ACLU Says Net Neutrality Necessary For Free Speech

eldavojohn writes "The ACLU has recently identified Network Neutrality a key free speech issue and said in a lengthy PDF report: 'Freedom of expression isn't worth much if the forums where people actually make use of it are not themselves free. And the Internet is without doubt the primary place where Americans exercise their right to free expression. It's a newspaper, an entertainment medium, a reference work, a therapist's office, a soapbox, a debating stand. It is the closest thing ever invented to a true "free market" of ideas.' The report then goes on to argue that ISPs have incentive and capability of interfering with internet traffic. And not only that but the argument that it is only 'theoretical' are bogus given they list ten high profile cases of it actually happening. If the ACLU can successfully argue that Net Neutrality is a First Amendment Issue then it might not matter what businesses (who fall on either side of the issue) want the government to do."

Comments

Nonsense

[elrous0]

We'll all be perfectly free to say whatever we like...on whatever sites our ISP's let us access. And if you don't like what your ISP is doing, you can just switch to one of the hundreds of alternate broadband providers that we all have.

Wow, I think I just sprained my sarcasm tendon.

Re:Nonsense

[Pojut]

Wow, I think I just sprained my sarcasm tendon.

Don't tell your doctor! He'll turn you over to the police!

Re:Nonsense

[drinkypoo]

As long as the back haul is neutral then people are free to start up community co-op ISPs. It's not provider neutrality that I see as most important but backbone neutrality. QoS is one thing but restricting what type of traffic or who the traffic comes from is ridiculous. All connections should permit all legal connections and come with proper management to permit continual usage of the link at an appropriate speed intended to provide the same transfer to all users who are attempting to use it, and to accurately divide the available bandwidth equally (or otherwise appropriately) between the customers who have paid for it.

With that said, there is literally one choice in my county for internet access, AT&T. Everyone else here resells them. I do not count satellite which is unacceptable in a broad variety of ways. I don't necessarily trust AT&T to carry my packets to their eventual destination. Indeed, immediately after my local WISP was moved from an AT&T reseller to AT&T directly, we were placed on some seriously non-neutral segment where we had fast access to many sites (of course including AT&T, but ALSO including non-AT&T sites, meaning that it wasn't simply fast access to AT&T internal resources) but where we had essentially no access to many other sites including Slashdot and Alternet. After we [the users] complained to them en masse (reportedly) they complained up the chain and we were placed on the "proper" network, which does not [appear to] have this problem. So clearly some AT&T customers are already living on a non-neutral net...

Re:Nonsense

[Too Late for Cool ID]

Fortunately for the proponents of net neutrality, there's never been a case of a government using its regulatory power to curtail free speech. Only private corporations do that.

Re:Nonsense

[tixxit]

Wasn't there a story not too long back about a community co-op ISP that was sued/shutdown by one of the big broadband providers for, essentially, providing broadband to their residents when aforementioned big-broadband-provider refused to provide the broadband themselves?

Re:Nonsense

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Fortunately for the proponents of net neutrality, there's never been a case of a government using its regulatory power to curtail free speech. Only private corporations do that.

Unfortunately for the shills and useful idiots there's plenty of cases where the government has used its regulatory power to protect free speech. Like the common-carrier laws which are part of the "network neutrality" we had for land-line telephones.

Re:Nonsense

[elrous0]

No has there ever been a case of the government using its authority to protect citizens' rights against the whims of private corporations.

Oop, just sprained the other one too.

Re:Nonsense

[blackraven14250]

Yeah. They got an injunction against their plans, and then went ahead and built out their own infrastructure while the community couldn't do a thing to advance the project.

Re:Nonsense

[commodore64_love]

>>>It's not provider neutrality that I see as most important but backbone neutrality.

Precisely.

In the ideal world the Internet line would be just like the telephone line, where you can choose from dozens of companies for service. Also I'm curious what the ACLU means by "Freedom of expression isn't worth much if the forums where people actually make use of it are not themselves free." Forums, like slashdot, are privately owned. You DON'T have a right to free speech. You have a right to obey the rules of the forum sysop, even if he's a tyrant. It's his domain; his rules.

Re:Nonsense

[nschubach]

All connections should permit all legal connections...

Who's in charge of legal connections? By your argument, ISPs should be able to deny you access to organizations that do not comply with the Government's PATRIOT laws. With such a distinction, you cannot have free speech.

Re:Nonsense

[commodore64_love]

>>>there's never been a case of a government using its regulatory power to curtail free speech :-\

That isn't even close to accurate. The US and State governments have curtailed free speech (and the right to peaceably assemble) many, many times during the past two decades. I would give you a list, but I'd need a thousand pages to list all of the examples. You're better off to start with "free speech zones" (funny - the Constitution doesn't include any such limit) and expand your research outward from there.

Re:Nonsense

[T Murphy]

That's not sarcasm- that's what's on the script congressmen will read, as provided by the ISPs, and the conversation will end there so you can't ask about the availability of alternate providers. This isn't speculation- when I wrote to my congresswoman her reply basically boiled down to what you said.

Re:Nonsense

[Schadrach]

Speaking of common carriers, why not make it a choice on the part of the ISPs -- let them either accept common carrier status which requires them to be a "dumb pipe" as it were (no restrictions beyond basic QoS) but accordingly frees them from responsibility for what goes over the line, or let them elect to do all the nefarious filtering and such, at which point they are responsible and liable for everything that goes across their lines in both directions.

I'm sorry MPAA, but my ISP is not a common carrier, so I assumed all data I was able to receive was legal and authorized. You need to sue them *too*. Speaking of which I just got a trojan from a browser exploit on a site they authorized. I need to take them to small claims court to make them fix my computer, since their specifically authorized content damaged it. =)

Re:Nonsense

[LaughingCoder]

Fortunately for the proponents of net neutrality, there's never been a case of a government using its regulatory power to curtail free speech.

Huh? I can think of 2 instances without even breaking a sweat: McCain-Feingold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act and the "Fairness Doctrine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine.

I wonder why the ACLU didn't fight those free-speech abrogations? Don't answer, that was a rhetorical question. The ACLU is only pro-free-speech when it's "their kind of speech", just like everybody else on both sides that claims to support the first amendment.

Actually, though, I am glad the ACLU came out in favor of net neutrality. They are a good litmus test for me. I have been torn on the issue, but now that they have taken a side I now know which position I support.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

We would have more choices if the government wasn't creating monopolies through regulation. Of course, to fix the government-made problems the obvious solution is... more government.

Re:Nonsense

[nschubach]

How do you remain standing? One must be rolling on the floor...preferably laughing rather than crying.

Re:Nonsense

[Mongoose Disciple]

Actually, though, I am glad the ACLU came out in favor of net neutrality. They are a good litmus test for me. I have been torn on the issue, but now that they have taken a side I now know which position I support.

If they come out against jumping off bridges, will you jump off a bridge?

If that seems like a stupid question, consider the context.

Re:Nonsense

[rtb61]

You do have the choice of thousands if not millions of sites to express your opinion and it has be proven time and time again when sites heavily censor posting to match their marketing and business goals participation dies rapidly and often permanently.

The internet however always hits numerous choke points starting at possible reasonably priced kerb connections to main backbone trunks and on global issues undersea cables.

Then there is slowing opposition response for day and, weeks while the for profit propaganda continues.

No add random regular disconnects and slow downs to drive away users with frustration and even those some tactics for individuals to effectively silence them. Years ago this was too hard to do manually on a large scale but with computers you can silence a population of hundreds of millions automatically, say or write the wrong word and your connection mysteriously temporarily dies, whether it be a local, national or international connection.

So rules are created, laws are legislated to ensure equal access on critical infrastructure, to imprison tyrants not glorify them. So landlord can't extort unreasonable and humiliating demands upon the basis of being the owner and a tyrant and being immediately able to evict you from his property, so the power company can't disconnect you from the grid in the middle of winter because they didn't like your public complaint, so water company can't cut of your mains because they thought it would be fun to do so.

So basically bugger the tyrants, we together make the rules if you don't want to operate within the rules we define for net neutrality then you are not fit for the business, so basically you and your money can get lost and find another type of business to be a little hitler in.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

See, there's this thing called sarcasm...

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

'Forums' is here used to mean places where people gather for discussion in general, of which the internet is an important one. Refer to a dictionary for further details.

Re:Nonsense

[twistedsymphony]

I think you're understanding the word "forum" too net-speak literal... replace the word "forum" with "platform" or "website" and that seems to be more the intent of what the ACLU is promoting.

The point isn't that Slashot is a freespeach forum for users, it's that the net is a freespeach forum for sites like Slashdot.

Re:Nonsense

[internewt]

Forums, like slashdot, are privately owned. You DON'T have a right to free speech. You have a right to obey the rules of the forum sysop, even if he's a tyrant. It's his domain; his rules.

Governments have massive power over the people, and so many states around the world have come to the conclusion that making the government have to tolerate what people have to say is best for everyone. Well, except the people running the government, but that's kinda the point - to reign in the power they wield.

The most powerful entities in society come and go over time, and this can be seen through the buildings that get built. The most powerful entity in a society tends to build the biggest buildings, to show of their power, assert dominance, whatever. These days corporations build most of the biggest buildings (skyscrapers), but not so long back governments the builders of the biggest places. Further back in history, and huge churches and cathedrals were being built, and during points of history when royal families were at the top, palaces and castles were the biggest buildings around.

My point is that any powerful groups are a threat to the liberty of an individual, and we are living in a time when corporations are gaining more and more power everyday. Yes, governments may still be more powerful in some ways, but that doesn't cancel out or negate the power corporations have, and so corporations should have to allow some things they may not like for the same reasons that the government has to allow things it may not like.

Re:Nonsense

[DrgnDancer]

And DNS has to go away.

That's an interesting take on Net Neutrality I've never seen before. Are you planning to replace it with something? Or just make everyone remember every IP address they want to visit? That should be especially entertaining when IPV6 eventually gets implemented. I can just see the billboards now "Eat at Joes! And visit our website at: 2001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e80/index.html!" (IP address stolen from example in Wikipedia entry on IPv6. I have no idea where, if anywhere it goes)

Re:Nonsense

[elrous0]

No, the monopolies in this case come from the physical reality that lines have to be run into your home for broadband. The only way to encourage enough alternatives to get away from the need for government-enforced net neutrality would be to let any Tom, Dick, or Harry bury lines or string lines on any pole of their choosing. And even that wouldn't work very well for most neighborhoods (since only a few providers would be able to afford to run lines, even with the right-of-way). Either your choices would still be severely limited or your neighborhood lines would end up looking like a Baghdad power pole.

Re:Nonsense

[drinkypoo]

I think the idea is that a centralized DNS has to go away. But frankly, I think that's stupid. There's NOTHING preventing anyone from simply not using the world's DNS, and attempting to manage on their own. The current means of splitting it up where each nation decides how to handle the problem is the best. If you don't like the results you get, stop using it.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you planning to replace it with something?

hosts file.. a connection has to be self sufficient to the maximum extent possible.

Or just make everyone remember every IP address they want to visit?

Now you're making me nostalgic for the old days, when I actually had to remember my friends' telephone numbers.. and their postal addresses! Sure is nice to have Google remember everything for us now, isn't it?

Re:Nonsense

[DavidTC]

Yeah, ISPs want to have it both ways. I don't see why they're able to get away with that.

Are they a telephone company, or are they a newspaper? Pick one. Don't get to be both.

Re:Nonsense

[commodore64_love]

Woah. I feel like I just read an Alex Jones report. Here's what I would do:

- Turn-over all the rights-of-way to the State Government.
- Have them run 50 or even 100 fibers underneath all the urban streets.
- Lease those lines one-by-one to various companies like Comcast, Cox, ATT, Google, and so on.
- Let customers choose which company they desire.

There. A Pro-choice solution that puts power in the hands of the people (where it belongs), rather than the powerful. A true free market... or at least as close as you can get given the natural monopoly limitations.

Re:Nonsense

[DrgnDancer]

The problem, as I point out, is that the Internet is not just a method for people to make one-one connections with their friends, and IP addresses are a lot harder to memorize than phone numbers. IPv6 is on the horizon. Are you seriously advocating a system that would require me to memorize a 32 digit hexadecimal address everytime I see a site I might want to look at later?

Not to mention pain of coding for such a thing. Every address you code into a network enabled piece of software would have to be hard coded, you could never rely on the remote computer (the one using your software) to have the addresses you want to use in their hosts file. Oh, wait, you want to change ISPs? New address space. Every network aware piece of software will have to be audited to see what hard coded addresses need to change.

And then there's the problem of the hosts files themselves. Flat text files aren't exactly well designed for rapid searching. They scale well enough to hundreds, probably even thousands, of addresses, but if I start indexing every single site I visit I'd be willing to be my hosts file would reach tens or even hundreds of thousands of entries. My hosts file would also betray me. I read "XKCD" every other day. So I put "XKCD.com" in my hosts file. Randall gets a new hosting service. XKCD moves. Now I have no idea where it is and when I try to use my hosts entry I get a "connection refused". I either have to contact Randall personally (Which may be impossible if his e-mail server also moved) or I can't read XKCD any more.

There's a reason DNS was invented. People began to realize that at a few thousand machines the Internet was far to large to document manually. It's currently at a few *billion* machines. The old method has not suddenly become massively more scalable.

Re:Nonsense

[commodore64_love]

The solution is not to tranfer the power from the Corporation (ex. comcast) to the Government (congress). The solution is to transfer the power to the people and give each individual the choice, just the same way he has a choice which grocery store he shops. (See my last post for more detail.)

Also I do think a website has a right to censor. If for example I'm running a Jewish survivors forum, I should have the right to censor any neo-nazis or anti-smite people that might show up. It's MY site, and I'm the one paying the bills, so I should have the right to reject unwelcome visitors, just the same way I can kick people out of my house if I don't like them.

Re:Nonsense

[geminidomino]

I see you've fallen into the sarchasm. I'll get a rope...

Re:Nonsense

[mcgrew]

The you're for... ok, how am I supposed to communicate freely when the ISPs own the internet and the phone companies own the phone lines?

Re:Nonsense

[antdude]

Um, in my area. I only have dial-up ISPs and cable. I can't get DSL, FIOS, etc. IDSL, ISDN, T*, satellite Internet, etc. are too expensive and/or slow.

Re:Nonsense

[nine-times]

As long as the back haul is neutral then people are free to start up community co-op ISPs. It's not provider neutrality that I see as most important but backbone neutrality.

I really think the key is to enforce a separation between the infrastructure provider and the service provider. Let's say Verizon builds the actual backbone and the line to your house-- the whole thing-- then they should be absolutely forbidden from acting as an ISP or cable company. They should have to lease use of their lines to other service providers at a consistent rate, with no special side deals.

In my opinion, vertical integration is the culprit here. You get one company who owns the cables in the ground, the DNS servers and the firewalls, the cable TV provider, the television station people are watching on the TV, the production resources to make TV shows, etc. There's no way that this company isn't going to show self-favoritism.

We can't expect that there will be lots of private companies willing to stretch cable to every home in America, and so I think it's only reasonable that you'll get a monopoly or duopoly on the last-mile infrastructure. A neutral backbone isn't enough. We need one company (or the government) to create completely dumb pipes, and then have various service providers able to provide service through those pipes.

Re:Nonsense

[Anon-Admin]

"Forums, like slashdot, are privately owned. You DON'T have a right to free speech. You have a right to obey the rules of the forum sysop, even if he's a tyrant. It's his domain; his rules."

I do have a right to free speech, even if the forum is privately owned. And the forum owner has the right to remove my message from his board.

His right to control what is posted does not negate my right to free speech. My Right to Free speech is god given and only god can remove it from me. However, his right to control what is posted to his system supersedes my right to free speech meaning he can remove or block what I say.

Again, I have a right to say it and he has the right to remove it. Simple.

Re:Nonsense

[Monkeedude1212]

All connections should permit all legal connections...

Who's in charge of legal connections? By your argument, ISPs should be able to deny you access to organizations that do not comply with the Government's PATRIOT laws. With such a distinction, you cannot have free speech.

If it falls into the realm of the Government's laws dictating what organizations get access, doesn't that allow you to argue for things under the first ammendment, so you don't have to deal with the "Internet is a service provided by a private company who can do what they want with it" kind of stuff?

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

There. A Pro-choice solution that puts power in the hands of the people

I'm anti-baby-killing, you insensitive clod!

Re:Nonsense

[s73v3r]

Happened in several places. Fuck the telcos, especially the ones that do this. It should be a rule that if you get an injunction against a municipality to prevent them from building a broadband network, then the telco can't do it either.

Re:Nonsense

[s73v3r]

In the ideal world the Internet line would be just like the telephone line

Which, incidental enough, has been mandated to be neutral for decades. A phone company cannot discriminate their service based on the origination or destination of the call. Didn't lead to the death of the phone service industry.

Re:Nonsense

[s73v3r]

Also I do think a website has a right to censor.

Yes and no. Currently, if you do take an editorial stance on your user generated content, or censor comments, then you become responsible for their content.

Re:Nonsense

[Lanteran]

I've got AT&T service since it's the only choice besides cable internet (which is too expensive by far) in my area. I suppose one of the few reasons they're respecting net neutrality is because they actually have competition; albeit nothing like the level of competition I'd like. The main problem I have with it is that its about as reliable as their cellular service if you get my meaning. Goes out at least 3 times a day, without fail.

Re:Nonsense

[nschubach]

Technically, the Constitution states that no law shall be made to restrict freedom of speech, but it doesn't guarantee it. The odd part about this whole ordeal though is that the ISPs are wholly or partially protected monopolies so any law that would restrict a person from visiting a website might be construed as a violation of free speech through monopoly protection. This, however, is a law stating that protected monopolies cannot restrict access so it sounds redundant to me.

(ie: I think any company under government protection should be automatically covered by the same restrictions the government has on our rights. So my personal feeling is that companies protected from competition by law should not be able to restrict freedom of speech in any way so neutrality laws would be redundant.)

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea where, if anywhere it goes

Nowhere, we're still using IPv4 remember.

Re:Nonsense

[Too Late for Cool ID]

I should've put in a sarcasm flag. Of *course* governments use regulatory power to curtail free speech. I think net neutrality proponents are naive to seek a government solution to a hypothetical problem without thinking about the unintended consequences of the regulations that would have to be imposed. How do we ensure companies aren't throttling packets from some source? We'll have to monitor that data. So now we have the government keeping track of how much data comes from what sources. That's a system ripe for abuse.

Re:Nonsense

[toiletbowl]

Probably missing something but couldn't the municipality simply have revoked the permits? Maybe not in the case of existing infrastructure, but future projects. I'm assuming at some point the wires travel underground. How hard would it have been to simply not let them open a street?

Re:Nonsense

[Ichijo]

No, it wasn't a co-op ISP, it was a municipal ISP.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

In all fairness, people wouldn't have to remember the /index.html part

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what I would do:

- Turn-over all the rights-of-way to the State Government.
- Have them run 50 or even 100 fibers underneath all the urban streets.
- Lease those lines one-by-one to various companies like Comcast, Cox, ATT, Google, and so on.
- Let customers choose which company they desire.

There. A Pro-choice solution that puts power in the hands of the people (where it belongs), rather than the powerful. A true free market... or at least as close as you can get given the natural monopoly limitations.

I have a different proposal:

- Let there still be one physical medium and let one company own it if they want.
- Recall that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is still on the books, even if Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes refused to enforce it.
- Recognize media access and ISP services as separate markets.
- Require that media operators who have their own ISPs must allow any other ISP access to their medium for no more than it charges its own ISP, and with no favors for its own ISP
- Require that media operators sell unfiltered access to whoever wants it at no extra charge.

No new law is required. The regulations might look unfamiliar to the young but they are not new; this is what every multi-tier business used to have to do before Reagan. And if we simply enforce the antitrust laws we already have, Net Neutrality ceases to be an issue because the broadband operators must allow a diversity of ISPs to exist and any ISP could get a clean upstream and offer it to the public.

Re:Nonsense

[mcgrew]

McCain-Feingold

Money is not speech. If it were, the rich would have more right to speech than the poor. We are supposed to be founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, but some men are created rich and most are not. Being rich buys you privilege, but it doesn't buy you rights that others lack.

Fairness Doctrine

Again, can I get a TV station? No, there are no open frequencies left. Again, this is not an infringement of free speech rights, just an inftringement of a monied class privilege. These are not free speech issues. The "speech zones" during the last decade are, though, and these "free speech" zones are worrisome. "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue."

Sorry, buddy, take your wealth and shove it, I'm on the ACLU's side here. Your money isn't speech, and if you have to pay for speech, it isn't free speech.

Re:Nonsense

[Defenestrar]

The solution is not to tran[s]fer the power from the Corporation (ex. comcast) to the Government (congress). The solution is to transfer the power to the people and give each individual the choice...

See - this is why it seems like we are fighting a losing battle - we've already lost. Let me take the blame: it's my fault (and yours too). The corporations took this power, allowed by the Government acting with our consent. That's how the US works - governmental power is derived from the citizens through the consent of the governed. It may not have been informed consent, in fact it may have been very shady back room (or even smoky darkened closet "I have these compromising pictures") consent - but it's by our consent none the less. The citizen exercises that consent once or twice a year through the vote and continuously through the year by either apathy, contentment, or political activity.

So when we want to take something back (which we allowed through our negligence, allowing loopholes, etc...) it we're reneging on the deal which we had previously given consent to (Net-aneutrality in this case). So that's why corporations (or established governmental organizations) entrench and protect their territory so fiercely - we're taking something of theirs away which we had previously given with our full consent. It's likely that they've invested a large amount of their own resources into the gift - which we may very well also be taking. The method in which our consent was obtained may not have been ethical (seldom properly informed) - but that's a different issue. It's perfectly right for the people to change their mind in terms of which powers they consensually submit to the government, but it should not be with surprise that resistance is received from the group we are reclaiming that fraction of our sovereignty from.

Re:Nonsense

[ThatsNotPudding]

So...Twitter will be buying the Crystal Cathedral?

Re:Nonsense

[commodore64_love]

Comcast (or Cox or whoever) was given a LIMITED TIME monopoly to provide cable television and internet.

We the People have every right to revoke that monopoly once the Time has passed, and turn it over to the government.

Re:Nonsense

[DavidTC]

Well, the problem is that the DNS namespace people refuse to use any of the existing namespaces.

For example, every location is supposed to have a unique street address. Why not normalize all streets into a DNS-compatible form, spaces to hypens, 'street' spelled out, etc, so that software can turn any street address into predefined name...and then let residents buy theirs?

Likewise, all radio stations in the US have unique call letters. Why isn't there a .radio.us namespace, managed by the FCC, and you get your call letters?

Instead, they keep inventing new ones, ones that are entirely meaningless, like the recent .co one, and every trademark owner and company leaps in and has to buy another domain, and confusion is not reduced in the least.

Oh, speaking of trademarks...there two dozen trademark categories. Why not give each of those a namespace? So Apple Music and Apple Computers, for example, have their own domain?

Re:Nonsense

[theaveng]

"Freedom of expression isn't worth much if the [platforms] where people actually make use of it are not themselves free." - ACLU

No that doesn't work. They meant literal forums where people discuss/chat. And if they are privately owned, they are free to censor all they want. Like those KKK forums that censor people saying, "Blacks are as good as whites." You don't have a right to free speech there, anymore than you can enter the KKK building and start painting the words on their walls.

Re:Nonsense

[dave562]

I agree with the idea in theory but it falls apart when we bring applications and bandwidth into the picture. A phone call only takes up a very small, fixed amount of bandwidth. You can talk all day long and never consume more than a miniscule amount of bandwidth at any given time. An internet connection is a slightly different beast. Consumers don't want to pay to have a dedicated, 15mb circuit. The cost is too prohibitive. Likewise the telcos don't want to expand their networks to give everyone a 15mb connection because the cost is too prohibitive. So we're caught in this middle ground where neither side really wants to budge. Telcos want to traffic shape and consumers are freaked out about the what if's.

Re:Nonsense

[elrous0]

The solution is to transfer the power to the people and give each individual the choice

And how exactly do you propose we do that with broadband ISP's? Are you advocating that we nationalize them and turn them over to public ownership, or are you advocating some form of magic which will allow for real competition in a system where only one or two providers have wire running to the houses?

Re:Nonsense

[dave562]

Do you have inside wire maintenance? Have you checked your wiring?

I had AT&T for DSL years ago and I had some connectivity problems. It took a few months for them to sort it out, but they did sort it out. The trick is to start at your modem, inside your house, and work backwards until you get to the CO. They don't want to do it, but if you are polite and knowledgeable without being a know it all, they will help you out.

Re:Nonsense

[Defenestrar]

I completely agree - the people can do whatever they want whenever they want including a declaration of the government to be invalid and starting a new one (although not lightly nor often - the Roman republic made it 700 years - surely we can beat them). I was just trying to point out that they try so hard to keep the territory through semi-reasonable feelings of entitlement (plus the oldest reason $$$).

Re:Nonsense

[AshtangiMan]

I only have one choice for telephone. QWest. Cellular of course is different, but not as applicable in a comparison between telco and ISP. The wired service is what matters most. Do you really have multiple choices for wired telephone service?

Re:Nonsense

[Qzukk]

So, who do you suggest I support when it comes to organizations protecting my rights from the government? The NRA only covers 1/10th of the Bill of Rights, what about the rest of the Constitution as amended?

Re:Nonsense

[LaughingCoder]

but some men are created rich

Ahhh, the liberal core belief - if one is successful or wealthy they got there by a) heredity (ie being created rich) b) cheating c) luck. Therefore it follows that it is perfectly fine to take away their wealth (tax the rich into the stone age) and their rights (you can't broadcast your own views on your own radio station) in the name of "fairness".

Again, can I get a TV station?

Of course you can. You can buy one. ;-)

Your money isn't speech, and if you have to pay for speech, it isn't free speech.

What a pathetic argument. Nice slogan though. You know very well that "free speech" refers to being able to say what you believe without the government throwing you in jail for saying it. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with guaranteeing that everyone gets the same megaphone or audience. To contort the first amendment in that way is a classic liberal gambit. This country is founded on equal OPPORTUNITY, not equal OUTCOMES. Some people are smarter than others. Some work harder. Yes, some are luckier and some are "born on third base". Get over it. Stop trying to use the Constitution to make everything "FAIR" (a liberal's favorite 4 letter word that begins with "F"). It won't work. It can't work. And it totally screws up the country.

Re:Nonsense

[KhabaLox]

I think the ACLU is referring to the freedom of expression of the sysop, not the forum members. The sysop is expressing his tyranny, or whatever, but the ISP is (in theory) squashing his access out and other's access in.

Re:Nonsense

[KhabaLox]

They meant literal forums where people discuss/chat.

Uh.. no they didn't. If you think the ACLU is advocating that private KKK message boards be forced to allow all (legal) speech, then you don't know the ACLU very well. In this context, "forum" means virtual place where an exchange, one-way or two-way, of ideas takes place. It means the Internet, and includes web pages, FTP sites, email servers, etc. It's important to note also that the ACLU is talking about the freedom of the site/host publishers/admins, not members. They are not talking about discussion within a particular domain, but discussion between domains (and IPs).

Re:Nonsense

[mcgrew]

Ahhh, the liberal core belief - if one is successful or wealthy they got there by a) heredity (ie being created rich) b) cheating c) luck

Yeah, except I'm not a liberal. You are ignoring the trees for the forest. My Uncle became rich through a combination of luck, skill, intelligence, and perseverance, but my cousins were born rich.

I make the argumant that there are people born into money, and you try to say I'm of the opinion that all rich people are born into money? That's not the point; the point is the lady sleeping at the homeless shelter should have the same rights as my (sadly, late) uncle. Not the same priveleges, but the same RIGHTS.

This country is founded on equal OPPORTUNITY, not equal OUTCOMES. Some people are smarter than others. Some work harder. Yes, some are luckier and some are "born on third base"

Which is what this is about -- the OPPORTUNITY to exersize the right of free speech. "Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you can't speak?"

Re:Nonsense

[drinkypoo]

Let's say Verizon builds the actual backbone and the line to your house-- the whole thing-- then they should be absolutely forbidden from acting as an ISP or cable company. They should have to lease use of their lines to other service providers at a consistent rate, with no special side deals.

I don't agree, although it could be a working solution. Instead, they should be forced to separate one business from the other, and to treat all businesses (including their own) precisely the same. Obviously there's motive and opportunity for abuse, but I think that refusing to let people into a related market simply because they could abuse their position is going to have chilling effects. Also, how do you handle the companies which currently provide both? A messy situation.

We can't expect that there will be lots of private companies willing to stretch cable to every home in America, and so I think it's only reasonable that you'll get a monopoly or duopoly on the last-mile infrastructure. A neutral backbone isn't enough. We need one company (or the government) to create completely dumb pipes, and then have various service providers able to provide service through those pipes.

I vote for the government. They can spy on us whether they build the infrastructure or not, and they can control the market regardless as well, so we might as well have the government do it, and that gets private enterprise out of the business.

Re:Nonsense

[sounds]

I talked to my independent ISP about the back haul, and the word is that it has always been neutral with no threat of becoming non-neutral. My ISP actually has fiber optic links to at least three different back haul companies, and that competition is generally what keeps them honest. At that level, the service is expensive but professional.

It's only when you get to the really cheap internet for grandma that you find shaping, and there you get what you pay for. When you say AT&T is your only choice, are you really sure that you looked everywhere? There was once a time when internet cost $100/mo or much more, and only businesses had it. At that level, the traffic is not shaped or capped. But you have to pay for it. Prices will have to go up if the government starts messing with the cheap internet.

Re:Nonsense

[Chowderbags]

Ahhh, the liberal core belief - if one is successful or wealthy they got there by a) heredity (ie being created rich)

Many are. Bill Gates went from being the son of a lawyer and high level businesswoman to being a very wealthy man. Rags to riches he was not, more like riches to extreme riches.

b) cheating c) luck.

It happens. Many businesses have been great on paper, yet failed. Others have been shitty on paper and succeeded. There was no real reason for Facebook to suddenly take off the way it did, at least not over any other idea.

Therefore it follows that it is perfectly fine to take away their wealth (tax the rich into the stone age)

Everyone gets taxed. Sack up. Even with 50% income tax on all income over $250,000, people making millions would still be insanely wealthy, so what's there to complain about? Yes, sure, I'll let you keep your own money, as soon as you buy your own roads, police, fire departments, and military (at a minimum).

and their rights (you can't broadcast your own views on your own radio station) in the name of "fairness".

There's only so many radio stations that can broadcast in a certain area. If a resource is limited (radio, broadcast TV), allowing a monopoly on that resource would be extremely detrimental to the public at large, especially since it's the government granting you a monopoly in the first place (otherwise you'd have to fight any idiot with a transmitter and things probably wouldn't work). If a resource is unlimited (shouting on a sidewalk, pamphleting on streets, newspapers, the internet, cable TV), then by all means, say all and only what you think and I'll support you.

Of course you can. You can buy one. ;-)

That's a joke so funny I forgot to laugh. Then I realized there are people that think this. Then I got sad.

What a pathetic argument. Nice slogan though. You know very well that "free speech" refers to being able to say what you believe without the government throwing you in jail for saying it. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with guaranteeing that everyone gets the same megaphone or audience.

I worry when the government starts handing out megaphones to only a handful of people.

To contort the first amendment in that way is a classic liberal gambit.

Hey, at least we can get conservatives to admit that liberals have been around for awhile (and that it wasn't just something out of the 1960s).

This country is founded on equal OPPORTUNITY, not equal OUTCOMES.

Founded on equal opportunity for white land owning males. Everyone else tended to get the raw deal for awhile. Also, people born to crack whores do not have the same opportunity as people born to millionaires. That is a fact, and if you can't see why it's a fact you have issues. And no one is saying that there should be equal outcomes for everything, just that a handful of people shouldn't be able to bribe (oh, sorry, "contribute to the campaign of") our elected officials.

Some people are smarter than others. Some work harder. Yes, some are luckier and some are "born on third base". Get over it. Stop trying to use the Constitution to make everything "FAIR" (a liberal's favorite 4 letter word that begins with "F"). It won't work. It can't work. And it totally screws up the country.

I want a country where people don't have to fear for the lives of themselves and their loved ones just because they don't have enough money. I want a country where elected officials don't feel beholden to a tiny fraction of moneyed interests instead of the bulk of their constituency. I want a country where the rich don't constantly bitch about how "hard it is to be rich and have to pay all these taxes" (yes, fine, they have the right to do so, but I at least wish more people would call them on their bullshit). Yes, I'd like for things to be "fair" in some sense, mostly because I don't want a society where people with money end up being "more equal" than the rest of us.

Re:Nonsense

[hey!]

I don't know about that. The problem is that *most* people *won't* create a co-op, and the ones that do won't amount to a drop in the bucket.

Think about this: you could have a single corporation that controls the newspapers (if they exist), radio, television and most Internet access in a region. It wouldn't be that expensive to do, given that what you get out of it: a jujitsu hold on the region's economy and government.

Re:Nonsense

[LaughingCoder]

You are ignoring the trees for the forest.

Funny. My point was that the ACLU only defends free speech when it is speech with which they agree. I cited two examples supporting my argument. You proceeded to claim (using what I consider flawed logic) that my examples were not free speech issues. No matter. There are many more examples where the ACLU has failed to defend free speech. Proving the negative is of course difficult. Clearly there are many free speech issues that the ACLU does not take on for whatever reason. I submit that reason is oftentimes because they disagree with the speech being censored, but of course I cannot prove it. Somehow I doubt that it is just *coincidence* that when the censored speech is conservative in nature they choose to remain quiet.

Fortunately for my argument, there are also times when the ACLU actively *opposes* free speech. One such case that comes quickly to mind is the ACLU's support of the "moving buffer zones" around abortion clinics. As you no doubt know, people who protest abortions are required to stay a certain distance away from anyone entering or leaving an abortion clinic. This clearly infringes on their free speech, and for some reason (ideology?) the ACLU has filed multiple injunctions aimed at silencing these protesters.

the point is the lady sleeping at the homeless shelter should have the same rights as my (sadly, late) uncle.

And she does. She has the RIGHT to stand on the corner with a sign advocating whatever candidate or legislation that she supports. She has the RIGHT to donate money to any candidate she chooses. Unfortunately she probably doesn't have much money. So, by your "logic", rich people should be constrained on how much they can donate because there are poor people who cannot donate much. Won't you please admit the obvious -- that is censorship. Now, you may feel due to your own ideology that it is justified censorship, but it is clearly an impingement of the rich person's free speech. And for the ACLU to stand by and allow the 2 high profile free speech cases I cited to go unchallenged, it tells me their actions are driven more by ideology than by some unquestioning belief in free speech.

BTW, I am sorry I called you a liberal. You used the phrase I cited that triggered my statement. I have found that most liberals believe that the rich usually get there through means other than hard work or intelligence. This is a core belief, and they use it to justify all manner of abuse, including censorship.

PS I am sorry to hear of your Uncle's demise. He sounds like "my kind of guy".

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in Australia

Re:Nonsense

[Viperpete]

I'd say you are spot on. I think too many people around here forget the roots of the word and only associate it with web context forum as opposed to an actual location or medium that allows the free exchange of ideas. I would suggest it be interpreted as the traditional definition and not the web hijacked (although apt) version.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forum

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

My point was that the ACLU only defends free speech when it is speech with which they agree.

The ACLU has defended the free speech rights of Nazis and other far-right extremists who don't exactly share their liberal perspective.

Fortunately for my argument, there are also times when the ACLU actively *opposes* free speech. One such case that comes quickly to mind is the ACLU's support of the "moving buffer zones" around abortion clinics.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can do anything anywhere. Let the anti-abortion protesters picket and say whatever they want, but allowing them to walk right up to the door and badger women going in is harassment, plain and simple.

Should a vegan hippie be allowed to stand in front of a McDonalds and scream bloody murder at every customer going in, and shove pamphlets and photos of dead and dying cows in their face? I don't think so.

Re:Nonsense

[jwhitener]

You probably won't, but I think you might learn a lot by reading http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Protection-Corporations-Became-People/dp/1605095591/ref=nosim/thomhartmann

Specifically the notion of "the commons". When there are finite, public resources, like tv frequencies, or a river that flows through many people's property, it is entirely within the rights of the federal and/or state government to regulate that resource to ensure it is being used in the best interests, the general welfare, of the country.

Regulating campaign financing helps to let the individual, who the constitution really intended to have free speech, be heard. (Although now with citizens united SCOTUS ruling.... that is pretty much destroyed).

And the Fairness Doctrine was a regulation on a limited public resource, broadcast frequencies, to help ensure that they are being used to best serve the public, who owns them.

How fair would it be if MSNBC or some set of all 'liberal' broadcast sources licensed all available air waves, and there was only 100% liberal news in the country? Likewise, all conservative? What if Bill Gates bought Fox News and turned it into a liberal news show?

Since airwaves are a public resources, the Fairness Doctrine was attempting to enforce a balanced use of those airwaves. That is NOT limiting speech. In fact, it attempted to make sure that a diverse set of voices was heard.

Re:Nonsense

[Schadrach]

"Everyone gets taxed. Sack up. Even with 50% income tax on all income over $250,000, people making millions would still be insanely wealthy, so what's there to complain about? Yes, sure, I'll let you keep your own money, as soon as you buy your own roads, police, fire departments, and military (at a minimum)."

Even Adam Smith promoted progressive taxes, on the logic that the wealthier you are the more you benefit from the protections of government because you have more to lose, and thus derive more benefit from things like law enforcement, fire service, etc, etc. Also there's a pretty well known example of a certain extremely wealthy person arguing that our tax structure is backwards when his secretary pays a higher overall tax rate than he does. Tax the rich into the stone age indeed.

"And no one is saying that there should be equal outcomes for everything, just that a handful of people shouldn't be able to bribe (oh, sorry, "contribute to the campaign of") our elected officials."

Which is why many feel there should be a limit on the amount of wealth a given individual can spend on behalf of a candidate -- it becomes tantamount to bribery. If GP can't see that "Vote the way I tell you to vote and I'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on helping you keep your position, don't and I'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars helping get you replaced with someone will" is a problem...

Re:Nonsense

[drinkypoo]

A zillion people have said it before and I'll say it again. The USPS could make some money if it were given the sole right to sell street address domain registration with mail delivery certification etc. Certificates would also be a logical service for the USPS to provide, with information in the cert on how identity was verified (perhaps levels rather than specifics to avoid/reduce information leakage.)

Re:Nonsense

[DavidTC]

Yeah, that would be the logical thing to do.

You could even run a closed email system that is essentially an electronic version of the post office, where people could send mail from an address, to another address, and pay a small amount to do so. (With it getting forwarded if people want.) And if they don't have email, it gets printed out and delivered by the mail people.

There's all sorts of interesting things that could happen there, there's all sorts of interesting things you can do when you take existing namespaces and put them in DNS.

For example, businesses are licensed in many ways, and have federal, state, and local license numbers. Wouldn't it be helpful to be able to take the license number and pull up that business's website, and you'd know it was the right place, because only that business could have that domain registered? And the website could have /licenses.xml which lists all those domains, and you can actually verify that they have those domains.

Or with radio stations, what if /stream.xml was a standard location for a document telling people where to get any streams for that station? And /schedule.xml was a place to get the schedule?

Then someone just has to punch in the radio call letters to have their computer look up the website and find out stuff automatically.

But, instead of that, the entire concept of 'namespace' in DNS appears to be 'Let's invent a new one every year so that all businesses leap in and buy all their trademarks in that one also'.

And we've decided to outsource all the verification stuff to damn idiotic SSL providers, despite that rendering us unable to find anyway, all that can tell us if we did find the right people (sometimes), not where they are to start with. And the fact that they're in competition to sell for the cheapest and have no incentive to actually verify anything.

Re:Nonsense

[fishexe]

"Eat at Joes! And visit our website at: 2001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e80/index.html!" (IP address stolen from example in Wikipedia entry on IPv6. I have no idea where, if anywhere it goes)

You know, it would have literally taken you about 1 second to check...

Re:Nonsense

[fishexe]

...and if you have to pay for speech, it isn't free speech.

Wait...did you just claim that free as in speech is equivalentto free as in beer? *head explodes*

Hmm...

[Pojut]

I'm not sure I fully agree. Unless providers would completely block certain websites instead of merely slowing them, there wouldn't be a supression of free speech.

Re:Hmm...

[ledow]

Comcast slows all access to "ComCastSucks.com" to 1 byte per second, as well as all it's competitors websites, any newspaper who it doesn't agree with, and also refuses to share peer traffic with any game-console service / MMORPG except for the Xbox unless the user pays extra. What's the matter?! I didn't *BLOCK* anything!

There's your problem right there. Being able to shape traffic (which is effectively a temporary denial, but on millisecond-scales) is the same as blocking it for a short period of time.

The problem with net-biased (what's the opposite of net-neutral?) ISP's is not their ability to block things. It's their ability to make a service 100% unusable in practical terms even if they are 100% fine in theory. If only 1% of my TCP packets get to the destination, that's not technically "blocking" any particular website / protocol / service, but you try forming a reliable connection and downloading a webpage, or a file, or interacting with other users of the service.

Imagine the net ran through a router with an iptables rule of:

iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -m random --average 99 -j DROP

but ONLY on the websites / protocols that the ISP chooses (and / or is being paid by).

Re:Hmm...

[JeffSpudrinski]

There's two schools of thought here.

1) Net neutrality is important to free speech because the ISPs will invariably abuse the rules (without breaking them, of course) laid out if they are allowed to slow down certain types of traffic. They will slow it to the point that it becomes unusable (file sharing, anyone?), or slow down access to competitor's sites (again to the point where they become unusble). The companaies will claim they won't, but history has proven otherwise.

2) Net neutrality is only good if you're the one doing the file sharing or watching the streaming movie. The older folks simply trying to upload pictures of their grandkids or browse to HGTV's site, but it runs slow because the 14-year-old kid next door is sharing his entire 16 GB colletion of MP3's to the world on the same subnet. Is it fair to the ones who aren't sharing (and they don't have any real alternatives to go to)?

That being said, I'm a huge fan of Netflix and I don't want my streaming movies throttled down. I lean more toward neutrality, but would hope that the worst abusers of bandwidth could still be corrected when needed.

Just my $0.02.

-JJS

Re:Hmm...

[eln]

At what point do you draw the line between "slowing" and "stopping"? They could easily slow down a particular site to the point where it's practically unusable (limit it to, say, 50 bytes/second). That seems like it would clearly curtail free speech, because nobody is going to wait around for that thing to load. It wouldn't actually "block" the site, though.

There's way too much gray area and too many opportunities for abuse if you say slowing something down is okay but stopping it isn't. The only practical way to assure free speech on the Internet in an enforceable way is total net neutrality.

Re:Hmm...

[Pojut]

At what point do you draw the line between "slowing" and "stopping"?

Simple. Enact legislation (yes yes, I know) that would would say ISPs have to provide a minimum of 1/3rd the advertised speed when throttling technology is used. No muss, no fuss.

Re:Hmm...

[icebraining]

Net Neutrality should mean that no content of the same type can have different priorities. You can have QoS that put VOIP > HTTP > Bittorrent, but not iTunes MP3 file > Jamendo MP3 file.

Re:Hmm...

[jedidiah]

There is this commonly perpetuated myth that you can't do any sort of network management without being "discriminatory".

It's pretty easy to manage protocols or customers and completely ignore the external endpoints.

It can also be done in a "blind" fashion that is neutral by any definition of that word you care to come up with.

Restricting grandpa because he's connecting to Picasa is another matter entirely.

Re:Hmm...

[vlm]

Imagine the net ran through a router with an iptables rule of:

iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -m random --average 99 -j DROP

but ONLY on the websites / protocols that the ISP chooses (and / or is being paid by).

Yea without pings they'll be a quakin' in their boots.

Dontcha mean something more like:

iptables -A INPUT -d 144.160.0.0/16 -m statistic --mode random --probability 0.01 -j DROP

(that ip block being their "psuedo-competitor" att as in ns1.attdns.att.net etc etc)

Or were you making it up not knowing its actually implemented in iptables?

If you're going to be an evil genius, at least do it right, not like Dr Doofenshmirtz

Re:Hmm...

[vlm]

Simple. Enact legislation (yes yes, I know) that would would say ISPs have to provide a minimum of 1/3rd the advertised speed when throttling technology is used. No muss, no fuss.

Whom gets sued when whatever.com gets slashdotted or whatever and speeds drop to 1/3 of the advertised speeds due to poor peering rather than throttling?

Is it "throttling" if a "tier 1 ISP" in the default free zone decides they will only peer with the pirate bay directly using, say, a 56K DDS connection instead of 10gig ethernet, and forces their traffic thru that link using BGP (trivial)?

Re:Hmm...

[BobMcD]

There's your problem right there. Being able to shape traffic (which is effectively a temporary denial, but on millisecond-scales) is the same as blocking it for a short period of time.

I worry that this begins to fall apart along the lines of BitTorrent. Some kinds of traffic, running contrary to the design of the network itself, is actually more harmful than the interference by the ISP. So who gets to decide? Nobody? Because that worries me.

I get the argument that BitTorrent might someday force the ISP to give what they advertised, but in the meantime those same small voices that we're worried about protecting are going to be suppressed by natural causes introduced via upside-down traffic usage. And the ACLU is setting up the government as the arbiter of what's right and wrong, because they're removing the ability for the provider to police it, leaving only lawlessness. Until the Fed steps in, that is.

Re:Hmm...

[ledow]

Typo - the icmp stuff was in the example I copied / pasted but I edited it out for something that has [IP you don't like here]. Must've pasted it again over the top without realising.

Re:Hmm...

[DavidTC]

Yeah, and this is stupid anyway. It's pretty easy to start connections to sites fast and then gradually slow them slightly, so everyone's web browsing has blazing speeds...until they transfer more than 10 megs in a minute, at which point their speed get slightly slowed, or at least put second in the queue.

Or, even better, forget IPs...everyone gets QoS'd...except the first X packets every minute, which should be about 1/10th of the total bandwidth they have. The people still on the first 1/10th compete with each other, the people on the other 9/10th compete with each other.

And even add another segment in there, based on the day. Use more than 1/10th your max bandwidth for the entire day, you end up competing in that bracket. Or perhaps just count hold long they were in the minute-based 9/10th bracket. More than 300 minutes there in the last 24 hours, bump them down.

You don't even need to know anything about protocols at all. It's entire possibly to be 'fair' without being discriminatory towards protocols at all. Just count packets, and as the packets go up, bump them down in the QoS list, so that someone who just wants to check their email can do so very quickly.

And no one is 'capped' at all. You're just allocating resources first to the people who haven't used much, and then the heavy users get access to them.

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast slows all access to "ComCastSucks.com" to 1 byte per second...

[citation needed]

Comcast user in NJ here, doesn't seem to be the case...

Re:Hmm...

[mcgrew]

Sorry, but I prefer leaving policing to the government. I can affect government, abeit minimally, but I have no effect whatever on a monopoly business. I can vote against a sitting governor, Senator, or President, but I don't have a vote on Comcast's board of directors.

The ACLU isn't setting the government up as arbiter of what's right and worong, but as the arbiter of what's legal and illegal -- which is how it should be. You would prefer an amoral and possibly downright evil entity you have absolutely no control over to decide matters of morality? Are you insane, just a high school kid, or what?

Re:Hmm...

[mcgrew]

Is it fair to the ones who aren't sharing (and they don't have any real alternatives to go to)?

What's unfair isn't the file sharing kid getting what he paid for. What's unfair is your ISP promising more than he can deliver.

Re:Hmm...

[BobMcD]

You would prefer an amoral and possibly downright evil entity you have absolutely no control over to decide matters of morality?

No, that's what you're advocating, and that's my entire point. A business has the need to keep enough customers happy that it continues to make money. Once enough people disagree with it's policies, it ceases to exist. The government exists under penalty of violence. Period. The government, as opposed to every single business entity imaginable, are far and away more likely to be 'amoral' and certainly 'downright evil'.

You don't like ComCast's policies? Switch! You don't like the government's policies, lead a bloody rebellion.

Yeah, those are totally, completely equal. No doubt.

Re:Hmm...

[mcgrew]

No, that's what you're advocating

Did you not read the comment? I CAN'T VOTE COMCAST'S CEO OUT. I can vote my mayor out.

A business has the need to keep enough customers happy that it continues to make money.

Only in a free market, not with a monopoly. Your electric company has ZERO need to keep you happy. You're stuck with them. And apparently Sony has zero need to keep their customers happy or XCP wouldn't have ever happened. There are six billion people on this planet, that company doesn't need your business. And in the case of a monopoly like Comcast, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CHOICE AND NO SAY IN THE MATTER WHATEVER.

You don't like ComCast's policies? Switch!

They're a GODDAMNED MONOPOLY. There's nobody to switch TO. Are you stupid, or just trolling?

Re:Hmm...

[Silentknyght]

That being said, I'm a huge fan of Netflix and I don't want my streaming movies throttled down. I lean more toward neutrality, but would hope that the worst abusers of bandwidth could still be corrected when needed.

You can't "abuse" the allotment you have purchased, can you? If you have paid for X Mbps 24/7, should you not be entitled to X Mbps 24/7? If my purchased use infringes on others' purchased use, it seems like a clear-cut case for the company who oversold capacity to increase said capacity.

Net-neutrality is also about the money associated with increasing--or avoiding increasing--capacity.

Re:Hmm...

[BobMcD]

You're electric company is beholden to the voters, and to greater legislative burden, because you're correct that they are a monopoly.

They're a GODDAMNED MONOPOLY. There's nobody to switch TO. Are you stupid, or just trolling?

How is ComCast prohibiting competing technologies?

You can call it a monopoly, or a chutes and ladders, or a purple-ocracy, or whatever you wish, but this doesn't make it so. Are they your only source for ComCast Cable internet? Yep. Are they your only source for internet period? Not even close. And certainly, absolutely not by the time any legislation you might advocate would actually be enforced.

Re:Hmm...

[mcgrew]

There is no other high speed ISP here, period. You might want to consult a dictionary, or an encyclopedia. If that's not a monopoly, then the word "monopoly" is as meaningless as your fastcompany link. Wifi is not competetion against high speed internet by any means.

If there is only one source for cigarette lighters you would say they're not a monopoly because there are stores that sell matches and besides, you can always rub two sticks together.

PS -- your misuse of a homophone ("You're" electric company) makes me question your intelligence. Maybe you're not trolling after all.

Re:Hmm...

[BobMcD]

Don't be a tool. Read the damn link. 5mbps is a viable alternative if you REALLY hate your present ISP. And again, this is today. It would take years to get any passed legislation to actually do anything in your favor, and by then we'll have even more market alternatives.

Or you could move, IF it matters that much.

I realize you like to exit arguments via insult. It's really, really, really common all over the internet. I'd implore you, though, to look beyond any of my typo's and see if there's any actual content in my posts. If you're not finding any, rather than attempting to insult me, maybe you just don't reply? It isn't as if I have never had some dude on slashdot take a pot shot at me. I didn't care about those, and don't care about this example either.

Maybe you can just try and be a better person than that. Maybe not. Just a suggestion.

Re:Hmm...

[bar-agent]

The problem with net-biased (what's the opposite of net-neutral?) ISP's is not their ability to block things.

I'm going to go with "pro-choice" as the opposite of "net-neutral." Because I feel like instigating. And because it is scarily plausible newspeak.

Re:Hmm...

[fishexe]

Sure, but the second school of thought is stupid, because it completely ignores the real issue in order to focus on file-sharing/streaming. Practice has shown that ISPs can and do censor their customers' traffic, so that should be the focus of the discussion, not the fairness of file-sharers hurting casual browsers' connection speeds.

Basically without net neutrality ISPs and backbone providers will over time become a privatized version of the Great Firewall of China. Is it fair to the older folks uploading grandkids' pictures to force them to live in a corporate police state, just in the name of sticking it to file-sharers?

Re:Hmm...

[fishexe]

If my purchased use infringes on others' purchased use, it seems like a clear-cut case for the company who oversold capacity to increase said capacity.

Ha! Good one. Try telling that to the airlines.

Death by ACLU association.

[chemicaldave]

I can see the talking heads now...

"Does the ACLU want to allow Muslim extremists the right to terrorize your school's website? Find out more with our special report, Net Neutrality: Government Takeover"

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[Pojut]

The ACLU has defended a lot of doucebags in their time, but one can't argue against their impartiality; they generally fall on the side of rights, regardless of how loony the person or group they are representing. Gotta give them credit for that.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[chemicaldave]

Of course they deserve credit, and I wouldn't want to sully their reputation. However, I see the US political right as having a generally negative opinion of the ACLU, and I don't want net neutrality to become a partisan issue.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[DrgnDancer]

I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help. The ACLU is a one issue group. They think you have a right to say... whatever stupid, crazy, brilliant, inspired, idiotic, hateful, useful, useless, or wonderful thing you want to say. Period. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum. I can respect that.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[Pojut]

I don't want net neutrality to become a partisan issue

It's a little late for that :(

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[commodore64_love]

>>>I see the US political right as having a generally negative opinion of the ACLU

I'm on the right, and I LIKE the ACLU. I hope they keep up the good work of protecting the Constitution and individual rights. Maybe you shouldn't be stereotyping an entire group, simply based on a label? What you said is less onerous than saying, "Jews are generally thieves," but still pretty bad. Stereotyping is wrong. IMHO. :-)

As for net neutrality, a lot of people have confused it with the Fairness Doctrine (for every Rush Limbaugh on AM, there needs to be a Rachel Maddow getting equal time). All that's needed is to educate them that these two things are not the same thing. That net neutrality is about stopping censorship by Comcast, et al.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[Anonymous Coward]

On contrary, the ACLU only thinks you have the right to freedom of speech so long as it coincides with ACLU views (i.e., views far more left than most of us liberals hold).

[citation needed]

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I would consider the KKK or Nazis to be far left. I guess we all have our own views, though.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/381962/detail.html

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[DrgnDancer]

As sibling says "Citation needed". The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh. They've defended both the KKK *and* the Anti-Defamation league. Show me an instance of them turning down a legitimate freedom of expression case. You've been told that they only defend lunatic left wing causes, but so far as I've ever seen it's simply not true. A lot of their cases defend people with extremely liberal views, but that's mostly because right now the country itself, on the whole, is rather conservative. Most of the people asking the ACLU for help are left leaning, because they are most likely to both a) trust the ACLU and b) have need of the ACLU.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[garynuman]

The ACLU has defended a lot of doucebags in their time, but one can't argue against their impartiality; they generally fall on the side of rights, regardless of how loony the person or group they are representing. Gotta give them credit for that.

like them or not the ACLU will defend freedom of speech at any cost...this reminds me of when the ACLU took the case of a Neo-Nazi group who had been denied to right to assemble in the Chicago suburb of Skokie at a time when 1 out of 6 residents in that town was a Holocaust survivor. The ACLU took the Nazi's case, and with a Jewish lead attorney, successfully defended the Nazi's in court. The Nazi's never did march and the ACLU lost like 30,000 members because of their defense, but in hindsight you really have to respect standing firm on the grounds of i don't have to like what you say, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[vlm]

I see the US political right as having a generally negative opinion of the ACLU

Responding authoritatively for exactly one former republican, they don't hate the ACLU because they hate four letter acronyms beginning with the letter "A", its much more like that tired old saying "they hate us for our freedom".

Back when the statists mostly hung out with the Ds and the libertarians mostly hung out with the Rs it wasn't so bad, but the religious loonies expelled all of us out of the R party hence my "former" self description. Then the statists invaded the Rs, so we really only have two sides of the same coin now.

I will not throw my vote away next month on one of the big two, I will vote 3rd party.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[garynuman]

you seem to be confusing the ALCU taking a case on free speech grounds and the ACLU actively endorsing the viewpoint of whatever wackjob they are representing

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[swb]

The ACLU only defends the parts of the constitution they like. They refused to recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms for a long time. I haven't checked their web site post-Heller, but it wouldn't surprise me if they still held this position.

I've long appreciated their position on freedom of speech and other civil liberties, but found their lack of support for the 2nd Amendment as an individual right a fairly troubling sign of partisanship.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[operagost]

I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.

No, they're not. While the ACLU will occasionally defend "conservative" causes, they'll well known for making up their own ideas for what constitute rights. Apparently, you have a right to force a Catholic hospital to perform abortions, for example. It's a little funny, because I thought that the basis of natural rights was that you could do what you want as long as it didn't infringe on someone else's rights. In the ACLU reality, if you're a professional, you apparently don't have a right to refuse to participate in actions you consider unethical.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[Dog-Cow]

It's rather questionable whether the 2nd amendment grants rights to the individual. Obviously, the generally-held view is that it does, but that doesn't require any particular organization to hold the same view.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[sorak]

Their reputation has been sullied by the mere fact of who they are. I am a huge supporter of them because they understand that the same rules that apply to unconvicted pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and terrorists also apply to every other US citizen.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[DrgnDancer]

They were trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions to save the life of the mother, if the hospitals accept federal money in the form of medicaid and medicare. Which is quite a bit more limited in scope then your claim. Personally I think that particular little stunt was more of a "solution searching for a problem" situation since most Catholic Hospitals *will* perform abortions when it's clear that the life of the mother is in severe danger from the pregnancy, but assuming there was a Catholic Hospital that was willing to let a woman die rather than perform an abortion, I could see how that might threaten their right to federal money.

You see how context matters? In your post it seems like the ACLU is trying to force all Catholic Hospitals to perform any and all abortions, or risk being shut down and (I supposed) their staff being arrested. In actual fact, they wanted to clarify that Catholic Hospitals should do what most of them do already, and that if they don't they lose access to some federal funds. Most of the articles I skimmed it seemed that the Catholic Hospitals were more annoyed that they were being misrepresented as not doing this already, than they were worried about being force into anything.

So yeah, this does seem like a bit of pointless grand standing about a non-issue on the ACLU's part, but it hardly seems like forcing a professional to perform an action against their own ethics.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[Steauengeglase]

I'm thinking the NRA wouldn't agree with that.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[s73v3r]

They don't really have to do much for the 2nd Amendment, given that there's already a very large organization (the NRA) dedicated to that. The NRA is most likely more qualified to defend 2nd Amendment rights, which frees the ACLU to concentrate more on 1st and 4th Amendment issues.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[imric]

Yeah because the framers needed to clarify 'the right to serve in the army' or the 'right to be a policeman' or 'the right to serve the state'. Yeah that makes sense.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[DrgnDancer]

As an aside, everyone, liberal or conservative, should read Al Franken's Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. Before you scream, yes he's a flaming liberal demagogue, yes he's as bad in his own way as Limbaugh or Beck, and yes he's probably guilty of the things he accuses other of in this book. I understand that, and I'm not asking you to agree with his point of view. What's interesting in the book is the tactics he points out. They're tactics used by both sides in the culture war, so whether you're a liberal or a conservative you've probably been a victim of them, but right now they're especially associated with conservative talking heads like Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity.

One of the most popular of these techniques is the one I'm responding to above. Whether the poster is actually engaging in the tactic or simply parroting something he heard or read I don't know, but it's very common. You take a story about something perfectly reasonable or maybe a little crazy, but not serious (like the one above, where the ACLU probably was a little out of line, but not nearly as seriously as it sounds like from the post), and leave out context and details so it sounds much worse than it is. Then you scream about the horrible things that [liberals:conservatives] are doing this week and use the story as an example.

The classic for this (and one of the ones Franken uses in the book) was a story that Rush Limbaugh broke about a teacher in California being forced to take down a poster of the Declaration of Independence because some fringe left wing group thought it violated the separation of church and state (might have even been the ACLU, I don't remember). Rush wailed and gnashed his teeth for most of an episode on this incident, and on the face the face of it it seems like liberalism run amok. Hell I'm a Pagan, and a strong supporter of the separation wall; and even I think this story (as told) is a travesty against American Civics.

As it happens it's only vaguely true. A teacher in California was forced to remove a poster containing lines from the Declaration of Independence from his wall by some separation organization or other. It wasn't simply the text of the Declaration though. It was a poster attempting to prove that the United States is a "Christian Nation" by cherry picking quotes from a number of documents throughout American history, including the Declaration. Rush didn't lie, he just left out a lot of important details.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[jmac_the_man]

One, the tactics that you say are "especially associated with Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity" are "associated with them" by people (such as Franken) using THOSE VERY TACTICS against them. But you may have known that.
Two, that story, whatever its truth value is (and I had never heard it before) is not in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[DrgnDancer]

Hmm... coulda sworn that was from Lies. Now I'll have to figure out where it came from. Anyway, the point remains valid, it's a common tactic on both sides. I was trying to be pretty even handed in my post, but I have my biases too. I have personally watched Glenn Beck do this twice (which encompasses nearly every time I've watched Glenn Beck).

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's rather questionable whether the 2nd amendment grants rights to the individual.

It's not questionable at all. No part of the Constitution grants rights to anybody. It says that the government can not take away certain rights that the people already have.

the generally-held view is that it does, but that doesn't require any particular organization to hold the same view.

When the organization calls itself a Civil Liberties Union and markets itself as defending all of the civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution, it looks hypocritical to exclude the second one on the list. Some local chapters of the ACLU are pro-2nd Amendment but the national organization has a problem.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly this is pretty true. Most American "liberals" don't really give a damn about civil liberties any more than their conservative counterparts.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[DrgnDancer]

Ah. Looks like it was from Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations (at any rate that what comes up when I Google the terms, I didn't reread the whole thing to verify). A more amusing book, but less instructive in general.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[interkin3tic]

I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.

You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[mcgrew]

And that's how it should be. "Free speech as long as I agree with your crazy idea" is hardly free.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[swb]

The ACLU isn't required to support the 2nd Amendment, but they look like partisan advocates (read: liberal, pro-gun control) when they don't, as the U.S. Supreme Court has definitively supported the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, and the ACLU claims to be in the business of supporting the exercise of individual rights protected by the constitution.

If you make that claim about supporting individual rights, how do you not support the individual right in the 2nd Amendment so endorsed by a majority of the Supreme Court? My six year old would say "Because I don't want to" but the ACLU needs to do better than that.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[jmac_the_man]

I recognized that you were trying to be even-handed, which is why I didn't fly into a trolling rage over it. I have my biases too, and they compel me to point out that Franken does it in Lies (and also in his other books, for that matter.)
I don't recognize the story from Big Fat Idiot but it's been awhile since I read that one, so I could be wrong.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[Lord Kano]

The ACLU is a one issue group.

How in the fuck were you moderated as Informative? You're hopelessly misinformed.

You, clearly, haven't so much as visited the ACLU Web site.

This is what the ACLU lists as their "key issues".

• Capital Punishment
• Drug Law Reform
• Free Speech
• HIV/AIDS
• Human Rights
• Immigrant's Rights
• LGBT Rights
• National Security
• Prisoner's Rights
• Racial Justice
• Religion & Belief
• Reproductive Rights
• Technology and Liberty
• Voting Rights
• Women's Rights

In case you weren't paying attention, that's a lot more than "one issue".

Look on their about page.

• "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country."

Except of course that they don't really mean that. See what they have to say about the Second Amendment.

• "The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller."

The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means, not the ACLU. They're engaging in political advocacy. It's their right to do that, but it's bullshit to pretend that they really care about constitutional rights when they obviously don't.

They think you have a right to say... whatever stupid, crazy, brilliant, inspired, idiotic, hateful, useful, useless, or wonderful thing you want to say. Period. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum. I can respect that.

Unless what you want to say is a prayer in a public place. The American Nazi party wants to march through Jewish and Black neighborhoods and those douchebags at the ACLU will represent them in court for free. Some woman drowns her kids in her bathtub and the ACLU will mount a legal offensive to spare her the death penalty. Some kid wants to thank God for being class valedictorian, and the ACLU sues him/her.

Fuck the ACLU, fuck them in their hypocritical asses.

LK

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[fishexe]

You've been told that they only defend lunatic left wing causes, but so far as I've ever seen it's simply not true.

One of many reasons Fox News is hazardous to people's perceptions of reality.

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[fishexe]

I often find it ironic how conservative talking heads bash the ACLU as defending "commies and left wing nuts", but when *they* want free expression they're happy to get the ACLU involved to help.

You forgot "atheist" which is, somehow, an insult.

I love how conservapedia makes sure to label most atheists as such, even when mentioning them in passing, just to make sure we know how evil they are.

From Linux:
"The GNU project was started by atheist programmer Richard Stallman..."

From Ubuntu Christian Edition:
"This edition may also serve as an alternative who don't want an atheistic Linux distribution, which might leave out Bible software, parental controls, and other moral features. (Richard Stallman, one of the major Linux programmers, is an atheist and suspected communist.)"
Heaven forbid your computer should have an atheist operating system!

"Mao Zedong, (1893-1976) was the leader of Chinese Communism and a ruthless atheist dictator..."

From Theory of Evolution:
"A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent materials to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel."

Re:Death by ACLU association.

[calebpburns]

I suppose you are right. I was using "far more left" to refer to some of the ACLU's questionable viewpoints and not all of their cases.

Stop "helping"

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet has never been "free" and it's not so much about freedom of expression, but freedom of markets. To allow incumbents to start dictating by fiat what services get a better ride we will quickly raise the cost of entering the market since access will not just depend on securing a pipe, but then negotiating with each and every ISP for reasonable terms.

Despite the rhetoric that some ISPs are spouting Net Neutrality does not prohibit them from securing their network, it just says how you can and can not deal with non-malicious traffic. When dealing with congestion or prioritization you can not decide based on destination, only on protocol or flags.

Summary is kind of...off

[webheaded]

"If the ACLU can successfully argue that Net Neutrality is a First Amendment Issue then it might not matter what businesses (who fall on either side of the issue) want the government to do."
The only way making it a 1st Amendment issue would actually matter is if the government actually regulates them, which it continually shies away from doing. As they are in fact private businesses, we can only hope that the government actually goes through with regulating their government mandated monopoly and stops letting them cry about fairness and all that kind of crap they've been lobbying about. Even if I DID have competitors to choose from, this kind of behavior is ridiculous. No one should have to put up with it. Period. You can bet your ass that without it even the DSL and cable companies will collude on this stuff as soon as possible. You think you're going to be able to leave your cable or DSL company for greener pastures? No. They'll all be doing the same thing...that's always the way this stuff works. Look what happened in Canada when Bell implemented bandwidth caps...it just rolled right on through. I don't want ridiculous bandwidth limits, discriminatory QoS, companies paying more for their website to load faster...I just want the internet to work as it always has which is quite honestly the best way it can work. I'm getting tired of this shit.

Hell, I don't even have a problem paying a little more for my connection since I do use quite a bit more bandwidth than most people. I usually have the most expensive plan for my ISP anyway.

Who's definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gets to define what "Net Neutrality" means? There are competing definitions and they do not mean what most of us think of when we hear the term.

"I do not think it means what you think it means."
-Inigo Montoya

Inconceivable!

Re:Who's definition?

[Steauengeglase]

I'd say, not screwing around with the basic idea of packet switching is a good start.

This is a defining moment in our social evolution

[BlankStare]

I am all for freedom of speech and Net Neutrality. Having said that, I see real practical problems here. Freedom of Speech is an inalienable right. If we tie that to an infrastructure that costs billions of dollars to create and maintain, who will pay for it all? Should we all be taxed to provide the access (implying that it belongs to Government)? Do for-profit corporations just have to "suck it up" as a price of doing business?

Not again.

[ScentCone]

Why do people confuse the first amendment's prohibition against the government limiting free expression with somehow mandating that private people and/or the companies they form being obliged to provide a platform for everything that everyone wants to say? The first amendment isn't about forcing a guy with a printing press to do what you say, it's about preventing the government from stopping you and the guy who owns the printing press from doing what you like on whatever terms you arrange between the two of you. Same thing goes with the guy who owns the DSL line you're using, or the WiFi hotspot and the network it's wired up to. And just like the printing press, if you don't like the terms of use, build your own or shop around.

Re:Not again.

[Batmunk2000]

Agreed. The First Amendment affirms your right to speak but not the right to demand a publicly-supplied soap box. On a side note, it's odd that all kinds of interest groups are pushing NN... Right Wing and Left Wing alike. The radicals realize NN can guarantee them an audience by law - not by earning it.

Re:Not again.

[Lluc]

One could argue that in the case of the monopoly or near-monopoly that is broadband for most of the US, the government *is* limiting free expression unless they advocate net neutrality.

Re:Not again.

[blackraven14250]

Branding something "internet access" gives you the rights to get on the internet. The internet is free and open, therefore "internet access" must be free and open. Get it?

Re:Not again.

[Dredd13]

The answer to THAT is to end the franchise monopoly system, and allow real competition in the local last-mile marketplace. Free-markets for the win.

Re:Not again.

[elrous0]

My grandad used to tell black people who came in his restaurant the same thing. Damned government has no right to force private businesses to observe people's "civil rights." The niggers are always free to go to another restaurant if they don't like it.

Re:Not again.

[ScentCone]

One could argue that in the case of the monopoly or near-monopoly that is broadband for most of the US, the government *is* limiting free expression unless they advocate net neutrality.

Well, sure, one could argue that. But it would be a bad argument. The state of broadband provisioning is in constant flux, and is still in its relative infancy. It would be insane to upend the entire meaning of the most important amendment to the constitution just because it's temporarily expensive to string up a new network in some small towns. I don't think that most people grasp the enormity of Law Of Unintended Consequences when it comes to this topic.

Re:Not again.

[ScentCone]

Branding something "internet access" gives you the rights to get on the internet. The internet is free and open, therefore "internet access" must be free and open. Get it?

Do you even understand what the word "rights" means? Providing internet access means just that: connecting you to a network which is in turn connected to other networks in ways worked out between all of the people that run those networks. Your ISP has to obey the laws of physics, and has to negotiate peering connections to other networks, as well as bear the cost of traffic that comes wandering through. Are you saying that they should have no ability to influence those arrangements in a manner that serves their customers, at the price point they're trying to provide? Should you be able to tell Verizon that you demand equal treatment and unlimited bandwidth on their network for packets going to a torrent operation in Latvia, while they do the same for the five-nines worth of the rest of their traffic that is trying to check their gmail account on a nearby network? Do you imagine all networks to have infinite capacity, and administrative costs that never change?

Re:Not again.

[PlanetX 00]

I don't see how you equate the Civil Rights laws with NN, please clarify.

Re:Not again.

[IDarkISwordI]

Because in this case, the government contibuted a great deal of your tax money to building the network structure that stretches across the nation today. if we paid for it as a country then the first amendment applies fully and reduces an ISP fom being a 'platform'' to being a means to access the platform.

Re:Not again.

[wile_e8]

And just like the printing press, if you don't like the terms of use, build your own or shop around.

And that's the problem here. If the ISPs competed in a free market, this could work. However, since the market isn't free and we're artificially limited to a couple of local ISPs, regulation is necessary to prevent abuses that would normally be limited by competition.

"Letting the market decide" doesn't work when the market isn't free to make a decision.

Re:Not again.

[thynk]

Hmmm, does your ISP have a TOS? If so, then by using that service you are agreeing to the idea that they have the right to set terms for your service, that connecting to their pipes can come with limitations. Branding it "internet access" doesn't convey any special protected rights to you, only that you can access the internet, in accordance with their terms. Your TOS probably doesn't even spell out that you will be guaranteed access to the entire internet. As long as they are providing you access to part of the internet, they have fulfilled their requirements of "internet access".

Now, that said, while I generally disagree with the Feds sticking their nose in any private business, I do agree with the idea of a free (as in speech) internet and if they do have to regulate net neutrality then so be it.

Re:Not again.

[ScentCone]

if we paid for it as a country then the first amendment applies fully and reduces an ISP fom being a 'platform'' to being a means to access the platform

Nonsense. If that were true, then you could say that every private print shop that has its physical operations reachable by public road must print anything that anyone demands they print. After all, if the taxpayers didn't maintain that road, the print shop could never have set up shop, right? Do you really think that's what the first amendment is about?

Re:Not again.

[nschubach]

The same mentality was going around when the company I work for told people that they basically could be let go for revealing internal operation details on social networking sites.

Some people think that having a Right means you are entitled to have it given to you ... thus my signature. (Though, some people have confused it for other meanings...)

Re:Not again.

[Lluc]

Broadband is in its infancy when compared to something like the rail or highway network, but I'd rather not wait 30-50 years for someone to roll out a new wired network or for some mystical (price & speed competitive) wireless network to appear. I don't think we need to amend the First Amendment, so to speak, to fix net neutrality or broadband. For example, plenty of countries have been more successful than the US by using tighter regulations, and I'd think restricting the ability of broadband and network owners from generating content (i.e. Comcast + NBC) would be advantageous.

Re:Not again.

[discojohnson]

Your point is very strong, but at the same time the color of one's skin and appearance isn't something you can just change and doesn't affect who an individual is as a person. If your grandad was a patron at another restaurant instead, he could be put out the door for exercising his freedom of speech. I think more to the point though is the real answer is that the government should own the lines. Lease them to others to maintain and use, but it's in the people's (and thus government's) best interest that communications lines, on US soil at least, are safe from these sorts of things. Plus I'm sure they'd love to have easier access to spy on Americans.

Re:Not again.

[blackraven14250]

I'm fairly sure they can claim jurisdiction using the interstate commerce clause. Most ISPs aren't state-specific, and they're accessing a nationwide network.

I don't have a choice of ISP. The vast majority of people who do have a choice have only two choices, usually Verizon/Comcast, AT&T/Cablevision or some other combination of gigantic, shitty companies. They can go fuck themselves if they want to restrict which sites are available through the pipe they provide; it's not their business to be doing so. I pay for X speed, give me X speed - that's pretty much the limit of their power IMO. Throttling Fox or NBC is shit that will not fly. This isn't cable TV, where there's all sorts of agreements between the providers and the network, and (originally was) limited bandwidth of X channels to broadcast in an area. This is the internet, built for anyone to send information anywhere at any time. Fuck you if you think Bing is a better search engine than Google because M$ paid you off, so you're giving better speeds to Bing.

Re:Not again.

[still cynical]

Why do people confuse the first amendment's prohibition against the government limiting free expression with somehow mandating that private people and/or the companies they form being obliged to provide a platform for everything that everyone wants to say? The first amendment isn't about forcing a guy with a printing press to do what you say, it's about preventing the government from stopping you and the guy who owns the printing press from doing what you like on whatever terms you arrange between the two of you. Same thing goes with the guy who owns the DSL line you're using, or the WiFi hotspot and the network it's wired up to. And just like the printing press, if you don't like the terms of use, build your own or shop around.

Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government". The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government". Wireless carriers are granted licenses to use public airwaves, and must provide a public service to do so (not just rake in money). At the local level, most of the carriers are monopolies granted by "the government". These monopolies are free from having to worry about competition because "the government" has agreed to lock out anyone else from access to these same right-of-ways.

THAT'S why it's a First Amendment issue. You want to be free of government rules? Get off the government tit. The government has provided a source of huge income to these companies. If they don't like "the terms of use" associated with being a government-subsidized monopoly, they are free to "build their own" Internet and run the lines over their own land. The wireless carriers can just "build their own" airwaves, I guess.

Re:Not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not as far a stretch as you imagine. Private hospital emergency rooms can not deny access to individuals without insurance on economic grounds because it disproportionately affect minorities. The motivation is that some private product and services are so critical to the "general welfare" of society that they must be provided fairly. Perhaps internet access falls into that category.

Re:Not again.

[IDarkISwordI]

What's it like to read a compelling hypocrisy claim only to be able to apply a literal meaning to this situation rather than an analogous intent?

It's clear that corporations get a pass an are able to do whatever they want in this country with little consequence. Most in fact build into their budgets, money they expect to have to pay out in fines for violating regulations they don't want to observe. These fines are the equivalent to a late movie fine or a late book for these companies leaving them basically to do what they wish, the country be damned.

It is entirely obvious this is a civil rights issue. Not one of race or gender or age, but one of every persons right to expression without oppression from the corporatations obsessetion to controlling this country.

Re:Not again.

[Monkeedude1212]

Then the solution is that there needs to be some form of ammendment or additional legislation that prohibits anyone from limiting free expression on the internet along those 4 guidelines by the FCC*.

Much in the same way I as a person or private company cannot park my vehicle in an intersection to filter or deter traffic through a certain point - neither should any Internet Service Provider have the ability to discriminate against their traffic if the people are paying for the service. Or if they want that ability, they should need to have a 3 month advanced notification system, much like how landlords can't just evict tenants on short notice (at least thats how it is in most provinces in Canada).

The problem with "Shopping around" is that it's either publicly owned lines or owned by the bigger guys, even the smaller ISPs have to rent the bandwidth off the big guys and they'll get their traffic filtered just as much as a customer I'm sure. There's no real way around it. When you sign up for internet service, there's no contract you have to sign, and they don't even ask you to read the terms of services on the website, its just "How much money do you want to pay? Okay whats your credit card number?" over the phone.

Right now the system is horribly stacked to favour the ISP's over the customers, we appear to have no rights on the internet, the internet seems to be simply a subscription based service which can be disabled at their discretion any time they like, even if you've PAID THEM for the service. Is my car dealer allowed to program an auto-shutdown feature in my car if I drive it on roads they don't like?

There's a reasonable amount of control that all companies have when running their business: they all have the right to refuse service, but not after taking the money, or without refunding it. Simply put: if they are going to cut someone off, they should have to give last month's bill back.

If you're going to treat the Internet as a service provided by a company, at least hold that company to the same standards that the rest of the world has. If you're going to treat the Internet as some sort of public international right, then you need to constantly check on those in control of the system, and punish the offenses.

I don't really care which way we go, but seriously, no more of this cake eating and having for ISPs. They run around like they're untouchable because they're providing what is considered a basic need in todays society.

*1. access any lawful content
2. use any applications or services
3. connect any devices that do not harm the network
4. benefit from competition among network providers

Re:Not again.

[Voline]

I really don't have the time right now to explain the concepts of "natural monopoly" and "common carrier" to you. But I suggest you do some Googling on those just to get you up to speed.

Re:Not again.

[heathen_penguin]

The first amendment isn't about forcing a guy with a printing press to do what you say, it's about preventing the government from stopping you and the guy who owns the printing press from doing what you like on whatever terms you arrange between the two of you.

agreed

Same thing goes with the guy who owns the DSL line you're using, or the WiFi hotspot and the network it's wired up to.

I disagree.

There are two extremes (I will use over the air as an example):
1) No regulation. Everyone is free to set up their own transmitters/receivers. This is the true free market way and is perfectly fair.
2) Total regulation. The government itself controls all aspects of transmission with "equal access" and so forth. In theory perfectly fair.

The difference is in what happens to the rights of the people. With 1) all rights are retained. With 2) some rights should be retained (e.g. free speech).

We currently have a compromise. A select few have control. So unless you are among the few, your rights have been curtailed, e.g. you can not set up your own transmitter. Thus we are regulated, but with some free market ideas. To me the issue centers around the rights of the people. If we are going to curtail freedom for the privilege of a few, then these freedoms should be curtailed as little as possible. Under this system you would treat communication pathways as just that, "pathways". The select few can benefit from providing them (at the expense of individual rights), but not from controlling their use (limiting the loss of freedom). Then we have an ordered system (not the wild west scenario of (1)), but without the total governmental control of (2).

And now for a car (actually road) analogy. If I build a private road network, then I can charge a toll. But I cannot restrict your origin or destination on that network. I have been given privilege (the right of passage), and freedoms have been curtailed (citizens' right of passage), but the curtailing of freedom has been mitigated (I can't tell you where to come and go).

Re:Not again.

[IDarkISwordI]

You are confusing a destination with a means to access. The means to access in your example is the road which is paid for by tax payers and accessible to all. Using your example, think of the ISP as a property management company that owns your parking lot that you park in. Do they get to tell you how fast you get to drive to the print shop or that you can no longer go to the print shop?

Re:Not again.

[ScentCone]

It is entirely obvious this is a civil rights issue. Not one of race or gender or age, but one of every persons right to expression without oppression from the corporatations obsessetion to controlling this country.

So, just to clarify, here. If I form a publishing company in order to print a newsletter that I will distribute in my neighborhood, I must allow anyone who wants me to print their own communication - no matter what I think of it - to tell me how I should use the pages of my publication? And I must allow, as I walk around the neighborhood dropping off my newsletter, anyone who demands that I also distribute their publication? And if my company starts into the business of delivering one person's publications, I therefore have to deliver anything that anyone else insists that I deliver? This is your take on what the first amendment is about? This is what you think "civil rights" is about - the ability of one person to force another person to do something?

Re:Not again.

[bill_mcgonigle]

My grandad used to tell black people who came in his restaurant the same thing. Damned government has no right to force private businesses to observe people's "civil rights." The niggers are always free to go to another restaurant if they don't like it.

Sounds like your granddad was a bigoted asshole. And correct about property rights.

"I hate what you say, but I would die for your right to say it."

(if the private business adopts corporate formation, all bets are off, of course)

Re:Not again.

[Batmunk2000]

Well put. "Rights" does not mean other people are slaves to your desires and wishes. It is an abused concept.

Re:Not again.

[ScentCone]

Still not a good analogy. There is no internet in the way that most people think of it. There are just networks. Self-contained, stand-alone networks. They are interconnected only through the deliberate, case-by-case agreements set up between those network operators that establish peering connections between them. To use your analogy, it would be like having a bunch of adjoining parking lots, owned by individual operators, and they only act like a road because of agreements between them to allow some parts of the lots to be used in that way (as a way to get from one lot to another non-adjoining destination lot).

Re:Not again.

[Batmunk2000]

I agree, throttling is unacceptable, but why do we need NN? We just need customer awareness. Customers will not accept weird corporate throttling when educated about it... and trust me, it doesn't take many customers ditching an ISP or voicing public displeasure to get them to change. Businesses want to make money and they need customers to do that. We need to educate the customers, not empower the government.
We don't need the Government to step in and enforce NN like they have with the physical roads. (*gulp* Toll roads!)

Re:Not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like that interpretation because it makes sense. Only property huggers fail to see it. No I'm *not* being sarcastic.

Re:Not again.

[Loadmaster]

That doesn't necessarily mean that companies will compete. All they need do is not invade each others territory. They can then strangle, over charge, and under serve their market while reaping in huge profit. Sherman Act anti-trust problem, you say? Good luck damn near proving your case at the pleading stage. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

Re:Not again.

[Monkeedude1212]

Did you Grandad also take their money THEN refuse them service?

Because thats what ISP's are doing.

Re:Not again.

[ScentCone]

I like that interpretation because it makes sense. Only property huggers fail to see it. No I'm *not* being sarcastic.

So, in order to prevent a society made of government-enforced slavery, you're proposing private roads?

Re:Not again.

[IDarkISwordI]

You have missed the point entirely. Corporartions such as ISPs hold localized monopolies, where in many cases the only available ISP is your only option to accessing the internet. Another submitter pointed to the false visual effect of multiple ISPs being present when all of them ran through AT&T an were subject to AT&T's policies.

ISPs are not a platform for accessing the internet. They are only a means of access, just as the network lines themselves.

Think of an ISP as a properrty management company that owns the parkinglot you park in every day. Do they get to tell you where you are able go or how fast you can get there?

Re:Not again.

[z-j-y]

Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government".

in a dictatorship country, that's the reason given by the ruler to control all media.

Re:Not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

'they are free to "build their own" Internet and run the lines over their own land.' ... the federal government as well as state and local governments claim ownership over more land than is utilized in this country. Why should they "own" property they don't use? Didn't homestead? Lets not forget that government forbid such actions and give certain companies monopoly privileges regarding who can run what where.

Re:Not again.

[sfhock]

Oh, SNAP!!

Re:Not again.

[moeluv]

Your analogy doesn't really fit here.Obviously you could refuse to print whatever you like. An ISP isn't analogous to a printing company. This is more akin to the post office refusing to deliver your mail to you because you choose to ship via fedex instead of using them.

Re:Not again.

[IDarkISwordI]

No, I'm certain that's an appropriate analogy. The internet does exist. I've watched them lay fibre in the ground. It was also on public ground, which I pay for with tax money. The ISPs have an agreement with the government to use this land.

Think of this, you are parked in your parking lot and need to go to the grocery store. To do this, you need a means to access the road, which this parking provides. You back your car out and drive onto a publicly funded road at 30mph to the grocery store, ending in their parking lot. You get your groceries and go back onto the public roads and then back to your private parking lot.

The next week, you decide to do the same errand. However, now the owner of the parking lot says you can only drive 1mph to that grocery store because the property management company doesn't like that grocery store. Alternatively you can go to this other grocery store at 30mph because they paid the company for the privelage. Under no circumstance though, are you allowed to go to the farmes market or any other locally run grocery stores.

Does this not seem problematic to you? I see it as a grave problem and one the shouldn't be allowed to occur. Alternatively, you could do the same scenario with the telephone/cellular phone system and equate it to not being able t talk to some people and only having fuzzy reception with people that aren't on our 'hot list' or corporate sponsors of your phone company.

Re:Not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

And he's absolutely right.

Seems like so many people these days believe in the precepts of freedom, so long as said freedom conforms with their personal will.

Re:Not again.

[RazorSharp]

Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government".

in a dictatorship country, that's the reason given by the ruler to control all media.

But that's a false equivalence because this isn't a dictatorship. The U.S. is a constitutional republic with checks and balances in place.

Furthermore, these are also the same reasons that the British government controls the BBC (created, regulated, and subsidized by the government). But in no way is the BBC nefarious, overtly biased, or used for propaganda. Personally, I find it favorable to most American media outlets in regards to quality and fairness. Government isn't intrinsically bad because dictatorships exist.

btw, thank Al Gore and his legislation for giving you the opportunity to voice your opinion on this forum.

Re:Not again.

[CCarrot]

If I form a publishing company in order to print a newsletter that I will distribute in my neighborhood, I must allow anyone who wants me to print their own communication - no matter what I think of it - to tell me how I should use the pages of my publication?

Sorry, your analogy just doesn't hold together. If you are publishing something, you are acting more like a website, not an ISP, in that you are creating content intended to share with others.

The ISP's are more akin to the post office in your scenario. Should the local post office be able to decide where and to whom you can deliver your publication, even when you've paid the same postage as everyone else?

And if it's only a local publication, then should the city decide for you which sidewalks you are allowed to walk on in order to deliver your content to your consumers?

(Unfortunately, the post office analogy kinda bites net neutrality concepts in the bum too, since providers of content can pay extra to have speedier service to their target audience. Although that process could be likened to simply paying the ISP for bigger pipes/faster connection, since there's currently no way that I'm aware of that you can pay the post office to slow down someone else's mail delivery...)

Re:Not again.

[Late Adopter]

And correct about property rights.

Not after 1964 he wasn't.

Re:Not again.

[still cynical]

Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government".

in a dictatorship country, that's the reason given by the ruler to control all media.

So if these corporations don't get a big government handout and aren't allowed full control of the public lands and airwaves at the expense of the public that owns them, we're slipping towards dictatorship? Pure BS.

Here is a decent reference of the term "dictatorship". I don't see anything about not giving huge corporate handouts as qualifying.

Re:Not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't really that way. It isn't their printing press, it is our printing press (internet) that they are limiting access to. It is more of a right of way issue. Letting them deny access would be like my buying the gate to your gated community. You have to ask me if you want to get to your house and I will let you if I feel like it.

Re:Not again.

[blackraven14250]

We just need customer awareness. Customers will not accept weird corporate throttling when educated about it.

I agree. However, customer awareness only goes so far when there's a single broadband provider in many locations, and only two in the vast majority of the others.

See, customer awareness requires a free market in order to work properly as a deterrent. Without a free market, monopolies do whatever they want. That's why we need government to step in - to prevent abuses that would otherwise be without a method of remediation.

Seriously, ditch your ISP, as the free market would dictate is the proper response, in the current market. That means you get no more broadband. In a free market, this wouldn't be a problem, there would be hundreds of others wanting to pick you up as a customer, and I wouldn't be advocating for government intervention. I agree with free market principles, but there is no free market for broadband, so said principles don't apply. In reality, you're fucked.

Re:Not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the government did all of that because it wanted control and thought it understood progress better than the people, and we are all the worse for it - both economically and politically. I'm not going to accept that *I* am now limited because of something the government did to screw things up. We don't need the government in any of those activities, including spectrum regulation. So my response to the government is: stop showing everyone your tits. It doesn't get you the moral high ground.

Re:Not again.

[s73v3r]

The ISPs are obligated to provide me a platform for my speech because I'M FUCKING PAYING FOR IT.

Re:Not again.

[s73v3r]

Yeah. How dare people feel entitled to open access to the internet after they've paid for it.

Re:Not again.

[s73v3r]

Customers will not accept weird corporate throttling when educated about it

And what about the customers in smaller markets, that can only realistically support one ISP? Should those people simply be beholden to the whims of that ISP, either bending over and taking it, or going without?

Re:Not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. His grandad was a racist, not a money-grubbing douchebag.

Re:Not again.

[s73v3r]

ISPs aren't printing presses. A better analogy would be to a phone company. The phone company must allow you to call any number you wish, and cannot alter the quality of that call based on who is calling or who is being called. Why should the internet be any different?

Re:Not again.

[s73v3r]

Actually, he wasn't. If you have a business that is specifically open for the public, then you are not able to discriminate on who is able to come in based on race, nationality, gender, etc.

Re:Not again.

[s73v3r]

Your printing press analogy sucks. ISPs are nothing like printing presses. A website would be more analogous to a printing press. An ISP is closer to a telephone company.

Re:Not again.

[imric]

ROFL. And just how do you 'ditch an ISP'? When all 3 of the alternatives (if you are very lucky) are pulling the same crap; when the backbone providers are also allowed to do it?

And - OT - all roads being privately held toll roads with access controlled by business is the right-wing-fiscally-conservative-libertarian holy grail.

Re:Not again.

[Dredd13]

People are greedy. Where there's disgruntled customers to be had, someone will try to get money out of them. :-)

Re:Not again.

[DavidTC]

If they don't like "the terms of use" associated with being a government-subsidized monopoly, they are free to "build their own" Internet and run the lines over their own land.

Amen.

ISPs can stop bitching about 'their property' when I have the right to attach a CAT-6 cable to a telephone pole and string it across town. Oh, sorry, that's a government granted monopoly? Well, the government granted monopoly can do whatever we say or take their wires off our land.

The wireless carriers can just "build their own" airwaves, I guess.

Perhaps they can use semaphores. Like Discworld's 'clacks'. Or perhaps laser communication, the visible spectrum is free to use.

It's utterly amazing how decades of the corporate media has so internalized 'private property rights' in everyone's brain that they'll just spit it out like zombies. Like people of the US don't own the public right of ways and the public airwaves, and license ISPs to operate over them.

Re:Not again.

[DavidTC]

I'm all for saying 'we shouldn't give big government handouts to businesses', and I'd much rather the government simply ran and maintained the wires themselves.

What the person you're arguing with seems to be saying, however, is 'Big government handouts rock, but the government shouldn't try to put any conditions on them!'.

Which, frankly, is not only not a way to fight dictatorships, but is slipping into outright fascism itself. It's one thing for the government to pay companies to do things...we can debate that, and to what extent, but the idea that government exists to give big business money for no reason is just flatly insane.

Of course, I actually think the point of the government is to regulate things, and I'd have no problem with regulating ISPs even if they weren't using all sorts of public resources, but were just magically somehow regional monopolies.

But even the most rapid libertarian should see that 'Hey, we've given you the right to use public property, and in return you have to carry all content neutrally' is entirely reasonable. But decades of corporatism has drilled into people's head 'People can do whatever they want with their property', so much they're even applying it here, where it's not private property.

Re:Not again.

[mounthood]

Libertarians are wrong, but not for any reason you gave. You can't argue that the government took control of a resource or rights, then granted it to the public or a private company, and therefore anyone who uses that resource or right is agreeing with the government.

If the government regulates cars and roads, should we say that anyone who drives is agreeing to the government regulation?

Re:Not again.

[spire3661]

When you are a government granted monopoly, your options as a company should be rightfully limited. Verizon operates on our good graces by the PEOPLE allowing them to use the airwaves to deliver their product. The radio spectrum is wholly owned by THE PEOPLE, leased to corporations to provide beneficial service to the PEOPLE. IM not saying it should be a free for all, but the idea that the ISPs can run their networks however they see fit is absurd and ignores the reality that we OWN the road they use to sell us stuff, be it airwaves, or governmental right of way.

Re:Not again.

[RightSaidFred99]

The concept of "rights" are generally abused. For example, a hypothetical case of a UPS worker refusing to wear the company uniform for religious reasons. Umm, no. Your religion doesn't grant you special "rights" (or as I call them, "treatsies"). UPS can't fire you because you're a "filthy catholic", but you don't get special exemption from policies that apply to everyone else just because you happen to have some crackpot belief about wearing long pants, or shorts, or whatever sending you to some make believe hell after you die.

Unfortunately, the "treatsies" paradigm of "rights" seems to be gaining ground in this country and if you have some crackpot belief you are likely to be able to sue for special privileges based on that belief.

Re:Not again.

[interkin3tic]

Why do people confuse the first amendment's prohibition against the government limiting free expression with somehow mandating that private people and/or the companies they form being obliged to provide a platform for everything that everyone wants to say

Times change. Today, more of my rights are threatened by private corporations than by the government.

Re:Not again.

[guyminuslife]

IIRC, Ollie's Barbeque (the defendant's restaurant in Katzenbach v. McClung) would sell food to black people, and take their money, but wouldn't let them eat inside. They could get carry-out from the back, or something along those lines. So, yeah, if his granddad was running the same kind of place as Ollie McClung, then he certainly would take their money then refuse them service.

Re:Not again.

[mcgrew]

Did you not even read the summary? This IS about civil rights -- your right to speak freely.

Re:Not again.

[mcgrew]

Civil rights have nothing to do with "protected classes". It's just as illegal to refuse to hire me because I'm white as it is to refuse to hire Mr. Johnson because he's black.

I am appalled that someone at slashdot can't understand this.

Re:Not again.

[mcgrew]

You have missed the point entirely.

No, he ran screaming hysterically from the point while yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"

Re:Not again.

[ScentCone]

The ISPs are obligated to provide me a platform for my speech because I'M FUCKING PAYING FOR IT.

No, they're obligated to provide whatever it is that's described in the contract that defines your relationship with them. That may not, in fact, include them giving your traffic a higher priority than someone else's.

Re:Not again.

[Lord Kano]

The radicals realize NN can guarantee them an audience by law - not by earning it.

Since when is it radical to not want to be hearded into an online free speech zone?

LK

Re:Not again.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yes, that is the law. I submit violence isn't the right approach and that people ought to be secure in their property.

Re:Not again.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Statute law changed, common law did not.

Re:Not again.

[BitZtream]

Just for reference, you can still do what he wanted to do. Its not illegal, owners have the right to refuse entry or service to anyone they want any time they want. There is no law that says you have to let everyone into your business, just the opposite actually, there are laws that back up your right as an owner of a business.

Its just a really shitty business decision to discriminate for financial reasons, to the point that you're unlikely to stay in business if you do it. Throw on top of it the general phobia everyone has towards anything that might possibly be racist and you'd end up with a business taxed to the point that your back breaks and no customers because they dont' like bigots.

You would however, be 100% within the law.

I for one agree with your grandad, not about blacks, but about the smoking ban in NC which says no smoking inside of buildings visited by the public ... If you don't want to go into a place that permits smoking, you can go somewhere else, or work somewhere else, but a whiney old cunt in our state government decided to push people until they voted with her in order to get her to shut the fuck up. Now ... no one can smoke in a bar ... WTF ...

For the record, I don't smoke, quit years ago, and it still pisses me off.

Re:Not again.

[BitZtream]

The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government".

Wrong. Most of the Internet exists because the lines run along railroad right of ways (which are owned by the railroads, not the government) and on peoples private property.

The lines don't run down the middle of the road, they run along side it ... in or on the land that someone paid for and is responsible for, even protecting someone elses internet connection from being damaged.

The government created the Internet, but its unlikely you'll send a packet in the next year that goes over a government owned link unless you're specifically communicating with a government organization.

Your post is simply not true in reality, at least not in the dimension most of us live in.

Re:Not again.

[still cynical]

The lines that carry Internet traffic are run on public ("government"-owned) land using right of ways granted by "the government".

Wrong. Most of the Internet exists because the lines run along railroad right of ways (which are owned by the railroads, not the government) and on peoples private property.

The lines don't run down the middle of the road, they run along side it ... in or on the land that someone paid for and is responsible for, even protecting someone elses internet connection from being damaged.

The government created the Internet, but its unlikely you'll send a packet in the next year that goes over a government owned link unless you're specifically communicating with a government organization.

Your post is simply not true in reality, at least not in the dimension most of us live in.

I never said anything about packets going over "government owned link[s]", I said the lines were on public land and on right-of-ways granted by the government. When telcos run copper and fiber, they don't call up the property owners and ask for permission to run the lines, they use the same government-granted right of ways that they've always used. Yes, the property owner is responsible for maintaining that property, but they also are legally required to allow access to these right of ways so that public utilities and private corporations may run lines, place equipment, and maintain same. Most of these companies and utilities are given exclusive rights to use these strips of land, and are guaranteed by this same government that their competitors will not be given access.

So while my post may not be true in whatever "dimension most of us live in", it is in fact quite true in reality. Your imaginary dimension and its population are not correct.

Re:Not again.

[diamondmagic]

That is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the government funded anything, what matters is if coercive power is being used to modify speech. The Federal government has not been granted the power to modify speech, and in fact it is explicitly banned from doing so in the First Amendment!

The government may regulate its own speech as a private business may. It may not require private entities, no matter what their history looks like, to publish other people's "free speech". The Supreme Court has ruled that requiring newspapers to run other people's stories is a violation of the first amendment for this reason. In theory they could bribe the ISPs and say "hey if you don't operate your network with net neutrality principles, you don't get federal funding" but in that case it wouldn't be the First Amendment, but ability of Congress to spend money (and spending money on the Internet is not a delegated power of congress, unlike "post roads" for the post office/highways and such).

Re:Not again.

[still cynical]

It is entirely relevant. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free speech. This is not a free speech issue, but rather the use of public property (airwaves, government-controlled rights-of-way). No one is restricting speech based on content. But if a company wants to restrict the speech, content, or access to information of others, it better not be using public facilities, tax-funded subsidies, or government-granted monopolies to do so. How is this so hard to understand? If you claim to be offering a public service, and take public money to do so, you have to play fair. If you don't want to play fair, no one is forcing you to take public money.

Re:Not again.

[diamondmagic]

The ISPs are entirely private, and the fact the government gives them money doesn't change that, any more than a private grant would (that is, you can make the grant conditional, but that doesn't mean you get to order them around after!). Additionally, the commerce clause does not allow the Federal government to regulate Intrastate trade or own or operate the Internet, such as how an ISP will regulate their own network (outside of the necessary and proper clause which would let Congress manage, for instance, a military network for the military to use, but this wouldn't be open to customers). How is this so hard to understand?

Re:Not again.

[still cynical]

This is my last post on the subject. After this I give up. I'm tired of arguing with people who try to make it appear that they're blowing holes in arguments that I never made.

The ISPs are entirely private, and the fact the government gives them money doesn't change that, any more than a private grant would

NO ONE has said that the ISPs are not private. NO ONE has claimed that getting government money changes that!

(that is, you can make the grant conditional, but that doesn't mean you get to order them around after!)

You bet your ass they can! If grants, subsidies, and monopoly protection are given subject to government regulation, you do not get to take the cash and then say "kiss my ass", if you don't like the regulations and controls.

Additionally, the commerce clause does not allow the Federal government to regulate Intrastate trade or own or operate the Internet, such as how an ISP will regulate their own network (outside of the necessary and proper clause which would let Congress manage, for instance, a military network for the military to use, but this wouldn't be open to customers)

This is why I'm giving up. I'm either being trolled for the fun of it, or I'm arguing with an idiot. Are you seriously claiming that the Internet is "intrastate"? Do you seriously believe that a company that sells international communications access is not subject to the Commerce Clause? Tell that to the FCC.

I'll leave that, because even if you do believe that everyone on Slashdot is a resident of your state, it doesn't matter. Call it terms of service, consent decree, contract, whatever. If companies agree to be regulated in return for subsidies, protected monopoly status, etc. THEY CAN BE REGULATED. THEY AGREED TO IT WHEN THEY TOOK THE MONEY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.

Re:Not again.

[diamondmagic]

Trolling must imply you won't back up your arguments and you only want to cause a problem. I don't see that happening.

Packets traveling over state lines might be subject to Interstate regulation - not companies making exchanges within state lines. The Constitution is very clear about this: It has to be COMMERCE, and it has to be INTERSTATE. The fact the Internet is worldwide does not imply they can regulate any tiny portion of it.

THEY CAN BE REGULATED. THEY AGREED TO IT WHEN THEY TOOK THE MONEY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.

Apparently there's no arguing with someone who blatantly denies the sky is blue... Government, except in their capacity as a coercive institution, has no right to tell people how they will operate their business just because they accepted money. It is no different than any other entity who gives out grants. When I say "private" THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS IMPLIED. Once they receive the money they own it, not the government, period.

I never claimed you said ISPs weren't private, I don't know why you are arguing about that... I said that because if they are in fact entirely private, they are *free* from other people being able to tell them how to operate... If some entity (the government here, but this is true for anyone) paid them for a share of ownership, they would be in a position to do so, however this is not the case, as I implied by saying they are private.

Re:Not again.

[fishexe]

People assume just because it's the ACLU, and the ACLU usually fights First Amendment cases, that it's about the First Amendment. Silly reasoning. Of course the ACLU uses the phrase "First Amendment rights" here but that doesn't mean that it's a First Amendment issue, only that it's about the same set of rights. The ACLU fights for free speech anywhere and everywhere, sometimes using the courts (usually when government is restricting freedom of speech) and sometimes using PR campaigns (usually when private parties are restricting freedom of speech). This is the latter case, which is explained in the PDF, and the summary was pretty ignorant to say they're trying to argue it as a First Amendment issue in any legal sense.

Re:Not again.

[fishexe]

The radicals realize NN can guarantee them an audience by law - not by earning it.

Ummm...wait what? Do you even know what NN is? It's about preventing ISPs from blocking your existing audience from reaching your site, not about forcing people to point their browsers at it.

More than just free speech: free democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It may not sound like a crucial issue now, but if you think about it, it is absolutely inevitable that over time we will move our human governance systems to the internet.

(Unless it makes sense to you that we will forever send Senators to a building to make deals with lobbyists behind closed doors?)

As we do move online with governance, net neutrality will of course be essential.

Re:More than just free speech: free democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the senators making back-room deals. It gives me something to blame.

Bad economy? Political corruption.
Bad weather? Political corruption.
Bad breath? Political corruption.

See how liberating it is?

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[Pojut]

Well...a lot of the infrastructure that's currently being used was funded by taxpayers, and ISPs are already granted "legal monopoly or duopoly" status, so...

Leave the internet alone

[digitaldc]

It's working just fine the way it is, so why change it?

A tiered internet is just another way for greedy businesses to further suck money out of their customers, that's it.

Re:Leave the internet alone

[elrous0]

why change it?

another way for greedy businesses to further suck money out of their customers

I think you just asked and answered your own question.

Re:Leave the internet alone

[Monkeedude1212]

It's working just fine the way it is, so why change it?

So you like the way Comcast and other ISP's have the ability to filter traffic with impunity? Because that is basically whats happening.

Not a free speech issue

[tomkost]

People who provide a forum are not required to let everyone talk who wants to. Try to force the local TV station to let you air your views and they likely will not. I'm in favor of net neutrality, but it's not a free speech issue. BTW, the amount of content most people would send to post to a blog or some such is so small it wouldn't even be noticed. The argument basically assumes there is a widespread intent to limit speech on the internet, and that seems unlikely given the current status is exactly the opposite.

Re:Not a free speech issue

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems it's more like you have a soap box and they decide to put up a wall around you so nobody can hear you.

Re:Not a free speech issue

[Hatta]

Net Neutrality is a free speech issue, and so is TV Neutrality. That we cannot all get a spot on TV to make our case just shows that we haven't really had free speech so far. And this is borne out by observation. Free speech is intended to facilitate the free exchange of ideas. Yet the messages we see on TV all conform to one narrative. By controlling the discourse, they control our collective thoughts and fears, even our minds.

The lack of TV and Newspaper neutrality is a major reason why the country is in such an awful state. Even when a message appears that has lots of popular support all they have to do is ignore it and it goes away. Look at how many Nader rallies drew 10,000 people in 2000 and were ignored by the media. Or how in the build up to the war in Iraq, we had some of the largest protests since the Vietnam war. Yet dissenters were constantly marginalized in the media. Of course, when the message of the protest is that we shouldn't tax the rich, all of a sudden dissent is patriotic.

The control of the media by a powerful elite is the greatest threat to Democracy we face today. We cannot let the internet go the same way. It is our last, best hope.

Re:Not a free speech issue

[blair1q]

People who provide a utility and get government protection are.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[Batmunk2000]

And taxpayers helped pay for the roads to your house and work, does that mean they get to dictate what happens in either one? ISPs are paid to deliver information, believing they will deliver less information is a bit of paranoia and is bad business. Awareness is more prudent here than handing they keys over to the FCC.

sensitive topics

[zerointeger]

I recently began writing an article for web developers on implementation of symmetrical and asymmetrical client side (JavaScript) encryption techniques and it seems like it will never get published due to the bureaucratic bullshit plaguing our nation today. I understand concerns of misuse, I understand needs for wiretaps... but to stifle an article that helps with education and addresses security concerns plaguing todays on-line shopping charts to prevent the defrauding of others? Our tax money hard at work...

And yet

[MikeRT]

None of the network neutrality efforts really are focused on increasing competition. I have no doubt that that is why a lot of libertarians and conservatives see this as a naked power grab, rather than as a misguided effort to protect the status quo. They see an effort focused almost entirely on telling businesses what they can do, rather than one that is simultaneously taking a chainsaw to local, state and federal laws that impede competition.

One of the arguments I've heard against abolishing local and state regulations is that competitors will screw up each other's infrastructure. That doesn't have to be the case at all. In Virginia, it is my understand that the fine for not calling Miss Utility or a similar service and then even accidentally damaging such infrastructure is $10k/incident with no limit for any region. Meaning if they damage 1 neighborhood 15 times, the government slaps them with a nearly impossible to beat $150k fine even if all they do is shut off your power for 1 hour before Dominion can fix the damage. There is no reason that this couldn't be the norm and a policy in place to let anyone, at their expense, lay new infrastructure.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe it is cheaper to have net neutrality anyway. The more "filtering" devices and QoS devices you place on your network, the more money you spend to run and keep those devices up to date. If you have to just allow all traffic pretty much evenly (at least per-protocol), then it should not cost quite as much to run your network.

Line Sharing Please

[Anonymous Coward]

Net neutrality is still just a distraction that obscures the real elephant in the room. Give me line sharing so that I can actually CHOOSE an ISP that is neutral rather than slapping this small bandaid on the bigger problem of carrier monopoly.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[Pojut]

And taxpayers helped pay for the roads to your house and work, does that mean they get to dictate what happens in either one?

Yes, they do. It's called voting for a representative.

are paid to deliver information, believing they will deliver less information is a bit of paranoia and is bad business

Right...because no ISP has ever blocked traffic, right?

Awareness is more prudent here than handing they keys over to the FCC

Us: "We're aware that you're throttling and charging extra for certain sites!"
ISP: "Awesome! Glad you're paying attention. By the way, here's your bill."

Yup. Awareness would solve everything.

Clearly they don't believe in Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

if they are talking through a PDF.

Re:Clearly they don't believe in Free Speech

[Lanteran]

eh, what? Crawl out from under that rock, sir, PDF is an open format and has been for 2 years.

So this means...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... free speech was impossible before the internet?

I'm missing something in this debate...

[Balthisar]

Seriously, what's wrong with a little bit of capitalism and money changing hands to give preferential treatment to companies willing to pay for it?

Let's say that I have a 10 Mb Comcast connection. Under net neutrality, I can use that bandwidth however I want. There's no QOS, so maybe my Netflix streaming stutters a bit or the resolution drops here and there. Now suppose Comcast enters into an agreement with Netflix (yes, they're arch enemies; this is just an example) whereby Netflix pays Comcast to reserve 4 Mb of that connection for streaming. That's a *good* thing for me as a customer (even if I now have to pay an extra $1 to month to Netflix). When I'm streaming Netflix, my QOS is guaranteed, and I still have 6 Mb that's "net neutral" for other things. And when I'm not streaming, I still have my whole 10 Mb pipe.

As far as I can tell, the managed aspects only come into play when I'm accessing a service that has an agreement with the ISP. When I'm not accessing one of those services, there's no difference.

Of course you could say that being non-net-neutral would give Comcast (in my example) the right to limit my P2P traffic. That's an aspect that I don't agree with, after all, it's still my 10 Mb pipe. But if they want to limit it to 6 Mb while streaming my 4 Mb Netflix, that's a good thing for me. Note that this is *not* the same as a implementing QOS in my router, since the router only implements QOS for my LAN, not for Comcast's connection to upstream providers.

Re:I'm missing something in this debate...

[TheSpoom]

So basically, you want net neutrality only when it's beneficial to you.

What if you were accessing one of Netflix's competitors?

Read the PDF, it explains it well.

Re:I'm missing something in this debate...

[Dynedain]

Ahhh young padawan, you have much to learn.

What if you want to watch Hulu? Stuttering.

Or, the more likely scenario, what if Comcast launches a web-based video on demand service, and that gets the 4Mbit priority whereas Netflix is always relegated to stuttering speeds?

This is the real danger and it's already starting to happen. The large ISPs which have an effective oligarchy on the US market can reduce the internet to essentially a set of "preferred" sites by prioritizing the traffic, not based on load balancing needs, but based purely on who the traffic is intended for. They want to hold their users hostage, and force content providers to pay them for access to the users.

Think of the local mafia enforcer saying, "You've got a nice website here, it'd be a shame if no one was able to use it...."

Re:I'm missing something in this debate...

[kenrblan]

Here is what that argument does not fully consider:

Suppose that Netflix or some other online delivery oriented company doesn't agree to pay Comcast,Time Warner, Cox, and every other major broadband provider extra (and why should they, they probably don't purchase bandwidth from Comcast). Suppose that one of those providers launches their own service and wants to "encourage" its broadband users to purchase their new service. Because there is no regulation, that provider might elect to throttle access to the competitor's service, possibly to the point that it artificially degrades the service. This would obviously be an instance where one company could lose business as a result of the tampering of another. Those end users who are paying the broadband provider for access to the internet, would not be getting what they probably think they are paying for (x dollars per month to get y Mbps of bandwidth to anything on the Internet).

That is looking at the issue at the very small scale. Imagine that it becomes common practice to pay the broadband providers "protection" money (think about the Mafia scheme of having store owners pay them to not rob or damage the store). Large corporations who currently have a presence in a given market with be able to pay the protection fee. Upstarts would not be able to afford to pay the broadband providers and would be at a competitive disadvantage regardless of the quality of their product. Since a large portion of internet traffic is within http/https, we aren't talking necessarily in terms of protocol based shaping. We are talking about source/destination shaping. Suppose that the protection scheme had started in 2000 with Yahoo and Hotmail securing protection. With bandwidth still relatively scarce, those two companies are able to keep upstart Google at bay since their sites load faster than Google's and are able to return results faster. As a result, Google fails and does not become synonymous with search, and Gmail never materializes. Innovation and quality, then, are no longer the primary factors in success.

If there were genuine competition in the broadband market, that scenario would be less likely, but currently users in many areas only have one legitimate option for broadband internet access. If their one option chooses to apply shaping to the internet, those users effectively have no choice about which sites or services to use since they are not dealing with a level playing field. Instead, those customers would actually be buying a walled garden type of service which is essentially the antithesis of what the Internet has been.

Re:I'm missing something in this debate...

[secretcurse]

Like you pointed out, Netflix is seen by Comcast as the enemy. You say you'd be a happy customer if Comcast dedicated 4MB of your connection to Netflix while you're streaming. How will you feel when Comcast decides to throttle Netflix to 1 bit per second while injecting advertisements for their cable TV service over that episode of Dexter you're not able to watch? Given the behavior of ISPs in the past, that's a lot more likely than striking deals with other companies that are good for customers, IMHO.

Re:I'm missing something in this debate...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't subscribe to netflix, and I would be pissed if they reserved 40% of my pipe for traffic I won't ever use.

Far better, make comcast upgrade their services so that every gets the bandwidth they pay for.

Re:I'm missing something in this debate...

[Balthisar]

>>What if you want to watch Hulu? Stuttering.

But, why? In my example, I'd still have a 10 Mb connection when using Hulu but not using Netflix. I don't see that the connection to Hulu would be any different than I'd have to Hulu today.

>>Suppose that Netflix or some other online delivery oriented company doesn't agree to pay Comcast,Time Warner, Cox, and every other major broadband provider extra... Suppose that one of those providers launches their own service and wants to "encourage" its broadband users to purchase their new service. Because there is no regulation, that provider might elect to throttle access to the competitor's service, possibly to the point that it artificially degrades the service.

Maybe my crime is that I see two aspects to net neutrality, while everyone only sees one. In this case, a company that's *not* paying for preferential treatment would get standard treatment, just like it does today. There's a *huge* difference between /throttling/ a connection that I want, and giving preferential treatment to a server that wants to pay for preferential treatment. I'm suggesting that I don't see a problem with preferential treatment. I *do* see a huge problem with /detrimental/ treatment.

>>Like you pointed out, Netflix is seen by Comcast as the enemy. You say you'd be a happy customer if Comcast dedicated 4MB of your connection to Netflix while you're streaming. How will you feel when Comcast decides to throttle Netflix to 1 bit per second while injecting advertisements for their cable TV service over that episode of Dexter you're not able to watch?

As above, throttling isn't the issue; it's QOS for preferred applications. When I'm not using a preferred app, then I'd be subject to all of the same packet switching issues that impact today's traffic. As for injecting advertisements over data that I'm requesting from a remote machine, that has nothing to do with net neutrality as I understand it. In fact, that's invasive and I'd regard that as an intrusion into my computer.

>>I don't subscribe to netflix, and I would be pissed if they reserved 40% of my pipe for traffic I won't ever use.

But the QOS would be dynamic. The reservation would only be in place while you were streaming Netflix. There'd be no other way to sell guaranteed bandwidth, and it'd not be profitable. What do you do, sell 40% to Netflix, 50% to Walmart's service, and then 10% to Google, and you're done selling? No way; you'd have to sell 1000% or more of your capacity.

Come to think of it, as a customer, I'd be willing to pay for prioritized traffic and dynamic QOS to hosts of interest, for the same reasons I already set up priorities in my router.

Summary: (a) No one has convinced me that it's bad to sell QOS, assuming the non-QOS traffic works likes it does today. (b) Throttling conflicts with point (a), and of course I don't support it. (c) Overlaying ads would be evil, but has nothing to do with selling QOS.

Maybe "net neutrality" as a term is too all encompassing?

Re:I'm missing something in this debate...

[HeckRuler]

But, why? In my example, I'd still have a 10 Mb connection when using Hulu but not using Netflix. I don't see that the connection to Hulu would be any different than I'd have to Hulu today.

How do you think they give you your executive-class connection to Netflix? They let the Hulu connection suffer. Remember, this isn't just you on the pipe. They have this arrangement with everyone in your neighborhood and a similar agreement with the tier1 above them. If the Hulu connection doesn't suffer at all, then THERE'S NO REASON TO BUY the special connection. So this system ENCOURAGES your ISP to run below capacity.

The reservation would only be in place while you were streaming Netflix. There'd be no other way to sell guaranteed bandwidth, ... you'd have to sell 1000% or more of your capacity.

Wait, whoa there. Either I'm confused about what you're selling, or you're REALLY confused about how a guaranteed connection works.
You realized that if an ISP oversells their pipe as "guaranteed", and then everyone hops onto netflix/hulu/whatnot then it's impossible for them to uphold their contract... right?

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[nschubach]

I've always wondered why communities don't run their own fiber optic/power cables and provide a several connection points where cable/telecom/electric companies hook into. People in the community can then buy services from any company that is able to connect to any of those access points. Of course it means funding access nodes as well as the cable with tax dollars, but if it encouraged competition in services I would sign on for that.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[commodore64_love]

Less than 0.1% of the network was funded by taxpayers. Most of the burden (i.e. trillions of dollars) came from corporations expanding the network over the last 90-100 years, first as analog lines, then 56k-capable digital, and more recently copper, coaxial, and fiber (CATV and internet).
.

>>>Do for-profit corporations just have to "suck it up" as a price of doing business?

The FCC Broadband Plan is to create an additional tax, similar to the Universal Service Fund for Phones, that would be collected by companies and used to extend 2 Mbit/s lines to 99.9% of rural households.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[Batmunk2000]

I guess the FCC is the answer? lol

Because merely slowing traffic is the last step

[SmallFurryCreature]

Because of course once it has become accepted that access to certain parts of the net should be slower because they don't pay, the next step of not providing access if they don't pay for it, or maybe don't meet the approval process... well that just won't enter anybody's head who ain't ... oops who ain't the sexiest man alive that all women crave to have sex with and men want to buy free beers.

As for, as long as the backbone remains free somebody else comments...

Yeah, because printing presses ain't restricted in anyway but it is SO easy to start up a new newspaper. Or a television channel.

We already lost the radio and the newspapers and the tv to mightly commercial intrests. But sure, this won't happen to the internet. Because the powers that be will just sit back this time and let the public run free.

Supression of free speech can be done with a bullet through the neck. That is easy but costly. Far easier to have people restrict themselves.

Compare the US and France. Could the US mount such a massive protest against the government? Hell no. Everyone is to worried about missing a day at work because nobody would pay them and the credit card bills and mortage got to be payed. Make everyone a home and car owner and their loan payments will keep them nice and quiet. Well known tactics. Why do you think conversative right wing governments hate renters? Mobile workforce that isn't tied down to a house. Renters can loose their job and simply move somewhere cheaper. Buyers are locked in.

No, supression of free speech won't happen with a bang, it will happen with a wimper. Everyone locked in to speedy facebook and then all of sudden the internet has turned into yet another medium controlled by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and those that fund him. How do think the first public run radio stations turned into the current commerical crap? Nobody thought it could happen and then it did.

Re:Because merely slowing traffic is the last step

[Anonymous Coward]

So lets all bitch and moan because the world isn't fair and try to enact legislation to make it fair. Since we can't all start a newspaper, we should all be entitled to have a say in how they are run when somebody else does it, because we're entitled to use it too, our way! All freedoms have to be easy, sacrifice free. Thats why they're called freedoms.

Maybe your cowardice, selfishness and inability to see that you can't force people to do what you want is why you feel trapped by the corporations. Waiting for somebody to make others do what you want them to, instead of finding out what you need to do for yourself.

Re:Because merely slowing traffic is the last step

[Anonymous Coward]

So lets all bitch and moan because the world isn't fair and try to enact legislation to make it fair. Since we can't all start a newspaper, we should all be entitled to have a say in how they are run when somebody else does it, because we're entitled to use it too, our way! All freedoms have to be easy, sacrifice free. Thats why they're called freedoms.

Straw man arguments are lies.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[Anonymous Coward]

If you try, the local broadband monopolist will cry crocodile tears over "free markets" and "unfair competition from the public sector" and "socialism," take you to court, and stop you.

Because, you know, natural monopolies are automatically "free markets" unless you regulate them.

The bastards.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[jedidiah]

You're trying to frame this as an "entitlement" issue when it's really a consumer protection issue.

This is no "entitlement" we are talking about because EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US PAY FOR THIS INFASTRUCTURE.

The ISPs don't just give it to us for free. WE PAY FOR EVERY BIT OF IT.

You're just trying to conflate the problem of me getting what I paid for as a consumer with welfare or some other nonsense.

The expectation that I get what I paid for is not "entitlement".

"Entitlement" is a term that's gotten abused like "terrorist".

The Flip Side of the Coin

[anorlunda]

The ACLU report addresses the pro-net-neutrality arguments. The other side of the coin is the revenue requirements of the ISPs and their business models. Nobody can fairly judge this issue without consideration of both sides.

A few months ago, I got a Droid phone. I also downloaded a tether app (forbidden by Verizon's non-net-neutral terms) but I got it anyhow. I used them to catch up on a few TV programs I like (I don't have access to regular TV). I think I watched for 5 hours. It worked great and I really enjoyed it. The next day I checked my use and I was shocked to learn that I used 2GB in one night. If I continued to indulge this way, my use would be 60GB per month!! With tens of millions of people buying smart phones, and with HD video coming online via wireless, it is not hard to imagine that the aggregate use demand may climb by a factor of 50-100 in the next 5 years and 1,000 within 10 years.

I believe that wireless is the future of the Internet. I also acknowledge that wireless ISPs have special problems because of the needs for huge captial investments in infrastructure.

How many trillions will it take to expand the wireless capacity 50 fold in the next few years? I don't have any hard figures. Let's just say a cost of $500/month per user. The ISP would have to charge that, plus profit and overhead to survive. Would I pay that much? Hell no. Nor do I know anybody who would. So, what's the solution?

1) The ISPs can charge everyone more preserving net neutrality. As it gets more expensive, use will drop off. Eventually, it will meet a stable point where demand versus the pain of paying reach a balance. Personally, I believe that the balance will end up around $100/month for a 5GB quota. Many more people will have smart phones, but they will be frustrated in being only to stream a fraction of what they desire.

2) They can violate net-neutrality and charge more for premium services. They could even charge per-byte instead of a flat fee. People like Steve Jobs will no doubt be willing to pay $500 or even $5,000/month to indulge themselves. It's like progressive taxes. It would work only if the rich are willing to pay most of the costs.

3) They can not invest and fail to meet the increase in demand, in other words, just maintain the status quo. There would be no increase in monthly quotas, and only modest increases in the number of smartphone users.

Scenarios 1 and 3 cause the Internet's future to fail because of rationing of service one way or another. Scenario 2 causes it to fail, in the view of many, because of loss of net neutrality.

Are there any win-win scenarios that maintain net-neutrality and also provide the vast amount of capital needed for wireless infrastructure? I don't see them.

Slashdotters, tell my why I'm wrong.

Re:The Flip Side of the Coin

[dkleinsc]

The ACLU report addresses the pro-net-neutrality arguments. The other side of the coin is the revenue requirements of the ISPs and their business models. Nobody can fairly judge this issue without consideration of both sides.

There's a constitutional protection of free speech. There is no constitutional protection of corporate profits. Are you suggesting that corporate profits should trump constitutional protections, because if that's true then Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court should close up shop and just let a bunch of guys on Wall Street run the country.

Are there any win-win scenarios that maintain net-neutrality and also provide the vast amount of capital needed for wireless infrastructure? I don't see them.

That argument would hold water if AT&T and the other ISPs weren't immensely profitable already. So option 4 is: impose net neutrality, prices remain at or near the current market price (which is what the market will bear), and the ISPs reinvest some of what is currently their profit into making service not suck.

Re:The Flip Side of the Coin

[T Murphy]

You're off in your understanding of net neutrality. Neutrality in a nutshell means "all packets are created equal". Neutrality is being violated if the ISP sees that you are streaming video and throttles that. Neutrality is not being violated if the ISP has a policy to throttle your connection if you exceed 2GB in 24 hours (or whatever content-neutral usage policy). ISPs love to conflate neutrality and "breaking the internets" as a scare tactic- they really have nothing to do with each other.

My internet connection here at school determines my bandwidth based on my data usage in the last 36 hours, with 3 tiers (unlimited, 512k, 128k). I would be perfectly happy to sign up for a similar plan through an ISP if it is reasonably priced and reliable. We can have net neutrality, reasonable usage plans and reliable connections without unreasonable strain on capacity- all while ISPs earn a profit- but ISPs are happier with their secure monopolies and will never change until the government tells them to or breaks the monopoly.

Re:The Flip Side of the Coin

[RightSaidFred99]

There's a constitutional protection of free speech.

No, there's not. There's a constitutional prohibition of the government interfering with free speech.

Since literally your first sentence is false, I ignored the rest.

Re:The Flip Side of the Coin

[RightSaidFred99]

We'll see how you like Net Neutrality when your VOIP call is stuttering because some asshole next door is watching porn at 5Mbit/s.

If NN passes, I hope the ISP's make people choke on it. "You want Net Neutrality? OK, asshole, here you go. Have fun."

Re:The Flip Side of the Coin

[T Murphy]

Packets already have priority flags- I expect it would be within net neutrality* for ISPs to have a minimum guaranteed low-latency bandwidth (say 128kb for a nominally 1Mb connection). By letting priority be defined by the user (or the content), the ISP stays neutral, and the ISP could still reasonably guarantee your high priority packets get through (at the expense of your neighbor's low-priority or over-demanded high priority porn packets, after he gets his 128kb).

I understand the concern for VOIP- you have a legitimate argument for the need for traffic shaping. The problem of using it to argue against net neutrality is that you ignore all the problems that can arise without net neutrality: ISPs can throttle VOIP (many ISPs offer phone services), they can throttle video streaming (some ISPs offer cable services)- in general they can throttle to "improve" service in lieu of upgrading the pipes. You also allow ISPs to put websites into priority tiers based on which websites are willing to pay, and then charge users along similar lines (like cable channel packages).

I'm already not certain I can trust the government to do a good job properly defining net neutrality (I'm confident I trust them more than ISPs)- I have zero trust the government could properly deal with all of the above issues separately, especially considering how laws that get specific on technical issues can age quickly. With NN all you need is better-enforced QoS (something ISPs avoid with anti-net-neutrality red herrings).

In short, your comment sounded backward to me as I immediately thought "If NN doesn't pass, I hope the ISP's make people choke on it. "You don't want Net Neutrality? OK, asshole, here you go. Have fun.". Although I don't fully intend the harsh language, I do think you need to better consider the repercussions of letting the ISPs do as they wish. Of course, if you're convinced things will still work out fine without NN regulation, we probably won't agree until hindsight gives us the answer.

*I'm not certain, someone correct me as needed.

Re:The Flip Side of the Coin

[fishexe]

Slashdotters, tell my why I'm wrong.

Easy. For starters, you have no fucking clue what net neutrality is. Second, you're pulling absolutely absurd numbers out of your ass like "$500/month per user" with no basis for them whatsoever. You present absolutely no evidence that "the balance will end up around $100/month for a 5GB" other than you "believe" that's what it will cost. You claim to base this on an exponential increase in demand for service but take no account for the exponential increase of technological cost-efficiency that every moderately aware person who's lived in the first world in the last twenty years knows to expect. You don't even present the "other side of the coin", rather you present incoherent nonsense and pretend it's an argument. I think that pretty much sums it up.

Re:The Flip Side of the Coin

[fishexe]

We'll see how you like Net Neutrality when your VOIP call is stuttering because some asshole next door is watching porn at 5Mbit/s.

Which won't happen, because throttling based on level of bandwidth usage doesn't violate net neutrality. Investing in enough infrastructure to provide the amounts of bandwidth you've contractually agreed to provide your customers is another option. I already have de facto net neutrality in my neighborhood (university-provided network, not corporate ISP) and my VOIP has never once stuttered in over 2 years that I've been using it.

If NN passes, I hope the ISP's make people choke on it. "You want Net Neutrality? OK, asshole, here you go. Have fun."

They might, but it won't be because of the natural characteristics of net neutrality. It will be because the ISPs are purposely trying to manipulate us into thinking net neutrality caused us to choke, rather than realizing they were just being dickheads and intentionally throttling us for no reason.

Invent rules and restictions to ensure freedom!

[Saint Stephen]

It seems like the stated goals of Net Neutrality are to impose lots and lots of regulations about what you can and can't do :-)

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[Monkeedude1212]

I'd rather have a government entity that can be influenced by elected representatives in control of the internet as opposed to the people who are only in it to seperate as much money from the customer as possible.

Technically I think he's right.

[pavon]

I have mod points that I wanted to use in this thread, but I decided I'd rather comment.

From a legal perspective, your grandad was right as far as I am concerned. I don't see anything in the constitution that grants the government the authority to enforce non-discrimination laws. The interstate commerce clause is laughable, as most of the discriminatory behavior is related to intrastate commerce. Application of the 14th amendment argument is also limited, as it only applies to cases where certain actions against minorities or women would be illegal of they they were committed against white males (or any other subset of the population).

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have these rights, it means that the founding fathers weren't perfect. It means the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should have included a constitutional amendment, not just a law.

As far as net neutrality goes, the government is not restricting anyone's speech, so it isn't a first amendment issue. Period. That doesn't mean that net neutrality is a bad idea. Furthermore, since the internet is pretty much the definition of interstate commerce, and throttling it would be a restriction of interstate commerce, net neutrality is an example of what the interstate commerce clause was original intended for. So congress does have the authority to regulate in this manner if they so chose, the same way they regulated the telcom industry before it.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[s73v3r]

Look up the stories of Monticello, MN, and Wilson, NC. Not only will the incumbent telcos try a bunch of douche bag legal maneuvers to tie up the city in court, they will also try going to the State Legislature to get municipal broadband banned.

Compromise

[Tablizer]

How about a compromise on this issue: A vendor cannot slow a competitor's content more than X%.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[DavidTC]

Less than 0.1% of the network was funded by taxpayers. Most of the burden (i.e. trillions of dollars) came from corporations expanding the network over the last 90-100 years, first as analog lines, then 56k-capable digital, and more recently copper, coaxial, and fiber (CATV and internet).

And almost every fucking inch of it is via government granted right of ways.

They want a private network, they can remove their goddamn telephone poles from my road and wires running across my property.

And then we'll let them do whatever the hell they want with private wires they string up across whatever private property will give them permission to string them up.

Pretty much guarantees it will go away.

[blair1q]

As soon as you know where people's rights are, you can place barriers in the middle and create money from the difference on either side. Net Neutrality might as well start saying its prayers.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[spire3661]

We need to reclassify internet access in the same vein as streets, sewers etc. Necessary parts of a modern functioning society. We need to limit the cries of socialism and make wiring our country a priority just like we did with public sewer works and later highways. Internet access or at the very least internet access conduits should be a civil engineered project from here on out. Let the ISPs lease conduit space from the city.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[commodore64_love]

Good point. We have allowed them to use the right-of-ways, often for free.

BTW it wasn't necessary to mod me down to (0) just because you disagree with me. That's what the reply button is for... to say "I disagree". In fact slashdot's Mod FAQ says points should primarily be used to PROMOTE messages and not to demote them into invisibility.

Common carriers

[hacksoncode]

I think this entire discussion is unnecessary, and should be replaced by a different one: why do ISPs think they can filter data based on content and then have absolutely no responsibility for the content that flows on their network. That's not only unfair it's logically absurd.

Make it clear that they can filter all the data they want, but that they are therefore liable for damages caused by the data they carry and you will have net neutrality within a hour.

ISPs should *want desperately* to have common carrier status... the fact that this is even an argument only shows how much the political process has been twisted.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[DavidTC]

I'll assume you weren't talking to me, as quite obviously I couldn't have modded you down, because people can't post and moderate in the same discussion.

Regardless, you shouldn't have been modded down, and they used the scummy 'Overrated' mod to keep from being metamodded. Anyone who does 'Overrated' to an unrated post needs to have their mod privs removed.

Re:This is a defining moment in our social evoluti

[HeckRuler]

Freedom of Speech is an inalienable right. If we tie that to an infrastructure that costs billions of dollars

If Fedex suddenly refused to ship anything to do with Christianity, and tore open all their packages to ensure that no christian contraband went through their trucks, that would be illegal on multiple fronts. YES, corporations have to "suck it up" and play fair. Tough shit.

Don't be a douchbag and try to redirect and redefine network neutrality. It's not about giving everyone a free connection to the internet, it's about keeping the internet neutral. You still have to pay to connect to it. But once you're connected, it's neutral to who you are, where you go, and what you do. I'm open to different methods of paying for it, but I'll call bullshit on anything that shifts power from the users to the providers, content owners, or pipe owners.
Power to the people yo. They're a lot more important then corporations.

Yeah, you are missing the obvious, aren't you?

[HeckRuler]

Seriously, what's wrong with a little bit of capitalism and money changing hands to give preferential treatment to companies willing to pay for it?

Because the Internet is a magical land where the concept of a Free Market (almost) exists. Capitalism only works in a free market and it works better the freer it is. Even if the corporate giant provides service X, little start-up-guy can compete with service Y. In an unfair market all sorts of factors determine who wins and loses, but on the internet, it's (mostly) a matter of the quality of services X and Y.
But corporate giants don't like that. They want little start ups to have to pay to play. But they're little, so they don't have the cash.

Meanwhile, what does adding a little bit of capitalism get us? Rather then FIXING, EXPANDING, AND GROWING our infrastructure to stay competitive so you don't have to see any jitter while watching netflixs, they CHARGE YOU EXTRA to make the service for all their econo-level peasants JITTER EVEN MORE, just you so can languish in opulence, while not putting a damned dime into the infrastructure of the USA.

That's what's wrong.

ISP business models need to change

[jonwil]

Instead of being non-neutral and discriminating against BitTorrent and other things, the solution to the bandwidth problem is bandwidth limits.
Just give everyone 500GB per month or whatever (maybe with different pricing for different amounts so that light users dont have to pay as much as heavy users).
If you exceed the limit, you get shaped to 64kbps or something until the end of the billing cycle. And add an option to buy more data if you run out.

ISPs wont do that though because the REAL reason they are messing with BitTorrent and other things is because these alternatives COMPETE with the content they provide themselves (i.e. BitTorrent competing with Comcast cable)

They havent started interfering with sites like YouTube yet but I am sure its only a matter of time before an ISP has the guts to try it.

can't fight city hall...

[gillbates]

Okay, so the big telco shut down community access.

Having relatives who used to run a business, I find it hard to believe that any town can get muscled into anything by BigCompany. Usually, it's the other way around - the city finds ways, legally, of course - of being real jerks to potential businesses and drives them away. If they can't do that, well, they have the power to pass all manner of oppressive laws and regulations and require inspections and paperwork which would erase any profit a business might otherwise make.

Gosh, I mean, it would be a real shame, if after Big Telco builds out the network:

• The city decides to charge property taxes on the "assessed value" of the network lines - like they charge on real estate...
• Or decides to require monthly reports be filed with the city detailing the usage of the fiber - in paper, on a per-bit basis.
• Or requires a monthly "security fee" to reimburse the police department for the cost of "protecting" the fiber where it runs across public land.
• And let's not forget the multitude of forms the company must file to remain compliant - must have regular inspections done to ensure the integrity of the lines (wouldn't want our citizens to experience an outage - no sir!), must send a company officer every month to personally, hand deliver the forms and sign a statement - upon penalty of perjury - that every inch of infrastructure was inspected and found defect free.
• And while were at it, why not require - and I'm sure you'd agree - that cable companies have lightning insurance. And not just coverage for the lines, but also for any equipment attached to the lines.
• Oh, and lest we forget - for the sake of quality of service - require that only network equipment licensed by the city be used for public infrastructure.
• etc...

I know big companies can be real jerks at times, but city hall can make or break a business. Their lawyers are paid by the taxpayers, the judges - by the city. They can tie things up in the courts for years, and even if Big Corp wins, they can simply pass another law; one which addresses the deficiencies mentioned in the ruling. Sure, maybe the city doesn't have the authority to regulate communications devices, but they can pass tax laws - they've been taxing real property and vehicles for years, with long precedent. How would taxing commo equipment be any less legal?

Yes DNS works, I know...

[gillbates]

But only because a large portion of the population trusts the security of computers over which they have no control.

It is a very dangerous model. Something as simple as redirecting one's computer to the computer of an attacker's choosing can compromise the DNS system. Read up on TCP spoofing sometime - while it's not trivial, neither is it that difficult; its security relies largely on the fact that there are far easier ways to compromise a machine.

A database of a billion names and numbers could fit on most people's removable drives. Back in the 80's and 90's that amount of storage was a much bigger issue than today. But now it's not such a big issue. And access times are really not a big deal for anyone who knows how to build a splay tree. Even with a 10 ms seek time, a billion entries can be searched in less than a second.

Right now, with DNS, I trust the DNS machine, but I shouldn't. Being centralized, the DNS system allows the powers that be to effectively take offline any website, anywhere in the world. Sure, there might be a wikileaks server somewhere in Australia, but if you can't resolve wikileaks.org, it's as good as gone.

I don't want to rehash the old arguments wrt distributed DNS and all that, but I think its time we really examine our network infrastructure in light of the new threats to liberty. DNS was a good technical solution to the problems at hand, but we need to think beyond the threat model of civil unrest, tanks and bombs.