Slashdot Mirror
Senate Set To Vote On the Repeal of Net Neutrality
An anonymous reader writes "The United States Senate will vote sometime today on the bill that would repeal the net neutrality laws that the FCC has put into place. The bill passed the US House back in April, so it only has to be approved by the Senate before it is sent to the President's desk. President Obama says that he will veto the bill. The debate over net neutrality has largely been split on party lines, with the Democratic party mostly being for keeping net neutrality laws in place, and the GOP looking to avoid them."
The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffic. Nobody would complain about FTP traffic being slowed during busy bursts to avoid interfering with voice traffic. It is the stated aim of some ISPs to throttle back certain sites unless you pay a premium. So Microsoft could agree to pay certain ISPs to advertise bing while at the same time making google very slow and barely usable. They could also undermine free sites by charging the provider to allow customers reasonable access, meaning that they have a charge to pass on somewhere. The end result will be the end of the free to access internet.
Some despite the fact that private companies have pretty much destroyed our economy you are ok with them controlling the internet, too?
I know, right? That's why food contamination actually got worse after we passed the Pure Food And Drug Act.
Wait, did I say "worse"? Sorry, I meant "better".
You're taking "government will always handle everything worse than any private company" as an article of faith not backed by evidence. Sorry, I'm not religious in that particular manner.
In general I'm against the government adding senseless regulations, but in THIS case the regulation IS necessary. It's actually a requirement that all traffic be treated equal. How would you like it if the post office told you that from now on unless you put two extra stamps on each of your letters they would add a week to the delivery time of your first class mail?
To paraphrase, with network neutrality content providers win. Without NN, service providers win. Both win at the consumer's expense, but it's a lot easier to find alternate content than alternate infrastructure. The demise of NAT should make it easier for all of us to be content providers; I'm looking forward to it.
I admit to not being able to follow your example. I myself cannot come up with a clear example of how equal access to networks (or other infrastructure) could be a bad thing. I suspect you may have a different definition of network neutrality than the rest of us; I believe the most commonly accepted phrasing would be "traffic should not be prioritized based on endpoints."
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Let's see...
Regulator aka bureaucrat familiar with the industry (supposed to be an expert) he or she is regulating
Law maker aka at best a laymen having their opinion on matters formed by 22 year old legislative aids and lobbyists
I can see why law makers are the vastly superior option here
I'll take net neutrality laws as they have been written any day over letting the ISPs just do as they please. After all, the broadband ones are all old entrenched telecom and media companies that already do discriminate between content. At the very least they pretty much all throttle P2P which contrary to some people's opinions can and is used for plenty of good, non-pirate things.
On the other hand... why can't we have laws which distinguish between a provider's LAN services and the internet? When TV service comes through the modem on what is essentially a big LAN, usually a 10.x.x.x network and the internet comes through as a tunnel on that LAN then I think net neutrality laws should be applied to what comes through the tunnel, not the whole LAN connection. The LAN belongs to the ISP, the Internet does not.
In other words, when I connect to the internet I expect to be able to reach Google, Bing or some other competitior, NetFlix, some big corporate website or somebody's personal page all equally (as far as my ISPs connection is concerned, obviously they will each have different providers and capacity). If however the ISP has some kind of assurance in place that the other services on their LAN aren't being 'squeezed out' by the Internet tunnel that is fine with me.
Then again, with an ever faster Internet traditional TV and phone services become pretty obsolete. Using that whole LAN for Internet access and plugging my computer into my TV sounds just fine to me and I haven't had use for a landline in years.
Troll.
In most areas you have two regulated monopolies providing internet services. You might be lucky and have a third small player that is entirely beholden two one of the two big monopolies (thrid party DSL). Technically you have your cellular carrier as an option, but that will be expensive and limited.
So Yeah, you can go with the telephone company or the cable company. Lots of choice there, and both are and should be heavily regulated.
I sure don't want my cable company to have the option to limit or block Netflix and Hulu, or my phone company to limit or block Skype and Vonage and Google Talk.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Oh right, because private companies would do such a good job to ensure net neutrality. I mean, who's supposed to ensure that content gatekeepers don't create tiered services? ISPs? Uh huh...
Sometimes you just need to admit that government regulations are necessary. No FDA? You can go back to the days before Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and Frances Oldham Kelsey. How about the EPA? Not sure why people oppose the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. And if the US government were a company, you might have been bankrupt long ago.
Yes, the solution is simply to switch ISPs- oh, wait, most people in the US have only two broadband providers available at most, and they both have abhorrent neutrality practices.
I can't start my own ISP because the barrier to entry is impossibly high and the current ISPs have state or city-granted monopolies on internet/phone/cable service.
Free market theory doesn't work when the market isn't free.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
And if you only have one ISP, all you need to do is start another one. It's easy! Trust in the dread god Freem'Arkhet to handle everything!
This would be insightful if many local governments weren't granting monopolies for cable/Internet service. Back when ISPs were modem based, there were start ups all over the place, and they were driving costs down while providing better service than the likes of AOL.
Net neutrality is about far, far more than some ISP's profits.
The death of net neutrality is the death of the last independent voice in U.S. politics. You doubt this? Remember the deafening shouts of "WMDs in Iraq !!!" from practically all the mainstream media channels. Where were the dissenting voices? Basically, only on the Internet.
If net neutrality dies, then companies like Comcast and AT&T will have the power to silence web sites they dislike. Since these are giant corporations, their agendas will of course align with those of the mainstream media, and all the protest sites will die. The U.S. media will have largely one voice, the voice of the one-percenters, and dissent will be silenced.
This outcome is undoubtedly the main intent of the one-percenters, especially in these days of the Occupy movement. The powers that be desperately need to kill net neutrality for the same reason that Mubarak tried to turn off the Internet during the occupation of Tahrir Square by the riff-raff. Our rulers know that good communication is essential to any successful revolution, and they are determined to cut off all possible channels of dissent.
Now perhaps you are one of the 1%, or work for them. Perhaps you like having a media landscape that rivals China's in its depth of censorship. But I don't.
Back when google was cool and actually believed in "do no evil", it supported net neutrality the way most people understand it.
Ask the common geek, I would assume many of them would agree the following should be defined as Net Neutrality:
* Treat all data equally, regardless of source. (e.g. data from Bob's Video Shack would be treated the same as Netflix)
* Do not block services (e.g. BitTorrent should not be blocked)
* Do not block web sites (e.g. Comcast/NBC should not block access to ABC/CBS/etc)
* and probably a few I'm forgetting.
If an ISP wants to charge more for bandwidth, that's understandable. It's a limited resource.
But I shouldn't have to pay more to visit netflix just because 75% of the traffic goes there. I already paid for the bandwidth!
The problem I see is that corporations who control content and access are trying to define "Net Neutrality", when really they are defining a set of policies to make them more money. Maybe before putting together regulations and laws, IETF can get together a RFC of what Net Neutrality should be.
We don't live in Shouldland.
it's a lot easier to find alternate content than alternate infrastructure
Not when Big Content sues those who make this alternate content, claiming unauthorized derivative works.
You could also say that "despite the fact that the government has pretty much destroyed our economy, you are okay with them controlling the Internet, too?"
When most of the damage that the government did was through removing regulations... yes. Especially since we're not talking about the government controlling the Internet, we're talking about the government imposing limits on how much private enterprises can control it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
And giving corporations more power is definitely a conservative concept. Which is the lesser evil?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Of the two alternatives in your false dichotomy, giving corporations more power is certainly the lesser evil.
Why? Because Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle don't have legal authority to kick in your doors and imprison you, or execute you if you don't like their policies and refuse to do business with them. Try arguing that line of reasoning ("I don't like your policies, and so I don't do business with you!") next time you're tossed in jail for having a joint on you during a traffic stop. The government most certainly does have the authority to kick in your doors and imprison you, and you're very unlikely to win your case on due process grounds.
Of course, this *is* a false dichotomy; one can be conservative without favoring giving more power to corporations. One can also be liberal without favoring giving more power to the government. Let's not conflate the terms "liberal" and "conservative" with "Democrat" and "Republican," because they're not the same.
You overlooked point three about monopolies, and in my mind, the one that's most relevant to net neutrality: Cable & telephone providers are not "natural" monopolies - they are government-sanctioned monopolies given sole authority to provide service to an area by local government. These are the companies we are also relying on to provide us with internet service today.
Unfortunately, the government has screwed us into a scenario of limited choice; it now falls to the government to tell the companies they're forcing us to do business with that those companies may not throttle or limit our access to a service we are paying for. Imagine if your electric company said "Well, we're only going to let you draw enough current to operate a hair dryer because you run your dishwasher during peak hours."
Your argument seems to be based on the fact that the government is a static thing, its not, its a representative of the people elected by the people. Corporations are not representatives of the people and do not have the interests of the people in their interests. It doesn't often times conflict with their modus operandi to conflict with the people but their interests lie with their stock holders and we have seen time and time again that they will do very bad things in the name of making profit. The idea that "the market" will decide to buy their products or not is also a fallacy, with the size of corporations and the power they hold they often times leave consumers no choice.
In the United States especially, corporations are seen more and more as an individual and that is a very scary prospect. Private organisations should NEVER hold more power than the representatives of the people and anyone who thinks the other way around hasn't fully thought through what they are proposing
There is no -1 disagree
Citation please.
Just one contemporary example.
The false dichotomy comes from the fact that corporations currently run government. Every single law passed by the Federal legislature and every state legislature is written by lobbyists. Just look at Europe and the US to see that every government is putting the banks, which are all corporations, ahead of their people or their own sovereignty. When we hear about how the EU is going to "bail out Greece" what that means is that they're going to bail out the banks to whom Greece owes money. When they talk about "bailing out Italy" they're talking about bailing out the banks to whom Italy owes money. The reason these banks need to be bailed out? Because they played with the previous money governments gave them and blew it all at the roulette table. When you hear about the "TARP bailouts", it was bank holding corporations that got bailed out, and not just bailed out, but made whole to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar. It was unthinkable that a banker might have to take 90 cents on the dollar for the money they lost playing roulette.
No, because of three decades of increasing corporate power, there is not a government on earth that has as much power as that which is concentrated in the hands of transnational corporations.
And no, guns don't represent power when the people holding the guns are wholly owned and take their orders from corporations.
In theory, there is no false dichotomy between "government" and "corporations". Government is the only institution that can possibly be a counterbalance, a check, on the power of corporations, and now it's too late. The Supreme Court of the US basically said, "Corporations are super-citizens". Instead of being 3/5 of a citizen, a corporations is 500million/1 of a citizen And corporations are golems, virtual machines which share no properties with human beings, simply capital aggregated. What's good for them has nothing to do with what's good for human beings.
You are welcome on my lawn.