Slashdot Mirror


Eric Schmidt on Net Neutrality

GillBates0 writes "Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has written an open letter to the Google user community asking them to speak out on the issue of net neutrality. The official Google Blog has a blurb on this as well. From the letter: 'In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet ... Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.'"

17 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. So let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They lay their cables on public property, with the consent of the government, on the condition that they provide a public service to all people equally... and now they're being ALLOWED to violate that? How can Congress justify that? Obviously they're is getting some cheddar for it, but don't they usually PRETEND they aren't?

    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by kzinti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taxis and Limousines both drive on public roads; their owners can charge whatever they wish, whoever they wish, as long as the person who is charged agrees to pay.

      Bad analogy, because taxi and limo fares are for the use of the car and driver, not for the use of the road. The better analogy would be if a private company wanted to put up toll booths on public roads and start charging tolls.

    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by JWW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Taxis and Limousines both drive on public roads; their owners can charge whatever they wish, whoever they wish, as long as the person who is charged agrees to pay.

      Bad analogy, because taxi and limo fares are for the use of the car and driver, not for the use of the road. The better analogy would be if a private company wanted to put up toll booths on public roads and start charging tolls.


      I agree, except that I would say its an awful analogy, since my car, your car, a taxi, and a limo all have to obey the same SPEED LIMITS, and that what a tiered internet is all about. Charging more for changing speed limits.

      Also, its really amazing to watch how the tiered iternet has gone from the ramblings of a Telco CEO, to being voted on as a law. Its also staggerlingly disturbing that it even happens, much more so that it happens all of the time. It appears that a government of, for and by the people has actually already perished.

    3. Re:So let me get this straight... by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      a tiered internet is all about. Charging more for changing speed limits.

      Disabuse yourself of the notion that what the telcos want is a "tiered internet". Charging more for changing the speedlimit is what we've got now. I pay a lot of money for a nice fast connection, with the understanding that it's nice and fast to any destination that can also do nice and fast.

      What the telcos want to do, instead of charging you to go fast, they charge the friend you're driving over to see. Maybe you're going to Disneyworld, then Disney foots the bill if you drive there faster than 25 mph. Now, of course 25 doesn't make sense, after all you used to be able to drive there at 60 most of the way, but thats how it's going to work now.

      The telcos repeatedly frame the issue as one of battling "network congestion" however they fail to explain how all of the packets getting resent after being dropped the first time(s) makes the congestion any better. (To further the analogy, now you're trying to go 60 on a road where everyone's going 25 because their friend didn't want to pay to see them.)

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  2. What he meant to say was... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Creativity, innovation, a couple billion dollars in Google stock and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.

  3. Re:Misunderstanding? by swv3752 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there is a big enough time gap in passing on packets, then it is effectively blocked.

    --
    Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  4. Needs more exposre by Kesch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now if only they linked this to the front page. Google should leverage its net presence to spread the word to the ignorant masses.

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
  5. right on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clearly only China/Google should have the power to dictate what people can and can't see on the internet.

  6. Re:Misunderstanding? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the bill, but I don't believe telecom companies will be able to stop a company's website from being seen

    No, they'll just say that the bandwidth expenses "need to be paid" and they'll only be able to give them, with their "limited resources", 1K/sec.

  7. Article by Lawrence Lessig.. by dracken · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... In Washingtonpost. To quote the first few lines Congress is about to cast a historic vote on the future of the Internet. It will decide whether the Internet remains a free and open technology fostering innovation, economic growth and democratic communication, or instead becomes the property of cable and phone companies that can put toll booths at every on-ramp and exit on the information superhighway.

    At the center of the debate is the most important public policy you've probably never heard of: "network neutrality."

  8. Oh sure... by ReidMaynard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Speak out, they'll probably start tracking all my phone calls...

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  9. Good question... by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...and I used to find it a little confusing as well, till I read some of the documents on that link.

    "Net Neutrality" is used to describe the notion that the network should be neutral and unbiased to all all traffic. That is, an ISP should not be partial towards or throttle traffic just because it may not be in their best interests to forward it.

    As usual, the Wikipedia entry on Net Neutrality is pretty informative. The opening line reads: "Network neutrality is the ideal that network designs and operators should not discriminate between network applications." which sums up the issue pretty neatly.

    Hence "Net Neutrality" is a _good_ thing, but it is confusing when people refer to the "Net Neutrality Bill" because what the bill actually proposes is the opposite, which often seems to be the case nowadays...kinda like Doublespeak.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  10. Ouch by Darklingza · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I live in a 3rd world African country where 60% of the population has never owned a Telephone and never even heard of the Internet (our Minister of Communications being one of them). Laws are written at the whim of our monopoly telecoms provider and anything and everything that can be done to increase profit and decrease expense IS done. A law like this being passed in the US would almost certainly be copied here, which would be a bad thing for me. So I ask this of all Americans, with tears in my baby blue eyes, please dont let your government screw you over again. Stop them, before they stop me!

  11. Did you write your congressmen? by Mark+McGann · · Score: 5, Informative

    Slashdot is a friendly crowd in terms of google's view that NetNeutrality is important.

    So lets say your the one of those friendlies reading this posting. You're sitting there thinking to yourself yeah I like this idea of Net Neutrality, and I think congress should support Net Neutrality. Now ask yourself this, did your write your congressman? .

    If your answer is yes stop reading this post now.

    So why haven't you? Sure it'd be best to write a real letter, and bravo if you decide to do that. But if, like me, you're just too damned lazy, submit and electronic carbon copy one that's linked from the article. It's really not that hard, and these things really do work if enough people submit them. Just ask the Parents Television Council, the nice people who convinced the FCC to fine any broadcaster who doesn't conform to their censorship standards. They did that by setting up a nice simple website to send electronic complaints to the FCC with a few clicks.

    Write your damned congressman!

    -Mark

    1. Re:Did you write your congressmen? by oahazmatt · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wrote my congressman.

      Here is the response, minus a closing paragraph not relating to the body:

      Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the
      time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome
      the opportunity to respond.

      Introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R - TX), H.R. 5252, the
      Communications Opportunity , Promotion , and Enhancement Act of 2006
      (COPE), amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and contains several
      provisions that will lower cable prices, increase competition, and
      provide safeguards for consumers. However, there have been many
      misleading conceptions about the COPE Act written in the media , and I
      wanted to take the time to shed some light on the mistruths some liberal
      groups are spreading.

      H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable
      companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally
      negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the
      Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and
      then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location.
      Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company
      would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slow ing
      deployment of cable service and increas ing prices for the consumer.
      Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they
      do today. Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable
      companies will be in direct competition with one another.

      As we move forward in the telecommunications era, companies are offering
      more services than just basic cable. Cable and telecom companies alike
      now offer broadband service, voice over IP (VOIP), and other digital
      services. Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or
      broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the
      company.

      However, the most often misunderstood section of H.R. 5252 is the
      "network neutrality" provision, which is the principle that a consumer
      has equal access to all sites. The bill directs the administrator of the
      FCC not to make any rule or law that would establish Internet network
      neutrality. However, the term "network neutrality" is misleading.

      The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites
      are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use
      large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet.
      Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large
      amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to
      the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it
      forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these
      same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal
      special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner
      guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special
      interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture
      by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business
      websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach,
      when in fact their changes would be the first major government
      regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and
      cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of
      bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely
      unlikely to use.

      America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16
      th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of
      competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications
      Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision
      required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and
      prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts.
      Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competit

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    2. Re:Did you write your congressmen? by pluther · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks for posting that! I admit I was confused myself until I saw the letter - now I know to be firmly in opposition to this legislation. What convinced me? He had to pull out all the old cliches:

      1. This is to keep your prices low. Of course. That's always the first concern of any big business.
      2. Your prices are high, and America is lagging behind, because of Clinton. Of course. Everything's Clinton's fault. The fact that Clinton vetoed the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Republican-controlled congress over-rode his veto certainly doesn't absolve him of responsibility!
      3. "the mistruths that liberal groups are spreading". What mistruths, he never actually says. Does or does not this bill specifically state that companies can pick and choose what traffic goes over their lines?
      4. "liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services" Again with the liberals! And, of course, if liberals have guaranteed access to the internet, there's no telling what might happen!

      Letter: High on rhetoric. Low on information. I give it a C for content, but an A+ for spin.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  12. Re:What's the bill #? by Odonian · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's HR 5273. Here's the text of the bill, decide for yourself which way to vote I guess:

    HR 5273