The Real Issue With Net Neutrality 239
An anonymous reader writes "TechDirt brings into focus one of the largest problems in the net neutrality debate, not the issues themselves, rather it's the people involved and the lies they like to sling. An example of this is certainly the number of lobbyists that are being looked to as 'experts' and getting their opinions published as such. One specific example was a recent piece published in the Baltimore Sun by Mike McCurry, a lobbyist working for AT&T who claimed that with new legislation working for net neutrality Google wouldn't have to pay a dime. In response, TechDirt has suggested that McCurry should swap telco bills with Google, somehow I doubt it will happen."
There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:5, Interesting)
We have to realize that EVERY law that goes into existence does so for two reasons:
1. To try to fix some problem that exists TODAY.
2. To try to give more power to the few who love power over the masses.
These both go hand-in-hand. Laws don't regularly leave the books, so they stick around for generations, usually preventing new creations from makig our lives better. The power passes hands from one politician to the next, and the elite few know they can use that power to make their lives better at a very small expense to each individual of the masses. What do you care if a regulation costs you US$10 a year more? When 100 million taxpayers each pay that US$10 per year for a regulation or preferential treatment, someone is taking in US$1 billion because of it. It is in their interest to keep the laws on the books.
Net neutrality doesn't matter because the Internet as it is today doesn't matter. Over time, preferred networks will have to occur in some way, and that is OK. AOL had their own network, but it failed. Compuserve had a huge "Internet" for years before IP was the preferred transport, and it failed. Google has its own network of caches and archives, but it isn't what people want to browse (I rarely use Google's cache, unless a site is down or gone). Right now people will switch from ial-up to DSL to cable based on their desire to access information quickly. You can switch over in less than 2 weeks, sometimes days.
But there are reasons some are precluded from switching easily. Usually it is because a local municipality or state has laws creating a monopoly provider. You can't blame competition for this -- you can blame government. Now some people want to give more power to the Federal government even though the Constitution says they can't have that power. It won't matter -- the politicians are producing large amounts of FUD (along with the businesses that rely on government's ability to create monopolies in markets) to scare the average consumer into believing the "Net" will fall apart if it doesn't remain neutral.
It won't happen. As long as government doesn't create monopoly powers through Internet regulations, the Net will change to what the consumers want. Right now, the municipalities that dictate which monopoly provider can give the residents access create HUGE problems for those residents. States that do the same also create a huge problem for their residents. Imagine if we pushed those problems to the national level -- we'd all lose the ability to work around monopoly-mandates created by government.
Don't do it -- don't give the Federal government ANY chance to regulate or require ANYTHING. Let competition give us what we want. Competition crushed AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy in the U.S. Competition crushed the BBSes that hung around while ISPs gave users more information and quicker. Competition crushed the modem to be replaced by 8 different ways to connect to other computers. Competition crushed the CD, the DVD and the newspaper. Let it crush more so we get more for less.
you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:4, Informative)
The DVD is in its prime right now. For that matter, CD sales are still brisk (even now) and there's a lot of dead trees turning into newspapers.
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean "peaking." Blockbuster and NetFlix offices are running around freaking out as we push our net connections to 1Gb/s -- more than fast enough to display HD video real time to the home. While sales numbers may keep climbing, I would venture a guess (an industry-educated guess, at that) that the DVD is already replaced with XViD and fast connections. Two more "evolutionary" steps for video and HD-DVD will be forgotten, too.
For that matter, CD sales are still brisk (even now)
I'm already helping bands sell their music at shows straight-to-iPod. A US$100 device (basically a memory stick, a button and an iPod cable) lets bands make infinite margins since they have zero distribution cost (no CDs, no printing costs, etc). It won't be long for CD to be forgotten, either.
and there's a lot of dead trees turning into newspapers.
Massive layouts at every newspaper, the resurgence of limited-distribution zines online, and the blogosphere would disagree with you in terms of the next 2 years.
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:2, Informative)
Really? I see you as being wrong. Check out this image [cable-modem.net]. For those VERY few white spots on the map, you have Satellite broadband [wildblue.com] which is available in 99.9% of the US.
According to various trade journal publications, the days of 1.5Mb/s are over, soon to be replaced with 1.5Gb/s bandwidt
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The scary part of that map is that the green areas are areas in which there is still no viable competition. One telco plus one cable modem provider does not competition make. That means for maybe 3% of the country, there is a true broadband marketplace, and the other 97% still gets stuck with a bill for $50/month for 384/128k. Yes, I'm exaggerating a little, but only a little....
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:4, Informative)
Satellite is available, but I doubt I would be able to watch most of a 30 minute tv show before they throttled my connection down for using too much bandwidth.
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:2)
on a nother note.. the whole satellite throttling thing is annoying... i know someone who has it and was using it.. when it started to get Really slow he called them.. the tech blamed it on bad weather.. (by the way it was sunny no clouds to be seen.) once he pointed this out.. the connection was fine again.. atleast for another 15min until he got off the phone
they are a
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:4, Informative)
The same situation existed when I lived five miles away in a different city (different cable company, same number of choices: two). That sure ain't four.
The map also shows most of the Twin Cities metro as orange, but I know for a fact that my old townhouse only had Qwest DSL and RoadRunner available, and there are LOTS of places that have cablemodem but no DSL at all due to distance from the CO or old POTS infrastructure that doesn't support a DSL connection.
I think the map was produced by an extreme optimist.
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:2)
The FSAN/ITU-t G983 standard offers approximately 650Mbit/s or half what I quoted. This is an already two provisions at this speed available for the market, although current state regulations are limiting the effectiveness of rolling it out. APON, as far as I know, will support this speed without major concern although there are overhead considerations. I'm not sure which trade journal I got the information from, but if you really need to know just e-mail me and I'll look it up next time I'm in the o
Re:you are getting ahead of yourself.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're thinking in very 2004 terms, technologically. The main impediment is competition at the moment -- we're still waiting for competitive systems to keep pushing the envelope. My home network is currently getting about 600Kbit/s without
Why would a fast connection replace a DVD? (Score:2)
While being able to watch streaming video is nice, such streaming only suppliments DVDs (in my view) and doesn't directly replace them.
Re:Are you a professional writer and/or... (Score:2)
Any subscribers care to dig through our post histories?
Re:Are you a professional writer and/or... (Score:2)
We closed up shop in Q4 of 2005 (or were forced to, actually). My original figures were US$40,000 of debt that wasn't easily payable. 12 different attempts to liquidate our inventory (which I believe was about US$200,000) failed, so we had to use a liquidation company which en
Re:Are you a professional writer and/or... (Score:4, Funny)
You live in a trailer park in south milwaukee and drive a used toyota corolla. Who, exactly, do you think wants to "mimic" your lifestyle? Junis?
Re:Are you a professional writer and/or... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I now own 6 mobile homes in my area (halfway between Milwaukee and Chicago) and am expanding that holding to at least 20 throughout the country in the next few months in hopes of a pending bubble collapse that will leave a lot of families needing a place to move to. The mobile home idea came directly from Gary North [lewrockwell.com]'s article on opportunities and living expenses last year (the article I link to is a more recent recap o
Re:Are you a professional writer and/or... (Score:5, Funny)
Haven't seen masturbation like this on Slashdot in a while.
What, is Fark.com down or something?
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:4, Insightful)
The government has ALREADY created monopoly powers for internet companies - unless you want 45 different lines running down your street, you get one, maybe two providers.
The tradeoff that these natural monopolies provide is that they don't get to benefit from being a monopoly (i.e., regulation and price ceilings). It's a non-ideal solution for an unsolveable problem, but it's a necessary solution that is practical, much as the anti-regulation crowd may hate it.
Everyone I've seen rail against regulation on the grounds that "regulation never encourages competition" always seems to forget that Net Neutrality proponents are only trying to restore the very balance that DID exist, the balance that the FCC removed last year.
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:3, Insightful)
The government has ALREADY created monopoly powers for internet companies - unless you want 45 different lines running down your street, you get one, maybe two providers.
Huh? Why is this a problem? 45 different lines won't occupy much more space than they already do -- plus I doubt we'd see this problem as I think we'd see companies dedicated to pulling lines to re-lease to others if we had more competition in the municipalities. To think that every company would want their own lines is unrealistic, just
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Not gonna work. The reason there are monopolies in the telecom industry is that for 99% of the country (square-footage-wise), a second company would simply go out of business. Hell, here in the Silicon Valley, we had a choice in local phone companies for exactly a year. Nobody chose it because SBC wouldn't allow a VCLEC and a DCLEC on the same line.. Then SBC bought the other choice. So much for your free market. Not that someone couldn't come in and put in a new wire infrastructure, but that's never
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2, Funny)
Far more than two providers in most of US (Score:3, Informative)
Usually there's only one cable TV company, and usually they're the only ones who sell cable modem service on it, though sometimes they're more open than that, and sometimes RCN or another overbuilder put in a second cable system. (In much of the country, the telco is trying to get into the wired-TV business, as well as reselling satellite TV, and that's what's really driving much of this debate, other than political opportunism by carpetbaggers li
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
It's not necessary to be proactive about this. It will just happen. Like water, human interest will flow through the path of least resistance. That's why so many people download movies and music - the alternatives are more work and less satisfying. Where there is a crippled internet there will always be 1000 untethered darknets.
Industry, and later government, will adapt or die. For instance, look at your
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider myself a Republican, but I'm going to say something against the party line - the free market does NOT solve all ills! Where exactly is this competition of which you speak? Tell that to the masses of Americans who do not live in large towns and have only source for broadband. Where exactly do they go when their local broadband provider charges them AND Google and friends more?
Guys like you always spout off the same tired nonsense - "If company A charges me too much for broadband, then I'll go to company B!" What exactly do you when there is no company B in your small town?
There are things in life in which it is useful to have government regulation. There are things in which it is useful to not have government regulation. I feel sorry for you that you are yet another person too blind to see that. You are going to get your wish. It's clear that Net Nuetrality is dead and for better or worse (probably worse) we're going to have to live with that.
By the way, AOL and Prodigy are both still around. I don't know about Compuserve. In the case of AOL, I think it wasn't just competition that killed them but other factors.
1) Increasing technical knowledge by their customers who finally realized that there was more to the internet than AOL and its hand holding.
2) Increasing desire of Americans to move to broadband with the realization that AOL didn't really offer any value for the extra money if they already had broadband. It's one thing to pay AOL for a dial up connection. It's something else to pay for broadband AND then pay for AOL on top of that.
3) AOL's prices weren't very good compared to the competition.
4) AOL's very unpopular mail campaigns may have, in fact, turned off potential customers.
5) AOL's terrible reputation for customers being unable to cancel service surely was a huge negative. If you're a 22 year old graduate on your own for the first time are you going to sign up with a service that makes it essentially impossible to cancel? Probably not.
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
You should thank earlier efforts to regulate telephony, cable service, and Internet provision for this situation.
More regulation is not the answer... When I get mistreated by a service provider (any service), I don't want to call the district attor
Re:w/out early efforts they couldnt call anybody! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is foolish. The radio technology could've solved that "last 10 miles" problem", if the government had not created the land-line monopolies, for example.
And? What exactl
Government Monopolies blocking progress (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not just the land-line telco monopoly that blocked development of radio-based telephony to rural areas - it was also the radio monopolies. (Roosevelt got lots of credit for trust-busting, but in reality he locked up quasi-monopoly control over huge parts of US industry in ways that have plagued us ever since. And the telco and radio-licensing monopolies got along quite well, thank you, because it let them avoid having to compete with each other.) It's not clear when effective radio telephony would have been developed - it was obviously easier after we got computer technology, but there are things that could have been built back in vacuum-tube days that never occurred to anybody because there wasn't an application for them, and the limited ham-radio market wasn't enough to bring costs down.
You might have ended up with rural communities on the equivalent of huge party lines or CB radio with phone patches, which would have been socially _different_ from telco service - but that could have been ok.
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it doesn't -- but it can. I bet that most of the ills you speak of are completely non-existent.
Where exactly is this competition of which you speak? Tell that to the masses of Americans who do not live in large towns and have only source for broadband. Where exactly do they go when their local broadband provider charges them AND Google and friends more?
So start your own
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:3, Insightful)
And herein lies the rub. What are you going to do when your mini-ISP's ISP kills all your clients' connections to Google? Switch to another ISP who... suprise! ultimately gets their internet connection from the same place you did and is currently having the same problem?
Regulation or no regulation, once the telcos and cable companies have crossed this line, it will be VERY expensive to fix it if they can't be forced to retreat on their own (and seriously, now that the statement of intent has be
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
You think big.
You talk to the other mini-ISPs across the country, and form the Free Net Foundation. You raise some money (remember, you've already got 1000s of customers in these mini-ISPs), set up a new backbone (I've heard that Google owns
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:4, Informative)
That bandwidth is PAID FOR. Repeatedly.
Google pays for the bits that go to and from their pipe. So, If I send a packet to google, I pay to send the packet (admitedly, only fractions of a penny for a single packet, but you'll have that), Google pays to recieve and reply to that packet, and then I pay to recieve that reply (every bit going over my line requires bandwidth, and therefore I have paid for that bandwidth, even if not paying per bit or minute etc).
The packet both ways uses up bandwidth on two connections that are both paid for. The consumer pays the ISP, the ISP pays the Telco, and so on. So, that comunication has already been paid for. And now, the telco wants MORE money just to keep the packets going at the speed they are at today.
This is just pure greed. Period. And not one person who advocates doing away with net nutrality has brought up one argument to explain why the Telco should get paid a third to possibly a FIFTH time for the same message sequence. If anyone can explain why, I'm all ears.
Re:Tier 1 Longhaul Internet Market is *Cheap* (Score:4, Informative)
Prioritization of service is an entirely different animal and an entirely different argument. I don't think anyone is arguing that VOIP packets can't be routed differently than FTP packets or HTTP packets. That's not the issue.
The issue is when packets from redhat.com are passed more slowly because redhat hasn't paid for their speed "upgrade" to whatever Tier1 the packet happens to pass through. Nevermind that their connection and yours both have plenty of room. It's an artificial bottleneck created simply to generate revenue, when in truth both parties have already paid for their connection.
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Well since currently regulation requires Company B to have to jump through all kinds of hoops if they're allowed into your small town to begin with, you're in trouble. But this is where "the market will pay exactly what something is worth" comes in. If Company A doesn't offer enough to justify what it's costing you, then you don't pay for it. If they want your busi
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
But the reality is that everybody's not talking about deregulation; if anything, the telcos are pushing for more monopoly powers. They want to not have to be neutral and be a monopoly at the same time.
The problem is that since any debate about stopping the monopolies is drowned out by "net neutrality," anyone arguing against it i
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:3, Insightful)
No they don't; they're supposed to be "common carriers" which means they can't discriminate based on content (for example, by charging more for some packets because they came from Google). The monopoly ISPs are trying to abolish that; most everyone else is trying to keep it.
What are you talking about?! The telcos won't do that; half the time they're the monopolies in the first
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
And maybe I also have a different definition of "monopoly", but mine goes something like "a company that has a lack of competition in a market".
So, if you let in the telcos to compete with cable operators who in many cases fit the above definition of monopoly, then by definition, there will no longer be a monopoly. Thus, telcos will bust up monop
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's correct -- and that's what will happen without net neutrality.
This is entirely myopi
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2, Informative)
The existing monopoly is the problem here (Score:2)
The phone companies want "net neutrality" so they can run video in, without having to do this themselves.
AT&T is running TV ads saying this would mean competition, and thus lower video costs (cable bill) to the consumer.
Re:The existing monopoly is the problem here (Score:2)
Re:The existing monopoly is the problem here (Score:2)
And that is a blatant lie, since, as you said, they've still got their monopoly. In reality, since the monopolies aren't going to lose their advantage, we need net neutrality to keep them from fucking us over.
The only "competition" AT&T wants is pitting MS and Google against each other to bid up the extortion fees for being the "preferred" video provider.
How refreshingly Libertarian! (Score:2)
And an FP to boot...
You even pre-empted the usual totalitarian response about the virtues of government oversight.
Mad props and all!
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
1. To try to fix some problem that exists TODAY.
2. To try to give more power to the few who love power over the masses.
You missed: 0. Because some one thinks he can make $$$ from it.
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
No he didn't. Money is power, therefore your reason #0 is identical to his reason #2.
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly. As long as there is competition in a hugely capital-intensive market, you'll have a minimum of providers undercutting potential new competition, along with collusion. At best you'll get very, very slow one-upmanship without major capital improvements.
Let it crush more? So that we have fewer, not more, options as to how we get deliverables? Unregulated markets of non-commodity goods (like internet service) result in monopolies and oligopolies. That's the natural state... even your totally unregulated Austrian model has to adjust for monopolistic force in order to work properly. If you really want better performance in terms of net result for the consumer, you either need to take actions to prevent monopolies, or take actions to regulate them -- whether you're from the Austrian school of thought (such as yourself), the Keynesian (such as the FRB), or another (such as myself). In the case of the telcos, it was determined that regulation was a better bet because of the alternative would have either been state-owned infrastructure, or no service to less dense areas.
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
There are numerous satellite broadband providers [wildblue.com] offering 1.5Mbps down and up to 256Kbps up throughout all 50 states at around US$50 to US$100 per month. Nothing precludes one person from getting a corporate account that allows reselling of the bandwidth. The
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Look again in 10 years. Also, whose fiber are they using? How did that fiber get there (who paid for it, and why were they able to afford to pay for it)?
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
There are numerous satellite broadband providers offering 1.5Mbps down and up to 256Kbps up throughout all 50 states at around US$50 to US$100 per month. Nothing precludes one person from getting a corporate account that allows reselling of the bandwidth. These speeds are only held back by FCC regulations.
Wouldn't matter if they had infinite bandwidth. Satellite internet is still a joke. Satellite links with large bandwidth have been around for decades. There's a reason why satellite internet is not
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Gosh, you're right, everything should be left up to large companies to decide! I'm sure they'll make a decision that's in our best interests!
Seriously, you convinced me. A body whose mandate is to make profit quarter by quarter is bound to act more in the public interest than a body whose mandate (however theoretical it may sometimes appear) is to serve the public!
You know what would be cool? If there were _no_ regulations and _nothing_ to stop whichever corporations are best able to exploit the planet a
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
I'm not saying you're wrong, exactly, just that bringing nothing to the table but a broad ideological theory isn't very helpful or convicing. If y
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
But there are other theories on the other side that are just as strong. You know, like "information wants to be free" or the idea that nobody, not corpor
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Secondly, the most practical problem with government regulation in my mind is that I'd rather the government be spending its time, money, and energy (wait, I take that ba
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
The other choice (and perhaps a better one), is to minimize the monopoly. Basically allow a company to serve from a CO (or perhaps the green box) to the home. They will be regulated and will NOT be allowed to do anything else WRT content or overall network. While I am not a big fan of regulations, it can be seen that a small
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
BTW--slightly OT here, but I just knew there was a reason I liked you. Which one did you run? ExecPC?
Actually, I provisioned an X.25 packet switching connection before I left the pre-Internet business
When I ran my FidoNet node (I wish I could recall the number), I had something called a CallPak because my suburb of C
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
Sadly, that has been proven over and over, and yet we will continue to do it again.
Re:There is no "net" to be "neutral" with. (Score:2)
You're ignoring what competition really is -- it isn't corporations or unions or markets or groups of anything; it is individuals looking to get more out of something they put into.
When you go to a gas station to b
What?! (Score:5, Funny)
William Randolph Hearst must be rolling (more specifically ROFLING) in his grave.
Ted Stevens (Score:3, Funny)
FWIW (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as I'm posting -- is this Ted Stevens "tubes" stuff not becoming as annoying as flying spaghetti and chair throwing references? It's not like more than a handful of those smarmy dweebs could actually explain to you how IP or Ethernet really does work.
Re:FWIW (Score:2)
Re:FWIW (Score:2)
The general consumer has no say whatsoever in this.
Too true. Ok, so you don't like Comcast's stand on neutrality; are going to go to Verizon? Bell South? The consumer is a chicken in a lair of wolves.
Net Neutrality boils down to a clash of the titans: pipe providers vs. content providers. Both have buckets of cash and its doubtful that this grudge match is going to resolve much. You know that in a non-neutral world, Google will simply run its own fiber everywhere and thumb its nose at the telecoms.
Re:FWIW (Score:2)
Except for the many places that will let the (no longer neutral) telco keep its monopoly, and prohibit Google from laying that fiber. Everyone there will be entirely fucked over.
Re:FWIW (Score:2)
The rules are simple -- don't act like a moron, and you won't be immortalized as one. Ted Stevens, Jerry Taylor, and Steve Ballmer deserve every bit of ridicule they get, and m
Re:FWIW (Score:2)
Maybe it is losing its entertainment value. So from that perspective, I suppose it is getting annoying. However, entertainment value isn't the metric that we should really be looking at. The fact of the matter is that Stevens is one of the people who
What the lobbyist really means (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the lobbyist really means (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, the Telco line is that Google is making a fortune using their networks & they are getting nothing out of it. They are currently hoping people ignore/don't know that while you pay for your connection, the site you connect to is also paying - again the whole double dip thing.
The telcos got over $5B in tax credits/subsidies in order to improve the network - they promised 40Mbps. Now they say that unles
Re:What the lobbyist really means (Score:2)
can a wired net be old hat? (Score:4, Insightful)
Municipalities are pushing wireless access. Home networking is hot. Wireless access is unibquitous. Add it up. Soon enough, links from one cloud to another will start to happen. When enough content exists within those hops to let users surf for longer and longer time periods before hopping to a big-pipe ISP, you're going to see this mess move on. The largest middleman of the internet to get cut is...the backbone!
To read the (some of) local newspapers in my hometown (oregonlive), I may be able to go from the city to them. I want more wireless hosting, or perhaps mirrors. It seems this is the only path towards skipping these monopoly wires. Then, they'll have to again offer better price/value points than this garbage bill.
Re:can a wired net be old hat? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see this happening in some areas, but certainly not ALL of them.
Who in Oklahoma is going to pay to build the huge towers needed for carrying the signal across the state? In other areas, you may be able to get a sliver of property on the tops of mountains, and have reasonably short distances between dense population centers to connect, but in most of the US, I don't see this happening in a non-profit way. Forget about intercontinental
Mesh networks (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why we need wireless hardware that has a built-in 1TB hard disk and talks freely to nearby unrelated wireless hardware. Instead of fetching http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] from the central server each time, you can get it from one of your neighbors. Routers that hash, cach
The lay have no way to truly know (Score:5, Insightful)
I have spent the last few months speaking (sometimes drunkenly) at great lengths about the net neutrality concept - a concept, which quite frankly, I had taken for granted (I didn't really realize the net was neutral, it's just how it has to work). Many of my friends had fallen for the idea that a tiered internet would simply mean better and faster access to video and music. After all, didn't they pay more for "premium" channels on TV?
My one friend, so adamant - largly because he is naturally agumentative - finally began to realize how easily those in power (and today information is power - has it even not been?) can manipulate the ignorant. He realized this only after he asked me to look at his computer to see why his comcast was so slow (and why his vonage was cutting-out).
I ran a simple trace route and noticed that it appeared requests to local IPs were being routed through dallas and new york from his home in Sacramento. I told him I didn't think this was the best way to reduce the latency he was getting from his long distance calls and online gaming. I hypothesize that by comcast routing some clients through these innefecient routes they were somehow load-balancing the demand on their network (of course, new york, dallas, and chicago could just be fancy names for comcast's local california routers - but it seems a dubious naming scheme for local devices).
Without me, his technical friend, he would simply continue to accept his connection as is - and in fact may begin to attribute his degraded service to the FUD of the internet "falling apart".
There are so few of us who can fully (or at least somewhat) grasp what the debate really means - how can the vast majority of non-technical, voting citizens possibly make informed decisions about this?
Never change a running system (Score:2)
Net Neutrality and Quality of Service (Score:5, Insightful)
What is important in Network Neutrality legislation is to ensure that Internet providers do not discriminate based on: (a) the type of content sent, or (b) the sender and/or receiver. What sort of discrimination should be permitted, however, is a differentiation of "quality of service" depending on what the sender/receiver has paid for: with the same rates applying across all of their customers. Hence, the legislation in this area should permit technical advancement in mechanism to partition service based on quality -- but not innovations which extract monopoly rent from particularly lucrative customers and/or content types (or unfavored customers and/or content types).
A good analogy is sending first-class mail via USPS, the price is the same no matter where the destination is and regardless of what the letter in the envelope says. The "common carrier" doesn't open up letters to see if there is a check/cash inside, and charge a 1% fee for sending monetary instruments. The USPS doesn't differentiate between Joe or Martha in line, play political favoritism, or deliver particular customer's mail faster than others, etc. What USPS does differentiate on is the size of the content sent (ie, number of letters) and on the speed of delivery -- you can get 2nd day overnight, etc. The point is, all businesses and content are equal from the point of view of the mail carrier. So too should the transmission of internet packets be neutral to the sender/receiver and the actual message sent.
By fighting that all packets are equal is a losing (and wrong headed) battle. What is important is that we fight for democracy on the Internet: Vonage should get the same quality of service per dollar as AT&T VoIP services and even completely unrelated content, such as Google searches. What is being sent and by whom should be forbidden from the price/quality curve - but there should be a curve.
McCurry's Favors (Score:4, Insightful)
Do your part! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatetallybyvote [savetheinternet.com]
You can call toll free through the Capitol switchboard at 888-355-3588.
Ted Stevens is trying to force a vote on Thursday, so there is little time! Each phone call is considered to be worth about a 1,000 votes the general election, so your phone call will make a difference!
The follwing three senators are crucial:
- Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
- Ben Nelson of Nebraska
- Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
You can make a difference!!! Call now!
Thanks,
Mike
Network neutrality simplified (Score:5, Informative)
(I linked to the Google cache 'cuz my server won't take the load and Coral Cache [coralcdn.org] seems to be down)
The problem with let the market decide argument... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree that there should be no legislation to force any net neutrality on telcos, but these companies are expressing their INTENT to discriminate against specific content providers. And when both your dsl and cable company discriminate in a similar fashion, by having tiered services, how can you choose to take your business elsewhere?
Put yourself in the shoes of the executives at the telco companies. If you want to maximize your company's profits, the best thing to do might be to create an artificial shortage of bandwidth for everyone once ANY company is willing to pay for premium routing service. Now consider the point of view of the content providers. You might want to be the first company willing to pay AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. for premium routing service so that you have a competitive advantage in terms of performance. Of course, you will only want to pay for premium service if there is a performance benefit compared to non-premium service, hence discrimination is key for opening this new revenue source.
Yes, letting the market decide instead of forcing legislation is the best option in a truly competitive environment, but we do not have such competition in the U.S.
Now we get to see how AT&T and the like operat (Score:2)
It's almost like watching one of those slumbering elephants rampage through a peaceful, prosperous village to keep them fr
Consider the source... (Score:2, Informative)
You've got to consider the source... Mike McCurry [wikipedia.org]
FTA:
Mike McCurry (born 27 October 1954) is best known as the former press secretary for Bill Clinton's administration. He is a Washington-based communications consultant and is associated with the firm Public Strategies Washington, Inc. and the internet technology firm, Grassroots Enterprise Inc.
McCurry is a partner at the influential Washington, D.C. based lobbying firm Public Strategies. In 2006 he has been lobbying on behalf of major network
Keep Going. (Score:2)
OK, I considered the source, so what? He's someone who wants the internet to work like it works now. Is there something you want to add based on other things he's done?
Net neutrality issue ridiculous, lobbying worse (Score:3, Insightful)
The long and short of it, I explain the issues to some of the non savvy, and outline that it's ridiculous, and the real problem is the super wealthy and powerful shoving government around... or rather that the government listens more to the money than to the issues.
whitehouse.gov and net neutrality (Score:3, Interesting)
How would the whitehouse and all the government sites feel if they have to pay their extortion fee to be as reachable as they where before through the Internet?
Re:Potatoes are a series of tubers (Score:3, Insightful)
You get to shut the fuck up, or at least not post anonymously. Or when I have more time, I'll carefully rip apart the pile of crap you linked to. "If it had been left to the government..." Yes, but it was done with BOTH the corporations AND government support. Take government funds, suffer goverment regulations. Fair's fair.
Re:Ironic that Slashdot itself in "non neutral". (Score:3, Interesting)
If you pay more and subscribe, you get more services! It's criminal! ;)
Services? What are these "services" of which you speak? Other than getting to nip a few ads, see upcoming stories so I can pre-prepare my rants, and the extra karma point, there aren't many services I enjoy as a subscriber that I can't live without. I subscribe to support Slashdot and help keep it running. Plus I write the contribution off on my taxes... oh wait...
Re:Ironic that Slashdot itself in "non neutral". (Score:2)
Re:Ironic that Slashdot itself in "non neutral". (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I just can't.
Re:Swap telco bills? WTF? (Score:2)
Read the f*ing article!
I quote the article [McCurry:]"The "neutral" proposal that companies like Google are touting will ensure that they never have to pay a dime no matter how much bandwidth they use, and consumers who may only use their computers to send e-mail and play Solitaire get to foot the bill."
The whole issue is about companies will to triple charging: they already charge the end users, there's the service that gets charged fo
Re:Swap telco bills? WTF? (Score:2)
Thank you for the clarification... I still doubt, anyone would want to swap their telco bills with Google — with or without net neutrality, their bill is very large anyway.
Re:Swap telco bills? WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
mi said: The telco's are supposed to already be regulated by the FCC (part of the executive branch of the government) because they are already monopolies. The current administration is trying to dismantle as much regulation as it can get away with. These efforts recently did away with enforcing regulations that had been keep the Net "neutral".
In theory at least, our government is composed of three official branches which are supposed to balance power through a system of checks and balances. If the Legislature feels that the Executive is abusing its power by being way too lax in enforcing the existing laws and regulations then the proper way for them to deal with that situation is to pass new, more explicit, laws even though there are already laws on the books that have been working just great for the past 100 years. This is how our government is supposed to function.
To put it in other words: we didn't have a friggin' Internet 100 years ago so laws that were meant to regulate the steel, gas, and railroad industries may need to be updated in order to be applied correctly to a type of monopoly that wasn't even imagined 100 years ago.
Re:Swap telco bills? WTF? (Score:2)
Of course, McCurry meant, they don't get charged extra — they pay their fixed prices for the pipes, I suppose. And, I suspect, they get a pretty good "bulk" discount. Google is free to shop around for a better deal — and should only complain, if it has evidence of a trust-like conspiracy to keep prices high.
Re:Swap telco bills? WTF? (Score:2)
Here's what he was trying to say, in hopefully easier-to-understand language:
[For simplification purposes, we'll assume a 2 ISP case, with peering.]
Okay, so now here's how the Internet works: End users pay ISP A for their connection to the Internet. Google pays ISP B for its connection to the Internet. In both cases, the fees cover the costs of both inbound and outbound traffic over that I
Re:Swap telco bills? WTF? (Score:2)
As long as there is competition (ISP C, D, E, ...) — and there is — there is no need for government intervention. Increasing the competition