Slashdot Mirror
Network Neutrality Defenders Quietly Backing Off?
SteveOHT writes "Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers. The story claims that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have quietly withdrawn from a coalition of companies and groups backing network neutrality (the coalition is not named), though Amazon's name is reportedly once again listed on the coalition's Web site. Google has already responded, calling the WSJ story "confused" and explaining that they're only talking about edge caching, and remain as committed as ever to network neutrality. The blogosphere is alight with the debate.
Anyone else misread the title?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil." We are all fine.
I buy my saline kits from Chase Union Ltd in Movi, Michigan. The cost of a 1000 cc bag of sterile saline, drip tubing, sterile wipes (to wipe down your sac and all around) and catheter needle is with shipping around $25.
You can call them at +01 (248) 348-8191 and ask for item "MF 100" a scrotal inflation kit.
To do the saline, take the bag of saline and put in a microwave for about 5.5 minutes at low heat to warm to a bit above body temperature;about 100 degrees or so. Unwrap the outer plastic packaging and put the saline bag aside. Unwrap the drip tubing which comes with the kit and move the clamping system down toward the end opposite the vial type thing and CLOSE IT SHUT. Take the larger end of the drip tubing and uncap the protective cap........open the warmed bag of saline and remove the clear cap. Insert the drip tubing nozzle into the saline bag opening. Find a curtain rod, pot rack (which i have and use in the kitchen) shower rod or something elevated above you. Hang the bag of saline with the tubing attached and shut off. THEN VERY IMPORTANT. SQUEEZE SOME OF THE SALINE INTO THE VIAL ABOUT HALF WAY -THEN OPEN THE CLAMPING DEVICE AND BLEED ALL AIR OUT OF THE TUBING. YEAH YOU LOOSE A LITTLE BIT OF SALINE BUT THIS IS A MUST. YOU DON'T WANT ANY AIR OR AIR BUBBLES IN THE DRIP TUBING! REPLACE THE CAP ON THE WORKING END OF THE TUBING.
Before hand, while the bag of saline is warming either take a hot shower, or fill a basin or kitchen sink with very warm water sit in it for 4-7 minutes. The idea is to warm your ballsac skin up and let it get loose and hang.
When you have finished warming your sac, and you have the bag of saline (BLED FROM AIR), you are ready to grow.
With your sac still very warm use the wipes provided with the kit to wipe down your cock and ballsac. By the way, you will want an adjustable leather cock ring , nylon rope, or other type of removable cock/ball ring to wrap around cock and ballsac after inserting the catheter needle.
With you sac still warm and wiped down with antiseptics, sit in a chair with a towel underneath. Open the catheter needle don't get pansy here but with one hand, take the catheter needle and the teflon sheath that covers it and WITH THE OTHER HAND TAKE YOUR BALLSAC MOVING YOUR COCK OUT OF THE WAY AND DECIDE ON THE LOCATION OF THE INTENDED CATHETER NEEDLE. YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON THE AREA EITHER TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR BALLSAC AND UP CLOSE TO WHERE THE COCK CONNECTS. YOU PLACE THE CATHETER NEEDLE RIGHT BELOW THE COCK OR A LITTLE LOWER BUT TO ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF THE DARKER SKIN DIVIDING SKIN WHICH IS IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SAC.
DON'T GET SQUEEMISH BECAUSE THIS DOES NOT HURT. BUT INSERT THE CATHETER STRAIGHT DOWN CAUTIOUSLY INTO YOUR SAC. MOVE YOUR TESTICLE ASIDE YOU ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE BALLSAC CAVITY NOT THE TESTICLE.
YOU WILL EXPERIENCE A PRICK SENSATION,THEN A POP SENSATION AS THE CATHETER NEEDLE PIERCES THE MUSCLE TISSUE OF THE SCROTUM.
KEEP PUSHING THE CATHETER NEEDLE IN. IF IT GOES IN AND YOU FEEL FROM THE OTHER/OPPOSITE SIDE OF YOUR BALLSAC THAT THE NEEDLE IS THERE, THEN STOP.
Pull out the needle itself leaving the teflon sheath inserted into you sac. Tie yourself (cock and balls) off with some sort of removable cock ring or rope or robe tie or whatever.
Sit down, don' t plan to move around too much for the next 30 minutes - hour. Have your beers/soft drinks or whatever already out of the fridge. You will want to stay idle and focused while you do this.
While sitting, and close to the hanging bag of saline and the drip tubing, remove the protective cover of the end of the drip tubing, connect the drip tubing to the catheter sheath in you sac. THEN START ADJUSTING THE CLAMPING DEVICE OPEN TO ALLOW SALINE DRIPPING TO APPEAR IN THE VIAL UP BY THE BAG OF SALINE. ADJUST FOR AN EVEN DRIP DRIP DRIP FLOW AND NOT A STEADY STREAM OF SALINE.
If the saline doesn't drip at first, try pulling the catheter sheath out a bit until you at first experience a small burning sensation;it g
A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.
As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!
I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.
Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?
I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.
I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.
I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!
Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.
I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.
I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.
Need I say more? They're grabbing headlines once again for confused reporting.
And I get fast-priority access to Google, but if I want to go visit Yahoo or Altavista instead, my connection gets blocked or slowed? Is that what the end of neutrality means?
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
From TFS:
The story claims that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have quietly withdrawn from a coalition of companies and groups backing network neutrality
Sounds like NN ADVOCATES are backing out.
NN dieing, is anyone surprised? There's just too much money to be made by charging twice for the same bandwidth.
How exactly is a fast lane for Google content supposed to be network *neutral*?
The tubes were getting clogged!
This is google paying more to provide a faster service, not paying more to provide the same service. there is a difference.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html
Google's dial now goes to 11.
I keep hearing how we need NN regulations because there is so little competition, but I also don't see much being done by NN advocates to eliminate local and state franchising laws which make it harder for companies to enter cable and broadband markets. If Google were more libertarian than liberal, I would expect them to be proposing a referendum in California to sweep away all of the franchising laws so that there are no local or state limits on who can enter what Internet or TV market.
Part of the logic behind franchising laws is that they give more revenue to local governments, but so what? Most local governments can do without, and if you really need to help them with funding, then the obvious solution is to give them more latitude to tax their residents.
The WSJ is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns ISPs in Europe. For him net neutrality is a threat to a potential revenue stream. All we're seeing here is the 'editorial independence' of the Murdoch press.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Is this kind of carry on not just asking for a "useful" virus? (Not proposing it)
There are plenty of smart people out there who are for net neutrality and a number of them might consider it lawful (or even their duty) to exploit the infection vectors that have served botnets for so long, to provide an "inoculation" that reverses the effect of this unrequested distortion of the network - "stealing from the rich" so to speak, which will inevitably "give to the poor".
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Looks like Google is positioning itself to take over MS tactics. I'll await their History Eraser button applet. Oh well! What with Google's admission that they manipulate search results I won't trust them anymore. Sounds like the search engince industry is ripe for a new Top Dog... one that can be trusted.
struggle to see what the problem is here really. It sounds rather like Google are buying dedicated (virtual) pipes to move data around. Millions of companies already do this and no one complains. Flame away, I get that foot in mouth feeling.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
net Neutrality is like election finance reform. The people trying to gain access are all for it, but once access is gained, the urgency seems to fade away.
Google needs net neutrality where it is weak, but exploits sweet heart deals where it is strong. The ISPs should be careful, in this economy, the infrastructure that they depend on can be bought by Google or Microsoft. More over, if Google or Microsoft could buy or build a few major backbones, they'll be screaming bloody murder FOR net neutrality.
I think Google has done the numbers, though. They are banking on semi-truck sized compact portable data centers and using existing the existing backbone as merely the pipeline for cache coherency. So when you run google apps, you are getting your applications only a few hops away without sprint in the way.
I will paraphrase an old expression, never under estimate the data bandwidth of a semi-truck sized data center driving two days across country. Think about the number of raw terabytes that can be shipped vs transfered over the backbone.
Is as simple as that. Whoever owns the line, has a say in conditions of how it is used. Take it or leave it, no one forces you to use it if you don't like the rules.
Lay your own cable if you wish, I mean, the other guy did exactly that. Lines do not grow on trees, someone had to pay for the line to come into existence, so now he sets the rules.
Going for anything else would give a worrysome precedent in case there's someone interested in *your* property.
For actually reading what is going on rather than wild and moronic speculation based on a stupid headline and bad summary.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
It's a contradiction to buy your way into the fast lane with ISP's and then say you want equality for all. I say...the best way to maintain neutrality is for everyone to do nothing except for all ISP's to give all users faster speeds. Any measure of fairness is had at the user level and NOT with content providers or website owners. The best things that site owners could ever do is to maintain the health of their sites, make them easier to use, and make them more desirable to use. ANY manipulation if favor of ANY site at the ISP level defies the very purpose of NN.
Google is becoming the next evil empire that we will all hate.
Excepting of course that google is a free service to anyone who can type google.com into a web browser. This would simply mean there would be fewer hops between users and google's servers, therefore a better quality of service to the user. It has absolutely nothing to do with the user paying anyone.
Google's customers do pay. You have misunderstood who Google's customers are. When you type into the textbox at google.com, you are not Google's customer. The corporations whose ads appear on the search pages are the customers.
You are not Google's customer. You, the web searcher, are what they sell to their customers. You are their product.
Its like paying a higher price for a better location if you run a retail store. The customer doesn't pay for it, the business does.
That has nothing to do with net neutrality in itself. You could say exactly the same thing if AT&T were charging Google for prioritized packet handling.
I am in favor of net neutrality, but you seriously need to refine your arguments.
No, it's like how if you download something from Amazon, you download it from a local s3 cache instead of them copying it over the backbone multiple times. This provides MORE bandwidth for everyone, including Amazon's competition.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Net Neutrality is somewhat a myth. Network providers already prioritize their own traffic in many ways like edge caching. Or, they might change the way data is serviced to allow a more requested provider better access. Absolute Net Neutrality is a myth.
What we want to prevent is the practice of shoving a provider purposefully shoving third party content aside in order to better highlight their own content. For example, setting up your network in such a way that a Google search takes three to four seconds to return results while the provider's search results are instantaneous. Users will switch to the faster provider's search engine. Or, maybe streaming content from iTunes or YouTube is no longer smooth. You attempt to listen to a song or play a video, and you get a lot of caching going on. However, the provider's own video and music service is smoother with no caching.
This is the true issue. Is the same firm that provides the pipe (or if you live in Alaska, the tube) to your computer using its advantage to push other business they're way.
There were two types of monopolies that the government use to watch over. One was a horizontal monopoly where a single company captures a vast majority of the market and can use their clout to prevent others from entering the market, thus eliminating competition. An example of this was Standard Oil.
The other, lesser known monopoly was the vertical monopoly where the company controls the entire vertical distribution. Two examples: One was the three television networks. They were prohibited from producing their own shows for the longest time. The reasoning is that if they could, they could favor their own productions over third parties. Instead of hundreds of independent production studios, there would be three who could control payments.
Another example is Boeing. At one time, Boeing was not just an airplane manufacturer, but also owned an airline. This meant that Boeing could favor its own airline with newer equipment at cheaper rates, thus giving its airline a cost advantage over other rivals. This was back in the days when airmail was an important revenue stream for airlines, and Boeing could outbid its rivals. The government separated United Airlines and United Technologies from Boeing back in the 1930s.
This is the actual problem. Local providers of service should not be content providers too. Otherwise, their content would have an unfair advantage over other content providers. This should be enforced not just in the Internet, but also with cable and satellite television providers. You can either provide the pipe to the TV, or you can provide the content over that pipe.
If local providers of Internet service didn't have their own content they were pushing, there would be no issues with net neutrality.
Missing from the article, however, is the evidence that my view is a "shift" or "soften[ing]" of earlier views. That's because there isn't any such evidence. My view is the view I have always had -- whether or not it is the view of others in this debate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The truthiness is out there!
dont forget that at the fire-sale end of the dot-com bust, google went on a shopping spree for dark fiber and other carrier capacity that had been overbuilt. I don't know if they bought leases and options or outright ownership but in any case their commitment to network neutrality is conditioned by exactly one consideration: there has got to be a good fast way for joe.searchClient to see his google results and ads at least as fast as anyone else's content. If NN does that, google is for it, if some something else does that, then why be surprised if google is for that something else?
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
There are all sorts of technologies built into networks to help manage congestion and prioritize traffic.
These technologies were created to solve technical as well as policy challenges.
Maybe it is "Evil" of a provider to simply drop one in 30 packets from hulu.com, but it certainly isn't a bad thing for them to prioritize their bandwidth to give their partners an SLA and give everyone else a "best effort" level of service. And, it may (almost certainly) be that they've simply over-subscribed their bandwidth and putting hulu.com into a "best effort" queue will result in a 1/30 packet loss for large packets.
The real problem is the monopoly of the last mile. If I get crappy hulu service from comcast, I should be able to get traffic from verizon or RCN. Right now, that's not easy, but that is the real remedy to poor service from providers.
Mandating that they do something poorly (not use their existing bandwidth management tools) will either result in them ignoring you or result in poor performance for everything.
The WSJ's shoddy reporting has been refuted on both the Google Public Policy blog and Lessig's blog. The article is referring to CDNs, which do not figure into any kind of net neutrality calculus. Why the WSJ wanted to run this inaccurate Obama-smear article, I can only speculate (perhaps Murdoch had something to do with this, eh?).
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutrality-and-benefits-of-caching.html
Suppose I own a big last-mile ISP. I see how this edge caching business works, and I decide: hey, guess what, I was planning to enlarge my upstream pipes and to prioritize traffic to outside destinations that pay me protection money, but screw that. Now I'm going to treat all inbound and outbound traffic equally, but give up improving my uplink bandwidth and demand that the big content providers engage me in extortionate, anti-competitive edge caching deals.
Are you adequate?
What they seem to be proposing is a method of pre-positioning their content on mirror servers near their customers. The transactions go through the same set of pipes as all other traffic, just to a different location. This is essentially the same service Akamai has been offering for 10 years. Google is just doing it for themselves with their own hardware. ISPs won't go along with it unless they can (a) get paid and (b) show benefit to their customers.
Everybody !panic
Cut spending on education. We now spend, on average, twice per capita after inflation, what we did 100 years ago for the same practical results. To put it bluntly: at least half of the money spent on public education is a complete waste that has brought no discernible benefit to the community or kids.
Wired has a good summary of the controversy.
See title.
If you read Google's response, it is pretty clear that they are trying to obfuscate the issue. What they are talking about is paying to put servers and data inside the ISPs and so gain an advantage for their content. This is exactly the scheme that AT&T proposed and Google condemned. Their reply is a technical splitting of hairs and a diversion. Cache end servers, etc, is all just "we want our data to have higher access and priority and will pay for it". Admit it Google, you're busted.
What the Google reply really is, is an attempt to save face and avoid admitting that if they can gain business advantage, Google will dump "principle" for profit, just like every other corporation. They are afraid that this episode will expose their "do no evil" as merely a marketing slogan intended to fool folks. Busted.
Well, now that they've admitted that it all about money, maybe they can use the AdSense bidding system to help Governors automate the selling of Senate seats too!
--"At one time, Boeing was not just an airplane manufacturer, but also owned an airline. This meant that Boeing could favor its own airline with newer equipment at cheaper rates, thus giving its airline a cost advantage over other rivals." Yes, lord help us if the consumer actually got cheaper airline tickets. Thank God the government "helped" us by making prices more expensive than they had to be.
I think that the people who are discomforted by the network neutrality implications of Google's move are't worried specifically about this one deal. What they're worried about is the possibility that the last-mile ISPs will switch strategies and try to use edge caching anticompetitively to achieve the same goals as they hope to achieve using non-neutral traffic management. Edge caching, coupled with divestment of resources toward the upstream bandwidth, can be used to meet the letter of the common definitions of net neutrality (treat all traffic the same way), while violating the spirit (delivering good bandwidth for their own in-house content and select content producers that pay them for edge caching).
So really, the thing to keep in mind here is the business models and network architecture. The network architecture choices are the following:
It is pretty obvious which of these the last-mile ISPs would prefer from a business standpoint; they get more power from the second one. The second architecture might technically be OK (or even a great idea); but IMHO the important questions are: (a) how to prevent the last-mile ISPs from abusing their position in this architecture; (b) how to implement the model without making it too costly for small content providers (who can't go and negotiate a deal with every last-mile ISP in the country or planet).
Are you adequate?
Boils down to this:
1) You love the free market... err, except when you don't.
2) You'd prefer it if others were consistent with their pronouncements so that you could decide what you think of them, and be done with it once and for all.
Great. Me too.
Now, just don't go changing those opinions!
nobody dare to block or slow down Google.