Slashdot Mirror
Battle Lines Drawn Over Net Neutrality
InfoWorldMike writes "As the U.S. Congress argues the pros and cons of network neutrality, many companies doing business on the Internet say their very futures may be at stake. Net neutrality supporters want new laws prohibiting Internet providers from blocking or degrading traffic from their competitors' networks. Determining the full effects of Net neutrality can be difficult, however, in part because the concept is hard to define precisely. Most of the debate has taken place inside the Washington Beltway, where lawmakers and outsiders have proposed several different versions. InfoWorld has a Special Report up exploring the issue with a debate between experts Bill McCloskey and Jon Taplin and some of the news that has captured the issue as it developed."
Ask Al Gore, the father of the internet to make a decision.
I bet all this started over some telco exec trying to figure out a way to cash in on google's success.
Why not, Google is cashing in on the success of the telcos and other pipe and content providers right? I mean, Google's entire business model is driven by deriving money from other peoples content. Not only that, they reserve the right to punish those don't follow their rules. Are you also for "search engine neutrality", that Google is not allowed to favour any particular site and that they have to prove that their scoring algorithms don't make preferences that are not purely statistical?
I think it's "sad" that "on the business end of the internet" companies like google can make large quantities of money purely on cult of personality, while not providing any value added to the user when it comes to simply searching the web. So when Google comes up with a way to do purchases, the fanboys jump and and down and cheer, but won't say a word when the first three pages of search results happen to be companies that sell whatever it is that you searched on (even though you didn't want to buy product x, you just wanted to research it) and accept GooglePay.
What ever happened to the Internet Protocol? Isn't that precise enough?
Isn't it an ISP's job to seel the Internet Protocol as a service-- and isn't distorting IP traffic for the sake of higher-level protocols false advertising?
And since when was IP designed to let carriers bill IP users that they aren't physically connected to??? Trying to bill in this way seems expressly anti-Internet to me.
If these telecoms want to sell something that isn't The Internet, then they need to stop pretending they're Internet providers. Nor should the government allow them to pull a bait-and-switch on the public.
First, as many slashdotters as possible get jobs at the big telcos. Then, we allow the big telcos to get the legislation passed that allows for a tiered internet. However, when it comes time to program the tiered internet, all the slashdotters that previousely got the jobs at the telcos can volunteer to do that work. Then, they'll program it so nothing actually happens. Turn in a big script that just doodles smilies or something. Then, since the telcos have won, they'll stop trying, but we'll still have an internet where the tubes ain't broke! Genius!
Google: "All your data are belong to us."