Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Jun 2006 11:22 UTC, submitted by Dylan
Internet & Networking The US House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it. By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.
Order by: Score:
halfmanhalfamazing
Member since:
2005-07-23

Let the market decide. That works every time it's tried.

As the article points out, the sooner government gets involved with the internet, the sooner you're going to have a secretary of the internet. The sooner that happens, the sooner the UN's gonna control it.(that's the next step)

Isn't that the argument that some have against the internet now, that the american government supposedly has too much sway over the internet?

As the internet sits now, it's largely independent of any govt. It's largely regulated by a bunch of independent companies.

It seems to me that 269 votes were for keeping the internet independent, thus keeping people's fears largely sidelined, and no future UN intervention needed.

And one more thing. Let's all be honest here. One of the attractions of the internet(when it comes to buying and selling) is how cheap things are on there. I know I'm not alone on this. Watch how(if) they start taxing the internet, how the pricing magically goes up.(I asure you *chuckles* there'd be no connection)

These internet companies wouldn't be paying these "corporate taxes". Corporations never do. You and I, your cousins, brothers, friends and mothers pay those taxes. Economics 101. A corporate tax is merely a dishonest tax that dishonest politicians can hide from us. "no, we're not raising taxes on you.... uhh... uhhh, we'll raise taxes on corporations! Yeah, that's it!" I'm stupid enough to buy that. Are you?

Edited 2006-06-09 12:30

Reply Score: 5

nzjrs Member since:
2006-01-02

Sorry I think your post needs sarcasm tags because if you are serious then WTF?

A rejection of Net Neutrality = The start of a slipperly slope that will forever change the face of the internet.

If people are not disturbed by this then I urge them to think past 1 year into the future, look 10 years ahead. They have forever shifted the internet from a forum of information exchange, innovation, and creativity to nothing more than a shallow channel for content and revenue gathering.

Shame on you america. shame on you

Reply Score: 5

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

-----------A rejection of Net Neutrality = The start of a slipperly slope that will forever change the face of the internet.--------------

We already have net neutrality. The key word is "rules".

"net neutrality rules" is an oxymoron. By tying the internet closer to the government you are essentially killing the neutrality that the internet now has.

Edited 2006-06-09 12:55

Reply Score: 1

nzjrs Member since:
2006-01-02

Huh?

If Net Neitraility can be passed into law/rules (think first ammendment rights but for the internet) then I admit that does bring the net under some govt control. It is by far the lesser of two evils.

HOWEVER

Whats the alternative? Todays rejection of Net Neutrality? That is a BAD thing. Now that that has begun to happen then we are all royally screwed. The govt has shown that they back the telcos.

The war has begun:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat#abuse
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=lie3

About the only good I can see coming from this is that it will spur intelligent geeks into action. I am sure that all sorts of tactics will emerge to break the systems that the telcos will put in place an demonstrate to congress that a bunch of smart geeks will always beat a group of stupid politicians

Edited 2006-06-09 13:11

Reply Score: 3

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

-------------If Net Neitraility can be passed into law/rules (think first ammendment rights but for the internet) then I admit that does bring the net under some govt control. It is by far the lesser of two evils.-----------

The government rarely if ever the lesser of two evils. And I am thinking first amendment. Because as it sits right now I could post anything on the internet I want. I'll refrain from it, but it wouldn't be hard to post a link to people talking about killing the president, how to build a nuclear bomb, .... you get the idea. When government gets involved then the question becomes "who's neutrality is right?" Do you want house republicans deciding that their neutrality is more important than yours? Yeah, I don't either.

The poster at post 7 had the right idea.

===========If I were google/amazon, I'd block access from ISP's trying to extort money. Then let a flood of customer calls into their call center change their minds.===============

Problem solved. There's your net neutrality.

Reply Score: 1

nzjrs Member since:
2006-01-02

When government gets involved ..... Do you want house republicans deciding that their neutrality is more important than yours?

Ummm....
1) The Government is already involved now
2) A group of republicans just chose ISP's version of net neutrality over mine.

If I were google/amazon, I'd block access from ISP's trying to extort money. Then let a flood of customer calls into their call center change their minds.

Thats awesome!

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"net neutrality rules" is an oxymoron. By tying the internet closer to the government you are essentially killing the neutrality that the internet now has.

I don't really see how putting in the law "ISPs are not allowed to treat some websites differently than others" can be seen as "tying the internet closer to the government". On the contrary-- if that were to be set in the law, we'd have a clear-cut point of reference. Now, ISPs are free to do as they please. Let's say Apple hands a bick sack of money to a major ISP, asking them to make sure all other online music stores load more slowly than the iTMS. With the rejection of this law, it would be perfectly legal to do so, and you, as a customer, are fcuked.

Other than that, the US Gov already has major influence over the net. See how the Bush administration blocked the .xxx domain.

Edited 2006-06-09 13:10

Reply Score: 1

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Although I do agree with you post, I must point out that as a moderator you should not be using words such as "fcuked". This worked brilliantly as an advertising campaign for "French Connection UK" when they rebranded their clothes department, it does not work here on a forum that has filters built in to stop bad language.

Rant Over. Raver31

Reply Score: 2

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

----------it does not work here on a forum that has filters built in to stop bad language.-----------

There goes your OSnews.com neutrality. *sarcasm*

*looks around* What What? Why's everybody looking at me? It was a joke!

But the underlying point is valid. Once the internet is regulated everything changes.

Reply Score: 2

dodongo Member since:
2005-12-07

I was just going to say "Well Thom does it!"

Until I realized it was Thom who'd posted it in the first place ;)

Is "frack" OK? Or are curse word encodings from sci-fi TV shows also banned?

Reply Score: 1

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

Hi Thom!

-----------I don't really see how putting in the law "ISPs are not allowed to treat some websites differently than others" can be seen as "tying the internet closer to the government".---------------

It's not what's being touted so much that bothers me. It's what's *not* being touted(the hidden parts of the bill) and of course, historical precedence.

Legislators have zero credibility with me when it comes to things like this. As I mentioned in comparison, look at CFR.(mccain/feingold) It did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.

You want to take that chance with the internet?

I don't. It isn't worth the risk.

-------------------Other than that, the US Gov already has major influence over the net. See how the Bush administration blocked the .xxx domain.----------------

Rejecting an initiative and full blown regulation are two different things.

Edited 2006-06-09 13:28

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Legislators have zero credibility with me when it comes to things like this. As I mentioned in comparison, look at CFR.(mccain/feingold) It did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.

And I should care because? I'm not American, never will be, so if you guys want a political system where money is the end-all-be-all, fine; just don't try to put in a completely unrelated matter to somehow strengthen your argument.

I still see no one answering my question, so I'll repost it here. I want a clear answer, no beating around the bush (seriously, no pun intended), just plain ol' English:

"I don't really see how putting in the law "ISPs are not allowed to treat some websites differently than others" can be seen as "tying the internet closer to the government".

Ok, it's not really a question, but you get my point. Saying that this law will put the internet under (even more) US Gov control is plain old, FUD.

On the 'fcuked' issue-- sorry, I always type it that way (started as a joke on my blog; "If Google ever decides to stop listing websites with foul language, they won't block me!!"), I did not do it on purpose to circumvent our foul language blockfilterthing.

Reply Score: 1

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

----------And I should care because? I'm not American, never will be, so-----------

Oh. Ok. Then you shouldn't care about this net bill either.

----------just don't try to put in a completely unrelated matter to somehow strengthen your argument.----------

Uh uhn. They are related. The bills themselves are unrelated, but how legislation isn't always what it seems is an important matter to consider.

-----------I still see no one answering my question, so I'll repost it here. I want a clear answer, no beating around the bush (seriously, no pun intended), just plain ol' English:

"I don't really see how putting in the law "ISPs are not allowed to treat some websites differently than others" can be seen as "tying the internet closer to the government". ------------

All you're doing is switching parties. Instead of companies deciding how to treat certain websites, the government will be deciding. I really don't see the difference, except that with the govt's lack of credibility I see things getting worse not better.

Edited 2006-06-09 13:50

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Oh. Ok. Then you shouldn't care about this net bill either.

Oh but I must care. The internet is regulated by the US, and as such, any US law concerning the internet is of relevance to the entire planet (so ridicoulous, but oh well, that's just the way it is).

Uh uhn. They are related. The bills themselves are unrelated, but how legislation isn't always what it seems is an important matter to consider.

Your distrust for the US government, which I wholeheardetly share, has nothing to do with this matter, as this law does NOT give the US gov (even more) control over the internet.

All you're doing is switching parties. Instead of companies deciding how to treat certain websites, the government will be deciding.

No, you're not-- does this law say, "The Internet now shalt be governed by the government"? No, it does not. All this law does is limit the power of companies to block content off of the internet. Basically, what you are saying is this: "Here, companies, please decide for me what information I can access. I cannot control you, I cannot elect your officials, but please, be so kind as to filter out stuff you find I do not need." Fine if you want to live that way, but I do not.

And even if it DID bring more control to the/a government-- I'd applaud that, as I'd rather have a democratically elected body govern it, than a company over which nobody has any control.

Reply Score: 1

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

On the 'fcuked' issue-- sorry, I always type it that way (started as a joke on my blog; "If Google ever decides to stop listing websites with foul language, they won't block me!!"), I did not do it on purpose to circumvent our foul language blockfilterthing.

Could use the file system check command, "fsck", doubt they're going to block every unix related site on the planet.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The mere existence of the law would tie the internet closer to the government. The government effective defines neutrality, and that' a bad thing.

Now, the ISP can do a they please - and that's a fantastic thing. We should be happy.

We must just remember, that we too, can do as we please in regard to the internet. We can find out who actually _are_ violating net neutrality, warn other people, and then we can stop to use those ISP's.

It's not that difficult. Just stop whining, and act like a man (or woman).

The customer isn't f--ked. The customer can choose not to have internet access - or can choose to side with million of other customers, and create a new company giving customers net neutrality.

It's not that difficult. Just stop whining, and act like a man (or woman).

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Your argument is getting ridiculous. Your options are either no internet access, or being f--ked. Your third option, while ideologically neat, is also a stupid idea. Any ISP that enraged net users create will be secondary to the major backbone networks. That is, of course, unless this ISP gets a license to be a state-sanctioned monopoly, and starts laying cable everywhere!

Spend some quality time with traceroute and whois, and get an idea of where your packets go. If you've got a smaller ISP, chances are your packet will go through one of the big networks en-route to its destination. That means that the big networks can still QoS your packets, no matter what you do.

PS) I find it deeply ironic that your defense of the principle of capitalism, a concept which is predicated on rational self-interest, is leading you to irrationally support an idea that works against your self-interest. Ideology is a magical drug isn't it...

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's incorrect.

The options are: Being f--ked, having no access, create a competitor, or in the very end, create a new network (that would require millions and millions of users world wide though).

PS) I find it deeply ironic that your defense of the principle of capitalism, a concept which is predicated on rational self-interest, is leading you to irrationally support an idea that works against your self-interest. Ideology is a magical drug isn't it...

Net neutrality is in my interest, but securing it through laws are against my interest. My self-interest is net neutrality without laws, and that of course leads me to support the possibility of lacking net neutrality. Getting what you want has always been a kind of gambling. But yes, it does have a certain ironic taste. But as a Dane I can perfectly live with that.
Having an ideology is a lot better than not having one. Not having one is merely egoism, and that's no good.

Reply Score: 1

Mr. Sanity Member since:
2005-07-13

The options are: Being f--ked, having no access, create a competitor, or in the very end, create a new network (that would require millions and millions of users world wide though).

Actually, unless you are a multi-billionaire, the only realistic options that you posited are: Being f--ked -or- having no access. The other two you listed are pie-in-the-sky fantasy island options that will never materialize in this world with its economic realitites. I know that it can feel good to imagine some perfect world where the third and fourth options are plausible, but believing in such fantasies does nothing to bring the net neutrality you desire into reality.

Reply Score: 3

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The options are: Being f--ked, having no access, create a competitor, or in the very end, create a new network (that would require millions and millions of users world wide though).

In other words, your options are being f--ked, having no access, doing something that wouldn't solve the problem, or flying away to happy magical fairy land.

You have not posed a plausible solution to how to get net neutrality without regulation.

My self-interest is net neutrality without laws, and that of course leads me to support the possibility of lacking net neutrality.

Your rational self-interest is net neutrality. The thing about the laws isn't self interest, its ideologically-motivated desire. If people were ideologically motivated, the capitalism would come crashing down. Yet, you defend an idiologically motivated position in the name of capitalism. Therein lies the irony.

Reply Score: 2

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Priority to amend a hate crime into the constitution yet no concern for my right to equal bandwidth, I am ashamed indeed. It would seem corporate greed has become the law of the land and all our politicians merely shills lining their pockets. The next American revolution may consist of everybody passing the hat and buying a congress...

Reply Score: 1

jocknerd Member since:
2006-01-26

Brilliant! Excellent idea. Only one problem. How many ISP's are left? And aren't those ISP's the same corporations who own the networks? Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Cox, etc.

Those of us on the left would agree with you if competition actually existed.

Reply Score: 3

jocknerd Member since:
2006-01-26

Another brilliant idea. Create a competitor. The days of dialup are over. When the FCC already says that Cox can control their own network and nobody else can jump on, that eliminates competition. When state governments pass legislation preventing municipalities from setting up wireless networks, who do you think was behind the legislation? A true capitalist hates the thought of monopolies. Do you not believe in capitalism?


Were you born this assinine or did it take years of practice to get this way?

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Capitalism is merely a tool, and not something you can believe in. It's like believing in a spoon. Utterly inadequate.

Preventing municipalities from setting up wireless networks are irrelevant to whether people can unite and set up wireless networking. The municipalities != people.

And of course municipalities should not be allowed to do so. It would prevent competition. Networks created by municipalities == networks created by government.

Create a company, owned by "ordinary" people, create a competitor. This is doable in USA - it is doable in Denmark. It may not be doable in Communist-China, but in all western countries it is doable.

Were you born this assinine or did it take years of practice to get this way?

No. But unlike you, I don't consider communistic-tasting laws to be the answer. You are making the mistake of "local authorities == people" , and that one is false. Local authorities are authorities and thereby effectively in opposition to people of all kind.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't consider communistic-tasting laws to be the answer.

You find this law "communistic-tasting"? Boy, you must have no idea what communism means. Please don't use words when you have no idea what they mean. This law is as much communistic as is the US constitution-- exactly, not at all.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Thom, Thom, Thom.

I do know what Communism is. And this law is Communistic-tasting.

The law would reduce the personal freedom, and as such it definitely has a Communistic taste. One could also claim it has a Fascist taste, or any other freedom-limiting taste, but it doesn't change the fact that the law does limit the personal freedom, and therefore is opposite the American Constitution, which was created to ensure personal freedom.

The principle of this law is opposite the principle of the American Constitution, as well as the Dutch and the Danish Constitution (Grundloven).

The fewer laws == better, more laws == worse. It's that simple.

Reply Score: 1

j_d_miller Member since:
2006-06-09

So you'd rather the corporations get us out of the next depression?

The government is just corrupt and worthless in your eyes, but corporations are shining examples of the Capitalist Tool?

Wasn't it the Capitalists "tooling" the general public that created the first depression?

Those who don't learn from the past...

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The depression came by, by governments fiddling with market laws.

Companies are "shining examples", but so are you. The question is: What are you doing to make your own situation better?

Wasn't it the Capitalists "tooling" the general public that created the first depression?

Nope. It happened due to governments fiddling with market laws, and "ordinary" persons failing to take responsibility for their own happiness. Relying on the companies to do so, will lead to disaster. And that's what happened.

I don't want you to rely on the companies. Nor am I suggesting such a hideous thing. I'm suggesting you to compete with the companies.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Local authorities are authorities and thereby effectively in opposition to people of all kind.

So what you're basically saying is that you don't believe in democracy.

If authorities are democratic, then there is no problem. Rather than place our faith in private enterprises (who only have their own interest at heart), why not try to reform government systems so that it lives up to the dreams of the founding fathers, i.e. a government of the people, by the people, for the people?

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I believe in direct democracy, but I don't trust in indirect democracy. The idea is good, but it doesn't work in reality.

If authorities are democratic, then there is no problem.

I agree with that. Unfortunately authorities are powerful, and power corrupts. In theory the model works but in reality it doesn't. We need a lot more direct public control of the authorities, before I'll trust them.

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Municipal wifi is no less free market than private wifi co-ops. No wireless service is a truely free-market solution. All wireless services exist because of government-sanctioned monopolies on the useage of the wireless spectrum. The fact that one service may be run by the local government and another by Verizon makes no difference --- both are regulated by virtue of the fact that their existence depends on private use of a public resource.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Municipal wifi is no less free market than private wifi co-ops. No wireless service is a truely free-market solution.

This is unacceptable because it kills the private sector and therefore removes any hope for competition.

All wireless services exist because of government-sanctioned monopolies on the useage of the wireless spectrum.

This does not have to be the case. There is nothing that prevents more than one private wireless service in the same area. It's a technical challenge which requires a certain amount of control with frequenzies, but it doesn't change the fact that there can be competition and a free market.

The fact that one service may be run by the local government and another by Verizon makes no difference --- both are regulated by virtue of the fact that their existence depends on private use of a public resource.

This is factually wrong as already shown.

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

This is unacceptable because it kills the private sector and therefore removes any hope for competition.

There is a distinction between "private sector" and "free market". Lot's of things are handled by the private sector, but those companies are not subject to free market

This does not have to be the case. There is nothing that prevents more than one private wireless service in the same area.

It is necessarily the case. All radio communications in most countries is controlled by the government. If it weren't, the radio spectrum would mostly be useless --- the person with the most powerful transmitter would basically own it. The government thus grants use of the spectrum via licenses. Even the unlicensed bands, like the one wifi services sit it, are still allocated and regulated by the government. Businesses built on the use of radio frequencies are thus not a part of the free market. Their sole existence is derived from government license and regulation.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

*LOL*

This post got modded up despite being offensive while mine got modded down?

Agreed mine could be considered offensive, but no more than this post.

Reply Score: 2

lpetrazickis Member since:
2005-07-06

Unite and create a competitor? That sounds so easy.

And how many broadband companies that can handle or quickly grow to handle a million-or-more subscribers have you started, pray tell? And where did you get the funding for it? Your credit card?

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Of course, one has to start in the small way. Nobody can singlehandedly create a multibillion company in two weeks.

But everybody can join their efforts with other people, and thereby - through time - create a true alternative.

In Denmark we have a saying: Mange bække små gør en stå å -> Many small creeks create a big stream.

Use that knowledge. Let's say 60 million americans get tired of the ISP's lack of net neutrality. 60 million americans giving up 1000 dollars each. Now that's a good start.

All it requires is taking a responsibility for your own happiness.

If it doesn't work it's because people don't care about their own lifes, and in that case they deserve no better.

Reply Score: 1

Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Use that knowledge. Let's say 60 million americans get tired of the ISP's lack of net neutrality. 60 million americans giving up 1000 dollars each. Now that's a good start. [...] If it doesn't work it's because people don't care about their own lifes, and in that case they deserve no better.

Most people view computers as tools, so they couldn't care less. They have other things to worry about. The minority who cares will pay for the majority that doesn't. At least that is the reality in NA.

Starting your private company? Taking aside the funding issues, you would still be at the mercy of the telcos. What could you possibly do if they decide to blacklist your entire network? Following your logic, you couldn't complain to the government since it's a "free market".

You have good ideas. It's just a shame they are completely utopic/disconnected from our reality...

An example where government intervention can be good? If it wasn't from our government, I would be stuck with one of the two big telcos (Bell and Videotron). Before the government forced one of them (Bell) to share their lines with smaller enterprises, they were both imposing strict quotas and were blocking/throttling a significant number of ports. Without competition, I am pretty sure they would have begun to give additional priviledges for those paying for it (going against net neutrality). In fact, one of them already got a cache proxy...

While they are still using these tactics, it's now possible to get with a line without such restrictions. My ISP probably got no more than 300 clients, but they provide me a free line where I can set up my own server without questions asked. Most people don't care, but I do. Thanks to the government, I have choice. Isn't what a free market is about?

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Most people view computers as tools, so they couldn't care less. They have other things to worry about. The minority who cares will pay for the majority that doesn't. At least that is the reality in NA.

In that case they deserve no better. Problem solved, because it's not a problem.

Starting your private company? Taking aside the funding issues, you would still be at the mercy of the telcos. What could you possibly do if they decide to blacklist your entire network? Following your logic, you couldn't complain to the government since it's a "free market".

Ever heard of contracts? They won't ban an entire network, if that network has a million or more customers. They'll lose money that way.

You have good ideas. It's just a shame they are completely utopic/disconnected from our reality...

You don't read what I write - you read what you want to read. The problem is you don't have the will to do what it takes, because it's easier to scream "Mommmmmyyyyyy!".

The examples you give are a bit void, because these examples were based on government-protected monopolies.

It's clear that all companies with a law-protected monopoly have to be controlled. The solution is to not have government-protected monopolies.

Reply Score: 2

diskinetic Member since:
2005-12-09

Hurdles to overcome:
1. Locating the 60 million that dislike the Telcos and ISPs strongly enough to oppose them.
2. Convincing them to yield up $1000 dollars front-money in an as-yet non-existant alternative with the promise that the alternative will absolutely be immensely better in more dimensions than I can readily count.
3. Deciding who holds on to the $60b in cash while this non-existant, not-obviously better alternative is um, what? Built? Derived?
4. Convincing the well-connected and certainly better-funded Telcos and ISPs to just stand idly by and allow this alternative to be lobbied, funded, and (built?) and eventually displace them, costing them profitibility and scads of market control.
5. Preventing the alternative from merely becoming the beast you went out to battle in the absence of sound legislation to curb the transformation.

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!

Reply Score: 2

Mr. Sanity Member since:
2005-07-13

Unite, and create a competitor, rather than sit down and yell for mother ;)

So, do you have a spare 30-50 billion dollars lying around? If so, you might be able to lay enough cable around the country, buy enough office space, hire enough employees, etc. to be able to be your own backbone. In 5 to 10 years. If you want it faster, it's going to cost you a lot more. You'll need to buy out one of the major telcos already in operation.

If you don't have that kind of money, then creating a competitor is as useful a suggestion as "take over the world." It sounds nice, but it's completely impossible.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

60 million americans giving 1000$ each. That's a start right?

Just f--king unite and you'll win.

Reply Score: 1

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

60 million americans giving 1000$ each. That's a start right?

Just f--king unite and you'll win.


You are jesting, right?

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

If you can't accomplish it, you don't deserve better.

Reply Score: 1

Mr. Sanity Member since:
2005-07-13

60 million americans giving 1000$ each. That's a start right?

Just f--king unite and you'll win.


So you're suggesting that fully 1/3 of the U.S. population between the ages of 18-65 (186,150,307) needs to get involved and donating to get this off the ground? That doesn't even factor in incarcerated, impovrished, or unwired individuals. You truly have no grasp of what you are asking for.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Of course I know what I'm asking for, and I know how close to impossible it is to pull off. But in that case, there isn't any issue. If people don't care they haven't deserved any better.

EOF

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

This post is not off-topic, nor spamming, nor offensive in anyway.

Shows how certain people cannot handle opposition. Quite funny though.

Reply Score: 0

diskinetic Member since:
2005-12-09

Well, no, it's not that people can't stand opposition. In fact, you should be happy. Several people have seen a bad idea, they've modded it down and have gone off to make their own. Weird, huh? In a way, in failing to make your point, you've made your point. Of course, you didn't have the power to stop them from modding you down, so you merely reached for what power you had (ridicule), and tossed it in there. Just think what you might have done if you could have auto-deleted any contrary posts to your own.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Just think what you might have done if you could have auto-deleted any contrary posts to your own.

Now that's a scary thought. That would effectively be the end of free speech.

Reply Score: 1

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

Smaller ISPs are not hard to find.

But it requires you to actually look. I would've been for this about two years ago, but I'm more the type to get active and research than to just complain and act like I'm a victim.

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Smaller ISPs, however, are dependent on the networks of the bigger ISPs. So if the bigger ISPs decide to QoS their packets, the smaller ones can't really do anything about it.

That's the fundemental problem here. There is a state-sanctioned monopoly wherein the people who own the networks have rights everyone else does not. That's probably a necessary part of being able to provide their services in the first place, because in a truely free market, we'd have no phone, data, or cable service to begin with. But because they have these rights, and because they've got a monopoly on the infrastructure, there is no way for competitors to effectively challenge them.

Reply Score: 1

Midnightbrewer Member since:
2005-08-02

Keep in mind that even switching ISPs doesn't get around the problem that they're all using the big boys' lines, which means there's no way to get out of paying. Remember how Bell got broken up once before, due to their unfair monopoly? Sounds like it's almost time to do it again.

Reply Score: 2

Dekkard Member since:
2006-01-07

Ok.. so you are advocating that we all drop our broadband connections and go with some of the local dial up providers? I think that it will be just a matter of time before we see something happen. Maybe it will work out.. If for example Comcrap decides to throttle some connections.. and WOW doesn't I could see people jumping ship to WOW.. but there really arent that many options for broadband. Not in my area at least Its WOW, Comcrap,or SBC/ATT/Yahoo..Lets not even begin to discuss sattelite.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

No. I'm advocating you make your own decisions.

Reply Score: 1

lpetrazickis Member since:
2005-07-06

No, you are advocating that your government let corporations reduce the number of options you are given to decide from. You would be making your own decisions either way, but now there are some decisions you are not allowed to make because monopolistic corporations can arbitrarily forbid them.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yes. And the companies have that right.

If you don't like the options, make your own company.

Take the responsibility for your own happiness, instead of forcing laws down on the head of other people.

Reply Score: 2

lpetrazickis Member since:
2005-07-06

No, they don't. Corporations -- government-issued corporate charters -- exist at the mercy of the public for the benefit of the public. When they start profiting at the expense of the what's good for the individual citizen, they must be brought to heel.

If I don't like my options, I will and do vote for a political party that knows that it is elected by the public to serve the public and that it is their duty to prevent corporations from making the world a better place. It is also in the long-term interests of the corporations, because any profits they derive for stupidity are short-term ones that benefit today's CEO and stockholder at the expense of tomorrow's.

I take responsibility for my own happiness by participating in society and working hard to make the system better.

Reply Score: 2

diskinetic Member since:
2005-12-09

That's a tad silly in this case. When you're in a china shop with a three-year-old, do you:

a: Tell the three-year-old to keep his hands to himself or else he gets punished.

b: Tell the shopkeeper to supply the china with bubble-wrap and "take responsibility for their own happiness".

Yes, people could theoretically strike out on their own and create an alternative, but when the answer is as easy as telling the self-minded, clumsy ISPs to watch their Ps and Qs or they'll be legal repercussions, why not just do that? Isn't that "taking responsibility"? You don't stop organized crime by having an organized non-crime, you make sure that organized crime is increasingly difficult to pursue and reward legitimate business with protective fences of law. The ISPs have used the popularity of their product to gain money and influence, which they are now using to ignore and pervert that which was the initial promise of their product. Also, if they notice people "striking out on their own" to create an alternative, do you honestly think they won't use the legal system and everything this side of armed resistance to stop such an effort? Silliness.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not an ISP issue, it's a line provider issue. You can't choose line providers because they're already government protected monopolies.

People who honestly think the Internet is a free organization in the market (and not Government controlled) are blatantly ignorant of its history and current stance. While there are no laws on contents and little on delivery that doesn't mean it's not overseen things like ICANN and all of the organization which make up the physical layer of the internet (Ma' Bell).

I'm not sure that I was for this net neutrality legislation. I never read it, and I believe I read that it was pushing things too far in many respects and creating extra regulation. However, let me tell you, if we don't have net neutrality we're going to end up with Ma' Bell again, but Internet instead of phones. It might even be two companies competing, but since they won't be able to compete on the Internet within each others geographies they'll both have local monopolies and companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon will have to pay two or more extortion fees.

And don't kid yourself. Charging for priority routing is not giving you something you couldn't have before, it's requiring pay for what you had with neutrality: It's a form of extortion.

But at the same time, we don't want to tell places like Universities that they're not allowed to priority route; because there are reasonable, LOCAL, uses for priority routing. Such as ensuring that people using http connections get priority over bittorrent users (very valid, one expects to wait and the other may not have time to wait; especially in a local setting like a University).

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It's not an ISP issue, it's a line provider issue. You can't choose line providers because they're already government protected monopolies.

Fine, as I already stated, these monopolies should be removed, and until then - as a temporary solution - should these monopolies be strongly controlled (e.g. they should not have the right to "violate" net neutrality).

However, the ISP's should be allowed to "violate" net neutrality, because they can easily be changed. And it's not only a matter of line provider. At least not in regard to the last few yards from your installation and to the rest of the net.

But I already stated that government protected monopolies should cease to be, and until then they should be heavily controlled.

Reply Score: 1

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

But I already stated that government protected monopolies should cease to be, and until then they should be heavily controlled.

You've said this, but you've made no argument in support of it. You haven't even made an argument in support of how you would cause these monopolies to cease to be.

The US goverment broke up AT&T. The nature of the business it was in is such that it is reforming. Without regular repeated government intervention, that will always be the case.

Reply Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You've said this, but you've made no argument in support of it. You haven't even made an argument in support of how you would cause these monopolies to cease to be.

That is incorrect.

I've already stated, that laws should be passed to remove the granted monopolies. This would be comparable to the old land reforms in Denmark, or the (historically recent) AT&T case in USA.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

They can't be simply removed. There's the issue of public property: You have to use it to have lines, and you actually have to have very strong control of it to fix your lines in a timely manner.

You can't just have people willy-nilly adding their own physical lines in. So you have two choices:
1.) A regulated Government monopoly.
2.) Government owned lines.

We have 1, and it is heavily controlled. It's very heavily controlled. I'm afraid 2 would be even worse as we'd probably never see new technologies in physical mediums applied to our lines.

If we could do entirely wireless (via satelites maybe) communication we could forget the government regulated monopolies. But we don't have the technology yet to do that.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I did not suggest removing the physical installations.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I didn't suggest you did, I said you suggested removing the institutions.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, yes.

We could replace those with private organizations owned by all individuals.

Personally I don't see a problem with people laying down their own lines. It might seem chaotic to some, but a certain amount of chaos is to be appreciated.

Reply Score: 1

MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

Collusion of ISP's won't give you Net Neutrality.
Like the previous poster stated, people with money will BUY access to display your choice.

If you haven't seen the collusion that is currently going on you must be blind.

Reply Score: 1

MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

Collusion of ISP's won't give you Net Neutrality.
Like the previous poster stated, people with money will BUY access to "DISPLACE" your choice.

If you haven't seen the collusion that is currently going on you must be blind.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

They will give me what I want, if I pay for it.

Reply Score: 1

Ben Jao Ming Member since:
2005-07-26

Yeah. Letting leftist politicians decide what the best internet experience is, is definitely a bad idea.

If you want net neutrality then choose an ISP that gives you net neutrality, and avoid those that doesn't.

Problem solved.


Excuse me for being very non-objective: Aren't you as f--king naiv as the lefties you're so sarcasticly refering to!? The problem isn't f--king solved that easily and your eyes have gotta be as blind as newborn hedgehog.

Problem solved my ass.

We NEED legislation to protect Internet neutrality. Nothing wrong with that.

Reply Score: 2

computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

You have to know better than that. In most areas you can get high speed internet access in one of three ways. 1) Dialup, slow, generally no longer acceptable for gaming or even webbrowsing, and especially file transfers 2) Cable, you get it from your cable company. There is NO choice of which cable company you go with, you have to get what is in your area. 3) DSL - not widely available. For example in my area I cant get DSL but I can get cable, which is what I have.

The point? There isnt always a choice. For example, unless I want dialup, im stuck with charter.

So much for CHOOSING an ISP at all.

Also, what is this law about anyway. Net neutrality could mean anything depending on context, nowhere in the entire article do they actually say right out what the law does.

Reply Score: 1

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Also, what is this law about anyway? Net neutrality could mean anything depending on context

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality is a good summary

grossly simplified, it means that a bandwidth provider should treat all packets on their pipe equally, subject only to the bandwidth limit that they've negotiated with the consumer.

Reply Score: 1

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

You have to know better than that. In most areas you can get high speed internet access in one of three ways. 1) Dialup, slow, generally no longer acceptable for gaming or even webbrowsing, and especially file transfers 2) Cable, you get it from your cable company. There is NO choice of which cable company you go with, you have to get what is in your area. 3) DSL - not widely available. For example in my area I cant get DSL but I can get cable, which is what I have.

Yeah, our friend in Denmark doesn't, I think have an idea of the extreme geographical isolation that one finds in the US West.

My hometown, for example, is 2 hours from the next incorporated city. There is one provider of high-speed internet access -- Verizon.

Or where I live now, despite living in a large metropolis, there are people who actually have no high-speed i'net because Cox Cable never bothered to run out to their house, and they're still too far from a switch for DSL.

However, when the new housing developments get close enough that DSL is avalible, the people in that part of town will have one choice: Sprint.

Reply Score: 1

Dekkard Member since:
2006-01-07

lol yeah.. instead lets leave it up to the telcos like verizon, sbc/att, and bellsouth to Tell me what is best for me on the web.. When the telcos start bombing large corporations like google, ask,Amazon and wikipedia with additional costs for their bandwidth how much longer will it be before we end up paying for it? Net neutrality isnt about gov't regulation, its about putting a cork in Telco greed.

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Why don't you decide what is best for you?

Reply Score: 1

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

They are deciding what's best for them. You simply refuse out of hand their intended means of securing it. You can stop framing your argument as a matter of self-selection, now.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

There is nothing wrong with their intended means. If you don't like their offer, don't take it.

The companies are not that powerful. Ordinary people are a lot more powerful; they have just forgotten how powerful they are.

Reply Score: 2

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

I'm suggesting here that the intended means of the people is their government, and that you're rejecting it out of hand because it conflicts with your ideological beliefs. In fact their ideal is that ordinary people are more powerful than these businesses because they have greater representation in the government. Unfortunately for the plebes, their coalitions don't agree on much. That would be as true of co-ops as anything else, though.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The intended means of the people is not the government as such. The existence of that government is actually against the ideal.

The intended means of people is simply uniting. There is no need for doing so through authorities.

In Denmark we have something called "andelsbevægelse". Such a movement is what I consider necessary in order to secure net neutrality.

Edited 2006-06-09 16:36

Reply Score: 1

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

The government is a union, and it's the union people supporting a "net neutrality" bill are using. You don't have to like the means but that is their means of deciding what's best for them.

Reply Score: 1

Dekkard Member since:
2006-01-07

I have decided. I want the greed of the telcos throttled. They spout this B***SH*t argument that the money is needed to build the new highspeed internet. Bollocks..Our telcos are decidedly negligent in reinvesting into their infrastructure. Instead they feel it is more prudent to take tax breaks from depreciatiation. I have emailed and faxed my senators, and congressmen ad nauseum. That is my decision.

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not quite so simple as all that. Somebody on Slashdot said something interesting about why the telcos aren't just entities in the free market. To paraphrase: "I can't go into my neighbors yard and start laying line. The telephone and cable companies can. This loss of property rights must in some way be balanced by an assurance that the lines will be used for the public good."

As long as telcos have rights that regular companies do not, they have responsibilities that regular companies do not. If they want to play the "free market" game, let them play it like everybody else. Have the government sieze all the cable thats sitting in public land, return all the cable thats sitting in private land to the owners of that land, and have the telcos negotiate with everyone involved and pay fees for the use of these private lines. Because if Google or Amazon wanted to run cable all over the country, that's what they'd have to do.

PS) Letting the market decide doesn't work in lots of cases, and that's something you'd learn in Economics 101. There are classes of services in which the market fails to optimally allocate resources to maximize perceived value. Which is why we have national defense instead of privitized defense, environmental regulations instead of none, and why our privitized healthcare system (in the US) is performing so poorly relative to nationalized healthcare systems abroad.

Reply Score: 5

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Since I can not vote you up as you are maxed reyiner... I will just say ... heck yeah!!!

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Right... lets let the market decide... because the market is free when you have the bandwidth owners giving their services that compete with amazon, google, etc, better pipes.

GET A GRIP!!!

a free market is needed to have the market decide. If the market's land is owned by one of the players, how is it free?

Reply Score: 2

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Let the market decide. That works every time it's tried.

Actually, it doesn't. From the Dutch Tulip Craze to 1929 to Microsoft's monopoly to airline deregulation, there are plenty of historical evidence that shows that markets are not in fact the quasi-sentient beings that laissez-faire proponents would like us to believe.

Regulations are important to avoid major economical catastrophes, and to create wealth. After all, if it hadn't been for government intervention, we'd have very little of the technology we use today. Aerospace, computers, the Internet...those were all developed with taxpayer's dollars.

Oh, and corporate tax is essential...after all, many very successful corporations got to where they are with the help of public subsidies - why shouldn't they also assume their share of the tax burden?

Reply Score: 2

postmodern Member since:
2006-01-27

What if all the ISPs in your area do not provide neutral unbiased access? How will the market decide that?

Reply Score: 1

n1xt3r Member since:
2006-02-05

Bravo! Someone by this man a beer!

Though he makes some broad statements and some rather shaky assumptions, he manages to hit the nail on the head when it comes to taxes. Taxes are the bread and butter of crooked politicians and only causes pain for honest tax paying citizens while simultaneously slowing down the economy.

The concept of Net Neutrality not only smells of anti-capitalism, it's not even a plausible means to an end. You gotta love the bias in the coverage though, when it says things like, "dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google". These companies weren't dealt a bitter blow, the House probably just saved one of their best customers - the U.S.! Somehow, saying that they were "engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it", isn't a strong endorsement, when you consider some of the behaviour of these companies, particularly Google. Google has a real problem with ethics when it helps China, a communist country, deprave it's people access to the internet on a content basis. Which is what Net Neutrality is all about. What a load of crock.

Reply Score: 1

RE:Good thing this idiocy was rejected
by bentman78 on Fri 9th Jun 2006 12:31 UTC
bentman78
Member since:
2005-11-15

I would normally agree with you, but with the current monopoly the telcos have, there is no market. In some places where broadband penetration isn't high, they have one choice, and if that choice prioritizes packets and starts blocking access to sites then what? That doesn't sound free or independent at all.

I personally have choices where I am at, but many do not. What also worries be is this seems like my costs are going to go up. My monthly bill for the internet may stay the same, but my webhosting bills will go up, sites will start charging fees to access premium content because they have to pay the telcos extra fees, small busnieses and independents can't afford the fees and I'm stuck with slow access to their sites, all trhe while I pay 52 dollars a month in internet access.

I pay a lot of money to stay connected, I don't want anyone saying what site I can access quickly and what I cannot. That includes the government.

Reply Score: 5

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

-----------I don't want anyone saying what site I can access quickly and what I cannot. That includes the government.-----------

That's why you don't want government involved.

It would be inevitable were that to happen.

Reply Score: 1

bentman78 Member since:
2005-11-15

you're right...I don't. Let's think about this for a second though. The government isn't involved right now anyway, but the ISP's now are. How is that any different? If it's not one asshat it's another.

Either way this is bad for us...I can't see my bottom line getting lower, just my costs going up.

If I were google/amazon, I'd block access from ISP's trying to extort money. Then let a flood of customer calls into their call center change their minds.

Reply Score: 4

halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

---------If it's not one asshat it's another.----------

The asshats in the ISPs can be taken down. it'll be a hard job, but it can be done.

the asshats in the government can't.

Give me a really hard job over an impossible one.

-------------If I were google/amazon, I'd block access from ISP's trying to extort money. Then let a flood of customer calls into their call center change their minds.--------------

You were thinking the same thing I was.

Reply Score: 1

lpetrazickis Member since:
2005-07-06

How is starting your own broadband company and keeping it both afloat and aggressively expanding easier than voting out bad legislators?

Reply Score: 2

Yeah, right
by audun on Fri 9th Jun 2006 12:34 UTC
audun
Member since:
2005-07-13

"Let the market decide. That works every time it's tried."

Yeah, right... If the government had no control, how much monopoly-power do you think Microsoft would have had?
And people living outside the cities would have had no broadband, roads, telephone etc.

EDIT: I was a little late with this comment..

Edited 2006-06-09 12:36

Reply Score: 5

RE: Yeah, right
by dylansmrjones on Fri 9th Jun 2006 12:51 UTC in reply to "Yeah, right"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The government is protecting Microsoft. Ever heard of software patents?

Remove software patents (monopoly on ideas) and you'll see a lot more of competition.

Microsoft is big, and will stay big as long as governments protect it through legislation.

Remove the laws, and let man decide for himself.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Yeah, right
by Get a Life on Fri 9th Jun 2006 15:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah, right"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Did you really just suggest that Microsoft's power base was a result of software patents? Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Yeah, right
by dylansmrjones on Fri 9th Jun 2006 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah, right"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

They are using them right now to cripple competition.

Fact is that patents stiffle competition by granting a law-protected monopoly to a certain person or group, thereby making competition illegal.

Microsoft holds many patents, and are using them actively and so does IBM.

Patents == high entry barrier. Microsoft owns patents and enforces them actively ERGO Microsoft participates in creating higher barriers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Yeah, right
by Get a Life on Fri 9th Jun 2006 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yeah, right"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

I didn't ask you whether you thought that software patents were bad. I asked you if you had any evidence that Microsoft's market position stems from software patents. Please cite specifics if you do, because if you have no reason to believe that Microsoft's position stems from software patents then removing software patents doesn't address the issue of Microsoft's market position. It simply addresses the issue of whether software patents can be harmful. It's a matter of smoke and mirrors, where Microsoft's market position just becomes attributes to things you don't like. Today it's software patents, tomorrow it's copyright, next week it's fiat currency.

Reply Score: 1

ivefallen Member since:
2006-05-19

to how Microsoft uses it's patents to "cripple competition"?

Reply Score: 1

I don't know if this is good or bad
by damp on Fri 9th Jun 2006 12:40 UTC
damp
Member since:
2006-03-19

I must say that i fear the idea that a given ISP can say, would you(let say microsoft(live.com)) like your users to load your site faster then google.com, well then all you have to do is pay us more then google does. I don't know if i'm understanding it correct, please correct me if i'm wrong.

I don't think the "let the market decide" saying is all that it is made up to be, or maybe it's just because i'm not from the states.

Reply Score: 2

Not a suprise.
by kbwojo on Fri 9th Jun 2006 12:48 UTC
kbwojo
Member since:
2006-06-09

Most of the companies that oppossed this bill just happen to be the same companies that have been nice enough to provide the NSA with all the unlimited access they need to build their nice database.

I'm not saying that these companies threatened to cut the NSA off, or to release embarrassing information about the programs, but it does make me wonder about the real motives involved.

Reply Score: 3

Let's try a comparitive analogy
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 9th Jun 2006 13:09 UTC
halfmanhalfamazing
Member since:
2005-07-23

Anybody here familiar with campaign finance reform?

The bill which was supposed to keep money out of politics? Anybody know what that bill actually did?

Put more money into politics.

It's a valuable lesson to learn when it comes to legislation of this type. The old "fairness doctrine" from back in the day would be another example of saying one thing and doing another.

I like the internet. I don't want politicians to destroy it and you shouldn't either.

Reply Score: 2

lpetrazickis Member since:
2005-07-06

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act">McC... ] put more money into politics.

Do you have any numbers to back that up? I understand that parties received significantly less money in 2004 than in 2000.

Reply Score: 1

j_d_miller
Member since:
2006-06-09

a viable option? If you cannot trust the government to govern, do you trust corporations to self-regulate?

The Corporate America sentiment "Let the market decide" is clearly not always the best policy.

Take for example the US cell phone system. Multiple standards, spotty coverage, these are what the market has decided. Europe and Japan have far superior systems, and they are regulated.

Some government is necessary. One can only imagine the infrastructure we'd have if highways, sewers, etc... were in the hands of corporations. The Internet should be treated as an Interstate, not a private way.

Reply Score: 3

Another comparitive example
by halfmanhalfamazing on Fri 9th Jun 2006 13:31 UTC
halfmanhalfamazing
Member since:
2005-07-23

This:

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=14848

I wish I had a nickel for everytime I heard someone say or imply that MS has too much power, blah blah, that the only way linux is going to take of is if the government stops MS' rampage, blah blah.

The market is deciding. And what me and other linux users want is continuing to be closer.

The market works every time it's tried.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Another comparitive example
by Sphinx on Fri 9th Jun 2006 14:25 UTC in reply to "Another comparitive example"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

That applies everywhere there actually is fair competition, unfortunately telco is not that place. The government did stop MS rampaging, (should have gone further), or you would not be seeing linux on dell's for instance.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Another comparitive example
by lpetrazickis on Fri 9th Jun 2006 14:36 UTC in reply to "Another comparitive example"
lpetrazickis Member since:
2005-07-06

Which is why every single African and South American country that tried opening up its markets in the 80s and 90s is now throwing up regulations and protectionist measures like there's no tomorrow. The market is a nice tool, but it needs to be balanced and kept in check.

Reply Score: 1

So many posts
by Cloudy on Fri 9th Jun 2006 13:59 UTC
Cloudy
Member since:
2006-02-15

so much confusion.

The internet is regulated, and has always been so.

The US government has a great deal of control over the internet for a reason: it's the internet's daddy. It is convenient to forget who paid for the original net, and who changed their regulations to allow commercial use of it, but there it is.

Net neutrality is not about ISPs, and changing providers won't make any difference. It's about how peering is done and how traffic transits between ISPs over the backbone.

Many governments have already incorporated net neutrality into local laws. The US is merely playing catch up here.

Web sites already spend a lot of money on improving their perceived performance. There's the size of their local pipe, their own server set up, net acceleration by companies like netli, and caching by companies like akami.

"The market" doesn't always work. Markets only work as forces of social engineering when all of the costs and benefits are carried by the buyers and sellers. The classic example of markets not working is the reason why we have environmental regulation and safety laws. The cost of market decisions (make products cheaper by polluting) is paid by non participants (those whose environment is polulted) who tend not to have any direct participation in the market. (This is especially true of industrial pollution like mine tailings)

net neutrality falls in this area. The people who pay the cost of non-neutrality (or of neutrality) are the end-point users, but they are not participants in the backbone bandwidth market.

Reply Score: 5

RE: So many posts
by Get a Life on Fri 9th Jun 2006 15:34 UTC in reply to "So many posts"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

They may or may not actually be confused, but I think the crux of the matter is that they view any additional regulation as a progression of a philosophy that they reject and as such would only serve to make the situation worse in that it would further diverge from their ideological goals. Whether the Internet or the world in general suffered as a result would be a secondary concern that would surely be remedied by the market more efficiently in the long term. Or faeries.

Reply Score: 2

Not the End
by segedunum on Fri 9th Jun 2006 14:47 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

This isn't the end of the internet as we know it, but possibly the end of the internet in the US. If this gives a green light for the telcos to protect themselves by filtering different types of content and charging for it, or charging more for requests to certain web sites, it's time to get out of the US. This is what the telcos want - web sites like Google or users paying more to access their web site or services.

Without the content on the internet, there is nothing and the telcos can't sell broadband and networking services to people because the demand will just nosedive. This is what the telcos don't understand, and if this moves in the direction the telcos want you'll see the US become an internet ghost town overnight with big demand from people for alternatives.

The market will find a way in the end, but the telcos are trying to fight against something that they know will be the end of them. It's just inevitable really.

Edited 2006-06-09 15:00

Reply Score: 1

Sad Day
by kadymae on Fri 9th Jun 2006 15:01 UTC
kadymae
Member since:
2005-08-02

Where I live there are 2 local providers of high-speed internet access.

Sprint and Cox.

What do I do if they both drop net neutrality?

Go back to the 56k internet drip?

I could get high speed through Qwest, but that would mean paying about $50 a month for a slower connection than I have right now for $40 a month with Cox.

My only hope is that the Nevada System of Higher Education and the County Library District will lean very hard on Sprint and insist on net neutrality as part of the contract.

Reply Score: 1

Smells... Evil
by tophfisher on Fri 9th Jun 2006 15:40 UTC
tophfisher
Member since:
2006-04-07

The way I see it...

The big anti-net neutrality are not the people, but cooperations such as, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. I have gotta say... When you see companies unite against the common desire of the people, that typically means something is very wrong.

For those of you suggesting that keeping the government out of this is whats going to save the net... Then I say to you:

I see this as shooting down a form of anti-discrimination law against the smaller independent people on the internet. I run several large sites, but make ZERO in profit from them. Some of them are fairly high bandwidth. Now I pay my ISP bill and hosting costs, I pay for that bandwidth.. But there is NO WAY I could also pay extortionist money to Verizon and AT&T ... I feel like I am a small shop keeper and they are the mob!

For those of you are are happy this was shot down... Please take 10 minutes and read:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5063072.stm

As much as I hate it, when it comes down to it, greed is to powerful and there are times when we NEED the government to protect us... I mean... That is what they are suppose to be for... Well, I guess thats what I hoped.

Edited 2006-06-09 15:44

Reply Score: 1

v Never let the markets decide ........
by silicon on Fri 9th Jun 2006 15:51 UTC
Potentially bad for the US market
by abdavidson on Fri 9th Jun 2006 16:12 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

I just hope the fallout is restricted to there and no one gets the dumb idea to do as the carriers have been bleating about (leading to this legislation attempt) outside the USA.

Oh well.

Edited 2006-06-09 16:12

Reply Score: 1

Pair 'o wire cutters!
by mabhatter on Fri 9th Jun 2006 16:54 UTC
mabhatter
Member since:
2005-07-17

I've got a pair of wire cutters handy to try out the idea of "land neutrality". I think the telcos should pay me more rent money if they run fatter pipe across my property! Where's my basic freedom of control of my property at.. Oh wait, the STATE declared Eminent Domain and claims space on EVERYONE'S property they "rent" to the telcos. In addition the STATE grants only a few telcos access so not everybody can string their lines on the "commons" either. With out "land neutrality" there wouldn't be telcos, it would be a hassle to negotiate "fair" deals with every land owner and handle every change of land ownership like should happen in a good libertarian society.

Too few people remember the days when Ma Bell OWNED the phones.. the whole thing! We rented phones.. and using our own device was ILLEGAL. It wasn't until ATT was broken up we could own our own dial-up modems. The doctrine of "telephone neutrality" that the customer bought the "line" and the telco was obligated to connect to any telephone number you dial without restriction to the purpose as long as you paid the bill. If you started a company that used your POTS lines to connect to a data service with a T1 they couldn't stop you. Once that was in place the Internet took off. Even though the telcos in many places deliberately sabotaged the ma-n-pop ISPs by installing poor grade equipment for modem usage even after 2000!! Ever since the prospect of DSL the phone companies have been begging for a return to the Ma Bell days so they can own everything again. They're acting like little kids that keep begging over and over until the parent gives in because they can't remember why they said no in the first place!!!

Reply Score: 4

Bite the hand that feeds
by yoursecretninja on Fri 9th Jun 2006 17:51 UTC
yoursecretninja
Member since:
2006-01-02

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. These ISPs want to encourage traffic to sites in which they have a vested interest. However, they forget that by and large, the reason why we consumers pay them to have the priviledge of accessing the Internet is not so we can visit the one or two sites they own or are affiliated with, but so that we can visit pretty much any site that tickles our fancy. And we pay ISPs a premium so that we can have fast connections. Slowing connections to Web sites that they have no vested interest in is just wrong. If the Web didn't burgeon so quickly due to the large amount of free access content, then the people who run these ISPs wouldn't be sitting on bags of cash. There were low barriers to entry for web publishers - content multiplied like crazy - people foamed at the mouth to have access to this content - ISPs got rich! They have independent and/or third party web content providers to thank for their success. And they thank them by potentially taxing them for bandwidth (that ISP customers already pay for) or slowing traffic to their Web sites.

*** EDITED SOME TYPOS; ADDED A SENTENCE.

Edited 2006-06-09 17:54

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bite the hand that feeds
by MikeekiM on Fri 9th Jun 2006 18:17 UTC in reply to "Bite the hand that feeds"
MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

Not to mention the CEO's of these ISP's are Right Wing KOOKS. Give them the ability to put Left Wing blogs on the SLOW lane and that's just what they will do.

Just look at FOX "News".
Continuous LIES posted as news.
That's what you'll get on the internet.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

And Left Wings like you are any better?

Considering the crimes committed against humanity by leftists, I think you ought to find another world to live in.

Reply Score: 0

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Come, now. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, all of these nice people were rightists. Let's call it a draw, m'kay? :-)

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were leftists. Pinochet however... Hmm.. he is no a rightist (in any european sense) because the european right == libetarians and outmost right is anarchism.

The problem is that there are so many different definitions on right and left.

I consider "right" to be "as much personal freedom as possible" (therefore anarchism as most right wing) and "left" to be "totalitarian" (the exact ideology doesn't matter for those who suffer from the regime).

However, leftists have a different way to define it, and since they have controlled the media (at least in Europe) for the last 5 decades, they have managed to confuse the definitions, so we today have totalitarian systems as the left, the right and the middle.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were leftists.

I strongly disagree. Everyone recognizes that fascism and nazism are at the extreme right of the political spectrum. They were very friendly towards private enterprise, and they exterminated socialists, communists, anarchists, and basically everyone one that was left of center.

Pinochet however... Hmm.. he is no a rightist (in any european sense) because the european right == libetarians and outmost right is anarchism.

See, that's where we disagree. To me, you can be both libertarian/left or libertarian/right. Chomsky is an example of a left libertarian, while Friedman is an example of a right libertarian.

I consider "right" to be "as much personal freedom as possible" (therefore anarchism as most right wing)

Anarchists in Spain (prior to the Spanish War) were definitely left of center.

"Right" means "no government intervention in the economy". It has little to do with personal freedoms, because corporations are not people (despite the fact that they are considered as moral persons).

You can have right-wing authoritarianism (Hitler, Mussolini, for example) or left-wing authoritarianism (Stalin, Mao). Both are bad.

and "left" to be "totalitarian" (the exact ideology doesn't matter for those who suffer from the regime).

Actually, it does. I'd rather be a rich industrialist in Nazi Germany (I'd get big contracts and cheap labour) than in Stalinist Russia (I'd be sent to the gulag).

However, leftists have a different way to define it, and since they have controlled the media (at least in Europe)

Aw, come on. Next you'll be trying to convince me that Berlusconi is a leftist.

for the last 5 decades, they have managed to confuse the definitions, so we today have totalitarian systems as the left, the right and the middle.

As it should be, just like you have libertarian left, middle and right.

Language is defined by consensus. Your interpretation is so far from consensus that it is meaningless. Let's just agree that totalitarianism is bad and that libertarianism is good, and let's debate the merits of a planned economy vs. a free market (or a balance between the two) separately, because they are in fact separate matters. :-)

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I strongly disagree. Everyone recognizes that fascism and nazism are at the extreme right of the political spectrum. They were very friendly towards private enterprise, and they exterminated socialists, communists, anarchists, and basically everyone one that was left of center.

Not everybody. Leftists agree on it, but not the rest of us. Nazism is socialism practised with a racistic goal (a biological view on the world - the term alone shows how sick it is). Instead of workers against everybody else, it's white against black. Fascism is socialism too, but instead of international socialism it is national socialism.

Socialdemocracy can be considered as softcore Fascism. Remove the democratic element in Socialdemocracy and you have pure fascism. International socialism is also known as Communism (or Bolschevism to use an old word).

Communism can be split into many groups, marxist-leninism, mao-communism, reform-communism, and a gazillion other subgroups which truly boggles ones mind.

Your definition of "Right" is supported by leftists, and as such I cannot support it. I see everything as a matter of freedom granted to each individual, and consider all forms of totalitarianism as related to each other.

If we have to use your definition there is no place for libertarians.

Anarchists in Spain (prior to the Spanish War) were definitely left of center.

Well, I'm not sure about that. Some of them were clearly leftists, but that's one of the funny things. I've met persons from socalled leftist groups who turned out to be more rightists (in my definition) than had I thought it possible.

Leftists are all that support severe limitations of freedom.

Actually, it does. I'd rather be a rich industrialist in Nazi Germany (I'd get big contracts and cheap labour) than in Stalinist Russia (I'd be sent to the gulag).

For those who ended in Gulag it didn't matter why they ended there. For those in KZ-camps it didn't matter why they ended there. What did matter was that they ended there.

Aw, come on. Next you'll be trying to convince me that Berlusconi is a leftist. He is a semi-fascist, so yes. He is leftist. The left is Dictaturship. The right is Freedom. The middle is Conservatism and Socialdemocracy.

As it should be, just like you have libertarian left, middle and right.

That's NOT the way it should be. The Left-Right definition should be based on how the society is formally organized. Is it democracy or not? The more freedom the more right, the less freedom the more left. We can reverse the scale if you want to, but there is no reason for it, since all kinds of socialism limits freedom. So the scale works perfectly from a libertarian POV.

Libertarians are not left, middle and right in your system. There is no place for us at all. There is only dictatorship on the left, the right and the middle. As opposed to dictatorship we cannot be there. We support complete freedom in personal as well as financial matters. So we don't fit into your model.

Language is defined by consensus. Your interpretation is so far from consensus that it is meaningless. Let's just agree that totalitarianism is bad and that libertarianism is good, and let's debate the merits of a planned economy vs. a free market (or a balance between the two) separately, because they are in fact separate matters. :-)

Language is defined by consensus. However consensus may be wrong, and consensus can be changed, and just because you live with people agreeing with your leftist definition does not mean the rest of us agree. Your definition is so far from consensus it is completely nonsens.

Totalitarianism is bad and Libertarianism is good. I'll grant you that. Don't forget Socialism == Totalitarianism.

Planned Economy is unacceptable. Planned Economy are mutually exclusive with Free Market. You cannot have a free market with planned economy. The in-between solution which is called "Blandingsøkonomi" in Danish is unacceptable as well, since it's merely a softened version of Planned Economy. A completely Free Market means you can decide how much to produce and what price to sell at, while Planned Economy means somebody else tells you what to produce, how much to produce, and at what price to sell. Completely unacceptable.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Nazism is socialism practised with a racistic goal (a biological view on the world - the term alone shows how sick it is). Instead of workers against everybody else, it's white against black.

See, you just shown how contradictory your definition is. One of the fundamental tenets of socialism is that all humans are equal. You cannot have "racist socialism", because one excludes the other.

I understand that you are opposed to a planned economy, but to go from there and conclude that left=authoritarian, and therefore that Nazis and Fascists were socialists, is both factually and morally wrong.

How do you explain that Nazis and fascists vehemently denounced socialists and their ideals, and executed them? I'm sorry, but you're trying to rewrite history here.

ibertarians are not left, middle and right in your system. There is no place for us at all.

Sure there is. There are right, center and left libertarians, just like there are right, center and left authoritarians. The left/right axis concerns itself with economical questions, while the libertarian/authoritarian axis deals with personal liberties. Your view of the world is much too simplistic.

Leftists are all that support severe limitations of freedom.

No, it isn't, and I can easily prove it: I am a leftist, and yet I am in favor of personal freedoms.

Totalitarianism is bad and Libertarianism is good. I'll grant you that. Don't forget Socialism == Totalitarianism.

No, totalitarianism == totalitarianism. Stop trying to demonize the left, it makes you lose credibility.

just because you live with people agreeing with your leftist definition does not mean the rest of us agree

Don't speak for "the rest of you", please. Extreme free-market advocates such as you are few and far between. Most people take a moderate approach to these issues, and accept that both the left and the right have some good in them. In general, though, you'll find that most people lean more to the left than the right (if only because there are more poor people than rich ones, and the rich tend to vote right while the poor tend to vote left).

Planned Economy is unacceptable. Planned Economy are mutually exclusive with Free Market.

A totally free market is unacceptable, because it leads to concentration of wealth, monopolies and economic meltdown. Just look at what happened in 1929!

There's a reason why successful economies like the U.S., Japan and Germany have mixed economies, because a completely free market simply doesn't work (just like a completely planned economy doesn't work either).

Reply Score: 1

Seems to be some confusion.
by ebrusky on Fri 9th Jun 2006 18:01 UTC
ebrusky
Member since:
2006-04-07

While I do not like government intervention in our lives, net neutrality is a good idea. We live in a country where capitalism rules, and if more money can be made by shafting over the users you can be sure a company will do it. Case in point; Microsoft. We are going to sell you an OS but the security sucks, so we will also sell you a yearly subscription that might help you keep your system clean. Instead of doing the right thing they would rather make money.
The Telco's aren't going to be any better, unless there is enough diversity out there where no one carrier controls a large chunk of connections and content. But if one company has a bulk of the content what will stop them from charging you to access it? Nothing.

Reply Score: 1

So little information, so much noise!
by cr8dle2grave on Fri 9th Jun 2006 19:51 UTC
cr8dle2grave
Member since:
2005-07-11

It's astonishing how much noise the debate over net neutrality has generated when one considers how little real substantive information on the matter is out there. By reflex, I'm all for net neutrality, but I've been genuinely dismayed by a lot of the shrill fear mongering and outright misinformation coming from the pro-neutrality camp.

Cutting through all the crap, it appears the only thing we really know about the intentions of the large upstream providers is that they've been engaged in discussions with FCC regulators concerning the implementation of QoS routing. The idea of implementing QoS routing across the backbone segments of the net is an intersting one. It's also a frightening one. The potential for abuse is huge, but I'm not ready to totally dismiss the idea out of hand either; QoS routing has many completely legitimate applications.

So what are the upstream providers really up to here?

The pro-neutrality camp seems to me to be pushing a collection of distopian visions consisting of worst possible case scenarios. A fractious network where every interconnect is transformed into a lever of extortion. A network where each provider is individually empowered to negotiate with content providers for passage across their pipes. A network where the last mile providers are free to impede or even outright block access to whatever they please without any oversight whatsoever.

Scary indeed. But such distopian visions are also highly implausible. In order for such frightening eventualities to really come to pass it would essentially require dismantling the entire regulatory edifice as implemented Congress and overseen by FCC. This strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely.

Which brings me to my next point. Those from the anti-neutrality camp preaching the virtues of free markets solutions are guilty of an egregious misrepresentation. What's wrong with letting the free market decide? After all, that's the capitalist way, the American way, right?

There is no free market. The only private industry in the U.S. subject to greater regulatory interventions and oversight than the telecommunications industry would be nuclear power plant operators. Nearly everything done by the large telco companies is subject to oversight and regulatory interventions by the FCC. It's already far, far too late to keep government out of it.

So both sides are guilty of making a false assertion on this point. A vote for the status quo (more acurately a vote against one of the new neutrality provisions) isn't a vote for keeping the government's hands off of the internet, it's a vote for retaining the existing high degree of government control but without any further legislative adjustments to the existing policies.

So what, really, is this whole net neutrality issue all about? I don't know and neither do you. None of us do. There is no publically available information describing exactly what the large telco companies are after. Actually, I suspect that the upstream providers aren't exactly sure of what they are after either. But QoS routing holds the promise of getting more bang for the buck out of their infrastructure. That's obviously appealing to the network providers, but it's also quite appealing to me as a customer as well.

My suspicion is that the upstream providers are moving toward including QoS routing policies into their existing peering agreements. In theory, this would make it possible to retain QoS routing policies as packets traverse the different backbone segments. Additionally, last mile broadband providers, given that their infrastructure supported it, could get in the game too and enforce the same QoS policies across their networks. True end to end QoS routing across the internet (or at least across the American segments of the internet) has the potential to make things such VoIP a far more potent rival to traditional phone service. On the other hand, it hands the network providers and an enormous amount of power which they have financial incentives to abuse in manner detrimental of the rest of us.

What's needed is a careful and sober assessment of the desirable possibilities offered by QoS routing, as well as the corresponding regulatory measures required to ensure that QoS routing isn't abused. That is a debate which should happen prior to passing any new legislation. We should all, regardless of where we fall on this issue, be concerned about overly hasty reactions on the part of Congress. These are very important issues, issues with potentially huge ramifications for both the economy and civil liberties, and I, for one, question whether Congress has been given the information necessary to handle this issue in a fashion which maximizes the benefits while still mitigating the greatest possible harms.

That said, I join the pro-neutrality camp on the following points:

1.) Blocking any endpoint (except for security reasons or as part of an optional customer requested content filtering service) is wholly unacceptable. Period! To do otherwise is to abandon the entire concept of having common carriers in telecommunications infrastructure.

2.) Content providers (website and service operators) must not be obligated to individually negotiate QoS agreements with each and every network operator. If there is to be QoS routing of any sort, then it needs to be included within the framework of the peering agreements between network operators. Forcing a content provider to separately negotiate QoS routing policies with the likes of SBC, Qwest, Sprint places far too many barriers in the way of doing business. If I, as a content provider, purchase bandwidth which includes QoS guarantees as part of my SLA (whether all encompassing or only for specific protocols), then those QoS policies should be enforced across every compliant interconnect (backbone to backbone and backbone to compliant ISP).

The above is not intended to be complete. I'm sure there are many additional stipulations which I would agree are necessary to ensure against abuse. But let's turn up the quality of this discussion and not rush to a hasty judgement which will harm us over the long run.

Reply Score: 1

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Cutting through all the crap, it appears the only thing we really know about the intentions of the large upstream providers is that they've been engaged in discussions with FCC regulators concerning the implementation of QoS routing. The idea of implementing QoS routing across the backbone segments of the net is an intersting one. It's also a frightening one. The potential for abuse is huge, but I'm not ready to totally dismiss the idea out of hand either; QoS routing has many completely legitimate applications.

We know more than that. AT&T has indicated that they intend to set up a mult-tier pricing scheme and that they would use the QoS routing to enforce it, for example.

This isn't about QoS routing, which is merely an implementation technology. It is about AT&T (and others) create an artificial market in backbone bandwidth.

Reply Score: 1

The question of public goods
by rayiner on Fri 9th Jun 2006 20:01 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

dylansmrjones. How do public goods fit into your worldview?

I'm of a fairly libertarian bent, but one of the primary reasons why I am not a libertarian is that their ideology seems to leave a lot lacking when it comes to dealing with things that people are forced to share by their physical nature.

For example, take rivers. State governments usually claim domain over rivers, and regulate access to them. Should such regulations be eliminated? Should such rivers be offered for private sale, and should the owners of these rivers be able to dump all of a manner of waste products into them, because it is their property?

Or, take the useage of the radio spectrum. Is it wrong for the government to tightly control the radio spectrum, regulating it as it does? Should the government give the spectrum up to a free-for-all, allowing anyone to transmit whatever they want?

Reply Score: 1

All right...
by archiesteel on Fri 9th Jun 2006 20:17 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

...we're going way off-topic once again, so I'll stop.

I can tell you are quite passionnate about these issues...however, I think you should add a bit a nuance to what you say. Saying that "the left==authoritarianism" is simply not true, as there are left libertarians out there.

I'll agree with you that totalitarian is bad, but we'll just have to disagree on the rest.

Peace

Reply Score: 1

The market
by geoffp on Fri 9th Jun 2006 21:03 UTC
geoffp
Member since:
2005-11-14

"Let the market decide. That works every time it's tried."

Okay, that's just laughably false. I actually thought you were being sarcastic until I read through the whole post. Antitrust law exists because...? No reason? Yeah.

I'm not afraid of the government threatening to restrict my use of the internet, because it's, er, not. The telcos are. So I'm forced to disagree. Simple!

Reply Score: 1

Free Market
by tony on Fri 9th Jun 2006 21:53 UTC
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

The free market is what I'm concerned about. Right now, the barrier of entry, even today, for a website are very low. Not much capital is required to create a media company these days, or any other type of company. Google ads is a revolution in economics. But that's all at risk, if the Telco/Cable companies get their way.

The only ISPs these days are the phone company and the cable company. Neither have a stellar reputation for having consumer interests in mind, and both are lobbying hard to keep the other out of their respective markets, while trying to encroach on the others. Most of them don't have any competition in their areas, and what competition they were forced to have, they've largey repealed.

Cable companies and telco companies have made money, but they're looking at the bucket loads that Google has made, and they want a piece of it too. That's closer to the mafia than it is to any free market mantra. "Nice website, it'd be a shame if something happened to it". Forget that Google and others have paid lots of money for hosting, now the cable and telco companies want to charge money to them too. Despite the fact that both the consumer and content provider have paid their money, the telcos want to collect more money.

Let's face it. This is a money/power grab, and the content providers got out-lobbied.

Reply Score: 1

i like you dylansmrjones
by mipeligro on Fri 9th Jun 2006 23:34 UTC
mipeligro
Member since:
2006-06-03

especially how you keep painting doors red and telling me they're blue.

please let me know when you have your replacement internet in place. i'm looking forward to seeing how well it does.

Reply Score: 1

RE[9]: Bite the hand that feeds
by archiesteel on Sat 10th Jun 2006 00:25 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Well, not everybody is equal in a socialism. Workers are more than the rest, and the individual is nothing. Everybody who opposes the socialistic regime is to be butchered. Instead of oppressing people due to racial differences, they oppress people due to "class" differences. That's no better than racism.

What you describe is not Socialism, but an extreme form of Stalinism. I would tend to agree with Cloudy, but I think this goes beyond a strawman argument.

Left is about taking freedom away from the individual and therefore it is totalitarian.

That's not what the left is about at all. I've already established that there were Totalitarian right-wing states, such as Nazi Germany (and before you spout more nonsense about Hitler being a socialist, remember that the Nazis abolished trade unions and the right to strike - two cornerstones of socialism).

Planned economy is just one of many ways to oppress the individual.

Really? So agricultural subsidies oppress the individual? How about public schools? Oh, and the Internet, which was made possible through government programs, does that oppress the individual as well?

You seem to forget how it was at the height of capitalist power, during the heydays of the industrial revolution and Victorian England. Child labour, terrible working conditions, wage slaves, endemic pollution...it wasn't right-wingers who solved all this, but liberals, yes, liberals such as Franklin D. Roosevelt.

There is nothing wrong with calling Fascists and Nazis for Socialists. Because they are Socialists.

No they are not. Their policies were opposed to those of socialists, they denounced socialists (actually, they demonized them pretty much the same way you're tring to), they massacred socialists. Stop saying this, please, it really makes you look bad.

Nazism is a short form of National Socialism (though it should be Racistic Socialism), and Fascism is merely a nationalized version of Socialism, and as such in opposition to International Socialism.

So, then, the People's Democratic Republic of China must be democratic, then. So must be the Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea)...

Please, there's nothing socialist about the Nazis, despite the name. There's actually a very good rebuttal of this old lie here:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

And as far as fascism being a form of socialism...that's so far from the truth I don't know how you can say this with a straight face. Fascists and socialists have always been bitter enemies, and there you go saying that fascism is a form of socialism. Your comment is an insult to all the socialists who were killed by fascists in Spain and Italy.

The market crash in 1929 did not come from unlimited free market, but from a limited free market for certain classes, and from a huge difference in education between classes, as well as government fiddling with the market laws. The crash would not have happened with a true free market.

Thank you for proving that you know very little about the 1929 crash, and about free markets in general. The 1929 crash happened because the market wasn't regulated enough. New regulations were introduced following the crash, and the market has been a lot more stable since.

USA, Japan and Germany are more free market than they are mixed economies.

Nope. The US in particular is a very interventionist and protectionist country, despite the myth of capitalism that they project. Without the Pentagon system of corporate subsidies, the high-tech sector would have never taken off. Without the huge agricultural subsidies, this whole side of their economy would collapse.

I suggest you go beyond simple rethoric and actually learn a bit more about economics before spouting such nonsense. The world is very different from what you think.

-- A freedom-loving leftist

Reply Score: 1

RE[10]: Bite the hand that feeds
by rayiner on Sat 10th Jun 2006 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Bite the hand that feeds"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Without the Pentagon system of corporate subsidies, the high-tech sector would have never taken off.

You've got a pretty good point there. A lot of the cutting-edge tech here in the United States is the result of government money, either directly or indirectly. The internet is the pedagogical example. The entire aerospace industry is a good example too. If it weren't for lucrative Department of Defense contracts, companies like Boeing and Lockheed would probably not be in business. It's not like the airliners, who themselves are dependent on government bailouts, can pay them the fat margins required to find high-tech R&D.

There is a nice economic justification for this sort of government intervention as well. Some theories suggest that the free market, being risk-averse, tends to underspend on R&D. Countries in which the government takes an active stance towards funding R&D, with Hong Kong being the classical example, actually have higher growth rates than they would if the government took a more "hands off" approach.

Reply Score: 2

RE[10]: Bite the hand that feeds
by Cloudy on Sat 10th Jun 2006 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Bite the hand that feeds"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Without the Pentagon system of corporate subsidies, the high-tech sector would have never taken off. Without the huge agricultural subsidies, this whole side of their economy would collapse.

This turns out not to be true. If you carefully study the history of technology after WW-II, what you find is that there are one or two areas in which government subsidy made an early difference, mostly in airspace, typically power plant and airfoil design, but even in those areas, various government screwups, such as paying multiple times for the same development, or keeping the technology classified too long for it to matter, have pretty much negated any long term gain.

The government itself recognized this in the 80s, when it started shifting DoD procurement to the CoTS (common off the shelf) program.

Even "the" internet isn't a good example. Most people don't realize that commercial internets already existed when DARPA started funding theirs. I, for instance, was a user of CDC's "Cybernet", back in the early 1970s.

One of the rare examples of DoD contribution is the widespread easy availability of TCP implementations in the late 80s, at a time in which corporate internets existed, but were unable to interoperate. Widespread adoption of TCP was a major factor in how "the" internet developed, but it's not clear that the benefits (simplified interoperability) outweighed the disadvantages (naive assumptions about the level of trust on the network)

Reply Score: 1

RE[11]: Bite the hand that feeds
by archiesteel on Sat 10th Jun 2006 00:31 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Of course they would not recognize it. Nazis don't recognize our description of nazism either. And libertarians often do not recognize the description given by other political groups. That is to be expected.

This is irrelevant in this context, since nazis and fascists not only considered themselves to be opposed to socialism, they acted on this by slaughtering them.

One thing you have right: as a libertarian leftist, I certainly don't recognize myself in the description you make of libertarians...

As a libertarian I do not support abolition of property (at least not by force - abolition of property by free will is a different issue). But abolition of the state.

How would you enforce property rights without a state? How would you protect individuals against stronger, better armed bandits without a state? And if you say "well, groups of individuals could organize into a militia" then I'd ask: who would give orders to the militia?...and pretty soon we'd be back to some sort of government.

I'm sorry, but your worldview just doesn't work, not anymore than pure stalinist communism.

Reply Score: 1

RE[12]: Bite the hand that feeds
by Cloudy on Sat 10th Jun 2006 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: Bite the hand that feeds"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

I'm sorry, but your worldview just doesn't work, not anymore than pure stalinist communism.

Please don't use that oxymoron. Stalin was an autocratic dictator who hijacked a particular revolution and turned it into a completely different beast.

Pure communism has been tried a few times, most notably in New Harmony in the United States. It failed for various reasons, but it bears no resemblence to the abomination which was Stalinism.

Reply Score: 2

Libertarian Socialism
by archiesteel on Sat 10th Jun 2006 00:45 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

dmj, please read this article before equating socialism with totalitarianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist

Reply Score: 1

RE[13]: Bite the hand that feeds
by archiesteel on Sat 10th Jun 2006 00:49 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Please don't use that oxymoron. Stalin was an autocratic dictator who hijacked a particular revolution and turned it into a completely different beast.

I'm sorry, I should have put quotes around communism in that sentence. I personally do not believe for a second that Stalinism was a form of communism (not anymore that I believe the PDRoC to be democratic, or that the National Socialist party was socialist).

Pure communism has been tried a few times, most notably in New Harmony in the United States. It failed for various reasons, but it bears no resemblence to the abomination which was Stalinism.

I didn't know about New Harmony, I'll check it out, thanks.

Personally, I keep thinking about how history would have turned out if Marxism had been adopted in industrial England (as Marx himself theorized) rather than agrarian Russia...

Reply Score: 1

All right
by archiesteel on Sat 10th Jun 2006 00:53 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

...I'm out. Have a good weekend, all!

dmj, nice sparring with you! At least we agree on Linux... ;-)

Edited 2006-06-10 00:54

Reply Score: 1

possible solution using a shell account
by ozonehole on Sat 10th Jun 2006 01:10 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

Now that this awful law has been passed, I'm trying to think of a possible solution using existing tools (as opposed to waiting for "somebody" to start a new net-neutral grid network).

OK, one possibility I see that would work well for hardcore Linux/Unix geeks would be to get a shell account on a server. In fact, I already have one. I can access it with ssh and then surf the Internet using tools on the server (ie "lynx" or "links"). I have a friend in China who uses this method to bypass the Great Firewall. The trouble is that it means surfing the Internet only in text-mode - you can forget about graphics.That's not such a big deal for me, but many people are not going to be happy doing that.

Like I said, I already have a shell account, but not everybody does. I've done a little searching with Google on the term "shell account" and found one ISP offering them pretty cheap (www.panix.com). And no, I don't work for them or own their stock, just mentioning it as a possibility. If anyone has other ideas for beating the telcos and cable companies at this game, I'd like to hear it.

Edited 2006-06-10 01:13

Reply Score: 1

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

OK, one possibility I see that would work well for hardcore Linux/Unix geeks would be to get a shell account on a server.

Since a non-neutral backbone provider would be looking at the source ip of the packets from the web server to decide QoS, changing your IP at the destination makes no difference.

That's why net neutrality is so controversial. There's nothing you can do about it as a consumer.

edit: fixed html typo

Edited 2006-06-10 02:11

Reply Score: 1

Wow
by hondje on Sat 10th Jun 2006 02:38 UTC
hondje
Member since:
2006-05-04

Am I really seeing an almost 200 post discussion on one of the most important issues of current technological discussion? That almost made me happy, realizing how others felt it was important...but nope, it turns out it's an almost 200 post debate with a Danish randroid about basic economic realities and how the US Telco industry works.

This is kinda depressing, I expected better.

Edited 2006-06-10 02:39

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow
by Cloudy on Sat 10th Jun 2006 03:04 UTC in reply to "Wow"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

This is kinda depressing, I expected better.

Well, most of the posters don't seem to understand the underlying issue, as witness all the posts about ISPs; and the randoid is amusing to spar with.

I've tried to keep actual on topic discussion alive when I've found it, but there's not much here to work with.

Reply Score: 1

Socialist
by tony on Sat 10th Jun 2006 04:12 UTC
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

A reminder from history... socialism is rather subjective.

The health plan Margaret Thatcher (a rather conservative Prime Minister, I believe) promoted in the 80's was more socialist than the health plan the Clinton administration championed early on in his adminiastration (its advocacy was a disaster).

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"It's not what's being touted so much that bothers me. It's what's *not* being touted(the hidden parts of the bill) and of course, historical precedence."

Ah yes, good thing big corporations are always honest and really think about the little guy, eh?
Ever heard of astroturfing? the anti-net neutrality people are pretty good at it.

"You want to take that chance with the internet?"
Well, it really doesnt affect "the internet", only providers in the U.S. The rest of the world will just roll their eyes at how anyone could ever even imagine that such a stupid scheme ("lets have our customers pay us and lets also make the sites they access pay us") could ever work. You'd have to be a special kind of retard..err...CEO to think it would be a good idea.

Edited 2006-06-10 14:01

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"Oh but I must care. The internet is regulated by the US, and as such, any US law concerning the internet is of relevance to the entire planet (so ridicoulous, but oh well, that's just the way it is)."

Dont be stupid, the U.S does not regulate the internet and whatever law they come up with in this respect has NO effect on "the internet" elsewhere.
It would not affect traffic inside the EU, Asia, Africa or any other region. The only ones affected by it are the consumers in the U.S. The only other traffic that it could remotely *possibly* affect is the transit traffic from/to Asia from/to Europe/Africa and if that gets too bad that traffic will just be routed thru the middle-east instead.

Reply Score: 1

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Dont be stupid, the U.S does not regulate the internet and whatever law they come up with in this respect has NO effect on "the internet" elsewhere.

The US regulates large parts of the internet and has a strong say in the overall regulation of the network.

It would not affect traffic inside the EU, Asia, Africa or any other region.

The EU already has legislated net neutrality.

The only ones affected by it are the consumers in the U.S.

Or anyone who wishes to access a web site in the US, or anyone who uses US transit, or anyone who is adversely effected by transit being rerouted.

The only other traffic that it could remotely *possibly* affect is the transit traffic from/to Asia from/to Europe/Africa and if that gets too bad that traffic will just be routed thru the middle-east instead.

US web sites are a significant destination even for Asian and European consumers. Even US companies that have Asian presence will be impacted if their traffic between the US and their Asian sites is impacted. Rerouting will change congestion patterns and put loads on infrastructure that's not as extensively developed.

Reply Score: 1

What is socialism?
by Soulbender on Sat 10th Jun 2006 14:30 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Who cares? What has it got to do with net-neutrality?
Nothing, thats what. Maybe there should be a way to mod posts down in bulk.

Reply Score: 1

RE[21]: Bite the hand that feeds
by archiesteel on Sat 10th Jun 2006 18:24 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

So, you continue your futile attempt to amalgamate fascism with socialism, huh?

Too bad Benito Mussolini himself disagrees with you (emphasis mine):

"Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

The fact is that Fascists and Nazis were anti-workers' rights, anti-women's rights, anti-gay, anti-semitic, racist and placed the Nation above all else (extreme patriotism). All of these are diametrically opposed to socialist ideals.

So, socialists don't agree with your definition, and fascists don't agree with your definition...

We also know that the Italian Fascist Party was the successor to the Italian Socialist Party, and that the Swedish Socialist Party was a fascist party during 2nd World War.

Please provide links that show clear filiation, thank you.

The next thing you want to lecture me in, would probably be the wonderful nature of Libertarian Socialism, which is a hilarious oxymoron.

Maybe it is to you, because it destabilizes your worldview and would force you to accept that things aren't as simplistic as you (and a very, very small minority, such as diehard freepers) think they are. Did you even read the Wikipedia entry on Libertarian Socialism? I don't think you did. Even if you did, you did not signify in any that you saw anything false on there.

In other words, you are adopting a fanatical position, changing definitions and facts to adapt to your preconceived ideas. Many here have already noted this.

If you want to do that, go read my profile first. And then I might be able to welcome you back to reality. Until then - Have a nice life.

I wouldn't be so arrogant after demonstrating such ignorance of economics, politics and history...

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"The US regulates large parts of the internet and has a strong say in the overall regulation of the network."

The U.S has no say in how networks in other countries work.

"US web sites are a significant destination even for Asian and European consumers."

Not really. Most Asians and Europeans prefer sites with local content and in a local language. Korea and Japan, for example, wont miss many U.S sites.
Also, most big U.S sites (ie ebay, Yahoo, Google) have regional mirrors that will not be affected by whatever retarded policies the U.S providers implements.

"Rerouting will change congestion patterns and put loads on infrastructure that's not as extensively developed."
Yes, that will of course be the initial impact but given time the needed infrastructure will be put in place.

Reply Score: 1