Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Not a good move (Score 2) 134

"We have a complicated relationship to it. We believe in net neutrality in America," said Gayle Karen Young, chief culture and talent officer at the Wikimedia Foundation. But, Young added, offering Wikipedia Zero requires a different perspective elsewhere. "Partnering with telecom companies in the near term, it blurs the net neutrality line in those areas. It fulfills our overall mission, though, which is providing free knowledge."

Wikipedia supports net neutrality in US, if you RTFA. Just not in other places around the world if they can get exemption from data caps. It implies that they are single mindedly pursuing the goal of making their information available with lack of concern for what fundamental principles they are supporting or opposing.

I'm an annual donor to Wikipedia because I want to support their work. But this "me first, fuck everyone else" mentality has to go. If you want to reap benefits of a civilized society, you need to have civilization including rules that treat everyone fairly all the time, not just when it benefits them.

So, for me, this year I may pass on them and give the money set aside to another organization that perhaps pursues the public good a bit less recklessly.

Comment Re:Why not both? (Score 1) 270

McMillen says that not only have the large content providers already had preferential bandwidth for ten years, but that by now this has become an inherent part of the structure of the Internet and in practice cannot be changed.

Everything is *always* in a state of change. Bad argument made by McMillen. There are many ISPs who don't have prioritized access for Google/companyx. Comcast/Verizon/ATT operate only within US, their prioritized access model does not exist the rest of the internet world.

When a journalist writes such poor quality articles you kinda do have to wonder about their motivations ($$$) as well as of their publishing company who approves it for publication.

Comment Re:Classify net access as a utility? (Score 5, Interesting) 343

Perhaps a more ideal solution would be for end-users to own the last mile of fiber (maybe as a municipality tax?). That way, ISPs could feed into a local hub.

It would lower costs to entry significantly, allowing small start-ups to provide internet much in the same way that dial-up ISPs did.

Also, I think that bringing competition in his way would take away a lot of power that Verizon/Comcast/[insert major cabelco/telco] have. In this situation, net neutrality is almost inevitable as a byproduct of end-user demand, regardless of which corrupt FCC chairman is in power. Net neutrality is almost certain to create more competition among major TV/news networks, which takes away power from the likes of CNN/FOX/Msnbc/CBS/etc who currently dictate the course of conversation in this otherwise great nation.

Comment Re:Better service though... (Score 4, Insightful) 286

I finally cut the cord last month. I missed TV for the first week, but since then it has turned into a very liberating experience. Now when I come home from work, I have time left to do other things, including chatting with friends and family, working out, volunteering, and becoming more politically active :-) You could not pay me to go back to cable.

Comment Need for long-term view of society (Score 5, Insightful) 516

I hope that Mr. Gates sees that 'software replacing humans' even if accelerates is a problem only in the current model of capitalistic society. In this capitalistic society, humans have to compete with automation and software. We do have the resources to feed, clothe and shelter everyone on this planet. I think it's time to start talking about moving past a capitalistic economy. Otherwise, in search of never ending profits, we will destroy the people and environment around us.

Comment Inherent in nature (Score 0) 247

The goal of a corporation is to maximize profit at whatever cost to anyone else. The goal of a democratic government is to maximize the population's well being. The two are fundamentally opposed to each other by their very basic nature. But if you let the government run by people with a corporate mindset then it stops doing the job it was expected to do.

Comment Re:Netflix should know better (Score 1) 289

Cogent has a long history of instigating peering disputes with other networks. Normally I'd complain about Verizon's behavior but this is Cogent we're talking about. They have -zero- credibility.

I agree that Cogent is no saint, but the argument falls against Verizon here.

Verizon has a responsibility to the paying customer that Verizon do whatever peering is needed to deliver promised bandwidth. Why else does the customer pay Verizon - it's certainly not for access to Verizon's internal network. Granted, Verizon can't afford to peer with every mom-and-pop streaming service, but reasonable to expect peering with Cogent/Netflix when 30% of traffic on the internet is netflix. That's why an ISP is charges the end-user.

Now Verizon, being a near monopoly like Comcast, decides that it has leverage to double-dip. Verizon has a competing service in Redbox Instant, and it certainly is to Verizon's benefit that their competitor Netflix suffers. Proof is in that netflix has offered to put servers on Verizon's internal networks but Verizon is asking 10x the going rate. In other words, Verizon is trying to either a) extract exorbitant money from a competitor or b) degrade the competitor's service. Note, that other ISPs like TWC or google fiber or GreenLight don't seem to be having a problem, just Verizon.

This is why folks, it's an issue of principles of net neutrality and that monopolies should be tightly regulated (deliver traffic only, not content). To avoid conflicts of interest that result in harm to the end-user.

I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay. -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.