Net Neutrality Campaign To Show What the Web Would Be Like With a "Slow Lane"

Add a little abrasive language by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 10:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

"If you thought comcast was slow now, wait until they're allowed to decide which websites will work"

Re:Add a little abrasive language by Kohath · 2014-09-01 12:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you thought Comcast was powerful now, wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" against them lets them merge with NBC Universal.
Oh wait, that was 2 years ago. Wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" lets them merge with Time Warner.
Re:Add a little abrasive language by HappyPsycho · 2014-09-01 19:43 · Score: 1

Given that "net neutrality" doesn't officially exist how would the US government enforce it?
Re:Add a little abrasive language by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 23:30 · Score: 0

If you thought Comcast was powerful now, wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" against them lets them merge with NBC Universal.
Oh wait, that was 2 years ago. Wait until the government you're trusting to enforce "net neutrality" lets them merge with Time Warner.
What's your point supposed to be?
That the government is incompetent and enforcing net neutrality won't change anything? So your idea is to do nothing and just eat the turd sandwich because you were going to be given a turd sandwich anyway?
Re:Add a little abrasive language by sasquatch989 · 2014-09-02 19:01 · Score: 1

i think it's the idea that net neutrality as policy gives bad decisions the full force of the government

What do I have to know? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 10:17 · Score: 0

Is there really any reason to learn about this, or should I just hope it crashes without too much of the population suffering from it?

Slashdot ahead of the game by redshirt · 2014-09-01 10:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Using the beta slashdot instead of classic is all the slow lane experience I need.

Re:Slashdot ahead of the game by Xaemyl · 2014-09-01 15:57 · Score: 1

Where are my mod points (for upmodding) when I need 'em!?

Headline vs Summary by ohnocitizen · 2014-09-01 10:42 · Score: 2

"Net Neutrality Campaign To Show What the Web Would Be Like With a "Slow Lane"" vs "No actual traffic will be slowed down".

It's a newsworthy and important topic that deserves a headline both inviting and accurate.

Boycott by CrzyP · 2014-09-01 10:47 · Score: 2

It's becoming very obvious that traditional methods of protest don't work as quickly as we need on this topic. Why not just do a mass cancellation of service and show these corps that we have that control over them? We all have internet on our phones, if there were more than enough Comcast or TWC customers calling in to cancel their service that would really show those corp-o-thugs who owns who.

Re:Boycott by anthony_greer · 2014-09-01 11:05 · Score: 4, Informative

That sounds great until you consider that for some our job demands that we have internet access...the system goes down in the middle of the weekend or something? guess who is getting that call, and for many Comcast is the only choice. Some places may have an alternative of DSL but that is usually 2Mbps at best in my experience and not very reliable on VPN connections in recent years - again that is just my experience.
We need to regulate internet at the state level like power...I dont have a choice in electric utility providers but I pay a reasonable price for a good quality of service because the PUC looks out for the people. lets do that with cable internet
Re:Boycott by Kohath · 2014-09-01 11:10 · Score: 2

Boycotts work?
Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 11:30 · Score: 0

While I agree with you in principal, it isn't that easy.
First because your cell provider isn't likely to be much less shitty than Comcast, so you're not really accomplishing much there.
Second, because some of us (ie. me) require constant internet access to do our jobs, and due to government-enforced monopolies in their areas, have no choice of ISPs. My ISP (Mediacom) sure has their share of shitty and illegal bait-and-switch tactics, but I have to either put up with it or go broke while looking for a new job... of which there are none around here.
Re:Boycott by tysonedwards · 2014-09-01 11:44 · Score: 2

Plus, they'd probably be pretty happy about the mass ETFs that they receive due to said cancelations, followed shortly thereafter by a mass influx of the same customers returning to say "I am so sorry, baby... I'll never leave you again!" when they realize that there are no other options or that said options are in fact worse (Sold 20Mbps, got 12Mbps service on a "sorry, it's not available, here's this instead" that is usually only 3).

--
Thirty four characters live here.
Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 12:19 · Score: 1

It erks me to no end peoples claims of ADSL. Cable sucks and you bought into Comcast's propaganda. While ADSL might suck if your too far from the CO it's great for the rest of us.
Everybody who thinks cable is faster is fooling themselves. Cable companies play all sorts of games to trick users into thinking its super fast. It's not. Those speeds are 'burst', etc or only available at 4AM if your lucky. Even the advertisements compare the lowest tier ADSL packages against the fastest cable offers (ohh and that is 'in theory', but obviously you'll never get it cause its a shared medium).
I pay for 10mbps ADSL and I get 10mbps no matter what time of day or night I'm on and my torrent traffic isn't reset, my bandwidth isn't capped or throttled, etc. If I wasn't so far out I'd even be able to get 25mbps. And this is just outside a small town, so your supposed 30-100mbps connection in the city isn't comparable. You'll never get the fastest connections in more sparsely populated areas. Comparing what I can get here with cable against ADSL I'd never go with cable.
Re:Boycott by gunnnnslinger · 2014-09-01 13:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

But this is America. Where any attempt to regulate or otherwise hold corporations accountable is met with a hyperbolic "ERMAGAWD, SOCIALISM!' Imagine what kind of reaction you'd get from "AW MA GAWD, GUBMINT INNERNET!" Americans have been well trained to completely disregard their own self-interests for fairy-tales shilled by corporate owned media.
Re:Boycott by Neil+Boekend · 2014-09-01 17:35 · Score: 1

woho, I'm moving to XS4all 50 mbit Fiber next month. Including Spotify, a simcard with 200mb/month mobile and KPN Hotspots acces!

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Boycott by gewalker · 2014-09-01 17:52 · Score: 1

Socialism is usually used as a pejorative term by those on the right, e.g, Obama is a socialist. Philosophically, I generally agree with the Libertarians. I would not be inclined at all to say the adding some regulations or holding Comcast, etc. is in any way socialism. The problem is that broadband providers are generally running a protected monopoly already, this is a form of corporate socialism already a.k.a. crony capitalism.
So, one problem is already a result of government interference in the market, resulting in Comcast, etc. having too much advantage over the consumer. Given that a broadband provider may well be a natural monopoly or oligarchy in many if not most marketplaces, some sort of regulation is probably needed in these markets as a free-market approach may not support enough competition or even with competition prices are still high as a result of duplication of infrastructure. A conservative approach would prefer the minimal government interference that still allows and encourages competition, but given the natural monopoly for an broadband provider, a municipal utility may well be the best solution.
So a well-informed economic conservative has not problem with this at all. Unfortunately many conservatives (and others) are not well-informed on any variety of topics, but this often does not prevent the expressing of a opinion, usually in conformance with a priori viewpoints on how things should work in the abstract.
Feel free to extrapolate that regulation, etc. is often needed with respect to other aspects of corporations. We will likely draw the line at different locations re: the best level of regulation. I would prefer these lines to be drawn based on evidence, and I believe it is very likely you share this view. Unfortunately for Comcast, etc. the current regulations seems clearly against the interest of the typical consumer as the US today.
Evidence is not always available, and corporations have a vested interest in pushing their interests via lobbying in various forms. I.e., policy making is hard. Facts are hard to obtain, they may change over time, and everybody has a vested interest in the decisions. I fail to see how condemning one side or the other is useful in actually discussing policy.
Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 18:55 · Score: 0

Given that a broadband provider may well be a natural monopoly or oligarchy in many if not most marketplaces
A lot of this could be solved by forcing the fucks to rent out their lines to competitors.
Re: Boycott by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 20:37 · Score: 0

200mb per month?!
I run through that in half a day here in Finland... With uncapped 4G service.
You yanks are getting the shitty end of the stick.
Re: Boycott by Neil+Boekend · 2014-09-01 23:12 · Score: 1

That is a free add on that I don't really need. I will probably use it one day when I get a tablet, but for now that SIM card will be thrown into a drawer to collect dust.
For my normal mobile internet I currently have a 1,5 GB cap. I usually don't cross the 1 GB mark in a month. Uncapped mobile internet seems nice but not really essential. I don't use it for Netflix, that's what the home connection is for.
It's the home internet + spotify + access to the KPN Hotspots that I really want. The simcard with 200 MB mobile is nice for when I will use it.
I am not a yank. They seem to get the shitty end of the Internet stick.
I am Dutch. We have competition in our ISP's.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Boycott by pnutjam · 2014-09-02 03:16 · Score: 1

I've had better success with vpn's over dsl then cable, just my experience.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Boycott by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:11 · Score: 0

A lot of this could be solved by forcing the fucks to rent out their lines to competitors.
They used to, but then the Republicans waved the magic DEREGULATION wand in 2005 and the resellers died.
Re:Boycott by Krojack · 2014-09-02 04:29 · Score: 1

My company offers VDSL up to 60mbit/sec depending on your distance. You can bond those in 2, 4 or 8 channels giving you up to 480mbit/sec. The cost for 4+ channels is pretty high though and more for businesses.
Now I'm not a fan of cable but I will admit that Charter has been good to me over the years. Just a month ago they increased my speeds from 15 to 60. I put this to a test by downloading various games and it held at 60 for 1.5 hours. I got a steady 7.6MB/second download through Steam. I just wish I could get a little more up speed so I can stream game play at 1080. Right now I got 4.5 up and 1080 will use most of that.
Re:Boycott by EvilJoker · 2014-09-02 04:38 · Score: 1

The issue isn't the technology involved. Cable and DSL can each be great, awful, or somewhere in between. What matters is who's running it, and how.
While it's generally acknowledged that Comcast is awful, the DSL alternatives are also usually bad. AT&T, Verizon DSL, CenturyLink, etc aren't exactly known for their quality. You apparently have good service, which is the exception, not the norm.
Re:Boycott by orgelspieler · 2014-09-02 04:56 · Score: 1

Why not just do a mass cancellation of service and show these corps that we have that control over them? We all have internet on our phones
Do I really need to spell this out for you? I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with corn. It is also the most common answer to any question having to do with the internet.
Re:Boycott by k6mfw · 2014-09-02 05:03 · Score: 1

I still have comcast but only watch a few channels (I pay for hundreds I don't watch which is like paying monthly payments for a car I only drive 3 days a month). Talking with a friend who said there is about 100 OTA TV channels here in SF bay area. Not that all those channels interest me, but when he said OTA HD looks much better than Comcast which compresses the video (gotta fit all those channels through the coax pipe). He further described watching KQED OTA HD channel on oceanic life on a big screen (it was spectacular), then switched to same channel from Comcast. It was not as good. Then my comcast bill is a few dollars more (it seems to keep going up and promoting more football which I don't watch at all. was it the Cleveland Lakers that won the Superbowl?).
Maybe it's time to cut the cord from Comcast, my last month!

--
mfwright@batnet.com
Re:Boycott by CHIT2ME · 2014-09-02 10:24 · Score: 0

A bullitt through one of those big ugly signal amplifiers the cable companies have strung throughout America goes a long way towards showing our disdain of them taking over the internet.

--
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!

"Net neutrality", my ass. by jcr · 2014-09-01 10:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

It's a buzzword for demanding federal control of the internet, to remedy the government-caused problem of last mile providers who are protected from competition by local cable monopoly privileges.

All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by MtHuurne · 2014-09-01 11:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's a buzzword for demanding federal control of the internet, to remedy the government-caused problem of last mile providers who are protected from competition by local cable monopoly privileges.
What kind of additional control would net neutrality give the government over the internet besides the enforcing net neutrality itself?
Besides, I doubt any possible negative side effects of net neutrality would come close to the problem of ongoing massive warrantless spying, so if you're worried about government control over the internet, this seems like the wrong battle to pick.

All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
That may not be easy... The big telcos lobby for laws protecting them from municipal broadband, but as far as I know they are not protected from commercial rivals, yet few are challenging them.
Here in the Netherlands when it comes to broadband competition, on ADSL there is a lot of competition because the government forced the leading telco (KPN, the former state telco) to share their telephone lines with other ISPs, since those lines were laid with public money. On cable, for some reason such a line sharing wasn't enforced, so two big companies (UPC and Ziggo) bought all the local cable networks and are now trying to merge, meaning there will be one giant cable company for the entire country (*). On fiber, there used to be a lot of different ISPs, but KPN bought most of them and a few other failed (probably because of mismanagement), so there is very little competition left there as well.
(*) I do agree with the cable companies' reasoning that they are not competing against each other anyway, since they don't operate in the same areas: every house has at most one cable connection. But in my opinion the line sharing should have been enforced for cable too, since those networks were also built with public money. But they were owned by local governments and sold for a lot of money during the dot-com boom (unlike KPN, which was owned by the state and then privatized), so I guess it would be unfair to change the conditions for network use after selling them.
My point is that mergers and acquisitions will reduce competition, even in situations where there are no corrupt laws blocking healthy competition. So I think it's wishful thinking that if you allow competition it will automatically come into existence, regardless of properties of the specific market.
There is also a practical aspect: it is inefficient to have to run several cables to each house. In my opinion, ideally each house would be connected to a single fiber optic cable, over which an unlimited number of ISPs could offer their services. The last mile is not a good place to look for competition; the rest of the service is.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by NotSanguine · 2014-09-01 13:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's a buzzword for demanding federal control of the internet, to remedy the government-caused problem of last mile providers who are protected from competition by local cable monopoly privileges.
All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
-jcr
And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure? Good luck getting them all the rights-of-way and access to the poles, tunnels and other access-ways currently in use.
Do you use eminent domain to take the local monopoly's infrastructure and install a not-for-profit organization to manage, maintain and upgrade the last-mile, while selling access to the infrastructure to independent ISPs who compete on price and features?
Do you build out (paid for with municipal bonds) a new high-speed last mile infrastructure, with a not-for-profit organization to manage, maintain and upgrade the infrastructure, paid for by selling access to independent ISPs?
Please do share with the group.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by SirAudioMan · 2014-09-01 13:56 · Score: 1

It is a similar situation here in Canada. You have the historic "ma bell" aka Bell Canada who installed all the POTS lines, and build their DSL infrastructure. Then along came the cable companies who build up their old coax to hybrid fiber/coax about 15 years ago. In Ontario, now sure about other provinces, you have exactly one choice of which cable company you want. There are almost zero overbuilds so depending on where you live you either have Rogers, Cogeco, Shaw or some other small company. About 5-10 years ago the CRTC (our regulating body similar to the FCC) decided that the telcos/cableco's must lease their services to 3rd parties who act a resellers. I believe the CRTC also has to approve the rates at which the lines and access are leased for. So as a consumer you do have choices between either ONE big telco or ONE big cable co, or many small resellers who just lease the lines from the big guys.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Bob9113 · 2014-09-01 14:46 · Score: 1

All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
If that were true, we wouldn't need common carrier regulation for shipping companies. That's where common carrier started (hence the term "carrier"). It was put in place to keep carriage networks, which are naturally limited in the efficient number of competitors, from exploiting their natural n-opolies by making preferred carrier deals with incumbent manufacturers.
In the case of wired data carriage networks, once there is one set of cables in the ground, the cost of putting each subseqent set in the ground faces an barrier-to-entry that rises more quickly than the natural barriers on, for example, retail stores. In the case of wireless, the limits on frequency band interference do the same thing.
Practical reality does not match the idealistic theories we wish were true, whether those be socialism, anarchy, or anything in between. Give up the -isms and consider observable reality. Learn from history, not religion-peddling pundits.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 14:58 · Score: 0

No it is a buzz word for the spinning $ signs they see flashing before their greedy eyes and it pains them to the depths of their otherwise empty souls.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by ediron2 · 2014-09-01 15:32 · Score: 1

I pick **D** -- Any or all of the above, as deemed appropriate by a Public Utilities Commission and economists / engineers they supervise.
We do this. A LOT. Public Utility regulatory bodies have MORE THAN A CENTURY OF PRACTICE IN NEARLY EVERY STATE, in multiple similar infrastructure types. Stop pretending this is impossible. It's a shitty straw man invented by the same deregulatory wonks that got us into this mess in the first place.
I'm neither Socialist nor Libertarian. Both are false utopias with no shining example. I like REGULATED MARKETS. CUZ THAT SHIT JUST WORKS.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 15:59 · Score: 0

All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
How do you propose to prevent Comcasts and Time-Warners of the world from purchasing their competitors without regulations preventing them from doing so?
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by NotSanguine · 2014-09-01 16:27 · Score: 1

I pick **D** -- Any or all of the above, as deemed appropriate by a Public Utilities Commission and economists / engineers they supervise.
We do this. A LOT. Public Utility regulatory bodies have MORE THAN A CENTURY OF PRACTICE IN NEARLY EVERY STATE, in multiple similar infrastructure types. Stop pretending this is impossible. It's a shitty straw man invented by the same deregulatory wonks that got us into this mess in the first place.
I'm neither Socialist nor Libertarian. Both are false utopias with no shining example. I like REGULATED MARKETS. CUZ THAT SHIT JUST WORKS.
I hate to break it to you friend, but you're yelling at the wrong guy.
I have repeatedly suggested the third option (along with the same comment that this is how public works projects are successfully done). I gave our "herp derp Gub'mint bad" GP several choices as to how to introduce competition, not because I think they won't work (with the caveat that multiple last mile providers with duplicated infrastructure is a really dumb idea), but because GP obviously hadn't thought through his "All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition." trope. Or tripe. Actually, it's both.
So save your bile for someone else, please. Thanks, and have a lovely evening!

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 17:59 · Score: 0

Exactly this.
The FCC has been using this subject as a way to continue justifying their existence as other mediums go away. The FCC has no inherent right to regulate the internet whatsoever. Unless they are allowed. And this is giving them the consensus to do just that in the guise of "saving the internet".
That's also why you see so much FUD spread about "oh noes, fast lanes" by idiots who either don't know what they're talking about our clearly do and are attempting to shape the conversation by lying and making you think that every byte of email should be treated exactly like every byte of streaming video or every byte of data from a security alert system or various health monitors.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 18:00 · Score: 0

You're joking, right? Most lines were laid with government subsidies. Here's what you do:
You revoke the monopoly agreements to giving those pipes to the cable provider and allow any provider to provide access over it.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 18:03 · Score: 0

I want my internet to be metered and to operate exactly like every other public utility. Why, my local power company, water company, trash service, and sewage service are just the ultimate in customer service and modern service capacity and provisioning!
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by NotSanguine · 2014-09-01 18:48 · Score: 1

You're joking, right? Most lines were laid with government subsidies. Here's what you do:
You revoke the monopoly agreements to giving those pipes to the cable provider and allow any provider to provide access over it.
Ummm...That was the second option that I offered. Are we having issues with reading comprehension, or are you just ignorant of eminent domain, friend?

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Feces's+Edge · 2014-09-01 19:08 · Score: 1

The FCC has no inherent right to regulate the internet whatsoever.
Governments have powers, not rights, so this sentence is correct. Whether or not they have the legitimate authority to regulate the Internet is determined by our laws, which can change.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 19:09 · Score: 0

Straw man. What people want is competition, not for everything to work exactly the same. Competition is obviously possible with ISPs, but the question is how to encourage it.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by jmac_the_man · 2014-09-01 23:10 · Score: 1

You're obscuring the issue. The FCC tried to enforce Net Neutrality on the Internet, and the courts said that they can only enforce it if Congress grants them the power to do so. The FCC then went to Congress and asked them for the power to regulate the Internet, and Congress told them that they are not allowed to do so.
Under current law, the FCC does NOT have the POWER to regulate the Internet.
The FCC's job is to make sure nobody broadcasts on a frequency other than the one they are allotted. Somebody has to do this, because the RF spectrum is limited in capacity by the laws of physics. The Internet does not have a similar limitation. You can add capacity to it by running additional lines. Since they wouldn't be helping everyone not interfere with each other on the radio spectrum, regulating the Internet would be out of scope.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Feces's+Edge · 2014-09-01 23:45 · Score: 1

You're obscuring the issue.
Nope. I just stated facts. I actually agree with what you said, but I do think that people need to stop referring to government powers as "rights."
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by MobyDisk · 2014-09-02 01:43 · Score: 1

And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure?
The answer to your question is to have one "last-mile" company provide the wires, while other companies act as ISPs. So under that system, Comcast and Verizon can run a wire to my house, but they cannot provide service. Other companies such as AOL, Earthlink, and Netzero provide the service. About 20 years ago these two things were called "telephone companies" and "internet service providers" but a foolish regulatory framework allowed the telephone companies to either buyout the ISPs, or limit/deny their access to the wires until they went out of business. That created the problem we have today. But it is so entrenched that people can't even imagine such a world, even though we already had it. Nobody complained about network neutrality when they could switch ISPs with a 5-minute phone call and a credit card.
The last true ISP I know of was Cavtel, and they stopped accepting new customers in 2011. Does anyone know any others? It could still be done, albeit inefficiently, with a VPN. Not quite the same though.
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 05:16 · Score: 0

I can't think of a single instance of where any of those utilities has angered me as much as Comcast...
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by NotSanguine · 2014-09-02 05:31 · Score: 1

And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure?
The answer to your question is to have one "last-mile" company provide the wires, while other companies act as ISPs. So under that system, Comcast and Verizon can run a wire to my house, but they cannot provide service. Other companies such as AOL, Earthlink, and Netzero provide the service. About 20 years ago these two things were called "telephone companies" and "internet service providers" but a foolish regulatory framework allowed the telephone companies to either buyout the ISPs, or limit/deny their access to the wires until they went out of business. That created the problem we have today. But it is so entrenched that people can't even imagine such a world, even though we already had it. Nobody complained about network neutrality when they could switch ISPs with a 5-minute phone call and a credit card.
The last true ISP I know of was Cavtel, and they stopped accepting new customers in 2011. Does anyone know any others? It could still be done, albeit inefficiently, with a VPN. Not quite the same though.
Geez. I can understand why folks don't read TFA. I even get why some might not read TFS. But why have three of you replied to my post without actually reading it? You repeated, pretty much exactly what I wrote, along with (correct) references to the aftermath of the 1984 AT&T consent decree. Yes, I was there. Yes, I remember. Had you actually bothered to read beyond the first sentence of my post you would have realized that. Sigh.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:"Net neutrality", my ass. by jmac_the_man · 2014-09-07 01:00 · Score: 1

If that's the only line you're drawing, I agree with you on governments having specific, limited powers rather than rights. What you said was still confusing.

It will be like this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 10:58 · Score: 0

- There will by lots of trolls.
- Tons of extremely entitled people will whine about what they're entitled to, even though they don't do anything for anyone.
- It will be corporations' fault.
- Government power will save us -- nevermind that government power is always co-opted by the already powerful and used against the people.
- We'll be told Netflix and Google are helpless victims and that we should all rally to help them.
- Any solutions that aren't "open source" will be rejected by ideologues.
- All consequences of the "preferred" action will be good. Unintended bad consequences could ever happen to anyone. And if they do, screw them.
- Also, swear words and name calling. The other side is always stupid and corrupt and evil.

It's a policy discussion.

one word by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 12:05 · Score: 0

LOIC

Re: one word by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 18:20 · Score: 0

Yes, works like a charm to get you arrested, your computer confiscated and pedoshit found in it.

SOPA All Over Again? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 12:13 · Score: 0

The real question is whether or not it'll work this time. And even if it does, will it matter with the rise of data caps?

high/free/motorway analogy by mjwx · 2014-09-01 12:16 · Score: 4, Funny

If it's anything like a real highway, the slow lane will actually be the fast lane as everyone immediately goes to the passing lane and clogs it up, meaning people with half a brain end up undertaking everyone else using the slow lane.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Re:high/free/motorway analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 15:03 · Score: 0

If it's anything like a real highway, the slow lane will actually be the fast lane as everyone immediately goes to the passing lane and clogs it up, meaning people with half a brain end up undertaking everyone else using the slow lane.
Welcome to Auckland!
Re:high/free/motorway analogy by mjwx · 2014-09-01 15:21 · Score: 1

Welcome to Auckland!
Please, god... no.

it's like Perth... but worse.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:high/free/motorway analogy by martin-boundary · 2014-09-01 16:07 · Score: 1

If it's anything like a real highway, the slow lane will actually be the fast lane as everyone immediately goes to the passing lane and clogs it up, meaning people with half a brain end up undertaking everyone else using the slow lane.

HRM, NO. THAT'S MY JOB.

high/free/motorway analogy by mjwx · 2014-09-01 12:20 · Score: 0, Redundant

If its anything like a real highway the slow lane will be the fast lane because all the idiots immedately go to the overtaking lane clogging it up. So people with half a brain use the slow lane to undertake everyone else.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Dammit! by Tablizer · 2014-09-01 12:32 · Score: 1

They used my Comcast simulator without paying!

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:Dammit! by k6mfw · 2014-09-02 05:09 · Score: 1

reminds me of "free Comcast" of leaky cable boxes. Some years ago when Comcast had analog, and when watching amateur television on 421.25 MHz and 427.25 MHz I find certain parts of town being able to see Fox CNN on cable these freq (which are CATV Ch 57 and 58). Though all digital now but there are still lots of leaky boxes around though not sure if stations worth watching.

--
mfwright@batnet.com

No!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 12:36 · Score: 0

I cannot support this! Do you have any idea of the horrors I've suffered being stuck on a 26.6k "on a good day" connection from 1995-2005? It took me three weeks to download Warcraft 3 on mIRC just to find out it was a pile of shit. It took me about the same to download Diablo 2 to find out how great it was then another 30 minuets to get my ass over to Walmart and buy it.

CallWave - @#$% Burn in hell!
Thunderstorms - @#$% Why god?! :'(
Every try dueling with 250+ms? :'( Stand right there for a quarter second and your ass is mine!
Black walls! - Someone help me! I'm lost and I cannot find the real me! No doctor I'm not schizophrenic I'm lagging..
Porn - Do you know how hard it is to plan a week ahead of time at 15? Impossible!

I can't do it, nope, the flashback would probably kill me.

Could websites control the speed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 13:07 · Score: 0

Could web sites detect who's in the fast lane or slow lane?
If so... Why not implement some code to slow down the fast lane users to the same speed as others?
On a similar note... Could websites then charge users and say... If you don't pay $xxx/month we'll slow down your page loads?

This could get dangerous quickly if this is possible.

Not a slow lane, a fast lane by SuperKendall · 2014-09-01 13:39 · Score: 1

It's really annoying from a technical standpoint to see the twisting of terminology that is going around.

What would come to pass if some companies pay for higher levels of access sis not a slow lane - it's the lane we've always had, with he addition of a fast lane for some prioritized traffic.

If you think Net Neutrality is going to deliver you from crappy basic internet you are dreaming. It will just make the crappy basic internet more expensive.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by Phoenixhunter · 2014-09-01 13:47 · Score: 1

I've got a great real-world example of why fast lanes won't work. I spent a night at a 'hip' hotel in West Hollywood. Room, with tax, was $308. I thought I'd catch up on some episodes of House MD on Netflix and had utterly horrid quality. I did some speed tests (testmy.net) and saw I was being shaped down to 500kbps. I had better speeds while stay at some backwoods motor lodge in Minnesota recently. I called reception and they informed me that they offer "super fast internet" for only $14.95 more. Effectively they are capping their internet and offering to uncap it for a premium. That's why fast lanes don't work.
Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by AvitarX · 2014-09-01 13:49 · Score: 1

Presumably, it will allow other people that prefer certain services to get priority over me if the services I like are not preferred.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 15:07 · Score: 0

It doesn't really matter that it's intended to be a fast lane. It'll turn into a money grab situation soon enough.
Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by diamondmagic · 2014-09-01 16:14 · Score: 1

When I buy a dedicated pipe at a data center, and they bill per Mbps, what do you think is happening? They're limiting the connection speed (i.e. dropping packets above a certain rate, which is how the Internet signals congestion).

--
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by SuperKendall · 2014-09-01 20:28 · Score: 1

The mistake you make is in assuming that without the $14.95 option you'd have any faster speeds. Wrong; you'd have the option to use the hotels entertainment system to get movies instead. Is the option for a faster internet connection you must pay a small amount for ($14.95 being nothing compared to the nightly rate) truly worse than that awful fate?
You aren't grasping the reality that you cannot let everyone have video streaming quality internet for the a low price.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:22 · Score: 0

BS. Of course you can. Maybe not with the system Comcast proudly provides us for such reasonable prices....
Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 04:23 · Score: 0

Actually, the mistake he makes is that this fight has nothing to do with him paying more for faster internet, it has everything to do with cable companies and telcos charging content providers to allow their users to get the speeds their users paid for.
If he paid the $14.95 and still couldn't get netflix to load because the hotel was waiting for the check from netflix to arrive, that'd be relevant.
Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by Qzukk · 2014-09-02 04:24 · Score: 2

with the addition of a fast lane
So "they" say, but "they" have been promising infrastructure upgrades for years, even taking subsidies from the government for a fiber rollout that never delivered. This time it's different?
What everyone expects is the same thing that happened when they installed a toll lane on the freeway here. They didn't add any new lanes, instead they walled off the left lane, narrowed the remaining lanes to make room for the wall and new shoulder, then kept the toll lane speed limit the same. The only difference is that when I drive on the freeway *I* have to pay more to go the same speed I always had before, while the cablcos/telcos expect the *sites I visit* to pay up so that I can use the "fast" lane and get the same speeds I was paying for.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Not a slow lane, a fast lane by sjames · 2014-09-02 09:12 · Score: 1

But what will really happen is that resources will be yanked from the 'normal' internet to provision the fast lane. If that doesn't get enough sign-ups, they'll further cripple the 'normal' service until the pain is sufficioent to get large content providers to pay for the 'fast lane' which will be about as fast as the old internet while the 'normal' internet will resemble dial-up.
Have you never gone grocery shopping?

Lucky me by Archfeld · 2014-09-01 14:56 · Score: 1

I live in an area that is serviced by several cable providers as well as at least 2 *DSL providers.
We have chose to go with Astound http://www.astound.com/ , but Comcast and TWC are also available. On the *DSL side we can get Pac-Bell or CenturyLink. I've previously used SDSL with Pac-Bell and had good results but at a steep cost. About 2 years ago we decided to try Astound due to price issues and have been relatively happy with their performance, though customer service does lack a little in the technical skills area.

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

If you want to make the biggest splash by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 17:17 · Score: 0

Slow down peoples porn

Re:"Net neutrality" in Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 18:34 · Score: 0

Here in Alberta, if you live in a city, you have Shaw and Telus. There is an independent co-op ISP that serves rural areas (that Shaw and Telus refused to), but they can't legally offer service inside any incorporated city. For some bizarre reason, the CRTC's line sharing ruling doesn't apply to Telus, but does apply to the co-op.

Campaign all you want... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 19:22 · Score: 0

... It's a lost cause. Big Money will have its way in the end, there's nothing you can do. You don't have the money or the political cloud. Give it up now, it will be less painful.

No commitment, No effect by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-01 20:55 · Score: 0

Since "No actual traffic will be slowed down" we can see that no sites are willing to make a real sacrifice in order to forward the cause. That's how little they care about net neutrality, and it shows.
If you were a lawmaker, how seriously would you take a protester who is all talk and won't put his money where his mouth is?

To get government action on an internet issue by cmptrs4now · 2014-09-02 01:35 · Score: 1

To get any government action on an internet issue, the best method is to show the government the direct effects of the problem. In other words: Slow down all government websites to a crawl. Especially the ones that the elected officials use regularly and expect to be speedy. Most likely the problem will be solved by throwing more tax payer money at the problem, but some conscientious politician will see the problem and start campaigning to get rid of the issue through a law.

Quality of Service by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 01:49 · Score: 0

Morons.

There is no definition of "Net Neutrality" which allows "QoS" or prioritized packets. Voice over IP is supposed to take priority over other traffic ...

Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 03:25 · Score: 0

W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 03:27 · Score: 0

Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources

"?"

* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

APK

P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

... apk

And the fast lanes? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 05:03 · Score: 0

Seems like a lopsided statement and not reflective of reality.

My Cable Internet is Already Throttled... by mrfatmann · 2014-09-02 05:22 · Score: 1

Or so I thought. It has something to do with my router setup. Whatever.
But my point is it sucks!

Its not like its always slow. Instead I'll be surfing the net, and without warning a link will throw up my cable company's Could Not Find URL error page. If I look at the ping, there are these crazy large time lags. Rather than it taking a long time for the page to load, its as if the internet became SMALLER. The I have to WORK slower. And then, just everything is back to normal.

Re: by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 05:38 · Score: 0

Why? The word rights is already so mangled that its almost meaningless. That is why I have gone to using the capitalized version (Rights) for natrual and negative rights and the lowercase (rights) for all the other drivel.

antitrust by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-02 05:47 · Score: 0

I have a question how is this not anti trust. For example comcast slowing access to Netflix which is a competitor to their video business for people who cut the cord

No thank you! The government should butt out! by Xman73x · 2014-09-02 06:49 · Score: 0

We don't want Net Neutrality! But we want faster internet connection speeds.

Make *ANY* lane faster, safer, & more reliable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-08 02:33 · Score: 0

Up to 40% of sites = ads: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-08 02:35 · Score: 0

Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources

"?"

* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

APK

P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

... apk

Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-08 02:37 · Score: 0