Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent's Bram Cohen against Network Neutrality
wigwamus writes "BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen warns on potential 'absurdity' of Network Neutrality laws and concedes that his hook-up with Cachelogic is creating a system that might contravene Network Neutrality. He suggests there'd be no difference between big media footing the bill for their own upload costs of their offerings and subsidizing the consumer's download costs of the same."
...but, with all due respect, when organizations as diverse as Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, moveon.org, the NRA, the Christian Coaliation and the EFF all actually agree on Net Neutrality, you must be barking up the wrong tree.
Sure, laws on this subject need to very carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences. And the American Lawmakers have a long record of messing up in that respect. But I believe -- with all the above-mentioned organizations, that Net Neutrality has to be respected.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Just Google for "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal" by Bruce Kushnick. It's not exactly a secret.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The Supreme Court ruled on this some time ago - common carrier status doesn't apply to internet service providers offerings because their offerings are considered to be "information services" rather than "telecommunications services" under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That's not to say I don't think they *should* be considered common carriers, but under current law they're not.
The Court's opinion can be found here. (PDF file)
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I'm not going to debate the issue. But as it stands now, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, Christian Coalition, Associated Press, Gun Owners of America, MoveOn, the Christian Coalition, financial groups such as National Association of Federal Credit Unions, America's Community Bankers, American Bankers Association and Independent Community Bankers of America, and the typical EFF and ACLU, and yes, even Moby and Michael Stipe all support this. And ya know, i gotta support what Moby does.. ;)
Seriously though, this issue is pulling together people who would never side with one another. From the land of geekdom, to financial sectors, hollywood, online content providers, religious groups, conservative and liberal groups, the press and financial firms. If congress doesn't listen to this loud voice rising up.. I'll give up hope for this nation because rarely do you see people come together like this. Rarely do you see this many organizations agree over such an issue.
What have you been smoking? Show me the last time in the last 50 years that any major telco or cable company did anything truly innovative or worthwhile with that much "free" money (i.e. money that was not earned, such as government grants, write-offs, tax breaks, customer rate hikes and the like) like investing in infrastructure (which is THEIR responsilbility not ours) or designing vastly quicker transmssion methods.
Virtually all major innovation in the telco arena has come from competition and startups who were willing to take risks. Gov't subsidies, like old style welfare, does not encourage innovation or effort at improvement; it does the opposite.
Given past performance on the part of major telcos and cable providers (and that's pretty much all that is left), how can customers paying more for the same services now, with the promise of *much* better services later, be anything but laughable?
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
The extended audio of the interview (just over 4 minutes long) is on the Newsnight 26th May podcast, buried 26 mins 30 seconds in. On itunes at: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewPodcast?id=136697142&s=143444&i=5973421
Your comment applies to telcols, cable companies, and other utilities, but it does not explain other large companies like Microsoft and Walmart, which use their size to keep competitors out (although government anti-trust legistlation supposedly makes that behavior illegal). Another problem with a 100% free market is transparency. In our current system, publicly traded companies have to tell the truth about their accounting (in theory). Also, they cannot lie in advertising (once again, in theory).
Centralization breaks the internet.
Here is your reference: Wisconsin Senator Robert W. Kasten Jr., Judge Jim Gray, Libertarian opponent to CA Sen. Barbara Boxer, Wyoming Senator Craig Thomas in a Senate statement, The Reason Magazine, and probably more.
" subsidizing the consumer's download costs of the same."
Pardon me, but isn't the subscription fee for the DSL/Cable Modem/T1/Microwave connection supposed to cover bandwidth costs?
Yes, you say?
Ah, thought so. In that case, net neutrality is the only thing that makes sense. What the providers can do is, hmm, let me think. . . oh wait, I know! How about offering tiered connection speeds? E.g., 768 Kbps/128 Kbps for a small monthly fee, 3 Mbps/768 Kbps for a slightly higher monthly fee, and 7.1mbps/1.5mbps or faster for a higher fee?
What, providers already offer tiered services, you say? Oh my fucking GOD, they already HAVE their solution in place! Here's a hint Verizon/comcast/TW/Adelphia/Cox/Rogers/Etc: how about realizing you offer tiered services (or if you don't already, OFFER them) then you have your solution. Don't pile on yet more fees. If your subscription prices don't cover the costs of your infrastructure, then you need to revisit your pricing structures to begin with.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
How can things like IPTV come into being if companies like Verizon are barred from building up and reserving the capacity to provide them?
And how did we ever end up with DSL and Broadband? If I was still using 300 Baud dialup, then you might have a case. But I don't, and your argument holds no water.
Why should Google, Microsoft, etc. be allowed access to that bandwidth since it's not impeding their ability to provide their services? Not allowing the telecoms and other large ISPs to do this would akin to not allowing Google to invest in dark fibre for its own purposes. Hmmm is that the smell of hypocrisy among the slashdot crowd once again?
No, the smell is the B.S. coming out of your fingers. Microsoft, Google, etc. already pay for their bandwidth usage, and the more they use, the more they pay, just like everyone else.
- the home user already pays for bandwith - last I checked if I want increased bandwidth I have to pay for it.
- the ISP already pays for increased bandwidth to the Telcos
- the ASP already pays for increased bandwidth. (example: Youtube pays $1 million a month for it's bandwidth usage).
The content companies have no right to the entire network
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The *end* user has the right to access whatever content provider they want, without a Telco surcharge. As a consumer, I neither want to nor should I have to choose between using Google or A9 or MSN search based on a surcharge. Period.
Telcos have no right to Balkanize the internet. This is a naked money grab by the Telcos. If they win, the average consumer loses, pure and simple.