Senate Set To Vote On the Repeal of Net Neutrality 345
An anonymous reader writes "The United States Senate will vote sometime today on the bill that would repeal the net neutrality laws that the FCC has put into place. The bill passed the US House back in April, so it only has to be approved by the Senate before it is sent to the President's desk. President Obama says that he will veto the bill. The debate over net neutrality has largely been split on party lines, with the Democratic party mostly being for keeping net neutrality laws in place, and the GOP looking to avoid them."
Another Kink (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please repeal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Some despite the fact that private companies have pretty much destroyed our economy you are ok with them controlling the internet, too?
Re:Please repeal! (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, right? That's why food contamination actually got worse after we passed the Pure Food And Drug Act.
Wait, did I say "worse"? Sorry, I meant "better".
You're taking "government will always handle everything worse than any private company" as an article of faith not backed by evidence. Sorry, I'm not religious in that particular manner.
Re:Please repeal! (Score:5, Insightful)
In general I'm against the government adding senseless regulations, but in THIS case the regulation IS necessary. It's actually a requirement that all traffic be treated equal. How would you like it if the post office told you that from now on unless you put two extra stamps on each of your letters they would add a week to the delivery time of your first class mail?
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
To paraphrase, with network neutrality content providers win. Without NN, service providers win. Both win at the consumer's expense, but it's a lot easier to find alternate content than alternate infrastructure. The demise of NAT should make it easier for all of us to be content providers; I'm looking forward to it.
I admit to not being able to follow your example. I myself cannot come up with a clear example of how equal access to networks (or other infrastructure) could be a bad thing. I suspect you may have a different definition of network neutrality than the rest of us; I believe the most commonly accepted phrasing would be "traffic should not be prioritized based on endpoints."
Re:Slight problem in summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see...
Regulator aka bureaucrat familiar with the industry (supposed to be an expert) he or she is regulating
Law maker aka at best a laymen having their opinion on matters formed by 22 year old legislative aids and lobbyists
I can see why law makers are the vastly superior option here
LAN vs Internet Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand... why can't we have laws which distinguish between a provider's LAN services and the internet? When TV service comes through the modem on what is essentially a big LAN, usually a 10.x.x.x network and the internet comes through as a tunnel on that LAN then I think net neutrality laws should be applied to what comes through the tunnel, not the whole LAN connection. The LAN belongs to the ISP, the Internet does not.
In other words, when I connect to the internet I expect to be able to reach Google, Bing or some other competitior, NetFlix, some big corporate website or somebody's personal page all equally (as far as my ISPs connection is concerned, obviously they will each have different providers and capacity). If however the ISP has some kind of assurance in place that the other services on their LAN aren't being 'squeezed out' by the Internet tunnel that is fine with me.
Then again, with an ever faster Internet traditional TV and phone services become pretty obsolete. Using that whole LAN for Internet access and plugging my computer into my TV sounds just fine to me and I haven't had use for a landline in years.
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
Troll.
In most areas you have two regulated monopolies providing internet services. You might be lucky and have a third small player that is entirely beholden two one of the two big monopolies (thrid party DSL). Technically you have your cellular carrier as an option, but that will be expensive and limited.
So Yeah, you can go with the telephone company or the cable company. Lots of choice there, and both are and should be heavily regulated.
I sure don't want my cable company to have the option to limit or block Netflix and Hulu, or my phone company to limit or block Skype and Vonage and Google Talk.
Re:Please repeal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh right, because private companies would do such a good job to ensure net neutrality. I mean, who's supposed to ensure that content gatekeepers don't create tiered services? ISPs? Uh huh...
Sometimes you just need to admit that government regulations are necessary. No FDA? You can go back to the days before Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and Frances Oldham Kelsey. How about the EPA? Not sure why people oppose the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. And if the US government were a company, you might have been bankrupt long ago.
Re:Please repeal! (Score:0, Insightful)
>the fact that private companies have pretty much destroyed our economy
Private companies ARE our economy, comrade.
Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the solution is simply to switch ISPs- oh, wait, most people in the US have only two broadband providers available at most, and they both have abhorrent neutrality practices.
I can't start my own ISP because the barrier to entry is impossibly high and the current ISPs have state or city-granted monopolies on internet/phone/cable service.
Free market theory doesn't work when the market isn't free.
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you only have one ISP, all you need to do is start another one. It's easy! Trust in the dread god Freem'Arkhet to handle everything!
This would be insightful if many local governments weren't granting monopolies for cable/Internet service. Back when ISPs were modem based, there were start ups all over the place, and they were driving costs down while providing better service than the likes of AOL.
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
Net neutrality is about far, far more than some ISP's profits.
The death of net neutrality is the death of the last independent voice in U.S. politics. You doubt this? Remember the deafening shouts of "WMDs in Iraq !!!" from practically all the mainstream media channels. Where were the dissenting voices? Basically, only on the Internet.
If net neutrality dies, then companies like Comcast and AT&T will have the power to silence web sites they dislike. Since these are giant corporations, their agendas will of course align with those of the mainstream media, and all the protest sites will die. The U.S. media will have largely one voice, the voice of the one-percenters, and dissent will be silenced.
This outcome is undoubtedly the main intent of the one-percenters, especially in these days of the Occupy movement. The powers that be desperately need to kill net neutrality for the same reason that Mubarak tried to turn off the Internet during the occupation of Tahrir Square by the riff-raff. Our rulers know that good communication is essential to any successful revolution, and they are determined to cut off all possible channels of dissent.
Now perhaps you are one of the 1%, or work for them. Perhaps you like having a media landscape that rivals China's in its depth of censorship. But I don't.
Lacking is a common definition (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when google was cool and actually believed in "do no evil", it supported net neutrality the way most people understand it.
Ask the common geek, I would assume many of them would agree the following should be defined as Net Neutrality:
* Treat all data equally, regardless of source. (e.g. data from Bob's Video Shack would be treated the same as Netflix)
* Do not block services (e.g. BitTorrent should not be blocked)
* Do not block web sites (e.g. Comcast/NBC should not block access to ABC/CBS/etc)
* and probably a few I'm forgetting.
If an ISP wants to charge more for bandwidth, that's understandable. It's a limited resource.
But I shouldn't have to pay more to visit netflix just because 75% of the traffic goes there. I already paid for the bandwidth!
The problem I see is that corporations who control content and access are trying to define "Net Neutrality", when really they are defining a set of policies to make them more money. Maybe before putting together regulations and laws, IETF can get together a RFC of what Net Neutrality should be.
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
it's a lot easier to find alternate content than alternate infrastructure
Not when Big Content sues those who make this alternate content, claiming unauthorized derivative works.
Re:Please repeal! (Score:5, Insightful)
You could also say that "despite the fact that the government has pretty much destroyed our economy, you are okay with them controlling the Internet, too?"
When most of the damage that the government did was through removing regulations... yes. Especially since we're not talking about the government controlling the Internet, we're talking about the government imposing limits on how much private enterprises can control it.
Re:The problem isn't equal treatment of all traffi (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the whole issue of net neutrality is misframed. We don't necessarily need or want "net" neutrality. What needs to be absolutely sacrosanct is LAST MILE NEUTRALITY. We should all have the absolute, inalienable right to have our network traffic handled with absolute neutrality between our endpoint device (router, phone, whatever) and the nearest peering point where access is available on open, equal, and neutral terms to all (ie, not "free", but if AT&T pays $N per month for a 1U rack slot and the right to run a single fiber to it, anybody else should be able to do exactly the same thing for exactly the same price.
To keep carriers able to blur the line between last-mile and "internet" service honest (say, a carrier like Verizon that bundles "free" internet access with 2gb cap with the cost of monthly wireless service, but charges 1c/meg wholesale costs to anybody who peers privately with them), VPN traffic should be the one exception that enjoys special protected status and by law can be neither favored nor throttled relative to traffic of the network's most favored provider. In other words, Verizon would be perfectly free to throttle Netflix in favor of Blockbuster, or Google in favor of Bing, but if they did, VPN traffic would have to be given exactly the same priority as their otherwise-favored Blockbuster and Bing traffic. This would empower consumers to do an end run around the carriers by purchasing VPN service from some thirdparty with traffic policies they happen to like better. In the long run it probably wouldn't matter much, but like legislatively-mandated equal access to landline phone networks, it would nevertheless create opportunities for niche (if expensive) services that otherwise wouldn't exist at all.
The truth is, hardcore last-mile neutrality isn't necessarily about lower prices for Joe Sixpack -- it's about enabling services for Slashdot users that otherwise wouldn't be available because they don't neatly align with the business plans of AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast. It's about being able to do an end run around them and enjoy services they aren't themselves necessarily interested in selling you, or allowing you to buy from others.
(example: if you're moderately wealthy, live in the middle of Georgia farm country or exurban Dallas "Horse Country" and want broadband, a company like Covad will happily twist AT&T's arm and force them -- at slightly exorbitant cost -- to provision wholesale dry copper between the nearest central office and your house and give you what you want, even if AT&T itself would tell you it simply can't be done and broadband isn't available in your neighborhood).
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
And giving corporations more power is definitely a conservative concept. Which is the lesser evil?
Re:Another Kink (Score:1, Insightful)
> That's a pretty far-fetched bit of tin-foil-hattery you have there.
This is what a member of the 1% would say, of course. Perhaps you are one of them, or perhaps their propaganda has so crippled your brain that you fail to see what is in front of your eyes.
As hard as you try, you cannot ignore the evidence. Why were the mainstream media so unified in their "WMDs in Iraq" message? Anyone who looked impartially at the issue was *easily* able to say that was nonsense. But apparently none of the major media saw the truth -- despite their reputation for supposedly good investigative journalism. Could all of them have been incompetent, all at the same time? Very, very unlikely. The most probable conclusion is that they were deliberately lying to us.
These days, only a fool can still believe that our media is free.
The evidence of media dominance by the 1% is blindingly obvious. So it follows that they will want to crush as many alternative voices as possible, especially those on the Internet. The death of net neutrality will silence them.
Re:Slight problem in summary (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not true. Common carrier laws have been in place for *hundreds of years*. The US actually inherited them from British commonlaw, back when they were concerned that freight carriers could mess with cargo. This only became a problem when the courts ruled that voice calls sent over the internet is not a voice call.
It does not matter (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no economic orientation, nor government structure, that can protect people from corruption.
So long as humans are capable of attaining any measure of power over other humans, that power will be abused. Humans are like that.
Carry on.
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
Of the two alternatives in your false dichotomy, giving corporations more power is certainly the lesser evil.
Why? Because Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle don't have legal authority to kick in your doors and imprison you, or execute you if you don't like their policies and refuse to do business with them. Try arguing that line of reasoning ("I don't like your policies, and so I don't do business with you!") next time you're tossed in jail for having a joint on you during a traffic stop. The government most certainly does have the authority to kick in your doors and imprison you, and you're very unlikely to win your case on due process grounds.
Of course, this *is* a false dichotomy; one can be conservative without favoring giving more power to corporations. One can also be liberal without favoring giving more power to the government. Let's not conflate the terms "liberal" and "conservative" with "Democrat" and "Republican," because they're not the same.
Re:Another Kink (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the media is entirely compromised, there's no denying that. Why, just looking at all the made-up PR they generated to drum up support for carpet bombing and droning Libya makes it obvious.
But as far as cutting off access to any network, only governments have done that, and there is plenty of it going on. Yet somehow you're willing to go ahead and provide the government with even more control over it. That really seems to defy common sense.
As hard as you try, you cannot ignore the evidence.
Well, you did. Must not be so hard.
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
You overlooked point three about monopolies, and in my mind, the one that's most relevant to net neutrality: Cable & telephone providers are not "natural" monopolies - they are government-sanctioned monopolies given sole authority to provide service to an area by local government. These are the companies we are also relying on to provide us with internet service today.
Unfortunately, the government has screwed us into a scenario of limited choice; it now falls to the government to tell the companies they're forcing us to do business with that those companies may not throttle or limit our access to a service we are paying for. Imagine if your electric company said "Well, we're only going to let you draw enough current to operate a hair dryer because you run your dishwasher during peak hours."
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
In the United States especially, corporations are seen more and more as an individual and that is a very scary prospect. Private organisations should NEVER hold more power than the representatives of the people and anyone who thinks the other way around hasn't fully thought through what they are proposing
Re:Another Kink (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another Kink (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly elected by the people. Representing the people? That's debatable.
This would explain the massive proliferation of companies whose sole business is murdering innocent civilians, right? Corporations are made up of people - often the same people they do business with, and who live right alongside customers of that corporation. And any corporation without the interests of its customers (the people) at heart is not going to remain in business long, barring government force (e.g., granted monopoly status, or restrictive regulations which raise barriers to entry into a market.)
Corporations are responsive, as well. A small-but-vocal minority of people have been lobbying for marijuana legalization for years. A small-but-vocal minority of people have been lobbying for tuna companies to require dolphin-safe fishing practices for years. Who achieved their aims first? If you hit a corporation in its pocket book, it adjusts its policies, or it dies. Try not paying your taxes, let me know how that works out for you when they toss you in a federal prison.
What you're doing is arguing that a few large multinational corporations going rogue undermines the very concept of the free market, when in fact the vast majority of those corporations went rogue because people trusted the government (Hello, SEC!) to regulate, monitor, and oversee these companies and ensure that they weren't doing anything too risky, or corrupt. The government failed in that responsibility, and a few large corporations were caught with their pants down. What about the - literally - millions of small and mid-sized corporations that make up the bulk of the economy, and who have largely run their operations ethically and honestly? If the market was as inherently dangerous and corrupt and inhuman as you seem to think, then it would be newsworthy only when a business operated ethically - not when a few business behave badly.
Give me an example of what you mean by this. What products, specifically, are you unable to find an alternative for?
I agree - but I answered your either/or question as it was posed - either the government, or corporations, get more power - then pointed out it was a false dichotomy. I'm all for power (and thus freedom) residing where it should: with the people, and with as-local-as-possible government where appropriate. But given the choice between giving power to the government, or leaving the power up to the "free market" to work out a practical solution to... I'd choose free market in many (perhaps even most) instances, because the "free market" can't (legally) deprive me of life and liberty if I disagree with its solution. The government can.
Re:Another Kink (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a free market, anyone is free to install their own copper or fibre to your property, and charge you accordingly (they won't because it would maker thier service prohibitively expensive), anyone is free to use your current line provider's lines, and your current provider is free to charge what they like for them
This means in practical terms that you are stuck with whoever provides your lines ...
Regulation in the EU means your line provider has to let other use their lines, only charge a "reasonable" amount, and gets a fixed reasonable fee direct from the customer for doing so (which means they actually maintain it)
The Free Market only works if you have a choice, but companies know the best way of maximising profits is to remove your choice ...
Re:Another Kink (Score:4, Insightful)
False. To me, net neutrality means nobody controls the Internet, and that is as it should be.
It should, but the Feds are already interfering with it too much. This rule-making by unelected bureaucrats is just the foot in the door. Next up is PROTECT-IP, and E-PARASITE, then ACTA, then more and more control. What good is it to prevent the ISPs from blocking content when the the big content providers can take out whoever they want, practically at will.
Why are you so anxious to kill net neutrality
Actually, I want real network neutrality. I don't trust the government to provide it, they have proven to be entirely untrustworthy in that regard. I don't trust the ISPs, either, but every time there has been a problem with them blocking or throttling anything, it didn't last very long once people started complaining. When was last time a Federal agency was that responsive? And if this 155 page rule from the FCC [vortex.com] turns out to cause problems, how long before anything is done about it?
Re:Another Kink (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another Kink (Score:4, Insightful)
Careful with that one.
Re:Another Kink (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying you need government regulation to ensure a free market for consumers? Watch out, you're going to make some Teabaggers' heads explode.
Re:Another Kink (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation please.
Just one contemporary example.
The false dichotomy comes from the fact that corporations currently run government. Every single law passed by the Federal legislature and every state legislature is written by lobbyists. Just look at Europe and the US to see that every government is putting the banks, which are all corporations, ahead of their people or their own sovereignty. When we hear about how the EU is going to "bail out Greece" what that means is that they're going to bail out the banks to whom Greece owes money. When they talk about "bailing out Italy" they're talking about bailing out the banks to whom Italy owes money. The reason these banks need to be bailed out? Because they played with the previous money governments gave them and blew it all at the roulette table. When you hear about the "TARP bailouts", it was bank holding corporations that got bailed out, and not just bailed out, but made whole to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar. It was unthinkable that a banker might have to take 90 cents on the dollar for the money they lost playing roulette.
No, because of three decades of increasing corporate power, there is not a government on earth that has as much power as that which is concentrated in the hands of transnational corporations.
And no, guns don't represent power when the people holding the guns are wholly owned and take their orders from corporations.
In theory, there is no false dichotomy between "government" and "corporations". Government is the only institution that can possibly be a counterbalance, a check, on the power of corporations, and now it's too late. The Supreme Court of the US basically said, "Corporations are super-citizens". Instead of being 3/5 of a citizen, a corporations is 500million/1 of a citizen And corporations are golems, virtual machines which share no properties with human beings, simply capital aggregated. What's good for them has nothing to do with what's good for human beings.