Net Neutrality: 'Father Of Internet' Joins Tech Leaders in Condemning Repeal Plan (theguardian.com) 170
More than 20 internet pioneers and leaders including the "father of the internet", Vint Cerf; the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee; and the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak have urged the FCC to cancel its vote to repeal net neutrality, describing the plan as "based on a flawed and factually inaccurate" understanding of how the internet works. From a report: "The FCC's rushed and technically incorrect proposed order to repeal net neutrality protections without any replacement is an imminent threat to the internet we worked so hard to create. It should be stopped," said the technology luminaries in an open letter to lawmakers (PDF) with oversight of the Federal Communications Commission on Monday. The letter refers to the FCC's proposed Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which removes net neutrality protections introduced in 2015 to ensure that internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon would treat all web content and applications equally and not throttle, block or prioritise some content in return for payment. The FCC's vote on the proposed order is scheduled for 14 December and it is expected to be approved. "It is important to understand that the FCC's proposed order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology," the internet pioneers state, adding that the flaws were outlined in detail in a 43-page comment submitted by 200 tech leaders to the FCC in July.
Legal Phrasing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not phrased in legal terms, therefore Pai will ignore it.
Of course, if it was phrased the way he wanted, he'd find another reason to ignore it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.. Pai will ignore it.
It does seem more and more that the fix is in. Follow the money: "legal tender" trumps "public interest" every time.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly! It is clear that Ijit Pie and possibly others at the FCC have been bought and paid for to push the agenda that the big ISPs and Telecom companies want. Want to see who benefits most from pretty much anything these days? FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!
Re: (Score:1)
"Both have their shills"
What's that have to do with anything? Net neutrality is better for 95% of humanity.
Are you compelled to feign a nuanced opinion when you don't know what's going on?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I'd say the Internet worked pretty well with light touch regulation. Net Neutrality was only a legal requirement from 2015 when Wheeler was FCC chair. It was suspended in 2017 when Pai was chair. That period is too short to say it's 'better for 95% of humanity'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Google obviously see it as good for them.
Re:Legal Phrasing (Score:4, Insightful)
"Light touch" regulation failed. ISPs began to abuse their positions, and that's why NN became a thing.
It's true that if we could somehow get a real competitive market in place where people had real options for where people get their internet service from, we wouldn't need anything like NN. I suspect that everyone (except the ISPs) would prefer that solution.
However, that appears to be an impossible goal. So, the next best thing is something like NN regulations.
The worst possible thing is the FCC's position of just letting the ISPs do as they please. The FCC is saying "fuck you" to us all -- either we have to be OK with bending over for the ISPs or we get to do without the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I would definitely prefer if we didn't need Net Neutrality. If I could choose from 10 or more ISPs, market pressure might keep them in check. Instead, I have 1 ISP: Charter. If Charter abuses their monopoly position, I can either complain while paying them anyway or go without Internet. Neither puts any kind of check on Charter's actions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Internet did work pretty well before it was mistakenly reclassified as an "information service". Still, this wasn't a problem until sufficient computational power became available within routers for deep packet inspection. This sort of practice should never have been allowed in the first place, and in a market absent competition, abuse was inevitable. Once the technology was available, large ISPs began their assault on net neutrality, and they didn't stop until forced to.
Here is a record of known abuses [freepress.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
So they got fined by the FCC and stopped doing it
https://www.cnet.com/news/telc... [cnet.com]
COMCAST: In 2005, the nationâ(TM)s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
The FCC ruled against them and they said they'd move to different mechanisms to handle 'high bandwidth customers'.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
TELUS: In 2005, Canadaâ(TM)s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
This is bad. On the other hand Google and Facebook have also blocked content on political grounds on Youtube and Facebook and everyone told me 'private company, First Amendment doesn't apply'.
Obviously it's Canada so the First Amendment doesn't apply, and neither do FCC rules. It
Re: (Score:2)
They needed the computational power in order to do packet routing with 100Mbit networks. At the time, that required custom ASIC's rather than CPU's. Once the power is there to inspect MAC addresses, IP addresses, ports and packet sizes, other data like protocol versions becomes trivial to analyze.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it was enacted, though, was because the large ISPs saw dollar signs in requiring Internet companies to pay them or have their services slowed down.
Exhibit A: Ed Whitacre, then CEO of AT&T, saying Google gets a free ride on AT&T's systems. (When Google actually pays for their own bandwidth even if they aren't paying AT&T directly.)
Exhibit B: Comcast allowing their peering connections to saturate so Netflix would slow down. This was to either a) keep Comcast users from using Netflix or
Re: (Score:2)
Exhibit B: Comcast allowing their peering connections to saturate so Netflix would slow down. This was to either a) keep Comcast users from using Netflix or b) force Netflix to directly pay Comcast to restore what should have been basic network operations.
This is almost everyone's goto example for the need for NN laws but even in your own description it has absolutely nothing to do with NN or the regulations that were passed to enact it. Allowing peering connections to become oversaturated has to do with interconnectivity between networks and NOT how the packets are handle within a given network.
It's like throwing a party for 50 people at a house with a only a 2 car driveway and no street parking and then forcing the town to increase speed limits to try and
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the Internet worked pretty well with light touch regulation.
You're right, it worked just fine UNTIL ISPS started pulling these shenanigans. The 2015 regulations were put into place as a direct result of the previous years of escalation when the ISPs started slowing down Youtube and Netflix until they started coughing up fees beyond bandwidth costs. This isn't a slim window here, we have a evidence of this happening for much of the last decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legal Phrasing (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you really insinuating that Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, and Steve Wozniak are shills? You're sure you're not a shill yourself?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're sure you're not a shill yourself?
No one pays me to post my opinions on Net Neutrality. Vint Cerf's employer, Google, does pay him to post his.
Re:Legal Phrasing (Score:5, Funny)
And that's still more than they're worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee I can't win here can I?
"How do we know you're not a shill!"
"Well no one pays me to post my opinions"
"Ha, that proves your opinions are worthless".
Re: (Score:1)
The only way to win around here is to get a +5 funny rating.
Re: (Score:2)
Vint Cerf sits on the National Science Board - pretty much for free. That's a vital service he provides to our nation, and he's done it for 30+ years.
Re: (Score:1)
Vint Cerf sits on the National Science Board - pretty much for free. That's a vital service he provides to our nation, and he's done it for 30+ years.
He also is or has been a Vice President at Google, I presume paid very significant amounts of USD. While employed by them, he testified before congress about network neutrality. The financial conflict of interest is readily apparent. I.e. one should interpret his views on Network Neutrality as being most closely aligned with Google's. I personally don't consider Google's views on Network Neutrality to be ethically consistent. Note well how they only allow "non-commercial" server use on their Google Fib
Re: (Score:2)
The perfect people to send a message to Congress!
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone decipher this?
Is AC saying that Cerf was opposed to home servers, a position that no sane person with any technological inclination would take?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality's potential impact on Google and Facebook's current business is overall evenly positive and negative, leaning slightly toward the negative.
Big orgs like this have the bargaining power to negotiate "fast lane" traffic and use those agreements to squash their competitors if Neutrality was rolled back. If you had to have a new multi million dollar contract with a telecom to get any of your traffic to be transmitted, Those are certainly the ones that have the power. and this will give big players
Re: (Score:1)
Cough. Big orgs like this have the bargaining power to be PAID if Neutrality is rolled back.
No one watches CableVision/BrightHouse. They watch CBS, NBC, Fox. CableVision/BrightHouse PAY CBS, NBC, Fox to carry their content.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So Google and Facebook are push NN out of the goodness of their hearts? I find that very hard to believe. Particularly as both of them were involved in the non Net Neutral Internet Basics in India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They obviously see NN as being a plus in the US where they're don't own the ISPs. In other places, they're trying to own the ISPs and don't want Net Neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a bunch people shilling for Comcast and Verizon vs another bunch of people shilling for Google and Facebook.
What a perfect example of a false dilemma. An either/or proposition that's based off a flawed assumption -- that if you're in favor of Net Neutrality, you're in Google and Facebook's pocket.
In this particular issue, what we have here is something that benefits Comcast and Verizon and other large telecoms/cable companies, and adversely affects EVERYONE ELSE, so in that case, of course my interests align with Google's and Facebook's. I get screwed, Facebook gets screwed, we all get screwed, except for the gatekeepers.
The intention for that seems transparent: It's the company line of Comcast and Verizon that Net Neutrality is just trying to benefit Facebook and Google as a way to make it sound like it's big business favoritism, thus undercutting the moral argument for NN. So by pushing that message, they get to change the message from "Big ISPs use their monopoly/duopoly position to force sites to pay them extra" to "Comcast/Verizon want money, Facebook/Google want money, the only right decision is to not have rules saying who is right."
Re: (Score:1)
It's hard to take moral argument seriously when the same people making them say it's fine for Google and FB to censor or ban people on their networks because 'it's a private company, the First Amendment doesn't apply'. Well no, it doesn't. But not everywhere is the US and free speech is a wider concept than speech protected by the First Amendment. And if it's a moral argument not a legal one, shouldn't it be a wider issue than the First Amendment?
Actually Net Neutrality is very narrow issue - it's whether I
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to take moral argument seriously when the same people making them say it's fine for Google and FB to censor or ban people on their networks because 'it's a private company, the First Amendment doesn't apply'. Well no, it doesn't. But not everywhere is the US
Everywhere is not the US, but Google and Facebook are bound by US laws. We're especially talking about US laws when we're discussing US government action being taken against them, which is what the result of laws restricting behavior would be. But regardless of legal arguments, if I set up a service, it's really my choice whether I want, say, hate speech on it, unless having such speech violates the laws of where my service is hosted. And if I don't want to work to provide a platform for such speech, I shou
Re: (Score:1)
So did "legal tender" trump "public interest" when net neutrality was first introduced after 20 years of internet without it?
Possibly, but the primary reason net neutrality laws were introduced was to stop the major abuse being performed by ISPs trying to destroy the open Internet.
Had the ISPs not started fucking with the traffic of Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and any news sites that directly competed with the media arms of the ISPs, such laws wouldn't have been needed like in the beginning.
But of course over the last 10 of those 20 years you claim were fine, US ISPs were blocking competition and destroying Internet startups and had
Re: (Score:1)
the primary reason net neutrality laws were introduced was to stop the major abuse being performed by ISPs trying to destroy the open Internet.
What makes you think there even is an open internet?
The internet is nothing more than a large number of private networks connected together while coordinating their IP addressing schemes through a centralized entity.
The government has no business regulating how I configure my networking equipment. If I want to block Netflix, I will block Netflix. My network, my rules. If you are my customer and you don't like it, don't buy my services.
And that's where the true issue lies: no competition in the broadba
Re: (Score:2)
Telecom companies are natural monopolies due to physical cable infrastructure. How do you propose to change that?
Is "common carrier" status also a band-aid?
Re: (Score:2)
Telecom companies are natural monopolies due to physical cable infrastructure. How do you propose to change that?
Traditional phone companies are limited to physical cable infrastructure. Modern internet companies are not. In most civilized countries outside of the U.S., the last mile is a shared resource, allowing multiple operators to work on the same physical infrastructure.
The only way to stop the might of large internet corporations is to enable and support a healthy competitive market. Simply having the government dictate how private property can be configured, is not the solution.
Is "common carrier" status also a band-aid?
Common carrier status does not
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please actually research the regulations you claim didn't exist.
The fallacy that the internet was an unregulated wonderland prior to 2015 is believed only by the uninformed or those purposefully trying to mislead others.
If you actually understood how title I and II work you'd realize that the only time the internet was NOT regulated similarly as it is under the 2015 order was in 2014 when they struck down the 2010 order (as old copper lines were already covered under title II).
In 2014, broadband companies u
Re: (Score:2)
It's not phrased in legal terms, therefore Pai will ignore it.
Sarcasm aside, if you actually take a look at the submission it's pretty clear it was written by lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
legal tender terms
ftfy
Re:Legal Phrasing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
T
Re: (Score:2)
"obabas congress" is a rather misleading term.
Sure. Maybe even a meaningless one.
Re: (Score:2)
"obabas congress" is a rather misleading term. A better phrase would be "the congress that Obama had to fight and circumvent to get anything done".
Are we also talking about the first two years of Obama's term when the Democratic Party had a super-majority in both houses of Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
We approved of things like executive orders or FCC making rules because the action, not the actor, were right.
Additionally, we didn't invent them specifically for Obama. Yes, we may have been fans of the DACA executive order, but if we had screamed bloody murder about it, executive orders would still be there for Trump to abuse.
Finally, if you think net neu
Re: (Score:1)
As it should be. It is not the Presidents job to get creative and enact laws that Congress explicitly has said it does not want. The president' s job is to ensure Congress has to meet a higher burden then 51% vote to pass controversial laws.
I know the Constituion is seen as a thing of the past. But it is the very fabric of what American society is built upon. The American people gave Trump a Republican Congress because it did not trust Obama to stop a Democratic Congress from going crazy. What Obama did was
Re: (Score:2)
Above Trump should read Obama.
Like a heel in wrestling (Score:2)
Sometimes I think the current administration is just doing things to purposely piss people off, like a heel in wrestling.
Re: (Score:1)
T is a WWE fan, so it wouldn't surprise me. Most politicians usually try diplomatic or indirect wording when they criticize in order to avoid inflaming those criticized. T tossed that rule out the window and jumped up and down on it with his 300 lb body: Twitter seems connected directly to the core of his brain (micro-USB ;-)
Another problem is consistency. In the past he's talked about b
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter seems connected directly to the core of his brain (micro-USB ;-)
Given the lack of error correction, I'm pretty sure it is an old school 2-wire serial link, with no parity bits (can you have disparity bits?) and definitely no stop bits. Also seems to suffer from lots of external interference....
Re: (Score:2)
The administration is doing what's right legally
I disagree. The right thing legally is to recognize the actual fact of the matter: an ISP is communications carrier, not a content creator.
The FCC is doing everything it can to distract from this simple fact. It's a gigantic lie, intended to benefit major corporations at the expense of us all.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ignore all the people that corrected you the last time you posted this drivel?
The court challenge resulted in reclassifying the internet as Title II - which actually put the internet under FCC jurisdiction. So sure, they said the FCC didn't have the authority, but then they gave it to them.
Yes, absolutely (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure any law is needed. All the screeching seems to be about actions that would already be illegal or actionable by either States or DOJ, or companies that were harmed. It's called Anti-trust and unfair competition.
It's been pointed out that NN regulation might legitimately be something the FTC should regulate.
NN deals essentially with trade and business practices, while the FCC is supposed to deal with airwaves and technical issues, so FTC seems like a good fit.
Re: (Score:2)
FCC deals with plenty of "trade and business practices." They've traditionally been the primary agency regulating telecom business at a federal level as far as tariffs and interconnection agreements and universal access. Yes, the DOJ and FTC are involved too.
Net neutrality is fundamentally both. It's a set of technical standards posed against business practices. ("OK, what kinds of things are OK for network management, and what kinds of things cross the line into favoring some kinds of traffic to levera
This why Google hired Vint Cerf (Score:1)
He's a bona fide e celebrity and he's also very pro Net Neutrality. Which Google clearly see as being in their long term interests.
Learn to read (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
And _he_ wouldn't make the claim either. TBL is the father of the _World Wide Web_.
You also wouldn't be able to find a person under the age of 30 who would know the difference, thus making semantics rather pointless.
In fact, with the way we've marketed ourselves away from the "www" domain preface, I doubt if even 25% of the population even knows what the hell the "World Wide Web" is. The masses only know it as the "internet" now (or in the case of GenY/Z, their "left arm").
Re: (Score:1)
That's not what is being claimed
"father of the internet", Vint Cerf; the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee; and the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak
In xml it would be
Re: (Score:2)
Could be they don't teach how semicolons are used in school anymore.
The youth of today probably think their use are as separators in video game titles.
Re: (Score:2)
Muphry's Law, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly are.
Repealing Net Neutrality (Score:3)
What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...
Re:Repealing Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
GOP more or less says, "It gives companies freedom to innovate and create jobs. More freedom = more jobs & more innovation."
Of course there are practical limits to the benefits of high-freedom, and as most of us know, oligopolies usually end up abusing freedom to lock out competition and lock in customers; ruining what capitalism is supposed to provide in theory: competition and choice.
The bottom line is that telecom oligopolies spend a lot of campaign donations to get their way: and bribery works.
[correction] Re:Repealing Net Neutrality (Score:1)
Correction: "...spend a lot on campaign donations..." (not "of")
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, the Internet Service industry is not a free market. In most areas, the local government has granted a single ISP a monopoly. This is what's causing the problem - government interference in the market, not oligopolies (small group of companies which rise to the top on their own merit). By granting a monopoly, customers cannot switch to a different ISP, meaning the ISP can do whatever
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump/Pai stick to the free market dogma and also outlaw local governments from granting service monopolies, then net neutrality isn't needed.
Outlawing local monopolies would help some (although how this can be legally implemented I am unsure of - I am sure that Trump/Pai can't do it) but would hardly eliminate the need.
There all kinds of ways of preventing competition for the local distribution system (the pole access restrictions on Google requiring them to get their competitor to agree to perform service...). But most important is the high cost of entry.
It is economically infeasible for many competitors to lay down fiber - it is a 'natural mon
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that under a proper constitutional reading Trump/Pai are doing exactly what should be done (though probably by accident); removing Federal regulations.
The local monopolies are truly the real problem but they are just that, a local matter and should be handled at the State and local levels not the Federal. The problem is that the media loves to make everything a federal case no matter how much the problem is not actually a federal one. It's sexier to blame the great and powerful "Trump admin
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are practical limits to the benefits of high-freedom
That's one way to look at it. You could also see it as a case of competing freedoms: the telecoms' freedom to fuck us over... er, ::hem:: the telecoms' freedom to take advantage of their market position, vs. everyone else's freedom to use the internet as they choose (rather than in whichever way the telecoms choose).
Re: (Score:1)
That it was a violation of federal law when it was implemented. They want to revert back to the prior ways before someone challenges it in the courts and the current administration is forced to defend a regulation they did not put in place and do not agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Repealing NN is an estimated $8B dollar gimme to the cabal.
To achieve their aim, they have peppered congress with $101M in gravy to ensure their vict
Re: (Score:3)
What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality? I don't get it...
I will bite. I hope this is going to be one step back and two steps forward and not just one step back. But being skeptical is likely the wisest response.
Though I don't agree with lifting net neutrality in this fashion without the FCC actually addressing at least the technical aspects of what minimum standard levels of inter-connectivity we want and need for our telecoms to provide to the country. But I do and did disagree with the blanket approach to Net Neutrality which appeared to focus too much on con
Re: (Score:2)
What is the problem they are trying to fix by repealing Net Neutrality?
The problem they are trying to fix is that the major telecoms are slightly limited in how much they can rip off the public. They want to remove those limits.
Re: (Score:3)
You may believe this, but I can assure you that most lawmakers who oppose net neutrality are not as concerned about the nature of net neutrality's legislation as they are about the very existence of such regulations in any form. I would bet good money that if it were done "the right way" as you propose, conservatives would still work to repeal net neutrality, using some other excuse to conceal motives which most people would consider to be mustache-twirling villainy.
Technology is ampliative (Score:1)
All it will take is 1 money man to control it all (Score:1)
All it will take is 1 money man to control it all & buy up all the ISPs out there (yes, it's doable - monopoly laws = shit now) to control what is said, seen, & heard.
APK
P.S.=> Welcome to the 'gated community' that is going to be nothing more than a cattle herding brainwashing system to CONTROL THE MASSES (who often don't think for themselves which IS excusable as they're only products of their environmental inputs believing what they're told as I was myself as a boy believing they actually TELL
Net Neutrality (Score:2)
Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. As the Obama administration passed the NN regulations, Google would still be free to do that. Funny how Google and co were never harmed by NN. Wonder whose pockets they line.
Does *anyone* actually support repeal? (Score:2)
besides Trump and Big Business / the cable providers I mean...
Re:Does *anyone* actually support repeal? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Fox News, Rush L., Breitbart News, and their copy-cats say "it's good", most their readers/viewers will believe it uncritically.
If "the liberals" hate it, it must be good. It's being spun as a plot by liberals to gain control of the media and make government bigger, giving the gov't more power to force socialism on red states, outlaw Christmas, take away their guns, create welfare-dependent zombies who vote for more welfare, etc. Basically, an old-fashioned slippery-slope argument.
Their script is pretty predictable by now for anyone who has followed politics for a few decades.
Re: (Score:2)
If "the liberals" hate it, it must be good. It's being spun as a plot by liberals to gain control of the media and make government bigger, giving the gov't more power to force socialism on red states, outlaw Christmas, take away their guns, create welfare-dependent zombies who vote for more welfare, etc. Basically, an old-fashioned slippery-slope argument.
As much as I'm personally in favor of Net Neutrality, giving the FCC power to impose Internet regulations is a VERY VERY bad thing. It always has been, the 1990s is a nice list of case studies why giving government regulatory power on the Internet is terrible. The only reason there's any discussion here is the ISPs have been forcing everyone's hand, and that citizens don't have choice in the broadband world.
Re: (Score:1)
What are the 2 strongest examples?
Re: (Score:2)
The Communications Decency Act is a good start. Other anti-pornography/decency laws dovetail nicely into it. Porn was the most visible difference, but diversity of opinion, an open expression of ideas, knowledge on all sorts of subjects (though mostly computers). Sadly, 20 years later, we're far far more divided and partisan than we ever were, but back then on the 'net, everyone's big chant was "don't meddle with our Internet." We liked its Wild West flavor. We didn't want tons of regulations for what we're
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically, conservatives are the one who want to regulate sex and sexual issues in communications & elsewhere, the same ones who otherwise claim laissez faire is usually the best route. Conservatives are for freedom of the wallet, but not freedom of sex/gender.
Re: (Score:2)
Very much so.
When Donald Trump pulled the US out of negotiations for the despicable TPPA for example, protesters around the world who were vehemently opposed to the deal suddenly fell silent and eventually came back saying perhaps the deal wasn't so bad after all.
Oh wait, you're serious. (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is important to understand that the FCC's proposed order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology."
It's not they don't understand. It's that they don't care. Or put another way, it's not a bug, it's a feature.
The powers-that-be behind the repeal of Net Neutrality know what the effects will be. They're counting on them.
Logic Shmojic [Re:Oh wait, you're serious.] (Score:2)
Too many slashdotters are surprised politicians and political appointees are not logical. Keep in mind you are dealing with Ferengi's, NOT Vulcans. Rule of Acquisition #623: "Logic is Not Profitable" (disclaimer: I made up that ROA, although there are existing similar ones.)
Note that I am not making a distinction between parties nor administrations here. It's a general rule. As far which group is more Ferengish, I'll leave that debate to another thread. And you can substitute "power" for profits in many sit
bastards (Score:2)
the father need to produce more bastard internets this one has grown sick and is about to die.
If you want NN back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't listen to this AC either - in some jurisdictions, unusual ballots ("absentee", "provisional", or some other paper ballot in lieu of electronic voting, whether mailed-in or not) are NOT counted until all votes cast by "normal" means have all been processed after the polls close, and only if the estimated total number of issued, unusual ballots is still enough to affect who wins.
In other words, if there were a million unusual ballots issued, but there's more than a million normal votes separating the wi
The FCC Does Understand It (Score:3)
"It is important to understand that the FCC's proposed order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology,"
This is very incorrect. The FCC understands that, without net neutrality, internet technology will lock in far more profits for Comcast and their allies. That's the only thing that they care about.
All their verbiage that people are decrying as incorrect is nothing more than FUD to justify a decision that has nothing to do with technology, or what's best for the majority of people, or anything else besides increasing and, more to the point, ensuring profits for the big guys for years to come.
Tim Berners-Lee favored fast lanes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds to me like he says, you should be able to pay for higher bandwidth.
He doesn't say: You should have to pay extra to get access to specific information based on the payment scheme your internet provider decided for you.
High quality of service: low ping times, high bandwidth
Conclusion doesn't follow premise (Score:1)
He conclusively proves that the FCC doesn't understand the Internet; then he concludes, therefore, the FCC should be the ones to regulate it. I'm not sure I follow that.
Unfortunately For Tim and Steve.. (Score:2)
Other "father of the internet" is against NN (Score:1)
Bob Kahn, co-designer of TCP/IP (with Vint obviously) has been against net neutrality for many years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hummm, on one side we have ISPs, Ajit a lawyer, fake public comments, and random Slashdot posters. On the other we have independent media companies, the old FCC head who was an ISP insider, EFF, 20 internet leaders, boat load of public comments, and random Slashdot posters.
Which side to pick... decisions decisions... hummm... so tough to choose.