Survey Finds Canadians Support Net Neutrality Law 201
An anonymous reader writes "A new public opinion survey conducted in Canada finds overwhelming public support in that country for net neutrality legislation. Three-quarters of Canadians believe the government should pass a law to confirm the right of Internet consumers to access publicly available Internet applications and content of their choice — even though most of those surveyed did not know the term 'net neutrality.' The survey was commissioned by eBay." Of course the devil is in the wording. Given the survey's sponsorship, it's unlikely that respondents were presented with examples of the value that ISPs say packet shaping can bring, or asked to weigh such against net neutrality.
And if you care too (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And if you care too (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, sure, slashdot the petition in favour of net neutrality. That'll convince 'em ISPs shouldn't do traffic shaping
Re: (Score:2)
Can we separate "net neutrality" into two distinct issues? I would rather discuss "Internet tolls" in one forum, and "traffic shaping" in another. BTW, screw Internet tolls, and to hell with the politicians trying to ram it down our throats!
Re: (Score:2)
But Don't bother (Score:2)
If you want to show your support for this issue, then take the ten minutes of effort and write your MP [yayacanada.com], both email AND a printed snail-mail copy.
Online petitions are like prayer. They give you something to do, but they really don't get you anywhere.
So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think 90% of people on slashdot would agree with this. But then most people here have some understanding of the issues involved. A lot of non-technical people, especially regulators, will get caught up in the FUD being spread.
I think the real background to this is that certain groups are, for obvious reasons, very keen to change the internet from it's current free-for-all state to a managed tiered service; more closely resembling "push" services like television or other traditional media. ISPs are generally happy to support them as they can see opportunities for profit, e.g charging both the user and the server owner for the same bandwidth.
If some form of network neutrality legislation is not forthcoming I think this could become a serious problem. There's only a handful of companies that own most of the internet backbone, if they decide to start prioritizing content they like over content they dislike it will force all the smaller ISPs to follow suit and pass these fees on their customers. The dangers for internet freedom of allowing some random CEO to price internet services they dislike out of existence should require no further explanation.
There are clearly legitimate applications for QoS, prioritizing latency dependent applications over somebody's p2p traffic for example. The question from a regulatory point of view becomes where do you draw the line. What level of regulation is required to stop attempts to change the nature of the net and prevent unscrupulous ISPs charging twice for bandwidth, and to what extent will this interfere with legitimate technologies.
I think we need to be very careful. There is clearly a need for regulation, but it's imperative that those drafting it have an understanding of the technical issues involved, as bad regulation could be as much a danger to internet freedom as no regulation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am strongly for complete net neutrality, and not the watered out version that the grand parent represents. ISPs should not be allowed to filter packets based on destination nor content. The only exception being if it is provided as an optional service.
If I use too much bandwidth I shoul
Lets wait for a real problem before passing a law (Score:3, Informative)
Let's not hasten to have government come in and wedge a big old bureaucratic foot in the door of networking - any bill that specifically defines how ISP's are to shape traffic, even if initially neutral, is only a small amendment or two away from som
You've missed the point (Score:2)
So take the option out of their hands. ISPs may sell bulk bandwidth, no strings attached.
Re:Lets wait for a real problem before passing a l (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, the way the US government is now, it may be the only chance to get the legislation through. Once powerful corporations decide they don't like Net Neutrality, their money will start to flow to politicians, and there can only be one outcome then.
The devil is still in the wording (Score:5, Interesting)
1. People are nice social beings. They tell you what they think you'd like to hear. It's a reflex and enculturation effect that, well, I suppose helps us live with each other. If you know someone, say, likes pink, the nice social reflex is to say "yes, it's a nice colour."
Why does that matter? Most people, even on a perfectly anonymous poll, tend to answer what they think would please the poller. If they're polled by eBay, of course they'll say what they think eBay would like to hear.
2. (Or 1.b.) The wording is very important. If you present a skewed view where option 1 is pure good and option 2 is pure evil, you've already told them what you think on that matter. So they'll subconsciously try to be nice and agree with what you told them you like, regardless of what they actually think on the matter, and regardless of whether they even give a damn at all.
3. All things being equal, there's a bias towards answering more "yes" and less "no". I guess we've all been educated that it's not nice to disagree all the time. So well design polls actually randomize the questionnaires so 50% will ask the question one way, and 50% ask the negative version.
E.g., if half the questionnaires ask "should we stay in Iraq?", the other half must ask "should we pull out of Iraq?", because otherwise you get it skewed towards "yes". If you only ask "should we stay in Iraq?" you'll get your results skewed as some people will vote "yes" just because it's, you know, a "yes."
4. Biased sample fallacies. Was that sample representative, or was it, say, only the people who visit site X? E.g., if you were to make a poll about computers or OSes on Slashdot, I hope you can see how the results wouldn't really reflect what the whole population thinks.
Etc.
Now I don't know how the poll in TFA was done, so I'm not commenting on that. But basically if you want to know what people _think_, then you _don't_ do a poll along the lines of "do you think we should stop ISP extortion?" If you do that, you'll just get a false result that's good for self-shoulder-patting, but won't reflect what they actually vote for in the next elections.
Just saying...
Re: (Score:2)
- See, I am on the other hand, not a nice social being. When I know that someone likes pink, the reflex in me is to say: Hey, you know that pink color you like? Fuck you.
When someone doesn't like the pink color, I say: Hey, you know that p
Re: (Score:2)
In short, QoS is relevant because it's what the laws people actually propose would ban. I am aware that most advocates of "net neutrality" aren't thinking in those terms. However, the law doesn't care what you were thinking about when you wrote it, and the courts generally enforce the law that got written, not the vague and unspecifi
Somebody define net neutrality (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Generally, the "weigh" is the same, and that'
Re: (Score:2)
If the providers have to pay different rates based on the origin, it's only fair to pass that on to consumers... What's wrong with dividing up the traffic into different tariff zones, and billing each one differently (or shaping them differently in lieu of variable pricing).
Re: (Score:2)
No, not all packets cost the same: if you have a peering agreement with some network, or if the packets come from within your own network, then those packets cost you much less than other 'normal' packets.
If the providers have to pay different rates based on the origin, it's only fair to pass that on to consumers... What's wrong with dividing up the traffic into different tariff zones, and billing each one differently (or shaping them differently in lieu of variable pricing).
Even this could be argued to be in network neutrality. The key is not charging more for google (for example)'s packets more than another website's, based purely on the website. Or, alternatively, purposely slowing google's transmissions to your customer because google haven't paid you extra (despite the fact that you're not google's ISP).
Network neutrality means that people only pay for where they connect to the network, and don't have to pay a surcharge for every single site they want to visit, and the si
kdawson FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Lies, Damn Lies, and .... (Score:5, Funny)
Those that heard of a proposal to let a sex-starved panda free to roam the Canadian tundra were outraged.
On a more serious note TFA:
This happens all too often here in the US as well, and needs to be more severely penalized.
"Video Choice" (Score:2)
I guess the exchange rate applies to intelligence too, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Packet Shaping (Score:5, Insightful)
How about just switching my fscking packets and shove your "value added" up your ass. The contents of my packets are none of your business. I'll be very happy when IPSEC is ubiquitous and the only information ISPs will have access to is the minimum needed for routing.
In polite company. Re:Packet Shaping (Score:2)
Well put, but perhaps not the best thing in mixed company.
The easy way to defeat "packet shaping" sophistry is to point out that value comes from bandwith and nothing but. Constricting bandwith through a filter always reduces the bandwith available, even if it favors a few "sensitive" packets. The only way out of bandwith problems is to spend the money on more bandwith. Money spent on other things is wasteful, even if honestly used.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I use a 13kbps 100ms wireless voice link (cell phone) that lets me talk with my brother in Florida. By your logic, we should be just as happy recording everything we have to say on CDs and mailing them back and forth to each other, since the available bandwidth is higher.
Re: (Score:2)
No, by my logic you would be happier doing both.
What should really make you happy, though, is the liberty to use your cable modem or fiber hook up to communicate with 128bps and exchange the other information in real time. More is better. Filters always provide less bandwith.
Ok (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now we have a situation where largely there's a disconnect between data, voice and video networks. They run on different standards, are handled by different equipment and so on. However that's slowly changing. VoIP is one of the first examples, but it'll keep going. Eventually we are likely to have everything routed to us over an IP network. However some of it is more important, or rather more time sensitive, than others. I don't mind if packets for my download have to wait a little bit. However with video, you've got to get me the next frame in not more than 33 milliseconds or I'm going to start dropping frames. This is the reason why video that operates over the Internet has to buffer and can't be true realtime, and even then still drops sometimes.
As such it is not a clear cut case of "just leave it alone." If everything goes to IP we are going to need a way to give priority to time critical packets. Even if that doesn't happen there's reason to want to shape packets. The big objection people have to P2P is that it eats up an unfair amount of network time. Most networks, all other things being equal, will work out so that each transfer gets an equal amount of time. Download one file via HTTP on a T1, you get somewhere in the realm of 150-190k/sec. Download a second file, they both go in the realm of 75-95k/sec. Ok, good deal. However P2P works off of lots of connections. You can have a single download having 150+ connections. So it'll grab more resources than its fair share and slow things down.
An easy solution to that, without banning P2P or something like that, is to just make P2P a lower priority than normal traffic. That's what we do on the campus I work on. We have a couple packet shapers that will put P2P packets behind others. That means that so long as there's bandwidth, everything works normally. However if we cap out, P2P slows down before other things do.
This isn't a clear cut thing. I agree that companies should be prohibited, either by law or simply by people refusing to do business with them, for charging people extortion money under threat of slowing their traffic down. However that doesn't mean we want to declare that all packets must be treated equal. Some things are just more important than others on a mixed network, and there needs to be allowances for that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are your neighbour allowed to download at such a high speed that it prevents you from watching video. The opposite question could of course also be, Why are you allowed to download video at such a high rate that it interfers with your opponents p2p traffic.
An ISP should ensure that it gives each custome adequate bandwidth. What the customer does with that bandwidth is their own business.
Know the counter arg
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Why are you allowed to download video at such a high rate that it interfers with your opponents p2p traffic?". I can tell you for sure that users on ISP that shape bittorrent traffic shaped does notice it.
Using bandwidth limits is in my opinion the only fair compromise. Anything else is basically claiming that your information is more important than my information. In the few cases where that is true, that information should probably be transmitted v
Re: (Score:2)
Also the problem you suggest with bandwidth limits is that it makes things worse for everyone. Rig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do that on my home network even using a m0n0wall traffic shaper. SSH gets priority over everything, games
Re:Ok (Score:4, Interesting)
God beware my neighbor actually uses what he pays for!
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, I don't question my neighbor's use of his pipe but the company's selling policy. Appearantly they sell more bandwidth than they can sell. They should not sell him a pipe fat enough to interfere with the TV broadcast.
Such is the duality of the geek argument. Geeks want 4, 5, 8, 10, more megabit connections to the Internet. Ok, so a cable company gives 10MBit/sec connections to all users. Well now they want to use it at capacity and pay the same as the guy down the street who uses it for burst traffic (web, e-mail and such). I remember the outcry over bandwidth caps! "You sold me a dedicated 8MBit connection and now you want me to pay when I max it out 24 hours a day 31 days in a row? FASCISTS!"
See, the cable connect
Re: (Score:2)
What you say sounds like ISPs sell what they don't have and want to shape traffic to continue this scam.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no problem filtering things based on the type of traffic. What we need to prevent is fi
Evidence against packet shaping for QoS (Score:3, Insightful)
The Internet2 project found [oreillynet.com] that the costs and complexities of implementing quality of service guarantees exceeded the benefits. It was more practical to add sufficient bandwidth than it was to prioritize packets. They also predicted - and other research supports [ufl.edu] - that QoS would encourage ISPs to deliberately downgrade service in order to charge more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok (Score:5, Informative)
I know you're just responding to the GP, who is off the mark as well, but can we please get something straight: Net Neutrality is not about traffic shaping!
These silly digressions are really aggravating. We need to be clear about the problem, and we're not. So let's try to keep this topic simple:
If you believe that people should only pay once for Internet, then you support Net Neutrality. If you think telcos have a right to charge twice for the same service, then you're against it.
The Net Neutrality Debate [sic] is about letting telcos decide which providers get preferential service, based either on corporate allegiance or on the provider's ability to pay whatever the extortion rate du jour is.
Anybody who knows anything about multi-user networks knows that some amount of traffic shaping is necessary. While the GP and I probably agree that less is more, there is no real-world scenario in which no QoS occurs. The telcos want us to focus on this red herring, precisely because they know they can win this argument.
But if we could just stop our collective knee from jerking for a moment, we could consider what is really proposed:
Google wants to provide the world with search-related services. To that end, they pay gobzillions of dollars for state of the art data centres with tubes so big that even Ted Stevens couldn't comprehend them. The consumer wants state of the art Internet services, of which quick and easy searching is a pretty significant part. So consumer goes to telco and subscribes for X megabits at Y dollars per month.
So Google have paid for their Internet access. Consumers pay for their access. But telco's still feeling hungry. The Lear jet's in the shop and baby needs a new silver spoon. So they go to Google and say, "It's going to cost you Z dollars per megabyte that you transmit to our consumers. If you don't want to pay, that's okay, we'll just throttle your service and let Yahoo! through quicker."
Consumer never sees this. All that consumer sees is that Google is 'slow' and Yahoo! is 'fast'.
Ultimately, what we're looking at is a situation where telcos aren't satisfied with Y dollars per month from the consumer, and gobzillions more from Google. They want to charge Google more for the right to access their particular bunch of consumers.
There is nothing morally, ethically or even legally right about this model. Telcos know this, so they're lobbying governments around the world to make it legal. The problem that we face is that consumers will never actually see the effect of this legislation, if it ever passes. The only people who will know that things could be different are the geeks. And for all anyone cares, we'll simply be a voice in the wilderness.
Whose priorities? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good. So then let's take a situation some years in the future where it's law. What happens when you are watching TV, and all of a sudden the stream starts stuttering. You call your cable company angry. They explain that TV is now delivered over IP, like everything else. Currently you have some neighbours hitting the P2P really heavy and it is using up enough of the segment that it is interfering with video traffic. They'd love to have video have a higher QoS, but alas the law says they can't. The "c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For reference, see the "value edition" of various graphic cards, memory sticks and other hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly the words of someone who doesn't know wtf their talking about. See, I want to use VoIP. I want to give the local telco monopolies (lucky, we have two!) the big Fsck You. But because my ISP *disabled* QoS, which would grant my VoIP packets guaranteed low latency, at the expense of throughput, I can't get reliable service, as my calls would cut out the minute a few people decided to fire up bittorrent. Meanwhile, I'
Re: (Score:2)
The best example is streaming video. Something everyone agrees takes a big chunk of bandwidth. Now, under Net Neutrality, ISPs are free to limit video streaming in order to preserve resources for other uses. What they are not allowed to do is throttle all the video services except the one provided by them. They also can't go to Google and
Re: (Score:2)
Any complaints about the service or data from or to competitors will be packet shaped t
But...so? (Score:4, Informative)
Since traffic shaping that is done based on the kind of content without regard to the source of content and which is accompanied by sufficient bandwidth so that non-prioritized content isn't just dropped on the floor in favor of prioritized content is neither inconsistent with the concept of net neutrality as a common-carrier-like provision nor inconsistent with the goal articulated in the question asked in this survey, I'm not sure how you think pointing that out would be relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you can claim that "net neutrality" has a specific meaning that is defined differently, but in that case "net neutrality" is about neutrality as much as the "us patriot act" is about patriotism.
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality is about neutrality of origin, it originated as a term as a reaction to ideas aired by telcos and other ISPs regarding charging the original sender of packets (particularly high-volume sites like Google), as well as the immediate customer of the ISP receiving the packet, for packets crossing the
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I know that this is a bad example that would never happen, but imagine if an ISP decided to deprioritize all World of Warcraft packets and demand blizzard to pay up money unless they wanted it to continue. Not much different than the google example is it.
Name one (Score:4, Insightful)
If an ISP needs to shape packets they've over sold their service, and that is their problem. Not ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I shouldn't be allowed to set up a gaming-oriented ISP where my customers pay me to prioritize gaming packets over all other packets?
Re: (Score:2)
A service I was with increased priority on interactive services, like http, ftp and ssh. Smtp service dropped to a standstill, and I was without spam for several days.
Next?
Re: (Score:2)
Prioritizing acks
"Selective" dropping is also a touchy subject. Who says w
Re: (Score:2)
However, there is no need for the ISP to get involved. QoS software like cFosSpeed is all that is needed to ensure that everything works nicely.
I agree with you in general though. My data is just as important to me as my neighbours data is to him. The only fair measure is the volume transferred and what you pay for the bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same for a provider. Though for him, cutting down the use doesn't mean shaping a customer's traffic. When I pay for a service, I expect
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me; BURSTABLE TRAFFIC. You are paying for a consumer-grade, burstable link. If you want dedi
Re: (Score:2)
Currently, ISPs sold more bandwidth than they can provide, relying on their users only using the bandwidth offered in bursts instead of permanently. It reminds me a wee bit of the troubles phone companies had in the US, where local calls weren't metered because, well, who cares if one person calls his aunt for an hour, the average call takes a few minutes tops. Then came the internet and modems running 24/7 and the lines were clogged
Three Things To Think About (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Canada is used to having a high-bandwidth internet that is cheaper than the US one, faster, and in more households.
3. Only those who want to sell you less for more are in favor of killing off net neutrality.
Wording is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
You could probably get a poll to go either way based on how you word the question:
"Do you believe that governments or corporations should place restrictions on what websites you can visit, or charge you extra based on visiting certain sites?"
"Do you believe that private property should be respected, and that Internet Service Providers have the right to control the content they deliver, such as restrictions on child pornography, sites that contain malicious software, and terrorist web sites?"
I don't see what the problem is. (Score:2)
Well that's no big surprise (Score:2)
Exactly. Canadians are not stupid. (Score:2)
No doubt (Score:3, Interesting)
I value net neutrality (Score:2)
As for the *proposed legislation* that would ban ISP from not being net neutral, that's net-statism, a quite different beast which must be beaten to death and then shot to make sure.
"Blame Canada," (Score:2)
Yes Minister on surveys (Score:4, Informative)
Humphrey: You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: " Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard: Oh...well, I suppose I might be.
Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told her you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.
Bernard: Is that really what they do?
Humphrey: Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.
Bernard: How?
Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard: Yes
Humphrey: There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.
Re: (Score:2)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4093618813050375979&q=Yes+minister+youtube&total=136&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4 [google.com]
Perhaps a compromise? (Score:4, Funny)
We always want the ISPs to be treated like other common carriers, but people seem to have differing notions of what they really want. With other common carriers like transportation, it is possible to pay higher rates to receive faster delivery. The post office is a fairly standard common carrier, but it has had various classes of postage for ages. Companies shipping food know that canned soup can take a couple of weeks to get from California to New York, but the fresh produce needs to move now. Can something like this be implemented on the Internet?
The Internet was really designed to move data around reliably rather than quickly. In the past, it was more important to get the data around a bombed-out relay than to provide real-time delivery. The Internet has moved beyond that and now applications, VoIP or Starcraft for example, really do need fast delivery or else the application is useless. So much of the discussion of network neutrality seems to treat it as all or nothing: either every packet is treated with the same priority or else the ISPs get to gouge the senders and/or receivers for priority.
It seems to me that something similar to the postal system might be a viable compromise. One could imagine the ISPs operating on several tiers, where they could charge different prices according to the speed of data transmission. On the flip side, they would have to charge in a non-discriminatory manner, with rates based only on the volume and priority of data (perhaps with discounts on high volumes). First class data from Google, EBay and a tiny VoIP startup would all move at the same rate, but would move faster than low-priority transmissions such as web browsing. One could also imagine mandating that ISPs allocate bandwidth to the various tiers in a fixed ratio as well, so as to avoid them ignoring the lowest tier stuff. Class 1/2/3/4 bandwidth, for example, might have to be transmitted in a fixed 10%/20%/30%/40% of total available bandwidth.
Flawed (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a Canadian and I have had Internet access since the dark days of dial-up (which at the time were rather sunny and bright come to think of it) and no one asked me about this. I'm appalled. If they had asked me, whoa boy, I'd have given them my opinion, which since I wasn't asked I guess is irrelevant.
Well shit.
I guess I'll just go... away.
And 75% of Venusians support (Score:2)
What a pointless survey. 95% of people don't know enough about the issue to have an informed opinion.
Canadians != USians (Score:3, Interesting)
Americans of all strips are deeply skeptical of all large organizations, including especially their governments. Some Canadians are, but many more trust these organizations to at least look out for their long-term interests. There is an understanding, acceptance and even hono[u]ring of authority. Civil servants aren't pariahs. Many people aspire to Cdn civil service jobs.
There is a certain public spirit in Canada that transcends the profit motive in many cases. And an utter horror [naivete] when the public trust is betrayed, rather than a cynical "what did you expect"?
Study finds... (Score:2)
Re:Right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right! Re:Right? (Score:3, Insightful)
When I pay for bandwith, I expect to be able to use it as a chose not as YOU or anyone else sees fit. I understand that this costs money and that is the source of my outrage.
Conversely, use of public servitude and spectrum are privileges not rights. Those that would use those public resources have obligations to the public. It can be argued that the current owners of spectrum and networks in this country have failed those obligations and should be removed from their position of privilege and jailed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When taken in conjunction, these two statements are all that needs to be said. You are paying for a product or service. You should receive it.
re: Right? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know the answers,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because an oppressive government uses stolen money (i.e. taxes) to fund its operations, and it prevents competition through physical violence or violent threats. In contrast, a company must acquire its money by providing goods and services, and a company can not use violence or violent threats to stop competition. A company can only oppress you to the extent that you allow yourself to be opp
Re: (Score:2)
In contrast, a company must acquire its money by providing goods and services, and a company can not use violence or violent threats to stop competition. A company can only oppress you to the extent that you allow yourself to be oppressed.
This theory works up until the point where avoiding that company's products is a reasonable thing to do. In many cases, that isn't true.
Another poster mentioned that it's dangerous to allow a random CEO to price a provider out of the market. Yes, a CEO exercising his
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe there is some threshold of "reasonableness" in which other men become your slaves. For example, I can't say, "I was born without any arms and legs, making it unreasonable for me to take care of myself. Therefore, it is moral for me to ask society to force you, as a non-handicapped human being, to support me." No man owes you anything. If a man does offer you a good or service, for any price, be grateful for it. The fact that you find it unreasonable to refuse his offer shows how grateful yo
Re: Right? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire Internet was illegal before Tony Rutkowski at the ITU made it legal worldwide.
Also around that time the USG mandated the use of OSI protocols.
But guess when happened when the first transatlantic X.25 link went up? Poeple started shooting IP packets over it before any other flavour of data.
The point is, if you make a usefull tool people will use it and government regulations be damned.
I suspect your problem is wires. I think all our problem is wires. We
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, which is why we must put an end to government intervention. We have to move to a free market.
A free market where every other week a backhoe is digging up your street so that yet another company can put down copper wires? I'm all for competition in service providers (if your only choices were Comcast and Verizon, wouldn't you be, too?), but just like electricity and water, you can't have a dozen different companies making physical connections to your home. I'd be interested in seeing if something like what's happened to electricity in some areas also happen with ISP's; separate the company (or even
Re: (Score:2)
There's a world of difference between the Chinese government censoring the internet and net neutrality. They are using taxpayer money to artificially limit what would voluntarily be consumed by paying customers. If you don't like the terms of the internet service providers, you are welcome not to use their service. But over there the people are compelled by force to participate.
I view this the same way as our cable TV provider and ala carte scenario. I don't find that the 200 channels they offer for one b
Re: (Score:2)
hmm... on second thought, I may actually trust a telecom more.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. A telco is accountable to it's shareholders who expect it to make money by providing a tool people will use. If hey provide a stupid tool and somebody provides a better one that telco dies an organic death.
In thery a government is accountable to the people. In practice nothing could be further from the truth.
Re:Right? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Internet access is not a right."
---
Not precisely true. There are other rights besides the "inalienable" ones. Sometimes, we create new rights and give them to the citizens.
This can be a "good thing", especially when advancing technology brings up a new issue.
Now that online video is becoming more prevalent, and people are moving from their TVs to their computer screens, it may behoove us to create and support the poor guy's right to view the same content as the rich guy.
Of course there are always trade-offs, and some who will even abuse such a right, but over-all I think it will be best for the nation to adopt a net-neutrality position, and sick the courts on those who try to profit by claiming some bits are worth more than others.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want to stream some music produced by some heavy metal band you just heard about, and your ISP says, "Sorry, we don't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The current state of the internet is where you know it today WITH net neutrality. That's what's currently in place.
Net neutrality was decided years ago. The question isn't whether or not to put net neutrality in place.
The question is "Should net neutrality be RESCINDED?"
This Canadian votes NO.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the old adage of "better on paper". People should be holding companies liable when they pull that sort of crap, but consumers don't act in a self-interested manner anymore. Capitalism only works right if everybody involved in the process does their part to keep everybody else in check, but consumers have just rolled over and asked for it up the rear over the last few decades, so they're getting exactly what they requested now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People in the US never seemed to have learned that lesson.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but you are paying for that service. Shouldn't you expect to get what you're paying for? Not what the highest bidder is offering for the service provider to give you.
You do get what you pay for. So does the service provider on the other end.
"You should get what you pay for" is a pretty nonsensical argument. Because service providers paying to get their traffic prioritised (or not de-prioritised) is a fairly standard example of exactly that.
Why should the service companies be able to charge on b