New 'Net Neutrality' Bill Introduced

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Reps Ed Markey (D-MA) and Chip Pickering (R-MS) introduced the 'Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008' (HR 5353) this week. The proposed legislation [PDF] would not legislate what is and is not 'neutral'. Instead, it would add a section to the 'Broadband Policy' section of the Communications Act which spells out principles the FCC is expected to uphold, in addition to having them hold summits which would 'assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues related to broadband Internet access services' and make it easy for citizens to submit comments or complaints online."

Non news

[Brian Gordon]

Do news sites even realize the sheer number of doomed bills that are introduced into congress? It's news when it has support past that initial congressman.

Re:Non news

[KublaiKhan]

Which is precisely why I wrote my congresscritter asking him to support it.

Why don't you do the same?

Re:

[smilindog2000]

I can't agree more, and in fact, I did write David Price about it... and he replied! Gotta love an involved congressman.

Re:Non news

[moderatorrater]

the only thing that can make a difference is a mountain of mail, and it'll still be a mountain without my letter in it

That's dumb. Very, very, very dumb, because it won't be a mountain without people sending letters in, including you. If everyone on slashdot that cared about this issue sent a letter in it would be a mountain of mail, and it would be huge. So send the letter in and trust that others will do their job, or else nothing will ever happen.

Mahatma Gandhi says...

[LanMan04]

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."

You MUST add your little bean to the pile, or it will never become a mountain.

Re:Non news

[KublaiKhan]

I can't deny your assertion that your vote makes no difference. You're entirely correct, because you said you don't vote.

No vote, no difference.

You may as well stop talking altogether, really, though--because if you choose not to vote, then you're letting all those people who do vote choose what to do with you. As such, you're going to have to live with what we say.

What do I say?

Put up or shut up. Unless you're prepared to get off your lazy duff and -do- something about it, don't bother complaining about it.

Vote. Write your congresscritter. Write letters to the editor. Participate in the system--yes, even if you disagree, because, frankly, unless you know how to work the current one, you've got no chance of making it better or changing it for something else.

Re:

[The One and Only]

No vote, no difference.

Unfortunately, you're implying the converse when the converse isn't really true. The fact is: vote, but still no difference. This can be mathematically proven but the dogma of democracy is above such silly notions as "proof".

Re:

[bob.appleyard]

This can be mathematically proven

I'd be interested in seeing that proof.

Re:

[The One and Only]

The basic idea is, in a sufficiently large election, there's a fantastically low probability that the vote will be tied (or within 1 vote of a tie) but for your vote. Since this is the only case in which your vote actually makes a difference, the probability of your vote making a difference is fantastically low, and thus there's a correspondingly high probability that your vote will make no difference. There are a few ways of getting around this: one is by making multiple thresholds of your vote mattering,

Bad definition of "counting"

[Mathinker]

The fallacy of your argument is that your definition of a vote "counting" is wrong. Not wrong in any intellectual or mathematical way, merely wrong in a philosophical or sociological way. It embodies the outlook that "what I do affects me and my surroundings only". Very "me generation". The proper outlook for this problem is the outlook that "what I do is an example to society, which if followed by the majority, would benefit all".

It's obviously clear, assuming that democracy is worthwhile, that everyone sh

Re:

[The One and Only]

The fallacy of your argument is that your definition of a vote "counting" is wrong. Not wrong in any intellectual or mathematical way, merely wrong in a philosophical or sociological way. It embodies the outlook that "what I do affects me and my surroundings only". Very "me generation". The proper outlook for this problem is the outlook that "what I do is an example to society, which if followed by the majority, would benefit all".

As I said: dogmatic bullshit trumping mathematics. Fix the system so my vote matters in a real, mathematical sense--not just in a vague moral sense. I'm not necessarily proposing election by jury although that's one of many options worth considering.

Re:

[The One and Only]

Your thinking is too reductionistic in that it neglects to take into account the collective attitudes of voters. You say that the probability of individual votes "counting" is negligible, but that is a position that quickly loses truth value when that attitude becomes a collective value.

I'm not a collective, nor am I a collectivist. Collectively, of course, votes do matter--but it's exactly because these collectives are so large that my individual vote means even less.

Re:

[The One and Only]

I'm also part of a collective who is wearing pants at the moment, but I hardly see how that is relevant.

Re:

[The One and Only]

You seem to define "matters" as true only if your vote would tie or break a tie.

Exactly. Otherwise, whether or not I vote, the same candidate wins.

One could also argue along the lines of Pascal's Wager: if you don't vote, the probability of affecting the outcome is clearly zero; if you do vote, the probability of affecting the outcome may be small, but non-zero, and the cost of voting is low.

You have to wear pants, take time off from work, stand in line for hours, and maybe even do research, literally for a less-than-getting-struck-by-lightning chance of choosing the next president/senator/governor. That's a pretty bad wager.

Re:

[Shajenko42]

The proper outlook for this problem is the outlook that "what I do is an example to society, which if followed by the majority, would benefit all".

If you want to set an example, you should just claim you voted. It would have the same effect as actually voting, as your vote is secret anyway.

Re:

[Shajenko42]

Fix the system so my vote matters in a real, mathematical sense--not just in a vague moral sense.

So in other words, you want your vote to count MORE than everyone else's. After all, if you by yourself can make a real difference in a national election, that means that millions of others cannot.

If you want to go that route, become a lobbyist.

Re:

[The One and Only]

So in other words, you want your vote to count MORE than everyone else's. After all, if you by yourself can make a real difference in a national election, that means that millions of others cannot.

Not necessarily--there are other ways of solving the problems I point out, even if you're not clever enough to think of them.

Re:

[Shajenko42]

Then pray tell, if you are so clever, what are those methods?

Re:

[The One and Only]

One possible method, for instance, would be proportional representation. Then instead of only having one significant threshold (50%) there are multiple thresholds (any percentage difference granular enough to affect the proportions of the legislature or parliament in question). Caucuses are another example I specifically mentioned from the outset.

Re:

[The One and Only]

It makes the individual voter more powerful because his vote has a higher probability of moving the balance of the legislature by one seat, since there are gradients at every 0.5% for a 200 person legislature, for instance, instead of a single gradient at 50%.

Re:

[Spy der Mann]

The fact is: vote, but still no difference.

Unless you want an armed rebellion, voting is the only way to change things.

In any case, giving up your vote is saying that it's OK to be in a dictatorship where people cannot choose their leaders. It's amazing how hundreds or even thousands of people in other countries give their lives so they can choose who they want to rule their country - and in the US people just give away that right.

Another thing - if voting isn't enough, then PROMOTE YOUR CANDIDATE! This way

Re:

[cheater512]

You have no right to complain about the government if you dont vote though.
If you voted then you have the right to complain as loudly as you like, especially if your candidate didn't win.

Its thousands of idiots like yourself who say that their vote doesn't count which makes all your votes count.

Coming from someone in Australia where its illegal not to vote. :)

Re:

[The One and Only]

You have no right to complain about the government if you dont vote though.

What if I don't like a single candidate on the ballot?

Re:

[The One and Only]

Or I could have exactly the same effect on the final vote tally and stay home. This has the added benefit of not requiring me to put pants on. Please explain to me why I lose the right to complain in this situation.

Re:

[The One and Only]

Furthermore (setting aside my other complaint, that maybe you don't like a single option on the ballot), my individual vote will almost certainly fail to influence a single thing. The canard you're repeating here is akin to saying "if you don't tilt at windmills you are forced to accept them, and have no right to complain". The right to complain, I'm afraid, is a fundamental human right that's rather disconnected with whether or not we participate in some symbolic act of accepting a bad democratic system.

Re:

[The Master Control P]

I really, truly wish you should be thrown before the millions of Americans who died to give you the freedom to vote and asked to explain why you're pissing away what they sacrificed for you.

Re:

[deadline]

Well.. they were stupid. I didn't ask for them to die, and I seriously doubt many of them were dying to defend freedoms- probably most of them died because they were forced to by the draft. I don't know what was up with the revolutionary war militia, but I certainly don't owe anything to them. Have you ever seen Full Metal Jacket? I like the scene where mother laughs in the reporter's face and asks incredulously "You think we're dying for freedom?"

Remember, there are those who fought in real wars so t

Re:

[spamking]

Your ignorance is amazing. Have you spoken with any veterans . . . ever? You owe everything you hold dear to gentlemen who fought and gave their lives for the US. Because of that you have the right to act like an idiot. Anyone who bases their opinion on war and fighting for freedom hasn't got a clue.

Re:Non news

[Veggiesama]

I used to believe that my single vote couldn't possibly make a difference. Yet every couple months, I still hauled my ass over to the voting booths to vote on local issues, local representation, and a national leader, purely out of an interest in current events, rather than out of a desire to change how things worked or to right a wrong.

Every year, I would vote for the local school district levy, and every year it would fail. Ever since I first entered high school, I recognized how poorly the local public schools were doing: the books were falling apart, teachers were being laid off, extracurricular activities were being canceled, less teachers for classes meant more useless study hall periods, etc. For over ten years, the levies consistently failed, so the school failed to receive funding to support many of its most basic services.

During my senior year, I remember my homeroom adviser telling the class how the levy failed by a margin of only ~20-30 votes (I think it was). Since we were all of voting age, she said that if a single classroom of students would have just got off their asses and voted for the levy, it would have succeeded. That's a real, quantifiable number of people who could have made a change in a sea of tens of thousands of other voters.

Then the unthinkable happened. Last year, the levy passed by a margin of three votes. It was incredible, but then they issued a recount. After the recount, it still managed to pass by a margin of only TWO votes [enquirer.com].

Of course, there were only tens of thousands voting, rather than tens of millions. And yes, one vote didn't really matter--two did. I wasn't necessarily one of those two votes, nor possibly anyone in my family.

But that didn't stop my younger brother from marching into class the next day, staring at his history teacher from across the room, and boldly proclaiming, "You have MY family to thank for your pay-raise. We accept cash only."

Re:Non news

[KublaiKhan]

If you don't vote, then really, what cause do you have to complain? Go bugger off and stop talking about it if you're not even going to make a token effort to fix it.

Going beyond voting, every message that the congresscritter receives from his or her constituents supporting this bill will indicate to them that it is an important issue, and that if they want to be re-elected they may want to pay attention.

Yes, my opinion individually may not matter much, but it still contributes.

I do not need to stick out in a crowd. I have no desire to stick out of the crowd--it's more trouble than it's worth, frankly. But forming a part of the 'mountain'? That's worthwhile.

It doesn't take much time to send an email to your congresscritter (make sure to include your snail addy, o'course, and your name and phone number). If net neutrality isn't important enough for you to take a couple of minutes to support it, then don't complain when all you can get is throttled-to-hell packet-shaped crapwidth instead of decent broadband.

I vote. I write my congresscritter when I hear about something that I find important. My opinion has been heard on more than one occasion, and as a result, I am content to participate in this democracy.

Does it always go my way? Of course not. But that's the way these things work, and sometimes what is best for me is not best for everybody else.

Re:

[Brian Gordon]

Libertarianism [aol.com]. ---- Heard of it? [slashdot.org] 22%.

Re:Non news

[KublaiKhan]

Last I checked, Libertarianism still required voting.

Or perhaps that's why the Libertarians can't ever get a candidate in office--because none of their alleged supporters bother voting?

Sorry. If you don't vote, you don't matter. What people see are the numbers--and if there's no opposition because of broken people like you who don't bother voting, then any opposition to the status quo that might exist will never show up.

So by all means, have your lofty pie-in-the-sky Libertarian ideals. Don't expect anyone else to give a flying bacon sandwich for 'em, though, if you don't put action to it and actually do something with it.

You don't vote? You don't matter.

You don't work with the system? Then you'll have to shut up and accept what the system--and all those people who support it--will do to you.

Re:

[Brian Gordon]

Ugh you are going to get struck down into the mud by the mods. The so-called "Libertarian Party" requires votes to get their non-candidates into office but no actual libertarian votes- that's part of the doctrine. We don't effect change within the system because the system shuts non-voters out, but there's nothing wrong with refusing to work within the system if you believe that system is wrong. And we're free to do that, for now, until people like you decide that libertarians are more trouble than we're wo

Re:Non news

[KublaiKhan]

Mods can do as they like. My karma's resilient enough for me to make the occasional 'controversial' statement.

So let me get this straight. Your philosophy depends on other people taking pity on you and reading your mind to figure out what you want?

You want everyone else to vote for someone whom you don't even really support, just so that you can have your opinions--which you'll never actually -tell- to anyone in charge--respected?

And somehow you don't see how broken that is?

This is why nobody will ever take your alleged 'political philosophy' seriously: you're unwilling to participate in a government, but want the government to magically do what you want it to do.

If you want to fix a system you see as broken, you'll have to get into the system to fix it. Ain't nobody yet who ever fixed a broken ethernet card by sulking in a corner--ain't nobody ever fixed a broken government by whining on slashdot.

Re:

[AJWM]

I call troll and bullshit. You describe yourself as a libertarian and then spout nonsense like "no actual libertarian votes". Perhaps you misspelled "anarchist". The Libertarian Party (not "so called" - it exists as a registered political party) routinely gets candidates on (at least some of) the ballots, and they get votes -- just not enough because the Big Two keep pushing the "don't waste your vote" FUD, and their lackwit anarchist lackeys don't even bother voting at all.

Niven was right: "there is no

Re:Non news

[TheRaven64]

Less than 1% of the voting population ever writes to their representatives. That means, to an elected representative, each letter is assumed to represent at least 100 votes, often a few orders of magnitude more. Once my former local MP explained this to me, I started writing whenever an issue of importance to me came up.

Re:

[Brian Gordon]

That's a pretty stupid parliament-man or whatever you call them over there, then. That less than 1% is the only part of their constituency that cares enough about the issues to mail in letters. As long as that 1% doesn't raise enough public awareness, the rest of the voters aren't going to care. That one letter counts for one vote.

Re:

[spazdor]

If there is 1% of the voting public who cares enough to mail in letters, what, if anything, does that imply about the number of people who won't write a letter but will simply vote for the other guy? Your analysis is suspect.

Bullsh!t

[mpapet]

congressmen aren't going to waste their time worrying about my one vote

1. If you put pen to paper and write a concise and reasonable paragraph or two about why it matters to you and send it to your representatives, you bet they will listen. Why? Because they know it's coming from a warm body as opposed to all of the anonymous electronic spam that Political Action Committees stir up. The letter becomes a bellwether of sorts if it is similar to other handwritten letters on the same topic.

2. The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy. Your one vote isn't really designed to matter as much as common knowledge would suggest.

3. Maintaining the Republic requires participation. Participation means putting pen to paper, talking to people in and out of the political system. Once you know a few people and have a couple of interests it can be very satisfying.

4. No, majority does not rule. More pablum that passes for common sense.

Making up excuses like yours is simply lazy and unpatriotic.

Re:

[Brian Gordon]

Unpatriotic? Hm, patriotism.

More pablum that passes for common sense

Generally agreed

[einhverfr]

Here is the way I look at it:

1) Voting is the last step in political participation which validates everything else. Voting is not where participation begins and ends.

2) Participation means engaging in a dialog with your representative and senators. This means calling their office, sending email, etc. Note that mail gets quarantined for a while and so snail mail is less of an option. However, check their web sites-- they usually have contact forms.

3) If we don't talk to our congressmen, then the only

Re:

[schnikies79]

The best way to send a letter to a U.S. representative is go to your representative's local office and hand-write a letter to them via their pre-printed forms. It will be delivered by their personal secretaries and such and not bound by the same snail-mail rules. I don't know how it works in every state, but that is the way it works in Indiana.

I did this with an issue I had a few years ago (3 or 4). I got a hand-signed personal response from my representative (Barren Hill) in about a week.

Re:

[smilindog2000]

My wife described to me the hand-signing machines used by politicians. It uses a real pen, and copies the signature better than a geek like me can tell. That said, I agree with you and we should write letters. Even if your actual representative didn't respond to you, someone on his staff did. That still counts for more than ranting on this site.

Re:

[DreamCoder]

Mod parent up, and informative.

Re:

[Idiomatick]

This is a pretty DAMN stupid fallacy.

If 1 vote was worth 0. Then 100million votes would be worth nothing. Which is obviously untrue since 100million votes is more than the federal election even receives. Shockingly 1 vote averages out to be worth around 1... You know there are near 7billion people on earth, mannn you really don't make much of a difference, nobody does. Infact since no humans make any difference at all nothing would change if we all died. If you are feeling insignificant why post? There a

Re:

[spazdor]

Accuses others of trolling... check.
Uses words like "newfag"... check. ...Test results are ready. It's an AC!

One vote...

[sabt-pestnu]

> the only thing that can make a difference is a mountain of mail

He who would move a mountain must begin one stone at a time. - Chinese Proverb

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. - Ambassador Kosh

Who ya going to believe?

Re:

[LilGuy]

I feel the same way about sending letters, but I do it anyway. I always get a response to the effect of "thanks for you opinion but mine is better", but at least I feel better for having stated my opinion. I'm never wrong. The congressman is there to represent me. That's something we've seem to forgotten along the way... thanks in no small part to large sums of money being passed around by corporations and special interest groups.

Re:

[Brian Gordon]

Also, man the "repshavenopower" tag...

...make it easy for citizens...

[Futurepower(R)]

"... make it easy for citizens to submit comments or complaints online."

Those comments are always ignored, apparently.

Re:

[penix1]

Nothing in that statement says anything about reading them, only submitting them. So the FCC creates a webpage that allows you to blow off your steam and as soon as you hit "submit" it goes to /dev/null with all the other public comment. Hey, it was easy for you to submit wasn't it?

Re:

[ShakaUVM]

They just have very powerful spam filters at the FCC.

This seems a bit toothless

[Rix]

As long as Comcast et al keep up with their regular "contributions" to the FCC, they'll just look the other way.

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Insightful? How can Comcast "contribute" to the FCC in the way hinted?

Re:

[mOdQuArK!]

The usual way: Federal Commissioners somehow accidentally let slip the id #s of their Swiss or Caiman Island bank accounts & money keeps showing up in those bank accounts after the Commissioners pass regulations which somehow incorporate ideas brought up in "casual" discussions with Comcast liasons.
.
.
.
Yes, I'm kidding. I hope.

Recent decsions...

[Yaur]

Recent Decisions are favoring the telcos over the MSOs... not that it really matters in this case.

Enforce the laws we have?

[MacDork]

What good are new laws or guidelines if they go unenforced? Man in the middle attacks are already illegal, but Comcast [slashdot.org] continues unabated. It's like having a Constitution that law makers ignore. Until someone goes to prison for ignoring it, its value becomes symbolic at best.

Re:

[corsec67]

Like how does the FCC [fcc.gov] get to:

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

from "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."?
Maybe I don't know what "abridging" means to lawyers, but m-w.com [merriam-webster.com] defines it as " to shorten in duration or extent ".

How does restricting the

Re:

[Brian Gordon]

Because the government has armies, and a slashdot poster doesn't? Hm, you must be new here.

Re:

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

IANAL. Abridgements of the freedom of speech get strict scrutiny. Protecting the public from indecency (boobies) somehow passes the strict scrutiny test.

Re:

[corsec67]

I am not talking about boobies, but that is another issue.

Just try to say the words "shit" or "fuck" on the radio. No images, movies, or pictures there, but somehow you can get fined for that. That is very specifically a free speech issue. Maybe someone who is about to get a bunch of negative publicity could change their name to "Mr. Shit Fuck", and then you couldn't be featured in the radio/TV at all.

Re:

[Nushio]

Nah, they'd say "The Guy Formerly known as X" instead.

Re:

[corsec67]

Yep, so I would have to change my name to "Prince" before changing it to "Mr. Fuck".

Re:

[Gat0r30y]

Because there are a bunch of people who complain to the FCC at the drop of a hat when there is the slightest bit of something interesting on TV. Remember that NYPD Blue episode? Children are aware that human beings have asses. But to put it on TV?! The outrage! And NYPD Blue?! Thats just the type of show which children love!!! Wont somebody, anybody, please, pretty pretty please with cherries and whipped topping think of the children?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

human beings have asses.

No, they don't! You take that back! How dare you imply that people are so base and lowly, that they'd have something as indignant and disgusting as an ass?!? Monkeys have asses; humans are above that.

Oh no!

[Idiot with a gun]

Like a Constitution that Lawmakers ignore?!? Say it ain't so!

This is a good thing

[91degrees]

Since there isn't yet a problem for Net Neutrality laws to fix, it seems a little early to define what is and isn't net neutrality. Such a law is quite likely to permit bad behaviour, and have undesirable side effects. Both problems that would take several years to fix legislatively.

By extending the scope of the FCC, changes can be made much more quickly. Bad rules can be repealled quickly. New guidelines issued. Explicit behaviour prevented as soon as it starts.

Re:This is a good thing

[Jherek Carnelian]

Since there isn't yet a problem for Net Neutrality laws to fix, it seems a little early to define what is and isn't net neutrality.

Net neutrality was the law of the land in the USA until just a couple of years ago.

In 2005 the supreme court reclassified ISPs as "information providers" rather than "telecommuniactions providers." Those terms have specific meaning under the tariffs that regulate the telecom industry. Essentially "telecommunications providers" have a set of rules they must abide by that include most of the concepts generally referred to under the umbrella of "network neutrality" while "information providers" are not so regulated.

Brand X [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[redxxx]

This assumes that we trust the FCC.

I think there is a fair argument for not doing so. A fair argument for them becoming content cops. A fair argument for them already being loudly against such enforcement, seeing as the won't spank comcast breaking existing laws.

I don't really have the power or money to defend my interests. Telecoms do. I don't have an army of lobbyists and lawyers. Telecoms do. The closest thing I have to a real representatives is Google and FLOSS friendly companies like SUN, and that

This is a bait and switch

[Bored MPA]

It has a nice name "internet freedom," but i would bet money it was supported or even written by the the communications industry. Why? Because they are scared $hitle$$ of regulation that will prevent them from creating a tiered internet (like cable, your cell phone features, etc). With a democratic president and congress a possibility, they have good reason to push something light through now.

Companies have to hedge their bets about what congress and what the public will do--when will people get pissed o

Re:

[servognome]

With a democratic president and congress a possibility, they have good reason to push something light through now.

Why? Last I checked, they donate and lobby both parties.

lawful purposes

[+Addict-09+]

to maintain the freedom to use for lawful purposes broadband telecommunications networks, including the Internet, without unreasonable interference from or discrimination by network operators, as has been the policy and history of the Internet and the basis of user expectations since its inception;

Interesting that they stuck the word "lawful" in there, as well as "unreasonable interference". This bill won't change anything.

Just ignore this pseudo-shit!

[furbyhater]

Now, instead of proposing concrete net neutrality laws like they should, they are spouting some vague pseudo-free shit that tries to immitate the constitution in its wording for marketing effetcs, in order to appease the naive populace.

FUCK THAT SHIAT! NO ONE CARES, LET'S JUST ALL LET THEM HEAR OUR VOICE WHEN IT COMES TO REAL NET-NEUTRALITY!

Hmmm..

[demonlapin]

Anybody know about Markey's future career plans? Pickering has already declared he's not running for reelection this fall; he's a lame duck. (Yes, he's quitting to "spend more time with his family". No, I don't know what the dirt on him really is.)

I'm not unhappy to see him sponsoring the bill - he's my Congresscritter - but he's not going to be around next year, so he doesn't have a lot of votes left to swap support for.

Re:

[krbvroc1]

Markey will be going to work as a Telecom industry lobbyist to gut Net Neutrality. This bill is a total utter bullshit sellout to his future employers.

Freedom this, freedom that...

[Dutchmaan]

Can politicians lay off the whitewashing of bill names? I'd like to request the "Freedom from freedom naming Act" which would mandate that all bills are simply numerically titled, so that for example, politicians and people will actually have to learn about bill #654934792 before voting on it.

I'm really sick of these 'patriotic names' which usually have little or nothing to do with what the bill encompasses,

Re:

[MyNymWasTaken]

The name is sometimes completely contrary to the contents of the bill.
e.g.

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
Full Text [loc.gov]

The captcha word was 'litigate' - hilarious.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: your suggestion, at first I thought people would just start referring to laws by nickname, and nothing would change de facto. But on second thought, in my state there's names for bills like "Proposition 23," and they don't get the nickname treatment, as far as I've seen. So maybe your idea would help somewhat.

Re:Freedom this, freedom that...

[Jorgandar]

We'll attach that provision to my new happy fluffy kittens bill. I'm certain it will pass. Who would vote against happy fluffy kittens?

Re:

[raddan]

On the other hand, this bill really does happen to concern itself with Internet freedom preservation. Unlike, say, the USA PATRIOT Act, which has real patriots spinning in their graves.

Before you knock the bill based on the name, go have a read. Ed Markey has been consistently on the side of technological freedom, and he's a very bright guy. I'd say he's one of the very few politicians who really understand technology. I might not have noticed myself (I admittedly don't pay as much attention to my Co

COMplaints are non-neutral so ...

[Shadowlore]

be sure to expect the Comcasts of the world to mark that traffic as the lowest priority possible, thus taking forever to actually get to those sites to log a complaint.

"The remote server timed out. Try again later."

just a hypothetical...

[darthfracas]

the economist in me is wondering something... what would happen to broadband competition if instead of leaving the infrastructure in the hands of the telcos, it was put under the charge of a third party, who in turn sold bandwidth to ISPs, similar to how DSL providers were able to operate before Verizon and AT&T switched to fiber optics?

the way i'm seeing things right now, more choice would lower costs to consumers (which naturally the telcos would oppose), but if an ISP was caught doing something shaky (traffic shaping, etc), consumers would have other choices than their cable or phone company. having competing infrastructures strikes me as having to choice which company's sewers i flush my toilet into. it would make things simpler to have the one infrastructure.

Re:

[Erpo]

What if the one company controlling the one infrastructure decides that traffic shaping is a good thing?

Bill would put NET under FCC jurisdiction

[jimmyjoebillybob]

This is more Washington Double speak. This bill would not ensure internet freedom anymore than the PATRIOT act is patriotic.

Bill to do nothing?

[davburns]

I don't like to be cynical, but I wouldn't get any hopes up over this bill. Remember that this is an election year, so even passing it (and making the FCC "study" the issue) is probably just about making a show of concern, rather than actually changing anything. (Or even heading off any threats before they happen.)

When I get time, I should write a journal entry about how I became a neutrality violator, too. (I promise that the issue is more complex than it might appear.)

What if...

[John Pfeiffer]

"...and make it easy for citizens to submit comments or complaints online."

But what if your ISP starts filtering traffic to that website? ;O

Re:We need a new internet also

[Brian Gordon]

I think breaking up a few telecom monopolies would be a bit more of a realistic solution than scrapping the Internet...

Re:We need a new internet also

[KublaiKhan]

Make you a deal. If you write your congresscritter to talk about that and post your letter here, then I'll write something similar to mine.

Or are you all talk and no action?

Re:

[KublaiKhan]

Hey, 'congresscritter' was good enough for Mr. Twain--and it's not like they're -real- people, anyway, eh? ;-p

So pretty much, you're saying that for all practical purposes you're a nonentity and can be safely completely ignored?

How sad.

Re:

[KublaiKhan]

Not at all.

But I do recognize that high and lofty ideas are pretty worthless if you can't figure out the intermediate steps to getting to 'em. Take opportunities where you can find 'em, and someday you'll find yourself a lot closer to where you want to be than you were when you started.

And you're welcome to call me an enemy if you like, but all you're making me feel is pity, rather than anger--as the Tao says, it's a very unfortunate man who counts another as an enemy. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Re:

[Digi-John]

I know, we'll call it Internet2!

Re:

[AJWM]

Wouldn't that be Internet 2.0?

Mind, you'd think people would have learned by now not to trust a .0 release of anything.

Re:

[Digi-John]

Well, they sure jumped on Web 2.0 pretty fast. Every moron with a webserver and an AJAX book seems to be doing some web crap these days.
Oh, and it's Internet2. Because Internet2 already exists.

Re:We need a new internet also

[multiplatformgeek]

There's no way to win the bandwidth race at this point. The moment you start talking about "video", you move to a requirement that really is unrealistic.

To have the "Internet" (open access, bidirectional services and bandwidth, all-you-can eat buffet style bandwidth, unicast (or multicast)) with "Video" (continuous, "large" bandwidth streams), you have a problem.

OC-192's are the defacto standard in the Telecom industry. Even if you run multiple bonded OC-192, or have a faster standard, or any of the currently available technologies, you simply can't architect a network that could do what you suggest is so easy to do. Well, telepathy might work, but a workable implementation of mind-to-mind communications hasn't been demonstrated yet.

Now, saying that, the Telecom's are coping out with there current "traffic management", it's a pathetic implementation, and any real network engineer with more than a handful of years experience could create something better than manipulating TCP headers/windows/sessions (the minimum standard for MSS is 536 AT&T, or did you miss NewReno-IETF Standards 101 class?) or doing a DOS man in the middle attack on their customers. It's called Network Calculus, or Queueing theory, do a Google search and look it up, if you haven't blocked yourself from doing Google searches.

A simple queueing system that has a deficit round robin scheduler based on only src or dst IP address would do exactly what they are looking for (think WFQ, but only src or dst address based). With FQ, Cisco has been doing this for at least as long as I've been into networking, all that really needs to be done is for Cisco do change fair queueing to only include one parameter, the src or dst IP address. Problem solved. Customers happy. Multiflow file transfer applications running fine and not hogging the network. People browsing the web getting great performance. No lawsuits. Everybody wins.

It's so freakin' simple. Sometimes, the ISP's should just be slapped. All the Executives, managers, and engineers who go along with their BS. All in one big Three Stooges style line slap.

Oh... But you'll never truly get "Video" and the "Internet" to mix. If you think you can, I'd be glad for you to provide a potential architecture in this forum and prove me wrong.

multiplatformgeekbutmainlyjustnetworks

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[spazdor]

http://www.internet2.edu/ [internet2.edu]

Re:

[illumin8]

To have the "Internet" (open access, bidirectional services and bandwidth, all-you-can eat buffet style bandwidth, unicast (or multicast)) with "Video" (continuous, "large" bandwidth streams), you have a problem.

OC-192's are the defacto standard in the Telecom industry. Even if you run multiple bonded OC-192, or have a faster standard, or any of the currently available technologies, you simply can't architect a network that could do what you suggest is so easy to do. Well, telepathy might work, but a workab

Re:

[LiquidDeath]

I agree. My vote is for implementing RFC 1149 as our new internet 2.0 backbone.

Re:

[epee1221]

While we're at it, we can also implement less intrusive filtering with RFC 3514.

Yes it's time for the consumer to build their own

[FromTheAir]

There is nothing stopping us from mounting wireless routers on our houses and building a nationwide mesh network we own and collectively control. As long as everyone maintains their own hardware the costs would be minimal and we can say goodbye to the telecomunications industry as we know it and all it's excessive billings.