Slashdot Mirror
Congresswoman Writes On Broadband, Net Neutrality
An anonymous reader writes "Anna G. Eshoo, a California Democrat representing parts of Silicon Valley, has written an op-ed defending net neutrality and pushing the administration to take more steps to speed up US broadband. From the article: 'A climate of openness and innovation has been the hallmark of the Internet. A decade ago, it's what allowed a startup named Google to compete with better-funded, less technologically advanced competitors. Today, Congress has the responsibility to preserve this climate for the next Google, and for the consumers and the economy that will benefit from its success.'"
Can we opt out?
Seriously, OPT-ed? WTF? If you don't know what it is, anonymous knucklehead contributor, don't USE the term...
with the occupant of the White House acting AGAINST net neutrality, this is nothing more than lip service as any meaningful bill has zero chance of reaching the White House, and even if by some wild chance that it does, it has little chance of being signed.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Op-ed...duh! Epic Fail!
The internet has flourished precisely because the government regulators (aka nannies) have stayed out of it. Yes, there were some great engineers earning government paychecks through the military and universities who got it started - but the bureaucrats largely ignored it because they didn't know what it was, or how important it would become.
No good can come from the clowns in Washington "tweaking" the Internet. This is not about "openness" or whatever other word they want to use. This is about exerting top-down control, and the power that comes with that kind of control.
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
To begin talking about Net Neutrality, it helps to clarify what the internet is. It’s simply data sent via TCP/IP (the protocol for sending data through routers). Some people host web sites, others connect to their company e-mail, others do other things - it’s all the internet.
Understanding that the internet is just a connection using TCP/IP, then Net Neutrality is simple, too. Net Neutrality simply means that your ISP may not interfere with the internet. They may not censor your packets (the data that is sent via TCP/IP). This means they can’t censor your news, keep you off of Skype, or otherwise interfere with your TCP/IP communications.
Any compromise on this is wrong for two reasons: 1) Your ISP should not have the right to interfere with your free speech, and 2) ISPs should not be able to tax the value creation of the media industry.
ISPs should not be able to interfere with consumer access to media companies, nor tax those companies for access to consumers. ISPs should not be able to interfere with our speech or block our access to the speech of others.
ISPs are in the business of providing internet access, but they don't own the internet; any attempts to eliminate net neutrality would violate our consumer rights and hurt the economy.
Better to light a candle than complain about the darkness.
Congress has a responsibility To support America's richest fatcat aristocracy from upstarts and mushrooms. Puppets work for those who pull their strings.
That is what it exists to do these days.
They don't want anymore Googles. They'd rather such things were strangled in their cribs.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
News for (Liberal) nerds. (No longer covering) ... News that matters.
It these very meaningless rants by the anti-government-at-all-costs crowd (aka nitwits) that have been mostly stayed out of Slashdot. Yes there are some smart, vocal, anti-government slashdotters out there, but their rants were largely ignored becuase no one cared and there were many more posts of actual substance.
No good can come from modding idiots like this up. He is a troll pure and simple. This is not about "top-dow control" or whatever key-phrase talking point they are on to this week, this is about the specifics of who has to pay for what and why.
Notice that the parent doesn't deal with any of the issues at hand. It's just talking points and ideological scary-talk (Oooh, "bureaucrats," "control," "clowns," "nannies!")
It's like the Gold Rush in California or Alaska. They figure, that if the Internet is open and free, that will cut into their profits. So anyone with money and influence looking to make a buck off the Internet will contact their "friends" in Washington. They want to control the flow of information. Just look at Rupert Murdoch's antics to see what I mean.
"People on this Internet thingie are stealing my news content . . . and not paying for it!"
Um, Mr. Murdoch, is it OK, if we steal your content, and pay for it?
I think some rough times are ahead for the Internet. I hope that some politicians are wise enough to recognize what is really good about the Internet. But, personally, I'm rather skeptical that that will happen.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
...devalues Citizens United.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Is there an apt for that?
(Of course there's not.)
We all payed for the physical lines and everything needed to run the internet one way or another. How much has our government "Us" given to theses cable company to run new lines upgrade lines. If we have subsidized theses company's in any way they shouldn't get full say on who can do what on the internet because they really don't "Own" the internet, we all do because we have all payed.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Ms Congresswomen,
Your presumption necessitates the Non-exintence of Mr. Pres. Barak Hussain Obama!
[FBI and Secret Service have been alerted.]
So Ms. Congresswoman, allow me a simple question.
Is your right-hand index finger on the trigger of a rifle that you are holding and pointed to he head of Mr. Pres. Barak Hussain Obama?
The FBI and local police are waiting for your answer.
-308
Oh no, my one true weakness! A bureaucratic, controlling clown nanny!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
But as I understand Net Neutrality, the groups that support it don't want ISP to be able to charge higher fees for faster/better access to their networks, right? If so, how does that make other connections slower? It's like arguing that Priority Mail service makes First Class mail slower.
Just because something faster exists, it doesn't make everything else slower.
Now, making a competitors packets actually travel slower through your network IS wrong, and I get that, but everytime I hear the argument expressed, I hear the confusing, illogical definition I first presented (can't sell faster access because it makes everyone else slower)...
BTW - While "'a climate of openness and innovation" surely helped Google, I suspect butt-loads of Internet Bubble cash didn't hurt their chances for success...
Ken
ISPs are a utility, like a power company. A power company cannot choose to provide power to your branded toaster over a cheap Chinese 'counterfeit' toaster. Yet in the world of ISPs, this is what they want to do.
Enough is enough. ISPs forward packets to users. Meter the packets, heck, even limit the rate of packets to users that are using too many resources! But DO NOT tell me that one packet is better than another - ALL packets are created of equal bits and should be treated as such. Classification of which packet is more desirable than another is up the the end user, NOT the ISP.
ISPs must be regulated like utilities. They must provide advertised connectivity with advertised (total) bandwidth, be it caps or no caps. Either way, all packets much be treated as equal, and the sooner it is the law and enforced, the better.
The real fight, not the cosmetic fight over ISPs censoring content which they can't do anyways, is over the government setting peering and interconnect prices even though this has always been set by the free market. In this case, the hardline Net Neutrality proponents want to set ISP peering rates to zero, or at least heavily regulated by the ISPs. The FCC tried to compromise by putting out incoherent regulations that would outlaw paid prioritization but not outlaw paid peering which are essentially the same thing (see http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/12/fccs-utter-incoherence-on-paid-prioritization/). The FCC thought that compromise rules wouldn't get them sued by the ISPs and slammed by most of congress, but that happened anyways.
The ISP's are unlikely to actually try to censor traffic; but the would like to be able to prioritize traffic; give better service to people/companies who are willing to pay more. Consider the airline industry; a seat is not just a seat; in fact the person sitting right next to you could have paid much more, or much less for his seat. So the ISP's will argue that not all data packets are created equal.
But the Internet is different from airlines in that all the networks are inter connected. So if one ISP starts charging for priority traffic, it could affect the sort of service that other ISP's and networks see.
And there is always the likely-hood that the ISP's will use economic means to 'help out' their friends who do want the internet censored. If Wall street can break the law as a favor to their good customers, you think the ISP's won't?
I hear many different definitions of net neutrality but it seems to come down to the internet should be free. That's all well and good but I also realize that it just ain't the way it works. I pay Cox a significant amount of money for internet access. Everyone who runs a connection to my house is looking for money. I believe Cox also charges if you go over a certain useage level. Soi we don't have net neutrality now and never have had. So will someone please tell me what the phrase really means?
And you don't find those word scary? excluding clowns.
One of the few topics in which I agree with most liberals.
Freedom is the only answer. Freedom is what made Google great. The ONLY thing the government is capable of doing is enacting force, which obviously takes someones freedom away. How can taking away freedom help the internet? US Government, stay out of my internet!
And you don't find those word scary? excluding clowns.
Actually, I find clowns to be extremely creepy. Nannies are generally useful, and sometimes they're hot too! Bureaucrats vary wildly in their usefulness, but generally perform tasks that need to be done. You just have to keep your eye on them, lest they run amok. As for control, I'd actually prefer that it be balanced in the interest of preserving openness. This is in direct conflict with the wishes of the largest ISPs. I obviously can't depend on them to preserve it. They want to lock it down and monetize every possible avenue they can. That leaves the other major power as the only recourse. I don't advocate giving the government the power to micromanage the net, or to shut it down at will, but I do think that telling the ISPs what they can't do is a good idea, and in the interest of keeping the net open for innovation and progress.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Wikipedia:
Anna Georges Eshoo (born December 13, 1942) is the U.S. Representative for California's 14th congressional district, serving since 1993. She is a member of the Democratic Party. The district, which includes part of Silicon Valley, includes the cities of Redwood City, Sunnyvale and Palo Alto.
Education
* Associate of Arts degree, English, Cañada College, 1975
* Honorary doctorate, Humane Letters, Menlo College
Question: Is this the best Silicon Valley can do?
I believe in net neutrality but key to internet sustainability is to charge by usage.
Usage based fees/taxes are definitely the fair way to proceed forward.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
: )
Regardless of whether you like the law or not, ours is a Constitutional Representative Republic and we ignore the precedent set by FCC's action at our peril and move another step towards an absolute executive (bear in mind, that the president will likely be from the other party before long). The FCC is saying Fuck the constitution, we know best: this IS high crimes...any executive branch official who thinks he can get away with it needs to be trotted in front of Congress, in irons.
Of course to the true Progressive, this is all fine and dandy, since the Constitution is an impediment to their goals anyway; to which they pay lip-service when necessary and ignore when they can.
Nannies are generally useful, and sometimes they're hot too!
for children, sure. But I should not be forced into having a nanny to protect myself. I'm an adult.
Bureaucrats vary wildly in their usefulness, but generally perform tasks that need to be done.
Sure, some of their tasks need to be done, but the vast majority of it is just bullshit. If you don't agree, then you better get on explaining how the endless piles of laws is useful, when our constitution was a whole couple of pages long.
As for control, I'd actually prefer that it be balanced in the interest of preserving openness
This idea, of forcing freedom, i think is an oxymoron.
I obviously can't depend on them to preserve it.
as opposed to depending on the government who has enough trouble defending our first and second amendments.
They want to lock it down and monetize every possible avenue they can.
And if they keep providing me with a valueable service that i am willing to pay for, so what. BUt then, why haven't these things happened?
I don't advocate giving the government the power to micromanage the net, or to shut it down at will, but I do think that telling the ISPs what they can't do is a good idea
that's quite a contradiction in my eye. And what do you think will happen in a few years, when something else happens and the government wants more power? you think they'll jsut say, nah we can't do that? Nope, they'll just do it, after all it's for the good of the people.
Sure, some of their tasks need to be done, but the vast majority of it is just bullshit. If you don't agree, then you better get on explaining how the endless piles of laws is useful, when our constitution was a whole couple of pages long.
Because the Constitution serves as a boundary for the laws that the government can make. It certainly wasn't intended to be the last word on law in this country. It's vague in many ways and we need specifics. Hence the laws. I'm not claiming that they're all useful. I'm sure there are tons that should be done away with, but someone believe they were useful at some point. I'd be glad to see some serious housecleaning when it comes to the laws on the books already. That doesn't mean that I think they're all useless or that we don't need regulation and enforcement.
This idea, of forcing freedom, i think is an oxymoron.
The idea that the Internet will remain free if left in the hands of corporations free of regulation is absolutely insane though.
as opposed to depending on the government who has enough trouble defending our first and second amendments.
I'm fully in favor of defending all our rights under the Constitution and its amendments. That certainly doesn't mean I trust the government, but we have more influence over the government than we do over the mega-ISPs that own the Internet infrastructure, and the government is more likely to pursue a path that will maintain the freedom for small companies to innovate, while the large companies have every incentive to lock it down as much as possible.
And if they keep providing me with a valueable service that i am willing to pay for, so what. BUt then, why haven't these things happened?
They're already trying to double and triple charge for data. You may be fine with paying more while they add nothing of value, but I'm not.
that's quite a contradiction in my eye. And what do you think will happen in a few years, when something else happens and the government wants more power? you think they'll jsut say, nah we can't do that? Nope, they'll just do it, after all it's for the good of the people.
If they can just do that, then what's to stop them from doing it now? That doesn't make sense.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Because the Constitution serves as a boundary for the laws that the government can make. It certainly wasn't intended to be the last word on law in this country. It's vague in many ways and we need specifics. Hence the laws. I'm not claiming that they're all useful. I'm sure there are tons that should be done away with, but someone believe they were useful at some point. I'd be glad to see some serious housecleaning when it comes to the laws on the books already. That doesn't mean that I think they're all useless or that we don't need regulation and enforcement
I really can't see how mounds and mounds of laws that only a very few people have even read, let alone understand is a good thing. And that's just the federal level.
The idea that the Internet will remain free if left in the hands of corporations free of regulation is absolutely insane though.
but that's what freedom is. freedom does not guarantee everything you want in life, but it's the best way to get most of what you want. Freedom is people doing what they want, with themselves and their property, so long as others involved are all consenting. the corps own a lot of the base of the internet, they should be able to do what they want with it. and they have a much more powerful method to determine whether something is good than voting, profit. What they can't do, is defraud you. which we already have laws for, no need for new ones.
but we have more influence over the government than we do over the mega-ISPs that own the Internet infrastructure, and the government is more likely to pursue a path that will maintain the freedom for small companies to innovate, while the large companies have every incentive to lock it down as much as possible.
Not really. I can discontinue my service with my isp or with toyota or whomever. "The nature of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson. The government will not pursue a path to maintain freedom. They will pass more regulations that will hurt small companies far more than the big ones.
They're already trying to double and triple charge for data. You may be fine with paying more while they add nothing of value, but I'm not.
and what if ms charges 50k for windows.
If they can just do that, then what's to stop them from doing it now? That doesn't make sense.
because they don't have their foot in the door at this point. But, i'm sure they will get the power to do what you want.
god damnit, where are my italics! lol
You put an awful lot of faith in the "free market". History tells us that it doesn't remain free for long without regulation. As a democracy, we should be regulating in the interests of long-term prosperity and the maintenance of the free market. Free markets sound great in principle, as does your idea that we can influence them by choosing what to buy and who to buy from. That idea depends upon people having accurate and complete information upon which to make those decisions. That is so far from the way things actually are that it's a fantasy.
People don't have time to learn what the implications of any given purchase will be. They can't influence the market that way. They don't know what a company is doing with it's money, or what the highest paid executives at the top do with their money. They can't make the kinds of informed decisions you seem to think they can make because they don't have the necessary information, and they never will.
Even if all the information that was published was absolutely true and complete, we would be utterly overwhelmed by it. Of course it's not that way. It's both overwhelming and full of misinformation and outright lies, as well as gaping holes where we have no information at all. Depending on markets to solve everything is a complete fantasy. I wish people would stop acting like they're the solution to every problem.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer