Slashdot Mirror
Al Franken Makes a Case For Net Neutrality
jomama717 writes "In a post titled 'The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time' this morning on The Huffington Post, Senator Al Franken lays down a powerful case for net neutrality, as well as a grim scenario if the current draft regulations being considered by the FCC are accepted. Quoting: 'The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission has the power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality. The bad news is that draft regulations written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski don't do that at all. They're worse than nothing. That's why Tuesday is such an important day. The FCC will be meeting to discuss those regulations, and we must make sure that its members understand that allowing corporations to control the Internet is simply unacceptable. Although Chairman Genachowski's draft Order has not been made public, early reports make clear that it falls far short of protecting net neutrality.'"
September 16, 1991. Today it finally began! After all these years of talking and nothing but talking we have finally taken our first action. We are at war with the System, and it is no longer a war of words.
I cannot sleep, so I will try writing down some of the thoughts which are flying through my head.
It is not safe to talk here. The walls are quite thin, and the neighbors might wonder at a latenight conference. Besides, George and Katherine are already asleep. Only Henry and I are still awake, and he’s just staring at the ceiling.
I am really uptight. l am so jittery I can barely sit still. And I’m exhausted. I’ve been up since 5:30 this morning, when George phoned to warn that the arrests had begun, and it’s after midnight now. I’ve been keyed up and on the move all day.
But at the same time I’m exhilarated. We have finally acted! How long we will be able to continue defying the System, no one knows. Maybe it will all end tomorrow, but we must not think about that. Now that we have begun, we must continue with the plan we have been developing so carefully ever since the Gun Raids two years ago.
What a blow that was to us! And how it shamed us! All that brave talk by patriots, "The government will never take my guns away," and then nothing but meek submission when it happened.
On the other hand, maybe we should be heartened by the fact that there were still so many of us who had guns then, nearly 18 months after the Cohen Act had outlawed all private ownership of firearms in the United States. It was only because so many of us defied the law and hid our weapons instead of turning them in that the government wasn’t able to act more harshly against us after the Gun Raids.
I’ll never forget that terrible day: November 9, 1989. They knocked on my door at five in the morning. I was completely unsuspecting as I got up to see who it was.
Read more...
Because politicians have such a wonderful grasp on technological issues. The only technology they understand is which side of a TV camera to stand in front of.
And most are already predisposed to completely tune him out.
In their minds, it just makes net neutrality another one of those kook bag non-issues, by association.
"Allowing corporations to control the internet is simply unacceptable" - yeah, about that.... the govt track record is so much better. The US Govt would love nothing more than absolute control
You guys are so funny it is ridicules. This FCC is run by liberals for liberals. This is Obama's FCC. He is not interested in anything but control. If you think for a minute that people like Franken give a rip about an open free internet, you are absolutely crazy. I tell you what, I would much rather have Corporations control the internet by providing ISP services that have any government at any level involved. But your hero from Wikileak has messed with the worlds Governments and believe it or not he is not supported by the masses. If and I say if cause I hope cooler heads will prevail, the governments of the world take control of the internet, you will have him and all his supporters that acted like a lawless mob to blame. Get use to it. He called the tune, the piper will be paid.
Who would have known he would be a great senator?
We need more like him in government.
Net Neutrality needs to be passed into law and guaranteed.
How about rep/senator term limits as well? Too long in government just lets the corruption and malaise sink their claws deeper.
If a president can only have 2 terms then why shouldn't Senators?
He is the only politician I don't hate. I don't hate too many things but lawyers and politicians [normally one and the same] are my 2. I think because Franken was not a lawyer before becoming a politician is why he seems to actually care about what is going on. The rest? Just there for a way too big paycheck [and not always from uncle sam]. I nice quote of his from a while back Sen. Al Franken: "I May Not Be A Lawyer, But Neither Are The Majority Of Americans" Gotta love this man.
The ONLY way to stop corporate control of something by a small group of companies with lobbying power is not to regulate it. End of story.
Any other ideas are pure fantasy. As we can see with the notion that "Net Neutrality" is awesome, just not THIS specific regulation. Get real, any regulation written is going to benefit someone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Even a congressman can understand this would be like putting up toll booths on the Interstate highway system, another government-initiated open network. Doing such a thing would slow throughput and leave the door open for selling off parts of the network operation to private firms that would then gouge the consumer.
On second thought, maybe Franken should first lobby to remove toll booth from the Interstate highway system.
Net neutrality is an issue because Internet access has become a near-monopoly service. Few people today buy residential Internet connectivity from someone other than their monopoly telco or monopoly cable provider. For both of those monopolies, Internet access is a tie-in sale - both want to sell customers a "bundle" with telephony, video, and Internet connectivity. In some areas, there's only one provider.
We've already lost one deregulation battle - the right to use any ISP you want over the monopoly telco wires. The FCC changed the rules on that back in 2003. Until then, telcos had to provide raw DSL connections from an ISP to a customer at prices no higher than they charged their own internal ISP. Once the FCC dropped that, the ISP business became a monopoly.
Further back, telcos used to be regulated common carriers. We lost that back in the 1990s.
"Net neutrality" is the last stop before total monopoly control.
Wireless doesn't help. "Deregulation" also allowed wire-line and wireless carriers to merge, which is why AT&T is back in the cellular business. Nor does cable/telco competition. Mergers in that area are coming. In the end, you'll have one connection to the outside world, with a boot ready to step on your tube if you get out of line.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101118/10291211924/the-19-senators-who-voted-to-censor-the-internet.shtml
What I cannot get over is the complacency of the applications service providers, SaaS, Web 2.0 companies, and venture captilists whose entire business model is dependent upon a neutral net.
It's funny how slashtards constantly say the government should go after the real "pirates" and yet when they do, as in the case you quoted
Many of the sites were real pirates, selling counterfeit goods. But at least one was simply a site with links. They were not pirating anything. And they were shut down anyway.
It was using a mechanism that's supposed to be above any one countries control, to block a site that government did not like - for whatever reason.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Perhaps you shouldn't sit idly by while corporations take over the government,
If you limit the power the government has over your life, then it doesn't matter who "controls" the government. That's why it's so foolhardy to regulate the internet - you then place the internet in control of whoever happens to wield a lot of power, just by tweaking the regulations.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This guy is a jester. he works with similar clowns, so his argument is a lie at best. Get over it, the Net was built by governments (with the help of academia) and they have no intentions of letting it get away.
Well, technically you can at least adjust the government if you don't like it.
You can adjust politicians - individually.
What you cannot adjust if you don't like them, are government programs. They are eternal and immutable, once they get going.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think he's a buffoon, but, you're right, it is a shame that people tune him out. Maybe those who tune him out should take this opportunity to rethink their position on the guy. So few politicians are willing to defend net neutrality it's really nice to see someone buck that trend.
meep
There are a lot of reasons to argue for net neutrality, but painting it as a free speech issue is total FUD. In order to make the case as a first amendment/free speech issue, you have to also claim that every television provider ever is also violating free speech, since they don''t provide every channel ever made for the same price. Oh, and newspaper editorials, since they filter the comments. And...
Your right to free speech is not the same thing as a right to be heard. Much the same way that the right to the pursuit of happiness does not make happiness a right, and the right to work does not imply the right to have all the money you want, free speech is giving you the right to attempt to be heard.
Note that I am in favor of net neutrality, I just hate sensationalist arguments (on both sides).
Instead of hoping for better, more democracy-minded Senators (mind you, something people have been hoping for since the Roman empire with no real change), maybe it is time to start thinking about slowly working toward a system where we don't need Senators.
To quote an old TV show: "we have the technology." That makes all the difference.
Unwise men bearing Franken-nonsense.
If you want to "prevent corporate control," there are better ways like forcefully divesting the telecoms of their ISP businesses. Make Verizon sell off FiOS as a new company that has to license Verizon's infrastructure like any other business.
Honestly guys, have any of you ever ran a BitTorrent on your network at the same time as you are trying to watch streaming videos? You know, most of the time your video would be crappy. (Because it requires soft real-time delivery... and your routers are busy.) So what do you do? You go into your router and put some form of traffic control on it (be it QoS or connection limitation or whatever else). Now let me ask you a quesiton: If you are a paying cable modem user / DSL user, have it not pissed you off (sometimes) when you can not download anything or stream any videos / music because your neighbor kid next door decides to run non-stop BitTorrent movies downloading service? (Few years ago I got safficiently pissed and found that kid downloading 18 titles at the same time... He left them on for weeks!) And you know that the bandwidth in your neighborhood is crappy anyways? Why should the the ISP not be able to QoS the traffic between the kid and you and allow the same bandwidth, same number of concurrent connections to him as to me? I pay for my Internet too and want to watch my NetFlix and YouTube and even simply browse the Internet unmolested by the crappy page load-times.
You don't see any Republican politicians out there fighting for net neutrality, and when a Democrat does, the Republicans can't seem to come up with anything but personal insults and FUD to make their case. Corporate stooges, every last one of them.
This was a story in a tabloid newspaper for idiots. A newly-elected Conservative MP proposed it but she is a nobody. The Register has a more accurate report.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Conservatives are superficially lumping network neutrality in with the rest of the anti-Obama/government/socialism rhetoric, but the issue is far too complex to capture in partisan soundbites. This Bill Moyers broadcast from a few years ago (well before Obama arrived on the scene) explains the network neutrality issue extremely well, representing multiple viewpoints, including business, politics, consumers etc. The broadcast is about an hour long, but I have yet to come across a better way to get the complete picture of what network neutrality is all about (each of these videos gives a useful illustration of a key tradeoff): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmlpfXzSfhg>Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 4 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9
What I cannot get over is the complacency of the applications service providers, SaaS, Web 2.0 companies, and venture captilists whose entire business model is dependent upon a neutral net.
Perhaps they are hoping that they will be the next big thing themselves with enough cash to buy into the platinum level Comcast tier and leave their competition down in Basic.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The guy can make a good arguments without resorting to shouting or out right ignoring the public.
You have to consider that the people asked a question and let him respond without shouting or interrupting. On one hand this shows a dialogue with some actual interest in hearing what the other person has to say. On the other hand this is a key capability every politician needs: to be able to talk for a very lengthy amount of time and identify with anyone. What he did was good, he achieved some common ground with some very passionate opponents. But that's what politicians do. He's good but he's not accomplishing some impossible feat -- merely exhibiting good politeness and genuine interest in his constituents (opponents included). Franken had the attention of people that wanted to talk to him and what you saw were two parties genuinely interested in what the others had to say. Franken can lose his cool and act just like other politicians.
I wish my Senator would come around to the county fair and talk to his constituents like that.
Okay, I must correct you here. That was at the state fair which is a very huge thing in Minnesota and still a three to six hour drive from some of the more remote parts of Minnesota (like where I grew up). I don't think Al Franken makes it out to county fairs.
Now, I'm not disagreeing with you here and just to put some more positive spin on Franken, when I last went home my grandfather started rambling about all the times he had called up Franken and spoke with him on the phone. Thinking that my grandfather had finally lost it and was entering some sort of dementia, I asked my grandmother what he was talking about. She said he would wait on hold for thirty minutes and get about ten minutes of the senator's time every now and then (my grandfather is a retired dirt farmer living between Porter and Taunton). I was still skeptical but he showed me follow up letters from Franken's staff, hand signed by Franken explaining why Franken had voted on some bills that my grandfather had phoned him about. I was pretty impressed.
TFA makes some good points and breaks down "Net Neutrality" to the lay person who just wants to use the internet. You should try reading it.
On this point, I agree. I think Franken's on the right track here although I think he could have added another two sentence paragraph about limiting what specifically the FCC would be doing to address the obvious government control rebuttal a little more thoroughly. I am glad to see Franken writing this letter, though a little sad to see it in the Huffington Post and not a more mainstream publication.
It's odd but my favorite moments of Franken are often very different than most people's.
My work here is dung.
Will someone with a louder voice than mine please tell these people that all we need to guarantee net neutrality is true competition in wired-broadband?
If the FCC were to reinstate their line-sharing rules, the cable/telcos would have to lease their lines - at cost - to competitors.
Then, if Comcast decided to slow down Hulu because it's costing them TV subscribers, there'd be other ISPs to choose from!
iAi!
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
"the Federal Communications Commission has the power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality."
No. They don't. But, they sure would like to, and will certainly pretend to.
That a sad thing with government, you can't trust it with the power to redefine its own power, as it will invariably be abused.
Proof that Democrats are no better than Republicans. Same old corporate whores. Wait, what?
Except that this isn't about controlling the internet. Nothing in net neutrality changes what content is available on the internet
You know this how? Very few people have seen the proposed regulation yet. You are only stating what you WISH the regulation to be, like everyone else. Everyone is gung-ho for "Net Neutrality" because for every person they imagine the regulation to cure every ill they imagine with no bad side effects.
Furthermore the regulation would be under the jurisdiction of an agency that in fact does exist (at least in part) to control content. Is it so hard to imagine a regulation later being tweaked to add content provisions "for the children"?? Can you really not see that happening?
Once a regulation is in place it never stays as it is. Government organizations (really any organization) exists to expand.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Like all laws in the US, network neutrality will be interpreted and enforced differently, depending on who is in charge.
So instead of all the drama about what laws are actually in effect today, let's work with the internet we have and not screw with it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When you are in bed with a whore/gigalo, you can justify that you are, at least, getting some sex, even if it costs a little more and it may kill you in the future.
ASPs need ISPs. ISPs need ASPs, and both need us, but in this little three way, we only pay to watch while they enjoy each other.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
I have mixed emotions about Network Neutrality. The concept has some good points, but there are large down sides as well. The worst thing is AFAIK no one has ever found a case that would be affected by most of the proposals I've seen posted. The closest I have seen was a telco blocking Vonage's SIP registration ports several years back, which the FCC caught. Neither AT&T nor Verizon are major rural players and mobile is most certainly not the way people in rural areas get their broadband. Perhaps the Senator should go a little further off the highway to see how people are connecting. FIXED wireless (Alvarion, Tranzeo, Canopy, etc), DSL, DOCSIS cable, and a surprising amount of FTTx but damn little mobile broadband.
Do you REALLY think whatever the government does, it's not going to be screwed up or subverted somehow?
REALLY?
What's your evidence that the US government won't fuck it up and make it worse?
Break up companies such that there are "pipe providers" and "content providers". If my net service provider is not also my cable TV company then it loses much of its motivation to oppose net neutrality. Of course, this may not go far enough. If I'm an ISP and my backbone connection doesn't provide sufficient bandwidth to Comcast's digital cable stream, Comcast will be unhappy (and so will my users). So I'll need to add that bandwidth. The question is how much of that effort should be paid for by me, the "pipe guy" and Comcast (or any other content provider). I'm tempted to say that the market would dictate "pipe provider" behavior without any direct intervention from content providers. For instance, if Comcast offers digital cable and says "our service works on X, Y and Z providers, but not U, V and W", then U/V/W are going to face pressure to properly support Comcast's content stream.
For all the good and bad the net has generated and those lingering debates notwithstanding, we don't need to address problems with the net via "Franken Sense". He is an anti-capital nightmare (unless we're talking about his own personal financial benefits). The net allows for capital expansion and new opportunity (even for the like-minded "Franken Steins" out there). Net neutrality is a formula for lost opportunities (individual and corporate), lost earnings and fewer people employed. He can dress it up any way he wants, but that underbelly is dark and scary.
Thom
Based on... ? Your religious libertarian beliefs?
I'm sure your own zeolotry prevents you from seeing the obvious. If something is regulated, it is controlled. It is by definition then controlled through lobbying for changes to said regulation, or from internal ideas that change the regulation.
Because the point of regulation is control it is madness to claim that regulation does not control, which is the essence of any counterargument. Because there are not many companies that can afford to lobby, there are therefore only a small number of companies that offer input into the evolution of regulation.
Please do explain to us just what part of this summary is incorrect, even though this is exactly what has happened with every other government regulation since the big bang.
If you do not regulate something then control will flow between companies naturally over time. But you will not have a focal point of control that never changes and through which changes must be processed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Look, I love the idea, but.
No one has yet given me a technical definition of network neutrality that allows me to block or filter spam.
The right to say "I don't want your content" or "I only want a trickle of your content" is a pretty important right. In fact, it's also a free speech issue -- one of the rights of free speech is freedom from compelled speech.
I want the right to refuse unwanted traffic, or traffic-shape it into oblivion. But that seems to be essentially incompatible with "net neutrality". Once I'm making judgements on whether I feel happy with the amount of traffic I get from a given source, I'm not being net neutral. But if I can't make those judgements, people drown in spam.
So go ahead. Offer a set of words that we could back as "net neutrality" which couldn't be used as the basis for lawsuit-based harassment of ISPs that block spam. Remember, you're proposing laws; you can't rely on any kind of common sense or sanity. If your words do not mean EXACTLY what you want, and have all the exceptions clearly encoded, you have probably made things worse rather than better.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
...check.
Honestly I am getting tired of rural subsidies and rural issues being made so important in elections.
People living in rural areas have to start to realize there is a trade-off. Either you live in a rural area and sacrifice some modern-day niceties for the benefit of living outside the city, or you move to the city.
People who live in cities should not be forced to subsidize people who choose to live outside the city. City living is more environmentally efficient and more economically efficient. Therefore federal and state governments should be encouraging city migration as much as possible. This is not accomplished by pandering to the rural electorate - people living in cities *SHOULD* be favored because their tax dollar efficiency is so much higher.
"Whatever exists here is mine..." -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
APK
P.S.=> Including ITT Tech Man, Professor hairyfeet (Who got owned by not only proof from myself, but also others here on /., with more by request no less (but, I think what's there does the job - my std. "Kung Fu" has been HUGELY administered, & it was, as-per-my-usual? Just too, Too, TOO EASY... 2 EZ!)) - RofFlMaO... apk
I have repetitively pointed out that peering is an important feature of the Internet. Networks peer with each other when there is mutual benefit to both parties. For example, at one point it was noted that Yahoo! only payed for half of their bandwidth (transit). Half of their content was delivered to eyeballs via peering. If an ISP's transit link get congested, then the large companies (or Colo's) that are directly peered with the ISP will get their traffic delivered faster. How does regulation help this situation? I thought Net Neutrality was about treating all traffic the same. In the case of Comcast, people complain that they aren't buying enough transit bandwidth. Comcast notices that a lot of their customers are puling a lot of traffic from Netflix. Comcast goes to Netflix and tries to make a peering agreement (a la Yahoo!-style). People complain that this is unfair to other video services because it is not neutral. Excuse me? By this definition most peering is not neutral. So where does it end? Are we talking only limited filtering and QoS? Are we talking about killing peering? Are we talking about forcing companies to buy bandwidth?
Well how about that lutefisk? Got any good wild rice hotdish recipes?
... but wait! Our very own Minneota Vikings are playing right now! Hey, I heard Johnny Holm (not the porn star) is playing over in Ghent, MN. Maybe you've heard of it, it's the Rolle Bolle capital of the world! After that we'll get some drinks at the Silver Dollar. Maybe get some Schwann's ice cream and support the locals?
...
Taunton, MN is a cultural epicenter to most of the Western world experiencing several staggering redefinitions of art and industry bringing exactly 75% of their population above the poverty line! Just a quick jaunt down 68 will bring you to the farmer's co-op elevator where I spent my youth hauling pickles for my parents and grandparents. After that, stop by CJ's for some great burgers on vintage folding tables. Did somebody say 'buck euchre'?! Too bad we missed Boxelder Bug Days
Seriously though, I was born in Canby and spent the first 18 years of my life picking rock and bailing hay just East of Camden state park. For a while I worked at Rye's Tree Nursury but that's about as far Northwest as my labor employment got. Good times. Fer sure, donchya know?
I would kill for a Brau Bros or Grain Belt or Surlys right now
My work here is dung.
The economics aren't that simple nor is the environmental impact. Many people tend to mix suburbs with rural and they're not the same thing. Until we get to the point where its cost effective to raise all of the food needed by city inhabitants within city limits we're going to need rural areas. Its certainly possible to raise that much food but I don't believe you could do it without dramatically changing the American diet. I don't see Americans saying good bye to hamburgers (made from beef) any time soon. If don't think we should subsidize rural broadband then you might think we should stop subsidizing electricity (which is were all of these subsidizes originated in the US). In that case everyone in the US whether that person lives in a rural, suburban, or urban area, will pay a lot more for for food.
The ONLY way to stop corporate control of something by a small group of companies with lobbying power is not to regulate it. End of story.
Either that, or write regulations that are a matter of condition rather than favor.
It's really not that hard to stipulate something to the effect that carriers aren't allowed to bill by source or destination of a packet.
Tweet, tweet.
Same here.
but on this issue, it appears that this *Comedian* certainly has a better grasp on this issue than the *Experts* at the FCC.
Nope, his grasp is just as bad as the FCC's. He says the FCC already has the "power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality" but he does not name those powers. As a matter of fact court rulings have said the FCC does not have those powers. In order to get around those court rulings the FCC is unilaterally making changes to it's regulations.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Because to him the Constitution of the USA is nothing more than toilet paper, to be disregarded when it gets in the way of his agenda. That being socialism.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Actually, for the most part, conservatives don't trust the government not to impose control over Internet content under the guise of "net neutrality". In the beginning the regulations will be very subtle, but they will establish the precedent for government regulation of the Internet. Then bit by bit the government will extend its regulation so that it will be harder and harder to get information from anyone other than the approved mega-corporations.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
whose entire business model is dependent upon a neutral net.
Actually, their entire business model depends upon their customers' pipes not being completely crushed with torrent traffic generated by their customers' twelve year old neighbors ripping off movies or hosting DDoS attacks against The Man in the name of whatever cause they're backing this week because they heard that sophisticated junior high school girls dig activists.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No one has yet given me a technical definition of network neutrality that allows me to block or filter spam.
Spam is already illegal. Enacting rules or legislation that explicitly allows for filtering of traffic deemed illegal based on pre-existing law would be trivial enough.
If your words do not mean EXACTLY what you want, and have all the exceptions clearly encoded, you have probably made things worse rather than better.
While I believe your example is poor, in this, you are absolutely correct.
The problem is, there really are legitimate uses of QoS, and defining regulation that enforces net neutrality while *also* allowing for legitimate use of QoS is extremely challenging. For example, a rule stating "source/destination-based QoS is illegal" is too simplistic, as it still allows protocol-level discrimination (Skype is the obvious example here). If you then say "well, then make protocol-level QoS illegal" means you've made *all* QoS illegal, and that's bad, too (deprioritizing bulk transfers behind real-time traffic is the primary need QoS fills).
Fundamentally, I'll bet net neutrality regulation would have to go the way of obscenity laws... ie, the "I know it when I see it" approach. Which, obviously, has massive problems of its own.
They came first for the illegal file sharers,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't sharing files illegally.
Then they came for the high bandwidth users,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a high bandwidth user.
Then they came for the porn,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't doing porn.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Aaand I'll go ahead and call Godwin's Law on my own post. Sorry.
Only the Government can do that. Think about that before you let them pass any laws to 'help us'.
If you're wondering the FCC is thinking, read this:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1209/DOC-303457A1.pdf
Let me summarize:
* They only see this as a checkbox on the Obama administration's to-do list. ("Work on net neutrality." DONE.)
* They don't see any problem with the status quo other than some "isolated incidents"
* They feel they are overstepping their regulatory bounds and this should be an action undertaken by the courts or Congress.
In other words - kiss your open access goodbye.
----- obSig
Huh? How about, "ISPs are required to be net neutral with the exception of email."
Whew, that was hard. Glad we averted spam doomsday...just barely. ;)
Kidding aside, you do seem to be overacting without providing an example of how ISP spam filtering would actually get caught in the wake of a Net Neutrality bill.
meep
The guy can make a good arguments without resorting to shouting or out right ignoring the public.
As senator Al Franken not only ignored the majority of voters, who opposed health-care insurance reform, he ignored the Constitution of the USA too.
TFA makes some good points and breaks down "Net Neutrality" to the lay person who just wants to use the internet. You should try reading it.
I did, and I questioned what he said, did you? He says the FCC already has the power to regulate the internet but he provides no references to back up his statement. Courts have already ruled the FCC does not have those powers.
Not only that but Al Franken voted to censor the net.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No one has yet given me a technical definition of network neutrality that allows me to block or filter spam.
What are you talking about? There is no definition of network neutrality that says your MTA has to put everything into your inbox, that your MUA has to show you everything, that you have to read everything, etc.
I just want to point out that you have just accused a US senator of treason without any evidence. Senators are sworn to uphold the constitution, and failure to do so is treason, which is punishable by death. You have just called for the execution of Al Franken, without providing any evidence. Is that really what you meant?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Mandate minimum access speed, say 1000kbps to each customer.
1. If carrier does not want to guarantee minimum (or has no ability to do so) speed he cannot offer priority lines for extra pay
2. When carrier chooses to offer higher access speeds for $$$ they need to offer minimum of 1000kbps to their customers
As someone who lives in a rural area, allow me to explain how I and everyone around me views the situation.
You are correct. Living in a rural area comes with trade-offs. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who lives out here understands that.
For water, we must pay for a well and a pump. For heat, we must pay for propane tanks to be regularly refilled. For trash, we must drive our own refuse to a dumpster facility, as there is no pickup. After a snow, our roads get plowed last if at all, so we use our own vehicles and equipment to do it sooner. For television, we pay for satellite or make do with rabbit ears.
For Internet, we're willing to pay for the wires to be extended to our area.
Oh, wait, we can't. We don't even have the option of paying for the last mile (well, last several miles).
I guess what I'm saying is, your welfare-queen image of rural residents is wrong. We accept that we have to pay more for a lot of things. We don't want subsidies or charity. I and most people around me would be happy to pay the extra cost.
Currently, I pay for a wireless broadband service. I get about 3 Mbps each way. It's decent but I'm sure I would do more (more work, more video chat, more Google Earth browsing, etc.) if we had Fios. But it's clear we never will. (Before the wireless service was available, I had satellite Internet, which is so bad I wouldn't wish it on anyone.)
The Internet is full. Go away.
The internet is an exceptionally important part of the United States' infrastructure. The idea of it not being neutral and in the hands of private corporations is just ridiculous.
If the internet's fate should be in the hands of businesses then why not the same for landlines, roads or even the military? Seriously if the government fucks everything up then surely something as important as the military as well as roads should be in the hands of private companies and quit wasting tax payer money on them.
Big business spends millions of dollars to lobby congress and regulators to confer favors. We all agree this is a Bad Thing.
There are two ways to stop this:
1. Pass laws or somehow prevent lobbying or buying favors, such as net neutrality favorable to ISPs.
2. Remove the power to grant of favors, such as any "net neutrality" regulation, which theoretically favors consumers, but in reality will not.
I am in favor of 2, because there will always be a way around 1. There is at least a hope that competition will limit the effect of option 2. The Founding Fathers tried to implement 2 ( 9th and 10 amendments), but the courts have connived to undermine the constitution.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
IPv6 provides a way for applications to request handling without delay throughout the WAN.
Packets have priority levels. Applications not needing top priority, e.g. email, can voluntarily downgrade their priority.
Video and audio applications could upgrade their packet priority.
The key word here is applications, not ISPs.
Both content sources and recipients are already paying ISPs differentially for bandwidth capability differences and or data transferred
amounts, so why is anything other than application-volunteered packet prioritizing needed?
If various applications (e.g. someone's web server implementation) are cheating and saying all their traffic is video, there is a rather large
and sometimes effective tech community shunning mechanism in place.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
All that is required are laws which appropriately punish ISP's when they fail to deliver the bandwidth that they have represented to the consumer. The FCC should not be involved since this is a consumer issue.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
how Net Neutrality will be saved or broken is a technological issue
No, net neutrality is a political issue. In a free market it would be a technological issue but governments have already granted large corporations monopolies.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You people afraid of government (in general) make me laugh.
I have to imagine you are built like an unlimited fighting champion
and know how to handle an AK.
Otherwise, you're really going to "enjoy" anarchy.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Just tell them it's to prevent kids from getting porn and stopping gays from finding each other on the internet. That will get them behind Net Neutrality in a hurry.
I don't think he's a buffoon, but, you're right, it is a shame that people tune him out. Maybe those who tune him out should take this opportunity to rethink their position on the guy. So few politicians are willing to defend net neutrality it's really nice to see someone buck that trend.
I see no reason to listen to a socialist who wants to censor the net. That is listen other than to fight against him.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well, Google has been planning to play around with fiber, hasn't it?
This is all just basic contract and property rights. I know you have libertarian leanings, and let me tell you, this is one reason I distrust libertarians.
Spreading FUD about Libertarians are you? Upholding contracts and rights, including property rights, is what Libertarians stand for.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I have been in IT since 1977. I remember having to purchase additional telephone lines for MODEMs and FAX. I do not wish to return to the bad old days. I'm Right of Genghis Khan; I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Conservative pundi are so opposed to an obvious goodness. They are either in the employ of Comcast, et. al., are completely ignorant of what Net Neutrality is, or they just wish to be 'good' free marketeers.
I am perplexed.
What's wrong with being a socialist?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The problem is that by allowing corporations to grow into monopolies and mega-corporations who have diversified and subsumed entire markets
And who gave corporations that power? Governments did.
Take any major industry... food for example. If you do a little research you find that it all boils down to half a dozen super corporations, that control everything from the seed that's planted to the packaging that arrives at your grocery store.
Half of the food in my kitchen, back in September it was more like 3/4, I either grew in my garden or I bought at local farmers markets. For about a month this summer I ate salad every day, I picked the greens from my garden. Though I didn't if I wanted to I could have, and might this coming year, join a community supported agriculture(CSA) based local farm. For a set amount of dollars I would have fruit and veggies, produce, delivered from the farm to me weekly. More and more people are buying into CSA.
Do you honestly plan to stop eating at restaurants or buying the 95% percent of the food on the shelves that contains the wheat, soy, or corn products produced by those mega-corporations?
I am a member of 2 co-ops in my are, though there are a bunch more. All of them in my area buy from and support local producers, so called "conventional" and organic.
You know the ones, that are receiving billions of dollars of your tax dollars in subsidies for the privilege of better controlling your life.
I have argued repeatedly against subsidies, whether they are farm subsidies or nuclear power industry subsidies.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No one has yet given me a technical definition of network neutrality that allows me to block or filter spam.
Huh? I've not seen a definition of network neutrality that doesn't let you filter spam. The only thing it would prevent is your ISP from blocking spam sent from one mail server to another across its network (i.e. if two mail servers are using the same ISP, the ISP would not be allowed to block spam sent between them). The hint is in the name: the network should be neutral, not the endpoints. You are free to block whatever you like at the end, but the network may not block or prioritise content based on the sender or recipient.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
One way or the other, the free (as in speech) internet will die. You may now select to have the internet controlled by powerful corporations, or by the government (which is controlled by powerful corporations). Aren't you glad you live in a democracy where you can choose?
What happens when the streets get congested? Nothing. Because they who run the highway just need to raise the rates to push out those on the brink of affording it. They reduce their traffic but compensate with higher rates so no $$$ is lost and no effort was needed to improve the highways.
Franken was making a case for monkeys in the Senate.
You can't have it both ways (well, logically, at least... of course ISPs may get it both ways, but they shouldn't). If you don't want to be responsible for content, you can't filter on content.
If this were made legally clear, I doubt many ISPs would touch content filtering with a 10' pole. They *want* freedom from liability.
Although it should also be mentioned he pretty much left the state as soon as he was 18 and didn't come back for almost 40 years to try to get a job that would require him to leave again. (Which says a lot to me about what he really thinks of Minnesota.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
It may not be to you but it is to me. Anything that limits what I can do even if I am not harming another person is bad. Forcing me to pay for health insurance I don't want, is bad. Censoring the internet, like Al Franken voted to do is bad. Okay, okay I know that censorship isn't a socialist idea but it's still bad. Forcing me to pay someone else's health care costs is socialistic. As is single-payer health insurance.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I mean as far as I can tell with this guy it's all a game. He's good at it though I'll give him that. Basically his deal as far as I can tell is he likes to put together a series of facts to convince you of something that is utterly not true. (You know, like the DHMO thing which consists of facts that are actually correct and paint a picture that is utter nonsense which is pretty funny.) I mean it'd be like if Rush said he wonders about John Edwards honesty and then pointed out when Edwards was younger he'd often go into restaurants and instead of paying when he was finished he'd leave when the staff wasn't looking. (BTW, this is true but it's true because Edwards mentioned eating at Wendy's. You pay before you eat and the staff doesn't give a shit what you do after you get your food.) That's the sort of game Franken plays.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
You said "Because to him the Constitution of the USA is nothing more than toilet paper, to be disregarded when it gets in the way of his agenda."
According to the constitution, it is treason for a senator to disregard the constitution. By claiming he disregards the constitution, you just called him a traitor. But I will take your statement here as a retraction of your previous statement.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Apart from your slippery slope argument...
How is the information dystopia you just described *any* different than what we have now, in regards to getting information from anyone other than mega-corporations?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I see no reason to listen to a socialist who wants to censor the net.
Falcon
Here is a better link for that piece of proposed legislation that clearly shows that it hasn't even come up for a vote yet. The "vote" you, techdirt and cnet are reporting about merely brings the bill out of committee and to the Senate floor...nothing more.
Which they can do whether Net Neutrality is instituted, or not.
What is your point?
From my view:
Source/destination based throttling is bad. If your network cant handle it, throttle all traffic.
Protocol based QoS:
"Assigning bulk traffic a lower priority so high priority traffic is uninterrupted." Is okay.
"Limiting bulk traffic at a fixed rate, regardless of network conditions." Not okay.
("Low" and "high" priority determined by latency sensitivity of a given protocol, not business interest.)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834 [slashdot.org] Seems the ac confronted hairyfeet with quoted testimonials of what he himself has as results, of no malware on his system and those of others, and then hairyfeet ran away once the very crux of his argument was destroyed. Hairyfeet said it was simple to hijack a hosts file by malware attack, and the very crux of the ac's arguments that he doesn't get malware. The ac even had others saying the same in quoted testimonial and he offered to put up more of them from others also. Hairyfeet wasn't successful just evidenced by hairyfeet running away from the ac's reply.
You're clearly too young to have experienced the old ATT or Standard Oil.
You got me on Standard Oil but not on AT&T. And they both eventually fell. No company can maintain control forever, even if some manage for a while.
You must be too young to remember the Roman Empire. They were not regulated away you know...
Um, yes, AT&T and Standard Oil "fell", so to speak -- but they fell precisely because *regulations* were applied to break them up: AT&T's breakup, and Standard Oil's breakup. This history makes your Roman Empire comparison something of a non sequitur, turning the Romans into the oranges to compare with AT&T's and Standard Oil's apples. I like a good fruit salad, but this one was a bit off, I'm afraid.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
What's wrong with being a socialist?
Nothing, as long as you are willing to own up to being one.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Darn. I hit cancel by mistake, so I lost my longer post.
Anyway, to summarize:
I think it would be trivial to exclude quality of service decisions from net neutrality ideology. Many laws are vague. That is what juries, judges, and trials are for: making (hopefully!) common sense decisions about the law based on the intent of that law.
Filtering spam, or cutting off a botnet, would be obviously different (to a jury) than you making, say, Netflix really slow, while at the same time opening a competing "online streaming video store".
The "vote" you, techdirt and cnet are reporting about merely brings the bill out of committee and to the Senate floor...nothing more.
In other words, he didn't even try to stop it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It denies freedom!!!
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
free speech are better enforce by people rather by gov
I know I shouldn't respond but, troll
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You clearly do not understand how monopolies can arise in areas that lack regulation and how they are nearly impossible to get rid of without regulation. I would suggest you educate yourself before you start making proclamations on how things should be done.
Perhaps you do the same, educate yourself. The only way small groups of companies gain power is by government granted monopolies. And when an industry is finally regulated, it's usually the industry that writes those regulations. Usually to keep anymore competition out.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Sure, I'm a socialist. I believe that public education, health care, and infrastructure are good things to have. Capitalism is a nice theory, but taken to its extreme, you get crap like the latest wall street meltdown.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Duh! I know all about the interstate commerce clause, though you didn't (you did leave out the "interstate" part). And congress could have used the clause but it didn't. If congress wanted to use it they could have said "No state shall bar a person in one state from buying health insurance in another state." That would have been a proper use of the interstate commerce clause.
And you are deciding now what is constitutional, even saying the USSC already decided that "that decades ago". I bet you can not produce one Supreme Court ruling giving the feds the authority to regulate health care or insurance. If they had then a federal judge never would have found the law unconstitutional. But of course you and not me or a judge gets to decide what's unconstitutional.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well in my view, government intervention is what made the Wall Street meltdown so bad. And it probably would be all over by now if the government hadn't stepped in to socialize all the debt, including bailing out foreign banks and their chosen money monopolists handing out $12.3 trillion to their favored corporations. Companies that fail, including financial companies, should be allowed to fail. Instead, we'll be dealing with the consequences for decades.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Is Comcast de-prioritizing Netflix? No. I think you just argued why Comcast should NOT be neutral. If they were NOT neutral, then Netflix would have a better chance of working even if their transit link gets saturated. Or are you saying the government should tell ISP's how much bandwidth they should buy for their transit links? It seems to me that Comcast has the correct Net Neutral solution to the Netflix problem. That is, they should create a Yahoo!-like peering agreement with Netflix. If Netflix doesn't go for it, then that is their problem and customers will suffer or go with another ISP.
That supporting government regulation in the name of "Net Neutrality" is a sure fire way to help those in government who wish to expand government power.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I've been on the fence about network neutrality since it first became an issue a few years back. On the one hand, with almost every ISP in the country being a monopoly in their area, I understand why it is important to have some way to keep the monopoly in check. On the other hand, as a network admin, I understand why network neutrality is a serious impediment to building efficient networks. Consequently, I'm really torn on which side has the most compelling argument.
:/
However, if Al Franken has spoken out in support of network neutrality, I'm really having to work to avoid the reflexive, knee-jerk reaction to simply oppose it out of hand.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
This was a story in a tabloid newspaper for idiots. A newly-elected Conservative MP proposed it but she is a nobody. The Register has a more accurate report.
Thanks for sharing, but what does that have to do with Al Franken?
The cable company reported a net income of $778 million, up from $738 million for the same period last year. Comcast is benefitting from the federally-mandated switch to digital television, and the increased number of subscribers led to $8.84 billion in revenue, a 5.3% year-over-year increase.
Sure, I'm a socialist. I believe that public education, health care, and infrastructure are good things to have. Capitalism is a nice theory, but taken to its extreme, you get crap like the latest wall street meltdown.
The meltdown has shit to do with Capitalism in theory or practice. Read "End the Fed" by Ron Paul to get a semi-libertarian perspective. Learn why government ought not be loaning money (in particular, money it has to borrow or print). What is it about being a socialist that makes you so fucking stupid? SERIOUSLY, what the fuck is it?
Spam is already illegal.
OMG are you fucking kidding me? How stuipid are you? Quick, take an IQ test online and report back to us. CAN-SPAM literally legallized the act of spamming. LITERALLY. Read the google links, moron. Pay attention to this one.
Hey, fuckface, guess what? You can't sue for recovery for CAN-SPAM unless you are an ISP. Routing packets to your mother won't cut it as that has been tried. CAN-SPAM (or the notion that Spam is illegal) is the absolute worst example any fucking moron can bring to the table in defense of government intervention.
Imagine a law that required rapists to follow a set of complex, pointless, and untrustworthy procedures. These procedures, once followed, legalizes their rape (of you). The cherry on top is that this same law prevents you from suing for damages. It nullifies any state law that says you can sue for damages.
If they had then a federal judge never would have found the law unconstitutional.
I believe you meant to say "...one out of three federal judges examining the issue so far, who is also connected to anti-healthcare reform, never would have found the law unconstitutional."
Just because one lower-court activist judge has a problem with the law doesn't mean the law is actually unconstitutional. Of course, we could change that if you don't mind throwing away the constitution in which you only claim to believe.
It all comes down to the usual fear sets. Of the list below, which do you fear and which do you think can and will protect you from the ones you fear:
Corporations
Churches
Governments
Bandit Armies
The list hasn't changed in all of human history, and the tools for manipulating people haven't had to change either.
In related news: Al Franken makes cases for everything else good in the world, and Washington ignores him.
Actually, a great deal of spam isn't illegal. Or if it is, it's only temporarily illegal. Some kinds of spam might be illegal because they're unauthorized access, but if it were illegal to not authorize them (because it isn't Net Neutral to unauthorize some accesses ut not others), then they wouldn't be illegal anymore...
But you're right, it may not be the best example. It's just the one that most jumps out at me as a case where I have been blocking or throttling traffic because it would cost too much to process it. I've been doing that for years, and now suddenly people are saying "oh, you should never be allowed to throttle traffic just because you think it's too expensive."
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Not all spam is email -- consider blog comments. :)
I don't see how much simpler or more obvious the example can be. I block spam. Net neutrality bill is passed. Spammer sues on the grounds that I am blocking his traffic. Law requires me to treat all incoming traffic equally, not giving preference to some traffic over other traffic.
Even if he doesn't win, the mere fact that he's got a case that would likely sound plausible to a not-very-technical judge means he can cost me a ton of money -- enough that it's not cost-effective to block his spam.
I can't comprehend which part of this isn't completely, totally, obvious. You advocate a law that no one can ever block traffic they don't like. Then you ask how this could affect people who block traffic they don't like.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Woah there. Think it through a little more:
The ISP is the network, not the end point; my computer is the end point. But I want the ISP to filter mail, because if they don't, I can't actually use the internet, because their traffic is all tied up sending spam which I then filter.
Think about what happened to spam volumes when McColo went off line. Remember that?
Now imagine what happens if McColo can say "you can't stop peering with us, only actual end users are allowed to filter the email we send."
That's network neutrality. If the upstreams are allowed to say "come to think of it, we don't like how you use bandwidth", then we don't have network neutrality. If they're not, then McColo stays online, because they're buying bandwidth and using it.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
By the time mail gets that far, it's already way too expensive. I want spam sources filtered early enough that it actually does some good for my bandwidth.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
This is who you are all clamoring to have deciding if the internet is being used "fairly" or not. Mark Lloyd the White House appointed FCC Diversity Czar: He would love to bring back the fairness doctrine and insert central planning into the marketplace to decide what people should be allowed to say on the air and what consumers should be allowed to hear. He will say that he looks to improve "localism" and promote diversitywhich will unsurprisingly silent voices he disagrees with and promote like minded thinkers. Since he doesn't like the fair competition in a free marketplace he believes in total Government control of the market. Which has proved disastrous over and over again in history. The free market has created the most fair distribution of wealth and highest standard of living of any economic system in the history of man. Not a theory... not some idea an elitist intellectual cooked up to better control us sheep but a practical and natural allocation of resources based on individual rights, product/labor value, and supply/demand. Below are his opinion about the American idea of freedom of speech and ultimately individual rights... These are the type of people you are trusting with your information with the first step being labeled "Network Neutrality". "In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country. And we've had complaints about this ever since." - Mark Lloyd "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies." - Mark Lloyd "The other part of our proposal that gets the 'dittoheads' upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don't want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community." - Mark Lloyd "This... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." - Mark Lloyd Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_lloyd.html#ixzz18j9oIxxw "[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance." - Mark Lloyd at the FCC.from his book http://www.amazon.com/Prologue-Farce-Communication-Democracy-America/dp/0252073428 Here he is praising Chavez's crackdown on the media during a speech at a media reform seminar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ffAP5ixhg "President Obama's diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to "step down" in favor of minorities, prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful, and described Hugo Chavez's rise to power in Venezuela 'an incredible revolution.'" - Washington Times
It's really not that hard to stipulate something to the effect that carriers aren't allowed to bill by source or destination of a packet.
No, it is not.
Want to bet they have written nothing like that?
Want to bet that after the carriers are told exactly how they are allowed to bill for traffic, eventually they will also be told what traffic is appropriate? It's just a slight modification. It can start with child porn. It's very easy to amend a structure once in place...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of course, because as history has repeatedly demonstrated that whenever there is small exclusive concentration of wealth and power it always works out best for the people.
I will assume that was sarcasm.
If so then why are you trying to concentrate power in a small group of people (the FCC)?
Your statement was 100% correct. Which is why I am against net neutrality, I am attempting to prevent the concentration that you say you fear but act to impose.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In other words "boogety boogety boogety, don't let them fix what's wrong because then they're gonna com take away your internets!" I see the Faux News Republican chumps have you in their grip.
That supporting government regulation in the name of "Net Neutrality" is a sure fire way to help those in government who wish to expand government power.
Which is a pretty ridiculous argument, as net neutrality has nothing to do with expanding government power. If anything, it has the opposite effect, as it prevents the government from expanding its power via its corporate partners.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Have you seen the FCC proposals that they are calling "net neutrality" proposals?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
With $1trillion of government funding they built the internet. Since they who pay the piper make the tune, why can't government control what ISPs do?
Or is government waste unimportant to you?
"Whatever exists here is mine..." -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
APK
P.S.=> Including ITT Tech Man, Professor hairyfeet (who got owned by not only proof from myself, but also others here on /., with more by request no less (but, I think what's there does the job - my std. "Kung Fu" has been HUGELY administered, & it was, as-per-my-usual? Just too, Too, TOO EASY... 2 EZ!)) RofFlMaO... apk
"Whatever exists here is mine..." -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
APK
P.S.=> Including ITT Tech Man, Professor hairyfeet (who got owned by not only proof from myself, but also others here on /., with more by request no less (but, I think what's there does the job - my std. "Kung Fu" has been HUGELY administered, & it was, as-per-my-usual? Just too, Too, TOO EASY... 2 EZ!))... RofFlMaO... apk
Just wonderin'. How many Slashdotters have written their congresscritters to encourage them to support real Net Neutrality? Posting on Slashdot might be fun, but it doesn't carry much weight with Congress. Letting Congress know what you think might do some good.
So the liberal perspective says that net neutrality regulations should be imposed on carriers to avoid handing over effective control of the internet to a few mega-corporations. While the conservative perspective says that net neutrality regulations should not be imposed to avoid handing over effective control of the internet to a few mega-corporations.
What am I missing here? I guess if corporations are going to control the Internet either way, I'd rather at least make them work for it.
The conservative perspective is get rid of the government regulations that allow a few mega-corporations to have effective control over the Internet. The liberal perspective is "Well, that made things worse. Obviously, we need more of it."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Guys, you really need to start parsing these kinds of statements. What a hacker means by "net neutrality", what a politician means by "net neutrality" and what corporations mean by "net neutrality" are three completely disjoint sets. And of the three, the hacker's definition is not the one anyone in this debate is using. The question is not really net "neutrality" but instead "who will control the net and to whose ends".
What the FCC is doing is reclassifying it as a regulated service. Once that is done they are perfectly within their rights to regulate the shit out of it.
What gives the FCC the power to decide what is a regulated service? Only congress can give the FCC that power, and Congress has not. That's what all this talk about net neutrality in congress is about, some want broadband regulated whereas others do not.
So close, yet so far.
Nope, not close.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Here is where all of these arguments fall through. The evil "single-payer" system we want in health care mirrors another single payer system: your local fire department. I don't remember seeing very much anti-fire department posts on here, or really ever hear too many people complaining about that.
No that is where your argument, and understanding, fails. Single-payer health care insurance is a nationwide proposal. Fire departments are local agencies, and the Constitution of the USA don't not bar them. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People specifically gives the power for fire departments to the states or the people. Now if each state, county or parish, or city were to come up with single-payer health care insurance I would not call it against the USA Constitution, though it might be against a state's constitution. That I don't know. Of course if a state, county, or city were to try to institute a single-payer system I would fight against it, but I would only argue it was unconstitutional if I found the state constitution said it was.
We all pay taxes to support our local fire department
So you even admit fire departments are local, not national. I have no problem with local taxes paying for local services. In the case of fire and police departments, even libraries, I don't have problem with local taxes paying them. Property taxes though not income tax. Roads can and should be paid for with user fees, perhaps a combination of fuel taxes and mileage taxes, the more you drive the more you pay.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
But forget broad statements about rugged individuals, let's be specific:
# Public education - a great solution to the cycle of poverty, reduces crime, creates opportunity
One, public education used to and should be local not federal. Two, I have no problem with public education though parents should decide where they're children go and who gets the funding. I support the freedom to choice where parents send their children. What I do not support is schools that discriminate or that teach and favor one religion getting any tax payer money. I even support cutting the property taxes, which is what should pay for education, of those who home school their children.
# Public infrastructure - roads and high speed trains enable commerce and travel, reduce congestion and pollution
The Constitution of the USA authorizes the federal government to build roads. Section 8 - Powers of Congress says "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads". The interstate commerce justifies the building of interstate highways, there can't be much commerce if the roads don't exist. However I'd prefer local governments paying for most roads. And those roads should be paid for with user fees such as fuel taxes and mileage fees, the more a person drives the more they pay.
Public health care - cheaper (by about a third), better care, and portable, which means you can go start a business with less worry
I call bullshit and dare you to prove public health care is both better and cheaper. When you're researching don't neglect to include rationing, how Canadians have to come to the US to get operations, and how even Middle Eastern sheiks come to the US for the same surgeries.
I'm not saying there isn't problems with health care in the US, there are plenty of problems, almost all created by government. First there is little to no competition in insurance. As I stated upthread, and elsewhere a bunch of tymes, each state says who can offer insurance in that state. Now that would have been an excellent way for the feds to use the interstate commerce clause, require states to allow interstate commerce. If insurance in one state is cheaper than in another anyone should be allowed to buy that insurance, but as it is now people can not cross state-lines to buy insurance. Also the government needs to give those people who buy insurance on their own, like if I were to go to Mutual of Omaha (MoO) to buy it, the same tax breaks businesses get for offering health insurance to employers. That's right, right now employers get tax deductions for offering employees insurance but I do not get the same deductions if I go to MoO on my own. That is government interference and is not a free market. It is government failure and not market failure.
You object to these things? You'd rather have the freedom of rotting infrastructure and poverty than build public works?
What I object to is you mixing different things and twisting things around.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The reason that happens is that Verizon, AT&T, etc. do it all. Ideally, the regulation would be simple:
1) Create two classes of companies: core infrastructure owners and ISPs. One side controls the heavy infrastructure, one focuses on the last mile and such.
2) By law, ISPs cannot compete with core infrastructure providers and vice versa. You must choose at the time of incorporation. Likewise, they cannot own stock in each other or share members of the same board of directors.
3) Exempt core infrastructure providers from antitrust regulations if they sell their services at a non-discriminatory rate. Meaning if Verizon sells bandwidth at the same rate to Comcast and FiOS Independent Internet, Verizon simply cannot be sued for antitrust at all in its handling of its services.
4) Require ISPs to provide all customers a list, written at a level appropriate for a high school level of reading comprehension, that clearly states all non-QoS discrimination they perform. Whenever they change the policy, such as to gouge iTunes or Netflix, they must inform all customers in writing, in the same level of language.
"For your magical woobie to work you will not only have to have EVERY site you visit that MAY OR MAY NOT be infected at that very moment in your magical HOPES file, but every single site they link to such as ad servers and your list has to be accurate to the minute or it is nothing but a woobie" - by hairyfeet (841228)
on Wednesday December 22, @02:24AM (#34638726)
That "woobie" IS actually "accurate to the minute" here, & 915,000 unique entries of KNOWN BAD SITES/SERVERS/HOST-DOMAIN NAMES... simply because I update it from sites that contain information on bad sites/servers/hosts-domain names, & they update 4 or more times a day themselves:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)
And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!
(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).
2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500
So, as per usual? So much for that from you!
---
"You have bet your ENTIRE existence on a 20 year old tech nobody uses anymore!" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Wednesday December 22, @02:24AM (#34638726)
I think you had best check with places like mvps.org from my reputable sources list above, & their forums people as a counter-example... there are 1000's of them there alone & there are other sites like they too.
Then again also? There are testimonials like this one too:
"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)
FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122
To further substantiate this for me (and as I said before here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834 I can produce more like that quoted testimonial above)... he, like myself & many others, due to using hosts files, good sense, & layered security concepts, DO NOT GET MALWARE (which blows your points here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834 away, with ease, right at their foundations!)
You still have not "debunked & disproved" my 20++ points in favor of HOSTS files here either:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34607890
Have you? Nope.
(Instead, all we get from you is easily disproven B.S. (via testimonials alone even), and foaming at the mouth hysterically utt
Actually, for the most part, conservatives don't trust the government not to impose control over Internet content under the guise of "net neutrality". In the beginning the regulations will be very subtle, but they will establish the precedent for government regulation of the Internet. Then bit by bit the government will extend its regulation so that it will be harder and harder to get information from anyone other than the approved mega-corporations.
And this is different from the unregulated result of only being able to access content from approved mega-corporations (i.e. the ones who can afford to pay 2 or 3 times for the 'privilege' of having their bits delivered to a given ISP's hostages-I-mean-subscribers)?
As a relatively conservative person (morally speaking) with libertarian leanings in terms of individual freedom, the idea that corporations can be trusted to do anything OTHER than lie, cheat, and steal whenever they think they won't get caught becomes more and more laughable every day. We can't trust the large ISPs to do anything other than double dip as much as possible, attempt to legislate against fair competition while screaming bloody murder at any attempt to limit THEM through legislation, and generally betray every bit of trust we give them.