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 Warns of Destructive FCC Policies

michael posted about 11 years ago | from the but-nobody-listens dept.

The Internet 110

bugsy writes "Discrimination, Closed Networks and the Future of Cyberspace... Just over a month ago, Karl Auerbach asked, Is the Internet Dying?. Today, Commissioner Michael J. Copps, of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in a speech at the New America Foundation, is asking the very same question, 'Is The Internet As We Know It Dying?' and warning about FCC policies that damaged media now threatening the Internet. Coincidence?! Here is CircleID's report on these Remarks by Michael J. Copps, Federal Communications Commissioner: The Beginning of The End of the Internet? Discrimination, Closed Networks, and the Future of Cyberspace."

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

First Post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186677)

This first post was generated by a Legion of Drooling Trolls for Slashdot []


Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187163)

Do you want good luck to follow you and your offspring for geneations to come? This troll has the solution for you...

All you have to do is copy this troll onto two to four of the discussion threads of your choice! That's right! Just copy this into a new message and click "post anonymously." That's all there is to it! Michael is a fucking bitch.

Tired of that idiot talking about geek culture! Stick one of these babies on it! And it's good for the economy!

Marge Gentry of Cambridge, Minnesota participated, and the next day she received a large fruit basket outside of her door from a secret admirer. Unfortunately, Marge was hit by a truck the next day, so she didn't get to the Granny Smith apples.

Commander Taco of Hole-in-the-ground West Virginia didn't participate, and he was violated by a group of raging homosexuals. Since the gang was headed by Jon Katz, Taco had no recourse to the law because the entire town knew about their previous relationship. The unfortunate outcome is enshrined forever at

So if you want to get the fruit basket and not get poked in the bread basket, just copy this troll onto two of the discussions threads of your choice. We could have this place blanketed by sundown!

NetCraft confirmed it? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186681)

Then it must be true.

After all, it's been years since I've seen BSD rear it's ugly head.

NetCraft Confirms it: the Internet is dieing.


Parst (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186683)


FP!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186684)


You... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186766)

...should have your lower horn removed.

FP!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186694)

My life is now complete.

How complete will it be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186785)

...without your lower horn?

dying? how about changing (2, Insightful)

iethree (666892) | about 11 years ago | (#7186697)

i think the internet is becoming a more commercial media, and with that come benefits as well as disadvantages. I don't like the turns the internet has been taking recently, too many lawsuits and crackers, this isn't what the internet was designed for.

Re:dying? how about changing (5, Insightful)

shostiru (708862) | about 11 years ago | (#7186770)

I'd say the disadvantages far outweight the advantages, but that's my personal opinion.

I think the net reflects, to a great degree, the expectations of its users. I can remember back when there was no spam, Usenet was truly useful, and worms and viruses were exceedingly rare. The barrier to entry for the net was *very* high. Because of this, users tended to be participants more than observers.

As useful as the web is, it ushered in wave after wave of people whose prior experience with visual media was television. They bypassed the usual education of net.culture that one previously received by participating, as well as the ethical and practical lessons given by one's school or organization (and enforced by one's local surly sysadmin).

Now that people *expect* the net to be "television that you can click on", I think they are more likely to accept without complaint the commercialization and concentration of power that occurs with traditional broadcast media. Those of us who try to take a stand against this trend now seem outdated at best, radical kooks at worst.

Re:dying? how about changing (2, Interesting)

iethree (666892) | about 11 years ago | (#7187442)

"I'd say the disadvantages far outweight the advantages"

I would agree that there are significant disadvanteges to the commercialization of the internet, yet I would hesitate to say the bad outweighs the good. The beauty of the internet is that it is still a realatively free (although less than before) medium and many great examples of user-created interactive content like Slashdot, for instance. You can also look at all the great open source software on the internet, that is certainly not commercial, and it is far from TV you can click on.

In summarry, yes the internet is attracting many users who do not use it in the way originally intended, but it is such a broad medium that many places still exist where the original ideals of ARPANET are still prevalent, the sharing and synergy of information.

It may be too early yet to declare the internet dead.

Re:dying? how about changing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186845)

Sure its becomming more commercial. It always was from the day ARPAnet evolved beyond the institutions and universities that gave birth to it.

With everything as in Nature there are parasites and predators, vultures, malingering hangers on that form a food chain. The question is whether it can continue to support that food chain in its present form.

I am saddened to see that one of the first three responses is "So what?!?". Those kiddes amongst us that have not watched the net grow and mature and seen all the battles and developments along the way selfishly take it for granted. Much like the current generation is in danger of losing our freedoms because they never had to fight for them.

The wiser and more experienced have seen it all before. Remember when DNS was being carved up by the domain speculators? The appearance of the first pay content sites (back in the days when EVERYTHING on the net was pretty much free)? The great popularisation of the 90s , www and the dotcom crash?

Its part of my history. To me the net serves a multitude of very important functions, peer communication, file transfer, entertainment, news. I could never go back to television news, I threw out my TV almost 10 years ago now - even then it was clear that vested media interests were taking TV along the road to biased and shallow content.

Sure there are more crackers about. Us old skool unix hackers were a different breed, we had ethics, pride, restraint and responsibility. Today script kiddies are everywhere, everyones a wannabe, and there is far more malice and nasty stuff about. But this is because the Internet is a viciously competitive and nasty place now, the new generation fight fire with fire. Every corporation is out to exploit them , install spyware on their boxes, haul them through court for sharing some files. Its no wonder then that todays hackers have an altoghether more cynical 'hit them before they hit you' attitude. The golden age of mutual respect is clearly gone and commercialisation is sqarely to blame.

Then there are the lawyers. Comapnies devoid of the ability to actually create any content now rely soley on litigation and carving up the IP pie to make a buck and this is having a profound negative impact on technological progress. One way or another they must be stopped.

What does the future hold?

Perhaps everything to date is just the 'first cycle'. The net may decline before we cycle back into another golden age. This could be in the form of a split - an entirely new subnetwork emerging from the existing infrastructure to reclaim the ground of a "Public/Peoples network" again. There are already embryonic contenders - Freenet etc, distributed peer to peer networks over encrypted channels forming vast VPNs will surely appear, an environment that will take us back to the old BBS level to build on again, and one in which commercial activity is STRICTLY BANNED.

What people miss is that the Internet is actually not a NETWORK (in the mathematical sense) so much as it is a TREE. ISPs and the old telecoms corps are positioned at nodes that already concentrate too much power. Once wireless is hacked to allow direct AB distributed networks and smaller relays appear hidden inside VPNs then the whole thing will start to change a lot. My money is that the future of the net is still very much about individuals, peer to peer, and distributed technologies.

Re:dying? how about changing (1)

ericspinder (146776) | about 11 years ago | (#7186913)

really I see more of the same...

more spam, more trolls (many looking for FPs), more threats of litigation, more useless traffic, more viruses, more security holes. All these things are nothing new, and we deal with them as best as we can. For example you can browse Slashdot at 0 and miss most every lame try at a first post!

Also, I see more useful information, better search engines, faster connectons, more people, etc.

Room for concern, yes
time to panic...
you decide, I would rather stay in my seat until I see the smoke in that proverbial crowded movie theater.

Re:dying? how about changing (2, Insightful)

orthogonal (588627) | about 11 years ago | (#7187396)

i think the internet is becoming a more commercial media, and with that come benefits as well as disadvantages.

It's not just the commerical media, it's the wide-spread access that's also ruining the internet.

I'll limit my rant to usenet; slashdot is too slow for the numerous post previews required to get a longer post right, or more brief.

Anybody remember usenet back in 1996? Or 1993? I remeber when you could hang out in the newsgroups for hours, reading thought, incisive, meaningful posts. alt.angst was a favorite of mine -- I still rememeber some of the laments and cries in the wilderness posted there a decade latter.

There was one post, from a guy who would lie awake in bed at 3am, and think about his good job as a programmer, his lovely and loyal wife, his comfortable home, and feel a great aching emptiness inside him as he recalls for the nth time that he had never made a scientific discovery, had never designed a unique algorithm, had never made a lasting contribution to the progress of mankind's knowledge. And it was written far more hauntingly than my lacluster rendition.

What's in alt.angst now? Oh, there are still a few good posters, but of course it's all deluged in aol'er "me too"s, in penis enlargment and porn spam, and psychotic ramblings.

alt.folklore.urban still has a dedicated core of erudite posters, but the last time I made in a regular part of my day, it was deluged -- for weeks, with megs of posts -- by the "Snuh Buh" crapflooders (DejaGoogle for it it you really need to completely waste your time).

The comp. hierarchy still works, but outside of the moderated gtroups, the signal-to-noise ratio declines thanks to
  • the "do my homework" crowd ("I want to develop an algorithm for, uh, moving these three towers in Hanoi. Can anyone help me by giving my a compilable solution that I can put my name on?"),
  • top-posters who have Microsoft newsreaders and so don't know better,
  • top-posters who are told repeatedly not to top-post, but don't get it,
  • and my favorite, posters to comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++ who show a zealous dedication to not understanding the concept of a language Standard ("But it's not undefined behavior in Visual C++. Abd whose (sic) this Steve Clamage guy to tell me I'm off-topic. This newsgroups (sic) for C++ and I want to do graphics in C++, so graphic are on-topic. I demand you help me with graphic! (sic))

About three years ago I finally blew my stack at one such off-topic poster, went extremely personal and insulting -- went too far -- and relaized I just couldn't stick around in comp.lang.c++ anymore. which is a shame, given the truly great C++ coders who hang out there to offer stunningly detailed advice for free. But still, too much noise.

If I sound elitist ("usenet for articulate posters only!", maybe I am. But when usenet was mostly limited to .edus, it wasn't a golden age, but it was a hell of a lot better.

It's true. (1)

Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) | about 11 years ago | (#7189211)

The beauty of Usenet was that anyone could go there, but the road was longer for most than they would like.

What would a Zen monastery be like if it was located in the corner of Grand Central Station?

The reason it's dying (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186705)

Is because the internet use *BSD.

What are the threats? (3, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | about 11 years ago | (#7186707)

The article makes repeated, general forecasts of "doom and gloom", but does not mention any specific pending decisions that might threaten the Internet. What are these threats?

Re:What are the threats? (1)

quisquil (687095) | about 11 years ago | (#7186769)

The FCC may soon implement fundamental regulatory changes that would have deep and lasting effects on consumers, innovators, and business users. Copps: "Until now the big corporations that control Internet bottlenecks have been unable fully to capitalize on this power. But now we face scenarios wherein those with bottleneck control will be able to discriminate against both users and content providers that they don't have commercial relationships with, don't share the same politics with, or just don't want to offer access to for any reason at all. From the not so distant shadows of the past, old attitudes favoring industry consolidation and limited access are again seeking to reestablish themselves."

Today the use of Internet is free (as in beer and as in speech), "end" users pay the access to Internet because they don't own/maintains any part of it.
Think of an Internet infrastructure where backbone providers may filter out P2P traffic or whatever they believe should not pass through their network... those are the treats.

Re:What are the threats? (1)

DA-MAN (17442) | about 11 years ago | (#7186814)

> Think of an Internet infrastructure where backbone providers may filter out P2P traffic or whatever they believe should not pass through their network... those are the treats.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would call having my internet access filtered a treat.

Re:What are the threats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186857)

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would call having my internet access filtered a treat.

Maybe you have no brain to process it anyway.

Value Click buys Commission Junction (1)

yintercept (517362) | about 11 years ago | (#7187577)

Perhaps the industry consolidation that is starting to accelerate is a cause for concern. For example, this was just announced:

(Value Click buys Commission Junction [] .) excluded, this merger will give one company control of about half the affiliate marketing industry. (affiliate marketing is a segment of the ad industry.)

Re:What are the threats? (3, Funny)

spektr (466069) | about 11 years ago | (#7186804)

What are these threats?

Hillary Rosen just walked into my room, unplugged my network cable and ran away with it. I tried to call the police, but my Nokia phone exploded. I'm posting this from an internet cafe. I'm scared now.

Re:What are the threats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186891)

Holy shit that's funny. Dude, if I had mod points, they'd be yours. Thanks.

hillary rosen...fuckin' rofl

Re:What are the threats? (1)

Mattcelt (454751) | about 11 years ago | (#7187094)

I'm posting this from an internet cafe. I'm scared now.

Don't worry, everything will be fine. You're gonna be all right, trust me on this, ok? Deep breaths, that's right. Good. Ok, now tell us where you are, and we'll come and help you.... it's ok, you can trust us.

Great, that's great. We'll be right there.


/singing softly to self/ "Ba da dum, dum, dum, another one bites the dust..."

Re:What are the threats? (1)

ad0gg (594412) | about 11 years ago | (#7186836)

He doesn't know but he can feel it in the force though.

it may not be dying but... (3, Insightful)

yintercept (517362) | about 11 years ago | (#7186849)

It may not be dying, but there seems to be a good number of powerful entrenched interests working to kill it.

Threats I see are things like the parasite and adware companies that are trying to install software on machines to either control or influence purchases.

Ad blocking and porn blocking software also poses a threat. The deal here is that the ad blockers have the choice of which ads to block. Already you are seeing situations where an advertiser reaches "terms" with an ad blocking company to let their ads through.

The number of paid listings on search engines in relation to free listings is growing.

When things like parasiteware and adblockers move from the desktop (where the user has some control) to routers where businesses control access, things get very scary.

Big media doesn't like all of these blogs stealing their thunder. Academic circles are incensed at all the commercial sites popping up everywhere and want to create little circles of their own.

Personally, I think most of the interests balance each other, but technologies like parasites and net partitioning need to be monitored closely and are likely to require regulation.

Re:it may not be dying but... (1)

Kuraz (702906) | about 11 years ago | (#7187112)

Ad blocking and
porn blocking software also poses a threat.

WTF would ever want to block porn? I thought porn is what the internet is all about...

Re:it may not be dying but... (1)

theCoder (23772) | about 11 years ago | (#7187236)

When things like parasiteware and adblockers move from the desktop (where the user has some control) to routers where businesses control access, things get very scary.

This is the type of thing I find the scarriest of all. The Internet was designed so that all the smarts were on the edge -- the center nodes were just supposed to route traffic. The edge nodes put data into the network, and all the routers had to do was make sure it got to its destination.

Now, we have routers that try to do more. Firewalls were really the first step. They stop packets from getting through based on certain rules. Center nodes on the Internet weren't supposed to do that. But firewalls protected edge nodes that couldn't protect themselves, so firewalls, at least when they are under your (organization's) control. It would be unfortunate, however, should your upstream provider (or their upstream provider) decide to place a firewall blocking, say port 80 or port 25, in the name of security. Unless, of course, you upgrade to their new super, premium service. But you see how firewalls, internal nodes that do more than just route packets, can cause problems for the Internet.

Another problem is NAT. NAT is good when you have more computers than IP addresses. But imagine if your ISP put you behind a NAT. Suddenly, it's not so great.

Both of these technologies are good when deployed at the edge of the network (if you were to think of your internal network as a single, logical edge node), but can wreak havoc if put in the middle. But it's happening already. I've already experienced the firewall shakedown from my ISP. And it was very unfortunate when I had to move my web server to another port.

The question is, how much more can the Internet take? How long until ISPs start doing more blocking or other interfering? Will SiteFinder return? Is there anything we can do? I'm open to suggestions...

Corperate out-of-control! (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 11 years ago | (#7187061)

The general vibe of the FCC lately is that all things should be directly under corperate control, and corps can regulate/ censor/ monopolize as they see fit. We've already seen that with Cable companies and Broadband...and are soon to see it with DSL because the FCC won't enforce [and has no intention to!] the sharing rules they already have. It's only a matter of time before all cariers of Broadband or DSL are considered "content providers" like AOL....with no restrictions on services rendered, blocked or otherwise interfered with.

The path is already set...the FCC doesn't have the balls [citizen backlash and all] to give the corps everything they want...yet!

Re:What are the threats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187083)

Consider this:

We have met the enemy and he is us,...

And further:

What a persons argument is TODAY does not necessarily reflect the base from which they speak.Today, the death of the internet, tomorrow, why can't I be FCC Chairman!?!
Mr Copps, as indicated in the first link, has been advocating an approach( or lack thereof) to airwave localism / deregulation that his boss( a Republican genius whose vision and tenacity as Chairman of the FCC has earned him what greatness often earns, scorn and derision among those whom you have marginalized or overcome. ) I strongly suspect Mr. Copps most recent comments are not tendered to address any PAST wrongdoing or misdirection of the FCC but are undoubtly aimed at a new target he has barbs for.An unseen objective or political opportunity which he or his party cannot afford to miss,...perhaps another recall election!
A careful search of the pending docket of the FCC shows that their are no MAJOR issues pending for the FCC which should cause all this ' much-ado-about-something'; Further, and more/most importantly, the Internet as we know it and will know it, no matter what IS NOT AN AMERICAN STATE OR POSSESSION!!
Try to remember and imagine this fact. The US does not have absolute sway over the internet - no one does and very much least of all a marginalize and quite pompous FCC commisioner. Mr. Copp needs to remember that the rest of the world does not care if he is democrat or Republican, but while he is running his mouth he should endeavor to remain Conscious!
Any threats against the internet as we know it will come from the greed of MANY nations to attempt to ' Tax Heaven ' which would be easier than taxing cyberspace,..or about the same!

Re:What are the threats? PlanetLab anyone? (1)

windtalker (639935) | about 11 years ago | (#7188640)

Technology Review just had a big article extolling the forward motion of the PlantLab project, made up of industry heavy weights, which is actually and boastfully intended to replace the internet, because the internet is "outdated" (read barbaric) in their eyes. It will have centralized control (read censorship) and will be owned privately, free at first, but likely to have a toll meter placed on it.
It is already in operation and plans are to have it swallow everything else.
That is about the biggest threat I can see here.

New America Foundation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186709)

you have your goverment talking to cults/pseudo companies ?

i am beginning to see a pattern, have fun in bowling class ! :)

Re:New America Foundation (1)

AceM2 (655504) | about 11 years ago | (#7188437)

Bowling class?...

Ask Slashdot: Am I Gay? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186717)

Posted by michael [mailto] on Friday October 10, @07:25PM
from the but-nobody-listens dept.
CmdrTaco writes "I'm a guy in my early 30s, married for a year or so, and have finally come to realize that I am attracted to men even more than I am attracted to women. I love my wife, love having sex with her, but fantasize about men. I don't want to turn my life upside down (hurt my wife, get divorced, lose my job(oops, everyone at work knows cause they are gay too, etc.) just to scratch this itch. But I also realize that to some degree I have not really lived who I am all these years. (My wife discovered I have these feelings a couple of years ago and we got through that crisis when I told her I did not act on them, which is not true.) Any advice?"

So what ?!?! (1)

Archfeld (6757) | about 11 years ago | (#7186718)

I do not depend on the internet for anything I can't and haven't gotten elsewhere or can do without. The reason the big business's want the net is the customers, if they make it unpalatable I and many other people will just stop using it, then they will have spent more billions destroying a possible source of income than they have made...The rules of survival in business are similar to those in real life...the fit and strong survivwe, the weak and stupid get welfare or starve :)

But but... (1)

Roofus (15591) | about 11 years ago | (#7186869) will you get Slashdot without the Internet?!?!


Re:But but... (1)

Kuraz (702906) | about 11 years ago | (#7187131)

Dialup BBS? FIDOnet? A real Bulletin Board?

Not depending on the internet (1)

crucini (98210) | about 11 years ago | (#7188671)

For many corporations, just getting you off the net is a benefit. Maybe the net is competing with them in their role as entertainment, news provider, long distance phone company. Maybe the net lets you know that their latest much-hyped product is crap. They would rather have you isolated and incommunicado.

wait a second (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186738)

some guy who's posts default to -1 told me that it was *BSD who was dying. was i misinformed or something?

One thing I'd love to see the FCC do... (1)

SixDimensionalArray (604334) | about 11 years ago | (#7186760)

How did such a guy get elected? It sounds like he actually has a brain! Ok.. that was below the belt, but to the point:

One of the major things holding up growth of the Internet in the US is our lousy rollout of broadband (which has improved a lot since 1997 but is still not great... South Korea is still better hooked up than the US). Perhaps if the FCC mandated that phone companies and optical carriers open their networks to smaller competitors, we would all have optical fiber connections to our homes.

This underscores my belief that the FCC should regulate the Internet (both content and connectivity) only in such a way that it maintains the openness and accessibility which the Internet promises (and does not restrict it in too many ways). It should protect the Internet and the interests of the Internet's users, not help other companies compartmentalize/control the net.

Remember, the Internet is just a network of networks, and almost all these networks connect over the physical transmission lines laid by major companies. Without some regulation there, how can anyone expect the net to grow?

Just my .02. :)

Re:One thing I'd love to see the FCC do... (1)

ShawnDoc (572959) | about 11 years ago | (#7186800)

ne of the major things holding up growth of the Internet in the US is our lousy rollout of broadband (which has improved a lot since 1997 but is still not great... South Korea is still better hooked up than the US).

How many square miles needed to be wired in S. Korea vs the US? How do population densities compare?

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Re:One thing I'd love to see the FCC do... (1)

SixDimensionalArray (604334) | about 11 years ago | (#7186828)

Oh, absolutely - I did not mean to compare size/density. Furthermore, South Korea was able to build their networks out of "newer technologies" from the start, whereas the United States tried to build on top of older lines/technologies or roll out entirely new lines.

My point was simply that some sort of connectivity like South Korea is a good goal for the US. If we got even that far the Internet might make a serious impact on our lives and the FCC would have to help regulate something so important.

Of course, if anyone from South Korea can comment on the regulatory structure, I'd be interested to see how they handle the issue. :)

Thanks for making my clarify my point ;)

Re:One thing I'd love to see the FCC do... (1)

MrLint (519792) | about 11 years ago | (#7186887)

Not to worry he'll be fired shortly for criticizing people with lots of money.

Re:One thing I'd love to see the FCC do... (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 11 years ago | (#7186908)

Huh? Why is the slow rollout of broadband holding up the growth of the Internet on the US? How would the growth of high-bandwidth sites support a decentralized Internet, considering they have much higher costs and infrastructure requirements? Please give concrete examples.

For general purposes, dial-up is fine. Considering that the Internet is part of everyday American life, I think most people would agree. I've an Internet programming job, and a modem works fine for me at home. For the large majority of the US (even larger if you consider that nobody cares about rural areas), broadband connections are available, and about the same price as cable TV. There just isn't a compelling reason to get it.

Japan has more broadband than the U.S. - but my experience has been that the Internet is about the same here as there. looks about the same as

Re:One thing I'd love to see the FCC do... (1)

SixDimensionalArray (604334) | about 11 years ago | (#7187250)

Well, it's not so much that the slow rollout of broadband is holding up growth, it's that if extremely high speed connections (fiber for example) were rolled out TTH "to the home", we might see an explosion of new services that could be offered.

I mean, honestly, the fastest connection to the home (cable when it peaks at 3Megabits/sec or DSL at similarly high peak speeds) supports basic IP telephony and video over Internet.

On the other hand, imagine fiber connections which would bring a minimum theoretical bandwidth of 1 terabit per second (particularly with dense wave division multiplexing techniques), and now suddenly you have voice, video, data, etc. coming in through one pipe. That is both a scary thought to telecoms, and a great thought to an ordinary person (one bill, for example).

So, my point is that fiber to the curb/home would cause a frenzy in the telecom environment as well as provide an opportunity for Internet services never even possibly understood without that kind of bandwidth. Even without fiber to the home, increased reach of fiber effectively gives higher speeds longer reach.

It is true that fiber infrastructure is expensive, but make sure to realize that it's the hardware that is expensive, not the physical line. In fact, much fiber is already rolled out and cheap to access. With hardware advances in lasers and techniques, hardware could become much cheaper.

With a minimum of 1 terabit/sec coming to your individual machine (imagine the ability to download the entire Internet every SECOND), the Internet really does have some incredible possibility. That possibility should not be ruined by companies who hoard connectivity lines and wish to profit like crazy.

By the way, for general purposes, I agree that dial-up is fine. However, given more bandwidth, you almost guarantee that some users will expand what they do with the web.

I think that's why the hubbub over how to protect this future.

Re:One thing I'd love to see the FCC do... (1)

Halvard (102061) | about 11 years ago | (#7187796)

How did such a guy get elected?

Um, they are appointed.

it's already dead (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186761)

The internet as I knew it when I first started using it is already dead. Back when Mosaic first came out, there was no spam, no pop-up ads, no ads on websites in general. All the content on the web was free made by hobbyists rather than large corporations. On usenet, there were no AOL newbies, spammers, or fear of e-mail harvesters.

Re:it's already dead (1)

Chatmag (646500) | about 11 years ago | (#7186837)

That's like saying radio is dead, that it changed from the original form created by hobbyists, such as Marconi, Herz and others, [] into the commercial enterprise it is today. But it still exists much as it was in the early days. Interesting paragraph in that link, the last paragraph echoes the article.

Television replaced movie theaters, yet they still exist. Each fills a niche, as does the Internet.

As each technological advance comes into its own right, it is first thought of as the end to whatever it is replacing, yet all coexist in still recognizable forms today. For years, Radio Free Europe broadcast to Eastern Bloc countries, in spite of the blocking by the East. I can see that transposing to the Internet, that if one Company attempts to block or unilaterally control a portion of the Internet, we'll find ways around it, defeating their intentions.

In the end, I belive that the technology is morally neutral, it's all what we do with it that counts.

Bring out your dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186970)

The poster you're replying to isn't talking about technology, but a social culture. All the things you mention i.e. radio, TV, movie still exist but the early culture they grew out of is dead. The Internet hasn't quite reached the "bring out your dead" point. But it is headed that way. The Internet culture has changed, and it isn't for the better. When something is done with alturistic motives then everyone prospers i.e. the early Internet. When something is done with selfshness i.e. the present then ultimately everyone suffers, even the selfish.

Re:Bring out your dead. (1)

Kirruth (544020) | about 11 years ago | (#7188125)

There's something of "Gresham's Law" happening here, where bad coinage drives out good.

When the majority of users were altruistic, the sum was more than the parts. These days, there is so much crap flying around the net, the stuff you really want it for is becoming harder to get to. The more people connect, the worse it gets.

So, to get to the note from your long-lost friend, you have to wade through hundreds of spam messages. To find the great hobbyist website on, say, model aircraft, you have to search through a whole pile of commercial ones who will charge you for the priviledge of looking at their ads.

It's a real problem.

Re:it's already dead (2, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 11 years ago | (#7186921)

But that content is still there. I don't think the hobbiests went anywhere. They're still on the net, and so are their web sites. Just now there are commercial web sites, too.

Now, if the article is right, and network providers start filtering things out, cramming ads down your throat, then we're screwed.

In the meantime, you can still find all the free content, but now you also have access to commercial resources, too. Personally, I like it. Like many others, I have a list of web sites I check every morning, like reading the paper. Some are commercial news sites. Others are completely non-commercial "news" sites that devote their attention to hobbies and whatnot that I enjoy. I love being able to shop online, manage my finances online, and order take out over the internet. There's nothing wrong with commercialization on the internet, so long as it doesn't stop us from accessing the non-commercial info.

money (1)

netbornmusic (710332) | about 11 years ago | (#7186764)

That was pretty obvious even 10 or more years ago, that the internet, as a media with so high potentials, can not stay free for a long time, can not be not owned/not divided between corporations/businesses. It's already surviving for a surprisingly long time. But sooner or later it will be reduced to the super mega e-shop, and nothing more...

in soviet.. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186768)

in soviet russia, internet kills you!

Re:in soviet.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186798)

In Soviet Russia, enormous cocks gobble Michael!

Is the Internet dying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186784)

Yes, just like Linux and BSDi. Blood flows like red ink ... whatever, you know what I mean.

- Moomin

The US Isn't THE internet.... (1)

c_oflynn (649487) | about 11 years ago | (#7186787)

Sure in the US maybe there is some problems with new regulations, but luckily the internet is distributed around the world.

So the internet between most non-US countries will still continue to be fine... and in fact I'd say it would be improved because it will have greater use if hosts move outside the US.

LOL! (1)

DA-MAN (17442) | about 11 years ago | (#7186844)

> The US Isn't THE internet....

Damn dude, someone sure lied to you.

The company I work for has more IP address space than the entire country of China. China has about half the population of this planet.

If the US doesn't own the internet, it's pretty fucking close. 3 of the 13 Root Name Servers are in the US. I guess my main point is that just because you aren't in the US....don't think that our laws won't affect you. That is in fact the main problem for non-US countries.

Alright, to be fair, we don't own the internet in that no one can own the internet but you have to admit that we still have control over the rest of the worlds use of the internet.

Re:LOL! (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | about 11 years ago | (#7186925)

The company I work for at its peak had 1200 employees worldwide. But we have a class B network domain. Huh?

Re:LOL! (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 11 years ago | (#7186937)

Alright, to be fair, we don't own the internet in that no one can own the internet but you have to admit that we still have control over the rest of the worlds use of the internet.
... as long as the rest of the world goes along with the status quo, yes. That Can Change(tm).

Re:LOL! (1)

armando_wall (714879) | about 11 years ago | (#7186983)

Internet is built on technologies, not politics.

USA may be where Internet came from, but USA is just _one_ country in the whole world.

If the US imposes regulations the rest of the world don't agree with, sure there will be enough non-US tech people to build an "alternative Internet". Laugh all you want... it can be done, (actually it has been done before with other technologies, such as, excuse my lazy mind, napster).

Re:LOL? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187009)


It's disturbing that you find it funny when someone reminds you that there's a whole world out there beyond America. Your attitude is crassly narrowminded and epitomises every prejudiced thought the rest of us have about USA.
Are you playing the part for irony? Do you want to make a mockery of your countrymen?

JFYI very little about the good ole USA is actually 'bigger and better' than elsewhere, with perhaps the exceptions of your military power and the overwhelming stupidity of your government. As for your laws affecting the rest of the world it may shock you to learn that the the USA is fast becoming sidelined internationally across every field because the USAs absolute arrogance serves only to entrench its isolated position.

Your 'control over the rest of the worlds use of the internet' is absolute rubbish, egocentric wishful thinking at best. There is a world out there you know nothing of. Intra-European traffic closely rivals US domestic traffic, and thats just another small part of the world. Its actually a rather big planet you know, remember Geography classes? Have you even any idea how much traffic flies across Russia and the far East? None of this is dependent on the USA in the least, and for the mostpart the rest of the wold could't care less what idiotic laws you strangle yourselves with inside the USA, it merely improves their competitive trade advantages that you choose to legislate yourselves into a corner to serve those powerful interests which you seem unable to control.

I know your a troll and that I'm a sucker for feeding you , but guess what it makes me feel better :) so don't feel so smug. Drop the cowboy act and go read a book mate.

Re:LOL? (1)

DA-MAN (17442) | about 11 years ago | (#7187654)

> Your attitude is crassly narrowminded and epitomises every prejudiced thought the rest of us have about USA.

Ok first, I was stating a fact. We control the internet as it is now plain and simple. If the rest of the world dropped US connectivity or the things we control here in the US (IE Root NS) to create their on Inter(ExceptUS)net, then it wouldn't be THE Internet. I don't see how my remarks would warrant this attack.

I wasn't saying it was right, I wasn't saying it's fair to the rest of the world, and I definately wasn't saying it couldn't change. I was stating that is the way it was. Damn you're a touchy son'bitch.

Re:LOL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7189146)

Ah sorry man, i went over the top. Had a very bad week with americans

Re:The US Isn't THE internet.... (1)

xnixman (644195) | about 11 years ago | (#7188403)

Um, didn't the EU just get software patents?

We're exporting bad policies just as fast as you can import them.

Don't think anyone is immune.


Competition is alive and well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186799)

I use google to search with my Mozilla browser on a computer with a Microsoft operating system connected via a Comcast cable modem to an Internet with DNS provided by Verisign.

By my count, that's 5 companies who can vie to enhance my websurfing experience by redirecting my queries to their paying customers.

How can one possibly say competition is dying?!

Re:Competition is alive and well (1)

MHerrington (707453) | about 11 years ago | (#7188097)

Because if you break that down, you have different industries that provide different services(with the exception of MS and Mozilla). That's not competition, competition is more than one company in the SAME industry.

Be glad for once (1)

Ricin (236107) | about 11 years ago | (#7186811)

It doesn't matter what you note or have noted. What matters is what *they*note. This is actually a good step. A counter step highly needed. So be glad for once (BGFO).

Don't get discouraged if what in your eyes is considered common knowledge is (finally) entering the political stage. Someone puts it there. Someone is thinking. Consider this good (relative to the ever present slipping slope).

In sympathy with the US people (if cos only we in Europe are getting the same after a certain delay).

Death of the Internet Predicted (3, Funny)

ziegast (168305) | about 11 years ago | (#7186813)

.... news at 11!

If you do a Google Search for "death of the internet predicted", it returns over 533000 results. Now we add some more.


Re:Death of the Internet Predicted (2, Insightful)

firewood (41230) | about 11 years ago | (#7186865)

The internet (as used back then) is dead, and it will die again. Almost no one uses gopher any longer. NNTP is now a tiny percentage of internet traffic. The current protocols support the dumping of near infinite amounts of raw sewage onto the bandwidth paid for by others. I expect the people who pay to move onto greener pastures (new more-secure protocols), leaving unauthenticated SMTP ports and such open only on a few research and archeologists networks.

Sure the internet as we know it won't die, but the percentage of users and networks that allow the current protocols will go to zero (rounded to the nearest percent).

Re:Death of the Internet Predicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7188036)

I show only 44 hits. Without quotes the search is meaningless.

"effort to reverse the FCC is dead in the water" (1)

jtilak (596402) | about 11 years ago | (#7186830)

bill moyers []

here [] is a nice little flash-based webpage too about the big ten media companies.

Re:"effort to reverse the FCC is dead in the water (1)

Dunark (621237) | about 11 years ago | (#7187024)

I just sent a message to my congresscritter, who is a Republican. I explained that even though he says he supports the effort to reverse the FCC decision, another member of his party intends to prevent him from getting a chance to vote on this issue. I also pointed out that Tom Delay holds his powerful position because of the present Republican majority in the House, and the only thing I can do to help get rid of Tom Delay is to cast my vote in a manner that would help reduce the number of Republicans in the House.

Inch by Inch (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186831)

I once thought the internet was a uncontrollable stream of information, that since no government had total control of it, then no one would be silenced from sharing their views; their thoughts, their knowledge. But there seems to be this growing consensus that something must be done by the people who run our governments, I use to laugh and say don't they know the internet isn't a US only thing, that they can't control what other governments do, but it seems that if the U.S. picks it up, the others will seemingly follow.

Yes, I am plagued by spammers, telemarketers, and the occasional viral alert. But it doesn't seem to bother me as much as it bothers other people. I am more frustrated that they are trying to ruin the freedom of the internet I came to enjoy. Am I the only one that has noticed how every day the cage on our existence closes in around us, they cloak it with words like Patriot, Security, or say remember 9/11. Yeah I remember it, but I also remember the freedom I had before it, and I will most definitely remember how every day after, it was taken bit by bit. Okay, that is my rant.

Re:Inch by Inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187431)

Yup I hear yah. I sense something bad is not so far off. Can't put my finger on what precisely, but some nervous forboding. I would say that I want to drop everything and move, run and hide, damn technology, damn humans, I don't need this shit. Find somewhere, but I doubt that there's really any escape, and even if there were, it probably wouldn't be long until I was going crazy over the gadgets I don't have any more. Seems to me a lot like some form of drug, threaten to take it away from us and watch people submit and surrender hoping to get the next hit. I almost felt like writing a huge rant, but fuck it whatever. I don't have any faith in humans, I'm just hoping that nature is still bigger than man and these greedy people's selfserving agendas fail at the feet of the seemingly endless evolution and permutations of things. Right now I don't see much difference between domesticated dogs and humans, I see some remnant of what appeared to be a noble and proud creature stripped of its nature and all semblance of dignity, forced into all manors of humiliation because it forgot how to survive on its own.

Re:Inch by Inch (1)

kliment (627259) | about 11 years ago | (#7188594)

So let us fight back! Let us create a network beyond the control of corporate interests (look up the word corpocracy in a better dictionary than you would find in most places) and have no troubles with filtering, restrictions, or threats. Let us create a wireless network and unite all the small networks around the world and not let our net be taken over by profit-seekers. Let us run a non-profit organization that we all join, that would employ people to create and run the network, collect membership fees and be the official owner of the network, and let us all join it. That way we would be helping the world's economy, creating jobs AND have a network that is safe from corporate evilness. In fact, this could be done in every industry that is threatened by monopolists. A non-profit organization would be the ultimate solution, as it can employ people, but seeks only to break even. Let us unite and create something that will serve us all. All an individual user would need is a wireless router with a specific routing algorithm. We can do this! Who's with me?

Re:Inch by Inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7189124)

yes you are right and you are not alone. people have to think more for themselves but most just follow the crowd- pity.

Internet problems today??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186850)

anyone else notice their qmail mta have a lot of 4.2.2 possible duplicates today? Ussually means network problems. Sendmail has similiar error called I/O error.


Then most of us go and take our knowledge... (2, Insightful)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about 11 years ago | (#7186854)

elsewhere, then what?
I can think of some parties that are not really amused if their pool of knowledge is taken away from them...
With the internet knowledge and ideas are for the grabs for institutions like the militaries NGO's etc...
Also the software companies loose track of their customers again...
Now we don't want that to happen, do we?

Is USA management that stupid and short sighted today?

Good news and bad news... (1)

D-Cypell (446534) | about 11 years ago | (#7186879)

Is the internet dying?

Bad news: Unfortunatly yes, I just got off the phone with the hospital and we can expect the sad news anytime now :o(

Good news: Ive have been named sole benefactor of its porn collection :oD

Democrat Criticizes Republicans, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186928)

- Michael runs it as a Slashdot story.

There are five FCC commissioners, two Republican and three Democrats, and one of the Democrats is criticizing the decisions of the majority. This is news like "Boston fans boo Yankees" is news.

And, of course, Michael ran it, just like he ran this one [] where we learn that the scientific freedom of people who illegally import plague, lose track of it, and then lie to the FBI is in danger.

Re:Democrat Criticizes Republicans, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187001)

Actually the criticism is well placed. The article directed towards media ownership and the eventual monoculture which results when industry acts like a monopoly. The article is attempting to address the implications of the three or four major media providers (tv/newspapers/etc) entering the internet in a big way (and/or eventual outcomes).

Coupled with DCMA/DRM and (maybe the 3. ???, in ./'s guide to profits) whatever else is around the corner leads to an interesting (or not) decade or two. Questioning one's potential short-sightedness isn't always a bad thing.

Re:Democrat Criticizes Republicans, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187492)

I think everybody knows by now that Michael is a pinko-faggot slut. If it weren't for slashdot, he'd be out on the street making his money by giving blowjobs.

He's never met a liberal/socialist/communist/democrat he didn't like.

one word that ruins everything everytime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7186934)


I guess it's back to FidoNet... (1)

jlowery (47102) | about 11 years ago | (#7186985)

Arf! Arf!

Issue - New regulations allow choke points (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187011)

I read the entire speech and the issue is pretty plain. IANAL, but I'll attempt to summarize.

Under proposed regulations, owners of physical communications assets, e.g., phone and cable companies, are no longer required to be content neutral.

This allows for troubling new business models, politically motivated site censorship, control of access hardware and software and so forth.

For example, Verizon DSL could charge big sites for "premium broadband quality" access to their DSL customers. Yahoo and Google and MSN all cough up, and you can access those sites a full speed. Other sites/services, like SlashDot and most small business sites and IRC, etc. get doled out at 56K, since they didn't pay for "premium throughput". Is this an interesting business that could be highly profitable? Sure. Does it seriously maim the open Internet and turn it into something more like cable TV? You bet! And it sucks.

Imagine Microsoft buying Verizon. What kind of OS would you have to have to access the Internet? Can they simply censor sites that criticize MS security flaws? What if Fox buys Comcast? Could they limit news access to "liberal" sites like the ACLU? Can they restrict IM traffic to just AIM, with whom they have a co-marketing agreement? Can they make good money doing this? Sure!

The Internet as we know it would be dead. It would simply be another cable TV style entertainment media channel.

A set of laws and regulations dating from before and during the AT&T breakup era currently prevent many of these scenarios. But these regulations are coming undone, and the vast majority of Americans will lose out in a big way.

It matters.

Re:Issue - New regulations allow choke points (1)

yosemite (6592) | about 11 years ago | (#7187379)

I does not matter, If you are an ISP you alienate your core customers if you slow down access to, say, non-premium sites.

People would be pissed if they found out they were buying a crippled. product like with turbotax.Bandwidth being cheap they would move to a provider that can serve up streaming porn the way they like it;fullscreen and high bitrate...

The facts (1)

release7 (545012) | about 11 years ago | (#7187058)

The facts are these: organized money and power beats the vague wishes of unorganized masses every time. It's only when the unorganized masses cooperate to check the power of the powerful interests that things hold together. Unfortunately, the senses of the unorganized masses have been dulled by complete bullshit and have lost any kind of reasoning ability. They are cowering sheep ready to be slaughtered.

Plain and simple: If you are not working with some other person or organization to stop powerful interests, you are part of the problem.

Dogmatic? Yes. But does that make it wrong?

Re:The facts (1)

yosemite (6592) | about 11 years ago | (#7187252)

>organized money
>unorganized masses

>They are cowering sheep ready to be slaughtered.
which one was it?

Anonymous Hero

Re:The facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7189221)

not wrong just not all true.. i don`t belong to any group hell i don`t even use linux sad i must admit. but i`m not a M$ Kool aid drinker and never will be. i don`t use IE or outlook express but rather netscape and firebird. i`m against riaa and i prove it buy not buying music cd`s nor do i go and see movies. the last movie i saw was best of the best 2. part of the reason i stopped going before riaa became (more) evil was the theaters play the sound way to loud and i hate looking at those tiny screens. why don`t they play them on full size screens like they use to? so how am i the problem? i bet YOU aren`t that willing to boycott the movies as a means of protest.

Death of the Internet -- Bug or Feature? (1)

rssrss (686344) | about 11 years ago | (#7187115)

Maybe it would not be such a bad thing if the internet were to die. We would all have to go back to work. It would probably jump start the economy.


Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187118)

Do you want good luck to follow you and your offspring for geneations to come? This troll has the solution for you...

All you have to do is copy this troll onto two to four of the discussion threads of your choice! That's right! Just copy this into a new message and click "post anonymously." That's all there is to it! *

Tired of that idiot talking about geek culture! Stick one of these babies on it! And it's good for the economy!

Marge Gentry of Cambridge, Minnesota participated, and the next day she received a large fruit basket outside of her door from a secret admirer. Unfortunately, Marge was hit by a truck the next day, so she didn't get to the Granny Smith apples.

Commander Taco of Hole-in-the-ground West Virginia didn't participate, and he was violated by a group of raging homosexuals. Since the gang was headed by Jon Katz, Taco had no recourse to the law because the entire town knew about their previous relationship. The unfortunate outcome is enshrined forever at

So if you want to get the fruit basket and not get poked in the bread basket, just copy this troll onto two of the discussions threads of your choice. We could have this place blanketed by sundown!

Of course the FCC *is* Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187168)

The FCC was deregulated during the Reagan administration (regardless of your political viewpoint, look it up. Remember, "Truth fears no trial." -Paine) Until that time, the maximum quantity of airtime per thirty minutes was heavily regulated, particularly during primetime. Removing the leash from the dog permitted one major thing to occur: instead of dead air after hours, the stations found they could rent out the time to what we know as infomercials. Now if you are a station manager and have a choice between dead air or rent your air to marketeers (without promising audience size), which would you do? (making the numbers becomes much easier with one of those options)


Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187177)

This has nothing to do with anything remotely Slashdot related, but I need to do something before my head explodes...

As I type this, my roomate and my best friend/recent lover are fucking in the next room over. WHAT THE FUCK. After 10 years of friendship and built-up sexual tension, we finally hooked up and now less than a week later she's banging my roomate. I am so fucking incensed right now I can't think straight. I wouldn't mind if they went to a hotel or otherwise didn't make it known, but she just FUCKING WALKED PAST MY ROOM TOPLESS AND SHUT THE DOOR IN MY FUCKING FACE. How fucking insensitive can you be?!

This sucks. It's 3AM and I'm telling strangers (GEEK strangers, no less) about my personal problems. I am a big pussy and will most likely not say anything to either one of them so I expect this to go on for a while. Fuck me!#!@

Feeling low? There's someone else out there that's having a worse day than you. Trust me.

The internet will persevere, and in the end... (2, Insightful)

yosemite (6592) | about 11 years ago | (#7187211)

The internet will persevere, and in the end I believe that it will be better off *because* of the actions of inept regulation and the corporate need to dominate, to crush diversity. The demise of the internet has become mantra of the weinies that gets repeated every couple of years. It SHOULD be a mantra: "Lets try to kill the internet", because in the end it will only make the net stronger.

When I first heard people say things like: the internet, as it was in the good old days, will be gone, the fixtures(?) of what make the internet what it is, are crumbling. I didn't like it. I didn't like the idea of corporate interests taking over and homogenizing and whitewashing cyberspace.

Take a step back and think about how the internet has changed in the last 5-10 years. Where are those homogenizing influences that everyone was sure were going to sweep over the *entire* net and turn it into the bastard child of AOL? They *are* there and can be found, but the hacker subculture is still alive and strong! I would argue that as long as this is the case it is impossible to kill the net. The hackers ( in the prejoritive and neutral sense) are what started the net and what made it great, the hackers(crackers) that wield destructive energy combined with hackers(intelectual idealists) both created the natural law in cyberspace and shape it.

Again and again, people try to control; the net reacts. Look at what is happening with intellectual property! A cornerstone in the legal system for hundreds of years, intelectual property rights, backed by some of the largest interest groups in the country, billions of dollars and hoards of raving lawyers are being crushed. Even now at this moment, jack valenti's pinhead is being crushed with an imutable fact; information WILL, MUST, flow. Like a river encountering an obstacle in its path, it will find a way and grind the object into dust.

If anyone has not read Bruce Sterling's "Information Wants to Be Worthless" [] you should give it a shot. The internet is completely out of control. Well maybe not completely but seriously, what does Jack Valenti think about when he goes to sleep at night? Maybe "You know, in a couple years the RIAA and MPAA will have this whole internet thing wrapped up" or "As soon as Microsoft gets that DRM bullshit going we'll be golden!" or maybe "as soon as we sieze control of every Internet backbone and filter all traffic...tell people what they can and cant do...(mumble)". Just think, if all the backbones in the country had their "spigots" turned off, there would still be enough information in manhatten, flowing over thousands of wi-fi node, to keep people downloading brittney porn and browsing endless mp3's. Shit, there's probably 500 years worth of porn sitting on hd's all across NYC.

I am starting to rant here but show me someone who thinks that they can control the internet and I will say that there is a thousand people will to step forward and circumvent that control.

Anonymous Hero

What of load of Chicken Little Crap (1)

apchar (226653) | about 11 years ago | (#7187356)

What was it Churchill said: "Never have so many words come from so little thought." Or something like that.

Copps argument boils down to: "The Internet has grown so beautifully fast because it was unregulated, uncontrolled, unfettered. So to keep it that way we (meaning him) must regulate it, control it, and, for good measure, throw in a little fettering."

The tightest bottleneck for 99% (ish) of us is that last 30 feet of wire between the pole and our home/abode/hovel. And for a decade now that bottleneck has remained tighter than a virgin on saltpeter thanx to Howard Sterns arch-nemesis, the FCC.

Have we all forgotten why broadband has been so slow in coming? Franco Charlie Charlie decided years ago that if any of those evil corporate boogeymen put forth the initial capital investment to run a fiber optic line to your house, they had to then provide access for their competitors. The inevitable result was all of those companies standing around your house in a circle each waiting for the other to pony up for that last 20 feet of line! Why shell out billions just so your competitors can have free access, giving them an immediate advantage? Nobody at this friggin agency thinks.

From assinine bureaucrats come assinine policies with assinine results. Lets all pray for wifi to break this logjam once and for all.

Howard Dean's Internet Policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7187445)

Want to fix it? Check out Howard Dean's Internet Policy [] . Of particular interest:

4. The Internet's openness should be promoted

The Internet was initially designed as a way of moving bits without preferring some bits to others. Network architects call this principle "end-to-end" networking. That way, anyone with a good idea - or a bad one - can build it and see if it works. This openness is essential to the Internet's value as a marketplace of innovation and a public square for ideas.

5. The Internet is a democracy of voices, not primarily a broadcast medium

Although the Internet certainly can be used to broadcast messages and programs from one spot to hundreds of millions of others, its most important effect socially and economically is its transformation of the broadcast model. Rather than "freedom of the press belonging to those who own one," everyone now can reach everyone else. The Internet is encouraging people to speak up, in their own voice, about what matters to them. This empowerment of human voice and conversation is profoundly in line with the ideals of American democracy.

....and judging by the way he runs his campaign, he means it.

hmmm (1)

ShadowRage (678728) | about 11 years ago | (#7187691)

this s when someone creates a new internet-esque protocol.

Monopoly Mongers (1)

bgog (564818) | about 11 years ago | (#7187735)

The FCC is more and more becoming nothing more than enablers for Monopolies. Here is 2003 have we not yet come far enough as a society to where the government doesn't fight monopolies with one hand and grant them with another. Monopolies are NEVER, EVER, good for the consumer or public. It will be a breath of fresh air the day I see the phone and cable companies have their monopolies revoked. It's just damn unamerican. /soapbox

Monopolies Are Killing the Internet (1)

Bruha (412869) | about 11 years ago | (#7187787)

Things like companies embracing one technology instead of making something that would be cross compatible.. Other companies take standards and twist them to their own purposes making everyone else incompatible.

Yes It's Microsoft.

How about Napster, is it any coincidence that it's IE and WMP only. This is the begining of the new software monopoly. Microsoft will now instead of bundling all the software on a pc where everyone uses it becuase it's there is now getting companies to make MS only products. So one day you may be faced with being forced to use IE for bank transactions becuase your bank embraced the MS standard for trusted computing not any standard for trusted computing..

That's only the tip of the iceberg of what Microsoft can do to leverage it's desktop share to control those who even think of trying an alternative.

The FCC regulators (1)

puppet10 (84610) | about 11 years ago | (#7188483)

Should have The Future of Ideas by Lessig as required reading.

Maybe then they could figure out what some major contributors are to the steady decline of the incredible creative energy (or innovation - but I hate that word) that characterized the earlier incarnations of the internet/www.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?