Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Tech Manufacturers Rally Against Net Neutrality 222

An anonymous reader writes "Producers of networking hardware such as Motorola, Corning, and Tyco have come out against Net Neutrality. They support the current senate communications bill, and urge immediate action. 'Don't be confused by these spurious complaints about Net neutrality,' Tim Regan, a vice president with fiber optic cable manufacturer Corning Inc., said. 'Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.'" From the article: "Supporters say the Senate measure, which was approved by a committee vote in June but has since gotten hung up chiefly over Net neutrality, is crucial because it would make it easier for new video service providers--such as telephone companies hoping to roll out IPTV--to enter the market, increase competition for cable, and thus spur lower prices. Among other benefits, they say, it would also permit municipalities to offer their own broadband services."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Manufacturers Rally Against Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • Re:you know (Score:4, Informative)

    by Otter Escaping North ( 945051 ) <> on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:01PM (#16155225) Journal

    Oh for goodness sake... []

  • Re:you know (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:07PM (#16155301)
    I don't know, that link probably contains information that is beyond parent's level of apparent comprehension. Better start him out with more fundamental information and let him work his way up.

    The Internet []
  • Re:you know (Score:5, Informative)

    by chrismcdirty ( 677039 ) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:17PM (#16155408) Homepage
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Net Neutrality brought about in response to the major ISPs wanting to charge hosts to get their traffic to the consumer at the highest speed possible, thus making it improbable that hosts who don't pay would get good transfer rates?
  • Re:you know (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bryansix ( 761547 ) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:39PM (#16155576) Homepage
    Uhm, everyone got concerned when [I]n a Nov. 7 interview with BusinessWeek Online, AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre Jr. declared: "What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that." Whitacre and AT&T argue that they need flexibility to exact a toll from Web services that hog bandwidth."

    This is a good read on the subject and my source for the quote. utrality-and-the-co_b_19056.html []
  • by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @02:44PM (#16155614)
    What a crock!

    Motorola and Corning have Verizon as a huge customer. Of course they don't want Net Neutrality if Verizon doesn't!!!

  • by SydShamino ( 547793 ) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @03:17PM (#16155905)
    We should start to use "Network Equality" or "Data Non-Discrimination" instead.

    Those are awful names. They don't apply at all.

    Nothing about net neutrality should limit traffic shaping based on data type. The name "data non-discrimination" makes it sound like it forces ISPs to treat HTML traffic the same way as VOIP traffic, or bittorrent traffic. That is bad ISP policy and bad network design.

    Instead, net neutrality is about ISPs treating all traffic of the same type the same way, regardless of source. VOIP on Roadrunner cable from Vonage should get the same bandwidth as VOIP from Time Warner's phone service. The alternative - Time Warner throttling competitors to push its own service - is what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.

    So, name it net vendor neutrality, if necessary.
  • by painQuin ( 626852 ) <> on Thursday September 21, 2006 @03:29PM (#16156030) Homepage
    I use Comcast - why?
    is it because of their speed? 6mbps on a device that should be able to do 140 or something? nope.
    is it because of service? roughly 10% downtime a year... nope.
    or is it because my only other option is dialup... yeah, that was it.
  • Whitacre is a Liar (Score:5, Informative)

    by queenb**ch ( 446380 ) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @03:35PM (#16156079) Homepage Journal

    What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that."

    I can tell you that Google, Vonage and everyone else who has a web presence out there already pays a bill. They're already paying to make sure that their packets get where they're going. How is it the consumers fault that AT&T can't work out a profitable peering agreement with Google's bandwith provider? I can tell you why they can't! Too many AT&T customers sending email, visiting site, etc. that aren't on AT&T's network. Since they can't keep their customers on their own network, they have agreements that let them swap traffic "for free". For example, AT&T swaps with C&W so that everyone stays connected, all the email gets through, and we can all surf where we want. What they really want to do away with is the peering agreements. They're all trying to move to an AOL-ish model where you keep your customers on your 'net and just call it "the internet", even though it's really only sites that are either hosted or cached on their network. Man, this makes the Chinese goverment look like a bunch of role models instead of the censors that they really are.

    Well, I don't want anyone telling me "You've got mail!" I want a real internet connection.

    I pay my bill to Verizon for a screaming fast 7MB/sec FIOSS connection. If I want to host, which is against my AUP, but I never put up anything that sucks up too much bandwidth, so they've never complained. Still, it is bandwidth that I purchase from my provider. I want to go where I want and do what I want on 'net without some damn pop up saying "Google is over it's service limit with Verizon and so your access to this site is temporarily blocked." If Verizon tries it, I'll be going back to my own T1 with an indie carrier. If the indie carrier tries it, so help me, I'll start my own wireless 'net replacement, invite everyone to join me, and make rude hand gestures at the big boys like AT&T, C&W, etc.

    If you don't like this legislation, write your congressman [] or your sentor [] and tell them to get their 90 year old heads out of the sand before it's too late.

    2 cents,


  • Re:you know (Score:3, Informative)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @03:39PM (#16156129) Homepage
    Not exactly. Network neutrality has been around for a long time, however the term "network neutrality" is new.

    Net neutrality has existed ever since the dawn of the Internet, but it was called the common carrier laws [] and it originally applied to carriers of parcels as well as telecom companies. Since Internet was run over telephone lines, common carrier laws provided neutrality until the August 2005 changes that states that internet services are not telecom services. Simultaneously, the FCC added a series of network neutrality regulations [] that are not as strong as the original common carrier laws.

    Really, this is about reinstating the network neutrality laws that we already had.
  • by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @04:09PM (#16156408)
    Now is the time for /.ers and anyone else who favors Net Neutrality to Speak Out While it would be nice to sit back and let google fight the fioght for us that is not how this works. If we want something done, if we want to live in a democracy, we have to take action. Action does not mean posting on /. or angrily croaking amongst ourselves while the water boils. It means speaking to others, explaining net-neutrality to our neighbors and *gasp* taking a hand in politics.

    Here's how:
    1. Prepare yourself by:
      1. Familiarize youselves with the issues at hand. Wikipedia has a good piece [] on the topic.
      2. Identify the specific legislation at issue, in this case the major bill in question is (I believe) S 2686 [] brought to you by Senators Ted (Tube boy) Stevens [] and Daniel Inouye []. Ted has been in office for 37 years and Daniel for 43. Daniel is not the longest serving senator. Do not be fooled by the erroneous wikipedia entry stating that the bill was defeated by the Senate Commerce and Science Committee. Stevens and Inouye head that committee.
      3. You should also note the other relevant legislation [] especially the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (HR 5417) [] and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S2917) []
    2. Then:
      1. Contact your Senator and ask them where they stand on Net neutrality as you do explain why neutrality is a good thing and why they should support it (see below). You can identify them online []. You can contact them via e-mail, smail mail, fax, or by telephone. I myself favor the phone followed up by a letter. Over the phone you can ask questions and get more info.
      2. Contact your House Representative [] . Although this is a senate bill there is a house bill (H5417 above) on this issue and they had better support it.
      3. Write a letter to your local paper. It is a truism that most people in the world do not read /. Many of those people get their opinion fodder from the local newspaper, and more people read the letters to the editor than any other part of the paper. This can likely be done via e-mail and can sway a lot of minds if done right. Those minds can then in turn act for net neutrality.
      4. Tell other people. Surely you know at least one other person who hasn't heard about this threat to their ability to do business and/or just do what they want online as they always have. This person may be friends, family, coworkers, etc. It doesn't matter just tell them.
      5. Repeat the above steps as often as possible.

      In all cases be clear, firm, and polite. Net neutrality is important. Make it clear to any elected official that you will vote based upon their stance and donate money accordingly. You get bonus points if they are up for election this year (Senate []).

      Keep in mind that you will probably not reach them directly. Most likely your call or letter will be directed to an aide. That aide's job is to tell the individual what to think about an issue. The aide will be loyal to their boss but may be more easy to sway (they don't have to appear omnicient). If you make it clear to them why neutrality is important and why a non-neutral internet will cost them then you can get somewhere.

      This tone also goes for letters and for the public.

  • Re:Google? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tancred ( 3904 ) on Thursday September 21, 2006 @06:03PM (#16157323)
    Good question - yes, they can get around a bad Backbone C. But without network neutrality, the ones that are going to throttle every last dollar they can from their network are the ones controlling the "last mile" to your house - the cable and local telco companies. Google can't get around them without running that fiber to everyone's house - or wirelessly, as they plan to do in the SF area.

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle