Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Offers FCC a Net Neutrality Plan With a Twist

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the how-about-this? dept.

United States 123

An anonymous reader writes "The Mozilla Foundation is filing a petition asking the FCC to declare that ISPs are common carriers, with a twist. 'The FCC doesn't have to reclassify the Internet access ISPs offer consumers as a telecommunications service subject to common carrier regulations under Title II of the Communications Act, Mozilla says. Instead, the FCC should target the service ISPs offer to edge providers like Netflix and Dropbox, who need to send their bits over ISP networks to reach their customers. Classifying the ISP/edge provider relationship as a common carrier service will be a little cleaner since the FCC wouldn't have to undo several decade-old orders that classified broadband as an "information" service rather than telecommunications, Mozilla argues.'" Here's the Mozilla blog post and the 13-page petition.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Piss off (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920441)

Faggots

Re:Piss off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921045)

Hope you don't work at Mozilla or prepare yourself for the fanny bandits trying to get you fired.

Isn't this just "implement Squid"? (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about 7 months ago | (#46920453)

Squid seems buried in a lot of products these days... and the key concept here is that data that needs to go to many people is best placed close to the users. If you can send it once per city to the a hub in each city, when the users want it they get it much faster and better.

Re:Isn't this just "implement Squid"? (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#46920581)

There's DRM attached: each stream is encrypted differently.

Re:Isn't this just "implement Squid"? (4, Informative)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 7 months ago | (#46920859)

ISP's have offered co-location to corporations for years. It's just now that a corporation (Netflix) is competing with another service the ISP in question sells they tell them no and jack up the price of entry. DRM would be on Netflix's server inside of the ISP's data farm just as secure as if it was in their own.

Re: Isn't this just "implement Squid"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921029)

The stream can use single use keys, only the keys themselves (much less data) would need per device encryption, even if DRM shalt did anything other then anoy people.

Swing...and a miss (5, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 7 months ago | (#46920457)

since the FCC wouldn't have to undo several decade-old orders that classified broadband as an "information" service rather than telecommunications

But that's the problem. They are telecommunications services and not fixing that bad decision is just lipstick on a pig.

Re:Swing...and a miss (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 7 months ago | (#46920529)

I like the suggestion, as at least its a step in the right direction of designating ISPs as common carriers. But that's a slippery slope the ISPs won't dare allow.

There's no financial incentive to play fair (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920463)

These ISP/Content Provider conglomerates only stand to lose from a neutral internet. They have the money to buy the laws they want.

The golden age of freely flowing information is over.

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (1)

alen (225700) | about 7 months ago | (#46920537)

how is that?
there are dozens of streaming services in the USA and they all worked fine the last 6 months, except for netflix

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 7 months ago | (#46920661)

First they came for Netflix...

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 7 months ago | (#46920669)

So you point out how the conglomerates successfully bullied the most popular streaming service into paying them a bribe for good speeds...and don't see how that's going to play out with services that don't yet have Netflix's market share?

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (0, Troll)

alen (225700) | about 7 months ago | (#46920783)

how did the bully them?
every one except for netflix paid for CDN's or for transit providers other than cogent. MLB and NBA use Level 3 to stream games and i've never heard complaints about those.

there are lots of streaming services who compete with pay TV and they run their business to provide good service. netflix is wants free internet access to get a competitive edge

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (5, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 7 months ago | (#46920993)

Netflix has its own CDN! [netflix.com] They are a large enough streaming provider it made sense to create their own CDN and they even made it open for other services. They're already peering on Google fiber and a host of non-US ISP's. It's only the big US ISP's that are refusing to play ball and insist Netflix pay extra for a service that would actually save them money in peering fees. Their only reason for doing this is to make their competing streaming offering more desirable.

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (4, Interesting)

alen (225700) | about 7 months ago | (#46921525)

they all said they had no problem with netflix on other CDN's
netflix refuses to pay any money to ISP's to host their CDN, unlike other CDN's

they are trying to get a better deal than their competition

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (0)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 7 months ago | (#46921877)

They are footing the bill for the CDN themselves. What part of "it saves the ISP money to host the CDN" does not register? If other CDN services are paying then perhaps they are getting hoodwinked by the ISP's as well. I know AT&T (not the current rebranded SWB) tried to play this game in the 90's and got their hand slapped and a regulation forcing them to allow smaller ISP's access to their data farm.

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (4, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 7 months ago | (#46920997)

there are lots of streaming services who compete with pay TV

This is exactly the problem. When the ISP, i.e. Comcast/Verizon, has it's own streaming services, it's a conflict of interest for them to be 'competing' with Netflix. They can, and have, used their monopoly position as the ISP to prevent quality access to Netflix by the ISP customers.

You think that Netflix is getting 'free' internet access? They are simply responding to MY request to stream the content to me. Netflix pays they're ISP to get on the internet to provide content just as I pay my ISP to get on the internet to consume that content. Comcast/Verizon sold me a service at a certain speed/bandwidth and if they can't provide those speeds, it is their problem when people try to start using those advertized and sold speed/bandwidth.

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (2)

WhiplashII (542766) | about 7 months ago | (#46921409)

I don't see why this hasn't resulted in a class action law suit by the people buying internet fro Comcast. Unless they are buying "the internet except for Netflix", this should be actionable...

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921645)

They are probably bound by a clause in their ToS that says they can't sue Comcast and must instead submit to arbitration.

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (1)

alen (225700) | about 7 months ago | (#46921535)

there are lots of streaming services with no relation to an ISP that work just fine
the others pay for CDN access for better performance

netflix paid for access and were oversold by cogent as well

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 7 months ago | (#46922417)

None have the bandwidth impact of Netflix.

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (1)

grahammm (9083) | about 7 months ago | (#46922017)

So maybe there needs to be legislation which requires these ISPs to operate a "Chinese Wall" between their content provider and customer connectivity operations.

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 7 months ago | (#46921127)

Or how about this? ISPs creating congestion [arstechnica.com]

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 7 months ago | (#46920621)

The golden age of freely flowing information is over.

Why? Nothing is blocked, it is just slower. This sucks for streaming, but streaming is not the only way to share information. Speeds that will not work at all for Netflix work fine on The Pirate Bay... It just requires people to think differently and not stream everything but download it instead. And having a local copy is a good thing.

Re:There's no financial incentive to play fair (4, Insightful)

firewrought (36952) | about 7 months ago | (#46921143)

Why? Nothing is blocked, it is just slower. This sucks for streaming, but streaming is not the only way to share information. Speeds that will not work at all for Netflix work fine on The Pirate Bay... It just requires people to think differently and not stream everything but download it instead.

Why? Because now if you want to start an internet business (streaming or not) that becomes even modestly successfully, every ISP on the planet will start looking for a way to demand a chunk of your profits. "Yeah, sorry that that little 100ms latency spike is affecting 1 million customers of yours, Blizzard, but we'll be happy to form a collaborative network-tuning relationship with you for $250,000/mo."

Cumulatively, it means that ISP's can rent-seek off of internet businesses, cutting down on the quantity and competitiveness of such businesses while simultaneously forcing them to raise prices.

90,000 Nevada Residents Could Lose Health Insuranc (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920479)

Obamacare - lies on top of lies. You cannot keep your plan, you cannot keep your doctor, you will pay more, not vase $2500... and on and on it goes.

Democrats just can't stop lying and stealing... thanks so much for voting for this shit.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/own-small-business-brace-obamacare-pain

"The changes put as many as 90,000 policies across Nevada at risk of cancellation or nonrenewal this fall, said Las Vegas insurance broker William Wright, president of Chamber Insurance and Benefits. That’s more than three times the 25,000 enrollees affected in October, when Obamacare-compliant plans first hit the market.

Some workers are at higher risk than others of losing company-sponsored coverage. Professional, white-collar companies such as law or engineering firms will bite the bullet and renew at higher prices because they need to compete for scarce skilled labor, Nolimal said.

But moderately skilled or low-skilled people making $8 to $14 an hour working for landscaping businesses, fire-prevention firms or fencing companies could lose work-based coverage because the plans cost so much relative to salaries."

ISPs are Shady (5, Insightful)

mfh (56) | about 7 months ago | (#46920517)

FTA:

We ask the FCC to recognize that technological evolution has led to two distinct relationships in the last mile of the network: the current one, between an ISP and an end user, which is unchanged, plus a “remote delivery” service offered by an ISP to an edge provider (Dropbox, in the image), connecting the provider to all of the ISP’s end users.

I think the problem here is that the ISPs want to be big media but they are really only telecoms trying to step out of line and disrupt the flow of information to get more money. They are greedy pigs. We should nationalize them all and simply take over their operations. They are EXACTLY LIKE traffic lights to be quite honest.

Would you want your highway/city traffic information management operated by competing corporations?

Would you want your city and state police run by competing corporations?

We have tolerated ISPs for too long. Nationalize.

Please, imagine if you had to deal with Comcast to get from your house to work every day.

Those of us who work virtually this is EXACTLY what we are doing.

Re:ISPs are Shady (2)

alen (225700) | about 7 months ago | (#46920559)

just look at the NYC subway, takes them decades to meet increases in demand in parts of the system
same with electric and water. no one upgrades until they have a few years of increased demand and then it takes years of higher rates and blackouts until the system is updated

Re:ISPs are Shady (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 7 months ago | (#46920777)

Exactly! It would be MUCH BETTER than what we're getting from comcast!

Re:ISPs are Shady (3, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 7 months ago | (#46920837)

Reminds me of the "Oh yeah!? Well I bet you had to wait for it!" punchline from jokes about US vs. Canadian health care.

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#46920611)

Why should we nationalize ISPs? It seems like you are suggesting the same as emancipating a child because he misbehaves: the parents are not parenting properly, so release them of that responsibility.

In our case, the ISPs are not behaving properly because the regulations give too much and take only what the ISP does not care about. Try appropriate regulation.

Re:ISPs are Shady (5, Informative)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 7 months ago | (#46920697)

Why should we nationalize ISPs? In our case, the ISPs are not behaving properly because the regulations give too much and take only what the ISP does not care about. Try appropriate regulation.

Appropriate regulation would be to restrict ISPs to only providing connectivity services to the end-user. No ownership of content or other services of any kind. Much like electricity providers cannot also run the grid unless they're a monopoly. No one can realistically compete with them since if the generation costs for the competition are undercutting the grid provider's price, they can merely up the access fees. Regulate them there, you say? There's far too many shenanigans going on with GAAP to have that come out any differently under regulation, and far more opportunity for corruption and fleecing.

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#46920819)

Begging the question.

Your entire premise sets on an ideal of "appropriate regulation". Besides the basic question (why is this appropriate?), your entire argument procedural flaws: How do other services or owned content impact the ISP's behavior?

You suggest regulation to restrict ISPs to benefit by throttling certain traffic, i.e. that from Netflix and Hulu.

conflict of interest (4, Informative)

Chirs (87576) | about 7 months ago | (#46921231)

There is a conflict of intersest between what the customer expects of an ISP (equal access to competing services on the Internet) and the ISP hosting their own service in competition with "external" services. This could be voice, streaming video, videoconferencing, etc.

Any time the ISP offers services beyond being a dumb pipe, there is a natural temptation for the ISP to prioritize the traffic belonging to their own services above the traffic coming from competing "external" services. This can show up in many ways, the simplest being to not upgrade their external connectivity as much as they could--which has the natural effect of making their own services more attractive due to better bandwidth, latency, etc.

By making ISPs dumb pipes and preventing them from shaping traffic due to any reason other than rated subscriber bandwidth, we could ensure fair treatement across all services.

Re:conflict of interest (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#46921319)

Yes, but we can do that without restricting them from providing other services.

Re:conflict of interest (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 7 months ago | (#46921987)

Incorrect, unless you'd like to come up with the first ever fair regulations in this area. So far everyone that has ever tried this has failed. (Feel free to point to a success story)

Re:conflict of interest (1)

grahammm (9083) | about 7 months ago | (#46922205)

Yes, but we can do that without restricting them from providing other services.

Why not? It seems to work for the landline and mobile telecom companies. Basically you can dial any number from any phone, including one which connects to a competitors service. The way they handle it is in the charging structure. If they provide service X then access to this is included in the basic charge. If you want to connect to service X provided by a competitor then you will have to pay the call charges. Translating this to ISPs would mean that access to the service provided by the ISP would either not be metered or would not count towards any data caps or allowances.

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 7 months ago | (#46920851)

The problems with taking that approach to juvenile law are pretty much entirely emotional or moral issues that don't apply to ISPs. Removing misbehaving kids from parents would be a logical step, it's just we can't stomach removing kids except from the absolute worst parents as a last resort, and because the government can't literally raise children, as kids need emotional support.

If we as a species weren't so emotionally weak, that would definitely be the most obvious solution to juvenile crime.

Only people who absurdly misunderstand corporate personhood would argue similar things about ISPs: removing networks from comcast isn't going to make the networks break down in tears and be scarred for life, likely to get into drugs and jail. Comcast isn't likely to act like a parent who has had their child taken from them, they're not going to break down crying and eventually try to kill itself. Unfortunately.

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#46921301)

Fallacy of whole-body analogy: two things with analogical properties are not identical in the whole body.

By your own argument, aside from being fallacious, we see a similar problem with parenthood: we *could* take all kids away from bad parents, and we'd have to put a lot of kids the care of the government. Obviously we don't have a problem with misbehaved kids; we have a problem with misbehaved parents.

We don't have a problem with misbehaved ISPs; we have a problem with a misbehaving government. The government isn't regulating business correctly--too much regulation X, not enough regulation Y.

Re:ISPs are Shady (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921439)

I'm not sure if you do not understand what it means to "emancipate" a child, or if I do not understand what is meant by "nationalizing" an ISP.

When someone is an emancipated minor, that means they are now on their on as far as taking care of themself goes. It does not mean that you take them from their parents and give them to someone else to deal with, which is what I think of when I hear "nationalizing ISPs".

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#46921851)

It seems like you are suggesting the same as emancipating a child because he misbehaves: the parents are not parenting properly,

It's more like saying that if the parents don't do their job well enough, the children are made wards of the state. Which is EXACTLY what happens today.

Re:ISPs are Shady (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 7 months ago | (#46920689)

We have tolerated ISPs for too long. Nationalize.

What do we want?

MINITEL [wikipedia.org] !

When do we want it?

Well actually we retired that in favor of the current model!

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 7 months ago | (#46920895)

Wrong on all fronts.

1.) Minitel technology was retired in favor of the current technology. Not the same thing as their ownership/business model.

2.) Minitel was only government-owned before France's state telecom was privatized. Since the early '90s the entire system was run by a single corporation, making it more like Facebook than a nationalized Internet, ownership-wise.

Re:ISPs are Shady (2)

rsborg (111459) | about 7 months ago | (#46922067)

Well actually we retired that in favor of the current model!

That's ridiculous. Nationalize the pipes, and let private entites compete to provide access and as customer endpoints. This was NOT the minitel model. In fact, this is pretty much what was eliminated in 2001 when the pipe owners (AT&T, Excite/Comcast, Verizon, etc) were allowed to offer seperate pricing to the virtual ISPs (which made it impossible to compete with the pipe owners). One of the first "screw-job" attacks against the Internet enabled by the Bush administration.

Re:ISPs are Shady (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920787)

The solution is not nationalization, it is a ban on corporate lobbying, competition and strict rules that protect the consumer. Businesses do well when they are forced to compete and they rarely misbehave if the penalties outweigh the benefits. If companies want some legislation passed, they should be forced to lobby the people. If their desire is beneficial for all and makes sense, then let the people lobby their representatives. The entire lobby industry the way it is now is just inherently corrupt.

Re:ISPs are Shady (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about 7 months ago | (#46920963)

Too bad you posted AC. This. Corporate lobbying (and for that matter union lobbying) is poisonous to democracy and leads to just this sort of thing.

ban lobbying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921377)

Because you and your coworkers shouldn't be allowed to organize ... wait, shit, so we should only ban it for groups of rich people (corporations), not poor people (unions) ...

Re:ban lobbying (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 months ago | (#46922527)

Organizing and acting in concert for ostensibly common interests (unionizing) is orthogonal to bribing lawmakers (lobbying).

telecoms is a natural monopoly (2)

Chirs (87576) | about 7 months ago | (#46921251)

Unless you have a government utility owning the last mile, there are going to be very high barriers to entry. Nobody wants a patchwork of random cable/phone companies trenching all over the place.

Re:telecoms is a natural monopoly (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 7 months ago | (#46922347)

There is no need for a patchwork of random cable/phone companies to trench all over the place. What we would all love is to have a random cable/phone companies pulling their cable through pipes that the city buried through a single trenching. Thus giving us massive competition while letting the municipality handle the pipes which they have a great deal of experiance in.

Re:ISPs are Shady (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920879)

Good fucking God. You're seriously saying we should turn over effectively everyone's access to the entire internet to the same government that runs the NSA and conducts "extrajudicial killings" of US citizens?

And why the hell do you thinnk Increasing the power of government in an already heavily-regulated market will improve things? You seem to be unaware of regulatory capture [wikipedia.org]

You also seem to implicitly treat "government" as a disinterested party that's merely looking out for "society's best interests". If you grant that assumption, who defines what that "best interest" is?

And why on God's good Earth would you base any decision on the current US government acting in the best interests of society writ large?

Re:ISPs are Shady (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 7 months ago | (#46920941)

Well what is there to lose? Right now both the government and corporations are having their way with the Internet. If it were nationalized, that cuts the number of assailants by half. They're not in competition. They're both just taking what they like at the same time.

Re:ISPs are Shady (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921279)

Well what is there to lose? Right now both the government and corporations are having their way with the Internet. If it were nationalized, that cuts the number of assailants by half. They're not in competition. They're both just taking what they like at the same time.

No, it hands even more power over to the government. And it's that accumulation of power that's the very problem. That huge nexus of government power attracts powerful interests that bend the government to their own will - because those interests have an ability to concentrate efforts, something that the diffuse will of the citizenry isn't able to match.

And you're assuming, just like the GP poster did, that the government is a disinterested party that merely wants what's best for society.

There's a large series of untenable beliefs required to even get to the point of assuming we have a government with our best interests in mind.

What is there to lose?

Geez, we have a President who rose to power criticizing the abuses of power the previous President was guilty of. After rising to power, our current President has turned out to be WORSE at abusing power than any previous President (Don't think so? Here you go: extrajudicial killings. Now STFU about Obama not being worse than Bush. Even Bush didn't summarily execute US citizens. Now toss in Obama's doubled down on the very things he criticized Bush for, things he claimed were unconstitutional and/or fundamental violations of human right: Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps.)

What is there to lose?

I'm afraid to find out.

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

mfh (56) | about 7 months ago | (#46921329)

Your point is well taken. The NSA is America. Snooping is not a black & white issue, however. This is the effect of an oligarchy. Democracy is not working nor has it ever worked. Communism never worked.

What is required is a Technocracy [wikipedia.org] and the only way to get there is through nationalization programs of tech and other things related to the eventual abolishment of money.

Re:ISPs are Shady (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921063)

Would you want your city and state police run by competing corporations?

Yes.

Re:ISPs are Shady (0)

bmajik (96670) | about 7 months ago | (#46921085)

Would you want your highway/city traffic information management operated by competing corporations?

Yes

Would you want your city and state police run by competing corporations?

Yes.

Please, imagine if you had to deal with Comcast to get from your house to work every day.

Yesterday, my son and I spent an hour dragging a box blade over 2 miles of dirt road with our tractor, in order to fix deep ruts in the road surface that were scraping on the bottom of my car the last time I tried driving that route.

Today, I used that road to drive into work and it was wonderful. I had a need, so I scratched it myself.

I have no idea if it is legal for private citizens to do road maintenance on public roads, but I chose to do so anyway.

By the way, I would love it if Comcast provided internet service in my area. I hate Comcast. But my only other choice is Verizon LTE, which is fast when it works, but which I try to use as little as possible since it is a pay-per-byte connection.

I've lived in urban areas my entire life until only recently. The whining you people do about broadband is hilarious. You have no clue how good you have it.

I think the problem here is that the ISPs want to be big media but they are really only telecoms trying to step out of line and disrupt the flow of information to get more money. They are greedy pigs.

Well, I agree with this.

We should nationalize them all and simply take over their operations.

But your "solution" is terrible. Your plan is to replace the current set of greedy pigs with something much worse -- greedy pigs who are stupid and yet think it is their mission to change the world using other people's money and talent.

No thanks. The last mile problem certainly sucks. But because of my situation, I've been heavily investigating what it takes to get my own WISP off the ground. Do you know what stops me from doing it? Nothing. Just my willingness and money.

Do you think that would be the case if I needed to fight the government? Well, how long does it take to get roads repaired where you live?

As an aside, have you priced buying business-class bandwidth from a local provider? Nobody is offering it where I live, but in the nearest large town, I got quoted $550/mo for a 10 meg connection. Including tower rentals on both ends, the cost to backhaul IP to my area would be over $1000 / mo.

Of course, that's trivial compared to the $12k/mile it costs to dig and lay fiber..

And guess what? If I were in the WISP business, my 10 meg connection for $550/mo would support 2-3 Netflix streams. Yet everyone wants to stream Netflix from 6pm to midnight every night. At the same time. Do you think my 3 Netflix subscribers would agree to split $550/mo three ways? Do you think they'd complain bitterly if I oversold my 10 meg connection and none of them could stream Netflix?

If you think you can do better than the existing oligarchs, I encourage you to consider what barriers prevent you from competing with them and delighting your customers. In many cases, you'll find that Comcast has been granted a local monopoly by local governments. Ooops.

Anyway, if a particular state or municipality wants to do a community/local broadband project, and own the last mile, they should do so within the confines of their local constitution/charter.

But you said "nationalize". Even if I thought the government ought to be building and owning data infrastructure for business/residential use, I wouldn't make it the FEDERAL government's problem. This is Civics 101 stuff...

Kudos on the legendary Slashdot UID, btw.

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

mfh (56) | about 7 months ago | (#46921591)

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

bmajik (96670) | about 7 months ago | (#46921625)

I'm well aware of the term. I'm unsure why it is the entirety of your response.

Do you think _you_ advocate a technocratic approach, or that I do, or that we currently have one, or something else entirely?

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 7 months ago | (#46922125)

In many cases, you'll find that Comcast has been granted a local monopoly by local governments. Ooops.

Then your beef is with your local government, not Comcast. Comcast works just fine without an exclusive franchise and your local government was wrong to grant one. When it comes time to renew, get your government to do what you want them to and renew non-exclusively.

Nowhere I've lived or gotten cable service from has had an exclusive franchise agreement. Nowhere I've lived has had multiple cable companies providing service. There must be something beside a government-granted monopoly that stops that kind of competition.

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

bmajik (96670) | about 7 months ago | (#46922529)

Oh, I already knew my beef was with government :)

As far as what doesn't happen in your area: what you say may be true of Comcast in your area, but certainly isn't of telephone companies.

The latter have a bizarre territory system that all of us are subject to.

I just recently called the ILEC of the neighboring town, only 4 miles away, that provides DSL service in that town. I am in a different ILEC service area (CenturyLink). CL can't even give me an analog phone that doesn't buzz, much less DSL -- even though I am in their territory, their switch is much too far away.

The neighboring ILEC cannot sell me any service of any kind -- even though I'm actually closer to their switch, and I cannot physically get the products I want from "my" LEC.

The reasons are not technical. They aren't even financial. The neighboring ILEC cannot trench cable to my site no matter how much I pay them -- because I am "owned" by some other ILEC.

Re:ISPs are Shady (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 7 months ago | (#46922589)

Would you want your highway/city traffic information management operated by competing corporations?

Would you want your city and state police run by competing corporations?

If you talk to many conservatives (at least the ones that comment on stories like this), this is exactly what they want. It fucking baffles me.

They want to privatize garbage collection, water, sewer, fire departments, police services, prisons, roads, etc., etc. ad fucking naseum. They want to have competing corporations vie to put out your house fire, remove your shit, etc.

House fire?! We got you covered. Just go to myfuckinghouseisonfire.com to shop and compare fire fighting rates, response times, and customer ratings.

But how does this benefit gay marriage? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920539)

But how does this benefit gay marriage?

Consistency is a hobgoblin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920549)

Anyone with a TCP/IP stack is an "edge provider". Anyone routing packets is, in principle, a backbone.

Conflating monopolistic "world domination" economic models with internetworking is confusing enough without scrambling telecom and mass media regulatory frameworks together, with geek bread and circuses thrown into the mix. The lawyers will have field day, but this can't end well for anyone. But don't say I told you so.

Not really (1)

voss (52565) | about 7 months ago | (#46920609)

If Comcast doesnt charge content providers...they dont have to worry about it. However if they charge a content provider they have to charge them all the same rates including their own content providers.

Re:Consistency is a hobgoblin... (1)

imikem (767509) | about 7 months ago | (#46920641)

Lawyers will have a field day, ergo this clearly ends well for someone.

Re:Consistency is a hobgoblin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921317)

Lawyers will have a field day, ergo this clearly ends well for someone.

Just the lawyers.. Just like stock brokers, they make money win or loose.

Half a fix? (3, Insightful)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 7 months ago | (#46920551)

Seems like half of a fix to me. Should all be common carrier status. Why settle for half a fix?

You just know ISPs gunna find loopholes in half a fix.

Re:Half a fix? (3, Informative)

JWW (79176) | about 7 months ago | (#46920639)

I'm guessing because half is better than none and that this fix addresses the evil that the big ISPs are doing right now.

Re:Half a fix? (1)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 7 months ago | (#46921517)

I'm guessing because half is better than none and that this fix addresses the evil that the big ISPs are doing right now.

Yeah, and those companies are going to fight this tooth and nail through lobbying, and we get half a fix if anything at all, may as well go for broke, cuz they're going to fight just as hard if it's half or all in.

Re:Half a fix? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 7 months ago | (#46920645)

Because the whole fix does not stand a chance of being allowed to work...

Re:Half a fix? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920749)

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Oddly enough (3, Insightful)

voss (52565) | about 7 months ago | (#46920557)

the cable companies did it to themselves...by charging netflix to carry their programming they became a common carrier.
In other words they can offer speed ups to paying customers but they have to be under RAND terms including to their own
services their own services would have to pay for the same rate for the same bandwidth.

Greatful (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920561)

Thank you so much :) ------ www.sneakerswear.com

Definitely makes sense... (4, Insightful)

Mariner28 (814350) | about 7 months ago | (#46920589)

Under the current rules, treating the Internet as an "information service" treats it exactly like Compuserve, AOL and Prodigy - virtually all content is presented by the service themselves, rather than relaying information content from providers to consumers. And we all know that the prior is exactly how the Verizons, the AT&Ts, the Comcasts and the TimeWarners of the world want it to be. The fairest way is to treat the ISP portion of the business as a common carrier - they have to treat "internal customers", like NBC/Universal in TWC's case, exactly the same as they treat external customers, like Netflix. It's fine to charge extra for expedited service handling for real-time data like voice or streaming video - but you have to treat all comers the same - using published tariffs, with allowable discounts based on volume of data and # of endpoints. But to allow things like Comcast used to do - purposely degrade certain traffic types from certain providers because it competed with their own offerings - that should be illegal. Net Neutrality is not about treating all traffic equally - realtime data like voice or video telephony and streaming video should always be treated with expedited handling with a minimum of queuing delay and jitter. But similar traffic types need to be treated similarly - else the whole thing falls apart. That's what any internet engineer familiar with traffic engineering will tell you.

Stupid suggestion (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920603)

That's a downright stupid suggestion. If ISPs can't charge service providers and get their millions, under this proposal, they'll charge users ("Want to access Dropbox at acceptable speeds? You need to sign up to our Cloud Package for an extra $20 a month!"). They won't throttle the service, they'll throttle the user. It amounts to the exact same problem.

Here's the simple solution - internet access, in today's day and age, is as vital as a landline phone service was back in the day. Be it banking, filing taxes, signing up to health services, or whatever you want to consider, internet access is not "vital" in the sense that it is increasingly difficult to live a normal life without it. Thus, all internet access should be protected by common carrier regulations.

All.

Service providers through to users.

The only people who oppose reclassifying ISPs as common carriers are people who are deeply, profoundly opposed to the government in any and every way or shills of ISPs who want to protect their ability to gouge customers and rake in obscene profits.

They are common carriers providing vital communication services.

Maybe (1)

voss (52565) | about 7 months ago | (#46920627)

but they will have to throttle their own services the same was they throttle dropbox. Sort of counter-productive.

Re:Maybe (1)

JWW (79176) | about 7 months ago | (#46920801)

No, they only have to say they're throttling their own services the same way they throttle dropbox.

Just like they say they're spending all those government fees they've taken in to improve their service, when they're really just pocketing them.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921025)

No. They don't. You missed my point - they aren't throttling the _service_ - they're throttling your access to the service. Dropbox's connection to the internet, under this proposal, would function at full, unimpeded speeds. Your connection to Dropbox, however, might be slowed but Dropbox's connection to the network is fine.

Yeah. I know the end result is the same. That's my problem with the proposal - anything short of reclassifying them as common carriers and preventing them from slowing ANY connection is equivalent to allowing them to selectively slow internet connections unless paid off. Whether they slow it at the provider's side of the network or the user's side, it's the same problem.

Re:Stupid suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920931)

i've hit dropbox next door to my employer's peering facility and it's always slow because they are on amazon and pay amazon for bandwidth

Re:Stupid suggestion (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 7 months ago | (#46922381)

Or they should be government owned.

Even easier solution (4, Insightful)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | about 7 months ago | (#46920747)

Obama should grow a pair. Instruct the FCC commissioners to reclassify, or be dismissed. If they call as if he's bluffing, fire all of them and replace them with commissioners that will do the reclassification. These snots serve at the pleasure of the President and, in turn, the people. It's high time someone blew up their perceived fiefdoms.

Re:Even easier solution (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920957)

Obama does not lack courage. Obama lacks loyalty. Specifically loyalty to the people that voted for him.

But that is the way all politicians are these days. I wonder who's fault that is.

Re:Even easier solution (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 7 months ago | (#46921009)

you mean there is a better candidate then Mr. Wheeler!!?

Re:Even easier solution (3, Insightful)

Andrio (2580551) | about 7 months ago | (#46921099)

Obama was the one who appointed a former telecom CEO/Lobbyist as chairman of the FCC. It's safe to say he's not particularly interested in keeping net neutrality.

Re:Even easier solution (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921111)

Replacing them would require congressional approval and we've all witnessed that the Republicans would rather see this country burn to the ground than give Obama anything.

Re:Even easier solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921261)

Given the way the spineless one closed down a World War II memorial which never needed federally funded staff before his budget crisis imbroglio we can see that the Hawai'i Mashiach who would prefer to see the country burn.

Re:Even easier solution (2)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about 7 months ago | (#46921115)

Obama should grow a pair. Instruct the FCC commissioners to reclassify, or be dismissed.

This would assume that what is happening is not exactly what he wants to have happen in order for his party to do well in the upcoming midterms. Politics == money in this society at this time. Full stop. Also, in any political appointment, you may assume the true reason for the person being in that role is that he can do what is necessary to help the President's party do well in the upcoming midterms. In the case of FCC commissioners, the most direct method to help the President's party do well is for them to make the telecom folks happy enough for them to contribute money. It's not exactly a quid pro quo sort of thing, just an "alignment of interests" sort of thing.

Re:Even easier solution (1)

Peter Simpson (112887) | about 7 months ago | (#46921253)

I voted for Obama. Let's get that out of the way first.

That being said, I have been very disappointed with his relationship with Big Media (and corporations, in general). I predict he will always come down on their side, and against the consumer.
The other issue I have with him is his support of the security services over the rights of Americans to be left alone. I would have expected him to have called for the total repeal of the PATRIOT Act long ago. So,on these two issues, I will join in the chorus of "Thanks, Obama".

Obama is a pussy coward (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921805)

Obama is a pussy coward who does what his white master's tell him to do.

Having any other perception of the situation would be extremely foolish.

Just let the FTC handle it (0)

Scowler (667000) | about 7 months ago | (#46920835)

The FCC has no experience or competency trying to regulate "fair play". The FTC, on the other hand, has been doing such for decades. Let the FTC manage this issue by simply squashing anticompetitive behavior, as they have always done.

Can Someone Tell Me Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46920877)

The ISPs claim they aren't violating the principles of Net neutrality by neglecting to upgrade peering agreements where needed to maintain network performance, but haven't the numerous successful lawsuits against P2P companies like Napster and Kazaa established the legal principle that passivity is no defense? In other words, failing to take necessary action to ensure equal performance for all network traffic is the same as actively degrading it just like failing to monitor and block sharing of copyrighted files is the same as actively promoting it.

get Obama and the Administration to Pay Attention (3, Interesting)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | about 7 months ago | (#46921051)

sign this petition to get Tom Wheeler and any other cableco/telco lobbyist out of the FCC: http://wh.gov/lwhr8 [wh.gov]

Need better spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921235)

"But that's the problem. They are telecommunications services and not fixing that bad decision is just lipstick on a pig."

It wasn't a bad decision, it was the right experiment to do at the time
      but given the results, backing up and tiptoeing in the common carrier direction seems the best thing to do.

Continuing on the current path is just repeating the same action and expecting different results.

Fortunately, we now have some examples and benchmarks from other parts of the world to see how other regulatory strategies work.

 

My head hurts (1)

Art3x (973401) | about 7 months ago | (#46921475)

Although I understood in the end, a few more commas and the word "that" could have helped smoothe the summary:

[Mozilla says that] the FCC doesn't have to reclassify the Internet access [that] ISPs offer consumers as a telecommunications service, subject to common carrier regulations under Title II of the Communications Act. Instead, the FCC should target the service [that] ISPs offer to edge providers, like Netflix and Dropbox, who need to send their bits over ISP networks to reach their customers.

FCC? (1)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about 7 months ago | (#46921495)

Why not put the law-making role in the hands of people who have been elected into office?

Re:FCC? (2)

PPH (736903) | about 7 months ago | (#46922345)

I don't know any such elected people. All of our legislators were purchased.

Send the FCC Your Own Comments (4, Informative)

lemur3 (997863) | about 7 months ago | (#46921501)

Send your opinions and desires about the issue of net neutrality to the FCC now using the following link: https://www.fcc.gov/comments [fcc.gov]

attach your comments to the Proceeding # 14-28, which is at the top of the list, it is entitled "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet"

Leave a few paragraphs, tell them what you want.

You might not get what you want, but at least you'll have given them a hint of public opinion. Be nice.

again the link is https://www.fcc.gov/comments [fcc.gov] proceeding #14-28 .. make it happen. it only takes a minute or two.. as long as it took you to comment here on slashdot.

they are asking for comments, give them some.

13 pages is a lot to read. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46921537)

Can't we just agree that internetz causes globa^H^H^H^H^HClimate change and let algor handle it for us?

Nationalize the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46922199)

For all the talk about nationalizing the internet. There is a petition directed to the FCC do just that. http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/safeguard-the-internet

Conveniently skips over ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 7 months ago | (#46922413)

... peer-to-peer connections. Classify the connection between me and my broadband provider as a common carrier service as well and then maybe we can work with that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?