Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

AT&T CEO Attacks Network Neutrality

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the does-america-even-understand-why-this-matters dept.

The Internet 358

Verteiron writes "The former CEO of AT&T, Ed Whitacre, had some interesting remarks to make about Net Neutrality during his parting speech. Choice quotes include his plans for getting anti-neutrality legislation through: "Will Congress let us do it?" Whitacre asks his colleagues. "You bet they will — cuz we don't call it cashin' in. We call it 'deregulation.' " More information on AT&T's attitude problem and a video of the speech are available. There's no sign that his replacement is any better."

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

"Neutrality" (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409503)

Since when is the Net "neutral" ? It's where conspiracy theorists always hide!

Subject (4, Funny)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409517)

Why does AT&T hate America?

Re:Subject (1, Flamebait)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409555)

Who doesn't?
Even the Kuwaiti you pretended to "save" 15 years ago just switched to the Euro. The Saudis will follow soon.
Face it: you should not have "voted" for Bush.

Re:Subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19409617)

Half of us didn't.

Re:Subject (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19409669)

technically less than half did anything at all.

Constitutional response? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19409809)

Well, all you Americans tell me that your country is special because you have a magic written constitution. And in this it says that Americans must always be allowed to carry guns.

Your comentators all give the reason for this as a means of defending yourselves against government tyranny. So, when are you going to start using them and justify the clause? Or do we have to come over and do it for you?

stay on your own side of the pond (0, Troll)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409873)

IT's OUR country, NOT yours. Last time I checked, the USA liberated Europe TWICE. If you don't clean up the problem you have with muslims, don't look for us to kick them out. We'll sit this one out.

Re:stay on your own side of the pond (1, Offtopic)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409999)

Except Iraq proves you're not sitting it out and are instead rushing in to claim the 20th century's gold. I'm sure many throughout the world would be quite happy if you didn't lie yourself into another oil grab.

Re:Constitutional response? (0, Troll)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410367)

You see... Claiming the 2nd amendment is in order to overthrow the government is just a joke. Not a single gun owner has the balls, it's just used as an excuse.I have a friend at work who always carried (Florida is even more crazy) and claimed it was for protection. He shut up the day I took his gun away when I shook his hands. He's been quiet now for over a year!

The 2nd amendment has become a HUGE joke, if this government isn't a 2nd amendment situation, not a single US government ever will be.
And while they run around with their guns, they continue to chant "USA #1! Ra ra ra ra" while the country is sliding faster and faster down all statistics and when you point that out, they only claim that the stats is wrong! yeah, This is such a dumb country!

Re:Subject (1)

NeoTerra (986979) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409737)

Because pillaging is not a right protected by the constitution. ;)

Broken Home (3, Funny)

uolamer (957159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410001)

Maybe it was when the courts broke up their happy family [wikipedia.org] ? Now that they got it back together they are out for revenge? AT&T Part VI: Ma Bell Lives?

Re:Subject (4, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410005)

Why does AT&T hate America?
Because there's a higher profit margin in exploiting America than loving it.

New boss is the same as the old boss (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409539)

I guess if they wanted to change, the old boss could have done that; Since they don't want to change the company's direction, it's just logical to get a new CEO with the same mind.

Attacking the network (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409541)

I once tried attacking network neutrality, however I ended up in hospital having a wifi antenna removed from parts indescribable.

Re:Attacking the network (5, Funny)

asliarun (636603) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409585)

Hmmm... that does ring a Bell.

Re:Attacking the network (3, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409705)

Speaking of attacking and given AT&T's logo:

That's no moon, it's a space station!

Re:Attacking the network (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410023)

I once tried attacking network neutrality, however I ended up in hospital having a wifi antenna removed from parts indescribable.
Or at least that's how you explained it to the doctor in the emergency room. I give you props, it's more original than "I slipped in the shower."

Good thing (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409563)

no other companies will work with AT&T since they are evil and who would want to be associated with an evil company...oh wait...

:-) It's a joke....relax...

Welcome to the future. (5, Funny)

Odiumjunkie (926074) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409569)

C:\>ping google.com

Resolved "google.com" to [64.233.167.99]

Hello! Welcome to AT&T PingSelect(tm). Please enter in milliseconds your desired ping time to website "google.com".

>25

Unfortunately, website "google.com" is not available at that ping time. Please contact the website administrator and advise them to upgrade their AT&T PingSelect(tm) package if you wish to ping website "google.com" at this value. Please select another time in milliseconds.

>50

Unfortunately, website "google.com" is not available at that ping time. Please contact the website administrator and advise them to upgrade their AT&T PingSelect(tm) package if you wish to ping website "google.com" at this value. Please select another time in milliseconds.

>100

Pinging google.com [64.233.167.99] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=247
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=247
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=247
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=247

Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99:
        Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
        Minimum = 100ms, Maximum = 101ms, Average = 101ms

C:\>

Re:Welcome to the future. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410011)

If the future comes to that people really need to rebel. Everyone needs to launch DoS attacks again any server that throttles connections until there all down and it costs these companies to much to keep them up. The Internet is one of the of the few places in the world where we actually have freedom of speech people need to stand up and fight back even if that means using script kiddie tactics.

Re:Welcome to the future. (2, Interesting)

cybermage (112274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410085)

Actually, What you can expect is not higher latency, but significant packet loss. You'll get clean, packet-loss free connectivity to people paying the extortion money and everything else will be relegated to congestion hell.

Re:Welcome to the future. (2, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410355)

Not quite so. Depends on the actual hell location.

If congestion hell is located on the access gear you should expect it to have the three heads of Cerberus - the loss head, the jitter head and the delay head. The reason is that the queues there are deep enough for all of these to occur.

If the hell is distributed across the backbone and the peering points drop is going to be the most likely result (the queue transmission times are not long enough to make a real influence on the other).

By the way, the really nasty hell is the access hell, not the backbone hell. Most backbones are not currently congested enough to make the backbone hell hurt so much. It will take changing capacity planning models, evaluating the new ones for stability and deploying the new models that take advantage of QoS to change this. That is not an easy task even if this is done from the top via an executive order.

Now, access (and to lesser extent peerings) is a completely different matter. There even minor QoS knob tweaking will have a major impact.

Mod parent Insightful, not Funny (2, Insightful)

imikem (767509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410255)

I can't think of much less funny than the prospect of something analogous to this. Shitbags like Whitacre should be called out for their disgustingly open money grabs. As should their associated bagshits in Congress. Make it loud and clear: the US pioneered the internet, and users here expect, nay DEMAND, that our TAXPAYER FINANCED public networks be available under the most non-descriminatory conditions that can be arranged. This is not negotiable.

While Whitacre and his ilk are busy partying away megamillions, and brazenly demanding even more even though little has been done since 2000 to extend broadband reach here, other countries are passing us by to benefit from our investments.

A modest suggestion: AT&T, try plowing a billion or two back into the infrastructure in this country instead of whining for the ability to double/triple dip on connection charges, and you'll likely notice that your market grows without customers wanting to tar/feather/dismember you and piss on your grave.

flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone? (3, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409573)

"There's a problem. It's called Net Neutrality," Whitacre told the heirs to AT&T's telecommunications empire. "Well, frankly, we say to hell with that. We're gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission."

"Will Congress let us do it?" Whitacre asks his colleagues. "You bet they will -- cuz we don't call it cashin' in. We call it 'deregulation.' "
This sounds like the kind of stuff I'd make up if I wanted to put words in his mouth. What next? "First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the internets."

Reminds me of Bush's candid comments we got to see in Fahrenheit 9-11. "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

Question: did this guy know there was a camera rolling?

Re:flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone? (1)

Nick Fury (624480) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409741)

There was no camera. It's a flash video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGnhF87MWSI [youtube.com]

Re:flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410629)

There was no camera. It's a flash video

WTF?

Re:flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone? (5, Informative)

1ucius (697592) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409785)

Of course he knew . . it was a joke given at a charity event where the speakers traditionally give lighthearted speeches.

Re:flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone? (2, Informative)

Perren (164318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410331)

This sounds like the kind of stuff I'd make up if I wanted to put words in his mouth.
Yeah, if you RTF'n "article", those words WERE put in his mouth. It's some kind of spoof ad. Just something to stir up the netroots rabble. It's even below the level of discourse here at slashdot. ... Wait, who am I kidding? It's perfect!

Re:flashbacks to Bush's speeches in F911 anyone? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410549)

Yeah, if you RTF'n "article", those words WERE put in his mouth. It's some kind of spoof ad. Just something to stir up the netroots rabble. It's even below the level of discourse here at slashdot. ... Wait, who am I kidding? It's perfect!
I'll say a mea culpa here, can't watch vids. Reality is so warped these days, I have to check the link to see if I'm reading the Onion or the New York Times.

What's all the fuss? (5, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409607)

I mean look at how well "deregulation" worked in the airline industry? More people can fly, flights are cheaper, to more destinations... crammed into tiny airplanes with more people... lousier food... more delays... bad customer service... bankruptcies... never mind.

Re:What's all the fuss? (3, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409783)

Actually deregulation of the airlines has helped, the big airlines have crumbled because they can't compete with the smaller more nimble airlines. This is the way it should be.

Air travel isn't a natural monopoly though.

Re:What's all the fuss? (3, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409959)

I mean look at how well "deregulation" worked in the airline industry? More people can fly, flights are cheaper, to more destinations... crammed into tiny airplanes with more people... lousier food... more delays... bad customer service... bankruptcies... never mind.
We need to work on the America's word association skills. Right wing radio has done a pretty good job of making "liberal" a pejorative. I want to see the same thing done with a couple of other words. Outsourcing should be known as "fuck America, I got mine." Deregulation should be known as "Enron." Republican leadership should be known as "cock and ball torture." And any use of the phrase "you have to pay top dollar to attract top talent" when used to describe executive compensation at a company should be accompanied by the phrase "and we pay the people who actually make the product or provide the service bottom dollar because, hey, fuck the poor; they're poor, aren't they?"

MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410185)

Cause he's right and it's a good idea.

Re:What's all the fuss? (0, Flamebait)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410495)

The people who make the product aren't the brains of the company. If they were, they wouldn't be slaving away on the assembly lines.

Quit being ridiculous. They're already getting paid what they're worth.

Re:What's all the fuss? (3, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409973)

I remember studying the airlines in detail during business school as a "how not to run an industry." Basically the major airlines started to try and slit each other throats with price wars and frequant flyer programs, etc.. And the major players pretty much did. Other carriers, like southwest, didn't play that ballgame manage to make a profit. Hell, for years there was a congressional bill that prevented Southwest from flying in and out of Love field in Dallas without making a stop in within so many miles of Dallas. Now that's repealed, it's cheaper and easier for us to fly to visit family.

Kind of like the Automotive industry has in the past few years when they started offering those 0% deals. GM figured their financing cost of capital was low enough that, yeah, sure, they'd bleed, but it would be stabbing the heart of Chrysler and the slitting the jugglar at Ford when those companies matched the offer. Why? Proably because some idiot was worried about next quarter's marketshare numbers instead of making a profit.

Well it worked, but the japs didn't take the bait and now what's happening? And the auto industry ain't regulated. There are some businesses that make really stupid decisions. No amount of regulation is going to stop people from being stupid.

Where I am now, I can have my phone service with one company and DSL through another. My Dad lives in a state where it's a regulated local monopoly and his phone company as screwed the customers for years in DSL rates and the cable company isn't much better since they know the customers really don't have any other choices. If he lived 2 miles north of where he does, he could get DSL for $30 a month where he's paying about $45 now for the same speed. The state I'm living in now "deregulated" by saying that local phone companies had to open their lines to any provider that I choose.

Re:What's all the fuss? (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410125)

....yes true, but at 1/4 the price.

Re:What's all the fuss? (1)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410353)

You believe it's a coincidence that they sometimes call airplanes flying *tubes*, eh? ;)

Voting time (4, Insightful)

packetmon (977047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409625)

For those Americans here who are of voting age, I suggest you start voicing opinions to congress speak to your management if you are in the telco/networking field and make noise. All this "wah wah wah" on a forum is pointless. Sure I can hear you, the trolls can hear you, but I doubt political parties can hear you. Start filling up those blogs of parties who want to "strike a pose" on the technology sector "We're hip... We have a blog" ... Oh so you do Senator Whatever... Start /.'ing them for straightforward answers, comments and plans. Anything else is just linenoise

Re:Voting time (4, Informative)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409665)

Well, you can certainly fill up your Senator or Congressman's inbox with emails, but you've got to remember that rarely do they actually read all their own email. Usually it's screened by their staff for content first, so they get a sanitized picture of what constituents want. It's better to hunt these people down on the campaign trail and ask them pointed questions before news cameras. Also, even if they do "read" all their email, unless that's followed up by actual votes there's little chance of any great impact. I don't think either party is courting the "Internet voter".

Re:Voting time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19409689)

Remember this? [securityfocus.com]

Re:Voting time (1)

superflytnt (105865) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409787)

no way. screw it. i've already decided to get the fuck out. the religious nuts and corporate whores can have it.

Re:Voting time (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410203)

They'll follow you wherever you go.

Re:Voting time (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410183)

> Sure I can hear you, the trolls can hear you, but I doubt political parties can hear you.

They can hear you too. But political parties don't exist to serve the electorate. Why do you think so much time and money is spent slowing preparing the US nation for war - there was no outcry for the US to invade Afghanistan or Iraq - not even after 9/11. Links were made between 9/11 and Iraq/Saddam. Political parties are like an API - a layer between the public and the huge, extremely rich well connected individuals and the companies they are involved with. They're the entertainment wing of the armed forces.

There are a lot of nerds on this site - for information about both the NSA (the world's most advanced and well funded spying/cryptoanalysis organisation) and the political ends to which it is put (including covering up murderous attacks against its own employees by the Israelis) I suggest you read `body of secrets` by James Bamford.
http://www.amazon.com/Body-Secrets-Ultra-Secret-Na tional-Security/dp/0385499086 [amazon.com]

Re:Voting time (1)

nbritton (823086) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410269)

For those Americans here who are of voting age, I suggest you start voicing opinions

I did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5Rh0iH3_X4 [youtube.com]

and the only thing I managed to get was a bunch of haters. WTF?

---
Yes I know the message was poorly executed... but the facts are 100% correct.

We need an appropriate response (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19409663)

I suggest we combine some tactics that are known to work.

Back in ancient times, the UAW would target ONE company for a strike, in order to get an agreement that could be used later as leverage with the others. Say what you like about the state of the auto industry today, but the tactic worked with great effect.

Next, we have the NRA, and their targeted boycotts. When they were unhappy with Smith and Wesson's push for high-tech gun locks, they instituted a very effective boycott. Their manufacturing slowed to a crawl as sales tanked. S&W was sold at a fire sale price as a result. The CEO landed at some lawnmower company. I heard the NRA considered boycotting the lawnmowers as well.

We can't boycott all of the ISPs at the same time, but we COULD pick one and boycott them. Even the dimmest bulb in the executive suite can understand poor revenue and trace it back to customer unrest.

Re:We need an appropriate response (2, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409699)

You can boycott guns, and you can boycott lawnmowers, but never at the same time, as you will not be able to use one to protect yourself from the other.

Re:We need an appropriate response (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409721)

I'd suggest starting with Embarq

Their customer service has been crappy anyway, and I'm leaving them as soon as the cable company gets their tech out here. I encourage anyone using Embarq to find a different provider, and call corporate -- not the 800 customer service number -- ask to speak to someone in Daniel Hesse's office and let them know why you're leaving.

Re:We need an appropriate response (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409771)

Back in ancient times, the UAW would target ONE company for a strike, in order to get an agreement that could be used later as leverage with the others. Say what you like about the state of the auto industry today, but the tactic worked with great effect.

What? The auto industry in America today sucks *because* of those tactics. That goes against the claim of it working "to great effect". It's not going to seems so effective when there are defaults on pension promises.

Now, a lot of you are going to disagree with the claim of it being the unions' fault, and I'd like to make my case more in depth, but I'm not, because that whole issue is subsumed by another one: that tactic wouldn't work (at least as you've described it) *today* because of how much more dynamic the global economy is. When GM et. al were saddled with pension costs, it was a while before Japanese competitors without these costs could take advantage of their weakened position. Today, if you got a company to agree to something that hurt its profits that badly, there would be little lag time before someone else without that burden ran them out of business.

Unfortunately, the only way out of this I see is to require telcos treat data as source/destination-neutral.

Re:We need an appropriate response (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410325)

When GM et. al were saddled with pension costs, it was a while before Japanese competitors without these costs could take advantage of their weakened position.
If the demands made by the unions were financially impossible, why did GM management agree to the labor contract? There are only three answers I can think of here:
1) GM's management was ignorant of the fact they were agreeing to terms they could not possibly deliver on in the future.
2) GM's management thought they could deliver on the terms and were blindsided by external factors and poor management
3) GM's management at the time knew they were lying their asses off but figured the consequences wouldn't be clear until long after they were retired.

As I understand it, most pension problems come when companies make promises and do not fund the pensions at a rate that would meet their obligations. If that is the case, management is incompetent. If they knew going in that they could not meet their obligations and went ahead with the deal anyway, then they are criminal.

I will admit that my personal bias is strongly against corrupt and criminal business practice. I am not against the idea of a guy making an honest buck for honest work, I am against the idea of a guy making a thousand dishonest bucks by fucking people over. I am biased against corporations that act as if the creation of wealth supersedes every other concern in society.

So, that's where my biases lie and I will freely admit that I am not an expert on GM. So what's the real scoop on their pension issue, is it just BS or a consequence of poor management or is there something more to it?

Re:We need an appropriate response (3, Informative)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410611)

Well, since you've admitted your biases, it's only fair that I admit I err on the anti-union side. As to your question:

So what's the real scoop on their pension issue, is it just BS or a consequence of poor management or is there something more to it?

This is a very good question. I wanted to know the answer myself for same reason you listed above: why agree to a pension without being able to monitor its funding status, and relying on future profitability? Why allow other creditors to have seniority to pensioners in collecting debt? (Since a pension is deferred compensation, and workers are senior to bondholders in payment of obligations, pensioners should always be senior, and credit ratings and lenders should always assume they'll be behind in line.) How can you assume no competitors will enter the market?

Unfortunately, it's hard to get reliable information on this, and I try as hard as possible to avoid "well they were just stupid"-type conclusions. I also can't read a financial statement from a corporation. But that's what every source confirms: GM promised an unfunded pension, predicated on future profitability, and the failure of GM was considered impossible. My best guess as to why it happened would be:

-stupidity on the part of unions, who refused to accept the possibility that their employer doesn't dictate its own profits.
-malice on the part of management, who was willing to indulge this fantasy in exchange for valuable union concessions, knowing the union would have no leverage when the obligations came due. Likely arrogance about the possibility of competition.

When I first heard about pension problems affecting profitability, I was confused: aren't they funded in advance from a separate account? Well, they aren't.

Hope that helps.

Nothing to see here (1)

JRGhaddar (448765) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409673)

Wow CEO of telecom says "We want more control and more money"

What a surprise.

"You bet they will -- cuz we don't call it cashin' in. We call it 'deregulation.'

I don't call it customer satisfaction. I call it screw'n them over.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409735)

Not even the CEO, but the ex-CEO handing over the reigns to the incoming CEO, who BTW is just as bag an Net Neutrality opponent.

please help (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19409693)

my mom has a myspace page....which is like soooo embarrassing!!!! please troll her into getting rid of it....thanks

                http://www.myspace.com/amandagrashel [myspace.com]

alex

Regulation may give more freedom (5, Interesting)

cyberianpan (975767) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409723)

I hope the fuzzier minded GOP congressmen don't get too confused on this - the "deregulation" banner AT&T are flying under sounds good but consider the financial equity markets: heavily regulated and you won't find an investment banker (paragons of free market capitalism) who'd want it any other way. Certain foundation structures like markets, networks need to be regulated to keep them neutral, transparent & useful. This enables freedom, paradoxical perhaps but pretty obvious.

Re:Regulation may give more freedom (-1, Flamebait)

DonCaballero (960895) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409833)

Makes rich white people richer? Check. Sorry, looks like this passes all the necessary criteria for being made law.

Re:Regulation may give more freedom (0, Troll)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410151)

Your attempt to introduce race into this issue is unwarranted. Congressmen do not care what color someone's skin is, they merely care how much money the person has. A nigger's dollars are worth just as much as a white man's, the reason you might think congressmen prefer white men's money to nigger's is because there aren't as many rich niggers as the structure of society works against the poor becoming rich with the years of slavery and then further discrimination ensuring that most niggers were poor.

So do not make any mistake. A nigger can bribe a politician just as well as a white man, they simply need to have as much money as a white man.

Re:Regulation may give more freedom (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410033)

consider the financial equity markets: heavily regulated and you won't find an investment banker (paragons of free market capitalism) who'd want it any other way

They're not exactly "paragons of free-market capitalism". State-backed corporatism, perhaps. The regulations (in this case as elsewhere) act like a union, restricting the supply of their sort of labor. This ensures that those who find themselves able to meet the regulations command a higher price than they could in an unregulated environment. Those investment bankers support the regulations because they personally benefit from them, at the expense of the marginal suppliers those same regulations drove out of business.

In general you'll find that the larger players in any industry tend to support regulation for this exact reason -- it provides them with a legal way to force their smaller competitors out of the market.

Re:Regulation may give more freedom (1)

cyberianpan (975767) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410191)

Well take one regulation in markets: on the London Stock Exchange(for example) once you agree to participate your trades can be done blindly- you've no choice who buys from you - they can even hide their identity after settlement usign the "central counter party". Or better still if you agree to act as Market Maker: you have to take reasonable orders for certain stocks. These rules keep the market neutral & thus flowing. If the rules weren't there everyone would be trying to get small one overs on everyone else & the value would vanish from the overall system.

Re:Regulation may give more freedom (1)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410259)

Those investment bankers support the regulations because they personally benefit from them, at the expense of the marginal suppliers those same regulations drove out of business.

That's just so much bollocks. If you argue that invetment banks support regulations because it enforces transparacy and thus reduces their reputational risk (which can get much more expensive then a financial hit) I' m with you. But the idea that investment banks support regulation to force smaller players out of business is ridiculous. And yes; I am an investment banker

Re:Regulation may give more freedom (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410511)

That may not be your personal reason, but it is an effect of the regulations nonetheless. Also, forcing others out to protect your reputation isn't significantly different from forcing them out to restrict the supply. The underlying principle remains the same: you are employing force against other for your own benefit at their expense.

Re:Regulation may give more freedom (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410391)

I hope the fuzzier minded GOP congressmen don't get too confused on this - the "deregulation" banner AT&T are flying under sounds good but consider the financial equity markets: heavily regulated and you won't find an investment banker (paragons of free market capitalism) who'd want it any other way. Certain foundation structures like markets, networks need to be regulated to keep them neutral, transparent & useful. This enables freedom, paradoxical perhaps but pretty obvious.
When you are thinking logically, you are exactly right. I totally agree with you. Would a fisherman support the destruction of the fisheries that are his very livelihood? You wouldn't think so but then you see some fishermen go out there and take a huge catch for great profit this season, not seeming to care that his actions this season will leave less for him to harvest next season and the season following. "But of course he has to catch what he can now, his children ain't gonna eat on moonbeams and well-wishes from fish-huggers!" Yes. So the fisherman will destroy his chance of eating tomorrow so he won't starve today. I can see how the mistake is made.

Corporations fall into this same pattern. They have to make the numbers this quarter, THE NUMBERS, YOU DUMB FUCK! COKE IS FOR CLOSERS! etc etc. So that's where you see the fans of deregulation coming in. Have you noticed the dismantling of the rules and regs put in place after the '29 crash to make sure that we wouldn't have another one? With the rules in place, you can have a reasonable profit for years to come. Without the rules you can make a fucking killing...and I guess you'd better hope that goose has a lot of meat on the bones because that's all you'll be eating as the markets struggle to recover.

Product differentiation is BASIC (2, Interesting)

redelm (54142) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409747)

"net neutrality" has never really existed. Some people get better service 'cuz their ISPs are more competant [less incompetant] about setting up multi-homing, external links and their routers. Often, you've had to pay for this as ISPs compete on service and guarantees with knowledgeable (high traffic) customers.

Now, after a lot of ISP/webhost consolidation, some of the biggies want to reintroduce performance tiering. To differentiate commodity IP transport into various service levels. That's elementary marketing to capture increased revenue from those customers willing to pay more.

I'm far from certain this is a bad thing. Instead of everyone having the same (erratic) latency, some people will pay for better, and the rest will get slightly worse. Frankly, I'm far more concerned about preserving competition between ISPs at all levels, from comsumer last-mile broadband up through the long-haul links.

Re:Product differentiation is BASIC (2, Insightful)

Arielholic (196983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409819)

"net neutrality" has never really existed. Some people get better service 'cuz their ISPs are more competant [less incompetant] about setting up multi-homing, external links and their routers. (...) Instead of everyone having the same (erratic) latency, some people will pay for better, and the rest will get slightly worse.

It seems like you don't understand the issue at hand. Net neutrality is not about differences in connection speed, but about artificial differences between services, based on the amount of money paid to the owner of the tubes the data passes.

Re:Product differentiation is BASIC (5, Informative)

mcisely (643971) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410149)

You are not understanding the issue here. Put simply:

This issue isn't about how much I must pay my ISP for decent net connectivity.

This issue is about how much Google must pay my ISP for decent net connectivity.

Google already pays for their own connectivity. My ISP is already paid by me. My "pipe" is already paid for. Why should my ISP be paid twice? What right does my ISP have to individually charge every conceivable web site that I might access?

Re:Product differentiation is BASIC (1)

cybermage (112274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410217)

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about preserving competition between ISPs at all levels, from comsumer last-mile broadband up through the long-haul links.

There really isn't that much competition at the last mile. The fact that you might have a choice of DSL providers is a product of government regulation. If the AT&Ts and Verizons of this country had their way, they would keep the last mile to themselves.

In reality, what we're talking about where broadband is concerned is competition between the monopolies that have the last mile. In the market I'm in, I have a choice between Verizon and Time Warner for broadband. Both would introduce these tiers if they could get away with it. No one else can enter the market for the final mile here, so tell me how competition is going to help.

Net nreutrality was always there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410293)

it is about to end soon, so there is legislation to keep it.

So there isn't any change, despite what you seem to be hearing.

And NN is about not caring what you're carrying. Although it could be argued that QoS is advantageous, what do I care if someone is playing HL2 with low ping when I want to send an email? I'm paying as much per byte as the gamer but they're getting a better service from it.

Anyway, one way around it would be to tunnel my email over the HL/VOIP/Whatever express port. Kind of like when SOAP happened: http was no longer web pages but a gaping hole in your security.

So even QoS isn't justified unless it is sold as a separate channel: e.g. get basic broadband @4Mb/s and for another 5% get a VOIP channel @64kbs. Or, using traffic shaping, but 4Mb/s with a guarantee of 1Mb/s.

Re:Product differentiation is BASIC (1)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410329)

Instead of everyone having the same (erratic) latency, some people will pay for better, and the rest will get slightly worse.

Most people have no problem with tiered service at the consumer level (a consumer could be a business, too). We already have that. My provider offers three tiers of residential service and two tiers of business service with better performance and support. I have absolutely no problem with this because I can choose the level that meets my needs. Most of us are opposed to two things:
  1. Tiered performance between the content owner's provider and the consumer's provider -- Google pays big fees to their provider for high performance connections. Consumer pays big fees for a high performance internet connection. But performance is horrible because the data has to pass through Verizon and AT&T networks, and Google hasn't paid their ransom fees.
  2. Tiered performance by the consumer's provider that differentiates between incoming content based on whether the content owner has paid their ransom fees -- Google pays big fees to their provider for high performance connections. Consumer pays big fees to AT&T for a high performance internet connection. But performance is horrible simply because Google doesn't pay ransom fees to AT&T to make sure all of their customers get reasonable performance when browsing Google content.


    1. Based on the above, do you understand where the problem is? Do you see how complicated and EXPENSIVE things would become? Sorry, but charging both your content providers and your consumers for network connections should be sufficient for your revenue model. Every provider charging additional fees to content owners for data that passes through their pipes is double-dipping, and ultimately totally unmanageable. The internet works because networks have agreements to let data pass through their networks, and it's a like-kind exchange. If point-to-point fees have to be paid, we'll have an amazing mess on our hands.

Frustrating. (2, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409765)

The people running these companies always espouse the advantages of the free market, how essential it is for their survival. And yet, these same jerks will be the first ones crying for government protection the second they start feeling threatened. All this serves to do is erode confidence in the free market system. Inevitably, once people start catching on to what's going on they start calling for excessive government control which can end up doing more harm than good. You'd think these idiots at these companies would be wary of that sort of backlash. Ultimately, it's not the system that's the problem but rather lobbyists, corrupt politicians, and an ignorant population.

That's the ultimate problem here. People don't know this is going on, first of all. I suppose the media doesn't deem it exciting enough to report this. But it wouldn't make a difference if they did because most people likely wouldn't care. Even worse, they probably wouldn't even see anything wrong with what AT&T wants to do.

People have gotten so used to paying for every little thing that they be able to justify AT&T's position. I suspect that's one of the underlying motivations for this trend. Companies are realizing just how tolerant consumers are of this nonsense. I've read that recent studies have found that consumers are growing increasingly comfortable with monthly payments. A company can raise rates on a regular basis and few complain.

People like to whine about gasoline prices, but Americans are still paying far less than most of the rest of the world. And it's still cheaper per gallon that a lot of other things they consume. They're getting screwed worse in other ways and don't even realize it or even care. It's frustrating sometimes to see all this ignorance and to see this disdain for the people on the part of the politicians.

Re:Frustrating. (3, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410451)

The people running these companies always espouse the advantages of the free market, how essential it is for their survival. And yet, these same jerks will be the first ones crying for government protection the second they start feeling threatened.
And thus we get to the heart of the matter: they have no motivation but the accumulation of wealth. The religions and philosophies they promote are merely justifications for it, pretenses that will be dropped the moment they threaten the continued accumulation of wealth. They'll sing the praises of the free market up until the point it tries to bite them, then they will club it to death with their diamond-tipped canes.

Devil's Advocate (1)

RumpleForeSkin72 (1106083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409769)

So a good friend of mine works for the phone company here in my region. His attitude toward net neutrality is the same as the "former"CEO. I can understand their side of the story though.

Let's say that your company spent BILLIONS of dollars rolling out new Fibre across the nation and then you were told that you cannot charge for access to that net?
Deregulation isn't always a bad thing but in this case i think it will destroy many a business that can't or won't pay to play with the big-boys.

Call your reps my fellow Americans, this is still our country!

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

superflytnt (105865) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409817)

"Call your reps my fellow Americans, this is still our country!"

Do you still honestly believe that? It belongs to Jesus and Exxon-Mobil, don't you know?

Re:Devil's Advocate (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409885)

Imagine being given access to public land for the benefit of the public, and the public then getting told that this company was going to now perform extortion because of the trust they were given.

Re:Devil's Advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19409903)

..then you were told that you cannot charge twice for access to that net?
There fixed that for you.

Re:Devil's Advocate (5, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410087)

Let's say that your company spent BILLIONS of dollars rolling out new Fibre across the nation and then you were told that you cannot charge for access to that net?

Do you know what network neutrality is? Why would network neutrality prevent someone for charging for use of their network (which by the way was subsidized by our tax dollars to the tune of billions)? All the network neutrality proposals ever to see any support in congress call for a ban on charging different prices for traffic based upon who is sending the traffic... and that is it. You can still charge for traffic. You can still charge different amounts for different types of traffic. You just can't charge different amounts based upon where the traffic came from. This is to prevent AT&T from asking for money from some company who buys access from AT&T's peer's peer's peer, in exchange for not intentionally slowing down that traffic as it crosses their network. I might mention, in the situation I just mentioned AT&T has already been paif by their peer to carry the traffic, so it is not a question of them not being able to charge for it.

I work with a lot of ISPs and big network providers. Their side of the story is that they want to be able to charge people with lots of money extra for the same service they supply to other people, by using their location as a gateway and by telling their peering router "sure I'm the best way to get that traffic there" and then intentionally slowing the traffic down so their previous claim to the router was a lie. Quite simply, they want to be able to gouge people by ignoring the responsibility of a common carrier. It is a lot easier to do this, than to actually add real value through faster connections or services where they have to be competitive. I mean if you build out a DDoS filter service it might not be as good as Sprint's. They'd have to work hard and take risks. They'd much rather abuse their location in the network in order to collect money for nothing. It is extortion, plain and simple.

Deregulation isn't always a bad thing but in this case i think it will destroy many a business that can't or won't pay to play with the big-boys.

I'm glad you're in favor of net neutrality, but I think your reasons are a bit off. We gave the network operators billions of our tax dollars. That is what prevents little companies from entering the market. We give them special protections from prosecution for the traffic they carry under the auspice that they are impartial, common carriers, not responsible for what crosses their network. Both of these were done for the common good. If they want to be mercenary and be unregulated let them, right after they pay the money back and after we start prosecuting them for transporting child pornography and contributing to copyright infringement. If they want to eb treated like any other company we should oblige them, but if they want to be supported and protected by special laws, we should be getting something back for the american people.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

psykocrime (61037) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410403)

(which by the way was subsidized by our tax dollars to the tune of billions)?

We gave the network operators billions of our tax dollars.

Can you point me to any references to back those assertions up? I was under the impression
that the current backbone infrastructure was all privately funded pretty much since NSFNet
went out of the picture. Knowing that significant public funds went into the existing
infrastructure would change my position on net neutrality (which I currently oppose) somewhat...

That is what prevents little companies from entering the market. We give them special protections from prosecution for the traffic they carry under the auspice that they are impartial, common carriers, not responsible for what crosses their network. Both of these were done for the common good. If they want to be mercenary and be unregulated let them, right after they pay the money back and after we start prosecuting them for transporting child pornography and contributing to copyright infringement. If they want to eb treated like any other company we should oblige them, but if they want to be supported and protected by special laws, we should be getting something back for the american people.

This is one of the problems we have in America. Corporate chiefs lean on the cry of the "free market," which is a concept
that many Americans (myself included) do embrace. BUT, unfortunately we don't have a *true* free market, we have this
bastardised hyrid of government + corporation.

I do support the free market and generally believe that private companies should not be regulated (much) in how the
profit from their investments. But the corollary to that is opposing government intervention that actually stifles
competition and/or funnels public money to private companies; and we unfortunately have too much of that.

So it creates this weird catch-22 state where a free-market libertarian / anarcho-capitalist like myself might actually
have to take up defending net neutrality (which is government regulation, which is a bad thing in general) because of earlier
bad decisions by the government to get involved in something it never should have been involved in. <sigh />

Re:Devil's Advocate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410159)

Lets say your industry exists because the government acquired the land for you to run all those phone lines. Suppose then at some point they impose an extra tax on peoples bills so your company can bring "fiber to the home" and instead you just pocket the cash for years on end. Let's say your customers are paying for X bandwidth, and someone else is paying for Y bandwidth - how come you then want to charge extra when the former talks to the later? They've both already paid. Since you want to charge differently based on which sites people are going to, how about you lose your common carrier status and get charged for offering child porn as part of your service. Or illegal file sharing.

Here's a proposal: How about if the government takes back that which they gave. Taxes will pay for the infrastructure just like roads (it is the information highway after all). This should be dropped all the way to the local level. The big telcos cease to exist at all - any small local contractor can be hired to go out and fix line problems etc. Higher end contractors would handle the bigger pipes, which eventually would be all that's left since the municipalities would naturally go to wireless to eliminate all those pesky line problems. But the cities would still control their own fiber. Yes, there would be more variability in service, but state and cities do compete for business which is very dependent on this service.

Re:Devil's Advocate (2, Informative)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410201)

Let's say that your company spent BILLIONS of dollars rolling out new Fibre across the nation and then you were told that you cannot charge for access to that net?

To be fair usually infrastructure like that gets subsidies from the government and the govt has reason to limit the number of companies building such infrastructure in each area (because it has to pass over land not owned by the company placing it and having 20 wires where one would be sufficient if everyone could use it is a waste of material, space and time). In return the govt gets to say "you have to let everyone use that infrastructure for a reasonable price". Net neutrality isn't even preventing them from charging other companies that rent those lines for their services (e.g. smaller ISPs operating in the same area), it's about preventing them from demanding tolls for traffic routed through their network because the only reason that network makes any economic sense is because anyone on it can interact with anyone on any connected net.

Popular example: Google (and any other web service) is getting rich but not paying every ISP that has customers who access Google. But then again those customers are paying their ISPs to access those web services so the web services DO bring money for the ISPs since noone would want an internet connection if there weren't any useful services on it. Yet the ISPs argue that the web services profit from the ISP customers and as such have to pay the ISPs for those customers. Yeah, go ahead, block any web service that's not paying for access to your customers, see how many of your precious users you keep. If "pay us or we'll use our power to prevent customers from being able to reach you" isn't the reason antitrust (or extortion but that seems to never apply to big companies) laws were written I don't know what is.

I realize you weren't even arguing that position but I felt the need to complete that train of thought :P.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410491)

Let's say that your company spent BILLIONS of dollars rolling out new Fibre across the nation and then you were told that you cannot charge for access to that net?

I heard a good deal of this was subsidized by tax payer money or tax breaks.

This from AT&T (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409791)

When AT&T merged with Bellsouth, they agreed to Net Neutrality for 30 months. I'll bet, because this is the pattern with the ILECs and particularly SBC and AT&T (SBC and AT&T merged), that they do their darnedest to get tollbooth legislation in before the window ends. Why? Why not wait? Because these guys just absolutely do things that way. If they do something above-board and honest, it leaves them with a bad taste in their mouths.

I give that legislation (if it passes) 29 months from the merger date. If we get past 30 months, it'll never pass.

Ed's Mission Accomplished (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19409811)

Some 20 years ago, I had lunch with Ed. Sat right next to him. I was a snot-nosed new hire and he was pumping me full of "Bell Juice".

Anyway, he told me his biggest dream was to reunite AT&T. I thought "yeah, right", but looking back, it is clear that he was going to do anything he could to make his dream a reality. He did it.

Not that I think AT&T remerging was a good idea, but I admire his tenacity.

That said, I wish AT&T was broken up again. It's really annoying when I'm having DSL problems, which AT&T Internet Services can't seem to fix, so they blame the phone company (Also AT&T) and my telephone (Again, carrying the AT&T brand label). When I point out to the manager that they're all AT&T, and why can't they get together and fix the problem, I was told "big companies don't work that way". AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!

Anyone actually RTFM? (0, Offtopic)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409835)

Including CmdrTaco? This is obviously a joke, so please don't take those quotes seriously ...

Re:Anyone actually RTFM? (1)

Nick Fury (624480) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409855)

I noticed that as well. I don't think a lot of people are actually reading the linked article or looking at the video.

I'll give them the fact that the mentality of AT&T is the same but this is clearly parody and not news.

Re:Anyone actually RTFM? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410481)

ncluding CmdrTaco? This is obviously a joke, so please don't take those quotes seriously ...
Watch the video? Some of us are trying to keep a low profile at work here. I can RTFM but WTFV is asking a bit much.

I'd like to see the video (2, Funny)

DigDuality (918867) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409883)

Unfortunately my non-AT&T ISP throttles my bandwidth to any page than mentions AT&T. It took me 30 minutes just to post this.

Re:I'd like to see the video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410419)

I'd like to see the TRANSCRIPT of the speech, probably a few kilobytes at the most. But noooo, some asshole thinks that a video is the more efficient way to communicate the information. The text of the speech would probably take a few seconds to download on my 28.8 Kbps dial up connection, the video would likely take hours or days.

Well, if it is not worth being written down, then it is not worth my attention.

Easy Fix (5, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409919)

You want access to public easements to run your fiber? You play by common carrier rules. The public owns that land and are granting you temporary, paid rights to use it and reserve the right to revoke it at any time, including seizing ownership of anything on that land. You lose temporary rights when you start serving yourself instead of serving the public.

If you don't like the rules, don't play them. Other companies will step up where you fail and provide the service the public demands and deserves.

Deregulation (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409939)

I say we pay any company that doesn't want to be regulated and commit to net neutrality can pull out now at no cost. The amount of money invested into providing internet service for the public will be tallied and then all cuts and grants given to the company for the purpose of providing internet services will be subtracted from that tally, along with any profits the company gained through providing internet services to the public. If the final number is above 0 then that means the company hasn't made a net profit and so the government will give them the balance, otherwise they get to walk away with a bit of extra coin in their pocket. Then the government can either run the internet itself or give it to a private company that will follow a few simple rules. I'm sure there are many companies that would leap at the chance to get their hands on all of that cabling.

Ed Whitacre is a POS (1)

harshmanrob (955287) | more than 7 years ago | (#19409993)

Let's pray to God Oh heavenly father, bless all us rich people especially AT&T and energy for we are better than everyone else and people with more money are better than those without money... may all the poor burn in hell and rich people go to heaven in your rich name...AMEN

It's time to take the next step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410013)

which is: ubiquitous encryption. Developers need to get behind initiatives
like BTNS (do a google search). Encrypt everything, and what is your
service provider going to do? This is a test, there is a response, but
it's even more difficult that protocol filtering.

Air neutrality (1)

athloi (1075845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410025)

We have a problem, this air neutrality thing. Air -- made of oxygen and other gasses -- is a valuable commodity. We all pay for it, since it's cheaper for us to pollute recklessly, but we don't. Why can't we charge for it? Neutral air is a threat to our economy and the basis of our great nation.

I think I was just born in the wrong time. I don't understand the motivation for our economy, for our government, for our mass media. It seems like we have lost sight of what really gives life importance, and I miss that vision of clarity of that importance I had during childhood. C'est la vie, but how does the story end?

Hum (0)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410117)

Let's put apart the issue of whether net neutrality would be good / bad for the Internet. Do we want the government involved in regulating the Internet ? HELL NO! It is government regulation that made AT&T what it is today. Regulating for net neutrality would be like curing a burn with a flamethrower.

Non-neutral internet has already been tried (3, Interesting)

OutSourcingIsTreason (734571) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410227)

It's called AOL, and people voted against it with their dollars.

As I dial up user... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410229)

and a generally crotchety old fart, I agree that net neutrality is a bad thing. Text on ports 25, 80 and 110 should be given the highest priority.

I don't give a shit if you can't download your 4.7GB HD Paris Hilton stripogram video at 500KB/s. I mean really, it is not important. The internet was not designed to be a high definition video distribution service, get over it people.

Looking at it another way, video is one of the most inefficient forms of digital communication. One frame of video contains but a fraction of one word, yet is thousands of times more data than a whole word of text. Want to know the ultimate video compression codec is? It's called a transcript. On frame of HD video probably contains the same amount of data as the entire text of War and Peace, yet virtually no information.

A picture is worth a thousand words? Not anymore... A picture is worth a fraction of a word - or 24 frames is worth about 3 words.

OK, then there's music... have you people not heard of FM radio? It is pretty amazing, free high quality music (no DRM!).

Concerened about net neutrality? Well then stop downloading terabytes of cheap porn and bad movies asshole. You'll find the problem disappears.

P2P music and movie file sharers should be throttled... throttled with a hickory switch until they are covered in welts, just maybe we can beat some sense into them.

Browsing for text information and multiplayer gaming can only benefit if these move and music sharing twits arte throttled and throttled hard.

Try connecting to the internet at 28.8Kbps for a while and you just might begin to understand what bandwidth really means and why when there is a bottleneck the fluff should be cast aside.

Re:As I dial up user... (1)

tomz16 (992375) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410597)

The dark ages called... They want their AC back.

Let's make Ed Whitacre a deal... (4, Insightful)

StandardCell (589682) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410233)

AT&T and all the big telcos can have their net neutrality repealed. In return, AT&T and all the telcos will give back all of the government's money, adjusted for inflation and bearing the prime rate of interest, that was given to them as investments, tax breaks, and other "incentives" to build up their network. Shake on it?

Charging the public library for lending books. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410289)

One of my clients wanted an explanation of the net neutrality debate. I told her to consider a place where everyone rode buses (Internet) to get to their destination and there were several different bus services (ISPs). Most bus services offered monthly passes to ride the bus as much as you wanted and buses had individual speed limits set by the individual bus companies. Some people paid extra for passes on higher speed buses. Some budget-conscious people bought less expensive passes for slower speed or less reliable bus services. A few bus services had passes with monthly limits on number of miles. Some bus services sold unlimited monthly passes, but secretly only gave slow buses to customers who rode the bus too much

Now imagine someone had a free public library (Google) that was very popular, so popular in fact that more and more bus passengers wanted to go to that library. Bus companies found that they were carrying lots and lots of people to the library who were using their unlimited monthly passes.

Now also imagine that a store opens that gives away free books. Books are heavy and when people bring home huge books on the bus, the bus runs slower and costs more for the bus company.... but the customer gets it all for their flat-rate monthly pass.

So the bus companies are having to drive more miles and carry heavier loads than they planned... they aren't making money with the flat-rate monthly passes. What should they do?

Network neutrality says a bus company needs to raise the rates on the monthly passes, use mileage limits, or go to tiered services with different rates for different capacities because all destinations they carry people to should be treated equally (neutrality). What AT&T wants to do, is charge the LIBRARY and the STORE for causing so many people to take the bus to their location and for giving away free books that are heavy and more expensive for the buses to carry.

And the problem is there are not enough bus services available to each person... many only have a limited choice of 1 or 2 decent ones (cable, DSL), with lots of REALLY slow ones (dialup).

Is it April 1st? (2, Informative)

corecaptain (135407) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410375)

TFA, looks like a serious article - listing quotes repeated in slashdot story. Curious
about the accompanying video I click on that. Well surprise! That "video" is a PARODY (funny).

Am I missing something here?

In other news... (1)

canUbeleiveIT (787307) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410397)

Republicans attack Democrats, Democrats attack Republicans, Microsoft attacks OSS, Iran attacks Israel and US policies, Rosie attacks the Donald, blah, blah, blah...

Is it so hard... (1)

ihop0 (988608) | more than 7 years ago | (#19410485)

To post news without editorializing in the post? Slashdot loves net neutrality, we all know. Even if I agree it's a good idea, I can still do without the "More information on AT&T's attitude problem..."

Makes me wish you could moderate OPs or at least give some sort of direct feedback of the same sort.

shi1t! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19410507)

are 7000 0sers [goat.cx]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?