Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Apr 2011 22:48 UTC
Internet & Networking Well, this is a pleasant surprise. This weekend, we ran a story about the carrier situation in the The Netherlands. The largest carrier in The Netherlands has announced it's going to charge for services like IM and Skype, while the other two carriers were thinking about following suit. I stated I expected little from our politicians - but boy, turns out I was wrong. Basically the entire lower house - left to right, progressive to conservative - is not happy with the carriers' moves, and are now exploring options to prohibit them from implementing their plans - including the option to embed net neutrality in our telecommunications act. Go go... Politicians?!
Order by: Score:
maxhrk
Member since:
2005-07-24

I love you,
you love me,
we are totally the family!

today, this morning, i have filled up my coffee, drank it, and boy it is delicious! It blazingly wake me up like an alert deer. I went outside to the backyard. I am totally shocked from what i saw. I am seeing cats and dogs falling from the sky. Trees are uprooted themselves and leave. birds are suing the inventor of airplane company left and right for using their patent without compensation of royalty fee?!


I think i need to go back in and sleep for two more hours.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Wondercool
by Wondercool on Wed 27th Apr 2011 23:27 UTC
Wondercool
Member since:
2005-07-08

Unfortunately with politicians it's: First see, then believe (eerst zien dan geloven).

I am not going to hold my breath that this fierce talk of net neutrality is actually going to be a law.

Reply Score: 6

With apologies to Martin Niemöller
by Stratoukos on Thu 28th Apr 2011 00:07 UTC
Stratoukos
Member since:
2009-02-11

First they came for BitTorrent,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pirate.

Then they came for my privacy,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an outlaw.

Then they came for YouTube,
and the freaking cabinet went mental.

Reply Score: 9

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

First they came for BitTorrent,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pirate.

Then they came for my privacy,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an outlaw.

Then they came for YouTube,
and the freaking cabinet went mental.


Yup

And when the ISP's come up with a way of charging for it indirectly the politicians - like many who frequent this lair - will have nothing to say about it.

It seems that if you're up front about your charges you're evil but if you hide them behind all sorts of propaganda and trickery you're all shiny and good. Is it any wonder governments themselves resort to indirect taxes?

Reply Score: 4

Comment by error32
by error32 on Thu 28th Apr 2011 01:11 UTC
error32
Member since:
2008-12-10

The network belongs to the telco, so why are they not allowed to have their network in their own way? I don't see how this is different to me putting up a squid proxy in a corporate network to keep users from accessing youtube.
It is the consumers choice to use a telco (and we have so many choices in the Netherlands). If our government wants to dictate the information infrastructure then they ought to own it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by error32
by Praxis on Thu 28th Apr 2011 01:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by error32"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

Go read up on a concept called natural monopolies and then try again.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by error32
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Apr 2011 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by error32"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Well apparently he thinks he can start his own ISP just like opening a corner coffee shop. The funny thing, the ones that he is defending will fight tooth and nail to make sure that their monopolies/oligopolies stay in place.
Since actual competition has a negative effect on profits and we all know that profit is king in capitalism...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by error32
by earksiinni on Thu 28th Apr 2011 01:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by error32"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Here in the US, we recently had a case where William Cronon, a historian from the University of Wisconsin, ran an op-ed piece in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/opinion/22cronon.html) in response to the labor unrest in his home state (the governor of Wisconsin and Republicans in the state were pushing to virtually ban teachers in the state from unionizing as part of a "budget balancing" maneuver). He didn't take sides, but rather argued that Gov. Walker's position went against deeply-rooted Wisconsin traditions--shared by Republicans and Democrats alike--of political transparency and cooperation.

What was the response? The Wisconsin Republican Party filed a freedom of information request to access all the e-mails sent from and received by Cronon's university e-mail account. How is this possible? Because Cronon, who works for a public university, is a civil servant of the state, and therefore his e-mail is technically public property.

Regardless of how one interprets Cronon's original piece, it's obvious how such an abuse of power made big waves in the news here. Not only was someone's private correspondence forcibly made public through a legal loophole, but Cronon is a tenured faculty member. The whole point of being a professor with tenure is to be able to make independent statements even if society might not want to hear them. Plus, the move was carried out by a major political party, which has deep implications. One can see how the freedom of information request is tantamount to a political attack on an intellectual and freedom of speech.

None of this is to say that the request is "illegal". My point is that--and apparently this is a worldwide phenomenon--people are so "legally-bound" in their thinking that they can't imagine that laws and the principles behind them change or that we should change them. Yes, the network is the telco's, so I guess one should be able to do what one wants with one's private property, or in the case of Cronon, any citizen from Wisconsin should in principle be able to access (according to one interpretation) the e-mails of a public employee. But do we want to live in that world? If yes, enjoy your status quo. If no, gain power and pressure your politicians into doing The Right Thing. Or, once in a blue moon, you might just be able to get by with the politicians doing it by themselves.

It's called democracy, baby. (According to one interpretation ;-)

Edited 2011-04-28 01:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by error32
by Drumhellar on Thu 28th Apr 2011 02:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by error32"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Look at it this way:
Should your phone company be able to collect a surcharge from you if you called your local pizza place to have them deliver a pizza?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by error32
by Laurence on Thu 28th Apr 2011 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by error32"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Look at it this way:
Should your phone company be able to collect a surcharge from you if you called your local pizza place to have them deliver a pizza?


In a way, this does happen with different dialling codes, premium / free phone numbers and so forth.

However I've never really agreed with a lot of phone tariffs either.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by error32
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Apr 2011 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by error32"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

In a way, this does happen with different dialling codes, premium / free phone numbers and so forth.

However I've never really agreed with a lot of phone tariffs either.


Look it in another way: They will change you extra $0.10 for every time they transfer the word pizza over the wire.
But there is a better analogy - water. You are charged for water by the volume you consume(presumably), but the water utility would like to charge you 50% more for water that you use for making food and 50% less for water for the washing machine. Same water, just different applications.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by error32
by Laurence on Sat 30th Apr 2011 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by error32"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Look it in another way: They will change you extra $0.10 for every time they transfer the word pizza over the wire.
But there is a better analogy - water. You are charged for water by the volume you consume(presumably), but the water utility would like to charge you 50% more for water that you use for making food and 50% less for water for the washing machine. Same water, just different applications.


I got the analogy first time round. I'm just saying that many services do offer different rates depending on usage even though the consumption is the same.

In fact, going back to your example, many water boards will have different rates for different customers (eg office, home, industrial).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's right nor do I agree with charging different rates for different internet services. In fact I fully hope this kind of practice gets crushed before it becomes common.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by error32
by koffie on Thu 28th Apr 2011 09:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by error32"
koffie Member since:
2010-05-06

You pay for using their network to access the internet. They want to charge for free of cheaper services provided by others, that happen to compete with their overpriced products in their broken business-model, that only exists because all cellphone providers do the same thing? I mean: €0.10+ for a 160 character text-message which is not even guaranteed to arrive?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by error32
by Lennie on Thu 28th Apr 2011 09:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by error32"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

bits are bits, if I download 10 ebook PDF's or 1 YouTube video, to the telco this should not matter and they should not distinguish between them.

VoIP might be a problem for them, because they also sell voice services themselfs.

But their are rules for landlines, so probably for mobile it should be the same.

Reply Score: 4

No Kidding
by darknexus on Thu 28th Apr 2011 02:13 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Why wouldn't the politicians oppose this? Think about it, they don't want to give up any more of their ill-gotten (or not as the case may be) cash to watch Youtube or use IM any more than you would, especially if they weren't promised a kickback from said charges.

Reply Score: 2

Politicians
by MahRain on Thu 28th Apr 2011 08:38 UTC
MahRain
Member since:
2008-06-05

Who would've thunk that our politician would actually be interested in this?

My guess is they're all using WhatsApp themselves.

Edited 2011-04-28 08:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

a spark
by Janvl on Thu 28th Apr 2011 11:14 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

This is indeed a spark of hope that I did not expect as a dutchman living abraoad.

Reply Score: 1