Slashdot Mirror
New Network Neutrality Squad — Users Protecting the Net
Lauren Weinstein writes in to announce the new "Network Neutrality Squad" — NNSquad. Joining PFIR Co-Founders Peter G. Neumann and Weinstein in this announcement are Vinton G. Cerf, Keith Dawson (Slashdot.org), David J. Farber (Carnegie Mellon University), Bob Frankston, Phil Karn (Qualcomm), David P. Reed, Paul Saffo, and Bruce Schneier (BT Counterpane). The Network Neutrality Squad ("NNSquad") is an open-membership, open-source effort, enlisting the Internet's users to help keep the Internet's operations fair and unhindered from unreasonable
restrictions. The project's focus includes detection, analysis, and incident reporting of any anticompetitive, discriminatory, or other
restrictive actions on the part of Internet service Providers (ISPs)
or affiliated entities, such as the blocking or disruptive manipulation of applications, protocols, transmissions, or bandwidth; or other similar behaviors not specifically requested by their customers.
...awful name. I can't help but think of Geek Squad, and that doesn't make me happy.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
They certainly have some big names on the list. I hope that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and they're more effective at getting politicians to listen than they were when standing apart.
what BS rhetoric.
allow me to bring you back down to reality from your rabid right wing frothing.
The "open market" as you so quaintly call these broadband monopolies is failing us. They are deliberately censoring websites, blocking protocols, forging packets, and illegally giving data on our internet use to the US government.
The only thing left they haven't done is implement the great firewall of china, something even the bush administration would not get away with.
So, in short, they are already as bad as the government could ever be with the internet. Regulation can only make it better
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I could be wrong, but it sounds more like they're looking for technical documentation and solutions to the issues rather than lobbying politicians for new laws. Also, do you really think that we even have "open market operations"? ISPs in North America have government regulated monopolies and it's killing our ability to keep pace with the rest of the world in connection speed and penetration to the majority of the population. I agree the solution is not more government regulation, but to kill these geographical monopolies.
I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
One of the important things to remember is that communication infrastructure requires using a limited public resource (e.g. burying cables on public property or even easements on private property, or using the limited bandwidth of wireless spectra
So, given that government involvement (and moreover, the creation of various forms of monopoly) is inevitable, the question cannot be "do we want the government involved?" but rather "what do we want government involvement to be?"
The incumbent communication companies are, basically, abusing the monopoly status that was granted to them. That monopoly status was granted with an implied (and only occasionally codified) ethos: namely that this would create widespread access to the resource for the citizenry. Things like prioritizing traffic and double-charging people for access are explicitly contrary to the intention with which the monopolies were granted. Hence, it is totally reasonable to ask that government amend the agreement with these companies, so that they actually deliver the service they were supposed to deliver.
Put otherwise: why should government keep giving monopolies to companies that are not acting in ways that benefit the citizens?
...or something that evokes the Internet Protocol.
People need to be reminded of what the ISP's role is: The offer Layer 3 service in the form of IP. Muck around with the protocols above that and you've not only stepped outside the bounds of an ISP, but are guilty of false advertising and data falsification.
I wonder if the big telecoms realize how badly they will be entrenched in cyber-guerrilla warfare with people like you and me if they somehow pull off grasping control of the net. It would be nice and a hell of a lot of fun to have a fully morally justifiable reason to engage in offensive action against the people trying to control information. I just imagine a Thermopylae style engagement between the two sides, and it sends shivers down my spine when I think about what we are actually trying to defend.
So if it's not under a contract, they should be able to set the terms of a new contract if their customers voluntarily agree with it, right? Your argument, though perhaps valid under the current circumstance, assumes that public money was already invested, and their business wouldn't exist without it. That may some merit, but of course I am against using taxpayer money for any telecommunications purpose, including infrastructure. The problem here is that the initial use of public dollars has led us into a downward spiral of regulation. That makes it harder and harder to get out of it as we go on. So the proper solution in my mind would be to allow private entities to build up their own networks, with their own money, wherever they can get customers. In order to make it equal and ethical for everyone, tax money should be completely taken out of the equation in all circumstances.