Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Net Neutrality: 'Father Of Internet' Joins Tech Leaders in Condemning Repeal Plan (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what-more-do-you-need? dept.

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.

25 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Legal Phrasing by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Legal Phrasing by AlanObject · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .. Pai will ignore it.

      It does seem more and more that the fix is in. Follow the money: "legal tender" trumps "public interest" every time.

    2. Re:Legal Phrasing by mean+pun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you really insinuating that Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, and Steve Wozniak are shills? You're sure you're not a shill yourself?

    3. Re:Legal Phrasing by mean+pun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "obabas congress" is a rather misleading term. A better phrase would be "the congress that Obama had to fight and circumvent to get anything done".

    4. Re:Legal Phrasing by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're sure you're not a shill yourself?

      No one pays me to post my opinions on Net Neutrality. Vint Cerf's employer, Google, does pay him to post his.

      --
      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;
    5. Re:Legal Phrasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please actually research the regulations you claim didn't exist.

      The fallacy that the internet was an unregulated wonderland prior to 2015 is believed only by the uninformed or those purposefully trying to mislead others.

      If you actually understood how title I and II work you'd realize that the only time the internet was NOT regulated similarly as it is under the 2015 order was in 2014 when they struck down the 2010 order (as old copper lines were already covered under title II).

      In 2014, broadband companies used a terrible interpretation of title I (claiming that since they provide e-mail and DNS services they should fall under title I instead of title II). Essentially since they weren't dumb phone lines they claimed, dishonestly but successfully, that they were not telecommunication services but rather information services.

      The people who actually understand how the internet works have argued continuously that the title I classification is incorrect based on how and what the internet is and how it functions.

      The internet didn't need to be "regulated" as title II before since phone lines already were regulated (that's why before you had multiple small ISPs competing in every area plus some larger players like netscape, aol, prodigy, etc). Just because we replaced copper wires with cable and fiber doesn't mean we should magically change the way the internet is regulated. It should continue to be regulated like a utility.

    6. Re:Legal Phrasing by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      You need to revisit the definition of shill. People who are deeply enthusiastic about something and share their opinions are not shills. You can call them activists, proponents, meat-puppets, or annoying relatives. They are only shills if they do not honestly hold the opinions they espouse, and are expressing them in order to get some remuneration from an interested party. It's possible there are people on both sides who are paid shills, but it's more likely that there are just a lot of Americans who don't want the Internet to turn into yet another bastion of unadulterated, pay-for-every-fucking-thing capitalism. (see airlines and healthcare)

    7. Re:Legal Phrasing by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      No one pays me to post my opinions on Net Neutrality.

      And that's still more than they're worth.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Legal Phrasing by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Light touch" regulation failed. ISPs began to abuse their positions, and that's why NN became a thing.

      It's true that if we could somehow get a real competitive market in place where people had real options for where people get their internet service from, we wouldn't need anything like NN. I suspect that everyone (except the ISPs) would prefer that solution.

      However, that appears to be an impossible goal. So, the next best thing is something like NN regulations.

      The worst possible thing is the FCC's position of just letting the ISPs do as they please. The FCC is saying "fuck you" to us all -- either we have to be OK with bending over for the ISPs or we get to do without the internet.

    9. Re:Legal Phrasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Internet did work pretty well before it was mistakenly reclassified as an "information service". Still, this wasn't a problem until sufficient computational power became available within routers for deep packet inspection. This sort of practice should never have been allowed in the first place, and in a market absent competition, abuse was inevitable. Once the technology was available, large ISPs began their assault on net neutrality, and they didn't stop until forced to.

      Here is a record of known abuses, which will only be the beginning should Pai have his way. That list is almost certainly incomplete, and abuses will grow to be much worse now that ISPs have unprecedented power to extort both customers and third parties alike.

    10. Re:Legal Phrasing by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So Google and Facebook are push NN out of the goodness of their hearts? I find that very hard to believe. Particularly as both of them were involved in the non Net Neutral Internet Basics in India

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      They obviously see NN as being a plus in the US where they're don't own the ISPs. In other places, they're trying to own the ISPs and don't want Net Neutrality.

      --
      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;
    11. Re:Legal Phrasing by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

      Great link AC. Everyone should read that.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    12. Re:Legal Phrasing by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Gee I can't win here can I?

      "How do we know you're not a shill!"

      "Well no one pays me to post my opinions"

      "Ha, that proves your opinions are worthless".

      --
      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;
  2. Learn to read by Comboman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  3. Repealing Net Neutrality by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

    What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...

    1. Re:Repealing Net Neutrality by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...

      GOP more or less says, "It gives companies freedom to innovate and create jobs. More freedom = more jobs & more innovation."

      Of course there are practical limits to the benefits of high-freedom, and as most of us know, oligopolies usually end up abusing freedom to lock out competition and lock in customers; ruining what capitalism is supposed to provide in theory: competition and choice.

      The bottom line is that telecom oligopolies spend a lot of campaign donations to get their way: and bribery works.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Repealing Net Neutrality by bigpat · · Score: 2

      What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...

      I will bite. I hope this is going to be one step back and two steps forward and not just one step back. But being skeptical is likely the wisest response.

      Though I don't agree with lifting net neutrality in this fashion without the FCC actually addressing at least the technical aspects of what minimum standard levels of inter-connectivity we want and need for our telecoms to provide to the country. But I do and did disagree with the blanket approach to Net Neutrality which appeared to focus too much on content and business arrangements rather than the technical aspects that are needed to ensure the robust, resilient and reliable communication system that the Internet is intended to be.

      Differentiation of services has been built right into the protocols. One reason there are QoS bits in the header on an IPv6 packet is so the networks can prioritize traffic. And yes, even to charge more for higher priority traffic. Now that was more so envisioned for things like emergency calls or things that needed less latency or putting lower priority on packets that could be delivered at a higher latency at a later time. But as I understand it, paid prioritization for a better QoS or paying less for deliver later QoS was considered right from the beginning of IPv6... In many cases there is a higher cost to hardware and networks that deliver packets faster, though to some extent delivering faster is less expensive from a hardware, electricity and memory caching perspective.

      However, that doesn't mean we want telecoms making decisions about peering with other networks (or not peering) based on content and business arrangements that harm consumer choice. But I do see some real use cases where end users themselves might want all the networks from point A to point B to get a little something extra for prioritizing certain packets and delivering a better overall experience. And it has benefited technology in general to establish a virtuous cycle where early adopters can pay more early on for improved services that are rolled out to everyone else at affordable prices later. So, a blanket prohibition doesn't make sense either.

      The devil is in the details of the regulation and what comes next. We really should want to see a more equitable society where we aren't metered at every turn for bandwidth and quality of service. And charged hundreds of times over for bandwidth and service we are already paying for. Or throttled so that only the top paid tier of services can actually make good use of the full Internet. The playing field is far too rigged as it is.

      But probably some of those details should come from the Federal Trade Commission and are more about lack of options and what it means to have local monopolies where people don't have meaningful choices of Internet access providers where the rules of a free market would otherwise help weed out bad business practices and choices that customers don't want. The government interest is in fostering a free market. If local monopolies are the only Internet option, then regulation must prevent extension of anti-competitive practices.

      And probably the FCC should really be getting down to the technical details of exactly how telecoms connect up their networks and regulating them to make sure that they are providing the necessary connections for the communications their customers want. Just as they do with spectrum to maximize the usefulness of limited spectrum to the public.

      For simplicity, "Net Neutrality" has been an easier way to regulate, but it probably isn't the best possible way. That said, I don't see the FCC moving towards the more hands on technical approach of regulating the Internet like they regulate spectrum. 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

  4. Re:Enough already by mean+pun · · Score: 2

    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.

  5. Meanwhile... by x0ra · · Score: 2

    Google arbitrarily blocks Amazon devices from accessing its content... https://www.ft.com/content/500...

  6. Re:Regulation yeah right by orlanz · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Oh wait, you're serious. by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  8. Re:Does *anyone* actually support repeal? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Re:Does *anyone* actually support repeal?...besides Trump and Big Business / the cable providers I mean...

    If Fox News, Rush L., Breitbart News, and their copy-cats say "it's good", most their readers/viewers will believe it uncritically.

    If "the liberals" hate it, it must be good. It's being spun as a plot by liberals to gain control of the media and make government bigger, giving the gov't more power to force socialism on red states, outlaw Christmas, take away their guns, create welfare-dependent zombies who vote for more welfare, etc. Basically, an old-fashioned slippery-slope argument.

    Their script is pretty predictable by now for anyone who has followed politics for a few decades.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  9. Re:Fixing overreach by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    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
  10. The FCC Does Understand It by perry64 · · Score: 2

    "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.

  11. Re:Like a heel in wrestling by reg · · Score: 2

    Twitter seems connected directly to the core of his brain (micro-USB ;-)

    Given the lack of error correction, I'm pretty sure it is an old school 2-wire serial link, with no parity bits (can you have disparity bits?) and definitely no stop bits. Also seems to suffer from lots of external interference....