Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality: 'Father Of Internet' Joins Tech Leaders in Condemning Repeal Plan (theguardian.com)
More than 20 internet pioneers and leaders including the "father of the internet", Vint Cerf; the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee; and the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak have urged the FCC to cancel its vote to repeal net neutrality, describing the plan as "based on a flawed and factually inaccurate" understanding of how the internet works. From a report: "The FCC's rushed and technically incorrect proposed order to repeal net neutrality protections without any replacement is an imminent threat to the internet we worked so hard to create. It should be stopped," said the technology luminaries in an open letter to lawmakers (PDF) with oversight of the Federal Communications Commission on Monday. The letter refers to the FCC's proposed Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which removes net neutrality protections introduced in 2015 to ensure that internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon would treat all web content and applications equally and not throttle, block or prioritise some content in return for payment. The FCC's vote on the proposed order is scheduled for 14 December and it is expected to be approved. "It is important to understand that the FCC's proposed order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology," the internet pioneers state, adding that the flaws were outlined in detail in a 43-page comment submitted by 200 tech leaders to the FCC in July.
It's not phrased in legal terms, therefore Pai will ignore it.
Of course, if it was phrased the way he wanted, he'd find another reason to ignore it.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Sometimes I think the current administration is just doing things to purposely piss people off, like a heel in wrestling.
He's a bona fide e celebrity and he's also very pro Net Neutrality. Which Google clearly see as being in their long term interests.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Fuck TBL.
Both the article and summary state Vint Cerf is the father of the Internet and Berners-Lee is the inventor of the World Wide Web.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Yeah thats' Al Gore's title.
I think you read it wrong. It says, "More than 20 internet pioneers and leaders including the "father of the internet", Vint Cerf; the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee. . ."
So, it's stating that Vint Ceft is considered a father of the internet and TBL is "the inventor of the world wide web." Maybe they changed it before I read it?
And _he_ wouldn't make the claim either. TBL is the father of the _World Wide Web_.
You also wouldn't be able to find a person under the age of 30 who would know the difference, thus making semantics rather pointless.
In fact, with the way we've marketed ourselves away from the "www" domain preface, I doubt if even 25% of the population even knows what the hell the "World Wide Web" is. The masses only know it as the "internet" now (or in the case of GenY/Z, their "left arm").
Pretty sure the article labels Vint Cerf as the father of the Internet, and TBL as the inventor of the WWW.
What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...
Technology just amplifies what's already there. For the people who are interested in using it it expand their world and genuinely connect with and learn from others, I think social media is tremendously beneficial. But if you're determined to be prejudiced, it can give you an endless source of justification for your prejudices, and if you're vulnerable to disinformation, you can find enough to choke on. Most importantly, both the good and bad effects are probably at work in everyone. Otherwise smart, good people can make really dumb mistakes.
Sometimes I think the current administration is just doing things to purposely piss people off, like a heel in wrestling.
It's misdirection, like a magic act.
The administration is doing what's right legally, while the media is complaining about the move technically. Meaning, based on the technical merits.
The NN decision was clearly unconstitutional, wouldn't have stood up to a supreme court challenge (their previous attempt didn't), and went against congress' explicit instructions.
But that doesn't encourage "emotional involvement" for the story, so the media hypes up the technical merits, predicts how bad it will be, and how the decision affects everyone.
And the media never talks about the correct remedy, which would be "making a law". Companies suggest laws to congress all the time, it's how a lot of industry-specific laws get made. Google, Microsoft, and Facebook could put together a proposal in a week and have any number of senators or representatives introduce it as legislation. Everyone agrees that NN is a good thing, that law would easily pass.
It's a magic act.
It's not the administration that's pissing you off, it's the media misdirecting the conversation to get you "emotionally involved".
Are you outraged yet?
(And as an aside, your "emotional involvement" is negative emotions, aimed at the administration. We simply *cannot* have government agencies making up regulations against the wishes of congress, but apparently the media doesn't think that's important.)
That's not what is being claimed
"father of the internet", Vint Cerf; the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee; and the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak
In xml it would be
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Net neutrality was introduced to stop nasty things that were planned or introduced by the ISPs. There was an imminent threat when it was introduced, and the ISPs certainly haven't become any nicer in the meantime.
In the episode of the IT Crowd where Roy and Moss show Jen the box containing The Internet, they explain how it was overseen by the Elders of the Internet.
They have now spoken on Net Neutrality and its importance.
All it will take is 1 money man to control it all & buy up all the ISPs out there (yes, it's doable - monopoly laws = shit now) to control what is said, seen, & heard.
APK
P.S.=> Welcome to the 'gated community' that is going to be nothing more than a cattle herding brainwashing system to CONTROL THE MASSES (who often don't think for themselves which IS excusable as they're only products of their environmental inputs believing what they're told as I was myself as a boy believing they actually TELL THE TRUTH - no more of that here in "garbage in/garbage out I/O data of the mind") - & what do the controllers DO if you tell it how it is & they have no VALID response? This -> https://apple.slashdot.org/com... TRYING TO HIDE IT!... apk
Public Support, “Light Touch” Regulation, and the Coming Court Challenges https://www.nakedcapitalism.co... So, handing over half of US households to the tender mercies of an ISP monopoly is transparent, alright, but not, I think, in the way that Pai means. I’m sure the populist farmers and Grangers of Minnesota or South Dakota who had to ship their grain to market over one railroad in the 1880s would find RIFO oddly familiar. “Freedom for whom?” they might ask.
Google arbitrarily blocks Amazon devices from accessing its content... https://www.ft.com/content/500...
I don't know the difference. Could somebody explain simply?
Could be they don't teach how semicolons are used in school anymore.
The youth of today probably think their use are as separators in video game titles.
Hummm, on one side we have ISPs, Ajit a lawyer, fake public comments, and random Slashdot posters. On the other we have independent media companies, the old FCC head who was an ISP insider, EFF, 20 internet leaders, boat load of public comments, and random Slashdot posters.
Which side to pick... decisions decisions... hummm... so tough to choose.
Internet / www is irrelevant now. I use the blockchain!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
See the story here: https://yro.slashdot.org/story.... This is what the rest of the world will look like without net neutrality.
Correction: "...spend a lot on campaign donations..." (not "of")
Table-ized A.I.
besides Trump and Big Business / the cable providers I mean...
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
He's demonstrated his contempt for an open web by sanctioning EME in browsers, so it somewhat hypocritical of him to side with proponents of an open internet.
"It is important to understand that the FCC's proposed order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology."
It's not they don't understand. It's that they don't care. Or put another way, it's not a bug, it's a feature.
The powers-that-be behind the repeal of Net Neutrality know what the effects will be. They're counting on them.
I'm not sure any law is needed. All the screeching seems to be about actions that would already be illegal or actionable by either States or DOJ, or companies that were harmed. It's called Anti-trust and unfair competition.
It's been pointed out that NN regulation might legitimately be something the FTC should regulate.
NN deals essentially with trade and business practices, while the FCC is supposed to deal with airwaves and technical issues, so FTC seems like a good fit.
shit... something has gone horribly wrong. I find myself agreeing with APK
Too many slashdotters are surprised politicians and political appointees are not logical. Keep in mind you are dealing with Ferengi's, NOT Vulcans. Rule of Acquisition #623: "Logic is Not Profitable" (disclaimer: I made up that ROA, although there are existing similar ones.)
Note that I am not making a distinction between parties nor administrations here. It's a general rule. As far which group is more Ferengish, I'll leave that debate to another thread. And you can substitute "power" for profits in many situations.
Table-ized A.I.
Muphry's Law, isn't it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The way you write that makes it seem like you think net neutrality is a bad thing.
the father need to produce more bastard internets this one has grown sick and is about to die.
Cut off their "$" supplyline via 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 (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (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 via local RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (does more w/ less).
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ (self check vs. infection built-in)
"Father of the Internet"?
More like a sperm donor...
You may believe this, but I can assure you that most lawmakers who oppose net neutrality are not as concerned about the nature of net neutrality's legislation as they are about the very existence of such regulations in any form. I would bet good money that if it were done "the right way" as you propose, conservatives would still work to repeal net neutrality, using some other excuse to conceal motives which most people would consider to be mustache-twirling villainy.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Vint, thanks for your help. But it won't help. Where were you a year ago?
Jesus himself could come down and say that they should cancel their repeal, and Pai will still move forward with it.
His goal is not to do what is right, or good for the economy, or good for the consumers. His goal is to facilitate a power-and-wealth grab for the major ISPs. Some rich people will get richer, consequences be damned.
Muphry's Law, isn't it?
You mean Murphry's Law: The Reckoning?
Seems people are too young or dumb to remember how "great" the Bell Systems was for consumer side technology innovation when they were blatantly abusing their monopoly...
But sure, lets wait 2-3 decades before the FTC will finally fix it and the last standing mega-telco has essentially killed off all content providers and ordered to break up again.
Oh, did I mention that if you were interested in telecom technology back then, Bell was pretty much the only place you could work at?
You're going to have to show up at the polls. And that includes your primary. Until there's a party in charge that supports it it's dead.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"It is important to understand that the FCC's proposed order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology,"
This is very incorrect. The FCC understands that, without net neutrality, internet technology will lock in far more profits for Comcast and their allies. That's the only thing that they care about.
All their verbiage that people are decrying as incorrect is nothing more than FUD to justify a decision that has nothing to do with technology, or what's best for the majority of people, or anything else besides increasing and, more to the point, ensuring profits for the big guys for years to come.
Since when exactly do I not have to pay my ISP more money in order for my home server traffic to not be blocked via the fine print in the Terms of Service *USE RESTRICTIONS*?!?!?
Vint Cerf knows the score. Disingenuity is the sport of the cyber GodFather. 422 thousand fake news posts on the internet.
d
mc
I don't know the difference. Could somebody explain simply?
More or less, the web is a protocol that runs on top of the internet, much like email, or an instant messager. It is not the internet all by itself, but it uses the internet to do its thing. It's one of the most important protocols, but is still only one of many.
This is an imperfect analogy, but I can't immediately think of a more accurate one that's still simple: think of the internet as being like a road network (the internet started in the late 1960s), and the web (1990s) as a nice kind of car to use on that road network. They are both major developments, but the car is only one user of the roads, and in this case the roads were there for decades before that kind of popular car came along. Without that car there are still trucks, bicycles, pedestrians, motorcycles, and other things we could invent, much like without the web, we still have email, IRC, ssh, and more.
First world problems. So much angst over what you fear might happen to the quality of your Netflix stream. Oh the horror.
You're going to have to show up at the polls.
you know that many people vote by mail, right?
describing the plan as "based on a flawed and factually inaccurate" understanding of how the internet works
If the FCC has a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of how the Internet works, it is arguably the wrong entity for regulating ISP providers.
Now the question is how the FCC managed to grow 80% more stupid just by Tom Wheeler leaving and Ajit Pai replacing him. They must have turned all the most incompetent workers into department heads overruling the rest.
Too bad nobody else can be interested in stopping ISPs from exploiting their monopolies by screwing over their customers.
Are you really insinuating that Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, and Steve Wozniak are shills? You're sure you're not a shill yourself?
I haven't read the comment you are replying to, and I won't claim to have researched TBL or SW. But as for Cerf, *Google*'s Chief Internet Evangelist, I will bear witness to the home server (fcc complaint id 12-c00422224-1) business. See FCC 10-201 paragraph 13 -
"startups and small businesses benefit because the Internet's openness enables anyone connected to the network to reach and do business with anyone else,"
By my math, that involves not being blocked from operating a server connected to your internet access service. But apparently not by Cerf's and Google's. Which makes me think that their interest in "Net Neutrality" is conflicted by their financial interest in how that balance benefits Google financially over those whose home servers are unable to "connect to the network to reach and do business with anyone else"
$0.02...
I think you could get to a net neutrality like approach under the regulatory framework of minimum standards for ensuring a robust, resilient and reliable national communication system rather than with a blanket prohibition on companies making money providing lower latency higher bandwidth connections to some customers and partners.
One question for you- Does that involve me getting to run servers at home? squirrelmail, smtp, vpn, tor exit, unreal tournament deathmatch with flak cannons? At the same price as a youtube 4k kitten video uploader next door? If I charge my family, friends, and others bitcoins in exchange for my time administering the home server that provides them services, is it ok in your optimal-policy estimation for the ISP to charge me more money because I'm engaging in "commercial activity"? If the neighbor without paying the "business-class" uptier charge emails their resume to potential employers, is there any way I could get justice by having the police make sure they are charged for that commercial activity on their connection since I'm being charged for mine?
Ignore everything but the one question: Does that involve me getting to run servers at home? I presume your answer is yes, but I think it's a worthy part of the equation that you underrepresented.
"The FCC's rushed and technically incorrect proposed order to repeal net neutrality protections without any replacement is an imminent threat to the internet"
The internet operated just fine for 20 years without any "net neutrality" protections. But now all of the sudden there's an imminent threat without them? Please just shut up until there's an actual instance of a company behaving poorly that "net neutrality" would have prevented.
>>Something bad happens
Well it's legal for them to do it, you should switch to some other ISP!!
Tim Berners-Lee favored fast lanes which makes him support Pai's position on Net Neutrality. I quoted him 10 years ago here http://www.zdnet.com/article/a.... He said "Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn’t pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will."
He conclusively proves that the FCC doesn't understand the Internet; then he concludes, therefore, the FCC should be the ones to regulate it. I'm not sure I follow that.
He thinks all regulation is bad, and wants to drown the gov in a bathtub.
The only corporations that want this repealed is so they can bilk their captive user base for more money.
The only people that want it repealed would either have a hard time fighting their way out of a wet paper sack OR hate government so badly they want all regulation gone.
" You can't fix stupid " Ron White - Comedian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Fuck famous people. It's the voices of the rich and powerful that got us in this mess to begin with. Why should Vint Cerf have my best interests in mind? He doesn't give two shits what happens, as long as he gets paid.
Well I'd love for other people being given an opportunity to offer me the package of service I desire:
I don't use Netflix & all the other traffic intense non-sense. I just want my occasional downloads to be snappy & basic burst traffic to be excellent.
Idk what that package might look like but do a customer survey while telling them by behind as accurate as possible we hope to offer you the ideal services nothing more, nothing less for the most competitive price as possible. Surely if I'm paying $50/mo for what everyone else is paying and I use but a fraction of their bandwidth, I'm paying too much relatively & something more cost-effective can be created if we let other competitors in the market and/or repeal neutrality.
Maybe we aren't shills, maybe you're just being had by the people who are against repeal... the same people these sorts also say have too much power/money/lobbyist influence (ie Google, YouTube, etc). I don't think too many liberals/republicans understand a great deal of what they are talking about & are whales of gullibility.
Bob Kahn, co-designer of TCP/IP (with Vint obviously) has been against net neutrality for many years.
It certainly are.