Slashdot Mirror
Bloomberg Op-Ed: The Internet 'Already Lost Its Neutrality' (japantimes.co.jp)
An anonymous reader quotes a new Bloomberg opinion piece on net neutrality:
The internet will be filled today with denunciations of this move, threats of a dark future in which our access to content will be controlled by a few powerful companies. And sure, that may happen. But in fact, it may already have happened, led not by ISPs, but by the very companies that were fighting so hard for net neutrality... Our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook. The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs, and very possibly much stronger; while cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear and read.
In other words, we already live in the walled garden that activists worry about, and the walls are getting higher every day... The fact that these firms were able to cement their power at the moment when regulators were most focused on keeping the internet open tells you just how difficult it is to get that sort of regulation right; while you are looking hard at one danger, an equally large one may be creeping up just outside the range of your peripheral vision.
In other words, we already live in the walled garden that activists worry about, and the walls are getting higher every day... The fact that these firms were able to cement their power at the moment when regulators were most focused on keeping the internet open tells you just how difficult it is to get that sort of regulation right; while you are looking hard at one danger, an equally large one may be creeping up just outside the range of your peripheral vision.
Love,
Rich Assholes with Business Interests
Only retarded idiots ever thought the Internet was neutral in terms of opinion. The fight over Net Neutrality is something completely different.
The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs
The very fact that we lost net neutrality in direct opposition to the largest public commentary campaign in the history of the world, due at least in part to bought and paid for politicians making regulations that directly benefit their own financial interests, renders this statement entirely untrue.
it will decline in importance going forward as its primary userbase ages. Something new will take its place.
we must 2 be having the content, it.
In the United States, your experience of the internet is far more controlled by Comcast and one or two other ISPs than it is by Google and Facebook. I can easily avoid using Google or Facebook, but in many areas, there are no practical alternatives to Comcast.
I would argue that having a very few companies controlling access to the internet is what leads to the primacy of Google and Facebook, not the other way around.
The default state of the internet was net neutrality, from the time of its inception. Giving control over to a cable company will turn the internet into cable television, and trust me, you don't want that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I hear a big company is already throttling anyone with VPN's I also stumbled upon a site that uses the regular HTTP transport layer to make something better than a VPN. You people ARE innovative!!
This idiot doesn't know what "net neutrality" even means.
Not that an assertion from an AC will matter, ...
The Net Neutrality and there's oligopolies of WEB products and services.
AT&T and Google are not the same thing when it comes to Net Neutrality.
Now, in areas where there is Google Fiber - then we get into the muddy waters.
The same people that harp about net neutrality and are demanding corporations be forced to treat everyone equally (when it comes to ISPs and carriers) are the same ones that demand censorship by corporations (when it comes to things they dislike). They're hypocrites who only want neutrality as long as it benefits them and their beliefs.
Am I supposed to believe their activism campaigns have anyone's best interest in mind but their own?
Thank you for posting the Bloomberg piece. There are those of us who have been arguing that this is not some high-brow good v. evil debate, but a genuine disagreement on account of economics.
Tons of people here are rightly skeptical of Google, Facebook, at al, but saw nothing suspicious about those companies being the LEADING proponents of net neutrality. Why would these companies, so often duplicitous and manipulative, be coming on so strong for net neutrality? Not out of the goodness of their hearts.
Yeah, Big Telecom is not your friend, but neither is Big Tech. The question is, what is more conducive to freedom? Is it allowing free competition, or is it in allowing politically-connected firms to set the agenda? I choose to side with the former, and that is why I favor repealing net neutrality. Much more needs to be done, like abolishing all these public utility laws so that smaller startups can challenge Big Telecom, but this is a step in the right direction.
Companies like Google and Facebook have Loony-tunes power: everyone uses them because everyone uses them. If tomorrow everyone starts using Bing (hey, it could happen...), Google vanishes in a puff of indifference. (kind of like the coyote who doesn't fall until he looks down).
Verizon has power because they own the poles, and the lines, and the trenches. If tomorrow everyone decides to use a different ISP...uhhh...no. You got nowhere to go. And if Verizon starts adding tracking headers to your HTTP requests, and null-routing domains that they don't like, and null-routing domains who haven't paid them enough, and forging RST packets to kill your torrents, and injecting ads into your web pages, and, and, and....you still got nowhere to go. That's backhoe power. That's why we need net neutrality.
RMS has been shouting this for a decade...
In what world is Google unilaterally altering what people read? Every month there is an article accusing Google and Facebook of creating technology that hate groups capitalize on. I'm sure this is where some tin-foil type tells me that is part of the conspiracy, but Occum's Razor disagrees. Taking the argument from another standpoint, it only behooves internet giants to support an non-prioritized network because this allows smaller startups to try out ideas that giants later acquire.
In short, yes we have *some* walled gardens, but the gate leading in and out is very large with a bright neon sign and refreshments for the journey.
Dear /.: Are we under attack from right wing posts? The last 5 years there has been a remarkable increase in right-wing unfounded bullshit and commentary. "News for nerds, stuff that matters" is becoming "Opinions from xenophobic neck beards, stuff that reaffirms your existing beliefs".
NEW APK Hosts File Engine 10++ 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (doing more w/ less).
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self checking code vs. infection of it built-in)
Stop using Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google. Shut them out end their control.
I've been saying this for quite a few years now, and while some may argue there was at least once some sort of semblance of neutrality, that horse has long since fled the barn. In Canada, for instance, no such thing has ever existed, censorship at all sites reigns supreme [and Cory Doctorow is a notorious censor at his site, Mr. so-called progressive activist/free speech dood!]. Nope, I can still only comment a /. and zerohedge.com, and that's about it, as so many sites have permanently banned myself and too many others for making fact-based comments with links, e.g., commondreams.org banned me for linking to Hillary Rodham Clinton's (faux crat, not a true liberal or progressive) government site to show her voting record in the Senate, etc.
I do not use Facebook. I do not use Google for social media or news. So, how exactly does Facebook and Google social media effect me?
If all I could get over my internet connection without extra payments was Facebook and Google then I would really have a problem, unfortunately I'll probably see this scenario play out. We do not need to regulate Facebook and Google. We need to decide as humans that Facebook and Google should not dominate our attention. The author of this article needs to pull her head out of her ass and just stop using Facebook if she thinks Facebook is a problem. I choose not to use Facebook, its easy. I don't want the state to decide what I should and should not see on Facebook, that is idiotic.
Google and Facebook are impossible to ignore on the web, but it's not the same thing - I don't have to use them or give them any money. On the other hand I HAVE to use my ISP, it effects almost everything I do including my job, and I pay a monthly fee just like a utility.
Particularly Google has a heck of a lot of control through android and gets content providers to do things they universally wouldn't otherwise want to do (AMP comes to mind). Yes, it is a prudent time to highlight shenanigans that already unreasonably shape the internet that are already happening without any sort of counter.
Of course, doubling down and also opening the flood gates for the ISPs to also lock things down doesn't help matters.
The author blames regulation for the phone experience not progressing and that deregulation paved the way for things to improve. It's a very bizarre thing to blow off the whole forced breakup of AT&T as the factor. I don't think many folks blame FCC regulations for AT&T preserving a monopoly, and certainly no one in their right mind ignores the DOJ breakup of AT&T in favor of some FCC deregulation as to triggering the end of that era. Particularly since this common carrier thing persisted the whole time, it's very strange.
In short, I fint the article to be a bizarre self-contradiction. On the one wand worrying that there already are companies with worrisome control, but also vilifying regulation at the same time..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Relating the evils of Google and Facebook with ISPs is a deliberate attempt to mislead. It's not remotely an equal comparison, at most it's a different problem, and all I hear is "hey, look over there!" The debate about what these companies should be allowed to do is important, but irrelevant to this discussion.
Net Neutrality was compromised significantly in its brief existence, that is a fact, but the response should have been extreme and powerful, from the legal to the not-yet-legal. The first attempt to get around net neutrality should have seen every single anti-competitive law in the united states eliminated: any company or municipality that wishes to build out broadband cannot be opposed. If they persist, then tax money should be used to build competing services. Finally, if they do not cease and desist, their board and senior executives should be arrested and the company assets seized. That is the level of hostility that we should be insisting upon for these (and any other) monopoly. Either play nice and make some money, or go to jail.
Instead they have bought the government and its regulation body. I look forward to people showing up to their buildings with torches and pitchforks (or the modern day equivalents) to express their "empathy".
they are forbidden to block as well as a ton of otehr stuff and even forced to help and let small guys buy up bits a bandwidth at set costs...and unlimited is alive and well ...
these pro american bullshit articles make me laugh
now go look at europe ....other nations....you will start to see a pattern /other tards the retardicons have clout you get screwed most times....if your not bribed off you can have the net laws you want.
where hollywood
Even if Google and Facebook are massive, they can't prevent you from going to websites, or throttle your network connection on others.
The ISPs can do so much more evil, and they will, since Net Neutrality rules were put into place exactly to stop them from doing it, since they were doing it before they came into place. But Ajit, that little git, paid by Verizon, unwilling to listen to the people he's supposed to represent and instead back the companies that have shown they are willing to fuck with the internet.
What is this demoralizing bullshit
Time to double down!
I don't know why people keep trying to mix things up, but that's not the point of fighting for net neutrality. It's not about making Internet services more "neutral" or anything like that.
It's not about keeping the situation great (which it already isn't), it's about not making it worse.
And let's be honest here. One thing is people choosing to use Google instead of Bing, DuckDuckGo, *gasp* Yahoo and a few others that are out there (I personally use DuckDuckGo as default). One thing is people using Facebook instead of several social networks that showed up over the years or you know, none. One thing is people choosing Gmail instead of ProtonMail, a local webserver, among others. One thing is people using Facebook Messenger for convenience instead of some different service like Viber, Signal and others. There's choice. If people don't take them, that's their problem. We don't really need to discuss here on Slashdot how using these services can be bad, I think most people here knows about this. But it's still people's choice to use them, be it for convenience, familiarity, ease of use, or just because everyone around them are using it.
Yes, Google and Facebook have an effective hold in several areas that makes them close to monopolies, but there's still choice and competition. People can't deny that. For the vast majority of americans, there is NO option to one or two ISPs where they live. None. Ziltch. Nada. Nothing. The alternative is not using the Internet, and this is all Net Neutrality is about. Access to it has become a basic need, which is why there needs to be some regulation to it.
When you as a costumer don't have any choice, that's a true monopoly. And since there is no option, without any sort of regulation of course given time they will only get worse in nick and dime schemes, in tiered plans, in forcing their own brands and services to costumers while making it hard for anyone else to compete and whatnot.
Because that's exactly what they do. That's why they have been lobbying for such a long time to kill Net Neutrality once and for all.
It also doesn't mean that they didn't do this in the past, ISPs always finds a way to profit more over their clients. It just means that now they have no regulation to prevent them from doing anything, and that it'll become even easier for abusive practices to pass.
This is like arguing Amazon is non-neutral. Sure it is. It's slowly killing all alternatives. People are flocking to shop there for all sorts of reasons, and they are effectively closing down smaller competing stores and services. But it's something people are choosing for themselves. Amazon doesn't hire goons to beat you up if you go to the local market, they aren't making you sign a contract that you'll only shop there for a year if you buy one product, they aren't saying you can only use their mass storage servers in order to make an account there. There are limits as to what they can do, and this is what Net Neutrality is about. Having at least some limits on what ISPs can do. The more you give in, the worse it'll become.
Funny. Lots of families have lots of weirdos. But seriously, e-mail still works. You can always throw in a hyperlink to your non-mainstream-hosted blog or if you aren't the type to formulate long thoughts, microblog (pump.io?)
I've witnessed both the downfall of Google being a great search engine for my tastes, and duckduckgo rising to the challenge. DDG wasn't a sufficient replacement in the early days, but lately it seems quite fine to me. I only use Google on the rare occasions when I want to track down a torrent for a tv show that weather interfered with my OTA DTV linux general computer based DVR recording correctly. Just to make a political point.
Google and Facebook are not âthe Internet.â(TM) Multiple hosting companies arenâ(TM)t either. Theyâ(TM)re nodes on the network, some of millions (billions?) but itâ(TM)s really the connections between the nodes that make a network a network. Google or Facebook piss you off? With a neutral Internet itâ(TM)s trvially easy to avoid them while still accessing the other millions of nodes without restriction. But if itâ(TM)s your local ISP monopoly that pisses you off? You have no recourse. And if itâ(TM)s a backbone provider that places a price premium on all data to and from your favorite nodes? Youâ(TM)re really screwed. Just because a few sites are particularly popular doesnâ(TM)t mean weâ(TM)re already operating without net neutrality.
The difference between ones ISP choices and ones social networking apps is with the social networking apps you do have a choice. Comparatively cable ISPs have been granted GOVERNMENT monopolies dating back to the 1980s and if memory serves me correctly telephone companies had been granted monopolies before that. This has given a single entity almost everywhere an unfair market advantage. Sadly we don't have a free market today as a result of these GOVERNMENT actions.
I don't utilize Google or Facebook or any Apple products. I do have a smart phone, I do communicate online through various mediums and communities (via different forums, IRC, and instant messaging apps), etc.
What is more scary than Google, Apple, or Facebook is the FCC's attack on embedded devices and wireless (really the rules aren't restricted to embedded devices and apply to- even if nobody has complied with- desktop and laptop systems). I should be able to retain FULL control over my devices and the FCC has come and stripped manufacturers ability to release a complete set of source code for ANY modern chipsets. In spite of the claims there is no real way to release a complete set of source code that a user can then build themselves and flash without giving the user access to things the FCC doesn't want users to have access to. The humorous part of this all is that the users already can cause devices if they choose to to operate outside the rules regardless of the code being available.
The other thing that is scary is the VERY small number of companies within the desktop and laptop space today. The number of companies designing or manufacturing the critical components needed for any given device is literally countable on one hand. HP isn't that different from Dell and neither design any critical components. The biggest threats to our security and existence come from Qualcomm, Samsung, Intel, and AMD. These are the companies designing most of the critical components going into all modern communication devices and none of them are very cooperative when it comes to releasing source code or giving those designing devices or the user full control of said device.
Someone is getting paid off to write these anti- Google/Facebook articles. It's always the same thing, and it's always coming from these low-tier news sites like Buzzfeed, TheDailyBeast, TheVerge, and Bloomberg as well.
Facebook does not have a monopoly. They're not anything LIKE Comcast! If you don't want to use Facebook, all you do is stop using it. You're not paying them anything, and new major competitors pop up fairly often. For example: Whatsapp, Snapchat, Instagram, Vine, Kik. Facebook bought Instagram and Whatsapp, but it paid BILLIONS of dollars to do that. And these were just tiny chat apps that suddenly became popular! The fact that Snapchat exists, and it was literally just some random chat app that teenagers decided to use, and it's now supposedly valued at 5 billion dollars, shows that Facebook doesn't have a monopoly. Ironically, because of *NET NEUTRALITY*, new competitors can spring up all the time! And they can come out of NOWHERE!
Now compare that to Comcast. Comcast and Time Warner control a gigantic percentage of their market, and they agree not to compete with each other. You pay through the nose for Comcast internet, and it's STILL shit, and they keep trying to make it worse! And if you want to switch away from Comcast, guess what?! It's not like quitting Facebook. There are probably no other half-decent options in your area. And now, here's the kicker: What does it take for a new company to get into the ISP business? Even GOOGLE could not do it!!!! They rolled out fiber in a bunch of cities, and then they said "Oh, shit, this is a lot more expensive than we thought."
To start a competitor to Facebook, you need a mobile app and a team of developers. That is nothing compared to the BILLIONS of dollars of investment needed to launch a competitor to Comcast. This article is completely full of shit!
This is the actual opinion article by the actual publisher, Bloomberg Businessweek: The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality (Nov. 21, 2017) Why did Slashdot link to the same article in The Japan Times?
There are at least 2 separate issues: 1) Neutrality of speed and access of delivery of digital internet information, and 2) "Neutrality" of what people communicate. That 2nd issue is a very old one. Before the year 313 CE (Common Era), people could be killed for being Christian. After the year 313 CE, people could be killed for NOT being Christian.
The Bloomberg article was written by a woman who apparently has NO knowledge of technology and no interest in technology: Megan McArdle is a Bloomberg View columnist.. Look at the other articles by Megan McArdle at that link, for example: Keep Your Dark Chocolate, and Your Unearned Sense of Superiority.
Notice that, in the article about internet neutrality, Megan McArdle calls President Trump the "genital-grabber-in-chief". Is there beginning to be a world-wide understanding that President Trump is not mentally capable of being a leader? Apparently that idea has been adopted by the Japan Times.
Not everybody who uses internet uses facebook or google, but 99% of them still need to use a commercal ISP to connect.
Google's and Facebook's collection of eyeballs comprise an entirely different issue than ISPs being able to relegate the non-wealthy to low-bandwidth (or no-bandwidth) corners of the web.
Right now, you can choose to be Facebook and/or Google eyeballs, but there are other options of various and sundry nature out there that offer interesting content. Facebook and Google are impotent to stop that; all you have to do is find a link, and there the site will be. That link could be anywhere — while you may indeed find it on Google or Facebook, you can also find it other places.
Allowing bandwidth to be prioritized (or outright taken over) by wealthy interests can silence the other sources of information. That's a new problem, and it's not the same as, or even a version of, the old problem.
Bloomberg is being disingenuous here. Or stupid. You choose.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Your work VPN bandwidth will be reinstated for a modest monthly fee. Problem solved.
That's called the "business class tier". How many people in this discussion were reading the ferengi print in their ISP contracts in the '90s? It never went away. If 'Net Neutrality' had ever been more than a narrative illusion pushed by hypocrites, the business-class-vpn-tax would have gone away, with much fanfare. Ditto for tethering. And we'd all be allowed to host our own IRC and SMTP servers at home. 'reasonable network management' is the loophole big enough to fly the starship enterprise through. It means whatever they want it to mean, including whatever it takes to dominate the commercial field of competition. I guess if you have GoogleFiber as your ISP you can go ahead and run a non-commercial server as well as your GMail client, but if you cross that non-commercial threshold into the realm of conceivably diverting a dollar of potential profit away from Google's shareholders, they reserve the right to cease doing business with you whenever they feel like it (whenever they perceive that your competition/innovation on the global information superhighway might start to Disrupt their expected/desired global revenue streams in any significant way)
While cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear and read.
That is neither here nor there. This has absolutely nothing to do with how many users a Web site has. Neither Google nor Facebook has a single iota of the kind of power wielded by the corrupt (*)oply ISP's; not even a whisper of a fragment.
----
* equals Mono, Duo, Olig; as appropriate.
Internet traffic is managed by reciprocal peering agreements between network providers (i.e. you carry my traffic and I'll carry yours). Google or Facebook may provide peering with other providers, but they're only one of countless others. On the other hand, major ISPs like Comcast and ATT are also major network peering providers. So they CAN influence the cost and amount of traffic they carry. Hence the need for regulation. The reference poses a false analogy about a website whose content was so vile that no one wanted to carry it. That's carry Web content, not Internet traffic. That's primarily a function of advertisement and revenue generation. If you carry vile content, companies are not going to want to run ads next to it to avoid the association.
People are choosing to use google and facebook. There are alternatives. This is not so when you have one isp who can charge tiered access.
My "Hitler did nothing wrong" posts keep getting modded down. This is communism, and I'm not going to rest until we've given control of Slashdot to Comcast.
Fuck this obvious shill in the ass with a durian.
Have gnu, will travel.
Funny. Lots of families have lots of weirdos. But seriously, e-mail still works. You can always throw in a hyperlink to your non-mainstream-hosted blog or if you aren't the type to formulate long thoughts, microblog (pump.io?)
I've witnessed both the downfall of Google being a great search engine for my tastes, and duckduckgo rising to the challenge. DDG wasn't a sufficient replacement in the early days, but lately it seems quite fine to me. I only use Google on the rare occasions when I want to track down a torrent for a tv show that weather interfered with my OTA DTV linux general computer based DVR recording correctly. Just to make a political point.
Would that I had OTA signal where I live in a fairly large city! My isp is my cable co and I do have the choice of either satellite, cable or even the phone company for tv. Though telus tv at 1 mile from the fiber hub through twisted pairs is not necessarily what they advertise and continually try to sell us. I cut their twisted pairs years ago and am at the mercy of the cable company because the jerks at Telus were way out of line with dsl pricing. The wife likes her nutflakes so we have cable dsl but she also insists on tv so the costs of media consumption for us are greater than our other utility bills combined!
My point is that if net neutrality is not observed by our current isp then our provider will be able to abuse the monopoly upon digital communications to an even greater extent than they already do. Question here for all the wifi tech gurus here on Splashdog? Could wifi mesh networks eventually replace the assholes on the poles and put an end to the problems with digital communication media? Would it not be fantastic if the only lines coming into your house were power? Ma bell or Belus as I call it here in Canada and cable tv has had it far too good for far too long and if subscription wifi mesh can become a replacement for these jerks then they deserve to be blindsided. As it is they by and large control all the cell towers, it would be even worse to allow them to dominate wifi mesh networking which our current ISP/cable company/telco/mediaprovider, Shaw, is experimenting with locally.
Bloomberg has a tainted perspective letting the current isps begin to control where and how users access content even more than they currently do is a huge mistake and would be as sensible as having to set Shaw at Home or Telus or Bing as my home page to get access to the internet. Which I am sure is a wet dream for them as it was a wet dream for Microsoft until Google ate them all for breakfast in search.
The point is if net neutrality is broken then it is entirely possible that providers will be able to redirect their customers away from their choice to whom ever pays them the most which will most likely be Microsoft. Certainly not the same thing as Firefux with a difficult to remove Yahoo search but in ways similar.
Break net neutrality and the providers will be able to freely restrict access routes on the internet, the already have the monopolies in place to screw their customers even more than they currently do. They are just waiting for the green light from both the FCC and the CRTC. Remember the old heady days of Win95 when you installed it and if you did not know how to use Trumpet Winsock the OS installed defaults were to local AOL phone numbers and an Iternut Exploiter AOL home page? NOW just imagine ISP created apps that allow you to access a point restricted internet that must be installed before you can have service the same way that cell phones are locked down. Frightening as hell but this is what the asshole republicans in the States and the telcos and cable company lobby in Washington are up to. Getting high tech advice from Bloomberg is as sensible as investing in Enron or falling for a Berni Madoff scam the way many who read Bloomberg when it first came out did! Beware the sheep in wolves clothing.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Legal websites are being taken down or threatened by registrars, hosts and other organizations for the crime of being distasteful - net neutrality doesn't exist. Leftism isn't compatible with freedom. If you want to see what they're determined to hide from you check https://dailystormer.hk/ before it's taken down again - sunlight is the best disinfectant. Sites like motherless.com continue to operate unhindered - think about it.
Your narrative was fine, but you missed the part where Google/Facebook/Twitter/Netflix gang up and 'go nuclear' on the ISPs. They will do this by defining Net Neutrality in the precise way they want to see it- expertly politically crafted of course. Then they will have a nuke day ultimatum they give to the ISPs- "respect our (rosy named) Foundation's version of net neutrality, or we will edit our router/server's configuration files to not allow connections from your networks, have fun with your customers' feedback"
Thanks for the information.
However, in the article she wrote to which you linked, As a Woman in Tech, I Realized: These Are Not My People, she seems to justify my conclusion.
She does not have the fascination with technology that other Slashdot readers and I often have.
I'm also fascinated with women. A long time ago, after a long conversation with a woman, I said, "I seem to be more interested in you than you are." She said, "Maybe you're right!"
Being fascinated with technology doesn't stop fascination with humans.
5G networks will bring the same competitive landscape to ISPs that they brought to cell companies. Tech is already sorting out this problem.
It does NOT, however, solve the problem of Facebook and Google. Those two alone have plenty of incentive to get the FCC involved in preventing ISPs from being a check on their power, albeit an imperfect one.
"We don't know what net neutrality is about, but hear us out while we bitch about walled gardens. I'm sure network neutrality is something like that!"
But its still not a reason to give up the fight . You fight wars until you win, or are dead.
Beware of gaslighting with this op-ed. The article reads to me as if to say, you haven't had net neutrality for a while now so don't complain when it officially goes away and you can't miss what you've lived without. So please quit pressuring Congress to intervene; you'll never notice a change when net neutrality disappears.
As others have pointed out, the article isn't really about something net neutrality will address. The problems with Facebook, Google, spying, and computer control via proprietary software are real problems that need to be dealt with. But net neutrality is about a different issue. Net neutrality is a necessary but insufficient (in itself) quality of network service. I don't want an ISP discriminating for me what other computers my computers are allowed to trade packets with, nor will the absence of net neutrality be fixed by charging me more for an Internet connection. I understand that ISPs in their power and rent-seeking will see this situation differently, but it's critical not to give businesses primacy. People need power to speak freely and be heard, not routed into yet another class system.
Digital Citizen
You are correct about the deliberate attempt to mislead. But the differing debate about regulating *sites* on the internet, versus regulating *the infrastructure that connects* the sites, is not irrelevant. It demonstrates to us what percent of the voting public can be that easily misled with that kind of tactic. Once you accept the reality of that demonstration, it changes your outlook on the situation. Similarly, note the emphasis these days on Curbing Hate Speech on the internet, rather than Protecting Free Speech. That neverending newscyle was also a demonstration of the real traction (or lack thereof) that serious Free Speech protection has. Of course the real problem is that the internet exponentiated the amount of Speech going around, and without a similarly exponentiated police force, the police are content to let the multibillion dollar corporations take on the role of policing that previously not existing arena.
What seems important to me is that a kernel of real understanding is passed down to the next generation. In 50 or a 100 years we have no idea what kind of new technological powers will be the scariest thing for them. But what is important is that enough of them understand what really went down in our day and age, and not just the whitewashed narrative coming from the powers that be. It would be nice if 'enough' was the vast majority, but I'll settle for as many as it takes to get the message further propagated down the centuries until my faith in humanity is finally validated long after my death.
Indeed, comparing ISPs to Google (unless you are one of the few people with Google as ISP) or Facebook is disingenuous at best.
Google and Facebook and information service providers. ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc., are common telecommunications carriers. Amalgamating both is wrong, though it is exactly what Pai and his masters want to do.
Consider those excerpts from the article:
- The reclassification of ISPs as common carriers “forced ISPs into an 80-year-old framework designed for the telephone monopolies of a much different era.”
That’s hollow speak. First, the telecommunications act is old, so what? Should we dismiss the constitution also, on the grounds that it’s old? More to the point, the telecommunications act of 1934 (which was revised a couple times, by the way, but the author forgets to mention that) is remarkably broad, readable and relevant today. It defines a common carrier as someone that broadly sells the service of transporting communications or energy by wire or radio; and an information service provider as someone that publishes or processes (storage, transformation, exploitation, etc.) information, including those publishing information via telecommunications, but expressly excluding the operation of the transport infrastructure (i.e., network). Common carriers are expected to meet certain obligations and forbidden to engage in certain practices, for example to “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services (...) or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person”. What’s so “1934” in that?
- ”Consider what happened to the Daily Stormer, the neo-Nazi publication, after Charlottesville. One by one, hosting companies refused to permit its content on their servers.”
Bloomberg’s journalist is, once again, confusing hosting with the ability to publish. Refusing to host content is entirely different from refusing to transmit communications. Nothing stopped those guys from setting up their own server and publish their rotten stuff on their own. That’s the beauty of the Internet. Actually, all they needed is a neutral ISP, and that was a given, thanks to the current law. Of course, the typical residential ISP somehow gets away prohibiting its customers from running a server (how can this be compatible with the telecommunications act, I have to wonder). But, even so, all they need to do is purchase a business account.
So, is the author that ignorant? Or is she trying to knowingly deceive readers? Given the length of the article and the time she must have spent on it, I find it hard to give her the benefit the doubt.
...that John Oliver talked about whatabboutism? This is clearly an instance of that. Yes, there may be problems on the internet with large companies, but this doesn't mean that ISPs should be able to charge for different levels or speeds of access on the basis of what content you are consuming. Google and Facebook are crocks with socks. ISPs are Hitler.
...that John Oliver talked about whatabboutism? This is clearly an instance of that. Yes, there may be problems on the internet with large companies, but this doesn't mean that ISPs should be able to charge for different levels or speeds of access on the basis of what content you are consuming. Google and Facebook are crocks with socks. ISPs are Hitler.
One of the things I would never have guessed back in the 90s is that RMS would turn out to be the prescient futurist and ESR would be the whacked out extremist with a tenuous grip on reality.
Curious, the only really out there things I see on the wikipedia page for ESR right now include two references that were added literally today. Fearing they might be some sort of clickbait and that if they are 'real news' I'll read about them soon enough, I skipped them for now. In general though, the idea of 'honeytraps' being used for big-deal machiavellian power politics is only _possibly_ paranoid/delusional. Given the high profile alleged target, and that bitcoin is at $9k today, I would consider honeytraps to be an entirely rational threat model to be concerned about for the highest profile cyberexpert targets these days. I mean, we all know we're going to hear about a 9 or 10 figure bitcoin heist here in the near future right? This is epic movie level diabolical villian level stuff. After 9/11 it doesn't seem so paranoid to give serious consideration to dramatic movie-esque plots now does it?
What choices do you have to stay in touch with friends and family online? Honestly. Either you be the weird guy, or use facebook.
E-mail. It works just fine.
It should also be noted that Facebook is the new kid on the block: they beat out Friendster and MySpace.
What choices do you have for fulltext search? Duckduckgo? Get real.
Actually, yes. Or Bing.
Compared to those monopolies (which are far more ingrained, because they have a true technological and first to market edge), AT&T and Comcast are fairly banal thing to fix as stuff they do, basically anyone can do with no complex know-how. Can happen either through competetive market (think ISPs in places like india or romania) which emerges with wild-west Laissez-faire approach, or *effectively* regulated state granted monopolies, which favors consumers (korea or even china).
Except that in many place (in the US), there is no market. Your choice is either the local telco or carrier pigeon. And further the FCC is making grumbles of preventing states from stepping in. If things were regulated it wouldn't be as bad, but since the 1990s the US has basically had a "free non-market".
Go to this page and set the minimum and maximum to 1, and see how many counties have only one option:
* https://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers
Now go to a rough equivalent in Canada, where the CRTC (FCC-equivalent) has mandated that the incumbents (both telco and cableco) must provide open access to their last-mile networks:
* http://canadianisp.ca
Even Cardiff, Ontario, Canada, population 3,400, has a choice of 49 ISPs:
manipulated.
Your actual problem is that you have a monopoly in the form of your almost-certainly only highspeed internet provider. If you really wanted to solve your internet problems, then THAT is the problem you would attack. Most communities have local politicians who have cut deals with some local provider to allow that company the right-of-way to hook everybody up in town. This is a situation that needs to be ended. As soon as everybody in your town has the choice of ISPs who all can provide highspeed access, then the same market rules that have given you plentiful affordable fast food will kick-in for plentiful affordable bandwidth.
Unfortunately, many people have allowed themselved to be manipulated by a handful of billionaires. Amazon and Google and Netflix desperately want the government to force AT&T, Comcast, Cox, etc to carry their data at low costs and without hassle while the ISPs themselves would be banned from doing some of the very things these big boys are already doing. These big internet companies want the worst form of crony capitalism possible and they want YOU to beg the government for it! They want you to make sure your lawmakers make it illegal for all the ISPs to get in on the action from which these non-ISP companies sre making billions of dollars. THINK about it: Facebook does not want your ISP tracking you and selling the data... because that would compete with and suppress the profits of the facebook business model that consists of [insert drum roll here] tracking you and selling the data. Netflix does not want the ISP to prioritize traffic because it fears your local ISP will setup a cheaper video streaming service and serve videos to you directly, cutting-out Netflix, just as video stores would have opposed the rise of Netflix with its streaming.
WHY would you invite them in to regulate the internet? Are you that in love with how they handle your taxes?
It does not matter which party controls the congress, in the end it is a body of politicians who will do the bidding of their masters who are the lobbyists and supporters who fund their campaigns. What on Earth could possibly have convinced you that any congress will give you the nirvana you dream of and make it durable enough to last through times when a congress run by the other party is calling the shots?
It's best for government to only do the few things it MUST do like national defense and to stay the hell out of everything else. When it has few duties the voters can more easily hold it accountable for competency, and fewer people will have to vote for a member of cogress because he/she is right on issue A even though he/she is terrible on issue B. With fewer issues, there are fewer things politicians can use to divide and conquer.
Those are opt-in.
If your ISP decides to filter you, then unless you take measures to prevent that (e.g. VPN) then you're fucked or else have to change ISPs, assuming that's even possible where you live.
If Facebook filters their users, then unless you use Facebook you give 0.00 fucks. You have to go to the extra trouble of using Facebook for them to change what you see, hear and read. Google and Facebook could do all sorts of things, and my TV shows will continue to download just as quickly. Slashdot won't load any slower. My email will continue to work. Every single site I use, won't be even slightly affected.
Yes, they "track" me, assuming I use browser defaults and therefore remain compatible with the tracking. But even that still doesn't change what I'm able to access.
Ok, so you might say that ever people who don't opt into Facebook's filtering, have to live in a society with the rest of the people who do. For example, I heard we have a childish president and I have to live in that world because of the people who submitted. But you can say that about anything. The fact that I live in a world with so many religious people, or people who are convinced that New Kids on the Block is a cool band, is all just part of life. That's still nothing like having your own access filtered.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I see. I take it that if you don't like expensive comcast internet (or facebook, for that matter), you're free to use newspapers, television and meeting with people in person. Definitely less walled gardens there.
I don't believe stratification towards inferior solutions is necessarily the answer. Note that those alternatives need not be inferior in pure technical terms (gnu social is awesome), but with social networks, there's usually inferiority in terms of metcalfe's law.
Monopolies are frequently granted on the grounds to serve rural areas, but the reality is that WISP works great and is most cost-effective as a last mile in the country. However In urban settlements, airwaves, especially the narrow free spectrum, don't have the bandwidth. You need "serious of tubes" in there if you're serious about bandwidth.
Current US cableco monopoly blocks this with regulatory capture, both rural and urban. There are are of course some anecdotes signaling cracks in that stalemate (google fiber, municipal fiber). The issue is that rest of the world did all this 15-20 years ago. Paradoxically often because they had incubent monopolies of their own blocking expansion of cheap dialup and DSL, while the US enjoyed relatively sane dialup and DSL market in the 90s - FTC, in spite of all its faults, did far better job back then than it does now.
Bottom line is that basically nobody in the world cares bout "net neutrality", it's purely political US fabrication born out of ignorance. ISPs can have "fast lanes" however they deem fit, and they overwhelmingly do as a routine matter of peering agreements. But if their peering is more shit than the next guy's, people simply switch ISPs, because majority of em have viable alternatives because the market isn't completely cornered.
Funny, really funny, that Whatabboutism started as a Soviet-era propaganda technique.
Even if the Trump campaign had no help whatsoever from the Russians, he has borrowed their propaganda techniques.
Ive used duck duck go for awhile as my first go to for search. The ! system was a smart move by them. I use !g or !b based on some searches that I feel do better with google or bing. heck the maps they give have a drop down for you to select the source. Anyone in the know uses duck duck go.