House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality Proposal 221
crimeandpunishment writes "A compromise on net neutrality appears to be as likely as Google and China becoming BFFs. House Democrats have pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies. House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who shelved the proposal late on Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition, said, 'If Congress can't act, the FCC must,' and called this development 'a loss for consumers.' Internet companies and public interest groups say the new regulations are needed to keep phone and cable companies from playing favorites with traffic, while those companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems." The net neutrality debate seems to have fallen victim to the extreme polarization evident in the larger political culture.
My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:5, Informative)
As some of you know Xbox Live is getting a cool update called ESPN3. The concept of the app & system is pretty amazing, technology has come a long way to make it so. What you probably didn't know is that to get the deal, Microsoft had to get the ISP's to agree to license the content for Internet Users in order to broadcast ESPN3 over the internet. Not all ISP's bought the license, so not everyone will have ESPN3 - even if you're a Xbox live subscriber.
This is an area where net neutrality should shine. It should protect Microsoft and allow them to license content to distribute and it should protect consumers to not be held hostage to a carrier paying for content as a middleman. I hope this EPSN3 thing can light the fire under the community so they understand how net neutrality can impact them. I know this isn't the "typical case of concern" in regards to p2p or throttling or priority of services, but this just goes to show that Internet Traffic is already beeing bought and sold not just as a commodity itself but something that people have now had to license in order to push specific traffic over that commodity on as a carrier - not just a distributor.
With that said, the app is freaking amazing and i don't even like much sports. The fact you can watch scores, hedge on who will win and i'm sititng in my living room watching HD games on demand or live is pretty awesome. I admire comcast for building out the network to support stuff and maybe, that is what the license agreed to but damn, these backroom deals are dissapointing for the consumer and only pollute the fairness & equality of having broadband now into having to chose a carrior that has the right license deals, not just the best performance.
Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:5, Informative)
There's a separate fee for ESPN3 (previously known as ESPN360). Almost every provider provides ESPN on basic access, so that's not the issue. The issue is that ESPN is charging a PER SUBSCRIBER FEE for a WEBSITE to ISPs. This means that if your provider has ESPN3, you are paying for it, whether you want it or not. ESPN wants to turn the Internet into cable TV. That is the issue.
Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:5, Informative)
I'll also note that this per subscriber fee is significantly higher for small ISPs. By about a thousand percent... as a result, small ISPs do not carry the service. If you *want* ESPN3, you have to switch to a big carrier, because you cannot buy an individual subscription to the site.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it falls into the gray area of net neutrality because it takes away the choices consumers should have and makes them superficial to actually being on the internet. So broadband isn't broadband if your carrier is responsible for chosing what services you can use on it. I mostly made my statement to get people to think about these "outside of the box" issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how I see it. This is entirely on ESPN. They are simply billing the end user in such a way that removes the end user from the decision making process. Either the ISP antes up on behalf of the end user (and your monthly bill will probably reflect that), and you get the service, or they don't and you're S.O.L.
This is clearly not a net neutrality issue. The ISP isn't limiting or throttling you. The ISP isn't really deciding if you can or can't have the ESPN3 service. ESPN3 is deciding who can and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>That's just ESPN locking their site/services to those _providers_ willing to pay them
It's an issue due to the lack of internet choice. If my provider (Comcast for example) decides to pay ESPN360 plus DisneyConnection plus FXextra plus all those other "paywall" sites, then that means my internet cost will gradually climb higher, just as Comcast TV gradually climbed from $25 to $65 when CATV channels increased their rates from ~25 to ~75 cents per home.
Unfortunately I have no other choice. I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The deal as it is with Xbox live ESPN3 is entirely with your ISP licensing the content, no choice for consumer. If it was a consumer option I would have opted out of paying for it in liue of the price hikes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My first "bump" where this law could help (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch it when you mention "backroom deals." Those things are what got us the 1976 copyright extension act, 1998 Mickey Mouse/Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, DMCA, DMCA2, ACTA (thankfully not ratified yet but just watch them slip it through in the dead of night).
We can just bet that the real reason this is being "delayed" is that the Senate right now is busy passing the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (aka the "Fuck Consumers In The Ass Act") under a "fast-track" by the corrupt party in power (as opposed to the corrupt party OUT of power).
They want to have the authority to shut down any website they see fit by accusing it of "piracy." Not only that, they want the ability to order US ISP's to "black out" access to overseas websites they accuse of "piracy."
How long till this starts to be a tool for political repression? Seems the Democrats have taken a page from their funding backers over in China. [google.com] Maybe in a few years rather than needing Tor to get news out to people inside China, we'll be needing it just to survive the Great Firewall of America...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because as of right now it's only in testing ... so if you're experiencing this right now while "sititng" in your living room, I would like to know how this is possible.
Because MS is already sending invitations to selected people [softsailor.com] to beta-test the new Xbox Live and Kinect setups?
I'll Say It Again ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would really, really help if we'd explain to my conservative friends just what "Net Neutrality" is. They are convinced that it's some form of Fairness Doctrine for the Web that will limit content.
(The fact that such a "fairness doctrine" might limit Mother Jones and Salon just as much as it does FrontPageMag and World Net Daily, depending on the party in power, doesn't seem to occur to them, either.)
I try to explain to them that it simply means that, if I visit YouTube, I don't want my ISP to limit their bandwidth because Microsoft (or someone else) has paid a premium for priority for *their* bandwidth.
We geeks have several flaws, and one of them is our love of catchphrases and acronyms. We just *assume* that everyone knows what "free software" and "net neutrality" mean. But when you start dealing with the Body Politick At Large(tm), that's not necessarily so. A few minutes to carefully explain just what we're actually talking about will go a long way ...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I cannot support this bill, just like I can never support anything government does ever for any reason [slashdot.org].
I want gov't out of economy completely, only dealing with 2 things really: Justice system, minimum military needed to protect liberties.
That's it.
Everything else is a function of the market. Gov't creates monopolies that end up doing whatever they wish and pay gov't to help them stay monopolies. The correct fix for this 'Net Neutrality' issue is an ISP (or a few) that would offer services without any such
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution states that the government will, in fact, be involved with the economy.
All evidence shows you are wrong. Please study up.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to teach me about the Article 1 section 8 of Constitution talking about 'welfare' and regulating interstate commerce? So why do you need to be derisive?
I believe it is the imperfection of the Constitution that needs to be fixed. People are evolving in all aspects, still evolving physically, mentally, socially. There is still time and it will happen, it's not like US will last much longer in its current form. Very soon its very currency will be destroyed and something will have to be change
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have mixed it up a bit, it's a great society for billionaires and everybody who enjoys being corporate cattle right now.
Unless you've been in hibernation for the past 100 years, the gov't has increasingly been on the path of taking away your freedoms and liberties, while providing them to the corporations and now they are openly bailing out the monopolies they have created. Unless you've been asleep for the past 100 years, you should have noticed the corporate welfare that turned the people into that ca
Re: (Score:2)
1. I am not interested in any career politicians staying in office because they deal with any corporations/unions/industries or even promising easier life to individuals.
2. The list of gov't functions is clearly defined: Military + Justice system. The reasons behind this functionality are: Constitution and protection of individual Liberties and Freedoms. Nothing else.
3. Corruption in government wouldn't even be an issue if government was unable to subvert the economy to its means.
IRS, Fed must be abolished,
Re: (Score:2)
I feel good about them when they are done privately or at the very least locally even if publicly, but I feel terrible about them if they are done federally.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a fan of any assets being owned publicly. I left the link to my previous posts, I discussed this in great length previously. Gov't shouldn't own assets, there should be no commons. No commons = no tragedy. Everything must be private.
So far what have the gov't achieved owning stuff? Well, it put liability caps on deep water drilling, pretty much giving green light for corporations not to care about safety and proper insurance and procedures. If I owned that particular piece of ocean privately, I would h
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:5, Interesting)
While conservatives may dislike "Net Neutrality" for the reasons you state, I believe they have another reason - an undying faith in "the free market and the ability of players in the free market to come to an optimal solution for all." In other words, "Free market players need to have the maximum flexibility to arrive at market solutions which both maximize profits and deliver optimal solutions." Note that I keep using quotation marks in the prior sentence, and in this case it's not a misuse of "quotation marks," rather it's expressing a position that sounds really neat, but doesn't work that well in practice.
First off, the "free market" really isn't so free, it's loaded with large players. There have been studies indicating that when 4 or 5 major players have captured something like 80% of the market, it no longer acts like a "free market." According to those studies, even without overt collusion, a market dominated by a few large players starts to act as if there is price-fixing and market restriction happing, just by normal corporate behavior.
Second, the "free market" never developed anything like the internet, and they had over a decade of failure at it. CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, The Source, etc are all ashes of the market failure. The only reason AOL has anything like survived is because of the proprietary players it best embraced the internet. The normal corporate behavior these days is to "own the pie" rather than work with others to create a much bigger pie. Oddly enough, they continue to do that even when the cooperative pie is so much bigger that their share is bigger than their full ownership of a private pie.
Finally, I don't think conservatives understand that sometimes we do better if our actions are limited. They have complete distrust of the limiting agency - ie, the government, and do understand that sometimes their own decisions can be bad, but fail to see that sometimes, the "free market" will fail to correct them, and they fail to appreciate the damage done, while waiting for the marketplace to correct things.
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:4, Informative)
I would argue that even from the most hard-right libertarian point of view, the only job of the government is to ensure that markets stay free. This includes preventing the purchase of monopolies, so that small businesses have a chance to provide equal or better service than the big players. Net neutrality should be in the interests of anyone who believes in the free market.
The idea that the right has gotten into its head that government regulation should stay out of the market is wrong, not because regulation is some kind of socialist mindset, but because in the hard-right view of things, the only role of the government is to play "cop", to catch cheaters and make sure the market always runs smoothly and is an even playing field for all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you'd be wrong. The hard libertarian point of view is simple, that people should be free to do what they want (form groups/companies/organizations), so long as they don't force anyone else to do anything. The government's job is therefore not to determine whether a market is free enough, because by definition it is, since no one can force anyone else to do anything.
To me it's rather funny, how well the free market has worked, and yet everyone fears it so heavily. But don't worry, you and most of /.
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:4, Insightful)
To me it's rather funny, how well the free market has worked...
Funny, didn't we *just* have an article about the dangers of antibiotic resistance in factory farming? Ahh, but I suppose that doesn't count as a failure for some reason, 'cuz otherwise your little absurd pet theory might not be correct... pesky cognitive dissonance.
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue that even from the most hard-right libertarian point of view, the only job of the government is to ensure that markets stay free.
And I would argue that the only job the government has concerning the market at all is to defend the powerless from the powerful. Cops are there to attempt to keep you (and bankers) from being robbed. The FDA is there to make sure that your drugs are the right strength and your food isn't poisoned (protecting you from the drugmakers and food warehousers). The EPA is there to make sure you can breathe (protecting you from the likes of Monsanto). Regulations on monopolies ensure that your electric company that has no competetion doen't screw you over.
The Libertarians, unfortunately, want government out of their hair so they CAN screw you over.
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Any person that believes banking is a "free market" has no understanding of the concept of fractional reserve banking.
Fractional reserve banking increases the money supply through lending, literally creating money from thin air. In order to maintain the money supply and keep inflation from spiraling out of control, the Central Bank must both manipulate the currency through the prime rate, and regulate the banks through reserve requirements. So, core to the concept of banking under fractional reserve is the
Re: (Score:2)
Great point, because there wasn't a shit ton of regulations and other protections in place.
Oh wait..
Re: (Score:2)
And it happened bacause of the regulation they removed. from about 2000, to 2008 the federal policy towards bank so to go to a more libertarian model. The process of doing so allowed people who control both ends to make money from failure.
I've seen unregulated banks in other countries. It's a fucking mess.
Re: (Score:2)
the federal reserve pumped in gobs of money trying to reinflate the dot com bubble and congress put pressure on banks to give out more housing loans. If that doesn't sound like a bubble waiting to happen..
Re: (Score:2)
It's an uphill battle - it'll be really hard to out-shout Faux News and company, and they've got the ear of conservatives /already/.
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:5, Funny)
...I don't want my ISP to limit their bandwidth because Microsoft (or someone else) has paid a premium for priority for *their* bandwidth.
You think that's a better explanation to a conservative?
Dude. This is how you put it:
Net Neutrality allows for FREEDOM and it allows for your non-profit CHRISTIAN website to have as much bandwidth as those atheist-secular ones. It allows for your GOD FEARING content to have the same bandwidth as those abortion promoting god-less family planning websites! It will also allow you to track what the GOVERNMENT is doing because voting against NET NEUTRALITY is falling right into the government's hands.
Hit the streets now! It's in the CONSTITUTION and the Founding Fathers said that we have the right to equal access! It's true! It's in the exact same part where it says we're a CHRISTIAN Nation!
God Bless America!
That'll get Net Newtrality[sic]!!
Re: (Score:2)
We geeks have several flaws, and one of them is our love of catchphrases and acronyms. We just *assume* that everyone knows what "free software" and "net neutrality" mean. But when you start dealing with the Body Politick At Large(tm), that's not necessarily so. A few minutes to carefully explain just what we're actually talking about will go a long way ...
Alas, these days not everyone at slashdot is a nerd. Witness the many comments we often get in threads about jailbrealing like "use it for what it was de
Re:I'll Say It Again ... (Score:5, Interesting)
the Demofucks are pushing on "fast track" through the Senate right now, though, and you maybe see why the Rethuglicans
You know, over time I've noticed an inverse relationship between the intelligence of a poster and their likelihood to turn names into cutesy little attacks.
Just say the names. 'Democrats'. 'Republicans'. See? That wasn't hard. If your argument is presented decently we'll get the jist of who you do and don't like without the 3rd grade humor.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh please... That is exactly what I'd expect to hear from a Poopocrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but neither of these two parties deserves nicer name.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, over time I've noticed an inverse relationship between the intelligence of a poster and their partisanship.
I hate them all equally. Why? Because both parties are completely corrupt. The nice thing is, when it works properly, the US governmental system is designed to account for that and counter their corruption by playing them off of each other. The problem we get is when one organized political group manages to co-opt both sides of the counterbalance, at which point they start getting away with d
Good news (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, any legislation crammed through in the last few days of a session is bound to be crap. Which apparently this one was, as it excluded wireless providers from the rules applied to wired providers. I guess one group pays better than the other.
We are already seeing the pull back in wireless, we are losing uncapped plans. I do not doubt that if we had the ham fisted regulation we normally get out of the Fed we would soon see that popping back up on wired plans. If abusers cannot be managed away then everyone will simply get clamped down to limits.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that wired providers are generally monopolies. ALL monopolies need to be heavily regulated. OTOH, competetion in wireless pretty much negates the need for much regulation there.
If my wired monopoly ISP throttles Google and gives Bing free reign, my choices are put up with it or do without wired internet. If my cell phone provider screws me over like that he's stupid; I'll go
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be Really Nice if one standard cellular protocol and frequency band(s) were agreed upon (I'd rather not legislate technical specifications), so that I could in fact take my old Sprint phone and use it on Verizon's network if I so chose, or vice versa.
Then there really wouldn't be a monopoly in wireless.
They're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
"pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies"
That right there is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington. This debate, like so many others, doesn't consider the interests of the public, but simply the interests of the industry players directly affected by the new law.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None. If the US government wants AT&T to do something, they can pass a law and/or issue a regulation that says AT&T has to do it. No negotiation required - if AT&T doesn't do it, the US government can then bring them to court. That's what makes the government different from a corporate partner of AT&T, and AT&T is subject to the government of the US as long as it's operating in the US.
However, there's an illegitimate reason why the US government negotiates with AT&T: AT&T is in the running at least for largest campaign contributor [opensecrets.org] in the country.
Re: (Score:2)
There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None.
Sure there is. The US is a democratic republic.
Re:They're doing it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None.
Sure there is. The US is a democratic republic.
Yes, but corporations don't have suffrage.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but corporations donate money to campaigns and most voters are easily swayed by slick ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but corporations don't have suffrage.
Their owners, employees, and customers do. Passing law without consulting the target of the law is inherently undemocratic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but corporations don't have suffrage.
Their owners, employees, and customers do. Passing law without consulting the target of the law is inherently undemocratic.
So then you need a general referendum, to make sure that the owners, employees, customers of the corporation, as well as everyone else that could be affected, all get a say. Consulting with the corporation is even less democratic than congress alone doing it. At least we've voted them to represent us. The only people who voted on the members of the board for those corporations are the ones who own stock in them.
Very insightful: mod parent up (Score:2)
It would be better if the government simply set rules that apply to everyone equally, and for the benefit of everyone, equally. Anything less, and you are picking winners and losers. To do that, they don
Quid Pro Quo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bi-product of the 'choke the beast' policy neocons have been forcing on us since Reagan.
If I want it AND dad wants it ... it's bipartisan. (Score:5, Funny)
So let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
We have asshole Republicans who only care about trying to keep their grip on power, and then we have spineless Democrats who can't even achieve their agenda while maintaining a majority and the White House.
Awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Not like the Republicans can even do anything with their grip on power either.
I don't think we've gotten any oil out of Iraq yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like I was saying yesterday...both parties have proven many times over that they can't be trusted.
Mismatched debate (Score:3, Interesting)
A large part of the problem about Net Neutrality is that there is a complete mismatch of knowledge between those for and those against. People who are generally for Net Neutrality generally are more knowledgeable (although not always true) about why Net Neutrality is an important issue. Those who are against it (at least the lay people and not the businesses involved) generally don't know what Net Neutrality stands for and so they believe it's some sort of shadowy government censorship of free speech or governmental takeover or interference with business or socialism or whatever. Both sides are talking past each other and there is no common grounds of agreement. As long as that's true, Net Neutrality is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Each sides is trying to "frame the debate," but unlike other issues where people frame the debate, such as abortion, guns, immigration, etc, there isn't enough common knowledge to allow people in the middle to have an independent basis for deciding who's frame is more like a bucket of bullshit. This is in contrast to something like guns, where at least there is the second amendment, which while subject to interpretation, is only one sentence long, unlike most of the laws that form the "rational" basis for
Re: (Score:2)
The people who support Net Neutrality usually have no fucking clue what it's about.
They often think it's going to give them some option other than their DSL or cable oligopoly.
They don't know what a "tier-1" carrier means. They don't know about settlement-free peering.
They have no idea what sort of consequences would happen to a tier-1 that decided to go rogue and start violating their transit-free agreements by doing content based blocking.
If they did, they wouldn't support this congressional power grab.
not worried about blocking, worried about slowdown (Score:2)
The main problem scenario that I see is the big ISPs introducing their own video service and giving it priority over Youtube traffic. Or introducing their own videoconferencing software and giving it priority over skype.
The issue for me is not content-based blocking, but rather ISPs wanting to extort more money for services---"gee, nice app you've got there, it'd be a shame if it got slowed down. You know, for a bit of money we can make sure that doesn't happen..."
Re: (Score:2)
A large part of the problem about Net Neutrality is that there is a complete mismatch of knowledge between those for and those against.
A large part of the problem about Net Neutrality is that THERE IS NO PROBLEM YET.
Abortions happen. People get shot with guns. Poisonous chemicals get dumped into rivers. CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This actually happens, and a rational discussion could be had about regulation.
But no one is actually violating "Net Neutrality" right now. We might as well be regu
Dear Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, everyone in Congress NOT owned by corporations and rich interest groups please step forward. ...Whoa, not so fast Democrats
Both sides are bad... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. They just have less need to lie about it.
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Title misleading? (Score:2, Interesting)
What's up with the title of this post? "Politics: House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality" sure make it sound like the poster is trying to imply that Democrats were at fault for this bill failing. But the summary and TFA indicate that it was Republicans who blocked efforts to move this bill forward.
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:4, Informative)
"Phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems." Fine. Let them charge the content producers by bandwidth. The wider bandwidth your content needs, the more you will pay. Low bandwidth content (most web pages actually) would get a free ride, things like Hulu and Youtube would probaby have to open their wallets to help support the inferstructure. Just so long as nobody gets priority over anybody else. First come first serve, but if you take more than average you pay for it.
As an ATT&T wireless user who has exceeded her monthly 5Gb limit once or twice, I can tell you for a fact, we "hogs" do pay more for additional usage. Too bad we don't get "rollover" bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but the point is that you didn't PUT the content on the net did you, you just consumed it. People like you shouldn't have to pay, and THAT'S what the FCC needs to regulate.
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah but the point is that you didn't PUT the content on the net did you, you just consumed it. People like you shouldn't have to pay, and THAT'S what the FCC needs to regulate.
The point is, I used the bandwidth.
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually I don't see any problem with charging consumers more per se. If I use twice the bandwidth that my neighbor does, then there's some logic that I pay twice as much. What's objectionable isn't that they charge more for using more bandwidth, but that they charge more for applications that they assume will use more bandwidth. Example:
I have an Internet connection. I use it for e-mail and web browsing (low bandwidth activities) on a moderate scale, but a few times a month I torrent something (Blizzard uses torrents for it's game updates, Linux distros, etc). While I occasionally use this "high bandwidth application" my overall usage is rather low (say 5-7 GB a month).
My neighbor has the same Internet connection I do. He uses only "low bandwidth applications", but he uses them *constantly*. Say he's a teenager and it's summer vacation. He's *always* doing something on the 'Net. He downloads multiple small files (often at the same time), but does so over low bandwidth (theoretically) protocols like http and ftp. In the end he uses way more bandwidth in a given month than me. 25-30 GB.
Under the types of rules that Internet companies want to see, I would be potentially charged more than my neighbor. Because I use a "high bandwidth service" (despite that I don't use it much and it doesn't actually add up to that much bandwidth), and he doesn't (despite that he actually uses far more bandwidth because of his sheer volume of activity).
A big part of the problem here is that Americans have gotten used to "unlimited Internet". No ISP wants to be the first to say "you pay by the GB", because they know that they'll get their lunches eaten by all the "unlimited" services. So rather than limit the actual bandwidth people are allowed to use (or charging a metered rate), they attempt to offer "unlimited" service while at the same time demonizing certain protocols and applications and trying to charge more for those. This allows them to claim that you can use the network as much as you want, while at the same time curtailing the use of protocols that are most likely to stress the network.
Net Neutrality isn't about you getting free Internetz. It's about companies being forced to sell unrestricted access to the network (on the protocol and application level). They can sell packages based on bandwidth or based on total usage (or both), but not based on protocols or who you're trying to connect to. They can charge you more for more Mbs. They can charge you more because you use more total GB a month. They can't charge you more because you want to use Bittorrent or access a competitor's website.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no justification to charge a company that is providing the value you sell. If customers want a higher percentage of your network traffic, charge them for it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not what they want to do. They want money from Hulu and Youtube to give THEIR packets 'special treatment'. I don't think it's fair to charge the end user who receives the content as the user didn't make any money from the deliver. Hulu MAKES money from the content (via the commericals or their proposed pay for view system).
Re:Bandwidth hogs should pay more.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fine. Let them charge the content producers by bandwidth.
You must own an ISP, because that idea is bullocks. I pay my ISP to pipe content from my provider to my computer. If the content provider is paying, why should I?
If your system doesn't have the bandwidth to serve your customers, you need to invest in infrastructure. If you can't get a return on your investment you need to get the hell out of the business.
The phrase "taking you coming and going" springs to mind. This kind of nonsense really pissses me off. IMO the "troll" mod should have been "flamebait", but at least it's a downmod.
Re: (Score:2)
Because *you* are using bandwidth. If *you* use more bandwidth than the guy next to you, it's reasonable to think that *you* pay more. Not because you used the wrong protocol, no. Not because you went to Youtube, when your ISP has a deal with Hulu, no. But because you used more resources than your neighbor, sure. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whether you're charged for speed, total bandwidth used, or both. It's about preventing you from being charged extra to use certain protocols or access ce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because *you* are using bandwidth. If *you* use more bandwidth than the guy next to you, it's reasonable to think that *you* pay more. Not because you used the wrong protocol, no. Not because you went to Youtube, when your ISP has a deal with Hulu, no. But because you used more resources than your neighbor, sure. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whether you're charged for speed, total bandwidth used, or both. It's about preventing you from being charged extra to use certain protocols or access certain
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because *you* are using bandwidth. If *you* use more bandwidth than the guy next to you, it's reasonable to think that *you* pay more.
But that's not what network neutrality is about. I would think anyone at /. would understand that. It's not about charging all their customers the same, it's about KICKBACKS. It's about MS paying your ISP to give you faster search results than Google (or vice versa).
Net neutrality essentially would outlaw kickbacks. Kickbacks are generally illegal in any other endeavor.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly what I said... I was responding to a guy that seemed to think it was about charging everyone equally, and pointing out that he was wrong. In fact, two more sentences on in my post you quoted was:
"Not because you went to Youtube, when your ISP has a deal with Hulu, no. But because you used more resources than your neighbor, sure. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whether you're charged for speed, total bandwidth used, or both. It's about preventing you from being charged extra to use ce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the tax changes for most people will be rather small.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For you maybe. People in my pay range ($70-95K) are looking at Federal tax increases of over $2,000. Might be chump change to you, but not to me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Greedy asshole. I would give $2000 more to be 'burdened' with that tax bracket. Like about 75% of Americans, I make less than that.
Why don't you WORK for it instead of expecting it to be GIVEN to you?
No one but YOU is stopping you from improving yourself.
And calling someone who who wants to keep the fruits of their labors a "greedy asshole" just demonstrates what a petty, jealous, infantile, GIMMEEE GIMMMEEE GIMMMEEE jackass you are.
Re:Run away! Run away! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what he's saying is that if you make >$75K and you're whining about being asked to contribute +$2K, then you perhaps need a little more critical perspective because, get this, you're already quite rich in relative terms.
He's not expecting to be given extra earnings, he's saying you should count yourself lucky that you are making more, rather than making $40K or less instead of expecting sympathy from the majority of society because you're so hard done-by. As a more wealthy person you, by default, use and benefit more from society, so you, as the the more wealthy person, should foot more of the bill for it.
Don't like it? Want to keep all your money? As tired a cliche as it is, perhaps you should move the Somalia? That way you'll only ever have to pay for your own needs, such as the private police force you'll require to maintain the law and order that allows you to keep the money you make.
Re: (Score:2)
"You're rich enough already" is not a valid argument for tax hikes. The only valid argument is "we absolutely need this and this done, and we don't have anywhere else to take the money from".
You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (Score:4, Interesting)
Democrats, Republicans... what's the difference? Neither one cares about the citizenry. This farce of democracy is made so evident by, well, everything they do. Even the idea of calling them "representatives" is a farce, since they don't represent us. Well, I suppose they DO represent themselves and their monied interests.
If you genuinely want to break out of this kind of rule, you need to break it from the bottom. Free software didn't compete with commercial software by asking the corporations if they would mind please changing the way they charge for things. No, free software started by people just doing it, and ignoring the monied interests.
You can do the same thing with governance [metagovernment.org]. All you have to do is contribute to one of the many projects listed there, or to the umbrella group.
Or you can just sit back and whine about how the Democrats and/or Republicans screwed you over again. Here's a tip: it is never going to stop unless you stop relying on them to make decisions for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (Score:5, Informative)
and the list goes on... As for the last 30 years, actually I beat you, let's do 60 years, under Democrats the income of the middle class has steadily increased by 3%/year and that of the upper class by 2%/year, under Republicans the increase has been around 1% for both.
if you want to believe propaganda go right ahead, You would look a lot smarter if you did some research first though. I'm an independent and I can think with my own brain. There are lots of stupid Democrats but they don't resemble the Republicans by far.
Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, that's all true. The only people who do believe that the parties are equally bad (geminidomino) don't actually pay attention to politics.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The people who don't think the parties are equally bad are delusional.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You got that one wrong, you meant to write Republicans (homophobic, racist, anti-middle class...).
As opposed to Democrats, who keep people in what is basically slavery, lie about trying to "improve education" while doing their best to make sure it is never improved for their voting base, tax the fuck out of people to pay for deadbeats (my city is now 13bn in the hole thanks to demofucks on the city council and the mayor's office not doing shit to get the Katrina Debris out: those lazy assholes are STILL dem
Re:You? Why TF should they care about YOU? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for saving me having to type all of that. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to Democrats, who keep people in what is basically slavery
What? That's absurd. Who keeps voting against minimum wage laws? Who keeps voting against worker safety laws? Who keeps voting against extended unemployment benefits? How by any stretch of the imagination are Democrats keeping people in "virtual slavery"? If anyone, it's the Republicans keeping workers in virtual slavery.
lie about trying to "improve education" while doing their best to make sure it is never improved
The clusterfuck "No Chil
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, never mind, I just read your last paragraph.
You, sir, are a fool. (Score:2)
I'm sorry, what? In what conceivable way are you kept in slavery?
What, precisely, would you call a class of people who are denied a real education, stuffed into ghettos and barrios, and forced into lives full of working dead-end jobs or languishing on public assistance in "exchange" for the guarantee that they will vote for the political party that the slave-masters tell them to vote for?
How have they lied about improving education?
Despite all the money put into education over the years, has even one Democr
I second that-- parent post (Score:2)
While the democrats are clearly better on a range of issues at certain times in the nations history and are quite easily the better of the two parties overall (they are the oldest for a reason) it becomes difficult to make generalized statements about them over time. Even my statement, the parties changed so much long ago that its almost like they swapped names.
Right now, on most any issue of importance which conflicts with the corporate powers, the democrats are just putting up an act. -both working for th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The facts are that the meltdown was caused by eight years of a President who only cared about the uber-rich. The Dems have only been there two -- you expect Obama (who's certainly not the best President we ever had, but head and shoulders above the guy before him) to fix eight years of Bush overnight?
Have a look at this graph [wikipedia.org]. Poverty rose from 1972 until shortly after Clinton was elected (with a slight decrease in poverty after Reagan left office), when it fell precipitously. It started rising shortly afte
Re: (Score:2)
From the AP (via Yahoo) [yahoo.com] (emphasis mine): "House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., abandoned the effort late Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition to his proposed "network neutrality" rules. Those rules were intended to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers by playing favorites with traffic."
I'm going to piss some people off by saying this, but the Democrats are pussies. Goddamned balless wimps. For Christ's sake, they have a majority in both houses, yet the
Re: (Score:2)