Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Opposes Net Neutrality
thornomad writes "I was saddened (though not surprised) to read that the Justice Department opposes net neutrality saying that it could 'hamper development of the internet.' While it may seem counter-intuitive to me, they argue that allowing ISPs to provide different levels of service/speed for different content will benefit consumers. They did promise to 'continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace' — not that anyone was worried about that."
You're doing a heck of a job, Roberto.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
This is already the case with a lot of webhosting providers - many run two networks, one with quality bandwidth blends that cost more for them to operate and result in lower ping times and higher throughput, and one with inexpensive (read: crappy) Cogent bandwidth.
This whole price to performance thing has been around forever - there are already massive tiers of quality built into the internet, both on the consumer end and the content provider end. Take a look at Akamai and Limelight - you'll pay absurd amounts of money to have your content hosted on their CDN - sometimes several dollars per GB transfered.
Then take a look at a webhost like Colo4Dallas, Voxel, or The Planet and you'll find that they as well offer expensive fast bandwidth, or cheap slower bandwidth. Also keep in mind that you can pay Time Warner, Optimum Online, or Verizon an extra monthly fee to bump up your speed. Should that be against the rules?
Prioritizing web traffic isn't really the major issue. I think your original analogy doesn't apply to this particular article, however it's a good analogy which hits on another core issue of "net neutrality" - ie the type of filtering that Comcast has been caught doing over the last few days. I think the headline is a bit misleading, as the DoJ isn't coming out against Net Neutrality - they're coming out and saying this is already how shit works, and there's nothing wrong with it. Now if they came out and said what Comcast is doing is alright, that would certainly justify the headline...
You probably want the ap.google.com version instead.
The submitter can see the full article because he subscribed to WSJ, we can't.
Is it because they don't understand the issue, or because they're being paid off? Neither bodes well. I'm trying not to assign to malice what can be explained by incompetence (*cringe*) but I wonder...
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
um, must register to view, WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The internet, with its ability to let people disseminate ideas and other content easily, and open archives to those who don't feel like going to libraries to track them down, is a threat to the military-industrial complex and many of the other big business lobbies who control the Justice Department. It's not really surprising that they'd back a proposal to kill it for those without deep pockets -- they don't come out for Habeas Corpus, and they don't come out against the possible destruction of the internet.
Who the hell cares? They shouldn't even have an official position on this; the Justice Department has certain specific duties and interests, and setting communications or commerce policy is not one of them. They have neither the expertise nor the authority to even contribute to the debate.
My brain asplodes. -OJ
sig sig sig siggy sig
and not about the consumer, or the "development of teh internets".
when a company charges consumers different prices for the same thing (bandwidth) based on usage patterns (and not some characteristics of the service), that strongly implies the company is using (in)elasticity of demand to extract larger profits than a competitive market would allow them to. that implies monopoly-like power and, while is good for the company, it is bad for everyone else.
the real question is why then would the government propose laws that will encourage monopoly and enhance profits of the few large players in the game. what is the deal -- more control over internet usage? easier access to information about users of the internets? both? more?
This is the same justice department that eviscerated the anti-trust judgment against Microsoft that the proceeding administration worked so hard to obtain.
And this is the same justice department that can't seem to see that ICANN is a combination in restraint of trade on the internet that is costing domain name consumers something on the order of $500,000,000 per year in excessive fees for domain names.
So I wouldn't expect to see this Justice department to notice even the total destruction of the end-to-end principle.
My prediction: The internet will soon resemble the US cellular phone system - a system of provider shaped lumps of good connectivity, for paid-for applications, and only enough free inter-provider HTTP/HTTPS connectivity to keep the level of customer complaints manageable.
And perhaps we might even see mandatory provider-centric, provider crippled user software, just like we have provider centric, provider-crippled cell phones.
Just like patents, we in America need a profit-making monopoly to encourage progress in the useful arts and sciences. Because, everyone knows that businesses won't invest in technology unless they can turn it into a profit-making monopoly and shut out the competition. ;-)
Some people think of progress as something that enriches all of humankind. Obviously, these people don't work for the Justice Department - whose notion of progress is measured by how much money is being made from things formerly given away for free. Apparently, progress isn't progress unless you can put a dollar value on it and sell it. It's called Market Creation(TM), and it is considered a Good Thing(TM) by those who believe Corporate America(SM) is the savior of the working classes.
After all, every politician drools at the prospect of creating jobs out of thin air. The rights of the consumer, OTOH, don't seem so important.
Now is the time for us to raise our concerns with our elected officials. Write or call a senator. Send them an email before it becomes "premium content" and subject to an additional surcharge.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
A poster (above) has commented that this is analogous to UPS charging more to deliver your package faster. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ISP's et. al. want to be legally permitted to throttle or block traffic based not only on how much the consumer pays for internet access but also upon whether or not the web content provider has ponied up for "express lane" service. Also, the ISP's want the authority to block certain types of content from delivery altogether (gnutella, bittorrent, audio/video streams). A better analogy would be UPS refusing to give me priority delivery because the recipient on my package isn't on their preferred list - and letting UPS determine that the content of my package is not merely safe for transport, but doesn't contain anything which UPS might consider bad for their business (say, fliers and advertising materials for the USPS).
My local cable company shamelessly blocks all gnutella and bittorrent traffic (when they can identify it), and throttles audio and video streams regardless of source. My perception is that they don't want guys like me getting their audio or video unless it comes down their designated pipe - after I pay them for it, that is. Now, my ISP is a telco. I can stream/download anything I want, but I suspect that any attempt on my part to set up a VOIP solution is doomed to failure. Funny, when I was using the cable company for internet, they encouraged me to use VOIP, bundling their own telephony technology up with my cable and internet access. Hmmm . . .
Back to my point - this kind of decision is what we get when we let non-technically oriented people make fundamental, binding, long-term decisions about consumer rights vs. corporate rights with regard to technology. I suspect that the justices under discussion have the same understanding of net neutrality that the UPS poster does - and that understanding is inadequate to the job.
Neutrality means is that you haven't declared yourself, because
a)you don't yet know what the truth is.
b)you're a coward.
c)you've got a nice mountain view on all sides.
d)you're a ninja, which includes b)
I'm not neutral on net neutrality : I hate, I mean really hate, hate , hate, hate paying for all those mega-downloaders (you know who you are).
Net neutrality means I pay much more than I should.
Net-neutrality=injustice.
"when a company charges consumers different prices for the same thing (bandwidth) based on usage patterns (and not some characteristics of the service), that strongly implies the company is using (in)elasticity of demand to extract larger profits than a competitive market would allow them to"
Ah yes, the carpool lane vs regular lanes. Or T1 vs dial-up.
They did promise to "continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace"
It kept Microsoft in check. Why, in 1999 Windows was $89 and Microsoft Windows was pretty much a monopoly, and the users had no real choice in the marketplace, and the bundled MSIE was being forced on users, knocking competitors out of the market - they were leveraging a monopoly to gain market share in another market. It was choose Windows, or you couldn't interoperate with anyone.
Now, thanks to the harsh antitrust rulings against Microsoft, Windows is now only $299, MSIE comes bundled with the OS, and you get the Microsoft sidebar with live/msn search integration whether you want it or not, and Windows is hardly the only choice for the average consumer.
Of course I expect the DoJ to monitor broadband providers to ensure they play fair.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It's called peering. I read some time ago that Yahoo only payed for half of its bandwidth. What that means is that only half of its traffic goes over their transit links. The other half (at the time) is peered directly to eyeball networks (aka ISP's) so it can bypass backbone networks. The outcome of this is that it gets lower ping times and more bandwidth to these networks. We *want* peering. Peering is good.
The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.
This is not the same as charging more for a bigger pipe, this is charging based on *what* you down/upload.Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Anything after the first paragraph is only available to subscribers. Shouldn't all slashdot users have an option to TFA, as rare as such a desire might be.
If the ISP's buy the hardware to go through all your packets to sort them for priority, the DOJ can just ask them, well, when you see packets like this, send us a copy of all the packets from that subscriber. Without this, the DOJ would have to buy and provide all this equipment to the ISP's, so there would be a physical trail. This way, if anyone finds out, it'll just be a "server configuration problem".
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
"I don't mind paying but I think its a ripoff to make me pay twice for one service."
And yet people see no problem with paying for an ISP and Vonage.
It only specifies 'users'. It doesn't specify whether the users are end consumers or not.
A better analogy would be:
"Should Intel be able to pay UPS to look inside your packages, and if it contains AMD chips, sit on the package for an extra day or two?"
Your analogy applies to the current situation, where ISPs already charge different prices for different bandwidths. So this DOJ thing can't be about that, since it's about preventing something that doesn't already exist.
It's about enabling ISPs to require end-consumers to pay more for faster delivery of content. The only way that can work is if at least some content is intentionally delivered SLOWER than the user's paid-for bandwidth.
paintball
This is ridiculous. Net neutrality isn't tiered service levels. Net neutrality isn't about prohibiting the phone company from selling DSL service that's capped at 512Kb/sec versus 20Mb/sec. It's about the phone company and backbone providers screwing with traffic. It's about prohibiting ISPs from artificially degrading traffic from companies that don't pay extortion money. It's about not allowing ILECs to screw with VoIP traffic by introducing random packet timing delays to protect their own old voice network monopolies. And so on.
The argument is being framed by those opposed to it as being about preventing ISPs from offering different speeds of service, which is horse shit. They need to be called out on this, but the concept of net neutrality is complex and technical so cynical opponents can get away with framing it any way they like. I'm disappointed the article summary played in to this scheme.
The issue here is really whether the sender of a message to a consumer should have to pay more or less depending on how the message is sent. If the internet were structured so that, yeah, a person pushing out content might actually have to pay when they hit a certain threshold, then, automatically you would see some cruft cleaned out.
Spam would certainly diminish. If every email message cost two cents, you would certainly wind up with less of it. My web site, http://www.mightyware.com/ only gets about 1000 uniques a month, but sometimes I wind up with nearly that many spams per day. It's just out of control.
Sure, you can argue that the government pays for a lot of the internet, but the government certainly isn't paying for that much anymore. The bulk of it is coming out of comcast and other ISP's pockets, and, to their eyes, seeing the lions share of their bandwidth being consumed by google or microsoft surely seems somehow unfair. It's like, comcast is laying out a ton of money, so google and microsoft and cnn can all get rich really on the hardware that other people have bought.
So, yeah, if ISPs could soak the likes of Ballmer and the Google guys, then, why not...
This is my sig.
like this one in San Francisco, California:
,
http://sf.meraki.net/overview
I mean really. It is deplorable that the product of a publicly funded project (ARPANET) could be privatized in this fashion. So if the big telcos and cable companies think that they can eat our lunch, just let them try. Hopefully, the more they try to lock it down, the faster their business models will be commoditized by mesh networks.
what the Dept. of Child Porn Obsession knows about "development of the internet"? Seriously.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
This is the only way the internet monopolies can suck more money on a consumer. The monopolist, in order to maximize revenue and destroy consumer surplus, must charge each individual customer, sender or receiver, the maximum they will pay, or no internet. The goal was to make the internet a necessity then rape the chattel.
It's not so much the Justice Dept as it is the Decider, really. The Decider wants the telcos to be able to make $lots, and so he gives the politicals running Justice their marching orders.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
That would be great if there was any competition available for internet access. Cable or DSL.
Sounds to me like they want innovation to be controlled by what - maybe four or five major ISPs - instead of by the entire population of computer enthusiasts?
Sounds like a good way to send all the new innovation and internet creativity off to other countries.
I am confused. The problem is not paying for a bigger pipe, the problem is that speeds will be determined in part by content. In other words, some sites will load faster than others on the same connection. I have no problem kicking speakeasy extra bucks for a faster connection; I do have a problem if they get to choose which of my packets is speedier.
Speakeasy is of course the google of ISPs, but don't be surprised if you start to see abuse of this system. AT&T has a deal with myMusic? Wow, my iTunes Store downloads are taking quite a bit longer...
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
"Mesh networks will fix their little red wagons like this one in San Francisco, California"
Not as much as buying slashdot a map, and a physics book.
"I mean really. It is deplorable that the product of a publicly funded project (ARPANET) could be privatized in this fashion."
And back in the day...
"So if the big telcos and cable companies think that they can eat our lunch, just let them try."
Careful what you wish for.
"Hopefully, the more they try to lock it down, the faster their business models will be commoditized by mesh networks."
Ah yes, a Star Wars reference combined with a slash-meme "Your model's obsolete"...I hope.
Roads.
The US postal service, along with UPS, FedEx, and DHS, all operate on Roadways & Interstates. These are required in order to traverse the World. Currently, it costs 'nothing' for me to start up a competitor to these guys, and begin competing with FedEx/UPS/USPS. Roadways are publicly paid for with taxes, and thus available to all. Everyone competes on the same playing field.
But suppose someone built a private set of roadways, only for premium members. Let's say that they are 4 lanes wide, with a top speed of 120mph. To use these awesome new roads/highways, you had to pay for advanced access. UPS/FedEx/DHS pay extra to use these roads, and can thus travel faster and further per truck than I can. They are paying for more bandwidth.
Here is the question: Should the road builder be forced to open up his private roadways to the public, at no cost, even though he spent $X Billion of his own money building the roads?
- DaftShadow
The statement by the DOJ is obviously contradictory and full of factual errors. Everyone knows that there is virtually no choice in broadband providers. I am on the East Coast of the US, in a relatively densely populated area, and currently have no choice in broadband other than one company. Many Americans do not even have that.
By filtering traffic, a company could make certain protocols faster, others slower. This would make it easier to NOT upgrade their equipment. They would simply charge more for packets that most (business) users need. They would minimize the ones that do not generate revenue (bittorrent, among others).
By choosing which traffic gets priority the top service providers get to effectively stifle traffic that they do not wish to carry. This might be new communications software (IM, IRC and the like) but we would never get the new protocols because the new traffic might interfere with or slow down traffic that they get a premium for. Therefore new ideas would be stifled, and choices and the economy would be hurt by business models that would never develop.
The most important question is why is the DOJ so helpful to the big communications companies? That is easy. If a hypothetical wiretapping program needed the collusion of the big communications companies, wouldn't the big communications companies want something in return? Answer: A lock on their monopoly. Good dog.
"Who the hell cares? They shouldn't even have an official position on this; the Justice Department has certain specific duties and interests, and setting communications or commerce policy is not one of them. They have neither the expertise nor the authority to even contribute to the debate."
THEY care because they are told to care. Law enforcement agencies (FBI, DIS, NIS, CIA, you name the rest) care because in their deepest nightmares, a service provider might go outside the known, standard protocols and enable SELECT, paying customers to "operate outside the system", meaning traffic might not be so easily intercepted, sniffed, tagged and run through the DOD/FBI/etc version of Visual Analytics
http://www.visualanalytics.com/
or whatever tools they use. (VERY kewl looking, but POWERFUL software...)
But, I agree, the CUSTOMER should have the final say over what speed or quality of service above the minimums they will receive, based on SLAs or basic contracts. DOJ SHOULD get involved, however, IF the ISP is CHEATING customers, whether 10 or 100,000 are cheated.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
What does the DOJ have to do with Internet regulation? I could see this as a Dept. of Commerce thing, but Justice?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
So how's that 'ol freenet project coming along? Is there a mesh wireless network plugin I can use? Can everyone just buy 2 wireless cards and create one really ginormous ad hoc network?
Get a web developer
They want control of the content. It's the new facisism taking over your life. It will feed you their adds, their news, and try to remake your life to benefit them. Wake up!
are you talking about? 1980????
...none. Compare retail with retail...
I'm not here to argue economics but the simple fact that you are comparing a full version to the crippled version makes your argument nul.
There are so many flaws in your statements and in your math... what gives? Inflation averaged 2% per year at most. Compound it. 9 years. Where do you get the 20? Then compare full version with full version or home version with
You are a Microsoft apologist.
If you take all factors in consideration Windows should have reduced in price just by the fact of total market penetration.....or a more STUPID example;
Original cheapest IBM PC with monitor aprox $6,000 DOS 1.1 $49.00. Current cheap PC $500 Windows retail $300. It's just a point. Notice how the cost of the PC dropped?
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
srsly, this is it.
And the Intertubes are bringing it to us (with our own "truth detectors" installed of course)
-OJ
sig sig sig siggy sig
Corpratocracy: Adjective
A word describing a system of government who's policies are controlled by large corporations to the benefit of themselves.
In most areas, there are exactly three broadband services available: cable, DSL and satellite. Satellite sucks, and cable and DSL are only available from the single local company that has a monopoly.
Cable and DSL are "natural monopolies": it would be very inefficient to have competition. However, precisely because they are a monopoly, the government regulates them.
Not maintaining net neutrality is effectively an abuse of monopoly: there is no free market to correct the situation because the customers have nowhere else to go.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
If Net Neutrality has any bearing on isues such as bank fraud, identity theft, etc. (I really doubt it), then they have something to say. Otherwise, shut the hell up! They are having enough trouble doing their own job, let alone sticking their nose into other people's business.
Have gnu, will travel.
Not because you claim to have never heard the most basic facts of the discussion you're entering, but because for some reason you feel the need to attack the helpful people trying to educate you.
Half of Net Neutrality is precisely the "strawman" you deride: I pay my ISP for high speed internet access, owners of the computers I access pay their ISPs for very high speed internet access, those ISPs negotiate peering agreements with each other... but some ISPs hope to get away with double-billing everyone by fraudulently advertising "high speed internet access" but only providing their customers with "high speed access to those servers whose owners have also directly paid us money".
So, assuming this is based on how much traffic a site gets, how much do you think a site like slashdot or digg will get charged? Probably so much that it would bankrupt them, it will be the same for everyone else who do not have deep pockets. This is just a legal way for corporations to go into collusion to kill off the small/independent web sites(think of RIAA and net radio for example). All those people who are against net neutrality will be singing a different tune when it takes you minutes instead of seconds to load your favorite sites because the website can't/wont pay the extortion fees.
CNET's take on it in the form of a top 10 list. (Bush's white house is on there 2 times)
http://news.com.com/8301-13578_3-9773538-38.html
Just what in the sam hell is the justice department doing even commenting on something like this?
DOJ mission statement, from their website:
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.Since when did the DOJ get into political and commercial lobbying? Why are they interfering with the free market and trade? Why are they commenting on economics? What does this have to do with law enforcement or fighting crime? Why are they making statements that aren't a result of due process or litigation? Why aren't they sticking to the law?
If ISPs are blocking popular sites, the users will change providers. Yes, some users have limited CHOICE now , but most do not. Over time the demand for more ISPs will grow, people will have more CHOICE, then "Net Neutrality" will no longer be an issue. Internet access will become a cheap commodity.
There is no such thing as a true monopoly. Look at Microsoft; it is slowly but surely loosing its so called "monopoly" on the IT industry (Linux rules!!).
Capitalism is good. Socialism is bad.
And this is the same justice department that can't seem to see that ICANN is a combination in restraint of trade on the internet that is costing domain name consumers something on the order of $500,000,000 per year in excessive fees for domain names.
Have any more information on this? This is the first I've heard that claim against ICANN.
Comment of the year
How we know is more important than what we know.
Such vitriol against someone just trying to help! I think what the GP poster did was a great service. I clicked through to RTFA (I know, I should be banned from Slashdot) and was disappointed I would have to go through the effort of using bugmenot. So I scanned the posts looking for someone who had provided an easier way to access the article, and voila.
What, do you work for WSJ and are saddened you won't get more addresses to spam to or something?
And when pray tell, was this?!?!
I hate to feel the trolls, but, then again I think.....some people might actually believe this shit.
Get it straight...the internet was not developed for, nor designed to be there for business, nor family safe entertainment. Perhaps you are thinking about AOL before it was on the internet? That was not the internet...that was a private network....
The internet is not for business....business, like anyone else is welcome to use it, but, it is something that is and should remain a way for everyone connected, to be a true 'peer' to every other user with a computer hooked to the network. The little guy needs the same voice as the big guys.....and when you do this, well, chances are you might hear, read or see something you don't agree with...
It is a tool for the adult world...it is a freedom that must be preserved to give people a free voice to express themselves. If you don't like little Johnny seeing some parts of it...it is up to YOU as a parent to regulate their access. It is not right to muzzle the adult world for your lack of desire to police what your kids see and do on it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"I was saddened (though not surprised) to read that the Justice Department opposes net neutrality saying that it could "hamper development of the internet."
It will hamper the development of the internet as an economic tool for large corporations who wish to milk the public of every dime.
It all depends on what we want the internet to be doesn't it? A resource for all humanity to freely exchange ideas or a corporate tool to take our money. The choice is ours but if you don't want to support the corporate powers be ready for a fight that will last forever because the bastards will never stop.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
"I was saddened (though not surprised) to read that the Justice Department opposes net neutrality saying that it could "hamper development of the internet." While it may seem counter-intuitive to me, they argue that allowing ISPs to provide different levels of service/speed for different content will benefit consumers.
I don't see service/speed benefiting consumers. In fact I'm hearing more people are complaining of being terminated by a certain Internet provider. It does nobody any good and America is turning into the caveman of the Internet with super slow speeds.
Besides, if we already paid for high speed internet then why don't we have it?
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
I think you nailed this one right on the head.
Most people thing that the internet is AOL prior to coming on line.
But as usual the make it safe will ring well with America's ding-a-lings.
Electronics Vista
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
Sorry for the broken link -- I found the article on Google News and, when I posted it, I didn't have to subscribe or enter any subscription information to view the article. It displayed for me first click -- no registration required (I never have, nor will, I suspect, register for the WSJ). That was the first time I had been to their site, in all fairness, and possibly the last. I don't understand why it won't display for anyone (myself included) now.
What's more interesting, though, is that now, when I run the same Google News search that originally discovered the article, the link that I posted is no longer displayed in the results.
Perhaps my ISP is holding the packets from the WSJ link hostage until they pay the "special fee"?
Open competition means nothing when you have one cable ISP monopoly and one telco DSL monopoly who has yet to drop a DSLAM anywhere nearby, and no other options. The DoJ is Scum here, when it comes to protecting the citizen against predatory big business.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
people using the internet still pay isps for the service. A better analogy would be the road builder building a road, charging customers in order to use it. They say you can drive 60mph on it, but they crammed so many customers on it that you will never reach 60mph. They continue to cram more customers on it. Now, add to the fact that the road builder received a massive grant by the government in the form of tax payer dollars to build new roads. The road builder takes this money, builds a shitty new road that is nowhere near as good as they predicted, and then charge people even more money in order to use it.
Since those are both privately owned companies, I assume they already can do that any time they like. Presumably the reason they don't is that if word got out about it, the competition would crush them.
I hear the post office is moving to your model though. Because people get a lot of junk mail and it takes a lot of time for the post office to sort that junk mail, they're going to start delivering all the mail COD, and you don't get a choice not to receive it.
No. The post office charges the sender of the message, not the recipient. The internet charges the recipient, via the ISP. If the likes of slashdot had to pay comcast to send you a web page, and we all received our broadband at no charge, that would be the model most comparable to the post office.
This is my sig.
Ya. If it weren't for Neutrality this Intar-web thingy would be *much* more popular by now.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
bullshit
"Its time to make the net safe again for our families and businesses."
And when pray tell, was this?!?!
I wonder what the first porn on the internet was...and when was it posted?
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Oh yeah! Erotic ASCII art during the good ol' usenet days (1980s). Brings back a gush of ... err ... memories.
And if rudeness is what it takes, I apologize, but it's worth it.
Unfortunately, your ignorance is still showing. For years ISPs have been blocking and banning their users' legal applications (usually starting with "server applications" as the thin end of the wedge, with P2P applications currently on the chopping block), and blocking based on content isn't off limits either. What do you think SBC is threatening to do if Google and friends don't pay up, anyway? Send them a nasty letter?
I feel humbled...
tell me how many times this 'monitoring' have prevented uncompetitive practices EVEN in retail sector. and they are gonna 'monitor' it in internet - like its even practically possible to prevent abuse.
justice department is definitely on the list of public enemy institutions list. bought out by mafiaa.
Read radical news here
"1300 Unopened Fry's Rebate Forms Found In Dumpster" - yes. im sure they will be able to protect interests of people just like they have prevented FELONIES committed by corporations like these.
Read radical news here
Well, this is getting a bit off topic - but OK.
.com each year. That's a fiat transfer of roughly $6.97 from you and me to Verisign every year for each of the 60,000,000+ names in .com. That works out to very roughly $400,000,000 per year. Add in similar situations for .org, .net and you come up with half a billion $ each year.
There are several indicators that suggest that the actual cost to provide a domain name registration at the registry level is only a few cents per year (I estimate that it is less than $0.03).
ICANN requires that Verisign receive more than $7 for each name in
Even if I'm off by an order of magnitude, i.e. that it's merely $50,000,000 a year, we're still talking about a lot of money that is being pumped.
Now, ICANN is run by incumbent registries, registrars, and business interests that like the status quo. They set domain name price floors (the registry fee), sales terms (such as UDRP, whois, and terms of 1 to 10 years in one year increments), as well as decide who may and who may not sell names in that marketplace, who must be used as resellers, and, on top of it all, ICANN extracts an override on all sales. It looks like and smells like a combination of insiders who restrain the trade of domain names. Illegal?
And remember, at least with telcos who engage in non net-neutral practices and with Microsoft, at least you and I, in theory, can buy stock and have a say in what they do (in theory.) In ICANN we don't even have that theory because ICANN has eliminated any real form of public role in its decision making processes.
Thank you! I'm so sick of this "think of the children" bullshit. Mommy, Daddy, YOU think of your children. I grew up and now still have to play in the kiddie pool because you don't like how the net is? I am thinking of the children- may I please have the freedom to not be one?
"The internet is not for business....business, like anyone else is welcome to use it, but, it is something that is and should remain a way for everyone connected, to be a true 'peer' to every other user with a computer hooked to the network. The little guy needs the same voice as the big guys.....and when you do this, well, chances are you might hear, read or see something you don't agree with..."
And this is different from the Telephone or the Telegraph how? Everyone here is talking about the Internet like it's some holy object. It's not. It's a network put togther by agreements between business, academia, and government. It may not exclusively be for anyone one of them, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking there would be an internet without any of the three. Your vaunted freedom comes from the fee you pay each month, just like my vaunted freedom to call anyone on the phone comes from my bill.* The extent of the governments involvement and my right is a phone and service under fair terms. Not a guarentee to have free phone service, any more than I'm guarenteed a newspaper, nor a voice in it.
*And that's the extent of my freedom. No more.
What makes you think that the only way to connect to the Internet is via DSL, or Cable? You really have little room to complain about competition, when you intentionally limit yourself to hand-picked choices. What you meant to say is that you want a high-speed connection at a low price. A decision we all can understand. However you do have other choices, just not desired ones. You chose not to exercise them. That's your fault, not any big business, or some anonymous individual.
when net neutrality falls, the next day all ISPs block the pirate bay and get lots of money from the mafiaa...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I just realised that the real problem isn't the paying more for special treatment. It's the seeming deliberate crippling of other services in order to promote the "enhanced" service.
All in all not a new problem.
This whole thing isn't about charging extra (although that'll surely happen on both sides of the equation), it's about *control*.
/selling/. Non-profitable content (in the eyes of the ISP's suits) won't even have the *option* of being delivered faster). However, unless the *provider* of that content is *also* paying the ISP extra, that won't happen. And, since the ISP is a private entity, they're under no obligation to allow any particular provider to have that option either.
It's pretty reasonable, IMHO, that given this scenario, the standard will be a "You don't pay, you don't play" policy, where anything that isn't specifically paid for (at both ends, mind you) will, by default, get the slowest speeds possible.
Now folks who pay more to their ISP can "enable" the *possibility* of faster reception of certain services (mind you, only the ones their ISP has an interest in
So existing providers either pay more (potentially much, much more, if they're required to tithe to each and every ISP out there), or get screwed. Customers get screwed with higher prices (you think the base cost will go down?), in addition to being nickel and dimed for (potentially) every supported provider their ISP deems profitable - *AND* they get no option to opt for faster delivery of content that may be valuable to them, but not profitable to (or under the radar of) their ISP.
But who gets the even bigger shaft? *New* services that either don't fit into the "Premium Cable" model, or possibly "threaten" it. Without Net Neutrality, these services won't get a chance to take off. They'll simply be denied access to the higher-speed delivery systems, or worse be allowed to pay exorbitant amounts for it, but not be offered to the customer as an option (or priced so high by the ISP so as to quash any possibility that folks would pay for it).
So a lack of Net Neutrality screws everyone royally - except the ISPs, who gain a level of control over the 'net comparable to that which cable companies have over what premium channels they provide. They will control what technologies succeed, and which fail, as they will be the gatekeepers that decide which ones get "approved" for delivery, and which are relegated to the slowest delivery possible.
Isn't the Department of Justice supposed to be to enforce and interpret the law? I would think the only Department in the Government that should be chiming in on this would be the FTC or the FCC. I wish the DoJ would keep its nose out of places it shouldn't be and just do its job. As is pointed out many times by the government itself there are a number of laws on the books that are simply not being enforced. Maybe some day people will just do their jobs. Ok, so I am probably deluding myself, but I can dream right?
The post office is a private company that is completely controlled by the US government. Do the internet companies want to be completely controlled by the government?
Bush's "Justice" Department hates even neutral, impartial justice. Why would its priorities of political monopoly be any different on the intarwebs?
AT&T and Microsoft, the two defining monopolies of the Info Age, are their biggest customers. AT&T has been illegally spying on the world for Bush and Gonzales. Microsoft probably has, too. Why would Bush protect you nearly as much as he protects the corporations who deliver you at a price too cheap to meter (that you're paying with your taxes - that they don't pay)?
--
make install -not war
There exists a place where any child can walk in, and be instantly exposed to cigarette advertising, pornography, and sugary snacks that lead to obesity and tooth decay. A place were predators walk about unfettered, unquestioned. Where they are allowed to approach any child they see and talk to them.
This place, is the neighbourhood convenience store.
Paul Anderson
"I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
Well, this is getting a bit off topic - but OK.
Hey, you brought it up. You can't bring it up and then call it off-topic when someone questions it. What you could do is make use of this innovative new invention called the "hyperlink" to provide a source without cluttering up the topic.
There are several indicators that suggest that the actual cost to provide a domain name registration at the registry level is only a few cents per year (I estimate that it is less than $0.03).
I'd like to see some evidence of this before I believe your estimate. No offense, but there's a lot of infrastructure in the DNS system that has to be maintained, and although there are a lot of domain names out there, I don't buy your figure.
Now, ICANN is run by incumbent registries, registrars, and business interests that like the status quo. They set domain name price floors (the registry fee), sales terms (such as UDRP, whois, and terms of 1 to 10 years in one year increments), as well as decide who may and who may not sell names in that marketplace, who must be used as resellers
Ok, I agree with you here.
on top of it all, ICANN extracts an override on all sales.
What does the phrase "extract an override" mean?
It looks like and smells like a combination of insiders who restrain the trade of domain names. Illegal?
Yes, it kind of stinks. But obviously it's not illegal, or some lawyer (of which we have roughly 47 million by this point) would have made his career by prosecuting it.
Comment of the year
The way I read it, though maybe wrong, is shaping the traffic such that one would have to pay a premium for premium sites. Meaning if the ISP decided that a site I visit often such as slashdot were a premium site would I have to pay more to have those pages load quickly. That gives the ISP's a lot of control over who has a voice on the internet and who does not. I'm not sure I'm ok with that. I am ok with the idea of paying for service levels but not with content discrimination.
I can only guess that this was written by a telecom lobbyist. Since I was under the impression that the Justice department didn't currently have any employees left. At least any good ones.
I'm all for net neutrality, however, I don't want the government, esp. the Federal government imposing it. Not only could one argue that the Federal government has no authority to do so but anything they touch becomes fair play for lobbyists and corrupt government officials.
How my "fantasy land" involves links to major news stories that directly contradict everything you say, and your "reality" involves hypothetical arguments based on premises that even you admit aren't true?
I feel like we as an online community get far too bogged down in tangents concerning this issue rather than dealing with the real concerns of Net Neutrality...that of course being what does the "Net Neutrality" legislation actually look like? How does it read? Is there any way, in the form that the bill is written, that the telecoms' lawyers could construe the bill in their favor? Personally I am concerned about Section (A) subsection 2 (Duty of Broadband Service Providers- With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall--)"not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any device to the network of such broadband service provider, only if such device does not physically damage or substantially degrade the use of such network by other subscribers; " Now I have to ask myself, if I have been allocated a certain bandwidth by Comcast and I constantly seed torrents and fully utilize my bandwidth allotment, does this section of the Bill allow them to throttle me down because I am constantly using all of my bandwidth?
Its questions like this that we need to ask ourselves. We do not need to become bogged down in the technical aspects of networking or flame one another because a poster doesn't "truly" understand how the Internet works and cannot properly analogize the issue. This will ultimately be an issue of legislation and law and if we as a technical community want to take part in the creation of these laws we need to lobby our representatives and senators just as hard as the telecoms are. Go to the House or Senate website and search for the exact phrase "Net Neutrality"...read it, think about it and write your congressman.
FCC leads DoJ in managing competition for economic benefits in a far stronger and extremely manipulated marketplace for US select plutocrats. There is no broadband competition in the USA, the FCC protects corporate/political interest, the DoJ, USPTO, and politicians are all equally clueless or treasonous. Crippling the USA economy with intentional bad policy/laws that diminish the quality of life for (poor & middle) citizens does aide and abet our enemies foreign and domestic. There is no difference in economic or dogma terrorism, both result in the deaths of many and should be illegal.
....
Antitrust lost its fangs under Clinton was it 69 on the desktop? No pain safe sex
A shrub or flaming bush only worries about goats having teeth.
Gum politicians will always suck corporations for money and sell the public into legal economic slavery. Is there a reason; other than B2B short-term and theft of property from the less educated and poorest folks in the USA for sub-prime adjustable rate loans. The flaming bush, just like in the past, bailed out the gods/owners of our economy/financial systems, but left the sub-prime adjustable rate loan-sharks' laws, processes, and institutions fully functional for the next property scam in about ten years.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
We need to take a lesson from the Republican Party (Scary, I know.)
Instead of saying
"The Justice Department does not support 'Net Neutrality'."
we should say:
"The Justice Department supports 'Internet Triple Billing'."
or The Justice Department supports "Pay Thrice as You Surf."
How about, The Justice Department supports "Legalized Ransom Payments to ISP Corporate Welfare Recipients."
My attempts are a bit lame.
Anyone have a snappy catch phrase to catch the electorate's attention?
-- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
Top reason for a conservative Republican to vote for a liberal Democrat next year will be for the net neutrality. The GOP just don't understand that young conservatives lives with their computers, not their moms. They would want "cheap" internet access without discrimination of the contents or origin of the data.
Let's set aside the other reply to this, which suggests (rightly) that the registration costs pay more towards the fixed costs than the low variable costs you mention. There's still a good reason to support high prices for domain registration--it manages the scarcity of them. If it only cost 3 cents to register a domain, then some profiteering registrar would charge 4 cents per for bulk registrations and some spammer would write a bot that registers every available URL between 1 and 10 characters for 2 orders of magnitude less than it would cost now.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
So I have read some of the information concerning Net Neutrality from Google; SavetheInternet.com Wikipedia and the Open Internet Coalition and I have to say that what this all comes down to is....Money!!! Who would be making the most money out of opposing NN? Simple; the ISP's. Would this lead to a more secure and safe internet? I doubt it entirely. Why? simple really, all someone has to do is pay the fee to the ISP and they can insure that their content is delivered faster...no matter the questionability of the content. Something else; who would determine what content is more important and thusly determine which content gets delivered faster? All analogies aside if the ISP gets to determine the content and the QoS based on how much we the consumer pays then there is no guarantee that we would see both sides of a story or that we would be allowed to tell both sides of a story.
Good. then Government gets involved in 'fixing' a problem, it ALWAYS makes bigger problems.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
US government sides with corporations again, wow, that soo unexpected. Nice one Verizon and At&t you scum bags.
Nothing has changed then:
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/6153
I don't know what your childhood was (is?) like, but my parents definitely didn't let me hang out at the convenience store unsupervised for hours at a time.
And, come to think of it, those people that did (hang out at the convenience store unsupervised for hours at a time) generally weren't the people that my parents would have let babysit me.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
There is nothing about the convenience store that intrinsically prevents children from spending hours there. It doesn't matter what parents will let children do, that element is obviously being ignored in application to the internet.
Paul Anderson
"I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates