Slashdot Mirror
New 'Net Neutrality' Bill Introduced
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Reps Ed Markey (D-MA) and Chip Pickering (R-MS) introduced the 'Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008' (HR 5353) this week. The proposed legislation [PDF] would not legislate what is and is not 'neutral'. Instead, it would add a section to the 'Broadband Policy' section of the Communications Act which spells out principles the FCC is expected to uphold, in addition to having them hold summits which would 'assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues related to broadband Internet access services' and make it easy for citizens to submit comments or complaints online."
Do news sites even realize the sheer number of doomed bills that are introduced into congress? It's news when it has support past that initial congressman.
"... make it easy for citizens to submit comments or complaints online."
Those comments are always ignored, apparently.
As long as Comcast et al keep up with their regular "contributions" to the FCC, they'll just look the other way.
I think breaking up a few telecom monopolies would be a bit more of a realistic solution than scrapping the Internet...
What good are new laws or guidelines if they go unenforced? Man in the middle attacks are already illegal, but Comcast continues unabated. It's like having a Constitution that law makers ignore. Until someone goes to prison for ignoring it, its value becomes symbolic at best.
Since there isn't yet a problem for Net Neutrality laws to fix, it seems a little early to define what is and isn't net neutrality. Such a law is quite likely to permit bad behaviour, and have undesirable side effects. Both problems that would take several years to fix legislatively.
By extending the scope of the FCC, changes can be made much more quickly. Bad rules can be repealled quickly. New guidelines issued. Explicit behaviour prevented as soon as it starts.
Make you a deal. If you write your congresscritter to talk about that and post your letter here, then I'll write something similar to mine.
Or are you all talk and no action?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
congressmen aren't going to waste their time worrying about my one vote
1. If you put pen to paper and write a concise and reasonable paragraph or two about why it matters to you and send it to your representatives, you bet they will listen. Why? Because they know it's coming from a warm body as opposed to all of the anonymous electronic spam that Political Action Committees stir up. The letter becomes a bellwether of sorts if it is similar to other handwritten letters on the same topic.
2. The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy. Your one vote isn't really designed to matter as much as common knowledge would suggest.
3. Maintaining the Republic requires participation. Participation means putting pen to paper, talking to people in and out of the political system. Once you know a few people and have a couple of interests it can be very satisfying.
4. No, majority does not rule. More pablum that passes for common sense.
Making up excuses like yours is simply lazy and unpatriotic.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It has a nice name "internet freedom," but i would bet money it was supported or even written by the the communications industry. Why? Because they are scared $hitle$$ of regulation that will prevent them from creating a tiered internet (like cable, your cell phone features, etc). With a democratic president and congress a possibility, they have good reason to push something light through now.
Companies have to hedge their bets about what congress and what the public will do--when will people get pissed off enough to be less "disposed to suffer"? Or more accurately, when will a senator decide that s/he can get some major press by going against the communication companies? Or _pretending_ to go against them (as in this case)? It's all a game based on risk and reward, and this bill is a move by and/or for the telcos.
I know, we'll call it Internet2!
Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
to maintain the freedom to use for lawful purposes broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet, without unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators, as has been the policy and history of the Internet and the basis of user expectations since its inception;
Interesting that they stuck the word "lawful" in there, as well as "unreasonable interference". This bill won't change anything.
Now, instead of proposing concrete net neutrality laws like they should, they are spouting some vague pseudo-free shit that tries to immitate the constitution in its wording for marketing effetcs, in order to appease the naive populace.
FUCK THAT SHIAT! NO ONE CARES, LET'S JUST ALL LET THEM HEAR OUR VOICE WHEN IT COMES TO REAL NET-NEUTRALITY!
Hey, 'congresscritter' was good enough for Mr. Twain--and it's not like they're -real- people, anyway, eh? ;-p
So pretty much, you're saying that for all practical purposes you're a nonentity and can be safely completely ignored?
How sad.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
There's no way to win the bandwidth race at this point. The moment you start talking about "video", you move to a requirement that really is unrealistic.
To have the "Internet" (open access, bidirectional services and bandwidth, all-you-can eat buffet style bandwidth, unicast (or multicast)) with "Video" (continuous, "large" bandwidth streams), you have a problem.
OC-192's are the defacto standard in the Telecom industry. Even if you run multiple bonded OC-192, or have a faster standard, or any of the currently available technologies, you simply can't architect a network that could do what you suggest is so easy to do. Well, telepathy might work, but a workable implementation of mind-to-mind communications hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Now, saying that, the Telecom's are coping out with there current "traffic management", it's a pathetic implementation, and any real network engineer with more than a handful of years experience could create something better than manipulating TCP headers/windows/sessions (the minimum standard for MSS is 536 AT&T, or did you miss NewReno-IETF Standards 101 class?) or doing a DOS man in the middle attack on their customers. It's called Network Calculus, or Queueing theory, do a Google search and look it up, if you haven't blocked yourself from doing Google searches.
A simple queueing system that has a deficit round robin scheduler based on only src or dst IP address would do exactly what they are looking for (think WFQ, but only src or dst address based). With FQ, Cisco has been doing this for at least as long as I've been into networking, all that really needs to be done is for Cisco do change fair queueing to only include one parameter, the src or dst IP address. Problem solved. Customers happy. Multiflow file transfer applications running fine and not hogging the network. People browsing the web getting great performance. No lawsuits. Everybody wins.
It's so freakin' simple. Sometimes, the ISP's should just be slapped. All the Executives, managers, and engineers who go along with their BS. All in one big Three Stooges style line slap.
Oh... But you'll never truly get "Video" and the "Internet" to mix. If you think you can, I'd be glad for you to provide a potential architecture in this forum and prove me wrong.
multiplatformgeekbutmainlyjustnetworks
I'm not unhappy to see him sponsoring the bill - he's my Congresscritter - but he's not going to be around next year, so he doesn't have a lot of votes left to swap support for.
Can politicians lay off the whitewashing of bill names? I'd like to request the "Freedom from freedom naming Act" which would mandate that all bills are simply numerically titled, so that for example, politicians and people will actually have to learn about bill #654934792 before voting on it.
I'm really sick of these 'patriotic names' which usually have little or nothing to do with what the bill encompasses,
Like a Constitution that Lawmakers ignore?!? Say it ain't so!
Not at all.
But I do recognize that high and lofty ideas are pretty worthless if you can't figure out the intermediate steps to getting to 'em. Take opportunities where you can find 'em, and someday you'll find yourself a lot closer to where you want to be than you were when you started.
And you're welcome to call me an enemy if you like, but all you're making me feel is pity, rather than anger--as the Tao says, it's a very unfortunate man who counts another as an enemy. I'm sorry you feel that way.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
be sure to expect the Comcasts of the world to mark that traffic as the lowest priority possible, thus taking forever to actually get to those sites to log a complaint.
"The remote server timed out. Try again later."
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
"there's nothing wrong with some friendly blasts between mortal enemies.."
There is when one of them is a mental pygmy. Such as yourself.
Give up, you've lost.
Wouldn't that be Internet 2.0?
.0 release of anything.
Mind, you'd think people would have learned by now not to trust a
-- Alastair
> the only thing that can make a difference is a mountain of mail
He who would move a mountain must begin one stone at a time. - Chinese Proverb
The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. - Ambassador Kosh
Who ya going to believe?
Well, they sure jumped on Web 2.0 pretty fast. Every moron with a webserver and an AJAX book seems to be doing some web crap these days.
Oh, and it's Internet2. Because Internet2 already exists.
Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
Here is the way I look at it:
1) Voting is the last step in political participation which validates everything else. Voting is not where participation begins and ends.
2) Participation means engaging in a dialog with your representative and senators. This means calling their office, sending email, etc. Note that mail gets quarantined for a while and so snail mail is less of an option. However, check their web sites-- they usually have contact forms.
3) If we don't talk to our congressmen, then the only people doing that will be the lobbyists. Is that what you really want, for their viewpoints to be dominated by conversations with lobbyists?
4) You may get a form letter back. In that case, a longer reply with citations might be in order. Dialog does not mean a single exchange. It means an ongoing conversation as much as is required.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
the economist in me is wondering something... what would happen to broadband competition if instead of leaving the infrastructure in the hands of the telcos, it was put under the charge of a third party, who in turn sold bandwidth to ISPs, similar to how DSL providers were able to operate before Verizon and AT&T switched to fiber optics?
the way i'm seeing things right now, more choice would lower costs to consumers (which naturally the telcos would oppose), but if an ISP was caught doing something shaky (traffic shaping, etc), consumers would have other choices than their cable or phone company. having competing infrastructures strikes me as having to choice which company's sewers i flush my toilet into. it would make things simpler to have the one infrastructure.
... at least in the sense of compelling telecoms to behave in any particular way. The purpose of this bill is "to conduct a proceeding". That is, it's a directive to the FCC to survey the current state of affairs and provide some recommendations to Congress. Congress might later choose to enact a law based on those recommendations. But passing this current bill means nothing other than "the FCC must write a report".
I agree. My vote is for implementing RFC 1149 as our new internet 2.0 backbone.
1.) Train every man, woman, and child in America to professionaly dig ditches. Then, have them use this skill to lay lots and lots of fiber across the country.
2.) Develop blistering fast optical chips and an inferace bus to manage and route all the traffic.
Eh, I suppose one out of two isn't bad...
Life is not for the lazy.
http://www.internet2.edu/
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
This is more Washington Double speak. This bill would not ensure internet freedom anymore than the PATRIOT act is patriotic.
I don't like to be cynical, but I wouldn't get any hopes up over this bill. Remember that this is an election year, so even passing it (and making the FCC "study" the issue) is probably just about making a show of concern, rather than actually changing anything. (Or even heading off any threats before they happen.)
When I get time, I should write a journal entry about how I became a neutrality violator, too. (I promise that the issue is more complex than it might appear.)
Recent Decisions are favoring the telcos over the MSOs... not that it really matters in this case.
But what if your ISP starts filtering traffic to that website?
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
There is nothing stopping us from mounting wireless routers on our houses and building a nationwide mesh network we own and collectively control. As long as everyone maintains their own hardware the costs would be minimal and we can say goodbye to the telecomunications industry as we know it and all it's excessive billings.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
You suck
While we're at it, we can also implement less intrusive filtering with RFC 3514.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Isn't this what is already done with Terrestrial radio ownership and everything else the FCC does? 'Yeah, we might look at it at some point, to see if it's going to cause problems. If we think they're problems. Maybe. When we feel like it.'
Unless it is spelled out in 10+ pages of legalese so tight that it can't possibly be rewritten then it won't be enforced reasonably.
I would like to propose the following and would like to hear if anyone anywhere disagrees: 1. Anytime a board or elected official includes the possibility of holding "summits" or "dialogues" as part of a solution to an outstanding issue, it shall henceforth be considered NOT A SOLUTION! SUMMITS *DO NOT EQUAL* ACTION
I would suggest that the number of people who fought for others or for the right of every american to vote is a load of bollocks.
Some fought because they were forced to. Some because they were defending their OWN family. Some don't think gays should vote, some don't think non-christians should vote. Some think any chinese should be in america.
And so on.
They all fought for personal reasons. The only ones who had the luxury to fight for "causes" or ephemeral "ideals" were the ones not actually doing the fighting.
They definitely weren't up in their arse in muck and blood thinking "I'm doing this so Brian can vote in a Free America" (especially true for, say Korea or Vietnam, what way did they affect american soverignty?)
The fallacy of your argument is that your definition of a vote "counting" is wrong. Not wrong in any intellectual or mathematical way, merely wrong in a philosophical or sociological way. It embodies the outlook that "what I do affects me and my surroundings only". Very "me generation". The proper outlook for this problem is the outlook that "what I do is an example to society, which if followed by the majority, would benefit all".
It's obviously clear, assuming that democracy is worthwhile, that everyone should vote even though every individual's vote has an extremely small probability of swaying the result of the election.
A growing (and dangerous) analogous phenomenon to not voting is not having your children vaccinated. The probability that any one child not being vaccinated will enable an epidemic is small.
Your thinking is too reductionistic in that it neglects to take into account the collective attitudes of voters. You say that the probability of individual votes "counting" is negligible, but that is a position that quickly loses truth value when that attitude becomes a collective value. You potentially are assuming that the value would be spread equally between the different parties involved in an election, which may or may not be true. It is not hard to imagine an uneven distribution and the possibility that an election could be won more handily by the candidate/party who successfully projects the message that individual votes count.
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."
You MUST add your little bean to the pile, or it will never become a mountain.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
The video over the internet problem has already been solved by companies like Akamai (edge cache servers close to the end users) and swarm technology (BitTorrent).
All that it would take to have HDTV streaming to every house in the US would be a cable or DSL connection, utilizing swarm technology like BitTorrent and local seeding at each major ISP's NOC in each major city. Akamai already has servers geographically dispersed all over the US (and many foreign countries). Put a BitTorrent client on every AppleTV and let them swarm with other users on the same ISP. Problem solved.
The whole net neutrality debate exists because the big ISPs don't want us to actually use the unlimited bandwidth we paid for. Sure they might have to upgrade a few of their systems to handle video over the internet, but I can assure you, those that don't upgrade their systems and start throttling video (ala Comcast) will go the way of the dinosaur, while those ISPs that provide decent bandwidth and don't interfere will flourish.
The free market will eventually win, even if it's local wifi coops bypassing the incumbent monopoly carriers (in areas where there is no competition).
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Back in the early days, there was no standard for QoS. That's why there wasn't any offering of differing performance per-application.
Now, routers have CPUs which are powerful enough to make intelligent determinations and standards for managing those decisions.
I'm very interested in being able to purchase QoS-enabled service from my ISP. That would bring me a step closer to feasible high-quality telephony and video across the internet. All the "net-neutrality" proposals being pushed from the "net-neutrality" crowd would FORBID ISPs from offering those types of service.
I don't want Joe down the street from me clogging the bandwidth my ISP has to the point that my service is degraded. I want my ISP to be able to install controls to manage that. Once again, the proposals would forbid that.
What do I want in net neutrality? I DON'T want my ISP to use their traffic shaping to give them a "business" edge in internet services. I *don't* want them to lock out new internet services and businesses. I see how some of the incumbent players have managed their cell-phone networks and I don't trust them one bit not to do that. I *don't* want them to unilaterally degrade certain types of application service because they don't like it
Be very careful what you ask for. The BIG issue is making sure that ISPs don't use their traffic shaping for anti competitive purposes. Beyond that, the things being asked for would be as stifling to innovation and progress as the DRM that media companies are pushing on us.
One raindrop raises the sea.