Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

455 comments

I plead the second. (3, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980524)


I have a solution to fixing the FCC and it has to do with my subject line. Figure it out.

I believe the FCC is one of the most unconstitutional departments in the Federal government and completely destroys the reason why it was set up in the first place. If the airwaves are public property, why are they regulated to the point that no one but the elite can access them? How is the Internet considered public airwaves if it is run over mostly private lines?

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime. If we want it, it will happen, we just have to support the initial costs. These costs might be higher but in the long run they're lower because we won't be taxed to subsidize the costs.

I don't care much for the idea of regulating any speech -- broadcast or face-to-face. I don't see the Constitution giving the Federal government any power to regulate the airwaves (the interstate commerce clause was not meant to give the Feds power to tariff and tax, it was meant to give the Feds the power to prevent the individual states from tariffing and taxing interstate commerce).

The reason for this FCC mention is because the distribution cartels who have used copyright, airwaves regulation and subsidies for decades are now scared that their cartel will fall apart. Copyright has been antiquated by the Internet -- creating opportunities for millions of artists to distribute their artwork themselves (not needing the cartels). The subsidies for the phone companies and the old media companies have proved to be worthless as almost anyone can now afford to be not just a receiver on the mediacast network, but a sender as well. The regulations that were used to keep others from entering the market are now working against the big media companies.

This means that they want blood. They want control. They want their cartel to stay together, and the only way they can do it is through the use of force and coercion -- which is basically what the FCC is about. Maybe Google will come up with a free GoogleNet and let anyone (including competitors) connect to it. Maybe some kid in a garage will figure out a way to get a secondary network structure built, I have no idea, nor do I care, there are billions of people out there, I have faith in humanity.

The future will not be able frequencies or bandwidth or censorship or control. The future will be about freedom; I am just waiting for the day that software radios with reasonable frequency hopping methods can be used to give everyone high bandwidth at low costs without worrying about what monopoly their village lets run cable or worry about paying for someone out in Montana who can't afford their own wires run. For this, though, the FCC will need to completely vacate the airwaves [unanimocracy.com] . The day will come, we just have to find a solution to the FCC who keeps it all down.

I have a solution. I plead the second.

Re:I plead the second. (5, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980571)

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime. If we want it, it will happen, we just have to support the initial costs. These costs might be higher but in the long run they're lower because we won't be taxed to subsidize the costs.


this existed before the internet and it was neat but horribly slow.

there were people that set up unix and Xenix machines at borders of LATA's (a phone number that can call two areas as a local call) that would call each other to relay email and gopher requests.

it worked great.

Getting broadband speeds without the telcos involved will be 10000% impossible as they have the governments in their back pocket and do you know anyone that can afford 5000 miles of fiber, all the light gear needed to light it up and who can pay for the right of way access for that fiber?

Honestly our ownly hope is for google to light up all that dark fiber they have been buying and put a major hurt on SBC and the other greedy bastards right where it hurts.

Re:I plead the second. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980682)

Honestly our ownly hope is for google to light up all that dark fiber they have been buying and put a major hurt on SBC and the other greedy bastards right where it hurts.

Ooooh, look at me, I'm Tim, and I ab-so-lute-lay LUV to suck slimy man-cocks. Mmmh, GOOG!

Get a life, you fucking fanboi.

Google will have a tough time even. (5, Interesting)

numbski (515011) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980700)

Have you tried to buy dark fiber from a telco before?

Ain't gonna happen. I've tried. I've been trying to months now. Sprint, Charter, Ma Bell, you name it. They all have dark fiber I could simply light up and my work would be done, but none of them will do it. They want to light it and sell me "service", at a price that winds up well exceeding the price of the dark fiber. My choice winds up being having to overbuild them, because none of them will sell. At least not to the little guy, so Google might have an advantage here.

To put this into perspective, when I first started looking, I was being quoted $35/ft for fiber, "just to get to the street". Once you get to "the street", now you're having to shut down roads and such, so we're at closer to $100/ft. That, and my municipality has rules against putting fiber on poles, so you have to bore conduit underground...unless of course you're a big media company with a presence in the area (**cough** Charter **cough**), in which case they get to ignore the rules.

So for me to run fiber 1/4 of a mile to link my two sites? (btw, I'm going to user optical and rf backhauls, but I'd sleep a lot better with a "hardline") would cost nearly 1/2 million dollars. 1/4 mile!

Insanity knows no bounds. :(

Re:I plead the second. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980727)

Imagine a completely voluntary, decentralized, peer-to-peer network consisting of millions of individual, high-speed wireless nodes. That is the future -- the natural progression -- and the only thing that can stop it is the power of organized coercion (government). Unfortunately, everything government stands for requires a centralized infrastructure (not just with regard to networking but anything government could possibly do), and that is exactly why government will do everything it possibly can to prevent such a voluntary effort from happening.

Re:I plead the second. (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980640)

As another poster [slashdot.org] pointed out, the blogger is wrong here. The FCC has said the following:

In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.


In other words, the FCC doesn't want to see the "tiered internet" design, and will slap fines on anyone who tried it. Where the confusion comes in is in this part of his speech:

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing."


What he's saying is that the FCC is fine with a broadband provider selling you a 6Mbit line at a higher cost than a 2MBit line, as long as you get what you're paying for. The AT&T plan may have resulted in you getting less bandwidth than you paid for if you failed to pay their extortion fees.

Re:I plead the second. (5, Insightful)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980643)

I'm not a fan of government regulation, but if you eliminate the FCC, every Tom, Dick and Harry could build an inexpensive transmitter in their basement. (With an antenna on the roof) With all those transmitters going at whatever frequency they please, nobody anywhere would be able to pick up anything. As small-government as I am, I still think that there needs to be some regulating body over the airwaves, just for the simple matter of making sure that transmitters aren't walking over each other. (BTW, regulating body doesn't necessarily need to be a government agency, but DOES need to have some authority to shut down illegal broadcasting.)

Re:I plead the second. (1, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980707)

This is not true, actually. First of all, transmitters sending more than a minimal signal are costly -- a 50,000 watt transmitter on one frequency would costs thousands a day in power. To broadcast over a wide range of frequencies would cost millions.

Secondly, I promote the idea of freq-hopping software radios that utilize technology designed to avoid interference. In my own neighborhood there are about 20 WiFi access points I can see, and I still get great wireless networking at my home. We're sharing bandwidth here, and while there may be some problems, the situation is getting better in an minimally regulated spectrum. Open up the entire spectrum the FCC monopolizes and you'll see much less interference, not more.

Thirdly, I believe in the power of the market -- the current need to design better freq-hopping transceivers is not very high due to the regulations out there. Over time, though, I believe we'll see more deregulation of various frequencies as the need for more wireless transmissions goes up. I can only hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Look at all the wasted bandwidth right now. We have digital and analog TV, digital and analog radio, cell phones, FRS, and dozens of other "regulated" bandwidths. This is all data -- and digital data is more efficient -- so why not work to slowly deregulate more and more bandwidth so more and more people can take advantage of it?

Do we NEED analog and digital TV frequencies anymore? Cable and satellite have replaced MOST people's needs for broadcast media, yet BitTorrent is starting to hurt the old media companies, too. Why not use it all for whatever data the user and the sender both need?

OK! Let's have open airwaves! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980657)

We're sorry to inform you, Mr. dada21, that your wife's plane crashed into a mountain. Soemone was broadcasting their podcast about the deep meanings of Green Day's music in the band allocated to aerial navigation.

Oh, and your son is dead. He was hurt playing sports, and bled to death because the ambulance was misdirected by a radio prankster.

Dada21, in a completely anarchic bandwidth, the elite will be in even MORE control because they will be able to afford the most powerful equipment to drown out everyone else.

In the current system, one of the loons from MECHA can appear on The O'Reilly Factor and spout his lunacy. You people don't know how good you have it in your country.

Re:OK! Let's have open airwaves! (3, Insightful)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980725)

Mr Dada- your implication is clear- and I question the intelligence of anyone who posts that kind of threat on a public board. The FCC, like any gov't organizations, can overstep its bounds. And if you don't like it, it can be changed with your vote. I don't want to talk politics, but the tired internet debate is just like the (insert contraversial subject) debate. It is the apathy of the American electorate that allows these crazy schemes to go forward.
Lest you think the above post is speculative: The FCC is an important organizations, as the following article illustrates.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/20/tech/mai n1419502.shtml [cbsnews.com]
FAA On Trail Of Pirate Radio Station
MIAMI, March 20, 2006 (AP)
The FAA said it has conducted about 30 similar investigations of pirate broadcasts interfering with airport transmissions in the past decade.
(AP) Airline pilots taking off from Miami International Airport are getting an earful of hip-hop tunes from a pirate radio station that sometimes interfere with their communications with the control tower.

Re:I plead the second. (1)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980689)

Oh. I was hoping when you said "plead the Second" you meant the Second Amendment.

Re:I plead the second. (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980759)

I did.

Re:I plead the second. (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980792)

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime. If we want it, it will happen, we just have to support the initial costs. These costs might be higher but in the long run they're lower because we won't be taxed to subsidize the costs.

I don't care much for the idea of regulating any speech -- broadcast or face-to-face. I don't see the Constitution giving the Federal government any power to regulate the airwaves (the interstate commerce clause was not meant to give the Feds power to tariff and tax, it was meant to give the Feds the power to prevent the individual states from tariffing and taxing interstate commerce).


If your goal is to have your packets routed end to end with no interference by any third party, such a thing already exists. It's called business class service. Nobody bothers you, you don't have ports blocked, you don't get your transfer rates capped, and it's just plain internet heaven. It costs about twice as much though, and almost nobody is willing to pay. If people aren't willing to spend a little more to maintain their liberty on the internet, what makes you think they'd be willing to pay a lot more to help build a new one?

My $0.02 (3, Insightful)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980526)

The FCC needs to be disbanded. They don't even know why they exist anymore.

Re:My $0.02 (0, Troll)

fade-in (839519) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980572)

Why? Oh why are they doing this? They're just a bunch of old crackers who've just barely had touch-tone phones installed in their offices! Why do they take it upon themselves to regulate technologies that they are not only unfamiliar with, but completely ignorant of! I'm sick of my communications being regulated by people who have actually used Morse Code.

Re:My $0.02 (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980681)

I don't know about disbanding the FCC, but when I read "Could this be the end of internet innovation?" My first thought was: No, but it could be the end of FCC Chief Kevin Martin.

He's shown which side he's on and now everyone who isn't an ISP or network provider is going to be after him and/or his job.

The other story here, is in a link from TFA. [networkingpipeline.com]
They mention that
AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content, a marked change of tone from his previous statements on the issue of network neutrality.
...
admitted that any service provider who tried to block or degrade Internet services would be committing economic suicide.
So at least one of the big boys no longer supports the idea of a tiered internet. Thank you AT&T/SBC for coming out and saying what most of us are thinking.

P.S. AT&T is currently making noises about a merger with Bell South.

Re:My $0.02 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980756)

The good old Bell System Still is best. Go MaBell! The worst day in telecom history was 01/01/1984 the day the bell system died.

Google really should block AT&T customers (5, Funny)

rjreb (30733) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980531)

Let's see who needs who.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980602)

Now that would work. Come on google take the fight to them.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers (2, Insightful)

PhYrE2k2 (806396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980645)

The key would be not to 'block' AT&T customers, but purposely have a nicely negative page about AT&T. You're not going to get many people to switch providers, versus switching search engines (many don't even have a choice in providers), but it's a great way to inform consumers who normally wouldn't even know there's a problem (such as with blocking Bittorrent and P2P).

-M

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980667)

Oh my god, I'm already getting the shivers from Google deprivation just hearing those words. Hold me, I'm scared...
Need Google... need Google... need Google...

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980703)

Google blocking AT&T Customers? I thought these widespread DSL outages in the Southwest was just SBC^H^H^HAT&T's awesome reliability and uptime.

Well, that's what the customer support said, anyway.

SBC - Sometimes you'll Be Connected.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers (1)

docpants (963110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980765)

Exactly...remember all those flatbed trucks and the fiber Google bought?

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980779)

Everyone seems to worry about Google! No ISP is going to block Google search EVER. They may "degrade" Google video, Google VoIP, or other new services Google offers.
What people need to worry about is the next Google. New innovative sites will be the ones that get hammered with these charges. Think of places like Slashdot and Digg.

This is a great day (-1, Offtopic)

liangzai (837960) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980535)

for Microsoft.

Re:This is a great day (2, Interesting)

Serapth (643581) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980600)

Yeah, typical slashdot mentality. Blame Microsoft for everything. This problem is caused by the government ( FCC ) and benefits the telcos only. Microsoft gets just as hurt by this as Google. The only difference I see is back during the dot.com bubble, Microsoft was buying stakes in telcos like mad trying to speed high speed adoption. However, since then I think they have sold off alot of those holdings. ( Meanwhile Google has bought dark fibre like mad. Wonder if Google saw their dependance on the Teclos as a weakness and took prevenative actions??? )

No it isn't (1)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980704)

Microsoft isn't going to be for this either. Everyone keeps mentioning Google when tiered internet comes up, but Microsoft generates just as much traffic with it's MSN portal (since it's the default Home page from most IE Users) and Windows Update. Possibly more since Windows Update is sending patches all the time and the MSN portal isn't exactly bandwidth friendly like Google is.

AT&T will run to Microsoft for money just as fast as Google.

Re:This is a great day (1)

liangzai (837960) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980712)

No, no, no. Seriously. Microsoft will just dump the costs on every bloke with a PC, you know the computer that comes pre-installed with Vista. Vista as in hasta la vista with the competition who can't afford the services M$ will roll out: search, blog, whatever on M$ bought high-speed pipes.

Meh... (1)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980536)

The Internet was nice while it lasted. Rest in peace.

Digg screwed this up too. (5, Informative)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980540)

That's not what he said. He said he's in favor of tiered *access*, as in pay-per-speed cable internet like we have now. He did *NOT* say he was against network neutrality, and even said that they have the power to police that and will do so.

Basically, the blogger completely lacks reading comprehension skills.

Re:Digg screwed this up too. (4, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980592)

Basically, the blogger completely lacks reading comprehension skills.
Isn't that a necessary qualification for blogging? That and the ability to sling around scare words like "extortion" with little or no justification.

I'm hoping you're right. (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980628)

The comment was so vague as to be flame-war fodder.

He's right. In the building our data center is in right now, I can pay as little as $50/Mbit/mo and as much as $500/Mbit/mo. It just depends on how redundant the throughput is and how important it is to us that our connectivity not go down.

Here's the issue I have. We keep using the term "faster".

In my mind, faster == less latency. More throughput is how much I can send at that speed. I could sell you 5Mbit/sec access that has latency of nearly a full second, or I could sell you 512k access with latency under 2ms. Which is "faster"?

I'm hoping our FCC overlords are simply experiencing a moment of that same confusion, and that we have the opportunity to clear up the clouds in their heads. There are a few technological decisions that are of critical importance to the growth of our country, and I think this is easily one of them. We can't allow this to happen.

Ma Bell would like to be able to bottleneck throughput, and in effect artificially create latency. I can buy 5MBit/sec backbone service, but what they're asking is that if I don't pay the "access cartel" for "protection", then something might choke up that throughput on the way to its destination.

Not good. :\

What about reserving bandwidth? (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980641)

i was really miffed hearing (even though it's only partly true?) that Verizon is reserving 80% of the bandwidth in their FiOS net for their television service. The solution seems to be for Google (or someone) to light up their dark fiber and say "all your bandwidth are belong to you; do what you want with it". That will be a dark day for these gangsters

Re:Digg screwed this up too. (1)

szembek (948327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980654)

That's what I read too. There is a huge difference. I would love to be able to pay less than $45/month for a slower connection, but would hate to have to pay ISPs to deliver content.

Re:Digg screwed this up too. (2, Insightful)

Antimatter3009 (886953) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980752)

I was trying to explain this to people on digg. Here's my post from there, word for word, including a link to a more straightforward article:

"This is a sensationalist headline/article. Look at this article and read what he actually said:

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554 [networkingpipeline.com]

For instance, the last sentence says, "When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds." He's talking about limiting how much bandwidth you have based on how much you pay, which the telcos already do and have always done. You pay more for more bandwidth. If you read the rest of that article you'll see that AT&T has backed off of a tiered internet, calling it "economic suicide" and Martin says that they will enforce net neutrality if necessary. All they said is that they don't believe that new laws are needed to enforce net neutrality as they already have that power. TFA is blown way out of proportion to get more hits. Calm down."

Re:Digg screwed this up too. (2, Insightful)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980766)

And if ANYBODY thinks this will mean lower prices for people who actually use their internet connection, you are in for a big surprise. The internet providers have been dying for a way to charge more for people who do anything other than view a couple text websites and read email and this is their opening. They are going to pounce on this with the ferocity of Bush on oil.

Expect a minor discount for people who use their internet minimally and expect everybody else to see their bill spike by 20-30 bucks based on how much they download.

P2P? Yeah, it was fun while it lasted. Kind of funny that what will kill it won't be the RIAA/MPAA but rather high bandwidth costs. This could pretty much doom bittorrent (in the US at least) since who will want to upload as well when they'll have to pay mor eper month for the priviledge?

Extortion? Not quite. (2, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980546)

FCC Chief Kevin Martin yesterday gave his support to AT&T and other telcos who want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees.
From Webster's Dictionary:
extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power
So, by what part of extortion are you describing the FCC's actions? Sounds like you're just choosing a word to evoke hate and unrest to me. Remember, bandwidth is not free nor is it a god given right.

Re:Extortion? Not quite. (2, Insightful)

blanalex (85657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980626)

Maybe, but why should Google pay twice? I'm sure they already pay their ISP for their bandwith and the end users are also paying for their bandwith. What's the point in making google (or anybody for that matter) pay again?

Re:Extortion? Not quite. (3, Insightful)

bedroll (806612) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980638)

"extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power"

You're saying that you don't think the statement, "Pay us or we'll make your content crawl for our users." is forceful, intimidating, and potentially undue or illegal?

Think of it this way: The internet is a website's path to its front door. How would you feel if the government sold the sidewalk leading to your front door and told you that you'd have to have your customers use the back entrance unless you started paying $50 a month?

Re:Extortion? Not quite. (1)

rhkaloge (208983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980647)

Sounds like you're just choosing a word to evoke hate and unrest to me

And you would be correct. Get out much?

End of.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980548)

Could this be the end to his career?

Please say it could :/

Talking point for Libertarians (2, Interesting)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980552)

...gee, as if I needed another reason to be a Libertarian.

Doesn't anyone think the FCC is overstepping its bounds? Maybe just a little?

Re:Talking point for Libertarians (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980635)

I can't see how a libertarian would want to argue with the idea that Internet companies should be able to run their commercial operations in the way they see fit.

Re:Talking point for Libertarians (1)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980711)

...then you're not very familiar with Libertarian philosophy. Go do some reading.

Re:Talking point for Libertarians (1)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980724)

Wait a minute, I just realized I misread your message. Disregard my reply, I was being an idiot.

Re:Talking point for Libertarians (1)

static0verdrive (776495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980636)

I do! I guess it's back to downloading freely (and worry free) from BBS's! I wonder... couldn't the Libertarians build their own, free internet? Obviously we still need a way to connect, but there has to be a way, similar to the good old days of BBSing. Non-fascists unite!

Re:Talking point for Libertarians (1)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980743)

Sounds great, we've got the technical know-how. Anybody got a line on financing the operation?

Re:Talking point for Libertarians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980644)

well if we had a libertarian government, the FCC wouldn't get involved in this (as they most likely wouldn't even exist), and AT&T would do whatever the hell it wanted. I don't think that would be best... /mostly libertarian myself

Re:Talking point for Libertarians (1)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980768)

Ah, but considering how much of the Internet was constructed with government funds to begin with, if we were under a Libertarian government, do you think we'd even be in this situation at all?

I mean, AT&T got to be where it is today by existing as a government-supported monopoly for decades, then being broken apart, and (recently) largely reforming itself once again. I think things would be very different had that never happened.

Points against libertarians you mean (1, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980688)

If anything this proves we need MORE goverment control and not less. More and stricter goverment control that is not swayed by commercial forces.

Give you libs their way and we will be totally at the mercy of the telcos who build their networks with tax money in the first place. A really strong goverment would have slapped the telcos down hard and demanded several billions in return for the initial investment of the goverment having payed to invent the internet.

Left and Right wingers are both nuts but either are to be preffered to the libs. It is no wonder NO country in the world is run by them. Voters ain't that stupid.

Re:Points against libertarians you mean (2, Interesting)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980796)

I would argue that, had we had a Libertarian government in the first place, AT&T would not exist (at least not in its current form) and therefore the other phone companies (which sprang up to compete directly against AT&T or were spun off after the 1984 breakup) wouldn't either. In any event we would be in a very different situation.

first question that popped into my head (3, Interesting)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980554)

Since now these comapnies are making decisions on what and how much sites will be traveling over their pipes, does this mean they lose their common carrier status?

Re:first question that popped into my head (4, Informative)

Secrity (742221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980787)

The internet divisions of US telcos do not have common carrier status and are essentially unregulated.

Paradigm Shift (1)

flipper65 (794710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980562)

I honestly believe that all this will do is lose customer base for those providers that go along and tier their internet service. I for one will be switching providers if my current ISP institutes this type of highway robbery.

Hopefully this will be an opportunity for ambitious ISPs to increase their customer base by providing the entire internet, not just the parts they can squeeze revenue from.

Flamebait Article (5, Insightful)

Snap E Tom (128447) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980585)

Jesus Christ, editors. That headline and summary is pure sensationalist flamebait. Read the original article instead of this blogger's spin.

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554 [networkingpipeline.com]

The first half of the article is the AT&T CEO saying that they'll never block access and doing that is business suicide. The second half is this from Martin:

In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.


"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing." When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds.


That's got nothing to do with site extortion. Shame on the submitter.

Re:Flamebait Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980685)

...a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

I think this line refutes your interpretation. If specifically says companies can pay for proferential treatment. There is nothing about the consumer,

Re:Flamebait Article (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980740)

I think this line refutes your interpretation. If specifically says companies can pay for proferential treatment.

Only if you consider the fact that a large company pays more money for an OC3 than you do for your DSL to be "preferential treatment." Because that is what Martin is referring to. He specifically states that the FCC will make sure that customers "get what they pay for.

Re:Flamebait Article (1)

PPGMD (679725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980753)

It's always been that way, the one that pays for more bandwidth gets better performance, why should I get the same bandwidth paying $300/month for a T1 as someone paying $2000/month for a T3?

Network neutrality and the connections one can pay for are two totally different things.

preferential treatment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980760)

Look again. Ars technica gets it [arstechnica.com] .
No, instead, AT&T would like provide increased quality of service to those web sites who pay for the privilege. . . . Would a site like Google need to pay each of them to ensure high bandwidth throughout the US? And what about overseas?
There's a push on for actual netork neutrality LAW. Pipe owners don't want that, because then there'd be legal penalties to non-neutrality.

So, they come out and say they won't "degrade" the general internet sites, but leave the door open to "enhance" sites in their pay-for-QOS club.

Competitor's Advertisement (1)

PineHall (206441) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980589)

"Slow internet, use ours and get the maximum speed for any site."

It may backfire on them.

Re:Competitor's Advertisement (3, Funny)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980675)

That's what I've been saying since this all started. Most broadband markets have at least two providers now; If one goes to this approach and websites refuse to play ball, they'll lose market share.

I wouldn't put it past Google to post a message: "You're connecting to our site via AT&T DSL. We apologize if the site is slower than usual; your ISP is artificially limiting the bandwidth to our website. Call AT&T Customer Service at xxx-xxx-xxxx for more information."

Picking a fight with Google is probably a bad idea.

Jesus Fucking Christ (0)

nysus (162232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980591)

Let's just fucking burn the constitution and let the corporations set up our new government.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980625)

YM "Fortune 500 corporations"

They want to avoid small corporations from gaining market share in any vertical.

HTH!

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

nysus (162232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980637)

I retract this. I'm guilty of putting faith in Slashdot editor's to get the story right. Can't believe it.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980751)

You must be new here.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980701)

...ahm, I think that that's already happened... except that they left the constitution as a meaningless opiate...

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ (1)

Syntroxis (564739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980733)

Wow, you're just waking up? We've had a government of the People, by the Lawyers, for the Corporations for a long time. It's just been semi-effectively hidden until the last few years.

People have been getting the shaft from the government for a long, long time.

Google ISP (4, Interesting)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980597)

Hold on a second!!

Google has a Wireless network for free...... and loads of dark fiber.

Whats to stop them connecting the two, and giving everyone free wireless via their OWN google web. Yes i fear the day when the web runs via one source (in this case google) but at least it will be a source whom generally gets things right and fair.

That or we will end up with "binded" lines where people upstream run programs to allow us to find the fastest route to said host.

Think of peer to peer style, with dns's run by each user. Self updating and authicating. Some people would run sites as gateways to other networks from say, Google net to msnWeb, and in return they would have some ad's on a page which appears "Please wait while you are transfered to xxx, if you wish click the ad as you wait, ad will be opened in a new window....".

Maybe im a crazy fool, but its them prosing a monolopy on the internet.

on the other hand.... (2, Insightful)

phlegmofdiscontent (459470) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980598)

I'm against a tiered Internet as much as the next guy, but there are precedents. Snail mail, for example, has a tiered system where you pay your 39 cents to get a letter someplace in sometime less than a week. You pay extra to get it there the next day. Many cities (the Twin Cities included) have lanes set aside for tolls, if you don't want to wait in gridlock. It seems that this is the way services are going, but that doesn't mean we have to like it (or even stand aside for it).

Re:on the other hand.... (2, Interesting)

hypnagogue (700024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980750)

Actually, that's a great precedent to cite: but it works against your argument.

Standard "first class" mail is handled on a best effort basis, and there is no discrimination between senders or receivers. That describes the "net neutral" model for best effort route interconnects as it exists today -- and as it has existed since the advent of the internet.

The AT&T plan would say, "Yes, your 39 cents is good, but not when your mail is addressed to Google. In that case we drop your letter on the floor because Google won't pay an extra surcharge that we only levy against them." Net neutrality isn't limited to access -- it has to do with interconnect agreements. Best-effort routing is at risk, and with it the expectation that you should be able to route a packet from one IP address to another without worrying about which troll bridge your packet has to cross.

Don't worry, though. Us old timers have seen this before.

Re:on the other hand.... your wrong (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980767)

What you describe is the current system. Just like I pay more to have a letter send fast I also pay more for a fast line. You pay more for a 3mb line then a dial up modem. Same as with postage stamps.

Oh well not entirely. Because on the internet BOTH parties pay. Google pays a hosting bill as well. Bit like you would need to pay a subscription fee to receive mail as well pay for postage for sending mail.

What the new idea is to add yet another fee for the middle man. For the snail mail example imagine that you had to pay the post office to accept your letter, the receiver had to have a subscription to have a mail adress and now the mailman wants a cut for delivering the message at the normal speed.

As for your road example, it would be true if the car maker charged you extra for when your car is not stuck in traffic. Do not pay and your steering goes wobbly above 20 miles per hour.

No, there really is no precedent for this. The closest thing is the mafia who is famous for trying to get a cut of whatever money is being made even if they have no right to do so.

The telecoms are already getting paid by both google and the enduser for handling the traffic. This is just a way to get even more money.

Then again, there certainly is plenty of precedent for greed.

Why blame just the sites? (3, Interesting)

Cougem (734635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980599)

So the idea is to blame websites for generating interest, and so increasing bandwidth costs? So many problems

1. Google is a very clean site, MUCH less clutter than so many other search engines - I'd award it for saving bandwidth, considering people are always going to use SOME search engine.
2. Google's good. Really good. ISPs will probably save money getting their customers to use google rather than trawling round irrelevant websites looking for info
3. If we blame sites of generating so much traffic and bandwidth, what stops us blaming protocols or programs? Mr. Cohen's bittorrent generates a hell of a lot of traffic, why can't be blame him for providing this service if we can blame google for providing theirs?

Re:Why blame just the sites? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980795)

The whole Telco claim is a lie, though I see their bribes to the FCC have finally reached the right place. Without sites like Google, they'd just be a fucking pipe.

It's time for everyone to start leaning very heavily on their politicians and reminding them that the Telcos don't cast ballots. Congress could blow this out of the water by simply legislating the plans into illegality.

Here We Go... (3, Insightful)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980603)

This is the beginning of the HUGE attack on average people using the internet to get unpopular messages out to the rest of the internet in America. Since the internet allows anyone with the itch to "publish" their views freely, the larger corporations have been trying to find a way to shut that down. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone had access to radio and television stations to program their own stuff unfettered (putting aside the technical issues of interference since they don't apply to the internet)? The only way that people will be able to pass any really important infomation that the media giants don't want you to here eventually will be e-mail. And e-mail is about as threatening to them as phones were. Expect to see a lot of the ISPs that provide web hosting and the free web hosting services and blog services more heavily restricting content if it doesn't serve their corporate masters well. Expect to see more and more TCP and UDP ports being closed off so you CAN'T run your own darknet to provide services of your own to your friends and family (something I do right now). Big media is NOT interested in someone having a large enough stage to broadcast a message that big media doesn't want people to hear. In the future, we will all be criminals even if all we want to do is tell the truth. We're halfway there now.

What am I paying for again? (3, Insightful)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980609)

Because I'd have sworn I paid for a 3 Mb connection. If Google can provide me with 3 Mb bandwidth, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid?

What are you paying for again? (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980680)

Well, ideally you're paying for the ability to read articles like this. If you'd used that ability, you'd realize the submitter was making shit up, and in fact, the aticle say nothing remotely resembling what the submitter claimed.

Re:What are you paying for again? (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980710)

As I recall, whats-his-name at Bell South (now being consumed by AT&T, which was consumed by SBC but kept its name) actually wanted to do something like what is described.

I didn't miss the fact that the article is grossly exagerated and hopelessly sensational.

Perhaps, but you apparently missed this (2, Informative)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980777)

"Reversing his rhetorical field a bit, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content,"

and this

"Any provider who blocks access to the Internet is inviting customers to find another provider," Whitacre said in his keynote speech. "It's bad business." He then emphatically stated that AT&T would not block independent services, "nor will we degrade [Internet access]. Period, end of story."

Of course he could be lying, but you really shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Tsk, because your connection is just so flammable (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980783)

Would go up light anything if someone carelessly dropped a match you know what I mean?

Very dangerous location this internet, accidents happen all the time. Now if you made an entirely volntery donation to our neighbourhood watch program we make sure you remain save and don't have your legs broken by vinnie with a lead pipe if you catch my drift.

I don't do a good mafia impression, you want one talk to your local telecom

Go right ahead (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980610)

want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees

Sure. Right. Go ahead and try charging Google. And when google cuts your entire network off, including every office and company you own, good luck there. Youll have customers parting loudly in droves to go to their competitor isp that doesnt limit the access.

The ISPs seem to forget that its google and other content providers that make people sign up for their service. ISPs are indebted to google, not the other way around. Google already pays for access.

If they want to play hardball, fine, but google has a cannonball while the ISPs have a peashooter. You want to charge us extra, we'll cut your ass off and destroy your business.

Customers will just go somewhere else, probably someplace cheaper.

I mean, how would you react if suddenly your ISP limited your access to google services?

Re:Go right ahead (4, Informative)

briancarnell (94247) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980706)

Of course, TFA doesn't actually say what the summary claims. Another example of Slashdot outright lying. Must be a weekday.

There's no way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980611)

There's no way that Google is letting those old retards at AT&T (which by the way still stands for American Telephone and Telegraph) get away with that. Google has too much invested on the internet, and they have tremendous power.

Just my 2 sense.

Money Talks, Sheeps Walk... (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980614)

Could this be the end of internet innovation?

Well, I wouldn't go that far. But it is disturbing. Think about TV/cable. So called "premium channels" like HBO and Showtime for years were just convenient movie rental stores, but when network and cable TV by and large took a sharp down turn with reality TV and the same comedy over and over, they innovated and have some of the best (quality) shows on TV. Even some cable channels have started to produce decent series, like USA's Monk, Dead Zone, 4400, and Sci-Fi's BSG (of course). Now these are some of the most popular shows on iTunes, showing even more that people will pay for quality if the free stuff is less than stellar.

Point is, the vast majority of people will always just do whatever is free/popular/advertised to death. Those who truly want a good experience and good quality, the web connoisseurs per se, will pay for the good stuff. The trick is to balance our demand so that the price of the good stuff doesn't get too high - or stays free, with off the backbone networks or private ones.

Yes it is (1)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980618)

Because of increased cost, there will no longer be internet innovation. We know that when one company increases its costs beyond what the market thinks is reasonable, competitors do not arise and undercut them. Once again, the nail was hit right on the head.

Reading comprehension (2, Interesting)

flipper65 (794710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980632)

I admit it, I'm guilty, I didn't read the refering article. Whoever submitted this must have had english as a second language. From the original article:

"In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said."

Clearly, the FCC chief is saying that they have and will continue to enforce network neutrality.

Nothing to see here, move along.

I already pay a premium for my speed... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980651)

I'm with Speakeasy - not the cheapest out there - and use their OneLink 6.0/768 package. I pay a pretty hefty price for it - about $130.00 with my VoIP. But I could always go back to 1.5/384 and pay $49.00.

I don't really see the future being much different than what I'm experiencing now, since I don deal with ATT at all. Speakeasy is my dataline broker.

Re:I already pay a premium for my speed... (1)

Viv (54519) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980793)

Different beasts. These guys are talking about having content providers pay to have priority in their network; currently, everyone is treated equally.

Assume you're an AT&T customer. This sort of behavior could end up in a situation where AT&T wants you to pay them for high speed access to their network... and then they want to turn around and have Google pay to provide you high speed access to their site. Does that sound reasonable to you?

They charge you money for high speed internet, but in order to do that, the sites you use must also pay money to deliver to you at high speed. That's pure bogosity in my book.

Further, you can have a situation where Google has a line to AT&T, but in order for AT&T to deliver it, they have to hand it to say, UUNet, who then hands it off to Earthlink. So in that situation, in order for you to have high speed access, YOU will have to pay Earthlink, and Google may end up having to pay AT&T, UUNet, and Earthlink also.

Does that make a lot of sense to you? Essentially, what that tells you is that the only content providers that will be able to provide bandwidth intensive services are the extremely wealthy ones. And thus ends the days of the Internet as a level playing field where the little guy can compete with the big guy.

Google might save us (1)

drgroove (631550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980655)

If you believe Bob Cringley, Google is building another backbone to the internet already, which it will use to make everyone's connections faster (through caching); this could work to counteract a 2-tiered "pay for better access" internet that the Telcos and their FCC whores are thinking of building.

By Choosing Where NOT to Compete, Google Can Win the Broadband Game [pbs.org]
Taking over the digital world four ounces at a time. [pbs.org]

Let's just hope Bob's right about this one, and that Google won't charge us for usage of their boxen.

Don't make google angry (3, Funny)

aapold (753705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980672)

you wouldn't like them when they're angry.

TFA (1)

davecrusoe (861547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980674)

From the ARTICLE, NOT the blog message; also see Information Week, http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=183701605 [informationweek.com] . And from the TelCoWeb's own article: http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1142972723.htm [telecomweb.com]

"Reversing his rhetorical field a bit, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content, a marked change of tone from his previous statements on the issue of network neutrality. And Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin said that his agency has the authority to police any so-called net neutrality violations, both in the voice and video arenas.

Both messages were sent to the keynote speech audience here at the TelecomNext show to support the idea that new legislation or regulation to specifically encode net neutrality beliefs into law isn't needed. Whitacre, who last year told BusinessWeek in an interview that Google and Vonage were "nuts" for thinking they could "use these [AT&T's] pipes for free" -- comments that sparked much of the fear and loathing in the net neutrality debate -- on Tuesday admitted that any service provider who tried to block or degrade Internet services would be committing economic suicide.

"Any provider who blocks access to the Internet is inviting customers to find another provider," Whitacre said in his keynote speech. "It's bad business." He then emphatically stated that AT&T would not block independent services, "nor will we degrade [Internet access]. Period, end of story."

In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing." When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds."

Google can create their own backbone network (1)

MikeDataLink (536925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980678)

And then just put AT&T out of business by introducing them to this little thing called competition.

That's really all the telcos need. TRUE competition and all this BS will go away (and probably them too, they are too bloated to run on a real profit margin of say 30%).

Another step towards regulation of the Net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980683)

People will state the slippery slope argument, but its not hard to go from the concept of throttling bandwidth of Google, to totally disallowing or redirecting connections to websites that are "undesirable".

Perhaps in the near future, an attempt to connect to www.slackware.com, or freshmeat.net will redirect you to Microsoft's Vista online ordering service? Or, the connection would just time out.

This borders on extortion, the same tactic that botnet owners use on sites, when demanding money or the site gets flooded into oblivion. Its the same result either way -- pay up, or your customers get no connection.

I think its time for people to make more anonymous service providers like findnot or cotse.net, or people need to donate to add more endpoints to tor, because it looks like not just the content of traffic, but where the traffic is going is now something that has to be locked down.

*sigh* Maybe its time for another physical packet routing system... guess its time to work on low-range pirate packet radio or line-of-site communication lasers.

"New Yorker" article opposing tiered internet (4, Informative)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980695)

This week's issue of The New Yorker had a one-page article briefly summarizing the *actual* tiered internet (google has to pay SBC to ensure QoS, not the tiered-to-consumer plan in TFA) and pointing out why it was such a bad idea. It read just like a +5 Informative from /. with the same points we've all made during previous posts on this, and got me to wondering if the person who wrote it reads /. -- so if you do, thanks! it was lovely and did a great job of explaining to the teeming masses what it means and why it's a bad idea.

Telecom and other Corporations (1)

AzBats (666888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980714)

This seems to be one of those instances where the free market bites a corporation in the butt and then they whine to the Government so that pro-"their business interest" regulation is put into place or in place regulations are used/ruled in their favour. Thus making it an un-free market even though corporations are championing a free market to whatever gov. official will offer them sympathy.
In this case AT&T was free to create it's own innovate search engine and reap the benefits from it. Investers would not have made the same dough via AT&T than Google by making sure a brand new company introduced itself to the stock market.

Business as usual (1)

HunterZ (20035) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980731)

Just more evidence that the FCC is a corrupt department that has become a government pawn (a sort of "inside man") of the media and telco industries. They did the same thing with the broadcast flag, remember? The courts had to shoot it down. It's time for someone to wake up and smell what they're cookin', and shake things up at the FCC.

"F**k you very much, the FCC" - Eric Idle, The FCC Song - released for free here: http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/ [pythonline.com]

Extortion is a little strong, but the FCC is whack (1)

Corrupter (218689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980741)

I think telcos are justified in charging companies for their real consumption of resources. Some sites consume an inordinate amount of bandwidth and we can't expect someone to foot the bill for that for free. But, the guy in the article is right in that it will stifle some innovation. Google would never have been able to put Google Earth online if they had to pay for the real bandwidth in consumes in direct proportion to it's value. When you look at the real use value of it , vs. the bandwidth it actually consumes, and Google knew it would have to pay for the bandwidth, it would probably never have been built.

On the other hand, I agree that the FCC is not fulfilling it's mandate or obligation to the people. They do a lot of good important work at the FCC with regards to keeping things straight for cell phones, satillites and radio comms. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. But, they have been completely bought out by big radio corporations, tv corporations, and now telcos. The have forgotten that they answer to the people, not to K Street. It is time that we all reminded them, and our representatives, who the FCC answers to. Everyone write a letter to your two Senators, your Congressmen, and the FCC Chairman. Let them know who they really work for.

and today... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980742)

I am ashamed to be an American.

FCC (1)

WiZard82 (877289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980749)

I just realized, that, more I hear about FCC more I hate them...
In addition; this idiot (Kevin Martin) is just the icing on top of the FCC cake. GO HOME, EAT BLEACH AND DIE GREEDY DUMBASS.

Why so inflamatory? (3, Interesting)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 8 years ago | (#14980764)

There's no need for the inflamatory story language. Trying to say that a tiered internet is bad is like trying to explain why decapitation is bad. You're wasting words. We're all with you.

Better to sound rational to convince those who don't understand. A non-neutral net is a terrible thing to contemplate.

At the minimum, neutrality protects the new marketplace. It helps all us smoes enjoy the good parts of a free market system. Calling for an end to neutrality is like calling for an end to racketeering laws in the real world. Sure, someone is going to make more money, but at the expense of the market as a whole.

And beyond brain-dead economic analysis, the internet has a kernel of world-improving good, with electronic journal archives for the sciences, free encyclopedias, and so forth. (Of course, wrapped around this kernel are gigabytes of porn...)

Who invited the FCC to the party anyway? Someone tell them their headlights are on so we can lock them out when they go to check.

Where is the free lunch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14980772)

I must be dumb, why does google get to use the intarweb for free?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...