How Washington Will Shape the Internet

WebHostingGuy writes "As reported by MSNBC, 'The most potent force shaping the future of the Internet is neither Mountain View's Googleplex nor the Microsoft campus in Redmond. It's rather a small army of Gucci-shod lobbyists on Washington's K Street and the powerful legislators whose favor they curry.' The article examines several pieces of legislation and lobbying initiatives which are poised to affect you and your rights online. Topics covered include Net Neutrality, fiber to the home, the Universal Service Fund, codecs, and WiFi bandwidth usage." From the article: "After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet — big time. And the decisions being made over the next few months will impact not just the future of the Web, but that of mass media and consumer electronics as well. Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace."

Comments

Let me hazard a wild wild guess...

[botzi]

.....we won't see ONE permissive regulation. We'll see MANY restrictive regulations. If lawmaking comes to the internet, I for one am looking forward to the next big thing.

Re:Let me hazard a wild wild guess...

[mrxak]

Video franchising is relevant because those that would benefit from a change in the law would be laying down fiber optic lines that also provide internet at speeds much higher than most people are used to getting at home. There's already an "internet gap" between the USA and many other industrialized nations, anything to speed up the process of getting companies to lay down fiber optics is good for the consumer.

Currently video franchising is done through local municipalities, except in the few states that have recently passed state-wide video franchises (Texas was the first, but there have been others). That means that in most places, a company like Verizon has to go to each county or town to get a franchise, an expensive and time-consuming process. Ultimately that means that fiber to the home is still many months (if not years) away from getting to a lot of people. And meanwhile cable companies are enjoying their nice virtual monopolies on paid TV services.

Re:Let me hazard a wild wild guess...

[Philip K Dickhead]

What you aren't getting is that IT'S A SERIES... of, of TUBES. That's why we are uging Congress to auth'rize our initiatives to create an office for faith-based innernets. These inner-tubes will gush forth to channel the individualistic inputs of our society to enable people to serve a cause greater than themselves.

I appreciate the fact that many have come from many different faiths and traditions. The faith-based innnernet is not about a single faith. In this country we're great because we've got many faiths, and we're great because you can choose whatever faith you choose, or if you choose no faith at all, you're still equally American. It's the same with those gushing tubes on the innernets.

Re:Let me hazard a wild wild guess...

[Simon Garlick]

The title of the article should really be "How Washington Will Shape The USA's Access To The Internet".

Washington can do whatever it wants to servers, bandwidth, and access within the USA. I don't give a shit, because -- like most of the human race -- I don't live there.

Corollary #14 to Clarke's Law

[kclittle]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is subject to Bigguv'ment trying to screw it up.

Re:Corollary #14 to Clarke's Law

[quokkapox]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is subject to Bigguv'ment trying to screw it up.

Any technology vulnerable to governmental and corporate interference is insufficiently advanced.

Re:Corollary #14 to Clarke's Law

[botzi]

Any technology vulnerable to governmental and corporate interference is insufficiently advanced.

Can you please give me an example of a technology NOT vulnerable to governmental interference? It's nice to drop out one liners like that, except when they have no cover whatsoever. If government wants to get involved and regulate a tech field, chance are it will. On my side, I'd rather see a split internet then face regulations imposed by the US on a global network.

Flag Burning

[Kelson]

Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace.

I don't think it's too cynical to say that's probably intentional. Flag burning seems to be one of those hot-button issues that conservative politicians trot out when they want to (a) drum up votes or (b) distract people from other issues. (Liberals have their own hot-button issues, though these days the conservatives seem to be punching them just fine from the other side.)

Re:Flag Burning

[Red Flayer]

Yep, flag-burning is a wedge issue. The purpose is not only to distract, but to create a meaningless* issue that can will unify (a majority of) people into an us-vs-them voting bloc.

"Family Values" comes to mind... as does embryonic stem-cell research, etc.

*Meaningless as in politically meaningless -- I don't mean to deride the value of a lot of these issues on a personal or even local level. When the nuts and bolts are counted, these wedge issues mean nothing in the big picture of what it is that Congress/POTUS actually does.

Re:Flag Burning

[Zhe Mappel]

Agreed, and it's not only conservatives who trot out the flag burning crisis. It's also opportunists fishing for right wing votes: there's Hillary Clinton, for instance, bravely defending Old Glory from imminent destruction.

To bring this back OT, let's not forget it was President Clinton who signed CIPA into law imposing on libraries and schools the duty to block "obscene material," which for some years helped fuel widespread use of censorware. The idea of a free Net has much to fear from all American politicians, particularly in our pandering age.

Hate to break it to you...

[Nos.]

but the US implying laws on internet usage will not completely change the internet. The rest of the world won't just follow along, and you'll find hi-tech companies moving to companies that are more forgiving to their line of business.

Inside perspective

[andrewman327]

I interned for a congressman last year. My former boss is in charge of a lot of the tech stuff coming out, but I can tell you that most congressmen could not care less about most tech. For example, I heard a congressman ranting about how consumers don't have a right to choice in telco providers. I have also seen that many policies are nothing more than clunky attempts to maintain the status quo of regulation in an era of never before seen change. It is nice to see government trying hard to catch up with the times, but the minority of uber-users, hackers, and /.ers need to watch out to maintain what we love doing. I do not see any major problems (like China's level of Internet control) coming, but there are issues that could prove quite annoying at least. The most important thing that we can do is vote. Early and often. :)

Down the Tubes

[Doc Ruby]

Your Republican Congress wants to remix the Internet.

They hate us for our freedom.

[Tackhead]

So we got rid of our freedom.

But they also hate us for our Internets.

"The ministry of communication is duty-bound to make the use of the Internet impossible."
- Taliban official, less than three weeks before 9/11.

Hey, be thankful that Congress doesn't exactly turn on a dime. We got to keep sending Internets to each other for another 5 years before they pulled the plug.

Shallow

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This article was broad, but shallow. It buys into and repeats a whole lot of common misconceptions. For example, it phrases the net neutrality debate as wanting to charge different prices for "complex" and "simple" data, using VoIP and e-mail as examples. This is completely wrong. This is about charging money to people who are not your network peers for not intentionally slowing down traffic from particular, wealthy, people, groups, or organizations despite the fact that that traffic is otherwise identical to other traffic. Networks 5 peers away want to extort money from google for not intentionally crippling traffic to them and not to MSN search or Yahoo.

They also parrot the whole DRM as an anti-piracy measure. Everyone knows it fails miserably in that area. It is a content access control, so they can use differential pricing using regions and so they can charge you for the same content for different locations and devices. Anyone can point a camcorder at a TV screen and then upload it to the Web or make DVDs. Then, the masses can download it or buy it. What they can't do is easily move music they paid for from their Creative player to their iPod, car stereo, and CD player.

It is pretty sad that marketing dollars can speak loudly enough that even supposed technically competent reporters just spew out the same crap that they have heard over and over again. What ever happened to critical thinking and investigation?

Let me be the first to say...

[Ludedude]

All your base are belong to U.S.

"After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet -- big time."

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Opportunist]

Well, maybe that's the reason why somebody set you up the bomb.

Question...

[a_karbon_devel_005]

On "Net Neutrality:"
It pits network owners such as Verizon and AT&T against the companies who buy their bandwidth, such as Google and Amazon, and it hinges on whether the network owners can charge extra to deliver certain kinds of bits -- bill more for streaming video, for example, than simpler data like text e-mail.
...If the Googles of the world win, the network owners will undoubtedly figure out some other way to raise prices. No matter which way it goes, it means a new element of government regulation. And as far as who pays to build out the networks -- in the end, one way or another, most of the costs will still be passed on to the consumer.

My question is this, if it's simply about building and upgrading networks and the costs will be ultimately be passed on to the customer, why not just raise rates to those that purchase bandwidth accross the board? Why add the overhead of lobbying Congress to COMPLICATE the process of selling bandwidth?

Re:Question...

[dgatwood]

Not at all. The market has three components. The core is an oligopoly with only a couple of major players. They get paid either way. The end user edge is a bunch of local or regional monopolies or oligopolies with millions of users. The content provider edge is a bunch of local or regional oligopolies that rarely overlap with the end user edge.

End users <---> End-user-heavy ISP <---> Backbone ISP <---> Content-provider-heavy ISP <---> Content providers

As I understand it, traffic billing from one backbone to another is based on the balance of incoming versus outgoing connections. Making an outgoing connection costs money, while receiving a connection gets money back. The theory is that the content provider is not the one benefitting from the content. With advertising, that's not always the case, but it certainly makes sense from a network utilization perspective that the party that causes the traffic to be introduced into the network should pay for it.

If two networks are fairly comparable in terms of how many outbound requests they spew into the other network, they set up an unmetered peering agreement in which the two parties don't bother keeping up with who makes more requests. It's just easier that way. If the two networks are imbalanced, the larger (generally more backbone-ish) network generally gets more requests from the smaller one than it sends to it, and thus, the other network ends up having to enter into a metered peering agreement.

Now the problem is this: most content providers do not introduce a large amount of traffic into the backbones. With the exception of outbound email, almost all content providers return data in response to a request. Thus, ISPs with a higher percentage of content providers tend to have more favorable peering arrangements, while ISPs with a higher percentage of end users tend to have less favorable peering arrangements, since they generally produce the vast majority of requests. The ISPs that have a greater percentage of end users don't like this arrangement.

The solution proposed by largely end-user ISPs is that they should be able to charge the content providers themselves for preferential access to their users, and that companies that didn't pay would get lower speed access. You will note that those content providers are not customers of those ISPs. They are customers of a different ISP that peers with a backbone provider, which in turn peers with those ISPs. You should quickly see why this is silly.

A more fair solution would be for both ends of the communication to pay equally, as both are equal parties in the communication. In such a scheme, an ISP pays if either endpoint of a connection is within their network. This money is paid to the first backbone. Because the backbones are all considered somewhat equal and all pass traffic for each other, no additional transfers are needed. In effect, this would work the same way as the internet does now, only the backbone providers would get paid in part by both ends.

The net effect of such a design would be that content providers would pay more of their fair share of the cost of operating the backbones, while end users would pay a less disproportionately large share of the cost. The most important part of my suggestion here, however, is that ISPs should only be allowed to bill their customers and peers, not the customers and peers of other ISPs. In other words, I am in favor of net neutrality laws, albeit laws that are more carefully crafted not only to prevent the end user ISPs from following through on their threat but also to reduce the disparity between the proportion of costs paid by end users and those paid by content providers.

Re:Question...

[dgatwood]

Slight correction: the content provider edge does overlap significantly with the end user edge, but most ISPs tend to heavily favor either end users or content providers, depending on which market they primarily cater to. For example, Comcast is heavily biased towards end users, while AT&T is probably biased more heavily towards business (though admittedly less so since the merger with SBC).

Re:Question...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Not at all. The market has three components.

Well, I suppose we could break this up any number of ways, and there is a lot of overlap in any classification. Lets just agree that some of the market (peering arrangements) looks like a poster child for free markets, while others, customer edge, are monopolized all to hell.

As I understand it, traffic billing from one backbone to another is based on the balance of incoming versus outgoing connections.

Actually is priced by transit (traffic from a peer going to another peer), customer (traffic from a customer to a peer), and peer (from a peer to a customer). This is a bit of an oversimplification, but still.

The solution proposed by largely end-user ISPs is that they should be able to charge the content providers themselves for preferential access to their users, and that companies that didn't pay would get lower speed access. You will note that those content providers are not customers of those ISPs. They are customers of a different ISP that peers with a backbone provider, which in turn peers with those ISPs. You should quickly see why this is silly.

If this were the case, it would be a problem, given that there is no free market and most end users can't switch to a provider that does not break their connection to Google but not Yahoo. The real problem, however, is more serious yet. It is not just the customer edge providers, but intermediate peers with whom neither the customer or content provider or even anyone they directly peer with has any business relationship. Say you go through 8 companies' networks to get your traffic from Google. While all 8 have peering agreements, the people being gouged have numerous intermediary companies between them. As a result, the market cannot effectively act. Further, these companies are not upholding their half of the common carrier bargain they made with the government. They are trying to do what amounts to differential pricing. They are slowing some packets, otherwise indistinguishable from all the others, in order to gouge richer or more needy end users/content providers.

My favorite analogy is: Dear sir. We were happy to hear that you have lost a loved one. Since we know you need to get in contact with your lawyer and your loved ones during this time of grief, we've decided to make sure none of your calls make it through our network until you pay us $500. Sincerely, the Plains area phone company with who you have no relationship but who Verizon routes your calls through.

We don't except this crap from anyone else who is a common carrier and we sure as hell shouldn't let the internet network operators get away with it. Routing different types of traffic at different prices is one thing, but routing the same traffic from different people at different prices is simply price gouging.

Re:Question...

[DamnStupidElf]

My question is this, if it's simply about building and upgrading networks and the costs will be ultimately be passed on to the customer, why not just raise rates to those that purchase bandwidth accross the board? Why add the overhead of lobbying Congress to COMPLICATE the process of selling bandwidth?

Why does this innaccurate assumption keep coming up? What SBC wanted to do was start charging third parties for routing their traffic. Right now, only direct peers contract with each other. SBC would have changed that to the "long distance" model of Internet service, where you have to buy passage for your packets through some third party after they leave your local ISP. A horrible, horrible fate for the Internet. All contracts and charges should be at the connecting edges of networks, not from one random network to another. Look at it this way: If neither the source nor destination address of a packet belongs to a network (think RFC network number + mask), then the owner of that network shouldn't be able to charge anyone but its peers for routing that packet.

The reason ISPs are not raising rates to their direct customers is that they would be undersold by their competitors. The market is at saturation, and they can't make more money without improving service. They oversubscribed most of their customers, so they can't grow without spending money or degrading service. The long shot option was to try to increase revenue while doing *absolutely nothing* and charging Google (a third party) for routing the same packets it has for years.

Perrilous time...

[doormat]

Its a very worrying time (as someone who makes his lving doing web-related stuff) when it comes to the net and government regulation. Its frought on all sides with peril - government letting corporations do whatever they want can be just as dangerous as governments coming in and dictating what goes on. There is a narrow path on which government can walk and not hurt innovation and consumers. I dont think they'll be able to pull it off.

What astounds me is how bad google, MS, etc. are at lobbying. It seems like google and MS should be winning and not losing (as my current perception leads me to believe).

Un huh

[finkployd]

Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace.

Congratulations, this is the single most useless comment in a /. writup this week. It is truly shocking that more Americans have heard about an issue that has existed many times longer longer than the word "cyberspace" than the recent goings on in congress related to the latter.

Yes, more people should be aware of and care about this, but this is a ridiculous way to word it. Also in the news, more people have opinions on school choice than IPv6 adoption. Shocking!

Back to the issue at hand. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that our elected representatives will have a say in this any more than any other issue. The reshaping of the internet will be done SOLELY by Microsoft, AT&T/SBC, Verizon, Google, Cisco, Amazon, Hollywood, and the usual suspects. They will be writing the laws and casting the votes. There is no reason to even pretend otherwise anymore. Sure they will be be doing this via proxy with the elected representatives, but those reps (almost without exception) have no clue what they are talking about and just repeat the talking points given to them by their corporate masters. These issues will be determined exclusively by how money and favors are allocated.

I know as Americans it feels better to pretend that corruption and corporate ownership are the exceptions in government, but to do so hurts as a nation. EVERY person currently in congress has been bought and sold to a special interest or company (no expections, don't even try to parade your favorite one out and claim them to be virtuous and pure, you are wrong). When it comes down to it, they will ALL vote they way they are told and the opinion of the voters matters not one bit.

Finkployd

Re:Un huh

[Trouvist]

I know as Americans it feels better to pretend that corruption and corporate ownership are the exceptions in government, but to do so hurts as a nation. EVERY person currently in congress has been bought and sold to a special interest or company (no expections, don't even try to parade your favorite one out and claim them to be virtuous and pure, you are wrong). When it comes down to it, they will ALL vote they way they are told and the opinion of the voters matters not one bit.

Welcome to America... the country founded as a republic but turned into a democracy. The only thing that makes democracy easier to stomach than communism is that the corruption is openly talked about.

Re:Broadcasting over Fibre...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Now, If verizon is allowed to start sending media down that fibre line, I think it should be fair that any other Company or Startup (new Media Broadcaster??) should be allowed to do the same to complete

Theoretically that is the case now. It is one of the things that they are trying hard to change. Realistically, unless you have big bucks to fight it out in court, the phone company will refuse to comply with smaller businesses requests to use the lines. After much work I had the provider I chose for DSL tell me that they just could not get access and I'd have to go with the local monopoly if I really needed a DSL.

Also, last I checked, doesn't the gov subsidise the majority of the costs to lay the initial infrastructure, so the telcos should not be whining about incuring such major costs.

Yes, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to date.

Internet Regulation?

[Archangel Michael]

Dear Legislator/Senator/Governor/President/Court Memeber/.....,

PLEASE LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE. You will only screw it up, if you start messing with it.

Thanks,

Archangel Michael (on behalf of most of the Slashdot crowd)

Civilization Marches On

[E 99]

It's all part of God's plan to move all successful business to India.

Re:Broadcasting over Fibre...

[Red Flayer]

Yes, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to date.Not just direct subsidization... government also subsidizes them by granting them monopoly rights. This allows the telcos to charge more to the consumer than we'd likely have to pay in a competitive market.

It's one thing to pay for the infrastructure out of tax dollars. It's quite another to then have no choice of who uses that publically-financed infrastructure.

Here comes the internet license.

[elucido]

Soon, the internet will be rendered a privilage in which you need a license to access. We've seen it happen with roads, its only a matter of time before it happens to the net. Also prepare for internet taxes.

Honestly, I don't understand how a conservative government can increase the size of government this much, and ask for internet regulations, I mean it does not follow the philosophy at all. Am I the only libertarian here?

When law making comes to the internet, another internet will be invented, just not anytime soon. My advice is, start the planning stages for the next internet, and then when there is the will to bring it forward, bring it forward. Let's just admit once and for all that it must have been Al Gore who gave us the internet, he did not invent it, but he handed it so us. Before that, the masses didnt know what the internet is, and the masses won't know what the next internet us when us geeks invent or find it, hey we mmight already have it.

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[Maxo-Texas]

That's the problem with a libertarian philosophy.

The richer, more powerful libertarians get to decide policy. Big companies have more resources than almost any human will ever have and they protect their interests.

I was a libertarian until I realized the philosophy breaks down in the face of concentrated wealth and power. If we had lots of people with ten million dollars it would probably work. When we have a few hundred "people" (some human, some corporate) with billions of dollars, it doesn't work.

You can't even have a fair court system when the power/money becomes too unequal. One person gets the public defender who is falling asleep in court while the other side gets a team of top-notch, well connected lawyers backed up by a firm of bright assistants.

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in this case _some_ legislation is needed: the telcos have a government created monopoly on telecommunications, and they need to be held to Net Neutrality. Anything less leaves us at the mercy of telcos and with no power to fix things.

However, with respect to other things like unenforcable legislation utterly contrary to international law over internet gambling, etc., they need to get a damn clue, or they will screw things up.

I know that I personally have left the Republican party over the idiotic crap they've been pulling for the last eight years or so. They've made it abundantly clear that the law doesn't apply to them, that they're more than willing to rush blindly ahead when sensible people have doubts, and that they're willing to help screw up things like the internet that they have absolutely no understanding of.

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[illumina us]

Soon, the internet will be rendered a privilage in which you need a license to access. We've seen it happen with roads, its only a matter of time before it happens to the net. Also prepare for internet taxes.

That's just silly. There is a reason it happened with roads! The government did not build the internet infastructure, and taxes did not fund it. At least not wholly. The road infastructure, however, is funded by taxes and built by the local, state, and federal governments and/or they contract a company to do so using the aforementioned funds. That is why it is required to be licensed to drive on public roads and also why you pay such a high tax on your petrol.

The internet, however, is financed by private entities and built by private entities. Therefore, requring an access license and/or taxing internet accesss just wouldn't fly.

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[DanTheLewis]

Honestly, I don't understand how a conservative government can increase the size of government this much, and ask for internet regulations, I mean it does not follow the philosophy at all. Am I the only libertarian here?

It's not just a conservative government, it's compassionately conservative. Let me point out charitably that Karl Rove has got your number if you think Bush II's government is conservative. You were snookered.

The truth is that this "conservative" government is crowing today about enormous budget deficits coming down a fraction (when we were balanced under Clinton), while ignoring long-term structural deficits caused by tax cuts for the richest Americans that have only increased the wage gap over the last several years. Throwing cash around like water, paying off Halliburton and Big Pharma and scumbags like Abramoff and on and on... how much evidence do you need of the mendacity involved in labeling the profligate Bush government "fiscally conservative"?

I will point out, however, that the conservative movement has had free rein to choose its policies. If the ship has run aground, we know who has been at the wheel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-perlstein/i-did nt-like-nixon-_b_11735.html

If you want a fiscally conservative government, kick out the neocons and vote for some Democrats. Or you could vote for the Greens, it worked in 2000.

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[quick9vb]

I'm confused, isn't there already a concentration of wealth and power? Isn't power/money already unequal? Isn't our court system already corrupted?

Why/How would a change towards civil liberties and personal freedoms make things worse? We've been failing with the two party system for quite some time now, why can't we just try something different? It can't get much worse at this point.

I feel wierd saying it, but I'm not proud to be an American right now, I'm embarassed. I love this country and its people. I am very thankful for the oppurtunities that this country has provided me. I feel very lucky to have been born here. However, our government and political systems are no longer fighting "for the people".

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[AuMatar]

Hi. This is the 1930s calling. The republican party has changed a bit.

The republican party hasn't been fiscally conservative since Nixon. Look at the debt Reagan and Bush 1 drove up. Look at Bush 2. Fiscal conservative is now democratic property- you know, the guys who balanced the budget in the 90s. It hasn't been anything approaching Libertarian since Hoover in the 20s and 30s. It got co-opted by the religious right in the 80s, the cumulation of a slide starting in the 60s (when the formerly democratic southern US switched republican once democrats started supporting civil rights).

Wake up and face reality- the republican party has *never* been what it claimed it was. For most of this century its been living a lie. You really have two options:

1)A party run by corrupt rich buisnessmen who use passionate bigoted fringe groups to get into office, then run the country for their own benefit. You can tell this party by its election year tactics- rather than debating real issues it tries to raise emotional issues with those fringe groups- gay marriage, flag burning, "under god" in the pledge of alliegence. This is the republicans.
2)A coalition of every other group. Some who are just flat out bought by other interests than the republicans, some who are very passioate about specific issues (environment, anti-war, even a few free speachers). THe portion that aren't owned by the big corps do try and look out for their constituents. They typically try to bring out actual issues, rather than rely on flag waving. What you actually get depends on your luck, but you're pretty much garunteed to do no worse than the first party, and perhaps quite a bit better. This is the democrats.

Until we have some real third parties (which will require changes in how voting is done), these are our choices. Not much to choose from, but option 2 gives you at least a chance.

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[Shadowlore]

I was a libertarian until I realized the philosophy breaks down in the face of concentrated wealth and power. If we had lots of people with ten million dollars it would probably work. When we have a few hundred "people" (some human, some corporate) with billions of dollars, it doesn't work.

You should have continue following the money as it were. How did htese people get the money? By government. Government provided them with special protections no normal person has. Hiding behind the wall of a corproation is a protection/benefit system designed to produce exactly what you correctly identify as a problem. With these "protections" in place both people and companies who become "corporate entities" become an arm of the government (that is what a Charter effectively does - and it is a Corporate Charter) and gain all manner of advantages an otherwise free market system does not provide.

Whether that be the ability to pollute w/o risk of penalty, or deploy anti-competition tactics that would otherwise be illegal, or to use the corporation as a source of money and legal defense funding, it is done so by threat of force (death) by the government. As much as many people like to believe otherwise, libertarian principles did not provide for the wealth of Bill Gates or Larry Ellison. To the contrary it was anti-libertarian (i.e. statist) principles that did so.

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[The Spoonman]

I'm confused, isn't there already a concentration of wealth and power? Isn't power/money already unequal? Isn't our court system already corrupted?

Yes, yes and yes.

Why/How would a change towards civil liberties and personal freedoms make things worse? We've been failing with the two party system for quite some time now, why can't we just try something different? It can't get much worse at this point.

I apologize to the poster for speaking for them, but I believe their point was there was no way to move towards civil liberties. In order to make those changes that would move us towards more civil liberties and personal freedom, we'd have to already be at that point. As long as there's a concentration of wealth and power working against civil liberties, you'll never have them.

I feel wierd saying it, but I'm not proud to be an American right now, I'm embarassed. I love this country and its people. I am very thankful for the oppurtunities that this country has provided me. I feel very lucky to have been born here. However, our government and political systems are no longer fighting "for the people"

Don't worry, it's happening everywhere in small doses, it's just the people in those other countries don't see it yet. My plan had been to flee to Canada, but they just "elected" a conservative government (I quoted it because I believe we "elected" a conservative government in this country about as much as I believe in Micheal Jackson or OJ Simpson's innocence) and immediately we see major "terrorist plots" being exposed all over the place. The call for a "war on terror" won't be far behind. In fact, the rumblings are already beginning. They've got some great freedoms up north...for the moment. Same's happening everywhere, very slowly. We're moving to a single world government, which wouldn't be such a bad thing...if it weren't for the fact that it's going to be more of the same.

Paranoid? Yes. Does that make it untrue? Not, neccessarily.

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[rhakka]

Yet you doubt that free market capitalism leads to the same thing? It's just a slightly different route. Wise up; Money *really is* power. If you have money, and organization, you get things done.

Companies fit this bill by their very nature. People, in groups.. not so well. That's why we have government. It's the organization of the people without regard for money, where your power comes from your existence as a human being.

Or, more accurately, it should be.

Unless, of course, you advocate for plutocracy, which is where libertarianism leads

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[Maxo-Texas]

Dude,

You really havn't read much Ayn Rand and then looked at how she led her private life.
Libertarian is about the strong doing what they want while the weak try to get by.

It is a *wonderful* philosophy if you are strong, healthy, well off, powerful, wealthy, etc.

Otherwise... not so good.

Re:Here comes the internet license.

[rhakka]

Libertarians don't have a corner on the civil liberty market.

Greens share those values. Without throwing us all to the wolves for the sake of "indvidual freedom".

You may not like the idea, but you don't get to just do whatever you feel like because, believe or not, your actions do sometimes affect other people. EVEN MORE SO, if you're rich and powerful. Then we REALLY need to watch you. Because then, as a private individual, you have the ability to do a whole lot of damage to people in all kinds of ways that are not "direct victim crimes". Say, buying all the companies in an area and dropping wages. Sure, some might move. But many won't. And you win.

People have only two possibilities for fighting power if they themselves don't have the resources. Democratic rule, or revolution.

If you cripple democratic rule to dissallow the right of a community to establish its own codes of conduct, including some encroachments into your personal freedoms, then eventually, people have to take option number two.

I'm all about civil liberties. Do what you wilt and all that. But, sometimes there do have to be limits. I'm personally pretty glad that you have to learn a few things to drive a car, for example. It may not be ultimate freedom, but it's pretty freaking prudent.

REALITY: The Net Will Reroute

[WillAffleckUW]

to avoid damaged segments, such as any US restrictions.

In an interconnected world where China has more Net users than the US, and so does the EU, one country standing in defiance of the Net is like a small earthen dam trying to constrain the massive tsunami that will either go around it, go over it, or crush it beneath its massive weight of inevitability.

Only One Kind of Regulation/Enforcement Is Needed

[ewhac]

Only one kind of regulation and enforcement is needed out of the Fed: Combating online fraud (spam and phish, primarily). Everything else is pretty much working as it's supposed to.

Oh, look. Online fraud is the only thing they're not planning on strangling in the crib. Shock, surprise...

Schwab

Slashdot focuses too much on national poltiics.

[elucido]

Discussing politics is fine, but whats the point in discussing national politics? All of these issues are local, REALLY local.

If you don't want big federal government, why did you vote for it? This goes for Democrats and Republicans. Federal government is big under EITHER party. Most of us internet geeks seem to be libertarians, and as a result we can't feel comfortable in either party.

In the Democratic party of old ideas, we hear them discussing going back to the days of FDR, and that is completely unrealistic. The Republican party always talks about tax cuts, and smaller government, but somehow government is bigger than ever?

I think we need to drastically cut taxes, maybe go with just the sales tax, or even the negative income tax. There are a lot of ways to reform the tax system that will make EVERYONE happy. Once the tax system is reformed, and you can get more of your own money, that is how we all benefit. Social programs are a thing of the past, they worked when the population was smaller globally and nationally, they worked when we werent consuming this much, but time is running out and some changes have to be made.

You and I may never live to see social security, so why fight to save it if by the time we get it the world isnt going to exist and none of us will be here? I'd rather recieve the tax cuts and invest it.

Name me one representative or senator with a clue.

[pashdown]

This is why we need people who understand technology to run for office. This is one reason I am running and I hope you either run yourself or support a candidate who does have a clue. Don't leave these decisions to the people who think the Internet is a "series of tubes".

Re:Congress...peh..

[Daniel_Staal]

You don't vote someone out. You vote someone else in.

So, who do we have to vote in? (That are actually any better, that is.)

First

[elucido]

This type of issue, requires a lot more creative touch in my opinion, than simply coming up with old ideas. We need revolutionary ideas to save the internet, and if you do not have them, then dedicate your brain power into creating the next internet. I do not think video franchising is the kind of idea that is revolutionary. Open Source was a revolutionary idea, maybe we should contact Richard Stallman and see what he has to say. Maybe we need a new set of internet protocols? The wiring is not the issue here, the issue here is an issue of how the internet is modeled.

The next internet for sure won't be modeled anything like this one. The client server model is what lead to this. When you model the internet in a slave/master type of frame work, the result you get is a top down internet hierarchy. Beyond the protocols, the technology itself is also top down. I think all of this will change eventually when the technology adapts and becomes smaller, but this issue is a lot more complicated than simply, legal. In fact, legalese language is meaningless in the long term. It's always about design.

If you do want to think of legal language, the language itself has to be strategicially designed. The invention of the internet will go down in history as being as important as the invention of the constitution or the bill of rights. Of course it was not going to last forever, but you have to put the internet itself into historical context.

Re:First

[mrxak]

Well I'd argue that the wiring is the issue. Your typical cable service will max out at 30ish downstream, and has relatively very little upstream. And currently, no cable provider is giving out that kind of service (best is Cablevision at 15/2Mbps). DOCSIS 2.0 and 3.0 will help with that, but people really aren't going to see those for a while.

Copper really can't stand up to fiber optics, especially in the long term. Even the cable companies are starting to use fiber optics to a certain extent in their network architecture, but none of them are bringing fiber straight to the home.

Video franchising is by no means revolutionary. The kinds of interactive services you'll get from fiber optic TV could be. And you won't get those any time soon the way things currently are. And you're probably not going to get 30/5Mbps in your home either.

Re:First

[OnlineAlias]

You should study copper vs fiber and the benefits of each. Fiber is *not* faster than copper, it just has the ability to travel over longer distances. In fact, shielded copper, such as what is used in the cable system, is capable of going just as fast if not faster than fiber. This is why few companies have implemented fiber for the local loop...it is just smoke and mirrors (and marketing) to do so. The cable companies use an RF signal to get the data from the customer premise to the aggregation point, and that can be a limiting factor, but that is because customer equipment has to be incredibly cheap to be cost effective.

This upstream limit that you site, the 2 and 5 megabit limits, those are artificial. They are implemented to ensure that consumers aren't running data centers from their homes and sucking up all of the bandwidth. They in no way measure the speed capabilities of the line you are on. In addition, the "max out at 30 megabit" limit that you think is there is not due to cable or fiber issue, it is due to the long haul available bandwidth from the aggregate connecting point, which may very well be fiber already.

Before you start engineering our future, you should probably do your homework.

Crap attempt to change the world. "No Limit" Label

[avirrey]

Here's my attempt to rock the universe although the idea may not be original, I'm trying to universify it. It's called the "No Limit" label. Just take the GNU license and port it over to everything else. Music Record Label: No Limit Sounds, Co. - Specializing in letting you buy and copy as much as you damn please. Movie Studio: No Limit Moving Picture, Co. - Specializing in letting you distribute 'fantastic' independent films across the globe. Technology: Freedasonic, Co. - HD-NL (Hi-Def No Limit player) Let's you play HI-DEF audio and video without requiring a central server to be pinged. Hell, it records too, so you can play on yout LHD-NL (Linux HD-NL). Technology: noLipod - play all that music published by No Limit Sounds, Co. If you invent technology with 'no limits' on what you can do, and easily uses and ports 'no limit' media of any type, or if you are an artist, or are funding your own independent film... throw your "No Limit" label indicating your work can be freely put everywhere without fear of fines or imprisonment. I will not buy Blu-Ray or HD-DVD... I'm waiting for my "No Limit" player recorder that will play "No Limit" HD content. I will not buy BMG, Universal, etc... only "No Limit" music. I will take every great song ever written, strip the lyrics, and put my own in... and call it my own ;) I will not vote for any politician until he can come on TV and say, "You know, I don't know the answer to that question. Let me do the appropriate research, and I'll get back with you." INSTEAD OF MAKING UP A LIE. That's it, I'm fed up with corporations. I'm moving to Cambodia.

Re:Intarwebs

[Billosaur]

Well, the government can't allow just anyone to use the Internet's "tubes" now can they? They might put yucky things like real news and detailed information about the behind-the-scenes fleecing of American citizens by Congress in the "tubes" and then where would we be?

The rest of the world has no choice.

[elucido]

If you had any idea how this world works, you'd see that the economy is global, and when the economy is global, what is happening in the US is happening everywhere. The new laws get tested on the US population first, and then exported to our trading partners. The countries which don't accept our rules, well we know what happens to them. So I don't see your point.

I'm not saying the world population will go along with it, but the decision makers are all on the same team, and all profit together. Do you really think that lawmakers in the US are going to pass laws that the world leaders do not accept? The laws that get passed are precisely the laws that world leaders want passed.

Global opinion is not the same as Global leadership or Global decision making, or Global economics. The global economy is somewhat planned out in advance, the rules are decided on, there is a world bank, a world trade organization, and economic leaders meet to discuss these topics. So if we are discussing it now, they discussed it months or years ago and made decisions on it already.

Re:The rest of the world has no choice.

[Nos.]

Wow, I think you should have a look at the rest of the world and realize that we don't "import" laws from the US. Most of Europe and Canada are Socialist countries... you don't see us adapting US education and healthcare do you?

The Canadian Privacy Commissioner is currently reviewing cross-border data flow because Canadians' privacy is being compromised by the Patriot Act. If anything, we're seperating ourselves from the US, not the other way around.

Smell this coming for years now

[zogger]

Really...the anything goes wild wild west anarchy internet is a *complete total threat to governments all over the planet and large corporations*. Everything about the current and past model is a threat to them. It's a threat to their rule, (they call it governing but it really is rule-technofuedalism) a threat to their money(your money is their money by default), the way they want power over you politically or economically, etc. All of it. So..apply occam's razor and some extrapolation-what do you think will happen? What this article says-and more.

  It is about inevitable they will slice it up into something that looks like a combo of your cellphone bill and cable TV bill. You'll be seeing a large number of "nets" and be forced into "subscribing" to one or another-think a lot of different closed up walled garden type AOL experiences. And be paying through the nose to go outside that area-or be denied totally. And they'll be completely happy if 95% get herded into their control more, they'll pick off the other 5% at their leisure and when it suits their purposes. No one is completely leet enough to avoid it if they get a notion to mess up your day. No one.

Re:Smell this coming for years now

[replicant108]

That's why Free Bandwidth (community-based mesh networks) will soon be as important as Free Software.

Mod parent up.

[postbigbang]

He speaks the truth.

Armies of lobbyists and lawyers go into the Rayburn building and across the hill to cow legislators. It's not a partisan issue-- it's a Jack Welch/We're Big And Here's Our Army To Prove It posture.

Look at where the lobbying dollars and perks are spent, and by whom. Then mod the parent up as he/she's absolutely on target. This isn't about common sense, this is about re-writing the Telecom Act of 1935 (as amended) and pulling back decades of consumer-focused legal decisions and legislation to one specific end:

THE TELCOs. IT's THE MONEY, STUPID. FOLLOW IT AND FIND THE ABYSS OF YOUR ONCE FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT.

Consumers only have a right to consume.

[elucido]

You can vote as much as you want, I'll tell you this. If you are a consumer, you only have the right to consume. Thus the label consumer, because you consume and consume. Your opinions do not matter, if your opinions mattered the politicians would be meeting with you and asking you for your opinions.

If you really worked for a politician like you say, you'd know that the average voter has little to no influence on what deals are made between leaders. If you want in, then get in, join the club, work for the company, invest! If you want, start an investment club.

Just talking about politics will change absolutely nothing. Politicians do not care about our opinions. The have experts to tell them what to care about, they have pollsters to tell them what our opinions are, and they can shape our opinions when they don't like what our opinions are. In the end, it's ultimately just about money. You can buy influence, you can buy politicians, you can buy just about any favor. It's about favors.

Teleco companies are VERY VERY powerful, they have infinite leverage over any politician. The telecos know everything, and had these abilities before the whole NSA wiretap scandal, so what politician is going to challenge the big telcos, or big oil? I wouldnt, you wouldnt, and a politician wouldnt for the same reasons we wont.

The best thing you can do is work with these big powerful corporate entities, and try to make policies which in a give and take fashion, where you make deals. If you expect to be a politician, it's a dirty business, it's a VERY dirty business, but ultimately it is a business, and the way to be successful is to do business with big business.

If you actually think you can be involved in politics, and that Google has more influence than telephone and oil companies, you are insane. The hardware companies have more influence than the software companies. The phone companies have more influence than the hardware companies. The energy companies have influence over ALL companies.

If you were smart, take an economics class and see how society is organized.

Do the telcos want legislation from the bench?

[tlabetti]

The telcos seem to be setting themselves up for lawsuits down the road. Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, said today in a press release that all of this is about "hypothetical business plans" and thus shouldn't be addressed now.

If Net Neutrality isn't addressed proactively then we will see it end up in the courts where some activist judge could potentially really mess up the internet.

The best thing that could happen at this point would be for the telcos to come out and openly debate the merits of their Tiering plans instead of using front groups and lobbyist, short of that the next best thing might be some form of legislation.

But the worst thing to do would be to do nothing and wait for lawsuits.

Net neutrality is NOT about "who bears the costs"!

[CurtMonash]

Many things are wrong with the political process, in this instance as in all others. But the particular one that is burning me up right now is that both sides of the net neutrality issue are positing a false dichotomy.

As I've documented elsewhere -- I hope convincingly (http://www.monashreport.com/category/public-polic y-and-privacy/net-neutrality/) -- it is possible to design a system whereby:

* Telcos get to charge for QOS
* Consumers may have to pay for QOS
* Information providers can subsidize consumers' QOS payments
* Even so, there is very little risk of information providers being discriminated against by telcos

In fact, it's a really simple to design such a system conceptually (http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/26/simple-leg islative-language-for-tariff-rebate-passthrough/), and the technical requirements aren't forbidding either.

You all do realize....

[Run4yourlives]

that the internet exists outside of the US of A already, right?

As important an issue as net nutrality is, and as much as is will affect the internet, it will hardly matter to people in say, the EU, where many lawmakers are moving away from internet regulation.

Just a point, is all.

The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal..

[Cutting_Crew]

Anyone read about this scandal here through Teletruth ? This is both shocking and makes me sick. Why hasnt the government done ANYTHING for high speed internet at a relatively fair price? Why is it that we lack innovation in this area? In most places that either have DSL or cable you usually have a few DSL providers but hardly ever if any, but one choice if you go the cable route. I have Comcast and there isnt any cable company within 25 miles of here I get 5 mbps down and 386k up for $42.95 a month. Either i want the 45 mbps or i want a check for $2,000 US as stated from a low estimate of how much we have paid in but have got nothing in return..

what we really need

[lordvalrole]

We (America) needs to shift priorities. There are too many priorities in the wrong things. The last election was won by Bush because of something as stupid as gay marriage. Some where along the line America has lost it's way and priorities shifted. Why are athletes, actors, actresses, ceo's, etc make insane amounts of money..where the people who actually do real work and benefit society make squat. Tell me why these people get paid millions to do very little amounts of work? Our system has become a two party system that just doesn't work any more. American's are fooled when going to the elections because there really is no choice in who they have to vote. Election campaigns have grown to be a huge shit fest on each other and they don't focus on things like what they can do to help society, not of just the US but of the world. There are too many rich, ignorant, selfish people in our government today. It isn't about serving the people any more. It is about what bids can I get, or how many votes I can get with the signing of this bill. It is absolutely appauling.

I would like to see our government completely wiped out from top to bottom and start from a bunch of young people who actually do give a shit about our country and our future. There is a huge damn generational gap that is happening. All the old people are making decisions that they have no idea what the consequences will be or they just don't care completely because they will be dead by the time those consequences happen (ie. global warming, internet, pirating, etc.)

The problem with America is that there is too much business. Because people are rich, they seem to have the most pull, which is bullshit because being rich doesn't make you intelligent. Too many things get passed through our congress and our senate because these assholes don't read anything, why? because they are on their damn big ass boats fishing or doing something other than coming up with new ways to help society. I hope all of our politicians burn in hell if there is one...because they are all evil....every single one of them. No one has the balls to stick up for what is right any more.

You know, we could of have been atleast one step closer to getting a better energy source. You take the worlds top scientists and stick them in a lab and give them whatever they want, and you will have your new, cleaner, better energy. How do you think the atom bomb was made? exactly the same way. We could of spent that $300 billion it is costing us for the fuckin retarded ass war in Iraq for R&D of new technology to HELP society on a global level instead of hurting society. I will be damn surprise if humans will make it another 100 years because of the retarded people in high up places will do something like nuke another country, which will set off a huge train wreck through out the world. How do we have the power to wipe the human race over and over again, and the person at the helm is no other than the guy who choked on a pretzel, the guy who fumbles words constantly, the guy who says he will not change his path even though everyone says he is a moron and he is wrong, the guy who probably doesn't know what 10 x 10 is?

Something needs to be done. We really need a good revolution of our government. Even though it won't happen, we really need one. This is what our second amendment right is for, to stand up against this bullshit when our government gets out of hand. Hell I am sure some of our military would even fight for the people, well whats left of it here in the US. I honestly don't think America could take another huge attack on American soil, and it shouldn't. Too many people in America are comfortable in their life driving their damn H3 hummers and as long as they can have their gas we are alright. I won't even go into all the BS oil and how that is going to end. America better get its act together or it will end up a 3rd world country in no time. And it all starts now with this damn goverment we have. This government has shifted America in a dir

"Conservative"

[dpilot]

The problem here is in the term, "conservative government". You must realize that in the USA, that's actually an oxymoron.

What is our "conservative government" conserving?
Certainly not conserving natural resources - nothing conservationist about them.
Certainly not "sound fiscal policy" or keeping a balanced budget.
Certainly not conservative, in the sense of tried-and-true, time tested policies and practices that work.

As far as I can see, todays "conservatives" are really conserving a few key things:
Their wealth
Their power
Their authority
and not much else.

I had an epiphany the other day, courtesy of Branjolina, of all people.
They talked about famine and disease in Africa, and all the things that we could be doing with the money that we are spending on Iraq. At that point I realized... A big part of the reason we're in Iraq is to PREVENT money from being spent on those other things. The war in Iraq does many things that a myopic/incompetent policy-maker would like:
It makes the current administration a "wartime government," with its attendent ease in elections and power grabs.
It prevents government funds from being spent on "frivolous things" that a proper "conservative" government shouldn't be doing.
It funnels government funds to "the right people" through contracts, weapons replacment, etc. How much of the $4e11 is really soldiers' pay, and how much is contracts? I'll be the lion's share is in the contracts.
It helps make a boogie-man, giving authority figures someone to promote hatred toward, to help keep their power.

The article is full of telco propaganda

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>If so[nationwide telco video franchises], then fiber optic cables to the home are going to happen far more quickly than anyone would have predicted five years ago -- a major upgrade to the U.S. information infrastructure.

Yes, and if Lucy holds the football I can come running up to kick it. Telcos have spent *decades* saying "give us this break and we'll lay fiber', "give us that break and we'll lay fiber", then taking the money and doing nothing.

>abolition of the USF altogether -- but that seems unlikely, as that would impose an immediate and costly burden on many rural Americans.

The USF money is not accounted for and when rural areas get service the telcos raise the rates by the amount of the subsidy.

At least this one isn't telco propaganda:
>electronic versions of anonymous cash
That was the cypherpunk dream from the previous millenium, but if you look around at all the anonymous payment systems that used to exist they've all been shut down by the requirements of USAPATRIOT.