Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

cancel ×

79 comments

"Net Neutrality" is the wrong term. (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036520)

I think "Net Neutrality" is the wrong term, because it allows people to twist the argument to the wrong thing. I am more concerned with network transparency, and honesty. Make them say what they are doing and why. This will keep the Comcasts of the world somewhat more honest...

Re:"Net Neutrality" is the wrong term. (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036592)

How about "Nyet Neutrality"? I think that's more like what we're going to end up with.

Re:"Net Neutrality" is the wrong term. (2, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037344)

In Soviet Russia, the net neutralizes you!

CORY DOCTORCOW IS SUX (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036740)


Re:"Net Neutrality" is the wrong term. (2, Insightful)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037042)

What good is that? $LOCAL_MONOPOLY could start molesting people with gardening equipment as long as the only other option was dial-up.

Re:"Net Neutrality" is the wrong term. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22044898)

Outraged people bitch to the local elected talking head. Ignorant people calmly eat the slop they are given.

Re:"Net Neutrality" is the wrong term. (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22045920)

And corporations lobby their way out of it. Crisis averted.

Re:"Net Neutrality" is the wrong term. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22037364)

You know what the problem is? All you socialist SlashDrones want something for nothing. Don't talk about how you or your web site already paid for access, that's bullshit. Do *you* send a check everymonth to GlobalCrossing? Well do you? Didn't think so.

Re:"Net Neutrality" is the wrong term. (1)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037454)

Brilliant, indeed, to call "net neutrality" the end of the idea of net neutrality. I prefer to call Comcast's position "the assault on net neutrality", which it is.

Re:"Net Neutrality" is the wrong term. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22044954)

"The Net" has never been neutral. Everyone who owned there bit did what they want. I remember voting on UDP for the ISP of Spamford Wallice back in the day. That sure as hell wasn't "neutral." However, it was open and transparent, which has never been a problem for Comcast.

Two words (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036576)

Two words: Ron Paul.

Oblig. Futurama Reference (2, Funny)

roadkill_cr (1155149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036608)

What makes an Internet turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or was it just born with a tube full of neutrality?

Re:Oblig. Futurama Reference (2, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036678)

Tell my wife I said ... "hello".

Re:Oblig. Futurama Reference (1)

Wolvie MkM (661535) | more than 6 years ago | (#22038116)

Sir! We're at beige alert!

Transparency (-1, Offtopic)

martinpisto (1219438) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036620)

I agree that we should talk about network transparency. There is not much honesty on the net... http://www.spymac.com/details/?2331213 [spymac.com]

Re:Transparency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036736)

I offtoic'ed you for incessant spamming of that Spymac garbage.

If you continue, I'll use my other 4 points on you.

Creepy Crawler (680178)

Re:Transparency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036830)

Creepy Crawler (680178) is the fag on a farm e i e i o.

Re:Transparency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036926)

Creepy Crawling fag takes it in the ass sucking on little worms of boy goats.

Net Neutrality is a misnomer (4, Interesting)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036720)

When you think about it, "net neutrality" is hard to describe in terms of the current Internet, because it is based on commercial systems, not on some government-supported network. Government could theoretically legislate neutrality, but the government had spent the better part of the last three decades deregulating industries. There's only one reason the government would get involved: if they could tax it. If the "net neutrality" debate meant legislation that allowed the United States Government to somehow tax Internet traffic, you can bet you'd have it in a minute.

Re:Net Neutrality is a misnomer (3, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037922)

If the "net neutrality" debate meant legislation that allowed the United States Government to somehow tax Internet traffic, you can bet you'd have it in a minute.
Tell you what, I'm willing to pay more in taxes to have an internet where the bandwidth provider doesn't give any one packet priority over another. I don't want Google to be able to pay more to AT&T in order to have its pages load faster than Yahoo. Because then the next step is that News Corp pays AT&T to have its pages load faster than CNN, and Mitt Romney's site gets priority over Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul's.

I want the bandwidth provider to be classified as a "utility". You pay for your bandwidth and then all packets are treated the same. And if that means that certain "technological breakthroughs" (usually ones that involve privacy violations and advertisement) are hampered, then so be it.

I happen to like the Internet the way it is. I definitely don't want any corporation or even a small group of corporations to own it. This is one of those cases (and there are more than you think) where the "free market" solutions aren't the best ones.

I like public schools, and socialized medicine and social security and an open and neutral internet. The misnamed "pro-growth/small government" policies that have been loose in the US since Ronald Reagan have done nothing but bust the balls of the middle and working class in this country. Even in a big city like Chicago, I'd rather deal with the bureaucracy of local government (or even federal government) than the bureaucracy of a big insurance company OR a big phone company. At least when it comes down to it, I can go downtown and find a government official to talk to face to face. With the phone company, it's just a bunch of pseudonymous guys with funny accents who I know don't live anywhere near me.

Re:Net Neutrality is a misnomer (1)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 6 years ago | (#22039650)

At least when it comes down to it, I can go downtown and find a government official to talk to face to face. With the phone company, it's just a bunch of pseudonymous guys with funny accents who I know don't live anywhere near me.

The reason you have such pain with the private company is because there is little competition in the market. So the comparison you make between the government and the private sector is logically fallacious; Comcast is a state blessed monopoly (largely). If there were competition, so long as the relative demand for low bureaucracy was high (and, if bureaucracy is the annoyance you say it is: it will be) it will be competed upon by the private sector.

Net Neutrality is an okish quick-fix to the current threat of paid prioritisation, but competition is a much better long term fix.

Re:Net Neutrality is a misnomer (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042152)

Tell you what, I'm willing to pay more in taxes to have an internet where the bandwidth provider doesn't give any one packet priority over another. I don't want Google to be able to pay more to AT&T in order to have its pages load faster than Yahoo. Because then the next step is that News Corp pays AT&T to have its pages load faster than CNN, and Mitt Romney's site gets priority over Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul's.,

Why not? It would seem to be an advantage to you if Google pay AT&T to deliver pages to you at a faster rate than you have paid for.

The problem here is 'than you paid for'. The problem is when AT&T try to get Google to pay for the bandwidth that you have already paid for or decide that they can use the VOIP bandwidth you paid for but Vonage cannot, or Google can buy bandwidth but Yahoo cannot or you can watch Fox News but not CNN.

It is almost exclusively a US issue. Other coutries have managed to break up the local access monopoly on the last mile, the US has not. This has in large part been due to the policy of the Bush administration to favor monopolists.

Comcast et al. would be idiots to actually try to leverage their monopoly power in the ways people fear. They put their monopoly at risk. So of course I expect them to do precisely that for the same reason companies spam: the desperate middle manager who has to make their number that quarter. Who cares about the long term consequences.

One of the other things I have discovered over the years is that the position of DC corporate lobbyists frequently bears absolutely no relationship to the corporations they purportedly represent. They serve their own interests and they are desperate to appear relevant. Take that really smart idea of the bankrupcy bill to stop consumers defaulting on their credit card debts. Now they are defaulting on their mortgage instead and so the banks are loosing hundreds of thousands rather than just thousands.

Re:Net Neutrality is a misnomer (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22042662)

Too broad a fix. Network traffic should be prioritized. Telephone calls and electrical power are prioritized today. In telephony, 911 calls get the highest priority, followed by other emergency calls, followed by the peons. In electrical power, when the rubber meets the road (or, more accurately, when the load reaches the redline) emergency services (police, fire, hospitals) are prioritized at the expense of everyone else. The last thing the Internet should turn into is bulk traffic hell. That's the surest way to guarantee that new, innovative technologies are screwed. Hard.

Networking shouldn't ever be allowed to be prioritized by destination, however, with the exception of prioritization given to traffic to/from emergency services locations (for obvious safety reasons). I suspect that's what you meant, but it sounded very much like you were against any prioritization, including QoS, which would be a bad decision.

IMHO, in an ideal network, there should be four priority tiers.

  1. Emergency real-time traffic should get highest priority (911 calls via VoIP, for example)
  2. Emergency services bulk traffic (police department text communications, for example)
  3. Real-time traffic (VoIP, streaming video)
  4. Bulk traffic

Pending traffic at a higher tier would automatically delay delivery of traffic at any lower tier (starting from the bottom tier) with one exception: Tier 2 (bulk emergency) traffic should not delay Tier 3 (civilian real-time) traffic until it reaches a certain latency high water mark, at which point, one Tier 3 victim would be chosen and would lose its reservation. This would continue until the Tier 2 traffic fell below a latency low water mark, at which point new reservations would be accepted again. This would be considered a rare edge case behavior, as it would require so much Tier 1-3 (emergency real-time, emergency bulk, and civilian real-time) traffic that no Tier 4 (civilian bulk) traffic was possible.

Real-time traffic bandwidth should be reserved by an appropriately crafted out-of-band packet payload. Applications performing real-time data transfer should berequired to keep a reasonably constant data rate or obtain a new reservation. Communication that violates this should be kicked off of real-time status and become part of the bulk traffic load, thus preventing some idiot from deciding that his Bittorrent traffic should be treated as real-time.

The results of such a design should be pretty obvious.

  • It guarantees that emergency services are uninterrupted even if the net goes to hell in a handbasket. That's clearly a good thing.
  • It guarantees that traffic which will be negatively impacted by delay (VoIP, streaming audio/video) will not be delayed substantially.
  • It enforces an upper bound on the amount of streaming traffic at the lowest-bandwidth hop in the communication path prior to making the connection, thus ensuring that if bandwidth is insufficient, your communication app will fall back to a lower-bandwidth protocol at the very beginning, eliminating surprises later on.
  • The number of failed reservations and the percentage of reserved bandwidth when calculated over the course of the day provides a very valuable source of information for determining which network paths need to be upgraded to support the traffic load. Such information is currently unavailable except through random packet sniffing combined with statistical analysis.
  • It encourages routing protocols to become smarter at maximizing real-time throughput when multiple paths are available.

If a provider found that so much bandwidth was reserved for real-time communication that bulk traffic was annoyingly slow, the provider would obviously buy more bandwidth. If they don't, then market forces can pretty reliably solve the resulting breakdown in communication, and bandwidth problems would thus tend to be a self-correcting problem. In the current system, people who want to use VoIP or other real-time communication technologies are pretty much SOL, since all providers oversell their bandwidth. Basically, this sort of regulation would force the level of overselling to be painful for everyone instead of just people who want to do VoIP or watch streaming media, thus effectively bringing transparency to what are currently very opaque networking policies.

Re:Net Neutrality is a misnomer (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#22048744)

OK, I'll bite.

Let's let the emergency traffic on the internet have priority. I'm all for social services getting public benefits.

My problem, is when you can pay to get priority. Once that happens it's going to be a race to the bottom. Not that the "free market" isn't already on a race to the bottom. And by "bottom" I mean the place that anyone who works for a living is going to end up in this "free" new world.

Highly balanced summit (4, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036734)

...bringing together lawyers, academics, economists, and technologists...
Those people represent the pro-network neutrality side. Now, please invite the CEO of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast as well, so we can get the view of all 3 people on the other side.

Re:Highly balanced summit (3, Funny)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036836)

Lawyers are interested in law suits, otherwise they would be called Neuters, wouldn't they?

Re:Highly balanced summit (1)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037120)

Might as well invite the Communist Party of China, as long as you're collecting people who favor restrictions on what you can see.

make that 4 (1, Insightful)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037202)

I can't imagine why I, a consumer, would support what I've heard about "net neutrality." It seems to be all about restricting my freedom to buy the service I want in the service of a dubious and cynical goal that, practically, boils down to making sure freeloaders don't have to pay any more per packet than the rest of us. More or less a guarantee of some kind of Tragedy of the Commons on the Internet.

For example, it sounds like if I happen to want a massive pipe to my door, and lightning service to various IP addresses of my choice, then Big Momma a.k.a. the government isn't going to allow me to cut a deal with my ISP for speedier treatment of my packets in exchange for more money. Likewise, if my aged parent wants only some de minimis service for reading e-mail, and is perfectly willing to accept 4th class parcel-post service for her packets if the price is in the basement, then she, too, is up a creek, because it's a one-size-fits-all price and service level set by some doofus bureaucrat in Washington.

Well, screw that. I trust my ability to cut a deal with Verizon over my ability to cut a deal with a Federal agency any day. You think Dell's customer service is crappy? Try getting a government agency to change its mind, make a reasonable exception to the rules, see you as a person instead of set of numbers in a computer record. At least with Verizon I can threaten to withhold my money from them, which of course I can't do with the government, and if I piss Verizon off the worst they can do is refuse to sell me their service, while the goverment can and will put me in jail.

Furthermore, using the ol' retrospectoscope and checking out the record of innovation and efficiency growth in industries that have been heavily regulated in the past -- in the interests of fairness to the consumer of course -- such as airlines, telephone service, broadcast radio, power generation and distribution, public education, public health -- then alas any one with half a brain comes to the unpleasant conclusion that such interference always increases the price and decreases the efficiency of the service. Inasmuch as I'd like to see the spectacular gains in efficiency and innovation in networked computing continue, and not sink into the torpid sludge of the standard government-dominated project, then I'd also have to conclude that nearly any kind of top-down regulation other than that required to keep everything above board and open is the kind of clever-sounding but ultimately dumfuk idea that occurs to all of us when we've had a few too many beers during a college bull session.

Re:make that 4 (5, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037426)

Then it sounds like you've heard about the phony thing that the lobbyists are calling network neutrality. I find this to happen so often I wrote an article about the Myths of network neutrality [mobydisk.com] .

Your second paragraph sums-up most of the myths quite well. AT&T etc. say that network neutrality proponents want a system where everyone pays the exact same amount, and nobody can pay for higher levels of service. That's not true at all. They are trying to redefine network neutrality to make it look bad. What they are basing that on is the fact that network neutrality propoonents want to make it illegal to artificially delay one person's network packets in favor of someone else's. Allow me to give a specific example:

Scenario 1:
I want 1MBps down/1MBps up. So I pay $10/month.
My neighbor wants 10Mbps down/1MBps per month. So he pays $40/month.
Google wants 1000MBps down/1000MBps up. So they pay $10,000/month.
This is totally fine and network neutral. Nobody has a problem with that. AT&T/Verizon/etc. want to make it out that network neutrality prevents that. It does not.

Scenario 2:
The pipe for my street is a 10MBps up/down pipe.
My neighbor wants 10 MBps down.
I want 10MBps down.
I call the phone company and say I'm only getting 5MBps most of the time. So they offer to make my packets higher priority over my neighbor. So my neighbor now gets 1MBps if I'm downloading a file at 9MBps. So he calls and complains, and gets the level 2 priority as well. So now we are both back to 5MBps. So I call and get level 3 priority, and so on and so forth. This is not network neutral. IF the phone company wants to change their TOS to say that the "PEAK" is 10MBps, and the total shared is 10MBPS that's fine. And if I call and say I want more bandwidth, they can say "oh, we can do that, but we have to upgrade the trunk like so that will cost you." That's totally fair and neutral.

This game isn't new. When caller ID came-out, they charged for a code that disabled caller id on outgoing calls. Then they charged for special caller-id units that displayed the caller information even if it was blocked. So then they sold stuff that blocks calls from non-caller-id phones. Then they sold codes that get around the blocks. etc. etc. They never provided any new services ever -- they just pitted their customers against each other and sld phony pseudo-services.

IMHO, the FTC should ban such a practice. All it will do is make the phone companies richer, and they won't have to upgrade their trunk service anymore, they can just re-sell the same bandwidth over and over again.

good explanation... mod up?? (1)

tyraen (791990) | more than 6 years ago | (#22038128)

Wish I still had my mod points.

Re:make that 4 (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22040220)

I have to say that your post is the single most informative and concise text I've ever read about this network neutrality racketeering scheme. The fact that you posted it as a followup to a post which oozes of astroturfing makes it even greater.

Kudos for your post. It's posts like yours that makes it worth spending time reading slashdot.

Re:make that 4 (1)

phantomlord (38815) | more than 6 years ago | (#22041078)

IF the phone company wants to change their TOS to say that the "PEAK" is 10MBps, and the total shared is 10MBPS that's fine. And if I call and say I want more bandwidth, they can say "oh, we can do that, but we have to upgrade the trunk like so that will cost you." That's totally fair and neutral.
My contract with Time Warner/RoadRunner, specifies that they will provide up to a certain level of service (as does all of their advertising that I've seen). The key words there being "UP TO". I get "UP TO" 10Mbps but there's no GUARANTEE of a minimum of 10Mbps. I've never seen a contract or advertising for consumer level internet services offer anything else. Businesses, on the other hand, usually buy guaranteed levels of service.

Network neutrality isn't being sold as just one thing (originally, it was about throttling access to certain servers). It's sold as the original intent, guaranteed bandwidth minimums, traffic shaping and latency issues, etc. The proponents of NN can't seem to come up with a description that all of its supporters agree with and that creates a ton of FUD/counter-FUD on its own. Instead of trying to make a bullshit buzzword, call it "banning bandwidth extortion" if that's what you support. If you support banning traffic shaping, call it "banning traffic shaping." But "network neutrality", at this point, is about as meaningful as "hacker", it means something different to everyone who sees it.

Re:make that 4 (3, Insightful)

Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037432)

it isn't about you paying more. it's about google, vonage, et all paying verizon more. It's QoS based on who pays your isp the most. It's a fucking protection racket, plain and simple.

"gee, sure would be nice if your VoIP packets from that competeing service weren't put last in line to get to you. I mean, the internet is a dangerous place, they might get mugged on the way."

Re:make that 4 (1)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 6 years ago | (#22038064)

it isn't about you paying more. it's about google, vonage, et all paying verizon more.

Aaah, but it's even worse than that. Any extra costs that a company has to pay will almost certainly be passed on to the consumer in one way or another.

Re:make that 4 (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22040452)

You don't really think the ISP is going to say "well, if you are going to make it hard we just don't need that revenue." Really?

No, they are going to say "We are getting it from Google or our customer. Pick one."

If you think it isn't going to turn out that way, think again.

Re:make that 4 (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037460)

what I've heard about "net neutrality."
is clearly wrong. Perhaps, prior to forming and expounding at length upon an opinion on any given issue, you should make the effort required to learn about that issue. Wikipedia might well be a good place to start your self-education. Network neutrality is not a

one-size-fits-all price and service level set by some doofus bureaucrat in Washington.
Rather, it is a requirement that the ISPs (and possibly all the backbones and such as well) do exactly what you have paid them to do, nothing more, nothing less. That is, they provide the equipment necessary to implement the IP protocol, and they don't screw around with it. Naturally, the equipment that you pay to have provided can and will have an effect on the rate at which data reaches you, both throughput and latency.

Re:make that 4 (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037570)

Right, because if there is any industry that exemplifies market efficiency over government bureaucracy it's the phone company.

I've been on hold with both AT&T and Comcast for times longer than the longest I've ever been in line at the DMV.

Re:make that 4 (4, Informative)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037710)

I can't imagine why I, a consumer, would support what I've heard about "net neutrality." It seems to be all about restricting my freedom to buy the service I want in the service of a dubious and cynical goal
Net neutrality wouldn't be needed if the consumer had the freedom to buy from a plurality of services in the first place. The fact is, for a variety of reasons (such as the limit on the number of cables you can bury, as well as the particular history of the industry), there are not very many choices available to consumers for data carriers. The usual rules for consumer decision and free-market optimization simply don't apply when you have monopolies controlling the market.

Net neutrality (if done properly) is about preventing monopolies from abusing their position and artificially limiting consumer freedom.

[It] boils down to making sure freeloaders don't have to pay any more per packet than the rest of us.
I can't parse this statement. How are they "freeloaders" if they are paying the same amount as "the rest of us"? It hardly seems unfair for everyone to pay the same amount for a given level of bandwidth usage. If the "freeloaders" you are referring to are companies that make money over the Internet (e.g. Google), then I remind you that they are paying for their net connection same as you or I. No one right now is freeloading, despite what the telcos would have us believe.

it sounds like if I happen to want a massive pipe to my door, and lightning service to various IP addresses of my choice, then ... the government isn't going to allow me to cut a deal with my ISP for speedier treatment of my packets in exchange for more money. Likewise, if [someone] is perfectly willing to accept 4th class parcel-post service for her packets if the price is in the basement, then she, too, is up a creek, because it's a one-size-fits-all price and service level.
Net neutrality is not not "one-size-fits-all" mandate by the government. ISPs are free to offer varying levels of service at varying prices. Everyone is free to purchase the service level they want and need. No one is saying that gigantic corporations and grandmothers have the same Internet needs.

What neutrality is about is preventing the ISP from discriminating based on the source/destination of the data they transmit (and, according to some, should also include protocol neutrality). To use your mail example, no one is saying that we can't have Express vs. Regular vs. 4th-class. What we are saying is that the postal service cannot charge you to send a package, and then charge the receiver, again, to receive up the package (and moreover have variable charges depending not on distance or quality of service, but on whether they have "a deal" with the source or destination).

In physical distribution, this "common carrier [wikipedia.org] " rule has done considerable good: it prevents a carrier (especially monopoly carriers like rail) from colluding or discriminating, thereby opening up the service for everyone to use freely and fairly.

checking out the record of innovation and efficiency growth in industries that have been heavily regulated in the past ...-- such as airlines, telephone service, broadcast radio, power generation and distribution, public education, public health -- then alas any one with half a brain comes to the unpleasant conclusion that such interference always increases the price and decreases the efficiency of the service.
That's a rather bold statement to make without any specific explanation. Although I could formulate counter-examples, it's largely irrelevant to the debate at hand. I think most of us would agree that government regulation should be avoided where possible. However, there are cases where government intervention can be helpful and even necessary. In particular, since the telco industry is inherently a government-sanctioned monopoly (e.g. government licenses are needed to run cables on public land and use easements on private land), any idea of "the government not interfering" is simply impossible. So the question cannot be "do we want the government to regulate telecommunications?" but rather "what form of regulation should the government be enforcing?"

Are you saying that the current regulations are optimal?

modded insightful for ignorance... (1)

tyraen (791990) | more than 6 years ago | (#22038188)

Sounds about right.

Re:make that 4 (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#22038636)

then alas any one with half a brain comes to the unpleasant conclusion that such interference always increases the price and decreases the efficiency of the service

Have you noticed all the "deregulation" that's happened in the past few decades? It's pretty much invariably made each affected industry more expensive and less efficient. Just compare airlines, or phone companies, or broadcast radio from today to that of 20 years ago. Every single one of them has descended into utter crapitude. The only thing that has benefitted is CEO salaries.

Re:make that 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22038868)

It's cute how you imagine that the customer is in any way in control of net neutrality. No, the ISP is, and he charges content providers. You can order a phat pipe all you want - there won't be anything left to go THROUGH it if net neutrality crumbles.

Re:Highly balanced summit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22037474)

Actually, most of the named panelists are lawyers, academics, and economists that shill for the Bell Companies. Check out the details on Richard Clarke, who I believe is the Director of Economic research at--drumroll--AT&T.

Re:Highly balanced summit (1)

Alyyx (1137129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22047836)

Well, look at the list of speakers. One is Richard Clarke from AT&T. I don't know who he is but I think he'll work for who you're looking for.

corepirate nazis propagandizing the 'net (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036828)

as they have with 'mainstream' media. let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

FCC, really ? (4, Insightful)

bahbar (982972) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036846)

The FCC, of course, might have the final word.
And I thought that Congress [slashdot.org] would have the final word...

Re:FCC, really ? (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037446)

Since that is how the system is designed, I agree.

But, unfortunately, there is another year of abuse
and resulting damage to the U.S. to put up with.

Obligitory (2, Funny)

Laguerre (1198383) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036948)

I hate these filthy Neutrals. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Nuetraility (1)

moogied (1175879) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036954)

"If I don't get out of this alive, tell my wife I said Hello."

Define net neutrality. (4, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037152)

So far, the biggest problem with Net Neutrality is that those who want it don't define what they mean by it first. Should VOIP packets be delivered quicker? I think so. I don't mind if my email is delayed for several seconds.

I don't want complete packet neutrality, I just want all providers to use the same sensible transmission configurations.

Comcast has its own very expensive and poor quality VOIP. Comcast should not be allowed to delay the packets carrying the much superior free Skype VOIP calls.

Re:Define net neutrality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22037418)

QoS by provider?

Re:Define net neutrality. (1)

scamper_22 (1073470) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037722)

I totally agree with net neutrality when it comes to billing. I pay to access the internet. Google pays to access the internet. Google doesn't need to pay more because it serves huge amounts of data. They've already paid, and I've already paid and I'm the one requesting the data. That is something that must be maintained.

I think providers should be forced to have 2 types of billing system.
managed: here, they manage your bandwidth for you. Your email, IM, browsing, P2P, VOIP is all regulated at their end. Of course P2P is slowed down to make way for IM, VOIP, gaming...

unmanaged: here they charge you by the MB for your different QOS levels. (this must be monitored to make sure it is the true cost...and not jacked up compared to the managed)

But managed connections is not as simple as it sounds. your example of VOIP packets is not as simple. How do you know something is voip? What about encryption? What if a P2P program hides its data as VOIP?

Re:Define net neutrality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22038062)

How do you know something is voip

The customer told the network to handle as VoIP.

What if a P2P program hides its data as VOIP?

Then the customer pays to have it handled as VoIP (and why should you care if it was "really" P2P?)

The key point is that the customer selects the QoS, not the network. (The implication is that there is also a different rate for different QoS; else customers would always specify the best QoS, which is to say you'd have no QoS.) The network just does what it's told to do.

The phrase "net neutrality" means different things to different people, and unfortunately many of them argue without clarifying their terms. To some people, it simply means an evil technique of suppressing competitor's content compared to your own server. They're so repelled by this that they throw out any notion of QoS or service level agreements along with it. But that's tarring with an overly wide brush.

The key point here is that the network cannot be allowed to discriminate based on individual users or destinations. The network can't exort Google by threatening to delay and drop their packets unless they pay extra, like Ask.com and MSN do. All packets of the same class have to get equal ("neutral") handling. A network could automatically classify traffic (by standard port numbers, for example), as long as that classification is well known and all users have an identitical classification scheme.

Re:Define net neutrality. (1)

Lost Race (681080) | more than 6 years ago | (#22040348)

I think it means that the ISP cannot assign packet priority based on remote (non-customer) IP address. That is, the ISP is neutral with respect to the Internet. The idea is to keep ISPs from forming "trusts" with content providers, like the railroad trusts of the 19th century.

Re:Define net neutrality. (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 6 years ago | (#22040800)

>Should VOIP packets be delivered quicker? I think so. I don't mind if my email is delayed for several seconds.

No problem whatsoever with that, nor is it inconsistent with net neutrality.

Net neutrality is broken when Verizon is your ISP, and Verizon VOIP packets get better QOS (higher priority, more reliable delivery, etc) than Vonage VOIP packets.

The tragedy of the commons (4, Insightful)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037302)

While the current assault on net neutrality is a blatant money grab from ISPs, they do have a point. Content providers - especially those that rely on peer-to-peer networks - consider bandwidth as something that can be externalized. They are looking at ISPs, looking at their own customers, and see a free lunch waiting to be picked up.

History and economics prove that such an attitude leads to a non-optimal allocation of existing resource allocations, and removes incentives to invest into additional capacity. In a recent study, the Nemertes Research group warned that last-mile investment by ISPs was falling behind and would slow down adoption of HD content [slashdot.org] on the Internet.

The solution to the tragedy of the commons is the market. Only the market can achieve an optimal allocation of resources, and drive investment into additional capacity.

What the Internet needs is a marketplace for hosting capacity, supported by a universal network where:
  • content providers set the price they want to pay in exchange for hosting their traffic;
  • hosting providers decide at what price they accept to host the former's files;
  • hosting providers are guaranteed to be paid (i.e. investments have a predictable ROI).

That would pretty much make the "net neutrality" debate a moot issue. Content providers would enjoy lower hosting costs; consumers would enjoy faster downloads; ISPs would make money providing the bulk of the hosting (à la Usenet), instead of setting up roadblocks.

Re:The tragedy of the commons (5, Informative)

janegirl (1219662) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037696)

We do need some minimum level of Net Neutrality. We do not want a world where Verizon users cannot access AT&T websites. I believe that most people can agree to that. This minimum of accessibility also has to be at some reasonable level of speed. It needn't be entirely neutral, that is, at the highest speed available, but if it is offered only at the lowest speed available then it is essentially the same as no access. This minimum inter-network access has to be at least mid-level speed to be effective.

Beyond this we must ask which ways of charging for bandwith and content are acceptable and which are not. A big error made by amateur free market thinkers is that they believe that a free market means no rules. Free markets still operate within some level of rules such as no stealing and a certain requirement for transparency. Once information is not available to the consumer as to the difference between products offered this becomes no longer a truly free market.

I am OK with paying for the bandwidth of the connection coming into my computer. I am also OK with the website paying for the size of the bandwidth leaving their servers. What I am not OK with is interference in between the two. My connection provider should not be able to decrease my bandwidth because they do not like the website that I am accessing. Similarly the website's connection provider should not be able to decrease their bandwidth because the connection provider does not like me.

Re:The tragedy of the commons (1)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22040100)

We do need some minimum level of Net Neutrality


Of course. Net neutrality must be defended. ISPs must not be allowed to decide what goes through their pipes. The best defense just happens to be: make it more profitable for ISPs to join us than to fight us.

This network is not about giving your ISP the right to slow your traffic to a crawl. It is about giving your ISP the opportunity to make your traffic go faster.

Re:The tragedy of the commons (2, Insightful)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037700)

The current attack is not so much the ISPs, but the top Level ISPs
and bandwidth providers.

They want to milk the current ipv4 infrastructure instead of
building out the ipv6 infrastructure.

If we kept ipv4 infrastructure as is, and moved the high bandwidth
traffic to ipv6 over fibre, the "need" to manage bandwidth (i.e, to
control the packet traffic), would go away.

The telcos were given billion dollar incentives by the government
to build out the fibre, but they did nothing with that money but
put it into their pocket.

It's all a scam orchestrated by the darkside to attempt to
control the Internet.

Re:The tragedy of the commons (1)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22040566)

The current attack is not so much the ISPs, but the top Level ISPs
and bandwidth providers.

It's all a scam orchestrated by the darkside to attempt to
control the Internet.


I don't buy your conspiracy. Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence. I understand the reasons why existing players are resisting the transition to IPv6. But if the backbone was running out of IPv4 addresses, residential ISPs would just start NATing everyone, just as some of them already do.

Besides, don't top-level ISPs stand to make money if overall traffic increases, because they charge residential ISPs for bandwidth used? Whereas residential ISPs definitely stand to lose money if their customers start actually using their "unlimited" flat-rate connections as advertised...

Of course, I'm not an industry insider, so all that is my uninformed guess at best. Anyway, the Nemertes study claims that the backbone is not the problem, the last mile is. The conclusion of the study is that backbone capacity is to increase at the same pace as demand, whereas last-mile investment is to stagnate (which would basically kill the idea of HD video on demand).

Re:The tragedy of the commons (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037776)

An interesting idea, but I don't know how well having each ISP host a copy of the entire internet would work. In the early 90's some ISPs experimented with keeping a cache of the most frequently visited sites (CNN, etc) to try to minimize bandwidth but the web quickly grew too large and diverse for this to be practical. How to do you keep a local copy of Google?

Re:The tragedy of the commons (1)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22039822)

An interesting idea, but I don't know how well having each ISP host a copy of the entire internet would work. In the early 90's some ISPs experimented with keeping a cache of the most frequently visited sites (CNN, etc) to try to minimize bandwidth but the web quickly grew too large and diverse for this to be practical. How to do you keep a local copy of Google?


ISPs don't need to do that. They merely need to cache the most popular files. It is designed so that each ISP knows what's currently popular on its network. Depending on the price, the ISP then chooses to provide the hosting, to provide part of it, or to opt out.

You don't understand the issue (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22039194)

So why isn't the free market providing something like that? And what about the high level backbones, which is what net neutrality is about? Hosting providers don't usually control Internet backbones. Neither do ISPs.

Bandwidth is not externalized. You and I and hosting providers all pay for bandwidth. But the high level backbones want to extort more money from the content providers, basically saying, "Pay us more, or your competitors' packets will get there faster." The thing is, even if you want a neutral net, you can't buy it. Your ISP can not guarantee that a higher level backbone provider is not messing with the packets of content providers that you want to visit.

Please, don't try to simplify everything down to free market solutions. The issue here is fraud and extortion, which are legal issues and require legal solutions.

Re:You don't understand the issue (1)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22041228)

Please, don't try to simplify everything down to free market solutions. The issue here is fraud and extortion, which are legal issues and require legal solutions.

Which is most likely to happen? That our wonderful legal system reins in rogues bandwidth providers, or that a free market solution emerges and makes the issue irrelevant?

I thought so.

Re:You don't understand the issue (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22041496)

As with most free market proselytizers, you simply restate your position when presented with counter arguments, and make no attempt to address the issues I've raised. I posit that this is because you do not understand the arguments you are presenting, and are simply parroting back things you've heard others say. You don't understand the arguments you present, you simply take them on faith because you want to believe them, therefore you are incapable of refuting any counter arguments.

Re:You don't understand the issue (1)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22043628)

Fair enough. I'm advocating an (admittedly market-based) solution that revolves entirely around skipping the backbone in the first place, but you were too busy ranting to notice.

Bandwidth is not externalized. You and I and hosting providers all pay for bandwidth

We all pay something. But are we paying our fair share?

Whatever we do, we pay the same: "unlimited" (i.e. oversold), flat-rate has become the rule - even in some segments of the commercial hosting market. If we don't abuse the network, we're implicitely subsidizing someone who does. Of course, there is every incentive to externalize bandwidth onto the other customers of the same outfit!

Those offerings are just a modern variant of the commons. They all depend on people not being greedy. We both know how well that works.

Besides, many legal movie download services rely on peer-to-peer networking to reduce their hosting costs. Free hosting, yeah! Consumers just love those file-sharing agents that run 24/7, or they won't notice, or they won't care. At least it's what those companies appear to believe. How's that not externalizing?

The Internet is cracking at the seams because everyone wants a free lunch, that's why! But there is no such thing. It's just not an efficient way to allocate limited resources to meet insatiable demand.

Re:You don't understand the issue (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051836)

This isn't about what we are paying and what we are getting. We already have many varied types of plans available. This is about what, say, Slashdot is paying and getting. Slashdot pays quite a bit more for bandwidth than you do, won't you agree? What will happen is that every single one of the large backbone providers will hit up Slashdot for additional cash, to ensure that Slashdot's packets get to you. Some of them won't even offer Slashdot the option, because they would rather that you go to their parent companies news sites. They will throttle all sites they don't own, and there is nothing you can do about it. There would be no amount of money you could pay to ensure that you even get to see Slashdot.

Perhaps you would be lucky, perhaps the path between you and Slashdot would not traverse any complete bastard's backbones. Perhaps not. But Net Neutrality isn't about people like you and the service you are getting. As I said, you can already buy a variety of plans, some more expensive, some cheaper. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is censorship, extortion, and fraud. As an example, Hilary Clinton could pay the major backbone providers to ensure that packets that mentioned, say, Ron Paul, got dropped. You would then be browsing an Internet that suddenly and mysteriously made no mention of Ron Paul anywhere, ever, and you would have no idea as to why. And all ISPs have to purchase their Internet access from one of the backbone providers, so there would be NO ISP you could purchase service from that would let you view anything about Ron Paul. Would you like that?

Do you understand what this issue is really about yet? It's not about tiered service at all. People aren't getting a free lunch. It's not like the Internet is a commons that anyone can take from without paying. There is no free lunch. Companies offer unlimited plans because they find that business model profitable, that is the free market at work, not a free lunch/ We already have tiered service and a robust and healthy market in Internet Service. No one is talking about getting rid of that. We are talking about limiting the ability of the backbone providers to engage in censorship, extortion, and fraud.

Your ideology is blinding you to the danger, and I am done trying to explain it to you. As much as I would like for everyone to see how we're all going to get screwed if we don't have net neutrality, I can't work miracles.

Re:The tragedy of the commons (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22039948)

I had no idea that bandwidth was a commons. All this time I was under the delusion that it was something that could be metered to the bit. I guess the internet it is more like the ocean than a series of tubes. That must be where the term surfing comes from.

Re:The tragedy of the commons (1)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22040782)

I had no idea that bandwidth was a commons. All this time I was under the delusion that it was something that could be metered to the bit. I guess the internet it is more like the ocean than a series of tubes. That must be where the term surfing comes from.


<badanalogy>
The fact that we are paying to get our waste disposed of does not mean it doesn't end up scattered across the commons. There are some bays you do NOT want to go surfing into! ;)
</badanalogy>

Re:The tragedy of the commons (1)

mistermiyagi (1086749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22041032)

"especially those that rely on peer-to-peer networks - consider bandwidth as something that can be externalized. They are looking at ISPs, looking at their own customers, and see a free lunch waiting to be picked up."

What are you talking about. No one gets a free lunch. We already pay for the bandwith. We all have agreements with the telcos for the service that gives "unlimited" access to the bandwith level we pay for. If the telcos OVERSOLD their bandwith are we all supposed to be ok with degraded service. If the water taps in your home suddenly slowed to a drip would you just call up the water co. and pay more for "unlimited" water pressure because joe's stop and shop bought up all the water pressure ( he has more money that you so he deserves to buy all the pressure he can afford even if it means you suffer...right).

Also It's peer to peer which is to say i'm paying for my bandwith up until it gets to the exchange point then your paying for the bandwith until it gets to you. This is just a way for the telcos to legislate never having to upgrade and thus save themselves tons of cash by (what someone else already pointed out) reselling the same bandwith over and over instead of "building" more bandwith to meet demand. The reality is that if they reinvested money into their backend there would be fewer if any traffic issues QOS issues etc. They would attract more people to their faster better and improved service and we would all have the bandwith we need to get all the crap we do on the internet done.

Also I might just not be so cool but what if any p2p networks actually produce profit from running a network and how do they do it?

Also it sounds like you want to shift hosting to the ISP forcing independent hosting services to align themselves with telcos to get the sites they host packet priority over other ISPs. That doesn't sound very neutral to me.

It should be called ISP Neutrality

Re:The tragedy of the commons (1)

killbill! (154539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22043196)

What are you talking about. No one gets a free lunch. We already pay for the bandwith


Of course, we all pay something. But are we paying our fair share? Hard to tell. Whatever we do, we pay the same. If we don't abuse network resources, it implies we're subsidizing other people's uses that we don't necessarily approve of (e.g. spamming, heavy file sharing...).

Those "unlimited", flat-rate offerings are merely a modern variant of the commons. They depend on people not being greedy. We all know how well that works. ;)

This is just a way for the telcos to legislate never having to upgrade and thus save themselves tons of cash by (what someone else already pointed out) reselling the same bandwith over and over instead of "building" more bandwith to meet demand. The reality is that if they reinvested money into their backend there would be fewer if any traffic issues QOS issues etc. They would attract more people to their faster better and improved service and we would all have the bandwith we need to get all the crap we do on the internet done.


Upgrading the last mile and local caching capacity is more efficient than upgrading access to the backbone. Local hosting means fewer middlemen.

Re:The tragedy of the commons (1)

mistermiyagi (1086749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051728)

"Those "unlimited", flat-rate offerings are merely a modern variant of the commons. They depend on people not being greedy. We all know how well that works. ;)"

Well if they knew we would all abuse it then they should have been prepared for the flood of data they sold us. Unlimited means exactly that. I don't remember reading "don't be greedy" on my contract nor should they have some assumption of my data traffic needs. They sold me unlimited I will use as much as I want. If they lied to all of us they are simply reaping what they sow. I don't think we should all have to pay the price to keep them honest and transparent.

"Upgrading the last mile and local caching capacity is more efficient than upgrading access to the backbone. Local hosting means fewer middlemen."

It may be more efficient but I think we can all agree that the whole system is long overdue for serious upgrades. Upgrades that could and would improve all of our service and pave the way for the demands and added stresses that future tech is going to create for the entire system .

Once upon a time ... (5, Insightful)

akb (39826) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037486)

... there was a company called ATT. The fairy godmother DARPA asked ATT to build it a redundant network that could survive links being severed in a nuclear war. Oh, DARPA also wanted the ability to plug any computer it wanted from ATT's competitors into the network. ATT told the fairy godmother to take a hike, so the fairy godmother asked the hippies at Berkeley and MIT to build it for her instead. And of course the hippies let anyone who wanted to connect to the network and opened the code and the Internet lived happily ever after.

Oops, or at least they lived happily until another company called ATT and its evil brothers and sisters Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner reared their ugly heads again and wanted to take unplug all those happy services which they don't have revenue sharing agreements with. They also want to lock you into crippled phone/computers so they can charge you $2 for a ringtone and $0.15 for a text message.

Normally, (1)

bmajik (96670) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037520)

I'd say "what we need here is some more government meddling, because that always works out well". ANd you'd know i was being sarcastic.

I'm a bit torn in this case, however, because the government has already meddled and in most cases created internet access monopolies for the local market incumbents. Normally market dynamics would sort out this mess and if any company tried anything stupid, they'd get their asses handed to them. But in a landscape of local government-backed monopolies for net access, a market solution is unlikely to foster.

So, i'm against government meddling in general, but in this case, previous meddling has created the mess. They can "unmeddle" but that will never happen, so instead they'll meddle further. Hopefully it won't make things worse, but i'm not optimistic.

Re:Normally, (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22039330)

Pray tell where you have seen local monopolies. I can buy Internet service from my local cable company or several different phone companies, or dedicated ISPs like Speakeasy. I can do that in any of the places I've lived, worked, or visited. That's not the issue. The issue is natural monopolies, not government created ones. Once one backbone provider has laid cable in a particular area, what incentives do other backbone providers have to lay more cable in that area? It's the same reason you don't have multiple electric companies, or seven privately owned roads all connecting to your driveway. Because of that natural monopoly, backbone providers have no incentive not to extort money from content providers. They can say, "Yahoo, pay us money or your packets will be slower than Google's. Heck, they might not even reach your customer at all." And you could do nothing about it, because ISPs have to buy service from backbone providers, too. And those packets may traverse the networks of several backbone providers along the way, and all of them will want their protection money.

The answer is either regulation as we have for every other natural monopoly out there, or expensive class action lawsuits later on.

Great Timing (2, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22037652)

Its interssting to note that the summit will be held before the next administration can boot the current set of industry ( * ) kissers out.

Just a thought from Sweden... (1)

Heddahenrik (902008) | more than 6 years ago | (#22040954)

So in USA you're debating exactly how the network companies should route their traffic so that your CIA-monitored dial-up lines becomes equally bad where ever you connect.

In Sweden we debate on how we should secure the right to share information privately and how to cheaply get something better than 100/10 Mbit Internet connection.

USA had a huge lead in Internet adoption, but it has turned to dust by network monitoring and pseudo debates like this. I have 50% of my customers in USA, so can you please stop babbling and get some real Internet to the people? You don't need a huge company to connect a village to a 100 Mbit network... Well, maybe in USA because of regulations?

GYOU FAIL iT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22044080)

for trrols'

FCC does not have final word (1)

samantha (68231) | more than 6 years ago | (#22047616)

Even having an FCC rule over the broad areas it passes regulations on is arguably unconstitutional. The FCC doesn't have the power to control the Internet in detail. It doesn't have the power to stop technologist from inventing ways to supersede any control it attempts to exert or that any corporation or group of corporation attempt to assert against the express wishes of the people. So let's not act as if we are helpless in the face of whatever some unelected body decides. We are not.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...