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!

Democrats Pan Google-Verizon Net Neutrality Proposal

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the party-disfavors dept.

Democrats 156

GovTechGuy writes "Four House Democrats wrote to the Federal Communications Commission, urging them to write strict net neutrality rules and reject the framework put forward by Google and Verizon. The lawmakers, including Rep. Anna Eshoo, who represents the district containing Google HQ, said the Google-Verizon proposal increases the pressure on the FCC to come up with actual net neutrality rules, and characterize the deal as harmful to consumers and beneficial for the corporations. In particular, the letter took issue with two pieces of the Verizon-Google proposal: exemptions for managed services and wireless services from strict net-neutrality rules."

cancel ×

156 comments

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

Poop. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272090)

I fart in your general direction!

Translation (1, Insightful)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272112)

We don't like what they proposed but not only can we not make our own proposal, we can't find anybody else's to latch on to. Think up something that doesn't piss us off!

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272242)

Think up something that isn't self-serving, perhaps?

Oh, right, that pisses off Republicans.

Re:Translation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272698)

Think up something that isn't self-serving, perhaps?

Oh, right, that pisses off Republicans.

I've got something that pissess off both:

Q: Why are niggers getting bigger and stronger? A: Because TVs are getting heavier.

Happy?

Translation of the translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272404)

I did not RTFA, otherwise I would have noticed that the summary is wrong!

Re:Translation of the translation (4, Insightful)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272494)

It isn't wrong. They wrote a fucking letter that says we don't like what Verizon and Google have proposed. It doesn't have any proposal of what the FCC policy should be. Just that Google and Verizon's shouldn't be adopted.

The closest they get is saying what concepts should be central in the policy that is adopted.

Since this is slashdot, we can make this a car analogy. Google and Verizon have designed and built a vehicle. They have presented it and it could be sent to the manufacturing line. These democrats have said "don't build it!" and instead are proposing that the factory make cars that have 4 tires, a steering wheel, some seats, and an engine. 4 cylinder? *shrug!* Comfy seats? Eh, if you like.

It would be one thing for a private organization to protest the Google/Verizon proposal. But these people are in the practice of legislation. If they object, why haven't they and their staff managed to come up with a proposal of their own? Its only been, you know, years.

Re:Translation of the translation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272544)

No, the Congress is too chickenshit to do their job, and want the FCC to do it instead. They know that no matter what is implemented, it's going to be absolute shit. If the FCC does it, then no congresscritters can be blamed, and they can just say "hey, we had nothing to do with it. Talk to the FCC".

Trouble is, it isn't the FCC's job. If the Congress wants Net Neutrality so bad, they are gonna have to get off their collective asses and write legislation. However, they know that it's going to lead to increased prices, decreased availability, and decreased access, and they don't want to get called out on it come election day.

Re:Translation of the translation (2, Insightful)

raxhonp (136733) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273958)

I don't quite understand why a legislation on Net Neutrality would "lead to increased prices, decreased availability, and decreased access".

Right now, the market is solely in the hands of big corporations whose sole purpose is to maximize profit by:
- charging at the highest rate
- investing the less possible

In theory that works well for the customers in an opened market with enough competitors. But that's not what we are experiencing here.

I like the analogy of roads, infrastructure, and cars, content. Try to imagine what it would be if these were build by the private sector without any kind of regulation.

Re:Translation of the translation (2, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274380)

I don't quite understand why a legislation on Net Neutrality would "lead to increased prices, decreased availability, and decreased access".

I don't understand it, either. When they actually have a bill that contains *only* network neutrality (rules on fair practices regarding routing, throttling, etc) then we may know if it would. However, the legislation proposed so far is huge, and the actual "network neutrality" portions are but a small part. Maybe it's the many hundreds of pages of proposed law that have very little, if any, bearing on actual network operation that they are concerned with?

What's even worse with so much legislation in the last few decades (and a trend that seems to be accelerating) is that Congress (no matter the party in power) often write laws that simply grant (or create) some government department populated with unelected bureaucrats broad powers to create rules & regulations with the force of law (basically doing the job of Congress without having elections as a check).

Strat

Re:Translation of the translation (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274436)

Of course you don't get it. These robber baron wannabes are just spouting mindlessly spouting Rand-isms.

The market is already stagnant and dominated by entrenched natural monopolies. Our prices and service levels are the laughing stock of the planet.

Not much damage can be done by telling monopolies to play nice.

Re:Translation of the translation (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274494)

Sounds more like a certain 4 congresscritters didn't feel "included" enough in the drafting of policy. Nothing some campaign contributions couldn't rectify.

I kind of feel that the less regulation the better... too many ways for it to be misapplied. And there's still enough competition and alternatives out there to keep any one ISP from doing anything too nasty.

But I would love it if they found some way to prevent Verizon from blocking HTTP and SMTP ports on residential FiOS so I wouldn't have to sign up for their business FiOS just so I could run my own damn web and email servers on the default ports.

Re:Translation of the translation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272710)

Im the AC to which you are responding, and I still don't think you get it. Let. Me. Spell. It. Out.

It isn't wrong.

Yes it is. No where in the article does it say that Google/Verizon laid out the specifics. No where in the article does it say that the G/V plan forces the FCC to do anything. In fact, it is the Democrats that are the ones urging the FCC to take action.

It doesn't have any proposal of what the FCC policy should be.

Well, they reference this: http://www.broadband.gov/the-third-way-narrowly-tailored-broadband-framework-chairman-julius-genachowski.html

The closest they get is saying what concepts should be central in the policy that is adopted.

My impression is that is as close as the google/verizon proposal gets also. It IS a discussion about the framework, not the specifics.

The real argument, AFAICT, is about whether the wireless spectrum should be regulated by the FCC or not. So if there is a video service on your cell phone, should the data transfer for that video be network neutral? G/V are saying no, and the Dems are saying yes.

Re:Translation of the translation (2, Insightful)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273172)

No where in the article does it say that Google/Verizon laid out the specifics. No where in the article does it say that the G/V plan forces the FCC to do anything. In fact, it is the Democrats that are the ones urging the FCC to take action.

It doesn't have to say in the article. We've already seen the framework proposal from Google/Verizon. So have they, or they wouldn't be bitching and moaning. And it is immaterial that Google/Verizon are not forcing the FCC to do anything. I didn't assume, say, or otherwise imply that they were. The Democrats are urging the FCC to take action. So are Google, Verizon, and other groups with political or philosophical interests in the matter.

Which is, interestingly, the FCC Chariman's proposal. Not a congressional one. And literally, cannot be implemented. Because it cherrypicks which parts of the Telecomm act to apply to broadband providers. So, I will retract one part of my original post. They did have someone else's proposal to latch on to. Although it seems rather useless to suggest an alternative proposal that can't be used because Congress has to change the law.. Also, the Google/Verizon framework is specific enough that the FCC could make a ruling on a case with it. The FCC Chairman's is legally impossible.

Google and Verizon, at least, believe that their framework can be partially implemented under FCC authority now. I don't know if they're right about that. That would require more legal ability than I possess. But I know the issue has been around for years and gone nowhere. I stand by the "we don't like it, we have no ideas of our own, do something that doesn't piss us off" bits of my original translation.

Personally, I think the Google/Verizon solution is .. pragmatic. Thats about all I can say about it. The FCC chair's is currently dead, legally. On the other hand, the solution I would prefer is wildly idealistic and as such won't happen, ever.

Re:Translation of the translation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272810)

your car analogy is wrong in so many ways.
    legislation affects everyone and should be thought out properly.
    your choice of car affects only you (for the most part).

your analogy would be better if you changed cars to roads.
google (delivery company) and verizon (freeway road maker) have come up with a scheme to govern how all automobiles drive on all roads, and want legislation passed to make everyone follow it.

verizon wants to put tolls on all but one lane on the freeway, forcing anyone who doesn't pay through the nose to use the slow lane.

google doesn't care how cars drive on freeways because google has car depots in every town and google services are only offered to the local population. google cars rarely have to travel over the freeways. google makes so much profit locally that it can easily afford to send a few small cars on the fast lane when it needs to - and because it's got its local depots, most of it's international traffic can go over the slow lane anyway. google is quite happy if all its competitors are forced to pay huge tolls to send data at reasonable speeds or even to just NOT have their data penalised.

and enlightened You thinks that the US government should just blindly adopt their proposal and enact legislation in favour of these two parties instead of producing real legislation designed to benefit society instead of benefiting incumbent corporations.

 

Re:Translation of the translation (2, Interesting)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273252)

A) This is slashdot. We don't have to have accuracy to make car analogies.

B) The analogy would be wrong if I was trying to show that everything about legislation and everything about car choice was the same. I wasn't.

C) My analogy wasn't about what car to buy. My analogy was about what car to make.

D) My analogy doesn't make any judgement, positive or negative, on the Google/Verizon "car". Just that the Democrats don't have one.

See, Google/Verizon and these Democrats are design teams and they push cars (policy) for the factory (the FCC) to implement. Google/Verizon have one. These 4 Democrats don't. You see how simple and short that is, compared to your drawn out and highly wrong analogy?

The Google/Verizon proposal doesn't favor themselves. In fact, it would protect their competitors, to use your hideous analogy, from paying huge tolls. Maybe you should read it sometime. What it doesn't do is make additional regulation of wireless. You know, that shitty connection you have now? You'd still have it if the FCC "blindly adopted" the Google/Verizon proposal. There is no sekret $profit!$ clause where adoption means automatic price hikes. If the wireless providers wanted to hike prices, they could do it right now. Whatever reasons they have for not being higher now, would still exist post-adoption.

Re:Translation of the translation (2, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274584)

verizon wants to put tolls on all but one lane on the freeway, forcing anyone who doesn't pay through the nose to use the slow lane.

It honestly worries me that you got modded insightful when you seem to have no clue what the proposal was saying. It has NOTHING TO DO with forcing tolls, metaphorical or otherwise, onto competitors.

If you had actually read ANY of the recent articles on the subject, you would know that the proposal from verizon and google would PREVENT any "fast lane" tolls from being applied to wired internet, and ensure net neutrality. It would also give FCC power to enforce it, which it desperately needs given the comcast fiasco of a few years ago.

What everyone has their panties in a knot over is the fact that neither Verizon or Google want to impose regulation on wireless-- not that they are asking for a guarentee of no regulation, but simply that their bill imposes no additional restrictions on wireless.

Google gives the reasons that

A) the wireless market has PLENTY of competition, and as such regulation is unnecessary (we are capitalist, right?)

B) the wireless market is still "young" and growing rapidly, and regulations could hamper the growth (especially given point A above)

C) If ever there is a problem in the future, their proposal does nothing to prevent further regulation, and in fact asks for a periodic review to make sure everything is still gravy (IIRC)


Really, the only reason its become a big deal is because no matter WHAT google does, proposes, or says, people want to make a big deal of it and find conspiracy theories about how Google intends to steal your identity, your life, and who knows what else.

Re:Translation of the translation (1)

brainfsck (1078697) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273228)

If they object, why haven't they and their staff managed to come up with a proposal of their own?

She did come up with (or at least co-sponsor) a proposal: the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 [govtrack.us] .

What research did you do before posting this opinion? Reading Eshoo's wiki page [wikipedia.org] or a basic search [lmgtfy.com] would have brought up the very bill you like to pretend doesn't exist.

Re:Translation of the translation (1)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273382)

I'm not the only one that likes to pretend it doesn't exist. The article contains the full text of their letter to the FCC. You know how many times that act got mentioned? Not once. So I learned it exists. Woo.

Of course, you know what you didn't mention? The fact that the Internet Freedom Preservation Act got proposed to the previous Congress's Senate and House. And to the Senate in the 109th Congress. It died in committee each time. Its that good.

Re:Translation of the translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33274530)

I've got a better analogy. Google and Verizon have designed (but not yet built) a vehicle. They have presented it and it could be sent to the manufacturing line. True it sports a body with large areas of exposed jagged metal, no seat belts, plate glass windows and comes with an exploding gas tank as standard equipment but it could make a ton of money for Google and Verizon since once it is built the consumer will either have to buy it or walk to work. Although armies of lobbyists are dispatched to control the legislature and convince the public that the new vehicle will be a much better option than the old dependable model that has transported their packets since the internet was in diapers, four weenie senators work up the gumption to squeak out the warning "maybe we don't want to do this". However the four weenies don't come up with their own design Therefore it follows that the Google and Verizon design is beyond rebuke. Yup, I'm convinced.

Re:Translation of the translation (2, Insightful)

1310nm (687270) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274860)

Quite honestly, I'm beginning to believe the longer before any sort of legislation on Net Neutrality is passed, the better. It's going to be a real mess once the ignorant Congress and the predatory corporations involved are done with it all.

About time. (3, Insightful)

JavaBasedOS (1217930) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272128)

They're finally realizing that you can't let corporations have their way with the internet? Hopefully, this leads to a reversal that grants the FCC the proper powers to uphold these rules should they actually make the climb.

Re:About time. (4, Insightful)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272174)

Am I too jaded or did anyone else have the reaction to the parents comment that it should read more along the lines of:

"They're finally realizing that they can't let corporations that aren't paying them off for it have their way with the internet?"

That(to me) is the most likely reason for them not submitting their own plan. Whoever is paying the bills at their getaway condo in the bahamas is asking them for a stop gap while they come up with their own plan.

Oh, will you look at that... theres a tin foil hat on my head... maybe I'm just paranoid.

Re:About time. (2, Funny)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272374)

Oh, will you look at that... theres a tin foil hat on my head...

The government put it there!

Re:About time. (4, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272452)

You're saying basically "Because this sounds like an intelligent reaction by politicians, it has to be fake. It simply must be a maneuver, rather than a real response. An actual response would be stupid. Intelligence is always a lie. Progress is always a lie."

No, that's not paranoia, any more than thinking the sun will come up tomorrow is paranoia.

Re:About time. (1)

roccomaglio (520780) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274230)

Your are now referring to four house democrats by the term democrats. The term democrats would lead the reader to believe a majority of democrats are in favor of this. You have four democrats out of 256ish house democrats. That would be 1/64 of house democrats are saying this. These four only have to attract 214 more house member to this and they could pass a bill. Color me unimpressed.

Re:About time. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274658)

Just out of curiosity, can you name the part of the proposal you do not like, or are you just following the crowd?

As far as I have been able to discern the only reason people are upset is basically because the proposal doesnt really touch wireless-- ie, "its good, but it doesnt regulate enough." Well fine then, make your own additional regulation, but do SOMETHING and stop talking about it.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272790)

They did offer an alternate proposal: http://www.broadband.gov/the-third-way-narrowly-tailored-broadband-framework-chairman-julius-genachowski.html

It was the reference to the Third Way.

This is why I won't sign up for a slashdot account. No one reads the articles, and the summaries are just wrong.

Re:About time. (1)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273410)

This is why I won't sign up for a slashdot account. No one reads the articles, and the summaries are just wrong.

True, but it's easier to bitch about it if you have an account.

Re:About time. (4, Funny)

unity (1740) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272258)

It seems to me the corporations have been doing a darn good job with it for awhile now. I don't have much in the way of complaints. But what the hell, I can't see how adding government regulations and control could hurt things. I mean, everybody I know loves the FCC. /s

Re:About time. (3, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272606)

It seems to me the corporations have been doing a darn good job with it for awhile now.

They -seemed- to be doing a good job, despite stonewalling and slowly rolling out service that is generally two steps behind most of the rest of the world even in the highest density regions of the states.

And now that they only see money these days, manipulating and destroying the openness that the internet offered for the sake of their other business interests (which are in direct conflict) only serves them. They'd happily follow a Cable/Satellite tiered access system if not for the utter shit they'd catch.

Personally, much like phone systems all internet services should be marked as Tier II common carriers and forced to ignore the content of their customers communications.

Re:About time. (2, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272610)

Here is the problem with net neutrality and politicians.

All the net neutral laws have to say is that no ISP or network operator on the internet can limit or interfere with any internet communications to below what the customer paid for except in cases of physical damage to the network or actual attack and the ISP needs to be obvious in what they are selling with their advertising. Give the FCC power to field complaints with appeals going to a competent court in the jurisdiction of the effected customer and some stiff penalties that surpass any potential profit for violations and it's done.

I have wrote example laws in under three paragraphs that would completely address the problem. This entire concept would prevent SBC from slowing Google down to below the speeds advertised to it's consumers based on some third part payment from google. This would prevent Comcast from screwing with torrent traffic, and it would solve all concerns about net Neutrality while allowing the companies to negotiate deals to give the consumers more then what they paid for which is what they seem to want.

Re:About time. (1)

unity (1740) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272664)

"to below what the customer paid for"
and
"This would prevent Comcast from screwing with torrent traffic"

I don't think it would prevent them for screwing with torrent traffic. Last I checked, most consumer-level cable connections such as what most have with comcast explicitly forbid running a "server" on the line in the contract. Torrents pretty much meet the definition of running a server. So comcast could completely block such traffic and still not be interferring with "what the customer paid for". Of course the consumer could opt for the much more expensive business line which allows servers.

Note: maybe this has changed I haven't had comcast in a few years and I do pay for a business fios line to my house, so I can do whatever I want on it.

Re:About time. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272770)

Well, yes and no. IF the torrent user is not sharing, then it's not going to be considered a server by any stretch of the imagination. Most people don't even consider consumer apps like Bit torrent or P2P as actual servers. But that brings us to another problem, what is the definition of a server, if it's something that users connect to in order to get information or services, then it probably could be argued that the tracker is the server, and the node is no different then a distributed online backup service. And this could backfire with them in that modern email apps that use push services (think Itunes and Iphone or whatever else hand held phone/pda that can receive email and mesaages) would be considered a server if the definition is so broadly defined.

So comcast could only block the traffic that is going from a server, not to a server and that might be true only when the connections are initiated by users and not a tracker which is an online server enabling remote services (gotomypc or logmein).

But this brings us to another point, if Comcast planned on blocking torrent traffic, they would have to clearly advertise it that way when advertising the service. Most users will have an option to use another service provider where one is available and with truth in advertising, Comcast may be forced by market forces to back down from that position.

Perhaps a limit on baring only servers capable of connecting more then 10 people simultaneously to the one service can be worked into the interfering with communications portions. Maybe an official legal definition of a server or something.

Re:About time. (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272942)

IF the torrent user is not sharing

THEN the torrent user is getting dial-up speeds.

Most users will have an option to use another service provider where one is available and with truth in advertising, Comcast may be forced by market forces to back down from that position.

In may places, it's still either Comcast with a 250 GB/mo cap or any of six wireless service providers (two satellite and four cellular) with a 5 GB/mo cap.

Re:About time. (1)

slater.jay (1839748) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274610)

Last year I was living in a house with three other people. Each of us had multiple TV shows we watched via Hulu or Netflix or some more nefarious means, and I usually end up buying a game or two off of Steam or Impulse per month.

We never topped even 150gb. I'm sure I could get by with a 250gb cap.

Re:About time. (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274096)

Perhaps a limit on baring only servers capable of connecting more then 10 people simultaneously to the one service can be worked into the interfering with communications portions. Maybe an official legal definition of a server or something.

Sounds like the Windows XP definition of a server, to me.

Re:About time. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33273086)

> Last I checked, most consumer-level cable connections such as what most have with comcast explicitly forbid running a "server" on the line in the contract.

That would be one of the first things to be prohibited by any regulation worthy of the name "net neutrality".

The customer pays the ISP to transfer packets. Whether those packets belong to a connection initiated by the client or by another system is none of the ISP's goddamn business.

A net neutrality law should specify which parts of the IP header the ISP is permitted to examine and for what purposes. Examining any other part of the packet (e.g. TCP/UDP ports, TCP flags, etc) should be considered an illegal wiretap.

The fundamental principle of the internet is that routers only know two protocols: IP and ICMP. Anything and everything beyond that is just "payload", meaningful only to the endpoints.

Re:About time. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274684)

explicitly forbid running a "server" on the line in the contract.

Can you carefully define "server"? Would that include things like dropbox? What about reverse VNC? What about VNC? Does it include running Google Chrome with gears enabled? What about running a domain controller that is on the LAN, but does not accept connections from the WAN-- thats a server, does it violate the terms?

Vague terms are vague.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272376)

Yeah, why should people be allowed to control their own property. The people who don't produce always no best....

Let us emulate the glorious progressive models of North Korea, Cuba, forward.......

Maybe Slashdot always did have the biggest asshole to sense ration on the net, but of late I have sensed it has sunk to the point of no return.....

Re:About time. (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272466)

Indeed, why not. So if I want to dig up all those wires under my yard I should be free to do so unless the various and sundry telecomm companies would care to pay me rent.

Or did you just mean that corporations should be allowed to control their property and a portion of mine?

Re:About time. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272684)

I think if their radio waves come into my yard they should pay me rent. We can work it out as trade - they give me access to the rest of their network and their radio waves can pass through my yard, home, and body.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272476)

Do you really believe that corporations are better servants of the public good than governments that are subject to the vote? If you really believe that a cabal of plutocratic overlords is better, then you'd be quite at home in North Korea.

And before you go off all half-cocked, I am not naive enough to think that governments today aren't totally corrupted by corporate sourced money. That is a different issue, however.

Re:About time. (1)

unity (1740) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272542)

"And before you go off all half-cocked, I am not naive enough to think that governments today aren't totally corrupted by corporate sourced money. That is a different issue, however"

I don't think it is a different issue, not one bit. You just argued for giving more power and control to the very entity you declared corrupt. I for one think our government has too much power already.

Re:About time. (1)

zoid.com (311775) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272642)

You can't let corporations that pay for the infrastructure decide how they can continue to pay for the infrastructure? Truth is, true net neutrality would bankrupt the providers of the network. I guess we need a public option for long haul internet and ISPs.

My prediction. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272154)

Palms will be greased.

AWESOME Fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272200)

Regulators who regulate the regulations (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272208)

Regulators who regulate the regulations before the regulation is a regulation?

If it moves, regulate it.
If it moves again, tax it.
If it still moves fire the board, fail the bank, then tax it again.

Lots of empty talk (4, Insightful)

Zelgadiss (213127) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272210)

From the way I see it, if these politicians actually had the will to put their foot down on net neutrality then Google wouldn't even have to compromise and cut deals.

But what do I know.

Re:Lots of empty talk (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272536)

There was some speculation in the Wall Street Journal that Google 'compromised' on the wireless part of net neutrality because of self-interest. The choice for Verizon eventually is either to block some high volume internet protocols (presumably like bit torrent), or to charge per megabyte (or gigabyte or whatever the air can handle). If they start charging per megabyte, that seriously cuts into Google's business because people will think twice about watching a boring youtube clip if they know they have to pay for it.

It makes sense, I don't know if that's what Google is thinking, though.

Re:Lots of empty talk (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33275132)

From the way I see it, if these politicians actually had the will to put their foot down on net neutrality then Google wouldn't even have to compromise and cut deals. But what do I know.

Evidently, not much about the US political system and current climate.

Four house members represent less than one percent of the 435 member body. A majority of which being the bare minimum required to pass a law.

More than a half of them regardless of party take money from content corporations or communication providers or both, and would probably block even a watered-down version of net neutrality. Add to this the fact that Republicans want to deny Democrats any "victories", or avoid seeming like both corrupt parties are similar, and there's really no point in hoping for legislation getting passed even if filibusters weren't yet another obstacle.

So no, four congressmen can't easily get anything they want done. Getting the FCC to maybe take their ideas seriously is about the best we can expect given how idiotic political discourse gets these days. Net neutrality is very far far far down the list of things the general public cares about.

Lifting the Lid on the Guilty Yid (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272220)

The liberals got it exactly right. For years now they’ve been telling us how “vibrant” mass immigration has made stale, pale White societies. Well, London was certainly vibrating on 7th July and that got me thinking: What else have the liberals got right? Mass immigration “enriches” us too, they’ve always said. Is that “enrich” as in “enriched uranium”, an excellent way of making atom bombs? Because that’s what comes next: a weapon of real mass destruction that won’t kill people in piffling dozens but in hundreds of thousands or millions. Bye-bye London, bye-bye Washington, bye-bye Tel Aviv.

I’m not too sure I’d shed a tear if the last-named went up in a shower of radioactive cinders, but Tel Aviv is actually the least likely of the three to be hit. What’s good for you ain’t good for Jews, and though Jews have striven mightily, and mighty successfully, to turn White nations into multi-racial fever-swamps, mass immigration has passed the Muzzerland safely by. And mass immigration is the key to what happened in London. You don’t need a sophisticated socio-political analysis taking in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Jewish control of Anglo-American foreign policy, British colonialism, and fifteen centuries of Christian-Muslim conflict. You can explain the London bombs in five simple words:

Pakis do not belong here.

And you can sum up how to prevent further London bombs – and worse – in three simple words:

PAKI GO HOME.

At any time before the 1950s, brown-skinned Muslim terrorists would have found it nearly impossible to plan and commit atrocities on British soil, because they would have stood out like sore thumbs in Britain’s overwhelmingly White cities. Today, thanks to decades of mass immigration, it’s often Whites who stand out like sore thumbs. Our cities swarm with non-whites full of anti-White grievances and hatreds created by Judeo-liberal propaganda. And let’s forget the hot air about how potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are a “tiny minority” of Britain’s vibrant, peace-loving Muslim “community”.

Even if that’s true, a tiny minority of 1.6 million (2001 estimate) is a hell of a lot of people, and there’s very good reason to believe it isn’t true. Tony Blair has tried to buy off Britain’s corrupt and greedy “moderate” Muslims with knighthoods and public flattery, but his rhetoric about the “religion of peace” wore thin long ago. After the bombings he vowed, with his trademark bad actor’s pauses, that we will... not rest until... the guilty men are identified... and as far... as is humanly possible... brought to justice for this... this murderous carnage... of the innocent.

His slimy lawyer’s get-out clause – “as far as is humanly possible” – was soon needed. Unlike Blair and his pal Dubya in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombers were prepared not only to kill the innocent but to die themselves as they did so. And to laugh at the prospect: they were captured on CCTV sharing a joke about the limbs and heads that would shortly be flying. Even someone as dim as Blair must know you’ve got a big problem on your hands when there are over 1.6 million people in your country following a religion like that.

If he doesn’t know, there are plenty of Jewish journalists who will point it out for him. There’s the neo-conservative Melanie Phillips in Britain, for example, who never met an indignant adverb she didn’t like, and the neo-conservative Mark Steyn in Canada, who never met an indignant Arab he didn’t kick. Reading their hard-hitting columns on Muslim psychosis, I was reminded of a famous scene in Charles Dickens’ notoriously anti-Semitic novel Oliver Twist (1839). The hero watches the training of the villainous old Jew Fagin put into action by the Artful Dodger:

What was Oliver’s horror and alarm to see the Dodger plunge his hand into the old gentleman’s pocket, and draw from thence a handkerchief! To see him hand the same to Charley Bates; and finally to behold them both running away round the corner at full speed! He stood for a moment tingling from terror; then, confused and frightened, he took to his heels and made off as fast as he could lay his feet to the ground.
In the very instant when Oliver began to run, the old gentleman, putting his hand to his pocket, and missing his handkerchief, turned sharp round. Seeing the boy scudding away, he very naturally concluded him to be the depredator; and shouting “Stop thief!” with all his might, made off after him. But the old gentleman was not the only person who raised the hue-and-cry. The Dodger and Master Bates, unwilling to attract public attention by running down the open street, had merely retired into the very first doorway round the corner. They no sooner heard the cry, and saw Oliver running, than, guessing exactly how the matter stood, they issued forth with great promptitude; and, shouting “Stop thief!” too, joined in the pursuit like good citizens.

“Wicked Muslims!” our two Jewish Artful Dodgers are shouting. “Can’t you see how they hate the West and want to destroy us?” Well, yes, we can, but some of us can also see who the original West-haters are. Mark Steyn claims not to be Jewish, but his ancestry shines through time after time in his writing. Above all, there’s his dishonesty. One week he’s mocking anti-Semites for claiming that the tiny nation of Israel could have such a powerful influence for bad on the world’s affairs. The following week he’s praising the British Empire for having had such a powerful influence for good. You know, the world-bestriding British Empire – as created by a tiny nation called Britain.

If the Brits could do it openly and honestly, Mr Steyn, why can’t the yids do it by fraud and deception? And the yids have done it, of course. They’ve run immigration policy and “race relations” in Europe and America since the 1960s, and Steyn is very fond of pointing out what’s in store for Europe as our Jew-invited non-white guests grow in number and really start to show their appreciation of our hospitality.

Funnily enough, I’ve never seen him point out that the same is in store for North America, which has its own rapidly growing non-white swarms. And when Steyn launches one of his regular attacks on the lunacies of multi-culturalism and anti-racism, a central fact always somehow seems to escape his notice. He recently once again bemoaned the psychotic “Western self-loathing” that has such a “grip on the academy, the media, the Congregational and Episcopal Churches, the ‘arts’ and Hollywood”. Exhibit one: the multi-culti, hug-the-world, “Let’s all be nice to the Muslims” memorial for 9/11. This was his list of those responsible for it:

Tom Bernstein... Michael Posner... Eric Foner... George Soros...
Well, that’s a Jew, a Jew, a Jew, and a Jew – sounds like a lampshade collector showing off his Auschwitz shelf. But fearless “Tell It Like It Is” Steyn, ever-ready to mock the “racial sensitivity” of deluded liberals, is himself very sensitive about race when it comes to the Chosen Ones. He’ll kick dark-skinned Muslims and their liberal appeasers till the sacred cows come home and he can start kicking them too, but just like Melanie Phillips he never whispers a word about the Jews who created liberal appeasement or about the enormous power Jews wield in “the academy, the media, the 'arts', and Hollywood”.

The same is true of all other Jewish “conservatives”. They’re shouting “Stop thief!” at the top of their voices and hoping that no-one will notice that they all belong to the biggest race of thieves who ever existed. Those bombs went off in London because Jews have stolen large parts of Britain from their rightful White inhabitants and handed them over to the non-white followers of a psychotic alien religion. When non-whites commit more and worse atrocities in future, you won’t need to ask who’s really responsible: it’s liberal Jews like Tom Bernstein and George Soros, who organize mass immigration and the anti-racism industry, and “conservative” Jews like Mark Steyn and Melanie Phillips, who distract White attention from the racial motives of Jews like Soros and Bernstein. Heads they win, tails we lose – liberal, “conservative”, they’re all of them Jews.

Relief (2, Funny)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272234)

Well - that's a relief. This should postpone the death of net neutrality for at least a couple of weeks.

Back in my day... (3, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272248)

I remember back in my day we fought tooth and nail to keep the government _away_ from controlling the Internet. Now apparently it's fashionable to want them controlling it, but only for "good" purposes. I'm sure they'll keep their hands off except to ensure the evil corporations don't screw the noble consumer over, though. Government's pretty good at that kind of thing. Incorruptible and efficient beyond reproach, that's what the government is.

Re:Back in my day... (2, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272278)

Yeah because back 10 years ago, it was inconceivable that any one point on the network would start fucking with the other points; it was just... unthinkable.

Now, they're thinking about doing it because surprise bandwidth costs money(magically? I don't understand how the fuck this works).

Re:Back in my day... (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272428)

No, back in the day we fought so that nobody would control the Internet. Initially, corporations didn't have enough power to screw things up, so the only people we had to keep from abusing their power was the government. Now, they do, so we have to convince somebody more powerful (the government) to step in and keep them in check. It's about balancing one bad guy against another so that the harm cancels out....

Re:Back in my day... (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273200)

Keep them in check from what, exactly? All I hear about are nebulous concepts of (gasp) charging people for bandwidth.

Most of the clamor for "net neutrality" is based on hypothetical situations or situations where the free market is more than capable of dealing with any abuses.

People keep taking about how few broadband choices we have... I have no less than 6-7 obvious choices for broadband right now, including Sprint, Quest, DirecTV, Cox, AT&T, Verizon (yes, you can use 3G/4G for Internet access), you name it.

Net neutrality is absurd and its proponents largely resort to fearmongering to sell it.

Back in the day (early-mid 90's through late 90's), we were scared to death the government was going to come in and tax everything, censor everything, and put all kinds of regulations in place.

Now we have this new generation of Government Can Do, idealistic youngsters who think the government can protect our precious Internet without stomping all over it. Riiiight.

Re:Back in my day... (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273214)

PS: You do understand, of course, that this populist Net Neutrality Movement is just one set of (much hated) corporations against another set of (much hated) corporations, right? I mean, you do get that don't you?

It's amusing how one set of corporations have successfully hoodwinked and marshaled a bunch of idealists into some ridiculous faux grassroots, for the people nonsense against another set of corporations so they can save money and give their shareholders more value.

What's most ironic is the people they've hoodwinked are the most rabid anti-corporation people there are.

Re:Back in my day... (3, Informative)

poliscipirate (1636723) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273316)

Do you not understand the idea that normally diverse interests can align on a particular issue? We get the idea that some corporations support net neutrality and some oppose it, but to imply that supporters are being led around all glassy-eyed and used purely for the ends of these corporations is a little simplistic. On this particular issue, supporters agree with some powerful corporations. On others, not so much.

Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a useful idiot?

Re:Back in my day... (4, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273264)

Keep them in check from what, exactly?

To keep the cable companies from blocking/throttling Netflix to boost PPV revenue. To keep the telcos from blocking/throttling VoIP to boost LD revenue. There are suspicions that some have tried similar things, and Comcast committed a man-in-the-middle attack against its customers to damage a particular protocol used heavily for movies that are on PPV. But Terry Childs gets 4 years in jail for a delay in handing over passwords, while an actual DoS attack that violates a number of state and federal laws done maliciously and deliberately goes unpunished.

Net neutrality is absurd and its proponents largely resort to fearmongering to sell it.

If they weren't intending to harm their customers in an underhanded manner to boost their own services, then they wouldn't be fighting it so hard. So I don't trust those against it. "We'd never do that" when they've already done it doesn't strike me as a good argument.

Now we have this new generation of Government Can Do, idealistic youngsters who think the government can protect our precious Internet without stomping all over it. Riiiight.

The government isn't going to "control" anything they don't already control. The Internet was built by the government and then opened up. It was pushed to what it is now by the government. Al Gore did invent the Internet as we know it by opening up the networks and getting the government out of the way. The government hasn't tried to directly control it (other than the parts they didn't yet get rid of) and isn't trying to with this either. It's nothing more than when they told AT&T that they couldn't require only AT&T hardware on the phone network. That wasn't government control of the phone network, but a restriction on the company that runs it in order to benefit the people. And that's what Net Neutrality is. A restriction on the corporations that have a profit motive to harm their customers to where Net Neutrality benefits anyone that doesn't own an ISP (and doesn't affect honorable ISPs).

Re:Back in my day... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273368)

Comcast committed a man-in-the-middle attack against its customers to damage a particular protocol used heavily for movies that are on PPV

Surely you're not talking about their filtering of BitTorrent? That would be silly. There were nebulous claims that Comcast applied network management to BitTorrent traffic, 90%+ of which is illegal anyway. Show proof, and show that there weren't throttling users to manage bandwidth, and show that your contract with them to doesn't allow this.

You can't because you're just fearmongering [oh teh noes, it's a "man-in-the-middle attack" and it was "an actual DoS attack that violates a number of state and federal laws"] and making shit up like many other NN proponents.

Re:Back in my day... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273462)

Show proof? They testified that's exactly what they were doing under oath to the federal government. Go look it up.

Re:Back in my day... (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273890)

yes, you can use 3G/4G for Internet access

Only if you're on the lower end of data use. Verizon caps at 4 or 5gb. I typically burn through nearly that much just from internet radio and podcast streams during my commute.

I have no less than 6-7 obvious choices for broadband right now

I'm in a similar situation, good for us. But I'm also in a huge city. This is the first time that's ever been the cast for me. I've moved about ten times in my life, and all but this one wound up with me having a choice between either two high speed providers or having only one option. And when there were two, they would never actually compete.

Re:Back in my day... (3, Informative)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274150)

You are the closest I've come to repopulating my foes list since I cleared it a few years ago. I'm actually more concerned that adherents to the suicide pact of libertarianism still shock me when I come here.

Re:Back in my day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33274464)

I have no less than 6-7 obvious choices for broadband right now

Lucky you. Most of us are still living with entrenched monopolies.

Re:Back in my day... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274630)

All I hear about are nebulous concepts of (gasp) charging people for bandwidth

No, what you hear are concepts of people being forced to pay every ISP between them and the computers connecting to them. Do you think Slashdot does not currently pay for its bandwidth? Now imagine if in addition to paying their own ISP, Slashdot also had to pay every intermediate ISP as well as your ISP.

If Slashdot did not pay that fee, then what? Slow service? No service, even though they are paying their ISP?

People keep taking about how few broadband choices we have

We can't all live in the big city. Some of us really do not have more than one broadband option (some have none, but that is a separate issue entirely). I guess in your convenient free-market-religion, people who live in small towns are not really people. Or maybe you think that people who live in small towns do not deserve a neutral network, since your precious "free market" does not serve their interests.

Back in the day (early-mid 90's through late 90's), we were scared to death the government was going to come in and tax everything, censor everything, and put all kinds of regulations in place.

Yeah, and further back in the day, people were pissed off about the telephone networks that would not allow you to attach anything other than the phones they licensed. Then the government came in and told them they could not do that, and everyone celebrated that move.

Re:Back in my day... (1)

skurtz (1031382) | more than 4 years ago | (#33275114)

So let's fight today. I know nothing about actually writing Apache modules, but how about an Apache module that serves 404's to requests coming from "private" internets? I'd install it. I believe that all it would take to break these deals is a clear stance that citizens on private internets are second-class citizens on the real internet. This is one way to do it.

Re:Back in my day... (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272918)

"This time it's different."

We don't want these bad guys controlling our lives and making all our choices for us. We need to get good guys to do that.

that's wingnut talk (2, Interesting)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274294)

Now apparently it's fashionable to want them controlling it, but only for "good" purposes.

Right, because regulating food and drug safety meant a government takeover of our food and drug supplies....

Re:Back in my day... (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274400)

Here we go again.

Net neutrality is not government control of the Internet. It is government regulation of ISPs, in the form of a mandate that they continue to provide neutral access to the Internet. It is an assurance the free and open Internet remains free and open. That is all. Stop spreading the FUD.

Best argument ever. (2, Insightful)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272280)

said the Google-Verizon proposal increases the pressure on the FCC to come up with actual net neutrality rules, and characterize the deal as harmful to consumers and beneficial for the corporations.

"We think this is bad because it will force us to do work."

"We think this is bad because it will force consumers to pay money for something."

"We think this is bad because it means that corporations will make money."

Are you kidding me? Who is this lady and why is she not on a plane to Alaska?

Re:Best argument ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272414)

Normally I tend to agree with conservative fiscal policies, but the case of net neutrality is one where I find myself on an unfamiliar side of the fence. By and large I am in favor of the 'free market', but I also believe that corporations have grown out of control to the point where they can effectively do whatever they please. I see the internet as quickly becoming another necessary resource; and the idea of declaring it a right (which I found silly a short time ago) no longer seems so ludicrous.

Despite the impact on corporations, I feel that net neutrality is the best option - refusing to regulate is okay in theory (laissez-faire has its perks), but leaves open the very real possibility of abuse. In this case, I'd rather see a completely level playing field and suffer some regulation than watch as the US falls even further behind in broadband and internet while corporations rake in cash.

Re:Best argument ever. (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272588)

In this case, I'd rather see a completely level playing field and suffer some regulation than watch as the US falls even further behind in broadband and internet while corporations rake in cash.

Pardon my naivety, but I would like to better understand how exactly the US has fallen behind. Sure, the speeds at which we stream video and such aren't on par with those of Japan, etc, but I myself don't really have a problem watching a movie or whatever when I wish to do so. As far as I can tell, the Internet works pretty darn good all things considered. Is it essential that we have the fastest speeds in the world? I don't think so. We certainly don't get to work as fast as workers in other countries. Have we fallen behind in transportation? (don't answer that!)

It only makes sense that the US isn't a leader when it comes to implementing new technology. The US has been a land of innovation, where folks from around the globe can come and study and invent cool new things. When other nations see these cool new things, they improve on them because they learn from our mistakes or adapt different designs to accommodate their own needs. Spam became popular in the US long before China, yet China will likely fast approach the US in terms of spam production. They saw the idea, and are using it for their own purposes. And those Nigerians too (you gotta admit, it was a good idea at the time!)

I am satisfied with having average internet speeds and such. At some point the focus needs to redirected off of 'bigger-better-faster-more' and back to what the US can do best, innovate.

Re:Best argument ever. (1)

Yoozer (1055188) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273194)

Pardon my naivety, but I would like to better understand how exactly the US has fallen behind.

Well, because of this: http://www.tispa.org/node/14 [tispa.org] - the money you've been paying them has not gone into improving the network. You've got ISPs fighting any municipal initiatives with tooth and nail. You have a lack of choice between ISPs; it's either DSL or cable from 2 brands. You've fallen behind with healthy competition and innovation.

Re:Best argument ever. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272674)

Listen, there is absolutely no reason to find yourself outside of the conservative fiscal policies or on an unfamiliar side of the fence. Free markets can only be free when people actually deliver what was paid for. In the same light, all that needs to happen for net neutrality is that people get what they paid for. If Time Warner has a peering agreement with SBC/ATT, and a customer requests information on another network that passes through SBC's before going to time warner, then SBC needs to honor it's agreement with Time Warner and the other network as well as time Warner needs to honor it's agreements with their customers. If everyone is getting what they paid for *ie you as a consumer is getting the speeds you were advertised, the website is getting the bandwidth they were advertised, then there is no way to degrade someone's offerings as the limiting factor is now who paid for the least amount of service.

So no, there is no reason to feel out of place in this at all. All you are doing is asking companies and people to remain honest in their selling of goods and services to others.

What I can't understand is why this concept of just getting what you paid for is so damn difficult for people in office who seem to be championing Net Neutrality yet want to overly complicate things with regulation on top of regulation. If you were to be uncomfortable about anything, it should be that.

Re:Best argument ever. (2, Interesting)

kwbauer (1677400) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273006)

What I can't understand is why this concept of just getting what you paid for is so damn difficult for people in office who seem to be championing Net Neutrality yet want to overly complicate things with regulation on top of regulation.

1. Creating long, complicated laws gives themselves (lawyers) and their best friends (lawyers) job security as they endlessly argue about what those long, complicated laws really prohibit or allow.

2. Creating long, complicated laws gives them an out when they choose not to follow them, AKA the Charlie "I didn't realize I was not in compliance because that stuff is complicated" Rangel excuse.

3. Unfortunately, society seems to believe that the proper measure of whether a particular Congress has been "effective" is "by how many reams did they expand the US Code?" We should be measuring their effectivenesss based on how much they trim from the law.

Re:Best argument ever. (1)

mentil (1748130) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272672)

Who is this lady and why is she not on a plane to Alaska?

<Tinfoil Hat>She sabotaged the last one?</Tinfoil Hat>

You know what (5, Insightful)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272304)

The lack of neutrality for managed services is going to put an increased burden on IT companies. It will increase the costs where cloud services are already being proven to NOT lower costs.

The fact of the matter is that True Net Neutrality is beneficial to every company EXCEPT ISPs. ISPs being a set than includes broadband, T1, DSL and any provider as well as the increasing role mobile providers take. Basically a set of companies that receive quite a bit in government money ALREADY to fund construction of network infrastructure.

Re:You know what (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272362)

It's a fair point. But does it necessarily make sense to give artificial power to businesses who know nothing about providing internet services to everyone while removing control from the businesses whose business is providing internet services?

Is this supposed to level the playing field or something? I know that part of me is an idealist when I say that a tiered internet will not enable shady back-room deals to occur. But I foresee NN analogous to giving a freight company transporting hazardous materials the same unrestricted right to use the Eisenhower Tunnel [wikipedia.org] as a car load of college kids driving up to ski for the weekend.

It just seems incredibly short-sighted to declare all traffic equal.

Re:You know what (2, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272520)

I agree that traffic should be tiered, but it should be tiered not on a pay-to-play basis, but rather on the technical merits of prioritizing a particular class of traffic. Traffic that requires low latency for correctness (live audio/video streaming) should have highest priority, followed by light web browsing, followed by long-running downloads that run for hours at a time, simply because delaying packets for those different types of traffic cause vastly different impact on the customer's experience.

If a company wants to pay for faster bandwidth, that's certainly within their right by mirroring their content closer to the end users. They should not be allowed to pay to artificially degrade the traffic of other companies, however. That's a fine line. Moving a server closer to the customer doesn't impact the speed of anybody else's traffic. Creating a high speed secondary backbone for pay-to-play, by contrast, does because that second backbone between ISPs is bandwidth that would otherwise be used for bulk traffic.

The most important thing, however, is really that any protocol-specific optimization *must* be done in a consistent and nondiscriminatory fashion. Companies like Comcast should not be allowed to do QoS prioritization for their own VoIP service but refuse to do so for Skype, Vonage, et al. That's a clear antitrust violation, and that's the sort of thing that NN rules really need to address, since there have been accusations of such abuse happening already.

Pay Per Kilobyte? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33273046)

Why not just pay based on how much you use? Much like I pay my for electricity/gas/water and the gas that goes into my car. If you cannot afford to download 100GB of data in a month, then that is your problem, much like I wouldn't expect to have to subsidize my neighbor for using 3x more electricity then I do.

Re:You know what (1)

quadrox (1174915) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273238)

I disagree.

If ISP's start to put the most common internet content close to the end users, they will use this as an excuse to no longer maintain the long distance lines because hardly anyone is using those anyway.

So in effect content providers pay ISP's to get their content on the ISP mirrors close to the users, and in return any other content is automtically less of a priority, simply because the long distance infrastructure demands are now lower.

You cannot improve speeds of some traffic without automatically decreasing the speed of everything else. In theory you could, in practice it would never ever work that way.

Re:You know what (1)

shermo (1284310) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272530)

Yeah there might be a 2 in there somewhere.

Re:You know what (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272566)

Net neutrality doesn't mean no traffic engineering at all, it just means that such engineering cannot be based on who did or didn't pay the double dipping fee.

Fundamentally, anything but net neutrality is fraud. Customers pay their ISP for a connection to the internet. The ISP is obligated to carry their traffic in exchange for the monthly fee. Charging another party to actually honor that commitment is fraud. It's the same reason UPS can't come to you and say "Amazon shipped a package to you. If you want to make sure *AHEM* nothing causes it to end up in Siberia, you could choose to pay us $5.00 in addition to what Amazon paid."

As for your analogy, show me a packet that can explode in the cable causing death and destruction all around it and I'll consider it.

Network neutrality says the minimum wage guy has just as much right to use the tunnel as the carload of trustfund babies.

Re:You know what (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272662)

As for your analogy, show me a packet that can explode in the cable causing death and destruction all around it and I'll consider it.

Not quite an explosion [slashdot.org]

Network neutrality says the minimum wage guy has just as much right to use the tunnel as the carload of trustfund babies.

So what happens when the minimum wage guy is driving a P.O.S. that exhibits a danger to other travelers, while the trustifarians cruise up to Breck with their snazzy Audi? I know this is stretching the analogy a little far, but consider all of the things we have yet to learn about how the Internet will be used in 20, 30, 100 years. I'm sure there is still some pretty sophisticated malware yet to be developed.

How about the guy that pays his bill each and every month while others tap in to rogue connections for free? I know the days of hacking Netzero to get free dial-up are gone, but I'm sure some bright CS student somewhere will come up with a way to get free access.

Re:You know what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33272806)

How about I shove a 2x4 up your ass?! Stop with the idiotic analogies already.

Re:You know what (1)

KahabutDieDrake (1515139) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272832)

Oh, then you agree, with myself, google and verizon. The entire POINT of net neutrality is to allow proper network management, including priority for low latency applications, while barring uncompetitive actions. In simple terms. All traffic SOURCES are equal.

Re:You know what (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272926)

The lack of neutrality for managed services is going to put an increased burden on IT companies.

Sounds like a prediction that might possibly come true. This might be a problem someday.

Call us back if it does. Meanwhile, hands off the Internet.

Translation (-1, Troll)

codepunk (167897) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272380)

Translation: Hello, we need some campaign funds!!!

The best reason for net neutrality... (5, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272524)

...doesn't exist yet.

When the internet first started...
There was no "cloud".
There was no streaming video.
There was no bittorrent.
There were no VPNs, no work-at-home over the net.
There wasn't even a web - though that came fairly quickly.

The internet was conceived as an open-ended transport mechanism, with no plans or constraints as to the data being transported, though there were some thoughts about QOS, recognizing that some data had to get there quickly, some reliably, some not particularly either.

Commercial deployments of anything, not just the internet, generally aren't open-ended. They tend to plan things, up-front, and put just as much thought into billing as they do into the rest of the job. (Ever see how much cell phone plumbing is dedicated to billing, as opposed to merely shuttling customers' data?)

The best reason for net neutrality is something we haven't done yet, something no company has planned for, and very likely something that would be hindered by default, because it doesn't fit into current plans. (Or can you say, "disruption not desired!"?)

Re:The best reason for net neutrality... (5, Informative)

DaDeacon (813991) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272816)

I haven't logged in or posted on slash dot in almost two years and your post my very well be the most honest and real argument for true net neutrality. I have worked for big telco and other "real" players in the ISP and networking biz and let me tell you the money is not in the crops but it's in the farm. Bandwidth really isn't an issue it's getting us to pay more to play more, as more people use the net and less people use PBX / phones and what not the telcos just want you to keep paying them $65 a month one way or anther. Cable companies are now in this game as well they have lost monthly reoccurring monies to home dish systems at a rate that no one saw coming. The internet is cash cow everyone wants to milk.

Re:The best reason for net neutrality... (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33275102)

You are crazy. Or a shill.

The best reason for net neutrality is something we haven't done yet, something no company has planned for, and very likely something that would be hindered by default, because it doesn't fit into current plans. (Or can you say, "disruption not desired!"?)

That is utter nonsense. Everyone wants control over what comes into your house because it can be monetized. The name of the game is profit and if they can get you to pay for access and then they can get someone else to pay for it too, they're going to do it. AT&T does it already, when my local WISP was first moved from some third party AT&T reseller to AT&T proper we were on a non-neutral network where we had good access to AT&T sites, good access to major media sites, and then "mysteriously" high packet loss rates and high latency to other sites like Slashdot, couldn't access Alternet at all, et cetera. Our ISP raised hell and they re-provisioned us and now I can access all those sites again.

Barring legislation which I do not expect to appear, we have already lost the battle; the internet is already non-neutral for some undisclosed number of subscribers.

Corruption is OUR job! (1, Troll)

Kohath (38547) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272630)

Google and Verizon really stepped in it. Their new pact doesn't have enough opportunity for government power brokers to choose winners and losers in exchange for campaign contributions. How dare these big companies decide to carve up the free Internet without giving the local warlords their due?

Expect a grand jury investigation of Google WIFI spying to begin sometime in the next 2 months. It's going to take a lot of campaign contributions and jobs for family members to call off those dogs.

Re:Corruption is OUR job! (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274546)

We have a winner!

Here's hoping that technological prowess always finds a way to trump political fandangling!

Managed services are a good idea, if... (4, Interesting)

KonoWatakushi (910213) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272632)

Managed services are a good idea, if they are run on top of a neutral network. As long as that physical network is developed by an unbiased entity and resold fairly with no oversubscription, ISPs should be free to carve out as much bandwidth as they can pay for. As demand increases, regardless of content, investment in additional capacity will follow.

The problem with the existing situation is that as long as the ISPs own the underlying physical network, the "manages services" aren't running on top of the Internet, but rather the Internet is transformed into a "managed service". There is no incentive whatsoever for the ISPs to invest in additional capacity beyond what they require for their own services, so investment in the Internet is dead, and its value for future innovation is lost.

Wait... (1, Troll)

crhylove (205956) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272634)

Somebody in Washington is actually STOPPING the maniacally evil corporations for once? I must be missing something. Either that or I'm going to fall over dead from a shock induced heart attack in 3, 2, 1.......

Re:Wait... (1)

GeneralEmergency (240687) | more than 4 years ago | (#33272804)

Not just -somebody-, but the evil, maniacal, Federal Government (with spending growing at close to 20% a year).

If you let them, they'll take away a few more of those pesky freedoms or yours, and then have the gall to send you a non-contestable tax bill for their trouble.

Non-Local Government is the -Ultimate Monopoly-.

Re:Wait... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#33273608)

If you let them, they'll take away a few more of those pesky freedoms or yours, and then have the gall to send you a non-contestable tax bill for their trouble.

Wait, so you are arguing that I should have the freedom to have throttled Internet but not the freedom to have the ability to choose unfiltered open Internet? What freedom do I lose when the government-created monopolies are prevented from abusing their monopolies to screw their customers?

Re:Wait... (3, Insightful)

careysub (976506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274438)

If you let them, they'll take away a few more of those pesky freedoms or yours, and then have the gall to send you a non-contestable tax bill for their trouble. Wait, so you are arguing that I should have the freedom to have throttled Internet but not the freedom to have the ability to choose unfiltered open Internet? What freedom do I lose when the government-created monopolies are prevented from abusing their monopolies to screw their customers?

You do not understand the insights of the modern (anti-conservative) right wing and their Tea Party intellectual shock troops. Government is always evil in everything it does and private corporations never do wrong. This revelation frees you from needing to study such boring and old fashioned things as "facts" or "evidence" or to engage in elitist "rational thought".

Re:Wait... (0, Troll)

gryf (121168) | more than 4 years ago | (#33275080)

You have the freedom to pick any damn internet service you like. China implemented government mandated neutrality onto the internet, but we call it the Great Firewall of China.

Re:Wait... (1)

careysub (976506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33274388)

Somebody in Washington is actually STOPPING the maniacally evil corporations for once? I must be missing something. Either that or I'm going to fall over dead from a shock induced heart attack in 3, 2, 1.......

But do not fear! The Tea Party is riding to the rescue [talkingpointsmemo.com] ! The glories of corporate control over every aspect of our lives, the right to be monetized and "revenue optimized" to the grave will be preserved by these courageous patriots!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?