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!

Tech Manufacturers Rally Against Net Neutrality

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the not-in-their-best-interests dept.

222

An anonymous reader writes "Producers of networking hardware such as Motorola, Corning, and Tyco have come out against Net Neutrality. They support the current senate communications bill, and urge immediate action. 'Don't be confused by these spurious complaints about Net neutrality,' Tim Regan, a vice president with fiber optic cable manufacturer Corning Inc., said. 'Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.'" From the article: "Supporters say the Senate measure, which was approved by a committee vote in June but has since gotten hung up chiefly over Net neutrality, is crucial because it would make it easier for new video service providers--such as telephone companies hoping to roll out IPTV--to enter the market, increase competition for cable, and thus spur lower prices. Among other benefits, they say, it would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services."

cancel ×

222 comments

you know (-1, Flamebait)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155203)

I love how people come up with these sophisticated sounding phrases that mean nothing. Would someone here please explain to me what the term "net neutrality" means? Is this to mean that different types of hardware are supposed to interoperate seamlessly or something?

Re:you know (4, Informative)

Otter Escaping North (945051) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155225)

Oh for goodness sake...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality [wikipedia.org]

Re:you know (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155301)

I don't know, that link probably contains information that is beyond parent's level of apparent comprehension. Better start him out with more fundamental information and let him work his way up.

The Internet [wikipedia.org]

Re:you know (3, Funny)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155378)

Perhaps we can make it a little easier to understand [youtube.com] for him. Remember, it's not a truck you can just dump things on. It's a series of tubes!

Re:you know (2, Funny)

Otter Escaping North (945051) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155380)

Come to think of it, even that might be too high-level. How 'bout...

The Internet Made Simple [wikipedia.org]

(C'mon someone was going to do it eventually...)

Re:you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155538)

No. Too advanced. He should research this first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh [wikipedia.org]

Re:you know (4, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155247)

This is exactly the uphill battle we /.ers have. Get to work people and educate the public.

Re:you know (3, Insightful)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155333)


I'll get to work, but since my opinion is that "net neutrality" IS a solution in search of a problem, you might consider my efforts to be counterproductive.

The commercial internet has existed now for over a decade, and the tools to allow carriers to shape traffic at will have existed that entire time. And yet, no one has attempted the kind of favoritism that "net neutrality" is concerned could happen.

It seems to me that market forces have been and will be sufficient to guarantee that the net is as neutral as the people want it to be.

Re:you know (4, Informative)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155408)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Net Neutrality brought about in response to the major ISPs wanting to charge hosts to get their traffic to the consumer at the highest speed possible, thus making it improbable that hosts who don't pay would get good transfer rates?

Re:you know (2, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155493)

The commercial internet has existed now for over a decade, and the tools to allow carriers to shape traffic at will have existed that entire time. And yet, no one has attempted the kind of favoritism that "net neutrality" is concerned could happen.

It seems to me that market forces have been and will be sufficient to guarantee that the net is as neutral as the people want it to be.

You are being incredibly naiive. Why do you think that the telcos are spending lobbying dollars on trying to eliminate any regulation that would enforce net neutrality if they don't plan on doing traffic shaping that would not be neutral?

The telcos see a new source of revenue: charging Google, Yahoo, etc. to deliver "their" packets. Of course they plan to go after this revenue.

Market forces only work where there is a functioning market. For high-speed Internet, there are no functioning markets -- why do you think Internet access is far more expensive in the US than in many other countries? We have an oligopoly in high speed Internet access in most cities across the US.

Re:you know (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155627)

Unintended consequences.

Congress (or merely the FCC) passes a law (or regulation) which promotes net-neutrality.

Six months later, Apple approaches Earthlink (for example) with a deal. Normal Earthlink DSL subscribers pay for certain amounts of bandwidth, the limits being enforced in software at the DSLAM end. Apple suggests that to make the iTV practical for Earthlink subscribers, they'll pay 0.01c per kilobyte for traffic that doesn't count towards the bandwidth the subscriber pays for.

ie, someone paying for a 256k connection sees no reduction in service when someone else in their home is streaming "Star Wars: The Version Where Chewbacca shoots Greedo In Order To Save Wimpy Han" to their iTV box.

Everything looks great until the FCC unexpected intervenes and rules the practice unlawful under network neutrality rules, because they've been worded too broadly.

I'm concerned about network neutrality not being the panacea its supporters claim it is too. I'm not opposed to regulating the Internet (in terms of service quality, not, obviously, in terms of content), as I wrote here [slashdot.org] I think the Government needs to intervene to ensure a level playing field, and guarantee reasonable expectations are satisfied. But I have difficulty with the idea of bans on providing better services for those willing to pay for it. We need to make sure the minimum services are acceptable, not that the premium services are unavailable.

Re:you know (2)

dup_account (469516) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155739)

Nice taking the issue and reversing it into a touchy feely they only want to help us argument. More likely scenario... Apple goes to Earthlink and offers .01c per Kb to give them priority for iTV over youtube.com traffic. Or it's even Earthlink shopping around... will you pay us x extra per Kb to ensure your traffic doesn't drop into lower priority on the stack.

Re:you know (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155899)

Nice taking the issue and reversing it into a touchy feely they only want to help us argument.

No, I didn't. I gave an example of something that would be perfectly legitimate, a positive thing for all parties involved, that would be outlawed by poorly written laws that attempt to support network neutrality.

My point was doing something about unintended consequences. A service of the type I described would be valuable, and would be something that ISPs and content providers would both benefit from. However, over-broad laws on network neutrality would outlaw them.

As I said in my linked to JE, we need more Internet regulation. "Network neutrality" however is a single issue, which so far the proponents of appear to be unwilling to even consider the possibility of negative consequences. Without something that means a node can send data and expect some predictable QoS for it, many applications will be problematic at best.

More likely scenario... Apple goes to Earthlink and offers .01c per Kb to give them priority for iTV over youtube.com traffic. Or it's even Earthlink shopping around... will you pay us x extra per Kb to ensure your traffic doesn't drop into lower priority on the stack.

FWIW, neither are scenarios that Earthlink's customers would find acceptable.

More importantly though, neither are scenarios remotely relevant, as neither are legitimate services that would be outlawed by over-broad network neutrality laws. We already have a long list of potential abuses that would be outlawed, but at this stage, the question is whether we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've given an example. It's up to you to show how NN laws can be written to avoid outlawing legitimate applications like the one I gave, particularly when my linked to JE, proposing the enforcement of minimum standards, also prevents such discrimination without preventing the legitimate scenario I presented.

Re:you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155738)

This is another example of the failure of libertarianism. What is the difference if we the people are strong armed by a government monopoly or a corporate monopoly?

Re:you know (2, Informative)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155576)

Uhm, everyone got concerned when [I]n a Nov. 7 interview with BusinessWeek Online, AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre Jr. declared: "What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that." Whitacre and AT&T argue that they need flexibility to exact a toll from Web services that hog bandwidth."

This is a good read on the subject and my source for the quote. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ed-markey/net-ne utrality-and-the-co_b_19056.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:you know (1)

Retric (704075) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155615)

FYI:
A basic form of "net neutrality" already exists in the US because of regulation. Some groups want to destroy this legislation and are willing to lie / misinform people to get this to happen. But only a fool thinks market forces would prevent companies from exercising rights they are spending money to gain.

Re:you know (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155661)

If you have a solution in search of a problem, then clearly there is no problem, and you are fixing something that isn't broken -- which invariably ends up breaking it. So why do they want fix something that isn't broken? Because they can make money fixing it once it is.

What you are advocating is essentially the ability to legally tax the quality of service as well as performance. Sure, they'll sell you that 30Mbps connection, but if you want that speed for anything other than HTTP traffic you'll have to buy our upgrade package too!
=Smidge=

Net Neutrality Existed (5, Insightful)

SquareVoid (973740) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155968)

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I will try to explain the breif history of this debate as I have understood it since its development.

1) The internet was considered a telecommunication and as thus had to adhere to existing net neutrality regulations. This was the case since the internet existed.
2) At some point, the FCC ruled that the internet was a data service and not a telecommunication. As a side effect of this ruling, Net neutrality was no longer required for the internet.
3) Verizon (I think) started to throtle VoIP, more specificly Vonage traffic.
4) Verizon, Bellsouth and ATT came out and publicly made statements that Google, YouTube, and Vonage have been getting a free ride on their pipes (forgot who started it).
5) The easily defeatable debate of a "free ride" (due to the fact Google/YouTube/Vonage pay for their traffic) made the telecoms change their position and the debate about wanting to serve Television over the internet (TVoIP?). Somehow Net Neutrality would prevent them from offering these extra services to their customers.
6) The "free ride" debate sparked interest in creating a net neutrality bill passed for the internet.

There is a lot more details here, but this is in essence what I have followed. I do not see why it is so hard to see that the greedy bastards are the cable/telecoms? Why are we paying so much for internet access and yet receiving so little when compared to other countries? Where did the $200 billion go to fund a 45mbps duplex fiber line to every home in America? Why do people keep defending the very same companies who tried to rob you of $2/month when the FCC lifted several federal charges on DSL? I am pretty pissed, and everyone else should too!

Re:you know (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155329)

Net neutrality is when you don't throttle packets based on their remote destination or source. Hardware manufacturers want to sell devices which support fine grained throttling rules, so obviously they are in favor of a tiered internet. From that alone it should be obvious that net neutrality is good for consumers: Hardware manufacturers stand to make more money without net neutrality. Wanna guess who's going to pay the bill? The internet is a success because it is a "dumb network" with the "intelligence" strictly in the communication endpoints. It is cheaper to build a net which is fast enough to carry all traffic than to upgrade routers so that they can throttle "unwanted" traffic.

Re:you know (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155361)

Essentially, the concept behind network neutrality is to forbid ISPs from doing anything that involves watching the traffic over the network. Doesn't sound that bad, right?

Do you enjoy spam? With network neutrality, it becomes illegal for ISPs to block spam.

Do you like viruses and worms? With network neutrality, it becomes illegal to block attacks coming from these machines.

Do you like DDOS attacks? Again, with network neutrality, it becomes illegal to block DDOS attacks upstream.

Network neutrality would forbid QOS (Quality of Service) from being implemented, which is required for implementing fast and effective streaming video and VOIP.

Essentially network neutrality is a buzz word put out by companies like Yahoo and Google that are afraid that they may be expected to pay to use massive amounts of someone else's network instead of being throttled back to allow more time-sensitive information through.

Mod Parent 'Astroturf' (2, Funny)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155513)

Sell crazy next door, sister, we're full up here.

Re:Mod Parent 'Astroturf' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155624)

Bullshit. It's plain common sense. Here, let's take a definition that was modded "Insightful":

Net neutrality is when you don't throttle packets based on their remote destination or source.

Guess what that also means. It means no spam blocking (since it's based on their destination or source) and no DDOS blocking (again, based on destination or source).

It also disallows throttling based on inspection of packets, so yet again, you can no longer block virus attacks coming from the outside world.

I'm not the only one with these concerns, Bram Cohen, BitTorrent's creator, also warned of these obvious outcomes. BitTorrent is a prime example of an application that would be throttled down using QOS to allow other more time-sensetive services through. If Bram Cohen has no problem with ISPs throttling BitTorrent, why do you?

Network neutrality is a bad idea, period. The Internet has existed just fine without government interference. It doesn't need it now. Regulation is always a very bad thing.

It's not flamebait, it's not astroturfing. It's plain old good old fashioned common sense, something that's sadly lacking on the "network neutrality" side of the debate.

That last sentence was flamebait. But the argument isn't. Don't mod the argument down, don't dismiss it as astrotufing, explain why network neutrality is still a good side given the flaws I've mentioned.

Re:Mod Parent 'Astroturf' (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155839)

The Internet has existed just fine without government interference.

The Internet would be America Online without government "interference".

explain why network neutrality is still a good side given the flaws I've mentioned

Because the Time Cube cancels them out.

Re:Mod Parent 'Astroturf' (1)

dup_account (469516) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155938)

Sunny Days, sweeping the clouds away, something something something, Sesame Street... Wow, stopping viruses and spam! I guess if Outlook traffic were filter out, that would help with both of those... Hmmm...

I think all the people posting these "It's going to blot out the sun if we try to enforce net neutrality" need to look at the posts about the ISPs wanting to charge extra for traffic.

What you should be considering, and working on, is whether this is the correct legislation or just a knee-jerk reaction.

Re:you know (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155430)

were you looking for links. Here's one that is good and has some funny videos [savetheinternet.com] on it.

Re:you know (1)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155660)

Its supposed to mean that you cannot priorotize one site or service over another, the fear is that one ISP might prioritize its service over competition, or more importantly, might extort from google using the fear of unsure delivery. So the neutrality suggest that you have to be site neutral, you cannot accidentally lose, or hinder packets from say, competing sources.
This all sounds good right? Well the router providers are making the point that this has not been a problem in the past, so why borrow the trouble?
I would agree with them if it were not for Bell South.

Re:you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155753)

Wow, the idiot moderators (or corporate shills) must be out in force today if a post demonstrating this level of ignorance can get rated as "insightful".

LOL! more like Net JEW-trality!! (-1, Troll)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155210)

nah but seriously, the Hebrews really are a huge problem for both telcos and customers. we'd all be a little happier without the sons of David kicking around.

What about telcos? (5, Insightful)

conigs (866121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155235)

From the summary:

Among other benefits, they say, it would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services."

Wait, so telcos are rallying for a bill that would allow municipal broadband? I find that hard to believe.

Re:What about telcos? (3, Interesting)

Exocrist (770370) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155293)

Why would "municipal broadband" be impossible with net neutrality?

Re:What about telcos? (1)

conigs (866121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155314)

Beats me. I was just responding to that line from the article. Personally, I'd say it's just something they threw in there to get more support for rallying against net neutrality.

Re:What about telcos? (1)

Kyru (836008) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155320)

I believe what he's saying is that "municipal broadband" would potentially hurt the telcos, thus it seems strange that they'd be pushing something that would help create it.

Re:What about telcos? (1)

Exocrist (770370) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155348)

I was responding more to the article, not him; I just decided to tack that on after his post. He's got a really good point, because if local municipalites were going to start providing sevice, from whom would they have to buy their equipment?

Re:What about telcos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155461)

Why should it hurt them? Aren't they the uber-specialist providers of...gasp, phone and networking equipment and of administering such equipment?

Who could better develop, install, and administer a muni-network?

Of course they'd have to kiss their big margins goodbye, but that's competition for you.

Re:What about telcos? (1)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155633)

It's just another level of indirection. Once you get that fee built right into the property tax... the sky's the limit. Almost nobody spends the time to find out what people are paying tax for, so they'll just yell at the city and not at the bastards at the telco. It's a clever trick.

Re:What about telcos? (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155389)

I suspect they really mean "Municiple Broadband: brought to you by Verizon." I can't imagine it'd mean anything else. The Cable/Telcos have fought tooth and nail for true municipal internet services.

Even that line about "easier for new video service providers--such as telephone companies hoping to roll out IPTV--to enter the market, increase competition for cable, and thus spur lower prices" is a nice bit of misdirection.

"...increase competition for cable, and thus spur lower prices" isn't the freaking point!1!eleven

Re:What about telcos? (1)

Software (179033) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155572)

Wait, so telcos are rallying for a bill that would allow municipal broadband? I find that hard to believe.
This is tech manufacturers, not telcos. Just because both they start with a "T" does not mean they are interchangeable.

How did this get modded to 5?

Re:What about telcos? (1)

conigs (866121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155643)

I brought up the telcos because they were some of the first companies to start rallying against net neutrality. I'm aware that this particular article is discussing tech companies, but that line jumped out at me.

Re:What about telcos? (3, Interesting)

GoodNicsTken (688415) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155622)

No kidding, especially since in 2005 the Teleco's pushed bills in most of the states outlawing new entrants from providing wireless service to communities. The Telecos wanted 1-2 years notice so they could deploy the service and bar any competition.

The link is a map showing cities that have setup municipal broadband access BECAUSE the laws were defeated in many states.

Not that I want my Internet service coming from the government. I'm sure my civil rights would be a top priority for the bureaucrats when the NSA comes looking for my data from the city government!

Think about it, Smaller less intrusive government is the solution. Big governement has no business regulating the Internet in the first place. Without the guaranteed monopoly, I would probably have 4 fiber lines running to my house providing me with 10-20 service plans. Other countries are getting 100Mb service, what has kept the US free market from doing the same?

Re:What about telcos? (4, Insightful)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155718)

Without the guaranteed monopoly, I would probably have 4 fiber lines running to my house providing me with 10-20 service plans. Other countries are getting 100Mb service, what has kept the US free market from doing the same?

You might like to ponder the fact that the other countries you refer to have more heavily regulated telecoms than the US.

They're right (3, Interesting)

XanC (644172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155246)

Net Neutrality, while a wonderful principle, is a poor reason to invite the Feds to regulate the Internet. That always leads to preservation of the status quo, at any cost.

Re:They're right (3, Interesting)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155279)

They wouldn't be regulating the Internet per se, but the way in which traffic was controlled by the ISP's. They would make sure all data flowed equally freely.

Re:They're right (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155426)

Yes yes, correct, free flow and equal access for all and such. Just like with....

Well, not at all like anything else they are involved in really, but like some new equal free flow that we haven't yet seen out of government.

No regulation... (2, Interesting)

jscotta44 (881299) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155578)

The best idea is no regulation. Let the market decide. If people start trying to double up on charges or limit my access, then I'll change ISPs. The Feds need to stay out of this.

Change ISP's to whom? (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155769)

How many other DSL/cable modem providers are there in your area?

No No No (5, Insightful)

flink (18449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155898)

So if UUNet is throttling traffic to Amazon how will switching from Comcast to ATT help? It won't. Chances are all routes from your physical location to a given host passes through one of only a few Tier 1 providers regardless of who your last mile ISP is. Don't think in terms of your local ISP charging you to vist websites, think of trunk carriers charging websites to receive traffic from them.

Breaking Net Neutrality violates the End to End Principal [wikipedia.org] . Think of it this way: would you want a phone call from Boston to Florida to cost more than one from New York to California because some regional telco in Georgia wanted to charge Miami more to receive calls? The end of a rational peering system won't be the end of the Internet, it will just be the end of this internet.

Re:They're right (4, Insightful)

SmokedS (973779) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155580)

Lets examine the logic of your argument:

1. The telcos want the power to regulate the internet.
2. Network neutrality forbids regulation so that we retain a free market on the internet.

Handing the power to regulate the internet over to a few large corporations, with no goal except to maximize their own profits, seems a bad idea to me.

Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too? (5, Insightful)

Otter Escaping North (945051) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155254)

It seems to me that telcos would also need a lot of new hardware, supporting more traffic shaping and QoS. I wonder if the tech manufacturers have anything that might help them with that...

You wanna talk about solutions in search of problems?

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too? (1)

ValiSystem (845610) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155312)

Sure they only see a huge market for specific hardware. I'm not a network admin, but i suppose that few and expensive routers are designed to control bandwith depending of paquet destination easily.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too? (1)

Exocrist (770370) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155330)

That's a pretty good point.

A pretty bad point is how net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. I'm pretty sure there are providers that either block or limit traffic for VoIP services, to try to promote their own tack on $15/mo telephone services.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too? (3, Insightful)

aleksiel (678251) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155359)

of course removing net neutrality will require a lot of new hardware. thats why the hardware manufacturers are against it! removing net neutrality would be a huge financial boon to the industry.

Re:Won't it require a bunch of new hardware too? (4, Insightful)

kgwagner (611915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155789)

Exactly so. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Apple "iTV" and the handwriting on the wall (4, Interesting)

TheWoozle (984500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155277)

Basically what this all boils down to is that the phone/cable companies want to make more money for offering us "new" services (that are basically services that they offer now, but *over the Internet*). Of course, by extension, the equipment manufacturers will reap profits by selling everyone new hardware.

The whole tiered Internet thing is based on the fact that they want to differentiate these "new" services from what we think of as the Internet right now (e-mail, web pages, etc.). They want to break up the current pricing structures so that they can charge more for certain bits.

They last thing that telcos/cable-cos want is to become generic bit pipes. If moving bits around becomes just another commoditized service (like deregulated electric in some places), then they'll have to compete on price and customer service. Competing on price impacts profits, and competing on customer service...well, I've been a customer of GTE/Verizon, Southwestern Bell, and AT&T at different times and if I were them, I'd be scared of competing based on customer satisfaction.

It isn't new services (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155483)

What they're trying to do is errect what is essentially trade barriers, it'll allow the telcos to charge more for the free trade service that we currently enjoy. It's indicative of a lack of competition in the market. Does the US have the equivalent of the competition commission? Perhaps the telcos should be required to unbundle their exchanges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_loop_unbundling [wikipedia.org]

Looks like they are. In which case it's up to ISPs, entrepeneurs, co-operatives to grab the oportunity and start taking business away from the incumbents.

 

Re:Apple "iTV" and the handwriting on the wall (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155597)

Right Attitude, Wrong Argument. The Telcos do not neccesarily want to offer new services, they could do that anyway without any reregulation. What they want is to be able to charge more for what they already provide. In other words, if you now have say Skype there is no additional charge from say your DSL provider to use VOIP (Skype). Without Net Neutrality said DSL provider can charge extra or block VOIP, Itunes or any other particular service or website. So if you want a service fee for bidding on Ebay make sure Net Neutrality fails. The equipment providers have now fallen for the Telcos argument that the increased revenue from tiered pricing will go toward "infrastructure upgrades" that the Telcos claim cannot be afforded any other way. There is no guarantee that said profits will go toward infrastructure or any other improvements.

Corning? (4, Funny)

Otter Escaping North (945051) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155287)

Tim Regan, a vice president with fiber optic cable manufacturer Corning Inc.

Like I'm gonna trust that guy - with all the spam he's been sending me.

Competition (0)

M0bius (26596) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155300)

Why is it that efforts big companies claim will encourage competition and lower prices usually do the opposite? Hmm... It's a mystery!

Everyone knows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155302)

"Net Neuttrality" is a conspiracy to attack Google

Shocking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155311)

The manufacturers of networking hardware are looking to create a market for their fun new experiments in packet prioritizing. Who wants to compete on pure speed and reliability? How boring...

Nothing to see here, move along.

"Neutrality" is about control of who delivers what (5, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155351)

"Net Neutrality" is about control of the future of media - who can deliver what to the masses, with the power to exclude and/or dampen alternative points of view. Simply following long established history of swaying public opinion [wikipedia.org] through control of media [google.com] .

Re:"Neutrality" is about control of who delivers w (1)

transami (202700) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155545)

Damn straight! This is the real catch behind all of this. How nicely it all works out for them: Greed in the immediate leads to tyranically control in the future. Think about this. The World Wide Web is unprecedendent in it's ability to distribute information --grassroots information that the powerful might not like, reports on products, government activities, 9/11 videos, etc. etc. Their campigns of disinformation are only so effective and I would suspect are becoming less and less so e every day. So it's imperative that the get significant control back over these communication channels. Tiered service is their ticket to 1984.

Net Neutrality is now! (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155366)

Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.

Well DUH! The whole point of the debate is to prevent bad things from happening, not to stop something bad that's already happening. Do these people really understand the issue?

Re:Net Neutrality is now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155447)

Do these people really understand the issue?
Yes, that's why they don't want it, they want to sell that cool, expensive QoS routing equipment. With Net Neutrality they can only hope to sell cheap imported optical cables which probably have an ultra-thin margin.

Re:Net Neutrality is now! (1)

wfberg (24378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155457)

Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.

Well DUH! The whole point of the debate is to prevent bad things from happening, not to stop something bad that's already happening. Do these people really understand the issue?


The hardware manufacturers understand this as no other. The thing is, they themselves have been pushing for years their own solutions in search of a problem; MPLS and other Quality of Service schemes. The doomscenarios that the net-neutrality camp sketches are in fact exactly the kind of thing that would sell network companies on multi-tiered networks, which works out great for the hardware manufacturers, since now all their MPLS/QoS/ProtocolAware/StatefulInspection networking gear has a purpose!

Sure, to consumers they'll say "there's no problem", but to their actual customers they'll say "there's no problem... because you will benefit greatly from hurting other businesses and consumers!"

The harder the network neutrality camp shouts, the better the business case for the hardware manufacturers is perceived to be by network operators.

The funny thing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155541)

The funny thing to me is that the biggest part of the argument against net neutrality is the telecoms claiming that they're not going to violate Net Neutrality, so there's no need to pass a law. Since they haven't yet started violating net neutrality, goes the argument, it would be really wasteful and needless to illegalize something they're not doing... yet.

It's kind of like the Bush Administration insisting "We don't torture! But if you passed a law banning torture, it would be really bad!"

I can't help but wonder. If this bill doesn't pass, and in a few years we start seeing telecoms demanding payment from Youtube, or prioritizing their own iPTV packets over Youtube until the latter is no longer usable... what will the argument be then? Will we see people jumping back up and going "see, that stuff we were warning about a couple years back, it's happening now"? Will the people who argued it wasn't going to happen shrug and go, oh, you're right, let's pass a net neutrality law now? I doubt it. More likely the entire subject, the public's attention on it long since exhausted, will be quietly dropped.

Because though at the beginning of the debate I didn't really believe a bill like this was strictly necessary because I saw no signs anyone was intending to violate net neutrality left to their own devices, I no longer expect this to be the case. I think we can expect if this bill does not pass, it is only a matter of time before the internet's current neutral nature is being violated by one program or other at nearly every major ISP. The campaign against net neutrality is just going at this too intensely and too fiercely for this to be just a philosophical objection. They would not fight quite this hard or in quite this manner if they weren't planning to roll out products that this law would block; and the idea the lobbyists' objection is really to the precedent set by one more law passed on an already-heavily-regulated telecommunications industry is just not credible, given the telecoms' essentially complete silence on previous legislation like COPA, the DMCA, laws concerning recordkeeping required by social networking and "adult" sites alike, laws concerning internet gambling...

Re:Net Neutrality is now! (1)

LFS.Morpheus (596173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155719)

Do these people really understand the issue?
Yes, they understand. They know that this will mean they won't be able to gouge customers, and that might mean bad things for their bottom line. This is just their way of doublespeaking [wikipedia.org] .

"Net Neutrality" sucks (4, Insightful)

nightsweat (604367) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155395)

The name, I mean. Who can get excited about being neutral? The Swiss?

We should start to use "Network Equality" or "Data Non-Discrimination" instead.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks (4, Funny)

aleksiel (678251) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155422)

the country likes wars. "the war on information nonproliferation" sounds pretty good to me.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155472)

Net Liberty!! ..but wait, they hate us for our freedom... yeah, right.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155840)

how about "Operation Packet Freedom"

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks (1)

PipianJ (574459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155570)

If we can have Pro-Life instead of Anti-Choice and Pro-Choice instead of Anti-Life, it shouldn't be hard to have Network Neutrality and Information Equality...

The EFF should get on this rephrasing, stat!

Zapp Branigan's view on Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155746)

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

Zapp: So, a plan to assassinate some weird looking aliens with scissors. How very neutral of you.

Neutral Alien: Your neutralness, it's a beige alert.
Neutral President: If I don't survive, tell my wife 'hello'.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks (1)

deeksizein (1004340) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155787)

I agree that the name sucks. I'm sick of names being compromised for the sake of alliteration.

However, I think the term "Net Neutrality" is well-enough-known now that it wouldn't be a good idea to rename the concept.

Re:"Net Neutrality" sucks (4, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155905)

We should start to use "Network Equality" or "Data Non-Discrimination" instead.

Those are awful names. They don't apply at all.

Nothing about net neutrality should limit traffic shaping based on data type. The name "data non-discrimination" makes it sound like it forces ISPs to treat HTML traffic the same way as VOIP traffic, or bittorrent traffic. That is bad ISP policy and bad network design.

Instead, net neutrality is about ISPs treating all traffic of the same type the same way, regardless of source. VOIP on Roadrunner cable from Vonage should get the same bandwidth as VOIP from Time Warner's phone service. The alternative - Time Warner throttling competitors to push its own service - is what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.

So, name it net vendor neutrality, if necessary.

The PR war is being won. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155410)

The momentum to ensure the internet remain a neutral medium has completely died out by this point. Meanwhile, the corps that would benefit from the internet being non-neutral are moving deeper and deeper into a well-funded PR push that just gets more sophisticated and more dishonest all the time. The public, always light on technical issues, is now reaching the point where they don't know what "net neutrality" is, except that it's bad.

Google, if you're listening, you're losing big time here.

Hypocrites (-1, Troll)

stufff (820583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155415)

I love how people who would normally hate government regulation of the Internet are stepping and screaming for it over net neutrality.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

tddoog (900095) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155516)

God forbid someone evaluate two different situations and make a decision that in one case it may be preferable to do one thing and in another it may not be preferable to do that same thing. How dare they. People should make hard and fast rules and apply them to everything in their life.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155524)

I love how people who would normally hate government regulation of the Internet are stepping and screaming for it over net neutrality.
Not being sarcastic, but, which people? The individuals who already pay for their Internet service and don't wish to find themselves subject to slow transfers and timeouts due to their favorite site falling victim to a tiered system, or the companies that want to be able to do just that but have already been disciplined by the government in the past?

Re:Hypocrites (2, Insightful)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155535)

"I love how people who would normally hate government regulation of the Internet are stepping and screaming for it over net neutrality."

The "Physical Internet" as supplied to people is almost COMPLETELY government regulated. You either access via telco (POTS) with a modem... through a government regulated telco, or via broadband cable... again government granted easements, or DSL... through the aformentioned telco... or fibre... with government granted easements.

About the ONLY way you can get the "internet" without government regulation is if you have a two-way satellite link. And it required government involvment to get the satellite there to make it possible.

And what do you get in exchange for dealing with these natural monopolies, granted by the government? Net neutrality.

If the government wants to do content regulation (the above deals with access), there are checks and measures. Losing net neutrality? Means that the companies who have been granted the monopolies can also regulate content.

You had better be careful of what power is granted to these companies.

YMMV
Ratboy

Re:Hypocrites (3, Insightful)

2short (466733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155542)

Yeah, imagine, adjusting ones opinions based on the facts of the debate. They oppose the government doing things they think are bad, then the next thing you know, they want the government to do things they think are good. How can one respect oneself if one changes one's answer just because it's a different question? "Yes" or "No", just pick one and stick with it already!

Out of curiosity, which ballot spot do you vote for? I'm strictly a second- candidate-from-the-top voter myself. Can't wait to see what order they put them in this time so I'll know who I support.

Re:Hypocrites (1)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155558)

That's because most Government regulation is only good for restricting freedoms and increasing profit margins of large corporations by screwing Joe Six-pack (that poor guy). This regulation, in turn would solidify the freedom we currently enjoy while helping out poor Joe.

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155655)

Do you actually have any examples of someone doing that and changing sides or are you assuming everyone participating on slashdot is the same person and you are not directly included in the same grouping although you participate as well?
Did you forgot to take your pill again and now think you were reading slashdot from an exclusive third dimension that is not a subset of slashdot your were initally refering to?

They are so right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155462)

Stupid senate introducing stupid things like Net Neutrality, Broadcast Flags, etc.

Vote with your wallet (1)

psybre (921148) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155473)

Not so easily done by large businesses and organizations who are already locked in, but on an individual basis we can refuse to purchase and use products by Tyco, Corning and Motorola in addition to writing and voicing disgust at their actions.

Can somebody provide a list of subsidiaries and popular products made by these companies please? Are their computer and other electronics hardware vendors that build their motherboards/nics/modems/etc. without any Motorola parts?

~psybre

Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for fiber to home (-1)

Amid60 (938961) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155523)

I used to be very much pro-neutrality, but let's face it: amount of fiber deployed into the households is clearly inversely proportional to the amount of playing-field-leveling applied by the government. In countries with almost no neutrality (Korea, Japan) it is pretty common by now to have a 100 Mbps or even 1 Gbps link in the household. In countries with very strict open-wire regulations (many countries in Europe) there is currently no trace of fiber-to-home (FTH) deployments. It seems that no one is willing to commit billions for FTH if they will be forced to open the wire to all comers. I therefore changed my mind, and think that the new wires put into the house should be exempt from any neutrality regulation.

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for fiber to h (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155666)

FTH is strongly correlated to population density. Japan's and Korea's population are mostly in cities with extreme population densities. In countries with sprawling suburbs FTH is less economically feasible, regardless of network neutrality regulation. BTW, the "open wire" regulations in Europe are very different from the network neutrality concept that is debated in the US. And, unlike just a few years ago, broadband access is cheaper in Europe.

Re:Unfortunately, neutrality is bad for fiber to h (4, Insightful)

XorNand (517466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155794)

Repeat after me: Coorelation does not equal causation.

What evidence do you have that supports the notion that Americans will get faster access if net neutrality is scuttled? This is equating "faster access" with killing net neutrality is the exact koolaid that the telcom industry has been trying to cram into the collective consciousness. Their real goal has nothing to do with fiber in your home. It's all about being able to wring more cash out of Google, YouTube, and especially Vonage (who directly undercuts them).

The first rule of slashdot fight club is... (1)

leoxx (992) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155953)

Adding value to the Internet lowers its value. (2, Interesting)

husker shiznit (617970) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155527)

Sounds screwy, but it's true. If you optimize a network for one type of application, you de-optimize it for others. For example, if you let the network give priority to voice or video data on the grounds that they need to arrive faster, you are telling other applications that they will have to wait. And as soon as you do that, you have turned the Net from something simple for everybody into something complicated for just one purpose. It isn't the Internet anymore.
Quote from worldofends.com [worldofends.com] which still remains true.

Solution in search of a problem (1)

thisnow1 (882441) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155546)

'Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.'
That sounds like a very spiffy, interesting quote. I bet that vice president came up with that himself...or maybe it was Steve Jobbs

Be Confused By Our Vacuous Statements Instead! (4, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155577)

'Don't be confused by these spurious complaints about Net neutrality,' Tim Regan, a vice president with fiber optic cable manufacturer Corning Inc., said. 'Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.'"

Translation: don't be confused by trivial things like facts and details regarding the case. Instead, please be confused by our utterly content-free, shaded, and spun vague assertions!

I think it's interesting that most of the anti-net-neutrality statements don't contain any substance. Those that do certainly don't rebut concerns brought up by net-neutrality advocates. They've clearly chosen to try to win over the public and the senate via obfuscation rather than argument. That *alone* should tell you something.

Re:Be Confused By Our Vacuous Statements Instead! (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155772)

They've clearly chosen to try to win over the public and the senate via obfuscation rather than argument. That *alone* should tell you something.

What should it tell us? That they're going to win? THAT became painfully obvious once the commercials rolled out!

How will this help a Telco deliver TV? (1)

losycompresion (711973) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155590)

Can someone please explain how that will even begin to help a Telco deliver TV?

Re:How will this help a Telco deliver TV? (1)

Cutie Pi (588366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155931)

Currently, cable companies are government sanctioned monopolies whose charter to provide cable service is voted on by the local (municipal) government.

Thus, for telcos to come in and over TV service to a given municipality's residents requires them to go to each individual town and expand the charter. Since there are 10s of thousands of small towns across America, a prospect such as this becomes virtually impossible, even to someone like Verizon.

The proposed bill would eliminate the above restrictions and allow direct competition between the cable companies and telcos to provide TV service.

Uh, let's see: Corning's biggest customer-Verizon (4, Informative)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155614)

What a crock!

Motorola and Corning have Verizon as a huge customer. Of course they don't want Net Neutrality if Verizon doesn't!!!

Dear web site visitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155650)

Your access to this web site has been denied

You appear to be accessing this web site via a telecoms provider who supports tiered internet service. Please contact your ISP and inform them that we have granted $TELCO their wish of a tiered internet and that the bill for accessing our network will be $10,000,000. Congratulations to $TELCO on a job well done.

All the best,

Webmaster
On behalf of the web site team.

Once again; they who has the gold, make the rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155692)

Nothing for us to do but suck it up!

Google? (4, Interesting)

ijakings (982830) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155693)

I may be missing something here and someone may have alreay said it, but didnt google buy massive amounts of nationwide Dark Fiber a while back? Say someone on ISP A wants to get information from google at B, but they have to pass over backbone C, But google aint playing ball with Backbone C so they restrict their traffic. Couldnt google just send the data directly to ISP A over their Dark Fiber missing out Backbone C entirely? Feel free to flame/destroy me here

WTF (3, Interesting)

rmadmin (532701) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155856)

it would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services.

Did I read this wrong? Some municipalities already offer their own broadband services. I know this because I'm "Broadband Services Coordinator" at a municipal utility. So I ask.. WTF?

The Debate Made Easy (5, Insightful)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155982)

For me, if I'm ever torn on a candidate for office or a ballot mandate and I don't know or have time to research all of the issues involved, I'll often look at who supports or opposes them. One can often make an informed decision based on this alone.

So, lets look at who supports Net Neutrality: Google, Yahoo, Vonage, Ebay, Skype, Amazon etc. Now take a gander at who is against it: Most (not all) politicians, major telcos such as Verizon, ATT, Comcast, Time Warner and now hardware manufacturers are coming out against it. Now is it so hard to tell who is telling the truth and who is spreading FUD? Who among those mentioned above has the best interests of the consumer and small businesses in mind, and who else is constantly trying to squeeze more and more and more profits from them?
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...