How Washington Will Shape the Internet 373
WebHostingGuy writes "As reported by MSNBC, 'The most potent force shaping the future of the Internet is neither Mountain View's Googleplex nor the Microsoft campus in Redmond. It's rather a small army of Gucci-shod lobbyists on Washington's K Street and the powerful legislators whose favor they curry.' The article examines several pieces of legislation and lobbying initiatives which are poised to affect you and your rights online. Topics covered include Net Neutrality, fiber to the home, the Universal Service Fund, codecs, and WiFi bandwidth usage." From the article: "After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet — big time. And the decisions being made over the next few months will impact not just the future of the Web, but that of mass media and consumer electronics as well. Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace."
Flag Burning (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's too cynical to say that's probably intentional. Flag burning seems to be one of those hot-button issues that conservative politicians trot out when they want to (a) drum up votes or (b) distract people from other issues. (Liberals have their own hot-button issues, though these days the conservatives seem to be punching them just fine from the other side.)
Inside perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Corollary #14 to Clarke's Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Can you please give me an example of a technology NOT vulnerable to governmental interference? It's nice to drop out one liners like that, except when they have no cover whatsoever. If government wants to get involved and regulate a tech field, chance are it will. On my side, I'd rather see a split internet then face regulations imposed by the US on a global network.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Congress...peh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, who do we have to vote in? (That are actually any better, that is.)
Crap attempt to change the world. "No Limit" Label (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Intarwebs (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the government can't allow just anyone to use the Internet's "tubes" now can they? They might put yucky things like real news and detailed information about the behind-the-scenes fleecing of American citizens by Congress in the "tubes" and then where would we be?
Listen to the people who make the tech (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Perrilous time... (Score:1, Interesting)
as long as the internet still works using open standards and protocols, the government can't screw it up.
i don't even think "net neutrality" can screw it up either. i mean if the telephone companies want to make enemies out of their biggest customers, let them. i suspect that microsoft/google/amazon/etc won't take it lying down, and the end result will be more competition, or those companies will find a way to cut the telephone companies out of the picture.
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:2, Interesting)
Why/How would a change towards civil liberties and personal freedoms make things worse? We've been failing with the two party system for quite some time now, why can't we just try something different? It can't get much worse at this point.
I feel wierd saying it, but I'm not proud to be an American right now, I'm embarassed. I love this country and its people. I am very thankful for the oppurtunities that this country has provided me. I feel very lucky to have been born here. However, our government and political systems are no longer fighting "for the people".
Net neutrality is NOT about "who bears the costs"! (Score:2, Interesting)
As I've documented elsewhere -- I hope convincingly (http://www.monashreport.com/category/public-poli
* Telcos get to charge for QOS
* Consumers may have to pay for QOS
* Information providers can subsidize consumers' QOS payments
* Even so, there is very little risk of information providers being discriminated against by telcos
In fact, it's a really simple to design such a system conceptually (http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/26/simple-le
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, yes and yes.
Why/How would a change towards civil liberties and personal freedoms make things worse? We've been failing with the two party system for quite some time now, why can't we just try something different? It can't get much worse at this point.
I apologize to the poster for speaking for them, but I believe their point was there was no way to move towards civil liberties. In order to make those changes that would move us towards more civil liberties and personal freedom, we'd have to already be at that point. As long as there's a concentration of wealth and power working against civil liberties, you'll never have them.
I feel wierd saying it, but I'm not proud to be an American right now, I'm embarassed. I love this country and its people. I am very thankful for the oppurtunities that this country has provided me. I feel very lucky to have been born here. However, our government and political systems are no longer fighting "for the people"
Don't worry, it's happening everywhere in small doses, it's just the people in those other countries don't see it yet. My plan had been to flee to Canada, but they just "elected" a conservative government (I quoted it because I believe we "elected" a conservative government in this country about as much as I believe in Micheal Jackson or OJ Simpson's innocence) and immediately we see major "terrorist plots" being exposed all over the place. The call for a "war on terror" won't be far behind. In fact, the rumblings are already beginning. They've got some great freedoms up north...for the moment. Same's happening everywhere, very slowly. We're moving to a single world government, which wouldn't be such a bad thing...if it weren't for the fact that it's going to be more of the same.
Paranoid? Yes. Does that make it untrue? Not, neccessarily.
Re:Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all. The market has three components.
Well, I suppose we could break this up any number of ways, and there is a lot of overlap in any classification. Lets just agree that some of the market (peering arrangements) looks like a poster child for free markets, while others, customer edge, are monopolized all to hell.
As I understand it, traffic billing from one backbone to another is based on the balance of incoming versus outgoing connections.
Actually is priced by transit (traffic from a peer going to another peer), customer (traffic from a customer to a peer), and peer (from a peer to a customer). This is a bit of an oversimplification, but still.
The solution proposed by largely end-user ISPs is that they should be able to charge the content providers themselves for preferential access to their users, and that companies that didn't pay would get lower speed access. You will note that those content providers are not customers of those ISPs. They are customers of a different ISP that peers with a backbone provider, which in turn peers with those ISPs. You should quickly see why this is silly.
If this were the case, it would be a problem, given that there is no free market and most end users can't switch to a provider that does not break their connection to Google but not Yahoo. The real problem, however, is more serious yet. It is not just the customer edge providers, but intermediate peers with whom neither the customer or content provider or even anyone they directly peer with has any business relationship. Say you go through 8 companies' networks to get your traffic from Google. While all 8 have peering agreements, the people being gouged have numerous intermediary companies between them. As a result, the market cannot effectively act. Further, these companies are not upholding their half of the common carrier bargain they made with the government. They are trying to do what amounts to differential pricing. They are slowing some packets, otherwise indistinguishable from all the others, in order to gouge richer or more needy end users/content providers.
My favorite analogy is: Dear sir. We were happy to hear that you have lost a loved one. Since we know you need to get in contact with your lawyer and your loved ones during this time of grief, we've decided to make sure none of your calls make it through our network until you pay us $500. Sincerely, the Plains area phone company with who you have no relationship but who Verizon routes your calls through.
We don't except this crap from anyone else who is a common carrier and we sure as hell shouldn't let the internet network operators get away with it. Routing different types of traffic at different prices is one thing, but routing the same traffic from different people at different prices is simply price gouging.
The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here comes the internet license. (Score:5, Interesting)
Greens share those values. Without throwing us all to the wolves for the sake of "indvidual freedom".
You may not like the idea, but you don't get to just do whatever you feel like because, believe or not, your actions do sometimes affect other people. EVEN MORE SO, if you're rich and powerful. Then we REALLY need to watch you. Because then, as a private individual, you have the ability to do a whole lot of damage to people in all kinds of ways that are not "direct victim crimes". Say, buying all the companies in an area and dropping wages. Sure, some might move. But many won't. And you win.
People have only two possibilities for fighting power if they themselves don't have the resources. Democratic rule, or revolution.
If you cripple democratic rule to dissallow the right of a community to establish its own codes of conduct, including some encroachments into your personal freedoms, then eventually, people have to take option number two.
I'm all about civil liberties. Do what you wilt and all that. But, sometimes there do have to be limits. I'm personally pretty glad that you have to learn a few things to drive a car, for example. It may not be ultimate freedom, but it's pretty freaking prudent.
"Conservative" (Score:3, Interesting)
What is our "conservative government" conserving?
Certainly not conserving natural resources - nothing conservationist about them.
Certainly not "sound fiscal policy" or keeping a balanced budget.
Certainly not conservative, in the sense of tried-and-true, time tested policies and practices that work.
As far as I can see, todays "conservatives" are really conserving a few key things:
Their wealth
Their power
Their authority
and not much else.
I had an epiphany the other day, courtesy of Branjolina, of all people.
They talked about famine and disease in Africa, and all the things that we could be doing with the money that we are spending on Iraq. At that point I realized... A big part of the reason we're in Iraq is to PREVENT money from being spent on those other things. The war in Iraq does many things that a myopic/incompetent policy-maker would like:
It makes the current administration a "wartime government," with its attendent ease in elections and power grabs.
It prevents government funds from being spent on "frivolous things" that a proper "conservative" government shouldn't be doing.
It funnels government funds to "the right people" through contracts, weapons replacment, etc. How much of the $4e11 is really soldiers' pay, and how much is contracts? I'll be the lion's share is in the contracts.
It helps make a boogie-man, giving authority figures someone to promote hatred toward, to help keep their power.
Re:Let me hazard a wild wild guess... (Score:3, Interesting)
Washington can do whatever it wants to servers, bandwidth, and access within the USA. I don't give a shit, because -- like most of the human race -- I don't live there.
Re:Smell this coming for years now (Score:3, Interesting)