Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Action urged to keep net neutral
news.bbc.co.uk — Tough action is required by US regulators to protect the principles that have made the net so successful, a leading digital rights lawyer has said
lornali- 653 diggs
- digg it
- Zemnexx, on 04/19/2008, -3/+11Yeah, that would be something to see, the Government not doing something stupid.
- rivalius13, on 04/19/2008, -3/+3Adequately informed? Yea, probably an email with the words "throttlin ur internetz" thrown in the middle. Assholes.
- fr3ddie, on 04/19/2008, -4/+2they probably realized that its impossible not to keep it neutral.
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/19/2008, -1/+20Why do you keep asking for action from the very same regulators that are the ones creating the problem in the first place?
You don't ask action, you command it. They work for you.- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -2/+5Could you be more specific about the "problem" that "the regulators" are creating?
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/19/2008, -3/+4Allowing corporate interest to dictate public policy.
- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3That's a pretty easy, broad statement to make.
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Argue the opposite.
- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -2/+1You posted nothing to argue against except incredibly broad tin-foil-hat sort of statements.
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I made the argument that they let corporate interest dictate policy. This is about net neutrality, the fact that it's even an issue means they let corporate interest dictate policy. Net neutrality opposes consumers (that's the public) to service providers (that's corporate interests)
You're going to need to make an argument.
- beachian, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1You continue to speak without using any set examples except for what you seem to think is the case. It's interesting that you say net neutrality is an issue because of corporate interest. Net neutrality is solely an issue because of CONSUMER interest. Consumers seem interested in creating regulation for what is currently an unregulated Internet. I can see your point in saying there is some corporate interest at hand. I see their interest in receiving some sort of compensation for the services they provide. That's not something I see as all too unreasonable. Content providers, as well as hardware manufacturers such as Cisco, 3m, Qualcomm, etc. agree that pending legislation H.R. 5353 (commonly referred to as the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" would create restrictive regulation that would ultimately reduce the on line experience for consumers as costs are raised for service and deployment of fiber cables is significantly slowed or made impossible. As technology continues to develop, our existing network lines are not suitable and we must create ways for new applications and hardware to be usable over the network. The only real way to do this is to use some sort of preferential packet treatment. Legislation gets dicey around this issue because technology is constantly being developed that would require new types of packets. New packets would mean that any legislation passed previously would not account for said packets and would effectively put legislators and regulators back at square one. I think much of the "net neutrality" confusion and paranoia comes from a view of net neutrality that is quite scary of the "big corporation" vs. "poor helpless consumer" when this isn't the case at all. For this developing platform, broadband, ISPs must be allowed to differentiate and discriminate packets based on their content and necessity for delivery. Our current networks are not holding up to increasing demands and must be upgraded. It is unfair, however, for ISPs to shoulder the entire cost for a network that is being hogged down by applications that simply use the network in rather extreme ways.
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2Private interests vs public policy.
Argue the opposite. You haven't. You just made the case for private interests, furthering my point. - beachian, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1I can't tell if you are purposefully being ignorant for the sake of discussion or if you really don't understand things. Not once have you made a "point" as you seem to think you have.
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2Private interests vs public policy.
- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3That's a pretty easy, broad statement to make.
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/19/2008, -3/+4Allowing corporate interest to dictate public policy.
- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -2/+5Could you be more specific about the "problem" that "the regulators" are creating?
- Birdoftruth, on 04/19/2008, -19/+2I like how whenever anyone is against net neutrality their branded an idiot that doesn't understand. It's digg's new "OMG you believe in God. Your irrational"
- MechaFalcon, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Then explain how a lack of net neutrality could be a good thing. Government enforced net neutrality might be a bad idea, as it is the government, but being against the basic idea is fairly irrational.
- beachian, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1...no?
- MechaFalcon, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Then explain how a lack of net neutrality could be a good thing. Government enforced net neutrality might be a bad idea, as it is the government, but being against the basic idea is fairly irrational.
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/19/2008, -1/+26How to Contact the FCC
To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail
Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
Office of the Secretary
c/o Natek, Inc.
236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Suite 110
Washington, DC 20002
(8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
Office of the Secretary
9300 East Hampton Drive
Berry, Matthew (General Counsel) OGC (202) 418-1752 Matthew dot Berry at fcc dot gov
Capitol Heights, MD 20743
Bother the ***** out of them, throw rocks at them, spit at them, letters do nothing.
(8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)- ElAssoWipo, on 04/19/2008, -1/+5Their faces: http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/
Kevin J. Martin: (202) 418-1000
Michael J. Copps: (202) 418-2000
Jonathan S. Adelstein: (202) 418-2300
Deborah Taylor Tate: (202) 418-2500
Robert McDowell: (202) 418-2200 - savantidiot, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin (KJMWEB@fcc.gov) is the same Bush appointed Chairman Kevin J. Martin who held public hearings announced with one weeks notice on media consolidation (one parent company owning multiple media outlets of differing types in the same markets) this past Nov of 07 where he listened to endless testimonies overwhelmingly in opposition of allowing further media consolidation. On the Tuesday following the final public hearing in Seattle Martin had an editorial out in the New York Times announcing his decision to allow the further consolidation of media ownership.
Martin who again, called the hearings with only a one weeks notice to the public, had the editorial in to the New York Times before the final hearing was held, likely before the first was held.
My friends we are *****.
To get you started, a quick clip from Bill Moyers on the subject going into a little more detail: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11162007/watch.h ... - Noods, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Wake up. The FCC is what is allowing media consolidation and not allowing competition in ISP markets.
http://www.mises.org/story/2815
"From an accounting perspective it may seem odd that this practice began and continues to be lobbied for by numerous institutions. Cui bono? Both the political class and incumbent businesses in the form of Big Telecom have every incentive to maintain the status quo: they get to run the show, control it, and extract rents.
So while the multibillion-dollar price tag is seemingly stratospheric, telcos have and will continue to support an FCC-like system. It is a small price for them to pay as it prevents true competitive forces and enables them to hold on to their market share without threat of displacement."
- ElAssoWipo, on 04/19/2008, -1/+5Their faces: http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/
- WinMacLin, on 04/19/2008, -9/+4I'm all for Net Neutrality but at the same time, we need to look at the reasoning behind ISP's not keeping the Internet neutral. Is it just for them to make an extra buck by charging both the user and the content provider or is it a required step to keep the Internet running smoothly.
The internet is reaching full capacity people, instead of fighting for Net Neutrality you should be fighting for the Government to inject cash in to the infrastructure. It needs at least a 200bn dollar investment to push the capacity problems back until 2030. If all traffic is treated equal then everything will be slow, wake up and smell the congestion!- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2Bingo. With the influx of service such as VoIP, e-commuting, high bandwidth absorbing P2P applications, the internet no longer has the capacity to support a growing demand for it. This isn't an issue of simply increasing capacity, that's simply a short term solution because network users will find a way to use of that bandwidth. Japan, with it's 100mbs lines, still faces similar issues as America in dealing with network congestion. While the prospect of a "free" internet "disappearing" may sound scary, you have to consider that development is grinding to a halt and while our internet is a nice tool, we rank worldwide in the mid-teens for our broadband deployment. If we are to be taken as a serious economic and business force in the digital age, we must increase the usability of our internet.
- dsmx, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3The problem is that telecoms companies don't want to spend money to improve bandwidth because it cuts into there profits, they are looking for ways to increase revenue without spending much money, traffic shaping seems ideal to them. It's got nothing to do with the internet running out of bandwidth it's all to do with companies not wanting to invest money in infrastructure.
- WinMacLin, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2AT&T is investing 20 billion dollars in to their network. BT in the UK is investing billions of pounds building a new infrastructure here.
The problem is, its not enough, how much money do they have to spend? - If you want the government to step in to make the internet access neutral you should also fight for the government to invest in the internet infrastructure.
Telecommunication companies are not bottomless pits of cash you know. 20 Billion by AT&T isn't something to be scoffed at that is a large chunk of private money going in to something that many public institutions are offering to people for free. This is the basis of the internet we are talking about, if it gets so congested that you cant even get on Digg then what? you just going to say "well atleast we lobbied to get it all neutral now no ***** can access anything".
Great job, seriously.... I know this is an unpopular thing to say and its easier to just say the Telecoms are money grabbing evil corporations but that is only part of the issue the real problem is capacity. Fibre doesn't just lay itself you know.- dsmx, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1You've hit upon the point I was trying to make. Should you allow private companies to provide essential public services?
- beachian, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1How is it a public service? You're just making things up. That's like saying groceries are a public service. Just because everyone wants it doesn't mean it automatically becomes public.
- WinMacLin, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2AT&T is investing 20 billion dollars in to their network. BT in the UK is investing billions of pounds building a new infrastructure here.
- LoCoPyRo, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1This is an interesting point, I don't often think about the internet becoming congested. But, at the same time, you are putting forth this view without any evidence. Sure Telecom companies are going to say they aren't just in the market for profit and they are trying to keep the internet running smoothly, but is that really true? Do they provide any figures or data? I guess I think both sides are pretty weak on this issue, it all looks like speculation which is dangerous.
- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1http://www.theamericanconsumer.org/CG%20on%20Trage ...
From Washington Internet Daily:
"Adding bandwidth on networks won't fix congestion woes, Bennett and Glass said, citing Japan. At 100 Mbps, Japan has some of the world's largest pipes, but still faces significant congestion due to P2P networks, they said. Demanding that Comcast and other ISPs increase capacity is also unreasonable because P2P is used most often to send unlicensed content, Bennett said."
and more!
- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1http://www.theamericanconsumer.org/CG%20on%20Trage ...
- oxymoron69, on 04/19/2008, -1/+17We must stop overlogging....on. And limit internet porn use to 2x a day MAX!!!!!
- endlessoul, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3It... It was a ghost!
This is ectoplasm!
- endlessoul, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3It... It was a ghost!
- Thrilltone, on 04/19/2008, -8/+2Smells like a coup to me and believe me,
I've smelled a lot of coups
© 2008 surfpick.com- titlesaysitall, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Do they smell like bananas and Llamas?
- Picer, on 04/19/2008, -1/+6They should realise the internet's forte is the fact it is not regulated, if they enforce harsh rules, then other organisations will develop their own "internets" to circumvent the assholes at the FCC and other regulatory bodies.
- userperson, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1It was fun while it lasted 'eh?
- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2This is the crux of the article:
"He said there was nothing wrong with net firms managing traffic as long as they kept customers fully informed." The problem with Comcast is not necessarily that they are throttling bandwidth and using packet discrimination techniques, they just didn't tell their subscribers.
I also have a hard time taking Professor Lessing as a credible source when he makes comments such as:
"Prof Lessig said one of the principles that guided the foundation of the net was that all traffic should flow equally across it."
That was great when all traffic could flow equally and packet loss didn't matter. With the increase of data-heavy services, the internet is moving to real-time interaction with VoIP services and things like e-health. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a little more important for a doctor performing surgery from a remote location to have preferential packet treatment over a spammer who sends a million e-mails, or even *gasp* over the kid who is trying to download a torrent of the newest game to hit the scene. That's simply one example of countless examples that could exist. - necroprancer, on 04/19/2008, -0/+7I think the real story here is that Larry Lessig surfs the internet WITH HIS MIND. Check the picture.
- baylat, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I wrote this comment using my mind.
- smacksaw, on 04/19/2008, -3/+2If traffic is higher at peak times, instead of slowing down certain types of traffic, cut 20% off of everyone's top speed until usage eases up. Simple as that.
- justinx0r, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3This guy is an idiot. The reason the internet has been so succesful is because of the fact that the government doesn't really regulate it/tax it/whatever. Actually, whenever someone asks me what free market capitalism will be like I say a lot like the internet.
- LoCoPyRo, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3I think the issue that everyone is overlooking is the problem of Monopolies that are forming in the TeleCom industry. Im surprised the issue hasn't been talked about more by the FCC and otherwise. Companies like Comcast/AT&T (merged, serving 24 million households in 2007) Time Warner and Bellsouth are controlling the majority of the US market (65% of all Telecom spending between these 3 companies). It should also be noted that these companies often control and/or intimidate smaller companies and thus control more of the market.
This looks like a big problem to me, as with any monopoly in a free market economy. The problem is furthered by a lack of investment by these megacorps in internet infrastructure, which people are citing as the main concern as we move into the future, and the companies excuse for throttling traffic. Companies are supposed to provide their own infrastructure and use it, but not overuse it, in almost all industries (truck transportation is the only expection that comes to mind - they basically get a free ride using the government funded roads in America) and telecom should be no different. It is also already the case that many consumers only have the choice of one internet/phone/cable provider in their area and are forced to pay whatever amount they request.
This problem will only get worse. We need to address these issues before they get out of hand.- beachian, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1The thing you're missing is that Broadband services are NOT common carriers like many telecom services. I don't know how you can compare laying network cable to public roads. (Just as an aside, the trucking industry IS heavily taxed with tolls and gas prices. Ever notice that tolls for double axle vehicles are significantly lower than quad-axles etc.?) As of the Brand X v. FCC decision (2005), Broadband services are classified as "information services" not common carriers and therefore DO NOT have to follow the same rules as the Baby Bells, IXCs and CLECS.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by