Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

FCC Commissioner Blasts Verizon On Net Neutrality

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the brutal-honesty dept.

Google 157

destinyland writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski says that net neutrality rules 'will happen,' promising the FCC 'will make sure that we get the rules right... to make sure that what we do maximizes innovation and investment across the ecosystem.' But the same week, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps announced that the public should not stand for deals 'that exchange Internet freedom for bloated profits,' mocking the tiered-data plans of the 'Verizon-Google gaggle' and accusing them of wanting 'gated communities for the affluent.' Speaking at a New Mexico hearing, the commissioner warned the audience against proposals that would 'vastly diminish' the Internet's importance, blasting 'special interests and gatekeepers and toll-booth collectors who will short-circuit what this great new technology can do for our country.' (The text of his speech is available as a PDF file at FCC.gov.) He concludes by acknowledging that 'you can't blame companies for seeking to protect their own interests. But you can blame policy-makers if we let them get away with it!'"

cancel ×

157 comments

Let the battle begin! (3, Interesting)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304118)

This ought to be entertaining. :)

Personally, I don't trust either the FCC or Verizon.

Please Read The Fucking Article (5, Insightful)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305772)

Should there not be words of support on Slashdot for such a clear and unambiguous stand from the FCC Commissioner and the FCC Chairman? This is exactly what we need to begin turning the tide.

Look at the discussion below: sidetracked in a shouting match and out of topic all the way down (at least at the time I write this...).

Please!

Re:Please Read The Fucking Article (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305956)

Yes! More big brother intervention and more nanny state is just what this country needs

Re:Please Read The Fucking Article (1, Insightful)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306916)

Your RIGHT!! We need more corporate overlords, shipping our jobs over seas and charging us double for something we already get!!

Fuck off.

Oh boy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304170)

Tsk America. How on earth did this guy slip through the net? Isn't the name a bloody clue this is a pinko who will undermine your countries economy... oh wait... to late.

On a more serious note, novel way to resign. I wonder how many policy-makers choked on their breakfast or had to have it explained to them that some people think that it is not their job to protect the interests of companies at the expense of everything else.

Brave guy, but somehow I feel any praise I write is like writing a eulogy.

Re:Oh boy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304296)

Why is this modded troll? It's completely accurate. Net Neutrality will never happen in the US for two reasons:

1. The Republicans are against any regulation of companies at all, so they'll never support it.

2. The Democrats want to censor the Internet in the name of reducing piracy/protecting children from "cyber bullying." Anything called "Net Neutrality" that comes from a D will actually be a way to censor "unpopular" thought from the 'net (read: anything remotely conservative), along with massive fines for anyone caught "pirating" data.

As long as either of those parties are involved, net neutrality will never happen.

Re:Oh boy (5, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304358)

The Democrats want to censor the Internet in the name of reducing piracy

I'm pretty sure the Republicans are right there with them on that one.

Re:Oh boy (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306814)

I'm pretty sure the Republicans are right there with them on that one.

I wouldn't be so sure. The Republicans are rarely, if ever, the ones introducing those bills. They just don't fight them because it doesn't win them points with enough people -- it's not like Republicans can expect to win over a bunch of ACLU members by sticking up for free speech while they're condemning abortion and gay marriage. And the individual candidates don't want to piss off the media companies for voting against their darling censorship bills if the Democrats have a majority and the bill is going to pass either way.

Which is simply to say, that kind of stuff is less likely to happen with a divided Congress, since it generally won't get introduced on the side controlled by Republicans.

Re:Oh boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304594)

The Republicans are against any regulation of companies at all, so they'll never support it.

This is blatantly false. When you're used to heavy-handed government regulation, less regulation looks like none at all.

Re:Oh boy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305744)

The Republicans are against any regulation of companies at all, so they'll never support it.

This is blatantly false. When you're used to heavy-handed government regulation, less regulation looks like none at all.

Yeah, kind of like removing regulation from the banking industry. Credit default swaps? Who cares about those? Let's not even make them report those commitments, or the fact that they could never cover more than a small fraction of them. Oh, yeah, they already did that back in 2000. That was really helpful.

Re:Oh boy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304596)

Yes, those Democrats sure do want to discourage people from having conservative thoughts. That's why they have a 24 hour media machine that scares the bejesus out of people, claiming that sinister conservatives are destroying the fabric of America, building a knee-jerk association in peoples' heads between "conservative" and "anti-American traitor," selectively editing out-of-context video footage to make people from groups that liberals don't like look bad...

No, wait, those are the OTHER guys. I know Slashdot has been getting somewhat more paranoid and wingnutty, but seriously. Have you LOOKED at the Democrats, who couldn't even "suppress the conservative thought" inside their own damn caucus for two years? Breathe, come back from conspiracytown, and join us back in the real world.

Re:Oh boy (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304660)

Yes, those Democrats sure do want to discourage people from having conservative thoughts. That's why they have a 24 hour media machine that scares the bejesus out of people, claiming that sinister conservatives are destroying the fabric of America, building a knee-jerk association in peoples' heads between "conservative" and "anti-American traitor," selectively editing out-of-context video footage to make people from groups that liberals don't like look bad...

No, wait, those are the OTHER guys. I know Slashdot has been getting somewhat more paranoid and wingnutty, but seriously. Have you LOOKED at the Democrats, who couldn't even "suppress the conservative thought" inside their own damn caucus for two years? Breathe, come back from conspiracytown, and join us back in the real world.

Have you LOOKED at MSNBC? Were you not watching CNN when a reporter called a giant Hitler at a protest a George Bush "look-alike".

I understand that it's hard to recognize bias when it's bias you agree with, but seriously man, open your eyes! Say what you will about Bill O'Reilly, but I've never seen a conservative on Olbermann's show.

Re:Oh boy (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304698)

Say what you will about Bill O'Reilly, but I've never seen a conservative on Olbermann's show.

Would you really want to? Have you ever seen a left-winger on a fox news show? What happens? They get shouted down/talked to like they're five. I'd imagine the same thing would happen should a right-winger appear on MSNBC.

The REAL question is, why are you watching the big news services? You realize they're nothing more than fear, polarization, and embellishment, packaged to sell advertisements...right?

Re:Oh boy (0, Offtopic)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304892)

"Have you ever seen a left-winger on a fox news show?"

Happens all the time. As a general rule, if they are a thoughtful, well-reasoned liberal, they are allowed to talk. The only time they're "shouted down," as you say, is when they continue to dodge questions, repeat talking points and emit endless spin. But just for the record, the same treatment is given to conservatives who dodge and spin. Those who are "elites" (both liberal and conservative) aren't used to this nowadays. They think they should be allowed to sit and spin and spout the Party Line without being closely questioned. When they are closely questioned, they don't like it.

(Speaking from experience. You would not BELIEVE how snobbish many of these people are nowadays. They view you and I as the unwashed, uneducated masses, and travel in entourages that look like something a rock star would have.)

One lady in particular -- can't remember her name to save my life, sorry! -- has been on Fox a couple of times recently. She's a well-known, self-proclaimed liberal talk show host, and I actually enjoy listening to her. I may not agree with her, but she makes me think. I *like* a well-reasoned argument.

Glenn Beck, now .. . .. (cough, cough) . .. . well, he's .. .. Glenn Beck. We won't go there; I'll just concede on that one. :)

"The REAL question is, why are you watching the big news services? You realize they're nothing more than fear, polarization, and embellishment, packaged to sell advertisements...right?"

Sure. They're businesses. They attract viewers/listeners/readers and sell advertising to make a profit. You target it to your listeners/viewers/readers. That's how it works.

Re:Oh boy (2, Interesting)

Papabear151 (1945270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305548)

Faux news is nothing but partial stories, spin, half-truths, and lies. Pay attention to a real news source and you'll know this. I had Sean Hannity hang up on me one time when he said that the Bush Administration had never supported any government action that violated the constitution. I called Hannity up, asked him what the Patriot Act was, asked him who supported the Patriot act, then I asked him why G.W. Bush was quoted as saying the constitution was just a "God damned piece of paper!"...... Hannity hung up on me because the truth came out on Faux News and they didn't like that.

Re:Oh boy (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305672)

Happens all the time. As a general rule, if they are a thoughtful, well-reasoned liberal, they are allowed to talk.

You're joking, right? The left-leaning people I've seen on Fox are almost invariably meek, timid people who can't even get a word in edgewise between interruptions. You can't tell if they are thoughtful or well-reasoned, because they get at most half a sentence out before some jerk right-winger interrupts them and shouts over them. And the interviewer never has the balls to tell the right-winger to shut the hell up and let him speak. What I've seen has been so biased that it scarcely qualifies as news. The one time I saw a strong person on the left (who tore into the person on the right in a breathtakingly pointed and accurate fashion), they never aired that interview segment again.

Don't get me wrong, CNN is often no better. This is what happens when the industry as a whole feels that paying reporters a living wage is overrated. What we really need are journalists who understand the issues and have the guts to catch politicians in lies and noisespin and call them on it.

Re:Oh boy (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305734)

Bullshit. Bill O'Reilly regularly does that, it's just when the "liberal" isn't disagreeing that they do it. Any liberals with actual brain cells don't even try to go on those shows because they get shouted down. I've seen clips where that jack ass O'Reilly will shout down people who lost loved ones in 9/11 for not supporting his extremist views on national security, whether or not they've got a point.

Re:Oh boy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34306098)

Holy shit. I guess I'm done with Slashdot. I hadn't realized the demographic had become filled with such idiots. This comment and its +5 moderation is the intellectual equivalent of canceling real programming to show Ghost Hunters. This comment is ridiculous on several levels:

  1. That only liberals who "deserve it" are shouted down on Fox News.
  2. That any reasonable discourse on anything involves shouting down.
  3. That somehow this got modded up.

I have always been used to swimming in a sea of Libertarians on Slashdot in the 12+ years I have been reading, but I have never seen such blatant lunacy modded up to a +5. Time to jump ship.

Re:Oh boy (1)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306752)

"only liberals who 'deserve it' are shouted down ... any reasonable discourse ... involves shouting down."

Gosh. This takes me back to my Compuserve days, in the Canopus forum. (Clears throat.) Do you a problem with reading comprehension? I never said that, and only YOUR bias could possibly have interpreted my post in that manner. :)

Yes, in political philosophy, I'm actually more of a libertarian than anything else. The reason why I watch Fox news is because, most of their evening programming (again, ignoring Glenn Beck) presents me with a far wider range of opinion that I could get from most other TV news outlets. If you think that you will get the same balance from the CBS Evening News, for example, then you're the one who is deluded, not me.

(Another aside: our station broadcasts Laura Ingraham, and I just listened to her do an *extremely* interesting and fair interview with Claire_McCaskill, the democratic senator from Missouri. Laura disagreed with her, but was otherwise quite respectful. There was no "shouting." McCaskill even thanked Laura for the fair hearing and said she would be *delighted* to appear on her show again in the future, precisely *because* Laura gave her an honest chance to explain her votes on TARP and healthcare.)

Third, go look up what the Libertarian party actually stands for: very small government and personal liberty. Most of us hold our noses and generally vote Republican, not because we're in love with them (the late Ted Stevens was especially loathsome, in my opinion, just to name one example), but because the alternative CLEARLY leans toward income redistribution ("because it's the right thing to do!") and government intrusion into our private lives (ex., the proposed national government database of ALL my medical records; that is utterly abhorrent to me).

If you agree with either, then yes, you and I are at odds.

Re:Oh boy (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306846)

Or, more likely, you never understood the purpose of moderation to begin with. Here's a hint: "+5, Interesting" != "+5, 100% Majority Opinion".

Moderation is about rewarding discourse contributions, not alignment with group-think. If you have never modded a post you disagreed with as "Insightful" or "Interesting", then you are a part of the problem with modern civil discourse. Seek more intellectual curiosity, post-haste.

Re:Oh boy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305424)

http://www.democracynow.org/ - no advertising, no special interest

Re:Oh boy (1)

Twon (46168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305052)

(Parent post is mine as well, wasn't logged in earlier.)

Yes, I have watched MSNBC, and no, I managed to miss the incident you're describing on CNN. This largely misses the point -- the fact that it's POSSIBLE to miss whatever "Bush=Hitler" incident you saw on CNN, while I can turn on Fox or spin the AM dial pretty much at random and land in a positive feedback loop of "liberals are destroying America."

I don't watch much Olbermann, but I have seen conservative guests on Rachel Maddow's show (plus a lot of "so-and-so declined our request for an interview"). You can object to her tone during her solo segments if you want, but I have yet to hear her be less than respectful to a conservative guest, even if she's doing her damnedest to dismantle his or her argument at the time (note: calling out bullshit is not the same thing as disrespect). Compare this with the O'Reilly "cut his mic!" shoutdowns over at Fox.

Re:Oh boy (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305712)

To be fair, when's the last time that the media backed off when accused of being biased in favor of conservative views? Now when's the last time they did it when conservatives were complaining about a liberal bias?

Sure there's MSNBC, but the reality is that pretty much all of the networks have a notable bias in favor of the right. Ever wonder why that death panels story got any airplay? I'll give you a hint, it's not because the networks were exercising any sort of journalistic integrity, it's because the right would accuse them of not being fair and balanced, and they lack the stones to tell the right to just go fuck themselves when the story is a known lie.

Re:Oh boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304908)

Yes, those Democrats sure do want to discourage people from having conservative thoughts. That's why they have a 24 hour media machine that scares the bejesus out of people, claiming that sinister conservatives are destroying the fabric of America, building a knee-jerk association in peoples' heads between "conservative" and "anti-American traitor," selectively editing out-of-context video footage to make people from groups that liberals don't like look bad...

Leave MSNBC and Keith Olbermann out of this...

Re:Oh boy (1)

Redlazer (786403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304676)

The OP is wrong - Republicans are always trying to censor things, including the internet. There was an especially stupid "off switch" proposed by a Democrat - but it made it just as far as the "Tubes" explanation.

Re:Oh boy (1)

rhovland (701048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304692)

1) agree
2) this is not net neutrality.

Re:Oh boy (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305638)

1. The Republicans are against any regulation of companies at all, so they'll never support it.

You must be thinking of those libertarians. Republicans have certainly rallied behind regulations on businesses, just not the ones that make the headlines as "socialist regulations." For example, take a look at how many Republicans support "decency" measures and the regulation of pornography.

2. The Democrats want to censor the Internet in the name of reducing piracy/protecting children from "cyber bullying."

So do Republicans, so what is your point? Neither of the major parties has any interest in protecting free speech or any other individual freedoms.

Re:Oh boy (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305768)

They use the word "socialist" whenever they want to kill something. There's basically no hope of the US becoming a socialist state anytime soon. And really it's because a lot of hicks are afraid that they won't have their chance to become rich. The only problem is that they won't be getting rich either way, because that's not how our society is set up. Sure there's a few each generation that make it, but in general it's a hoax.

Even more moderate things like ensuring quality healthcare for all is opposed by the conservatives for being socialist. Perhaps that's not a bad thing, given that most of them are so vocally supportive of fascism and corporate profits at the expense of human dignity.

Re:Oh boy (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306650)

1. The Republicans are against any regulation of companies at all, so they'll never support it.

You mean like Bush-appointee Michael Copps?

What Republicans are against is "a way to censor 'unpopular' thought from the 'net (read: anything remotely conservative)." Which is why that will never pass. Real network neutrality, EFF-style? Neither party has anything to lose -- what will probably happen is that after the Republicans are done demonizing "network neutrality" (i.e. Democrats censoring Republicans), someone will come up with what we call network neutrality, but call it something else, and then everyone will agree to it but the ISPs.

This isn't a fight between Democrats and Republicans. It's a fight between people and lobbyists.

Re:Oh boy (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304618)

>>>pinko who will undermine your countries economy...

The local internet, by definition, is not a free market. It's a monopoly just like the phone and electric monopolies and needs to be regulated the same way. IMHO rather discuss net neutrality, the FCC should just impose the same Common carrier rules the phone company must follow, where they are required to handle all calls equally regardless of content.

Re:Oh boy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304760)

IMHO rather discuss net neutrality, the FCC should just impose the same Common carrier rules the phone company must follow, where they are required to handle all calls equally regardless of content.

The FCC doesn't need to "impose" anything. They just need to make sure that the DMCA "safe harbor" provision only applies to common carriers, with the "common" part meaning "non-discriminatory".

Re:Oh boy (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306348)

They just need to make sure that the DMCA "safe harbor" provision only applies to common carriers, with the "common" part meaning "non-discriminatory".

Considering that webhosts aren't simply just "common carriers" with all their regulations on kinds of content that can be hosted etc. That would make the safe habour conditions likely useless for everyone. I doubt this would ever happen.

Re:Oh boy (2, Insightful)

LaissezFaire (582924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305532)

It's only a monopoly if a government has forbidden another company to enter that market. Don't confuse the costs of the last mile with government intervention and restriction of the market.

Re:Oh boy (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305824)

Technically speaking we have an oligopoly and it's every bit as illegal to abuse as a monopoly. It's not anywhere near as expensive to operate the last mile as you're suggesting. The speed available at my house hasn't increased in nearly a decade by any significant figure. I'm now getting 5mbps with DSL versus 4mbps via cable and that's over a decade. I've seen no evidence that the DSL company has increased or replaced its equipment and as such the price ought to be going down. It's not, but since wholesale bandwidth is so much cheaper now than it was back then and their equipment should have amortized by now, I don't think I can assume that this is a competitive market.

And yes the DoJ does have the ability to go in and break it up. And really, the DoJ shouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place.

Re:Oh boy (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305838)

>>>It's only a monopoly if a government has forbidden another company to enter that market.

And that's precisely what's happened. Local or state governments have blocked competition from entering, via the use of exclusive licenses to Comcast (or cow or time-warner or ...)

Re:Oh boy (1)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306380)

Actually, that has no relation at all to the definition of a monopoly. Maybe you should take an economics class.

Re:Oh boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304732)

On a more serious note, novel way to resign.

My first thought was: how long until a bunch of bribed politicians demand his resignation. I'm sure they can come up with something reasonable like "He committed high treason by speaking out against The American Way(TM) of corporate lobbyism!".

Don't get me wrong, I applaud his courage but I expect him to get buried by politicians.

Would those rules be complex? (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304200)

I fail to see where does the complexity of those rules lay. It seems that the only need for complexity starts exactly where net neutrality ends.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (2, Interesting)

aaribaud (585182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304244)

This would imply that net neutrality can be easily defined in simple terms; what, according to you, are those terms exactly?

Re:Would those rules be complex? (5, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304388)

That any and all data on the network, regardless of source, destination, or content, should travel unhindered.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304414)

That any and all data on the network, regardless of source, destination, or content, should travel unhindered.

Now define "unhindered".

Then define what happens when users request 300 GB/sec of data over a 100 GB/sec pipe.

Now, keep going.

"Net Neutrality" is nothing but Money-to-Lawyers.

Easy peasy. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304458)

unhindered: when you get a packet, move it on when you can.

when you ask for 300GB/sec it won't be in one packet, so you ask for a packet and get a packet back. Over a 100GB/sec pipe, you can't ask for 300GB/sec so no hindrance in effect

Keep going? On what?

Net Neutrality is WHAT YOU HAD ALREADY. These laws, unlike most (because, probably, they don't serve commercial interests but the american people) had a sunset clause and the clause ended recently.

You know, all those companies and innovation and money and increased revenue you had in the 70's to 2000? Under Net Neutrality.

But COMPLAINTS about Net Neutrality? Now THERE'S a money-to-lawyers scheme...

Re:Easy peasy. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304560)

unhindered: when you get a packet, move it on when you can.

when you ask for 300GB/sec it won't be in one packet, so you ask for a packet and get a packet back. Over a 100GB/sec pipe, you can't ask for 300GB/sec so no hindrance in effect

Keep going? On what?

Net Neutrality is WHAT YOU HAD ALREADY. These laws, unlike most (because, probably, they don't serve commercial interests but the american people) had a sunset clause and the clause ended recently.

You know, all those companies and innovation and money and increased revenue you had in the 70's to 2000? Under Net Neutrality.

But COMPLAINTS about Net Neutrality? Now THERE'S a money-to-lawyers scheme...

You're being deliberately stupid - at least I hope it's deliberate. Because last time I looked an HTTP get or post was a helluva lot smaller than data stream that can be returned, so it's quite easy for a bunch of users to request more bandwidth than is available.

And of course now you'd have to define "when you can" in unambiguous terms.

Federal regulations over anything are a rat hole that always winds up thousands of pages long. Being trite with your childish "easy peasy" won't do you a damn bit of good in front of any judge.

Projecting again, kid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304848)

[quote]You're being deliberately stupid [/quote]

You're projecting. Again.

"Because last time I looked an HTTP get or post was a helluva lot smaller than data stream that can be returned"

But your ethernet card doesn't KNOW HTTP. It sends a packet.

In response, you get maybe thousands or millions of packets, but those packets are sent and routed without fear or favour and only as fast as the network allows.

"so it's quite easy for a bunch of users to request more bandwidth than is available."

No, it's quite easy for a bunch of people to request a lot of information. But One person can do that just by expecting the 15Kb JPEG image to turn up within 1.5ns.

[quote]And of course now you'd have to define "when you can" in unambiguous terms.[/quote]

So where are the laws stating that you MUST put a gallon in a quart pot???

Speed of network. You can't push 300GB down a 100GB/sec link in one second.

You picked a strawman that is vacuous and stupid, rather like yourself.

IT IS EASY PEASY.

It was already written in law and worked, but it sunset.

If it wasn't easy-peasy to do the first time, just continuing the laws as they were IS.

But, no, you have a teabagger mentality and anything the gubmint does is wrong.

Well protect your own property.

Re:Projecting again, kid (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305138)

God, you really ARE stupid, aren't you?

You have absolutely no idea how regulation works, do you? Your seemingly simplistic "as fast as the network allows" has to be DEFINED by a BUREAUCRACY in UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS.

Every single word has to be defined clearly, which leads to the near-infinite recursion that is the common result of government regulation.

And every step of the process has lawyers and lobbyists all over it, exercising their Constitutional right to "petition the government".

And you think* we wind up better off? Don't reply until you're relocated to a planet with a blue sky at least.

* - I use the word "think" guardedly, as there's no evidence yet that you do that

Re:Projecting again, kid (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305326)

No, he's not stupid. Rather he has indeed defined in unambiguous terms how to do this.

Layers 2&3 of the ISO/OSI stack (International Standards Organization, a body the US contributes to and uses for referential standards) refer to the transport and routing of information. Service neutrality is easily defined. It doesn't exist today on many US ISPs. Between deep packet inspection and service throttling, we lost net neutrality (if we indeed ever really had it) a few years ago.

Every word doesn't have to be defined clearly. Please stop drinking so much coffee before you hit 'submit'. Your anger and argumentative posture do nothing to quell the biases, especially the network biases under consideration here. Name calling and intimidation is characteristic of the insecure.

Re:Projecting again, kid (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305716)

No, he's not stupid. Rather he has indeed defined in unambiguous terms how to do this.

Layers 2&3 of the ISO/OSI stack (International Standards Organization, a body the US contributes to and uses for referential standards) refer to the transport and routing of information. Service neutrality is easily defined. It doesn't exist today on many US ISPs. Between deep packet inspection and service throttling, we lost net neutrality (if we indeed ever really had it) a few years ago.

Every word doesn't have to be defined clearly. Please stop drinking so much coffee before you hit 'submit'. Your anger and argumentative posture do nothing to quell the biases, especially the network biases under consideration here. Name calling and intimidation is characteristic of the insecure.

WHAT?!?!

You need an ISO standard just to start defining the "neutral" part of "Net Neutrality"? Two words into just the TITLE and you're already referencing international standards? And you call such a definition "easy"?

Your condescension is misplaced.

Wow, just wow. That's amazing. You invoked the ISO in order to say a definition is "easy". WTF?!?!?! That's truly and amazingly disconnected from reality. What universe do you inhabit, anyway?

That's just risible. There's no other word that comes close.

Re:Projecting again, kid (0, Troll)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305776)

ISO indeed.

You're making this too difficult, and apparently full of drama for yourself. It would seem that one of your themes is disconnection from reality. May I suggest looking in a mirror to find it.

Your epithets just distract from your inability to mount a defensive argument. You're a facade, playing people.

Nothing is easy. (4, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304978)

when you get a packet, move it on when you can.

Over which connection? The 1000000 gigabit/nanosecond pipe for the paying content providers (Disney, etc) or the 14.4kbps modem for everyone else?

Over a 100GB/sec pipe, you can't ask for 300GB/sec so no hindrance in effect

You can ask - you just won't get it. It's called denial of service. You don't (normally) ask for speed, you ask for a volume of data. But if it comes over too slow a connection (intentional or not) you clog up the network like a highway at rush hour. Clever networks WILL intentionally route traffic they don't want over too congested a connection knowing that they can then shake down content owners and end users to fork over more dough for less freedom. It's not remotely difficult to intentionally under-invest in a network to keep it slower, especially when there is little/no competition.

Keep going? On what?

Plenty. If you are going to define how network providers are going to route traffic, you're going to have to get quite detailed about what that means. Doing this in a manner with no loopholes is REALLY hard. You're also going to have to define how it will be monitored, what will be monitored, what the consequences are for violating the rules, who is going to monitor it, and for how long and with what funds will the oversight be conducted with. Easy? I wish it were but it won't be. Net neutrality is important but keeping it is going to be quite a challenge.

Oh dear, yet another one. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305516)

The laws already existed. ISPF already defined which connection. BGP routing already defines what interface and route.

"The 1000000 gigabit/nanosecond pipe for the paying content providers (Disney, etc)"

If it's Disney's ISP then they already pay for which connection, just like your business defines the connection as DS3 or OC192 or whatever.

But Disney doesn't pay for MY connection, *I* pay for it.

"Clever networks WILL intentionally route traffic they don't want over too congested a connection "

And such clever networks will be spotted and it can hardly be explained away as "we didn't know" since such shenanigans aren't available without explicit instruction.

" Keep going? On what?

Plenty."

No, the rant of the idiot ended there.

Plenty of NOTHING.

"If you are going to define how network providers are going to route traffic"

ISPF and BGP define it.

"Doing this in a manner with no loopholes is REALLY hard."

Same as any law. This doesn't stop law being written. Why should it in this case? Because money is involved. Money in gouging the content creators that make the ISP worth paying and gouging the customers AT THE SAME TIME.

"You're also going to have to define how it will be monitored, what will be monitored, what the consequences are for violating the rules"

These laws were already in place when the internet took off.

You're like someone saying "Heavier than air flight is impossible and even if it happens, how do you define the safety standards and consequences for breaking the law" AFTER being shown Quantas Airlines.

It's a challenge that has already been met.

Re:Easy peasy. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305826)

unhindered: when you get a packet, move it on when you can.

Devil's advocate: it's possible to create a network that complies with these rules that is still unusable for many purposes. Multimedia communication is becoming a more and more important part of the Internet landscape, whether you're talking about AIM A/V, Skype, HTTP live streaming, or whatever. HIgh latency or large variations in latency can kill all of those sorts of uses of the Internet. Sending packets on as soon as you receive them produces just the sorts of high latency with wide variation necessary to ensure that these types of services are infeasible under even light backbone congestion. That's why we have technologies like QoS routing.

A proper network neutrality law should allow for load balancing (limiting the data rate of heavy users during periods of high congestion to allow room for other people's traffic), QoS (limiting the data rate of bulk traffic to allow for near-isochronous delivery of latency-sensitive traffic), and various other things while preventing limiting throughput based on what server you are connecting to on the other end, preventing companies from charging non-customers for better access to their customers, preventing limits on heavy users during off-peak times, preventing limits on bulk transfers when the bandwidth is not otherwise being used for latency-sensitive traffic, etc.

Thus, network neutrality is not simple. The reason we won't ever have net neutrality laws is that it is fundamentally so complex that maybe three or four members of Congress can even understand it. And that's actually an optimistic estimate; a more likely estimate is zero members. Heck, I don't even understand all the ramifications of it, and I've been working as a software engineer for more than a decade, including writing some networking software. It's a fundamentally complex issue, and any attempts to dumb it down will only result in laws that are catastrophically bad.

Re:Easy peasy. (1)

gtbritishskull (1435843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306866)

You are correct. It is not simple. We do not want laws that say how an ISP needs to route traffic. That would not be flexible enough to respond to changes in the internet or ISPs exploiting loopholes. What we need is an oversight body that can set standards based upon current needs and clarify the standards or slap ISPs down when they push beyond the boundary of net neutrality. While this is definitely not easy, it is very possible because we already had such a system in place. The FCC oversaw telecomms and enforced net neutrality (based upon common carrier laws). Then Comcast took them to court and the Supreme Court said that the internet was not covered under the common carrier laws. So the question is not whether it is possible to enforce net neutrality. It is whether our politicians will modify the laws to give the FCC back power that it was already exercising (and and exercising effectively) or if they are too much in the pocket of the ISPs.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (3, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305476)

Unhindered in this sense is defined as not prioritising or retarding progress of a packet based upon content, including destination and source. The only factors which should influence the delivery speed of the packet is the time the packet was sent, and network congestion. Packet B before C, packet A first, and the only difference between them as far as prioritising is concerned is that A arrived before B before C.

The question was to define the concept of network neutrality, not come up with an implementation. How ISPs go about this is something they need to work on.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (2, Insightful)

aaribaud (585182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304496)

All right. This appears simple. Now *is* it simple, i.e., how do you go about implementing this in practice?

Re:Would those rules be complex? (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304666)

Your question makes no sense. The answer is obvious: You would handle all packets identically regardless of content.

If the "pipes" start to get full, install new faster pipes to relieve congestion. If that's not practical impose ~250GB limits + 5 cents/extra GB so people will limit themselves (in the same way they limit how much electricity or water they use).

Re:Would those rules be complex? (1)

aaribaud (585182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304782)

My question makes no sense only in a situation of infinite resource availability. Alas, such a situation is unrealistic (and a waste of resources which, at this point of our history, would seem quite inappropriate). Even a network which would be sized to withstand, on average, the current demand, occasional peaks are inevitable, and packets have to be dropped then -- how do we choose which packets to drop?

Or, IOW, how do we choose which packets to keep, and which ones do we send first? How do you "handle" competing packets in scarse resource situations? First come, first serve? That would favor heavy traffic and hurt lightweight protocols -- not to mention TCP vs UDP inequalities before packet latency. Equalize by port? That's calling for people to use nonstandard ports. Equalize by traffic? That hurts high traffic protocols. So what do you suggest?

So, again: what in technical terms, barring universals and ambuiguity, is net neutrality, i.e. how do you apply net neutrality in real conditions?

Re:Would those rules be complex? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305246)

It sounds like what commodore64_love is suggesting is making the decision entirely on source and destination IP address. If some destination IP attempts to receive more bits per second than their advertised download rate, drop packets until they aren't getting faster throughput. If some source IP attempts to send more bits per second than their advertised upload rate, drop packets until they aren't getting faster throughput.

If those aren't technically feasible, then the advertising needs to change to match what is technically feasible.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (1, Troll)

aaribaud (585182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305436)

So that would be an "equalize by IP address" rule. But not all IPs consume the same amount of data; so that would be "weighted equalize by IP address", or it would favor small traffic IPs -- not neutral.

But then, the weight for an IP would be provided by an IP... Honest IPs would send out their real needs (if they ever can determine that, actually) and dishonest IPs would send out exaggerated needs to be sure to get what they actually need, thus causing the honest ones to starve.

Doesn't seem neutral to me.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (3, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305564)

Net neutrality is the belief that any and all data on the network should be treated identically. You may as well be asking what racial equality is, barring universals and ambiguity.

Unless you're a specialist in sociology, employment law, and politics, I don't think you can comment on racial equality except in universals and ambiguous terms. The same applies to networking engineers commenting on network neutrality. However, both can agree that having a general concept of either is a Good Thing, and can probably agree on the basics of each.

Leave the technical details to the specialists; I simply wanted to put the concept into simple terms anyone could understand.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (1)

aaribaud (585182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305820)

Leave the technical details to the specialists; I simply wanted to put the concept into simple terms anyone could understand

Why do you think the saying "the Devil is in the details" exists? Because, precisely, any solution where you "leave the technical details to the specialists" means someone just *assumed* that what they see as a solution is feasible, whereas actually only the detailed analysis by a specialist will tell if it is -- and usually conclude it is not, at least not without a good load of devilling.

We French have a name for such holy solutions, we call them yakafokons ("Y'a qu'à - faut qu'on", i.e. "You just need to - Somebody should").

English-speaking people who ever read Murphy's Law book II also recognize the concept: a complex problem always has a simple, easy to understand, wrong solution.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (3, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306174)

The solution is simple; Broadband as a utility. Nationalise the network hardware, allow private companies to provide service over it.

Works for the power grid.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306196)

Something I've wondered about that I don't think I've seen come up, why would it be so hard to say "You can get up to 100gbps, but in times of heavy usage we may throttle your entire connection back to max bandwidth / # of customers", and then have the onus on the individual customer to shutdown bandwidth intensive applications if they want to, say, make a VOIP call? The ISP could even offer a service (for an additional fee of course) where you can tell them which services should have priority when they need to throttle my entire connection to max bandwidth / # of customers.

The reason this would not run afoul of what I think of when I think "Net Neutrality" is because it is opt-in. By default they would throttle my entire connection, or I can opt-in and let them throttle most of my connection to ensure enough bandwidth for that VOIP call (throttling only occurring in times of heavy usage).

Re:Would those rules be complex? (1)

aaribaud (585182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306498)

It would be hard to say what you suggest, because of the N customers among whom the bandwidth should be shared, not all *require* 1/Nth of it. Some will happily use far less, and some will want far more. So in this model of equality, some bandwidth would be wasted to people who did not even ask for it, and will be unavailable to some people who could have made use of it.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304836)

You would handle all packets identically regardless of content.

What content? Deep packet scanning isn't all that common at the backbone level. QoS is usually implemented with only the packet headers, such as source, destination, qos, and connection type.

If the "pipes" start to get full, install new faster pipes to relieve congestion

What part of this sentence is "simple" to you, other than the gross oversimplification where you used "pipes"? Who installs the pipes? Who owns the pipes? Who dictates what "full" means? Why would faster pipes relieve congestion?

If that's not practical impose ~250GB limits + 5 cents/extra GB so people will limit themselves (in the same way they limit how much electricity or water they use)

Usage caps are so 1990s, and with more streaming applications and more tools moving into the cloud, I don't think it's realistic to expect end users to accurately estimate their bandwidth usage.

Internet has quickly become an essential infrastructure. I don't know the situation in the US, but in The Netherlands, public infrastructure (rail, road, power, water) is either owned or intensely regulated by the government -- though most maintenance is performed by private contractors. I expect the Internet to be no different in the future.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305196)

If that's not practical impose ~250GB limits + 5 cents/extra GB so people will limit themselves (in the same way they limit how much electricity or water they use)

Usage caps are so 1990s, and with more streaming applications and more tools moving into the cloud, I don't think it's realistic to expect end users to accurately estimate their bandwidth usage.

Internet has quickly become an essential infrastructure. I don't know the situation in the US, but in The Netherlands, public infrastructure (rail, road, power, water) is either owned or intensely regulated by the government -- though most maintenance is performed by private contractors. I expect the Internet to be no different in the future.

So you use a 250GB limit and throttle down once it is exceeded.

And I'm sorry but "Internet" is not as essential as water or electricity. And, oh golly gosh, people are charged for their water and electricity according to metered usage.

And of course it's trivial for people to accurately estimate their bandwidth usage, the provider can give them a (close to) real time meter and they can watch and see. They can get a notice when they hit X% so they can think what changed and why it's increased over last month, etc, etc.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (4, Informative)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306476)

Your question makes no sense. The answer is obvious: You would handle all packets identically regardless of content.

If the "pipes" start to get full, install new faster pipes to relieve congestion. If that's not practical impose ~250GB limits + 5 cents/extra GB so people will limit themselves (in the same way they limit how much electricity or water they use).

I want you to do something for me... Let's do a demonstration, then think this through.

Disconnect any devices from your modem (both wired and wireless).

Now, look at that "Activity" light; Notice that it keeps blinking even though you are not using the Internet?

That's because of Internet Background Radiation. There are packets of unrequested data arriving at your modem many times a second. The sources are numerous, distributed, and many are malicious.

In a $x per Gig model a distributed denial of service attack directed at your IP will drive your bill to absurd rates; If you're lucky you have a hard cap on your monthly consumption, if you're unlucky you pay for the overages (as you suggested above).

The current answer to IBR is a NAT/Firewall that drops all unrequested packets, but NAT makes using your connection to run a server difficult. Now, you can come up with clever ways to "open ports" on your NAT router, but they all rely on having admin access to the router.

Even with a NAT router connected to your modem, you would still be paying for all those IBR packets with a $x per Gig model -- they would be delivered to your modem before being dropped.

So, the ISPs can put a NAT router / firewall on the other side of your modem, in their facilities where you have no admin access to the router (indeed, some already do this). Then, they can charge you only for the packets that make it through -- the ones you specifically requested. The problem is that now, you've limited the way you can use the Internet. You can't very well host a (game) server if you can't accept incoming (read: unsolicited) connections.

Protocols like STUN help bypass the "behind NAT" problem, but require a 3rd party to help coordinate the connection... (3rd party AKA MITM).

The phrase "only pay for the bits you use" depends on your definition of "use"; Treating all packets as equal doesn't really describe how most people expect they are "using" the Internet...

This is a very complicated thing indeed.

Re:Would those rules be complex? (0, Troll)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304394)

Indeed. Like:
Initial: All Connections Are Equal.
Later: But Some Connections Are More Equal Than Others.

no solution (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304212)

"How dare those popular internet companies be popular? They're making our customers use more data! Charge them money!"

Unfair price models are the problem driving that. X per month is simple and a good idea for most customers, X per gigabyte is simple and a good idea for most ISPs. Neither is exactly fair in every circumstance, and choosing between them is essentially the same as choosing who to give the benefit of the complex situation. Their only advantage is that they can be explained in under 5 words.
 
I'm not sure it's possible to come up with an alternative pricing system that doesn't end up as an even more unfair black box model where you only find out how much you've spent when the bill comes.

Re:no solution (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304674)

You think at X gig per month people will put up with bloated pages, flash, ads all over hell?

From the very same companys selling X gig per month?

I don't think so.

Re:no solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304806)

Like I said, per gig is biased in favour of the ISP unless the price is really cheap.

What I would love to see is the option to pay similar prices to fast modern connections for something at a fraction of the speed, but with only one user on the line, contention ratio not a part of the equation. Slow in terms of bulk transfer speed but with reasonable latency, I could live with. On a line like that, a price per month would always be fair.

Re:no solution (2, Interesting)

dwandy (907337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304800)

X per month is simple and a good idea for most customers, X per gigabyte is simple and a good idea for most ISPs.

ISPs like "x-per-month" because they can claim to sell you 100gb knowing you will only use 10gb. On a per-gig charge you would only pay for what you use.
Bandwidth should be charged more like electricity: you pay for what you use when you use it. It's not like the unused time can be saved for the busy period.
Of course, all of this is predicated on actual competition to keep the 'per-gig' charge from being obscene...
Ultimately the 'last-mile' should be socialised (like roads) and then you have choice of providers to connect to. As with roads there is a natural monopoly (or at best oligopoly) in laying wires to homes and businesses. We will never have true competition as long as the retailers own the last mile.

I'm not sure it's possible to come up with an alternative pricing system that doesn't end up as an even more unfair black box model where you only find out how much you've spent when the bill comes.

The true cost of moving bits on the 'net has dropped dramatically over the last decade. It should cost pennies per gig, and in a pay-per-gig model that reflected the true cost of this service it wouldn't matter much if you used 100gig or 200gig. Furthermore, there is no reason why you could not track your usage in real-time for people who wanted to know where they were at. Finally you could limit your maximum possible cost by limiting your speed.

Re:no solution (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305926)

Australia gets it right.
I have access to 100s of internet plans with caps ranging from 2GB per month all the way up to 1 Terabyte per month and prices to match.
If you exceed the cap, you get your speed cut back to dialup speeds for the rest of the billing cycle. Never have to worry about extra expense on the bill.
Some ISPs even let you buy extra data blocks if you run out.

The problem with caps in the USA is that the cable companies are introducing very low caps with no option to buy more data or go to a higher cap.

How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304254)

There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?

Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.

After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.

Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.

When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakespeare seems to have felt the same kind of repulsion when he created the vengeful lawyer Shylock, and Dickens when he created the parasitic master-thief Fagin. Classic “anti-Semitic” stereotypes, but I knew that stereotypes aren’t always wrong. If anti-Semitic stereotypes aren’t always wrong, then there’s an obvious conclusion: neither is anti-Semitism. Gentiles are sometimes right to dislike and distrust Jews.

After all, at the same time I was noticing something else: the massive over-representation of Jews, not just among politicians and journalists, but among crooked businessmen too. In fact, among very, very crooked businessmen, the ones responsible for really big frauds at Gentile expense. Men like Robert Maxwell (né Hoch), Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky, and Michael Milken. And, on a slightly lesser scale, Ernest Saunders, who finagled an early release from prison because he was coming down with Alzheimer’s, that well-known incurable brain disease from which no-one ever recovers. Only Saunders managed to confound medical science and recover from it.

Slimy. Hypocritical. Crooked. In a word: Jewish. But I didn’t take the final step, the step to full recognition of the Jewish problem, until I watched the reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I’m not a Christian and I have little sympathy with modern Christianity, but I had a lot of sympathy for Mel Gibson as I watched the hysterical campaign against him. The hysterical, well-organized, international campaign by the slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jew Abe Foxman, Head of the Anti-Defamation League, and his fellow slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jews around the world. They didn’t like something and they were moving heaven and earth to get it stopped.

And what was it they didn’t like? A movie about an event at the heart of European art, literature, and culture: the crucifixion of Christ. So here was another obvious conclusion: Jews hate European art, literature, and culture. In other words, Jews hate White civilization and the White race who created it.

After that, it all fell into place. I finally recognized that Jews weren’t just slimy, hypocritical, and crooked, but actively dangerous too. If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the survival of the White race – mass immigration, feminism, multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights – I realized that Jews were behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and had been doing so for decades.

Finally, I had seen the light. Finally, I had gotten smart and recognized the Jewish problem, the problem that even dumb Gentiles subconsciously recognize when they give nicknames like “Hannibal Lecter” and “Prince of Darkness” and “Dracula” to Jewish politicians. Jews really do want to eat us, and steal our souls, and suck our blood, and it’s about time we started firing a few silver bullets.

I'll believe it when I see it... (5, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304264)

Policymakers are great about talking up justice for everyone and saying no to special interests until thy actually have to put pen to paper. The FCC can make all the noise they want, but until this Net Neutrality is actually on the books and being enforced call me skeptical at best.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304362)

Policymakers are great about talking up justice for everyone and saying no to special interests until thy actually have to put pen to paper. The FCC can make all the noise they want, but until this Net Neutrality is actually on the books and being enforced call me skeptical at best.

And even then:

Which well-funded special interest will any "Net Neutrality" favor? A giant online ad agency with a proclivity of supporting the current Administration? Gee, who'd be surprised by that?

Because you KNOW whatever rules are written they won't be written by anyone representing the common person. The rules will be written by some special interest's lawyers. And then lots and lots of lawyers will get to charge lots and lots of money as a bunch of deep-pockets special interests fight over what the rules really mean.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304706)

IOW, the bribes are not at the desire level, yet.

We're from the government (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304280)

And we're going to make things better.

Yeah, right. Thousands of pages of rules that lawyers can litigate over are going to IMPROVE the internet.

Just another "hope and change" mirage...

Government Regulation == Monopolies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304350)

Does anybody expect Government Regulations to not create a layer of Monopolies?

Can anybody count on one hand the amount of National Passenger Rail Systems in the US after Government Regulations set in?

How many Large Private Ship Building facilities are in the US after the Government decided to Regulate Shipbuilding and ownership?

Does anybody really need to be reminded of ATT?

How about Government Regulations in the CableTV/Broadband industry? How many people have 2 competitive Cable operators in the same area?

As with most laws in Washington, it will be written by a group of Lobbyists. Some may be from the EFF, others may be from Comcast and Google. They will work together and play a give and take game.
Then present it to either a luck congress critter or an executive branch member. And it will be submitted and voted on.
Then like most new laws, we will find lots of cracks and problems. Our congress critters will lament that "It's the best we could do".
The new Law will not be enforceable outside the US. So, most will simply pay for content from every other country on the planet except the US.
As the Internet speeds in the US seem to get slower and slower in comparison to other countries, content becomes harder to download.
But, congress will have done "The best they could do".

I'm not a fan of either side. I wish this whole discussion would just disappear.
 

Can't blame them? (5, Insightful)

julioody (867484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304450)

Surely you can blame then when, in the course of protecting their interests, they bribe and corrupt a system designed to protect the interests of the majority, in order to create blockades that add no value whatsoever to a product that got paid for with tax money.

Re:Can't blame them? (3, Insightful)

Lothar+0 (444996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305048)

Indeed. When everyone expects human greed and disregard for the public good to rule businesses, then businesses will meet that expectation. Public policy is supposed to be a check on that, but the first line of defense consists of decision-makers in business remembering back to some very basic lessons they were taught in the home and in kindergarten; the "sharing is good" and "be nice to others who aren't like you" kind.

Kindergarten and Business (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306190)

Public policy is supposed to be a check on that, but the first line of defense consists of decision-makers in business remembering back to some very basic lessons they were taught in the home and in kindergarten; the "sharing is good" and "be nice to others who aren't like you" kind.

The decision makers in the tech business learned different lessons in kindergarten, such as "look out for yourself because nobody else gives a damn" and "you can't please anybody no matter how hard you try, so please yourself and let everybody else be damned". Such an upbringing explains why Ayn Rand remains in print.

'gated communities for the affluent' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304820)

More like gated communities for the effluent if the internet becomes Failbook + Twatter...

I suspect... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304874)

I'm guessing that the "gated communities for the affluent" comment is going to come back to bite him.

For one, American political discourse tends to shy away from anything that can even be remotely described as "class warfare". His comment doesn't really qualify; but once boiled into a contextless soundbite and replayed a few bazillion times on the news channels of the same cable companies on whose toes he is stepping, it sure will sound like it.

Second, it seems most likely that the rent-seeking model of tiered internet providers will be much closer to that of cable TV or old-school telco providers: that is, massive rent seeking; but much broader availability than "gated community" would imply. Everyone pays too much for cable, and everyone used to pay too much for long distance; but the companies realized that gouging everyone a bit was much more profitable than gouging half of the top quintile a lot. It may well end up being the case that only the affluent(and specifically the techy affluent) will be able to afford access to the real internet, as opposed to the "facebook and youtube over IP channel"; but that is too subtle a point to play in soundbites.

Third, and perhaps most serious, Telcos and Cable companies are actually superbly positioned to make a (dishonest; but superficially convincing) "friend of the common man" play. They are, in fact, bloated rent-seeking conglomerates; but, by the simple necessities of operating an infrastructure business, bloated rent-seeking conglomerates with very, very broad-based operations.

Most of the rents go right up the food chain to the big fish; but Verizon, Comcast, et al. have to have installers and linesmen, and technicians and whatnot in virtually every city and town. These guys aren't seeing much of those rents being collected, and are themselves paying too much for cable; but they know who their employers are. Also, since the marginal cost of adding an extra internet subscriber is nearly zero, doling out cheap/free internet access to schools, community centers, youth-centers-to-keep-at-risk-kids-off-the-street-after-school, etc. is very easy, very cheap, and good PR. All that adds up to a massive PR bonus in a broad based group of community groups, blue collar, semi-skilled and skilled tradesmen, and the like.(Obviously, it isn't as though a neutral internet wouldn't need linesmen, and a competitive internet would provide cheaper internet not as part of a cynical charity effort; but that isn't immediately visible...) This, along with a few modest, but strategic, monetary donations to the correct local charities, can be converted into a torrent of letters of support from various worthy local anti-poverty groups.

By contrast, tech companies tend to have fairly geographically narrow(or, even if geographically distributed, as with Google, Akamai, and friends, pretty lightly staffed, mostly with engineers and programmers and such) operations and human resources bases. Their customer bases are fairly broad, and they are often much more popular than the local Telcos and Cable outfits(only paranoid privacy geeks hate Google, while cable companies are about as popular as the IRS); but they have much less of the sort of presence that can translate into thousands of letters from the "grassroots". The tech guys do benefit a great many people; but most of them in smaller, subtler ways. Outside of areas that are virtually company towns, or highly-educated startup hotbeds, there is virtually no blue-ish collar bread-and-butter coming out of the tech industry(particularly since, for anything that can be shipped, hardware assembly is largely offshore). Internet competition and tech company services are likely to save everyone some dollars a month, in addition to the free speech and innovation benefits; but that isn't nearly as concrete as having a layer of people, coast to coast, whose checks you sign...

huh? (1, Interesting)

wpiman (739077) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304882)

Private islands on the internet? Isn't that what we have now? I pay for a subscription to the WSJ and there is content and comments in there reserved for subscribers. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If my traffic was being shaped so I cannot access the islands I want-- different story. I would switch ISPs in a heartbeat if they did this. I don't really trust the big ISPs, but I trust the government even less. You can bet your boots that any net neutrality bill would have loads of other provisions in there that we don't want.

Re:huh? Look at the bigger picture.. (2, Interesting)

nanospook (521118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305308)

What if down the road, you do not have an ISP to switch too, or they all really just work for the same parent company or follow the same money making policy. What if I come out with a fantasic new web site and can't compete due to throttling unless I make a special deal with them.. There is a problem..

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305356)

What do you do when all ISP's do this? Each ISP segmenting a portion of the net. Do you then spend twice as much to sign up with multiple ISP's?

What is Net Neutrality? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304988)

Is it an internet with no price restrictions? Or no speed restrictions? Or both?

No matter what, you still end up paying a monthly fee to a relative monopoly of ISPs

Re:What is Net Neutrality? (1)

venril (905197) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305430)

An excuse used by Progressives in the Fed to rationalize extending their control over more parts of the economy and your life.

An internet with no bias. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305990)

An internet with no bias. Is a Free Populace one you can have any person for free? Or is it one who can walk about freely? Or is it one that didn't have to pay to be born? Since we can't say yes to any of those, I guess the USA has no free people.

What is it about Net Neutrality that brings out the idiots building strawmen? There can't be THAT many paid sockpuppets of US ISPs on here, can there?

Caching vs. throttling (5, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305098)

Partially lost in this whole debate is the fact that there are really 2 ways of giving preferential treatment to traffic, "caching" and "throttling". Throttling is bad, but since it's really cheap to implement the execs like it. Caching on the other hand is much harder and more expensive to implement, but it ultimately ends up being a service instead of a burden to the customer. If Google wants to pay Verizon to cache the most popular 100,000 youtube videos than they should be allowed to. The people that watch said videos get better download times and google saves on bandwidth.

I would hope that such "positive" preferential treatment wouldn't be banned along with throttling, but I can certainly see an upshot, namely enforcement. How is your average customer supposed to know whether or not you are throttling or merely just caching competing content?

Truth in advertising. . . (2, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305216)

I've gone back and forth on this issue. I do think ISPs who have monopolies to run cable to the home do warrant some regulation from the FCC, because of their monopolies. On the other hand, I also realize that in the end, customers have to pay for their access and it might not be completely unreasonable to have 'tiers' of service. If someone can't afford a more 'premium' connection, it doesn't seem out of hand to do things like throttling that customers bandwidth, but then also striking deals with content providers to open up the bandwidth for their traffic to those limited customers. So, maybe I get the cheapo internet connection, but when I download content I pay for from places like Amazon, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc, I get faster download and no cap on the traffic, because the content providers setup a deal with the ISP.

Now, I don't think it's reasonable for them to completely block any (legal) traffic, but I do think it reasonable to allow them to setup tiered service and tiered pricing. The key is that they should fully disclose in their advertising and customer agreements, just exactly what it is the customer is paying for. If a customer buys "10Mb/s UNLIMITED Internet", then they shouldn't throttle any traffic, because the customer was sold unlimited service at up to 10Mb/s. If the customer only wants to pay for 768Kb/s, but a content provider has worked out a deal to actually send their content at *faster* than that 768Kb/s, I could totally see something like that.

Of course, I realize that's not what the big ISPs are trying to do, but I'm just saying, as a general principle, as long as the customer gets what they payed for and what was advertised, I'm kind of ok with some allowance of tiered service and agreements with content providers to enable a better experience.

Re:Truth in advertising. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34306366)

They're already heeeeeerrrreeeee.......

go to the Hughes satellite internet website and check the pricing. At least four levels, offering different speeds & download amounts allowed, according to what you can afford to pay.
Those of us who the cable & DSL companies are ignoring have no choice but satellite.

FCC economic czar (0)

LaissezFaire (582924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305578)

The FCC commissioner says "the public should not stand for deals 'that exchange Internet freedom for bloated profits'?" His job is to help regulate the use of public property, not implement economic policy.

Net favoritism (0, Troll)

LaissezFaire (582924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305740)

Any bets how long it'll be until "net neutrality" will force some content or providers to be given preferential treatment? My guess is less than a year after implementation until some group will be found to be under-supported and will be prioritized over everyone else.

Revoke their ISP license (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305962)

Am wondering if in real world someone makes a toll road to join a public funded highway will the govt allow it? For all ISP's that want to throttle or introduce their own tiered plan or build gated communities on something that is built using public funds should just get their ISP license revoked. They can build their own Internet if they want to milk their customers.

getting it right" (1)

Jodka (520060) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306370)

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski says that net neutrality rules 'will happen,' promising the FCC 'will make sure that we get the rules right... to make sure that what we do maximizes innovation and investment across the ecosystem.'

Just like software patents.

We have heard that story before and we know how it ends.

Fairness Doctrine 2.0 (0, Troll)

Fezzick (913356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306378)

What's really scary is that an unelected bureaucrat is stating whether you like it or not, the FCC will implement net neutrality. A sweeping change over one of the most influential technologies that impacts almost every American... yet no one gets to vote for it. Net Neutrality has morphed from what it once was when people started talking about it (a means to prevent ISPs from throttling/blocking content in order to create a tiered service model) to a means for bringing the Fairness Doctrine 2.0 to the Internet.

Slashdotters talk about the technical merits of the proposals, but the politicians and bureaucrats are talking about something entirely different.

http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/11/20/tech-at-night-red-alert/ [redstate.com]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1993/10/em368-why-the-fairness-doctrine-is-anything-but-fair [heritage.org]

The sweeping change was the loss of NN laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34306480)

The sweeping change was the loss of NN laws when they lapsed, NOT the reintroduction of them, doofus.

What's even scarier is letting an unelected cabal of business interests decide what's legal or not, which is what the ISPs are doing now that Net Neutrality laws have lapsed.

Google actually evil? (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306706)

I thought Google supported Net Neutrality as we know and understand it on wireLINE services and on wireLESS services they just wanted to prioritze traffic based on the TYPE of traffic (eg - VoIP traffic would be preferred over BitTorrent). Is this not correct?

so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34306716)

How about them Dodgers?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...