Net Neutrality Blasted by MPAA Bosses

proudhawk writes "The LA Times is reporting that the MPAA's Dan Glickman has taken another swipe against net neutrality at his recent ShoWest appearance. 'Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy. That's what some studio lobbyists have been telling lawmakers, too, in their efforts to derail neutrality legislation. And depending on how the regulations are written, they could be right.'"

Comments

FUD begets FUD

[Meor]

Both sides of this story are lying about their intentions. Extra regulation will not make the net more neutral. Only removing the tools of power used by governments to regulate the internet at all, will make it neutral.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[MightyMartian]

Ah yes, so that when Comcast cuts a deal with Yahoo and slows your connection down to 56k, and they're the only high speed provider in your area, you'll feel so much better that the government isn't attempting to protect consumers.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[Meor]

I don't know why you're trying to get the government to protect you. In democracy 51% tells 49% they're wrong. The vast majority of people don't need fast internet connections. You should be scared of what the majority will do to you because if you're a high bandwidth user, you're the minority and your opinion means squat.

We need to remove the tools of power that regulate to protect ourselves from the stupid majority.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[MightyMartian]

What liberty is lost by forcing monopolies to behave? Be specific here.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[Pojut]

We aren't trying to grant the government to be responsible for protecting us...we are trying to get the government to bitch-slap misbehaving monopolies because we as individual citizens don't have the money or the realistic possibility of legal avenues to make the changes ourselves.

I'm all for keeping the government out of our daily lives, but there are instances where government intervention is necessary. Or do you have millions of dollars, top-notch lawyers, and the legal ability at your disposal to slap the likes of Comcast in the face hard enough that they stop bullying everyone else on the playground?

Re:FUD begets FUD

[MightyMartian]

Look, Ron Paul lost. Get over it.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[im just cannonfodder]

thankfully in the USA there is someone prepared to fight for the consumer over corporations screwing us all over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP_3WnJ42kw

Re:FUD begets FUD

[Mister Whirly]

"f you show me a single instance of u.s. government action against a monopoly that had any meaningful effect"

Never heard of Ma Bell and the phone monopoly they used to have? That's right, the entire US used to have only 1 phone company. Your choice was use them, or don't have a phone.
Hell in the old days, you couldn't even OWN your own phone - they were all considered "rentals" from the phone company.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[duguk]

Isn't it kind of the point that a net neutral ISP would not be able to watch data over their network and prevent piracy*?

It's kinda like saying if we let the Royal Mail read ever letter, we might catch a few criminals. If we don't, we'll have to catch them in some other more complicated and convoluted way.

Seriously, if its a criminal matter, I've not got too much of a problem with the GOVERNMENT watching our downloading. There's a possible reason behind it. Plus (usually) it'd go to a criminal court. If its just any company checking to see if I've just listening to 30 seconds of some other artists music, is it really their right to be able to use my own ISP against me without any proof?

* (read as: be forced to sue their customers on behalf on a organisation that doesn't stand for its members)

I know a lot of you won't agree with this petition that I set up on the Downing Street site (and I don't expect it to do anything), but please read it and offer your criticism and comments, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[PopeRatzo]

Only removing the tools of power used by governments to regulate the internet at all, will make it neutral.

The idea of our government is that it's of, by and for the people. Removing the power of government to regulate the internet is giving away our own power to make sure the internet serves us instead of the other way around.

I'm ashamed to see so many otherwise bright and technologically sophisticated people so misguided on this issue of Net Neutrality. We've got a small window of opportunity to save the internet as a tool of social benefit instead of just another shopping mall. Unless some effort is made to separate the hardware and structure of the internet from the content of the internet, we will lose everything that's so valuable and special about the internet.

We are currently seeing the social benefits of having a public medium for information that is not filtered by the Princes of Commerce. Believe me, those same Princes are desperate to destroy that public medium as fast as possible, because it threatens their hegemony.

Please, if you don't see the importance of Net Neutrality right now, take a little time and look the matter over again. Once a free (as in speech) and open (as in doors) internet is gone, there will be no getting it back. In fact, it's only by accident that we ever had a free internet to begin with, and the rich and powerful are scrambling to lock it down ASAP.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[Pojut]

But there are other people who read your post, and then read mine, and they will nod their heads "yep".

If you are so sure you are right and stand by your opinion so strongly...why post it as a coward?

Re:FUD begets FUD

[Pojut]

if your complaint is valid, then there should be a lot of other people in your area in the same boat.
form an action group. complain online, complain to the city, complain to the local news channels.
document your complaint. add ever increasing numbers to your group.
before you tell me that it will take "too long" to do that, you better look at how long government pseudo intervention takes and corporate litigation.
try years.
if internet is important to you, more then a luxury, then you need to do something NOW. move.

Who the fuck are you to assume what I have and haven't done? I have personally spent nearly every weekend of the last five years of my life doing exactly this while you made flame posts safely behind the annonimity of the internet. Next time, don't assume things about people you don't know.

quit being such a pussy.

They do say you are what you eat...

Re:FUD begets FUD

[Doctor_Jest]

Let it alone, then. Both sides. Let law enforcement do what they are hired to do in times of criminal activity (like they do with another neutral network... the phone system) and stop this criminalization of copyright infringement (the kind that has no monetary gain...) and stop lobbying to get vigilantism as a legal option for the *AA's.

By the same token... give the FCC the ability to fine the living snot out of companies like Comcast who use illegal means to stop BitTorrent traffic (whether legitimate or not is not Comcast's business...) and make traffic shaping for their own personal (company) gain illegal. Remove the ability of companies to stop shaping traffic they don't like.

Simple, isn't it? Governments don't make things neutral. Period. Companies don't make things neutral. Period. WE make things neutral. Remove the power to manipulate the system, and it becomes _ours_ again. (Government money funded the creation of this... so in effect, it IS ours. government subsidies funded the expansion of it through DSL and cable... so it's STILL ours...)

Re:FUD begets FUD

[znerk]

Never heard of Ma Bell and the phone monopoly they used to have? That's right, the entire US used to have only 1 phone company. The bolded portion of the quoted text is false. "Ma Bell" has been reconstituted. All the "Baby Bells" are now under one umbrella again.
See here for some more info.

It says there that "While it reconstitutes much of the original parent company, the new AT&T Inc. lacks the vertical integration of the historic AT&T Corp. which prompted the antitrust suit and breakup in 1984."
I, personally, do not see the difference between 'owning everything in your market space' and 'owning everything in your market space'.

In other words, this comment does not answer the GP's question of: "If you show me a single instance of u.s. government action against a monopoly that had any meaningful effect".

Re:FUD begets FUD

[Mister Whirly]

No, the bolded portion is absolutely true. AT&T used to be the exclusive phone company and consumers had zero other choices for phone services. That is no longer the case. From the article you cited -
"The new AT&T includes eleven Bell Operating Companies, and the long distance division.[3] While it reconstitutes much of the original parent company, the new AT&T Inc. lacks the vertical integration of the historic AT&T Corp. which prompted the antitrust suit and breakup in 1984."

And that is just AT&T. You have heard of it's competitors MCI and Sprint, right? If not, try this link.

"The break up of AT&T was initiated in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice antitrust suit against the telephone monopoly. Under the terms of a settlement finalized on January 8, 1982, "Ma Bell" agreed to divest its local exchange service operating companies, in return for a chance to go into the computer business, AT&T Computer Systems. Effective January 1, 1984, AT&T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Holding Companies, also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". Afterwards, AT&T, reduced in value by approximately 70%, continued to operate all of its long-distance services, although in the ensuing years it lost portions of its market share to competitors such as MCI and Sprint."

So yes, even though some of the "Baby Bells" are back together, you are not forced to use them as the one and only phone company in the US anymore. Care to explain how that isn't a "meaningful effect"?

Re:FUD begets FUD

[Mister Whirly]

Ever hear of MCI or Sprint? That's right, anyone can use their phone services if they don't want to use AT&T or one of the other "Baby Bells". And in the split, AT&T was reduced in value by approximately 70%.(first paragraph) Sounds like "more powerful than ever" to me!

Re:FUD begets FUD

[KDR_11k]

Why specifically the government? I see no reason to discriminate between public and private entities in this issue.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[spidercoz]

So yes, even though some of the "Baby Bells" are back together, you are not forced to use them as the one and only phone company in the US anymore. Care to explain how that isn't a "meaningful effect"? Sure, there's other companies in the country, but how about local markets? In Columbus the choice is AT&T or no phone.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[falconwolf]

Never heard of Ma Bell and the phone monopoly they used to have? That's right, the entire US used to have only 1 phone company.

Not for very long. General Telephone and Electronics (GTE) was founded in 1918. Of course GTE didn't operate in as many locations as ATT did and most people didn't have the luxury of making a choice as to whom they got telephone service from.

Hell in the old days, you couldn't even OWN your own phone - they were all considered "rentals" from the phone company.

And the plastic from those old phones were almost indestructible. Oh, and the phone service was a party line, you could listen to your neighbor talking on the phone just by picking up the handset.

Falcon

Re:FUD begets FUD

[falconwolf]

The bolded portion of the quoted text is false. "Ma Bell" has been reconstituted. All the "Baby Bells" are now under one umbrella again. See here for some more info.

Perhaps you missed this part of that wiki article:

Bell Operating Companies
"Of the twenty-two Bell Operating Companies which AT&T owned prior to the 1984 agreement to divest, eleven (BellSouth Telecommunications combines two former BOCs) have become a part of the new AT&T Inc. with the completion of their acquisition of BellSouth Corporation on December 29, 2006"

Half of the 22 companies formed when ATT was divested are not part of the new ATT. Plus we now have Qwest which was never a part of ATT, which actually was started by the owner of Southern Pacific Railroad.

Falcon

Re:FUD begets FUD

[falconwolf]

Sure, there's other companies in the country, but how about local markets? In Columbus the choice is AT&T or no phone.

You may not have a chose if you only have landline phone service, but I'm sure even in Columbus you have a choice for cell phone service providers. You may even have a choice for landline service, the local cable providers possibly offers phone service.

Falcon

Re:FUD begets FUD

[madera0]

Unless some effort is made to separate the hardware and structure of the internet from the content of the internet, we will lose everything that's so valuable and special about the internet.

It seems the QoS field in the IPv6 header runs counter to that spirit. AFAIK, it's specifically intended to mark packets for bandwidth preference. What's the fairest way to hand out bandwidth preferences? Market forces, coupled with some mechanism for non-profit subsidy, etc. Since we depend on private companies to build our Internet, they're going to want some flexibility to charge for it. We could have more government involvement, a la S. Korea & Japan "industrial policy", but imagine the kind of content interference that could bring, in the Bush era.

I think there's a distinction between "positive" traffic management, which doesn't look at content but allocates bandwidth as an economic resource, and "negative", which does look at content and other things to decide whom to choke off.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[madera0]

Please pardon the reps, first-time /. poster here...

Unless some effort is made to separate the hardware and structure of the internet from the content of the internet, we will lose everything that's so valuable and special about the internet.

It seems the QoS field in the IPv6 header runs counter to that spirit. AFAIK, it's specifically intended to mark packets for bandwidth preference. What's the fairest way to hand out bandwidth preferences? Market forces, coupled with some mechanism for non-profit subsidy, etc. Since we depend on private companies to build our Internet, they're going to want some flexibility to charge for it. We could have more government involvement, a la S. Korea & Japan "industrial policy", but imagine the kind of content interference that could bring, in the Bush era.

I think there's a distinction between "positive" traffic management, which doesn't look at content but allocates bandwidth as an economic resource, and "negative", which does look at content and other things to decide whom to choke off.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[PopeRatzo]

Since we depend on private companies to build our Internet

You might want to talk to some of the people at major universities and research institutions who started the whole thing, after all, or maybe the Defense Department.

You may have put your finger on the entire problem (accidentally): We depend on private companies to build our Internet. Maybe we should rethink this approach. I don't share your belief in "The Market" being a magical force for good.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[jc42]

Effective January 1, 1984, AT&T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Holding Companies, also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". Afterwards, AT&T, reduced in value by approximately 70%, continued to operate all of its long-distance services, although in the ensuing years it lost portions of its market share to competitors such as MCI and Sprint."

It's not clear to me how this did anything at all about the monopoly. To almost every US phone customer, all this did was replace their previous monopoly AT&T phone service with monopoly phone service through exactly one of the "Baby Bells". If you didn't like your local Baby Bell, your choices were to have no phone service, or to move to where another Baby Bell ran the monopoly phone busines.

This is still true in most of the US, especially if you want a land line. Hereabouts, the phone wires coming to our house are owned by Verizon, and it's illegal for anyone else to install phone lines. This is true almost everywhere; the only difference is that the local monopoly has a different name.

It's true that we now have cell phone service, which provides somewhat of an alternative. But cell phones weren't a result of the breakup of AT&T in 1984, and they're not really that much of a competitor for wired phones. To use the old, worn auto analogy, motorcycles really aren't competitors for automobiles. If your local government only permitted one brand of motorcycle and one brand of automobile on its streets (with perhaps cross-licensing for motorcycles), the result would be similar to the phone situation.

And in much of the US, there is either one or zero cell-phone services available for a given home. This isn't much of a competitive market. A duopoly isn't usually much better than a monopoly, because if there are only two companies, they tend to us "gentlemens' agreements" to restrict the local market by providing similar crappy products at similar high prices.

If you want to argue for a "market solution", you first have how a market can develop. This hasn't much happened in the telecom business in the US. Local governments cooperate with one or a few big corporations to restrict the market and lock out competitors, giving local customers few or no choices. The 1984 breakup of AT&T did little if anything to affect this, and local governments mostly cooperate with maintaining the restricted local market.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[madera0]

You might want to talk to some of the people at major universities and research institutions who started the whole thing, after all, or maybe the Defense Department.

I'm aware of the history. The synergy of universities and researchers with technology arms of the government in the early days was a great success story and critical to creating the Internet standard. But those days have mostly given way to build-out of the standardized technology stack by commercial entities.

We depend on private companies to build our Internet. Maybe we should rethink this approach. I don't share your belief in "The Market" being a magical force for good.

There's no magic to markets. With transparency and correction for over-investment, under-investment and abuses, they have proven to be the best overall way to allocate resources. Given the incompetence and ignorance practiced by the federal government in recent years, I would be loath to hand it more technical responsibility for the Internet. I like the idea of industrial policy in this area, but I'm not sure how to do it in this country without the govt. turning it into a political tool.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[PopeRatzo]

With transparency and correction for over-investment, under-investment and abuses, they have proven to be the best overall way to allocate resources.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the "Free Market" in the US, Europe or Asia.

You should have clarified that you were referring to a "free market" that has never existed.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[big_paul76]

"What's the fairest way to hand out bandwidth preferences?"

It's very simple.

I can't speak for other net-neutrality advocates, but all _I_ want is that you can "discriminate" on the basis of type of traffic, or basically anything else you like for QoS.

You just can't do it on the basis of source or destination. i.e., you can't decide to make yahoo work faster than google 'cause of a side deal you have with Yahoo.

Maybe some others are advocating some draconian, ultra-statist, level of regulation, but all I'm asking for is a guarantee in law that the internet keeps functioning the way we all basically take for granted.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[madera0]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the "Free Market" in the US, Europe or Asia.

You should have clarified that you were referring to a "free market" that has never existed.

As someone said, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." And, "Politics is the art of the possible." I'd rather have a system that comes close to the ideal than something unspecified that might work out OK. I haven't read a net-neutrality argument yet that explains how bandwidth is to be allocated economically. A free-for-all doesn't mean the "good guys" win or the "bad guys" lose; it reward greed, in fact.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[madera0]

...all _I_ want is that you can "discriminate" on the basis of type of traffic, or basically anything else you like for QoS. You just can't do it on the basis of source or destination. i.e., you can't decide to make yahoo work faster than google 'cause of a side deal you have with Yahoo....

OK, say we have one ISP whose business model favors, say, video traffic. Another, audio. Another, email. Etc. The market evolves, some types of traffic grow in popularity, and others stagnate or shrink. So the ISPs that favor the popular types can raise prices, the others probably can't. Seems like a big dose of inefficiency. Why can't one ISP just charge more to move what people want, or less per unit to move larger amounts of it? Why should the ISP subsidize the traffic of Google (not exactly a charity case) if Yahoo is willing to pay more?

Re:FUD begets FUD

[big_paul76]

It's not really google being mistreated that's a cause for concern, you're absolutely right, it's not like they can't afford it.

Let's say, Yahoo works out a deal in a non-neutral world, with Comcast, AT&T, and 2 or 3 others. Google eventually bows to inevitability, and makes the same deal with ISPs.

Then you're in a situation where, to get decent service, you HAVE TO be able to afford that sort of deal. So you've created a barrier to entry for the little guys.

So what I'm worried about is not about google being mistreated, I'm worried about, say, wikisecrets not being able to afford decent service.

Right now we have a remarkably low barrier to entry for publishing on the web. Given concentration of ownership for mainstream media, this is a VERY good thing.

I understand the points you raise about inefficiency, but politics is always a compromise.

I see net neutrality as being a way to keep ISPs (many of who are cable companies) from turning the internet into cable TV.

Take a look at "Digital Imprimatur" by John Walker, for some of the concerns I'm worried about:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

Re:FUD begets FUD

[madera0]

...you're in a situation where, to get decent service, you HAVE TO be able to afford [to pay for premium bandwidth]. So you've created a barrier to entry for the little guys....I'm worried about, say, wikisecrets not being able to afford decent service. That's where the "subsidy" part I waved arms about comes in. You build in a floor of access to bandwidth, by reducing the pool of "market rate" bandwidth to some level probably defined thru the political process. Kinda like "affordable housing" schemes so hotly pursued here in S.F.... except they ain't making any more San Francisco real estate, so doing this for Internet bandwidth, which is relatively easy to add, should be easier. This is a compromise position between enforced neutrality, which encourages greed and waste (spammers like it), and a laissez-faire market, which prices out the little guy. We've gotten used to the cheap capacity left over from the dot-com bubble. Scarcity feels weird and brings back all that unpleasant economic stuff. Good article you cited. I have noticed the "consumerization" of the Internet. I think Walker made the wrong call on DRM though: It's hard to beat "free", esp. if you offer nothing of value for what you charge. I'm for more accountability... I always liked D. Chaum's work on blind signatures (marketed by the now-defunct DigiCash), because they act to reveal "just enough" authentication of the subject for the purpose, i.e. confidence that the subject is indeed over 21, or holds the right to use a particular payment instrument. Fun stuff.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[znerk]

Yes, you are correct. Your reading comprehension seems a little low, though, as while the wiki statement is accurate, your immediate conclusion jump is not. By acquiring BellSouth, they acquired 11 of the previous BOCs. This brought them to 24 "Bell" holdings, 2 more than they started with. For your reference, look down a paragraph or two to the section titled '"Doing business as" names', where it lists the 11 they acquired (only 10 are listed, as one was merged prior to acquisition) when they acquired BellSouth.

It is also interesting to note that they own Cingular.

Another interesting item to note is the spying they (have been | are | will be) doing.

Yet another item of interest would be that the iPhone that everyone seems to be slobbering over is sold only with a 2-year AT&T service contract.

These people are bad, just like every other major corporate player in this hemisphere. I am sorry, Falcon, but you cannot defend them any longer.

As a reply to another post you made in response to the GP, cellphone is an option for voice communications, yes... but I understand DSL is not available without a land line. Nor, for that matter, are some satellite internet/TV services.

My initial point could bear restatement, I believe. It is as follows:
AT&T owns the North American communication lines.

In addition, I would like to thank jc42 for a well thought out, insightful post, over here. It comprises a much better rebuttal of your fallacious arguments than this one you are reading right now. I recommend you read that one after this, and rethink your conclusions.

It might also be a good idea to consider that some of us are quite convinced we are right, and will need actual proof before giving up our ideas.

Re:FUD begets FUD

[falconwolf]

Your reading comprehension seems a little low, though, as while the wiki statement is accurate, your immediate conclusion jump is not.

In what way is my conclusion wrong?

Another interesting item to note is the spying they (have been | are | will be) doing.

Yea, have you seen the new ads on TV lately about how whoever says the senate passed a bill to "renew" a spying law but that the house of reps went on vacation? Part of the bill the senate passed gives the telecoms a get out of jail free card. I can't help but say when it says the law is needed "prove it". Of course nobody can prove it's needed.

Yet another item of interest would be that the iPhone that everyone seems to be slobbering over is sold only with a 2-year AT&T service contract.

I can buy a naked iPhone. I can go down to one of the Apple stores in the area, there's 3 I've been to that are at most 20 minutes drive, and buy an iPhone without getting ATT service. Of course why would I buy an expensive brick? I don't even have an iPod, all I've got from Apple are 3 Macs, 2 old Macs and the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on. One of the old Macs is about 20 years old and the other about 10.

These people are bad, just like every other major corporate player in this hemisphere. I am sorry, Falcon, but you cannot defend them any longer.

Defend whom?

My initial point could bear restatement, I believe. It is as follows:
AT&T owns the North American communication lines.

ATT owns some but not all of the backbones. Qwest owns some as well as does or did GTE, MCI, and Worldcom. Google owns a lot of dark fiber as well, and is partnering with some other companies to lay more fiber between California and Japan. Broadwing Communications Inc owns almost 10,000 miles of fiber, and Qwest owns "888,000 fiber miles across the United States".

In addition, I would like to thank jc42 for a well thought out, insightful post, over here. It comprises a much better rebuttal of your fallacious arguments than this one you are reading right now. I recommend you read that one after this, and rethink your conclusions.

First, and again, what conclusion? Next, what "fallacious arguments" do I make? I think it's you who needs to work on reading comprehension.

Falcon

Re:FUD begets FUD

[znerk]

Your reading comprehension seems a little low, though, as while the wiki statement is accurate, your immediate conclusion jump is not. In what way is my conclusion wrong? Your conclusion is wrong in the ways that I spelled out in the rest of the paragraph you quoted. I can't debate with you, you refuse to read.

Yes, you are correct. Your reading comprehension seems a little low, though, as while the wiki statement is accurate, your immediate conclusion jump is not. By acquiring BellSouth, they acquired 11 of the previous BOCs. This brought them to 24 "Bell" holdings, 2 more than they started with. For your reference, look down a paragraph or two to the section titled '"Doing business as" names', where it lists the 11 they acquired (only 10 are listed, as one was merged prior to acquisition) when they acquired BellSouth. To jog your memory, I believe we were discussing just how many "Baby Bells" AT&T owned...

Re:FUD begets FUD

[falconwolf]

Your conclusion is wrong in the ways that I spelled out in the rest of the paragraph you quoted. I can't debate with you, you refuse to read.

You refuse to debate because your debating skills are too low.

To jog your memory, I believe we were discussing just how many "Baby Bells" AT&T owned...

Yes, and out of the 22 baby bells ATT only owns 11 now.

Falcon

Re:FUD begets FUD

[znerk]

Citations, please. Show me where it says that AT&T only owns 11 of the original Bell holdings.

As I have repeatedly stated, this magical number eleven you're pulling out of thin air is the number they acquired when they purchased Bellsouth. AT&T has 24 "Bell" holdings. You are illiterate, and I cannot stomach the idea of further conversation.

Corrupt organisation...

[adpsimpson]

Corrupt organisation seeks to further own aims.

Film at 11.

Re:Corrupt organisation...

[Z00L00K]

This problem of the movie industry trying to stop the evolution of new technology has been occurring not only during the internet age. The advent of home-recordings was one, the television another. They seem to forget that they can't succeed by rejecting new technology - they must embrace it and not try to inject peculiar provisions.

At the moment the MPAA, RIAA and similar organizations are alienating themselves from their customer base, which just means that the potential customers will continue to select different sources just to keep away from them.

Re:Corrupt organisation...

[compro01]

I am begining to wonder if Valenti is still running that joint from the grave. Either that or their phonograph is skipping.

that may be true, but...

[gravesb]

That may be true, but does prevention of piracy really outweigh my privacy concerns with having an ISP look that deeply into all packets? If my representative thinks so, then he has last my vote.

Re:that may be true, but...

[ajs]

It won't matter. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, then both presidential candidates will be pro-net-neutrality. There just isn't a popular platform for "yes, let's cripple the Internet so that corporations can profit more," and for once politicians have realized it.

Re:that may be true, but...

[Tetsujin]

It won't matter. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, then both presidential candidates will be pro-net-neutrality. There just isn't a popular platform for "yes, let's cripple the Internet so that corporations can profit more," and for once politicians have realized it. Well, over the years presidential candidates have learned a few interesting tricks. For instance, a candidate could potentially say they're going to do something, and then, once elected, do something else. Or, they could actually say what they're going to do, but say it in such a way that people don't catch on that it's not what they want. For instance, consider the following possible statement. The figures in it are fictitious, of course...

"Presently there's a conflict going on with regard to how the internet is managed. Service providers are overwhelmed with the level of traffic they receive, and over 80% of that traffic is being generated by less than 20% of their clients. This results in slower connections for the rest of their clients. I support legislation that would allow these providers to manage their services in such a way as to ensure a good experience for all their clients."

That's the trick - not everybody is a filesharer, and not everybody has actually started using the internet in a way that demands the full speed of their connection. Appeal to the clueless majority - tell them that filesharing results in them getting lower speeds (never mind the fact that it's their service provider's responsibility to provide the speed they've promised, or the fact that many of these users aren't likely to notice the difference anyway) and... voila. Public support for throwing a bone to ISPs.

Re:that may be true, but...

[Cainjustcain]

Legislation that benefits corporations to the detriment of the general public goes on the books all the time. Let's see, you have the 2005 amendment to the bankruptcy code seriously shifting protection to creditors. The S&L bailout which you are still paying for (and probably soon to be followed by the sub prime mortgage bailout). And don't get me started on the success of the insurance and drug lobbies in pushing through bad legislation. Face it, corporations have more power in America today than any time in history. If they want to make this happen they have the machinery to do it.

Re:that may be true, but...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Did you ever stop and wonder what would have happened if the bailouts had not occurred? That wasn't done to save the banks (because in many cases the banks failed/went out of business), it was done for the customers of the banks and the economy as a whole. The potential sub prime mortgage bailout... well, hopefully it won't happen, as it was brought about primarily through customer 'want it now' mentality.

Re:that may be true, but...

[EddyPearson]

How wonderfully naive. Wait for the campaign contributions to come in and then watch as the worm turns.

Re:that may be true, but...

[bleh-of-the-huns]

While the parent is modded as troll, he is correct in one aspect, no matter who wins, they always follow the money, period, no questions asked.

Look at every election in the past (I have not, but I am pretty sure there is a trend going), how many presidents have followed through with any of their campaign promises, I would hazard to guess... not a single one. Politicians all spout the I work for the people blah blah blah.. but what they really mean is they give major tax breaks to corporations in their districts who donate craptons of money to said politician...

Re:that may be true, but...

[Cainjustcain]

Sure, but why did the government pick up the tab? The Wall Street Investment banks made billions bilking the thrifts, not to mention the individual traders. Why is the financial sector not responsible for its illegal or incompetent actions?

Re:that may be true, but...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I can't answer fully without doing more research than I have time for now, but my understanding is that it was small, independent banks that were the primary cause of the issue; so it's not like they were subsidiaries of larger banks who could simply absorb the losses. (I reserve the right to be misinformed here...)

Re:that may be true, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and a slew of other internet companies that are facilitating content as their bread and butter have money too. There are many companies with deep pockets who don't see Tiered Internet as a good thing. None of those companies want get double 'taxed' on conducting their business and they will fight it. So it's not just little Johnny playing the latest Yellow Card song he didn't pay for, or the average slashdotter seeding a Linux ISO. Tiered Internet goes far beyond preventing piracy.

Re:that may be true, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't matter. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, then both presidential candidates will be pro-net-neutrality. There just isn't a popular platform for "yes, let's cripple the Internet so that corporations can profit more," and for once politicians have realized it. Well, over the years presidential candidates have learned a few interesting tricks. For instance, a candidate could potentially say they're going to do something, and then, once elected, do something else. Yes they can, but they quickly find that lying to large, well-respected and highly publishing-oriented corporations like Google causes problems that lying to citizens doesn't when they want to run for re-election. Both McCain and Obama know this.

The cynical way to look at this is that there are lots of things you can do that will piss off half the population and gain you the support of a handful of companies. This move pisses of nearly no one, and gains you the support of the majority of Internet-content companies ranging from Google to Microsoft to Amazon and so on. It does mean that Verizon won't like you, but it turns out that every candidate will be of more help to carriers than hindrance, even being pro-NN.

Re:that may be true, but...

[falconwolf]

well, hopefully it won't happen

I'm not in favor of government stepping in to bailout the financial institutions and borrowers who made bad decisions however I realize that if these businesses go under credit will dry up and perfectly reasonable and hard working businesses depend on credit.

Falcon

Not the real reason...

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The studios stand to make a lot of money selling streaming content through certain ISP portals rather than leaving it to the internet to find the most efficient way to distribute it without the MPAA anywhere in the picture.

Pandora's lid is already off the box, the studios just want to make a couple bucks at the spigot while they still can.

Re:Not the real reason...

[Anonymous Coward]

They will not.

For most current combinations of network and streaming architectures the costs do not compute.

It is a classic case of "You should never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes" (in this case DVDs).

The cost of streaming (not downloading - streaming with guaranteed QoS) of a movie at DTV broadcast quality is above 5$, DVD quality or HDTV quality are simply out of the question. This is way higher than rental through the post. Only some fiber architectures come close to matching the costs but even they cannot hit the right numbers for the time being.

Re:Not the real reason...

[compro01]

the cost of streaming (not downloading - streaming with guaranteed QoS) of a movie at DTV broadcast quality is above 5$ do you actually have a source or some numbers to back up this statement?

also, "DTV broadcast quality" seems kinda nebulous. what definition are you referring to? also, as you meaning exactly as DTV (mpeg-2) or at that quality using a more efficient codec?

as stage6 was running 1080p streams and reportably costing about $1 million per month in bandwidth, so I'm reasonably sure that would be sustainable on a pay-for model, though that's assuming there is adequate bandwidth on the client/isp side of things to make real-time streaming feasible, as it certainly seems feasible on the pushing end.

DRM failed, so change strategy

[athloi]

DRM has failed because it annoyed publishers as much as pirates, if not more.

The RIAA and cohorts now change strategy: make massive amounts of bandwidth expensive.

They're trying to take out the mules for software groups, who spread around the warez, and the people who hoard and distribute music and movies.

This is more likely to succeed. Although most Slashdot readers know how bad connectivity options are in the USA, very few people who limit themselves to YouTube and e-mail have any idea.

They won't notice if they get low bandwidth caps, but they'll shriek when their kids run up the bill for $500 of overage.

And of course, a bill that large warrants an investigation by the ISP.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[_KiTA_]

The RIAA and cohorts now change strategy: make massive amounts of bandwidth expensive.

They're trying to take out the mules for software groups, who spread around the warez, and the people who hoard and distribute music and movies.


And as a free bonus, it means that only THEY will be able to afford to do the digital music thing. Bye bye Indy Digital Music Labels, bye bye Indy Internet Radio, bye bye Radiohead-style "Download it and pay us directly what you want", etc.

Brilliant. Dirty as all getout, but brilliant.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[zappepcs]

You have it exactly right. It's about money, not fairness, or legality. Legality changes when they can pay enough legislators to make their business model look fair and legal.

Glickman, the **AA, and any of their illk has a conflict of interest when they talk about net neutrality and filtering. He has only greed for motivation, not doing things right or even fair.

When he starts talking about how to get EVERYONE higher bandwidth AND better Internet experiences without filters or DRM... then and ONLY then are they worth listening to. They are not trying to help anyone but themselves, and perhaps that is how it should be, but we need to make sure that our legislators do NOT believe that he speaks for the average user, ISP, or Internet based business.

The guy dressed like jesus on 49th street wearing a sandwich board declaring the end is near can be spotted by anyone as a crank. Glickman is a different kind of crank and the writing on his sandwich board promises huge sums to those who would enact laws in his favor, not just eternal bliss in the afterlife.

The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality. The **AA are trying to hold on to their choke hold of distribution and cable companies currently have a choke hold on broadband distribution. When infrastructure ownership is neutral, so will the net be.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[garett_spencley]

"The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality."

The only problem is that you'd be taking the infrastructure out of the hands of one monopolist and handing it into the hands of another. When the government owns industry and communication that's called communism. I don't like the current system. There HAS to be SOME way to make a level playing field on the infrastructure so that small start-ups can come in and offer competition to the big guys. I just don't like the idea of government regulation doing that. It's the antithesis to free market. It's a band-aid. It's socialism. It's government control.

I don't have any answers either. I just don't agree with handing control of the infrastructure over to the government. I don't really believe in handing control of anything over to the government.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[zappepcs]

Agreed, perhaps infrastructure co-ops?

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[smallfries]

Wow. You support a private fire service, and private (corporate) armies. That's some mighty fine and mellow crack you're smoking..

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[glindsey]

This is why I'd love to see us make inroads on cheap, easy to use wireless mesh routers. A bunch of them in a municipality could automatically mesh together. In theory, enough of them could create a network large enough that they wouldn't even need to tie into the Internet -- they'd have become their own network.

The difficulties of such a mesh are mind-boggling, of course. I'm sure getting an efficient routing system down would be a total nightmare. With a decentralized system like that, I don't know how you'd index or search for information (the exact same problem FreeNet has had). Efficiency and speed will degrade proportionally to geographic distance (number of nodes your data has to hop through). And unless you had a ton of nodes, you're going to get splits in the mesh if a single node happens to connect two disparate meshes and it goes down.

It's definitely a utopian libertarian dream, but it is one that has always fascinated me. A completely democratic network, totally decentralized and controlled by the users. And so I'm sure we'll never see it (and it would never work in reality anyway, similar to how communism breaks down in the real world).

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[znerk]

...perhaps infrastructure co-ops? See, now this is where my thinking was headed some time last year. Wireless and wired infrastructure, done by the local geek, throughout a trailer park, apartment complex, small town, suburb, or what have you.

Buy a big pipe, then defray the cost by offering the use of it to your neighbors. By my thinking, you could support up to 100 people with a single $300/month "business-grade" fios pipe. Add in some money for overhead, ie. paperwork administration and your time as a network admin, and you could be making quite a secondary income for (in essence) running some cable and configuring a linux box as a firewall/router.

Do the math with your own neighborhood, and see what you think. Can you get away with charging your neighbors $10-$25 per month to use the internet? Any "high-speed" ISP can get away with charging them $25-$50 (or more) per month for the same bandwidth and level of service, without even providing a method of walking over and asking the network admin why they can't hit youtube today. Think about it.

Perhaps the best method of fighting these gluttonous monsters is to bring the network size down to small "indy" ISP's, dozens (or more) per town. Make the whole 'net P2P ;)

For more information, use your search engine of choice to see what the municipal wireless projects are doing, and then imagine using wires instead. The routing is much the same, I would think, it's just a difference in the media between nodes.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[jc42]

This is why I'd love to see us make inroads on cheap, easy to use wireless mesh routers. ... The difficulties of such a mesh are mind-boggling, of course. ... It's definitely a utopian libertarian dream, but it is one that has always fascinated me.

Funny, but it's not just utopian libertarians with such dreams. If you dig up the docs from the earliest days of the ARPAnet, back in the 1960s, you'll find that the US Dept of Defense had exactly the same dream. Except theirs was a battle field scenario, with all of their mobile equipment and soldiers connected via a wireless network. That network shouldn't have any central routers, because those are instant targets, and taking them out kills your network. The idea was that all the equipment supported dynamic routing, with all but the endpoints doing routing, and if any of the routers were taken out, the rest would instantly reconfigure the routing tables. The idea was that as long as an electronic path between two nodes exists, those nodes can communciate.

This was how the Internet was supposed to work. The wired version was an interim kludge for development purposes, to be phased out as wireless equipment became available. Central routine nodes and organizations like ISPs that are chokepoints were allowed because the routing protocols hadn't been worked out yet, but eventually they should be supplanted by a fully distributed routing system with maximal interconnection, so that an enemy couldn't take it all down with a few well-placed shots.

Somehow the commercial Internet didn't see it that way. They much prefer minimal hardware with tree-structured, heirarchical connectivity, and chokepoints everywhere, without alternate routes to handle failure.

(OTOH, the new OLPC XO implements something very similar to what the DoD proposed 40 years ago. There's some sort of historical irony here, with people building a computer for young children doing something that the entire commercial economy has failed to deliver for decades. Maybe the children will lead us into this libertarian/military utopia that we've dreamed of. ;-)

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[nschubach]

I've actually wondered about this for some time. With the programmability of the Linksys WRT54G routers, couldn't you create and sell nodes using these devices or variations of such? You could even create a solar/battery power cell for it and not require local electricity to run it. You'd need to put them in a weatherproof container and you'd probably end up spending $100 or so a piece. If you could get a stable build, reduce the footprint and get someone to mass produce this, you'd be set for a node based network selling the devices for a few bucks (I'm guessing.) People wishing to promote this could buy a cheap node, mount it somewhere and be connected to a local wireless LAN. Since Neighbornet is taken, we'd have to come up with a new name. WAPnet?

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[KDR_11k]

I just don't like the idea of government regulation doing that. It's the antithesis to free market. It's a band-aid. It's socialism. It's government control.

As opposed to corporate control?

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[garett_spencley]

Speaking of the fire service, my father in-law is actually a retired firefighter.

He retired at the end of 2007 and at the same time he opted to get some long needed knee surgery. The reason he got it at the end of his retirement is because the department offered to keep him on worker's compensation AFTER his retirement while he recovered from his surgery. So basically our tax dollars are going to pay for him to live for free. He's not currently employed. He's officially retired. But they're paying for him to live while he recovers.

At the same time, I can't remember the last time I ever directly benefited from the work of the fire department. Oh wait, that's because I never have needed their services. Yes, I would have no problem paying for the service when I actually need it. Insurance companies would benefit too from offering extra premiums to cover the cost of the service. Instead our tax dollars pay for something that the majority of us will never use.

As for private armies, I don't think they should exist. But I still don't like paying to fund my armed forces. I'm Canadian btw, and we have very strong political ties to every member of the British Commonwealth. If Canada were to go to war we would have no shortage of allies on our side, and given that the citizens supported the war (either due to a homeland invasion of Canadian soil or that of an ally) I don't think there would be a shortage of Canadian volunteers either. No, I really don't think that taxing citizens to pay for an ever-ready army is really fair to the average citizen who does not directly benefit from having a bunch of "peace keepers" abroad. The Canadian army as it stands right now is mostly a political tool. A way to lend support to allies and show the world that Canada is determined to resolve conflict. It really doesn't benefit the average Canadian citizen much. Of course that doesn't address how an army would be funded during war-time. But so long as citizens support the war they would either volunteer donations or support a temporary tax to fund it. Funding an army with taxation during peace-time makes little sense to me.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[smallfries]

I was quite suprised as I read the story about your father in law because I'd implicitly assumed that you were American, from your libertarian sounding views. Then I read as far as you being Canadian and oddly that story wasn't a suprise. Your country has possibly one of the best international reputations. I think it's really good for them to do that for him, very generous and considerate.

It's an interesting question when you compare no-national-army against no army at all, rather than private armies. At one point I would have thought you naive and idealist for suggesting it, but after the past five years of watching Bush & Blair's wars it doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[compro01]

basic ideal i see is that the government owns the infrastructure (physical plant, fibre in the ground, etc.), and is responsible for its upkeep, but they are not permitted to use the infrastructure to deliver their own services. they're completely out of the market themselves, rendering them impartial. they are only able to lease it out at some constant fee (no volume discounts or whatever) to anyone who wants to use it to deliver services.

as far as i see, that makes for a completely level playing field. mom&pop isp would have the same per capita infrastructure costs as RandomMegaCorp.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[compro01]

Somehow the commercial Internet didn't see it that way. They much prefer minimal hardware with tree-structured, heirarchical connectivity, and chokepoints everywhere, without alternate routes to handle failure. simple. fast, cheap, reliable. choose 2. guess which ones most consumers will choose, and thus which 2 most any commercial enterprise looking to sell to those consumers will choose.

it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be good enough.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[falconwolf]

I just don't agree with handing control of the infrastructure over to the government. I don't really believe in handing control of anything over to the government.

How about separating ownership of infrastructure and the services that infrastructure can deliver? Take for instance fiber to the curb. Allow one entity to build and own the fiber but then while requiring them to allow anyone else who wants to use it to offer services the infrastructure can deliver bar the fiber owner from offering any services themselves. Say one company can use the fiber to offer cable tv, another offers net access, a third offers phone service while a fourth offers a bundle of all three services.

Falcon

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[falconwolf]

Recently I read an article dealing with this. A property insurer in California had its own "fire department", they contracted with another business to provide protection of property from fire for those who had insurance through them. Of course people who didn't have insurance through the company complained about a private fire department. If these people had thought about it though said private fire departments reduce the stress on public fire departments, when one responds to a fire the public fire department doesn't have to spend as much.

Falcon

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[mpe]

DRM has failed because it annoyed publishers as much as pirates, if not more.

DRM is to all intents and purposes hacked about cryptography. Thing is that encryption works if you trust the intended recipient with the "plain text". The hacking bit with DRM is to try and obscure that you give someone you don't trust a cipher machine and a set of keys.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy

[mpe]

At the same time, I can't remember the last time I ever directly benefited from the work of the fire department. Oh wait, that's because I never have needed their services. Yes, I would have no problem paying for the service when I actually need it.

How do you know that you have not indirectly benefited from your fire service? Do they exclusivly fight fires or these people also provide fire prevention information and investigate the causes of fires?

Ignorant about how this would backfire

[von_rick]

"neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy"

Seems like he's missing the point. Glickman would be all for neutrality when some of the movie websites would be blocked by certain governments or schools or such institutions all because of the 'emerging tools' that ISPs would've implemented.

New glasses needed

[L4t3r4lu5]

I can't stop reading that sentence as "...bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent privacy."

That's not a dumb move at all

[siddesu]

Sounds to me like the * Ass. of A. are looking for new partnerships. They toss something to the ISPs in exchange for support for whatever measures the Ass. is interested in getting passed. I guess we'll see a lot more of the same in the coming months -- it'll be interesting which ISPs will they be talking too and how far it goes.

Levels the playing field

[esocid]

They're against net neutrality because it doesn't give them an advantage. In the current way, they are the top dogs who get to control when and where you see a product and how much you pay for it. Under the neutrality rules they are no longer the gate-keepers per se, but have to compete with other factions that can offer more available and cheaper "products." They're using this argument because they want to tighten the strangle hold that they have, and possibly make ties with the ISPs who would control the tubes without any sort of neutrality rules. This is just another example of them treading water in an area that they can't control, yet still whine about this imaginary loss of revenue. Go to hell MAFIAA.

Re:Levels the playing field

[NeutronCowboy]

Yup. The internet provided the entertainment distributors with its worst nightmare: a cheap channel where everyone can be a distributor. The RIAA/MPAA wants to return to the good old days of one-directional pipes. A smart network is the first requirement for this. Everything else is secondary. I hope the current organizations die out before they can push this through.

Re:Levels the playing field

[Microlith]

The internet provided the entertainment distributors with its worst nightmare: a cheap channel where everyone can be a distributor.

I'm sure they wouldn't care, if not for the fact that its the copyrights of their member companies that are being violated. Were it truly being used like Slashdot espouses, with new and innovative businesses distributing their works (and only their works) I'm sure they'd have exactly zero room to breathe.

But they've got ammunition, and LOTS of it.

Re:Levels the playing field

[uniquename72]

Without Net Neutrality, YouTube would have been throttled out of existence 2 years ago. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your point of view, but the fact is worth mentioning to your Congressman.

Piracy/Privacy

[AaxelB]

I read that as:

'Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent privacy' I was somewhat impressed how they were coming right out and saying it! But no, just more bullshit.

Re:Piracy/Privacy

[TheMeuge]

It's no more a job of the ISP to prevent piracy, than it is the job of highway builders/maintainers to make sure that their road isn't used to ship stolen goods.

P.S. If I get modded down for using the word "stolen" as a part of my analogy, I will join the other side.

Re:Piracy/Privacy

[TheSpoom]

Haha, I read it the same way. The misreading really highlights the real point of the argument.

Re:Piracy/Privacy

[z0idberg]

...but a good one.

Admins, whoever mods this post down is an *IAA member trying to turn TheMeuge to the dark side! Ban them!

P.S. whoever mods this down because I used the incorrect article before *IAA is a grammar nazi of the very worst kind.

The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality if..

[freedom_india]

The MPAA & RIAA would support net neutrality if:
1. Each ISP pays them $5000 per month for each album they see transferred across their lines (in either torrent, iTunes, or any other legal format).
2. MPAA & RIAA get to monitor the pipelines and send the ISPs bill (Much like AT&T Vaccum Cleaner).
Then you would see a sudden change of stone-cold hearts of these bitches to support neutrality since this gives them an edge over what consumers can see and hear.

All I am hearing...

[the4thdimension]

...is "waaaah... we won't be able to get the ISPs to do what we want!" Is there ANY other utility industry where a third party can inflict rule over the utility for the good of the third party? Gas? Electric? Water? An ISPs job should be to supply the Internet... thats it and thats all. It should NOT be a gatekeeper where, in the interest of other parties, things are or are not filtered. If the MPAA gets their way, I want all ISPs to filter my social networking and blog sites except for the people that I deem appropriate. If one organization gets to do it, everyone should get to do it.

Re:All I am hearing...

[Nerdfest]

I've always thought it should be treated like phone service. How would people feel if the phone company or some other organization listened in on their phone calls, much less degrading the quality if they didn't like what you were talking about. A government organization with proper warrants should be able to do it but that's about it.

Re:All I am hearing...

[znerk]

You mean like AT&T?
--
My bad, didn't know you've been living under a rock.

Re:All I am hearing...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Is there ANY other utility industry where a third party can inflict rule over the utility for the good of the third party?

You seem to be forgetting that the activity that they're lobbying to prevent is illegal and not just for when it concerns them. They want it, but then again so do many other people. It's not a simple case of one industry annexing the other.

Re:All I am hearing...

[the4thdimension]

Copyright violation by simply copying a CD and giving it to a friend via the internet is hardly illegal. Its a civil matter, but not a legal one. Whether it's wrong or not is obviously debatable, but hardly the point. If I post nude pictures on a forum that does not allow it, that's wrong but not illegal. Not to mention, trumping all of that, an ISP should not be involved in the legality or illegality of something. Just because something may or may not be illegal, the ISP has no business flexing that decision for anyone. If something is a copyright violation, the copyright holder can do the required steps to track down and sue said "criminal". The kind of traffic they are trying to block not only hinders trading copyrighted works, but also non-copyrighted works(free linux distros and the like). It has far-reaching repercussions well outside those that you deem "illegal".

Selling copied music, however, IS illegal. I will see you on that. The difference here is that since you can't legitimately tell the difference from the ISP end, it's ridiculous to think that an ISP can regulate for the MPAA/RIAA.

Re:All I am hearing...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Copyright violation by simply copying a CD and giving it to a friend via the internet is hardly illegal. Its a civil matter, but not a legal one.

Nice try, but you're referring to criminal versus civil. Both refer to illegal activity. Copyright infringement is illegal. There is a set of laws called copyright law, and breaking them is illegal. Implementing measures to combat illegal activity is hardly out of the jurisdiction of lawmakers, no matter whether the cases are criminal or civil.

If something is a copyright violation, the copyright holder can do the required steps to track down and sue said "criminal".

Sure, we could leave copyright holders to search out and find their own violators, but that doesn't seem to be accomplishing much, based on the rates of copyright infringement. Plus, if the copyright holder is a certain group of corporations we've all come to know and love, we find that they are reluctant to spend large amounts of time and money in gathering evidence that should be an absolute prerequisite for any such case. Bottom line: they lose, we lose, pirates mostly win, but will eventually lose in the long term.`Something's gotta give, and even though it's not acknowledged on /. very frequently, it must be a compromise. I have a feeling that we will lose some privacy, the **AA will lose some revenue, and some struggling indie artists may go broke, but it must be sorted out.

The difference here is that since you can't legitimately tell the difference from the ISP end, it's ridiculous to think that an ISP can regulate for the MPAA/RIAA.

No, that's true. It's currently not feasible to filter illicit copyrighted material at the ISP level, at least at an acceptable cost and false-positive/false-negative rate. It doesn't mean we should stop looking for a solution though.

boohoo

[fpgaprogrammer]

Steve Jobs is successful where the RIAA wasn't because he learned how to compete with free with better instead of with whining. Another argument against neutrality is that you can't pay to have ISPs allocate more bandwidth for your torrent service.

MPAA Argues *For* Net Neutrality

[Doc Ruby]

If the crooked abusers of both networks and the law are demanding Net Blackmail be allowed to further their enterprise, they are evidence that we need Net Neutrality to protect us from invading our privacy and hijacking our free speech.

Thanks for your own FUD

[RealProgrammer]

Show me the locality where that is happening.

Show me the trend to decreased bandwidth.

It looks to me that the trend everywhere, under light regulation, is toward increased bandwidth.

But if you can show me, I'll be happily disabused of that.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[sm62704]

Show me the locality where that is happening.

Comcast is a monopoly here in Springfield. Cable companies are monopolies about everywhere. Get some competetion and the market can take care of itself, but monopolies must be regulated to prevent them from running roughshod over the people who need the services only they can (and in most cases, their monopoly is protected by law) provide.

Show me the trend to decreased bandwidth.

Comcast Sued Again over P2P Throttling

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[Brian Gordon]

"They could be right"
What? Of course they're right- net neutrality legislation is made to protect peer-to-peer traffic.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I do not believe the throttling issue will effect the end users from a budget standpoint. I believe what they are trying to do is charge the content providers (google for example) a higher rate then they would say a partner like yahoo, and in that case when the end user goes to yahoo, the link will be fast and unimpeded, but when the end user goes to google who refuses to be extorted, the link will drop in speed to modem rates...

Thats what I think they are trying to do.

My opinion on the matter, let the ISPs do what they want, if they remain a strict pipe and do nothing else to impede or interfere with traffic, thats great, but allow them the choice.

Should those same ISPs decide to mess with traffic (say filter or block VOIP and pushing their own services), let them, but strip them of all common carrier status and regulate them in such a way, let the lawsuits flow.

I think if the above happened, their interest in filtering and pushing their own services over competitors by using traffic shaping will disappear. I hope anyways.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[whoever57]

Should those same ISPs decide to mess with traffic (say filter or block VOIP and pushing their own services), let them, but strip them of all common carrier status and regulate them in such a way, let the lawsuits flow.

They cannot be stripped of what they do not have. ISPs are generally NOT common carriers today. I don't see any lawsuits yet.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[quanticle]

Show me the trend to decreased bandwidth.

While bandwidth isn't decreasing, it certainly isn't increasing either. Despite what the advertising for broadband claims, we've still all got pretty much the same amount of bandwidth we had in 2000. Increased competition could certainly help here, as the larger number of providers would certainly provide some incentive for everyone to give more bandwidth.

The more pressing concern is that, because of their vertical monopoly, carriers could block services (e.g. VoIP) that competes with services they provide, or content that they disapprove of. Having competition would certainly be a blessing here, since on could use the lack of content filtering as a marketing point when selling one's product.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[Chutulu]

are you the comic book guy from The Simpsons?

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[DrgnDancer]

Monopolies are created by entrenchment. Cox cable is the monopoly here. They own all the fiber, they own all the conduit. It would cost a new company millions, if not billions to lay down a new infrastructure. Our local power company is doing Fiber to the Premise, and even with owning a huge network of poles and conduit, it's going to cost a fortune. Only with the help of local government (which is issuing bonds to pay for part of the project) and the firm support of the majority of the residents are they even attempting it. Imagine the costs for a company with no government backing and no pre-existing infrastructure trying it.

All of the major utilities were able to be built because of local government support of the projects at the time they were "new". Either the governments pays for the infrastructure and spins it off to a company to run, the government pays for the infrastructure and runs it, or through a combination of subsides and and a temporary or permanent monopoly the government helps a company pay for the infrastructure.

Wireless infrastructure is a completely different and much less expensive matter. Cell towers aren't cheap, but compared to running cable to every residence they're practically free. (Which is why in many underdeveloped areas you see more cell phones than land lines.)

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[DrgnDancer]

Competition does help increase bandwidth, I can say that with some certainty. Every since our power company got approval to install a Fiber to the Home system, Cox has been juicing up the bandwidth. I have about 15 Mbps now, and I actually get it most of the time. LUS is promising 20-100Mbps connections through Fiber to the Curb. Given the total lack of applications that need 15 Mbps, let alone 100 on the Internet; bandwidth has become the least of my concerns for picking a service once LUS finishes laying the network next year.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

YEAH! Every broadband subscriber should only be allowed to communicate with fully accredited and licensed Content Delivery Servers! None of this "talking to any other computer on the Internet" bullshit!

Your nick might be "RealProgrammer" but you talk like a "RealAuthoritarian".

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[sm62704]

How is P2P like a cancer? If you mean because it's growing exponentially, then movie company profits are like cancer.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[SanityInAnarchy]

Monopolies are created by regulation.

How can you not see the exceptions to this? Are you seriously claiming Microsoft was created by regulation?

Cell phone monopolies were created by a 2 provider per area limit back in the day which was facilitated by the government regulating all EM spectrum.

If you think we would even have functional cell service without that regulation, you're deluded. What's to stop one cell company from "accidentally" causing massive interference for a competitor's network? Do you really want five times more cell towers than are needed (and radiation to match), just because of competing providers? What happens when they start boosting their signal to guarantee they have clearer calls than their competitors (and, coincidentally, interfering with their competitors' systems)?

Back to the issue at hand: ISPs have a physical monopoly. Laying ever-more cable and fiber everywhere is going to cost a lot, is wasteful, and isn't always an option.

There are some things the free market can't solve.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[sm62704]

I would have guessed there were 50 of them. There's one in Canada and another in Australia as well, but only one has an Alderman named Simpson!

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[Peaker]

How can you not see the exceptions to this? Are you seriously claiming Microsoft was created by regulation?

The Microsoft monopoly was created by a different kind of government intervention: Copyrights.

Without government intervention (and thus, without copyrights), Microsoft could not have become a monopoly.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[falconwolf]

Wireless infrastructure is a completely different and much less expensive matter. Cell towers aren't cheap, but compared to running cable to every residence they're practically free.

And that's why landline companies are fighting attempts to offer Muni WiFi. Small city X has no provider of broadband services so they decide to setup their own wifi. When they do they end up fighting commercial businesses trying to stop them. These businesses are concerned about compeating against government, which I understand, but then they won't buildout themselves which is why the munis decided to themselves. Being libertarian I don't particularly like taxpayers being stuck with the bill myself, I do however like what a group of communities in northeastern Utah are doing. There they are creating a "Broadband Utopia". While the communities own the infrastructure access by any entity that wants to provide a service it is capable of can use it. Because of the competition almost 2 years ago Comcast was forced to offer a triple play of cable tv, net access, and phone service (landline) for $90 in the area.

Falcon

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[XHIIHIIHX]

Comcast just quadrupled my bandwidth at no additional cost to me. No FUD here.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[rtb61]

You really just don't get it. Your service does not travel across one companies infrastructure, it travels across many, all of whom can throttle you access or even cut it off at a whim. You want full service then you will have to pay more than one company for that service. Is your company just cheating you, how can you tell, they will just blame someone else, you will have absolutely now way of evaluating what kind of service you are actually getting.

Want to check a competitors rates, than get ready to drive there because all of your communications to them will be cut off. The internet is just a digital transmission service, allow bullshit throttling and cutting people off on that and they will shift across to the cell phone network, why not. Just think of the political advantages, the corporation doesn't like the candidate, there web page disappears as do all their emails. Corporation doesn't like a news story, watch it disappear from the network. Abandoning net neutrality is basically giving the telecommunications company the right to censor the internet as they see fit, and collectively via collusion sell the future of democracy to the highest bidder.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD

[big_paul76]

Show me the locality where that is happening.

What about when the Canadian ISP, Telus, blocked access to the website of their union, when said union was on strike?

Isn't that a cause for concern on this topic? Or are we OK with ISPs bringing in their own brand of censorship any time they like?

The internet is not all about the *AA's content ..

[gstoddart]

Look, I realize that some of the traffic on the internet is actually illegal copies of their stuff. However, it's not my traffic, and it isn't the majority of people's traffic.

But, some of the traffic on the roads is probably carrying illegal drugs and what have you. In the real world, we wouldn't accept widespread intrusive checking of the contents of our vehicles to try to stop that kind of stuff. I see no reason why we should accept it online.

The MPAA/RIAA expect the entire world to adapt their infrastructure to police their interests -- it doesn't work that way.

Hopefully, before long someone will firmly remind ISPs that if they want common carrier status to remain in effect, they must act like they're a transport mechanism. You're either safely responsible for none of it, or you're responsible for policing all of it.

Sadly, I fear they may get what they want because the lawmakers are far too beholden to the lobbyists and don't understand the actual issues surrounding technology.

Cheers

bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to

[sm62704]

bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy

It's not the ISP's job to prevent copyright infringement, nor should it be.

Re:The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality i

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere in CONNECTICUT a village is getting back its idiot in 2009. God save it.

FTFY

Its this

[future assassin]

everyone owes us money and everyone with an internet connection must be stealing our music/movies bullshit thats made me not buy anymore new music (I buy used cd's from pawn shops) and now I'm at the point where I'd rather take the $60+!!! for a family movie day and take everyone to the zoo or go cart racing.

I'm pretty sure my way of thinking is doing more damage to the movie industry profits then some 14 year old dowloading a movie they would never have watched in the first place.

By the way I buy dvd's at pawnshops also for $5-8,so eat me.

Changing The Distribution Game

[Chabil Ha']

What we have here is an organization that is losing in the distribution game. It used to be that casual piracy wasn't a big deal because it was inconvenient to try and copy a VHS tape. Now, it is super easy to duplicate *and* distribute it over the net.

So, instead of changing their business model where they can return the distribution power back their way *by adapting*, they're trying to inhibit or restrict the convenience of a high speed network. When are these people going to get a clue?

In the book Good To Great, Jim Collins points out one of the fundamental things that great companies have to do: the have to have the courage to face reality. The longer they ignore it, the more difficult it will be for them to turn things around. Some may say it's too late (I disagree), but they need a real culture change to transform.

Re:Changing The Distribution Game

[mpe]

What we have here is an organization that is losing in the distribution game. It used to be that casual piracy wasn't a big deal because it was inconvenient to try and copy a VHS tape. Now, it is super easy to duplicate *and* distribute it over the net.

With the "pirate version" in some ways being a better product than the official version. e.g. lacking DRM/region coding. No artificial geographic restrictions on supply.

Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advantage

[inTheLoo]

It's funny how companies that benefit from past and present public servitude and spectrum exclusive franchises only complain about regulation that requires them to live up to obligations they accepted to gain advantages. Ask them about open spectrum and public servitude and you will see some interesting changes in skin tone.

The MPAA, of course, is an enemy of all kinds of freedom. They enjoy government protection in the form of patents, copyright and cable regulations. Exclusivity is not about the promotion of excellence, as anyone can see by watching the high grossing films of last year's best year ever for the MPAA, it's about locking others out. Network and software freedom will destroy their ability to lock competition out. Cost of production has vastly declined in the last 20 years. You have to ask yourself why there's only one or two film companies begging for yet more government protection.

that's crazy

[circletimessquare]

people who don't play fair don't like rules about fairness and equality?

i can't believe it

USPS

[JCSoRocks]

While we're at it, maybe we should make changes to the US Postal Service as well. I bet there are all kinds of shady documents, products, letters, checks, etc sent through the mail everyday. I mean, friends could be sending each other burned CDs or DVDs!!! USPS should read everything sent by everyone - just in case!

Re:USPS

[TimTheFoolMan]

Don't you realize this is why the USPS is so slow? They're just limiting the bandwidth of your mail. Too much and the truck would break down, so they have to intentionally "drop some of those packets" at the local office. - Tim

Re:USPS

[KDR_11k]

Wha-? No tubes?

Re:The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality i

[freedom_india]

Somewhere in CONNECTICUT a village is getting back its idiot in 2009. God save it. What the fuck does that mean?
Who's from CT in first place? Obama? Lieberman?

The MPAA doesn't distribute movies

[Reality Master 201]

There's noting to cut them out of with P2P. The MPAA is the industry's lobbying group, and exists to advance the interests of the various studios.

What schmuck modded that insightful?

Re:Fuck the MPAA. Spam em at massjunk@gmail.com

[calebt3]

Why do I get the feeling you will be harvesting all the email address replies?

Re:Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advant

[Meor]

Finally, someone who's thought this through.

I'm thinking remove their incumbent advantage instead of adding another layer. Open them up to free market forces. Land, mineral right, and time, all pseudo tangible ownership objects are traded on the free market and do just fine. EM spectrum and cabling can be done the same.

Ok, let's do some hacktivism

[jollyreaper]

If these guys are going to fuck with our internet and our culture, let's start fucking back. Which porn sites are they signed up on, preferred escort services, dealers, pimps, etc. Turn over their biggest rocks and expose the filth and muck to the light of day. Let the story change from "Why we need to destroy the net" to "Gee, honey, I didn't mean for you to find out about that tranny fetish of mine."

Re:Ok, let's do some hacktivism

[Anonymous Coward]

If they start really fucking with the internet, I can guarantee you that all anon cowards, myself included, will be actively engaged in warfare to save it. I can also guarantee you that we will win.

Legion is real. Don't forget it. Resistance is futile.

Re:Ok, let's do some hacktivism

[JCSoRocks]

This needed to start yesterday. I'm sick of this crap. If they can spread lies like truth then we should be able to spread truth about their dirty secrets. *obviously* I don't support doing anything illegal... I'm just saying that if someone happened to come across some really personal and destructive information about these clowns that it would be for the common good.

Re:Ok, let's do some hacktivism

[Anonymous Coward]

Legion is real until they get bored and no longer derive "lulz" from whatever passing fad floated their boat at the time. Chanology is already fading to a whimper on the Internet as attacking Scientology becomes passe. Soon some other thing will take hold and become the new lulz-provider.

Anonymous isn't some sort of righteous, world-changing vigilante order meting out justice to those who deserve it. Anonymous is a bunch of bored graffiti artists with attention deficit disorder.

Re:Ok, let's do some hacktivism

[glindsey]

This needed to start yesterday. I'm sick of this crap. If they can spread lies like truth then we should be able to spread truth about their dirty secrets. *obviously* I don't support doing anything illegal... I'm just saying that if someone happened to come across some really personal and destructive information about these clowns that it would be for the common good. You might even say it should be posted to all the P2P networks out there.

Re:Ok, let's do some hacktivism

[compro01]

Legion is real until they get bored and no longer derive "lulz" from whatever passing fad floated their boat at the time. Chanology is already fading to a whimper on the Internet as attacking Scientology becomes passe. Soon some other thing will take hold and become the new lulz-provider. Sure, but I suspect their short and concentrated effort can have quite an effect on things before they get bored and move on.

Re:Ok, let's do some hacktivism

[rastoboy29]

You know, you raise an excellent point.  We always talk about the nebulous "RIAA" and "MPAA", but not the INDIVIDUAL assholes who actually do the dirty work.

Who are these guys?

Remove what regulation?

[tepples]

"Municipalities" "Regulate" cable layers and create all these other broad-sweeping ancillary problems.

You're right though, remove the regulation, remove the monopoly. Remove the regulation that allows for easements for public utilities, and providers won't be able to pull their wires over or under non-subscribers' land.

Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filter.

[gnutoo]

You must have slept through the whole P2P block attack and congressional response. Bandwith is worthless if it can't be used the way you want.

The Collaps of At Home and DSL providers that has lead to the sad current state also saw a decrease in bandwith. The entertainment and telco dominated companies immediately established caps and port blocks.

That pushes the trend you are looking for back about nine years. In that time you have gotten some very minor improvements that far outweigh the restrictions put in place. The US has sank to 26th place in the world for network availability and international watchdogs rate the US as a chronic surveillance state.

"Light regulation" has provided the worst of all worlds. Both real regulation and real freedom would have provided fiber to the house by now, as it has elsewhere. Fake regulation has given you fake bandwith that mostly works to put money into MAFIAA pockets. Look for fake regulations to give you all of the freedom of broadcast TV in the near future.

Re:The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality i

[Ioldanach]

George W. Bush, actually.

Though its somewhat of a technicality, because he was moved to Texas at age 2 and spent most of his formative years there.

In a word, yes

[asuffield]

Net neutrality all comes down to this question:

Are carriers allowed to treat packets differently without the explicit direction of their own users?

A neutral network quite obviously cannot be used to enforce the will of some third party against the will of the network's users, so yes, it does explicitly prohibit ISPs from doing the MPAAs dirty work. That is what it is supposed to do.

(Buying a faster/slower/cheaper/more expensive/whatever service is explicit direction from you to the ISP to treat packets differently. Being told by your ISP that you must accept this new set of rules or be disconnected is not)

Announcing the Internet Security Administration!

[Dreadneck]

I can't wait for the day we get to see the online equivalent of security officers shaking down little old ladies in wheelchairs while the priviledged few sail by unmolested.

"Excuse me, sir, but has anyone tampered with your PC without your knowledge?"

But the question is how do I get my PC to take its shoes off? Nothin' says lovin' like having a leash shoved up your bum!

War is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength.

W is from CT

[tepples]

Somewhere in CONNECTICUT a village is getting back its idiot in 2009. God save it. What the fuck does that mean?
Who's from CT in first place? President Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut.

Re:W is from CT

[freedom_india]

Is it??? Oh damn. The state that has produced such scholars from harward is also the birth place of this single-digit-IQ man???
Wow!
No wonder he feels at home in Texas ranch talking to single-digit-IQ ranch animals like bisons, etc.
I seriously hope, New Haven does not throw a welcome-back party to this moron.
They would instantly become the untouchables of the country.

A similar issue -- spam

[oneiros27]

I've been against legislation for the various 'Net Neutrality' acts, as lawmakers typically have no clue what the actual issues are.

Yes, in this particular instance (screwing with larger downloads / file sharing), it hurts some of their customers, and I hope that in our capitalist market, people would _switch_providers_. (The bigger problem is that many people don't have a choice in broadband providers ... and claims of 'unlimited' service which isn't)

But if the requirements for Net Neutrality are written so that all traffic has to go through (no 'blocking' of 'signals'), we're opening a massive can of worms -- Virus filtering? Illegal. Spam filtering? Illegal. Parental filtering? Illegal.

As part of the 'CAN-SPAM' act (of course 'can' is translated as 'have permission to' or 'preserve' not 'to cancel or abort'), they defined what _wasn't_ spam (including information on how to be removed from the list, non-forged headers, etc.) If someone were to actually send what I'll call "legal spam", and the ISP blocked the message from getting to its recipient, would the "spammer" be able to sue the ISP?

I think it's an important test case to consider when looking over any proposed laws regarding "net neutrality". Also, consider the ISP's ability to block botnets, viruses and other infected systems to keep them from adversely affecting their networks, their customers, and the internet as a whole.

Disclaimer : I used to work for a small (~2k user) ISP, and was active in some spam-filtering groups.

Re:A similar issue -- spam

[compro01]

simple method would be "no blocking of anything unless the customer specifically requests X be blocked. if they do request X be blocked, it will be blocked to the extent that it is technically feasible at no charge.". optimally, when the customer signs up, this stuff is arranged with all the other usual stuff and subject to be changed at any time with a single phone call.

of course, this is government, so the simple method doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually being used.

Re:A similar issue -- spam

[falconwolf]

If someone were to actually send what I'll call "legal spam", and the ISP blocked the message from getting to its recipient, would the "spammer" be able to sue the ISP?

I think this should be handled simply, my ISP does now. It uses both a white list and a black list. Those messages that are from addresses that are in my online address book are put into my inbox. The messages that come from addresses I placed blocks on are sent to a spam box. And every other message is put into a "suspicious" box. For these I use the webmail to check the messages then either send them to the inbox or trash them.

Falcon

Re:A similar issue -- spam

[falconwolf]

simple method would be "no blocking of anything unless the customer specifically requests X be blocked. if they do request X be blocked, it will be blocked to the extent that it is technically feasible at no charge.". optimally, when the customer signs up, this stuff is arranged with all the other usual stuff and subject to be changed at any time with a single phone call.

of course, this is government, so the simple method doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually being used.

Government isn't needed for this, my ISP already does it.

Falcon

Re:A similar issue -- spam

[compro01]

problem being that

a. your ISP =/= everyone else's ISP

b. your isp is not likely available everywhere.

Re:A similar issue -- spam

[falconwolf]

I guess you missed the point it does not take the government to do it.

a. your ISP =/= everyone else's ISP

b. your isp is not likely available everywhere.

My ISP is a national one and one of the largest so I doubt there are many places in the US where users can't get local access. I specifically signed up with it because when I did I planned on moving yet wanted to keep the same ISP, and email. And I did move, across the country.

Falcon

God Complex??

[twakar]

I really wonder where this guy and his cohorts get the idea that they are so fscking important. I mean really, they produce entertainment, with a bit of information thrown in for flavour.

The quote that really fries my onions is this one:

Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy

He's certainly making some wild assumptions, and stating them as fact. For example:

1. Thats it's the job/duty of ISPs to protect/monitor their content.
2. That the ISPs even care,except for where the media company and ISP are one in the same.
3. That internet users will accept a crippled, corporate internet. note: They may at first, but when Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat start seeing the negative effect, the shit will hit the fan.
4. That government (the U.S. in this case) wants and/or should protect their revenue stream. The piracy they are worried about is already illegal, and there is no reasonable expectation for anyone but themselves to protect their Jurassic business model.

Eventually being so clueless and Darwinism will take hold and these self-serving megalomaniacs will die a slow and painful (figuratively speaking) death. I mean how stupid, blind and closed-minded do you have to be not to see that these groups..the MAFIAA I mean are sitting on the forefront of a revolution. Give the people what they want, at a reasonable price, unencumbered by artificial restrictions, ie: DRM, Windows Only, self-destruct after 24 or 48 hours, and almost ZERO distribution costs to a global audience, and the world (literally) will beat a path to your door. You people could be having orgasms instead of heart attacks. Also remember, people will STILL buy the DVD. So some people may not pay, but you still get so much more exposure than you could ever hope to buy. It pains me that I have to share this planet with so many cranially challenged people.

Get a clue, or get the fuck out of the way. Sheesh

Open Spectrum.

[inTheLoo]

See, Reed, Bose, and The Prometheus Project for a sensible way to end government control of a public resource that's not really scarce.

That should not relieve incumbents from their regulatory burdens. The money and power they have was gained by government protection and for the last 20 years it's been done against better technical advice. At the very least the public servitude should be protected from vandalism and other crimes. At best, their infrastructure should be considered public so that others can connect to it without fear. Open spectrum will kill the economic advantages of land lines but we must not allow incumbents to continue owning those few places there's a good business case for it.

Re:The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality i

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush family, asstard. Listen to GW Bush speak before 1978 (after he lost the congressional election in TX and adopted his "folksy" accent) and it's abundantly clear.

Proof at last

[samuisan]

Just in case you weren't sure, now you *know* that net neutrality is a good thing.

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt

[RealProgrammer]

Bandwith is worthless if it can't be used the way you want.

But I have that. I don't use P2P. When I want something, I download it.

The P2P model presupposes an Internet the way it should be: everyone should have multiple bandwidth providers/partners. In fact, almost everyone is a leaf node, and P2P sucks leaf bandwidth dry. Add the mathematics of fan-in, and no sane ISP would allow unfiltered P2P.

Always Avoid Alliteration

[Teflon_Jeff]

Net Neutrality is a need. We can't trust companies to do the right thing (Enron, MCI/Worldcom, Comcast P2P)

I'm more worried about some large company buying preferred bandwidth. Or blocking sites. Sure, it hasn't happened yet, but it could, and it's a slippery slope. Any Company with large enough Coffers could buy "preferred speed" rights, so you get to their site faster. The videos on their site stream faster. Their E-mail client loads attachments faster. That's pretty easy to imagine happening.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. That's how Fascism took power. People saying "It'll never get that bad"

The crookeder they deals they try to pull

[crovira]

the better podcasting looks.

They want to restrict us to downloading packets in the gaps between theirs, so what?

We can afford to wait because we're not trying to be broadcasters who absolutely need the bandwidth or the user experience goes to shit and they get calls into tech support.

Screw em. Fuck 'em where they breathe.

Good Lord, these people are short-sighted

[hobb0001]

You'd think that net-neutrality is exactly the thing that the MPAA would want. As a content creator, you'd want to be able distribute your content over the internet without paying extortion fees to the ISP monopolies.

... but then again, maybe paying extortion fees is standard practice for the MPAA.

Postal System?

[xoundmind]

So the US Postal System should start scanning all packages in case they might contain bootleg DVDs?

That would be a logical extension of the "ISPs must have right/ability to restrict the distribution of pirated material" argument.

Re:Postal System?

[compro01]

I dunno about the postal system, but I believe I've heard of customs starting to do that.

McCain Opposes Net Neutrality

[Kuma-chang]

It won't matter. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, then both presidential candidates will be pro-net-neutrality. There just isn't a popular platform for "yes, let's cripple the Internet so that corporations can profit more," and for once politicians have realized it.

As reported right here on slashdot, John McCain does not support net neutrality. In case you hadn't noticed, there was a pretty big flap a couple weeks ago over a New York Times story reporting on McCain doing favors for telecom lobbyists (and possibly sleeping with one of them (talk about being in bed with special interests), although that part seems fairly dubious). Neither, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain, does Hillary Clinton support net neutrality. Obama is the only remaining candidate who favors it. And I do believe he is quite sincere about it, and takes his technology platform pretty seriously. Evidence can be found in the emphasis his campaign puts on his successful bill to promote transparency by making earmark information publicly accessible on the Internet and in Larry Lessig's association with the campaign. It would be really novel to have a federal government that actually supported some of our interests instead of trying to fuck us over at every turn...

It doesn't matter!

[Jane Q. Public]

ISPs (carriers) should not be controlling content (censorship) anyway! Anymore than telephone companies are responsible for what is said over the telephone.

We really should get that part straight.

What about

[strikeleader]

What's is the postal service doing to prevent piracy. Maybe the MPAA should be asking for a law to allow the inspection of all mail anytime the MPAA feels that the mail system contains pirated material

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt

[smallfries]

Why would it be overselling when they can't meet your arbitrary contention ratio of 10%? Why not 1%? Why not 0.1%? If you're going to stick an arbitrary constant in an equation then you can't use it to back up what our saying without some sort of justification for that constant.

What I would like to see is the removal of unlimited* offers and FUPs and explicit contention ratios written into service contracts. How can a free market function when the ISPs are refusing to explain what they are offering to customers? This contention ratio would define the transfer per month that the ISP can hold you to, and the level of service that you can expect from them.

Re:Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advant

[smallfries]

I'd agree with what you say, but I would go further. They are short-sighted idiots. Who do they think differential bandwidth pricing is aimed at? Seeing them weigh in on the side of the ISPs is like watching someone hand a knife to a mugger in a dark alley. It's almost as if they haven't realised that in a few years they're going to want to provide high-bandwidth services to customers over those same connections...

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt

[scatters]

You wouldn't want, and probably couldn't afford, to pay for "guaranteed" bandwidth. Go compare the cost of an IP-provisioned T1 against the $35 or so per month that you're paying Comcast for your 8Mb/s connection and get ready for some serious sticker shock. It simply is not cost effective to design a network that can handle peak traffic from all users simulataneously. Get a clue.

Why stop there?

[InsertCleverUsername]

Obviously, there is no measure too extreme to guarantee the MPAA's profits. Why doesn't Mr. Glickman really get to the root of the problem and demand that all personal computers be destroyed? These horrible devices are allowing evil pirates to rob him of huge piles of money that other people have worked so hard to earn. If only they could be replaced by completely closed systems, controlled by the MPAA/RIAA...

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt

[Wildclaw]

These f***ing downloaders. They ruins the internet for people like me who just want to play games and stream music.

Http connections should be capped and get arbitarly reset. That is the only way to prevent those hidious leechers from taking up my precious bandwidth that could be used to ensure the best ping rates when playing Team Fortress.

Add the mathematics of fan-in, and no sane ISP would allow unfiltered P2P. Tell that to ISPs here in Sweden. The insane ones that is.

Influence

[Fuzzums]

I don't think that I want some music industry to have influence over how the internetz should be used.

But hey. They already make me pay more for my blank cd's, so I guess I'm allowed now to burn some music on it.

Don't vote for McCain if you want neutrality

[MrSteveSD]

He is against net neutrality. Both Clinton and Obama are for it, although I suppose they are quite capable of doing a 360 on that. I found this helpful Matrix of their policies.

Re:Don't vote for McCain if you want neutrality

[MrSteveSD]

Smeg, I made it funny by mistake. That post was worthy of Ronald Reagan :)

We Are Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a history of developing some of the most advanced weaponry known to man. We also have a history of using violence to get our way.

Bombs and bullets are cheaper than lawyers. I am honestly surprised that someone threatened by a MAFIAA agency hasn't gone and shot some of their staff or bombed an office. How do you think the war on piracy would change a few pipe bombs were lobbed into an RIAA building? People are having their lives torn apart by a company whose legal tactics do not stand up in court, how unreasonable is it to think they'd seek vengeance? I'm not saying I advocate this course of action. I'm saying it would be interesting to see how the game changes once the people the MAFIAA have in their legal crosshairs start putting MAFIAA employees in rifle crosshairs.

Re:We Are Americans

[proudhawk]

Bombs and bullets are cheaper than lawyers. I am honestly surprised that someone threatened by a MAFIAA agency hasn't gone and shot some of their staff or bombed an office. How do you think the war on piracy would change a few pipe bombs were lobbed into an RIAA building? People are having their lives torn apart by a company whose legal tactics do not stand up in court, how unreasonable is it to think they'd seek vengeance? I'm not saying I advocate this course of action. I'm saying it would be interesting to see how the game changes once the people the MAFIAA have in their legal crosshairs start putting MAFIAA employees in rifle crosshairs.

ooooh kay! One really has to be careful here folks. such words as this written above may seem harmless, but you must remember, we are in post 9/11 here and some in the government would look at these words as a terrorist threat!

the watchword here is "loose lips sink ships".

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt

[The_Quinn]

Bandwith [sic] is worthless if it can't be used the way you want. That is ridiculous. Are guns worthless if you can't shoot whatever you want? Is your voice useless if you can't say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want?

That's right ... No.

Another GOOD Reason...

[morari]

To fight for net neutrality, I guess. Without piracy I'd never be able to use programs like Photoshop! :P

The MPAA's attitude summed up...

[John Allsup]

They are saying: 'out rights are of the utmost importance and nobody else should have any.'

It's a greedy, selfish attitude that should never be encouraged or rewarded.

If the MPAA and RIAA want to act like spoilt children, they should be treated as such.

Is it a good or bad thing?

[AnomaliesAndrew]

I have to admit, without looking it up specifically, I'm not sure what "net neutrality" even means, and whether to be in support of it or against it.

Does it mean neutrality towards regulation, or regulating the involved parties to remain neutral? (You don't have to explain it to me here, I'll look it up... it's the ambiguity I'm highlighting.)

And I can damn well guarantee my parents, brothers, and coworkers (who all vote) don't have a clue about it either.

I know what I want to see happen, but I don't know how the buzzwords apply to it exactly!!!

Re:Is it a good or bad thing?

[Jon_S]

Net neutrality is that an ISP handles all packets the same, no matter where they came from. They don't check the packet and decide to deliver it faster or slower than another packet because of its source.

Re:Is it a good or bad thing?

[The -e**(i*pi)]

Net neutrality is treating all data traveling across their networks the same regardless of the destination, source, protocol, or payload in the packet; however, it is not saying that ISPs cannot throttle your entire connection if you use too much bandwidth. Throttling a connection based on usage is not a net neutrality issue; however, throttling a protocol like bittorrent, blocking port 80, forcing certain websites to load slower or slowing ftp uploads are things net neutrality has issue with.

Re:Is it a good or bad thing?

[bzipitidoo]

I like to think of net neutrality as "nice" for packets, in which all packets get the same niceness.

Technically, net neutrality is bad. The very slight overhead caused by treating packets differently based on their characteristics (which can include their source but I think would emphasize other properties such as whether it's a VoIP packet or an ftp packet), is more than made up for by the added flexibility of being able to prioritize packets.

Politically, net neutrality is very, very good. You know some of those deciding on the priorities of packets would not be able to resist using this to their advantage in ways that are at everyone else's expense. And there'd be no easy way to tell they were being unethical about it, or prove the bland denials they'd make are lies. We have a bad enough problem with the ordering of search results. Online businesses know that being among the top 3 or 5 or 10 hits of a search is absolutely crucial. I'm amazed that Google and others have managed to keep discussions about that subject as cool as they have. Transmitting the website to the customer quickly is nearly as crucial, as Google demonstrated. Google's ascendancy was in no small part because they made their site small at the time Yahoo and the rest of the search engines were bloating up. A 5 second delay is enough to start losing customers. Imagine how ugly things would get if bribes could be paid to slow down the transmission of competitors' websites, and the whole thing covered up by packet priority policy.

Re:Is it a good or bad thing?

[falconwolf]

Can you explain to me how one bit is more important than another? How about how a bit from Google is less important to a Time Warner customer than a bit from AOL Search?

We have a bad enough problem with the ordering of search results

And it will be worse if Time Warner is allowed to discriminate against Google, Teoma, or Mooter in favor of their own search engine.

A 5 second delay is enough to start losing customers.

That's right, Time Warner delaying Google just 5 seconds will drive searchers to Time Warner's search partner.

Falcon

Net Neutrality...Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

As many have already pointed out, there must be some consumer protection, and that should start with making Comcast, and others, give us what we are paying for... If I pay $55 for a 6gbps pipe into the net, I want 6 gbps...not 4, not 2...which is more what I get ON THE AVERAGE... By default that would give us "net neutrality"... If Google is paying for OC3 connections, then they would get OC3 speeds - anything less would be considered theft. This is the only protection that is needed, and it would make it work as "neutrality"... as it is now, they say "speeds up to xyz" which allows them to throttle as much as they want...

No problem

[GameboyRMH]

I suppose they are quite capable of doing a 360 on that. It's sort of a waste of time, but I don't have a problem with anyone doing a 360 on a good decision.

Lets say they are right?

[nurb432]

What is the problem? I don't see any reason an ISP should be monitoring/restricting my content in the first place. They are a carrier, nothing more.

What is next, will they ask for roadblocks to monitor content in my car?

Re:The internet is not all about the *AA's content

[CodeBuster]

The MPAA/RIAA expect the entire world to adapt their infrastructure to police their interests -- it doesn't work that way. The word "force" is more appropriate than adapt in this case. They (the MAFIAA) are attempting to use the power of government to force their desired resolution upon the marketplace because they know that the marketplace, if left to its own devices, will never accept their restrictions or structure itself in the manner that they want. The name that economists use for this type of behavior is Rent Seeking which basically refers the extraction of uncompensated value from the marketplace via force (i.e. government and laws).

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt

[iamacat]

and no sane ISP would allow unfiltered P2P

Fortunately P2P is self-filtered these days. If a connection becomes conjested, remaining BitTorrent pears shift bandwidth away from it until the problem passes. It at all possible, faster connections between users within the same ISP are used instead of multiple transfers of the same data from the upstream provider.

No sane ISP would want a 1000 downloads of the same 7GB ISO from an outside server.

Now Chant with Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck the M-P-double-A
fuck the R-I-double-A
fuck the suits behind the BSA
and fuck em all for the DMCA

...yellin 1337 on a motherfuckin fed

Yarr

Re:Now Chant with Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

2006 just called. It wants its crappy white boy rap back.

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt

[compro01]

i believe the usual point of stability for overselling was about 10%. that is, they could reasonably bet that no more than 10% of the bandwidth sold to customers would be in use at any time. that worked fine for a few years. now, given the rapid proliferation of relatively bandwidth-intensive tasks (p2p, streaming video, etc.), that old bet is no longer sustainable.

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt

[compro01]

yes, but keeping to overselling to a sustainable ratio is necessary. trying to oversell at a fixed ratio from 10 years ago with upward spiraling typical bandwidth use is not.

also, i don't believe he's demanding 100% guaranteed bandwidth but something like "up to 8mbps, guaranteed minimum 2mbps".

Re:Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advant

[falconwolf]

I'm thinking remove their incumbent advantage instead of adding another layer. Open them up to free market forces. Land, mineral right, and time, all pseudo tangible ownership objects are traded on the free market and do just fine. EM spectrum and cabling can be done the same.

I agree a free market would work with the airwaves but for landlines it's totally different. Whereas it's relatively cheap to erect towers for wireless services but laying or stringing cable or fiber for landlines is expensive and the needed right of way can only handle so many cables or fibers. However what you could do is separate ownership of the infrastructure and delivering any services it can handle. In the Broadband Utopis of northeastern Utah that's what a group of communities are doing. The communities are building the infrastructure they will own but then they will have open access so any entity that wants to offer any service it is capable of can use it.

Falcon

Er... what "emerging tools", exactly?

[mark-t]

I couldn't help but get hung up on this sentence. What magical emerging tools are they talking about here that are somehow going to prevent piracy? When are they going to learn that piracy as a problem isn't a technological disfunction, it is purely a social issue. The only solution to the problem is going to be if people's *ATTITUDES* are changed... not just trying to technologically lock people out of the ability to do it. Because as long as the attitude is there, people will always find a way to do it, no matter what technological barriers are in place.

Sneakernet

[PMBjornerud]

The RIAA and cohorts now change strategy: make massive amounts of bandwidth expensive. That won't work.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a pocket full of solid state memory.

Re:By Neruos

[Icarium]

No one has the legal right to monitor ISP traffic except ISPs Whut? That's not true unless you're using a very narrow definition of monitoring (volume and type of traffic), and even then it's not a 'legal right' rather than the fact that noone cares.

as a net-neutrality supporter...

[big_paul76]

Let me just say that I can't speak to what other net neutrality supporters are saying, but I take exception to my pro-net neutrality stance being categorized as "FUD".

All I want, in terms of 'net neutrality', is a rule/law/social convention/however the hell we accomplish it/ that says you can 'discriminate' by TYPE of traffic, but not by source or destination.

Specifically, what I'm worried about is things like how Telus (ISP up here in Canada) was blocking access to it's union's website while said union was on strike. That should be illegal. Discriminating on the basis of where you're going or where you're coming from. So there's one where we got specific examples of bad behavior by telcos.

What I'm also worried about is what's-his-name, CEO of one of the ISPs, alleging that "Google's getting a free ride".

It seems to me that the idea that ISPs want to go back to a billing model more like long distance phone calls is a quite reasonable concern.

What in this position is FUD, exactly?