Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Net Neutrality or Not?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the hoping-for-alternate-history dept.

352

Reverse Gear writes "CNN has two commentaries about net neutrality with quite opposing viewpoints. Craig Newmark discusses how the legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would efficiently remove net neutrality, while Mike McCurry writes about how the big companies should pay their fair share for the physical upgrade of the internet. From Newmark's commentary: 'Telecommunication companies already control the pipes that carry the Internet into your home. Now they want control which sites you visit and how you experience them. They would provide privileged access for themselves and their preferred partners while charging other businesses for varying levels of service.'"

cancel ×

352 comments

They already pay their "fair share". (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514439)

Google pays for the bandwidth it uses.

I pay for the bandwidth I use.

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514473)

Home users have few choices as to provider for high-speed internet access. They pay extraordinarily high rates.

But Google can shop around for its bandwidth, finding a good deal (thanks to competition) - They're *not* paying their fair share...

The last-mile providers can extort them to pay twice! And twice the cash is better than one times the cash :)

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (5, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514489)

You are just pissed that google get a bulk discount and you don't.

Google are just as free as you to shop around for a provider and as long as that provider supplies a service and gives backbone bandwidth to the paying customer then what has it got to do with anyone else.

If the home user ISP isn't making money then thats not googles fault, but a problem with the ISP's business plan, it has no right to complain about content further upstream.

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (5, Insightful)

pjhenley (98045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514481)

I think the problem (from the telco's point of view) is that Google is paying only one company for the bandwidth it uses. Wouldn't it be nice if they could all get a share by threatening to throttle Google's traffic on their networks? Not only that, you can squeeze out any small-time competition from the market by threatening to take away a big chunk of Google's users if they sign with a smaller company for bandwidth. Only why stop at Google, you could do it to anyone! Heck, maybe even political parties? (So, probably not but the telcos would love to do it anyways, I'm sure.)

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (5, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514490)

Suppose I'm Google's ISP. I notice you start throttling traffic to Google. A have a very simple solution. No more peering for you. You deal with angry customers that can't get to Google.

Nothing will come of this. It's all bullshit "what ifs". There's no such thing as a "good new law".

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (3, Insightful)

pjhenley (98045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514526)

No "Good new law?" That clearly doesn't work. The Consistution is relatively new, and I think that one's pretty OK.

Regulating companies that have any form of a monopoly (I literally have one choice for broadband) is not a bad thing. When the phone monopolies were granted it was under a condition of universal access. The government realized that a monopoly has no interest in reaching every consumer, the way competing companies do. Hence they made universal access a requirement of granting the monopoly. Here we're faced with largely the same issue. Google may have leverage enough to push telcos into not throttling their traffic, but Mom&Pop Inc. doesn't and neither do small grass-roots coalitions of any party or flavor. Until we have total competition in all aspects of the network, I think it will be hard to make any hands-off arguments.

 

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (5, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514544)

Regulating companies that have any form of a monopoly (I literally have one choice for broadband) is not a bad thing.

Agreed.

When the phone monopolies were granted

A mistake.

The government realized that a monopoly has no interest in reaching every consumer,

A consequence of that mistake.

Hence they made universal access a requirement of granting the monopoly.

A bad new law to band-aid over that mistake.

Until we have total competition in all aspects of the network

That won't happen. The last mile is a natural monopoly. I believe that localities should own last mile media. Any interested party should be able to rent use of said media.

That will solve your "one choice for broadband" problem nicely. The only place there isn't competition is the last mile. People seem to be extrapolating their situation onto the Internet in general.

I can tell you when you go shopping for a T1 or T3 or more, you get to choose from at least 10 ISPs. There's plenty of competition there.

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514527)

I notice you start throttling traffic to Google. A have a very simple solution. No more peering for you.

WHAT?! And give up billing Amazon?! I think your CEO wants to have a word for you. Something about corporate socialism and how he deserves to get Amazon's money for free and he was counting on that for the new yacht he's already ordered.

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (0, Offtopic)

magicchex (898936) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514667)

There's no such thing as a "good new law".
You're right, same-sex marriages are a horrible thing, just like interracial marriages were 50 years ago when they were new.

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (1)

Tolleman (606762) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514704)

Isnt that more of removing a old retarded law then making a new good one?

Re:They already pay their "fair share". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514482)

Exactly.

Pay their fair share? (0, Redundant)

Twiceblessedman (590621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514453)

Greedy telco's, the big companies already pay their portion. I pay for my bandwidth, google pays for theirs.

Re:Pay their fair share? (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514713)

Yes, but this is not about bandwidth. That is a commodity and it is lowest price. The telcos are pushing for a way to decommitiditize this; basically access to end-users. In addition, this is being pushed by several large companies. This allows a company like MS to control the net. Sadly, once this starts, I think that we will witness the break apart of the internet.

Funny thing is, if congress would remove all monopolistic actions and actively prevent a local monopoly (except for possible a very local access monopoly by a company that provides nothing but CO to/from endpoint) in any community, then it would stand a chance. But this congress and admin will not do that. This is all about large company protection that will guarentee the break-down of the net in the USA. Sad, really.

What they don't get... (1)

z-kungfu (255628) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514454)

is that we already pay for our bandwidth, and so do the content providers. Tax dollars subsidised the building of the infrastructure. Fees paid to the phone companies were expressly for this (Universal Access)... We need to stop the greedy SOB's that can't stand the fact that their revenue stream from analog phone is gone...

Both make points, but neither gets it... yet. (5, Funny)

Rod, Hot (672270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514461)

Of the two, Craig Newmark makes the better argument... however, neither explains how we have already PAID for the access to the sites we visit. However, the BEST argument I have seen so far is the ninja from "Ask a Ninja" http://www.askaninja.com/news/2006/05/11/ask-a-nin ja-special-delivery-4-net-neutrality [askaninja.com]

Re:Both make points, but neither gets it... yet. (1)

aphaenogaster (884935) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514681)

No kidding! This is such a crock of ninja shit. They are chasing after this only because joe shmoe does not understand that he paid for the fucking highway in the first place. NOT ONLY THAT! But he pays for it every single day whether he uses it or not! Now they want to bill him (if he could figure out how to run his own server) and all of the great things that he wants to do with that highway. What a crock!

Here is a scenario for you... I ssh 200gbs of data from my home workstation to my lab computer at Georgetown. What happens? Do I get charged? Does GU get charged? What if 100 researchers at GU all decide to do this some friday evening? What happens?

This is so much BS I just dont have enough hair to pull out.

I hope Slashdot makes it into the "silver package" (4, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514462)

No offense, but I'm not going to shell out an extra $50 or so each month for some "gold package" that lets me talk to you guys and read the lefty political blogs.

Re:I hope Slashdot makes it into the "silver packa (3, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514499)

Gold silver or bronze it doesn't matter.
Any site who doesn't pony up this ransom will suffer when a gold paying site runs a live stream and requires all the bandwidth.
Remember, its paying for prefenrential delivery, not for open access, we will still be able to access the other sites, but only when bandwidth allocation is available, think of it as paying for a hardware interupt in the curcuit.

Politics sucks (5, Insightful)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514465)

Removing net neutrality might make sense, if the telecoms weren't monopolies that is. If they weren't monopolies they would be competing with each other to provide the best service to the customer, and thus wouldn't want to charge content providers for bandwidth (possibly at all), since they would want their customers to desire their services, and they would only desire their services if they could access content. However as it stands the telecommunications companies are monopolies, so there is little motivation for them to provide the best service. As a monopoly they simply want to charge as much as the market will bear, and if Google is making money off ads clearly they can afford to pay more to the telecoms. The fact that laws doing away with net neutrality might be passed is sad evidence how much our politicians are in the pockets of big companies.

Re:Politics sucks (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514502)

The backbones aren't monopolies. The monopolies are only on local loop service.

ATT/Verizon/Bell South.... Hmm I wonder where I've seen those names before. :)

I hope no net neutrality passes. This stupid ploy that the Baby Bells are making to reassert their nationwide monopoly will be their downfall. There's plenty of recourse the other major backbone providers can use to totally bitchslap them if they try anything sleezy.

Re:Politics sucks (5, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514574)

I hope no net neutrality passes.

I agree. The idea these people are putting forward (not just telcos, several cable ISPs are in on it as well!) is a horrible, horrible one, which I hope to never see in action.

But if it does come to it, I hope the content providers are ready. Google should not pay, and simply post a front page explaining that "Your ISP is reducing your access to us". Other companies that bill their users should pay, and pass that cost directly to the users in the form of a line item "verizon (or whatever) charge *" with a "* please call verizon customer service at 1-888-whatever for questions concerning this charge".

If the content providers stand up for themselves and provide the customers with education about the situation (god knows the ISPs won't, despite all the idiots insisting that some fairy hand will magically make everything better) then we still have a chance at making this go away, law or no law.

Re:Politics sucks (2, Informative)

XorNand (517466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514579)

I agree with your point, but one nitpick... A "monopoly" is a single company dominating an industry. An "oligopoly" is when a small number of companies have the share that same level of control. With the deregulation that occured in 1996 and resulting mass consolidation, things are rapidly becoming an oligopoly.

Re:Politics sucks (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514653)

The solution is to break up monopolies, not enact laws that prevent businesses from entering into mutually beneficial contracts.

Re:Politics sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514705)

no, the solution is to allow competition. As it stands, the ISP's have a monoply in areas, especially in cable (1 provider per area, no overlaps, total monoply, only other ISP's being dsl/modem). Even if net neutrality was ended, competition over customers would force ISP's in being more considerate, or offer a very cheap service, either way, competition would be a win for customers.

How about raising rates? (5, Insightful)

porkUpine (623110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514468)

If the telcos are so worried about big sites not paying their fair share, why don't they just raise bandwidth rates? This is a free market after all. If I were company X and ATT raised my bandwidth rates, I'd shop around... If i couldn't find a better rate, i'd be stuck... kinda like buying gas :)

Infastructure + Content = Power Grab (4, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514470)

Mike McCurry writes about how the big companies should pay their fair share [CC] for the physical upgrade of the internet. From Newmark's commentary: 'Telecommunication companies already control the pipes that carry the Internet into your home. Now they want control which sites you visit and how you experience them. They would provide privileged access for themselves and their preferred partners while charging other businesses for varying levels of service.'"

Maybe the government should sieze control over the main backbone and make the upkeep/upgrade no longer a responsibility of the major providers. ISP's would all compete for the last mile hookups/billing, allowing other companies in who don't already own part of the highway itself.

They can try to earn more of their revenue from these supposed services they are going to bring in - if the services really are all that fantastic. If they really are cooking with gas, they should have no beef with a truly level playing field with Google. If I don't like the fact I can't get (competing service) as well with ISP Alpha because they're partnered with TVIP-X, I'll just drop them and move to ISP Beta since they treat everyone the same.

Re:Infastructure + Content = Power Grab (2, Insightful)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514505)

They used to, but Clinton need to appease some Republicans so he let them screw the internet over.

Re:Infastructure + Content = Power Grab (1)

LegendLength (231553) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514570)

... Clinton need to appease some Republicans so he let them screw the internet over.

What a great president that lets the opposition screw things over as a favour.

Re:Infastructure + Content = Power Grab (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514507)

If I don't like the fact I can't get (competing service) as well with ISP Alpha because they're partnered with TVIP-X, I'll just drop them and move to ISP Beta since they treat everyone the same.

Thats just the thing. Since any high-speed access is a monopoly (or oligopoly) in many, many areas, there won't be an ISP B, or ISP C if B decides to do the same as A, only with different partners.

Re:Infastructure + Content = Power Grab (5, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514521)

No you got it all backward. There is decent competition on the backbone level.

There's a natural monopoly on the local level.

One good thing this act has in it is provisions to encourage localities to take control of last mile. Even as a Libertarian I diverge from the party line and believe that the last mile natural monopoly should be municipally controlled.

Putting some fake competition into a natural monopoly via "must carry" laws never works out very well. Just make the physical last mile media locally owned and let the companies that want to use it rent it from the city/county.

Re:Infastructure + Content = Power Grab (1)

LegendLength (231553) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514592)

Even as a Libertarian I diverge from the party line and believe that the last mile natural monopoly should be municipally controlled.

I feel the same way, also a Libertarian. At least until something changes where it is no longer a natural monopoly.

Re:Infastructure + Content = Power Grab (5, Insightful)

joranbelar (567325) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514613)

Maybe the government should sieze control over...

Wow, there's just no way that statement could end badly!

Re:Infastructure + Content = Power Grab (1)

aphaenogaster (884935) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514708)

Yeah like highways, ATT, FAA, hmmm, lets see militias in 1812, Social Security, the FTC, seat belts, boy its just got to end badly.

Of course we have to remember that such memorable establishments like the "DEPARTMENT OF THE FATHERLAND" err. sorry "department of homeland security" and the every so popular "patriot act came out of the 'conservatives' and those that voted for them.

Fair share? (3, Funny)

mortonda (5175) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514474)

Wow, I didn't realize Google got free bandwidth.

I'm sure they do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514595)

They're hooked up to their neighbours connections, just like me... ;)

Well... (2, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514683)

...they did have to search for it.

So what? (2, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514477)

Telecomm providers always had the right to give you crappier service.

If you wanted a T3 and didn't care how bottlenecked it was upstream you can buy it from a local ISP. If you want one that can max out to nearly any other site, you buy from a Tier 1 ISP.

If the Tier 1 starts to offer you crappy service, you change to another one.

If the Tier 1 ISPs collude to offer subpar service and fixed prices, then fix that with antitrust.

As long as it's a free market, there's nothing to worry about. While you may only get to choose 1 or 2 ISPs for your home broadband use, anyone with major bandwidth can choose at least 5 or 10 different Tier 1 ISPs.

Regarding the last mile, this same bill also explicitely authorizes localities to provide last mile service. I'm not sure why a federal bill would be needed to permit this, but there it is.

Re:So what? (1)

littlerubberfeet (453565) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514534)

The Feds need to specify the ability of localities to offer service, because the major telcos have been lobbying at the state level to prevent this. The telcos don't want muni broadband, for obvious reasons, even if there is no other broadband service avaliable.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514561)

Well that's where we need to concentrate the efforts.

Net neutrality becomes irrelevant in a market with choice.

Take the natural local monopoly away and give it to the localities and all this becomes irrelevant.

I wonder if this is the entire reason this debate is centered on the net neutrality provisions, to take attention away from the real issue, the breaking of the local monopolies.

Re:So what? (1)

Opusnbill7 (442087) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514560)

"Regarding the last mile, this same bill also explicitely authorizes localities to provide last mile service. I'm not sure why a federal bill would be needed to permit this, but there it is."

Interesting. That would be a positive development out of a generally crappy bill. Unfortunately, in some states (such as Nebraska), the state (at the insistence of local telcos) enacted a law prohibiting any locality or public entity from getting into the "last mile" business. That leaves most of the state with one (or no) choices for access, outside of satellite service.

As I said, I don't like the bill, but at least it sounds like it's not *all* bad...

Re:So what? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514580)

The FCC in the past has claimed supreme authority over the things it has juristiction over.

For example, as a ham operator, I can erect an antenna tower in violation of a local ordinance, and the town can't say anything about it. Well they can, but I'll win in court.

The same goes for renters. Your landlord can't tell you that you can't have a satellite dish. Or your homeowner's association. If they don't like your 200 foot ham radio tower, they can go fuck themselves.

Anyway, my point is, this will likely override any state or local laws, since it will be under the juristiction of the FCC, which is generally granted supreme authority.

Re:So what? (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514582)

I think you're missing what Net Neutrality is about.

If a website owner's ISP starts offering bad service or starts demanding protection money^W^Wa premium access fee they can switch to innumerable other hosting services or ISPs. That's not the problem. The problem comes when ALL of the other backbones and ISPs start demanding protection money.

If the local Mafia moves in on your shipping business, you can move to somewhere they aren't. The problem here is that all of the other Mafia families everywhere are demanding protection money from you, because it'd be a shame if your packages were to get... lost en route while traveling through their territory, wouldn't it?

There's a reason it's a crime in the real world.

Why net neutrality? (0)

Dlugar (124619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514491)

It seems like, among all the applications that use IP, some of them are time-sensitive, and some of them are time-insensitive. And ones that are time-sensitive seem to be quite variable in the amount of time-sensitivity. For example, I may want to download or upload some file overnight--as long as it's done by the following morning, I don't care how long it took the packets to get from point A to point B. Or I may be surfing the web--in which case I'll probably want the packets to move pretty much as fast as possible. Or I may be on an interactive ssh session, in which case I may also want faster packets.

If I understand it correctly, this whole "net neutrality" thing makes everyone treat "bits as bits"--my overnight download is exactly the same as my web surfing which is exactly the same as my ssh session. This seems like a huge waste--why shouldn't we have the ability to shape our bandwidth based on our needs? Obviously there's room for abuse (such as Comcast blocking or degrading VoIP packets from competing companies, but leaving its own alone) but aren't we throwing the baby out with the bathwater by disallowing any sort of discrimination based on packet contents?

Or am I just completely misunderstanding the whole "net neutrality" thing?

Dlugar

Re:Why net neutrality? (3, Insightful)

hoborocks (775911) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514513)

This seems like a huge waste--why shouldn't we have the ability to shape our bandwidth based on our needs? Obviously there's room for abuse (such as Comcast blocking or degrading VoIP packets from competing companies, but leaving its own alone) but aren't we throwing the baby out with the bathwater by disallowing any sort of discrimination based on packet contents?

Or am I just completely misunderstanding the whole "net neutrality" thing?


Yeah, it's a small distinction, but a powerful one.

The whole point of Net Neutrality is not to make everything neutral, as the telcos want you to believe....the point is to have fairness. So if you're using Vonage VoIP, or using Skype VoIP, or ANY other VoIP, it's okay to prioritize those packets so long as you prioritize everyone's VoIP traffic exactly the same.

That's where the telcos want to confuse people. And they're doing a great job with this confusion *grumble, grumble*.

Re:Why net neutrality? (1)

Dlugar (124619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514550)

The whole point of Net Neutrality is not to make everything neutral, as the telcos want you to believe....the point is to have fairness. So if you're using Vonage VoIP, or using Skype VoIP, or ANY other VoIP, it's okay to prioritize those packets so long as you prioritize everyone's VoIP traffic exactly the same.

Thanks for the clarification. Do you know if this idea of "it's okay to prioritize as long as you prioritize everyone's the same" is present in all proposed "net neutrality" legislation, or only in some of the bills? Have there been discussions as to whether the wording of the proposed legislation will successfully achieve this or not? It seems like that simple idea might be somewhat complex to put into enforceable legalese without having unforeseen ramifications. Has there been any discussion at this level, or is it all just "Google should pay us money!" "Nuh uh, they already pay their own ISP!" "Whatever!" "Totally!"? So far I haven't seen anything beyond the level of Junior High debate.

Dlugar

Re:Why net neutrality? (4, Insightful)

CashCarSTAR (548853) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514543)

You're completly misunderstanding. Actually no you're not..you're just not cynical enough.

Net Neutrality only concerns itself with the source of a packet. QoS rules can still be applied, but they need to be applied without regard to the source of the packet. Why the telcos are so big on killing net neutrality, is exactly so ISPs can give their/their allies internet applications huge advantages over competitors. In fact, everybody knows this. This is why there are actually changes to various anti-trust regs that are being pushed along with killing net neutrality.

The one thing I have to say is, if internet companies have to pay to send their content over telco pipes, then the telcos should pay the content providers for providing the content that makes people want to have internet connections.

Re:Why net neutrality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514554)

No, you're thinking of QoS. Many ISPs already do this - they give much higher priority to VoIP, then things like SSH, then short-term HTTP / HTTPS, then downloads like FTP, bittorrent, or long-term HTTP sessions. The result is that web browsing can stay responsive even when lots of people are downloading stuff through bittorrent, and your VoIP calls won't break up when the upstream bandwidth starts being limited.

Re:Why net neutrality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514563)

Part of the problem is the companies are not talking about prioritizing by protocol or content, but by destination. For instance, if Microsoft pays AT&T so that traffic to MSN Search gets priority over traffic to Google, effectively making Google slower and MSN faster, to any user who's bits cross AT&T wires.

Re:Why net neutrality? (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514573)

Well the telcos bitch that there isn't enough bandwidth to go around. This is bull. There isn't enough bandwidth to go around because they oversell their circuits and bank on Grandma paying $20 for DSL and doing nothing but check email and shop eBay. Free! Unlimited! Just don't fucking use it!

Of course, there is PLENTY of bandwith to go around if they'd just invest in it instead of paying for the CEOs' cocaine/hooker habit. Allow me to quote Gary Bachula of Internet2 fame:

For example, a university campus in the Midwest that serves 14,000
students and faculty, recently estimated it would cost about $150 per port (per end user) to
replicate their current 100 Mbps network for a five year period, or about $30 a year per user. To
upgrade to 1000 Mbps (1 gigabit) it would cost $250, or about $50 per year. University
campuses are like small towns or suburban neighborhoods. Once cable companies and
companies like Verizon make their initial fiber investment, the relative cost of upgrading
bandwidth to customers is small.

The telcos want to sit on the investments that we the taxpayer made and milk it for every last drop they can. That is all this is about. Of course, SSH and the like should be prioritized over Bittorrent, but allowing for "good" QoS allows for "bad" QoS. Its the same with any sort of censorship.

Re:Why net neutrality? (2, Insightful)

shadow_slicer (607649) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514637)

No, protocol based traffic shaping is already allowed and in use (and that is fair).

The end of net neutrality means that if you sign for VOIP service with company A, and that company doesn't pay YOUR ISP's (extortion) fee, your ISP will (at least be able to) lower your traffic quality (possibly to such a degree it is no longer functional). And maybe your ISP offers a competing VOIP service. Since they don't have to pay themselves this fee, they have an unfair market advantage (and they could set the fee to whatever they want)...

Also, it could completely disolve the peer-to-peer nature of the internet. I'm not talking about file sharing. If person A wanted to have a video-conference or whatever with person B, in order to ensure decent service, A would need to payoff B's ISP and B would need to payoff A's ISP.
This sort of prior arrangement isn't very feasible in a network of peers...

Turnabout? (1)

lexarius (560925) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514492)

So without net neutrality, a theoretical entity that owns big pipes and is against this greed could figure out which packets are being prioritized and which are being deprioritized on incoming pipes from other providers. Then on their pipes, swap the priorities.

Re:Turnabout? (1)

BobSutan (467781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514682)

That's an interesting concept. I wonder how long that would last though with big telco's lobbying abiliy?

Incidentally, imagine if the VoIP packets origination from Comcast's service were to pass through AT&T's. Suddenly Comcast customers would feel how Vonage customers do. All's fair in love and telecommunications war.

What I think (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514493)

Wait until symptoms manifest. We don't know how to effectively stop non-neutrality before it happens, and either way, we can't know what the side effects of our actions will be.

It's just that we have to continually remind ourselves, the telcos, and Congress that certain pricing policies are blatantly unacceptable, in addition to the multitude of other issues that we track.

Spade a spade (1)

MisterSquid (231834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514612)

We don't know how to effectively stop non-neutrality before it happens,

The first step is to develop a nomenclature that Joe Sixpack (read: your elected representative) will be able to understand is A Bad Thing (TM). Instead of calling it "non-neutrality," using evocative and descriptive phrases such as service discrimination or biased delivery or prejudicial routing might explain more clearly just what the telcos are up to.

Privileged access (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514494)

At a minimum the telcos should be forced to act as common carriers. That means everybody pays the same and gets the access they pay for. No playing favorites.

The telcos could create whatever rate scheme they wanted but they would have to treat everyone equally. Actually, the telcos are currently common carriers. It would be necessary to pass legislation to make them otherwise.

OK (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514497)

If they don't want Net Neutrality, let's take away their common carrier status! After all, if they're discriminating against content, that means that they're taking some responsibility for what content goes where. I can't wait for the first telecom VP who ends up on trial for aiding and abetting a child molester.

Vote (4, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514503)

The only way our government is going to stop screwing everybody in order to help out big business is if the one's who are responsible for this crap get voted out of office. Don't forget that in November.

Re:Vote (2)

forlornhope (688722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514565)

Of the two major parties(the only two with a chance at really affecting things), could you please point me to the one that is not responsible for this? Thank you.

Re:Vote (1)

MrSquirrel (976630) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514606)

I say we all gather up and form our own party -- "The Slashdocrats". Whaddya' think? It has a nice ring to it. There's around a million of us (according to user ID numbers, throw in lurkers and take away international /.'ers), so if we each reach out to 30 people, that's 30 million, which is about 10% of the country. (295,734,134 total U.S. pop). If we make a strong case to each of those 30 million and then half of them go out and tell 5 more people, that's another 75 millions (plus the 30 million told by us and the 1 million of us gives us a total of 106 million). Wielding a good third of the U.S. population for votes, we would be able to bring about some competition to the Dems and Reps. Of course, if we could only become ultra-corrupt in order to get that corporate funding we need to run our political ads :(

Re:Vote (3, Insightful)

ezavada (91752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514619)

Well, according to TFA this latest vote was pretty much along party lines, Republicans voting against net neutrality and Democrats voting for it.

What's wrong with these people? (1)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514504)

With net neutrality, the users pay for access to the internet and the web sites pay for their bandwidth. That's how it should be.

the real issue (4, Insightful)

convolvatron (176505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514508)

why is cell phone internet access in the US so terribly useless.
its not just the low bandwidth and the tiny screen, its because
its packaged as a delivery media for ringtones and crappy games.
not just as a pipe.

the value of the internet is that there isn't necessarily some
marketing shmuck in tan slacks and a blue shirt sitting between
me and what i want to do. its a free-for-all. if those people
had been involved from the beginning it would have been worthless.

do whatever you like. dont mess with my rfc 791.

Re:the real issue (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514583)

" its because its packaged as a delivery media for ringtones and crappy games. not just as a pipe."

Huh?

All three of the cellular carriers I've used actually went out to the net. I've even posted on Slashdot with one of them. (Very short post, heh.) I haven't tried this with my latest provider, but I've also been able to use hand-set to get my laptop on the internet wirelessly.

In all three cases, the phones were pre-configured with bookmarks etc taking me to their stores etc, but that's about the extent of it. Did I just pick the right providers?

Re:the real issue (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514631)

You make a good point. Every time the big telecom corporations talk about offering tiered levels of service so that they can offer improved, lightning-fast content, what they are really saying is that they want to restrict the flow of the internet so that customers are drawn more to their commerical poopfest.

They want to offer us fast connections to "partner" sites so that we can shell out 20 bucks for a drm-crippled movie download, or to another site where we can pay $19.95 a month to listen to streaming music.

What the telecoms really want is control over the internet similar to the way in which cable t.v. is controlled: compartmentalized areas of advertising-infested crap. The internet as it exists today is too fragmented and open to easily hypnotize the consumers. The telecoms want to change that. They want control.

A tiered internet would really suck donkey-balls, but in some ways I won't be disappointed if it happens. The internet seems to be becoming one big tool for citizen tracking and monitoring, both by the government and the corporations. Perhaps the glory days of the internet are over no matter what happens.

and this surprises whom? (5, Insightful)

Quixadhal (45024) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514512)

I don't know why people are surprised by this. The internet has become the only effective free press that almost anyone on the planet can both read AND write to. As such, it's a constant thorn in the side of everyone who wants to control the flow of information. That means every government, every business, pretty much everyone who has soemthing to gain by focusing any segment of the public towards their own goals.

The free ride is over. It was destined to be over the moment the internet was opened to commercial activity (1992?). It just took the pointy-haired types a few years to figure out why they needed to pay attention.

Re:and this surprises whom? (4, Interesting)

Edward Scissorhands (665444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514712)

Mod parent up.

How come no one has any videos of the _television commercials_ that were playing on network news on election day 2000? Am I the only person who noticed that, on that night, defense companies like Lockheed Martin were running commercials with slogans like "Lockheed: Getting ready with the technology to fight the information warfare of the 21st Century."

I think that there is a war on information. And we are the targets. Maybe it's time to fight back, eh?

McCurry is nothing more than a lobyist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514515)

Mike McCurry says something like "Several conservative organizations have also spoken out on similar problems. And as a recent Forrester Research analysis concluded, if these regulations become law, "Legal costs will shoot through the roof -- draining the pockets of everyone involved." That may be great news for lawyers, but not for ordinary consumers who'll be forced to pick up the tab."

But wait. So, let me get this straight. Not changing the internet from what it has been for all of its existance is going to cost all the consumers? How does that make sense. McCurry's main argument is that the "BigInternetBusinesses" need to pick up their fair share of the cost for improving the internet, but to me it seems like the telcoms just need to figure out how they can make a profit without changing the entire way the internet works. They never seem to mention how ending Net Neutrality would cripple small businesses. And it seems like McCurry likes to take every argument for Net Neutrality and warp it through ways that make no sense what ever until the arguments are actualy against Net Neutrality. This guy is nothing but a lobyist and everything he writes is nothing more than loby material. He shouldn't even be aloud the space on a news site.

The Market Is What I'm Concerned With (3, Informative)

tokki (604363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514517)

They talk a big talk about free markets, while at the same lobbying for legislation that makes it decidely unfree. The Internet right now allows for very little in the way of required capital to start up a business. If the Telcos get their way, they'll gladly raise that cost, even if it means an overall worse economy, even if it implodes the Internet as we know it, even if that impedes on the American dream (you know, work hard, build a business).

To those that hate government intervention on principle, I'm not big on it either. However, in this situation, we'd end up worse off with the few network providers with an iron grip on who gets to see what. It's just a matter of who gets control.

They've got more in common with Tony Soprano than any business visionary. "That's a nice website, it'd be a shame if no one saw it. Telcos and cable companies are tripping over each other on the way to congress and the courts to try to each other from entering their markets. They'r threated by civic minded citizens in townships sick of listening to telcos tell them how great the network connectivity they get will be, and how they're doing them favors, but they'll just have to wait a few more years to get fiber out there.

It's a simple money grab, they see the cash Google and them make and they want to wet their beak. Right now the content providers have been outlobbied. They haven't been out-argued, just out-lobbied. Being a monopoly is great work if you can get it. You don't have to worry about competition, just the occasional complaints from the people that don't much like that they pay more.

Rotten either way (1, Redundant)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514523)

The government should have no say in what happens to the Internet, but big business shouldn't either.

Commercialism has been nothing but a plague to the Internet...the only thing it has done is allow that segment of the population that are likely to render the rest of us extinct to discover one more thing to screw up, in their suicidal quest for the increased bottom line. Now, to top it off, we're having to rely on the utterly corrupt, craven, senile geriatrics of the American legislative branch to prevent their fellow parasitic vermin from destroying the net completely. Why do I not feel more optimistic?

The Internet was initially developed by infinitely more redeemable human beings than anyone in either the American government or corporate world. The future of something that has been developed by those who are self-aware should not be decided by those who are not. As much as the Internet means to me, it pains me to see its' future being decided by groups which I fervently wish did not exist in the first place.

For those unutterably wretched human beings whose lives also revolve entirely and exclusively around money, the rest of us are waiting patiently for you to grow up and recover from your sickness. Your addiction is in need of rapid treatment...if it is not treated soon, you may well end up destroying the rest of us along with you.

Re:Rotten either way (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514597)

I REALLY suggest you research who exactly started the internet and who they got their funding from.

Re:Rotten either way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514690)

What's so complicated about this issue. (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514532)

From the pro-NN article:
"Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along? The traditional telephone model has been that the telephone company doesn't get paid more if you have a particularly meaningful call -- they're just providing a neutral pipe."


No, think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as the car you pay for by renting. The question is, should the rental car actively resist the steering wheel when you pass by a burger king and instead redirect you to a McDonalds because McDonalds paid the rental car agency a bribe.

God, I hate stupid f*ing metaphors. The thing is easy enough to understand, I can't believe how the debate gets convoluted by the other side: You are already paying for net access. Now your telecoms aren't quite satisfied with your payment and want to double dip by collecting on the other side of the pipe. The problem is, that as a consumer, this isn't what I paid for. I paid for internet access, not Verizon's Paying Friends network. This is fraudulent behavior against the consumer, plain and simple.

In his anti-NN article, Mike McCurry, who obviously knows how the net should really work instead of how it current did for the last XX years wrote:
Under their self-proclaimed banner of "neutrality," Google, eBay and other big online companies are lobbying for what amounts to a federal exemption from paying. Unfortunately, their thinly disguised effort at self-interest would dramatically shift the financial burden of paying for these upgrades onto the backs of ordinary consumers.


Their thinly disguised self-interest happens to be my self-interest in this case too. Rather than your stance, which coincides as the thinly disguised self-interest of the bells.

Oh, and no matter what, the consumers will pay for the upgrades. Let's not pretend that the corps will pay for it and not pass it down.

Re:What's so complicated about this issue. (2, Funny)

RickPartin (892479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514626)

Whew, that was a close one. I wasn't sure how we were going to get a car analogy in here about net neutrality but you seem to have pulled it off. Slashdot thanks you.

HD Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514541)

Pass a law that all porn must be downloaded in HD. The problem will take care of itself.

CNN has both viewpoints... (1)

mi (197448) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514542)

But Slashdot found place for only one in the front-page summary. Am I the only one to sense bias?

Re:CNN has both viewpoints... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514591)

theyre both there my friend, try clicking the links again

Re:CNN has both viewpoints... (1)

mi (197448) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514629)

theyre both there my friend, try clicking the links again

Only one — Craig Newmark's — was quoted in the front-page summary. For Mike McCurry's one does, indeed, have to "click the links". That was my point.

(I'm not your friend.)

Re:CNN has both viewpoints... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514646)

well, slashdot's editors are apparently damned both ways then.

they post quotes unfriendly to the general slashdot population and they get bashed for flaming, they post quotes friendly to the slashdot community and they get bashed for lack of representation

Re:CNN has both viewpoints... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514614)

Am I the only one to sense bias?

No, there is bias in every presentation. Anyone who claims not to be presenting with bias (*cough* Fox News *cough*) is lying.

Of course, Mike McCurry's point of view is ridiculous. So, while it was summarized in the write-up, I am sure it was hard to find any part to excerpt.

Re:CNN has both viewpoints... (3, Insightful)

QCompson (675963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514678)

Don't fall into the american media delusion that in order to be fair and balanced, you must present both sides of every story. If there was a story about the government proposing to chop off baby heads and offer them as a sacrifice to satan, would it be necessary to present both sides of the debate?

"Chopping off baby-heads? Why, that's insane!"
or,
"How do we know that offering baby-heads to satan won't solve all our problems?"

Must we link and quote from both articles? And yes, handing the internet over to the telecoms to devour is just that crazy.

Re:CNN has both viewpoints... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514691)

Right. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one viewpoint for that issue. Commence chopping and offering, please.

Re:CNN has both viewpoints... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514720)

Well, if you can point me to the Fox News version of Slashdot, let me know....

I can see both sides of this (4, Insightful)

ichin4 (878990) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514545)

Like most slashdotters, I feel and instinctive affinity for net neutrality. And I think having a medium where all "content providers" are equal has been great plus, not only for internet culture, but also for the level of competition in internet commerce.

Still, the tremendously increased investment that can be conjured up by the profit motive is nothing to be sneezed at. I was using the internet as a graduate student before there was a web, and I remeber the ruckus over the first advertisment that appeared on usenet. Like most usenet denizens of the time, I was appalled, and I thought that commercialization would destroy our beloved cooperative internet. Obviously, I was dead wrong. So having been proved wrong once, I'm not inclined to dismiss the power of the profit motive to provide us with an infrastructure capable of doing things we haven't even dreamed of yet.

Re:I can see both sides of this (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514572)

Still, the tremendously increased investment that can be conjured up by the profit motive is nothing to be sneezed at.

Don't fool yourself.

If theyre allowed to throttle down the bandwidth provided to everyone who doesn't pay massive fees, they will then be able to cut your bandwidth to 1/3, and when you complian tell you you must be using the "low priority" streams.

This way they can extend the life of existing infrastructure by screwing you the consumer, thus avoiding having to actually upgrade the backbones and last mile connections for another couple decades to come.

Re:I can see both sides of this (2, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514603)

Funny.

Verizon has a fucking DSLAM installed in the local CO of my town, tells people via their online billing service that they qualify for DSL, yet they refuse to provide the service because they are trying to blackmail the Texas PUC.

Explain that.

The Bells OVERSOLD (3, Insightful)

a_greer2005 (863926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514557)

The crunch that is being felt isnt because of sites like youtube, google or iTunes: It is the bells and cable COs that have been selling 3-6Mbps connections for years when they thought "no one could ever use that much" but those idiots forgot the golden rule of bandwidth, peope find new uses for bandwidth when they have more at their disposal!


If the bells sold these connections knowing that they could not support them, they should be sued for fraud, they shouldnt be charging us MORE money to fix their fuck-up

McCurry... ugh (3, Insightful)

illtron (722358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514564)

It's sad to see how much of a whore Mike McCurry has become.

Objectively Speaking, Mike McCurry is a whore (4, Interesting)

GOD_ALMIGHTY (17678) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514576)

And CNN is publishing industry press releases as news, but hey, what's new?

Notice no disclosure that he's completely freaking paid for by the telecom industry, who do you think Public Strategies' clients are? And "Hands off the Internet"? That's an astro-turf campaign, noticed the crappy wanna-be underground looking propaganda that's been popping up on blog-ads, that's them. More info at DailyKos [dailykos.com] .

Editor's note: Mike McCurry is a partner at Public Strategies Washington Inc. where he provides strategic communications counsel. He is a co-chairman of Hands off the Internet, a coalition of telecommunication-related businesses. McCurry served as press secretary to President Bill Clinton from 1995 until 1998.

More coverage by kos [dailykos.com] , john marshall [talkingpointsmemo.com] , la times [latimes.com] , matt stoller [mydd.com] .

This is just like the telcos claims over open access. Every regional telco has been granted monopoly status for years, we the users paid for that infrastructure, and we'll use the same model in the future if need be. These claims of eminent domain are horseshit distractions. They were when they strangled and drowned the CLECs and they are now as they try to do to the Internet what the cell companies have done to wireless. I don't use my phone other than to talk, data services currently lack value over the cell networks in the existing price structure. They want to impose the same pricing structure possibilities on their segments of the Internet. Just like access to the copper, they want you to pay for what you've already paid for. Mike McCurry is getting paid to help these people steal from you; for this payment, he's trying to convince you that being stolen from is in your best interest.

These assholes will kill the goose that laid the golden egg if allowed. Support Save the Internet [savetheinternet.com] , don't let them do it.

Stop them cause Mike McCurry is a Jeff Gannon-wannabe [google.com] manwhore.

Let the Telecoms be big jerks. We'll win. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514578)

If they want to interfere with how we communicate, which is the opposite of what they're supposed to be doing, they will eventually be replaced. Their true power is in the last mile, and various wireless technologies could erase that power for about 80% of Americans in a very short time. The bigger bastards they are, the shorter that time will be. Here's where I also like to point out why subsidizing industries is bad... it hurts diversity and stifles new technologies. We wouldn't be so beholden to these companies *right now* if we hadn't handed them monopolies.

telcos... (4, Insightful)

m874t232 (973431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514608)

The big network providers already get to charge by bandwidth. If Google uses a lot of bandwidth, then they pay more to their own ISP, which, in turn, does the right kind of accounting with its peers. Right now, we have a mostly neutral system in which bandwidth is fungible.

What rankles network service providers is that the current infrastructure doesn't give them much freedom to charge by what people are able to pay; that greatly reduces their opportunity for revenue. Telephone companies, for example, have been able to charge a premium to individual residential customers because individual residential customers don't have much ability to negotiate. While that premium may be small in absolute terms, it's huge in terms of percentages. The same is true for other customer categories. They also want to be able to continue to charge excessive rates for specific services, such as voice. With the proposed changes, network providers can implement that kind of differential pricing again.

There is absolutely no justification for any of this; all it does is create market inefficiencies that make telecommunications services unnecessarily expensive. Both from an economic and a public policy point of view, net neutrality is clearly the better system.

corporate shill (4, Informative)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514621)

according to savetheinternet.com [savetheinternet.com] , Hands Off The Internet is an astroturf group set up by the telephone and cable companies, so Mike McCurry from the opposing viewpoint is just a corporate shill.

Stupidity. (1)

keyne9 (567528) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514642)

while Mike McCurry writes about how the big companies should pay their fair share for the physical upgrade of the internet.

You mean, like, by paying for service, proper, which we already do? Hands off the internet, jackass.

Easy enough pick (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514659)

The commentary against Net Neutrality is written by Mike McCurry, former whitehouse press secretary. So obviously everything he's saying is wrong and full of lies, right?

what about the fact that neither has merit? (3, Informative)

waddgodd (34934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514663)

The proper response to tiering is a TCP/IP death penalty. Basically "if they tier, don't peer". If $FUCKTARDCORP wants to make a tiered intarweb, source-route around their asses. If they screw up the last mile, find another ISP. This is a battle that should be fought in routing protocols and markets, not in Crapitol Hell.

Re:what about the fact that neither has merit? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514670)

because we all know how well that went fighting the various forms of DRM, such as trusted computing.

Common Carrier (3, Informative)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514685)

Currently ISP'S are Common Carriers. They recieve legal protection because of this. If they start blocking or regulating traffic they will put themselves into a defacto position where they have to police said traffic. If they are blocking traffic from websites that didnt cough up they will be in a position of liability for not blocking P2P traffic or emails between terrorists. The above being said what the heck was going on in congress ? Did the braincell they collectively timeshare have the day off when they passed this ? I mean my god lets say the phone company decided variable rate pricing was a good idea ahh youre a wealthy bank want to call your customers its going to cost you.

It is all about profits. (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514688)

This is America, the land owned by corporations.

The corporations will do whatever they can get away with to increase their profits, including pushing so called "net non-neutrality" upon an unsuspecting public. All they need to do is divert lots of money into the Halls of Congress to accomplish thier goals.

Funny, I didn't know Mike McCurry Totally Sold Out (1)

BigTimOBrien (203674) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514699)

Strange isn't it? Mike McCurry goes from being a press secretary in the Clinton White House, to being a telecom industry mouthpiece. I wonder how much money they are paying McCurry to totally bend the facts to fit the telecommunications agenda? I didn't know he was such a sell out until that CNN piece.

monopolies to commodities: won't get fooled again (4, Informative)

wayne (1579) | more than 8 years ago | (#15514711)

Geoff Huston made a great presentation to the NANOG conference last fall called Won't Get.Fooled Again? [nanog.org] .

In it, Geoff points out that for a very long time, telecommunication companies were monopolies or in some cases oligopolies (a few companies controling the market). They owned everything from the handset on one end to the handset on the other end and any feature like "call waiting" or "answering machines" had to be bought from them.

Depending on what part of the world you lived in, from the 70s to the 90s, these companies were forced to change from market monopolies to competative markets of differentiated goods. This is almost always a very rough transition to make and many companies, in any industry, often go bankrupt before they can make the structural, political, technical and cultural changes need to survive in such markets. The telecommunication industry is no different.

While the telecommunication companies are still trying to deal with competing in a differentiated market, e.g. the 80's slogan from AT&T "they are making second class phones!", to the huge number of options on cell phones, Geoff points out that they are really facing an even harder transition. They are having to go from a competative market of differentiated goods to a market of commodities. Even companies that are used to competative markets have a hard time successfully transitioning to commoditiy markets, again, they require even more changes to the organization. People just want to push packets.

Telecommunication companies thought they could create differentiated products like "video on demand" where everyone would get their TV, movies and music from the telecommunication companies. Instead, P2P systems have taken care of those needs, with the result of people not wanting huge downloads from a central company, but rather they will download from other "end users". But, even TV shows and Movies are just the tip of the iceberg. People are generating their own content and are bypassing the both the traditional media companies and the telecommuncation companies. They are creating pictures of their kids, and porn, They are creating blogs and small business websites. New features of the net are not added by the big companies under careful regulation, but spring forth from millions of places. The amount of data that is being passed around that has nothing to do with the big companies is mind boggling, and it is just going to get bigger.

People don't want content from the ISPs, they want packets pushed around, and that means a commodity market for packet delivery. Telecommunication companies that can adapt to a commodity market will survive. Ones that can't will talk about how they need to charge people for their "enhanced content".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...