Slashdot Mirror
Coalition Sounds Off on Net Neutrality Legislation
DarqFallen writes to tell us that lately everyone has been talking about a tiered internet, though it seems there are other problems on the horizon as well. PCMag has the latest sound-off from the new SavetheInternet.com coalition. From the article: "Vint Cerf, so-called 'father' of the Internet, is among the big names and organizations that have come together to create the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, which hosted a national conference call [yesterday]. [...] [yesterday's] conference call is one of the coalition's many campaign tactics to emphasize the importance of 'Net neutrality,' the concept of a free and open Internet." The main topic of conversation was the latest bill from congress, the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancements Act of 2006."
From TFA:
Just when you thought the ramblings of John C. Dvorak weren't enough reason to stop taking PC Magazine seriously, they go and misspell the name of the Father of the Internet.
While the misspelling was corrected for some reason in the story summary, it's still right there in the first sentence of the PC Magazine article.
The rest of the article is well-enough written, but misspelling Vint Cerf's name pretty much sucks the credibility right out of it. Pity.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
VHS INTERNET FOREVER! (Until DVDs... then DVD INTERNET FOREVER! (Until Xvid INTERNET))
Wow... where did that come from?
Funnypics
Google has a huge vested interested in preventing a tiered Internet.
I'm not trying to dimininsh what Vint has done in the past nor am I saying that tiered internets are good/bad, but let's face it, Vint is hardly an unbiased source.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
"Clarify the FCC authority to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or degrading any content or applications delivered over the public Internet."
FCC? Prevent? Censorship? This does not compute at all!
Would it be feasable to create a giant peer to peer network based off wireless access points? Something that's more organic than the current net where a few carriers can make or brake the whole net. A net that's not under the control of the FCC (at least for the time). A net that least in some form can survive the war against Eurasia^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terror.
please excuse my apathy
...that the FCC has outlived it's usefulness and needs to go?
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
What I always love is that Big Business in America supports a free and open market for about an hour, and then gets all huffy because competition and efficiency force them to work harder.
Suddenly, free enterpise becomes bullshit, and they start pining for a mercantile economy.
If the value proposition for putting up new lines isn't there, maybe Verizon can just ditch its FIOS roll-out and leave us with really old, worn-out copper wiring that runs dial-up at a blazing 7 kbps.
Why is it the government's job to fix their value proposition?
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Are the censors, spies, and congress in general. They want all sites to register with the government to prevent anyone anywhere to be protected from child porn. They want ALL data to be retained because of kiddie porn, but it will have convenient uses for all the police, spies and nannies in the government. They want to regulate us, nanny us, and tax us out of existence. These issues make the threat from tiered internet seem tame. I don't see these guys standing against the real threat which is from governments. They are getting in bed with the real devil to protect us from the supposed threat from ISPs which we can walk away from with our dollars.
Their primary services work fine on low-bandwidth and high latency connections, so an extortionist ISP would have to threaten to cut their customers off from Google entirely.
If an ISP tried extortion, Google could afford to pay, because they're an established company with lots of cash, not a struggling startup anymore.
If an ISP tried extortion, Google could afford to not pay, because they're an established company with a household name, and many people would go back to dialup before they'd lose access to Google search and GMail.
Squint as hard as you can and you might see "vested interests", but the real threat of a crippled (why call it tiered, except to spin the discussion the way the telcos want?) internet isn't to Google, it's to the next Google. If anything, Google has a vested interest in helping telcos lock new competitors out of their networks; luckily for us Google hasn't yet become a "cut off their air supply" sort of company.
Go to the top most toolbar in your browser window, Click 'Help', click 'Help contents', click 'How to get a halfdecent browser'. Now, just do what clippy says.
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
"Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancements Act of 2006."
When will people just stop using their "Clear Skies" aka "Clearly Incorrect" propoganda labels attached to the bills? Just say the bill introduced yesterday which legalizes a tiered internet and removes consumer rights to resell internet services, which from a quick glance seems far more accurate a description. Once they actually introduce it refer to it as HR1126 or whatever its id is. With some alphanumeric id people don't automatically get an opinion without RTFA.
At least put a "so-called" in from of the title. Of course it is kinda handy to just apply "!(Title)" and know what the bill is actually for...
Why? Probably because they've been misinformed, or have misconceptions about how it works.
In just about everything else, we have tiers. High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on highways, premium cable channel programs, priority mail at the post office. People are used to the concept that if you pay more, you get more or better service. Heck, even internet access has tiers - you can pay $10 for dial-up, or you can pay $40 for much faster broadband or DSL.
If you think of the internet as a limited capacity system, the idea of tiered service becomes much more reasonable. Would you want the critical business document you're loading from the central office held up because some other person is hogging all the bandwidth downloading movies? People want to make sure that critical files get where they need to as soon as possible, and are used to spending more to this end.
Picture what would happen if your ISP said that because of increased traffic, not all messages will be sent with equal priority. You'd want to be able to make sure that your stuff got through when you needed it to, even if it meant paying an extra five dollars a month.
All Americans should be especially outraged, considering that these corporations got FREE SUBSIDIES from our tax dollars to lay down all that cable. That's right, all that cable, we paid for it with our money..our tax dollars..now they want to continue to be greedy and get more from the government and the people.
The good news is forces such as MS, Google and etc. are major shareholders as well and have clout. Its all about the money, nothing more. Screw the customer. If congress and the White House are looking for a riot, they sure did pick one.. just waiting to happen.
but let's face it, Vint is hardly an unbiased source
The beauty of rational and objective thought is, I DON'T HAVE TO CARE WHO VINT CERF WORKS FOR!
Vint Cerf has laid out his proposals and assertions, as has Google and the monopolistic telecomm companies. As a rational person, I can decide the veracity of their statements based on the other information at my disposal. I can never know when or if a liar is lying, so the questioning of motives is moot.
This obsession with motives and bias is irrational and leads to subjective decisions, not objective ones. Usually, it is deployed to disingenuously sow doubts about established facts and hide one's own positions from criticism, not that I'm claiming that is the case here. This post appears to be more collateral damage than maliciousness. The point is, I don't have to care what Vint Cerf's motives are; regardless of the fact that he has in fact acted with far more integrity about what's good for the Internet than any telecom. You will never find an unbiased opinion, bias is another word for goals and no action takes place without a goal, therefore an unbiased opinion is a myth. To search for an objective view is biased in itself.
All that is required to maintain rational integrity is to be transparent about what goals you assume in your assertion. Vint Cerf has made his goals clear, to build a useful network. The telecoms have made their goals clear, to profit as much as possible off this network; they don't shout it, they disclose this type of information more appropriately, like in statements to investors. If my goal is to use a useful network, then I can evaluate each parties assertions accordingly.
IMNSHO, this increase is relativistic irrationality can be tracked closely with the Intelligent Design movement's efforts to wreck science. This is an example of how one of their tactics is dumbing the entire nation down. They've been running a scorched earth policy against reason for years, their efforts have paid off when the nihilistic and relativist garbage they've used for ID has seeped into the veins of public discourse.
For the sake of objective thought, mod the parent down.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
I am pushing our town to include a Network Neutrality provision in Verizon's cable TV franchise agreement. I feel this is the best way to advance the Network Neutrality issue. The telecoms will steamroll the politicians at the state and federal level, but we stand a chance at the local level.
It's simple. We say to the telecoms: If you want to run a cable franchise in our town then you need our permission. If you want out permission then you will agree to respect the tenets of Network Neutrality.
Please visit my website to follow what we are doing at the local level.
http://www.redbanktv.org/
Tom@redbanktv dot org
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with heart of neutrality?
The pipes in question run through public spaces and the public can renegotiate or cancel the contract any time they want. The pipes in question amount to a natural monopoly and the free market is not the most efficient mechanism for managing such monopolies. It does matter what the majority thinks about rights because rights are created by people. There are no natural rights, only those we agree to uphold in others. Certainly, rights need to be enforced equitably, but see my above two points as to why telco's property rights do not trump my own rights in this case. There's no slippery slope here, no one is going to use this as an excuse to seize your assets.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
AFAICT, AT&T has got major Tax Breaks to put lines in. That amounts to tax payers PAYING AT&T huge amounts of money (because the money has to come from somewhere) to put those lines in.
Now AT&T is wanting the User, the person you are connecting to, and the person you are connecting to if it is a popular site, to pay more money.
So they are wanting a brand new revenue stream coming from the same people that are already paying a premium for their bandwidth. Google has to have some massive pipes that they are paying for, as does EVERY single major player in the internet.
Why should they be charged MORE than they already are for the massive bandwidth, because people use their sites more?
It seems like AT&T is becoming the new Mafia. "Yous wanted to connect faster, that'll be another $5000 in "Pipe money". Not out in the OPEN!!! Under the table, quickly now, I have to hit up Amazon next. Thanks, see you in a couple minutes.
Scott Carr
Good point. But what do we do when the big ISPs SILENTLY limit access to content they don't provide? In a crippled Internet where not all the nets are connected together, will we even be able to find a provider that lets us access everything the way we do now? That is the problem we are talking about, not the idea that paying more money gets you better service.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"Your Honour, the council for the defendent has misspoken."
Read the (proposed) bill. The pipes in question are the pipes which are run over public rights-of-way and for which (currently) a privately-owned company must apply to a local governmental entity for a right (franchise) to use. These are the 'last mile' pipes. They may own the pipes, but the pipes are (or would be) run along poles, buried under roads, or transmitted through the spectrum which we all own collectively.
This bill would allow such a private company to bypass the local control by applying for a national franchise.
If this were only about what private companies can do with their own pipes, the FCC would not be involved.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Does it bother anyone that this coalition decided to publish their opinions under a dotcom (.com) TLD? So they're a for-profit company? Shouldn't they use a .net or .org ? It's okay to register a domain under multiple TLDs but they should point to the main one and in this case I disagree with .com being the catchall TLD.
.com TLDs... hmmmm are they actually selling kidnapped kids to slavery as a for-profit business model?
That being said, I see a lot of missing children websites being registered under
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
I wish you the very best of fortune in this endeavor, but fear that it won't be quite that simple.
First, if the CableCo does discriminate against packets, you'll have to prove it. This can be quite difficult, depending on how the CableCo decides to set up its routing tables (City Hall gets full bandwidth on all packets, 'cause that's where investigations would be launched).
Next, when you move to fine the CableCo or revoke their franchise, they'll hang you up in lawsuits for 12 years, arguing all the way to the Supreme Court that the Network Neutrality provision in the franchise contract was
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Does it bother anyone that this coalition decided to publish their opinions under a dotcom (.com) TLD? No. TLDs including .net and .org as currently set up are very silly, and it is natural for people to not respect them. People tend to look under .com, and it should be just as natural to look under .us or .eu.
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC. So who fixes the crappy powerbook I bought. AppleCare won't repair.
In just about everything else, we have tiers.
No, see, those are different. I buy 2mbps/256kbps DSL. I should get something approximating that speed when possible. Google buys 500mbps/500mbps whatever. They should get something approximating that speed when possible. I paid for my tier, google paid for their tier. What these people want is for google to ALSO pay for my tier, in addition to what I already paid for my tier.
The problem is that the ISPs are wanting to create new barriers to use the bandwidth that we paid for. Google's got plenty of bandwidth from their ISP(s), I've got plenty of bandwidth from my ISP, and the ISPs certainly have plenty of bandwidth between them, but if Google doesn't pay my ISP, then I can only use Google at 1kbps.
Personally, I think its fraud. I'm hoping that Google resists shelling out the cash and that I can measure the difference in some way so that I can sue my ISP for intentionally degrading the performance of the service I'm paying for below the levels they promised to me.
You'd want to be able to make sure that your stuff got through when you needed it to, even if it meant paying an extra five dollars a month.
How many thousands of ISPs are there in the world? You say $5 a month as if thats anywhere near what they're thinking of charging. If all of them decided to charge for access into their network from the outside, google could be paying millions of dollars a month just to make sure that their stuff "got through" to the customers of all those ISPs. Maybe you misunderstand, maybe you think "get my critical document through" is a service you're buying from your ISP, but whats being proposed is that you'd have to buy this service from all the other ISPs your "critical document" might need to go to.
If you want an analogy, it's like you have a company shipping a package to a customer in an apartment. Your company pays FedEx, FedEx ships the package, the package arrives at the apartment's front desk. Now, the apartment manager calls you to tell you it would be a terrible shame if the package didn't make it to the customer, and that just $20 will help protect it from being "lost". Just as in the ISP case, there is no actual reason that the package should not make it to the hands of your customer (and seriously, when was the last time you had trouble getting the google website to load while your internet connection was working? Do you think google paying up will make your internet connection go down less?) and yet here is some thug who insinuates something bad will happen if you don't pay up. You paid fedex to ship it, the customer paid the apartment manager for a mailbox, what does this extra money actually buy?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
It seems to me that the debate is really over who gets to decide what is in each tier. There is finite bandwidth. Maybe for example comcast will have to move to a model where I pay more for a larger average MB/month in some way, just as I now pay more for larger instantaneous MB/sec. Then I will decide whether google, or microsoft, or comcast, or whatever gets priority (most of) with my limited total bandwidth each month. Maybe these are the kind of tiers you are imagining. This is very different from google, or microsoft, or comcast having to pay comcast to even get access to me. Then the control is in comcast's hands, and they will presumably be tempted to give themselves an advantage. Imagine if a few companies could control how fast other companies could drive on roads. Those companies would instantly get a large amount of power. In that respect, the internet seems to be no different.
Google Cache. Always helpful.
Troll? Hardly. Nobody is ALLOWED to respond to my comments. I said so. That is the opposite of trolling.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!