Slashdot Log In
Eric Schmidt on Net Neutrality
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jun 08, 2006 01:35 PM
from the rally-cry dept.
from the rally-cry dept.
GillBates0 writes "Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has written an open letter to the Google user community asking them to speak out on the issue of net neutrality. The official Google Blog has a blurb on this as well. From the letter: 'In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet ... Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Net IS NOT Neutral; Why PROTECT Google etc? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad analogy, because taxi and limo fares are for the use of the car and driver, not for the use of the road. The better analogy would be if a private company wanted to put up toll booths on public roads and start charging tolls.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad analogy, because taxi and limo fares are for the use of the car and driver, not for the use of the road. The better analogy would be if a private company wanted to put up toll booths on public roads and start charging tolls.
I agree, except that I would say its an awful analogy, since my car, your car, a taxi, and a limo all have to obey the same SPEED LIMITS, and that what a tiered internet is all about. Charging more for changing speed limits.
Also, its really amazing to watch how the tiered iternet has gone from the ramblings of a Telco CEO, to being voted on as a law. Its also staggerlingly disturbing that it even happens, much more so that it happens all of the time. It appears that a government of, for and by the people has actually already perished.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Disabuse yourself of the notion that what the telcos want is a "tiered internet". Charging more for changing the speedlimit is what we've got now. I pay a lot of money for a nice fast connection, with the understanding that it's nice and fast to any destination that can also do nice and fast.
What the telcos want to do, instead of charging you to go fast, they charge the friend you're driving over to see. Maybe you're going to Disneyworld, then Disney foots the bill if you drive there faster than 25 mph. Now, of course 25 doesn't make sense, after all you used to be able to drive there at 60 most of the way, but thats how it's going to work now.
The telcos repeatedly frame the issue as one of battling "network congestion" however they fail to explain how all of the packets getting resent after being dropped the first time(s) makes the congestion any better. (To further the analogy, now you're trying to go 60 on a road where everyone's going 25 because their friend didn't want to pay to see them.)
Scarcity mentality...just like Entertainment ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Informative)
To use your highway analogy correctly, tiered internet would be anala
Re:It's not that simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what do you have to say about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Misunderstanding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, it's still a crap piece of legislation.
Re:Misunderstanding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misunderstanding? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they'll just say that the bandwidth expenses "need to be paid" and they'll only be able to give them, with their "limited resources", 1K/sec.
Re:Misunderstanding? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Misunderstanding? (Score:3, Funny)
OK, articulate as your post is, I am going to take a stab in the dark and guess the one that provides porn???
Re:Misunderstanding? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Misunderstanding? (Score:2, Funny)
No sir, we are not blocking that website. You simply have to que your request a week in advance.
KFG
Did we buy any Congressman for the Net Neutrality? (Score:2)
We HAD to, because that is the way it works. No congressman gives a shit about the taxpayers' opinion. They will be as much happy as they can be even if they end
Re:Did we buy any Congressman for the Net Neutrali (Score:2)
So if anyone has insight as to if google, microsoft, ebay, yahoo and any others have been able to buy any congressman, please tell me
Do you think buying Congressmen would violate Google's "Do no evil" ethos?
What he meant to say was... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What he meant to say was... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What he meant to say was... (troll?) (Score:2)
Who cares if he's doing it for the sake of his company also? Even if he's doing it solely for his company, hats off to him for using his weight with Google to try to do
Re:What he meant to say was... (Score:2)
well... (Score:2)
What side should I
Good question... (Score:5, Informative)
"Net Neutrality" is used to describe the notion that the network should be neutral and unbiased to all all traffic. That is, an ISP should not be partial towards or throttle traffic just because it may not be in their best interests to forward it.
As usual, the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] on Net Neutrality is pretty informative. The opening line reads: "Network neutrality is the ideal that network designs and operators should not discriminate between network applications." which sums up the issue pretty neatly.
Hence "Net Neutrality" is a _good_ thing, but it is confusing when people refer to the "Net Neutrality Bill" because what the bill actually proposes is the opposite, which often seems to be the case nowadays...kinda like Doublespeak.
I wonder if Eric wants to ask the Chinese for help (Score:2)
Needs more exposre (Score:5, Insightful)
right on! (Score:4, Funny)
Please read the letter... (Score:4, Informative)
question (Score:3, Insightful)
Article by Lawrence Lessig.. (Score:5, Informative)
At the center of the debate is the most important public policy you've probably never heard of: "network neutrality."
Oh sure... (Score:5, Funny)
What's the bill #? (Score:3)
I did a quick look around the links and could not find it.
Re:What's the bill #? (Score:5, Informative)
HR 5273 [loc.gov]
Re:What's the bill #? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of backwards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)
free and open, huh (Score:2)
While not forgetting about the importance of this bill..
lets also remind Mr. Schmidt of the wonderful things they are doing in 'free and open' China.
So its true after all :( (Score:2)
The problem is that the internet is driven by $$$ (Score:3, Interesting)
The telcos want the tariffs relaxed so that they can provide content (think: radio & tv) over copper strand. The cable companies want tariffs tightened so that they can provide telephony over coaxial connection.
Strange thing is, no matter which one wins they're going to need to be able to provide a certain QoS for whatever they're adding to the current status-quo. The telcos will need to be able to guarantee a certain minimum bandwidth to provide a/v content. Similarly for the cable companies providing telephone service. The money in either case would seem to be arrayed against us (the consumers).
Okay, if what I've asserted above is true, is there any way to implement the kind of QoS the ISP's will need without shafting consumers? Perhaps rather than "net neutrality", a properly managed "zoned" internet could be made to work?
Just askin'.
Stop citing "Ironical" about google's position (Score:2)
Like it or not, google is our ally in that matter.
We, if we rather not see slashdot 'screened' by some butthole telco, we should all join i
Did you write your congressmen? (Score:5, Informative)
So lets say your the one of those friendlies reading this posting. You're sitting there thinking to yourself yeah I like this idea of Net Neutrality, and I think congress should support Net Neutrality. Now ask yourself this, did your write your congressman? .
If your answer is yes stop reading this post now.
So why haven't you? Sure it'd be best to write a real letter, and bravo if you decide to do that. But if, like me, you're just too damned lazy, submit and electronic carbon copy one that's linked from the article. It's really not that hard, and these things really do work if enough people submit them. Just ask the Parents Television Council, the nice people who convinced the FCC to fine any broadcaster who doesn't conform to their censorship standards. They did that by setting up a nice simple website to send electronic complaints to the FCC with a few clicks.
Write your damned congressman!
-Mark
Re:Did you write your congressmen? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the response, minus a closing paragraph not relating to the body:
Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the
time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome
the opportunity to respond.
Introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R - TX), H.R. 5252, the
Communications Opportunity , Promotion , and Enhancement Act of 2006
(COPE), amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and contains several
provisions that will lower cable prices, increase competition, and
provide safeguards for consumers. However, there have been many
misleading conceptions about the COPE Act written in the media , and I
wanted to take the time to shed some light on the mistruths some liberal
groups are spreading.
H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable
companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally
negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and
then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location.
Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company
would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slow ing
deployment of cable service and increas ing prices for the consumer.
Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they
do today. Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable
companies will be in direct competition with one another.
As we move forward in the telecommunications era, companies are offering
more services than just basic cable. Cable and telecom companies alike
now offer broadband service, voice over IP (VOIP), and other digital
services. Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or
broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the
company.
However, the most often misunderstood section of H.R. 5252 is the
"network neutrality" provision, which is the principle that a consumer
has equal access to all sites. The bill directs the administrator of the
FCC not to make any rule or law that would establish Internet network
neutrality. However, the term "network neutrality" is misleading.
The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites
are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use
large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet.
Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large
amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to
the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it
forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these
same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal
special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner
guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special
interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture
by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business
websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach,
when in fact their changes would be the first major government
regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and
cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of
bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely
unlikely to use.
America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16
th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of
competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications
Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision
required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and
prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts.
Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competit
Re:Did you write your congressmen? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. This is to keep your prices low. Of course. That's always the first concern of any big business.
2. Your prices are high, and America is lagging behind, because of Clinton. Of course. Everything's Clinton's fault. The fact that Clinton vetoed the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Republican-controlled congress over-rode his veto certainly doesn't absolve him of responsibility!
3. "the mistruths that liberal groups are spreading". What mistruths, he never actually says. Does or does not this bill specifically state that companies can pick and choose what traffic goes over their lines?
4. "liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services" Again with the liberals! And, of course, if liberals have guaranteed access to the internet, there's no telling what might happen!
Letter: High on rhetoric. Low on information. I give it a C for content, but an A+ for spin.
Unintended consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
The bill says QoS has to be applied equally, regardless of source or destination. I can envision a national company who subscribes to FooCo's Internet service and pays extra to get their packets delivered at a higher priority, to speed up their VPN, VoIP, web conferencing, etc. Would this bill make that unlawful?
The bill says providers cannot block customers from sending content. Wouldn't that mean blocking a spammer from sending spam would be unlawful? Sure, you (and I) might call that "security", but I doubt the spammers will agree. Does it then get get tied up in courts or committees? You can just *bet* the spammers will use this law to their advantage if they possibly can.
And who knows what next neat idea might actually become unlawful this way.
I worry about unintended consequences almost as much as I worry about the big telcos trying to screw everyone.
"You can't do just one thing." -- Campbell's Law of Everything
HR 5252 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:HR 5252 (Score:3, Informative)
Doublecharge Doubletalk (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the distributed magic of the Net that defined its growth and resiliency. Google is already paying AT&T, through a series of proxies. AT&T can't just violate its agreements to carry the traffic of the proxy that's directly connected to it just because it wants to doublecharge Google, just because AT&T thinks Google can afford it.
Unless AT&T changes the laws to let it doublecharge. Which of course it will. After over a century of crooks, why does anyone bother arguing with these telcos about whether their "business innovations" are fair? They're always scams, cons and theft. This latest one is among the most blatant. Why be nice and call it "Net Neutrality" when the telcos call it "Net Doublecharge" in their "marketing" offices?
Re:Something about a beam in one's eye... (Score:2)
Re:Something about a beam in one's eye... (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a search for Rusty Shackleford. [google.com] Jawa report is on the first page.
Here's a search for jawa report. [google.com] Jawa report comes up on the first page.
Here's a search for Jawa Report on GOOGLE NEWS. [google.com] Second listing.
Here's a search for New Medi [google.com]
Saw an editorial in my local paper today (Score:3, Informative)
So, no, it's not j