Slashdot Mirror

So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).

You are mistaken. There's a rich history of actual and intended net neutrality violations in the past before the regulations went into effect. Unfortunately the top link returned by a search on this currently offline, but here is some info pasted from this reddit thread:

There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

And...

2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.

2014, Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix.

Also, links for everything you just said.

Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...

Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/libra... (article from '08)

AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/...

Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/0...

Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/...

AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/2...

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the companyâ(TM)s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.co...

Also, the thing to realize is that violations of net neutrality are not likely to be reflected on a general speed test, or necessarily in the fees the ISPs charge. It's much more likely that they will violate it by charging the content providers, like they have already done with Netflix. It will be insidious, and most people will not notice unless they are watching very closely. The effects will like

One example is blocking traffic to a particular server, as various cellular ISPs have done with the servers of Apple FaceTime video chat. Another is intentionally routing traffic to a particular server over a chronically congested link, as Comcast did with its Tata link a few years back. A third is making high-speed Internet available only to subscribers to the same company's traditional multichannel pay television service.

It still stuns me when people say stuff like this. But then I remember, maybe they weren't here, and didn't see what happened.

The net has always been neutral. From time to time an ISP would try to test the boundaries, and then we would stop them:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

2015 was just the FCC formalizing what we've had since the internet was first invented. The Internet only exists because it was always neutral. This is about breaking the entire premise of the internet, after decades of it working properly.

You think you can have meaningful competition in "last mile" for internet, any more than you can have it for electricity? Hilarious. Someone's going to start up a new ISP, somehow get right of way to everyone's last mile? That's your competitive marketplace?

"Oh but the local governments." I can give you another list of all the cities and towns full of people who can't get decent service at all, from any ISP, and then when they try to build their own, the big ISPs sue and harass them to stop them from doing it...

It still stuns me when people say stuff like this. But then I remember, maybe they weren't here, and didn't see what happened.

The net has always been neutral. From time to time an ISP would try to test the boundaries, and then we would stop them:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

2015 was just the FCC formalizing what we've had since the internet was first invented. The Internet only exists because it was always neutral. This is about breaking the entire premise of the internet, after decades of it working properly.

You think you can have meaningful competition in "last mile" for internet, any more than you can have it for electricity? Hilarious. Someone's going to start up a new ISP, somehow get right of way to everyone's last mile? That's your competitive marketplace?

"Oh but the local governments." I can give you another list of all the cities and towns full of people who can't get decent service at all, from any ISP, and then when they try to build their own, the big ISPs sue and harass them to stop them from doing it...

Read their Manifesto: https://www.savetheinternet.co...

A little background checking shows that SaveTheInternet is a coalition of organizations lead by the Free Press advocacy group whose chair is Tim Wu who invented the phrase "net neutrality." His Wiki page says "Wu ran for the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor of New York against a conservative Democrat." So the top name in this effort is a person very much on the left who is also fighting for his legacy. Now that doesn't mean he isn't necessarily correct, but NN was voted in only 3-2 along party lines in 2015 so we'd need someone more neutral to make the case.

But let's look at some of their claims:

"The consequences would be particularly devastating for [...] people of color, the LGBTQ community, indigenous peoples and religious minorities"

"The mainstream media have long misrepresented, ignored and harmed people of color. And thanks to systemic racism, economic inequality and runaway media consolidation, people of color own just a handful of broadcast stations. The lack of diverse ownership is a primary reason why the media have gotten away with criminalizing and otherwise stereotyping communities of color."

"The internet without Net Neutrality isn’t really the internet."

"This would destroy the open internet."

"Without Net Neutrality, the next Google or Facebook would never get off the ground." Well they did get off the ground without Net Neutrality, and have fortified themselves more than ever since NN.

Essentially we must support NN to prevent racism. If they need to bring up that argument, do they really have an argument?

You must live in an alternative reality because many consumer groups were in favor of net neutrality. Or are you just lying?

Did you actually look at that list of "consumer groups" before linking it? Or did you just chase a good headline and leave it to that, hoping that your clever accusation of living in an alternative reality would be a good smokescreen?

Here's the list of those organizations, some even signed twice and the poster made sure to mix them up. Can you please indicate which of those are "consumer groups"? I see one, maybe two, unless you consider United Church of Christ as a consumer group.

Alliance for Community Media (cable TV lobby)
Future of Music Coalition (indie music labels lobby)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
Benton Foundation
Consumer Federation of America
Center for Democracy and Technology
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Internet Archive
Common Cause
Free press
Knowledge Ecology International (that's Ralph Nader)
Media Access Project
New America Foundation
Tribal Digital Village
Media and Democracy Coalition
United Church of Christ
National Alliance for Media, Arts and Culture
Public Knowledge
USPIRG (that's Ralph Nader too)
National Federation of Community Broadcasters
Special Libraries Association
Writers Guild of America, West

You must live in an alternative reality because many consumer groups were in favor of net neutrality. Or are you just lying?

You count nothing because:
(pick one)
A) you dont know how to count
B) you never tried
C) you are willfully ignorant and just ignore the multiple examples each year

http://www.dailydot.com/politi...
http://leftwardthinking.com/le...
http://www.commondreams.org/ne...
http://www.savetheinternet.com...

The abovie summary conflates the FCC process with Congress. The ammendment to HR 5016 would have cut funding to the FCC, with an eye to making it impossible to enforce regulations. It seems the amendment was defeated. Late the morning Save the Internet and similar groups sent out email alerts, and that seems to have done the trick, at least for this vote. We need the FCC to reclassify ISP's as common carriers and Congress to refrain from obstructing the FCC.

The definition of net neutrality that I accept is here, with examples of problems abound.

Wyden to Block Telecom Bill Without Net Neutrality(2006)
Protecting mobile privacy(now)

I got to vote for him too.

who was actually correct about the facts of the matter? sight unseen, i bet Wikipedia.

Yes, but the lawyer could just have had someone change the content of the Wikipedia article itself. It wouldn't have really mattered if a couple of hours later, someone had reverted the change back to its correct form. The damage would have been done.

Not that this happened in this case, but if the court did start accepting evidence from "Wikipedia", it would also make the incentive that much stronger for paid shills to falsify Wikipedia entries. And just imagine what happened with Comcast and its paid shills in real life, if a company like Comcast can bus in one hundred shills to preemptively occupy all of the seats in an FCC hearing on 'net neutrality' 90 minutes before it even starts, imagine what such a company could do if it had hired one hundred people (from god knows where on the internet) to make sure one phrase in a relatively obscure Wikipedia article stays incorrect for a certain period of time.

Well, it was on Slashdot, but I don't remember the original story and I don't have a lot of time at work to search for it. But someone with some Google-fu ought to be able to dig it up. And Save The Internet started up right away. I believe they coined "Net Neutrality."

It's even worse than that (worse than just an ISP).

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/11/20/suckered-by-astroturf/

WTF is wrong with these people? How do these astroturfers live with themselves? Is there nothing more important than the size of your paycheck or your corporate rank?

Everyone's surely seen through this and it goes without saying, but yes, this is pure anti-nn astroturf, and it's being shoveled out now because of TWC's recent actions.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/The-Exaflood-Myth-Just-Wont-Die-102202

http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12673221

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/11/20/suckered-by-astroturf/

Dirtbags. "Research", my ass.

Nemertes' research pops up often in discussions of net neutrality. See the Save The Internet blog for another perspective on their data.

While it's True many TW customers have no other option for broadband - they can still protest. Time Warner is a very large company including:

CNN
HBO
People Magazine
Sports Illustrated
The Cartoon Network
AOL Video
AOL Music
AIM
MapQuest
Moviefone
GameTap
Nascar.com
adultswim.com
pga.com
TheSmokingGun.com
superdeluxe.com

Boycott all of their other products. I am.

Contact your legislators and make your feeling known here:
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=305

Join the fight against them here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Complain here: https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=311

Join the fight, here: http://www.savetheinternet.com/

In many areas consumers have no option to Time Warner Cable for broadband. However, you can still protest. Time warner is a very large company including:

CNN
HBO
People Magazine
Sports Illustrated
The Cartoon Network
AOL Video
AOL Music
AIM
MapQuest
Moviefone
GameTap
Nascar.com
adultswim.com
pga.com
TheSmokingGun.com
superdeluxe.com

What is your opinion on NN, as it is defined in the two definitions I called "legitimate"?

My "particular view" is rather common. I can't take credit for it.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf[pdf]

For some reason, I get the feeling that it is your "particular view" that is novel.

If your opinion is the exact opposite of the opinions expressed in the links above (i.e., you think that ISPs and backbones have a god-given right to inspect and molest traffic, and "net neutrality" means no regulation), then you are, in fact, against NN. That is, of course, unless you change the semantics to mean the exact opposite of what they are accepted to mean.

Make your congresscritter work for you...or at least pretend to:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/04/21/sen-kerry-i-need-your-feedback-on-net-neutrality/

https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?alertId=103&pg=makeACall

PLEASE!!! COME SAY THAT VERY THING IN PERSON

WHAT: FCC En-Banc Public Hearing
on Broadband Practices
WHEN: Thursday, April 17th
TIME: 12:00pm to 7:00pm

Dinkelspiel Auditorium,
Stanford University
471 Lagunita Drive
Palo Alto, CA

SaveTheInternet.com

I hear you, but the consumer has some pretty good lobbying groups going for him these days too. Check out savetheinternet.com. You have these guys largely to thank for the fight for net neutrality thus far.
I'm not one for protests or taking part in debates, so I show support by donating. I give these guys and stealthisfilm.com a little $$ now and then, because they speak in a voice that can be heard better than mine. It's a lot more effective than online petitions, but should also be used in conjunction with regular letters to your congressman, senator, etc.. See my sig, as it's actually appropriate to this discussion. Worrying about this problem in here does almost nothing.

Nemertes Research is funded by the Internet Innovation Alliance which as an underwritten "Astrtoturf" group of AT&T. Can we trust this report? http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/11/20/suckered-by-astroturf/

I was not aware of the unfolding fiber optic monopoly situation, though. This does not bode well for our economic situation in general, nor our 1st amendment. With all television signals going digital in 2008, and Verizon service contracts stipulating that they can "terminate or suspend your services", that pretty much constitutes an information chokehold. And for a limited time, you can get all your services bundled for $30 a month! That means they have you phone, your tv, and your internet.

It fits the pattern we've been seeing from them. Remember, this is the company that pillaged South Africa's economy, rewrote its privacy policy to give itself more leniency, lobbies against net neutrality, and fights open-access wireless.

And don't forget, they shut down the time service too. Bastards.

SaveTheInternet.com

http://www.savetheinternet.com/yourstory

Just because the government is regulating something doesn't make it inherently worse off.

we aren't asking the government to do any more regulating, we are just asking them to make permanent (via legislation) and enforcable (the FCC enforces laws, it doesn't create them) what the FCC was doing prior to selling out to AT&T and SBC. net neutrality isn't a new way of doing things. it the way things were always done in the past. the tiered internet is the new way of doing things.

It isn't the regulation that is inherently bad, it is the misuse of the regulation.

now that the FCC is owned and operated by the telecommunications industry, we need congress to pass legislation that makes it illegal to stop the earlier (and more effective) practice of net neutrality.

the "hands off the net" stuff is just astroturf by the telco industry to convince the public to let them proceed with thier tiered internet plans. passing real, and enforcable, net neutrality legislation will stop all providers from creating a slowlane to relegate non-paying traffic to. the bill that would gut net neutrality failed to pass (a win for net neutality), but the AT&T merger went thru, which was a defeat for net neutrality as well.

> When people talk about Net Neutrality, do they mean ISPs can't do any packet shaping at all?

No.

What we're fearful of is, say, Corp X making only their VoIP service usable by hobbling all the competing services. Or of them charging companies like Google for access to us (e.g. unless Google pays up, they hobble my ability to get to Google through them).

So what people don't like are abuses of packet shaping for anti-competitive reasons, or for the sake of extortion. Simply turning on QoS and making sure that telnet and VoIP have high priorities than, say, FTP, is perfectly reasonable, although I'd point out that the client can do that on their end, too (and they probably know their own traffic shaping needs better than the ISP would).

See also: Save the Internet.com

I'm not sure why but everyone on /. seems to think libertarian must be 100% free market. The libertarian view is that government should get only get involved when the free market cannot regulate itself. Last I checked, the telecoms aren't interested in playing fair. This means we need the government to get involved.

The public highway system is most definitely better than not.
The USPS is fine for most peoples' needs.
Corporations can't fund an army.

The above government controlled systems are working pretty well. There's nothing wrong with the government legislating fair play. We need net neutrality.

Try this link - http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/11/01/lam ed-duck-alert-dont-let-senators-sell-us-out/ Common carriers often discriminate anyway, especially if society's attitudes allow it.

This answers all problems.

savetheinternet.com

Some use "net neutrality" to refer to legislation which prevents phone/cable companies from selling preferential bandwidth to certain websites for a fee. Others (as in the summary above) seem to use it for the opposite meaning, referring to the position that the government should stay neutral and not interfere with phone/cable company rights to sell this preferential bandwidth.

How much of it was Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens' spamming?

To be honest, I didn't think he could plug a computer in, but we all know that little intelligence is required to become a spammer, so...

So, I guess the article wasn't taking his position on net neutrality in to account?

http://www.savetheinternet.com/ http://www.myspace.com/savetheinternet Get educated, do your part, support Net Neutrality. I have a personal web gallery, I'd rather not have to fight over bandwidth-leftovers after Telco's are done prioritizing contracted websites.

were you looking for links. Here's one that is good and has some funny videos on it.

How many of us have gotten off our asses to communicate that to Congress? There's more to gauging an issue than polls, and incoming comments to Senatorial offices can have a big impact. As few as a couple hundred well-worded letters or phone calls can swing a Senator's vote one way or the other, especially on more "niche" or technical issues.

Start here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatetally

Most Senators are not on record and so are more likely to be open to influence from their constituents. Your best bet to describe, in simple terms, why it is important and why it is a major voting issue to you. It does not have to be a magnum opus, just a short e-mail, letter, fax, or phone call.

And if you one of those who don't understand or care, I invite you to read this:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

How many of us have gotten off our asses to communicate that to Congress? There's more to gauging an issue than polls, and incoming comments to Senatorial offices can have a big impact. As few as a couple hundred well-worded letters or phone calls can swing a Senator's vote one way or the other, especially on more "niche" or technical issues.

Start here:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatetally

Most Senators are not on record and so are more likely to be open to influence from their constituents. Your best bet to describe, in simple terms, why it is important and why it is a major voting issue to you. It does not have to be a magnum opus, just a short e-mail, letter, fax, or phone call.

And if you one of those who don't understand or care, I invite you to read this:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

I didn't see *anything* on that page except this notice: "Don't see a video? Macromedia Flash Player 7 or higher is required to view the media."

Funny - I have Flash 7. The notice failed to state... "and run an operating system we like instead of that commie African Ubuntu GNU/Linux crap you seem to have on your PC."

I guess that spot was made by the same tier one cableco tech support people who want you to click "My Computer" and otherwise pretend you have Windows before they let you report a line outage.

More amusing: I had no trouble viewing any of the videos at the other link, savetheinternet.com.

I even saw this one with no problem -- which is especially nice, since I made it. :)

- Robin

Don't be too hasty! Last I knew, the bills that were actually likely to pass through Congress sucked :-(

See http://www.savetheinternet.com/ for more details. That said, I do want one of the *good* bills to get through, and this is kinda hopeful to me, since I was afraid that all the good ones were dead...

Here is a list of senators and their positions on Net Neutrality...

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatetallybyvote

You can call toll free through the Capitol switchboard at 888-355-3588.

Ted Stevens is trying to force a vote on Thursday, so there is little time! Each phone call is considered to be worth about a 1,000 votes the general election, so your phone call will make a difference!

The follwing three senators are crucial:

- Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
- Ben Nelson of Nebraska
- Joe Lieberman of Connecticut

You can make a difference!!! Call now!

Thanks,

Mike

It is likely that the Senate will overturn this ban considering that Facebook.com is intertwined with many college, university, high school, and stand-by military activities.

My university in particular uses Facebook to announce many event that occur on campus through the help of the dean's office.

What this ban means to these institutions is that you can't promote the campus carrier fair or the special guest speaker who has come to school to give an enlightening lecture. And forget about parties, club meetings, sports, communicating with your classmates.

Secondly, this bill may threaten Net Neutrality, another bill the House passed that the Senate is likely to toss out.

It is quite clear that the lobbyist from AT&T and other large communications and mass media companies, are in full force buying out elected officials and government agencies in Capitol Hill. This story should be paid close attention to over the next few weeks.

If they need more money, they should charge more for bandwidth or more for peering arrangements.

The current "problem" they have is that they control too little of our online activities, and they don't have that many ways to bundle services and pester us into using websites they make money off of. Thus, their hate for Net Neutrality.

As is, their plans don't scale. They want to create walled gardens and charge outsiders for access to their customers. But the problem is that *every* idiot will want to put up their own walls to create a barrier to entry and stifle competition. And in the end, you have nothing but a maze of walls and a lot of pissed-off customers who no longer have a choice in the matter.

Frankly, I intend to do every legal activity I can think of in order to destroy, undermine or harass the companies (and their owners) who do such idiotic things. I'm totally pissed off and I intend to take it out on them.

For example, the bastards at TV4US (a telco astroturf campaign) have been using telemarketers to call people. Why not call them back at 1 (888) 346-1400 with your own special offers?

I can find five.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

There are 2 other sites that host this misinformational video. If you watch it you'll see the "tubes" that the senator talks about.

It's true, the Christian Coalition and MoveOn are working together. Here's the list of coalition members supporting Internet neutrality legislation: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=coalition

Unfortunately, it isn't in alphabetical order. But it's entertaining reading.

> I'd like to know if this is an intentional distortion perpetuated by the telecoms, or if this is an honest misunderstanding?

See http://savetheinternet.com/ -- the telecoms are spending millions on a [dis]information campaign, they keep whining about people not being charged when the peering agreements, hosting agreements and ISP bills charge all ends of the transaction. They cite "competition" when most people have two or fewer choices for broadband... Or the "our network" bit when we paid them over $100 billion dollars recently to improve last mile connections...

So, I really have to go with "intentional distortion" on this one.

I agree totally. If the content providers stand up for themselves, it would solve quite a bit of the issues at hand. The problem in my opinion relates to political parties. A political party that has larger funds should not be able to 'muscle out' the little guys during peek Internet congestion (they would not be paying directly for 'faster' content; they would be paying for a higher priority). This very blatantly violates our first amendment rights.

Some interesting points can be found at http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat

On a side note I believe it is important to educate our youth on these issues. Not in a biased way so they grow up to be 'one of us,' but in a factual way so they can make their own educated decisions. I joined the /. crowed last year, and have benefited immensely from the different opinions represented here (and I now [try to] actively practice proper grammar/spelling ;).

I think either way it will turn out alright. Either the law will not pass or the major content providers will make a stand.