bureau or whatever will push for clear advertising of caps. No need for the government to trample on configuration of networks.

Re:What is to stop how ISP's peer? (4, Insightful)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176588)

No, it is pure propaganda that network neutrality would affect any of the above very reasonable engineering decisions.

That being said, you should really re-examine your business model if p2p is filling your transit from a small percentage of your customers. That is an engineering problem with your sale of unlimited services without adequate feed.

Oh, joy. (3, Insightful)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176228)

I wonder what completely wrong definition they'll assign "net neutrality" to?

Given that their first 2 scare lines involved the phrase "government takeover", I think they'll take a similar route...

Freedom of stupidity and speech. (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176232)

We are too stupid to see that vote's don't count anymore, and too stupid to see that the people in government, all political parties, are against us.

We are at war with our government and thus we are at war with corporations. Everyone in the government and everyone in corporations knows this, but hardly any of the civilians do are act like it.

The corporations have decided they know what's best for the consumers, and they have taken control of our government in order to obtain the ability to control us. An attack on net neutrality, or what I believe is really just the Freedom of Speech, is an attack on the people of the US. If we lose here then we are likely to lose when they (corporations and government) choose to tear down the Bill of Rights or perhaps the entire Constitution of the US.

Meh.

Useful Idiots (2, Interesting)

relikx (1266746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176238)

Let's see what kind of absurd talking points come out of this, at the end of the day expect outright lies to be gladly paid forward by the "journalists" / stenographers with corporate media. Frankly if they succeed more power to them for exerting that much influence over us proud, "free" people.

Watch the other hand... (0, Flamebait)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176258)

While I am for net-neutrality, and we do need some form of regulation on the internet to keep the providers fair and clean, do not, and I repeat, do not assume that the government is pushing net neutrality for the purpose of helping you. There have been many times in the United States where our government will push something like Social Security, saying "This is to help the widows with children", which, yes, is a noble cause that many can't argue with. But look at it now, it is a system used to hook the societal leeches and give paychecks to fat-asses who are too lazy to get up and work.

My point it, watch the other hand. History shows that while on the surface what Uncle Sugar is doing may seem beneficial to average Joe, there sure as hell are things going on behind the scenes that I guarantee will hurt you personally in the long run.

Let me restate, we do need some regulation regarding the neutrality of the internet, but there are ulterior motives most likely at hand. In 10 years, do you think it is that out of the question that your tax money will be used to subsidize lower-class internet connections? What do you think all those extra FCC related charges are on your cell bill.

Also, you do not have a god given right to the internet. But you do have a say in it if you contribute. Your taxes subsidize infrastructure grants that go to these companies, and when these companies are limiting freedom of speech through their filtering agendas, then yes, there is an argument. But watch the other hand.

Re:Watch the other hand... (1)

spleen_blender (949762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176374)

The only role the government should have in regards to net neutrality is enforcement power over ISPs which treat any content travelling through their network specially. Simple law, simple way to detect when it occurs, simple enforcement via fines. We have a god given right to freedom, and our government should be a facilitator of that. Considering we dumped billions of dollars into the telcos to build they lines on which they operate I would say by proxy we do indeed have a god given right to the internet, granted payment must be provided to maintain the service of course. Don't trust the government, or anyone, I know. But the legislation to declare net neutrality does not seem in any way to require being complicated to the point of hiding ulterior motives.

Re:Watch the other hand... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176394)

I think we should make Internet access available to the poor, in this day and age lifting oneself out of poverty would pretty much require having Internet access.

Mostly agree... (1)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176408)

...though, I still don't know what the real problem is. The biggest issue I hear people talk about it capping the traffic. Okay, fine, make companies advertise the fact they cap. Do you really think net neutrality will increase or decrease the amount of companies wanting to cap traffic? The government doesn't have to stomp around defining QoS and shaping.

Have there really been issues where ISPs have purposely blocked traffic -- and if they did, I would think it would be found out pretty quickly.

Re:Mostly agree... (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176622)

You don't remember comcast forging reset packets?
I still do not understand why they were never charged with anything criminal. At the very least some sort of fraud or wire tampering.

Re:Watch the other hand... (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176420)

But look at it now, it is a system used to hook the societal leeches and give paychecks to fat-asses who are too lazy to get up and work.

You sound bootstrappy. Would you like to tell my 87 year old grandmother she needs to get a job?

do you think it is that out of the question that your tax money will be used to subsidize lower-class internet connections

I know, the poor should be excluded. Hell, they should just die.

you do have a say in it if you contribute

Awesome. Perhaps we should deny votes to those who don't pay taxes, or those who get a full refund?

I understand your point, but your argument is so classist and tea-bagger-rific that I can't take it seriously.

Re:Watch the other hand... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176628)

These folks really do think the poor and old should be taken care of by a charity and failing that be left to die in the street. These folks are basically just children that never grew up, not much that can be done about it.

Re:Watch the other hand... (1)

wigaloo (897600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176436)

There have been many times in the United States where our government will push something like Social Security, saying "This is to help the widows with children", which, yes, is a noble cause that many can't argue with. But look at it now, it is a system used to hook the societal leeches and give paychecks to fat-asses who are too lazy to get up and work.

Hi there! Are you from Freedom Works, or one of those "regular American" grassroots Tea Party folks? Just curious.

Data (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176448)

to help the widows with children... is a noble cause that many can't argue with. But look at it now, it is a system used to hook the societal leeches and give paychecks to fat-asses who are too lazy to get up and work.

I hear this a lot, but I've never been able to find a lot of evidence that a large portion of Social Security goes to "social leeches" who are just too lazy to work. Do you have data?

Re:Watch the other hand... (5, Informative)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176474)

While I am for net-neutrality, and we do need some form of regulation on the internet to keep the providers fair and clean, do not, and I repeat, do not assume that the government is pushing net neutrality for the purpose of helping you. There have been many times in the United States where our government will push something like Social Security, saying "This is to help the widows with children", which, yes, is a noble cause that many can't argue with. But look at it now, it is a system used to hook the societal leeches and give paychecks to fat-asses who are too lazy to get up and work.

I'm a bit curious who you think receives Social Security checks. You got the survivor and child benefit correct, but the only other two benefits are a retirement benefit available at age 62 (that's a reduced benefit; you don't get the unreduced benefit until age 66 or 67 depending on when you were born) and a total disability benefit which generally requires a year or two worth of paperwork to prove that your disability is severe enough to end your working life.

I think it's somewhat arguable whether or not the survivor benefit is strictly necessary in this day and age. But I'm curious how these social security benefits which you can only get at the end of your working lifetime are "a system used to hook the societal leeches and give paychecks to fat-asses who are too lazy to get up and work."

Do you think that Social Security is welfare? It isn't.

Re:Watch the other hand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176484)

In 10 years, do you think it is that out of the question that your tax money will be used to subsidize lower-class internet connections?

Great idea! When can we have this? I can spare a couple bucks a month no problem, and bringing what is to some extent today's, and certainly tomorrow's mode of communication, research, and broadcast to America's poor is incredibly important. I'll go write my senators and ask for this immediately.

Re:Watch the other hand... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176508)

My point it, watch the other hand.

Were you watching the other hand when the FCC reclassified ISPs as "information services" from their previous categorization of "telecommunications services" back in the 2005 SCOTUS ruling of NCTA vs Brand X Internet Services?

IMNHO that was an absolutely terrible decision. One thing to note is that the SCOTUS ruled that the FCC had the legal right to make such classifications, not which one was the right one, just that the FCC could make the decision itself.

All the FCC is currently doing is returning to that original classification of 5 years ago.

Re:Watch the other hand... (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176512)

Also, you do not have a god given right to the internet.

No, God specifically told me I have a right to the Internet. He said we all do.

How can people think this is okay? (0, Offtopic)

CasualFriday (1804992) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176266)

Linking your cause to the Tea Party should generate a lot more bad publicity than it does. I mean, how can anyone take them seriously? I understand that they think they're revolutionaries like their forefathers, but when most of your constituents can't even spell "America", how do you expect to get anything done?

Re:How can people think this is okay? (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176356)

They elected GWB twice, it seems they can get plenty done.

Nah... (0, Flamebait)

IBitOBear (410965) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176874)

They only elected GWB once. The first time the Supreme Court elected him by saying speed was more important than accuracy in voting.

As a side note, the first election of GWB was the first time in history that a Republican got 100% of the black vote in the venue of record...

And Again, with less invective: the first election we didn't really know what a disaster GWB would have been as a president. If he haddent got a bump because of his own incompetence basically allowing 9/11 he would have been on vacation the whole time. It's the second election that I find so fascinating. It was the electoral equivalent of throwing good money after bad. Kinda the electoral precursor mindset that the sub prime events pivoted upon.

Then again, this is the second cycle of the same mess, so I register no surprise at all.

I like the slide that says (2, Interesting)

IMightB (533307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176396)

Stop the Government from taking over the internet!

Umm Hello?! If you Assholes remember, the Government *created* the Intranet, specifically Al Gore did. They then said, Hey All, we're going to turn this really nifty thing, that we created, over for the public good. I know I lived through it. Despite your best efforts to market/rewrite the web's history. I was on BBS's, CompuServe and Prodigy. I had a Accoustic coupler, and was war-dialing open systems before your fucking CEO's had even a wet dream over how much money could be made.

You Telco Asshats have proven over and over and over again that you are incapable of intelligently stewarding teh Intrawebs.

Even bad publicity is good publicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176530)

They should thank /. for this promotion of their cause.

uh huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176566)

I stopped reading the summary at "Think Progress". Is Slashdot going to be a leftist hack site now too?

(and not the good sense of "hack")

This is why I hate kdawson political posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176652)

"Big telcom", "conservative astroturfing groups", "seeding the Tea-Party movement". But ThinkProgress is a "political blog" without a trace of agenda. I'm sorry, Politico is a political blog, ThinkProgress is a partisan blog. Why all the weasel-words for those on the right-wing, but hide the political leanings of those on the left? I really get sick of having to deal with the spin of kdawson's posts - why can't we simply get it without all the cynicism and political slants?

I'm interested in the net-neutrality debate. I don't see a problem against declaring internet providers to be common carriers. In fact, I think I'd prefer it if they didn't interrogate packets - you just pay for bandwidth. But that doesn't mean I want to see the FCC step in and decide it can regulate how they operate. I certainly don't trust the FCC more than the industry. I share the opinion of the EFF [eff.org] on that matter.

I remember just a few years ago, when people were screaming bloody murder about the "overreach" of the FCC regarding enforcing decency regulations on the networks. But, now they're playing the part of savior? No, something is wrong here. The FCC didn't fundamentally change overnight into the model regulatory agency. The only thing that changed was which political party is in charge. That arrangement is going to change again. If you can live with the current party regulating the internet, can you live with the other party regulating the internet?

I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here. Maybe the FCC is a fundamentally better place for the evolution of network connectivity to be controlled from. But I don't think so. And all this partisan static coming from kdawson and his ilk doesn't set my mind at ease, nor does it better educate me on the issue. All it does is make me think that he and the other pro-net neutrality people are just partisan hacks looking for short-term political gains. That may be uncharitable, but then again, so is his treatment of those who disagree with him.

So they are going to target... (2, Insightful)

lord_mike (567148) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176708)

...the video gamers who are the ones who need net neutrality legislation the most to prevent ISP's from choking off their bandwidth... Clever, and probably very effective, too. No one ever seems to challenge their lies, and the general population is more likely to believe lies than they are the truth (i.e. death panels). Amazing that they can get away with this, but these guys are good. They've been taking away the livelihood of the middle class for a generation and yet people are still cheering them on!

Yeah, the techs are all behind this... (1)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176718)

Anybody else notice the slide showing the Facebook page has a tab open titled "How to get a screenshot"? Are these people *that* technically incompetent?

How to milk American Internet users (5, Insightful)

alieneye (86920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176722)

1. Create sea of regulation preventing competition from entering telecom business.
2. Achieve government-sanctioned monopoly on said services.
3. Screw over users.
4. Prevent users from regulating against being screwed in the name of freedom.
5. Profit

Since when were ISPs the bad guys? (3, Insightful)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32176798)

Did anyone notice where this story came from? Think Progress, the far-left-liberal group.
Recently a bill was introduced in the House that would provide the FCC the ability to regulate ISPs, it was written by Free Press [nationaljournal.com] , a badly misnamed organization dedicated to regulating an over-use of free speech, and, among other things, criminalizing private media ownership in favor of "democratic" collective ownership, regulating bloggers, reporters, instituting government-funded reporting and journalism, and re-introducing the fairness doctrine. Woa! And government doesn't want to regulate ISPs, they just need to? Nothing bad could come of this? Seriously?

Since when were ISPs bad? They provide a great service to many people. Remember what the Internet is. It's a network of privately owned computers, linked together. Each individual has the say as to what happens with their computers and their network, each individual has every right to say how to route their data. Engineering and internal self-regulation has always solved more problems than outside regulation done by force. This is how the Internet has always operated, why are we now criminalizing this idea of Internet freedom?

Welcome the new Soviet (Hail) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32176838)

The Soviets used a similar approach to legitimize the take over of the Baltic States during the 1930s. Quasi-grassroots organizations, created and funded by the Soviets, poised as the legitimate representative of the people of the Baltic states. These organizations called for intervention by the Soviets to quell internal civil unrest that was caused by agents of the Soviets. The Soviets, out of the goodness of their hearts, intervened and put down the unrest by shipping large numbers of Baltic citizens to death camps. All this to get access to the Baltic Sea.

Having access to the back pockets of people using the internet is just as important as ice free access to the sea. I believe this is why we see organizations like this and why the ISPs tolerate P2P and botnets. Fear is needed so that someone can be the hero.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?