New Network Neutrality Squad — Users Protecting the Net 168
Lauren Weinstein writes in to announce the new "Network Neutrality Squad" — NNSquad. Joining PFIR Co-Founders Peter G. Neumann and Weinstein in this announcement are Vinton G. Cerf, Keith Dawson (Slashdot.org), David J. Farber (Carnegie Mellon University), Bob Frankston, Phil Karn (Qualcomm), David P. Reed, Paul Saffo, and Bruce Schneier (BT Counterpane). The Network Neutrality Squad ("NNSquad") is an open-membership, open-source effort, enlisting the Internet's users to help keep the Internet's operations fair and unhindered from unreasonable
restrictions. The project's focus includes detection, analysis, and incident reporting of any anticompetitive, discriminatory, or other
restrictive actions on the part of Internet service Providers (ISPs)
or affiliated entities, such as the blocking or disruptive manipulation of applications, protocols, transmissions, or bandwidth; or other similar behaviors not specifically requested by their customers.
Great idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We already understand the issues surrounding network neutrality (and Best Buy). To a normal person a name reminding them of the people who fixed their computer adds credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Geek Squad has such a shining reputation that this is a good defense for the Net Neutrality Squad's choice of name. From what I've heard from personal word of mouth, even 'normal people' don't have the best successes with Geek Squad. And then we all know the exceptional stories, like the guy who was collecting porn off of each client he visited.
I'd let 'Squad' rest a few more years. In the mean time, there are lots of other options.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our unlikely superheros.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Layer 3" might be better (Score:4, Interesting)
People need to be reminded of what the ISP's role is: The offer Layer 3 service in the form of IP. Muck around with the protocols above that and you've not only stepped outside the bounds of an ISP, but are guilty of false advertising and data falsification.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But Net Neutrality to me means much more that once you are on the Internet, one packet should have the same access as any other. I don't want anybody's advertisement to get higher priority than an email from my wife, and I don't want the performance of any website to be governed by the carrier. As long
By Our Powers Combined... (Score:3, Interesting)
expand their mandate (Score:5, Informative)
Once they start finding and pressuring individual ISPs found guilty of "non-neutral" behavior, it will create incentive for customers to leave that ISP and go to a competitor. Sometimes there won't be a competitor, such as in many rural areas.
The logical progression is to encourage consumers to form their own local groups and move to community-owned Internet access [google.ca]. This new NNSquad should expand their mandate to provide resources that help and encourage communities to achieve network independence.
Defence of Free Thought (Score:2, Interesting)
Where's the tools......? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall some discussion a while ago here on
The application could be used by the volunteers, and test the various protocols to various hosts (Skype, Google, youtube, TPB) and between the users themselves with various traffic (p2p, ping, tcp/ip, udp etc...) and see if any 'delay' occurs specific to one type of traffic. If it contained an automated reporting tool (OMG Tinfoil hat!!), then the aggregators could see trends across the various providers and not rely solely on one or two users. Of course you're entering a war of cat and mouse....
Before we can go accusing ISP's on non-neutrality, we need the tools to detect unfair play in the first place... anyone know of any?
Re: (Score:2)
First they started blocking Bit-torrent... but I did not use bit torrent so said nothing... yada yada yada... [wikipedia.org]
Network neutrality is actually redundant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Customer C sees that an ISP is advertising x MB/s connections for y dollars
Show me a single ISP that says that. The all advertise up to X MB/s and it is rare for any of them to actually reach that speed on a consistent basis. I have never seen a consumer grade ISP actually advertise a minimum guaranteed bandwidth, and there is no reason (legally or competitively) for them to do so. As long as you can get X MB/s in some situations you have no legal recourse against throttling, and potentially no recourse at all if there is only broadband provider.
and yet that redundancy is apparently necessary. (Score:2)
look at the events detailed in my sig. I guess microsoft is now "due process of law".
H.R. 1201 is supposed to require labeling and help prevent this, but it shouldn't be necessary if judges weren't deliberately ignoring the fifth amendment.
redundant laws have to be passed because if not, self interested parties will simply imply the original broader law did not apply to them. NOTE: there is a minimum wealth
Re: (Score:2)
You've just caused another issue to occur to me which I hadn't really thought about until now. Currently, I can assess the likely speeds from ISPs based on the deal I sign with them (Comcast out and out lies not withstanding). If ISPs are a
Focus on anti-competitive practices (Score:2)
Conversely, some people have tried to use the free speech angle in order to defeat ISPs. I believe it is a mistake. Politicians read a letter about ISPs harming free speech, think "raging liberal", and promptly ignore it. That's counter-productive.
The ISPs' assault on Net Neutrality is not about costs. It is not about free speech. It is all about anti-competitive
Re: (Score:2)
I hope their tactics are better than their html. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Natural Monopoly (Score:2, Informative)
Cool man- hey... (Score:2)
Nothing relevant here. Move on. (Score:2)
daemon (Score:2)
All the daemons would create a mesh which would be used to measure ISPs speed automatically.
Any unfairness would be quickly spotted.
Who knows maybe the mesh could even be used to escape a limiting ISP?
I wonder ... (Score:2)
Please start here... (Score:2)
International list of "Bad ISPs" that throttle torrent protocols, and god knows what else...
http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs [azureuswiki.com]
Cheers,
ADeptus
Re:Net Neutrality Sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Different tiers of internet service are like having a first-class and business-class seating section. You pay for X downstream and Y upstream.
Net neutrality is like saying that the airline can't sell you a first-class ticket, and then bump you down to coach unless you win a bidding war with another guy in first-class after you're on the airplane.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Net Neutrality Sucks (Score:5, Informative)
ok heres the deal. AT&T is mad because Google is making money off selling ads to THEIR users without writing a check to AT&T. the users paid for their access, as did google, but AT&T wants to double-dip, and charge Google for access to THEIR subscribers.
so lets say AT&T and Yahoo! entered into an agreement whereby Yahoo would be the default search provider for AT&T networks. AT&T could then degrade or eliminate traffic to google, in an attempt to sway user preference. would you keep going to google if it took 35 seconds to load, while yahoo comes up at lightspeed?
Teired service comes in two flavors. one is paid for by web providors, the other by customers.
1) Google pays AT&T for perfered access to THEIR customers. google would have to pay off every ISP nation wide if that were the approach.
2) create user packages where the user would pay extra for access to sites that AT&T does not have deals with. For $19.95 you get yahoo, and email. for 29.95 you can get google (but not any of the sites linked therein), and for 59.95 you can get access to the internets 200 most popular sites. full access to the internet available for $.20 per site hit. be sure not to hit reload...
neither gives you any more than you have today, all it does is take away. I pay my bill. if that isn;t enough for them, then they either need to raise their prices, or live with it.
I heard Tim Berners-lee came down on the anti side of NN. I read his arguments and while they are valid from a network engineers perspective, he's completely missing the consumer protection aspect, which is the whole reason the rest of us are discussing NN.
I am not a commodity that AT&T can buy and sell. if AT&T wants to charge companies for access to AT&T subscribers, then they owe us subscribers a check, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
what would a NN law say? (Score:2)
I worry about exactly how such a law would be written, however, if congress felt it had to act to preserve "net neutrality".
What should such a law say? What well-accepted principle should it be defending?
I don't think the issue is free speech. I think is has to do with government established infrastructure monopolies.
I would start by observing that certain companies were given the exclusive right
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's like paying up-front for first class on every flight you take, only to be bumped down to coach sometimes, depending on what airport you're flying into, and whether that airport has paid their 'passenger priority fee'.
Or it's like paying for Amtrak first class non-stop to Timbuktu and then being s
Re: (Score:2)
No, net neutrality is like saying that the airline kicks you off the plane because you are black, and the NAACP hasn't paid it's monthly extortion fee yet. You are given a stand-by ticket on the next flight, so you can't complain, because you weren't "blocked."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality from an operator's POV (Score:5, Insightful)
Net Neutrality is an issue I'm concerned with. However, the only information I get from the Net Neutrality camp seems to be "the-sky-is-falling" sensationalist propaganda. So while I want to support NN, my rational mind says "Hold the phone. This is just an ad-hominem rant, not a rational argument."
Say I'm a network operator. (I am, actually. I have more than one PC at home. And quite a few I'm in charge of at work. But let's also say I'm in the business of renting access to my network -- an "ISP" as we all say.) So I've got a bunch of subscribers paying me a fee for a connection my network. I've also got connections to other operators. Some of those are transit I pay for, some are peering agreements. My customers use those connections indirectly, of course.
Now let's say I'm looking at my traffic logs, and I see that a ton of traffic is going to and from YouTube. So much so that I have to buy more transit to operators connected closer to YouTube. So now I have a bigger bill. And that cost has to be covered (TANSTAAFL).
I could raise rates for my subscribers. Or I could say to YouTube, "Hey, guys, you're a hot ticket. If you give me some more money, I'll buy a faster pipe to you guys. If not, well, you're going to be stuck on an overloaded transit line."
While I do have concerns with the above scenario, it does not make me want to take to the streets with a torch and pitchfork. Can someone explain what is so evil in the above?
If you want to propose scenarios that involve abuse, censorship, wire-tapping, giant insect overlords, etc., that's fine, but please also address plain old business scenarios like the above.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now let's say I'm looking at my traffic logs, and I see that a ton of traffic is going to and from YouTube. So much so that I have to buy more transit to operators connected closer to YouTube. So now I have a bigger bill. And that cost has to be covered (TANSTAAFL). I could raise rates for my subscribers. Or I could say to YouTube, "Hey, guys, you're a hot ticket. If you give me some more money, I'll buy a faster pipe to you guys. If not, well, you're going to be stuck on an overloaded transit line."
There's nothing wrong with that scenario. YouTube pays you a specific amount of money for a specific amount of bandwidth. If YouTube is getting more traffic than the bandwidth can support, transfer speeds will be lower because traffic has to be throttled. This is a purely physical issue; a connection cannot carry more data than its bandwidth will allow. Additionally, if YouTube wants to increase their bandwidth, they can simply pay you more money, with the cost increasing approximately linearly with the am
Net Neutrality = Universal pricing? (Score:2)
Okay, so, in that case, "net neutrality" really means "universal pricing", i.e., legislative prohibition against first-degree price discrimination. That I can support with little reservation. However, I've seen quite a few different claims for what NN is (see other replies to my post), and not all of those claims match your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What part was flawed, exactly? The Internet isn't just a big cloud that one pays for a connection to. Just because the customer pays for a connection to the ISP's network, and YouTube pays for a connection somebody else's network, doesn't mean that there aren't other links in between those two networks that also have finite capacity, and also cost money. Some of the big networks might have no-cost peering agreements between them, but that's cer
Better read that contract again (Score:2)
Packet-switched networks are pretty much all concentrated very close to the point of subscribe connection. You're not paying for a pipe direct to Google. You're paying for a pipe to a DSLAM or CMTS or switch. Past that point, you're in a big mesh where everybody is mixed with everybody else. The inter-connections in that mesh are not equal to the aggregate of the subscriber "last mile" links. If they
No more bad analogies! (Score:2)
Define "artificial". I assume you're thinking of a rate limit in a router somewhere. Okay. But what if I, as the evil operator, just put a low-capacity link on the router to YouTube or whoever. Is that "artificial"? If not, why wouldn't the evil operators just do that to get around the rule? If it *is* artificial, who is going to pay for the bigger transit tubes I need to b
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, It's not some website's responsibility to make sure the ISP has enough bandwidth. As long as the website owner makes sure he has enough resources on his rack, that's as far as he should go. The ISP is the one that sold the user their connection to anywhere on teh web. The ISP is the one that set the bandwidth caps on broad
Re:Net Neutrality from an operator's POV (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say you implemented the scheme you proposed to YouTube, and the content providers are happily paying you more money for faster pipes. The money is rolling in, and your profits are at an all-time high. Your shareholders rejoice. Champagne and caviar for everyone!
Then Joe Schmoe (a USC grad) starts a website with The Next New Thing. Joe is strapped for cash, so he can't pay you for the same fat pipes that the other websites can, so his website crawls along. Your ISP customers who try to visit Joe's site can't, because it takes 25 seconds to load. But the Microsoft site, which has a similar but inferior offering, loads almost instantly because Microsoft bought your fat pipe.
Joe could have been the next Larry/Sergey, but he was never given the chance. Suddenly, internet access is only the domain of the rich and powerful, and the little guy (who actually innovates, you understand) is squeezed out of the picture. The forces of market competition have given way to artificially high barriers to entry.
(Keep in mind, this is totally different from tiered service, which has "classes" of service based on datatype, not based on provider. So, for example, VOIP packets would be given a much higher priority than streaming video packets, which would be given a higher priority than HTTP packets. However, *everyone's* VOIP packets would get higher priority, not just Skype. And *everyone's* HTTP packets would be lower priority, instead of Everyone Except Yahoo and YouTube.)
Neutrality = Market protections? (Score:2)
So I, as a network operator, am required to subsidize Joe Schmoe, by paying for fast pipes to his servers?
(I'm using definitions which suit my purposes a bit there, of course, but so are you with the "The forces of market c
Re: (Score:2)
But one of the other possibilities is that Joe is not a little guy, but another HugeISP. And let's also imagine (for the sake of argument
Re: (Score:2)
First off, if you have overloaded transit lines, that is a problem you need to fix, lest you lose subscribers for providing substandard service.
Asking the content providers (who, really are one fo the main reasons you have subscribers in the first place) to "pay for placement" creates a multi-tiered situation. Once this happens then it is very easy for there to be de facto censorship and all sorts of other things that are the
Utopia literally means "nowhere" (Score:2)
Fault? No. Cost? Yes. (Score:2)
It's not anyone's *fault*. Where the heck did you get that?
You can't magic transit out of thin air. Somebody has to pay for it. The cost must be covered. This is a law of nature.
Let's turn it around: Say Google or Microsoft or even freaking Wikipedia comes to me and says, "Hey, we'd like to connect our fat pipe right into your core infrastr
Analogies suck (Score:3, Insightful)
No,
Net neutrality is like saying that the airline can't sell you a first-class ticket, and then bump you down to coach unless you win a bidding war with another guy in first-class after you're on the airplane.
No,
Net neutrality is like using a vacuum cleaner to pick up lawn clippings, while a dwarf follows behind you with a rake.
Aren't analogies helpful? Everyone always tries to come up with an
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a government annointed ISP monopoly (you were given huge subsidies and/or exclusive right-of-way to build your network), then it makes sense for the government to require you to have relatively simple and open billing policies and prevent you from playing games.
You wouldn't be allowed to charge someone a differnet rate for internet access because you thought they could pay more (like an electric company charging you more per kilowatt hour because your company making a lo
Another stab at this analogy. (Score:2)
Yikes, that's a mouthful. Here's another stab at it:
Imagine the electricity company charging $.10/kWh for your lights, and $.20/kWh for your television.
Ridiculous, right? That's similar to what the ISP's are trying to do. They'd like to charge (for example) $1/GB for accessing comcast.com, and $15/GB
That's not Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
It's about how fast the sites you're getting your content from are, based on how much they pay your ISP. Want to buy TV shows and movies from iTunes? Better hope they paid off your ISP, and if customers in general want good service, Apple would have to pay all of the ISPs. Want YouTube? Better hope they paid up. BitTorrent? Games? Good luck.
Net Neutrality does not mean that the ISP doesn't discriminate against you based on how much you pay. It also doesn't mean that the ISP can't give certain types of traffic higher priority. It does mean that the ISP can't discriminate against traffic based on what site the content is coming from, and I think it doesn't suck, and is very important to understand.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like using tax money to build telecommunications infrastructure? [spectacle.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's not Net Neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
With a government-granted monopoly over a municipality, and with government-granted rights to bury their legally-purchased property under other people's legally-purchased property.
I think if you are going to be given special rights by the government, then your responsibilities to that government (and ultimately to the people who are governed) are much higher than someone in a standard free-market scenario. It seems that the politicians have forgotten that little point, choosing instead to champion The Almighty Free Market, when in this market there is no such thing.
If the ISPs want to buy all the land their fiber is buried under, and the local government wants to allow more than one provider to do the same in the area, then they have a right to say "we can do whatever the hell we please with our property". I will just give them the heave-ho and move to a provider that gives me what I want. But since there is no competition, the telcos have a much higher responsibility to society than someone without a government-granted monopoly.
If you want to look at it from a backbone perspective, consider this: all of these major telcos are interconnected in a giant mesh, and it is impossible to get access to "The Internet" without crossing over between these providers. The internet is an end-to-end network; the stuff in the middle shouldn't be providing much other than access. So if Google is hooked up to Comcast, and has paid Comcast for fast access, but you're hooked up to Quest, and Google has not paid Quest, then Google will still be slow for you, which is unacceptable. And if we make sure that everyone pays everyone else for every connection, then it's just a giant payola clusterfuck where all the money ends up in the middle, and the little guy is squeezed out of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've explained my thoughts on this before, so I will point you to my previous post [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So say you pay top dollar to fly first class (i.e. you paid for a fast internet connection), but the company that provides the catering for the flight (i.e. nytimes.com) didnt pay top dollar to the airline (ISP) so you get an economy class meal.
The company that provides the in-flight entertainment though (myspace) did pay top dollar to the airline (ISP) so you get top class movies, sports etc on your flight.
The company that makes the seats for your flight (google) didnt pay top doll
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Network Neutrality != good (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
allow me to bring you back down to reality from your rabid right wing frothing.
The "open market" as you so quaintly call these broadband monopolies is failing us. They are deliberately censoring websites, blocking protocols, forging packets, and illegally giving data on our internet use to the US government.
The only thing left they haven't done is implement the great firewall of china, something even the bush administration would not get away with.
So, in short, they are already as bad as t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Network Neutrality != good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Network Neutrality != good (Score:5, Informative)
How does Google find access to pipes that don't exist? There are basically 3 or 4 major players that everyone relies on and you can't just lay new pipe on rights of way that you don't own. Then there is the matter of incumbent telecoms and cable co's and their regional monopolies. If you want high speed internet you deal with 3 companies, Time Warner, Comcast or AT&T. There is nothing stopping time warner sticking up a roadblock to Google, Yahoo and MSN and say go here instead. In fact they already do that to a degree by taking over your browser settings with their client software. They have a portal that is steadily growing in size and services that is being supported by their near monopolies in what 40% of households in the US? Most of the US population isn't dense enough to attract a lot of competition because of the cost of laying cable. Ironically a lot of that cable laying is subsidized by tax payer money but is granted for sole use to one company. In a couple of years if we don't stand our ground on network neutrality we will have a cell phone esque market place for our internet services where we have to pay 10cents a search and 5 cents a dns lookup and 25cents an email and yadda....
Right now the major players are sitting on their pipes wringing as much money as they can out of them and doing the minimum amount of upgrades necessary to maintain the status quo. That is why the telecom companies are having bandwidth issues. The rest of the world is eventually going to surpass our pipes and offer a ton of dynamic content that we can't access because the infrastructure in the US can't handle it. Just like the cell phone industry is leaps and bounds ahead of the US industry in the rest of the world. Same in the console market and hand helds. I could go on but I digress.
Re: (Score:2)
Government regulation bringing them into existence and then giving them the force to affect the ISPs.
Yes it means government regulation, from inception to implication.
Re: (Score:2)
What we need to be regulated better is public rights of way and who has access to them until wireless is mature enough to handle broadband in large deployments.
What does wireless have to do with any of this? It's not some godsend that's going to solve all these issues and create world peace.
If you want high speed internet you deal with 3 companies, Time Warner, Comcast or AT&T.
I'm not even an American but I can name several more companies such as Speakeasy, Verizon, Roadrunner etc. Besides that, who says this is an issue specific to broadband?
There is nothing stopping time warner sticking up a roadblock to Google, Yahoo and MSN and say go here instead. In fact they already do that to a degree by taking over your browser settings with their client software.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. Client software is very different from traffic shaping.
Most of the US population isn't dense enough to attract a lot of competition because of the cost of laying cable.
Wtf? They are shaping existing traffic, this means they are shaping users who already have broadband.
Right now the major players are sitting on their pipes wringing as much money as they can out of them and doing the minimum amount of upgrades necessary to maintain the status quo. That is why the telecom companies are having bandwidth issues. The rest of the world is eventually going to surpass our pipes and offer a ton of dynamic content that we can't access because the infrastructure in the US can't handle it.
Correct,
Re:Network Neutrality != good (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the important things to remember is that communication infrastructure requires using a limited public resource (e.g. burying cables on public property or even easements on private property, or using the limited bandwidth of wireless spectra
So, given that government involvement (and moreover, the creation of various forms of monopoly) is inevitable, the question cannot be "do we want the government involved?" but rather "what do we want government involvement to be?"
The incumbent communication companies are, basically, abusing the monopoly status that was granted to them. That monopoly status was granted with an implied (and only occasionally codified) ethos: namely that this would create widespread access to the resource for the citizenry. Things like prioritizing traffic and double-charging people for access are explicitly contrary to the intention with which the monopolies were granted. Hence, it is totally reasonable to ask that government amend the agreement with these companies, so that they actually deliver the service they were supposed to deliver.
Put otherwise: why should government keep giving monopolies to companies that are not acting in ways that benefit the citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that telecommunications in an inherit monopoly with no free market involved.
The only true free market solution would be to allow a complete free market in which eventually all the telecommunications would merge due to market pressure resulting in one big monopoly which at that point would dictate whatever they felt like as the service and price thus ending the free market.
So the paradox is that we can't reduce regulation as it is
Re: (Score:2)
And then Comcast, Verizon and AT&T would just split off their ISP business to create separate companies and the situation would be the same. Without a tariff change from the FCC to create a pricing structure favoring no one, the big ISPs will always get better pricing from the telcos - which they would pas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I hate to come in on the side of AOL you are talking rubbish.
AOL have their own software for connecting to the net, true, but once connected you can use any browser or protocol you want without problems.
I know this because until about eight months ago I was stuck with an AOL contract where I moved to. No linux net access was a pain, but that was the only problem. As
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that all that the vast majority of people who don't surf to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points; it's a shame your point of view isn't more prominent on these sites.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there is too much monopoly, especially by big corporations, and especially cable/telco corporations, then, yes, I think the open market cannot solve this because it (the open market) actually won't exist.
Many companies have a big installed instructure (e.g. all the wired coax or twisted pair) that was acquired through either them or a predecessor operating as a monopoly. Do you think these companies would have been willing to in
Re: (Score:2)
How can he? If he buys 1.5Mbps down and 512Kpbs up how can he take more than that? Right now ISP's are saying if he takes his 1.5Mbps he's taking more than his share. I say no, he's taking what he paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too vague! (Score:4, Insightful)
An "arms race" between the infrastructure and the users is neither flexible nor efficient. It is wasteful and frustrating. The genius of the Internet was that it was a simple system that would blindly pass packets to their destination. It was this generality and equality that allowed a whole slew of new applications to evolve. The point is that we can't imagine, today, what the next "killer app" of the net is going to be... but traffic shaping inherently says "these are the services that are important"--which means anything currently unimagined will remain unimplemented forever.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it in political terms so that our Congresscritters might better understand:
A Free State (open Internet): one in which everything is permitted except that which is forbidden.
A Totalitarian State (walled Internet): one in which everything is
Re: (Score:2)
Many businesses do this and it is not necessarily fraud. Most utilities are based on average use. I everybody flushes their toilet at once, the water pressure drops. After an earthquake or events such as 911, the phone system is overloaded and likely there will be no dial tone. Airlines and Hotels over-book. Like many utilities, the Inter
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes you can. The question is this: is the traffic shaping being done based on the source or destination of the data? If the answer is yes, it's "bad".
After that, we're talking about shaping or blocking specific services, and that needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If they're flat out blocking legitimate services, or shaping them as to make them unusable, I would argue that's "bad". However, if they are simply
Re: (Score:2)
You give all the latency sensitive protocols like VoIP and games highest priority. Then general stuff like IM, Email, Chat and WWW. After that, you give all the file sharing protocols like BitTorrent lowest priority. BitTorrent users will be able to use as much bandwidth as is available after the other more latency sensitive protocols have had their go. If its 3am and less peo
Re: (Score:2)
To you, maybe. To most of the world, the word is being used correctly.
Maybe you just need to deal with the idea that words may have *gasp* multiple meanings which may vary based on context! I know, shocking isn't it...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, the end users make a fuss, what happens? Nothing. I've seen this before.
When making a fuss makes a difference, it's because the fussers have some real economic impact. They have choices. They have competition.
In my city, I have two choices for access other than dialup: the phone company, and the cable company. The city is instituting a wireless municipal connection, which will make it three choices. If I don't like something all three of them do, I'm SOL. If there was something approximat
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever your opinion of kdawson's story contributions, you don't have to be a prick about it. As time goes on, you might learn that it's easier on yourself and everyone around you if whenever you feel inclined to say something cruel, you pause a moment and think of how you'd feel if you were on the receiving end.
Whatever my opinion of kdawson as an editor may be, I have never seen him (or her) talk shit about someone the way some of us do about him.
Don't worry about those.... (Score:2)