×

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!

New 'Net Neutrality' Bill Introduced

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the politics-the-fastest-way-to-foul-something-up dept.

The Internet 145

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Reps Ed Markey (D-MA) and Chip Pickering (R-MS) introduced the 'Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008' (HR 5353) this week. The proposed legislation [PDF] would not legislate what is and is not 'neutral'. Instead, it would add a section to the 'Broadband Policy' section of the Communications Act which spells out principles the FCC is expected to uphold, in addition to having them hold summits which would 'assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues related to broadband Internet access services' and make it easy for citizens to submit comments or complaints online."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

145 comments

Non news (1, Flamebait)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22412946)

Do news sites even realize the sheer number of doomed bills that are introduced into congress? It's news when it has support past that initial congressman.

Re:Non news (5, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22412964)

Which is precisely why I wrote my congresscritter asking him to support it.

Why don't you do the same?

Re:Non news (-1, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413018)

Because one vote doesn't matter, which is why I don't vote. And which is why I don't want to waste my time writing a letter when I know my congressmen aren't going to waste their time worrying about my one vote- the only thing that can make a difference is a mountain of mail, and it'll still be a mountain without my letter in it. Why do you think your opinion matters? You're a face in a crowd, and majority rules, not you. Thats freedom- sucks doesn't it?

Re:Non news (5, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413082)

the only thing that can make a difference is a mountain of mail, and it'll still be a mountain without my letter in it
That's dumb. Very, very, very dumb, because it won't be a mountain without people sending letters in, including you. If everyone on slashdot that cared about this issue sent a letter in it would be a mountain of mail, and it would be huge. So send the letter in and trust that others will do their job, or else nothing will ever happen.

Re:Non news (-1, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413138)

Oh lawd, here comes Reason to shatter your illusions. It's only dumb when there's a systemic breakdown in voting confidence- when everyone on slashdot realizes that they're better off doing something else because one vote, one letter can't possibly make a difference in a nation of 300 million. You can't possibly deny my specific statement- that my vote doesn't make a difference. It's statisitically absurd to suppose that 1 vote could ever make a difference. Plus all that libertarian squawking about legitimizing their power that you're going to come up against if you start politicking on slashdot.

Re:Non news (5, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413210)

I can't deny your assertion that your vote makes no difference. You're entirely correct, because you said you don't vote.

No vote, no difference.

You may as well stop talking altogether, really, though--because if you choose not to vote, then you're letting all those people who do vote choose what to do with you. As such, you're going to have to live with what we say.

What do I say?

Put up or shut up. Unless you're prepared to get off your lazy duff and -do- something about it, don't bother complaining about it.

Vote. Write your congresscritter. Write letters to the editor. Participate in the system--yes, even if you disagree, because, frankly, unless you know how to work the current one, you've got no chance of making it better or changing it for something else.

Re:Non news (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414318)

No vote, no difference.

Unfortunately, you're implying the converse when the converse isn't really true. The fact is: vote, but still no difference. This can be mathematically proven but the dogma of democracy is above such silly notions as "proof".

Re:Non news (1)

bob.appleyard (1030756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414434)

This can be mathematically proven

I'd be interested in seeing that proof.

Re:Non news (2, Informative)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22415008)

The basic idea is, in a sufficiently large election, there's a fantastically low probability that the vote will be tied (or within 1 vote of a tie) but for your vote. Since this is the only case in which your vote actually makes a difference, the probability of your vote making a difference is fantastically low, and thus there's a correspondingly high probability that your vote will make no difference. There are a few ways of getting around this: one is by making multiple thresholds of your vote mattering, one is by forcing a low sample size. In practice, the ability to influence the votes of others is also important. But straight up-and-down secret-ballot first-past-the-post voting systems, like we have in America, pretty much minimize the probability of your vote making any difference.

Compare this to, for instance, a jury. A jury is a small sample size in which every juror has the ability to influence the votes of others. Also, due to the unanimity requirement, every juror has the power to make a difference, and a truly intransigent juror can single-handedly force a mistrial via hung jury. Even in a caucus, a caucusgoer can influence the votes of others and there can be multiple thresholds of "making a difference" (i.e. a minimum level of support for a candidate to be considered "viable") rather than just the single threshold of putting your candidate over the top, or into a tied position.

The actual proposition to be proven would probably be some relation between voting population and probability of any given individual's vote mattering under any given voting system. There could be different relations and different proofs for different systems, or perhaps a single theorem could cover all cases. Discovering and proving that relation is left as an exercise to the reader--but I hope my argument was illustrative if not convincing.

Re:Non news (1)

quist (72831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22416222)

feh, nihilism. Allow for a positive swarm.

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is vitally important that you do it."
    - Gandhi

Re:Non news (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#22415256)

The fact is: vote, but still no difference.

Unless you want an armed rebellion, voting is the only way to change things.

In any case, giving up your vote is saying that it's OK to be in a dictatorship where people cannot choose their leaders. It's amazing how hundreds or even thousands of people in other countries give their lives so they can choose who they want to rule their country - and in the US people just give away that right.

Another thing - if voting isn't enough, then PROMOTE YOUR CANDIDATE! This way you can make more people vote along with you, so your combined vote WILL matter.

Re:Non news (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413466)

I really, truly wish you should be thrown before the millions of Americans who died to give you the freedom to vote and asked to explain why you're pissing away what they sacrificed for you.

Re:Non news (-1, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413516)

Well.. they were stupid. I didn't ask for them to die, and I seriously doubt many of them were dying to defend freedoms- probably most of them died because they were forced to by the draft. I don't know what was up with the revolutionary war militia, but I certainly don't owe anything to them. Have you ever seen Full Metal Jacket? I like the scene where mother laughs in the reporter's face and asks incredulously "You think we're dying for freedom?"

Re:Non news (1)

deadline (14171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414030)

Well.. they were stupid. I didn't ask for them to die, and I seriously doubt many of them were dying to defend freedoms- probably most of them died because they were forced to by the draft. I don't know what was up with the revolutionary war militia, but I certainly don't owe anything to them. Have you ever seen Full Metal Jacket? I like the scene where mother laughs in the reporter's face and asks incredulously "You think we're dying for freedom?"

Remember, there are those who fought in real wars so that nitwits like you could make such asinine statements. I'm not talking about "movie wars", but the real ones where people actually die and get injured (both mentally and physically). I have been fortunate not to have been in a real war and I have met quite a few people who have. They were not drafted, they stepped up to serve their country in a time of need. The US was not a super-power in the 1940's and if things had turned out differently, this conversation might be not be possible today. But, facts, history, even character, these are things that I assume are alien to you.

Re:Non news (1)

spamking (967666) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414848)

Your ignorance is amazing. Have you spoken with any veterans . . . ever? You owe everything you hold dear to gentlemen who fought and gave their lives for the US. Because of that you have the right to act like an idiot. Anyone who bases their opinion on war and fighting for freedom hasn't got a clue.

Re:Non news (4, Interesting)

Veggiesama (1203068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414950)

I used to believe that my single vote couldn't possibly make a difference. Yet every couple months, I still hauled my ass over to the voting booths to vote on local issues, local representation, and a national leader, purely out of an interest in current events, rather than out of a desire to change how things worked or to right a wrong.

Every year, I would vote for the local school district levy, and every year it would fail. Ever since I first entered high school, I recognized how poorly the local public schools were doing: the books were falling apart, teachers were being laid off, extracurricular activities were being canceled, less teachers for classes meant more useless study hall periods, etc. For over ten years, the levies consistently failed, so the school failed to receive funding to support many of its most basic services.

During my senior year, I remember my homeroom adviser telling the class how the levy failed by a margin of only ~20-30 votes (I think it was). Since we were all of voting age, she said that if a single classroom of students would have just got off their asses and voted for the levy, it would have succeeded. That's a real, quantifiable number of people who could have made a change in a sea of tens of thousands of other voters.

Then the unthinkable happened. Last year, the levy passed by a margin of three votes. It was incredible, but then they issued a recount. After the recount, it still managed to pass by a margin of only TWO votes [enquirer.com] .

Of course, there were only tens of thousands voting, rather than tens of millions. And yes, one vote didn't really matter--two did. I wasn't necessarily one of those two votes, nor possibly anyone in my family.

But that didn't stop my younger brother from marching into class the next day, staring at his history teacher from across the room, and boldly proclaiming, "You have MY family to thank for your pay-raise. We accept cash only."

Re:Non news (5, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413132)

If you don't vote, then really, what cause do you have to complain? Go bugger off and stop talking about it if you're not even going to make a token effort to fix it.

Going beyond voting, every message that the congresscritter receives from his or her constituents supporting this bill will indicate to them that it is an important issue, and that if they want to be re-elected they may want to pay attention.

Yes, my opinion individually may not matter much, but it still contributes.

I do not need to stick out in a crowd. I have no desire to stick out of the crowd--it's more trouble than it's worth, frankly. But forming a part of the 'mountain'? That's worthwhile.

It doesn't take much time to send an email to your congresscritter (make sure to include your snail addy, o'course, and your name and phone number). If net neutrality isn't important enough for you to take a couple of minutes to support it, then don't complain when all you can get is throttled-to-hell packet-shaped crapwidth instead of decent broadband.

I vote. I write my congresscritter when I hear about something that I find important. My opinion has been heard on more than one occasion, and as a result, I am content to participate in this democracy.

Does it always go my way? Of course not. But that's the way these things work, and sometimes what is best for me is not best for everybody else.

Re:Non news (0, Offtopic)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413240)

Libertarianism [aol.com] . ---- Heard of it? [slashdot.org] 22%.

Re:Non news (4, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413314)

Last I checked, Libertarianism still required voting.

Or perhaps that's why the Libertarians can't ever get a candidate in office--because none of their alleged supporters bother voting?

Sorry. If you don't vote, you don't matter. What people see are the numbers--and if there's no opposition because of broken people like you who don't bother voting, then any opposition to the status quo that might exist will never show up.

So by all means, have your lofty pie-in-the-sky Libertarian ideals. Don't expect anyone else to give a flying bacon sandwich for 'em, though, if you don't put action to it and actually do something with it.

You don't vote? You don't matter.

You don't work with the system? Then you'll have to shut up and accept what the system--and all those people who support it--will do to you.

Re:Non news (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413374)

Ugh you are going to get struck down into the mud by the mods. The so-called "Libertarian Party" requires votes to get their non-candidates into office but no actual libertarian votes- that's part of the doctrine. We don't effect change within the system because the system shuts non-voters out, but there's nothing wrong with refusing to work within the system if you believe that system is wrong. And we're free to do that, for now, until people like you decide that libertarians are more trouble than we're worth and start taking away freedoms.

Re:Non news (5, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413456)

Mods can do as they like. My karma's resilient enough for me to make the occasional 'controversial' statement.

So let me get this straight. Your philosophy depends on other people taking pity on you and reading your mind to figure out what you want?

You want everyone else to vote for someone whom you don't even really support, just so that you can have your opinions--which you'll never actually -tell- to anyone in charge--respected?

And somehow you don't see how broken that is?

This is why nobody will ever take your alleged 'political philosophy' seriously: you're unwilling to participate in a government, but want the government to magically do what you want it to do.

If you want to fix a system you see as broken, you'll have to get into the system to fix it. Ain't nobody yet who ever fixed a broken ethernet card by sulking in a corner--ain't nobody ever fixed a broken government by whining on slashdot.

Re:Non news (-1, Flamebait)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413488)

Did you even see that slashdot poll? And I wouldn't call your karma very good if you have half my UID and you're not even using your karma bonus.

Re:Non news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22414410)

Your series of comments in this were concise yet complete, while still remaining mostly objective. This expectation people have that governments and organizations will magically fix themselves to be the way you want without ever following a complaints process or voting in an election desperately needs to be kicked in the throat.

I would subscribe to your newsletter, if I wasnt a broke-as-a-joke...well liberal i guess you could call me. The only difference in the system i live in is if i don't agree with any candidates, i go in specifically to vote as a cancelled ballot as then it reads as a refusal to vote for any of the candidates in the statistics.

Diggity.

Re:Non news (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413558)

I call troll and bullshit. You describe yourself as a libertarian and then spout nonsense like "no actual libertarian votes". Perhaps you misspelled "anarchist". The Libertarian Party (not "so called" - it exists as a registered political party) routinely gets candidates on (at least some of) the ballots, and they get votes -- just not enough because the Big Two keep pushing the "don't waste your vote" FUD, and their lackwit anarchist lackeys don't even bother voting at all.

Niven was right: "there is no cause so noble that it will not attract fuckheads".

Re:Non news (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413402)

Less than 1% of the voting population ever writes to their representatives. That means, to an elected representative, each letter is assumed to represent at least 100 votes, often a few orders of magnitude more. Once my former local MP explained this to me, I started writing whenever an issue of importance to me came up.

Re:Non news (0, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413540)

That's a pretty stupid parliament-man or whatever you call them over there, then. That less than 1% is the only part of their constituency that cares enough about the issues to mail in letters. As long as that 1% doesn't raise enough public awareness, the rest of the voters aren't going to care. That one letter counts for one vote.

Re:Non news (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414148)

If there is 1% of the voting public who cares enough to mail in letters, what, if anything, does that imply about the number of people who won't write a letter but will simply vote for the other guy? Your analysis is suspect.

Bullsh!t (4, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413182)

congressmen aren't going to waste their time worrying about my one vote

1. If you put pen to paper and write a concise and reasonable paragraph or two about why it matters to you and send it to your representatives, you bet they will listen. Why? Because they know it's coming from a warm body as opposed to all of the anonymous electronic spam that Political Action Committees stir up. The letter becomes a bellwether of sorts if it is similar to other handwritten letters on the same topic.

2. The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy. Your one vote isn't really designed to matter as much as common knowledge would suggest.

3. Maintaining the Republic requires participation. Participation means putting pen to paper, talking to people in and out of the political system. Once you know a few people and have a couple of interests it can be very satisfying.

4. No, majority does not rule. More pablum that passes for common sense.

Making up excuses like yours is simply lazy and unpatriotic.

Generally agreed (1)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413686)

Here is the way I look at it:

1) Voting is the last step in political participation which validates everything else. Voting is not where participation begins and ends.

2) Participation means engaging in a dialog with your representative and senators. This means calling their office, sending email, etc. Note that mail gets quarantined for a while and so snail mail is less of an option. However, check their web sites-- they usually have contact forms.

3) If we don't talk to our congressmen, then the only people doing that will be the lobbyists. Is that what you really want, for their viewpoints to be dominated by conversations with lobbyists?

4) You may get a form letter back. In that case, a longer reply with citations might be in order. Dialog does not mean a single exchange. It means an ongoing conversation as much as is required.

Re:Bullsh!t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22413804)

1. If you put pen to paper and write a concise and reasonable paragraph or two about why it matters to you and send it to your representatives, you bet they will listen. Why? Because they know it's coming from a warm body as opposed to all of the anonymous electronic spam that Political Action Committees stir up. The letter becomes a bellwether of sorts if it is similar to other handwritten letters on the same topic.

According to the EFF [eff.org] , one shouldn't bother sending physical letters to one's representative any more:

"Because of the post-9/11 security issues, it can take up to THREE MONTHS for postal mail and package delivery services to get through to legislators and their staffs. All incoming mail and parcels are subjected to thorough analysis for bombs, poisons and biological agents like anthrax. This means that sending physical letters is, in 2002 and for the forseeable future, practically useless for activism purposes. The same goes for sending mail to the White House."

I haven't heard anything about this firsthand, but they seem to be a group that has a reasonable amount of experience trying to bend the ear of more than a couple representatives.

Re:Bullsh!t (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414146)

The best way to send a letter to a U.S. representative is go to your representative's local office and hand-write a letter to them via their pre-printed forms. It will be delivered by their personal secretaries and such and not bound by the same snail-mail rules. I don't know how it works in every state, but that is the way it works in Indiana.

I did this with an issue I had a few years ago (3 or 4). I got a hand-signed personal response from my representative (Barren Hill) in about a week.

Re:Bullsh!t (2, Informative)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22415080)

My wife described to me the hand-signing machines used by politicians. It uses a real pen, and copies the signature better than a geek like me can tell. That said, I agree with you and we should write letters. Even if your actual representative didn't respond to you, someone on his staff did. That still counts for more than ranting on this site.

Re:Bullsh!t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22414868)

The U.S.A. is FEDERAL republic

Re:Non news (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413430)

This is a pretty DAMN stupid fallacy.

If 1 vote was worth 0. Then 100million votes would be worth nothing. Which is obviously untrue since 100million votes is more than the federal election even receives. Shockingly 1 vote averages out to be worth around 1... You know there are near 7billion people on earth, mannn you really don't make much of a difference, nobody does. Infact since no humans make any difference at all nothing would change if we all died. If you are feeling insignificant why post? There are like 1million /. readers. Your post obviously made no difference. Suck it up emokid.

Re:Non news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22413614)

Anyone with leekspin in their sig is just as likely to be a troll as someone with goatse in their sig. YHallBT. This guy is probably one of the newfags that protests scientology.

Re:Non news (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414244)

Accuses others of trolling... check.
Uses words like "newfag"... check. ...Test results are ready. It's an AC!

Re:Non news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22414612)

AC does not forgive, or forget, and AC is legion.

One vote... (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413650)

> the only thing that can make a difference is a mountain of mail

He who would move a mountain must begin one stone at a time. - Chinese Proverb

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. - Ambassador Kosh

Who ya going to believe?

Re:Non news (1)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22415234)

I feel the same way about sending letters, but I do it anyway. I always get a response to the effect of "thanks for you opinion but mine is better", but at least I feel better for having stated my opinion. I'm never wrong. The congressman is there to represent me. That's something we've seem to forgotten along the way... thanks in no small part to large sums of money being passed around by corporations and special interest groups.

Re:Non news (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22415000)

I can't agree more, and in fact, I did write David Price about it... and he replied! Gotta love an involved congressman.

We need a new internet also (-1, Troll)

zymano (581466) | more than 6 years ago | (#22412986)

Our current one is maxed out. It wasn't built for video.

I think we need business,government and scholars to get the ball moving.

We need to just scrap the internet and find a new architecture.

Re:We need a new internet also (3, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413046)

I think breaking up a few telecom monopolies would be a bit more of a realistic solution than scrapping the Internet...

Re:We need a new internet also (4, Funny)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413156)

Make you a deal. If you write your congresscritter to talk about that and post your letter here, then I'll write something similar to mine.

Or are you all talk and no action?

Re:We need a new internet also (-1, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413304)

This is like the 5th comment that you've said the exact same thing and said the same grating "congresscritter". YES I am all talk and no action.. I read slashdot, obviously I'm way too afraid of the government to actually participate in politics

Re:We need a new internet also (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413342)

Hey, 'congresscritter' was good enough for Mr. Twain--and it's not like they're -real- people, anyway, eh? ;-p

So pretty much, you're saying that for all practical purposes you're a nonentity and can be safely completely ignored?

How sad.

Re:We need a new internet also (-1, Flamebait)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413432)

So pretty much, you're saying that you're a sheep bleating its way through life only caring about things of immediate practical importance. How sad.

Also what's up with modding flamebait? The internet is for flamewars, there's nothing wrong with some friendly blasts between mortal enemies..

Re:We need a new internet also (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413498)

Not at all.

But I do recognize that high and lofty ideas are pretty worthless if you can't figure out the intermediate steps to getting to 'em. Take opportunities where you can find 'em, and someday you'll find yourself a lot closer to where you want to be than you were when you started.

And you're welcome to call me an enemy if you like, but all you're making me feel is pity, rather than anger--as the Tao says, it's a very unfortunate man who counts another as an enemy. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Re:We need a new internet also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22413588)

"there's nothing wrong with some friendly blasts between mortal enemies.."

There is when one of them is a mental pygmy. Such as yourself.
Give up, you've lost.

Re:We need a new internet also (-1, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413668)

When the whole point was to spam the beginning of the story to get exposure to leekspin.info from my sig... I've won

Re:We need a new internet also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22415214)

You suck

Re:We need a new internet also (1)

Digi-John (692918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413196)

I know, we'll call it Internet2!

Re:We need a new internet also (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413608)

Wouldn't that be Internet 2.0?

Mind, you'd think people would have learned by now not to trust a .0 release of anything.

Re:We need a new internet also (1)

Digi-John (692918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413680)

Well, they sure jumped on Web 2.0 pretty fast. Every moron with a webserver and an AJAX book seems to be doing some web crap these days.
Oh, and it's Internet2. Because Internet2 already exists.

Re:We need a new internet also (5, Interesting)

multiplatformgeek (197759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413352)



There's no way to win the bandwidth race at this point. The moment you start talking about "video", you move to a requirement that really is unrealistic.

To have the "Internet" (open access, bidirectional services and bandwidth, all-you-can eat buffet style bandwidth, unicast (or multicast)) with "Video" (continuous, "large" bandwidth streams), you have a problem.

OC-192's are the defacto standard in the Telecom industry. Even if you run multiple bonded OC-192, or have a faster standard, or any of the currently available technologies, you simply can't architect a network that could do what you suggest is so easy to do. Well, telepathy might work, but a workable implementation of mind-to-mind communications hasn't been demonstrated yet.

Now, saying that, the Telecom's are coping out with there current "traffic management", it's a pathetic implementation, and any real network engineer with more than a handful of years experience could create something better than manipulating TCP headers/windows/sessions (the minimum standard for MSS is 536 AT&T, or did you miss NewReno-IETF Standards 101 class?) or doing a DOS man in the middle attack on their customers. It's called Network Calculus, or Queueing theory, do a Google search and look it up, if you haven't blocked yourself from doing Google searches.

A simple queueing system that has a deficit round robin scheduler based on only src or dst IP address would do exactly what they are looking for (think WFQ, but only src or dst address based). With FQ, Cisco has been doing this for at least as long as I've been into networking, all that really needs to be done is for Cisco do change fair queueing to only include one parameter, the src or dst IP address. Problem solved. Customers happy. Multiflow file transfer applications running fine and not hogging the network. People browsing the web getting great performance. No lawsuits. Everybody wins.

It's so freakin' simple. Sometimes, the ISP's should just be slapped. All the Executives, managers, and engineers who go along with their BS. All in one big Three Stooges style line slap.

Oh... But you'll never truly get "Video" and the "Internet" to mix. If you think you can, I'd be glad for you to provide a potential architecture in this forum and prove me wrong.

multiplatformgeekbutmainlyjustnetworks

Re:We need a new internet also (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414182)

1.) Train every man, woman, and child in America to professionaly dig ditches. Then, have them use this skill to lay lots and lots of fiber across the country.

2.) Develop blistering fast optical chips and an inferace bus to manage and route all the traffic.

Eh, I suppose one out of two isn't bad...

Yes it's time for the consumer to build their own (1)

FromTheAir (938543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414844)

There is nothing stopping us from mounting wireless routers on our houses and building a nationwide mesh network we own and collectively control. As long as everyone maintains their own hardware the costs would be minimal and we can say goodbye to the telecomunications industry as we know it and all it's excessive billings.

...make it easy for citizens... (4, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413028)

"... make it easy for citizens to submit comments or complaints online."

Those comments are always ignored, apparently.

Re:...make it easy for citizens... (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414346)

Nothing in that statement says anything about reading them, only submitting them. So the FCC creates a webpage that allows you to blow off your steam and as soon as you hit "submit" it goes to /dev/null with all the other public comment. Hey, it was easy for you to submit wasn't it?

Re:...make it easy for citizens... (1)

FromTheAir (938543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414870)

Yes, we need a national issues database so each citizens issues can be addressed and resolved and when large numbers have the same issue they would get resolved quickly.

This seems a bit toothless (4, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413038)

As long as Comcast et al keep up with their regular "contributions" to the FCC, they'll just look the other way.

Re:This seems a bit toothless (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414190)

Insightful? How can Comcast "contribute" to the FCC in the way hinted?

Re:This seems a bit toothless (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414276)

The usual way: Federal Commissioners somehow accidentally let slip the id #s of their Swiss or Caiman Island bank accounts & money keeps showing up in those bank accounts after the Commissioners pass regulations which somehow incorporate ideas brought up in "casual" discussions with Comcast liasons.
.
.
.
Yes, I'm kidding. I hope.

Re:This seems a bit toothless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22416466)

lobbyists for their budget?

Recent decsions... (1)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414590)

Recent Decisions are favoring the telcos over the MSOs... not that it really matters in this case.

Enforce the laws we have? (5, Interesting)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413052)

What good are new laws or guidelines if they go unenforced? Man in the middle attacks are already illegal, but Comcast [slashdot.org] continues unabated. It's like having a Constitution that law makers ignore. Until someone goes to prison for ignoring it, its value becomes symbolic at best.

Re:Enforce the laws we have? (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413170)

Like how does the FCC [fcc.gov] get to:

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.


from "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."?
Maybe I don't know what "abridging" means to lawyers, but m-w.com [merriam-webster.com] defines it as " to shorten in duration or extent ".

How does restricting the time not count as abridging?

Re:Enforce the laws we have? (0, Offtopic)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413330)

Because the government has armies, and a slashdot poster doesn't? Hm, you must be new here.

Re:Enforce the laws we have? (1)

Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413532)

IANAL. Abridgements of the freedom of speech get strict scrutiny. Protecting the public from indecency (boobies) somehow passes the strict scrutiny test.

Re:Enforce the laws we have? (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413986)

I am not talking about boobies, but that is another issue.

Just try to say the words "shit" or "fuck" on the radio. No images, movies, or pictures there, but somehow you can get fined for that. That is very specifically a free speech issue. Maybe someone who is about to get a bunch of negative publicity could change their name to "Mr. Shit Fuck", and then you couldn't be featured in the radio/TV at all.

Re:Enforce the laws we have? (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413620)

Because there are a bunch of people who complain to the FCC at the drop of a hat when there is the slightest bit of something interesting on TV. Remember that NYPD Blue episode? Children are aware that human beings have asses. But to put it on TV?! The outrage! And NYPD Blue?! Thats just the type of show which children love!!! Wont somebody, anybody, please, pretty pretty please with cherries and whipped topping think of the children?

Re:Enforce the laws we have? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22413900)

human beings have asses.
No, they don't! You take that back! How dare you imply that people are so base and lowly, that they'd have something as indignant and disgusting as an ass?!? Monkeys have asses; humans are above that.

This is a good thing (4, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413116)

Since there isn't yet a problem for Net Neutrality laws to fix, it seems a little early to define what is and isn't net neutrality. Such a law is quite likely to permit bad behaviour, and have undesirable side effects. Both problems that would take several years to fix legislatively.

By extending the scope of the FCC, changes can be made much more quickly. Bad rules can be repealled quickly. New guidelines issued. Explicit behaviour prevented as soon as it starts.

Re:This is a good thing (4, Informative)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414506)

Since there isn't yet a problem for Net Neutrality laws to fix, it seems a little early to define what is and isn't net neutrality.
Net neutrality was the law of the land in the USA until just a couple of years ago.

In 2005 the supreme court reclassified ISPs as "information providers" rather than "telecommuniactions providers." Those terms have specific meaning under the tariffs that regulate the telecom industry. Essentially "telecommunications providers" have a set of rules they must abide by that include most of the concepts generally referred to under the umbrella of "network neutrality" while "information providers" are not so regulated.

Brand X [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22416092)

By expanding the scope of the FCC you also make it easier for the FCC to slip in changes that aren't good for the consumers. Such as the Broadcast Flag. So Good rules can be repealled quickly. Bad policy can be easier implemented without congressional oversight.

This is a bait and switch (1)

Bored MPA (1202335) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413192)

It has a nice name "internet freedom," but i would bet money it was supported or even written by the the communications industry. Why? Because they are scared $hitle$$ of regulation that will prevent them from creating a tiered internet (like cable, your cell phone features, etc). With a democratic president and congress a possibility, they have good reason to push something light through now.

Companies have to hedge their bets about what congress and what the public will do--when will people get pissed off enough to be less "disposed to suffer"? Or more accurately, when will a senator decide that s/he can get some major press by going against the communication companies? Or _pretending_ to go against them (as in this case)? It's all a game based on risk and reward, and this bill is a move by and/or for the telcos.

Re:This is a bait and switch (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413716)

With a democratic president and congress a possibility, they have good reason to push something light through now.
Why? Last I checked, they donate and lobby both parties.

lawful purposes (2, Insightful)

+Addict-09+ (239664) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413290)

to maintain the freedom to use for lawful purposes broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet, without unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators, as has been the policy and history of the Internet and the basis of user expectations since its inception;

Interesting that they stuck the word "lawful" in there, as well as "unreasonable interference". This bill won't change anything.

Just ignore this pseudo-shit! (1)

furbyhater (969847) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413296)

Now, instead of proposing concrete net neutrality laws like they should, they are spouting some vague pseudo-free shit that tries to immitate the constitution in its wording for marketing effetcs, in order to appease the naive populace.

FUCK THAT SHIAT! NO ONE CARES, LET'S JUST ALL LET THEM HEAR OUR VOICE WHEN IT COMES TO REAL NET-NEUTRALITY!

Hmmm.. (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413390)

Anybody know about Markey's future career plans? Pickering has already declared he's not running for reelection this fall; he's a lame duck. (Yes, he's quitting to "spend more time with his family". No, I don't know what the dirt on him really is.)

I'm not unhappy to see him sponsoring the bill - he's my Congresscritter - but he's not going to be around next year, so he doesn't have a lot of votes left to swap support for.

Freedom this, freedom that... (5, Insightful)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413392)

Can politicians lay off the whitewashing of bill names? I'd like to request the "Freedom from freedom naming Act" which would mandate that all bills are simply numerically titled, so that for example, politicians and people will actually have to learn about bill #654934792 before voting on it.

I'm really sick of these 'patriotic names' which usually have little or nothing to do with what the bill encompasses,

Re:Freedom this, freedom that... (1)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413866)

The name is sometimes completely contrary to the contents of the bill.
e.g.

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
Full Text [loc.gov]

The captcha word was 'litigate' - hilarious.

Re:Freedom this, freedom that... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22413920)

Re: your suggestion, at first I thought people would just start referring to laws by nickname, and nothing would change de facto. But on second thought, in my state there's names for bills like "Proposition 23," and they don't get the nickname treatment, as far as I've seen. So maybe your idea would help somewhat.

Re:Freedom this, freedom that... (4, Funny)

Jorgandar (450573) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414076)

We'll attach that provision to my new happy fluffy kittens bill. I'm certain it will pass. Who would vote against happy fluffy kittens?

COMplaints are non-neutral so ... (3, Funny)

Shadowlore (10860) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413530)

be sure to expect the Comcasts of the world to mark that traffic as the lowest priority possible, thus taking forever to actually get to those sites to log a complaint.

"The remote server timed out. Try again later."

just a hypothetical... (5, Interesting)

darthfracas (1144839) | more than 6 years ago | (#22413846)

the economist in me is wondering something... what would happen to broadband competition if instead of leaving the infrastructure in the hands of the telcos, it was put under the charge of a third party, who in turn sold bandwidth to ISPs, similar to how DSL providers were able to operate before Verizon and AT&T switched to fiber optics?

the way i'm seeing things right now, more choice would lower costs to consumers (which naturally the telcos would oppose), but if an ISP was caught doing something shaky (traffic shaping, etc), consumers would have other choices than their cable or phone company. having competing infrastructures strikes me as having to choice which company's sewers i flush my toilet into. it would make things simpler to have the one infrastructure.

Not a law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22414014)

... at least in the sense of compelling telecoms to behave in any particular way. The purpose of this bill is "to conduct a proceeding". That is, it's a directive to the FCC to survey the current state of affairs and provide some recommendations to Congress. Congress might later choose to enact a law based on those recommendations. But passing this current bill means nothing other than "the FCC must write a report".

Bill would put NET under FCC jurisdiction (3, Insightful)

jimmyjoebillybob (1152993) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414314)

This is more Washington Double speak. This bill would not ensure internet freedom anymore than the PATRIOT act is patriotic.

Bill to do nothing? (1)

davburns (49244) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414428)

I don't like to be cynical, but I wouldn't get any hopes up over this bill. Remember that this is an election year, so even passing it (and making the FCC "study" the issue) is probably just about making a show of concern, rather than actually changing anything. (Or even heading off any threats before they happen.)

When I get time, I should write a journal entry about how I became a neutrality violator, too. (I promise that the issue is more complex than it might appear.)

What if... (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 6 years ago | (#22414684)

"...and make it easy for citizens to submit comments or complaints online."


But what if your ISP starts filtering traffic to that website? ;O

Terrestrial radio ownership (1)

AhNewBis (42974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22415700)

Isn't this what is already done with Terrestrial radio ownership and everything else the FCC does? 'Yeah, we might look at it at some point, to see if it's going to cause problems. If we think they're problems. Maybe. When we feel like it.'

Unless it is spelled out in 10+ pages of legalese so tight that it can't possibly be rewritten then it won't be enforced reasonably.

***EMERGENCY AGREEMENT*** (1)

thisnow1 (882441) | more than 6 years ago | (#22416340)

I would like to propose the following and would like to hear if anyone anywhere disagrees: 1. Anytime a board or elected official includes the possibility of holding "summits" or "dialogues" as part of a solution to an outstanding issue, it shall henceforth be considered NOT A SOLUTION! SUMMITS *DO NOT EQUAL* ACTION
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...