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!

Coalition Sounds Off on Net Neutrality Legislation

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the go-down-swinging dept.

194

DarqFallen writes to tell us that lately everyone has been talking about a tiered internet, though it seems there are other problems on the horizon as well. PCMag has the latest sound-off from the new SavetheInternet.com coalition. From the article: "Vint Cerf, so-called 'father' of the Internet, is among the big names and organizations that have come together to create the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, which hosted a national conference call [yesterday]. [...] [yesterday's] conference call is one of the coalition's many campaign tactics to emphasize the importance of 'Net neutrality,' the concept of a free and open Internet." The main topic of conversation was the latest bill from congress, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancements Act of 2006."

cancel ×

194 comments

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

First post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198581)

first post

Vint *who*? (2, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198587)


From TFA:
Vint Serf, so-called "father" of the Internet, is among the big names and organizations that have come together to create the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, which hosted a national conference call today.

Just when you thought the ramblings of John C. Dvorak weren't enough reason to stop taking PC Magazine seriously, they go and misspell the name of the Father of the Internet [wikipedia.org] .

While the misspelling was corrected for some reason in the story summary, it's still right there in the first sentence of the PC Magazine article.

The rest of the article is well-enough written, but misspelling Vint Cerf's name pretty much sucks the credibility right out of it. Pity.

Re:Vint *who*? (-1, Troll)

techpawn (969834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198618)

But wait! Al Gore invented the internet...

Re:Vint *who*? (1)

ZigiSamblak (745960) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198717)

*yawn* One of the most misquoted arguments ever, he said he "took the initiative to create the internet" and it was taken completely out of context. He really was one of the main people to take the initiative to create it by supporting it in the government as an educational tool when hardly anybody knew anything about computers (early 70s, remember) and that's all he was trying to say.

But if Vint is the father, and Al took the initiative of the "creation" then I wonder what that means for their "professional relationship" at the time...

Re:Vint *who*? (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198634)

The first publication to block its reporters from copying (or even reading) wikipedia.org and you come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Sheesh

Interesting Update: (0)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198646)


The mispelling of Cerf's name in the PC Magazine article was corrected mere minutes after my original post.

Apparently, Bary Alyssa Johnson reads Slashdot. ^_^

Re:Interesting Update: (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198683)

He's not kidding, as I'm typing this I have two other open tabs, one with a 'c' one with a(n) 's'.

IE7? (1, Funny)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198735)


What are tabs?

MjM

Re:IE7? (2)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198889)

Go to the top most toolbar in your browser window, Click 'Help', click 'Help contents', click 'How to get a halfdecent browser'. Now, just do what clippy says.

Re:IE7? (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199180)

What is click?

Re:IE7? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15199192)

Clippy says I should bend your poor old mother over like a ripe Cantaloupe and fuck here till she stops screaming.

Then I think I'll make "love holes" in her, and just go to town for the sake of having a good time.

Re:Vint *who*? (-1, Troll)

Oldsmobile (930596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198655)

That, and the fact that they are nazis.

I call straw man!

Re:Vint *who*? (1)

pingveno (708857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198700)

The PC Magazine people seem to have been very quick in fixing that. As of right now, "Serf" is no longer present in the PC Magazine article. That makes them more credible; the editors and writers read the material enough that they caught the typo very, very quickly.

Re:Vint *who*? (1)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198993)

No, they just read Slashdot.

Re:Vint *who*? (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198706)

Don't be silly. Vint's name is where "serfing the Internet" comes from.

Re:Vint *who*? (3, Funny)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198951)

What is serfing the internet? Is that where you are bound to a small portion of the internet and forced to write code? (Hoping the Mods know enough history to think that is funny)
I don't want to start a feud!
Resistance is Feudal!
Thanks, I'll be here all week.

Re:Vint *who*? (1)

ezavada (91752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199079)

It was funny till you explained the crap out of it and added 3 extra lines of sig

Slaattt!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15199120)

The sound of a rotten tomatoe hitting you in the face.

Keep your day job, and never come back to open mic night.

Re:Vint *who*? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198747)

I thought the father of the internet's name was spell A-l G-o-r-e

Al Gore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198781)

I'd be upset if I were Al, obviously he is still not getting credit for anything he did.

Re:Vint *who*? (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198830)

FTA: Vint Cerf, so-called "father" of the Internet, is among the big names and organizations that have come together to create the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, which hosted a national conference call today.

I don't see the error you speak of. Does this mean the error never existed or is this demonstrating the amazing updating capabilities of the web? (BTW something /. doesn't believe in when it comes to comments)

Re:Vint *who*? (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199107)

The rest of the article is well-enough written


Well, I don't know about that. Consider this line:

The Coalition is not alone in voicing such concerns, as evident by a statement issued jointly by Amazon, Google, eBay, InteractiveCorp., Microsoft, and Google, at a Senate hearing.


Google and Google are concerned about this. Must be serious.

Seriously though... we will just surf the nets! (5, Funny)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198595)

I can see it now... if they fail, we will soon be surfing the netS. One of them will be like BETA INTERNET, the other like VHS INTERNET. After some debate (and a brief LASERDISC INTERNET) BETA INTERNET will die.

VHS INTERNET FOREVER! (Until DVDs... then DVD INTERNET FOREVER! (Until Xvid INTERNET))

Wow... where did that come from?

Re:Seriously though... we will just surf the nets! (1)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198750)

Have your doctor check your medication dosage. I don't think it's working right now.

Re:Seriously though... we will just surf the nets! (1)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198796)

I hate it when funny things get modded "troll".

MjM

Re:Seriously though... we will just surf the nets! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198861)

I hate it when funny things get modded "troll".

Yet another example of how the modderation system has gone waaaayyyy down hill.

Meta Modderation - HA! I've been meta modderating sooo much as "Unfair" and yet has anything changed - NOPE!

So many folks moderate things down just because - I don't why - it doesn't make any sense! I've seen some real gems get knocked down to oblivion becuase some mod or two doesn't like what's said.

Here's why the moderation system sucks - with just one point, you can knock someone down so that no one sees them. Just look at any thread. The mods will just follow the previous guy and mod the same way. Or, they'll be different and still mod up BUT, it'll be another category, like, "interesting" instead of "insightful".

WTF, do you mods sit in a meeting and when someone says something you don't like, do you say "Troll"?!? I Don't Think So!

Re:Seriously though... we will just surf the nets! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199053)

Yep, considering that Funny doesn't give Karma, how about an "unfunny" mod that doesn't take Karma?

Vint Cerf works for Google (3, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198619)

Google has a huge vested interested in preventing a tiered Internet.

I'm not trying to dimininsh what Vint has done in the past nor am I saying that tiered internets are good/bad, but let's face it, Vint is hardly an unbiased source.

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198797)

but let's face it, Vint is hardly an unbiased source.

Yes, but that doesn't make him wrong.

Please, guys, stop thinking in black and white. Don't ask "who's the bad guy". Ask "what would be good / bad for US".

Having said that, I'm glad Vint Cerf made that coalition. I'm sick tired of our rights being taken away because of some submarine legislations (DMCA, patriot act, etc. etc).

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (2, Interesting)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198845)

I wouldn't call the DMCA and the (un)Patriot(ic) act "submarine legislation" - they had quite vocal critics that had damn good arguments, but the people in power were not listening to the critics.

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (1)

ezavada (91752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199136)

I wouldn't call the DMCA and the (un)Patriot(ic) act "submarine legislation" - they had quite vocal critics that had damn good arguments, but the people in power were not listening to the critics.

I certainly agree about the Patriot Act, I wouldn't call it "submarine legislation". But I'd bet you that most people in the US have never heard of the DMCA. Unless, of course, they read slashdot. Compare this to say "activist judges" (or the Patriot Act), which pretty much everyone in the US has heard of, and I think it's fair to say that as DMCA is at least at periscope depth.

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (5, Informative)

VValdo (10446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199009)

I'm sick tired of our rights being taken away because of some submarine legislations (DMCA, patriot act, etc. etc).

Aw, you ain't seen nothin' yet... [com.com]

W

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (1)

bobcardone (922176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199237)

If I could mod this up I would. This is downright scary.....

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199059)

Don't forget the bankrupcy law changes. I guess this is what people get for voting republican and thinking that party is about the common man when its done little more than serve the elites. Hopefully, this will be another of their "social security reform" failures. I know, as a voter, I'm not forgetting how the GOP has acted and when these cronyists are out power they will stay out of power. Keep digging your own graves boys.

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199125)

Have you actually looked at that Bankruptcy reform stuff though? It did basically nothing. Since it only affects people who are earning more than the median income in the US it actually hits very few people. The worst part is that everybody has to fill out the stupid (and expensive) form that tells them that yes, because they're poor it doesn't apply to them. The original forms of the legislation might have been brutal for the average Joe, but the one that made it through Congress is basically a waste of paper.

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198799)

I would think the legacy of his work would make him biased. It also happens to be what makes him an authority. The idea that google is paying him to popularize their notion of an internet end-game is well, perhaps a little disingenious.

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (2, Insightful)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198800)

Um, but don't ALL internet users have a huge vested interest in preventing a tiered Internet? Not that they all REALIZE that preventing a tiered Internet is important, but still...

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (2, Insightful)

bogado (25959) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198813)

google, MSF, yahoo, your random blogger, all those people have interest in an internet that works. As soon as one company starts to reduce the pipes for companies that do not pay protection, others will follow, and soon having a site that appears quickly in a browser will so costly that only a few will be able to have them. Then we will need another internet, just to be free.

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (1)

FLEB (312391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198977)

Then we will need another internet, just to be free.

Or another Internet provider, who can differentiate themselves on "true Internet" service. Granted, I still think the tiered Internet idea should be shot down, but I'm sure it's won't be total instant adoption if it is allowed.

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199064)

Only problem with that is that most markets do not have many last-mile providers. Furthermore, this tiered level of service is aimed at the very-high speed market (Verizon FIOS) where the competition just doesn't exist.

In areas where FIOS exists, DSL and Cable are very pale competitors - basically like the proposed lower level of service in the tiered model.

When it comes to fiber, the sheer cost makes competition very unlikely - much like there isn't much competition in a market for electricity transmission or natural gas pipe. This basically means that they will be a monopoly.

With FIOS, the FCC has granted them special status where they do NOT have to open their fiber to competitors, like they do for copper.

Google would do fine on a tiered internet (2, Interesting)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198844)

Their primary services work fine on low-bandwidth and high latency connections, so an extortionist ISP would have to threaten to cut their customers off from Google entirely.

If an ISP tried extortion, Google could afford to pay, because they're an established company with lots of cash, not a struggling startup anymore.

If an ISP tried extortion, Google could afford to not pay, because they're an established company with a household name, and many people would go back to dialup before they'd lose access to Google search and GMail.

Squint as hard as you can and you might see "vested interests", but the real threat of a crippled (why call it tiered, except to spin the discussion the way the telcos want?) internet isn't to Google, it's to the next Google. If anything, Google has a vested interest in helping telcos lock new competitors out of their networks; luckily for us Google hasn't yet become a "cut off their air supply" sort of company.

Re:Google would do fine on a tiered internet (1)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199024)

Their primary services work fine on low-bandwidth and high latency connections, so an extortionist ISP would have to threaten to cut their customers off from Google entirely.

Their current services work fine on low-bandwidth, but their future vision may not work so well. Remember, they'd like to offer video and other high-bandwidth content.

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (2, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198852)

I hate these filthy neutral nets, Kif! With tiered nets you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me.

What makes a net turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a hub full of neutrality?

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (1)

necrognome (236545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198874)

You are not going to find an "unbiased source" on this sort of issue. There are good arguments, and bad arguments, regardless of perspective or bias. Vint Cerf has made some pretty arguments over the years; the fact that we're using one of those "arguments" (i.e. an end-to-end network with "intelligence" at the periphery, not the center) to discuss this issue speaks for itself. The telco "argument" is centralized, inflexible, and extensible only at the whims of the telco (e.g television/POTS). Which is the better argument?

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198958)

So what? Where do you find these unbiased sources?

Re:Vint Cerf works for Google (1)

DanTheLewis (742271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198974)

Google has a huge vested interested in preventing a tiered Internet.

I'm not trying to dimininsh [sic] what Vint has done in the past nor am I saying that tiered internets are good/bad, but let's face it, Vint is hardly an unbiased source.


And only mathematicians believe 2 + 2 = 4.

Critics of Vint Cerf are biased against Vint Cerf.

I am biased against Critics of Vint Cerf.

Critics of Vint Cerf are biased against my bias.

Because you respect my reputation, you are biased. Because you don't respect my reputation, you are biased. Because you disagree with my argument, you are biased. Because you don't agree or disagree with my argument, you are biased.

Relativism claims another brain (4, Insightful)

GOD_ALMIGHTY (17678) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199043)

but let's face it, Vint is hardly an unbiased source

The beauty of rational and objective thought is, I DON'T HAVE TO CARE WHO VINT CERF WORKS FOR!
Vint Cerf has laid out his proposals and assertions, as has Google and the monopolistic telecomm companies. As a rational person, I can decide the veracity of their statements based on the other information at my disposal. I can never know when or if a liar is lying, so the questioning of motives is moot.

This obsession with motives and bias is irrational and leads to subjective decisions, not objective ones. Usually, it is deployed to disingenuously sow doubts about established facts and hide one's own positions from criticism, not that I'm claiming that is the case here. This post appears to be more collateral damage than maliciousness. The point is, I don't have to care what Vint Cerf's motives are; regardless of the fact that he has in fact acted with far more integrity about what's good for the Internet than any telecom. You will never find an unbiased opinion, bias is another word for goals and no action takes place without a goal, therefore an unbiased opinion is a myth. To search for an objective view is biased in itself.

All that is required to maintain rational integrity is to be transparent about what goals you assume in your assertion. Vint Cerf has made his goals clear, to build a useful network. The telecoms have made their goals clear, to profit as much as possible off this network; they don't shout it, they disclose this type of information more appropriately, like in statements to investors. If my goal is to use a useful network, then I can evaluate each parties assertions accordingly.

IMNSHO, this increase is relativistic irrationality can be tracked closely with the Intelligent Design movement's efforts to wreck science. This is an example of how one of their tactics is dumbing the entire nation down. They've been running a scorched earth policy against reason for years, their efforts have paid off when the nihilistic and relativist garbage they've used for ID has seeped into the veins of public discourse.

For the sake of objective thought, mod the parent down.

No (0)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199238)

The beauty of rational and objective thought is, I DON'T HAVE TO CARE WHO VINT CERF WORKS FOR!

No, the beauty of objective thought is I don't put Vint Cerf on a pedistal. He's just a man. A brilliant man but a man all the same. He gets paid well by a company with a vested interest in a non-tiered internet. The beauty of objective thought is I can keep my perspective and his perspective and Google's perspective all in context without trying to tell people what to think, like you propose to (jumping off on the irrelevant ID tangent, telling mods to mod parent down, etc) ...

Re:Relativism claims another brain (1)

ezavada (91752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199263)

The beauty of rational and objective thought is, I DON'T HAVE TO CARE WHO VINT CERF WORKS FOR!
Vint Cerf has laid out his proposals and assertions, as has Google and the monopolistic telecomm companies. As a rational person, I can decide the veracity of their statements based on the other information at my disposal. I can never know when or if a liar is lying, so the questioning of motives is moot.


It's an interesting arguement, but one that doesn't hold much water in the real world. Neither you nor I have the time to research the veracity of every statement we read or hear. What's more, the information we would need to do so is rarely, if ever, completely available to us.

Understanding a person's trustworthiness helps guide us as to whether it's even worth considering their claims. Sure, it may be irrelevant who Vint Cerf works for, or it may not. It really depends on Vint Cerf himself. I don't know Vint Cerf, so I can't particularly judge how honest he is. But I can notice who signs his paychecks and presume he generally favors ideas that align with his financial interests.

Do you, as a selp proclaimed rationalist, investigate every faith healing you see on TV? Chances are you've probably formed a general opinion of faith healers and so you tend to distrust their actions based on prior assumptions. Presumably there was some rational thought and consideration that when into forming those assumptions in the first place, and that's fine.

As for this case in particular, I actually trust him a bit more knowing he's working for Google.

All that said, demoting the grandparent in promotion of rational thought is not rational.

Is that really GOD ALMIGHTY talking? (1)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199266)

'cause I was led to believe you were a spiteful God, beholden to your followers, yet willing to wipe everything from the face of the earth when the Wickedness of Man triumphs. Could you, perhaps, square the Wickedness of Man stuff with that whole Internet Quality of Service regulatatory proposal crap?

just asking, God (please don't stike me down with a bolt of lightning!)

Bill Namers (1)

9mm Censor (705379) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198628)

I am always impressed at how good the names of these Bills are (although deceptice), its almost as if they are engineered to get people to back it (ok they probably are).

Re:Bill Namers (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198858)

I am always impressed at how good the names of these Bills are (although deceptice), its almost as if they are engineered to get people to back it (ok they probably are).

Kinda reminds me of how warlords name thier organizations thing like "The United People's Front for Peace" or "The Lord's Army" and then go about killing everyone who doesn't think like they do and pay thier extortion fees.

Re:Bill Namers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198865)

I'm in agreement with you. I wish they would change the law so that bills were only referred to as numbers just to remove the emotional and soundbite impact of controversial legislation.

Re:Bill Namers (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198918)

They have teams of interns and aides sitting around thinking up cool sounding acronyms.

Communications
Opportunity,
Promotion and
Enhancements Act

From another article (I can't read that shit) (2, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198637)

"Clarify the FCC authority to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or degrading any content or applications delivered over the public Internet."

FCC? Prevent? Censorship? This does not compute at all!

Damn It!! (1)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198640)

The US created it and damnit the US can destroy it!

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Re:Damn It!! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198827)

Look at Bin Laden and realize: Nope, they can't (or don't want, your choice).

Re:Damn It!! (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199257)

Sure, they can ruin Internet inside USA, but the rest of the world couldn't care less.

Its already begun (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198644)


its called "packet shaping"
ISP's are already discriminating on traffic, they are just getting you warmed up and passive ready for content filtering

Internet (1)

SHOCKWIRE Sports (968640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198680)

That is the key - keeping the Internet so it has freedom of speech. Also, for search engines to bring up the most popular sites although there should be portions that allow companies to pay for a higher search ranking.

Explain please (0, Offtopic)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198707)

"The main topic of conversation was the latest bill from congress, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancements Act of 2006."

How topical. Why is it that the main topic of conversation is POTENTIAL net censorship when very real censoship is occurring in China as we speak?

Did they solve that problem while I wasn't paying attention?

Re:Explain please (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198744)

Why is the main topic during war the front when the war affects everyone? The two situations are similar.

Not Our Problem (1)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198746)

Guess what? That's not our problem. If the Chinese don't like it, let them deal with it. Oh, they can ask us for help, and I for one would be happy to help if I could, but don't try to make it out that it's our moral imperative to rescue every sentient being on the planet from the consequences of their actions.

What I'm concerned about is a fragmented Internet where ISPs only let you access content they control. Or are you completely okay with that? Whatever, I kinda think you are trolling anyway.

Re:Not Our Problem (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198867)

"What I'm concerned about is a fragmented Internet where ISPs only let you access content they control. Or are you completely okay with that? Whatever, I kinda think you are trolling anyway."

Nice straw man. You should leanr how to have a discussion without resorting to gross logical fallacies. I would answer you, but I'm CERTAIN you're an asshole, so I won't waste my time.

Re:Not Our Problem (1)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199158)

Certain I'm an asshole? What an asshole thing to say. I was trying to keep the post on topic. We aren't talking about China here, we are talking about something that hits close to home. It's not a straw man, it's a seperate argument. I answered the GP post about China, then veered back on topic. How is that a straw man?

Re:Not Our Problem (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198890)

It is our problem if we intend to be in the Global Market like we currently are. Besides it CAN be argued that you should give a damn about human rights world wide because eventually it will effect us all.

Re:Not Our Problem (1)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199141)

I do give a damn about human rights. I just don't think we should go galloping across the world to "help" others unless they ask first.

Change (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198772)

Talking and complaining and petitioning are a lot more likely to prevent this censorship than they are to reverse what's happening in China.

If we allow this to happen and then criticize China, it's "people who live in glass houses". If we try to keep this from happening rather than focus 100% on China, then we get your complaint. Something's got to give.

Re:Explain please (1)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198875)

Why is it that the main topic of conversation is POTENTIAL net censorship when very real censoship is occurring in China as we speak?

Because we can stop American censorship with lobbying and voting, and we can't stop Chinese censorship without shooting and bombing.

Yes, it sucks that there are some big problems we can't solve, but that shouldn't prevent anyone from working on the ones we can.

What kind of fucking idiot (-1, Flamebait)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199072)

Mods a post about net censorship in a thread about net censorship, discussing a story about net censorship OFF TOPIC?

God damn, mod, you're a fucking moron.

Re:What kind of fucking idiot? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199200)

Sigh. It's a story about corporations limiting access to content they don't provide. It's not about China. If you can't see how that's off topic, your karma here is going to be pretty bad pretty soon. Sorry if you don't like it. Hell, if you are so concerned, make a journal entry or something.

But the attitude that we are somehow remiss for even raising the topic of corporate segmentation of the Internet when China is censoring Internet access is rude and condescending, and I'm guessing you are just trolling and have absolutely no concern for the Chinese except as a ploy to raise people's ire.

You're an asshole... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15199204)

feel better now?

Isn't that what you really wanted? Some type of flame war where, in the end, you throw a polysyllabic bomb at your opponent, all the while trying to claim the moral high-ground?

So let's just cut to the chase...fucking moron.

Split the net (2, Interesting)

malraid (592373) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198757)

Would it be feasable to create a giant peer to peer network based off wireless access points? Something that's more organic than the current net where a few carriers can make or brake the whole net. A net that's not under the control of the FCC (at least for the time). A net that least in some form can survive the war against Eurasia^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terror.

Re:Split the net (2, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198812)

Good god no. No no no that would not be possible.

Like it or not the Internet as we know it requires the sort of backbones it has that connect major networks at extremely high speeds. A wireless mesh might work out for basic email appliances in a large urban area (ie down town area), it would never be a viable option in slightly less populated areas. Not to mention the issues involved with sufficient levels of bandwidth that would be able to handle all of the users such a network would be available to.

Net Neutrality Makes Sense (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198777)

"Proposals coming from telcos and the cable companies, as exemplified in some of their legislation, destroys that neutrality."

Again, why would anyone (who doesn't work for one of these telcos and cable companies) be against Net Neutraility?

It just goes against common sense.

Re:Net Neutrality Makes Sense (1)

Cemu (968469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198859)

I guess the super rich are tired of having to share the same space as everyone else. This is the first time everyone has been equal and they can't handle it.

Re:Net Neutrality Makes Sense (1)

donutello (88309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198898)

Playing the Devil's Advocate...

The pipes in question are owned by the carriers and it should be their right to do with them what they see fit. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks when it comes to issues of rights because a corrolary of your argument would be "why would anyone who isn't be against "?

Re:Net Neutrality Makes Sense (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199048)

The pipes in question are owned by the carriers and it should be their right to do with them what they see fit.

For the sake of innovation, progress, and freedom - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Re:Net Neutrality Makes Sense (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199283)

The pipes in question run through public spaces and the public can renegotiate or cancel the contract any time they want. The pipes in question amount to a natural monopoly and the free market is not the most efficient mechanism for managing such monopolies. It does matter what the majority thinks about rights because rights are created by people. There are no natural rights, only those we agree to uphold in others. Certainly, rights need to be enforced equitably, but see my above two points as to why telco's property rights do not trump my own rights in this case. There's no slippery slope here, no one is going to use this as an excuse to seize your assets.

Re:Net Neutrality Makes Sense (3, Insightful)

gral (697468) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199293)

AFAICT, AT&T has got major Tax Breaks to put lines in. That amounts to tax payers PAYING AT&T huge amounts of money (because the money has to come from somewhere) to put those lines in.

Now AT&T is wanting the User, the person you are connecting to, and the person you are connecting to if it is a popular site, to pay more money.

So they are wanting a brand new revenue stream coming from the same people that are already paying a premium for their bandwidth. Google has to have some massive pipes that they are paying for, as does EVERY single major player in the internet.

Why should they be charged MORE than they already are for the massive bandwidth, because people use their sites more?

It seems like AT&T is becoming the new Mafia. "Yous wanted to connect faster, that'll be another $5000 in "Pipe money". Not out in the OPEN!!! Under the table, quickly now, I have to hit up Amazon next. Thanks, see you in a couple minutes.

Re:Net Neutrality Makes Sense (3, Interesting)

gzearfoss (829360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198924)

Why? Probably because they've been misinformed, or have misconceptions about how it works.
In just about everything else, we have tiers. High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on highways, premium cable channel programs, priority mail at the post office. People are used to the concept that if you pay more, you get more or better service. Heck, even internet access has tiers - you can pay $10 for dial-up, or you can pay $40 for much faster broadband or DSL.
If you think of the internet as a limited capacity system, the idea of tiered service becomes much more reasonable. Would you want the critical business document you're loading from the central office held up because some other person is hogging all the bandwidth downloading movies? People want to make sure that critical files get where they need to as soon as possible, and are used to spending more to this end.
Picture what would happen if your ISP said that because of increased traffic, not all messages will be sent with equal priority. You'd want to be able to make sure that your stuff got through when you needed it to, even if it meant paying an extra five dollars a month.

Re:Net Neutrality Makes Sense (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199302)

Good point. But what do we do when the big ISPs SILENTLY limit access to content they don't provide? In a crippled Internet where not all the nets are connected together, will we even be able to find a provider that lets us access everything the way we do now? That is the problem we are talking about, not the idea that paying more money gets you better service.

Not exciting enough (-1, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198782)

To get people really interested, you have to take an approach like the Kill the Internet coalition.

http://www.killtheinternet.com/ [killtheinternet.com]

Isn't this just more proof... (2, Funny)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198789)

...that the FCC has outlived it's usefulness and needs to go?

Re:Isn't this just more proof... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198855)

I was recently reminded that their job was to make sure that the technical specs are met. So far, nobody clued me in what business they have with content.

Re:Isn't this just more proof... (3, Insightful)

BigCheese (47608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198902)

It used to be that the FCC was responsible for making sure the PUBLIC frequencies were used for the public good. Now, they are industry and special interest group lapdogs.

Stupid competition, stupid capitalism (2, Insightful)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198820)

What is funny is that the telecoms didn't get real horny for this issue until the DSL price war broke out.

What I always love is that Big Business in America supports a free and open market for about an hour, and then gets all huffy because competition and efficiency force them to work harder.

Suddenly, free enterpise becomes bullshit, and they start pining for a mercantile economy.

If the value proposition for putting up new lines isn't there, maybe Verizon can just ditch its FIOS roll-out and leave us with really old, worn-out copper wiring that runs dial-up at a blazing 7 kbps.

Why is it the government's job to fix their value proposition?

The idea here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198824)

Seems that the idea here is for the telcos to get the tiered internet in place before upgrading the infrastructure to handle higher speed internet connections. You know, that way only the current media conglomerates can afford to shuttle their DRM'd crap across the wires.

A Rose (1)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198826)


Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancements Act of 2006.

Is it just me or is it that the more horrible a bill it, the nicer a name it has?

I guess you wouldn't get many people to line up behind

Hand the Internet over to the Incumbent Telcos to Apologize for Breaking up AT&T Bill

MjM

Re:A Rose (1)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198905)

I think you missed the obvious... its called the COPE Act because the government doesn't care whether you like it.

The real threat to the internet (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15198839)

Are the censors, spies, and congress in general. They want all sites to register with the government to prevent anyone anywhere to be protected from child porn. They want ALL data to be retained because of kiddie porn, but it will have convenient uses for all the police, spies and nannies in the government. They want to regulate us, nanny us, and tax us out of existence. These issues make the threat from tiered internet seem tame. I don't see these guys standing against the real threat which is from governments. They are getting in bed with the real devil to protect us from the supposed threat from ISPs which we can walk away from with our dollars.

The what? (3, Insightful)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198913)

"Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancements Act of 2006."

When will people just stop using their "Clear Skies" aka "Clearly Incorrect" propoganda labels attached to the bills? Just say the bill introduced yesterday which legalizes a tiered internet and removes consumer rights to resell internet services, which from a quick glance seems far more accurate a description. Once they actually introduce it refer to it as HR1126 or whatever its id is. With some alphanumeric id people don't automatically get an opinion without RTFA.

At least put a "so-called" in from of the title. Of course it is kinda handy to just apply "!(Title)" and know what the bill is actually for...

Americans should be outraged (5, Insightful)

Cutting_Crew (708624) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198978)

All Americans should be especially outraged, considering that these corporations got FREE SUBSIDIES from our tax dollars to lay down all that cable. That's right, all that cable, we paid for it with our money..our tax dollars..now they want to continue to be greedy and get more from the government and the people.

The good news is forces such as MS, Google and etc. are major shareholders as well and have clout. Its all about the money, nothing more. Screw the customer. If congress and the White House are looking for a riot, they sure did pick one.. just waiting to happen.

Save the internet...in the US (1)

Programmer_In_Traini (566499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15198979)

I tried to register this morning to offer support

After completing the registration and putting some comments I was denied registration because i dont live in the US. ...why did they let me speciy a province/country/postal code if they only accept U.S. people ?

Re:Save the internet...in the US (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199201)

Q: Why did they let me speciy a province/country/postal code if they only accept U.S. people ?

A: Simple, It's to track naive terrorists that live outside the US. Now they now where you live! Prepare to be liberated!

Fight for Network Neutrality at the local level! (5, Interesting)

tlabetti (304480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199066)

I am pushing our town to include a Network Neutrality provision in Verizon's cable TV franchise agreement. I feel this is the best way to advance the Network Neutrality issue. The telecoms will steamroll the politicians at the state and federal level, but we stand a chance at the local level.

It's simple. We say to the telecoms: If you want to run a cable franchise in our town then you need our permission. If you want out permission then you will agree to respect the tenets of Network Neutrality.

Please visit my website to follow what we are doing at the local level.

http://www.redbanktv.org/ [redbanktv.org]

Tom@redbanktv dot org

Get Tom Cruise on the Roster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15199102)

You're all delusional with this Net Neutrality coalition. Go to Google News, click Most Popular and you'll notice TOM CRUISE has been at the top of the list for the past 2 WEEKS ! That's what people really care about and that's how corporate lobbied government is screwing us up the backside.

That said, I'm off to watch a trailer of MI III while my ISP still allows me too.

Aw, and I was hoping not to see this... (1)

owenwarner (961362) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199149)

Page 24, line 17 start.

b) IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS. -- The Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendment made by subsection (a) with-19 in 120 days of the date of enactment of this Act.

As the FCC's leniency on regulations is what they're known for.

I hate these filthy neutrals. (2, Funny)

Floydius (811220) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199216)

You know where enemies stand, but with neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with heart of neutrality?

SCOTUS Brand X Decision impact (1)

kaufmanmoore (930593) | more than 8 years ago | (#15199298)

Would "net neutrality" and any bill requiring it be struck down by the Supreme Court, based on their ruling that cable cos (and the FCC added DSL) dont have to share their lines with competitors?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>