Slashdot Mirror
Vint Cerf Speaking Out on Internet Neutrality
penciling_in writes "CircleID has reported on a U.S. congress hearing held on November 9th, where "significant focus was projected on 'network neutrality' and a new telecommunications bill affecting the Internet. 'This bill could fundamentally alter the fabulously successful end-to-end Internet,' says Alan Davidson in a related post on Google blog." Vint Cerf was not able to testify because of the Presidential Medal of Freedom award ceremony at the White House, but submitted a letter: "The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an explosion of offerings - from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging - that might never have evolved had central control of the network been required by design." CircleID post includes full text of the letter."
"What makes a good network go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a switch full of neutrality?"
It'd obviously be denied, but you have to wonder.
Central control is happening, and will happen .. like it or not. Simply because people want government to control who uses the internet. For example people branding themselves "social conservatives" don't want porn on the internet. The police want to be able to catch "cyber criminals". As the story on slashdot this morning, the french don't like people blogging certain views on the riots. Chinese want to arrest anyone who says democracy is a good thing. RIAA doesn't want piracy. I don't want spam.
.. but they will all fail unless you demonstrate how control can be enforced.
.. people are advocating centralization so they can solve their little issues. But I say this .. the internet is simply a communications mechanism. Controlling a communications mechanism is only going to cause problems for legitimate users. Everyone should use encryption to communicate. Encryption should be encourage. Hell I'd even support legislation to force everyone to encrypt their communication. I believe it's that important to the survival of liberty.
They want to centralize so they can control. Without centralization it is expensive to control. Nobody cares that centralization causes problems for legitimate users. They want to enforce their control, so you can present convincing argument after convincing argument that decentralization is best
OFFTOPIC RANT:
So yeah
Even anonymity is being shunned on the net. For example, even the leftist hypocritical website moveon.org takes comments but they dont want you to be anonymous or use a pseudonym. How many letters did Ben Franklin write with the pseudonym "Silence Dogood" claiming to be an old widow? Anonymity and pseudonimity are essential. If an anonymous source spouts out info, you can simply disregard it because they are not staking their reputation. But sometimes they may need the anonymity to avoid persecution, especially when they say something that can stand alone on its own merit.
Be sure to read the paragraph concerning the bill.
Along with being one of the patron saints of the Internet, he's the current chairman of ICANN.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Just give me control. No one else is worthy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Someone has to have central control to some degree... like managing domain names, etc.
KeepTrackOfIt.com - Find the lowest gas prices in your area graphically
Information wants to be free and should not be regulated by the government... no one wants censored porn RIGHT! Seriously though with out regulation how can we get rid of all the spyware/adware out there?? Without regulation there is anarchy, so minimal regulation is they key...
They can have the internet when they pry it from our cold dead fingers!
While social speech is more vibrant on the net, and there are those who want to control it, it is no differant than the tug-of-war over cival liberties faced in the real world every day. As is often said here: Nothing to dee, please move along.
As criminals use the net, the law enforcement does need to keep up, I am concerned about possible oversteps, as any citezen should be, but any power granted to step over the line on line would also be applicible in the real world too (If the FBI has permittion to hack your server, they can and may search your home too.)
As to the porn thing, you are right, some people who have hijacked part of conservatisum (FallWell, I am looking you dead in the eye) want a return to puritanisum, but it will not happen -- these people have been fighting and loosing this battle long before internet came about. EXAMPLE: Kroger (a major grocery chain around here) now covers cosmopolitan magazine because a few people found the hotties on the front offencive.
Whatt is real is becoming digital no more no less.
So Bush's selferving award interferes with Cert's speaking out for the freedom of the Internet and us, its users. Everything the preznit touches is turning to heavy metals, from sinkers to uranium.
--
make install -not war
He should have turned down that medal so he could have consulted with Congress in person. That would have been a true defense of freedom.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
"current chairman of ICANN."
What? you mean the same unilateral american imerialist hegemony that the EU and UN want to replace with a multilateral international cosensus organization based on sensitivity to the needs of China?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
So basically, like RMS, he's a "has been" icon who no one really listens to?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
OK, so once they get this done where is the last bastion of free speech? Can you afford air time? Can you get your book distributed? This is one of the greatest things about the Inet, sure we all know this but what I want to know is "what's left" and "when are we going to do something about it"
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Vint Cerf was not able to testify because of the Presidential Medal of Freedom award ceremony at the White House
Was this by design....?
--
Santa, Satan. coincidence? I think not.
If users are so desperate to have someone to protect them online and to tell them what they can and cannot look, why don't we go back to having content providers? There is your centralized system. Bring the users who want to have someone looking out for their best interests services such as what we had in the early 90's. Bring back the Prodigy, AOL, and Compuserv of years ago.
Yep, you got it, man. A total has-been, that Cerf. Unlike RMS, though, at least he left his name on a key piece of internet culture...
What? You mean you've never "Cerfed" the web?
Does it strike anyone else odd that a group of people who, in general, know nothing about technology are trying to regulate/create laws regarding the Internet? I can't imagine that any discussion held by these leaders would have any merit. In fact, if anyone with a technology background were to listen in it would be like listening to a bunch of grade school children trying to have an informative discussion about Quantum Physics.
Lawmakers creating rules to restrict freedom? No way. What's next? Some act that restricts civil liberties on the basis of the war on terror?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Seriously, with all the networking framework/protocol established and proven what in the FUCK does an already over empowered corrupt Government think they can really do?
/. readers can remember a certain Linksys WiFi router and custom swedish firmware.
WiFi will be used to create an alternate uncensored net that may just very well be adopted by other nations and people who may seek to pull users away from the American hegemony. People will flock to that Alternet where hopefully the uncensored and unrestricted intention of the Internet will shine. Hopefully allowing the existence again of a totally Free Market free of the facist intents of Capitol Hill.
Not too far off when
http://www.lp.org/
"This bill could fundamentally alter the fabulously successful end-to-end Internet"
It should read as:
"This bill could fundamentally alter the USA's section of the fabulously successful end-to-end Internet"
Unless of course you want to give yet another reason for why the USA should relinquish control over root dns to some truly international entity.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
The writeup does a lousy job of telling us what the bill is about. It is apparently legislation to create a statutory framework for Internet Protocol and Broadband Services.
Here's what Cerf says: My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it.
lack of any form of control had worked very well, and the internet is a perfect example of anarchy in action. Absolute freedom has led to unthought of inovation, stifling this with government oversite would be a huge step backwards. The internet is a place where people have the ability to do anything, and the requirement of deciding what they will or will not view. This is truely democratic, unfortunately, most people do not want freedom, they want pre-digested content sanitized for thier use. Blah. If they regulate the internet, I suggest we create a new network communication protical. Or, maybe, we can just meet in person.
No one here gets out alive
This guy is wasting his breath. The people making the decisions now are motivated by greed.
"A little control won't hurt anybody, and it will line my pockets a bit." That's the mentality we're faced with, only multiplied by a couple 100's of thousand of greedy PHBs.
The only real way to fight that, that I've come up with at least, is spaid or neutering your local politician. Then electronically tag them.
Please, think of the children.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"No gatekeepers", no "control in the middle of the network"? Unfortunately this is no longer true. Remember why the World Wide Web was developed at CERN (Europe)? Because physicists wanted to exchange documents in a network of computers, their computers. By now the networks of most research labs and universities have been taken over my inept administrators who call themself network managers. Researchers can no longer use their computers as web servers. Now all has to go through controlled centralized machines, run the administrators. Even simple e-mail exchange from computer to computer no longer work. Now we need mail exchangers, which again are centralized controlled systems. Of course the administrators love to point out that this is all a matter of policies and security. Policies made by the administrators and security problems cause by the administors' insecure Microsoft Windows systems. It gets worse. Not only do such centralized gatekeepers limit our freedom as researchers, they also cost money. A lot of money, which is deducted from the research budgets. The Internet is changing, no doubt. It is happening in Europe, the US, Asia, all over the world.
Does it strike anyone else odd that a group of people who, in general, know nothing about mechanical engineering or the internal combustion engine are trying to regulate/create laws regarding motor vehicle safety?
Who are they to tell us how fast we can drive, when and where we need to stop, and whether I have the right of way? They probably don't even change their own oil!
Just announced in their annual industry meeting that they are considering QoS penalties on IP services that compete with their own offerings (phone, inet, tv), so I'm seeing this evolve in Canada first hand. The speaker used the highway metaphor, saying that the company was tired of providing the highway at their cost while others rode on it for free. I spoke to him afterwards and reminded him that my inet packets spend over 99% of their time on the Internet and only a small percentage of time on his company's network, making the more apt metaphor a door instead of a highway. I then asked him whether he considered it fair for the person holding the door to dictate where I went and what I did once I walked through, especially since I had already paid the doorman to walk through in the first place. It turned into quite a lively debate.
I'll tolerate anything except intolerance.
The 'net, what else!
*rimshot*
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
They probably don't even change their own oil!
Hey, judging by the fact that I almost need to disassemble my front suspension to change the oil filter on my car, I'm pretty sure the engineers who designed the thing don't change their own oil anymore...
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
"Some argue that the centralized economy of Communist Russia was instrumental in their rapid industrial development."
..that sure worked out real well in the long term ..NOT. It didnt even work out in the short term actually. For civilian applications and consumers, Russia was never able to match the industrial output of USA. There are whackos who push a lot of draconian solutions that can supposedly solve a situation. And some of them are right, but only for a short term. Redistribution of wealth etc. Are they viable in the long term? Is it even moral? Hell no.
Surely you must be trying to kill me with your kidding. There are buffoons who argue this? Thank God I live a sheltered existence. Centralized economy
Give the internet to the universities, at least that way the thing will work, the universities can make money, nerds will be happy, and it might still be able to be saved from business focused ideals.
And I don't mean just the universities in the west, all of them from Iran to Iran (sorry, but it is a sphere). Let them sort it out because if we leave it to any government, its a lost battle.
Don't get me wrong, the U.S.A. has done a fine job of inventing and managing the system so far, but unfortunately now they appear to have turned into a pack of paranoid, power grabbing, business controlled, idiots.
Its turning from, "Government for the people, by the people, and of the people" to, "Government of the people, by the corporate, behind the lobby group".
/. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
Shut up, Taco.
You are being sarcastic of course, but what you are saying IS true even if you didn't intend to make the point. The government doesn't know anything about regulating automobiles, nor do they know anything about regulating the Internet. Most government regulations and initiatives are complete disasters.
If government regulation of the Internet is anything like their regulation of other things, we have big problems on our hand! Do you want the same people responsible for the War on Drugs, or the Hurricane Katrina debacle, to be micromanaging the Internet?
Here's a hint: in The Jungle, Upton Sinclair, writing a book by, for, and about socialism, spent two pages describing the maggots going into the sausage, and fifty-seven pages quoting inspiring, Socialist "Wonderful (thanks STNG fans) Speeches". Today we have the FDA, but no American Socialist party. Sinclair was quoted as saying "I aimed for their minds, but I got their stomaches".
As to your statements about the French governmant, I understand that their five-color alert status is as follows:
1) Smugness, Rudeness
2) Hiding, Smirking
3) Running, Dissembling
4) Surrender, Denial
5) Capitulation, Revisionism
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
But I'm still left without any understanding of what this "Legislation" is. Vint Cerf has read it apparently, but as it stands this is nothing but an ominous portent. What is actual content of this proposed law?
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
Every time I see Vint Cerf's name, there is a split second where I confuse him with Bennett Cerf, and I think: "Why would they be soliciting the opinion of a pun writer about this?"
You completely missed the point. Understanding the physics of how a car works does not make anyone any more qualified to legislate proper motor vehicle operation, nor doed lack of such understanding make one less qualified. Similarly, the issues being addressed by the legislature regarding the internet do not require an understanding of electronics or the seven OSI layers.
Dumbass Troll.
Troll a politician or something. Whatever happened to respect for those that deserve it? I may have ideological disagreements with both Mr Cerf and Mr Stallman, but I'd never show either of them any personal disrepect. They are both incredibly intelligent and talented, and were both absolutely essential in building the world in which I live today; one that would be far worse without their past efforts.
11*43+456^2
Yes it does. If the government makes something like blogging in favor of a candidate 30 days before an election illegal (which argueably it is illegal), and the politicians don't understand that one can blog anonymously from the server located outside the U.S., then they are not going to know that their law has no effect. If the government requires that all connections between machines be logged (like all telephone calls are required to be logged), and they don't understand that IPs can be spoofed, and that packets cannot be tracked accuratly, they won't know that their law will be ineffective. If the government bans all peer to peer file sharing in order to fight piracy, and they don't know that p2p file sharing is used for completly legit reasons, then they could end up implementing policy that could be disasterous.
There is all sorts of disasterous legislation that the government can come up with if it doesn't properly understand the technology.
give something power.
people could use alternate DNS systems instead of ICANN controlled DNS, but big companies and most websites use ICANN. So people use then as well.
The only central control on the internet is in the minds of people and their system configurations. technically you dont even need to use dns, it just helps.. a lot. people just adopt a standard for ease of use, prob is, they forget they can create an alternative just as quick.
Much like how governments have power simply because people give them power.
if everyone unilaterally decided that they dont want a certain rule, they could easily overpower their regime if they wanted, it just takes so much to do it as well, etc.
People only have power because others give it to them, there are central points to the internet purely because people use those the most.
Ok, I see your point, but I think we have different understandings of the phrase "understanding the technology". I think they can be made to understand all those issues quite easily, and I suspect many of them already do. I was interpreting the phrase to mean understanding how things are implemented under the hood, in great detail, which really shouldn't be necessary for them.
The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation
This is like giving an enemy instructions on how to attack you, not very bright.
If there's any group of people on the planet who want the internet disolved it's politicians and people in power. The internet is a tool for democratization, it gives 'the people' a voice. Hollywood, the music industry, the broadcast industry, the political 'industry' all wish the internet was never invented...keep telling them stuff like that and they may finally uninvent it.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
photon317 to Vint Cerf -- kiss kiss kissy kiss kiss smooch, kiss kiss smoochy-smooch kissy kiss kiss smooch kiss smooch kiss kissy kiss kiss smooch kiss kiss kissy kiss kiss smooch kiss kiss kissy smooch kiss kiss smoochy kiss kiss kissy kiss smooch kiss smooch kiss kiss kissy kiss kiss smooch....
Say some authority does begin to regulate communications on the internet.
Even if this control is successfully established, how long would it take for a separate network to be set up that is outside the boundaries of this authority's jurisdiction?
What is to stop a bunch of young/bored/rich entrepreneurs investing in some equipment and setting up their own regulation-free network open to subscribers? A lack of restriction would obviously be attractive to many current users of the net.
Also, the massive administrative task involved in policing the net would need to be undertaken by somebody - would there be additional fees for access to the internet to cover the wages of the people charged with this task? Would the US or whoever tax international ISPs, who would of course pass the cost onto the consumer?
This has led to an explosion of offerings - from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging
From cheap 1-800 numbers to stealing neighbours bandwidth to emo kids crossing the street instead of walking down the road...
Task Mangler
Along with being one of the patron saints of the Internet
He isn't canonized! He isn't even dead!
I don't think they've decided on one yet, but rumor has it St. Isidore of Seville is the top-billed candidate.
Why do we honour this man? Vint made tons of money off of uunet/worldcom/mci's spamming customers.
Albert Laszlo Barabasi explains it all clearly and succinctly in his book, Linked, which should be required reading by everyone, because networks, with their inherent feedback loops, dynamic decentralized structure, and inherent robustness, exist in all facets of our lives. Understanding that these networks exist, why they exist, and how they work (and more importantly, how they don't work), is increasingly becoming essential to understanding our lives, our roles in life, workplace dynamics, etc - in short, living in today's networked world.
Attempting to move a robust networks away from the model of "intelligence at the ends, stupidity in the middle" will break such robustness, and cause the utility of the network, if not the network itself, to crumble. At best, it will mean even slower communications within the network, at an ever increasing price for both the users and controllers. At worst, it means the dissolution of the network, along with the dissolution of all that depends on that network (economically and socially).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon