Beta
×

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!

Republicans Defeat Net Neutrality Proposal

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the pay-up dept.

504

LiquidEdge writes "A Republican controlled committee has defeated a bill that would have guaranteed fair access and stopped companies like AT&T and Verizon from charging high-bandwidth sites for allowing their customers to have priority access to them."

cancel ×

504 comments

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

Wow (2, Insightful)

Kujila (826706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074826)

I really love the spin this story has... "EVIL Republicans RUIN the Internets!"

Re:Wow (-1, Flamebait)

McFadden (809368) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074843)

What do you expect when it was invented by a former Democrat Vice-President...?

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074856)

I wonder if Joseph Stalin took time away from killing 20 million Soviets to blame all his troubles on the free press. Oh, wait a sec, he didn't have a free press.

Talk about an ungrateful nation. Don't complain about the fact that your press is doing its job by being a watchdog. It's one of the few things left that's keep the States from slipping into a dictatorship.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074956)

Just a little FYI, "our press" isn't really interested in being a watchdog. They're interested in making money.

It just so happens that their preferred way of making that money is by providing the news.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. People just need realize what they're watching, reading, and hearing to make informed opinions.

But don't kid yourself into thinking that freedom of the press means we're always getting the complete truth.

Re:Wow (2)

nurd666 (242319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075045)

So, what you're saying is that a group of people paid to bring in as many customers as possible, may not actually have the best interest of the people in mind?

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

ooze (307871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075082)

Just look at tobacco corporations. Are their ways of making money the best for the people?

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

RedQueen.exe (966234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075084)

Luckily "being a watchdog" and "making money" practially go hand in hand now days. What's one kind of story that sells very well? Now, of course, they're going to cover a bunch of other bs too just because its sensational, but you know they're going to come down on anyone or any group that's been doing something "scandalous".

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074868)

Yeah, I hate it when they said "EVIL" and "RUIN".
Oh, wait. That's not in the article, its solely your invention.
The actual article makes no comment on whether its good or bad, and gives space to both pro- and anti- viewpoints.

It's a factual article with little evidence of bias.
And you're an idiot.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

Augie De Blieck Jr. (13716) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074999)

He's not necessarily referring to the article, itself, but rather the spin Slashdot has placed on it. Slashdot, in this case, is acting in the biased manner. Clearly, this writeup is a hit piece on the Republican party, a reflection of the opinions of the submitter and the moderator who approved it. There's no reason to refer to the committee as "Republican-controlled" in the writeup. Congress is controlled by the Republicans, so all of the committees will be, as well.

The repeated use of party definitions on an article which will clearly be the subject of much derision from the Slashdot crowd, is an obvious attempt at scoring political points, not relating a story. Too bad.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

RandomPrecision (911416) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075078)

If you'd RTFA, you'd see that the headline and writeup are actually taken more or less directly from the article - if there's spin there, it's not from Slashdot.

Re:Wow (1)

706GL (172709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075081)

And you're an idiot.

Best possible way to close an argument. But the delivery did put a smile on my face first thing in the morning. Thanks.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074876)

The subcommittee has 31 members. The vote was 23 - 8. Off the top of my head, I doubt it's a 23 - 8 split Republican to Democrat. So doesn't that mean the Democrats helped defeat the bill?

And good for them. This bill is a bad idea. It's like passing a law that ISP's can't throttle port 25 to reduce spam, because that would result in "unequal access."

Re:Wow (1)

raides (881987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074975)

Yea the spin is retarted. What most people don't comment is that the bill was also going to give the FCC control of fiber lines. Since that announcement, they split that bill to a new one, and the promotion of the bill has behind the motto of "Make the Internet Work For You". With the death of this bill, the spin of evil republicans will now way forge to the new bill that will give the government control of fiber lines. This sounds cool in theory, cause they will regulate speeds so everyone gets proper internet speeds. However they will also have control of the internet backbone, which can allow them to manipulate wording to force censorship and tracking of the users of that internet. DUN DUN DUNNNN

good....? (1, Interesting)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074832)

Is this not a good thing... letting people who are on faster connections have priority seems like it will drive companies to provide a better service faster and might also reduce the cost of slower connections... or am I wrong?

Re:good....? (5, Funny)

Too many errors, bai (815931) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074854)

Reduce cost? You're new to this, aren't you? ;)

Re:good....? (4, Insightful)

sottitron (923868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075009)

Reducing costs is right. They will reduce costs, I am sure. Just don't expect any reductions in price.

Re:good....? (5, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074863)

I think the issue here is that ISPs and telco's are going to make your access to google slower if google doesn't pay them. They're confused about who their customers are, and seem to think google should pay them for access to me, while I'm already paying them for access to google.

It's a bit like commercial TV, where advertisers are the customers and viewers are the product.

Re:good....? (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074920)

It's a bit like commercial TV, where advertisers are the customers and viewers are the product.


Hum... never thought of it that way... makes sense... I wonder if this retards or promotes creativity?

I would guess the former, seems like everyone is playing it safe and going for "sure things" right now rather than making an effort to inovate which is how the "sure thing" was thought up in the first place.

Re:good....? (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075010)

ummm it's well known that commercialism DESTROYS creativity.

For most profit to occur, you need the largest audience. Television producers routinely design their shows to gain maximum target demographics.

Creativity, on the other hand, needs no audience.

There are art-school television projects that focus on creativity. They will never be commercially successful, because they have no need to maintain an audience.

Re:good....? (1)

Mille Mots (865955) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075039)

Hum... never thought of it that way... makes sense... I wonder if this retards or promotes creativity?

I would guess the former, seems like everyone is playing it safe and going for "sure things" right now rather than making an effort to inovate which is how the "sure thing" was thought up in the first place.

The 'homogenizing' of content is exactly what happens. Worse than that, however, television becomes a race to the bottom, as each new season brings shows that are more shocking, more outrageous, more 'over-the-line' than last season. All in an attempt to garner more viewers.

Anyone who believes that, as a television viewer, they are not the product being sold have been deluded.

--
I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.
--Groucho Marx (1890 - 1977)

Re:good....? (1)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074934)

I'm pretty sure that Google has flatly refused to ever pay any fees to any ISPs. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Re:good....? (5, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074964)

Actually, you've probably got that slightly wrong. It's not so much "who their customers are" as "who their customers *were*". All Amazon, Google, Yahoo! et al need to do is agree not to cave in to the telcos demands for more money (they *are* presumably paying for their own connectivity, yes?) and sit it out - Google has pretty much stated they are going to do this anyway. After a while, once the word gets out and customers start to leave for alterative "single tier Internet" providers, the telcos will either have to quietly drop their demands and rate limits or suffer the inevitable stockholder backlash when their profits start to slide.

Re:good....? (2, Interesting)

ezavada (91752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075029)

All Amazon, Google, Yahoo! et al need to do is agree not to cave in to the telcos demands for more money (they *are* presumably paying for their own connectivity, yes?) and sit it out

This would be great. But let's not forget that one of the et.al's in this case is Microsoft, who seems determined to do everything possible to defeat Google at the search game. They have gobs of cash and as a convicted monopolist have a proven history of being willing to do unethical things to get ahead. Maybe they'll decide they dislike the telecos syphoning off money more than they dislike Google being king of the search engines, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

monopolies (5, Insightful)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075083)

Most people are not in situations where they have the ability to pick their Internet provider. Most areas are served by a single monopoly, or at best, one telco and one cable co. With the largest telcos and cable cos forming alliances, choice is 100% out of the equation for consumers.

Which is precisely why the Republicans are wrong here. The first Republican President warned of corporate power, corporate influence in government, and monopolies. Anti-trust law used to be something Republicans accepted as pro-capitalism, and pro-democracy. Current Republican politicians have been bought, it would seem.

Damn.

disclaimer: this post is in no way an endorsement of any other political party, if you assumed it was, then you're an idiot, and part of the problem.

Re:good....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075086)

The telcos are not confused about anything. They intend to exploit the existing power of government for their own benefit, and claim even more power if possible, just as they have been since government became entangled in the business.

The more government is entangled in the business, the more it pays to know how to exploit that power, and more irrelevant it becomes to know how to please your customers. This goes for any market, including the telco "market" (I put "market" in quotes because in this particular example, the winners and losers are almost entirely determined by one's ability to exploit the power of government).

Re:good....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074864)

Yes you are wrong, also confused and additionally probably should reconsider your feeble existence on this earth.

Re:good....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074875)

Will you still think it is a good thing when you are trying to stream a movie from a network that doesn't have an agreement with your ISP. Your traffic gets the least amount of prioritisation so you get crappy streaming.

Re:good....? (3, Interesting)

Cyber Akuma (901028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074884)

Pretty much.

EVERYTHING is starting to have extra charges towards it and even extra charges on those extra charges. You need to pay for absolutely every possible tiny thing. And thanks to all the modern companies bribing officials left and right, unless the mass "sheeple" actually get off their couches and do something about it there is little we can do to stop it. Eventually only the extremely rich will be getting the same level of "service" that normal people are getting now in just about everything. Welcome to the modern dark-ages: kings, nobles, and pheasants all over again.

Re:good....? (1)

castlec (546341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074950)

Welcome to the modern dark-ages: kings, nobles, and pheasants all over again.

I've never had pheasant before. Is it really that bad?

Re:good....? (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074981)

Pheasant is pretty good, not quite as good as grouse (my favorite game bird), but I prefer it to duck or goose (it's not as rich as either, but it is much easier to prepare simply).

Re:good....? (1)

castlec (546341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075027)

I just had my first real duck last weekend (as in not the stuff at a local chinese joint). It was good but I thought it was too rich. I almost felt sick after eating it. Maybe some day I'll feel like I an afford more exotic little birdies :o)

Re:good....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074963)

"Welcome to the modern dark-ages: kings, nobles, and pheasants all over again."

Interesting visual.

Re:good....? (5, Interesting)

philipmather (864521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074893)

That would be a sensible theory wouldn't it, one suspects however that it'll create a tiered system that costs the end user more.

Think about this; would something like slashdot be able to work? Obstensibly /. would pay more to provide a better service or those that use are the type of people who'd pay for a faster connection. Would you then really want a fast site with lots of links to slower sites?

Would you then host all your images and shared web services with a "fast" provider and embed them into your sites hosted on "slow" providers. You'd then have a market for providing lots of "fast" images for embeding into your "slow" personal page. Lot's of technical implications to think about there, smells like someones "wealth creation" plan to me.

Re:good....? (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074903)

This isn't for consumers. This is form businesses. This allows for the creation of a multi-tiered internet. Companies like Google will have to pay not only their own bandwidth bill, but also a "premium" to any provider between themselves and you. So they will have to pay the company that provides their internet connect a premium to get their data to the internet "faster" (Which should translate into "not as slow"). But once it's there, there is nothing preventing other service providers from dropping them back down to teir 2. So this basically allows every ISP in existence to take a shot at any successful web enterprise.

From the consumer point of view, this means your favorite web site will either become slower, or raise its monthly fees and/or advertising.

-Rick

Re:good....? (1)

izam_oron (942139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074908)

The idea you have is fine; it's what we have right now. The priority goes to the customers on your line requesting something off the other line paying more for faster service. Verizon and AT&T figure there's not enough money, so they're going to double-dip and put a theoretical cap on Google if Google doesn't pay the fines. So, while Google is paying for who knows how many different OC192 pipes and you're paying for the 1.5Mbps down/256Kbps up, the telecos want to tell Google, "It'd be a shame if this packet didn't make it to the customer, wouldn't it?" The Internet Mafia is what the telecos have become, and those who whacked down the fair access bill don't really care.

No. (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074912)

How does "profit" relate to "better service"?

Remember, a business exists solely for the sake of providing profit to its shareholders. If a business has control of a telecommunication service, there is no incentive for them to do ANYTHING that enhances value to you.

Capitalism ONLY works when there's millions of sellers and millions of buyers selling commodity goods. If there's only 1, or 2, or 3 sellers, it becomes monopolistic, and ANTI capitalist. In that case, socialism is best. Regulation and control of the market is needed, since at that point, you can only buy "what you get" instead of "what you want". You do NOT get an infinite variety of choices.

In addition, there is no morality to a monopolistic business model. If a business could buy slaves, they would. If a business could kill you for your money, they would. If a business could cause dangerous blackouts in California for profit, they would.

*NEVER* claim deregulation is a good thing. It IS a fault of the Republican philosophy, since they serve the pro-business agenda. All corporations seek to be Enron, a wholly Republican supported institution. Corporations ONLY serve their shareholder's interests, not the consumer's. Democrats tend to (only slightly) favor the consumers.

Re:good....? (1)

pwagland (472537) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074921)

I can only assume you are being serious here, and so will respond seriously...
Is this not a good thing... letting people who are on faster connections have priority seems like it will drive companies to provide a better service faster and might also reduce the cost of slower connections... or am I wrong?
No, this is not a good thing. Think about what you are saying:
  1. If this is allowed then _every_ high bandwidth site has to pay _every_ provider. That means that Google, Yahoo, Sun, Oracle, Microsoft, kernel.org, debian, IBM, Playboy, etc, etc all have to pay verizon, ma bell, and a host of other providers from other countries. That is a lot of money, which is, of course, why the providers want to do that. For them, it is pure profit.
  2. The provider has no incentive to lower the cost of slower connections, as they only get the "priority-fee" money based on the number of users that they have on faster connections. It may see a decrease in faster connection fees, although this is also unlikely, as it is unlikely increase the providers profits.

Oh, good... (3, Informative)

irishxpride (912480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074838)

Because the free market economy has done so much for improving the free flow of information. Does it seem redundant to make both the sender and the recipient pay for the same bandwidth? What if other countries ban this type of thing, how could you regulate speed in one area, and not in another?

Re:Oh, good... (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074850)

Easy, the router/cable owning companies just throttle any content coming from out side the country.

-Rick

Re:Oh, good... (1)

general_re (8883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074911)

Because the free market economy has done so much for improving the free flow of information.

Well, yeah, it has. Obviously some of us take it for granted, but it certainly has when compared to centrally planned economies - information was a bit harder to come by in the old Soviet Union, for example.

Does it seem redundant to make both the sender and the recipient pay for the same bandwidth?

It's not like this has never happened before. Supermarkets charge manufacturers who want their products to have premium shelf space. Does it seem "redundant" to make both manufacturers and shoppers pay for the same can of soup?

What if other countries ban this type of thing, how could you regulate speed in one area, and not in another?

Nothing's going any faster anywhere than the slowest link on the chain allows...

It may not make sense but it already happens (3, Interesting)

Mille Mots (865955) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074946)

Does it seem redundant to make both the sender and the recipient pay for the same bandwidth?

If you think about it, you might come to the conclusion that this already happens in other domains.

Compare to cable television, for instance. If you subscribe to CATV, you are paying for the bandwidth (all those channels) to access the content, while at the same time, the CATV company is paying (slightly less) to carry those channels, and the network (CNN, Fox, TLC, SF, etc.) are charging advertisers for sending that content to you.

If you don't have subscription television service, the advertiser alone is bearing the cost of assaulting your eyes with their commercials.

This is analagous, I think, to a Tier {1,2} ISP charging for priority access. If you want the CATV equivalent (millions of channels, digital content, high speed), you're going to pay for it. So is the content provider on the other end of the session (after all, they need a connection to the Internet as well). If you are happy with over-the-air quality (quality, quantity and speed of delivery...not so much), you don't pay.

Essentially, the chains would look like:

CATV subscriber (-$) -> CATV provider (-$) -> Network ($$$) <- Advertiser (-$)

-or-

Local ISP customer (-$) -> Local ISP (-$) -> Backbone provider ($$$) <- Content provider (-$)

--
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing.

Re:It may not make sense but it already happens (1)

jfelix1010 (677162) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075063)

Compare to cable television, for instance. If you subscribe to CATV, you are paying for the bandwidth (all those channels) to access the content, while at the same time, the CATV company is paying (slightly less) to carry those channels, and the network (CNN, Fox, TLC, SF, etc.) are charging advertisers for sending that content to you.

Your analogy is flawed. If this situation was similar to you analogy, then the ISP would be paying google for the right to carry their content, not the other way around. This really is a company wanting to get paid twice for the same sale.

Really though, it's not google but VOIP companies that should be most concerned about this. Google will most likely not pay, and has the means to make sure that customers are aware of the problem. If enough customers complain and/or take their business to a competitor, the ISP's will change remove the throttling from Google. However, VOIP companies are much smaller, and since we're talking about the major telco's here, they are not going to be as accomodating to a company that threatens their major cash cow. They would probably risk losing an internet customer rather than allowing VOIP to continue to undercut their core business.

Re:Oh, good... (4, Insightful)

AnotherBrian (319405) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074995)

Does it seem redundant to make both the sender and the recipient pay for the same bandwidth?

It not just that. Google already pays out the ass for it's connection as would you or I if we uploaded as much data as Google. This is how it should be. What the telcos want is to add an extra charge if Google makes money on any of that data. It's like if I call you on the phone it costs me X to make the call and costs you Y to have the phone that receives it. Now they want X+Z from me if I'm a business and made any money from you on that call. This is not OK. They also want W from me if I want the call between you and I to be more free of static that the call between you and my competitor. This is also not OK.

Re:Oh, good... (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075033)

Except for the fact that the sender and the receiver are *ALREADY* paying for their bandwidth.

Google pays some company to get access to the net.
We the customers of our respective ISPs pay to get access to the net.

The collective ISPs pay (as part of their cost for doing business) the carriers as needed to allow their customers data to flow.

Now, Customer A's ISP want's to charge Customer B to allow customer B's data (which Customer A has requested) to get to Customer A unscathed. In other words... "It would be a shame if your data were to have an *accident* on it's way to our customer, capiche?" The term extortion comes to mind, although it may not be the most appropriate.
 

Re:Oh, good... (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075068)

Because the free market economy has done so much for improving the free flow of information.

Here in this monopoly-controlled market, for my cable modem service I pay twice as much and get one-fourth the speed as in the US. And it goes out several times a month. And on top of that I'm forced to subscribe to their crappy cable TV in order to get it. How about you give me some of that free market action you don't think works?

Makes Sense (2, Insightful)

Distinguished Hero (618385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074839)

Republicans less inclined to regulate the market than Democrats. News at 11.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074935)

What doesn't make sense is the Republican inclination to make the government bigger in the past few years.

Re:Makes Sense (2, Insightful)

aesiamun (862627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075095)

That's the neocons for you. They aren't real Republicans...they are like uber conservative scary Democrats.

Ignorance in Posting (2, Insightful)

Kylere (846597) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074847)

Did anyone RTFA?

They basically did not entirely madate it, but they did not outlaw neutrality either. The article is slanted, and inaccurate. While I wish they had in fact mandated for neutrality, they took a middle of the road step, but that is NOT the article headline.

Saying the republicans broke the net with this is like saying that Bush is a great president, both are wrong, and both have millions of idiots who believe it.

Re:Ignorance in Posting (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075031)

They basically did not entirely madate it, but they did not outlaw neutrality either

You're either a good troll or a moron. How would one outlaw net neutrality? Require companies to charge different rates for traffic of their competitors? Would these be random rates?

Punk Bitches (-1, Offtopic)

liquid stereo (602956) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074852)

We know how they roll...

the bastards. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074857)

if you want your own stuff to move faster, it should be on a separate parallel network. the ISP connection is where you switch it. and there should be enough router oomph so your great unwashed masses seeking data that wants to be free are not penalized for getting on somebody's internal business deal.

until and unless laws and proposals put that in the legal system, "no" to pay-for-preference.

I'm glad, believe it or not. (2, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074859)

This is good.

I'm not saying that abuses of network access aren't on the horizon. Far from it. It just strikes me that many of the proponents of "network neutrality" are taking the principle too far, aren't looking at the potential benefits of third parties being able to pay for enhanced access, and aren't necessarily that concerned about more important issues fixed first.

It is absolutely right that if I pay for a 1.5Mbps connection to my home, that no external entity should suffer discrimination when trying to get their packets to me (assuming that's my choice - and in some cases, I should be made to make an explicit choice, about letting people access all my ports, for instance. I have no problems with an ISP, by default (but only while the subscriber consents) blocking ports commonly used for hacking.

But at the same time, I don't necessarily see a problem with external entities being able to pay my ISP for better access. If when Apple wants to send me a file, they're able to pay Earthlink such that the data they send isn't part of the 1.5Mbps, but counts as additional bandwidth, then that works to both of our advantages. I can still communicate with Wikipedia, Google, et al, at 1.5Mbps while my family watches a streamed movie from the iTunes Movie Store in the living room. That's not bad at all.

But it's not "network neutrality", or more importantly, it's hard to word a network neutrality law that would allow this kind of flexibility.If you allow this kind of flexibility, then what stops an ISP offering only a basic 256kbps service in an area, without offering better packages, knowing full well this is "fast enough" for basic web browsing, and that it immediately confers an advantage on those third parties that pay the ISP for better access? This would infuriate the network neutrality people, yet neatly bypass the laws that would allow the scenario I gave.

Right now we need better standards and more competition. I would much rather see government pass laws proposing minimum levels of service than try to force ISPs to not provide services that in many cases are in the best interests of everyone.

Re:I'm glad, believe it or not. (2, Interesting)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074949)

I don't they want it to work the way though. They will see the site you are requesting something from as a site that should be paying them access or they intentionally slow them down. Also while you are talking A to B you still go through other sites. If they implemented the same rules your packets would be intentionally slowed down as they have nothing to do with the place you are routing though.

This is a bad thing.

Re:I'm glad, believe it or not. (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074996)

If the Telco's get their way, I can't wait for QOS lawsuits from their "customers". This could bite them in the ass.

Jaysyn

Re:I'm glad, believe it or not. (5, Informative)

ClarkEvans (102211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074953)

Well, this bill was to support the idea that "no external entity should suffer discrimination when trying to get their packets to me".

What's going on is that packets from/to Vonage, and other voice over IP companies are being marked by Comcast, and Verison as 3rd class mail: if they are even permitted. This law was to prevent this pratice.

This law had nothing to do with providers charging more for a T3 over a T1 for a web-service company. That would be brain dead to argue against. This was about network neutrality: that *infrastructure* companies can pick-and-choose what content you can get to and what content you cant (and what content is so damn slow you won't ever use it).

It's not about the cable to your home (5, Insightful)

js_sebastian (946118) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074958)

If when Apple wants to send me a file, they're able to pay Earthlink such that the data they send isn't part of the 1.5Mbps, but counts as additional bandwidth, then that works to both of our advantages.
Naive. That's not how it works. Your internet connection is not getting any faster because of Apple (or whoever) paying.

But that's not the problem either. If I were requesting a service from Apple and knew that they would be getting my provider to prioritize that traffic over the rest it would still be sort of fair. The point is that my internet connection is going to be slower because OTHER PEOPLE are using video services provided by a company who pays the extortion fee (or more likely, is another branch of the telco giving me access): the free sites which I try to access will be slower because of that.

It's not about MY 1.5MBps on the cable that runs to my home, it's about the unknown amount of bandwidth I am sharing with an unknown number of other subscribers, on a bigger cable somewhere downstream.

Re:It's not about the cable to your home (1)

iny0urbrain (965352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075075)

What about websites that are mainly donation-sponsored? What happens when Archive.org or Wikipedia can't afford to pay the telcos to "prioritize their traffic"? Those resources will be rendered useless, whereas ad-sponsored glitzy AOL-a-Pedia can hold strong.

The Telcos are just being greedy.

Re:I'm glad, believe it or not. (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074993)

But at the same time, I don't necessarily see a problem with external entities being able to pay my ISP for better access. If when Apple wants to send me a file, they're able to pay Earthlink such that the data they send isn't part of the 1.5Mbps, but counts as additional bandwidth, then that works to both of our advantages.

Except, when literally dozens (if not hundreds) of ISPs try to make side deals with Apple so the content from iTunes doesn't get way-layed en-route to you, Apple will be forced to pass the cost on to you. And, since Apple will charge more, the record companies will try to sneak in extra costs for the tracks so they get a bigger cut of the pie too.

Look at a traceroute some time ... your packets could go through a half a dozen or so different entities. If any one of them hasn't been paid their bribe from Apple, your 'net performance suffers.

The way packets are routed on the internet, this will be a free-for-all of people trying to gouge a little extra money. The whole concept of peering -- since our packets travel over your network, and your packets travel over ours -- will all go to shit. As packets get rerouted around individual places that aren't playing nice because they haven't been paid, all of your traffic will be sent through congested chokepoints.

The sum total will be an overall reduction in service and relibility for everyone.

Your downloads of Mozilla, or Linux, or iTunes, or things from sourceforge, Microsoft updates, or whatever -- all of them will be subjected to intermediate 'road tolls' by people who feel they should get a cut for reliably delivering your data. Every single one of them will be approached little-by-little to cough up or experience packet loss/delays.

Then, your Earthlink service you're so happy to allow charge Apple extra money to deliver packets at a good bandwidth will eventually turn to crap as every site you're visiting hasn't paid someone intermediary their cut. Anyone large enough to show up on radar will be subject to huge numbers of companies trying to gouge them.

Have you really thought this through? To me, this sounds like the end of good internet access, and the beginning of separated, specialized networks. This is like travelling through some third world country where armed groups stop you and charge a fee to be allowed to continue.

Re:I'm glad, believe it or not. (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075041)

Right now we need better standards and more competition.

Yes, we do need more competition. So why do you support a Republican bill that stifles competition, in favor of giving ISPs more control over the content they deliver?

Money can't buy you love, but it can buy Congress (4, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074869)

AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon spent $230.9 million on politicians from 1998 until the present, while Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo spent only a combined $71.2 million. (Those figures include lobbying expenditures, individual contributions, political action committees and soft money.)

When will people learn that laws will only get passed in this 'K Street Project' Congress if you simply spend enough money to bribe them?

Oh well, I guess people will be happy when I finish my life's work of designing and implementing a totally neutral "Internet 3"

Dare I say... (4, Funny)

shr3k (451065) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074871)

No Internet Packet Left Behind?

Wrost article summary ever... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074873)

I have no clue what that article is about, this has to be one of the worst article summaries ever. And of course in traditional Slashdot behavior I of course have zero intention of actually reading the article to find out what is going on, shame on you Slashdot editors, shame on you all.

You make it sound like neutrality is a good thing (3, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074874)

What the Republicans are doing here is exactly what Republicans ought to be doing, by their charter. They are blocking the Federal government from enacting regulation that would seriously impede the actions of private companies. They are saying, in effect, if AT&T or whomever wants to make available special broadband services at higher data rates or lower cost to certain selected partners, then it is not the government's job to step in and legislate that deal. The limitation sought to force these broadband providers to offer equal or better service to non-partners and affiliates, which would stifle the ability of the providers to generate their own services.

In effect, the law would have put a strict limit on what services the broadband providers could do business-wise. The idea was to keep broadband providers from forming monopolies by keeping other non-partner providers out with high costs or degraded services. However, the Republicans are doing the right thing by their constituents by allowing the maximum freedom to these broadband providers and only seeking legal recourse if there is proof of anti-competitive actions.

Re:You make it sound like neutrality is a good thi (1)

Apotekaren (904220) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074961)

Republicans acting so.... liberal. Well, I never actually got the logic of the American liberal-conservative split.
Who are the liberals? Who are the conservatives?
In Europe Republicans would be market-liberals, and the Democrats... just right-wing.

Re:You make it sound like neutrality is a good thi (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074990)

The problem is that while they once in a while do something that falls in line with their "small government, free citizenry" charter, they have been pandering to the Religious Right on social issues for far too long, and lately have taken to seeking national security through regulations that are decidedly not in the spirit of Freedom. The country club Republicans knew they could generate a lot of votes by pandering to the Religious Right, but that seems to have backfired on them as they are now outnumbered by those groups and have lost control of the party.

Trust the Market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074883)

If users can't get to their favorite site because the service providers are slowing their access, they will change service providers and the situation will rectify itself. Why regulate access before there is a problem?

Thank you for not regulating. (5, Insightful)

liposuction (176349) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074890)


From TFA:

A Republican-controlled House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday defeated a proposal that would have levied extensive regulations on broadband providers and forcibly prevented them from offering higher-speed video services to partners or affiliates.

By an 8-to-23 margin, the committee members rejected a Democratic-backed "Net neutrality" amendment to a current piece of telecommunications legislation. The amendment had attracted support from companies including Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and their chief executives wrote a last-minute letter to the committee on Wednesday saying such a change to the legislation was "critical."


Any time you start throwing regulations at something, you make it harder for everyone to compete. You also make it much easier for the government to start sliding in taxes here and there.

And I'm sorry but anything that those patent-happy companies want for the internet is probably NOT a good thing to begin with. Microsoft and Amazon would patent the keyboard if they could. Just because Cnet and /. toss Republican on there doesn't automatically mean it's a terrible thing that this bill went down in flames. Don't subscribe to a political party because of a title or animal. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Re:Thank you for not regulating. (3, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075065)

Any time you start throwing regulations at something, you make it harder for everyone to compete.

Not true. In the short term, perhaps, but in the long term all free markets collapse to a singularity (called a monopoly, although a cartel like the RIAA or OPEC is fairly common too). Many of America's stock market regulations, for example, exist specifically because when the market was unregulated people manipulated it to prevent competition. Small investors got screwed over by rail barons and the like because there were no regulations to prevent it.

No company wants competition and in the absense of regulation there will always be a snowball effect which eventually leads to one company or small group of companies effectively taking control of the market. At which point all of society suffers as prices rise and service declines (see Enron). The market has to be regulated in order to remain free; that's the central paradox of capitalism.

There is such a thing as too much regulation, of course, but too many people use that as an excuse to ignore the fact that you can have too little as well.

TWW

This surprises you? (4, Insightful)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074892)

Here in the United States, we have the best government that money can buy!

QoS (2, Interesting)

jaundicebaby (885998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074894)

Is this similiar to how people compain that Comcast has a lower QoS for VOIP packets and this law says that is OK because they can prioritize how their own network functions?

Yes... (1)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074919)

This is EXACTLY that, and much more!

For example, let's say you have Verizon DSL and want to use Google. If Google doesn't pay Verizon their 'blood money" that 3000/768 connection you have will CREAW when you try to use Google.

Get it? Verizon waznts to be paid TWICE - once by you (for YOUR service) and again by Google (for sending Googel to YOU).

Correct the Headline (5, Informative)

C-Diddy (755183) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074900)

A transparently lame and misleading headline. Read the story. The story says the "republican controlled committee" defeated the proposed amendment. According to the story:
"By an 8-to-23 margin, the committee members rejected a Democratic-backed "Net neutrality" amendment to a current piece of telecommunications legislation.
The story does not mention which "subcommittee" of the House Energy and Commerce committee took the action, but the story does say several democrats voted against the measure:
The vote on the amendment itself did not occur strictly along party lines, with one Republican voting in favor and four Democrats voting against it.
Interestingly, the final measure, sans the amendment, was passed by an overwhelming 24-7 vote.

Re:Correct the Headline (1)

DeanFox (729620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074938)


Blind? I read TFA. Quote:
A partisan divide pitting Republicans against Democrats on the question of Internet regulation appears to be deepening.

A Republican-controlled House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday defeated a proposal that would have levied extensive regulations on broadband providers and forcibly prevented them from offering higher-speed video services to partners or affiliates.

More proof people see what they want to see in spite of the facts.

This pisses me off (1)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074901)

I wrote letters to my damn senators too. Neither one of them seemed to have any grasp what the bill was actually about. It was nice they responded, however the garbage in these emails was intolerable. Neither had any understanding of the implications. It's really sad.

Re:This pisses me off (1)

Monoliath (738369) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075091)

Exactly.

This is another clear-cut illustration of a bunch of ego driven chess pieces in suits, pretending to know what they're doing, when in fact they have little or no knowledge whatsoever of the working technology involved / that will be affected by such bills. DMCA ring a bell?

I keep seeing people post about how they feel it would be ok to charge providers more money for faster access, I don't have a problem with that either, but that's not the only issue on the table here:

a. how is this speed / data-throughput quality going to be monitored and enforced? Is my company going to get money back when speed drops for a certain duration of time?

b. this is going to end up with scenarios like google / amazon / other high volume sites becoming paid member services so they can subsidize the new bandwidth costs introduced through this new business model.

c. this isn't only about paying for faster throughput, but being STRONG ARMED into paying more for DESCENT speeds to begin with.

I am not impressed with the republican agenda, never have been. They will continue to strut like peacocks, providing zero functionality and 100 percent stage show.

This is going to change the way the Internet fundamentally works, which is going to have a ripple effect of such a great magnitude in my opinion, that hey, wait a minute, new backbones / networks may even be funded, and then what happens you have inter-network crossing charges and god knows what else...call me a pessimist, but I see very little positive surrounding this.

Prioritizing Content Based on Origin / Type (1)

ClarkEvans (102211) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074904)

What's being debated here is if a company like Verizon or Comcast can give a higher priority to content of one provider, probably based on price, or as a way to enforce monopolies. For example, Verizon might slow delivery of packets from Vonage to make the service pretty much unusable; while making sure that their internet phone calls make it through "crystal clear".

This also might prioritize, say delivering movie content from BlockBuster over your SSH connection to your server.... etc.

It is really not a good development. I was hoping that something could be worked out in committee. But, perhaps we'll have to wait for a few red state business people to start complaining before something will get done.

Dollars and Sense (-1, Offtopic)

Quirk (36086) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074917)

America is broke. America is deeply in debt. America sells protection. Luckily protection frequently breeds violence which calls for protection. The selling of protection drives the old military industrial complex put in place after WWII, and, aptly characterized by John Kenneth Galbraith [wikipedia.org] . The revenue needed to fund the military industrial complex derives, for the most part, from tax revenue. Unfortunately the tax base in America isn't up to the job.

The need to derive more tax dollars is driving the patent insanity and the rigging of markets requiring market participants to pay twice or more for the same service. The fascist like coupling of monopolies and government is driven on the side of government by a mad need for revenue and control.

Selling protection and rigging markets requires luddite thugs be put in power. It's really a question of whether the rest of the industrialized world will go along. My guess is the rest of the industrialized world will go along as long as there's no alternative. The world will prop up the American domestic market and in doing so will prop up the military industrial complex.

The short term policies driving markets that push pollutants and climatic change will be changed, at best surperficially, because alternatives require recognizing that America is broke. And waking from the American dream will be a nightmare.

But, doesn't this make us as bad as the old USSR? (0, Troll)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074945)

Seems to me that WE'RE becoming the very same: "Big bad bully" as we claimed the USSR was back in the '60's and '70's.

So, lemme get this straight (5, Funny)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074918)

If republicans support a bill backed by the largest of corporations, they're evil.

If republicans defeat a bill backed by the largest of corporations, they're evil...

Just making sure I have it right..

Re:So, lemme get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075000)

really, they're just plain evil, votes on certain bills nonwithstanding.

Re:So, lemme get this straight (1)

Josh teh Jenius (940261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075004)

You got it exactly right.

Republicans are evil. So are Democrats, Libertarians and Anarchists. In fact, anyone who willingly subscribes to any doctrine to represent them entirely, as opposed to thinking freely and clearly based on the plethora of information made freely available to all of us, is evil.

In other news, Windows Vista sucks. True, I haven't actually tried it yet, but I have already made up my mind on that "issue".

Declan McCullagh: Slanted Libertarian Moron (1, Informative)

Knytefall (7348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074927)

I hope this doesn't get modded (-1, flame) but the article is atrocious. McCullagh's libertarian views are well-known, and obvious to any reader of this article. Lowlights:

"levied extensive regulations" -- why not just levied regulations? it's certainly not an objective fact that the regulations are extensive

"broadband providers will be free to design their networks as they see fit" -- why not "free to charge additional fees to content providers?"

"By 'very large companies,' Markey was not referring to Microsoft, which has a market value of $287 billion, but its much smaller value of $101 billion." Not only is that not a valid metric (market value is a crap metric--Google's market value, for example, is egregiously inflated) but pointless: Microsoft will make the same amount of money regardless of regulation.

The worst one is "the Internet industry is being outspent in Washington by more than a 3-to-1 margin." This ignores the tremendous lobbying the Internet industry does in every state, lobbying public utility commissions to shut out rivals everywhere. In Louisiana, the Internet industry is lobbying the state to shut down the free emergency WiFi mesh network in New Orleans--not only disgusting, but an act that requires money that McCullagh isn't counting.

It's possible to have a rational argument about this, but McCullagh's not-veiled-at-all slant doesn't help. What a moron.

Good to hear (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074937)

I'd hate the government to force businesses to offer the same product at the same price to everyone. If this was let through, surely it would mean that the ISPs wouldn't be allowed to offer a premium rate video streaming service, unless they also provided Google t the same data rate.

The existing companies are safe. People use their ISP to access them, and if Google and iTunes are too slow, people will start to use a faster ISP.

But... (1)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074998)

I already HAVE and PAY FOR a high speed Internet connection! What right does my ISP have to throttle it DOWN for those companies who won't pay their "double dip" protection money?

Seriously though, how is this any different them paying the local criminal gang "Protection money"? I mean we already HAVE the police to "protect us", so why should we have to pay someone else?

Answer: Because if you DON'T pay them, they burn your store down!

Therefore, this it NO DIFFERENT then that, simply because Google and I both already PAY our ISP's for Internet service!! Now my ISP literally wants wants: "Protection money" to 'protect' the packets I've already paid for.

If the Mafia or the Bloods and Crips do this, the Govt. busts them. If big business does it the Govt. apparently PROTECTS and ENCOURAGES them!

Like I said earlier: "We have the best Govt. that money can buy!

Re:But... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075052)

I already HAVE and PAY FOR a high speed Internet connection! What right does my ISP have to throttle it DOWN for those companies who won't pay their "double dip" protection money?

They own the network. They can charge who they like what they like, and you can choose a different provider. I could set up a delivery company that charges to send goods and charges the recipient to receive them. Nobody would use it though because that's a really crappy system.

Answer: Because if you DON'T pay them, they burn your store down!

Are theISPs threatening to burn down Google? Of course they're not. They're threatening to charge them for delivering data on certain lines.

Therefore, this it NO DIFFERENT then that, simply because Google and I both already PAY our ISP's for Internet service!! Now my ISP literally wants wants: "Protection money" to 'protect' the packets I've already paid for.

You haven't paid for packets. You've paid for the service of transmitting packets. The company you're transmitting the packets to has the option of paying extra to make the packets they send travel faster. They have the choice not to.

What AT&T has said (5, Insightful)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074951)

THe chairman of AT&T has openly lamented during hearings that he gives websites like Google a "free ride". To his mind, Google is a service that should be paid for. That Google needs to apportion a percentage of its revenue into a general fund, because AT&T doesn't sell bandwidth to Google, but carries a lot of Google traffic. He specifically used Google in his example.

That's called revenue sharing, and you know who does stuff like that? Sports team owners. They divide up the revenue from tv rights equally, despite teams representing unequal market share. You know what the big ISPs want? They want that. They want to see Microsoft and Google, and anyone else THEY deem to provide some essential function to the net to pay into a revenue sharing pool.

You know the only time a free market can allow something like that to happen? When you have a oligarchy. And that's what the big backbones providers want. They want to consolidate the market, and start putting tarriffs in at peering sites. They want to exert influence outside the carrier market, and they see QoS as the first step to getting down the slippery slope. Pretty soon, some carriers decide to de-prioritize packets to Google. Maybe Google works, maybe it's really really slow. The internet routes around failure, but it DOESN'T route around a transit carrier who decides to fuck with the traffic en route.

The Republican mindset has only one edict: Corporate self governance. Regulation, in nearly any form, is bad. THey see liability law and tort reform as key, so airlines can crash and not have to pay the passengers settlements. And they certainly want to reign in the FAA to stop "burdening" the airlines with all those expensive safety checks. Same with ISPs. You watch and see, nobody is stopping the oligarchy and now the carriers like Level 3, AT&T and others are going to collude and force a revenue sharing scheme. Next up: national firewalls. The reason Cisco and Google and others only got a slap on the wrist when censoring the Chinese nets, is that the US republicans want to see how well it works first and then start putting it in here under the guide of the Patriot Act.

But that's not true.. (1, Interesting)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075072)

The Republicans want to regulate the PEOPLE to death!

They want to insert themselves into what we read, what we see on TV or listen to on the radio, our private discussions and/or proceedures between us and our medical care givers and lawyers.

They want to bug our telephone conversations, look at what books we buy or borrow from the library (and also decide what books the library can loan us!), monitor our banking transactions, monitor whate we go (via GPS in our cell phones), issue us a national ID card ("Your PAPERS, pleeeasse!") and on and on ad nauseum!

Finally, let's not forget that they want to be able to jail us without charge and/or access to a lawyer.....

Seems to me that the only ones that they want to deregulate are big corporations...the rest of us are already feeling the crush of their black leather boot on our throats!

In other news... (0, Troll)

DanaPlato (939808) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074959)

The fringe kook left has determined that Republicans, like the evil jews, drink the blood of small children.

Typical GOP (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074978)

When was the last time this Republican congress stood up for consumer rights? Hell, when was the last time they didn't vote for the Corporatocracy?

Baby EATERS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15074982)

This is just sad, now that its in vogue to blame republicans for everything, I see it on slashdot too.

pssst I heard they feasted on 41 unaborted babies while they were voting. You know thats why they hate abortion right? so they can eat the babies!

Wanna make it political? Offer some solutions, "we're not like them" simply doesn't work. If I wanted partizan hate mongering I would listen to Rush Limbaugh the mean, and NPR the condescending.

I did NOT RTFA, because I'm sure its just like the '.xxx' domain, which, as a *gasp* Christian, I love. But the group I get lumped in with hate. But its only really useful if its enforced. Guess who gets to play bad guy when that needs to happen? So is it better to take lashings for made up reasons? or for being 'fascists'.

Who cares, in the end they're all crooks for one reason or another.

here's another thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075047)

When was the last time the Republicans did anything worth cheering for?

Seriously, look what's going on now. Corporate bribes, outing CIA agents, making up false grounds for war, lying about it, condoning torture, fucking up education with the No Child Left Behind act, offering no bid contracts in conflict-of-interest scenarios, spying on its citizens, giving tax cuts that the country can't afford, manipulation of the media, manipulation of science, etc. etc.

You know, maybe, maybe, and I'm just reaching here, maybe if there's a lot of criticism for the Republicans, maybe it's BECAUSE THEY FUCKING DESERVE IT.

Not to state the obvious (1)

ellem (147712) | more than 8 years ago | (#15074991)

If you don't like it don't use it, use omething else, build your own - I doubt anyone wants to nationalize the Internet.

Bellsouth lobby investment pays off (2, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075006)

That big lobbying office Bellsouth employs in DC finally paid off. Republicans are truly the best party money can buy. Since they might be sensing they're in trouble this fall, it's possible they'll be shoveling out the no bid contracts and business favors hand over fist this summer before they get the big boot. Doll out as many favors as possible to keep the money rolling in.

And some of you support these dirtbags.

not to worry (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075044)

Don't worry, those practices will assure an end to their businesses. Low cost unlicensed spectrum wireless is going to replace cable and dsl. (think 802.11g mesh networks) Google has a lot of interest in this and I'm pretty sure they'll make their own network if we see troll-like toll practices.

I, for one, want to see companies attempt to charge for their networks. I think it will force the issue and hasten the deployment of mesh networks and WiMax.

Big government control != fair and equal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075046)

It's interesting how whenever politicians want to grab control of something, the claim is to make it "fair and equal". Don't fall for that rhetoric. It wasn't until the government released some control of the Internet that most people even knew what it was, and now they want to start back peddling.

Aren't the sites already paying extra to ISPs? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075055)

Popular sites are already paying extra to their hosts for the generated traffic.

Now they should pay extra to the physical media providers?

Why don't hosts pay for the extra traffic to ATT from the money popular sites are paying to ISPs?

Let me be the first (1)

[cx] (181186) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075059)

to convey my utter shock!

Republicans and corporations working together? In this day and age? Surely my friend, not my republicans.

Google defending itself? (1)

Zooks! (56613) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075079)

Wasn't google buying up a bunch of dark fiber? Perhaps they think they can enter the provider market? Maybe they foresaw this coming and plan to do an end run around any kind of extortion from Verizon or Comcast.

If they can get into as many places as Verizon and Comcast, they might have a good shot at getting people to jump ship. Still, it's kind of complicated because, at first, I would imagine Verizon and Comcast will make any "GoogleNet" packets as slow as they can to prevent providers and subscribers from jumping ship. Though, in a world where content providers want speed, they may be hosted on several networks. So perhaps it will be complex.

The whole thing is rediculous, though. It's like people forgot what makes TCP/IP cool.

Keep your government out of my internet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075097)

If this had passed whats next? Regulations on who can run what services from home computers? Maybe download caps from the congress, everyone should have a fair shair of downloads but not too much? RIAA gets the OK to hunt down files and erase your HD?
Just because the democrats think Al Gore invented the internet doesn't mean they get to muck with it on even numbered years (when BS gets introduced just for election help).
F*** all that. Keep your government out of my internet.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?