×

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

Thank you!

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

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

315 comments

everyone looses (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18294664)

Developed at the University of Florida, the model shows that everyone looses if the IPs get their way -- even, eventually, the IPs."
Everyone looses when the screws that hold the tubes together become lose

brought to you by the captcha: fickle

Re:everyone looses (2, Funny)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294758)

everyone looses
Everyone looses when the screws that hold the tubes together become lose

I wish there was an "ironically funny" option.

Re:everyone looses (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294810)

*woosh*

I'm an idiot. Didn't realize there was a spelling error in the summary...

Re:everyone looses (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294850)

Correction: two spelling errors. Congress should always be capitalized. No pun intended. :-)

How loose are we talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18294668)

I always lose it when people say loose when they mean lose.

A volley of arrows? The dogs of war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18294672)

Looses what, now? Seriously, people. Intervention time. Lose != Loose. It's... not that difficult.

words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18294680)

let me be the first to point out that "looses" doesn't mean what you think it means. It's "loses", as in to no longer have posession of something.

Looses... dear lord (0, Offtopic)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294686)

Grammar Nazis seem to be "loosing" the war against spelling idiocy. To bad Slashdot isn't edited.

Re:Looses... dear lord (1)

Courageous (228506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294716)

Grammar Nazis seem to be "loosing" the war against spelling idiocy. To (SIC!) bad Slashdot isn't edited.

This is an intentional joke, yes?

C//

Re:Looses... dear lord (4, Funny)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294794)

Their couldn't be any other explanation!

Re:Looses... dear lord (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294870)

I think they're could be...

Re:Looses... dear lord (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18294990)

Who cares?

Yes, it would be nice if everyone used perfect English, there were no typos or punctuation errors, and someone corrected grammatical errors before they hit the main page. But at the end of the day Slashdot is all about discussing the news, communicating new discoveries, inventions, and the progress of technology. This is not a spelling bee. While it's certainly possible to argue that incorrect use of the language can impact the communication of an idea, the majority of errors found in submissions are insignificant by any standard. I wish the Grammar Nazis would find something better to do with their time. Submitting interesting stories rather than irrelevant complaints about spelling, for example.

Apostate! Heretic! (5, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295166)

Look, let me explain something about group dynamics in general and geek psychology in particular. Every group develops little markers that let members know if someone is a part of the group. Particular ways of speaking, writing, or acting, little jokes, that sort of thing.

Many geeks grew up as outsiders. We were smarter, but lacked social skills. Dumber but more popular people felt threatened by our brains and put us down, picked on us, and so forth. One characteristic that groups of those dumber people adopted as their group marker was a disdain for all things intellectual. One thing many geeks have adopted is just the opposite, a respect for all things intellectual, to distinguish ourselves from them.

Do you see where this is going?

You come on a geek message board spouting anti-intellectualism, "Oh, you dorks, proper spelling and grammar don't matter. Get over yourselves." You have just identified yourself as "one of them," an outsider, probably anti-intellectual, most likely of the same sort that picked on many of us as kids.

Proper spelling and grammar are one of our shibboleths, along with Natalie Portman, hot grits, and Beowulf clusters. It isn't primarily about communication, although that is a factor. It is about identity. We are geeks. Geeks are smart. Smart people spell words correctly and use proper grammar. That is who we are.

When people here correct your spelling or grammar, they are really just trying to carry on our culture, and help you fit in. You don't have to, but if you don't, you will be seen as an outsider by many here. That's just how it is with people. You know the old saying, "When in Rome..."

Re:Apostate! Heretic! (2, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295324)

Playing with spelling and grammar cleverly are also marks of being a geek. 1337speke and puns are examples of those markers you mentioned.

Those only work against a background of correct spelling and grammar. It's not clever to break the rules if you don't know what the rules are.

Re:Apostate! Heretic! (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295372)

On that note, you might consider changing the J in your signature to the lowercase variant.

Re:Apostate! Heretic! (1)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295400)

Dude, you could have just said "you must be new here". Also, grammar Nazis don't represent slashdot. They are looked upon both with minor appreciation and general disdain, because some things are taken too far. Our identity shouldn't be that we obsess ourselves with meaningless endeavors.

Re:Apostate! Heretic! (1)

insignificant_wrangl (1060444) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295512)

As an English prof, I'd say that every second you spend worrying about grammar is a second you aren't worrying about the depth / development / support of an idea. Sure, I appreciate revision and proofing, but these are the final stages of polished documents, and probably not necessary for forum posts.

Re:Apostate! Heretic! (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295530)

Yeah, but "loose" and "lose?" Come on! I don't give a fuck if someone misspells an uncommon or difficult word, or splits an infinitive or anything like that, but if you fuck up an apostrophe; too, two, and to; they're and their; it's and its or the like: that's fair game.

Re:Apostate! Heretic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295620)

Hear here!

Re:Apostate! Heretic! (-1, Flamebait)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295634)

Haha what an elitist post. I think you got beat up one too many times as a kid, so you decided that everyone with social skills is an idiot, and that they feared your intelligence.

I was going to write more, but I think your generalizations speak for themselves as to how absurd they are. Though judging by the +5 mod perhaps not...

Re:Looses... dear lord (1)

David Greene (463) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295270)

I used to think this way too. Back in the day.

Language is important. It's how we express ourselves. If one is not willing to take care in writing and speaking, he or she may not give the best impression -- and impressions matter.

There's a difference between error-free writing and proper editing to fix mistakes. No one writes error-free. Editors exist to catch these types of problems.

But to have the attitude going into the process that spelling and grammar don't matter is to isolate oneself in a small group of people that is taken less seriously by the rest of the world.

Re:Looses... dear lord (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295258)

Me knot got jok. WAht so fune?

What's an IP? (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294694)

FTFS:

Developed at the University of Florida, the model shows that everyone looses if the IPs get their way -- even, eventually, the IPs."

What is an IP? It can't be an intellectual property, since they don't have will, so they can't get their way. I'm pretty sure it can't be internet protocol.

Did you perhaps mean ISP?

Re:What's an IP? (5, Insightful)

Hitokiri (220183) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294816)

Internet Providers, we are dropping Service from ISP since customer service these days is generally abysmal.

Re:What's an IP? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294992)

Internet Providers, we are dropping Service from ISP since customer service these days is generally abysmal.

That joke was old when I was still a sperm and an egg.

I first encountered it, though, when I worked for the county of santa cruz' health and human services dept's MIS dept, referring to the difference between IT and IS.

Anyway the S in ISP refers to internet service, not customer service. Although I suspect you were making some sort of attempt at humor :)

Re:What's an IP? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295292)

Anyway the S in ISP refers to internet service, not customer service.

Whatever. The same sentiment still applies.

Looses? (1)

wiggles (30088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294712)

everyone looses if the IPs get their way


Well, at least they don't get tight. I mean, I hate it when people get all tight about things, don't you?

And That's Okay (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294720)

While I applaud the advocacy, the bad new is "intellectual development" is not what the telcos and media conglomerates have in mind.

While you all get pedantic about lose vs loose... (0, Offtopic)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294732)

... dont you realize it's just a bunch of tubes?

Or is it a truck you can just dump stuff on? I forget.

Re:While you all get pedantic about lose vs loose. (1)

hazem (472289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294900)

I'm not sure, but I got 4 or 5 internets in my inbox just today...

And that is exactly why .... (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294752)

... we don't need regulations to enforce it. The companies who refuse to get it will eventually be forced to change, suffer from disruptive technology, or be eliminated from the gene pool.

Re:And that is exactly why .... (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294830)

You're funny.

Really, you are. You take companies that have natural physical monopolies and then try and act like there are some competitive forces working against them when infact the only thing that keeps them from completely raping the customer are the relevant governmental regulatory agencies.

You must be too young to remember Ma Bell...

Re:And that is exactly why .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18294978)

And you must be too ignorant to realize that breaking up Ma Bell was a failure of the antitrust laws.

It's absolutely pointless, counterintuitive, and downright wasteful to break up any company that has had monopoly thrust upon it, and we recognize this now. It's only a problem when companies have monopoly power and work specifically to exclude others in a manner that can't be shown to be otherwise in their interests.

Hell, what good did it do anyway? Ma Bell is back and bigger than ever, and if you think an antitrust claim will stick against the reborn Bells, you're sorely mistaken.

Re:And that is exactly why .... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295238)

You are of course aware that there was only one brand of phone that worked back then since Ma Bell intentionally ran their circuits out of spec to ruin the hardware people bought? Naturally their own hardware was designed with this in mind. Been to a store shopping for a phone lately? That is but one lasting impact of the Ma Bell breakup inspite of the illconcieved republican deregulation of everything. Fine, you want to be raped, cause ignorance is awesome, and you've got a lifetime supply. Well I don't want to be raped. So how about we have resonable government regulations that make me and other sensible people happy. In return we'll donate some of our free time building a variety of ass-raping robots for you and people like you. Everyone wins. We'll even sell them to you so you don't have to feel like it's communism.

Re:And that is exactly why .... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295432)

Deregulating is a good thing. The implementation of it was bad though.

The problems revolve around all the barriors to getting in and performing business that your sensible regulation imposed and were ever taken down. I mean would you really settle for one highspeed ISP for the phone or cable conection when someone else could leae the lines at cost and sell the service to you at a discount? Sure anyone could go through all the channels, get the rightaway, lay cables on top of cables, push it the last mile (to the house or business) and seel the same Internet that the ISP's already use. But then you would have a large company with lots of money and their entire purpose would be to extract just as much money from you that AT&t or verizon does. Deregulation changed this. Now you can get service from a number of people ranging from more then the monopoly charges to quite a bit less.

Don't take a sloppy implementation of deregulation like what happended in a primarily democrate california and their energy market as fact that deregulation doesn't work. There are too many factors like barriers to entry, companies scamming the government by running piplines at half capacity to cause a shortage and increase prices, Government price controls that didn't allow for the costs to consumers to raise with the costs of the power supply, and regulations that prevented the building of new power plants to keep costs competitive. It just isn't a fair statment to say deregulation is evil when a lot of the regulation is the problem.

Re:And that is exactly why .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295472)

when someone else could leae the lines at cost and sell the service to you at a discount?

Uhhh, yeah. Cause thats exactly what every company out there is going to do. Why bother to mark it up if they can sell it to you for a discount? Because we all know that every company out there is in it purely to please their customers. And maybe if they're lucky they'll make a buck or two while they're at it.

Re:And that is exactly why .... (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295508)

I'll tell you what good it did. That non-acoutistic-coupler modem that brought networking to end-user consumers in the first place would not have happened or would have been substantially delayed if Ma Bell had not been broken up. The breakup forced (among other things) them to allow other companies' products to be connected to the telephone network. I remember going down to the GTE store to rent a handset just a handful of years after the breakup because nobody else made telephones yet. I remember watching the landscape change, as I'm sure does anyone who remembers the late 70s and early 80s. The breakup of AT&T was a very good decision.

Unfortunately, we're seeing them come back together, like a bad sci-fi movie (was that Terminator 3?) or something. Fortunately, at least we are moving towards a duopoly with the cable companies serving as a little bit of competition. Unfortunately, we were already seeing stagnation in the markets because a duopoly is not sufficient competition to do much good, and I'm sure the stagnation will just get worse with time. Maybe municipal WI-Fi and other disruptive technologies will improve things, but I'm not holding my breath. Short of ubiquitous municipal fiber, it's downhill from here... at least until people get so sick of the new AT&T that they force it to break up again.

Re:And that is exactly why .... (2, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295136)

You must be too young to remember Ma Bell...

Remember Ma Bell? I get my local and long distance service from them right now. I'm just lucky I've got a non-ATT cellular provider. Oh wait... Edge Wireless [edgewireless.com] is an affiliate of Cingular Wireless, which means it is part of the largest digital voice and data network in the U.S.*... shit!

Re:And that is exactly why .... (2, Interesting)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295196)

You must be too young to remember Ma Bell...

I agree with the other guy. Breaking up "Ma Bell" was dumb, all it did was create lots of little regional monopolies. Didn't like the service? Well, you could always move across the country. Far more good was done by forcing the phone companies to allow people to buy their own phones from anyone who made a compliant phone.

Re:And that is exactly why .... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295558)

Agreed, mostly, but the decision to deregulate phones would probably not have made a big difference were it not for the breakup of Ma Bell. If new phone manufacturers had to compete against a single monopoly, the competitive barrier to entry would have been too high. This is, of course, an untestable theory, but I think the principle is sound.

Everyone loses or some lose? (3, Insightful)

Syro2000 (948558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294762)

I find the blurb difficult to understand with its talk of IPs winning and losing. From the article:

Not surprisingly, they found that broadband service providers were the ones to gain the most from ending net neutrality because they could collect fees from content providers. The content providers such as Yahoo! and Google, in turn, would be the biggest losers.

Consumers will "win" if their favorite online provider is the one paying a fee to the telephone or cable company because it comes with a guarantee that its site would have the opportunity to load faster than its competitors, Cheng said. But those consumers who prefer a content provider that paid no such fee will "lose" in having to endure slower service, he said.
However, that implies there are both winners and losers. I'm not sure why the submitter claims that "everyone looses [sic]."

Re:Everyone loses or some lose? (2, Interesting)

Proofof. Chaos (1067060) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294892)

I wonder if the simulation takes into account the effect of consumers switching to the content provider that pays the fee, and the effect this would have on the amount of content consumers have to choose from.

Re:Everyone loses or some lose? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294962)

okey heres how it goes
1 content providers start to get hacked off that they need to pay to serve possibly multiple folks just because thye have different providers
2 the providers pay some and then tell the others to FOAD
3 the popularity drops (and ad income goes south)
4 the providers start charging for services
5 popularity drops further (ad income and all income hits the floor)
6 provider goes under
7 income to the ISPs drops
8 the userbase revolts and ISP execs start dropping like flies (or The Family gets in on it and the execs start sleeping with the fishes or "take a walk in the desert")
9 Profit!!

The rest of the speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18294764)

A world without net neutrality is one devoid of intellectual development. There will be no kittens or puppy dogs. Nobody will come to your birthday party.

Re:The rest of the speech (3, Insightful)

IcyNeko (891749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294808)

Oh, like these "facts" are going to stop Ted Stevens from being a tool. He doesn't need "figures" and "information" to poison his waterhole.

Speed control and competition (3, Insightful)

AlpineR (32307) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294796)

It makes sense that an ISP with a given set of customers would want to extort content providers by slowing down the connections to those who don't engage in payola. But wouldn't that put the ISP at a big disadvantage compared to another ISP that continues to upgrade the speed of connections and not charge the content providers?

Re:Speed control and competition (2, Interesting)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294998)

Logically, yes. But ISPs are a finite group, and the smaller the group, the easier it is for them claim that the extortion is the best for their buisness. If enough ISPs take this route, customers begin to accept it as normal. Of course, the ISPs that would want to gain a larger share of the customers are the ones likely to not extort content providers, which usually means the smaller ISPs. Content providers will be slow to switch if they can make up the extortion in different way; none of them will want to switch until the smaller ISPs grow large enough to offset losses. In the mean time, however, we all suffer.

Re:Speed control and competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295064)

But wouldn't that put the ISP at a big disadvantage compared to another ISP that continues to upgrade the speed of connections and not charge the content providers?
Yes, but if your cable company and your phone company are both doing this, who do you buy your internet connection from?

Re:Speed control and competition (3, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295142)

That sounds nice.

I have a choice between Comcast, or Verizon.

Neither is likely to play nice. Both have a good reason to tamper with, say, Vonage, since both offer VOIP as a part of their package deals. Both offer digital TV, and on-demand entertainment - both would want to hinder the growth of things like Vongo, and will make sure that IPTV dies in the womb.

There's very little competition, and every reason to expect collusion among the biggies.

And theres no reason at all to tamper with the current state of affairs.

Re:Speed control and competition (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295156)

But wouldn't that put the ISP at a big disadvantage compared to another ISP that continues to upgrade the speed of connections and not charge the content providers?

The content providers are not buying the service. As the buyer of the service, why should I choose one over the other? If I buy the first one and fancysite.com doesn't work, and I call up my ISP, are they going to accept responsibility or claim that it's not their fault?

Re:Speed control and competition (2, Interesting)

Thatto (258697) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295574)

I have often wondered why this is an issue at all... On my POTS line, I can call anyone, anytime, as long as they have a phone. In the beginning, they charged based on distance. Long distance calls cost more, but as the infrustructure has expanded, the concept of distance is mostly meaningless. Never did the telecos charge based on whom I was calling. How is the net different? I pay my isp for my internet connection, Google pays bigbucks for theirs. Why should the telecos get any extra because google is using 100% of the badwidth for which they have already paid? This is extortion, plain and simple. Google: "We need to get another OC128" Telecos: "Well that will cost you $FOO for the connection, AND if you want ALL your traffic, it will cost you $BAR per month to ferry your traffic across our network safely. Otherwise, who knows what could happen..." And the telecos are trying to legalize it.

Re:Speed control and competition (1)

s2jcpete (989386) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295336)

On the surface yes, but in practice no. I live in Washington DC and have an option between Comcast cable, or DSL through Verizion (or speakeasy etc by using Verizon's lines). So, 2 options really, and the DSL route requires a 1 year contract with a 300$ breakout fee. I can't see myself having much recourse if my ISP starts to shape traffic. Guess I could always go back to dialup.

Re:Speed control and competition (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295404)

It makes sense that an ISP with a given set of customers would want to extort content providers by slowing down the connections to those who don't engage in payola. But wouldn't that put the ISP at a big disadvantage compared to another ISP that continues to upgrade the speed of connections and not charge the content providers?


In many regions there are a very small number of ISPs (particularly if you count only those that own the fiber rather than those that just provide service on the phone companies lines); the absence of neutrality would mean the small number of major players would be able to create even larger barriers to competition from upstarts, and reinforce their narrow control of the marketplace (which often amounts to regional monopolies.)

Competitive disadvantage only matters when there is effective competition, the whole point of eliminating network neutrality is to allow the big boys to insulate themselves against competition.

Re:Speed control and competition (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295430)

They're pretty insulated from this kind of competition, at least in the USA.

When I signed up for high-speed internet access, I had two choices: AT&T DSL or Comcast cable service. For one, that's only two choices. (Which is actually one more choice than I had at my last home, where it was either cable or dialup.)

Secondly, a decision like that isn't as simple as choosing an internet provider - what if you don't have a phone, are you willing to sign up for a phone line just to get your DSL? What if you don't have a TV, are you willing to pay the exorbitant rates that Comcast charges non-TV customers for internet access? How about those phone-internet-TV-in-one packages that everyone's pushing nowadays?

What about the fact that most consumers really don't know enough about networking and the Internet to make much of an informed decision? In my experience a bullet point comparison sounds like gibberish to most people, and they don't have the patience for a more thorough description that they can understand. I have zero confidence that most people care enough to also try to understand the relative merits of various companies' packet scheduling policies.

So, in a word, no - the ISP that upgrades the speed of connections without charging content providers would probably actually be the one at a disadvantage. There wouldn't be enough knowledgeable customers switching to their better service to cover the added cost of providing better service.

Whatever, Mister "Book Learner" (2, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294800)

Hey, the rest of the world can run these internets and intarwebs however they like, but THIS IS AMERICA and we don't appreciate none of that intellectual development garbgage. We prefer our internets to be about sending videos of people getting hit in the testicles, underage girls shaking their ass on their webcams and flash videogames targeted at school children on Kraft Foods' websites.

Re:Whatever, Mister "Book Learner" (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294936)

Don't forget rampant zealotry and useless pseudoclever snide commentary.

Re:Whatever, Mister "Book Learner" (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295010)

Yes, that too. Now leave me alone - I'm busy watching an infomercial for this amazing stick that lets you clean your dryer's lint catcher.

Re:Whatever, Mister "Book Learner" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295060)

Don't disturb me.
I'm watching "Ow my balls" on the Violence Channel

Fuck You !

Net neutrality == government regulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18294818)

Because the government would have to define and regulate "neutrality".

Does anyone really think that's going to help the internet?

Re:Net neutrality == government regulation (3, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294868)

Thats what governments do, they govern things.

And it is needed. If it isn't done, eventually one ISP will rise to the top, and be the ones to decide what you see and what you don't. When that one ISP finally takes over and claims its monopoly, we need to have some checks and balances in place.

Saying it's needed does not make that true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295022)

Deregulate phone service, and it will become monopolized. Right?

Deregulate airlines, and people will have no air travel choices. Right?

But no, the internet needs government regulation because you say so.

Re:Net neutrality == government regulation (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295050)

And it is needed.
No, it isn't. Because when they do get to the top, they get lazy, complacent and completely miss the next big thing which is driven by their high costs and poor/restrictive service. Legislation and regulation simply extend the time it takes for the revolutionary replacement to appear. They slow progress and development.

 

Re:Net neutrality == government regulation (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295098)

Net Neutrality is law now. What is needed is to not change that, and allow Comcast to decide how the internet will work from here on in.

Why compare Japan & S. Korea? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294956)

"In Japan and Korea, where there is net neutrality and much greater competition among broadband providers than in the United States, there are also higher broadband speeds," he said."
The top 9 largest cities in Japan make up ~50% of the population (147 million)
The top 4 largest cities in S. Korea make up a bit less than 50% (48 million)

In terms of size, to paraphrase from someone in another thread: In Texas we call that a county.

Re:Why compare Japan & S. Korea? (4, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295078)

"In Japan and Korea, where there is net neutrality and much greater competition among broadband providers than in the United States, there are also higher broadband speeds," he said."

Call me crazy, but I would think it's the "greater competition among broadband providers" that is spurring the higher broadband speed.

You could replace 'net neutrality' with 'rice paddies' in that quote and it would still be accurate.

Hyperbole and hysteria (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18294996)

A world without net neutrality is one devoid of intellectual development
Look.. I don't support Net Neutrality. Or specifically, I don't support a net neutrality law because I don't think it's required. It'll just get politicians involved in something they really don't understand, and getting politicians involved is almost always a bad idea.

I think a neutral network is a great idea, but it doesn't have to be enforced by the government exactly because those who abuse the market willlose out quite naturally. Neutrality is the natural state of the network.

Oh, and on the quote... "A world/b without net neutrality"? Really? Someone puts some charges on a network and suddenly the whole world becomes dumb?

 

Re:Hyperbole and hysteria (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295068)

Net Neutrality is the current law. They want to change it to allow ISPs to charge providers for better access to certain services, and ending their current status as neutral providers.

Right now I have comcast, and I just know they'd love to prevent me from downloading shows and movies from something like Vongo - which competes directly with their OnDemand service. If this law and others like it are passed, they can go ahead and do that. They're also in the VOIP game - wonder how vonage's service would work if this went through? Why would comcast allow vonage and others to compete directly with them, when they have control over the means of delivery?

In much of the US, you'll really only find one game in town as a broadband providor. I could switch to Verizon - but of course they're pushing the same 3-in-1 game, so I don't think they'd do any better.

Re:Hyperbole and hysteria (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295312)

Think of it this way. What if Ford, GM, and Mopar all had private ownership of the roads. If the three of them charged each cizizen a flat fee to enter the road system, with each of the three having a local manoply (e.g. Ford owned the roads around St. Louis like Charger owns most of the cable access around St. Louis). Now imagine that they had high speed lanes. Only authorized types of vehicles could travel in the high speed lanes. Do you think they would give Honda access to these high speed lanes. Of course not, if Honda cars can'g get on these high speed lanes, but Ford vehicles can, more people would drive Fords around St. Louis for the very fact that they have access to these high speed lanes. In the same way more people would use Charger VOIP over Vontage if there was no net neutrality.

Re:Hyperbole and hysteria (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295342)

I think a neutral network is a great idea, but it doesn't have to be enforced by the government exactly because those who abuse the market willlose out quite naturally.


Um, no. Everyone may lose, but those who most abuse the market will be the ones who lose least, in precisely the sense of the classical tragedy of the commons. Indeed, that's precisely why everyone is likely to lose, because the absence of neutrality rules promotes ever greater abuse. Which is precisely why a regulatory and enforcement regime is needed.

Neutrality is the natural state of the network.


"The network" is not natural and has no natural state. The network has previously been largely neutral because of government policies enforcing certain aspects of neutrality on important parts of the network, though those policies are currently only in the form of shifting FCC practices, not law.

Re:Hyperbole and hysteria (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295398)

those who abuse the market will lose out quite naturally.

Why?

If an ISP charges Google extra for their users to use their search site (or get redirected to someone who will pay, or just not have their site come up at all), what is Google going to do, cancel their cable subscription? Or maybe when people call up and ask about this, only to be told that Google must be down, but you can go to www.isppartnersearch.com to search the web, the percentage of people smart enough to realize that this is bullshit will bankrupt the company when they (if they bother to) cancel?

If I run a used car lot, I could go around firebombing my competitors' lots and have the same effect, by destroying my competitors and their inventory the value of my cars goes up. Fortunately for used car salespeople, the government says that's illegal. But if a cable company wipes out competitors' VoIP connections in order to drive up the value of their VoIP offering, something is supposed to "naturally" cause them to "lose"? If you could see the invisible hand, you'd see that it's giving them a great big thumbs up.

Re:Hyperbole and hysteria (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295662)

How about the difference between the company that charges Google because people connect to their service and the company that just raises their service price?

Assume the same amount of money is received by the ISP in both cases and allows them to deliver their service.

Which is better? That is the question that is coming. All this talk of blocking, monopoly and censorship is so much rubbish. It's all about the money.

And raising customer prices isn't going to happen. Not with anyone that wants to stay in business.

Re:Hyperbole and hysteria (1)

Jewfro_Macabbi (1000217) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295586)

Say it this way:

Look.. I don't support Civil rights. Or specifically, I don't support a civil rights law because I don't think it's required. It'll just get politicians involved in something they really don't understand, and getting politicians involved is almost always a bad idea.

I realize the two are not even remotely related, I just wanted to point out politicians are required when it comes to making laws ensuring our freedom....

Please, no more comments (2, Informative)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295016)

Please, no more comments until everyone reads Wikipedia's network neutrality article [wikipedia.org] in its entirety.

My take: the real fear is monopoly control of the Internet. Since monopolies are a problem independent of the Internet, we need to strengthen anti-monopoly laws rather than pretend we're living like it's 1969 on the ARPANET.

Re:Please, no more comments (1)

TheWoozle (984500) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295352)

Monopoly is the problem, huh?

Then let me ask you a question: can you explain why in the U.S., where there is most definietly not a monopoly air carrier, that travel between two given cities at a certain time of day costs roughly the same for a given class of service across all of the major airlines (Southwest being the obvious exception)?

You'll notice that when one airline raises ticket prices, they pretty much all do. Coincidence?

Let's suppose that one airline got the bright idea to charge its passengers an "infrastructure improvement" fee for travel on its busiest routes. The idea being that this money would be put towards buying nicer new jets so that travelers will enjoy more space and faster flights.

Do you suppose that the other airlines would follow suit and start to charge the same fee, or would they forgo collecting the fee to try and gain market share by offering lower prices?

My assertion is that most of the airlines would start to charge the fee. The difference for a given ticket would be small in comparison to the overall cost of travel; only truly dedicated penny-pinchers would care enough to try find an airline that doesn't charge the fee (who flies ValueJet?). The stated purpose behind the fee is non-binding, so just because a certain airline collects the fee, it doesn't mean that they're obligated to actually spend it on new jets (and really, who would bother to check?). It's an easy cost/benefit analysis: you gain a lot of money by charging the new fee vs. perhaps picking up a small amount of "value conscious" customers (who wants those?) by not charging the fee.

I think that the same situation applies with broadband providers in the US as well. No monopoly is necessary in order for the industry to charge us extra for something that we can't reliably hold them accountable for (how do you prove that the throughput you got for your "faster" connection was, in fact, faster? average or peak? compared to who? do you bother to check now?).

Re:Please, no more comments (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295464)

You seem to fear higher ISP prices. My fear is censorship from a monopoly. We are already seeing this as Google AdWords often bans political ads.

But as for the cost side of the equation -- your observation of airline prices is correct, but only half the story. While the airline industry is in fact an oligopoly that incrementally raises prices in tandem over time, it also suddenly slashes prices in tandem periodically. This is the behavior of an oligopoly, which while not ideal, is preferable to a monopoly.

Re:Please, no more comments (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295622)

But by that logic, airline ticket prices would inch up over time until nobody could afford to fly. This doesn't happen.

Competition doesn't just include competition among like businesses. Airlines aren't just competing with each other, they're competing with all of the other options you have when you spend your dollar (not spending it being an option too). At some point, you'll decide that buying an airline ticket just isn't worth the price, and you'll either go on vacation within driving distance or do something else entirely, or do nothing -- maybe fly at some later date when you expect the price will drop.

The sum total of all these individual decisions sets the price that airlines compete against. Otherwise, they could all raise prices to $4000 a seat and still fill their planes with passengers.

The real question here is whether the Internet is subject to similar market pressure.

The Internet is different because we have a situation similar to what would happen if the airlines were able to set a 35mph speed limit on the highway. They'd probably (shortsightedly) do so to increase their own business, but the end result would probably be a decrease in overall travel, as the market would adjust to the artificial scarcity. People would move closer to work, businesses would open up closer to suburbs, etc. -- all because there would be a huge economic incentive to not drive on the highway.

Not only that, but stifling basic infrastructure in such a manner would mean that our economy would have to overcome that inefficiency to compete with other nations that have a regulated net.

I don't have the answer, because I honestly don't know what would eventually happen if ISP's were given free reign. Maybe it would be a good thing, because if you paid a metered bandwidth service you'd be more conscious about how much you use. Maybe new VOIP technology would develop to overcome the limitations imposed by the ISPs.

It's all much to complex for there to be an easy answer.

Re:Please, no more comments (1)

hazem (472289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295402)

Why that particular article? While packed with facts, it's biased pretty heavily against "Net Neutrality".

Re:Please, no more comments (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295458)

My take: the real fear is monopoly control of the Internet. Since monopolies are a problem independent of the Internet, we need to strengthen anti-monopoly laws rather than pretend we're living like it's 1969 on the ARPANET.


Monopolies are certainly a problem independent of the internet, but they are problems that, experience has shown, require, in addition to general solutions (like the various anti-trust laws), more focussed controls in certain domains (like the common carrier provisions that apply to "telecommunication services", like telephone systems.)

The root of the net neutrality debate in the US is the decision of the FCC to resolve the different handling of cable broadband (which did not come under the "telecommunication services" common carrier rules) and DSL service (which did) by putting both outside the coverage of that regulation, rather than placing broadband service generally within those common carrier rules.

Which now has the telephone giants, limited in their ability to leverage control of telephone lines as such by the common carrier rules applied to them, rushing to do what they could not do under those regulations by dominating the VoIP and network services with which they want to replace traditional phone service, and over which the same controls do not exist.

And weakening net neutrality is part of the means of acheiving that.

Back when I used to do Game Theory simulations (1)

hchaos (683337) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295024)

It was very easy for us to "prove" a wide range of conflicting hypotheses by tweaking the rules until we got the results we wanted. Without knowing the assumptions behind the simulation, it's really impossible to judge the accuracy of the simulations.

Simplistic model (2, Insightful)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295058)

Their model do not account for innovation, they use fixed parameters, a very neat toy model. The real world doesn't behave like that, it is much more complicated.

Do they foresee Google raising WiMax masts? Do they foresee P2P based webservices?

The article says:

"More important, the researchers found that the incentive for broadband service providers to expand and upgrade their service actually declines if net neutrality ends. Improving the infrastructure reduces the need for online content providers to pay for preferential treatment, Bandyopadhyay said."

Of course it does, but then your competitor has an incentive to expand and upgrade their service so that they can charge lower prices. How can the model not take *that* into account?

If this kind of simulation had any validity, planned economy and sovietism would work. We know it doesn't.

Not interesting (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295126)

Wow. A computer program came up with a result that supports a particular political position. This is a surprise?

Any computer program that predicts that folks will act against their best interest needs to be looked at very sceptically.

Re:Not interesting (1)

hazem (472289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295310)

You have to define "best interest" because people act against their best interest all the time, often out ignorance or short-term thinking.

Two simple cases:
Americans tend to finance a tremendous level of their "lifestyles" using high interest rate credit cards. Once those cards maxed out, they're stuck with less lifetyle than their income would normally allow because they have to service the debt.

Few Americans save for retirement - most neglect to contribute to a company provided retirement plan, even if the company matches.

Many Americans are quite overweight (myself included). Some exercise and better food choices would mitigate this problem, but most choose not to.

Many Americans buy a new car every 4 years or less. If they waited and did this only every 8 years, they could retire with the same level of benefits nearly 3 years earlier.

It wouldn't take much of a computer simulation to demonstrate these behaviors. They're all about instant gratification and delayed consequences.

Re:Not interesting (0, Flamebait)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295354)

Lots of stereotypes there. All negative toward America. Hmm.

I don't think a company has the same instincts that lead to obesity though.

Re:Not interesting (1)

inviolet (797804) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295446)

I don't think a company has the same instincts that lead to obesity though.

What, did you just now arrive here on Earth? Have you ever observed the levels of bureaucracy that grow (unbidden!) at all levels of medium- and large-sized companies?

Re:Not interesting (1)

hazem (472289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295502)

And let me add that some Americans, even after years of post-grad education, can't even count. They say 2 when there are clearly 4 things.

So, these may appear to be stereotypes, but they are serious problems in my country. As for being negative toward America, I was specifically citing examples of people acting against their self interest. By definition, those are going to be negative examples. And being an American, I'm not in a position to make similar claims about populations in other countries.

Companies can also do stupid things that can be like financial obesity. For example, my company has decided we need to have everyone in different buildings. So, we're in a process where nearly every person (and there's 6000 of us at this location) will move to a different cube at the cost of nearly $700 each. Some are moving twice in less than a couple months. In most cases, entire teams are simply moving from one building to another. They will still be grouped together the same way.

The major point I was trying to make is that people routinely act against their best interest typically because they get to enjoy the immediate benefit of a bad decision while the consequences are delayed. Sometimes, though, they're just stubborn.

You should believe the computer (1)

DrJokepu (918326) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295436)

void main()
{
printf("Hello Congress! I am the computer.\n");
printf("According to my calculations, Net Neutrality is a good thing. \n");
printf("Goodthingness of Net Neutrality: 97.327653% \n");
printf("Have a nice day.\n");
}

Money is the point (2, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295616)

The problem is that pricing has been pushed down to the point where it is almost a losing game to win market share. That's nice for the consumer and it was nice that all this service could be provided without much hardware investment.

That was great when the connections were not being used much.

The issue today is who is going to pay. And nobody wants to just raise end-user prices. While that might be the fairest way to do it, it would shrink market share and be a shakeup for the entire ISP industry.

We could have government subsidies pay for it all, as is mostly done in other countries to keep prices low. That means taxes pay for cheap Internet service. So the people that don't have it have to pay - not so fair.

Someone came up with the bright idea of charging the other end. Google is paying almost nothing for their connection (check prices on OC-192 connections) and is making billions off the people looking there. Maybe they could pay more?

Of course, making Google, CBS Sports and CNN pay more for their connections just comes back around to the consumers anyway. There is no escaping that prices are going up. The consumer is going to end up paying, one way or another. The only question is how many middlemen are involved.

Competition among ISPs? (1)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295632)

The question is, did the game theory model include competition among ISPs? In my area we have a choice of DSL or Cable for broadband, but some customers live where there is only one provider (or none!). The optimal game theory strategy should be very different for cases where there is a monopoly on broadband internet access vs where two or more companies have to compete for customers. Their model would have to take that into consideration.

The fact that the article didn't say anything about it makes me suspect that they only modeled monopoly ISPs, in which case their results are not too surprising. Monopoly ISPs are in a much better position to appropriate the lion's share of the benefits than those who have to compete.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...