Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet United States

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Net Neutrality Comment Period Ends Friday

Comments Filter:
  • by FreeKill ( 1020271 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @08:47PM (#19514495) Homepage
    No matter how hard we want to fight against it, net neutrality will eventually fall. The big providers want it to happen and the big content providers are not making a big enough stink about it to really rally the people against it. One of these days legislation will simply slip in, and then everyone on will really regret not taking more action when we had the chance. Kind of like the situation with Global Warming is going to be :)
    • by cybermage ( 112274 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @08:58PM (#19514547) Homepage Journal
      One of these days legislation will simply slip in, and then everyone on will really regret not taking more action when we had the chance.

      You have that backwards. Without some legislation, they can destroy net neutrality as soon as it suits them.
    • I think more than likely, if legislation "slips in" it will be to keep the net neutral. The internet providers don't need legislation to allow them to discriminate.
    • by jack455 ( 748443 )
      Hopefully others will submit comments. Here's what I sent:

      "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
    • by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @10:58PM (#19515291) Journal
      All you have to do is write a letter to your congress critter saying.

      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. /end letter.

      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.

        • Actually, it DOES make a difference.

          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
        • You gotta be crass on these things. Your have to let the congress critter know your position and that he would have trouble running for the job of town dog catcher if he stands a certain way. And you need to inform them of this without giving them the impression that you would like it to be that way anyways if you want them to pay attention.

          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
    • "No matter how hard we want to fight against it, net neutrality will eventually fall."

      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)

    I still believe we'll all be better off the more we can keep government out of it. Corporations can be dealt with by voting with your wallet, but the more the government sticks its nose in, the more government will stick its nose in.
    • Re:Government (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lostlyre ( 774960 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @08:54PM (#19514525)
      Except when you have no other competing corporation to give your business. Oh well. Who needs the internet anyway?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gyga ( 873992 )
      Except in monopolies when you have no choice to vote with your wallet.
      • by darjen ( 879890 )

        Except in monopolies when you have no choice to vote with your wallet.
        And what exactly do you think the government is, if not a big fat monopoly?
    • Re:Government (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daeg ( 828071 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @09:15PM (#19514647)
      Fact 1. Telcos rely almost entirely on public easements to run their business.
      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.
      • Duh? Yeah, you'd think it would be obvious that our telecom and other communication networks are just as much a shared common infrastructure as are our roads, right? We don't allow the builders of our roads to retain ownership of the sections they build, do we? Why is the telecom network and Internet are so much different?

        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
      • by TypeMRT ( 678353 )
        Sorry, but your government sold you out a long time ago when they entered into franchise agreements with the telcos. Typical agreements have service level agreements (SLA) don't say much about customer satisfaction or fairness. However they do typically include revenue sharing for the municipality.

        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)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @09:19PM (#19514673)

      I still believe we'll all be better off the more we can keep government out of it.
      Correct. First I would like to see these reforms:
      1. No tax breaks or other governemtn guaranteed incentives for telecom providers
      2. No government granting of exclusionary/preferential franchising of certain areas to telecom providers
      3. 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?
    • by Nymz ( 905908 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @09:23PM (#19514699) Journal
      I agree with your statement that more government regulation will only lead to more government regulation. But in this type of case, the ISPs are being granted limited monopolies, so regulations (Net Neutrality) must accompany those monopolies in order to prevent abuse.

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How exactly am I supposed to vote with my wallet in a field with so little competition. The only real options for high speed internet around here are Comcast cable and Verizon DSL, both these companies have taken a stance against net neutrality. So what am I supposed to do? I can't very well do without an internet connection, dial up is too slow and buying a dedicated line (i.e. T1, T3, etc.) is far too expensive.

      I understand your point feelings about government regulations, but really I just don't think t
    • Re:Government (Score:4, Informative)

      by hxnwix ( 652290 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @10:47PM (#19515231) Journal
      Some very powerful people agree with you, but you don't have to take my word for it. Let's ask what Ed Whitacre, the last CEO of AT&T, our favorite past and future monopoly, what he has to say. [savetheinternet.com] Ed?

      There's a problem. It's called Net Neutrality... Well, frankly, we say to hell with that. We're gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission... Will Congress let us do it? You bet they will -- cuz we don't call it cashin' in. We call it 'deregulation.'
      Well, thanks Ed. You make your intentions very clear. And to Mr. The AtomicPunk, I hope you understand just what you are advocating and just who you are supporting. It is true that we have bad laws and bad regulation - but net nuetrality probably isn't one of them. If the internet is in fact broken, AT&T can go start their own pay-per-bit competitor and we'll all have to use it since it would be so much better.

      You could vote with your wallet and go use it.
      • Note to those of you taking the parent at face value: The linked article leads to a YouTube video parodying the AT&T executives. To my knowledge, the real Ed Whitacre never actually said the quoted text.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sumdumass ( 711423 )
      This isn't neccesarily something you can "vote with your wallet".

      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
    • So why did the gov't break up AT&T? Wasn't the monopoly and thus the breakup a result of the gov't putting its nose in the telecom business? Regulated monopoly or so-called "deregulated" market still equals the same thing: government-backed industry regulation. I lean libertarian (I am not a Libertarian Party advocate by any means), but in the case of telecom, the gov't simply can't stand aside. We would be back to a bunch of competing AOL's that crappily connect to each other instead of an open Int
    • by Tancred ( 3904 )
      Sounds like one of those Republican talking points - government is bad, and we'll show you just how bad. Do you like the Internet? Do you understand how radically different it would be if there had never been network neutrality? Maybe we'd all be on something like Compuserve, or AOL with only their own content.
  • by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @08:55PM (#19514529)
    Particularly this comment on the Wired blog

    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 ,WITH A PACK OF MORONS FOR SOME BIG TELECOM WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND VERY LARGE LEGAL STAFFS :; TELLING ME AND EVERY OTHER CONSUMER HOW TO READ, WRITE and SPEAK!
    IS THIS FASCISM? OR TOTALITARIAN
    • It sounds coherent up to the "bundles" part, though--after all, anyone who's signed up for a Double/Triple/n-tuple Play has probably contracted away their rights to protest all the packet shaping and net-neutrality intrusion (if not their soul...).
    • Yeah, when I saw that letter I thought to myself "this guy sure is atherosclerosis on the series of tubes, isn't he?" And it kind of pains me to be anywhere near the same side as this Grade A certifiable nut-case, but then that's what public comments are all about.

      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

  • After Friday, if I tell them my opinion, what will they do to me?
    • Same thing they'll do to you if you say something before Friday - ignore you because you don't contribute obscene amounts to their campaign funds...
      • You right that it is about campaigns. I think this particular situation isn't directly about funds though. Google or Yahoo or whoever can has a large website can paste a Giant Sign in their home page saying If this site seems slower then your normal connection it is because the government decided to get rid of the net neutrality which now allows your ISP or a partner of your ISP to slow the sites you visit down if an extra payment hasn't been paid. Because of this action, your ISP is now legally allowed to
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by darjen ( 879890 )
      Ship you off to gitmo?
  • My Post to the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @09:05PM (#19514585) Journal
    Airwaves belong to everyone. Although transmission is regulated,
    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)

      by lostlyre ( 774960 )
      While I agree with your position, you should remember that the airwaves are a public space, therefore it is regulated by the public domain. The internet is carried by interconnected *private* machinery and is therefore not subject to the same principles. So too is it thus with telephone and other utilities. That's not to say I think it should be no-holds barred. I myself think that the internet should be neutral for the simple fact that it can be useful [and sometimes critical] to just about everyone. And l
      • by mcrbids ( 148650 )
        The internet is carried by interconnected *private* machinery and is therefore not subject to the same principles.

        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
        • Thanks for the reply.

          Because... why?

          ...

          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.

          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)

      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.

      Unfortunately, we are selling our roads [wnd.com] too. Welcome to America.

    • 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

    • Here's my post. I encourage everyone to POST THEIR THOUGHTS TO THE FCC!!

      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
    • Net Neutrality is essential to prevent Internet Service Providers
      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
  • by genrader ( 563784 )
    I am against 100% all government economic intervention. It is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and economically bad. Read von Mises.
    • by QCompson ( 675963 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @09:34PM (#19514755)

      I am against 100% all government economic intervention. It is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and economically bad.

      Unnecessary? Do large corporations have such a good track record that you trust them implicitly?

      Unconstitutional? See the commerce clause.
    • by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      the government already grants the providers license to put their infrastructure on public property
    • In that case, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. I might have sold it to some other people too, but none of you will find that out until later. Oh, so you do want government intervention in economic activity? What makes fraud so special? It's just another way of ripping one another off, after all.
    • The water provided to my town is offered by a company that goes by the name of "United Water Suez," A subsidiary of Sues, a company based in France. They had gained a majority of the stock in Argentina in order to become the water utility there as well, but at least the Argentinian government was wise enough to kick them out [larouchepub.com]. The quality of their service is piss-poor. The water tastes like it is pumped out of a swimming pool made for kids undergoing potty training. Since there is only one water pipe tha
    • I am against 100% all government economic intervention. ...says the person who never lived in a wholly unregulated state. How easy it is to pine for the days of before government intervention, when robber barons roamed free and the poor lived and died in the streets in droves and turned to crime.

      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.
    • 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!

  • by toddhunter ( 659837 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @09:26PM (#19514713)
    I'm sure that will look really important next to the millions of dollars already in there...
    • by Arccot ( 1115809 )
      If you give up on a government, the government gives up on you. That's how it works.

      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.

  • Aside from setting precedence if it passes, how will this affect other countries?
  • why they won't lose their common carrier status if they start discriminating between different types of traffic ?
  • my submission (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Thursday June 14, 2007 @09:52PM (#19514871) Homepage
    I have a proposal for a fair solution to this problem of net
    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.
    • My goodness, that actually sounds like a reasonable solution!!!

      Funny, my captcha is "investor" on this post...
      • This is actually the FCC chairmans position. HE said he wasn't against allowing the telcos to increase fees as long as there is a way to guarantee consumers get what they pay for.

        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
  • I remember reading a comment by someone on slashdot about this subject previously, and I can see the logic in his reasoning. He basically said that this whole "net neutrality" thing would actually be a very bad thing to the ISP's. The reason being.. is that other ISPs and content providers will show up advertising that they DO NOT control how your service is delivered, making people switch to those provider who do not shape your bandwidth. Eventually those ISPs who wish to impose their rules on you will be
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      ...and those ISPs will have to control every hop between end users and customers. At some point, an ISP will interface with another that charges extra, and those charges will have to be passed down the chain.
  • Because the 'debate' has been cast in false frame of reference (arguing whether to "keep net neutrality", while defining the term as a function of content), the networks win, and win big. Basically, they'll get the ability to control/tax most/all portions of the economy of which Internet is a part. This means stupid profit, at our expense, and I'm looking to invest in the players to recoup my losses in some way.

    So, who are the players nowadays? I haven't kept track, although I figure Quest is still aroun
    • by biscon ( 942763 )
      Good thing you can afford to invest, others might not be so lucky.
      besides it smells to me like the old:

      "if you can't beat 'em, join em'" argument.

      Which imho is immoral.

  • Why is Friday the last day to comment to the FCC on this? Is this just a precursor for preliminary hearings on net neutrality? For an issue so important to the preservation of everyday communication, I am surprised this deadline hasn't received a lot more exposure than this. Then again, the majority of the 1996 Telecom Act received minimal exposure in the media (except for the V-Chip and TV Rating amendments), so maybe I shouldn't be too surprised...
  • However, your filing will be rejected by ECFS if it contains macros, passwords, redlining, read-only formatting, a virus or automated links to source documents that is not included with your filing.

    "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?

    • 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?
      drop database;
      • Well, that's two words and a punctuation character.

        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
    • 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.

  • Does it even matter to politicians what people say? I mean, come on. Comment Period? Do you actually think that the people who make the decisions actually give a damn what you think?

    People should know this already: It doesn't matter how correct you are; It's how deep your pockets are.
    • by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
      Well, they don't seem to give a damn what you think if you never tell them what you think. They're not mind-readers...

      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.
  • Today there's no competition. All the telcos and providers merged and in my residence there's only one Cable TV provider and only one land line provider (not counting VOIP). This also means there's little broadband competition. You can say one can get any DSL provider over my land line, but look at the price tag? They're paying premium to be carried over because the Telco won't allow them to compete against their own DSL service. Then there are the new services, broadband over the cell phone, satellite, but
    • Mesa Networks in Colorado. Great service, they use microwave and RF for service over Motorola equipment. The only issues I ever had were immediately after they bought another company in Southern Colorado they were constantly updating their DNS servers so if you were using them you couldn't connect to sites, and they had a port that my VPN to work uses blocked due to a worm that was using the same. A quick call took care of that. They don't block ports outside of those being used by malware that is currently
  • My Submission (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Crazy Taco ( 1083423 )
    I want to go on record as being very much in favor of Net neutrality. As a computer engineer/computer science graduate who makes my living programming web applications, I can say with certainty that allowing the ISPs to create tiered models of services would destroy the ability of myself and others to innovate.

    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
  • The way it comes down to, in my opinion, it's either someone knows what their talking about (pfft, slim to none) or they're just talking our of their ass.

    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

  • It's so or die.

    Slashdotters, what are you made of!?

    Net Neutrality.

    Last stance!?

    Show them the power of the internet!

  • SaveTheInternet.com [savetheinternet.com]
  • If you haven't figured it out by now, the US government is going to do whatever it wants* anyway. The one with the most money wins. That's the way it works.

    * http://www.google.com/search?q=at%26t+wiretapping [google.com]
  • I've been trying to think of a reasonably accurate way to explain it to laypeople.

    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.
  • Dear Sirs:

    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

Ever notice that even the busiest people are never too busy to tell you just how busy they are?

Working...