ISPs Blow Off Stanford Net Neutrality Hearing

eldavojohn writes "The FCC & Stanford hoped to host an on-campus debate over Net Neutrality and invited AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner to take part. None of them showed up. Unfortunately, only one side of the issue was voiced despite Stanford being home to people opposing Net Neutrality. At the hearing, the FCC Commissioner stated: 'Consumers have come to expect and will continue to demand the open and neutral character that has always been the hallmark of the Internet. The Commission is currently examining several petitions and complaints according to which broadband providers have intentionally and secretly degraded applications in a way that undermines the open and interconnected character of the Internet.'"

Comments

Should I stop holding my breath?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Does the FCC have any actual pull here, or are they as impotent as the Better Business Bureau? I'd like to actually believe that somet good could come from all this talk..

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Farakin]

Finally someone who understands the BBB is a crock of moldy mac and cheese

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[budgenator]

The leverage for the FCC would be indirect, everybody that provides Broadband internet that I know of also provides services that are more directly in the FCC domain; if an ISP is being thought of as obnoxious pricks they are less likely to get the benefit of the doubt in other matters where the FCC really can extract a pound of flesh. I would think that the ISP's would be on their best behavior until after the elections.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[DaedalusHKX]

And again the little collectivists bitch and moan that solutions are not being forced down others' throats.

Why not take up onion routing and stop bitching. Perhaps develop another solution if current standards of encryption are not acceptable.

Perhaps a particular method where ALL content from server to client is ONLY available to server and client in question? Perhaps some form of consistent session SSL/TLS type validation?

Consistently switching ports? Perhaps some public gateways being used to setup the transaction? Perhaps a tunnel being requested before setting up any other form of transaction? I don't know yet... I'm throwing stuff out.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that people need to stop asking for others to solve their problems. Until that happens, expect our "messiahs" to be more along the lines of "false prophets". We, as a group (geeks, nerds, computer people, gearheads, whatever term you want to use) will continually be shafted each time we look to a central organization to stand up for us. There can be no perfect system of control, so instead, the tools must be designed to provide us with the privacy, reliability and speed we seem to occasionally desire.

Just an idea, of course. I'm no big shot developer. Just another former geek who still tinkers.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[porcupine8]

If this is anything like Janet Jackson's boobies, they do have the power to leverage lots of huge fines!

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[budgenator]

doesn't matter what we do with routing tricks or encryption, if my packets from ebay get routed the the ISP's ghetto-router because they didn't pay a kickback to get into the fast-lane router the pages will still load slowly! Now there are actually useful and/or entertaining things to do on the internet so there is an actual reason to get on, so what happens the ISP's start bitching beacause people actual are using what they bought!

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know yet... I'm throwing stuff out.

How is that going to help anyone if Comcast decides to only allow users to connect to their "partner" websites? Sure, I can switch to AT&T here, I'm sure THEY won't follow-the-leader (Prediction: Comcast will partner with yahoo, ATT with alta vista). We've already heard what Bell Canada is doing to all of the independent ISPs who thought the solution to shitty internet providers was to make their own ISPs... you've got to hook to "the internet" somewhere, good luck finding a spot not run by an incumbent telco or cableco that'll let you hook your ISP up without screwing with your customers.

The only solution that avoids the "waaaah mommy! make the companies not fuck up the internet!" route is to create a whole new internet from scratch, planet-wide, and make it appear instantaneously with absolutely no infrastructure expense that someone will decide they absolutely must have 500000% return on. Then hope that the people in charge might not get greedy and ruin it for everyone else again.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[aldousd666]

Amen. I'd buy you a drink. The best way to get what you want is to make sure that you make it more financially advantageous, especially from non-regulatory pressure, for the corporations to see things your way. I agree with you, and I'd expand a bit more...

Legislation on issues such as this would only allow for one more possible point of corruption for the big interests who want to break the rules. I'm not sure which government has jurisdiction over 'the internet' anyway. Does it only apply to your customers if you're an american company? Or only your customers? Are your customers anyone who pays you money, or anyone that does business with anyone who pays you money? What if they're outside the US? What exactly are they going to regulate anyway... traffic between any two hosts? Traffic on a particular network? Is that network considered to be of a subnet as defined by an IP Mask? Perhaps of an ownership block? Maybe it's a trail of routes. Even if we are unfortunate enough to have the government step in and force people to act more communist, the law has to be enforcible and there has to be a method of clearly showing tort anyway in court. It also has to appear in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. That last bit might be the hardest part of the whole idea to swallow.

For Net-Neutrality to have some kind of effect, you have to show that some party violated some rule, and that some body of enforcement has jurisdiction over the issue. If you can't answer every one of these questions about every incident then you can just only point and cry foul every time someone snuffs a packet out. As if our legal system wasn't muddy enough already. Next thing you know it'll be illegal to have personal and corporate firewalls.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[falconwolf]

I would think that the ISP's would be on their best behavior until after the elections.

Check ComCast, /. has done a number of items about them throttling P2P applications.

Falcon

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding...they call me at least once a year pushing their nonsense on me. What's worse is all the ignorant people who pay to be a member just to display that ridiculous BBB seal on their websites.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Instead perhaps we should stop running around in the shadows and actually confront something head-on? If we let them have an inch, they'll take a mile (and charge us up the ass for it).

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Black Parrot]

Does the FCC have any actual pull here Sure... so long as they're pulling in the direction the lobbyists want to go.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

if Comcast decides to only allow users to connect to their "partner" websites?

Sounds like hyperbole, but I'll tell you this much: there'll be rioting in the streets long before that happens -- and I'll be one of the ones with the hand grenades.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

is to create a whole new internet from scratch,

Sure, but who's going to foot the bill for that? The problem with utopian/anarchistic ideas: it works only so long as it's small. Once it gets big, then someone takes advantage of it. Not happening, slick.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[theonlyaether]

Why not take up onion routing and stop bitching. Perhaps develop another solution if current standards of encryption are not acceptable.

Too slow with untrustworthy exit points...wait didn't I read this before somewhere? Damn broken records...

Perhaps a particular method where ALL content from server to client is ONLY available to server and client in question? Perhaps some form of consistent session SSL/TLS type validation?

What cave have you been hiding in anyway? Encrypted traffic gets heavily throttled and long sessions are often reset.

Consistently switching ports? Perhaps some public gateways being used to setup the transaction? Perhaps a tunnel being requested before setting up any other form of transaction? I don't know yet... I'm throwing stuff out.

No you don't know...let us know when you do...

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[The_Wilschon]

Ok, how about this: If you own a segment of wire, fiber, etc. which is on US soil and is used to carry IP traffic, then you may either not inspect or interfere with the packets (best effort), or you may be liable for any illegal activity which involves that segment.

This is, I understand, how common carrier status works. AFAICT, the telecoms are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by inspecting and interfering but maintaining immunity.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[quanticle]

Sounds like hyperbole, but I'll tell you this much: there'll be rioting in the streets long before that happens -- and I'll be one of the ones with the hand grenades.

Hah! Isn't that the very thing that was said about DRM? DRM didn't see massive consumer protests, but instead was killed off as the costs of keeping up with those cracking DRM became untenable. With Internet, though, the situation is different. Unlike the entertainment industry, the ISPs are usually in a monopoly or duopoly market, and aren't subject to the same market forces as the music and movie industries. Without competition, the ISPs' will always be able to hang a sword of Damocles over the content providers by simply threatening to slow or block content.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[aldousd666]

so, then, what's the incentive to own the wire then if you cannot use it for your own purposes? I understand there are externalities involved, like you can only fit so many wires on a telephone pole, but the wires still don't run themselves. Owning wire somehow encumbers you to serve whatever thing someone decides to put on it?

Even government owned roads have restrictions on the types of vehicles that can ride on them. Let's not even mention those that can only be traveled with a certain number of passengers (HOV lanes.) These are even certified public utilities, yet they have rules in place governing traffic for the very same reasons that businesses might want to regulate their own wire space.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[quanticle]

I agree that it is entirely possible for a Net Neutrality law to go too far. However, under the status quo, Comcast can kill your packets without rhyme or reason, and, because of their monopoly status in many areas, leave you with no other connectivity options. Surely you're not advocating giving Comcast complete control over our data?

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you missed the part that said "and make it appear instantaneously with absolutely no infrastructure expense".

I believe he was being sarcastic.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[aldousd666]

I don't see a better way that doesn't eventually lead to the death of investment in net infrastructure. See my response below (so I don't completely repeat myself) here

People might be tempted to say that we should then have the government take over and do it all, but even in cases where the government does take over, you still have traffic laws (see roads, vehicle restrictions, tolls, and HOV lanes.)

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[DaedalusHKX]

Well then, since you've told me what you CAN'T do, might as well give up and go live in a cave. No, you can't have mine. My lease doesn't end until 5 years from now :)

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[DaedalusHKX]

The only other solution would be for people to start something a little more rhizomatic in organizational structure, but with higher connectivity than a BBS. I wonder how well background grids are working nowadays. Everyone seems to be awaiting someone to deliver them... We already have the tools, we're not using them yet. Everyone keeps telling me what cannot be done. Goddamit people, I can paint the room walls in this here house with all of your "I can't do this, waaaaah!" crap, but I can't even fill a page with proposed solutions. Proposed solutions. Nevermind actually workable ones. Remember, you have to propose 10 or more solutions before you get to a workable one.

I mean wow... despair city, the sky is falling, the storm trooper's are coming, ye gods someone put a blanket on Jabba's Hutt...

All bitching and no ideas. Pitiful. I thought slashdot was supposed to be a "geek" forum. Seems more like a flamefest as of late.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone seems to be awaiting someone to deliver them... We already have the tools, we're not using them yet. Anytime someone tries to do something that would bypass the entrenched phone/cable duopoly, they get their panties in a wad and send out the lawyers. Who has the money to fight that?

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[SpaceLifeForm]

I share your sentiments, in spite of the fact that you apparently had a bad day. Yes, the tools are there, but don't assume that they are not being used. And don't listen to the naysayers saying it can't be done. It is being done. One hop at a time. Keep your modems happy.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[quanticle]

You imply that there was wholly private investment in 'Net infrastructure to begin with. In practice, companies like Comcast and Qwest have always wheedled the government for subsidies to pay for their network upgrades.

The entire debate over network neutrality stems from the fact that we (as a society) can't decide if communications lines should be treated as a common good (like roads or sewers) or as private property. My opinion on this is quite clear. Communications lines ought to be considered as public goods because they were paid for with public money. I'll happily concede the network neutrality issue when Qwest and Comcast start rolling out network upgrades without suckling from the government teat.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[quanticle]

Hey, if you're so confident that you can work around these inane restrictions, why don't you go ahead and do it?

There's a reason that the power of the ISPs hasn't been broken yet. Its because designing a fast, efficient network in the face of an adversary that is altering the topology of the links specifically to defeat you is hard.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[aldousd666]

or if they'd actually roll out the upgrades they've already promised to roll out in exchange for tax breaks (verizon). I don't wholly disagree with you on this, but I think it's hard to 'enact' a middle ground, and that the government obviously sucks and controlling their holdings already. All we need now is to place a support call for a service interruption to the USDepartmentOfInternet who says they'll send a technician out to your house between the 12th and the 5th.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[lusiphur69]

Well, I don't think anyone is advocating a 'Department of teh Intertubes'. What we are saying, is that ISP's should not be performing deep packet inspection (which opens up a pandora's box of possible malfeasance, too tempting for your typical scumbag telco) on traffic routed across their lines.

We are asking the regulator - whose job is to, you know, regulate - to step in and make a ruling - is this kind of packet inspection and interference desirable in the backbone? If they rule it is legal at least then there is something to challenge. Legislators will likely create a good-sounding 'Net Neutrality Bill' which contains a provision that would of course do the opposite of what it purports to, so the regulator seems the best answer.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[aldousd666]

Well, I'm still inclined to point toward the private sector for guidance on issues of consumer demand vs service provided. Traffic is a math problem and so is supply and demand. If you screw up the math, in either case, someone's head will roll. That being said, I'd most definitely be more receptive to an NGO ruling on it rather than seeing some statute written by some guys who have no more idea of what the internet is than my secretary. (I mean, she'd hear me talking about it all day long, but that doesn't make her 'understand' it.) If the businesses screw over their customers (don't deliver what is actually required in their services) then they will eventually lose their market share, or profit margin. Either of which resonate all the way up through investors. The trouble with this, and any limited space infrastructure systems, is that sometimes it just takes too damned long to get the message to the right people in time to keep things moving along. So in that respect I do see some room for (very careful) regulation in principle. I don't know that it could be done effectively in practice though, in light of enforcement and jurisdiction problems.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[jimicus]

so, then, what's the incentive to own the wire then if you cannot use it for your own purposes? You do use it for your own purposes. Specifically, it pays your bills because you are able to lease the use of that wire for significantly more than it cost to lay and the occasional engineer out if it gets broken. This is how the "traditional" (pre-Net Neutrality) ISP business model works.

The big question is: Now that the technology exists to prioritise traffic along that wire according to any one of a hundred different metrics, is it significantly better for society if legislation is passed to make such use of technology illegal?

The question of whether or not someone will come along who doesn't do such prioritisation and thus solve the problem in a free market fashion is only tangentally related - mainly based on the likelihood of that happening. Given the costs involved in setting up an ISP and the likely marginal difference such a policy would make to the number of subscribers you would be able to sign up, there's a very real possibility that this isn't something which can easily be solved by the free market.

Sometimes, society needs laws in order to ensure that it gets what is best for society as a whole.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[electrictroy]

If I was the FCC Chairman I'd say something like, "Well technically Congress has granted no power over internet communications, HOWEVER we notice you have been granted monopoly control by your state government, so we've decided to extend our current regulation of your Cable TV monopoly into your Internet monopoly as well, on the basis that you are using portions of the electromagnetic spectrum and per the commerce clause, that gives us power to boss you around."

And then laugh maniacally as Comcast cries.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[budgenator]

The only solution that avoids the "waaaah mommy! make the companies not fuck up the internet!" route is to create a whole new internet from scratch, planet-wide, and make it appear instantaneously with absolutely no infrastructure expense that someone will decide they absolutely must have 500000% return on. Then hope that the people in charge might not get greedy and ruin it for everyone else again. good idea, we'll just go back to Fidonet or even UUCP like in the old days.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[u-235-sentinel]

Does the FCC have any actual pull here, or are they as impotent as the Better Business Bureau? I'd like to actually believe that somet good could come from all this talk..

What amuses me here is the BBB 'thinks' my issue with Comcast has a positive resolution when in reality it hasn't made ANY progress.

And they refuse to change the case to unresolved.

The BBB is a waste of time. In the future I'll deal with the city directly when working on issues with a company.

Oh and it seems Qwest will be rolling out fiber to the home here in Salt Lake City. So I may be getting my 50 Meg pipe sooner than I thought :-)

Screw Concast. They sux0rs

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The FCC & Stanford hoped to host an on-campus debate over Net Neutrality and invited AT&T,
> Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner to take part. None of them showed up. Unfortunately,
> only one side of the issue was voiced despite Stanford being home to people opposing Net Neutrality.

In a completely unrelated story, Brown university hoped to host an on-campus debate over the war in Iraq and invited George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice to take part. None of them showed up. Unfortunately only one side of the issue was voiced despite Brown being home to people opposing the war in Iraq.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[spun]

All you do is bitch and moan about how other people can't come up with solutions when you can't come up with any either. Then you complain about 'collectivists' wanting to shove their ideas down other people's throats, when your entire ideology is based on shoving your idea of ownership of natural resources down other people's throats by force.

You whine and whine about contracts, but only contracts that benefit you and support your ideology. Never mind that we had contracts with the telco providers. We gave them public right of way, fat infusions of public cash, and monopoly powers, but hey, that doesn't mean shit, right, because private entities should always be free to break contracts with the evil public sector.

Your entire world view is "fuck the weak, if they can't protect themselves." You even blame people for letting rape happen, you sick fuck.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[DaedalusHKX]

Actually I think its just like with the airlines. Most people are cattle, deserving of what they get. They will continue to submit. Me... the next time I get treated like shit after handing out 1000 bucks or more for a flight, I will mail out my already typed out letter to newspapers, websites, blogs and the airline in question. And then I will refuse to ever patronize their services.

There are other ways, they're more expensive, but they're worth it. All free market ideas too. Most people are willing to sell their kids into slavery if it saves them 50 cents on a bottle of soda pop.

Surprised? Ask yourself how often you've given up info to your local grocery store about how much of what you buy. Think nobody is watching? Perhaps you should pay attention to things that have been discouraged socially (like stocking up on things, or having a stocked fridge or pantry, at the least... and now they've declared "hoarding" to be illegal). I hope you didn't buy 6 bags of flour. I read a recent article (this week) where they listed the west coast of the USA and the Northeastern states have all implemented rationing of flour, rice, cooking oil, etc at their big box marts and pallet sellers (sams club, costco, warlmart, etc). Interesting that this comes exactly at a time when the government is running the inflation numbers to high heaven, and starting all sorts of surveillance and confiscation laws. Amazed yet? Don't be, I saw this crap when I was a child, but at least the commies were smart enough to know they risked an outright revolution if they forbade "hoarding". Yet here, you use your savings card and run the risk of being accused of the "evils of hoarding" if you buy too much flour. Nevermind that greek, latin, hispanic, slavic or other such families consume LOTS of flour over the period of a month.

And yet they haven't removed the "granary" from the list of things we study in history class, despite it being an instrument of hoarding, which is obviously so evil the federal government declared it such. (So did the UN, but we all know how humanitarian THEY are.)

Lets get real ... social discouragement of such things that are essential to human life and to the thriving life, not just mere survival, have all been slowly made into "evil" things through the brainwashing media. Thus I believe that lots of people will not wake up even if they are hammered over their heads by the truth.

As Winston Churchill once said, "during the course of his life, man will trip over the truth. sadly, he will often pick himself up, dust himself off, and continue on his way."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[DaedalusHKX]

We gave them public right of way, fat infusions of public cash, and monopoly powers, but hey, that doesn't mean shit, right, because private entities should always be free to break contracts with the evil public sector.

No, YOU did... I didn't... what is this "we" you keep talking about. You are you, and I am me. There is no WE in this endeavor. I do not consent to be part of your posse.

contracts

Silly boy, only men and women, flesh and blood, can contract. Paper tigers cannot. Be they public or private. That is why the owner of a corporation or its employees can fuck you over and walk away and make a new corporation. You thought you had a contract with a piece of paper, instead of using that little known law to your advantage. You tried to fight them, instead of using their own tools for your benefit.

You call ME a sick fuck? Every woman in my family can draw and drop a man at 15 yards. The ones that live in shitty little socialist shitholes (they married stupid men) have learned some form of combatives. They won't be getting raped. Ever. Killed maybe, but never raped. Then again, I've almost gotten killed driving and observing ALL laws applicable. Laws didn't save me. My own awareness and training saved me. The same holds for all this other shit. I have relatives overseas who think it is "wrong" to defend themselves. I love them... but I feel that they have contracted themselves as victims. Willing victims. Their fate is their own. If I'm not around to try to protect them, should something happen to them. I will still love them. But I will not feel bad one bit. You sleep in the bed you make, they sleep in the one they made, and I will sleep in my spartan bed that I've prepared for quite sometime now.

People who refuse to step outside the mental cattle pen, are NOT my problem. Their fate is their own. I've shouted in the wilderness long enough. I've proposed ideas.. I've even worked on a few. I have no regrets watching the cattle get on the line to their beloved slaughter houses. I just chose not to be one of them. That's about it folks. As an old friend of mine said after a particularly awakening conversation. "Your blood is off my hands." I didn't really understand him back then. I was young, gullible and still thinking that governmental decrees, courts and dogmas would "save us" from evil.

I didn't see what a mistake that was until I needed government's help to reclaim property stolen by big corporations. All my work to that date was seeped in ignorance. I'm tired of shouting in the wilderness. Good luck to you. Thy loving shepherd awaits his ration of lamb this fine day. Don't keep him waiting.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[spun]

Ah, so that's it. You got fucked over, the system failed you, and you said, "Fuck the system, it's every person for themselves."

Look, I'm all for self reliance and responsibility. But we are not islands. Everything we do effects others, and everything we are we learned from others.

People join together into societies for a reason. Because we are weak, because the world is uncertain, and there is nothing we can do that will provide perfect protection. There is no training available that will prevent all rapes, muggings, or violence. No one can be perfectly vigilant. So we join together into societies for protection, to share the profits and the risks.

Most people not only benefit from that proposition, they do not feel whole without it. The only good correlation with individual happiness is belonging to a group. That is true worldwide, in all cultures. I feel that you are damaged goods, and reacting out of hurt by advocating selfishness and self reliance.

That is of course your right, but you will find yourself 'yelling in the wilderness' and wondering why no one is paying you any attention.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[DaedalusHKX]

Incorrect. Effects others means something you weren't intending, judging by context. Perhaps you meant "affects" others.

If you spent time studying groups and packs, you'll notice there is a REASON the special forces work in small groups, never bigger than 12 (a teams) or 11 (b teams)... why is that I wonder? Huge societies are bullshit. They are simply a way of turning the stronger and fierce packs into livestock for a privileged few to milk. Frankly, judging by the eagerness of the majority to be milked, so long as others get slaughtered first, I am starting to see the wisdom of being among the ruling elite. Perhaps I've been cutting a potential branch from under my own potential "feet".

Show me how many raped in "societies" were protected from being raped by the very people they trusted to "save them".

I'm not worried bud. We're all damaged goods. We begin being damaged the moment we're raised by either schools, or families that were taught to obliterate any sense of freedom from the individual. I merely mentioned a friend who almost got raped, and was saved by someone who happened to be willing to pack a weapon and know how to use it. I merely mentioned being failed by the system that has taken a LOT of my money to pay for your benefits, and I damn well am pissed about it.

I'm not and never got my money's worth. That's not good business, its not fairness and it isn't "protection". If you grow ten watermelons and someone decides that you should only eat one that season, and takes 9, but only takes 3 from someone else, don't you feel fucked over that you went through all that effort to grow the other 9? Bingo. Why should the more productive get fucked so the less productive eat off their backs. If they don't want to donate, they should not be coerced to.

I've been wondering how many truly talented and wonderful people have been forced to remain worthless and unfulfilled because their ideas had to compete with "free stuff" ?

How do you make a living as a farmer in Africa, even in a country that might rebound, if you have to compete with "free grain" from the UN or the USA? You can't. You can't even afford to pay your taxes. Which aren't "your fair share" they are merely what some parasites decided to milk from you to maintain themselves for free. No biggie. Everyone gets what they deserve. There was a really NICE line in that book all the christians hold to be more than parables... in Samuel, I believe, where the hebrews ask for a king, to rule them so they can be "like other nations".

The answer goes something like this. "And the Lord sayeth unto him. Tell them that I shall give unto them a king, like all other nations, and he shall take one tenth of the fruits of their labours, and the fairest of their daughters to serve him, and the finest of their sons to fight his wars, and he shall demand one tenth of their properties and then they shall be slaves."

While most of the Bible is fairly statist in the later chapters, it is interesting that this particular statement gets overlooked. I forget the exact verse lines, but I found it quite enlightening.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[spun]

Affect and effect, my grammatical nemesis.

I've decided. I'm going to stop being a dick to individualist anarchists just because I'm a social anarchist. You individualist anarchists always take me for a statist tool just because I think a cooperative society provides a vital defense against tyranny that pure individualism lacks.

I partially agree with your analysis of group behavior, the natural small group size is 8-15. But the natural large group size is 80-150. And people can be taught to extrapolate to much larger groups.

Perhaps one reason I believe in social anarchism is that I've seen it work, in both limited and general circumstances. I frequently participate in Rainbow Gatherings, which are organized and run in a true anarchist fashion. They are gatherings of 20,000 to 40,000 people that go on for about two weeks every summer in a national forest. They are completely free, and no one is compelled to donate time or money. But everyone is fed and has shelter for the duration, whether they come with any or not. We even have free socialized medicine. And I could tell you some very interesting stories about our Shanti Sena ('peace keepers').

The other example is the Mondragon Cooperative, with which I am less personally familiar. But it's a great example of social anarchism that works on a large, industrial scale and competes with capitalist businesses in the global market. Rainbow is a limited circumstance, it only works because it isn't permanent, but Mondragon has been going strong for 65 years.

What do you guys have to point to? And don't say Hong Kong, it's nowhere near what libertarians and other individualist anarchists are advocating. Seriously, any working projects on the ground, or are you individualist anarchists all talk? No.. no, I promised I wouldn't be dick, sorry ;)

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[DaedalusHKX]

I'm curious, if "food is free", who is paying for it, or growing it? 30000 people tend to eat a lot, even if its just a bowl of rice per day and a glass of water. They also shit alot, which would make for a fairly infectious environment.

I'm curious, how will 30000 peace loving, unarmed, untrained, unskilled hippies fight against a batallion of any nation's marines, backed up with artillery and air support? Wow, all of a sudden you're even worse off than the individualists.

Snickers bars as mediums of exchange.

So instead of enjoying debt based money, you guys skipped over limited resources like silver and gold and went to OTHER limited resources like snickers bars.

Amusing is it not? Commodities are still the best money, even for anti money communities like the one you just mentioned.

I find a lot of your practices (including what has been marketed as homeopathic or natural medicine) which you guys call Living Medicine to be amazingly along the same lines.

You guys are pissed, but don't seem to be noticing that you're still playing the same game. (Who makes snickers? At least you can still dig up your own ore, rocks, jade or other material for exchange, which, as it was once used in very effective tools/weapons is quite valuable as money :)

I find it amazing as a counterculture, but it is still nothing more than counterculture being channeled into acceptable and easily sidelined projects.

As for Mondragon... the only reason they're still around is because they serve some big players purposes and aren't threatening the status quo. I highly doubt they have the clout and pull to stop chinese goods or outsourced contractors from being used to replace their work. It seems, by the wiki page that the only reason they are being helped by their government is because they serve as a good way to keep people at the yoke.

Good attempts, for sure. But as always... every attempt is within the parameters of the paradigm. Nothing world changing... nothing individually changing. Good ideas, but still only serving to maintain the status quo.

Some revolutionaries you guys are. Oops. Sorry, did I just dick back? Sorry :)

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[spun]

Your cynicism is not your most endearing quality. And that's really the best I've got, right there, damn it.

Food at Rainbow is paid for by people like me, who choose to donate our time, money, and effort to make it a fun party for everyone else. But the secret is that the real party is for those who plug in and help. The more you give, the more you get from the experience. In a purely selfish sense, that is.

Your claim of being worse off than you individualists in the face of artillery and air support is laughable. I mean, we'd both be obliterated and you know it. You also don't know about A Camp. You see alcohol isn't socially sanctioned at the main gathering. You won't get any shit if you keep it out of sight, but everyone and their aunt will tell you to fuck off (in nicer, hippie terms) if you carry it around and act drunk.

But hey, we can't keep free individuals from doing what they want, right? And Rainbow tends to attract a lot of... colorful characters. Bikers, punks, crusties, road dogs, crazed loners, ex cons, drifters, and so forth. They cluster in the designated parking areas with their campers and cars and easy access to the road out to get booze. Many of them have weapons and know how to use them. That's A camp and it's our first line of defense. ;)

As for the shit, we dig a lot of shitters and use lime and ash to keep the flies from spreading disease.

The thing about the Snickers bars and other things is, it's actually quite limited. Barter is segregated into trade circle, it's considered crass to trade in public outside of it. Especially products of 'Babylon.' So what do you think actually goes on?

Do you know how a gift economy works? The real units of barter are social regard and connections. You gain social regard by giving of yourself in an effective way. Meaning, you get more regard by saying you'll do a little, and then doing it, than by saying you'll do a lot and doing a half-assed job. Regard gets you connections, which get you the other things you want.

But as I said, it's a temporary thing, a net drain on the resources of those who participate. It's a party. But it's also a good real world example to look at if you are interested in a non hierarchal society. Not that any society will be free from hierarchy, or should be. Just that it should be the natural hierarchy of freely given respect, not an artificial hierarchy maintained through coercion.

Certainly it isn't armed revolution against the state, it's more like flipping them the bird. But armed revolution is no answer either, as the most brutal and ruthless almost always rise to the top and take control of those.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[DaedalusHKX]

But as I said, it's a temporary thing, a net drain on the resources of those who participate. It's a party. But it's also a good real world example to look at if you are interested in a non hierarchal society. Not that any society will be free from hierarchy, or should be. Just that it should be the natural hierarchy of freely given respect, not an artificial hierarchy maintained through coercion.

You and I are in agreement here. On all points. A party is a damn fine thing to have, and have as often as possible. Working long hours is overrated. Usually by people with nothing better to do, or who love paying taxes and feeding bureaucracies with lots of revenue.

Certainly it isn't armed revolution against the state, it's more like flipping them the bird. But armed revolution is no answer either, as the most brutal and ruthless almost always rise to the top and take control of those.

You should know I don't advocate such. In an armed insurrection, all sides lose. The only time such a response is fairly acceptable in terms of "gain versus loss" for those rebelling is when the oppressed have nothing left to lose, or have gotten tired of their English Lords imposing Prima Nocta (yeah I'd take quite a bit of offense to it also, even if my Lady would surrender to it to keep the peace.)

Your cynicism is not your most endearing quality. And that's really the best I've got, right there, damn it.

Damn, not you too! Until now only my mom told me I was mean and harsh.

they have other plans

[wizardforce]

They are not interested in debating the issue at stanford, they would much rather lobby elsewhere to slip in legislation that destroys net neutrality without anyone noticing.

Re:they have other plans

[Anonymous Coward]

They're killing net neutrality. Why can't you leave Britney alone!

When people start talking about ISP's destroying net neutrality my BS detector starts going off. It's probably significant that most of the people involved in creating the Internet are against NN regulations.

FTC and the definition of "Internet Access"

[HaeMaker]

I think the FTC should get involved and determine what the definition of "Internet Access" and "ISP" are. If net neutrality was a requirement to be labeled "ISP" or providing "Internet Access" I think it would help the consumer greatly. This would have also helped with those old wireless carriers who used to provide web-only access but called it "Internet Access" (I think the are all gone now).

Similar to:

"USDA Organic"

Or

"This product has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

Re:FTC and the definition of "Internet Access"

[funchords]

RFC 4084 does exactly what you're asking -- describes the various levels of Internet access. It is not an Internet Standard, it needs more support and willingness to adopt. Currently, I think it has neither.

--Robb Topolski

Re:FTC and the definition of "Internet Access"

[EdelFactor19]

except i dont think they really give a damn what you call them... call them cow dung.. they dont care as long as they get to charge you what they want.

web only access / internet accesss. what the heck did you expect? web access is internet access. do you even pretend to know what you are talking about?

labels dont do crap. And they wont help the consumer. sorry. Look at labels for harddrives; they dont tell you much at all.. whats a gig these days?

george carlin said it best; labels are just things schmucks create so they can make the bull plop they are selling you look /sound better. "When did a used car become a previously owned vehicle"

you know what would do something? the FCC / FTC / WHOEVER actually doing something like forcing them to do what they purport to do, or fining them, or doing something.

Re:FTC and the definition of "Internet Access"

[HaeMaker]

Ah, you must be twelve years old, so I will use small words.

There were wireless internet providers that only allowed you to access the Web via a browser instead of the whole internet. Meaning you could not have email except in a web browser, or ssh, or, your favorite, eMule.

They said they provided "Internet access" when really, it was only WWW access. Understand now?

I do believe that many carriers will find it quite inconvenient if they can not label themselves as an ISP or providing Internet access, and furthermore, I believe the FTC will have no trouble finding Comcast's world headquarters.

Re:FTC and the definition of "Internet Access"

[EdelFactor19]

sorry to disappoint you that I'm not 12; and I have been on the internet since prodigy in the pre aol days. I think my problem is more along the lines of understanding what the difference is between "internet access" and WWW access. This of course hasn't been improved by your second post since all you have done is list things that you can do with WWW access, but without listing an item that falls under "Internet Access" that the WWW access doesnt give you. The one exception is non-browser based email... but given that you say ssh is possible that really shouldn't be a problem.

Especially with it being essential to the problem it would be helpful for you to define what you mean by internet access and how this differs from 'WWW access'. And to do so in a non self referencing fashion. I am well aware that there is more the internet than the WWW. By stating little no new information that I didn't already have I'm not sure why you expect me to magically understand the difference but in any event I don't. Perhaps you could provide an exemplar of some differences between the two.

My point was primarily centered on how meaningless a label is. How many "unlimited" cell phone plans are out there today? How many are actually "unlimited". Its a lot like blockbuster's "end of late fees" thing; all they really did was add a week to the deadline and convert it to a sale instead of a late fee.

Before I buy something I check that it provides the features and level of service that I expect and want. If we believed every word a salesperson / commercial told us then there would be no overweight, bald and poor people. A simple pass through the terms would likely tell you what they define their terminology to be. Is this bad? yes. Do I like this? no. but until all companies are forced to stop deceptive labeling all you can do is go in with the thought "is this really what they are saying or is this what they want the unaware consumer to believe"

You are all of you insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a fool invites the government to regulate their sector.

Re:You are all of you insane

[Timothy Brownawell]

I'd guess that's why the ISPs don't seem to like this.

Well, why not?

[Creepy Crawler]

Why would the industry be willing to go to a bitch-fest where they are the targets? I know if I was in charge of profiteering, I sure wouldnt go to a university to say that Im right... I'd hide away under the senators and congresscritters desks while passing out hundreds to get what I want passed.

If they don't show up . . .

[taustin]

. . . they obviously don't care what decision is finally made.

Couple of comments to that effect from the head of the FCC, and I'll betcha they'll all be at the next conference.

Re:If they don't show up . . .

[Chris Mattern]

. . . they obviously don't care what decision is finally made.

. . . they obviously don't believe that pretty little college debates are going to have anything to do with the outcome, and don't think the FCC chief is going to have much more. There's a pretty good chance they're right.

If they actually had a valid position...

[nebaz]

there should be no trouble debating it, you would think. They think they are above us mere mortals.

Memories?

[Anonymous Coward]

This business of a dual standard bothers me. I remember a certain European country whose postal service offered an express mail service at a premium cost. Then they found that they couldn't meet the standard they had set for the express mail. So, to keep some sort of differentiation between the two classes of mail, they simply delayed the regular mails.

Re:Memories?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought USPS does it here in the US. ;)

Open and Neutral Character

[bluemetal]

"the open and neutral character that has always been the hallmark of the Internet." This is a joke right? There was a time when people thought that maybe newspapers were open and neutral. Bottom line, the internet is the latest and greatest form of media, but in spite of its revolutionary character, it will eventually succumb to the same fate as all other types.

Re:Open and Neutral Character

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bring your own infrastructure. No monthly payments!" That is how you get neutrality.

win by default

[sdnoob]

if the major isp's that oppose net neutrality don't bother to show up for a hearing on the issue put on by their government regulatory agency, then they should LOSE by default and net neutrality should be mandated.

Re:win by default

[Ihmhi]

If that happened, they would likely sue blah blah blah unfair hearing etcetera. I don't think I have to spell out what would happen if the FCC gave "they didn't show up to a debate at a college" as their reason.

That said, I expect that Stanford was going to have a properly moderated and timed debate on the issue. That's about as fair of a discussion on the subject as you can get, and that's exactly why the ISPs did not show up. Fairness is neither in their favor nor their business practices.

Re:win by default

[jd]

I agree, but there should - soomehow - be a penalty exacted for their refusal to state their case in an open forum in front of the FCC. I have no idea what sort of penalty would be reasonable - maybe just an "accidental" delay in processing future paperwork, or something, but some indication that they really were unreasonable should be given.

Re:win by default

[Frosty Piss]

if the major isp's that oppose net neutrality don't bother to show up for a hearing on the issue...

Who said anything about a "hearing"? This was a college campus debate, a completely voluntary "no win" situation for them. Why would they show up?

Hollow victory

[Fluffeh]

Well thinking that the people who opposed it didn't show up, you could be led into thinking that therefore this was a victory for net neutrality right?

Too bad that while advocates of net neutrality were here making their case, the rest of the fight was being lost as the ISP's went about putting in more and more subtle things that were making net neutrality an old vision.

net neutrallity is the most important thing ever!

[Dr.D.IS.GREAT]

as subject dictates if we the people are not allowed to have this great neutrality of said internet we the people could end up like the poor bastards in china, not able to read news, read anti-communist lits, and other such great things. i thinks its about time we all strike back against isps that throttle legitimate Bit torrent traffic and take back what is rightfully ours; the net.

And meanwhile...

[Chris Mattern]

...while he says all those pretty words, the people who actually own the wires have shown how seriously they take him.

Government granted monopolies

[JSBiff]

I generally agree with you. But when you are dealing with government granted monopolies, doesn't the government have a responsibility, to the people, to regulate the corp to which the monopoly is granted? Unfortunately, it's impractical to let many competing companies run cables in public right-of-ways and on public utility poles, so for services which require cable-infrastructure, we limit the number of companies that can participate.

There possibly, might be *one* alternative, but it's complicated and generally ignored. Instead of auctioning off such monopolies to the highest bidder, wherein the government colludes with the monopoly-to-be to set consumer prices as high as possible, the government *could* bid out such monopolies to companies based on who guarantees the best service/price ratio. But, yeah, that's not gonna happen.

Re:Government granted monopolies

[falconwolf]

the government *could* bid out such monopolies to companies based on who guarantees the best service/price ratio.

Or government could separate ownership of infrastructure from ownership of those who provide services the infrastructure can provide and require the owner to allow open access.

Falcon

Re:Government granted monopolies

[freedom_india]

Ahhh, my friend, you are showing your liberal colors.
The government's sole responsibility is to collect money from you as taxes.
And to spend them on $449 toilet seats and $1 trillion on a war only 28% of people approve.

Re:Government granted monopolies

[Deadplant]

Yes. f-ing yes.

Re:Government granted monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

Having room for only one cable-based provider on the public poles and selling that space for profit isn't a government granted monopoly in the same sense as we usually use the term. It's just necessarily a one-winner competition, like many things in business. A true government-granted monopoly is where the government makes competition illegal, such as with spectrum usage and intellectual property. As the other response pointed out, it would have been wise to structure its usage in such a way as to make the physical infrastructure the property of the people, in return for open-access rules or long-term carrier contracts (someone has to pay for it all). But even though we didn't do it that way back then, look at all the ways you can get Internet across the last mile. TV cable, telephone lines, power lines (and we do frequently own those), numerous wireless proprietary spectrum devices, wireless public spectrum devices (802.11), cell phone spectrum devices, and satellite line-of-sight devices. Sure, some are better than others. But is this really not enough for adequate competition?

Personally I don't even think that spectrum should be regulated. If it weren't, and anyone could broadcast over whatever spectrum they wished, we would probably have had vastly superior wireless technologies for decades now. It would have been necessary to develop them in order to provide any reliable service wirelessly. But the payoffs would have been huge.

Slashdot on this
Freedman/Lessig on this

Every time there is pain in the market, people want to jump in and regulate it away. But pain is what moves the market forward. Let Comcast and Qwest and the other entrenched players screw us over for a few years. You'll see other services crop up in their place using alternative technologies. Let's work on mesh networks too, and peer-to-peer Internet. Pipe-dreams today, but a robust and unregulated reality tomorrow. The government is never going to cause any of those advances. It is too busy being the bitch of entrenched players. Even if this market *isn't* going to fix itself, regulation is a bad idea. Government slows things down and screws them up. It is not your friend. It does not work for you. It has no resources of its own. It always over-reaches. It never leaves once you invite it in. It is fiscally irresponsible. It is not creative. It is not subtle. It is never sensitive to change. You will regret it. And I hate to see geeks doing this to themselves.

Re:they have other plans (fixed it for you).

[captnbmoore]

"undergrads think they know everything, graduates know they know nothing and PHDs know everyone else knows nothing."

undergrads think they know everything, graduates know they know nothing and PHDs know everyone else knows more than them.

Add your voice

[oDDmON oUT]

Make your congresscritter work for you...or at least pretend to:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/04/21/sen-kerry-i-need-your-feedback-on-net-neutrality/

https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?alertId=103&pg=makeACall

Yes, if it's to be regulated it's an F*T*C job.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I think the FTC should get involved and determine what the definition of "Internet Access" and "ISP" are.

I agree that the issue is a proper job for the FTC, not the FCC.

Network neutrality can mean "Treat all packets the same." Or it can mean "Don't favor one player's packets over anothers'."

There are valid, pro-consumer reasons to give some packets different treatment than others. One of the biggest: Streams and file transfers have very different requirements for good service. Optimizing routing for one of them makes the performance of the other very bad when things get congested -(and file transfers WILL congest a network unless they're throttled to the point that the network is seriously underutilized.)

So the real issues of "Network Neutrality" is anticompetitive and rent-seeking ("consumer gouging") behaviors and sabotaging high-bandwidth applications to protect an underprovisioned network from obvious failure (thus failing to provide the advertised service). Anticompetitive actions, abuse of defacto monopolies, and false advertising are FTC issues.

Re:Yes, if it's to be regulated it's an F*T*C job.

[jhol13]

There are valid, pro-consumer reasons to give some packets different treatment than others. How true. Unfortunately(?) this can be interpreted so that AnInternetVideoRental is given priority over everybody else as the ISP has made a good deal with them: customers of said ISP get faster and cheaper video rentals.

Good for the ISP and the video rental? Yes. Good for vast majority of customers? Yes. But bad for net neutrality and a very small (but loud) minority of the customers. And bad for other video rentals.

Perhaps better example is state IPTV (think BBC). Giving it guaranteed bandwidth would be beneficial to practically everybody. But it would not be "net neutral".

Flamebait? Parent makes good points.

[CustomDesigned]

Just ignore the leading insult - it is irrelevant to the following excellent points.

Leave the net (un)regulated as our private life

[kentsin]

The net are semi-public place.

It shall be better (un)regulated like our private life.

Not until the net is matured enough, and let all the things happened, and fully understand all people's response to these, regulation should be introduced.

Do not play god.

Re:Leave the net (un)regulated as our private life

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late.

who regulates ISPs?

[falconwolf]

I agree that the issue is a proper job for the FTC, not the FCC.

Why the FTC and not FCC? Afterall they are the Federal "Trade" Commission and the Federal "Communications" Commission. While trade takes place on the net, the net is all about communications.

So the real issues of "Network Neutrality" is anticompetitive and rent-seeking

It already is anticompetitive. Forgetting the fact that telcoms and cablecos already got hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to upgrade their networks, but didn't, not anyone can just string up cables or lay down fiber to offer telecommunications services. In competitive markets anyone with the ability would be able to do it.

Oh, ok I see why you say the FTC, and I agree but not for the reasons you give. The reason I'll give for the FTC doing it instead of the FCC is because I believe the FCC should be abolished. Not only is there no reason for th FCC to exist but just by getting a few thousand people from a certain group to complain to the FCC a network is fined because of a wardrobe malfunction.

Falcon

Audio Archives of the Hearing (Plus Lessig's Talk)

[Anonymous Coward]

Audio archives of the hearing can be found here: kpfa.org/fcc -Larry Lessig's intro talk to the hearing was great.

Seems to me the correct side was voiced

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unfortunately, only one side of the issue was voiced despite Stanford being home to people opposing Net Neutrality".

HUH? Considering that they hosted it (and presumably were there....)and they chose not to comment, why should we lament their silence?

Ahem.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "internet" and why should i care?

Which ISPs did show up?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, which ISPs are pro-net-neutrality and deserve our business?

Gee

[Black Parrot]

Let's give rich people the right of way at intersections and higher speed limits on the highways while we're at it.

Re:Gee

[kyb]

Let's give rich people the right of way at intersections and higher speed limits on the highways while we're at it. If you live in a country where the disincentive for breaking the speed limit or running a stop light is a fixed financial penalty, rather than a means-tested one, you are already doing this.

Re:Gee

[Hillgiant]

And let them drive in the HOV lanes... oh, wait. We already do that.

Re:Gee

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm OK with that. The poor will have less to lose and therefore pull out into the intersection while some rich asshole flies through at high speed and (hopefully) dies.

The law will change quickly to make that "more illegal", but it won't actually change the level of animosity.

Eventually, the rich assholes will all die, the law can finally be repealed by someone with at least two brain cells to rub together, and life will return that much closer to normal.

Re:Gee

[Anonymous Coward]

if you carpooled, nobody cares how much money you make. and for many HOV lanes, they let motorcycles and hybrids use the lane too.

Re:Gee

[Hillgiant]

Here in Houston they have a proposal to allow single occupancy vehicles in the HOV lane if they pay a toll. The more congestion there is, the higher the toll. Therefore: More Money = Less Sitting in Traffic.

Who?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Ill tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

last-mile ISPs suck

[Deadplant]

maybe they should have invited the Internet industry folks like Peer 1, teleglobe, XO, cogent and those guys.
Then maybe we could have had some industry insights from major Internet backbone companies who aren't monopoly scum saying sensible things instead of whatever lawyer-hobbled stuff an at&t rep would have been able to say.

Re:last-mile ISPs suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, monopoly scum happens to be the number 1 supporter of my congressman Fred Upton, former chair of the house subcommittee on telecommunications. You're not suggesting that influenced political decisions in any ways are you? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Telecoms to consumers: We don't care

[dkleinsc]

We don't have to care. We're the Phone Company.

Re:Telecoms to consumers: We don't care

[bothwell]

"Tell me, Mr. /.er, what good is a communications device... when you are unable to speak?" \ :AgentTelco:

Re:Flamebait? Parent makes good points.

[quanticle]

What excellent points? The grandparent conveniently ignores the fact that, for many people, Comcast is their only option for high-speed internet access. All the encryption and routing tricks in the world won't help these people if Comcast simply refuses to transfer packets going to certain destinations.

Comcast & the P2P blocking side effects

[MHz-Man]

I was an unwilling Comcast customer (they were the only provider around because I live in a DSL black hole) for a couple years, right up until Verizon Fios became available and was installed last Friday. As soon as I was able, I switched. Their P2P blocking was only slightly annoying to me since I only use P2P once every few months on average. However, the side effect that it caused was infuriating!

Back in late '06 and early to mid '07, I would use P2P to download some music very sparingly. It always worked and would complete in a matter of minutes/hours with no side effects. I remember first seeing news of the Comcast P2P blocking in the Summer of '07, but it never affected me when I would use Bittorrent. However, one day in September of '07, a couple friends of mine were over and one of them wanted to watch a show. He logged into a torrent tracker that he's a member of and we started downloading a couple episodes. One finished, but the other one froze and would not transfer at all. Actually, at this point my entire Internet connection was dead and I couldn't even browse websites! After about 30 minutes, the Internet connection returned... mostly. I could do most things on the Internet, but strangely enough my Vonage VoIP phone line was dead. If I tried starting a Bittorrent download, the entire Internet connection would die again for about 30 minutes. If I rebooted the Vonage router (gateway router for our home network), the Internet connection would remain dead for 30 minutes then come back, but the Vonage line stayed dead.

Of course, a call to Comcast's tech support line was not helpful at all. They denied that it was due to P2P blocking and sent me on my merry way. At this point I didn't have enough evidence to argue to the contrary, so I tried troubleshooting it with Vonage.

Since the Internet connection was working again and only the Vonage line had problems, I guessed that the Vonage router had somehow been damaged. Vonage tech support logged into the router, could communicate with it, but it just wasn't able to connect to their servers to establish a VoIP phone line connection. I ended up sending them the router back and got a replacement, which worked and gave me VoIP connectivity again immediately.

Fast forward to November. I try another P2P download and sure enough, the Internet connection dies again! Same thing... 30 minutes later, everything returns except for my VoIP line. Now, I'm pissed because I know it's Comcast. What if I needed to dial 911? As a side effect of their P2P blocking, they blocked my ability to dial anybody, including 911, from my home phone. 3 days later, the VoIP line inexplicably returns.

I'm a network engineer by day, grad student and dad by evening/night. I would have hooked up another PC with sniffing software on it to further troubleshoot the problem but I simply didn't have time to do so. With the information I have, it is obvious that Comcast was doing something to my Internet connection. It is highly unlikely that the Vonage routers were the problem. Let's review the facts:

- Router #1 worked for a year with P2P downloads.

- Then Comcast hits the news sites about blocking P2P.

- Then I try P2P download, my connection gets screwy and my Vonage phone line dies for a week.

- Two months later I try another P2P download with a different, newly shipped Vonage router and the exact same thing happens!


A month or so later, I read that Comcast was backing off on their P2P blocking a bit so I try another download. Finally, it's back to normal like in '06 and early '07; the download worked and there were no side effects. However, the whole experience of not having a usable home phone line for a total of 1.5 weeks left me quite bitter and I switched ISPs to Verizon Fios the week that it became available here. When the FCC had that comments page up for the Comcast P2P blocking investigation, I posted my story on there as well. From what I under

Re:Comcast & the P2P blocking side effects

[SpaceLifeForm]

I guess another of the side-effects you now have is that Verizon killed your copper, and you can't even dial up with a modem.

And if your power goes out, do you still have phone? For how long?

Re:Comcast & the P2P blocking side effects

[sabt-pestnu]

He did say he's got a VoIP line. Add to that that he's complaining about being unable to call 911. I think it fair to conclude that he did not have a normal phone service connection before he switched.

And a modem on a VoIP line is an exercise best left to the bored-and-masochistic crowd.

Re:Comcast & the P2P blocking side effects

[QuietObserver]

From experience, I can say a modem on a VoIP line doesn't work. My good friend and I tried it with his Vonage phone service once. The handshake sounded okay, at first, but lasted much longer than it should have and it ultimately couldn't connect.

FCC claims authority over internet

[EmbeddedJanitor]

From FCC's website: "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable."

They don't claim light, but I guess fiber optic cables would loosely fall under "cable". Nor do they claim authority over intrastate traffic.

Re:FCC claims authority over internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor do they claim authority over intrastate traffic.

BFD -- just try to operate an unlicensed low power neighborhood FM station. Pay attention to the letterhead on the citation you receive.

And you can thank PBS for siding with the big fuckers on this when it came to the FCC hearings.

No wonder it used to be called the Petroleum Broadcasting System.

See, and there you go...

[DaedalusHKX]

You can go through an interesting process to ENFORCE your contract. You know, that thing you sign when you buy their SERVICE, which says "unrestricted internet access" ? Yeah bingo... read tomhudson's slashdot journal to get an idea of HOW to go about hammering assholes who back down on contracts.

About the only right humans have in the so called "society" we live in, is the right to freely contract (read, associate and exchange value and come to agreements with others). Everything from sales, purchases, to marrying someone or letting a rapist have his way with you, it is ALL contracts. Accords, agreements, even when you surrender to a bad guy, you've agreed to let him have his way. All things boil down to that. So enforce your contract. You bought 5 megs down 1 meg up, unrestricted internet access. Period. Enforce it. Take them up for violation of contract, there are remarkable collections processes available. Hell, a smart and asshole type individual willing to take it far enough, and with a stomach for leaving lots of people unemployed (whom I'd actually wager DESERVE it) could end up owning Cox@home :)

Re:See, and there you go...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your main point was good, but was the "rape victims let it happen" thing really necessary?

Re:See, and there you go...

[giafly]

About the only right humans have in the so called "society" we live in, is the right to freely contract (read, associate and exchange value and come to agreements with others). Everything from sales, purchases, to marrying someone or letting a rapist have his way with you, it is ALL contracts.

You're not a lawyer are you? There are literally hundreds of laws limiting the freedoms that you claim. For example you can't sell Brooklyn Bridge, purchase a slave, marry your sister, and have sex while queuing at LAX security, despite what you may see on daytime TV.

Re:See, and there you go...

[electrictroy]

Yes you can, yes you can, and yes you can.

- If you own the Brooklyn Bridge, you can sell it as your own personal property. (Same way Trump buys and sells whole freakin' skyscrapers.)

- Some states allow polygamy. Some states allow incest.

- You can buy a slave, as long as the slave is agreeable to the arrangement. Only INvoluntary servitude is illegal. Voluntary servitude is still allowed (think indentured servants).

- You can have sex in an airport. You'll get arrested, but you can still do it. (As a side note, you can also expose your breasts & feed your baby while in line, and nobody can arrest you for that act.) (Many people don't realize that, but breastfeeding is one example of legal nudity (well toplessness).)

Re:See, and there you go...

[Anonymous Coward]

... letting a rapist have his way with you, it is ALL contracts.

Too bad you skipped the first day of contract law class. You missed some valuable shit.

Idiotic prick.

I say

[warrior_s]

there is a need to create a tool for website owners that can detect if an isp is throttling the traffic to their website.. and then they should stop serving anymore to that ISP..
If done collectively, this would mean that customers will switch away from that ISP.. and creating that tool should not take more than few lines of code.
of course this would hurt initially to the owners of website (depending on the kind of website) but should benefit in longer term

Re:I say

[Geak]

OK, now you have me confused. If the ISP is blocking your website, what difference does it make if you start blocking them?

Last weekend...

[v(*_*)vvvv]

I had invited the same telecom giants to a debate at my house. But guess what!!!

Never mind...

Re:Flamebait? Parent makes good points.

[CustomDesigned]

He was suggesting tunneling to intermediate destinations to defeat destination IP discrimination and encrypted tunneling to defeat port discrimination - among other brainstorming ideas. The main point was that you can't trust corrupt government any more than you can trust corrupt ISPs.

without government regulation

[ClioCJS]

We would still see signs like "No Irish Apply", and black people would not ever be hired for white collar jobs. That is the truth, and you should think about that. Anarchy isn't always the solution -- and I'm a libertarian saying this.

At least

[esocid]

The ISPs didn't pay a bunch of scabs to block off the event from "real" people. Instead they just gave a proverbial middle finger to the FCC and the public.

Option 2 can't work

[JSBiff]

"Or government could separate ownership of infrastructure from ownership of those who provide services the infrastructure can provide and require the owner to allow open access."

That might help *some* of the issues (specifically, net neutrality, because I could maybe pick an Internet 'gateway' provider who uses routing policies I like), but it still doesn't solve the problem that, fundamentally, someone still has a monopoly on the last mile. I've used a DSL ISP that had to depend on the local incumbent telco for the actual physical regional network, and you know what? While I loved that ISP, they couldn't survive. And you know why? Because customers who used the local incumbent payed $29/mo, while customers who used the 'third-party' ISP *still* had to pay $29/mo to the telco, PLUS $15/mo to the ISP.

Now, if you required that the telcos could *not* provide direct access to the Internet, and so compete with the other ISP's, that might solve that problem, but *oops* that's government regulation which, apparently, is ALWAYS EVIL. Also, it still presents you a problem where, overall, Internet access just ends up being more expensive because the *monopoly* on the last mile allows the telco/cableco to add a tax of it's choosing to every Internet connection on top of the ISP's who, of course, must charge some kind of fee in order to survive as businesses. All open access rules will do is cause the last-mile providers to still charge the same amount (don't dream they'll reduce prices, ever, unless they *must*), plus add an additional fee on top of that.

Maybe the combination of multiple last-mile providers (cable, telco, wireless) combined with mandating that the last mile providers cannot provide Internet access, but only regional network infrastructure for ISP's to connect to, *could* work, but that solution *still* depends on government regulation. People who insist that government regulation is never the answer can't see past their nose (I'm not saying the immediate parent falls into this category - I'm kind of responding to several posters at once, here), and are just as bad as people who call for regulation of everything. I may be a Christian, with regards to religion, but I'm a Buddhist when it comes to government/market policies - "Seek the middle path". It's like environmental regulations. Markets, basically, have no effective means for getting companies to not pollute if that is the easiest way to a profit. Truth in advertising - if government regulations didn't prevent false marketting claims, then false marketting would dominate (because the honest companies would have a hard time competing with less scrupulous competitors). Monopolies - if the government didn't prevent certain corporate mergers, then many types of markets would eventually devolve to entrenched monopolies.

Markets are good, but they are not a stand-alone solution. It takes government to create and maintain fair markets. It also takes government to deal with certain types of problems that markets are simply not well equipped to handle. I think most of us are fairly glad that we have a military that is subservient to a government, which is democratically responsible to it's people. What would the country be like if there were a bunch of private/mercenary armies? I personally don't think that would be a good situation. So, for people who argue that government is never the answer, I reallly must disagree with you.

Re:Option 2 can't work

[falconwolf]

That might help *some* of the issues (specifically, net neutrality, because I could maybe pick an Internet 'gateway' provider who uses routing policies I like), but it still doesn't solve the problem that, fundamentally, someone still has a monopoly on the last mile. I've used a DSL ISP that had to depend on the local incumbent telco for the actual physical regional network, and you know what? While I loved that ISP, they couldn't survive. And you know why? Because customers who used the local incumbent payed $29/mo, while customers who used the 'third-party' ISP *still* had to pay $29/mo to the telco, PLUS $15/mo to the ISP.

Ah but if you separate ownership of the infrastructure and delivery of the services it can provide you don't run into that problem. Because they couldn't sale you the service and are required to have open access they can't keep or try to keep other companies from providing the service. In other words the owner can't provide services to the end customer, only to the third parties who can then sale services to the end user.

Now, if you required that the telcos could *not* provide direct access to the Internet, and so compete with the other ISP's, that might solve that problem, but *oops* that's government regulation which, apparently, is ALWAYS EVIL.

Not all government regulations are evil. In the current climate many regulations are evil, but not have to be. You list some good ones such as truth in advertizing.

All open access rules will do is cause the last-mile providers to still charge the same amount (don't dream they'll reduce prices, ever, unless they *must*), plus add an additional fee on top of that.

Most if not every state in the US has a Public Utilities Commission which regulates how much a utility can charge. this can easily be extended to internet access. At least in theory but it may prove difficult in practice.

What would the country be like if there were a bunch of private/mercenary armies?

Oh, but there are private military contractors in the US, and not just manufacturers. Blackwater Worldwide is one. Blackwater now trains the US Navy SEALs, but who trained the Blackwater personnel? The Navy. Blackwater is also a major contractor in Afghanistan and Iraq. they provide logistics and security, both of which the military used to do itself.

Clinton started privatizing the military but Bush has taken what he started and gone further. Myself, I'd rather move to a military like Switzerland has. Every adult, er people between 18 and say 45, 50 or 55, are part of a citizen's military who would have their own firearm. They would be expected to do so much training each year but would otherwise be free to do whatever they want whether that's an auto mechanic, banker, doctor, or pilot. Then there'd be a small professional core who only work in the military. Their, the military's, job would be to defend the country and to aid in natural disasters.

Falcon

Nice spin on the story...

[Snotman]

but the facts are not quite right. Brett Glass, of Lariat from Wyoming, was at the hearing representing the issues of ISPs. He runs a small rural ISP providing service to people in Wyoming that might not ordinarily have service. That quite a bit different than the person that wrote the story saying only one side was available. And let me tell you, he is quite the adversary and his arguments are compelling and spot on from his position supporting network management. I happen to be of the other persuasion, but I respect what he has to say as both sides have valid points. Comcast, Verizon, et al do not need to be at hearings as the logic presented by Brett stands on its own and does not need multi-billion dollar companies to echo his arguments to give them strength. But then again, maybe the person that submitted the story is bedazzled by Rolexes and sees branding as legitimizing arguments and people. I have no other explanation as to why he was glossed over.

Please see this link for Brett's comments since the person that wrote this article failed to take notice at the hearing: http://www.brettglass.com/remarks.html

No ISPs there? Really? I must have hallucinated.

[Brett Glass]

I was there -- I spoke on the second panel -- and as far as I am aware, I exist. Or at least I think I exist, therefore I exist... I think. But I guess if you're the competition that some folks want to claim does not exist as they pursue government regulation of the Net, you don't exist even if you do exist. My prepared remarks, of which I only got to deliver a little more than half because I was given less time than previous panelists, are at http://www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html

And then laugh maniacally as Comcast cries.

[falconwolf]

I'd like to see that, however I think ComCast would trot out it's lawyers and lobbyists.

Falcon

Guess I should clarify

[JSBiff]

Yes, there are mercenary militaries which exist, but the nation does not depend upon them as the *only* defense of the country. We have a government countrolled standing military, and State controlled National Guard, which are far larger than Blackwater, and which could, if it became necessary, defense us *from* Blackwater. My main point was, without the government having a military, someone else would build their own army and conquer the country, of course, so we see that Government is the most appropriate solution for certain problems. Which, it sounds like, you agree with. =)

Who *does* even own the Internet?

[starshinecruzer]

The trick here is the 'Net was originally created as a public communications tool, funded by the *taxpayers*. It's doesn't fall to specific corporations to control how quickly data gets from point a to point b.

Since all the added components to the Internet were done by different countries around the world, it makes more sense that whomever owns the servers controls how fast data runs across those links, and most of those are government owned, funded by the *people*, so neutrality should be gaurenteed.

What a surprise.

[Kyokugenryu]

Did you really expect them to? ISPs will obviously not show up to discuss their shady business practices, the only way we can make them do anything is with our wallets.