Slashdot Mirror

Know of any large com corporations that aren't going to bend over for the feds?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm actually curious.

Backbone.
http://www.businessweek.com/1998/29/b3587124.htm

You knew they would try this. If you didn't then you are stupid.

Cringley had a piece on this. I guess it doesn't make sense for them pay for a network that cannibalizes their long distance which voip does.http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit2005 0303.html

Unlike this article. The phone companies DO own the net.
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/20 06/05/big_money_boys.html

This is the end of the internet.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

We need LOWER prices and faster speeds. I don't the phone companies with their history and now their attack on this network are going to be for that.

Ultimately we need a public municipal lowcost network with backbone owned by NO ONE.

Here's another example of his lies: Has Google Become More "Evil" Than Microsoft?"

His text: "and won't label any of those links advertising, or call the preferred listings advertising, even though they clearly are ads"

The actual fact: "Technically, AOL will pay for those links, which will be identified as advertising"

Someone should do a writeup on this guy and get him fired.

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554

Most of what the FCC chief is backing is the concept of offering consumers different levels of bandwidth based on how much THEY pay. Web connections to the internet are the same deal.

The big objection, which I don't see clearly addressed in this article, is the _consumer's_ ISP charging websites for bandwidth.

the blogger is wrong here.

"This is a sensationalist headline/article. Look at this article and read what he actually said:

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554

For instance, the last sentence says, "When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds." He's talking about limiting how much bandwidth you have based on how much you pay, which the telcos already do and have always done. You pay more for more bandwidth. If you read the rest of that article you'll see that AT&T has backed off of a tiered internet, calling it "economic suicide" and Martin says that they will enforce net neutrality if necessary. All they said is that they don't believe that new laws are needed to enforce net neutrality as they already have that power. TFA is blown way out of proportion to get more hits. Calm down."

AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre on Tuesday declared that his company won't try to block or degrade customers' access to Internet applications or content, a marked change of tone from his previous statements on the issue of network neutrality.
...
admitted that any service provider who tried to block or degrade Internet services would be committing economic suicide.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing." When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds.

This is evil if true. As a part of the AOL-Google deal Google will add links to AOL content without labelling it as advertising.

If these filters really work, wouldn't US carriers love to have them?

MCI executive and Internet co-founder Vint Cerf agreed, saying it was bad for everyone if service providers suddenly started discriminating against traffic types by competitive parameters.

"The presumption [of the Internet] is that you're fully connected," Cerf said. Any attempts to block certain application types or types of content, he said, "will destroy the utility of the Net."

Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert, who also spoke at the conference Monday, said his company has a commercial contract with Vonage. Carrying more application traffic, Notebaert said, was an economic plus for Qwest.

"I want to run a network utilized as fully as possible," Notebaert said. "I want to sell wholesale [access] to everyone I can."

http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rwolff/ee543%20paper s/verizon.htm
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/showArticle.jhtm l?articleID=23902991

You seem to think it is possible to lay several million miles of fibre in one year. Maybe if you have an infinite budget you could, but the telcos don't. It takes time to dig out the old copper and lay in the new fibre, along with all the rest of the infrastructure, and do it properly.

"well there would only be a problem if the person calling didnt know it was voip AND the person in trouble ISNT the voip subscriber."

It's happened already. It's not just a hypothetical scenario. Of COURSE you have to deal with this case. It's not some kind of boundary case, it's COMMON, except for complete introverts who never allow anyone else in their home.

I'm not at all convinced that "a sticker stating 911 doesn't work" is an option, for reasons you obviously don't agree with. I don't think emergency service is something you should even be allowed to opt out of. Neighbor's house burning down? You can't call 911 for them from your phone? I'd hold you to some responsibility.

http://informationweek.networkingpipeline.com/voic edata/160700377