Slashdot Mirror

what is "bullshit" = A/C

even a cursory search will turn up documents that confirm: 90% of email on the net is spam

you make a lot of postings out here buddy and I ain't exactly sure how many you are or what your agenda is

but after a note like the one I'm responding to I have confirmed for myself pretty much what you are.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/51055.html

http://handsoff.org/blog/category/spam/

http://www.postini.com/news_events/pr/pr110606.php

It seems that everyone is concerned about downstream modification, and is completely ignoring the possibility of upstream modification. What if Sprint started modifying upstream http-posts to start a more viral ad distribution system? Not only would they be able to target their customers, they would also be able to target the customers of anyone who could read the post!

This is the reason that we need to push for network neutrality. When the only choices are between a giant douche which alters content and a turd sandwich which alters content, the customer ends up screwed in the end.

I'm a bit confused as to the 500 reader mark.

Aside from the utter impracticality everyones been talking about I don't really see the use. This legisation appears to be targeted directly at sites like http://handsoff.org/blog/, in other words astroturfing. However, I don't see what the 500 reader mark would do other than give a pass to people who are astroturfing, but really suck at it. What kind of sites is the 500 reader mark supposed to protect that wouldn't already be covered by the previous safeguards?

Net Neutrality means that carriers cannot discriminate based upon the type of traffic you're sending. HTTP traffic and SSH traffic would be treated equally. Whether that's a good thing is for you to decide.

As twbecker mentions in his reply to your post, I think you don't exactly have it straight, either, so I just want to clarify a little more on what he said. It's not about the type of traffic (although that's the type of argument they give), it's about discriminating based on who provides the content. If there was a way to prioritize VoIP in general, without giving preferential treatment to Comcast over Vonage, that wouldn't be as bad (although I'm not sure I trust anyone out there -- ISPs, the government, or content providers -- to decide what types of traffic are more important than others), but the real potential problem is that Comcast can screw with the Vonage traffic so that the service basically doesn't work anymore... All of a sudden, it looks like Comcast's VoIP is the only service that "works" in your area, so that's what you're stuck with (no matter how good or bad the service might be).

The problem is that the ISP's want to provide content now, and they are wanting to extort money out of all of the companies who have actually worked for years to build their content services, just to stay on equal footing with the ISP's. It's funny how one of the arguments of the ISP's against neutrality is "There's no evidence that we would mess with your traffic, so you shouldn't make it illegal to mess with it", but at the same time, they're speaking out against Google and others, saying that those content providers are getting a "free ride" on their Inter-tubes (never mind the fact that the content providers are already paying their own Internet service bills, and their customers are paying their own bills, so nobody is actually getting a free ride). Websites like Hands off the Internet are really frustrating, because it's such a twisted, astroturfing, messed up view, accusing the people who want a level playing field of trying to get money from the average joe. When actually, it's been the telecoms screwing over average joe with all of the extra charges we were paying for years that were supposed to have brought us all great broadband service years ago.

Net Neutrality means that carriers cannot discriminate based upon the type of traffic you're sending. HTTP traffic and SSH traffic would be treated equally. Whether that's a good thing is for you to decide.

As twbecker mentions in his reply to your post, I think you don't exactly have it straight, either, so I just want to clarify a little more on what he said. It's not about the type of traffic (although that's the type of argument they give), it's about discriminating based on who provides the content. If there was a way to prioritize VoIP in general, without giving preferential treatment to Comcast over Vonage, that wouldn't be as bad (although I'm not sure I trust anyone out there -- ISPs, the government, or content providers -- to decide what types of traffic are more important than others), but the real potential problem is that Comcast can screw with the Vonage traffic so that the service basically doesn't work anymore... All of a sudden, it looks like Comcast's VoIP is the only service that "works" in your area, so that's what you're stuck with (no matter how good or bad the service might be).

The problem is that the ISP's want to provide content now, and they are wanting to extort money out of all of the companies who have actually worked for years to build their content services, just to stay on equal footing with the ISP's. It's funny how one of the arguments of the ISP's against neutrality is "There's no evidence that we would mess with your traffic, so you shouldn't make it illegal to mess with it", but at the same time, they're speaking out against Google and others, saying that those content providers are getting a "free ride" on their Inter-tubes (never mind the fact that the content providers are already paying their own Internet service bills, and their customers are paying their own bills, so nobody is actually getting a free ride). Websites like Hands off the Internet are really frustrating, because it's such a twisted, astroturfing, messed up view, accusing the people who want a level playing field of trying to get money from the average joe. When actually, it's been the telecoms screwing over average joe with all of the extra charges we were paying for years that were supposed to have brought us all great broadband service years ago.

The idea is to pass legislation to prevent ISPs from doing something they aren't doing in any great numbers anyway in the absence of the legislation, presumably because we either suspect that they will begin doing what we don't want them to do or we just love legislation kind of in general and want more of it to be passed.

It has been done, here a little, there a little. It was an issue of discussion on the Vonage forum for a while. What I think is funny is that ISPs say "There's not evidence that we'll be non-neutral, so you shouldn't regulate us", then they turn around and say that neutrality prevents them from funding the growth of the Internet infrastructure... using astroturfing fake grass roots campaigns (how genuine). So how are they planning on funding that growth? If they really didn't plan on being non-neutral, how would neutrality prevent them from funding the growth of the Internet?

They give one answer (We haven't been non-neutral, and we don't think we will...) to one group, then turn around and give another answer (How else can we help the Internet grow?) to someone else, then they turn around again and complain about the "freeloaders" like Google, eBay and other content providers, even though those providers are already paying for the bandwidth they use. They basically have said that they will charge for priority, and that they won't, at the same time.

Considering that the Government is responsible for the creation of the Internet, I'd say the government ought to have some say about the neutrality of the Internet in this country.

No, he's someone who wants to change the way the Internet works. The argument that Google and others are getting a free ride is laughable - Google pays for their Internet connection, just like you pay for yours and I pay for mine. The telcos want to charge Google an extra fee to not degrade their traffic to the telco's customers.

Look at who McCurry really works for: (from the Sun article) "Mike McCurry and Christopher Wolf are co-chairs of Hands Off the Internet, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition of technology, media and nonprofit organizations."

So, who is "Hands Off the Internet"? Among others:

• Actiontec (a VOIP equipment provider)
• The America Channel (telco video programming)
• Alcatel (telco equipment manufacturer)
• AT&T
• BellSouth
• Cingular

• American Cable Association
• Cellular Telecommunications Association
• National Cable and Telecommunications Association
• US Telecom Association
• AT&T
• BellSouth
• Cingular
• Comcast
• Qwest
• Sprint
• Time Warner Cable
• Verizon
• Verizon Wireless
• WCA International

Check out http://www.prwatch.org/node/4458

Other frontgroups include; http://www.handsoff.org/ http://www.minimumwage.com/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.nannyculture.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.responsibledrinker.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.firstjobs.org/ http://www.petapetition.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.obesityscam.com/ http://www.rottenacorn.com/ http://www.madcowscare.com/
http://www.livingwage.com/

I am curious about the organizations that oppose network neutrality. The article has a list which seems to match the list on a fake grassroots site run by telecoms.

Is the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation really a group representing Black Americans? If so, why would stand aganist network neutrality? Their web site doesn't list Network Neutrality as an issue anywhere that I can find.

How about the National Association of Manufacturers?Net neutrality isn't on their list of key issues either, but a search reveals a misguided report showing how they don't want network neutrality because it would stifle companies from laying new fiber. I can see manufacturers not liking that, but since network neutrality has nothing to do with laying of fiber, I only assume that someone there is misinformed.

The whole list of supporters seems this way. Is anyone here a member of one of these organizations who can shed some light on the views of these organizations?

Personally, I prefer SaveTheInternet. But you can't really understand your own position without knowing your opponent's.

Well after seeing AT&T and Bellsouth in their members section I certainly do. ;)

(Or at least understand their motives)

http://www.handsoff.org/ is the website for the supporters of Net Neutrality.

Personally, I prefer SaveTheInternet. But you can't really understand your own position without knowing your opponent's.

Talk about your obfuscartion
http://www.dontregulate.org/(flash)
http://www.handsoff.org/