http://rawstory.com/2009/10/mccain-net-neutrality/

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill in the Senate on Thursday that would effectively allow Internet service providers to slow down or block Internet content or applications of their choosing.

The move came the same day as the federal government decided to move forward on an official Net neutrality policy that would prevent ISPs from making those types of decisions.

The FCC's new rules would prevent ISPs, for example, from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks or from charging different rates to users.

McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, would block the Federal Communications Commission from making Net neutrality the law of the land. The rule preventing ISPs from slowing down certain types of content would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain argued in a written statement.

I've said before that we'll look back on the past decade or two as a "Wild West" of the Internet someday, where anyone could stake a claim and seize opportunity. Looks like some people want "someday" to be soon.

I'd love to hear McCain try to articulate even the most superficial concepts of how the Internet works or why net neutrality is or isn't important to its continued success.

This is not the first piece of legislation McCain has introduced this session that is an attempt to do the opposite of what the Democrats are doing; it has really begun to look like kids on a playground with McCain being the whiny one threatening to take the ball and run home. I have really lost respect for the man, with the sour grapes attitude affecting his every move in Washington lately.

Like you say, it would be fun listening to him try to speak coherently on this or many of the other subjects he is trying to push bills through on.

I am reminded of the Groucho Marx performance in one of their movies singing the song, "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It!".

Who do you want regulating the Internet? The government or the ISPs?

ISPs have an agenda: Make money.

Government? Well it changes every 2-4 years.

I would rather have the ISPs regulate it. At least you know where they are coming from. I have to agree with McCain here. Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils and I can speak from experience that you do NOT want to give the Government the tools to regulate the Internet because its a foot in the door. China owns the ISPs here, so they get Carte Blanche to decide what you can see and not see according to their whims. Granted, there is no bandwith usage charges. Download all you want, as long as the government lets you. The fee is always a flat rate and you pay by the year, but what you can do with it is subject to the mood of the ChiComms at that particular moment.

That is something I would rather not see in the States. If the ISPs want to slow down things that could degrade their service as a whole... fuck it. Let em. The Internet is also a Life-Safety tool used by Hospitals, the Military and Police. Even if ISPs are doing it to avoid litigation or DRM infraction, I would still trust their judgement to know what is best for their product as opposed to the government, who already has no business being in the car business, let alone in the information and idea exchange business.

Who do you want regulating the Internet? The government or the ISPs?

ISPs have an agenda: Make money.

Government? Well it changes every 2-4 years.

I would rather have the ISPs regulate it. At least you know where they are coming from. I have to agree with McCain here. Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils and I can speak from experience that you do NOT want to give the Government the tools to regulate the Internet because its a foot in the door. China owns the ISPs here, so they get Carte Blanche to decide what you can see and not see according to their whims. Granted, there is no bandwith usage charges. Download all you want, as long as the government lets you. The fee is always a flat rate and you pay by the year, but what you can do with it is subject to the mood of the ChiComms at that particular moment.

That is something I would rather not see in the States. If the ISPs want to slow down things that could degrade their service as a whole... fuck it. Let em. The Internet is also a Life-Safety tool used by Hospitals, the Military and Police. Even if ISPs are doing it to avoid litigation or DRM infraction, I would still trust their judgement to know what is best for their product as opposed to the government, who already has no business being in the car business, let alone in the information and idea exchange business.

So, you're basing your opinion on how a Communist government runs things? Are you sure that's wise?

Anyway, you're misunderstanding the fundamental issue here. Don't feel bad, because most non-technical people do. That's why this whole thing is so easily sliding into such a precarious situation.

If McCain and the ISPs have their way, fully expect that sites like Ayonae will eventually not be easily accessible to most Internet users.

http://www.enigmacurry.com/blog-post-images/net-neutrality-as-cable-company.jpg

You have to understand that sites like Google, Facebook, MySpace, CNN, GMail, Twitter, and most of the large sites that we take for granted today were nobodies just a few years ago. There is a ferocious cycle of innovation on the Internet, not seen in business for some time and absolutely contingent on net neutrality.

If neutrality is preserved, some of the nobodies today will be services we couldn't imagine not having in another several years. If not, the ISPs and established players will freeze innovation and we will have squandered tremendous potential.

I hate anything stiffling inovation, however if they slow down the net it may not kill my industry faster than it has been...Printing.

Net neutrality is fundamentally about preventing the disaster that was network and cable TV from happening to US internet access. Google would never have existed if they'd have had to buy off the carriers in advance to get a seat at the table, exactly how all the TV shows are the damn same shit and 98% of them are terrible and everyone knows it but CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Webcomics, gone; The next youtube, gone; Twitter, gone (well, ok, maybe not the best case!); Project Gutenberg, the last savior of "print", gone; the list goes on. Anything that doesn't start with a billionaire agenda behind never has a chance.

McCain and barely anyone else in congress have no conception of this at all. Media execs only know they aren't maximizing every revenue stream and don't care if they kill what little remains of Western Civilization in the process. This isn't about the government "regulating" the internet, it's about keeping the internet democratic.

If you find that you're on Glenn Beck's side of pretty much any issue, you should probably pause and reconsider.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210026

Glenn Beck argued that the Obama administration's support for net neutrality amounted to a Marxist takeover of the Internet that would stifle innovation, when in fact net neutrality -- which was the law of the land from the creation of the Internet until 2005, and which ensured that Internet Service Providers were not able to control content -- has been cited by numerous Internet pioneers as the guiding principle in Internet development and innovation.

Probably the most important thing to understand is just that reinstating Net Neutrality is not a bid to change anything. Its only purpose is to keep the Internet working as it is. The ISPs and people like McCain are the ones who want to change things.

I think Net Neutrality is a poorly chosen moniker, which probably adds to the confusion. The word "neutrality" has weird baggage here in our culture that seems to lend itself to making this yet another stupid Red vs. Blue issue.

Ok. So the government should be the vanguard of innovation and not the desire for profit? Last time I checked it was the desire to make the better mousetrap or provide a good or service that the public wants that drove innovation and NOT the government? You just assume that the ISPs are evil and that they want to take away our birthdays and Christmas. Well if they squelch the Net enough, some other ISP will find a way around it and restore order in the universe. If the Government takes away their ability to do so, than its game over because some law on the book can be interpretted to do so.

Am I reading this right? I guess not according to all the vanguards of the Net here on this board.

Sorry if I am not a technical person. Thanks for patronizing me like I am just some fucking 5 year old who "will understand this when you are older". The government having it's finger in a pie means it gets it's say. You want this squabbling mess of yahoos deciding what is best for the Internet? Our Government in its current state could fuck up a wet dream. Sorry but I would rather throw in with the ISPs.

Lummus, you simply don't understand this. I'm sorry if that makes you feel bad or patronized, but it is what it is. You don't see me trying to tell you how civil engineering works, do you?

Instead of knee-jerking emotion driven posts about it, do some research on the issue. The only people siding against Net Neutrality are the ones who stand to profit from freezing innovation on the Internet and the ones who don't understand the issue.

Net Neutrality would protect private companies driving innovation, as they have under the network-neutral Internet for years. It has nothing to do with the government driving innovation.

Am I reading this right? I guess not according to all the vanguards of the Net here on this board.

No, you're reading it 100% wrong.

The "ISPs" is not some magnanimous cooperative of small providers like it was in 1995. It's major media companies like Time Warner and AT&T. They don't actually care about your access costs, what they care about it is getting money of out the people you're accessing, and they're absolutely committed to paying charlatans like Glenn Beck to lie to you about it.

Do you want the internet to be as awesome as your locked in phone and cell phone and cable service? Do you want to get charged arbitrarily more for looking at one site than another? Do you want only half of your google results to actually be there? Do you want content located outside your state or country to cease to exist from your point of view?

If you don't understand these issues, you should be calling your congressman and telling them they don't understand either, and not to fuck with it. You are being tricked into demanding the EXACT OPPOSITE of your stated position here. The null case is net neutrality. Net neutrality is what you ALREADY HAVE.

AT&T would love to charge you 10x the price to call your neighbor on Sprint, but it's illegal for them to do so. That isn't big government interventionism, that's basic fair market rules.

Who owns the infrastructure for the majority of internet traffic in the US then? My understanding is that not too many companies actually own the lines that their data travels on, but instead have to lease it. DSL = pay the phone company. Cable broadband = Pay the cable TV company.

If its Time-Warner who is the land lord, could there not be a monopoly suit brought? Or maybe enough ISPs sick of having to give a gratuity to the God Father of Bandwidth could not find another media? Its not beyond reason that if a cable TV provider is also the top internet data link that they would not use the same model as they use for TV? I dunno. I am just a dumbass and don't know ANYTHING about technology since I am just a big dumb ape that hits things with a hammer...not much removed from the monkeys in 2001 who learned to kill by hitting their buddies with a femur.

Is there any incentive to get around this trap, other than having the USG step in as the playground monitor and tell everyone to play nice? From adversity rises innovation. Government intervention squelches innovation to a degree IMHO. There is also the fact that upgrades to infrastruture are NOT free in such a vast and sprawling nation as ours and to expand it requires money. If its not up to the ISPs to pass infrastructure upgrades along to the consumer to pay for upgrades to handle all those streaming video clips than please tell me where its supposed to come from?

Lum, you seriously have no idea what you're talking about here. The USG is not "trying to step in and squelch innovation." The FCC is already involved, has been involved forever, and will be involved for ever.

The ISPs ALREADY CHARGE YOU. What they do not do, should not do, and were not legally allowed to do, is charge you based on WHAT you access. They can charge you on how much, how often, and how fast, but not on WHAT.

Seriously, you need to read. A lot. Specifically about common carriers. The post office charges you on speed and size. They don't charge you based on whether the recipient is under 35, white or black, or the color of their house.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the USG determining or controlling anything, this is the USG doing its fucking job for once and protecting its citizens access to free markets and the public commons. Naturally a lot of big money doesn't want that to happen, because they want a piece of profit they didn't earn. The way to avoid stepping into this trap is codifying network carrier neutrality just like you have mail carrier neutrality and phone carrier neutrality and highway traffic neutrality and public park neutrality and long distance shipping neutrality and public library neutrality, ad infinitum.

Entities at both end of any connection are already paying everyone involved for their network access. Maybe they aren't paying specifically enough, but given that all companies in question are already profitable despite constant capacity upgrades, I really doubt it. The US internet is already amazingly fast and versatile EXCEPT where the people who want to end neutrality are already involved, the last mile.

Did you ever use the old AOL dial-up service Lumm? where once connected you were directed to thier homepage. loaded with the content THEY wanted to you to access and utilize? luckily you could navigate away from that and make your own content choices. I'm viewing this as the ISP's wanting to be able to lock you into that business model and limiting your content choices based on how much "access" you grant them to your bank account.

Pay Per View Internets anyone?

Fine. You did not address the second part of my post.

How are infrastructure upgrades going to be paid for to allow all this bandwidth? Its not just computers. Phones, PDAs etc. Anything that can stream. It rides on a logarithmic curve. I could see overall monthy fees going up. Maybe not this model but they have to go up regardless until someone finds a better media.

Also, the consumer ultimately votes with their feet. AOL tanked because they had a bad business model that screwed people over so the consumer went elsewhere. Its like anything else, and since Internet is not a 100% Life-Safety service such as..lets say electricity or water/sewage etc where its OK for it to be a monopoly...does the government really need to regulate it other than through Anti-trust as opposed to the normal market forces? I know that I mentioned that the Military/Police and Medical use the Internet, but they are not using Twitter or Youtube or Facebook to conduct business. Granted that turning webpages into "channels" would be fucked up, but I just don't see the consumer standing for it and will find an alturnative. Time-Warner has to be the biggest target in the crosshairs of the Net Nuetrality act. They, like any other large company, are not immune to taking a big tumble...considering that AOL was once a part of that same band of assholes who trying to force a bad business model that has already failed.

I am not arguing in favor of bad business practices...but I am also NOT arguing for government intervention. Bad companies go out of business. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

Yes, that explains why TV networks have been frequently replaced even though they're terrible. Oh right, that's because there is no carrier neutrality on TV, just like they want to subject the internet to. Duh?

What part wasn't addressed?

You want to connect to site A from your computer B. You pay for B -> ISP B. Site A is paying for A -> ISP A. This works already and has paid for the whole thing for decades. ISP A and B peer with a number of other ISPs, and this cost, and their infrastructure costs, are already paid for BY YOU or subsidized by the bad evil USG in your interests.

You can argue you aren't paying enough for that, but we already pay more than they do in other places with better access, so you'd have an uphill battle on that entirely separate discussion. (while you're in Asia, visit South Korea. Tell me if their evil government has destroyed the interwebs by making it ubiquitous, open, and super fast)

What Time Warner wants to do is use their natural monopoly in cable right-of-way to force you to prefer sites that are paying Time Warner for the privilege. This is how organized crime works, so it's no wonder they're buying off John McCain to get it made law.

Im siding with Google.

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality

inform thyself Lummus.

READ

What Do We Mean By "Net Neutrality"?
Saturday, June 16, 2007 at 5:52 PM ET
Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Network neutrality -- the concept that the Internet should remain free and open to all comers -- has been a major public policy priority for Google over the last two years. But anyone who has followed the debate closely knows that one of the challenges raised by our opponents has been defining what exactly the term means. The fact is, net neutrality can mean different things to different people.

Last year Google and other members of the Open Internet Coalition played a big part in the congressional debate over net neutrality. Earlier this year, the FCC agreed to take a fresh look at the issue and seek public comments. We figured this would be a good opportunity to help clarify what we mean when we talk about net neutrality, so yesterday we filed these comments with the FCC. A few key points:

What's the problem?
Most Americans (99.6%, to be exact) receive broadband service from either their phone company or their cable company -- in antitrust terms, a duopoly. And far too many people have only one choice of broadband provider, or even none at all. While there are increased options for wireless Internet services, these "3G" services presently aren't nearly fast enough to deliver true high-speed services. That lack of broadband competition gives providers the market incentive and ability to discriminate against Web-based applications and content providers. In fact, economic analysis and real-world experience from the wireless market suggest that the problem will persist even if more competition eventually emerges. And broadband-based discrimination would violate the founding design principles of the "end-to-end" Internet: openness, transparency, and user choice and control.

What kind of behavior is okay?
There are a lot of misconceptions about which market practices Google and other net neutrality advocates consider "discriminatory," and therefore should be subject to regulation by the FCC. There is widespread agreement among all parties that outright blocking, impairing, or degrading Internet traffic should not be tolerated. Beyond that, we also believe that broadband carriers should have the flexibility to engage in a whole host of activities, including:

* Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as streaming video;
* Managing their networks to, for example, block certain traffic based on IP address in order to prevent harmful denial of service (DOS) attacks, viruses or worms;
* Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or private network backbone links;
* Providing managed IP services and proprietary content (like IPTV); and
* Charging consumers extra to receive higher speed or performance capacity broadband service.

The key point here is that these activities do not rely on the carrier's unilateral control over the last-mile connections to consumers, and also do not involve discriminatory intent.

What isn't okay?
If all these different activities are acceptable in Google's view, what should the broadband carriers not be allowed to do? The answer is those last-mile activities that would discriminate against certain Internet applications or content with an anticompetitive intent. These would include:

* Levying surcharges on content providers that are not their retail customers;
* Prioritizing data packet delivery based on the ownership or affiliation (the who) of the content, or the source or destination (the what) of the content; or
* Building a new "fast lane" online that consigns Internet content and applications to a relatively slow, bandwidth-starved portion of the broadband connection.

What should be done?
In our filing with the FCC, we explained our strong support for the adoption of a national broadband strategy. That strategy should include (1) some incremental fixes (like requiring carriers to submit semiannual reports with broadband deployment data, and mandating that carriers provide clear and conspicuous terms of service to customers); (2) structural changes (various forms of network-based competition, such as interconnection, open access, municipal networks, and spectrum-based platforms); (3) a ban on most forms of packet discrimination; and (4) an effective enforcement regime. We also urged the FCC to take the next step in its oversight on net neutrality, by instituting a formal rulemaking proceeding to consider these ideas.

Without nondiscrimination safeguards that preserve an environment of network neutrality, the Internet could be shaped in ways that only serve the interests of broadband carriers, rather than U.S. consumers and Web entrepreneurs. As Craig Newmark of Craig's List puts it, “Imagine if you tried to order a pizza and the phone company said AT&T's preferred pizza vendor is Domino's. Press one to connect to Domino's now. If you would still like to order from your neighborhood pizzeria, please hold for three minutes while Domino's guaranteed orders are placed.”


So to sum up.

You're standing with Glenn Beck and against Google.

nice.

I would just get in my car and get take out from Papa John's. Its cheaper anyway. There is always a plan B. If not, some company will find a plan B because enough people pissed off will mean plenty of customers for whoever has what they want. If its an anti-trust issue...than call it that. Funny that Google brings this up....being the monopoly of search engines for the most part. Internet is NOT at the status where monopoly or duopoly has to be acceptable. There is plenty of room for other ideas, unlike electric service where you need it or the world comes to a screeching halt. Don't clothe it in a "freedom of speech" or exchange of ideas or innovation issue. If its a trust...then bust it.

And I enjoy disagreeing with you all. I am not one of you. I am not a IT weenie or an academic. This is a debate forum. Not a place where we all say Huzzah in agreement to pump up our egos.

OH, btw... I have never seen Glenn Beck's show or heard it whatever. I don't get US blogs, or YouTube or anything that carries whatever it is that he preaches. All blocked here.

I came up with my opinions all on my lonesome. Thank you very much.

If you think it's unimportant, you might want to look into how much of the US and world economy is derived from online activity (which would've been impossible to begin with, without the past decades of net neutrality). You're not old enough to be a luddite yet.

I would just get in my car and get take out from Papa John's. Its cheaper anyway. There is always a plan B.

Show me how to get in my car and drive to a website. There's rarely a feasible plan B when you're talking about protected monopolies (which residential ISPs are, in essence).

How are infrastructure upgrades going to be paid for to allow all this bandwidth?

The backbones have been in place for years and still are not at capacity. hell the weak link in the bandwidth is the electronics between the infrastructure. capacity increase will be driven by multiplexing the fibers already there not in laying new backbones.
The only place were infrastructure development needs to take place is in rural areas but that will be driven wholely by the business mobel thats been in place since the 70's wich is "homes passed". I.E. if enough potential customers exsist in that direction it will get built.

What Time Warner wants to do is use their natural monopoly in cable right-of-way to force you to prefer sites that are paying Time Warner for the privilege. This is how organized crime works, so it's no wonder they're buying off John McCain to get it made law.


Damn, sounds like a nice reworking of the methodology used by the insurance companies.

I dunno, Sanchek. The Internet is not my job. I just don't care enough to be overly concerned until it happens and becomes an annoyance. I already live in a world where I can't surf most sites...either at work because the IT department blocks it because it is counterproductive towards work and /or is a security breach or at home where China blocks most everything. Either way I am already pointed to where I can and cannot go. I have faith that enough of you will get pissed off about it IE the consumer to keep anything from happening without the USG stepping in and regulating which may or may not make prices go up. No one is forcing the Internet down anyone's throats. Its a luxury for residential users and government/corps have their own nets removed from that kind of drivel.

I dunno, Sanchek. The Internet is not my job. I just don't care enough to be overly concerned until it happens and becomes an annoyance. I already live in a world where I can't surf most sites...either at work because the IT department blocks it because it is counterproductive towards work and /or is a security breach or at home where China blocks most everything. Either way I am already pointed to where I can and cannot go. I have faith that enough of you will get pissed off about it IE the consumer to keep anything from happening without the USG stepping in and regulating which may or may not make prices go up. No one is forcing the Internet down anyone's throats. Its a luxury for residential users and government/corps have their own nets removed from that kind of drivel.

That's an awfully selfish attitude.

This is an issue that affects millions of people, both white and blue collar. Who do you think builds those computers on the Dell assembly lines? Who do you think packs books in boxes and ships them for Amazon?

If the consumer could just get upset and change things, we wouldn't be paying 20-30 cents a pop for SMS messages here. You can't hide behind that excuse when you're talking about protected monopolies.

Factor in how very little most consumers even understand what Net Neutrality even is or how it affects them, and it's nonsense to expect some grassroots movement to trump the ISPs' lobbies.

So your argument boils down to it being OK to destroy the internet because you don't use it anyway?

Yeah, I guess you can drive someplace, until they take away road neutrality too. Thank you for using the Pfizer Expressway, please submit you receipt for Prozac or pay $50 to use the onramp.

This is silly. If you enjoy a friendly debate, it helps to not come out with the argument that the whole thing doesn't matter anyway because then no one is going to bother to talk to you to explain issues, educate you on things you don't know, or possibly persuade you. We're not here for your selfish entertainment, and this is the flipside of us telling you how to do your job because DAMN IT WE'RE TAXPAYERS RAWR.

Right.

Sorry if I am not a technical person. Thanks for patronizing me like I am just some fucking 5 year old who "will understand this when you are older". The government having it's finger in a pie means it gets it's say. You want this squabbling mess of yahoos deciding what is best for the Internet? Our Government in its current state could fuck up a wet dream. Sorry but I would rather throw in with the ISPs.


You mean like we'd understand the world better if we lived in China? That we can't understand global economics as well as you because we are in the US?

Tala, most of you have a Holier than Thou attitude when it comes to anything related to IT technology. Fine. If you have such vast insights then do what you do and fight your fights. I don't see Net Neutrality as being a problem but perhaps enough will to make it one and get the attention of the right people. I am just not going to be one manning the lines. I am just someone who pays to use the internet to piss away some time and check my email. If that's selfish than so be it. I don't give a fuck what others use the Internet for. Its not my business and I don't care to make it my business. I just want it to work. If its a bad product I will stop using it because I DON'T NEED TO USE IT. At least not while at home. Its just a want. That whole Maslow thing? At work its a tool my employer provides for me to do my job and my employer happens to be the USG. If they get annoyed enough with such a deal, it will happen first as them being a customer annoyed at a product and not so much the need to go after big business actting irresponsibly.

As for the global economics bit....you of course are aware of it...but do you REALLY care? Bunch of white upper middle class people living in the 'Burbs tends to make life well insulated. None of you are in any danger of getting fired, outsourced or whatever so what do you care. You don't give a shit about that sort of thing until it ultimately affects your bottom line and your family and friends. Until then it is all just debate on a web board. Ultimatly I am sorry but I don't have to give a shit about you or your fate or lot in this world but for some reason I do choose to anyway. Just on this issue I don't share your concerns and even if its just for my own selfish reasoning that it doesn't effect me than sorry for being representative of the millions of other anon people out there who should care but probably don't.

If you so vehemently don't care, why are you going to all this effort to support legislation protecting the "poor" ISPs?

We get that you don't care about anyone else, and apparently can't fathom that we don't all think that way, but if it's "not your business and you don't care to make it your business", why are you making it your business?

Just trolling?

If you so vehemently don't care, why are you going to all this effort to support legislation protecting the "poor" ISPs?

We get that you don't care about anyone else, and apparently can't fathom that we don't all think that way, but if it's "not your business and you don't care to make it your business", why are you making it your business?

Just trolling?

That comment is just baiting. There is no answer I can give you that won't get the broken record "are you just trolling" comment out of your fuck'n mouth.

Look Sanchek. I care to a degree. I just don't support government regulation of any aspect of the Internet. If this bill of McCain's, even if its a bad bill, blocks EVEN MORE legislation that gets the USG's foot in the door, even under the pretense of doing good, than THAT is my main point here. You are as much of a mess in your reasoning as I am. You carry the conservative banner about locking out Illegals and yet you want more government involvement on regulation of the Internet? More government is not a good thing in many degrees. Its a big inefficient wallowing tub of a beast which moves as slow as a turtle even on a good day. Customers throwing up their hands is disgust and not buying crappy service might send a more clear message to ISPs then some politicians doing some lip service on Capitol Hill. AGAIN...switching off your home Internet service is NOT going to make your house go dark, your food spoil in your fridge, your trash pile up in your yard or your toilet back up, even if you happen to pay your bills online. Go to the post office or the bank and send a cashiers check like mom and dad used to. The USA got along just fine without the Internet in our personal homes and on our phones etc for oh, hundreds of years. You will find that the ISPs will miss your money much more than you will miss having their service in your home.

So that is where my "caring" lays. I will vote with me feet and take my money away from the bad ISP services, maybe even just do without if I feel I am not getting my money's worth. Companies respond quicker to falling profit margins much faster than the beached bloated dead whale that is the USG on most issues.

Look...

Support this type of stupidity and wow be a part of he mindset that allows for such as...

As long as it's not me...I let it slide...

Wake up, don't be afraid of dissenting opintions.....or you will get what you deserve...

Oh wait, too many from this board have learned to think via their professors...

Good lord, if you hate this much...move on

LOL. Fanny, you drunk?

It just almost seems like you are typing with a slur. :p

Lummus, just out of curiosity - do you support government anti-monopoly laws?

To a degree if it will be harmful or stifle competition and give the consumer a dangerous product that is 100% relied upon. That's why important industries such as utilities which have monopolistic characteristics ARE government regulated. Government regulation in itself can also stifle and be harmful. Once again, the Internet at home is NOT a basic need for human survival and there is room for innovation drawn from customers telling Verizon or Time-Warner to go piss up a rope and the market either policing itself or sowing the seeds of something better.

Going to post some other discussions here and all their tales from the punch bowl. Doubtful you will see much difference of opinion from either side.

http://mashable.com/2009/10/22/john-mccain-wants-to-block-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/22/net-neutrality-john-mccain-says-no-glenn-beck-sees-a-marxist-p/

Plenty of others out there.


http://mashable.com/2009/09/18/fcc-net-neutrality/

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/174221/mccain_moves_to_block_fcc_net_neutrality.html

Look Sanchek. I care to a degree. I just don't support government regulation of any aspect of the Internet. If this bill of McCain's, even if its a bad bill, blocks EVEN MORE legislation that gets the USG's foot in the door, even under the pretense of doing good, than THAT is my main point here. You are as much of a mess in your reasoning as I am. You carry the conservative banner about locking out Illegals and yet you want more government involvement on regulation of the Internet? More government is not a good thing in many degrees. Its a big inefficient wallowing tub of a beast which moves as slow as a turtle even on a good day. Customers throwing up their hands is disgust and not buying crappy service might send a more clear message to ISPs then some politicians doing some lip service on Capitol Hill. AGAIN...switching off your home Internet service is NOT going to make your house go dark, your food spoil in your fridge, your trash pile up in your yard or your toilet back up, even if you happen to pay your bills online. Go to the post office or the bank and send a cashiers check like mom and dad used to. The USA got along just fine without the Internet in our personal homes and on our phones etc for oh, hundreds of years. You will find that the ISPs will miss your money much more than you will miss having their service in your home.

So that is where my "caring" lays. I will vote with me feet and take my money away from the bad ISP services, maybe even just do without if I feel I am not getting my money's worth. Companies respond quicker to falling profit margins much faster than the beached bloated dead whale that is the USG on most issues.

I think Malse is right. You seem to have the right point of view, but have exactly oppositely misunderstand what's going on here.

The only people trying to regulate with a heavy hand here are the ISPs, which they can do because they're in a protected monopoly position.

This couldn't be more simple. The established players don't want to keep watching the game change faster than they can adapt, they paid McCain off (http://www.pcworld.com/article/174280/surprise_mccain_biggest_beneficiary_of_telcoisp_lo bby_money.html), and now McCain is holding up his end of the bargain. Don't be fooled into thinking it has anything to do with limited government or Conservatism.

You can claim all you want that the Internet is just a toy and not important, but it is directly or indirectly responsible for no small portion of our GDP. Preserving it is tremendously important, regardless of whether you personally make productive use of it.

Or, put it this way: Even Ron Paul, who is often the single nay-vote against bills that expand or empower the government, supports Net Neutrality.

The "Republicans" fighting against neutrality have been bought and are trying to trick you into seeing this as a political issue when it's not. It's that simple.

This story has been kicking around for over a year but probably got buried under all the rest of the pre-election hooplah/poo flings. McCain ran on this platform. How many of you voted for him? Did you vote for him knowing he was going to push this agenda?

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/VOIP-and-Telephony/McCain-No-Net-Neutrality-No-Internet-Taxes/

There too are all the canned responses. There are even a few

"Obviously you don't work in the IT sector..." lead ins.

Here is an interesting post too:


MONOPOLY Power - Are we missing this?
By: Tom
at: 08-19-08 @ 7:11 pm EST

Tax and Immigration concepts aside (these are ideological and sometimes practical issues), I think a major point has been missed.

For most of the US, we are lucky if we have 3 Internet Service options (for the home anyway). 1) Dial-up...I will say no more on this...
2) Cable - often only by 1 provider
3) DSL - often 1 or no provider (whoever controls the local telco)
Yes, in some areas the Cellular networks are becoming feasible, but outside a large metro, the speed is not good.

The local cable company and the local telco have a virtual Duopoly (Monopoly of 2). Has monopoly power not been something deemed outside control of the "free market" and therefore warranting government regulation?

Seems to me Net Neutrality is a pretty lightweight and very fair limit of monopoly power....

For the record on my opinions on the others - (taxing internet trade is not practical and would cost a great deal to enforce), expanded H-1B visas (for some limited roles maybe OK, but too often abused by companies), free trade (fine, if its free both ways and that the vast majority of the gains benefit all, not the super rich) Accelerated depreciation of technology (perhaps), permanent credit on R & D (target it "correctly" and maybe - but a heck of a tax loophole).

Personally...I'd like to see others thoughts on Net Neutrality as a reasonable curb of Monopoly Power...


Kinda wraps up the whole past 24 hours of activity on this board in a nice little pretty bow.

In the end..if the Internet has to be treated like a Utility service where it is indeed a monopoly or oligopoly etc that can't be broken up in its current state without destroying it , such as your water, gas, electricity or garbage collector (Waste Management isn't a monopoly, right?) then what do we end up with? The electric company still fucks you at the drive through, and sometimes all that government regulation prevents innovation that might grant us all cheaper and more environmental responsible power. Plus it is easy for the USG to say that we are going to do some aspect of regulation for the "good of us all" that ends up costing the ISPs vastly more money which in turn gets passed on to the consumer and in the end we still lose. That can only be stopped if the USG mandates that you can only charge X number of dollars for bandwidth, which would not sit well with many.

Most of the utility analogies break down when you consider that the ISPs aren't paying for the entire network, nor do they have any rights to "sell" you the content you're actually accessing. They're just selling you a connection from your computer to the backbone.

They are in no way subsidizing or selling you the actual content on the other end of that http:// address, yet want the ability to arbitrarily regulate your access to it.

Here is an interesting tidbit from your link, Sanchek:

In other words, a telco ISP could not limit bandwidth used for Skype VoIP traffic, while maximizing bandwidth available for its own VoIP service.

That almost sounds like McDonalds also has to let you be able to order a Whopper and only pay as much as you would for a Big Mac. Yes, its more complicated than that. Granted, if AT&T had a product that sucks compared to Skype and legally had to give Skype users equal time on AT&T servers, it might drive AT&T to want to make a competative product by offering something better rather than squashing Skype. Still, also on an E-Commerce perspective, if I ran a ISP or any bank of servers and I hosted an E-commerce site that I owned as well as the servers it runs on...does that also mean I have to host my competions site ON MY SERVER? Thats wear and tear on MY SHIT and salaries paid to MY EMPLOYEES to host a competitor's site. Piss on that they can go build their own server and hire thier own staff. Again....its more complicated than that.

The fact that McCain took in all that money is a real disappointment, but it also really makes me question if we REALLY want these people (McCain is in the government, remember?) regulating the Internet. Net Nuetrality could really open the door for more abuses like this pay off you present here.

A nerdy quote jumps into mind here....

Gandalf (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005212/): Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.

Maybe a bit too dramtic. Just a wee bit. I hope a point is in there somewhere.

Also...Sanchek. Who owns the backbone? Someone had to pay for it to be constructed and also has to pay to maintain it. I honestly don't know. I know a bunch of fiber backbone got laid down for the Olympics in Hotlanta back in 1996 but ultimately WHO OWNS IT? Would they get the final say then?

The electric company still fucks you at the drive through, and sometimes all that government regulation prevents innovation that might grant us all cheaper and more environmental responsible power.

Depending on where you are, maybe, but not likely. Welcome to my other area of expertise. The vast majority of power companies are regulated monopolies in ways that would send a media executive in a screaming run to the bathroom to change their shitted-out Italian pants. A public utility commission has near absolute power over their business, because they are natural monopolies and quite literally the very day they were deregulated in some areas, you had electric bills jumping by a factor of 5 even though the utilities in question were profitable at the regulated rates. (I live in the northwest, which thanks to plentiful hydro power and low population has some of the lowest per KW/h rates in the nation, but I'm familiar with the rate base in other places, including California, where the aforementioned malfeasance happened)

Guess how long that lasted.

And you're right to hate that sort of monopoly power. So why are you against letting the FCC do their job and prevent it from happening?

The McCain bill is stating the FCC is not permitted not do its mandated job. And then these jackals say government never works. All your counter example are just inapplicable made up shit that has nothing to do with the discussion in question. Yeah, the government could introduce a bill requiring the signature of the White House janitor on every paycheck, but they can do that regardless of whether or not the FCC is allowed to do what is funded to do.

That almost sounds like McDonalds also has to let you be able to order a Whopper and only pay as much as you would for a Big Mac. Yes, its more complicated than that. Granted, if AT&T had a product that sucks compared to Skype and legally had to give Skype users equal time on AT&T servers, it might drive AT&T to want to make a competative product by offering something better rather than squashing Skype. Still, also on an E-Commerce perspective, if I ran a ISP or any bank of servers and I hosted an E-commerce site that I owned as well as the servers it runs on...does that also mean I have to host my competions site ON MY SERVER? Thats wear and tear on MY SHIT and salaries paid to MY EMPLOYEES to host a competitor's site. Piss on that they can go build their own server and hire thier own staff. Again....its more complicated than that.

Your analogies are breaking down again because the ISPs don't own the entire route to these servers (nor the servers themselves).

Think of it this way. Would you think it was okay for the water company to charge you a different amount for a gallon of water if you were using it to wash your ass vs. washing your feet? You're buying a connection to water from them, not water for a particular use.

Malse, this would be easy if the USG took the Internet and said:

I knight thee Public Utility. In exchange...here are few rules because you are now responsible to the Public and its elected government and the Government is here to protect EVERYONE and not just the Internet. A code of Chivalry if it were will now be followed. In addition to keeping costs fair...I also want you to be mindful of keeping pictures of boobs off the Net. We don't care if people think its art. Its much less work for us and days in court as your Government when people don't drag us in there for not just regulating fees but also content when we have the power to do so.

And Sanchek, I am going to ask again. Who owns/maintains/is ultimately responsible for the backbone?

And Sanchek, I am going to ask again. Who owns/maintains/is ultimately responsible for the backbone?

Well, the backbone providers, of course.

They charge ISPs on both ends, *not* just the ones that connect to the residential end. Buying bandwidth on a big pipe for a website is orders of magnitude more expensive than any broadband connection.

Running a website can be a very expensive proposition, which the ISPs don't kick in a penny toward, yet they still want to regulate consumer access to them as if they owned the servers and entire backbone. I cannot imagine how a sane person could support that, unless they don't understand it or stand to profit from it.

You need to go look up what a common carrier is. When you give the class your essay on that, I'll answer your question, because clearly you are not understanding the vocabulary here. If you seriously want to understand the regulatory environment, I'll be happy to talk to you about it, but again, this is just silly.

About 50 different companies and some governmental organizations are responsible for "the backbone," which is not some unified magical pipe, but thousands of point to point peering arrangements between hundreds of entities. In getting to Ayonae.com, I am transiting about 7 different organizations, all of whom are profitable businesses in the current regulatory network-neutral ( N-E-U, not N-U-E ) model.

And, for the record, I think a PUC type regulatory arrangement for network providers would be a good idea, but that is not in any way related to just letting the FCC do their job. PUCs don't care what you do power or water, they just care that you're paying fairly for what you use.

Fair enough, Malse. You even included your usual snide tongue lashing. Sure, I could have Googled it, but so many people here probably take pride in sharing their knowledge, I just didn't want to rob you of the opportunity. I know how to turn on a light switch but as far as making electricity I don't know crap about the business end other than if you don't pay your bill, the switch off your service. Somewhere there is a power plant that makes heat by burning something or splitting atoms to create steam to spin some turbines driving armatures. Just like there are big wires running between server farms that then branch out to smaller wires to more server farms and eventually it goes to my modem and information gets on the computer screen. Along the way some tool booths collect their share from your information as it makes its trip along the Information Superhighway. Well thanks for telling me that. The interstate system remains a good analogy.

As for not letting the FCC do their job...LOL welcome to government work. Its all about castle building here. Half the time you are working just to at the very least balance your efforts against the desires of other agencies and bureaus. Sometimes you work together but other times you are either cockblocking or getting cockblocked. In the end, who do we feel will have the public's best interests at heart? The evil Engulf and Devour Incorp ISPs or the doddering, bumbling government who is so busy half the time trying not to shit in their hands while covering its ass?

Lots of good persepctives. Probably all that can be said is see how it plays out. If the Bill being pushed by McCain gets killed than its a done deal and McCain comes out looking even more of a tool, just like the rest of his current party offerings. Justice may have prevailed. Its then for the rest of us to see how the government handles their role as regulator and how the Evil ISPs try to outflank the USG by throwing in a few hidden fees or doing what they do for mobile service by ninja dumbing it down by gimping resolution or content.

Its then for the rest of us to see how the government handles their role as regulator

What do you mean? We already know.

You're only reading this site because net neutrality has been the rule for decades. Without it, the company that wrote the software that this message board runs on wouldn't even exist. The hosting company that lends Ryb and us server space and backbone connectivity probably wouldn't either.

Neutrality and its benefits are long-understood things, not some scary new frontier of government involvement.

What do you mean? We already know.

You're only reading this site because net neutrality has been the rule for decades. Without it, the company that wrote the software that this message board runs on wouldn't even exist. The hosting company that lends Ryb and us server space and backbone connectivity probably wouldn't either.

Neutrality and its benefits are long-understood things, not some scary new frontier of government involvement.

If it has been here for decades, why this big deal now? McCain's Bill is reactionary to FCC proposed formal mandates that have not even been enacted. Is McCain's bill nothing more than Anti-Window Dressing....um.. Window Dressing? Just a blow back against the FCC finally putting something on paper that has until now just been a sort of "Pirates Code" so it can stand up in court? With so many other governments doing the same in exchange for a greater control on what comes out of the valve, how can this not be questioned as something that could also do harm? Malse, power and water companies don't give a rats ass about what you do with their power and water as long as you pay the bill, but the USG is very concerned as to what might be IN your water or how that power was generated. What is good and what is bad is very subjective and the FCC has been pretty clear on what it feels acceptable. Censorship sucks but that is part of the FCC's job. FCC regulation could open the door to it. Other countries practice it. Even Canada. Lots of progressive democratic nations. Forget China.

I guess I am just naive to believe that so many people who want so little government intervention and to pay as little taxes as possible while being as vocal about it as possible along the way would not in kind still demand that the USG pull their asses out of the fire when people...actually get their way and leave it to the market to decide only to get bitten on the ass. I still have faith that the Internet is not so far gone in the states to go down either slippery slope. It would be nice to see some more technology develop to rival the Telcos and cable service providers and hopefully the proper environment still exists.

If it has been here for decades, why this big deal now?

The big deal is that ISPs are moving to regulate our Internet access if they can get away with it, by forming old-media type bundles of basic, premium, etc sites. Up till now, they have respected network-neutrality for various reasons (AT&T had to sign a 2 year formal net-neutrality agreement to buy Bellsouth, for example), but you can bet that'll be over if people like McCain succeed in giving ISPs the ability to screw us with impunity.

You're still getting it exactly backwards. It's like you have all the right basic viewpoints, but are looking at it through a mirror.

Government censorship is a nonstarter here. No regulation can impede the First Amendment. That would be blown away almost instantly in any court.

Think about it objectively. Which is more like censorship? A) protecting the right of all Internet users to visit all Internet sites, or B) protecting the ISPs' ability to arbitrarily limit your access to sites that don't kick back to the ISP to be in the Premium bundle?

Don't forget that the ISPs are selling you a connection to the Internet, not the content on it. What's next? Preventing you from using a VPN or remote desktop connection to another computer you own, because you might use it to access "Premium" content without an appropriate subscription?

Forget the politically charged rhetoric that they're using in DC, what the ISPs want is what you would normally associate with "regulation" or "censorship". They're paying millions to flip this around on you. Don't let them.

Googled "Net Neutrality and FCC censorship" and got something that was.......about dead opposite of what I expected.
I did find this:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/08/fcc-commissioner-pearl-jam-censorship-linked-to-net-neutrality-fight.ars

/sigh.

You win. I don't feel I lost though. I learned plenty. Have to make my dendrites grow somehow. Sucks that learning is always somehow forced =P. What sold it wasn't the "premium bundle" pricing. It was more along the lines of blatant breach of public trust. We pay and entrust ISP's to at least be neutral on what flows through their gateways in the USA from a content point of view and not have some political axes to grind or an agenda of their own. I would expect the CHINESE GOV'T to do something as backhanded as what At&T pulled but not a company who is supposed to provide a service that is politically neutral in the US.

What AT&T did was horrible. Who are they to decide what is fit to be on the Net and whats not? That wasn't even a "Bandwidth" issue. That was full blown censorship. Hooray for companies feeling they are above the 1st Amendment =(

You win.

Hey, long as we can keep the Internet network neutral, we all win.

I learned plenty. Have to make my dendrites grow somehow.

And I just (a la wikipedia) learned what a dendrite is.

Since you happened to come across the ArsTechnica site Lummus and found their article compelling, they've been following the development of the ISP's push to regulate the internet for years, and the subsequent rise of the Net Neutrality crowd, in quite a bit of detail.

You should search their site for "Net Neutrality" if you want some good reading, and the rhetoric presented by both sides of the debate.

Additionally, if you want to see what happens when Net Neutrality regulations arent in place, here's their article on what the big ISP's are doing in Canada, which has no such regulations in place (it has a few other articles about Canada's broadband as well):

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/canadian-websites-wireless-network-neutrality-needed-abuses-abound.ars

Here's an article about what happens in other countries that HAVE strong Net Neutrality provisions:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/03/study-net-neutrality-law-would-spur-service-improvements.ars

Kenneth Cheng, another University of Florida professor who worked on the study said that the experience of other countries is illustrative: better service comes from greater competition. "In Japan and Korea, where there is net neutrality and much greater competition among broadband providers than in the United States, there are also higher broadband speeds," said Chang.

Also, check out what Comcast tried to do recently in the US to regulate the internet - they're currently in the process of being fined by the FCC for it, but are taking that debate to the judicial system:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/02/comcast-and-net-neutrality-advocates-clash-at-fcc-hearing.ars[/URL]

[URL]http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/eff-study-reveals-evidence-of-comcasts-bittorrent-interference.ars (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/eff-study-reveals-evidence-of-comcasts-bittorrent-interference.ars)

Short version of this is that Comcast was caught deliberately degrading certain types of content and denying doing so until they were presented with incontrovertible proof (which was subsequently presented to the FCC). Additionally, this filtering affected people that didnt even use Comcast due to the way the internet is set up (see Malse's post earlier about hundreds of companies "owning" the backbone), when their bits just happened to pass over the portion of the network owned by Comcast. This delaying/filtering they were doing also interfered with other applications, including emails sent by Lotus Notes users.

Here's a particularly interesting summary:

"There is a single fact here that they cannot deny," Wu explained, "which is that the Associated Press and EFF [the Electronic Frontier Foundation] which are users of the Internet, sought to use an application a certain way, and they were blocked... Now he's saying that they weren't using the Internet in the 'right way.' They weren't using these applications in the 'right way.' Well the whole problem is that Comcast shouldn't be telling people how they're supposed to use applications."

Using the internet "the right way", as determined by the ISPs and ONLY the ISPs, is the future of the internet if we dont have any neutrality provisions.

McCain is an idiot, a shill for the ISP corporations. Net neutrality is the only thing keeping those greedy jackals at bay. They need to make Net neutrality permanent. I am hoping the democrats are in favor of it, since there in power atm. I dont see how Mccain can get his bill through if the Dems support Net neutrality.

This will hopefully be the one thing the wastes of flesh known as our congress and house of representatives will get done right this year. On second thought; the second thing, the Anti-Rape bill was a good one too.

Their douchebaggery knows no ends: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/want-50mbps-internet-in-your-town-threaten-to-roll-out-your-own.ars

Stories like that really piss me off, all i have in my area (mid-michigan) is dial up or satellite. When i asked the nearest cable company if they could install cable around here. They said they need enough people to ask for it in my area, for them to go out and install it. But, if i really wanted it i could pay 30k, yes 30k to run a cable a quarter of a mile from the nearest small town to my house.
So im stuck with dial up. I wish the town near me would do what those towns did. 56k dial up to 50MB highspeed cable, for me that would be paradise, especially at 49.99 a month they got. Feels like a 3rd world country here.

The whole thing is getting a bit worrisome. These's a bill in the House too now.



Real argument about "network neutrality" is fascinating stuff, provocative and well worth anyone's time if they care about the Internet. Unfortunately, Congress isn't great at having intelligent arguments, and net neutrality is rapidly on its way to becoming the latest victim of the Sound Bite Wars.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have each introduced an anti-net neutrality bill into their respective chambers. McCain's is known as the "Internet Freedom Act of 2009," but Blackburn's is billed as (seriously) the "Real Stimulus Act of 2009" (PDF).

This "real stimulus" consists of a single line, which is identical in both bills: "The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." While the bills target network neutrality, they appear to go much further by banning any sort of new rules on all IP services.

It's clear why that is: McCain and Blackburn both see broad and nefarious implications to FCC Chair Julius Genachowski's attempt to codify network neutrality into rule. Blackburn, for instance, says that net neutrality "ironically would make the Internet less neutral by allowing the FCC to regulate it in the same way it regulates radio and television broadcasts." She also says that the rules are akin to "the imposition of a fairness doctrine on the Internet." And there's more irony: "ironically, government intervention would hamper industry’s ability to protect intellectual property online and crack down on piracy."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/house-senate-get-separate-bills-to-kill-net-neutrality.ars

So im stuck with dial up. I wish the town near me would do what those towns did. 56k dial up to 50MB highspeed cable, for me that would be paradise, especially at 49.99 a month they got. Feels like a 3rd world country here.

You should get a motion in their city council if you're a constituent. Smaller towns are often more open to that sort of thing because there are fewer entrenched interests lobbying around -- notice that most of the whiny thieving cable companies went to states, not towns, because they had no traction there.

I've written my senators about this and hope others do as well.

All I get at home (Washington State on the peninsula) is mobile broadband. Otherwise its dial up. There is no cable TV and the house is 2 miles on the wrong side of the reach of DSL. Its not going to get better any time soon for small towns. There just is not the population density there for the ISPs to make the profits they expect.

So does this bill ensure internet as a Right ? I see people upset that there 200 ft to short for the new uverse package or whatnot ? Or not able to receive the high speed connections they want.

Would this make the cable companies build lines even at a loss to service rural America ? Id love to have high speed internet at the ranch, even if there is only maybe 10 people in an 60 mile radius I shouldnt have to use satellite if I dont want it. Let alone have to stand on my tip toes on the porch with my head cocked at a certain angle to get cell phone reception

Why stop at internet/ cable companies Austin Energy should provide me the same discounts and rebates on solar panels and other upgrades even thou Im two blocks from there coverage area. Why should I have to pay more for the same power and not get the perks.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with that.

God.

Its about the cable companies not being allowed to fuck with or be some kind of gatekeeper on your internet.

Cable Providers should just provide it. K? Is that so hard?

In mega-corporations we trust?

I like Brawndo its got electrolytes

It what plants crave!

http://www.thinkgeek.com/caffeine/drinks/9cce/?cpg=cj