Slashdot Mirror
FCC Commissioner Blasts Verizon On Net Neutrality
destinyland writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski says that net neutrality rules 'will happen,' promising the FCC 'will make sure that we get the rules right... to make sure that what we do maximizes innovation and investment across the ecosystem.' But the same week, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps announced that the public should not stand for deals 'that exchange Internet freedom for bloated profits,' mocking the tiered-data plans of the 'Verizon-Google gaggle' and accusing them of wanting 'gated communities for the affluent.' Speaking at a New Mexico hearing, the commissioner warned the audience against proposals that would 'vastly diminish' the Internet's importance, blasting 'special interests and gatekeepers and toll-booth collectors who will short-circuit what this great new technology can do for our country.' (The text of his speech is available as a PDF file at FCC.gov.) He concludes by acknowledging that 'you can't blame companies for seeking to protect their own interests. But you can blame policy-makers if we let them get away with it!'"
Tsk America. How on earth did this guy slip through the net? Isn't the name a bloody clue this is a pinko who will undermine your countries economy... oh wait... to late.
On a more serious note, novel way to resign. I wonder how many policy-makers choked on their breakfast or had to have it explained to them that some people think that it is not their job to protect the interests of companies at the expense of everything else.
Brave guy, but somehow I feel any praise I write is like writing a eulogy.
I fail to see where does the complexity of those rules lay. It seems that the only need for complexity starts exactly where net neutrality ends.
Policymakers are great about talking up justice for everyone and saying no to special interests until thy actually have to put pen to paper. The FCC can make all the noise they want, but until this Net Neutrality is actually on the books and being enforced call me skeptical at best.
Surely you can blame then when, in the course of protecting their interests, they bribe and corrupt a system designed to protect the interests of the majority, in order to create blockades that add no value whatsoever to a product that got paid for with tax money.
unhindered: when you get a packet, move it on when you can.
when you ask for 300GB/sec it won't be in one packet, so you ask for a packet and get a packet back. Over a 100GB/sec pipe, you can't ask for 300GB/sec so no hindrance in effect
Keep going? On what?
Net Neutrality is WHAT YOU HAD ALREADY. These laws, unlike most (because, probably, they don't serve commercial interests but the american people) had a sunset clause and the clause ended recently.
You know, all those companies and innovation and money and increased revenue you had in the 70's to 2000? Under Net Neutrality.
But COMPLAINTS about Net Neutrality? Now THERE'S a money-to-lawyers scheme...
You think at X gig per month people will put up with bloated pages, flash, ads all over hell?
From the very same companys selling X gig per month?
I don't think so.
No, he's not stupid. Rather he has indeed defined in unambiguous terms how to do this.
Layers 2&3 of the ISO/OSI stack (International Standards Organization, a body the US contributes to and uses for referential standards) refer to the transport and routing of information. Service neutrality is easily defined. It doesn't exist today on many US ISPs. Between deep packet inspection and service throttling, we lost net neutrality (if we indeed ever really had it) a few years ago.
Every word doesn't have to be defined clearly. Please stop drinking so much coffee before you hit 'submit'. Your anger and argumentative posture do nothing to quell the biases, especially the network biases under consideration here. Name calling and intimidation is characteristic of the insecure.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The laws already existed. ISPF already defined which connection. BGP routing already defines what interface and route.
"The 1000000 gigabit/nanosecond pipe for the paying content providers (Disney, etc)"
If it's Disney's ISP then they already pay for which connection, just like your business defines the connection as DS3 or OC192 or whatever.
But Disney doesn't pay for MY connection, *I* pay for it.
"Clever networks WILL intentionally route traffic they don't want over too congested a connection "
And such clever networks will be spotted and it can hardly be explained away as "we didn't know" since such shenanigans aren't available without explicit instruction.
" Keep going? On what?
Plenty."
No, the rant of the idiot ended there.
Plenty of NOTHING.
"If you are going to define how network providers are going to route traffic"
ISPF and BGP define it.
"Doing this in a manner with no loopholes is REALLY hard."
Same as any law. This doesn't stop law being written. Why should it in this case? Because money is involved. Money in gouging the content creators that make the ISP worth paying and gouging the customers AT THE SAME TIME.
"You're also going to have to define how it will be monitored, what will be monitored, what the consequences are for violating the rules"
These laws were already in place when the internet took off.
You're like someone saying "Heavier than air flight is impossible and even if it happens, how do you define the safety standards and consequences for breaking the law" AFTER being shown Quantas Airlines.
It's a challenge that has already been met.
Should there not be words of support on Slashdot for such a clear and unambiguous stand from the FCC Commissioner and the FCC Chairman? This is exactly what we need to begin turning the tide.
Look at the discussion below: sidetracked in a shouting match and out of topic all the way down (at least at the time I write this...).
Please!