Slashdot Mirror
Two-Tier Internet & The End of Freedom of Speech
Max Fomitchev writes "The proposed Two-Tier Internet bill threatens not only to raise prices on goods and services served online but also to seriously hamper free speech on Internet by allowing telecom providers choking user pages and blogs not associated with major content providers. What a perfect way of censorship..."
QUOTE:
"While Net Neutrality bill sounds like overkill, two-tier Internet bill is ought to be stopped too. If it passes freedom of speech would be seriously hampered, startups and small businesses will take a hit and we will pay higher prices for online advertising as well as goods and services delivered or sold over Internet. Do we really want that? I think not."
His conclusions in the article are dead on correct. Though I disagree with his opinion on net-neutrality.
The beauty of the internet, in my opinion, is it's ability to link people together while allowing an even playing field for small business. These have been the greatest social and economic impact points of the new technology era. Sadly, once it becomes tiered it also becomes discriminatory based on economic factors.
Sure, your blog can be seen, but if it get's too popular you'll have to pay more...
Sure, you can start a small business, but if it get's too busy you'll have to pay more...
The idea that no one "owns" the net itself should be inviolate. I already am charged for the bandwidth that comes off my servers because of the cost incurred by my ISP for upstream bandwidth.
A tiered internet would be the same as keeping the peasants out of libraries. It's a huge step *backwards*.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
REDACTED
This content is not on your Premium Plan.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
So with this what's the difference between the USA and China? We are supposed to have Freedom of Speech, but I guess not.
Only the government can "censor" anyone. ISPs routinely "censor" content, and have no restrictions on doing so.
Remember: Your right to "free speech" does NOT come with a corresponding right to be heard.
Else why don't I have my own late-night talk show on a major network?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Since many a blogger rails hardest against corporations and their associated ilk, it makes sense for them tot ry and limit it. What is in the interest of business is a society whose information comes from marketers.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Blogger with crap beard rants incoherently about Freedom.
Film at 11.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
telcos argue that they want to curb proliferation of online video and other types of data-hungry streaming that allegedly taxes their networks they think imposing traffic fees on content providers would be a fair solution. So ISP's (not TELCO's since not all ISP's are necessarily TELCO's) want to impose sort of a private highway fee for passing bandwidth through their networks... Its surprising to see which one of these clowns will be the first to stick it to the next one. Since all networks rely on another one to pass their information through their pipes (peering), I wonder how long before one de-peers with another and breaks the Internet again (see: Who broke *.org).
I wonder what idiotic government officials while having their pockets greased will do their emails no longer come in but instead they receive a hostage notification from their provider: Dear Mr. President, under subsection 1(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Draconian Telecommunications Act, we cannot deliver today's messages. Please pay the sum of a) bandwidth b) tax fees c) attorney fees d) greaser fees in order to release your messages.
Infiltrated dot Net
There are quite a few people out there - not just representatives of the telecommunications industry - under the impression that "Government Intervention Is Bad", hence we should all oppose network neutrality legislation. But this bill underscores the fact that government intervention by itself isn't necessarily bad - it's how government intervenes that determines whether the right or wrong thing is being done.
So let's all drop this nonsense about claiming that the government shouldn't be intervening in how the Internet works, and get back to the core of the matter - which is whether the telecommunications industry should be allowed to leverage its oligopoly position in the broadband ISP market to extract profit from content providers that don't even connect to them directly, and whether the industry should be allowed to discriminate based on traffic type and content, rather than pricing by bandwidth consumption alone.
Put the fear of god in them. Do not let them take this lightly. For this is YOUR ass on the plate.
Read radical news here
Unless you have not heard, Verizon, AT&T, Bell South and other telecommunications giants are lobbying Congress to establish a legal basis for charging website owners for traffic with the help of two-tier Internet.
Sweet. So as long as we haven't heard about it, they're not actually doing it??? Then WTH is Slashdot doing, posting this crap and ruining the Internet for all of us?
Just some opinions. He does not even mention recent blow to foes of Internet neutrality.
Too sads one of the administrators is Max Fomichev's fanboy.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You'd think the telecos would have more pressing things to be worried about. Perhaps the perception the public has of them no longer matters to the machine.
1. From a "free speech" point of view, how is this any different than than your local newspaper's editorial policy? Some newspapers just won't print some kinds of content, even if the author is willing to pay for the service.
2. Does this form of content limitation take away any of the rights you had before the dawn of email? Back in the day, we wrote pen & paper letters because it was the only option. Today, although letters are (probably) more secure, because they are not subject to the kind of keyword data mining that can be conducted on electronic communications, we seem stuck on email. Do we need to be?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
I never understand why ISPs just want to charge more. Do they really just want to earn more money? Or do they really have a problem with current plans?
Slashdotters know well the difference between the 2 free: gratis and freedom.
But it seems that the conflict is not confined to the open source space.
Companies don't care much for free as in freedom, one way or the other, but they fight free as in gratis like the plague.
Meanwhile, the rest of the people (in general) want to have it both ways. Thus the conflict. Freedom gets hurt because people don't want to pay for want others want to charge for.
The whole thing is really a tradeoff - lower prices for targeted, sponsored content. It's like TV - you can pay for commercial-free content, or be cheap about it and be forced to watch commercials.
What happens if I happen to access a US server? Will my ISP be charged extra for the services offered by the website? If yes I think all US centric websites are screwed. The content will just move to international waters like most US MNC's who are incorporated in tax free zones. The internet does not revolve around the US you know.
then ...
Because 2 mean the same thing. Same goes for "having a brain does not guarantee that you might be allowed to think" too.
If you do not protect your rights, there are always people who will not hesitate to reap you off of them.
Read radical news here
So, is there some sort of online petition against this? Emails or lists of Congress people who support and oppose this?
I mean, we all know Congress is working soooo hard for us....
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Sorry, but a rambling and unsubstantiated opinion piece, and a short one at that, hardly qualifies as a call for action.
Commerce in action ensures that bandwidth providers will want to be paid more, and bandwidth consumers will want to pay less.
Will prices go up for popular stuff? Probably, but this is hardly news or even unexpected.
Will ISPs and their upchannel bandwidth suppliers charge more for increased badnwidth consumption? Sure, but this is hardly new or unexpected either.
Really folks, this is old news and has been discussed in a much more sensible fashion elsewhere. If you really care about providing really, really cheap Internet access to all, get busy and revive the old FreeNet movement. Or start throwing money at your elected representatives to influence their votes.
Three Squirrels
They would piss off their customers. They may provide premium content - such as streaming video - from privileged 'partner' sites. And non-partner sites offering similar high bandwidth content may become less popular because the quality won't be as good.
But no ISP is going to stop providing access to any content. And certainly not low bandwidth stuff like news and opinion sites.
I really wish the government could just let well enough alone instead of completely fucking up the economy by way of fucking up the internet.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Why is it assumed that the internet is the common property of all mankind? Certainly the infrastructure owned by governments around the world is held to one standard, but why do we assume that verizon, quest, etc somehow "owe" us? The internet is a commercial entity. Laying all that fiber was paid for (mostly) by companies expecting a reasonable ROI. The way to voice your opinion is with your wallet. Cancel your service.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Yes, the article has a point, but being as it is nothing more than a rant - and much like the average /. article, I suppose - I would not put too much trust into it. If someone could find a better source, then maybe, but come on people...
Besides, we all know that this really could not work. No one owns the internet, and that is what these things always come down to.
My ISP can charge me to access the internent, and that's fine.
My web host can charge me to be hosted, and that's fine.
But you really can't even think that it would be possible for Your ISP to charge me to be seen, it just wouldn't work.
Try the logistics...
Besides, there are always google mirriors...
you've always been able to say whatever you wanted to as long as you were willing and able to pay the price. Challenge the King? Die. Challenge the Empire? Die. This time all they want is cold hard cash. I'd say the price of speech has gotten cheaper.
[signature]
In a distant way, that's kind of ironic.
back to my cave now. Bad, bad troll...
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
If you feel your privacy is important to you, join an encrypted darknet such as AnoNet and speak your mind freely:
http://anonetnfo.brinkster.net/
I don't know about you, but I am HIGHLY suspicious of the government's ability to do anything sensical when it comes to technology, and I can think of nothing worse than a law being passed to correct some theoretical problem that DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST and might never exist.
What would happen if Congress tried to pass some Net Neutrality Law? Since there isn't any kind of ACTUAL problem now, I'm sure the bill would undoubtedly screw stuff up through the law of unintended consequences.
Congress would insert all kinds of special provisions that would benefit some group at the expense of others, all kinds of new technology would become illegal, and lawsuits would proliferate. Who knows what would happen, the point is that when congress acts on technology (eg. the DMCA) they are likely to create a huge mess and things better be PRETTY DAMN bad before Congress can do more good than harm.
I think that if the internet does end up tiered, website owners should put a message on their sites that appears only to users connecting from tiered-supportive ISPs that states something along the lines this:
"Your ISP wants to charge us for your visit to our site... but you've already paid them to do so!!! Maybe it's time for you to consider switching to an ISP that is not so greedy! Here are a few honorable ISPs you should check out:
example
example
example"
Sure, there will still be ignorant users, primarily AOL subscribers, but I think this will get the message through well enough for educated users to make a dent in the pockets of the money grubbing ISPs.
That's it. I'm sending in the ninjas.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
originally, television was supposed to serve the public as well. The government allowed companies to "rent" airspace for programming and in exchange promised to provide a public service in the form of news. We all know how that turned out. Now it looks like the companies are going to repeat the same thing with the internet, and because they control access, there is little anyone can do to stop them.
Fool me once...shame on you, fool me twice...won't be fooled again (our president)
I believe Michael Douglas said it best in the flick Wall Street... "The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works... It's never enough for Wall Street." Corporations will milk consumers for everything they got, for as long as they can, for as much as they can get away with. With Jr. and Dick in the White House, that's a lot.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I've got to say, I have trouble with charging content providers even once, so I completely agree with this criticism of the proposed "revenue enhancing" technologys for the megacorps.
I used to post commentary to Salon's TableTalk until they changed their revenue policy to charge people who posted stuff for the right to post. People who posted stuff? They're a magazine. It seems absurd to charge writers but not subscribers. So I left. Obviously it didn't bring the empire down, but my point was to say "look, I'm not going to pay two ways: one by providing content and another by providing money to have that content delivered". People come to the site to read posts, and they charge advertisers for that. Getting readers is enough payment for me.
Similarly here, I think it's amazing that if you have a web site that is full of content, the internet has no mechanism to make sure you are economically rewarded. The promise of micropayments for having put up very elaborate sites full of information was never carried through because the big portal sites realized they could just take all that money for themselves--why pass it through? No one cares that it's my or your commentary that people are getting out of their browser. They just thank AOL or MSN or Google for finding it for them. And we who provide the myriad little details, blogs, maps, lists, and other things that make up the real fabric of the internet are not only not rewarded but are charged.
So when you talk about double-charging for that privilege, not single-charging, at some point I have to say everyone should go read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged , in which something very similar occurs, and what amount to "content providers" eventually say "enough is enough". Ayn Rand is controversial for her overall broad philosophy of Objectivism, which lots of people don't buy into wholesale. But I'm not advancing Objectivism here. I'm just saying the basic premise of the book, that sometimes enough is enough, is worth considering. The book is an interesting read regardless of your position on her larger scale philosophies.
And I'm all for creating reasonable fees on the Internet. I just don't think authors and other content providers should be charged for doing so. That's the very definition of not reasonable. Sort of like having kids charge their parents for raising them. Or charging teachers for the privilege of teaching. If no one reads the content someone provides, the cost of that content approaches zero since it's just a few bytes on an unused disk. If lots of people read them, then by definition the content contributes a lot to the world, and the world should contribute by each consumer chipping in, not by each consumer contributing to the content provider's eventual bankruptcy (or in less severe cases just negatively contributing to their financial success).
Also, I like Jesse Ventura's "government should do for people what they cannot do for themselves". The big portal companies are already capable of a great many sins; the mere presence of money enables that. What the law needs to protect are the individual content providers, who are not capable of protecting themselves because often they are denied (or made to work unreasonably hard for) any revenue stream from their efforts. If there's a need for a law, it's to protect the little guy, not to enable the big one.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Does anyone know of a mirror for the parent comment?
With two tier you've got to cash-out to cable providers if you want to ride 'high-bandwidth' channel and make sure that your pages are served fast and clear, whereas if you are a cash-strapped nobody like most of us you would be stuck to an auxiliary channel choked with spam, porn and god knows what else.
So would slashdot swim with the spam & pron?
Freedom of speech is violated when there are legal consequences from government for saying what you think. This is not that. We had freedom of speech before the internet even existed, I don't see how we're losing it with a tiered system. Don't misunderstand, I don't agree with or like the "tiered" internet approach, but this hyperbolic language about what is and is not a loss of basic human rights is not conductive to the debate. It trivializes TRUE abuses and suspensions of human rights, and clouds the issue in people's minds. When people don't understand what something is, they can't make intelligent decisions about it.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
I got an email (genuine, not spam) from EBay this morning encouraging users to write to congress about this. It links you to this page: http://www.ebaymainstreet.com/takeaction/?campaign _id=neutrality1
ISPs have a small, but measurable desire to keep their own customers happy through means such as not blocking off all their favorite sites. I doubt they'll spend much time trying to squeeze blood from turnips before realizing the futility of it.
Mod me troll if you will. But we already have a 2-tiered legal system in the US, so why not a 2-tiered internet? Makes perfect sense if you think about it.
Apologies if I'm sounding too cynical, but when I see articles like this and the one on whistle-blowers today it's hard to remain very optimisitc about our future.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
The difference is that most Chinese citizens realize they have limited freedoms. Most Americans, on the other hand, don't understand that yet. They'll spout on and on about their supposed freedom and liberty, while at the same time actively watching it be slowly eroded. Sometimes they're even happy to see it go, especially when told it'll bring them "national security".
Some moderators need to read moderation guidelines
Is it POSSIBLE to disagree with net neutrality and not get modded down?!?!?!?
My post is fair, reasonable, logical, and not hysterical. If you disagree with someone, then you post a reply; you don't mod them down or mark something as a troll when it isn't.
irony
There's nothing wrong with paying more for better service, for example a connection to a bigger pipe. That being said, this isn't what's happening. Rather, it's that you would be forced to pay for a transit-party (between you, your own ISP, and the client connecting to your site) to not degrade the regular connection. The problem is, that the connection has already been paid for. On the end of the client... to their ISP by them. If they don't want to pay for a higher-speed connection, then with dial-up or low-speed they will get overall lower performance. Fair enough
On your end, you have bandwidth and pipe limits imposed by your ISP. If you want more, you pay for the bigger package. Again, it depends on what service contract you choose.
What should not happen, is that the client's ISP will bill you (after the client is already paying for service) not to choke off your access. This also applies to the midpoints in the connection, and somebody has already footed the bill.
It's double-dipping, and it's extortion. It also strays far from the concept of an ISP being somewhat of a common carrier, and shows blatently that the can (and will abuse the ability to) monitor and/or restrict specific traffic.
If this passes it will be a dark day for the internet indeed... but if it does my hopes are that the first ones to try it will be hammered so mercilessly (lost customers, complaints, legislation, and banner ads everywhere proclaiming to existing customers that their ISP is evil) that the idea will quickly lose it's appeal.
That being said, perhaps we can create a master-pool of ISP's that use said service. In that case we could create something similiar to an anti-spam list wherein customers will get a memo stating "connections to this site will suffer extremely slowness and loss of quality because your ISP 'ASSHATINTERNETCO' is limiting your connection. Click here [link] for more information". I'd be happy to pop those up on my site, and it's easy enough with SHTML, etc.
Anyone in?
The pro-freedom approach would be to let fiber owners (telcoms) charge whomever and whatever they want to use the lines that THEY OWN. If these telcos start charging content providers, the cost may be shifted to users, but new companies would start laying more fiber to grab some of the profits, and the increased competition would bring prices back down in the long run. Plus, there'd be a lot more line capacity out there, which would not happen with "net neutrality".
If it were up to this guy, bookstores couldn't charge different prices for different books--that would amount to abridging "freedom to read" by his logic.
Freedom of speech means you can speak freely. It DOES NOT mean that you are entitled to be provided with the means (internet, microphone, megaphone) to speak.
Also: at the 3rd paragraph, this guy admits he's a socialist, so his credibility to talk about freedom is GONE.
Remember: Your right to "free speech" does NOT come with a corresponding right to be heard.
What the article is saying -- and what it's hard to argue against in practical terms, rather than the abstract principle you're invoking -- is that we currently have the ability to publish affordably, and it's a good thing. If you assume that free speech is not only a *right*, but has *value* to society (if for no other reason than allowing good ideas and dialogue to emerge), it's easy to see we're in a positive state of affairs. Anybody with access to a computer and the ability to sign up for cheap hosting or a free blogger account can publish to a wide audience. This is a new and pretty fantastic state of affairs, and not only that, it's *fair*. The telcos aren't somehow getting ripped off in the status quo -- they set rates for providing bandwidth and are paid for it.
The telco proposal would not, as you point out, violate anyone's "right to free speech." It would, however, violate one principle on which the law is written: that not only should people be safe from redaction or retribution from their government for discussing ideas, a society that allows and cultivates free speech and exchange of ideas reaps benefits closed societies don't.
And whether the society becomes more closed by economic means or state authority doesn't make much difference.
Tweet, tweet.
1. Charge users pay for internet access
2. Charge content providers for hosting
3. Charge content providers for hosting (?)
4. ???
5. Destroy universe?
Is it censorship to not have the best access to the front page of the news paper, the best storefront, the best story placement in a newscast? Do these physical universe examples apply to the Internet?
Is the two tier setup meaning that currently available sites would continue with the current level of bandwidth, and only certain people would get better bandwidth service if they pay for it? or would the quality of their service decrease? If it decreases, how is this different from having a low bandwidth server like geocities? or getting slashdotted?
Is the 2nd tier Internet 2?
It probably is not fair to be marginalized. But is this censorship?
Is the lack of a free ride censorship?
I am so confused
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Let's not forget that the Internet, and computers in general, have all been developed almost exclusively at public expense for most of their lifetimes, and by all rights should remain in the public sector.
...
/ stories/14253975.htm
"As Andrew L Shapiro, a contributing editor of the Nation, wrote in July, 1995: ``You probably didn't notice, but the Internet was sold a few months ago. Well, sort of. The US Federal Government has been gradually transferring the backbone of the US portion of the global computer network to companies such as IBM and MCI as part of a larger plan to privatize cyberspace. But the crucial step was taken on April 30, 1995, when the National Science Foundation shut down its part of the Internet, which began in the 1970s as a Defence Department communications tool. That left the corporate giants in charge....''
The telecommunication infrastructure was largely created at Government initiative for about 30 years, including both hardware and software, then handed over to private corporations in 1995. It is true that so-called `private' corporations (meaning, profit is privatized, though cost and risk are largely socialized) were often instrumental in R&D, but typically under Government contract. The basic ideas came from the public sector, as did the funding. That includes the Web, designed at CERN, but in the US the public contribution was overwhelming, as in the case of computers and electronics generally, in fact most of high tech. The system was run by the Pentagon, later the National Science Foundation (NSF). The real question should be the opposite: Why should private corporations be granted a huge gift by the public (which is unaware that it has done so)."
http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2000/07/25
In 2001 when the .bomb was causing router companies (there were like 4 startups + the big 2) to drop like flies I proposed to a friend that we do a router company. He thought I was nuts until I told him I wanted to make a core router that could crack each and every packet and make routing/QoS choices based on what is in the packet. He ask why and I said "So INSERT TELCO HERE can charge Yahoo more to make sure that their packet is favored over Google." He said, "Naw the net is neutral. They government would never let them do that." I wish I had started that company now.
-Sean (http://www.beastproject.org/)
Wank fest about the Evil Bush, the world ending, and how everyone is spied on. All we need is someone talking about Al Gore and Global Warming.
Did it ever occur to you fucks that if it was anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be, then you would not be able to post the crap you do on Slashdot?
Well this is no different than turning public easements of land in to private property and charging your neighbor a fee for the electricity that flows over the wires on your easement. Some things are public domain for a reason. Did you know that if you wanted to open a public service like a water company or an electric company you could run the wires to any home you wanted via easements? Whats the reason for removing Internet easments? What about Roads? What about other public property? The Internet is ours not theirs. let's kick AT&T and Verizon off the Internet! Sounds stupid but they have no problems saying the same thing about you.
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
Okay, I'm curious about this.
I thought originally the point of the tiered Internet was to make sure that when you made phone calls through Skype, which genuinely consume a lot of bandwidth, or when you're downloading video, that extra money was paid to help pay throughout the whole net for the extra bandwidth.
In other words, let's say I send a phone call through Skype's servers. I'm not paying any more to my telco or cableco for them to do this. I'm just paying Skype and Skype is paying their own ISP, not my local ISP, even though my local ISP is carrying all the extra traffic load. This is especially galling for the Telco because this used to be revenue at $ 0.05 a minute and now it's not giving them one thin dime, even though they are providing the bandwidth for it to happen!
This seems like it is in fact inequitable. If my local ISP was a small business it might well have trouble affording the bandwidth being used, and you might have some sympathy for them. But the Evil Telcos have taken away all that business, and so now we have the Evil Telcos suffering, and few feel sorry for an Evil Telco.
Now, what's strange is that the promotional materials for the two-tier Internet say that Google, Microsoft and others should be paying. But at least in terms of the services they are best known for, there should be no need for them to pay. Surely everyone realizes that Google's search, email and Earth, and Microsoft's various web sites, consume "fair" amounts of bandwidth. There is no reason in the world for Google, or your local blog (unless it's high-bandwidth video-based) to have to pay extra for a service we are all paying for equitably. In other words, the "Tier 2" QOS, which I would expect would be similar to what we have now, would be more than ample for their needs.
If there is a two-tier Internet, where video and telephony applications are on the top tier and web sites, email and most other services are on the bottom, it really doesn't seem unfair to me. In fact, it might vastly improve the quality of the top-tier applications to the point where we would be a great deal happier with them than we are now. Surely this is not so bad?
But then why are Google and craigslist afraid of this? Craigslist is about the lowest bandwidth site in the history of mankind and a two-tier model should not have even the slightest impact on their business.
If you would be willing to pay a bit more for an Internet phone call (say $40 a month instead of $30) to get better quality audio and video, then you might actually want the two-tier Internet to work.
Or perhaps Two-Tier doesn't work as I imagine? If you know, please clue me in. It seems like it could be a fair arrangement that would serve everyone well if it's as I've described.
D
When the telcos/cablecos can charge higher rates to other content or service providers than their own competing departments, and/or reduce the performance of those competitors over the Net, those Net operators will choke the competition out of existence.
That divide and conquer tactic has been the favorite telco strategy since forever. Remember what happened to competing DSL providers? Say goodbye to independent content/service providers.
--
make install -not war
Reading the referenced article, I dont see any indication that there's a "Two-Tiered Internet" bill in Congress right now. All it said was that the lobbyists are trying to get one to happen, not that they had succeeded. And I havent seen any other good indication that any such thing has occurred. Had it happened, im sure the EFF would have already jumped on that like white on rice.
/. but also in the community (requires + 5 resistance to sunlight). Get out, and spread the word about how our elected representation is robbing us of our rights, and handing them over to the big corporations for the highest bid.
Bottom line is we just need to stay sharp. Pound the hell out of your Congressman/Senator's Door/Phone/Email and tell them what you expect to be done. They work for *YOU* afterall, not for the big corporations (or at least thats the way its *supposed* to be, not always the way it works these days).
If they violate your trust, and keep their own agenda, then FIRE THEM. Vote them out. If a suitable candidate cant be found, dont vote for that office. Believe me, the statistics will show if a group strongly opposes one or more candidates when they see that X number came to the polls on election day, and of those X number, theres a big difference in how many people actually voted for either of the corrupt candidates, and how many didnt.
It will send a message.
In the meantime, make some noise, and not just here on
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
U.S. people! Blow your Congrssmans' ear off!!
Why don't we just let Dick Cheney do it?
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Everyone get out your trusty multiplexer Bulletin Board Systems are going to be making comeback... 4bit graphics because of 2bit companies!
I just got this letter from our favorite, Rick Santorum:
Dear Mr. Zhrodague:
Thank[sic] for contacting me regarding a tiered Internet system. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.
As you may know, on March 2, 2006, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon introduced S. 2360, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006. This bill would prohibit the interfering with, blocking, degrading, altering, modifying or changing traffic on the Internet. S. 2360 would also prohibit the creating of a priority lane (tiered Internet system) where content providers can buy quicker access to customers, leaving those who do not pay the fee in the slow lane. The Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 aims to ensure that network operators can continue to protect subscribers against unwanted spam, spyware, viruses, pornography and other programs. S. 2360 also provides provisions to help network operators respond to emergencies and court-ordered law enforcement needs.
S. 2360 has been referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation. As I am not a member of this committee, I will not have the opportunity to vote on this bill in its current form. However, should this bill come before the full Senate for a vote, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.
Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.
Sincerely,
Rick Santorum
United States Senate
I got a mail from MoveON.org, and made a few phone calls to those here in PA. I made sure to leave them my name and address. I beg all slashdot readers to call their senators and congresspeople, and voice your opinion. If that still doesn't work, I'll be standing next to you as we storm the Capital en masse.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
If you deduct those last two words from the title of your post, you'd have a effective plan of action.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
and here is the link:
h tml
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/opinion/28sun3.
IMO, the New York Times says it better, but, hey, that's just me.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
I can almost gaurentee that this will pass. Reason being is that one can't hamper online speech as much as they can speech in reality.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
"Net Neutrality" is an attempt by the Telcos to shift their problem to the backs of content providers and end users, leaving nothing but profit for them.
Let's take an example. Verizon and Google seem to be popular. Let's say Google is hosted with AT&T. So now we have Verizon's customers using their bandwidth to access Google on AT&T's network, and not getting any money for it. This in and of itself is false. The customers pay for the access, and if they didn't use it for Google then they would use it elsewhere. Since AT&T is the funnel for the traffic from all other ISPs, they charge Google a large amount. It seems like everyone got their money -- AT&T from Google and Verizon from its customers.
If there were an imbalance it would be up to the ISPs to negotiate between themselves. The content providers pay their bandwidth fees to provide the content and the users pay their fees to get access to everything any content provider (from blogs to Amazon) wish to offer.
I had trouble coming up with an imbalance in this equation, but let's say that somehow the user's bandwidth usage to access Google's content drives Verizon's finances into the red, while AT&T is making a mint. In this case I would say that Verizon needs to negotiate some sort of equalization payment from AT&T that would sound like Verizon to AT&T: "Pay me some relief for all this traffic or I will block access to your network from mine".
The advantage here is that the ISP's problem remains their problem, and doesn't move to any scapegoat(s). There is no tiered network, since the costs would be balanced on a monthly/quaterly/yearly/what-have-you basis.
The US Government is pissing about with this kind of thing because it doesnt have anything better to do. The solution is to get it distracted with something else - how about lobbying to have it start a war with some distance third-world country, or two? ..... what was that?
The problem (for the Telco's/Cable providers) is that they have created a flat rate charging system (for simplicity), and provisioned the capacity which presumes oversubscription of the network. That is, to keep costs low, you build a system which presumes that (on average) most people are not transmitting/receiving content at the same time. If (when) everyone starts downloading realtime (HD) video, that presumption may no longer hold. So, you either need to increase capacity ($$$), or you have to change your charging mechanism (to by the drink?), or you have to start limiting transfer rates to maintain your (net) profit. And while one can argue over the exact costs or profits that are acceptable, no one can argue that it does cost money to provision these services, and expanding the capacity also costs money. The only question is who pays. And while I am not sure the proposed differential charging for QoS (which is what the ISPs are really talking about) is the right way, I think it should be allowed to be experimented with, along with other alternatives (perhaps charging users by the average gigabyte rather than flat rate?) The market will decide the winners/losers.
How are you supposed to get out of poverty when education, transportation, day-care, and now egalitarian speech are too expensive for your budget?
I like that quotation: "While Net Neutrality bill sounds like overkill, two-tier Internet bill is ought to be stopped too."
"is ought to be stopped too"? Nice grammar, Max.
*What* bill? I understand that Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/) isn't always up-to-date, but, really, if there's any "bill" to be stopped, there oughta be an S. or H.R. reference number.
"Hi, I wanted to let Representative Foo know that I oppose the 'Two-Tier Internet bill' and hope she will, too."
"I see. What bill number is that?"
"Uh, I dunno. Max is ought to should said but didn't."
where everybody's post is treated equally and not "hidden" beneath a threshold based on others people's opinion of the post. That would be a form a censorship that would never be allowed in such a free thinking environment like Slashdot.
I could be wrong about this but I understand that his has to do with the ISPs in the middle that dont get paid directly by the website own or customer. Through peering agreements traffic is routed thier thier networks.
So would a site who gets service from one ISP have to pay every tier 1 ISP to get thier content through at a high prioirty?
Too many people on the net? Don't want to spend valuable time and money switching to IPv6? Tired of those pirating commies sucking up your bandwidth to download pornography? Then alienate your customers off the internet! Yes, that's right. With the new Two-Tier Internet bill, you can block whatever content you wish from the prying eyes of the paying public! Anti-Rogers sites, anti-Bell sites, all gone! And with fewer people on the internet, you won't even need IPv6! So long, comrade! This is America, the land of the free! The Internet will be exactly like television, and now with the Two-Tiered Internet Bill, you can make sure that those cheapskate commies stay off those Anti-Bush sites for good! Vote for the Two-Tiered Internet Bill today! After all, the rich only get richer!
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
I read the article and emailed my thought to my Congressional representative: Paul Sarbanes of Maryland. Here is what the web site returned when I submitted the email:
/home/webservd/dead.letter... Saved message in /home/webservd/dead.letter
FORM SUBMITTED SUCCESSFULLY -- Thank You.
Internet... User unknown bill... User unknown
Gee I feel so much better now.
Why did the framers of the Constitution feel the need for the Bill of Rights? No laws where being violated so they could have left it all open and take this course of action (or inaction). Fixing the right to council, free association, etc after they've been "violated" is of little use who got stuck with it.
Other places have neutrality laws and while they aren't aren't "uptopian" they aren't screwed up either. If these telcos want to act as a common carrier and get that protection and benefit then they need to figure out if this is the buisness they want to be in.
Podcasting of content, wether text, audio or video, to a podcatcher with sufficient storage capacity gets around all these problems with alacrity.
They are trying to make the internet a synchronous 'live' feed mostly by exploiting the over capacity, purchased for pennies on the dollar, from the bankruptcy of GlobalCrossing and others who laid untold miles of fibre underground and it remains mostly 'dark'.
The advent of TCP/IP freed us from having to rely on a disruptable, synchronous streaming content delivery system. "'Ma' Bell" couldn't see it and neither can the "Baby Bells" see it now.
Buying into the argument that content needs constant, 'instant' delivery, just like broadcasting is, is at the heart of the problem.
Podcasting/catching can use asynchronous delivery.
As far as I'm concerned, its a win for the podcasters and, since capacity of the catching platforms is growing exponentially, its a win for the podcatchers.
MSBPodcast.com
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I think this also plays into the wet dreams of rightist freaks and liberal loons alike: total informational omniscience. The only way to prevent incessant violations of privacy will be to use distributed random chained proxies with multiple layers of encryption. The government will likely respond by attempting to bully providers out of existance until the courts rule that despite having nothing to hide, that nothing still belongs to the people and not the government.
By then, new encryption and spread-out transmission techniques will be in place and we will be in endless escalation of hiding simple emails full of soup recipees under 16384 bit quadruple key encryption systems.
The multi-tiered net will be left to carry a minor amount of non-encrypted old style traffic and most people will migrate to the encrypted side and the providers can either go out of business as new providers step up to accept and serve the public's desires or they can change their outlook and un-throttle the traffic they can't tell the origin or destination or content of, but suspect is such they should be able to charge more for.
ISPs will pop up who exist just to exchange information with others of their kind which is simply middle-men to mix up the traffic and keep anyone but the sender and receiver from knowing whether it is a text message or a video or music. No one will have any idea where anything is going.
If this is what the government and the telcos want, an endlessly escalating war of encryption and deception, us against them, we will give it to them. We the people will not be denied our websurfing, emailing, video watching and music listening, nor allow ourselves to be farked over and financially raped to fill their pockets or satiate their greed for power and ego.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
What I don't understand is why everyone worries that blogs are under attack in this situation. It's much more likely that the major cable companies and telephone companies have realized the potential for internet phones and Television-over-the-internet, and they're peeing their pants.
Think about it: right now I pay my cable company $40/mo. for the internet, and $40/mo. for cable television (okay, $39.95 each).
But imagine if Comedy Central started broadcasting my favorite shows online, though, like my favorite radio stations already do? I could cancel my cable service, and pay Time Warner half the money (and still be getting virtually the same content)!! So if my cable company (or my phone company, they're under the same threat from internet phones) doesn't double my monthly bill, they lose half their income, immediatamente.
So, I mean, if you really want to be outraged about this tiering business, don't be Chicken Little all freaked out about your favorite blogs. Get angry because the major telephone and cable companies are trying to get Congress to protect their little fiber-optic fannies. If you think it all smells like monopoly enforcement, you're probably right.
But recognize at least that the telcos are being threatened, and all their talk about "using our pipes for free..." is kinda true.
So USA, INC. wants to squeeze every dime out of the citizens (cash cows) where other countries like Japan are trying to get 10gb fiber connections to each home by 2010? So the $3.XX per gallon gas, the 48% taxes, and all of the other fees that raise contantly just aren't enough?
If the prices of consumer goods continue to rise and outsourcing/off shoring the manufacturing processes by American Corporations reduce their overhead and increase profits, added to their tax breaks - where does this balance? You don't need a degree in economics to know that something just ain't right.
personally, I want all the blogs to go away. Or at least for Google to stop indexing them. I remember when a Google search used to return a page full of relevant hits instead of maybe one hit and 9 useless blog posts.
On that subject, I also firmly believe that anyone who uses TrackBack should have his testicles crushed.
Surely the ISP's part of the internet is a private network. They can - should they choose - decide on any arbitrary means to allow other people's packets through. They do already to a minor extent - many of them will block spam. They don't have a two tier internet because until recently there hasn't been any perceived need.
I received a letter from the Ebay CEO today that talked about this very issue (text below). It asked that we fill out a form and the data would be forwarded to itsournet.org who would generate letters and mail them to our representatives. Ebay Email Text: Net Neutrality and the eBay Community: A Call to Action Dear XXXXXXXXXXX, As you know, I almost never reach out to you personally with a request to get involved in a debate in the U.S. Congress. However, today I feel I must. Right now, the telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet. It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future. The phone and cable companies now control more than 95% of all Internet access. These large corporations are spending millions of dollars to promote legislation that would divide the Internet into a two-tiered system. The top tier would be a "Pay-to-Play" high-speed toll-road restricted to only the largest companies that can afford to pay high fees for preferential access to the Net. The bottom tier -- the slow lane -- would be what is left for everyone else. If the fast lane is the information "super-highway," the slow lane will operate more like a dirt road. Today's Internet is an incredible open marketplace for goods, services, information and ideas. We can't give that up. A two lane system will restrict innovation because start-ups and small companies -- the companies that can't afford the high fees -- will be unable to succeed, and we'll lose out on the jobs, creativity and inspiration that come with them. The power belongs with Internet users, not the big phone and cable companies. Let's use that power to send as many messages as possible to our elected officials in Washington. Please join me by clicking here (http://www.ebaymainstreet.com/takeaction/?campaig n_id=neutrality1) right now to send a message to your representatives in Congress before it is too late. You can make the difference.
Thank you for reading this note. I hope you'll make your voice heard today.
Sincerely,
Meg Whitman
President and CEO
eBay Inc.
Sorry wrongo to you! These companies think they are entitled to a two tiered internet by law since the marketplace would probably not support it. They need legislation to force this scheme onto the public. They are more than entitled to institute it otherwise and let the marketplace decide, they just cannot use the law to extort money from individuals and companies for their private purposes.
Precisely the point I was going to make...
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
People can just go and host their web sites overseas. I'm sure the European or Australian ISPs will be happy to take over all the new business.
Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
how else will those poor CEOs get to join billionaire club like all his buddies?
have a heart, alright? these poor guys need to be billionaires... and *you* exist to make it happen, not ask questions.
move along, peasant...
Nice bike picture on your bitch web page you faggot liberal. Shut the fuck up with your charity money begging shit and get a fucking job you leftie fag.
Won't this for the moment just happen in the US? When that happens and we see the shit in the fan won't people (in the US) kick off because of other internet users around the world not being under these new rules. Plus wouldn't it for the moment also create a 3 tier system? 2 for the US and the original one for the rest of the world?
Jonathanjk.com
So you're really just protecting these capitalists from themselves? How generous! Me, I would let the market teach them a harsh lesson (if that is, indeed, what would result) at which time your point is made regardless and in a much more effective manner.
On the other hand, if you're wrong, isn't the market the best place to hash it out?
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
have a heart, alright? these poor guys need to be billionaires... and *you* exist to make it happen, not ask questions.
All right then, please complete your thought. You just need to explain who will invest in new infrastructure and services if you (or someone just as brilliant and compassionate as you) is wisely determining the prices for packet handling, and the salaries of all of the people who make it happen. Yes, a centrally managed, fixed-price government telecom run by career cubicle-jockeys that can't be fired, but who all make exactly the same pay... that would truly end up producing a wonderous, high performance network for all!
Or, we'd actually still be using rotary-dial phones.
Give the witless class-baiting and uninformed socialist fantasies a rest. The only reason you even have a broadband network on which to write your little rant is because private companies risked money to build it out into what it is today.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Has anyone else noticed that the ISP that were listed as lobbying for the two tiered internet are also the same ISPs that cooperated with the government's NSA data s(h)ifting scheme?
Telcos: Can we examine packets and charge according to content?
Government: Sure.
Time passes.
Government: Since you are already inspecting for content, here's a list of keywords. Send us the name of anyone transmitting these. Oh, by the way, block all the packets containing pictures of naughty bits. To protect the children.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
This is just so lame, content providers already pay for bandwidth they use where they have their servers located, And us internet users already pay for the bandwidth we use. I hope all the major content providers will lobby together and bring up a case from their point of view. I don't see why the content providers has to be pay twice for their content.
http://iesucks.org
Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows we really don't want a flat rate internet.
Why in the hell should we pay to scale the backbone AND all endpoints to handle all traffic with low enough latency to make latency sensitive protocols work? That is just stupid.
That would be like running a 4 lane highway to every home to make sure the fire department can get their quickly. STUPID. Fire trucks get different rules and have priority so we don't need 4 lanes all the way home.
On the net Video/Voice needs low latency should get it, but NOT by overbuilding the damn network to do it.
It is perfectly reasonable for providers to sell access with QOS. I work for a university and if we had to give the same priority to all protocols, our 150Mb connection to the net would be UNUSABLE for voice/video.
Jorgie
and yes, I know that THEIR != THERE, a typo is a typo.
I'd love to put together a petition to help blow this up a bit more and send a message to the right people. Who'd be the best person to send the comments to?
--SuperBug
This is start of something scary. In China 1966 the Cultural Revolution burned books and any "non-conformist" thinking. In Germany 1936 Nazi burned books and any "evil propaganda". And I go on and on but anytime you start to quell people thinking though any means, currently electronic, you stop people from know what is out there any only what is spoon fed to you is "real". There is some bad "quackery" but that is what education is all about.
1. This is basically "shutting off" the Internet. You Americans will be locked in one huge pay-per-view pen the day after this passes.
2. The second day after this passes and e.g. China will announce that they will uphold net neutrality no matter what, NYSE will drop 20%. Internet traffic starts flowing around the US.
3. After China sells off its huge stockpile of US currency it's sitting on, dollar collapses to 40% of its current value.
4. Profit!? Dont think so.
Well, that couldn't last -- it made too much trouble.
The only thing surprising about this is how long it took them to notice the rise of free speach over the Internet... we've been touting it for years.
At first thought it seemed like "Net Neutrality" was a great idea to stop those greedy phone companies from gouging customers they didn't like.
The more I think about it, the more I realize I still haven't seen every facet of this problem.
First: Everyone accepts that a company with a "Phat Pipe" will pay more if they go over a certain bandwidth limitation. Don't they already do this to the heaviest users? If not, why not? I would assume that when you get a Real Pipe into your business (say, OC-3 or above) that you pay an extreme premium.
So, is there some reason that they are not charging for high-bandwidth sites?
Now, there is one other issue that I would have a huge problem with. Are they asking to charge companies based on what services they wish to provide rather than simply the bandwidth they use? For instance, would they charge a Voip company more just because they were competing with them in the voice offering dept? That would be completely wrong/evil.
Finally, I was listening to a proponent of "Net Neutrality" today talking about how the phone companies are trying to "Double Charge" us by charging the consumer of a service as well as the provider of a service. Could their case be so bad that they have to come up with BS like that??? Everybody pays to connect to the net, everybody is a provider and everybody is a consumer. This is absolutely a non-issue and made me think that they really must not have a case.
I'll re-scan this thread to see if I can get answers to my questions, but anyone with input (or even an opinion) please reply and give me a hand.
Thanks
the whole topic, to me is pointless. america is ignorant, american big buisiness is even more ignorant, american politicians are more ignorant yet. buisiness will get away with whatever it wants to do ultimately, which is aided by government, and by the citizens by way of apathy. the only soulution i see is to network the whole world with 100gbe fiber. everyone shares the "cost" ie electricity, equipment upkeep etc. create a neutral "governing" body to oversee that it is nuetral as possible, while also setting 'fair' prices relational to the region of the subsciber economy. also setting rules that will bind coutries like china and nigeria to behave if they want on the world net at all...
of course all of that is as likely to happen as the appearance of jesus riding out of the heavens on a pink unicorn.
your ISP is being currently being blocked because they're trying to extort higher fees from us.
Feel free to complain to or change your ISP.
(When will BellSouth, AT&T and Verizon realize they are *NOT* content generators?)
It has been hoped for decades that a technology will come along that will make media more democratic, that people will be able to access independent voices like the Guerilla News Network or John Birch Society or whatever else as easily as they access ABC or CNN, or any of the other branches of the corporate monoculture that is unavoidably biased by its financial interests and unavoidably more focused on petty sensationalism than on fulfilling the responsibilities of the fourth estate. How can you expect MSNBC, which is owned by GE and Microsoft, to objectively report on the software industry issues, or even more importantly to objectively judge a war that it's profiting from? With the rise of the Internet, the billion-dollar corporate elite that have dominated all forms of media going back to the start of the Industrial Revolution have finally started to become counter-balanced by the independent thinkers in our society, though there was still a long way to go in transforming our society to a society of meritocratic ideas.
This hope has taken a significant blow with these new attempts to give more, not less online power to the already powerful established Big Media institutions, reducing the Internet's promise of any person being able to self-publish and gain an audience on the merits of his ideas. Freedoms are taken away incrementally, in hope that people won't notice. No matter what your political opinion is on the reductions of freedoms that have been taking place gradually in the United States, by both dominant parties in the ruling duopoly, you must understand that allowing ISP's to express judgment over the content they serve, which is more favorable and which is less favorable, will inevitably lead to even more freedoms being taken away in the future.
Given this mandate, how can your ISP not be tempted to block you from surfing to its competitors Web-sites? Furthermore, how can your ISP not be tempted to steer you away from the ideas it finds harmful, including many of the ideas this nation has been built upon, in favor of encouraging a mass stupor of consumerism and political complacency?
...Hey, lets get our townships, counties, and other municipalities to charge the ISPs for usage of local land to run their lines. AFter all, why should I let them run their lines accross my property and not get a cut of the profits. :)
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/5699/tieredinte rnet9sm.png
... raise prices if you need money, kind of common practice for a long time
b) The government, net benefits everyone and extending networks is expensive, this also makes sense
Alright, obviously this means ISPs get more money.... That is fine, they argue they need it to spread the net to other people. However why is this money coming from content providers rather than
a) the users of the internet
Now their choice of charging content providers causes a variety of problems
1) The less money you have, the less of a voice you have (This will basically remove all of the low budget companies from the net). - Quieting the voices of the poor has been shown to have reprecussions throughout history - A perfect market would have all businesses with equal footing, this gives an unneeded advantage to the big boys
2) This causes a VERY large problem for smaller ISPs, note that it is the few giants that are pushing this. The smaller ISPs will get gouged by the big boys, maybe they can't afford to pay AT&T which holds lets say Google. Without google the ISPs will be left on masse. Effectively the ISPs are charging the content providers, turning around and charging the customers for acess to this content (twice or more).
3) Fragmentation of the internet. Currently the net is all in one big blob minus a few exceptions (Chinese not getting acess to some sites. Now, this would happen throught the net, ISPs would not be able to pay for ALL the content on the net (Imagine if each page was a penny). It would be much like TV... most of the time you get fox but only some people have MTV... and fewer still have Playboy or hustler. It would be the same idea... worsened still by things like search engines, they would be hella expensive so it's likely that an ISP would just pick one. I'm sure they could make a deal with say Yahoo for yahoo to pay them to host their search engine. This would kill choice on the internet.
Net Neutrality... The only piece of legislation that has the support of BOTH MoveOn AND the Christian Coalition!
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
ehehehehehe.
But im afraid there wont be any piece of "congressman" left after cheney does his thing.
Read radical news here
Doh well, but this thing is already at hand now. Theres no time for blowing, or pumpkins.
Read radical news here
Max Fomitchev writes "The proposed Two-Tier Internet bill threatens not only to raise prices on goods and services served online, but also to seriously hamper free speech on the Internet by allowing telecom providers to choke user pages and blogs not associated with major content providers. What a perfect way toward censorship..."
There now, that reads better.
Fata viam invenient.
Remember back in the golden era of dialup ISP's springing up all over the place... well they advertised "Unlimted Internet for only $19.99/mo!!!" or whatever. Well, they didn't really mean "unlimited" at all, in fact if you stayed connected for more than an hour or two, many of them would have an automatic timer bump your session off. They may have said "unlimited" but what they really meant was "a couple hours per day at a time". In essence they lied. I know. I worked for one and wrote a bunch of code that monitored the Radius server that ran on a FreeBSD box and when the session timer expired, sent a command to the Livingston Portmasters to kill your session to give some time to the next stupid schmuck trying to dial in. We oversold out connection capabilities typically at a 200:1 ratio. For every 200 users accounts, we'd have one inbound phone line/modem/Portmaster port. Now that we're in the days of broadband... and you'll hear the spiel "Hi-speed Broadband DSL 1.5Mbps down/384K up" or whatever, but the minute you sustain an average of more than 600-700k download for more than an hour or two, you suddenly find you've been traffic-shaped down to 64K for the rest of the day. Do that enough, and you'll get notified that you're in violation of your TOS agreement (the fine print that says we're selling you 1.5Mbps bandwidth but if you use it "excessively" we'll get upset and punish you).
Next we're going to see the trolls under the bridges all saying "Hey you, you look like your trying to go somewhere interesting... I've now got to charge you an extra fee on top of the usual toll to pass over my bridge, but if you were going to somplace boring or uninteresting, I wouldn't charge you the extra fee.
Shortly afterwards the whole mess is going to degenerate right back to where we came from before the Web. You'll need to pay for an AOL account to see the AOL stuff and talk to other AOL users, a CompuServe account to see the CompuServe stuff and talk to other CompuServe users, and a Prodigy account to see the Prodigy online content and talk to other Prodigy users, etc, etc ad naseum. Hopefully by then WiMax stuff will be coming out with enough distance range and capacity to be able to implement grass-roots "underground" Internet alternatives that are distinct and separate from the telco-owned wired Internet, and only people willing to abide by the community standards will be allowed to come in and participate there.
The only solution that would make the ISP's stop this, if the bill is passed, is ABSOLUTE boycott. No money from subsribers = no one visiting those websites you're extortioning for cash, who once realising this, will not pay you anymore cash = ISP down for good. I think we need to reform america, NOW. I've seen several holes in the government system, the way it works, laws that are unneeded. The political athmosphere needs to be completely wiped clean, the news corporations need to stop serving whatever they like, and support real issues. We may all be united here on slashdot, but around the country, the nation is divided. You can google for a political forum, no one agrees on anything anymore, small groups do, but the only people interested in politics are those who want power! The rest just want to live a happy life, and not worry about this kind of thing! The nation is SO divided it is impossible to get anything done! Not that, that is bad, people can believe what they want, but the great purpose of americas system was democratic, all for one, and one for all, the great strategical tactic is Divide and Conquer, in warfare. This stuff is possible, one person can change the nation, even the world, I've changed my community alone, quite a bit. I play halo, and I've introduced some catch acrnoyms that are now mainstream, a long time ago I said these, they caught on. FRG = Fuel rod gun, a tremendously over powered weapon that is over used in HALo PC. You just have to find a place to put your voice, be consistent, apologize for your mistakes, stay there a long time, do not let yourself fade away! I don't know any place that would be widely viewed, other than TV. Maybe if someone somewhere stoof up, got on TV, and made a point, something good could happen. To me, Congress is entirely pointless now, or at least the senate part, they make new laws and bills, simply to have a job, and not be made redundant, these bills are just newer, stricter, revisions of previous laws. Someone needs to DO something.
This is not an issue of your rights online. It is a battle between two enormous business groups: Internet providers and content providers. Neither of them has your interests at heart! Both groups are primarily motivated by maximizing their own profits. They are using you and manipulating you in order to try to further their business goals.
I don't love my ISP any more than the next guy, but let me make a brief counter to all the propaganda from Google and Ebay and MSN about the "greedy" ISPs (of course, Google etc. are just in business to extend love and butterflies and puppies throughout the world).
The way people pay for and get charged for the Internet has changed over time. It used to be that many of us had to pay by the minute, or even by the byte. That has mostly disappeared, but we still pay more for better service. Not everyone has the same options for Internet access, and even if they do have the same options not everyone can afford the same access. Internet access is a business, and a relatively new one. Business models are evolving and there is no guarantee that today's model is the perfectly optimal, best possible way that people could pay for Internet access.
It might be that if ISPs could get some money from content providers, they would charge their customers less. Of course, they would not do this out of the goodness of their hearts (they have no hearts!), but rather for the same business reasons that they stopped their per-minute and per-byte charges. ISPs exist in a competitive business environment like other companies and ultimately they need to satisfy their customers.
It might even be that in the future, Internet access could be free. It would effectively be subsidized by the big content companies, which ultimately get their income from ads. Free access to Internet content could be supported by advertising. It has worked with other media and it's possible it could work for the net too. But the only way it can happen is if ISPs, which bear the cost of end-user access, are able to get some of the revenues from the companies that are offering the ads.
That's really what this battle is all about. I don't know how it will come out, but I do know that when good ol' Meg from Ebay suddenly wants me to write my congresswoman about an issue that, coincidentally, would protect the huge profits Meg is earning, her motive is not to benefit me. Meg doesn't actually ask my opinion all that often. She's not on the phone wishing me happy birthday or asking how's the family. No, her interests are not mine. She is looking to protect her company's profits and she is trying to influence me and use me in this political battle against Comcast and other ISPs.
From what I've read here, the big carriers (and ISPs) are getting hit with charges for sites that become "popular". "Popular" == "more bandwidth" and on the net, bandwidth is money.
So, it's really just a matter of bandwidth. There are plenty of technical solutions to that, namely proxies.
Granted, a lot of network stuff these days is "active" or generated on the fly, but the bandwidth-heavy stuff just isn't. You don't want to cache, say, someone's Amazon shopping cart while they're buying something, but that page has a lot of standard Amazon graphics on it, which can be cached and should be cached since images (taking a leap here) make up most of the data on a web page. Anything that is popular, most streaming data, images, audio, should all be cached by proxies at the ISP level. Keep the bandwidth local.
Hell, even if particular (ahem, 'slashdotted') sites were to maintain cacheing servers at ISPs, that would probably help considerably. Maybe slashdot could lead the charge, and host slashdot proxy servers at the ISPs that make up the majority of traffic to the site?
I just have this "dirty" feeling about this, like the problem got tossed to the moneymen, and this is their solution. If all you have is a hammer...
A popular web site should not have to pay the bandwidth charges, the costs should be borne by the people who are using the service. There just doesn't happen to be any convenient and low overhead way to do that right now. But that is how things should be structured.
For some reason, none of the micropayment schemes have ever caught on. But they will some day, and then popular web sites can pay the bandwidth charges from that.
http://www.ricoact.com/
Once there's law in place to regulate the telco monopoly, it better be tightly written, because they are the Perfect Masters at dodging and subverting regulations and the law could easily backfire.
To address only one point:
>If you don't like the price they charge, you change carriers.
Now that's not quite right, because the issue here is someone like SBC charging Google for access to SBC customers *after* the customers have paid their monthly bills and *after* Google has paid or bartered for its bandwidth, but it does scratch at an important point.
If the market were competitive we wouldn't need to worry about this.
If Zombie Bellco and CableCrud got together and decided that they'd QoS Amazon into oblivion unless they got protection money, then fed-up customers would solve the whole problem by switching to another provider. If they could. They can't. Why do you think municipal wifi terrifies the incumbents so much? Because they know they have a monopoly/duopoly and they want to abuse it.
Monopolies need to be regulated because competition doesn't work on them. An unregulated monopoly is a thing of horror, kind of like a government without checks and balances.