×

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!

EU Commissioner: I Will End Net Neutrality Waiting Game

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the net-neutrality-action-heroine dept.

EU 71

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from ZDNet: "Europeans are a step closer to seeing new net neutrality rules put in place, after the release of an EU regulators' report on how often ISPs and operators throttle their services. On Tuesday, digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said the release of the report from by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) means she will make recommendations to the EU on preserving net neutrality, which aims to make sure ISPs do not unfairly restrict customers from accessing the service or application or their choice. 'BEREC has today provided the data I was waiting for (PDF). For most Europeans, their internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers,' Kroes said in a statement. 'Given that BEREC's findings highlight a problem of effective consumer choice, I will prepare recommendations to generate more real choices and end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe,' she added."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

71 comments

Under what definition of "unfair?" (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40148591)

Let me guess -- ISPs cannot restrict access to websites in order to profit, but governments can order ISPs to restrict access to websites to protect the profits of entertainment companies?

Re:Under what definition of "unfair?" (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40148737)

No. No one must be allowed to stand between you and all the free entertainment you want.

Re:Under what definition of "unfair?" (5, Informative)

eggstasy (458692) | about 2 years ago | (#40151607)

I think you're confusing us with America. The US produces almost all the (mass-market) content in the world and, well, Europe is composed of 45 countries. The EU is not a cohesive country either - there's 27 of us. We all have different laws and we're bound together by separate treaties, most of which only include parts of Europe, some which even include non-EU countries. The Euro zone (common currency) is one thing, the Schengen space (freedom of travel) is another one, etc.

It's very very complicated - but we're not a federation and what the bureaucrats do in Brussels is largely their problem. We're hardly ever *forced* to agree - the guy did say "reccomendation". We generally agree on implementing reccomendations when the public supports it. I believe this will be the case with Net Neutrality, and France can go on pretending it's still a major power in the world, and that we all give a damn about what it does.

The vast majority of countries in Europe do not have opressive ISP policies or draconian copyright law enforcement, so the whole net neutrality thing won't even register on our radar.

(I'm not a politician, so I could be wrong on the whole EU thing)

Re:Under what definition of "unfair?" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40152303)

I think your are naive, the EUSSR is just as "bad" as America.

Re:Under what definition of "unfair?" (3, Informative)

damienl451 (841528) | about 2 years ago | (#40152715)

As I understand it, she will make recommendations to the EU commission, who will in turn draft a Directive. If adopted, a Directive is binding on all member states, which have a few years to change their national legislation to reflect what the Directive says.

Re:Under what definition of "unfair?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40152403)

Let me guess -- ISPs cannot restrict access to websites in order to profit, but governments can order ISPs to restrict access to websites to protect the profits of entertainment companies?

Such (presumably) piracy-related blocks are issued by the judicial power, not the legislative power.

Re:Under what definition of "unfair?" (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | about 2 years ago | (#40152683)

Mod AC up, because he's exactly right. OTOH the legislative power can, but won't, change the laws on which the judicial power bases it rulings.

Re:Under what definition of "unfair?" (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 2 years ago | (#40153145)

If the EU follows the Dutch model (the Dutch just got their own net neutrality), then... Yes. You're right.

Still, it's a step in the right direction. Could be worse. Far worse.

The waiting game is finally over! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40148603)

Hollywood got back to us, and said we couldn't do it.

Will NN guidelines include censorship? (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40148713)

"You cannot block any website...... except pornography. Or bittorrent sites. Those you can block and in fact, we DEMAND you block them."

Re:Will NN guidelines include censorship? (5, Informative)

Spad (470073) | about 2 years ago | (#40149027)

Net Neutrality is not really anything to do with censorship, it's about ensuring that - for example - Google doesn't pay your ISP to prioritise all Google.com traffic over other search engines or that BSkyB doesn't pay them to cripple access to the BBC News site while leaving Sky News untouched.

I'm not in favour of censorship for any reason, but it's not helpful to conflate it with net neutrality.

How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40149085)

From TFA:

Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldnâ(TM)t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldnâ(TM)t be marketed as âoeInternetâ at all, at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have that kind of control over how ISPs market the service.

(Emphasis mine)

Sounds to me like no ISP in any country that orders a block on, say, TBP, should be able to market itself as providing Internet access under this proposal.

Re:How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40149181)

It's funny you bring that up (champagne). A few months ago the E.U. regulators forced wine-growers in England to stop calling it wine.

Instead it must be labled "alcoholic beverage containing fermented juice". It was done to protect the wine industries of the mainland Europe, rather than any desire to protect consumers. i.e. It was done by bought-and-paid-for technocrats... similar to how it operates in the U.S. with the FCC and other bureaucrats getting sweet post-government jobs with megacorps.

Re:How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#40149319)

I'm going to have to ask for a source for that, because somehow I managed to miss it being reported in the UK press, and it didn't seem to prevent the beer festival that I attended last week from having a stall full of British wines, described as wines...

Re:How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (2)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#40149445)

Perhaps he was talking about Champagne, which can only come from the Champagne region. Just like certain other products can only come from certain regions.

It is a bit like trademarks.

Re:How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#40153127)

This isn't a new ruling, however - certainly not something from a few months ago. The UK has accepted AOC regulations for over a hundred years, since the Treaty of Madrid in 1891. The USA rejected them. The AOC regulations are now protected by the PDO framework, which also protects things like Stilton cheese. As you say, they're a form of trademark. You can't call just any sparkling wine Champagne (as you can in the USA), because doing so would be trading on the reputation earned by French vineyards over the past few centuries. This is no different from not being able to call a Linux distribution Canonical Microsoft Windows or have Microsoft rebrand IIS as Microsoft Apache.

If your product is good, it should be able to stand on its own merits and, in fact, the nicest methode champenoise wine I've had in the last few months was made in the UK. It didn't call itself Champagne (although it did put itself in that price bracket, and deservedly so) and there was no expectation that it should be.

Blaming the EU for a treaty signed almost 60 years before the first steps were taken towards creating the EU shows just how out of touch with reality commodore64_love (sorry, cpu6502, his other accounts all post at -1 now) is.

Re:How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (4, Informative)

Smauler (915644) | about 2 years ago | (#40149511)

This is false, wrong, bullshit, or whatever else you want to call it.

What the EU has banned is the labelling of the wine as wine if it is produced with grapes sourced outside the EU. Which I think is personally a bit stupid, but it's a different issue entirely. It's nothing to do with protecting the wine industries of mainland Europe, since the ruling applies to them too. English wine is still wine (well, as much as it ever was ;P).

Actually, I'm being a bit unfair with that last snarky comment - there are some great English whites and sparkling wines... never had a good English red yet, though.

On topic - I think this ruling will hopefully be a good thing for the consumer - currently, ISP's can decide how you use the internet with little or no regulation.

Re:How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (4, Funny)

rockout (1039072) | about 2 years ago | (#40149581)

I dunno. After having consumed English "alcoholic beverage containing fermented juice", I wouldn't call it wine either.

Re:How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (2)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#40152595)

You should stop reading the crappy UK tabloids.

What happened is you can no longer call "an alcoholic beverage containing fermented juice" wine unless it's made from 100% grapes.

Re:How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40153347)

Okay so basically we can't have damson wine or elderberry wine now as they are not grape based. But the french can make Pear cidre despite the fact a cider type drink made from pears should be really called a perry - and off topic did you know that the favourite ladies tipple of the 70's "babycham" which was marketed as similar to champagne is in fact a perry

Re:How is blocking websites not a NN issue? (1)

JustLikeToSay (651328) | about 2 years ago | (#40154135)

I'm old (and maybe slightly ashamed) enough to recall its strapline - "the genuine champagne perry" - which seems to break more laws and regulations than your average bit-torrenter / software pirate under net neutrality.

Re:Will NN guidelines include censorship? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#40149423)

um, no, you're wrong... well, I suppose that was a VERY early concern, but it hasn't arisen. What's actually happening is your ISP has installed enough equipment to deliver a certain amount of bandwidth to your "neighborhood" for lack of a better layman word. When everyone in the neighborhood gets home and jumps on whatever the latest craze is, lets say netflix, bandwidth spikes. Netflix has no incentive to make their service intelligent in anyway... for example, they could give you a discount if you queue up a movie a couple of days ahead of time and you could download it at off peak times to lower congestion. But, like I was saying, they have no reason to do this. So the ISP is instead, putting a cap on how much data can pass to netflix during peak hours so people who aren't using it can still at least browse the internet. The ISP wants to just flat out charge netflix for hurting their infrastructure. But that will only work for a couple of large ISPs. Netflix will likely ignore anyone that's not ATT or Verizon. So the ISPs want the government to make some kind of law that forces these content providers to incur some kind of cost when they do not do things efficiently.

Now, you may disagree with all of what the ISPs are doing... but those are the facts. I personally think they are being rather short sited. They keep increasing the max speed you can get "30MB DSL to your door!!!" and they are thinking that you'll rarely ever use that. You think you have this blazing fast connection, and as long as you only use it to download files now and then you do. But where I think the world is headed is all customers using all of their bandwidth all of the time. They haven't invent the service yet that does that... netflix does it, but only when you're watching a movie... but someone, somewhere is going to come up with something that does use all of your bandwidth all of the time... and it will be the new in thing... and then what will the ISPs do?

When it comes down to it, we've been paying too little for our internet connections, and we've been lied to by the ISPs in regards to how fast those connections really are. Look at the price of a true 1.5mb T1 line compared to the same speed DSL line and you'll get the idea. We're in for higher prices and lower speeds in the future and that's a fact.

Re:Will NN guidelines include censorship? (1)

pantaril (1624521) | about 2 years ago | (#40164415)

It's clearly ISP fault and they won't fix it by limiting traffic to netflix. People will just switch to other sources od video, like p2p.

ISP should carefully watch the total amount of bandwidth his customers are using. He should scale his infrastructure and his tarif speeds to match that traffic. He should also charge apropriate monthly fees so he can support the growth of his infrastructure (switching to fiber etc).

Re:Will NN guidelines include censorship? (1)

click2005 (921437) | about 2 years ago | (#40151247)

Dont forget services such as VoIP that probably directly eats into your ISP's profits.
IMs are replacing texts (which can make phone companies around $10000 per MB).

In the future more entertainment will be streamed & downloaded. We'll possibly end up
with a pay-per-view system of some kind but your ISP will want you to pay them for it too.
They've been trying to extort money with BBC Iplayer.

Hopefully in the future it might also stop evil companies like Phorm & BT from stripping
charity adverts from pages and replacing them with their own.

Re:Will NN guidelines include censorship? (1)

JustLikeToSay (651328) | about 2 years ago | (#40154083)

... or that ISPs / providers of infrastructure don't demand from Google that they pay ...

Re:Will NN guidelines include censorship? (1)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#40152613)

There are no exceptions to NN.
But it will be possible for ISP's to sell additional services like religious or child safe filters.
These will have to be charged for separately and can not be included in the basic offering.
The blocking of a Pirate Bay is an entirely different matter, it is ordered by a court, not written in the (NN) law.

an aside... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40148735)

For most Europeans, their internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers,

As an aside, really: has a regulatory agency ever NOT found a need for more regulations and regulatory actions? Just seems kind of dog-bites-man.

Re:an aside... (1)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#40152657)

Regulation is generally of benefit in situations where parties engaged in an activity are not of comparable strength.
In this case it's to protect the individual consumer against the few rather powerful ISP's.
EU regulation is generally written with the consumer in mind.

Commissioner Kroes is a member of the Dutch Liberal party called VVD, in the Dutch political context liberal means pro-Free Trade and in the case of the VVD Anti-Socialist but not necessarily against social.

Best Country (2)

arisvega (1414195) | about 2 years ago | (#40148825)

See? Europe is the best country in the world.

Re:Best Country (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40148885)

Not before marijuana gets legalized by EU directive.

Re:Best Country (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40148977)

Why limit yourself to legalizing only one drug? How about ending the war on drugs entirely?

Re:Best Country (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40149067)

When you do it gradually, you face less resistance than trying to push it through wholesale.

Re:Best Country (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40149271)

>>>Not before marijuana gets legalized by EU directive.

It is more likely marijuana will be OUTLAWED by EU directive, as happened in that other union known as the U.S. What was once illegal in a some states is now illegal across a whole continent.

Therefore I advise you not to be so quick to give up individual sovereignty of the states (aka States' Rights)...... because central control is likely to be less liberty-oriented and more tyranny. Plus central control is less apt to hear the voices of the People it falsely-claims to represent.

Re:Best Country (1)

ewieling (90662) | about 2 years ago | (#40149749)

In my opinion the greatest threat to Europe is not the financial crisis, the movie studios, or censorship. The number one threat is member countries giving up autonomy while trying to solve the financial crisis, copyright infringement, etc.

Re:Best Country (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40148895)

Nah, that's Chile, where we already have net neutraility.

Nice to see someone taking obviously needed steps (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | about 2 years ago | (#40148899)

The mind boggling thing is that we are still actually arguing the need for this in the U.S.

When ATT was the phone company we made DAMN certain it couldn't extend or leverage its monopoly position. Stopping ISPs from leveraging their monopoly duopoly position to controlling your content choices is a no brainer.

Re:Nice to see someone taking obviously needed ste (1)

scamper_22 (1073470) | about 2 years ago | (#40149221)

Few people argue against net neutrality in principle. The hard part is coming up with laws. People in the US who argue against net neutrality laws generally don't say they are against net neutrality... just that they don't think they know what the law should be and that the current ISPs are not violating it much.

Yes, you want to make sure monopolies don't exploit their position. BUT, you also you want to make sure the ISPs are capable of managing their network.

I've worked in the telecom equipment space, and the issue is complex. Attitudes that say things "Don't block or throttle anything" don't jive well when actually trying to provide service.

Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.

So would it not make sense for ISPs to prioritize such traffic above others? To some people this violates net neutrality. I think its a reasonable think to have a discussion on.

Theoretically, you could complicate the entire purchasing experience by having people purchase bands for real time data and modify clients to take advantage of those things, but again... now you're introducing crazy complexity in what used to be a simple purchase.

It's not as simple as saying we want net neutrality. It's getting into the nitty gritty of the actual laws that is complicated.

Re:Nice to see someone taking obviously needed ste (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40149361)

>>>Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.

ISPs could control this very easily by imposing data caps, and charging extra when you go over them. That would force the leechers to cut back on their downloads, and thus free-up space for people to make Skype calls. (They could also try installing an extra parallel cable, thus doubling the available bandwidth.)

As for jittery video, the internet is less-prone to jitter than broadcast television. The wind blows, a tree blocks the antenna, and the sound drops out (the reporter sounds like he's stuttering). Or lightning strikes in a nearby storm and the picture freezes, so you miss 1-2 seconds of video. Internet video is FAR more reliable, thanks to buffering.

Re:Nice to see someone taking obviously needed ste (3, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 years ago | (#40149439)

Customers will complain their skype call or video is jittery. They don't care so much about background downloads.

But when their Vonage calls are always jittery while their Comcast/Xfinity calls work Just Fine, that's when things start to smell funny, with or without background downloads.

Re:Nice to see someone taking obviously needed ste (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#40151279)

Few people argue against net neutrality in principle. The hard part is coming up with laws. People in the US who argue against net neutrality laws generally don't say they are against net neutrality... just that they don't think they know what the law should be and that the current ISPs are not violating it much.

I would argue that the regular people against "net neutrality" in the US know exactly why they're against it. Because all the legislation proposed so far that has been billed as "net neutrality" with hopeful-sounding titles has had very little to do with *actual* net neutrality (throttling, etc), but have been principally about government gaining more control over the internet.

We're still waiting for a *real* net neutrality bill to be introduced in the US Congress that does not also hand the government far more control & regulatory power over the internet (or at least one that hasn't been instantly killed by one or both sides because of that lack).

Strat

Re:Nice to see someone taking obviously needed ste (1)

kqs (1038910) | about 2 years ago | (#40151717)

I would argue that the regular people against "net neutrality" in the US know exactly why they're against it. Because all the legislation proposed so far that has been billed as "net neutrality" with hopeful-sounding titles has had very little to do with *actual* net neutrality (throttling, etc), but have been principally about government gaining more control over the internet.

We're still waiting for a *real* net neutrality bill to be introduced in the US Congress that does not also hand the government far more control & regulatory power over the internet (or at least one that hasn't been instantly killed by one or both sides because of that lack).

Strat

Well, you're technically correct. The "net neutrality" proposals in the US have tried to add government regulation to force AT&T, Verizon, etc to treat all packets the same. You may want the "net neutrality" which allows ISPs to share $50/GB for Netflix and Skype packets, and $1/GB for Xfinity packets.

For some reason, most of the "government will control our lives" rants I've heard recently are traceable back to lobbyist companies paid by large companies. You see, lobbyists know that "the government is taking over" makes people's minds shut off and their knees jerk wildly.

Government taking over industry to control how much mercury they can emit near me and my kids? I like it. Government passing regulations to force credit card companies to use standardized contracts and terms? Please! Government regulations forcing companies and states to treat married homosexuals just like married heterosexuals? I wish!

If you use "government taking over" as an argument against something, you aren't making a real argument. Many regulations are bad, and the government does lots of dumb-ass and scary things. But you need to argue the against the actual regulations, not jerk your knee against "the evil government".

Re:Nice to see someone taking obviously needed ste (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#40151943)

Well, you're technically correct. The "net neutrality" proposals in the US have tried to add government regulation to force AT&T, Verizon, etc to treat all packets the same.

That's the point. The "necessary regulations" to establish/enforce actual ISP network practices for net neutrality would take up only a few pages. That's not the part people have a problem with.

What comes before Congress is one of those abominations that wipe out whole forests to print out. Then it gets metric crap-tons of amendments and riders added to it that make it even more of a stinker. One is lucky if the part about actual net neutrality can even be found without a syllabus or table of contents...that is if that part didn't get (oops) dropped altogether.

If you use "those against $LEGISLATION are just anti-government nuts" as an argument for passing something, you aren't making a real argument. The necessary regulations aren't the problem, it's all the other unnecessary crap that is included that is the problem.

Strat

per-subscriber load balancing and traffic shaping (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 2 years ago | (#40152341)

The proper solution is to give each subscriber a share of the available bandwidth based on their subscribed plan or SLA and then allow them to specify how to prioritize the traffic within their share. If they want their VoIP packets to take priority over their bittorrent download they could specify that, but they shouldn't be able to have their VoIP packets take priority over *my* bittorrent download.

Sure this takes shaping resources, but the cost of that is dropping constantly.

Re:per-subscriber load balancing and traffic shapi (1)

scamper_22 (1073470) | about 2 years ago | (#40155145)

Again, largely theoretical. It also complicates the purchasing experience. There's also the issue of client applications. How do you detect them? How do you make sure they are obeying their protocol? What if a user intends to throttle bit torrent traffic thinking it is for downloads... but this accidentally hits their World of Warcraft traffic too? And of course the complexity of traffic shaping added into the whole mix.

I don't really know of any proper solution for the mass market.

At one time I thought a simple rule like ISPs can only throttle the user... not per application would be best.

But I don't know. In the end, it is just complicated. I think we'll probably end up with some general rules, as well as a regulatory body to oversee what throttling policies are in use and if they violate monopoly.

Re:Nice to see someone taking obviously needed ste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40153527)

Isn't there a technical solution for this? Like making all traffic marked with "Live"/"bulk" markers on application level?

I know this discussion is mostly about here and now, but some kind of QoS system with hints from apps would be a lot more flexible and give better results (the shedulling starts at users computer).

USA! Wait... Home of the...? (5, Interesting)

killfixx (148785) | about 2 years ago | (#40148933)

I've been trying to wrap my head around this for some time now.

As the internet becomes more important for global commercial and cultural enrichment, the US insists on stripping away rights and freedoms that we, as Americans, have come to cherish.

And 99%* of Americans couldn't possibly care less. (*hyperbole)

Yet, the more restrictive and draconian our policies become, the more that the EU seems to protecting these rights.

The only reason I can see is that Americans have a different societal outlook. Americans value possession (having stuff) above all else.
It's all about our stuff. We are the pre-schoolers (kindergarten, etc...) of global politics. Both literally (youngest 1st world country) and figuratively (we are the whiniest bunch of brats). How many Americans can name 5 neighbors (different households)? How many Americans still eat a weekly meal with non-nuclear family members?

I love America, (it's where I keep all my stuff) but enough is enough. I'm seriously considering emigrating. I live in New England and from what I've seen and read, northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, Norway, etc...) all seem to have "similar" weather and significantly better socio-political climates.

This country needs a serious re-tuning. Not sure how or by who, but please let it be for the better.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (1, Informative)

volmtech (769154) | about 2 years ago | (#40149173)

The major problem with the Northeast is too many da** Yankees. About ten percent of the population of Florida is from the North and that's more than I can stand. I don't see how you get anything done when everyone around you is a Yankee. Yankee= loud mouthed, opinionated person from up north, Jersey shore types are the worst. I'm sure they're many decent people in the Northeast and maybe the we ones we have down here are just the ones you decent people kicked out.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#40149315)

We separated from England because we didn't get a vote on taxes, yet didn't give most of our citizens the right to vote. We decided we weren't going to be a colony anymore, then went about making our own colonies (and were much more parasitic about it than the English). We prided ourselves on self-sustinence and freedom yet had slave labor long past the point where most other civilized countries had abolished it. And from the outset there were innumerable screwings-over of the previous inhabitants.

It's not like we've only -recently- become hypocrites.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 2 years ago | (#40150263)

You don't understand. Ferengi workers don't want to stop the exploitation, we want to find a way to become the exploiters.

-Rom. Star Trek Deep Space Nine, "Bar Association [memory-alpha.org] "

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40149443)

>>>Yet, the more restrictive and draconian our policies become, the more that the EU seems to protecting these rights.

SEEMS is the keyword. The EU is actually very restrictive. Just search youtube for MEP Nigel Farage and listen to his persuasive comments about how the U.S. enjoys more freedom than his own home the EU. (Also take a listen to other UKIP members.)

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40149731)

I agree with you, but keep in mind that in europe the culture is different, the role of the government is far bigger than here (as well as taxes), an europeans like it.

For example, an average employee in Germany pays more than 40% of his/her income in taxes. Of course they have public healthcare, a generous public pension system, etc... and nobody (not even the conservative parties) wants to privatize them, that's not the kind of "freedom" that they like.

You will never ever hear europeans saying bizarre things like "billionaires should pay lower tax rates because they create jobs", it would be considered a joke there. And the word "socialist" is not considered an insult.

Going to europe means accepting a completely different way of life.

Youngest 1st world country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40150313)

Australia, New Zealand, and Canada might disagree, old-timer.

Re:Youngest 1st world country? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#40151311)

Australia, New Zealand and Canada are not independent nations - they're all a part of the British commonwealth, and the head of state for all three is the Queen of England, represented by a Governor General.

Re:Youngest 1st world country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40151703)

You are mistaken - the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the ratification of said statute in Australia and New Zealand established the independence of several British dominions, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Each country is independent, and each is a country.

Re:Youngest 1st world country? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 2 years ago | (#40152299)

You are mistaken - the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the ratification of said statute in Australia and New Zealand established the independence of several British dominions, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Each country is independent, and each is a country.

And since the US was around before 1931, it backs up the person who said we were oldfags.

Youngest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40154175)

I don't know how you define a "new" country, separation or re-foundation?

- Canada separated in 1931 [with amendments in 1982]
- Australia federated in 1901, gained more legal powers from 1939, [with amendments in 1986]

- Norway regained independence [from Sweden] in 1905.
- Iceland regained independence [from Denmark] in 1946.
- Germany was formed in 1949 and re-united in 1990(!)

While technically "second world":
- The Czechs and Slovaks split in 1993.

On the other hand the country was separate, but in unions with Denmark and Sweden since 1397. The country itself was of course united after a civil war back in 800.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (5, Interesting)

FridayBob (619244) | about 2 years ago | (#40150639)

Yet, the more restrictive and draconian our policies become, the more that the EU seems to protecting these rights.

My commiserations. Being Dutch, I felt proud today, because of both of the Dutch Government rejecting ACTA and Neelie Kroes (who is also Dutch) standing up for Net Neutrality. But, I'm also an American, so I find it depressing when I read about how badly the Internet is being treated in the country of its birth. The only things to cheer about are when really bad laws manage to be defeated at the last moment. Still, having spent the first 13 years of my life there, part of me will always want to believe that America is the #1 defender of freedom and democracy in the world.

Intellectually, however, I know that isn't really true anymore and hasn't been for quite some time. More than ever before, America now resembles a plutocracy [wikipedia.org] . Sure, all Americans are equal, but the ones with lots of money are definitely more equal than the rest. Of course, it's still a democracy, so statistically this isn't always reflected in the guy who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but just take a look at Congress: the majority of those folks are there because they agreed to primarily to look after the financial interests of the few (in which case everything else comes a distant second).

Therefore, it's not really a surprise to see the Internet being treated poorly in the good ol' U.S. of A. -- too many Corporations are just not happy with it. They would agree with the Chinese that it affords the common man too much freedom; during arguments, they've even mentioned the Great Firewall of China as an example of how large-scale Internet censorship can also be made to work in America. So, what can we do about it?

The only real solution that I can think of is to tackle the root the problem: to get money out of politics. Take a look at this book [wikipedia.org] . That's one set of solutions; it may not be the best, but nothing less than real campaign finance reform is what Americans should aim for. If successful, I think we can expect American politicians to become rather different animals: ones that will actually be capable of rational thought, finding common ground with their opponents, compromising when necessary and otherwise just plain capable of making good decisions.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#40153435)

The only real solution that I can think of is to tackle the root the problem: to get money out of politics.

I'm afraid, this won't happen. Even if you ban money contributions to campaigns etc., it will simply shift into the black market (outright corruption), or turn out to be some kind of post facto corruption, where the politicians reap their "rewards" later when they leave office (like Gerhard Schroeder in Germany e.g.).

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (1)

FridayBob (619244) | about 2 years ago | (#40194903)

... Even if you ban money contributions to campaigns etc., it will simply shift into the black market (outright corruption), or turn out to be some kind of post facto corruption, where the politicians reap their "rewards" later when they leave office (like Gerhard Schroeder in Germany e.g.).

Don't be so cynical; not all corruption is equal. To some degree corruption will always exist in every government, but once it has become institutionalized -- even legitimized -- then it's really time to do something about it. I don't think the level of political corruption in Germany can in any way be compared to that in the United States.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 2 years ago | (#40153543)

Of course, it's still a democracy ...

I would call it a Corporatocracy [wikipedia.org] . Also, the fact that you cannot directly vote seriously hinders any chance of democracy. The indirect voting system makes sure that only one or two parties will have any chance at all. And those will not be the parties that dare to change.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (1)

FridayBob (619244) | about 2 years ago | (#40195055)

I would call it a Corporatocracy [wikipedia.org] . Also, the fact that you cannot directly vote seriously hinders any chance of democracy. The indirect voting system makes sure that only one or two parties will have any chance at all. And those will not be the parties that dare to change.

A "corporatocracy" -- I like that. Sounds like it's perhaps an even better description.

As for the American two-party winner-takes-all system, I would agree that it is hardly the most democratic solution out there and may be more vulnerable to corruption than others. However, if enough outside money and influence is entered into the equation, I think even the most idealistic system of democracy can be made hopelessly corrupt and ineffective. Therefore, campaign finance reform should still be the top priority in America. After that I'd love to see more improvements, such as proportional representation.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40151979)

Pretty sure that US is older than Australia (Federated in 1901).

Hopefully (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40149029)

Hopefully he can do it before the EU collapses under the weight of 70 years of socialism.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40149191)

Sure, mod me down, asswipe. The Germans are sick of paying for your bullshit. You're running out of other peoples' money.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40154011)

Parent obviously prefers Haliburton politics. What did it cost to drop that corruption case against him? 597 million I thought.

Nice speach... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40149213)

...but let's see those pesky details.

Transport Neutrality (1)

Another, completely (812244) | about 2 years ago | (#40152697)

I demand transport neutrality! Why should those rich businesses that can afford "central" locations get a convenient subway / metro / tube station within convenient walking distance, while smaller businesses in the suburbs are served only by bus? It serves only to reenforce the growth of the already successful! The population should demand that the transport service providers give equal access to all businesses that reach their customers via that infrastructure.

Re:Transport Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40152799)

I am sorry to say this is a bad analogy. We already have fast and slow internet depending on where you live because of infrastructure.

If however your busses had a certain speed limit when driving from your work to and home. But the busses going to the shopping mall where allowed to travel twice as quick because the shopping mall paid for this. Then we have an analogy that is a bit closer.

Come to think about it, busses have speed limits on a highway which are much slower than cars; in the Netherlands. That is like limiting bit-torrent traffic, oh my god.

Re:Transport Neutrality (1)

Another, completely (812244) | about 2 years ago | (#40152979)

I agree it's not perfect, but they do pay higher taxes and higher rents for better access to customers. The city receives the taxes, and funds better transport infrastructure. Others decide they would rather pay lower rents and taxes, and tolerate lower frequency & volume of service. The businesses don't (usually) pay directly to the transport provider, but they don't choose the high-rent shops just because of the architecture. What's the difference between that and high-rent internet access?

How about if a company pays the railroad for a siding into its loading yard? Maybe that's more directly comparable (if the railroad is a private company). That's been going on for over a century, and doesn't seem to have generated much controversy.

Check for New 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...