| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 10:30:58
For those unfamiliar, the "!=" combination is a computer programming operator meaning "is not equal to". If you are a politician and reading that, I've probably just proven my point.
So, tell me... WHY on Earth are these f'ing morons dictating policy on matters about which they know zero. That's the big "oh" thingy, sometimes with a line through it: 0. Who in their right mind, who with ANY mind, would vote, for example, to kill Net Neutrality, the fundamental principle on which the internet was born?!?! You know, besides the few backbone monopolies in the good old US of A that stand to charge users thrice for the same thing.
What is Net Neutrality? It is the principle that all packets are forwarded equally or that there is no 'express lane' for those who pay more. As it stands right now, certain protocols get forwarded before others as they are more time critical. This is important and not what the issue is about. What this is about is, again, deteriorating connections for those not paying full rates.
Does this exist already? After all, every ISP has different packages where you pay more and get a higher speed connection. But that is not what we're talking about. Let's take a typical example:
1) You go to, for example, vociferous proponent of net neutrality, Google's website. Your request packets aren't "premium", because your ISP isn't paying the American backbone providers any extra cash, so they intentionally leave the request sitting around for awhile before sending it on to Google. You think, "Hmmm... Google's slow. Maybe I should try a different search engine." as you wait.
2) The packet arrives at Google's server. They send back what you requested. Google, unfortunately, doesn't support internet extortion, despite having had one of the big Telcos arrive earlier and say something to the effect of "those are some nice packets you have there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to them". Sure enough, without the paid protection money paid, Google's packet is held up while packets from Microsoft and the phone company's subsidiaries passes by. While all this is happening, your fingers tap on the desk. Some of the packets, perhaps, time out/die as a result of waiting too long.
3) You get an error page or else slow results INTENTIONALLY vs the system we have now of best-effort delivery.
Even in the scenario where you pay more and your ISP also pays more to the American telcos to be 'premium', that doesn't matter a bit if Google isn't, for example. They'll still slow it down.
So:
1) Telcos get paid by your ISP or their packets either move slowly or not at all. They currently are simply either paid or not paid at the going rate.
2) Telcos were/are paid by the government in question to lay the cable, which is under public land.
3) Google pays the telcos for access to their fibre. This is as it is now, as well. But now, Google packets can be limited or slowed.
Not only are the telcos triple dipping, but now they want to charge more to provide the service that is already there. They want to control who gets to do what, and how fast. Vonage and Google having a fight? Hm. Suddenly Vonage customers can't access Google. Vonage launches its own search engine? Hm. Suddenly MSN/Yahoo/Google results are slower. And so on...
There are plenty other examples of politicans getting involved in science and scientists letting politics colour their research. Take the environment, for example. Belief and opinion have no place in science except when formulating a hypothesis. People who aren't informed have no business making policy decisions until they ARE informed. My two cents.
 "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 14:05:13
I'm not knowledgeable enough in technical matters to understand what this is all about (which I guess is what the government is counting on), but I don't see the domination by the filthy rich ending anytime soon. I sometimes have to wonder why people and corporations that are already rich have to bother trampling on everyone else, but I guess that's why I could never be part of the business world.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 06/10/2006 : 11:51:35
Back in the Lynx and Gopher days the whole system was run out of universities like Minnesota. I guess they decided it was too expensive. Are they not getting a new "Internet II"?
It might be important enough to start alternate routes, so if you know any rich people you should tell them how much better the Internet would be with a T3 connection running from the spare exercise room.
What the hell is an OC192? 9.6gb, holy shit.
I think there is a still a way to demand your own routing. Automatic routing is what keeps the net most efficient, wouldn't it be horrible if everyone were trying to send everything through AT&T.
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/10/2006 : 01:12:28
That's great, glacial. I would be writing a letter to my senator too, were that I lived in the US. Those are some ridiculous things that have happened, I actually wasn't aware of either example in my own country, and I'm not sure I understand the Shaw one (and I'm a user of Shaw). Don't forget that whole VOIP fiasco, which, admittedly, is ongoing. Basically the telcos are already trying to block and dismember VOIP to promote people using their phone lines instead. You know, even though I've paid for the bandwidth and continue to do so every month. I sometimes wonder if they're in part responsible for why Brian and I sometimes have trouble with it.
They argue that being able to charge more for specific services to get from a to b will encourage more developers to get in on the game and foster competition. This is like saying that if the road system was privatized, there'd be more roads from a to b. It doesn't work. It's _far_ too expensive to develop a working network for a starting company, and even existing telcos only did it with a lot of help from government. Furthermore, WHY would the telcos, who essentially hold a monopoly on the network, be arguing in favour of something that promotes more competition for them? Unless... wait for it... they know that no such thing will happen.
Can you imagine someone trying to pave roads to all the same places that already have roads going to them? On startup capital? Ha!
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| glacial906 |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 21:13:35
Well, I sent an e-mail to one of my state representatives, John J. Duncan Jr., although I don't feel like it did any good. Here's what I wrote:
I am writing a brief message in the hopes that you will vote in favor of the impending legislation "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" (S. 2917) on June 20. It seems that the future of the internet, as an open and relatively equal playing field for those who are interested in start-up ventures, and even for those who simply want to have their opinions heard, is in jeopardy.
Many big business executives may presumably counter promoting the bill by downplaying the importance of internet users who operate personal websites and weblogs, but in truth, as I'm sure you're aware, passing legislation in favor of the major internet service providers would also have many far-reaching and devastating effects on those who wish to have a slight chance of competing with large corporations. That entrepeneuring ambition is one of the main qualities that built this country into the world leader in technological innovation by the end of the 20th Century, and in today's day and age, when several large companies have a stranglehold on nearly every corner of the marketplace in any business, the internet remains one of only a few vitally important means for a small business owner to have a chance.
Thank you for your time.
And here's some stuff I read that made me feel absolutely disgusted.
* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
* Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.
* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
Signature censored by forum moderators. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 19:12:44
It does have to pass Senate, but doubtful those guys are gonna be any help.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| hammerhands |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 18:37:47
Doesn't a bill have to pass the Senate and get signed by the President? |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 16:20:34
Well, thankfully we circumvent that particular doozy by having it in Canada. I think...
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| beckett trance |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 15:16:00
Your podcast has even more people in Congress working against it.
_______________________________________
** feeling deluxe for just a couple of bucks ** |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 13:52:52
They've already lost, and as Marcus points out, nobody seems to know/care even though this is a massive blow to the internet and open communication. It means VOIP is soon to be dead or at least not free, and if you think that is likely to spell the end of our podcast, for example, you're correct. Unless we get Brian up to Canada, at least, though it's only a matter of time before this virus spreads to our current "me too" government.
It's one thing if it's your ISP doing it. You switch. You can't switch away from the backbone providers, however. And guess who owns that. Same people that want you to keep using a telephone and charging you for it, or else to charge you for bandwidth AND for calls. I remember when a giant leap for mankind meant forward.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| ObfuscateByWill |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 12:14:13
Barack Obama's podcast on thursday was devoted to briefly explaining net neutrality.
I hope he and the other who support it win the day.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/
 *Release the bats! |
| marcus4realius |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 12:11:52
Well, I know, and I agree. As a U.S. citizen I am ashamed and irritated by the incompetence on both sides of our glorious two-party system. I am ashamed that politicians don't do their jobs and I am ashamed that they have to stick their nose in EVERY CORNER of life. I am no Right-Winger, but I am also no bleeding heart liberal...so those black and white arguments will fail on me.
I hang my head along with you. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 12:00:15
There's no headscratching here, just venting. I _know_ why they do it. But not everything should be governed/tied into politics. Or else politicians should do their job properly.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
| marcus4realius |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 11:59:50
Looks like a ton of people have a p.o.v. on this, huh. |
| marcus4realius |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 10:42:06
Reading that post was akin to whistling in the wind.
If you expect to figure out why politicians do anything all you have to realize is, if it makes money for corporations, that's why they do it.
All your long speeches, all of the head-scratching, all the wtf's in the world can be answered by that. |
|
|
