×

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!

Senate Set To Vote On the Repeal of Net Neutrality

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the on-second-thought dept.

The Internet 345

An anonymous reader writes "The United States Senate will vote sometime today on the bill that would repeal the net neutrality laws that the FCC has put into place. The bill passed the US House back in April, so it only has to be approved by the Senate before it is sent to the President's desk. President Obama says that he will veto the bill. The debate over net neutrality has largely been split on party lines, with the Democratic party mostly being for keeping net neutrality laws in place, and the GOP looking to avoid them."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

345 comments

Another Kink (3, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011302)

Another kink in the armor of American freedom.

Re:Another Kink (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011316)

If your ISP isn't neutral, just switch to one of the many, many other ISPs that services your area; surely one of them will have policies you agree with. And if you only have one ISP, all you need to do is start another one. It's easy! Trust in the dread god Freem'Arkhet to handle everything!

Re:Another Kink (3, Interesting)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011324)

I have two choices for ISP: ATT and Comcast.

Re:Another Kink (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011340)

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Wait... which is which? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011420)

Now which one is the Republocrats and which the Demicans? er...

Re:Another Kink (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011638)

I have two choices for ISP: ATT and Comcast.

Wasn't AT&T one of the ISPs that decided to cooperate with the NSA on traffic monitoring? That would make it a good, politically correct, provider for GOP supporters.

Re:Another Kink (0, Flamebait)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012210)

I call BS. I bet you more choices than that. I can almost say with certainly someone else can get you DSL access, even if it is using AT&T physical lines. I bet you can find one who will do it without PPOE and with favorable service terms as far as hosting as well.

Oh you are going to cry but I don't want pay $60+ for 1.5Mbit/384Kbps, Comcast and AT&T will sell me 20Mbps/15Mbps for that. Well yes they will but along with their caps, throttling, and other BS.

What most people really mean is I want first class service for Comcrap and AT&T'edoffs third rate service prices.

Re:Another Kink (5, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012404)

Have you ever dealt with a carrier who uses ATT lines? It sucks. Any line problem - and there are many - will get fixed when ATT thinks it will help THEM. Which means basically never. Cost is entirely dependent on what ATT thinks it should charge resellers - in other words, it is guaranteed to be more expensive than the ATT offering, even if the service is exactly the same.

The only thing you can hope for is that the reseller is actually good, and you get something extra for paying substantially more for the same bandwidth. I use Speakeasy, and at least I get outstanding service.

But you're kidding yourself if you think that Speakeasy is actually in competition with ATT. Speakeasy exists at the mercy of ATT, and will be killed off in many ways if it ever becomes a threat to ATT's residential service. Which it kinda has, because you actually can't get residential-class DSL from Speakeasy anymore: I'm only around because they haven't canceled my contract yet. But my terms don't exist anymore, and the terms that are available are fundamentally different.

So from a technical offering, I don't have a choice - it's ATT only. From a service choice, I could get Sonic, but they're significantly more expensive. And that's it. Not even Comcast is offering anything in my area. Beats me why, but they don't.

So go suck on your choice, because it doesn't exist for a lot of people. And the choices that do exist are far too small to create anything resembling market pressures.

Re:Another Kink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012464)

If its going over the AT&T lines then they still control the rules of the road ... you just pay more for better customer service.

Re:Another Kink (2, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012384)

Me too, but I think the GP was being sarcastic, especially with his nod to the Great American God Freem'Arkhet (described in the anti-Freem'Arkhet bible as "mammon").

The +5 funny might have tipped you off, as well.

Odd how the "free market" US has one or maybe two ISPs in any given town, while the "socialist" EU cities have multiple choices. But try to convince the T(ard) Party that maybe there are a few problems with their little green god and see how successful you are at it.

We're screwed, dude.

Re:Another Kink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011376)

And if you only have one ISP, all you need to do is start another one. It's easy! Trust in the dread god Freem'Arkhet to handle everything!

????

AH, satire!

Well played, sir!

Re:Another Kink (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011948)

And if you only have one ISP, all you need to do is start another one. It's easy! Trust in the dread god Freem'Arkhet to handle everything!

This would be insightful if many local governments weren't granting monopolies for cable/Internet service. Back when ISPs were modem based, there were start ups all over the place, and they were driving costs down while providing better service than the likes of AOL.

Re:Another Kink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012014)

That has little to do with local governmental policy and more to do with the fact that you could start up a dial-up ISP without actually owning any of the infrastructure, since the phone company already ran lines to everyone's house and you just used them.

Unfortunately, if you want to break the 56K barrier, you're going to need your own infrastructure, which provides a prohibitively high cost of entry.

Re:Another Kink (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012178)

Whether the cables should be installed and owned by the companies, or by the city/state and then rented to any ISP at the same price is definitively a matter of local government policy.

Re:Another Kink (3)

morari (1080535) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012346)

It's really not. Selling out areas to cable and telecoms hurts your population in the long run, as evidenced. Not having decent internet nowadays is more socially and economically crippling than not having telephone service. The government itself should be laying that cable for anyone to use. Cthulhu knows the cable/telecoms aren't doing it, despite having tons of subsidies literally thrown at them for decades. Infrastructure in general would be a great use of tax dollars. A lot better than any number of unwinnable, unethical wars for example. Then once you have this open platform for ISPs to work off of, private competition would [i]most[/i] likely take care of everything else. It seems to work throughout Europe, and it even worked here in the States for dial-up prices and service.

Re:Another Kink (2, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011460)

Which way? For or against Net Neutrality?

Pro NN: Netflix and Google Win.
Anti NN: AT&T and Comcast Win.
Pro NN: The End User will end up paying more for service.
Anti NN: The End User will not have fare access to other services
Pro NN: You cannot offer a service with a connection that included internet as a secondary option... Lets say I am a Small provider and I am offering TCP/IP Streaming of services to customers using my infrastructure, my Infrastructure allows up to 1000mbs transfer and my internal network can handle it. But my Internet connection to the outside is more limited say peaking at 10mbs per customer (we need to keep the users balanced) Now I am breaking NN laws because I am offering my service faster to customers and internet access as a secondary service is slower.
Anti NN: ISP can decide who they want to slow down or block just because they are in competition with them. So lets block Vonage or Skype because it Interfears with their Telephone business. Or netflix or hulu.

Now without Net Neutrality a lot of companies wouldn't go too far to block too much just because it will piss off the customers and they switch. Only Comcast hates it customers so much to do this. For other companies they may be doing this for good reasons such as blocking or slowing down traffic to some sites that isn't evil or greedy.

Re:Another Kink (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011510)

You have no idea what net neutrality realy is about. Please keep your comments and fear mongering to yourself.

Any legislation telling an ISP how to handle their traffic is wrong, a complete infringement upon their rights as a business proprietor.

Re:Another Kink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011582)

Any legislation telling me that I can't kill people is a complete infringement upon my rights! How dare they make laws banning murder!

Re:Another Kink (0)

telekon (185072) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011840)

Don't worry, the GOP is completely fine with murder-neutrality laws. But net neutrality, that's a crime against Jeebus and Adam Smith!

Re:Another Kink (5, Insightful)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011664)

Troll.

In most areas you have two regulated monopolies providing internet services. You might be lucky and have a third small player that is entirely beholden two one of the two big monopolies (thrid party DSL). Technically you have your cellular carrier as an option, but that will be expensive and limited.

So Yeah, you can go with the telephone company or the cable company. Lots of choice there, and both are and should be heavily regulated.

I sure don't want my cable company to have the option to limit or block Netflix and Hulu, or my phone company to limit or block Skype and Vonage and Google Talk.

Re:Another Kink (3)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012100)

No, he seems to have a good grasp of what net neutrality stands for.

Net neutrality has advantages to the customer, but it also has disadvantages for service providers.

However, the point that companies won't go so far as to piss off customers, only works if there is a viable competition. If there isn't, then they will not think twice to screw over customers if it improves their profits.

But that's what i wonder : why is there no competition ? You would think that, if a company screws it's customers for long enough, someone would see a the market opportunity to do things differently. Why is this not the case ?

Now it comes down to surrendering your Internet connection to either a large corporation ( no net neutrality ) , or to the government ( net neutrality ).

Re:Another Kink (5, Insightful)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011606)

To paraphrase, with network neutrality content providers win. Without NN, service providers win. Both win at the consumer's expense, but it's a lot easier to find alternate content than alternate infrastructure. The demise of NAT should make it easier for all of us to be content providers; I'm looking forward to it.

I admit to not being able to follow your example. I myself cannot come up with a clear example of how equal access to networks (or other infrastructure) could be a bad thing. I suspect you may have a different definition of network neutrality than the rest of us; I believe the most commonly accepted phrasing would be "traffic should not be prioritized based on endpoints."

Re:Another Kink (5, Insightful)

Olorion (2465574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011976)

Net neutrality is about far, far more than some ISP's profits.

The death of net neutrality is the death of the last independent voice in U.S. politics. You doubt this? Remember the deafening shouts of "WMDs in Iraq !!!" from practically all the mainstream media channels. Where were the dissenting voices? Basically, only on the Internet.

If net neutrality dies, then companies like Comcast and AT&T will have the power to silence web sites they dislike. Since these are giant corporations, their agendas will of course align with those of the mainstream media, and all the protest sites will die. The U.S. media will have largely one voice, the voice of the one-percenters, and dissent will be silenced.

This outcome is undoubtedly the main intent of the one-percenters, especially in these days of the Occupy movement. The powers that be desperately need to kill net neutrality for the same reason that Mubarak tried to turn off the Internet during the occupation of Tahrir Square by the riff-raff. Our rulers know that good communication is essential to any successful revolution, and they are determined to cut off all possible channels of dissent.

Now perhaps you are one of the 1%, or work for them. Perhaps you like having a media landscape that rivals China's in its depth of censorship. But I don't.

Re:Another Kink (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012400)

That's a pretty far-fetched bit of tin-foil-hattery you have there.

I'll do you one better. Allowing government to regulate the Internet will do exactly the same thing, but more easily, without requiring cooperation (just one government, not 2 or 3 ISPs and a few smaller ones), AND ... they've already started doing it [torrent-finder.com] .

Re:Another Kink (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012262)

>> Now without Net Neutrality a lot of companies wouldn't go too far to block too much just because it will piss off the customers and they switch.

Switch to what? The second option which does not exist? Not in my neighborhood at least. Comcast is the only choice for high speed cable internet.

Re:Another Kink (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012336)

Oooh, kinky armor! Uh, do you mean "chink"? A chink in your armor can be deadly, a kink in your armor is only uncomfortable.

Slight problem in summary (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011326)

The debate over net neutrality has largely been split on party lines, with the Democratic party mostly being for keeping net neutrality laws in place, and the GOP looking to avoid them.

They aren't laws right now, they're regulations. In a conflict between laws and regulations, laws win.

Re:Slight problem in summary (2)

roninmagus (721889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011494)

Thank you. I came here to say just that. It's more than a "slight problem" also, as to me it represents the complete misunderstanding of the issue at hand. It's not that those "evil GOP want to take over your internetz" as is usually framed. It's that "those evil GOP want lawmakers to make the laws and not more FCC decrees." That's not to say they're for or against it, IMO. They want to stop un-elected bodies from making judgements such as this. While I am for net neutrality, Obama should call this for what it is instead of using a populist tactic to fool people into thinking he's looking out for their good. I do not support beurocrats making up laws we all have to abide by.

Re:Slight problem in summary (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011608)

Let's see...
Regulator aka bureaucrat familiar with the industry (supposed to be an expert) he or she is regulating

Law maker aka at best a laymen having their opinion on matters formed by 22 year old legislative aids and lobbyists

I can see why law makers are the vastly superior option here

Re:Slight problem in summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011788)

If your legislator votes differently on this than you would have, you have a recourse. Specifically, vote them out of office. With an appointed bureaucrat, you can't do that. That's why laws should be made by elected officials.

Re:Slight problem in summary (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012220)

If the bureaucrat is appointed by the officials, changing them would also mean a change of bureaucrat.

Re:Slight problem in summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011836)

Yeah, the bureaucrats familiar with the industry always do the best job creating regulation. You know, just like the department of homeland security with the TSA....

Re:Slight problem in summary (1)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012364)

I do not support beurocrats making up laws we all have to abide by.

...because we'd all be so much better off if it took an act of congress to decide exactly how much rat feces can be in our hamburger.

We have an executive branch for a reason: to go do what congress said to. This job includes working out the details.

Re:Slight problem in summary (2)

jthill (303417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012022)

And laws Congress writes aren't supreme right now. You might as well say things the Lieutenant tells you to do aren't orders right now. Regulations have the force of law. Agencies have the authority to write them because Congress handed them that authority, and Congress had that authority because we handed it to them. Your daddy didn't teach you this? Didn't care enough to check whether the schools did?

Re:Slight problem in summary (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012402)

Agencies have the authority to write them because Congress handed them that authority, and Congress had that authority because we handed it to them.

And authority that Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. That's my point. Even if Obama vetoes, if Congress had the votes, they could override the veto and force Obama and the FCC to comply. Or they could defund the FCC entirely.

The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffic (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011390)

The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffic. Nobody would complain about FTP traffic being slowed during busy bursts to avoid interfering with voice traffic. It is the stated aim of some ISPs to throttle back certain sites unless you pay a premium. So Microsoft could agree to pay certain ISPs to advertise bing while at the same time making google very slow and barely usable. They could also undermine free sites by charging the provider to allow customers reasonable access, meaning that they have a charge to pass on somewhere. The end result will be the end of the free to access internet.

Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (0)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011454)

Parent needs mod up!

Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012282)

now, really. was your comment actually necessary?

Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011482)

> Nobody would complain about FTP traffic being slowed during busy bursts

Yes we would and we actively avoid ISPs who would do that.

Would you be content with your phone call to Aunt Thelma being given lower priority than someone's call for a pizza order? After all he has greater urgency...

Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (5, Insightful)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011784)

Yes, the solution is simply to switch ISPs- oh, wait, most people in the US have only two broadband providers available at most, and they both have abhorrent neutrality practices.

I can't start my own ISP because the barrier to entry is impossibly high and the current ISPs have state or city-granted monopolies on internet/phone/cable service.

Free market theory doesn't work when the market isn't free.

Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012362)

There's two options available to me... hughesnet or a local WISP that doesn't allow bittorrent because they use a CDMA technology that can't handle a bunch of BT users. The best speed I can buy is 1.5 Mbps. And Pac Bell promised to have DSL everywhere by 2000 :D

Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011724)

"Nobody would complain about FTP traffic being slowed during busy bursts to avoid interfering with voice traffic"

I would. Your call is not more important than my data.

Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011830)

The issue in this case isn't a lack of sufficient infrastructure to support the traffic due to over-adoption and excessive usage. The problem is there is a lack of sufficient infrastructure due to inaction by the providers to develop it. The writing has been on the walls for YEARS and the continued boom of data has surprised no one. Service providers have been more interested in pushing their content, restrictions and padding bottom lines than in developing an infrastructure to properly support their customers.

For that reason alone, I say screw slowing ANY traffic down. Address the 800-pound gorilla of infrastructure underdevelopment and then come back to me and whine about how your service needs to traffic shape to survive (which is a legitimate discussion, but not for the forced reason that has brought it to the forefront).

Once more... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012032)

I love how, even in something that has nothing to do with Microsoft, you find a way to take a jab at them. Good ol' SlashDot comments. In fact, didn't Google and MS say that they supported Net Neutrality?

Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012064)

I would complain about ftp being slowed-down due to voice bursts interfering with my ftp use.
I use ftp far more than voice, and voice uses far more bandwidth than my paltry 4gb ftp download.

If I pay for 40Mbit/S, I demand my 40Mbit/S without interruption, slow-downs or re-prioritizing of packets. In other words, don't fuck with my traffic, period.

Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012442)

Me too. What a stupid generalization. Plenty of people rightfully expect to receive what they pay for, and expect not to be discriminated against because their ISP deems their work less important.

noooooo (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011436)

This really grinds my gears.

I'll start my own damn internet... with hookers and booze!

Re:noooooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011850)

don't forget the blackjack

Please repeal! (1, Flamebait)

Brewmastre (2055526) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011452)

I'm all in favour of net neutrality, but I'm sorry, no private company could possibly screw up things as bad as when the government gets involved and starts "regulating". If the US government were a company it would have gone out of business long ago...but as things stand, that may happen son enough.

Re:Please repeal! (5, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011496)

Some despite the fact that private companies have pretty much destroyed our economy you are ok with them controlling the internet, too?

Re:Please repeal! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011680)

>the fact that private companies have pretty much destroyed our economy

Private companies ARE our economy, comrade.

Re:Please repeal! (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011758)

I thought about mentioning that too, but decided to give the Commie mutant traitor the benefit of the doubt. He may be referring to some companies in the economy destroying themselves and damaging other parts of the economy.

Of course, I'm not sure how banks and Comcast have any meaningful characteristics in common.

Re:Please repeal! (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011988)

And what's your point? You think that just because they "ARE" the economy they can't self-destruct and take us with them? The problem is when they self-destruct the captains don't go down with the ship. Do you really think Corzine is going to have problems paying his mortgage after driving MF Global into the ground? Or Richard Fuld from Lehman Brothers?

Unless you are one of those obscenely overpaid executives I don't understand why you would ever take their side.

Re:Please repeal! (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012218)

Unless you are one of those obscenely overpaid executives I don't understand why you would ever take their side.

Who would have thought that so many of them have /. accounts?

Re:Please repeal! (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011726)

See, that's a question of your political world-view. You could also say that "despite the fact that the government has pretty much destroyed our economy, you are okay with them controlling the Internet, too?" (Let's play the Blame Game! We can bring in stories about how, for every bubbly subprime mortgage the private economy bought, federal housing agencies bought two. Little things like that. We can blame political risk and the healthcare package for increasing the expected costs of hiring people, perpetuating unemployment.)

The problem with government regulations is that even though there are things I'd like them to do, I don't necessarily trust them to do it right. Net Neutrality? It might be a net win, maybe. I certainly hope so. Incumbent telecom monopolies trying to protect their television revenues against YouTube and Netflix are hardly friends to the consumer. (The new financial regulations, on the other hand, are a poorly-thought-out unclear loopholey reactionary mess which are extraordinarily unlikely to prevent the next crisis but likely to increase meaningless compliance paperwork costs.)

Re:Please repeal! (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011930)

The you tell me what the third choice is. You let the corporations rule and enslave the world or you let a flawed government (pretty much controlled by the corporations) that is theoretically overthrown every 4 years or so try to rule and enslave the world.

The problem isn't government but the lack of qualified people to run it.

Re:Please repeal! (4, Informative)

phlinn (819946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012390)

Governments work by force "Do this or else". Corporations work by persuasaion "if you Do this for us, we will do something else for you". There is a major difference in kind there, even if the "something else" is the only realistic choice you have to live. People who think corporations can rule or enslave people without the explicit efforts of government haven't actually been paying attention. American slavery would NOT have existed without the government decreeing that you can have a property right over people.

Re:Please repeal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011778)

We all destroyed the economy: the private companies that followed the capitalist charter that we endorse every time we vote; the democratic government that failed to protect us from things that we don't understand; and the private individuals who bought ridiculously cheap goods, borrowed stupidly large sums of "interest-free" money and took out outrageously large mortgages many times their salary.

If you want a more controlling, socialist government and have never borrowed money then I apologise for denigrating you. I'm also impressed at your reading ability, the majority of Chinese can't read English...

Re:Please repeal! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011502)

I know, right? That's why food contamination actually got worse after we passed the Pure Food And Drug Act.

Wait, did I say "worse"? Sorry, I meant "better".

You're taking "government will always handle everything worse than any private company" as an article of faith not backed by evidence. Sorry, I'm not religious in that particular manner.

Re:Please repeal! (4, Insightful)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011540)

In general I'm against the government adding senseless regulations, but in THIS case the regulation IS necessary. It's actually a requirement that all traffic be treated equal. How would you like it if the post office told you that from now on unless you put two extra stamps on each of your letters they would add a week to the delivery time of your first class mail?

Re:Please repeal! (2)

deathguppie (768263) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011866)

Net Neutrality is about stopping companies from being able to regulate Internet traffic. Thus many would contend that in effect NN is de-regulation.

Re:Please repeal! (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012274)

That's a stupid analogy. First of all, the post office already DOES that. The more you pay, the faster it gets there. Second of all, ISP's also already do this. The more you pay, the faster your connection.

Re:Please repeal! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011624)

What children Americans are. You are the government, you elect it and you control it, but rather than debate and decide what to do, you just give up and ask a corporations to run you country.

Re:Please repeal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011670)

I'm all in favour of net neutrality, but I'm sorry, no private company could possibly screw up things as bad as when the government gets involved and starts "regulating". If the US government were a company it would have gone out of business long ago...but as things stand, that may happen son enough.

Well, you've stated a philosophical stance and I don't care about your philosophy.

I think that this issue is more important than that. Thanks for sharing, I guess.

Re:Please repeal! (4, Insightful)

jellie (949898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011678)

Oh right, because private companies would do such a good job to ensure net neutrality. I mean, who's supposed to ensure that content gatekeepers don't create tiered services? ISPs? Uh huh...

Sometimes you just need to admit that government regulations are necessary. No FDA? You can go back to the days before Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and Frances Oldham Kelsey. How about the EPA? Not sure why people oppose the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. And if the US government were a company, you might have been bankrupt long ago.

Re:Please repeal! (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012422)

I just read an article about how environmental issues were resolved before the EPA was created. [spectator.org] I am not sure how accurate his portrayal is. However, it is actually a way that could work. So, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act may have actually allowed companies to get away with polluting where they would otherwise been sued to bankruptcy. Additionally, a man was sent to jail for cleaning up an illegal dump [freerepublic.com] because it violated the Clean Water Act.

Crap, Pure Crap (1)

w3bd4wg (938648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011480)

Why do these people feel the need to make laws about the internet? Net Neutrality should be a simple thing. Keep your dam hands off the internet and stop controlling innovation. Laws should not control these type of innovations. These people are so very short sited and have only desire to profit from nothingness. Charge for faster speeds to X, etc. Companies want to have an internet monoploly. Its what all businesses want to do. Cheat and scam to the top. This will never work. The internet will evolve past it. High level encryption and encrypted routes. Where is my packet going? None of your dam business. Lazy, ineffective, and stupid. Politicians are clueless about technology and this is why any law they create will fail. I bet you even the Net Neutrality bill is FUBAR. Prolly has loop holes and bull written in it. These guys need SIMPLE one sentenance rules created by technologists. The internet commandments. I wish people where smarter and cared about this. The general population is so lame. Too bad people just wanna see their netflix and youporn. How many critical processes will be effected by crap QOS rules put in place by ISPs? It may just be more consumer oriented now but what happends when the higher level providers get even more greedy? Crap, Pure Crap

Re:Crap, Pure Crap (1)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011790)

I've read this like three times now, and I'm still not sure what side you're on.

Slashdotters aren't really on any side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012378)

They just like to whine. They're opposite to all sides. Whatever happens, they complain about it.

If you don't like Net Neutrality, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011516)

then you're free to build and maintain your own Internet.

Re:If you don't like Net Neutrality, (1)

shellster_dude (1261444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011588)

Which the government will immediately decide, with no congressional oversight, that they have the right to control and regulate.

Re:If you don't like Net Neutrality, (2)

mlingojones (919531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011620)

That's not how it works. The reason they can do that with this Internet is that they were the ones who invented it in the first place.

Re:If you don't like Net Neutrality, (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012340)

They are not, and cannot, controlling the internet. They are controlling their PIECE of the internet. The only leverage the US has on the internet is that ICANN is on their soil and most countries have the infrastructure already in place to replace ICANN within a week should the US pull a stunt with it.

Re:If you don't like Net Neutrality, (1)

mlingojones (919531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012418)

What's the practical distinction to US citizens, though? We access the whole Internet through US-based ISPs, and the US government can impose regulations on ISPs, so as far as I'm concerned the government has the ability to control the Internet.

Of course, I would much rather have them in control than the ISPs themselves...

Re:If you don't like Net Neutrality, (1)

phlinn (819946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012406)

Actually, no. That is in no way their justification for regulation.

Both sides are in the wrong here (0)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011534)

The simplest way to handle net neutrality would be for the Department of Justice to threaten the ISPs with federal false advertising and related charges if they degrade services provided by content providers who won't pay them for the "privilege" of accessing paying ISP users.

Oh wait, who am I kidding. This is a government that has argued that if we had stricter gun control in place, the ATF wouldn't have conducted Operation Fast and Furious.

The fcc makes rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011572)

The FCC has rulemaking power, it does not have lawmaking power. The FCC issued rules, not laws, so Congress is voting on the repeal of the FCC rules(in short removing part of its rulemaking power), not existing law.

LAN vs Internet Neutrality (4, Insightful)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011652)

I'll take net neutrality laws as they have been written any day over letting the ISPs just do as they please. After all, the broadband ones are all old entrenched telecom and media companies that already do discriminate between content. At the very least they pretty much all throttle P2P which contrary to some people's opinions can and is used for plenty of good, non-pirate things.

On the other hand... why can't we have laws which distinguish between a provider's LAN services and the internet? When TV service comes through the modem on what is essentially a big LAN, usually a 10.x.x.x network and the internet comes through as a tunnel on that LAN then I think net neutrality laws should be applied to what comes through the tunnel, not the whole LAN connection. The LAN belongs to the ISP, the Internet does not.

In other words, when I connect to the internet I expect to be able to reach Google, Bing or some other competitior, NetFlix, some big corporate website or somebody's personal page all equally (as far as my ISPs connection is concerned, obviously they will each have different providers and capacity). If however the ISP has some kind of assurance in place that the other services on their LAN aren't being 'squeezed out' by the Internet tunnel that is fine with me.

Then again, with an ever faster Internet traditional TV and phone services become pretty obsolete. Using that whole LAN for Internet access and plugging my computer into my TV sounds just fine to me and I haven't had use for a landline in years.

Re:LAN vs Internet Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012298)

Because then "premium services" will become "co-hosted on the ISP's premium network" and "basic internet services may suffer degraded performance". So you end up with Bing working at full speed while Google gets kneecapped because Microsoft could pay more protection money. It's a loophole big enough to drive a series of tubes through.

OMFG! (-1, Troll)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38011668)

Why are these wastes of humanity wasting time on crap like this instead of pulling their heads out of their arses and dealing with the economy?

Honestly, Our Congress is a complete and utter joke, they are an embarrassment to the united states, and to every single American citizen. None of the congressmen that claim they are on the side of the people have the balls to call out the scumbags in there which makes them just as scumbaggy.

But then the president does not have the balls to do it either, so I guess every single one of them are spineless.

Re:OMFG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011912)

and what would you like them to do about the economy?

-our government spends more on "defense" then all other countries combined.
-our government carries more public debt then any other country.
-our citizens carry more private debt then any other country.
-our country consumes more oil then any other country, and if you take out china from the list, we consume more oil then all other countries combined.
-our government has promised more in entitlements and safety nets then all other countries combined.
-our government's budget is the largest on the planet.
-our deficit each year, is the largest on the planet. ...80% of the economy is small and medium business. The riskiest thing a small and medium business can do in this day and age?

hire employees.

Re:OMFG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012052)

Why are these wastes of humanity wasting time on crap like this instead of pulling their heads out of their arses and dealing with the economy?

Honestly, Our Congress is a complete and utter joke, they are an embarrassment to the united states, and to every single American citizen. None of the congressmen that claim they are on the side of the people have the balls to call out the scumbags in there which makes them just as scumbaggy.

But then the president does not have the balls to do it either, so I guess every single one of them are spineless.

Americans voted for them. To be fair it's like voting for lesser of the two evils. You're gonna get screwed either way.

Re:OMFG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012134)

Obama is issuing executive actions once a week now at least until the end of the year. I'd hardly call that "not having the balls to do it".

Re:OMFG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38012308)

Bad example.
THIS is a matter of public policy and belongs in the public forum.
The example you want about to use about wasting time would be the motion to affirm "in God we trust" as a national motto.
THAT is a silly waste of time.

Republitards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011740)

So, any of you still feel like defending the Republican party?

It's called battered wife syndrome. Seek therapy.

If only... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38011956)

If corporations ran on the blood of dead babies, Republicans would create and vote for a bill to mandate the killing of babies.

Net Nuetrality Laws? (2)

Bartles (1198017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012158)

There are no net neutrality laws in place. Calling it a law implies that it was passed by the legislature, and signed by the executive. Net neutrality "laws" are nothing more than a decree issued by a federal agency that has too much power.

Lacking is a common definition (5, Insightful)

sohmc (595388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38012180)

Back when google was cool and actually believed in "do no evil", it supported net neutrality the way most people understand it.

Ask the common geek, I would assume many of them would agree the following should be defined as Net Neutrality:
* Treat all data equally, regardless of source. (e.g. data from Bob's Video Shack would be treated the same as Netflix)
* Do not block services (e.g. BitTorrent should not be blocked)
* Do not block web sites (e.g. Comcast/NBC should not block access to ABC/CBS/etc)
* and probably a few I'm forgetting.

If an ISP wants to charge more for bandwidth, that's understandable. It's a limited resource.

But I shouldn't have to pay more to visit netflix just because 75% of the traffic goes there. I already paid for the bandwidth!

The problem I see is that corporations who control content and access are trying to define "Net Neutrality", when really they are defining a set of policies to make them more money. Maybe before putting together regulations and laws, IETF can get together a RFC of what Net Neutrality should be.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...