View Full Version : The Man Who Invented the Web on Net Neutrality
Tim Berners-Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee), the man who invented the World Wide Web, has finally spoken out about net neutrality. The lemur agrees rather completely with what the man has to say. I'll repost his text here, since it's pretty short. Linky. (http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144)
Net Neutrality: This is serious
When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going end in the USA.
I blogged on net neutrality before, and so did a lot of other people. (see e.g. Danny Weitzner, SaveTheInternet.com, etc.) Since then, some telecommunications companies spent a lot of money on public relations and TV ads, and the US House seems to have wavered from the path of preserving net neutrality. There has been some misinformation spread about. So here are some clarifications. ( real video Mpegs to come)
Net neutrality is this:
If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.
That's all. Its up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.
Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free.
Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn't pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will.
There have been suggestions that we don't need legislation because we haven't had it. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had net neutrality in the past -- it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred.
Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons. (In China, control is by the government for political reasons.) There is a very strong short-term incentive for a company to grab control of TV distribution over the Internet even though it is against the long-term interests of the industry.
Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it.
Let's see whether the United States is capable as acting according to its important values, or whether it is, as so many people are saying, run by the misguided short-term interested of large corporations.
I hope that Congress can protect net neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the internet space. I want to see the explosion of innovations happening out there on the Web, so diverse and so exciting, continue unabated.
The end of net neutrality is pretty much a done deal already in the US. Don't hold your breath, the public outcry, even from the leading internet mavens, will have any effect. The leading proponents of putting up a tiered system also happen to be some of the leading corporate contributors to both political parties; but with most of their contributions going to the party which currently controls all three branches of the US government. A way will be found to make the contributors happy; no matter what effect it has on anything else. They don't take the long view or the logical view. They take the "I wanna be richer now" view; and they've already purchased their desired outcome.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-26-2006, 03:22
Wait, how is the tier system different from the definition in the first post?
I'm all confused again! :help:
EDIT: I thought Al Gore invented the internet! ~;p
I'm not talking about a tiered system for end-users, like the public. I'm talking about a tiered system for internet suppliers and those on the server side of things.
The way the communications giants want to set things up is to have different levels of charges and fees for the businesses they provide lines. If they don't pay the fees then they lose good connectivity with their customers. The communications giants will be able to steer end users, like us, to those web sites which pay the higher fees. Would you visit a forum site like this, which can't afford to pay the kinds of fees they're discussing, if the pages loaded even slower than they do now? Multiply that across the internet. Better connectivity will be available to those who pay the fees, and the business partners of the communications giants. So you'll be able to get to Time-Warner affiliated web sites much easier than some web site hosted by a smaller ISP.
Remember a few months back when one of the major ISP's had a little tiff with Level 3 communications? Anyone trying to access web sites which resided on servers hosted by that ISP and it's affiliates were unable to access them at all if their internet routing went through Level 3 backbone. It went on for a few days. Affected sites, which people who had to go through Level 3 connections were unable to access, included Wikipedia, the entire University of California system - including Los Alamos of all places, and more. Those web sites were entirely unavailable to anyone whose packets were routed through Level 3. Level 3 routers simply stopped recognizing those blocks of ISPs as valid.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. But it would be daily and far more widespread. If an internet backbone provider didn't want to allow access to a particular site, then they could simply block access - much like the Chinese do already to their users.
I wonder if Tim's actually read what's being proposed? Notice how he also cites exactly 0 examples of unfair practices by ISPs that would be covered by this.
It is of the utmost importance that, if I connect to the Internet, and you connect to the Internet, that we can then run any Internet application we want, without discrimination as to who we are or what we are doing. We pay for connection to the Net as though it were a cloud which magically delivers our packets. We may pay for a higher or a lower quality of service. We may pay for a service which has the characteristics of being good for video, or quality audio. But we each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me.It seems that here he's supporting tiered pricing for things such a streaming video, audio, ect. Again, it makes me wonder if he knows what the proponents of net neutrality are after....
The way the communications giants want to set things up is to have different levels of charges and fees for the businesses they provide lines. If they don't pay the fees then they lose good connectivity with their customers. The communications giants will be able to steer end users, like us, to those web sites which pay the higher fees. Would you visit a forum site like this, which can't afford to pay the kinds of fees they're discussing, if the pages loaded even slower than they do now? Multiply that across the internet. Better connectivity will be available to those who pay the fees, and the business partners of the communications giants. So you'll be able to get to Time-Warner affiliated web sites much easier than some web site hosted by a smaller ISP.
How is that any different than it is now? Or even any different than it has pretty much always been?
Remember a few months back when one of the major ISP's had a little tiff with Level 3 communications? Anyone trying to access web sites which resided on servers hosted by that ISP and it's affiliates were unable to access them at all if their internet routing went through Level 3 backbone. It went on for a few days. Affected sites, which people who had to go through Level 3 connections were unable to access, included Wikipedia, the entire University of California system - including Los Alamos of all places, and more. Those web sites were entirely unavailable to anyone whose packets were routed through Level 3. Level 3 routers simply stopped recognizing those blocks of ISPs as valid.
That was all about peering. Big Internet backbone companies allow each other access to their backbones free of charge. In this case (I believe) Level3 decided Cogent wasn't a big enough fish to give free access to anymore- they sorted it out and everything is peachy now. Regardless, I dont see what this has to do with net neutrality.
Finally, let me quote everyone's favorite libertarians- the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1365):
Such rhetoric and calls for preemptive regulation are unjustified. There is no evidence that broadband operators are unfairly blocking access to websites or online services today, and there is no reason to expect them to do so in the future. No firm or industry has any sort of "bottleneck control" over or market power in the broadband marketplace; it is very much a competitive free-for-all, and no one has any idea what the future market will look like with so many new technologies and operators entering the picture. In the absence of clear harm, government typically doesn't regulate in a preemptive, prophylactic fashion as CBUI members are requesting.
Moreover, far from being something regulators should forbid, vertical integration of new features and services by broadband network operators is an essential part of the innovation strategy companies will need to use to compete and offer customers the services they demand. Network operators also have property rights in their systems that need to be acknowledged and honored. Net neutrality mandates would flout those property rights and reject freedom of contract in this marketplace.
The regulatory regime envisioned by Net neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential "gaming" of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general.
How can you say that, knowing about the Cogent/Level3 tiff? That is exactly what it is all about.
There is no evidence that broadband operators are unfairly blocking access to websites or online services today, and there is no reason to expect them to do so in the future. No firm or industry has any sort of "bottleneck control" over or market power in the broadband marketplace;
No evidence? That's a crock! Level3 communications exercised exactly that kind of bottleneck control when they denied access to any IP's within Cogent's block, and access out by any IP's in that block. That' exactly the kind of bottleneck control we're talking about. Cogent wasn't paying what Level3 wanted for peering and so Level3 shut down a large portion of the internet, not just for Cogent users but for anyone else who was attempting to access Cogent site. It wasn't just some small thing. The reason it got resolved so quickly was it created a firestorm of protests. Uiniv of California web sites down. Seti@Home down. Wikipedia down. And many more. Any of you ever played WWII online? It was down as well. I'm not a customer of Level3 or Cogent, but because my ISP - Time-Warner - uses Level3 for backbone access, I was unable to acces sites which I use every day. all because Level3 was trying to hold Cogent hostage.
There isn't a free market at the backbone level. That's why regulation is required. When companies like Level3 pull stunts like that, the average user doesn't have the choice of switching who their backbone provider is. That's done at a higher level, sometimes 2 or 3 businesses up the chain. The average user doesn't have the freedom of choice; and that's the antithesis of a free market, isn't it?
If there were a free market at the backbone level, then it would be different. But there isn't. And there won't ever be. I guarantee you that if the large telecoms and backbone providers who are behind some of the bills working their way through Congress get their way, then you'll see many more incidents like the Level3 problem. Web sites will be unavailable because their ISP's or the ISP's parent providers or someone higher up the line isn't in the "preferred" network. And it won't just be the users of the blacklisted IP's that suffer; it'll be anyone else who tried to access those sites. Exactly like what happened with Level3.
It'll be the business equivalent of the Chinese restricting access to various sites for political reasons. But the access will be restricted because some idiot executives are having a hissy, or because one network provides services to the competitor of a customer of another provider. It'll be a mess. Don't kid yourselves otherwise. Frankly, I'm surprised such free market fans as yourselves would fall for this kind of bad reasoning. I thought you were all about free markets, not monopolistic practices and corporate blackmail of the average customer. :smile:
Again, the Cogent/Level3 peering dispute has nothing to do with net neutrality. These companies are and have to be free to negotiate contracts as to how and with who their throughput will be given to- otherwise you'd have every local ISP and cable co. demanding free peer-level access to the Internet backbone. When it's in both companies interests, they grant peer access.... However, if a small company with a tiny network wants access to a backbone they have to pay for it.
Regardless, you yourself point out that public outcry along with other factors helped settle the dispute. So then, why do we need new beauocratic regulation for a problem that doesnt exist? The problem was quickly resolved without government meddling. Level 3 quickly discovered that Cogent had resources attached to its network that were a valuable asset and worthy of peering.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-27-2006, 19:22
He's talking about the simple principle that I can connect to any public site from my computer, regardless of my connection.
I pay more for a faster connection but thats all I'm paying for, speed.
Level 3 actually stopped people accessing parts of the web. The fact that they didn't get away with it this time is mainly down to the fact that no-one else is doing it. What if the industry closes ranks? What will you do then?
The fact that it happened once and can/will happen again is reason enough for a law against it.
I think we can all agree that bad regulation is much worse than no regulation at all. However, as Mr. Berners-Lee said, a good market depends on some ground rules. I think his definition of net neutrality is spot-on: "If I pay to connect to the net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level."
If we need legislation to guarantee that, fine. If the market will sustain that without any intervention, even better. But while I have faith in the power of markets, I have little for individual companies. For the majority of Americans, if their two local high-speed internet providers decide to play games, they have no other broadband resource.
Don't even suggest that people move back to dial-up. That way madness lies.
Level 3 actually stopped people accessing parts of the web. The fact that they didn't get away with it this time is mainly down to the fact that no-one else is doing it. What if the industry closes ranks? What will you do then?
If the industry closes ranks and what? Fracture the Internet and run themselves completely out of business? Sounds plausible.....
If we need legislation to guarantee that, fine. If the market will sustain that without any intervention, even better. But while I have faith in the power of markets, I have little for individual companies. For the majority of Americans, if their two local high-speed internet providers decide to play games, they have no other broadband resource.
Don't even suggest that people move back to dial-up. That way madness lies.So why do you support 'net neutrality' legislation despite the total lack of problems that would warrant it? The point of Internet access is that you can get to virtually any resource as long as your connected. If some hare-brained ISP decides to restrict what it's customers can access, they'd be completely removing value from their service. Whats the point of an "Internet" connection when you cant use it to get to the Internet? No one would use such a service from even a value standpoint- let alone the enormous PR backlash they'd generate.
Why on earth would an ISP even do that? It'd ruin them. Again, show me a real problem before you start trying to make me sign on to far-reaching solutions.
Again, show me a real problem before you start trying to make me sign on to far-reaching solutions.
Who's trying to make you sign on with anything? You are a rock on this issue, Xiahou, and far be it from me to move you in any direction at all.
I would certainly be more comfortable if the average American had more options for high-speed internet access. I trust we'll see some developments on that front over the next ten years or so. These local duopolies make me nervous.
The problem isn't at the level of customer to ISP access. It's higher up at the mid-level and backbone level. That's where the Level3 stunt becomes a case in point. They tried to use average internet customers, most of whom were not even customers of Cogent, as tools to force another company, Cogent, to play by their rules.
And government interference was exactly what led to the end of the stunt, Xiahou. The University of California was one of the affected Cogent customers. Do you know who has the contract to run Los Alamos, Xiahou? Care to guess why the Level3 stunt ended so quickly, with Level3 losing the argument?
There is no free market at the backbone level. There are no free market forces. There is little to no competition even at the mid-level. But way down at the end-user connection level, there is very little in the way of a free market. Many people don't even have the choice of broadband, being limited to dial-up through a variety of small, barely profitable providers who all use the same limited backbone. For broadband, many people don't even have a choice between cable or DSL, limiting them to one and only one broadband provider. Those that do have a choice, usually have only two from which to choose - and they're mortal enemies - the telecoms and the cable companies. A very lucky few have a few more choices. What free market?
The problem isn't at the level of customer to ISP access. It's higher up at the mid-level and backbone level. That's where the Level3 stunt becomes a case in point. They tried to use average internet customers, most of whom were not even customers of Cogent, as tools to force another company, Cogent, to play by their rules.
And government interference was exactly what led to the end of the stunt, Xiahou. The University of California was one of the affected Cogent customers. Do you know who has the contract to run Los Alamos, Xiahou? Care to guess why the Level3 stunt ended so quickly, with Level3 losing the argument?
There is no free market at the backbone level. There are no free market forces. There is little to no competition even at the mid-level. But way down at the end-user connection level, there is very little in the way of a free market. Many people don't even have the choice of broadband, being limited to dial-up through a variety of small, barely profitable providers who all use the same limited backbone. For broadband, many people don't even have a choice between cable or DSL, limiting them to one and only one broadband provider. Those that do have a choice, usually have only two from which to choose - and they're mortal enemies - the telecoms and the cable companies. A very lucky few have a few more choices. What free market?Pffft, a little less conspiracy theory please. Cogent has been depeered several times previously by different networks and been required to renegotiate. Level 3 gave Cogent 75 days notice to renegotiate their contracts and Cogent did nothing- it didnt even warn its own customers of the looming outage. Eventually Level3 gave them a 30-day extension in the interests of both of their users, during which time the two companies hammered out a new peering agreement. Basically, Cogent played brinkmanship and most likely got a better deal than they would've otherwise by the publicity firestorm that their actions created.
Anyhow, more on topic.....
Net Neutrality (http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060628/tc_pcworld/126280) is dead (at least for now) after being defeated in both the House and Senate. Good riddance. :2thumbsup:
That paragon of protection for citizens against corporate greed, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (who was bought and paid for and divied up among the special interests years ago), got his way. He managed to defeat that poster child for liberal causes and left-wing propaganda - Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. A clear victory for the U.S. telecoms who have been pushing Senator Steven's bill giving them carte blanche to do as they please in TV ads for the last several months.
"Snowe predicted that without a Net neutrality law, large broadband carriers will block or degrade Web content from competitors, creating a slow lane for everyone but themselves and their business partners. Officials with AT&T and BellSouth have advocated a business plan that would allow them to charge extra fees for preferential delivery of some companies' Web content. The broadband providers argue that they need new business plans to pay for the roll-out of next-generation broadband networks."
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and ask if you are an impartial observer, Xiahou. Work for a telecom or cable provider perhaps? Or maybe lots of stock in one? You could write copy for the telecom trade association. (golf clap)
"Snowe predicted that without a Net neutrality law, large broadband carriers will block or degrade Web content from competitors, creating a slow lane for everyone but themselves and their business partners. Officials with AT&T and BellSouth have advocated a business plan that would allow them to charge extra fees for preferential delivery of some companies' Web content. The broadband providers argue that they need new business plans to pay for the roll-out of next-generation broadband networks." Tell ya what. As soon as Snowe's absurd predictions come true, I'll write my legislators and demand that they support net neutrality. I'm confident I'll never need to do that.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and ask if you are an impartial observer, Xiahou. Work for a telecom or cable provider perhaps? Or maybe lots of stock in one? You could write copy for the telecom trade association. (golf clap)You're out on the wrong limb I guess. I'm just a small government conservative who gets suspicious whenever people start pushing pre-emptive government controls for problems that have yet to show themselves.
If you think only the telecoms are opposed to net neutrality, you'd be wrong. Many groups, including the staunch libertarian Cato Institute (see above), Citizens Against Government Waste, the Center for Individual Freedom, and even the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation all oppose net neutrality- that's just to name a few.
There's big business interests on both sides of this issue- if you think Google and Amazon have taken their positions for altruistic reasons, you're fooling yourself.
If you think only the telecoms are opposed to net neutrality, you'd be wrong. Many groups, including the staunch libertarian Cato Institute (see above), Citizens Against Government Waste, the Center for Individual Freedom, and even the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation all oppose net neutrality- that's just to name a few.
Ooh, let's examine all those, shall we?
The Cato Institute isn't a libertarian think tank it's a Libertarian shill for corporate interests think tank. The Cato Institute is funded in part by money from those very same telecoms. And let's not forget that Rupert Murdoch is a former board member of the Cato Institute. No conflict of interest there, eh?
Citizens Against Government Waste might as well just be called Cato Institute Take II. Most of the funding for CAGW comes from the same sources as those that fund Cato. CAGW's biggest claim to fame is a Microsoft-funded campaign against open source software. No conflict of interest there. Nope.
Center for Individual Freedom is just a joke. It was started by Thomas Humber, who runs the National Smoker's Alliance, a pro-cigarette front group funded entirely by Philip Morris. Interestingly, Philip Morris is also one of the leading corporate funders of the above two special interest groups as well.
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation. Ah, yes. William Bowles of The Black Commentator has some interesting things to say about that in this article (http://www.williambowles.info/media/2006/0506/net_neutrality.html). It turns out the NCBCP didn't even tell it's board of directors about the endorsement of the U.S. Telecom's lobbying. Some of the board members, like Howard Dean are just a tad upset. :wink:
Care to drag any more ultra-rightwing so-called think tanks out of the woodwork? Maybe you can find some this time that aren't funded by the special interests writing the policies these so-called think tanks then endorse - with a little palm greasing to help it along?
Care to drag any more ultra-rightwing so-called think tanks out of the woodwork? Maybe you can find some this time that aren't funded by the special interests writing the policies these so-called think tanks then endorse - with a little palm greasing to help it along?That's a laugh- find me an organization that advocates anything and I'll find you people who will smear it. As I've said, if you think the organizations in favor of net neutrality are all doing it for altruistic purposes, you're fooling yourself. :laugh4:
As anyone at all familiar with them would know, both Cato and CAGW regularly trash Republicans- but if you want to call them ultra-conservative shills dont let me stop you. I think I can see where this is going- any group that agrees with you on this are saints, but anyone who disagrees is a souless pawn of big business...
And anything bad is "liberal." Yes, we've been down this road more than once. And from more than one side.
That's a laugh- find me an organization that advocates anything and I'll find you people who will smear it. As I've said, if you think the organizations in favor of net neutrality are all doing it for altruistic purposes, you're fooling yourself. :laugh4:
As anyone at all familiar with them would know, both Cato and CAGW regularly trash Republicans- but if you want to call them ultra-conservative shills dont let me stop you. I think I can see where this is going- any group that agrees with you on this are saints, but anyone who disagrees is a souless pawn of big business...
I didn't say that they were shills for the Republicans. I said they were ultra-conservative shills for corporate interests. Not always the same thing. In fact, the paid mouth for the front organization started by the telecoms and cable companies is none other than Mike McCurry, former White House press secretary for Clinton. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats. That should have been obvious by Republican Senator Snowe's opposition, shouldn't it? I'll give you points for a dedicated attempt at tossing out a red herring, though. :wink:
And just in case anyone reading this argument has the impression from some of your misstatements that this is all about not making regulatory laws and just leaving thing alone. That is not the case. Not even close. The Stevens bill, you remember him, he's the guy who shot all the amendments down, and is pro-Telecom, doesnt leave things the way they are. If that were the case, then why is the telecommunications industry funding all of those TV ads with happy little Americans, like firefighters and farmers (no obvious buzzword touting there, eh?) and small towns about how everyone should call or write Congress to support the Stevens bill.
The bill is 135 pages of giveaways to corporations, new regulations which help the telecommunications industry, and includes 24 new rules which must be enforced or implemented by the FCC.
Did you know, Xiahou, that one of the provisions in Steven's bill would require government subsidies to broadband providers in rural areas? I thought you were all about smaller government, not more government subsidies! :smile:
Divinus Arma
06-30-2006, 05:43
Hmm. I thought this thread would be about Al Gore.
I didn't say that they were shills for the Republicans. I said they were ultra-conservative shills for corporate interests. Find me one smear-proof organization supporting net neutrality eh? Funny you'd mention red-herrings, who was it that made the (false) ad-hominem about me being in the telcom industry? Here's an idea- discuss your position on the merits. You've had zero examples besides the Cogent dispute, which was solved in a matter of days without government action and I might add had nothing to do with "net neutrality" since it was about who would pay access to networks not tiering of service or anything else related. :dizzy2:
The bill is 135 pages of giveaways to corporations, new regulations which help the telecommunications industry, and includes 24 new rules which must be enforced or implemented by the FCC.
Did you know, Xiahou, that one of the provisions in Steven's bill would require government subsidies to broadband providers in rural areas? I thought you were all about smaller government, not more government subsidies! :smile:Whats this? Another red-herring? Show me where I said I supported Steven's bill? While you're at it, show me where the big-time corporate shill Cato favored Stevens bill- or anytime they've subsidized corporate welfare. It shouldnt be hard since they're a big-corporation mouth-peice.... good luck.
I've only spoke out against additional regulation under the guise of "net-neutrality"- you know... the topic of the thread?
And anything bad is "liberal." Yes, we've been down this road more than once. And from more than one side.
Yes, but I bet you didn't know what side CAGW was on before now. I thought they were best know for highlighting pork-barrel spending and their yearly Congressional "pig-book", but apparently they're an ultra-right wing shill for big-business who's "biggest claim to fame is a Microsoft-funded campaign against open source software." :laugh4:
Hmm. I thought this thread would be about Al Gore.
Nah, Al Gore only invented the Internet- not the WWW. Amazingly enough, the Internet existed before the Web came along. :wink:
Find me one smear-proof organization supporting net neutrality eh? Funny you'd mention red-herrings, who was it that made the (false) ad-hominem about me being in the telcom industry? Here's an idea- discuss your position on the merits. You've had zero examples besides the Cogent dispute, which was solved in a matter of days without government action and I might add had nothing to do with "net neutrality" since it was about who would pay access to networks not tiering of service or anything else related. :dizzy2:
The Redleg defense? Accuse me of an ad hominem attack that doesn't exist? I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked. Are you familiar with the common English concept of a question? Not quite the same as an accusation, is it?
This:
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and ask if you are an impartial observer, Xiahou.
Is not an ad hominem attack. It was the only solution I could think of for why you would be arguing in such a way. I thought perhaps you might be a Level3 employee, considering your claims about what happened last year. I asked a sincere question. Like Redleg, I recommend that you research the meaning of the ad hominem fallacy.
Where's your proof that the Cogent dispute wasn't solved by the government stepping in and forcing the issue? You made the claim that it was solved without government intervention first; before I even mentioned the government or Los Alamos.
As you put it:
[
The problem was quickly resolved without government meddling.
I suppose you could go back to your post and edit that out now. Burden of proof rests on you, sport.
[
Whats this? Another red-herring? Show me where I said I supported Steven's bill? While you're at it, show me where the big-time corporate shill Cato favored Stevens bill- or anytime they've subsidized corporate welfare. It shouldnt be hard since they're a big-corporation mouth-peice.... good luck.
You've painted this discussion several times as being about stopping "net neutrality", when in fact it has been about amendments added to a 135-page bill which consists of bad regulation without a leavening of good regulation to balance it out. It's too late now to claim that you didn't say what you said. I recommend reading back through your posts.
So then, why do we need new beauocratic regulation for a problem that doesnt exist?
Anyhow, more on topic.....
Net Neutrality is dead (at least for now) after being defeated in both the House and Senate. Good riddance. :2thumbsup:
There wasn't a bill to have net neutrality. Did you not even read your own link? What was defeated was an amendment to the Stevens bill which would have added some guarantees. Are you now claiming the above isn't a support for the Stevens bill? Either you're just not understanding what was going on in committee or you aren't paying attention to the posts in this thread.
I've only spoke out against additional regulation under the guise of "net-neutrality"- you know... the topic of the thread?
Are you just not familiar with how this whole net neutrality debate started in Congress? It started because of the pro-corporate bills being pushed by Ted Stevens and others. That started a reaction which began calling for regulation to make sure that these new laws and regulations being pushed through Congress by the telecommunications industry protected certain things about the internet. AT&T and Bell South have made no secret of what they intend. They've flat out stated that they want to finance improvements to a higher level internet broadband backbone by providing preferential service to those who pay higher fees. It's no secret.
The "additional" regulation, as you put it, was in the form of amendments to a 135-page communications bill which adds over two dozen new rules for the FCC and 80+ some odd new regulations altogether.
Yes, but I bet you didn't know what side CAGW was on before now. I thought they were best know for highlighting pork-barrel spending and their yearly Congressional "pig-book", but apparently they're an ultra-right wing shill for big-business who's "biggest claim to fame is a Microsoft-funded campaign against open source software."
The CAGW first started as a reasonably non-partisan anti-waste group back in the 1980's. They publish the Pig Book, which I hope you're familiar with, at least. If only they'd stuck to their non-partisan beginnings. But in the mid-90's they took a great deal of money from Microsoft to fight legislation dealing with open source software. At that point they lost massive amounts of credibility and now they're known to decry waste on one hand while accepting massive funding from corporations which promote that very waste. It's the height of hypocrisy. Google "open source" and "CAGW" and report back to us, OK?
The Redleg defense? Accuse me of an ad hominem attack that doesn't exist? I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked. Are you familiar with the common English concept of a question? Not quite the same as an accusation, is it?
Is not an ad hominem attack. It was the only solution I could think of for why you would be arguing in such a way. I thought perhaps you might be a Level3 employee, considering your claims about what happened last year. I asked a sincere question. Like Redleg, I recommend that you research the meaning of the ad hominem fallacy.Honest question my foot. "Im going to go out on a limb and say you either work for or are in the pocket of the telecoms since there is no other explanation for your position." That's a text-book ad-hominem- you're attempting to dismiss my position by suggesting that I'm influenced by telecoms. If If you weren't trying to dismiss my points by claiming bias why did you even bring it up? I think your motives were clear to all.
I suppose you could go back to your post and edit that out now. Burden of proof rests on you, sport. You're asking me to go back and show that no laws were passed to resolve the dispute? That's comical, how would I do that? By listing every bill and act passed during and since the dispute? That's comical. You state there was government intervention- if so, it should be easy to find us some evidence for it. Unless there isnt any? For my part, I'm content to leave it at there being no evidence of government intervention.
Further, as Ive said, the Level3/Cogent dispute does not pertain to "net neutrality" since it was about the peering agreement between two tier1 networks. Even "net neutrality" recognizes that providers have a right to charge or contract for basic access.
You've painted this discussion several times as being about stopping "net neutrality", when in fact it has been about amendments added to a 135-page bill which consists of bad regulation without a leavening of good regulation to balance it out. It's too late now to claim that you didn't say what you said. I recommend reading back through your posts.
I'll tell you what, you educate me on this one. What is new in the bill the jeopardizes the current "net neutrality"? There must be something- since you're now claiming that this bill is why the ammendment was neccesitated.
There wasn't a bill to have net neutrality. Did you not even read your own link? What was defeated was an amendment to the Stevens bill which would have added some guarantees. Are you now claiming the above isn't a support for the Stevens bill? Either you're just not understanding what was going on in committee or you aren't paying attention to the posts in this thread.You're just being ridiculous. I never said it was a bill and what difference does it make besides? I was against it because I see it as new, burdensome regulation of the Internet. I don't care whether it's a bill, an ammendment to a bill, or an executive order- I am opposed.
They've flat out stated that they want to finance improvements to a higher level internet broadband backbone by providing preferential service to those who pay higher fees. It's no secret. Of course, and they should be allowed to. Anyone should be allowed to pay more for faster access. The "net neutrality" accusation is that people who don't pay a premium will have their service deliberately degraded or pushed into Snowe's so called 'slow lane' or be blocked altogether. This won't happen- if Amazon wants the status-quo they can continue to pay for it. If Google wants to dump terabytes worth of streaming video onto these networks and run it over the existing infrastructure they can do so. If they want network providers to provide high-speed, low-latency connections for streaming video, they can pay for the upgrade. Network providers are not charities and neither is Google.
The CAGW first started as a reasonably non-partisan anti-waste group back in the 1980's. They publish the Pig Book, which I hope you're familiar with, at least. If only they'd stuck to their non-partisan beginnings. But in the mid-90's they took a great deal of money from Microsoft to fight legislation dealing with open source software. At that point they lost massive amounts of credibility and now they're known to decry waste on one hand while accepting massive funding from corporations which promote that very waste. It's the height of hypocrisy. Google "open source" and "CAGW" and report back to us, OK?Look, I'm sorry but your orginal characterizations of both Cato and CAGW can be described as little other than false. First both organizations recieve the vast majority of their funding from private individuals. Cato recieves about 80% of its funding from private citizens and about 8% from corporations. So, no, they are not in the pocket of big business- not even close. You've also still totally failed to show any examples of when Cato endorsed any pro-business regulations. Naturally, some corporations do support Cato- it's consistently pro-free market and anti-regulation and some businesses feel these positions are in their interests. But again, these contributions only account for a small part of their funding. I often disagree with Cato on foriegn policy and national security- but they are nothing if not consistent.
As for CAGW, they also only get a small amount of their total funding from corporations. I also am familiar with their so called anti-opensource position that you're trying to use to demonize the entire organization. Let's post CAGW's position on the topic for everyone to read so they can judge for themselves how you've mischaracterized it.
October 29, 2003 (http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7239)
I invite everyone to read the entire article- but for brevity's sake, I will post the closing paragraph here:
CAGW and its more than 11,500 members in the Bay State who want fairness in government contracting are still waiting for an official statement from the governor's office. Government should choose software based on it's merits, not on the way it is developed or licensed. This will allow open source software and commercial developers to compete, taxpayers to save money, and customers to benefit from better products. Hardly the position that you tried to portray them as having.... They didn't unfairly attack open-source, they said that both have different costs/benefits and that both should be chosen based on the merits of the software- not based on whether or not it's open source. The Massachusettes proposal was to completely slam the door on non-open source software- period. CAGW was right- doing such a thing out of hand is not in the interests of effecient government.
Honest question my foot. "Im going to go out on a limb and say you either work for or are in the pocket of the telecoms since there is no other explanation for your position." That's a text-book ad-hominem- you're attempting to dismiss my position by suggesting that I'm influenced by telecoms. If If you weren't trying to dismiss my points by claiming bias why did you even bring it up? I think your motives were clear to all.
Don't put words in quotes that I didn't say, sport. You can't defend yourself on this point. Give it up. You screwed up and made an ass of yourself. Now that is an ad hominem argument. See the difference? No, probably not.
You're asking me to go back and show that no laws were passed to resolve the dispute? That's comical, how would I do that? By listing every bill and act passed during and since the dispute? That's comical. You state there was government intervention- if so, it should be easy to find us some evidence for it. Unless there isnt any? For my part, I'm content to leave it at there being no evidence of government intervention.
No, I'm saying you made a claim that you can't support and if you want me to support my counter argument, then you can provide your evidence first; because you made the claim first. The fact that you don't have any evidence to support your claim is telling. It's good that you're giving up on this point too. Lost cause.
Further, as Ive said, the Level3/Cogent dispute does not pertain to "net neutrality" since it was about the peering agreement between two tier1 networks. Even "net neutrality" recognizes that providers have a right to charge or contract for basic access.
You're still not getting it. Which is no real surprise, since all you've been doing is parroting what you've read in corporate-sponsored propaganda. You're already displayed a complete lack of understanding in just the above statement alone. The argument began not because of a peering conflict between two Tier 1 networks. It began because Level3 decided that Cogent wasn't a Tier 1 network at all.
In the net neutrality argument, the same kind of thing is the basic point. The major backbone providers want to be able to provide preferential service to those who pay more. Worded another way, they want to be able to not provide the same internet service to everyone. They want to be able to "steer" users to preferred sites! As it stands now, if you can get on the internet, then you can get to any internet address. There may be nothing at that address, or perhaps the web address ends in a pay site. That's fine. You can still get to it, just not inside. But that's about to change, and rather drastically. Those who can't pay won't be on the preferred track. Web users won't even see their sites. You might think it's that way now. It very much isn't that way now. The sites that anyone can get to include all of the sites that won't be able to afford the fees! Want to visit a fan site a computer game? Won't happen. You'll be steered to the official site of the game publisher who pays the fees to the backbone providers to be part of their "preferred" network, or you'll get to a site run by someone else who can pay. Who loses? The little guy. The independent. The very things that makes the web what it is now - freedom. But you don't get that; because you've swallowed whole the crap pushed by those who are only interested in freedom if they can make a buck off of it.
I'll tell you what, you educate me on this one. What is new in the bill the jeopardizes the current "net neutrality"? There must be something- since you're now claiming that this bill is why the ammendment was neccesitated.
I've been saying it over and over in as many different ways as possible. It isn't sinking in. Educate yourself, if you can. I'm not going to hold my breath.
You're just being ridiculous. I never said it was a bill and what difference does it make besides? I was against it because I see it as new, burdensome regulation of the Internet. I don't care whether it's a bill, an ammendment to a bill, or an executive order- I am opposed.
I've also tried to make this sink in many times as well. You've taken the corporate line and bought this idea that doing nothing is good, that it should stay as it is. That was never what was going to happen. The Stevens bill is 135 pages of new regulations, practically hand-written by the telecommunications industry to their advantage! But they convince the gullible that they're really standing up for the little guy and for freedom on the internet. What a complete crock. If you are so opposed to new regulations then you should be, right now, screaming at the top of your lungs to Congress to stop the Steven's bill. Instead you're ranting about amendments which are trying to take some of the telecommunications giveaways out of the bill! It's insane. Sorry, but it's just insane.
Of course, and they should be allowed to. Anyone should be allowed to pay more for faster access. The "net neutrality" accusation is that people who don't pay a premium will have their service deliberately degraded or pushed into Snowe's so called 'slow lane' or be blocked altogether. This won't happen- if Amazon wants the status-quo they can continue to pay for it. If Google wants to dump terabytes worth of streaming video onto these networks and run it over the existing infrastructure they can do so. If they want network providers to provide high-speed, low-latency connections for streaming video, they can pay for the upgrade. Network providers are not charities and neither is Google.
On more try. This isn't about faster access. Crap! AT&T and others have stated quite clearly what they intend to do! They aren't trying to hide it. That's why so many people are up in arms. They want to provide preferential treatment to content providers on the internet who pay higher fees, while those content providers, even just the average Joe with a web page or a discussion forum like this, will be left in the dust unless he or she also pays those fees. You've bought into the whole obfuscation of misinformation and propaganda put out by the telecoms and those groups who are paid to take the telecoms position. This isn't and never has been about higher speed access to the internet, Xiahou. Why can't you follow this point? It's about tiered content, not tiered access. The backbone providers want to be able to charge the places you visit, not you, and those places which don't pony up won't be as readily available, won't be as easy to reach, might not even be reachable at all if you're access has to pass through conduits provided by companies who have already proven themselves capable of this very thing - like Level3 (which is why I keep used them as an example. They've proven that they are willing to use the average user, who isn't even their customer or a customer of Cogent, as a tool and a means of coercion to get more money. It really is that simple).
Look, I'm sorry but your orginal characterizations of both Cato and CAGW can be described as little other than false. First both organizations recieve the vast majority of their funding from private individuals. Cato recieves about 80% of its funding from private citizens and about 8% from corporations. So, no, they are not in the pocket of big business- not even close. You've also still totally failed to show any examples of when Cato endorsed any pro-business regulations. Naturally, some corporations do support Cato- it's consistently pro-free market and anti-regulation and some businesses feel these positions are in their interests. But again, these contributions only account for a small part of their funding. I often disagree with Cato on foriegn policy and national security- but they are nothing if not consistent.
Yeah some businesses are anti-regulation. Like Philip Morris, one of Cato's leading contributors. The Cato Institute isn't all bad, but over the last few years it has become little more than a mouthpiece for certain corporations, especially Philip Morris. Yes, 80% of their budget comes from individual donations and subscriptions. So, you're saying that if Rupert Murdoch gives them a few million, or Koch (one of the founders), then that's the same as Joe Bonehead giving them this week's cigarette money? You really want to claim that? When the money talks, the Cato Institute completely caves on it's supposedly libertarian foundations and takes the money/party line, like in supporting the Patriot Act (which is about as anti-Libertarian as it gets, just ask Dick Armey who resigned from Congress in part because of it and worked with the ACLU to fight it. Dick Armey working with the ACLU? That darned liberal!). You should read this exploration of Cato Institute funding (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute) by SourceWatch.
As for CAGW, they also only get a small amount of their total funding from corporations. I also am familiar with their so called anti-opensource position that you're trying to use to demonize the entire organization. Let's post CAGW's position on the topic for everyone to read so they can judge for themselves how you've mischaracterized it.
October 29, 2003 (http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7239)
I invite everyone to read the entire article- but for brevity's sake, I will post the closing paragraph here: Hardly the position that you tried to portray them as having.... They didn't unfairly attack open-source, they said that both have different costs/benefits and that both should be chosen based on the merits of the software- not based on whether or not it's open source. The Massachusettes proposal was to completely slam the door on non-open source software- period. CAGW was right- doing such a thing out of hand is not in the interests of effecient government.
That was just the Massachusetts law, Xiahou. They attacked open source across the board. You should have looked at more than just the first page of Google result, eh? Now that's funny.
More to the subject of CAGW, it wasn't just the Microsoft-funded anti-open source cappaign that lost them credibility. They also took large donations from Philip Morris and the oh so independent Tobacco Institute (see the pattern here?), and began a campaign on behalf of the tobacco industry. CAGW also has a page at SourceWatch, here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Government_Waste).
Interestingly, one of the current board members of CAGW is Vin Weber, a former Congressman and senior partner in the public relations (PR, yeah, that's all about freedom, isn't it?) firm of Clarke and Weinstock. You, or perhaps I should say those Backroom readers who are familiar with neocons, may know Vin Weber better as a founding member of The Project for a New American Century, a signatory to the famous PNAC Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm), which is the basis of the whole neocon strategy of worldwide American hegemony (they actually used this word) and the war in Iraq. Most of the other signatories are actually in the Bush Administration now! (Wolfowitz, Libby - well, not in the administration anymore, heh - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Khalilzad, etc.). He's also a signatory on the infamous 1998 letter (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) to then president Clinton calling for an attack on Saddam Husein. They had to wait until they got the sock puppet in a president's suit into office to get that done however. :smile:
The CAGW was, once, a non-partisan anti-big government group. No longer. It's been wholly suborned by corporations and neocons.
Have I answered all of your questions? Feel free to pose more. I'm not going anywhere. :laugh4:
When the money talks, the Cato Institute completely caves on it's supposedly libertarian foundations and takes the money/party line, like in supporting the Patriot Act
Cato: More Surveillance Equals Less Liberty: Patriot Act reduces privacy, undercuts judicial review (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/lynch-030910.html):rolleyes:
I did have a reply complete reply prepared, but I later decided that it's probably a mistake to continue to attempt to engage you on this. The inflamatory nature of your previous post speaks for itself.
If someone thinks he made a valid point that I havent previously addressed and can state it in a less inflamatory manner- please do so. :bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.