Net Neutrality Comment Period Ends Friday 111
FatherBash writes "Friday marks the final day for citizens, corporations, and paid spinmeisters alike to file comments with government regulators on Net Neutrality. Wired has the story with a link to the FCC page where you too can throw in your two cents."
The time to Rally is now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The time to Rally is now... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have that backwards. Without some legislation, they can destroy net neutrality as soon as it suits them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Labeling it makes it that much easier to attack, doesn't it? You already feel empowered by the legions who have come before you, attacking $target. Feels like you are in good company, eh?
Well, global warming may or may not be due to human activity. Regardless what anyone thinks, the mere fact that there is a debate indicates that the issue is in question. Given the consquences, would it not therefore be prudent to take steps to reduce what we know causes the release of greenhouse gas
Re: (Score:2)
yeah right, there are morons out there who really believe you can survive on air alone and debate that you need to eat food to live - so by your own reasoning you would consider that grounds to consider a diet of thin air as possible.
oh and tying to apply risk managment in situations where you don't fully understand what is going to happen is VERY poor risk managment, VERY poor. for all you know you'll make a bad situation wors
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's apply some common sense to your silly example; We have two sides: Those that eat food and those that don't. Now those that eat food also have been shown to live longer. Given no more evidence than this ( which is actually quite a bit less evidence then what we h
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I thought the only time risk management was necessary was in situations where you have uncertainty about what is going to happen. If you do fully understand what is going to happen, then it's really just "making the best choice possible", isn't it?
Yes, it is possible that some attempts to reduce greenhouse
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we have sent SUVs to Mars. . .
Re: (Score:1)
"Re:Net Neutrality (for legislation of neutrlity)
Hi, thanks for reading this.
While I understand packetshaping could provide TV services (and other special features) without affecting email (and other basic features) too much, I do not agree with the tradoff of important net neutrality issues to accomplish an artificial boost of performance.
When I first signed up for service I had a 28k connection. Because that was the norm, a webpage that had a simpl
Re:The time to Rally is now... (Score:5, Informative)
I purchase internet service for a fee. I am told I am getting so much speed or bandwidth for this purchase. Not having a neutral net means that the speed At&t or whoever my service provider at the time will be charging the websites I wish to visit a fee for them sending the services it offers at the speeds I paid for. Net neutrality guarantees this won't happen and that I as a consumer will not have my services slowed down on purpose by the service provider because they couldn't get some other party to pay them.
Currently, there is a system in placed with the shared bandwidth agreements between providers and owners of the internet's network hubs that allows one network provider to raise funds for the maintenance and usage of their network by another. Of course this is a two way street and the providers feel threatened in that if they overcharge, the other provider will do the same for the traffic coming back through. When Google pays for it's internet, they are paying their provider a fee for the amount of bandwidth they are using. When I use the internet, I am paying a fee to my provider for the bandwidth I am using. When I visit google's site or use one of their service, we both are currently paying for the fees and services. Removing the idea of a neutral network would mean that we would be purposely limited and not getting the services we paid for by the people we are paying in order to have the internet service.
Not preserving net neutrality means the service provider to whom we pay for our service can legally not deliver the speeds and services they promised when advertising and attempting to gain us as a customer. Government has always attempted to protect the consumer from devious acts like bait and switch or outright fraudulent and misleading advertising. This is the effect not preserving a neutral net will have when someone doesn't pay the fees for increased bandwidth and the consumer doesn't get the internet as their provider advertised. This goes against the history of the government and the basic protections from deceit and dubious business practices.
PS,
Might I remind you that the internet is a growing place for political outreach from candidates to their current or potential constituents. Not having a neutral internet means you could be charged to have your website and internet campaign materials delivered to every state in the country and often times inside the same state and cities fee's on top of your normal internet hosting and such. I suspect that popular sites will have advertisements explaining why their site is slow and who is responsible for the slowdowns too if net-neutrality fails to remain in place. IT is imperative that consumers get what they pay for and the government doesn't legalize the ability of them to not deliver what was promised when signing up for the service. When dealing with internet service providers like SBC/At&t, Qwest, Time Warner, and such who own the networks because of government granted monopolies that existed for a period of time, there isn't a level of competition that would protect consumers and guarantee they get what they paid for without the idea of net-nutrality that is currently in existence today.
I think too many opponents of what the telcos want to do don't focus enough on the consumers getting screwed by not having the service they pay for because their provider or the owner of the network their provider uses didn't get the extortion payment. If you buy a car advertised to go 70 MPH and it doesn't get over speeds of 55 MPH, there is recourse because of laws that were designed to protect the consumer. It doesn't make sense to throw this out because some big companies support it. Currently the idea against net neutrality is about competition and profit. Well, that is wrong, there is competition and profit from the current system, the problem is that the competition is a two way street, they need the other network as
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wrote a letter. I got back a response that said "thank you for your views on this matter." And since my representative is of the opposite party than me, I think I've done more harm than good. "Hey, the other side wants us to keep net neutrality, so it must be a good thing for our side!"
Seriously, I don't think writing to 60 year old men who don't understand the issue will help this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually took the time to write a paper letter, your Congresscritter now believes that there are approximately 100 constituents in his district who feels the way you do about this particular issue.
Elections have been decided on less than that. He knows this. He knows that, if you actually get sufficiently pissed off to mobilize those other 99 like-minded voters, he might LOSE in the primary next spring, or in the general election next fall, and actually have to g
Re: (Score:2)
In politics, two things besides money get the politicians attention. People working to elect them and people working to defeat them. If you are neither and show your int
Re: (Score:1)
Well, that's just giving up before you even started! The truth is that we have to demand our democracy back from the people that are stealing it. It's not gone, yet. You can't _want_ to fight against it. Your participation is required (something about 'do or do not.. there is no try' comes to mind.)
I did what I could, albeit at the last minute, but isn't that how most people 'participate' around Tax Day ?
- - - - - - -
T
Government (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact 2. Lack of public land would destroy almost all current Telcos.
Thus, putting Fact 1 and Fact 2 together, to me, means that the Telcos serve me first before they serve their shareholders. If they want everything deregulated so they can charge more for "premium delivered" bandwidth or whatever their current term-du-jour is, they can alter their business such that they do not rely on public funds or land to build their business.
Kinda like with public roads, eh? (Score:1)
The true stupidity wasn't letting AT&T become a virtual monopoly: the mistake was allowing it to remain a for-profit entity and/or keep control of the infrastructure it built. The
Re: (Score:1)
The only real way to have a say with telcos is for you, and 10,000 of your neighbors, to complain to local government and cancel (or at least threaten to cancel) your service. That is if you actually have a viab
Re:Government (Score:5, Insightful)
- No tax breaks or other governemtn guaranteed incentives for telecom providers
- No government granting of exclusionary/preferential franchising of certain areas to telecom providers
- No government-enforced easements or right-of-way for telecom providers
When all of those government intrusions into the business of telecomm are remedied,then we can address the reduction of any net neutrality requirements.
Sound good to you?
You Can't Take Government Out Of A Monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you are suggesting that the monopoly also be removed, taking the government all the way out, then you could actually "vote with you wallet" as you said, and rely on the marketplace.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I understand your point feelings about government regulations, but really I just don't think t
Re:Government (Score:4, Informative)
You could vote with your wallet and go use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that there isn't any competition because the government has granted these companies a monopoly on the infrastructure for a while. Imagine Ford being the only type of car that could be sold in Michigan or Ohio and all the roads leading in or out of those two states are owned by ford. Now imagine Deregulation and Ford saying well, your Saturn is outselling our fords so we will charge a toll to use the roads. Now the competition ha
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good to see sane and informed debate on the issue (Score:3, Interesting)
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/net_neutr ality_.html#comment-72777768 [wired.com]
The Government and the FCC[Federal Communication Commission], Should stop the Tele-Communications, from selling bundles.
It Is the worst thing that could ever Happen. Especially since the consumers; Ability to complaint about service has been Thrown Out.
{ By the I agree / or Do not agree} Button that have to be clicked for Internet service.(ALSO: THIS IS ILLEGAL CONTRACT)!.
Currently The Tele-Com's Have Given themselves the "ABILITY" to "RATION"! out The First Amendment:
++Mainly Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of Press.( By Their Agree or Do not Agree). Before the provide service!.
**THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DENY SPEECH OR PRESS TO ANYONE!!
The Telephone Lines and Cables are not Just for Large Corporations,They are for Public and Private use.
This is what they are Trying to achieve: Total Control and Dominance in: What you can see, hear, or speak and write!. By Offing the Consuming public: Apparently Low Prices on Many Peripherals. That The Consumer Believes that they are getting a good DEAL, "WHICH THEY ARE NOT!.
Regulatory, INTERVENTION IS NEEDED!.
Being pushed off a or "TERMINATED at the "DISCRETION OF SOME EMPLOYEE HAVING A BAD DAY, OR AN ATTITUDE ABOUT WHAT SOMEONE WRITES, THAT IS NOT TO HIS OR HER LIKING.
IS THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FCC GIVING TOTALITARIAN AND FASCIST AUTHORITY , TO A PACK OF GREEDY MONGRELS, {THE TELE-COM} INDUSTRY!.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET SERVICE!.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET MAINTENANCE!.
THERE IS NO ONE TO CALL ABOUT SERVICE DROP-OUT (OFF)!.
WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEY SAY IT'S YOUR COMPUTER OR EQUIPMENT,AND IN MANY CASES THIS IS AN OUT RIGHT LIE AND FRAUD(AGAINST CONSUMERS)
WHERE THERE IS NO PROTECTION BY THE GOVERNMENT ![Why FCC does not have a complaint for such activity is incomprehensible.]
AND THERE SHOULD BE PROTECTION OF BASIC SPEECH AND PRESS!.
AND NOT AT THE DISCRETION OF SOME LAME BRAIN OVER PAID OVER RATE(THEMSELVES) COMPANY AND EMPLOYEES'. {AND WAY OVER PRICED].
IN GENERAL THERE IS NO VENUE FOR THE CONSUMER, OR AVENUE FOR THEM TO PURSUE, IF THE DAMN THING STOPS WORKING!.(or If They are Denied ACCESS).
THAN THERE IS THE BOLD BLATANT CONSUMER FRAUD THAT THE TELE-COM'S PERPETRATED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND CONSUMER:!
BY SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A MAIL SYSTEM THAT; IS YOURS(LEADING THE CONSUMER) TO BELIEVE, THAT THEY CAN WRITE AND CORRESPOND PERSONAL MESSAGES: WHEN THEY ARE NOT.
THEY ARE VENUES FOR THE TELE-COMS TO ADD [ADVERTISEMENTS] TOO. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL MAIL!}.[This is corporate selling] and I Want To know WHEN I AM GETTING PAID???.
THAN MOST OF ALL, AFTER A TELECOM COMPANY TELLS YOU THAT YOU {STATED} OR WROTE SOMETHING THEY DO NOT LIKE.
GO AND TAKE A GOOD LONG LOOK AT THE TRASH, OBSCENITY,PORNOGRAPHY THEY PUT AT THE : TOP BOTTOM, SIDES OF YOUR MAIL!.IF YOU COMPLAIN THEY SAY TO LEAVE.( The Telephone and Cable Line Are For the Use Of The Public and Private Use)!. These company have no legal ground to ask any consumer to agree or not to the use of Public access and they have no right to deny[access] , but they keep trying
THEY: {THE TELECOM] INDUSTRY WOULD, GIVEN HALF A CHANCE ; TURN THE PUBLIC AND CONSUMER INTO THEIR OWN PRIVATE WHORES!.
**YES: Intervention is very needed!.
+++HARMFUL BEHAVIOR.
YES IF TRYING TO DOMINATE AND CONTROL SPEECH AND PRESS IS NOT HARMFUL, WITH NO AVENUE OR VENUE FOR THE CONSUMER TO COMPLAIN AND NO CONSUMER PROTECTIONS;
***YES THIS IS A VERY HARMFUL THING!.
**WHAT IS EVEN MORE HARMFUL,, I AM SITTING IN MY HOUSE
IS THIS FASCISM? OR TOTALITARIAN
Looks planted. (Score:2)
Re:Good to see sane and informed debate on the iss (Score:2)
Fortunately I saw that he could barely figure out how to submit this rambling nonsense to Wired, let alone on the FCC comment form. That's one nice thing about the internet -- the bar to entry is still high enough that it keeps at least a few o
Why stop now? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
My Post to the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
reception is open and unrestricted. And the only purpose of the
regulation is to ensure that the openness of the medium is preserved
and the utility of the radio space is not compromised.
This is as it should be. Everybody benefits when the utility of a
common resource is preserved. Otherwise, the phenomenon of the
"Tragedy of the Commons" rears its ugly head. Here, overly agressive
private consumption of a public resource causes a compromise of the
utility of the common resource, to the detriment of all, including
the private individuals hogging the resource!
The Internet is, by definition, a shared resource. It's a peering
agreement based on communications protocols which enable all of its
parts to cooperate together, seamlessly, for the public benefit. Any
part can access any other part as though all parts were local. It's
the first, truly open, global communications system whose immense
potential for benefiting humankind has barely begun.
It is now up to you, here, to declare for our progeny, that this
shared, common resource shall remain open and free for the benefit of
all, to ensure its use, utility, and power so that everybody can benefit.
Balkanizing this public medium with an "unequal" internet, where the
common carriers of the traffic are free to degrade access to portions
of the network not in their personal interest, serves only to pillage
the utility of the common good. It provides enhanced short-term
profits for the pillager, but degrades the overall utility of the
network.
Please, please please, follow the forefathers before you who have
declared that this land be preserved for the common good, and those
who declared that the roads be preserved for the common good, and
those who have declared that the nation's power grid and telephone
grid be regulated to preserve their utility for the common good.
The utility of the Internet should be preserved. Please, please, keep it neutral.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because... why?
So too is it thus with telephone and other utilities.
While utilities such as telephone and power are "private", they are HEAVILY REGULATED and their ability to profit from their "natural monopoly" is preserved. This is practically a perfect parallel.
I myself think that the internet should be neutral for the simple fact that it can be useful [and sometimes critical] to just about e
Re: (Score:1)
...
It's not a *perfect* parallel. I'd argue that electricity and water are critical for healthy standards of living. Even though the internet is important culturally, I can go without it for several weeks without serious detriment (whether you can stand it is another issue - s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, we are selling our roads [wnd.com] too. Welcome to America.
Yeah? MY post to the FCC: (Score:2)
Attn: Chairman and Commissioners;
Sirs:
First, I would like to draw your attention to a certain holiday party late last year, which I happened to attend. As an avid hobbiest photographer, it was my opportunity to take some very original photographs of the boardroom that night. Say, around 10:42pm. As it is your job to take an interest in the media, I thought you would like to know.
On a clearly unrelated note, I hope we can all remain neutral with regards to the issues at hand today, such as the Inter
Re: (Score:1)
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/ upload_v2.hts?ws_mode=proc_name&proc_id=07-52 [fcc.gov]
If network neutrality is not upheld, this will have a disastrous effect
on the market for Internet services. Service companies that rely on
advertising or other revenue not directly taken from the consumer are
currently operating on the basis that they are paying for bandwidth they
use, therefore they pay in proportion to the amount of peop
here's my comment (Score:2)
from choking off Content Providers who do not, or cannot, pay for
enhanced bandwidth.
Imagine you have AT&T DSL service. You pay for Time Warner IPTV
service. Under Net Neutrality, there is no problem with this
arrangement. Without Net Neutrality, AT&T can and will keep its
competitor Time Warner's IPTV off its high speed network. This
effectively restricts you from accessing Time Warner IPTV since
decent TV over the Internet will obviously r
no on net neutrality (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no on net neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
Unnecessary? Do large corporations have such a good track record that you trust them implicitly?
Unconstitutional? See the commerce clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Before someone calls me a communist, I should state I have strong libertarian tendancies, and I believe in the market. But it doesn't solve everything; if it did then anarchy would make for high class countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you are against the government granting public easements and right-of-way to telcos too then, right?
If you want to abolish network neutrality and public easements, I'm all for it. Otherwise, all you're advocating is that the telcos be allowed to abuse the monopolies the government is granting them!
yeah throw in our 2 cents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Your two cents matter. As does everyone elses. If you really, truly pay attention to politics, not just campaigning, you'll find that most representatives do listen.
Or you can be lazy, do nothing, and then complain that your government doesn't listen to you.
How will this affect other countries? (Score:1)
Can someone brighter than myself please tell me... (Score:1)
Re:Can someone brighter than myself please tell me (Score:2)
my submission (Score:3, Interesting)
neutrality, one that allows ISPs to offer enhanced services and also
gives people a good way to decide between service providers. Simply
require that, when they advertise bandwidth numbers, an ISP may not
throttle below that bandwidth for any service. They can offer
specialty services that exceed that bandwidth, but they may not
advertise it as "internet speed" or as an unspecified data rate.
For instance, if Time Warner advertises a 5000/384 connection, they
may not throttle ad hoc traffic below this rate, but they may also
offer other features beyond this rate, eg movie/music streaming or
download.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, my captcha is "investor" on this post...
Re: (Score:2)
Even with net neutrality though, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping something like this from happening now. Lets say "Google Radio" (if or when it exists) pays SBC to deliver DVD quality streaming video to select consumers. SBC says OK, but they will have to use this special Modem. The consumer buys their 1.5 meg service, g
From a previous post on Slashdot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How do we hedge our lost freedom? (Score:2)
So, who are the players nowadays? I haven't kept track, although I figure Quest is still aroun
Re: (Score:1)
besides it smells to me like the old:
"if you can't beat 'em, join em'" argument.
Which imho is immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens after Friday? (Score:1)
Computer illiterates (Score:2)
"documents that is"? Where did they outsource this to?
And if they don't want macro viruses, why are they accepting Word docs at all?
The passwords and redlining thing is a mystery to me. Is there some way to embed a password in a document so as to bring down the FCC? What could that magic word be?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, yes, the entire process is a farce.
The decision has been made already, there will be
no network neutrality.
The only future plan for freedom is wireless.
Local (ie, 802.11), mid-range (city wide, say 100 kilometers),
and long range bridging cities.
With no centralized control (choke) points whatsoever.
Anything else is just allowing the darkside to control.
It's World War 3 folks, most of you don't see the attack.
Will Homo Sapiens become enlightened, or destr
Re: (Score:1)
Is there some way to embed a password in a document so as to bring down the FCC?
Your far superior literacy stupifies me. What it most obviously means is that if you have a password protected file it cannot be accepted because, zoink, they cannot read it because, holy cheese, it's password protected.
However, the rest of your ridiculing I agree with.
Politicos..... (Score:1)
People should know this already: It doesn't matter how correct you are; It's how deep your pockets are.
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbyists are constantly telling politicians what they think, and if we aren't doing the same, then these congresscritters will just assume that what we want is what they're being told.
There's no competition to the telcos today (Score:1)
Usolicited Props for my ISP (Score:1)
My Submission (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me give an example. In the early days of the World Wide Web, the typical content we had was static pages with maybe an image or two. Network performance continued to be upgraded, however, and as t
Direct Link to FCC (Score:2)
Yay or Nay (Score:1)
More than likely you're going to see your representative trying to saying the masses want to hear.
Joe Sixpack doesn't care about this subject. That's right, who the fuck cares.
Your average citizen won't care/know what's going on. Ignorance is bliss! Haven't you heard?
What do politicians/bureaucrats know anyway?
Oh God, the world's coming to an end
Here we go! (Score:1)
Slashdotters, what are you made of!?
Net Neutrality.
Last stance!?
Show them the power of the internet!
important link (Score:1)
waste of time (Score:2)
* http://www.google.com/search?q=at%26t+wiretapping [google.com]
Dangerously Close To Tubes (Score:2)
I think losing net neutrality is something like this: imagine that you pay for overnight shipping at the post office, but then it doesn't get there until a day later because you didn't also pay off the postman on the other end. Without net neutrality, that's pretty much how it will work, right?
Cheers.
THIS WAS MY COMMENT -- WHAT'S YOURS? (Score:1)
Due to all the hype and attempts by both sides to sway opinion through
nearly deceptive means, I am not certain what the term "Net-Neutrality"
actually means as defined by any of the factions. However, to state it
clearly, I am FOR preserving the Internet as a SINGLE-TIERED level of
service by anybody who is able to provide it, AND that there should
be NO CONSIDERATIONS whether financial or otherwise, relating to how
traffic is directed. All users of the Internet should have equal
access to the various s
Re:Net neutrality ? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, as we all know, neither Iraq nor Africa are being ignored.
I always hate these types of arguments. They rely on the assumption that any person, government, or whatever else can only do one thing at a time and that all energy and monies are poured into that one thing.
In truth, however, this particular issue is one of importance to many Americans, and therefore it seems appropriate that the government would take it up.
Could someone post a link to the place where we can submit a comment (I mean, other than Slashdot. I don't think the government takes official notice of Slashdot comments).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Go here [fcc.gov] (link from TFA). Here's what I wrote:
As a technology professional, I earn my entire income from creating
pages and applications on the Internet. The Internet has equalized
my range of opportunities with people all over the world. I can live
in the city where I grew up and work for any company in the world.
This is possible because of the open, non-proprietary nature of the
Internet. On the web, a huge corporation and a single person