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!

New White House Petition For Net Neutrality

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the money-speaks-louder-than-petitions dept.

Networking 248

Bob9113 (14996) writes "On the heels of yesterday's FCC bombshell, there is a new petition on the White House petition site titled, 'Maintain true net neutrality to protect the freedom of information in the United States.' The body reads: 'True net neutrality means the free exchange of information between people and organizations. Information is key to a society's well being. One of the most effective tactics of an invading military is to inhibit the flow of information in a population; this includes which information is shared and by who. Today we see this war being waged on American citizens. Recently the FCC has moved to redefine "net neutrality" to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have their information heard, or worse, the message of their competitors silenced. We as a nation must settle for nothing less than complete neutrality in our communication channels. This is not a request, but a demand by the citizens of this nation. No bandwidth modifications of information based on content or its source.'"

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

No source-based bandwidth modifications. (5, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | about 7 months ago | (#46835979)

So say we all.

Re:No source-based bandwidth modifications. (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 7 months ago | (#46836091)

Cool, now you can't stop my DOS attack.

Re:No source-based bandwidth modifications. (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about 7 months ago | (#46836105)

Nor you, mine. Check and mate.

Re:No source-based bandwidth modifications. (1)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 7 months ago | (#46836215)

Nope, if you insist on chess terms, that would be a draw.

Re:No source-based bandwidth modifications. (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46836315)

Nope, if you insist on chess terms, that would be a stalemate.

FTFY

Re:No source-based bandwidth modifications. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836263)

Cool, now you can't stop my DOS attack.

The joke is on you, I'm running OS/2 Warp.

Re:No source-based bandwidth modifications. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836365)

Don't speak for me pls.

Re:No source-based bandwidth modifications. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836481)

Thanks, Adama.

Bush (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836015)

Too bad we failed to elect Obama. Bush is just letting the corporates take everything they want!

Re:Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836081)

As a candidate, Pres. Obama said he would support net neutrality. He has not, and I am disappointed.

The idea that this makes the other guy look better is laughable. Also, You might be surprised to learn that Pres. Obama never ran against former President Bush(s). Despite that, it is too bad there are only two options. (oh wait...)

Re:Bush (5, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46836187)

As a candidate, Pres. Obama said he would support net neutrality. He has not, and I am disappointed.

I'm disappointed too, but I was pretty sure that he was just saying things to get elected, both times, so I didn't vote for him. I suggest you get used to being disappointed in Obama because it's going to be a problem for a LONG time after he's gone..

Here comes the modding down and a wreaking of my karma, in three.... two..... One....

Re:Bush (2, Informative)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 7 months ago | (#46836303)

People STILL believe what he says, even after it is proven that much of what comes out of his mouth is in fact complete untruths. From the beginning it was this way. He is nothing more than a slimy politician who couldn't give a shit about anyone, including his own family (golf or funeral of aunt? GOLF!)

Re:Bush (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836485)

What's sad is that people think that all those who denounce him are conservatives. I didn't vote for him in either running. I'm very disappointed with him and I'm as far left as they come. I voted Green in both.

Re:Bush (-1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46836803)

I voted Green in both.

If you are in the USA, then I suggest you threw your vote away. Not that it likely mattered, because anyplace the "green" party was actually on the ballet the number of votes they gathered was unlikely to make a difference in the outcome. Sort of like voting for Obama in Texas... Why bother showing up to vote if he's going to loose by double digits? It's a winner take all state in the electoral college anyway..

I suggest that the BEST way to serve your voting interest is to vote your ideology in the primary ONLY. After that, pick one of the candidates from the two major parties that you most agree with in the general and vote for them. If there is another party candidate, independent, green, or what have you that you like better and they have ZERO CHANCE to win, just hold your nose and vote for one of the two major party's candidates. Same thing when supporting campaigns, do what you want in the primary, but NEVER support the third party in the general (with money or time) unless they really have a chance (i.e. they are within the margin of error or darn close to it in the polling) No supporting long shots, just because you like them a bit better.

Re:Bush (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836931)

I suggest you stop with this crap. Why do third party candidates have no chance of winning? Because everyone says third party candidates have no chance of winning. As long as people keep thinking like you, and keep spreading this awful idea, nothing will change.

Re:Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836459)

Nah... if you REALLY want to kill your Karma, you have to say something negative about Bitcoin!

There are still a lot of Slashdotters who are still fully invested in that pump and dump scheme... and they are PISSED!

Re:Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836471)

I suggest you get used to being disappointed in Obama because it's going to be a problem for a LONG time after he's gone..

Here comes the modding down and a wreaking of my karma, in three.... two..... One....

Since you are now modded +4 Insightful, I don't put a lot of faith in your predictive abilities - including the "LONG time after he's gone" one.

Re:Bush (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 7 months ago | (#46836571)

The base fact here is, he is a Politician. mostly all their statements are technically, but they are carefully worded that way. they all say 1 thing to get your vote once they get it they forget what they said to get you to vote for them. Go watch the south park ep, yea everyone happy for change this change that, in the end NOTHING changed cept how much more debt we have.

Re:Bush (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836487)

That's why I voted Romney.

At least he admitted he would let Murdoch control the internet. He is fair and balanced which is what we need! More Foreigners in control!

Russian Oligarchy has nothing on the Republican Oligarchy!

Re:Bush (5, Insightful)

hebertrich (472331) | about 7 months ago | (#46836145)

Basically true when he's at the mercy of the republicans to adopt the stuff that needs to be changed in order to fulfill the job he was elected to do .
Sucks but it's fundamentally true.
Republicans are obstructing every step of the way. The institutions are totally fucked when a President can't do the job he's elected for.

Re:Bush (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46836175)

Thank dog for obstruction. Vote gridlock, it's the best we can do.

Re:Bush (-1, Troll)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46836329)

I've always maintained the best thing that ever happened to the American People is a do-nothing Congress.

Re:Bush (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836399)

Do nothing? WTF?

Dude, haven't you been fucking paying attention to anytihng? 18 fucking trillion dollars.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

They ain't DOING NOTHING. They are spending you and your decendants into slavery and have been doing so nonstop, 24 fucking 7, for generations!

DO NOTHING? ARE YOU HIGH?

Re:Bush (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836377)

"Republicans are obstructing every step of the way."

Good fucking grief. Obama is a radical socialist Democrat and has been in office for near six years now. The Democrats have run congress as well for years, including super majorities in the first few years of Obama's term. Democrats are entrenched in the beauracracy, at all levels, they run the IRS, the EPA, the state department, the DOE, all the important TLA's are staffed by Democrats as far as the eye can see.

Oh and those Repiublicans, yes they do win here and there. And whenever they do they fold and lie down and capitulate like good little soldiers they are. They talk a good talk to we the people when it's election time, but these guys are just happy as clams when it comes to compromise and making deals and working with the other side of the aisle. They are pros you know and they know which side of the gravy train they are supposed to be on.

Executive check. Congress check. John (It's a tax) Roberts, check. Beauracracy, check. What else? Oh yes, the media. The media are for all intensive purposes just an arm of the Democrat party, and yes that includes FNC. Ever watch Letterman? Media, in pocket, check. Teachers unions, SEIU, AFL, Teamsters, you name it, they run it. Democrats that is. Corporations! You all love to hate your crony capitalist corps now don't you? You think they don't love them some statism when they can get it? Or buy it I should say.

But yea, the real problem here, the reason Obamacare isn't working, the reason unemployment is so high, the reason food prices and gas prices and everything else is so high is, uh huh, Republicans.

You sheep just crack me up.

Re:Bush (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 7 months ago | (#46836595)

Yea democrat's are moron's, saying its all republicans blocking this blocking that.... Pull your head outta your butt for a while, Democrat's pull same stunt. Both sides play the same game with same rules yet 1 side is whining about it.

Re:Bush (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836867)

"Both sides play the same game with same rules"

Nope.

Obamacare, 100% Democrat support, 0% Republican support, not same rules, not at all

Who was it that passed civil rights in the 60s? Democrats? No, it was passed despite them. Wake up.

I do not give the worthless Republicans a pass at all, but the Democrats are the ones tyrannizing us. Truth be told I believe they, at least at the highest levels, are working together.

Re:Bush (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | about 7 months ago | (#46836411)

Possibly true - but not on this issue, which is a change in FCC rules, which is part of the Executive branch. Congress might dictate rules to the FCC, but it hasn't on this issue so the change in stance is something Obama can do something about on his own.

Re:Bush (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 7 months ago | (#46836421)

Please explain how Republicans, Congress, your local dogcatcher, or anyone else outside of the Executive Branch is behind this.

Re:Bush (0, Flamebait)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46836637)

Basically true when he's at the mercy of the republicans to adopt the stuff that needs to be changed in order to fulfill the job he was elected to do . Sucks but it's fundamentally true. Republicans are obstructing every step of the way. The institutions are totally fucked when a President can't do the job he's elected for.

You seem to forget that his party controlled congress in total for almost TWO full years. He had that long to do anything he wanted.

The situation changed when Mass elected Brown to replace Ted K after he died. Then they didn't have a super majority in the senate anymore, but still had a majority. It wasn't until the midterms that the Republicans took the house away and could effectively object to ANYTHING. Democrats retain control of the Senate to this day. So, it's not just the Republicans fault. Obama had two full years to do literally anything he and his party wanted, TWO YEARS! What did he accomplish? Obamacare and not a whole lot else.

But since then, Republicans have run on a platform that opposed Obama's policies, and have generally won elections in the process. Republicans have tried it both ways. They have tried to work with him but Obama has steadfastly refused to discuss anything or work on compromise and he torched them. So republicans are really left with little other choice but to oppose him, and get torched too. But this is Obama's choice in most part, given his scorched earth political tactics and the obstructionist Senate that refuses to take up much of what the house sends them for debate. But that's how politics works and how the system is designed.

I get that you want to blame the other side and accuse them of being obstructionists. They generally have been, not because that's how they wanted it, but because it didn't matter if they just agreed to anything nor said no, they where going to get torched. But don't fool yourself, Obama and his supporters choosing to use the flamethrower and firebombs leaves little other choice. If you are going to burn anyway, why not keep your base happy in the process? If your base is happy with you, it's easier to raise money and you are less likely to be bloodied in the primaries, so why not?

The real question is how will this play on election day in 2014 and how all this translates into 2016. I getting the feeling the democrats are going to loose the Senate and loose more seats in the house in 2014. If that happens, you can count on a whole lot more obstruction, unless Obama decides to try and work with the republicans on stuff. (Given his history, I doubt he would work with anybody though) The only difference that will be obvious is that you will see a whole lot more videos of Obama vetoing bills on the nightly news. Up until now, he's been spared that optic by the Senate which simply refuses to take up anything Obama doesn't agree to sign in advance. So to this republican, I don't agree that it is our side being unreasonable given the circumstances. Your mileage may vary as your party affiliation apparently does. Just don't try to tell yourself your side has been pure as the wind driven snow in all this. You all got dirt on your hands too.

Oh, yes! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836017)

Because this time, the Government will listen to a petition of the people posted on a website.

Re:Oh, yes! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836059)

Yes, this time!

http://change.gov/agenda/ethic... [change.gov]

        "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

        -- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
        November 10, 2007

Re:Oh, yes! (2)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 7 months ago | (#46836331)

To be fair, that is true up until "I won", which is a cynical echo of Bush's infamous "mission accomplished". Obama lost early and lost hard (one of the prime examples being the spectacular defeat of "Obamacare 1.0" in 2009) against the lobbyists, and it is now abundantly clear he doesn't have the power to go against them and they are actively drowning out the voices of the American people [slashdot.org] . President != dictator (and that's a good thing, even if the president happens to align with one's opinion).

yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836673)

He is the one that chose the current chairman. Whats so difficult get some one from industry that is known to be a preacher of net neutrality. So either he is stupid, incompetent, or devious you pick.

Re:Oh, yes! (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about 7 months ago | (#46836281)

the Government will listen to a petition of the people posted on a website.

It will.
And then they will ask the head of FCC to explain why his decision is obviously a good thing (just like they have with ban-TSA White House petition).

Re:Oh, yes! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836341)

Because this time, the Government will listen to a petition of the people posted on a website.

Yes, they always listen. They just never give a fuck.

Abusrd (0)

AndyMan! (31066) | about 7 months ago | (#46836021)

That text is absurd. While it may be a figurative war, it is not a literal one.

Re:Abusrd (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836087)

Just sign it.

Re:Abusrd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836503)

Just sign it.

Offer something that won't get laughed at. Good petitions are diluted by crap like this.

Re:Abusrd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836089)

It's also a flat out lie.

Recently the FCC has moved to redefine "net neutrality" to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have their information heard, or worse, the message of their competitors silenced

The FCC ruling says nothing even vaguely close to that.

Re:Abusrd (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 7 months ago | (#46836213)

And it is absurd because it talks about the FCC saying that voices can be silenced, which it certainly did not say. The NY Times article has the right analogy:

The rules are also likely to eventually raise prices as the likes of Disney and Netflix pass on to customers whatever they pay for the speedier lanes, which are the digital equivalent of an uncongested car pool lane on a busy freeway.

Yes, it may cause Disney or Netflix to raise prices to their customers to pay for the Fast Lane they're getting, but it does not block access to other sources of content and silences nothing. Car pool lanes don't keep other cars from using the normal lanes. In fact, the analogy is flawed only because that uncongested carpool lane cannot be used by non-carpool users while the increased border gateway router bandwidth being paid for by Netflix users will be used by other users when it is otherwise unused. The closest the NYT could come to "silencing" is this:

For example, if a gaming company cannot afford the fast track to players, customers could lose interest and its product could fail.

Which means that if a gamer gets only the same speed tomorrow that he's getting today he might get bored and go elsewhere. I.e., if there are no Fast Lanes the gamer gets X bandwidth and that's good enough, apparently. Tomorrow with Fast Lanes for other services he gets X and suddenly that's not good enough.

I appreciate the fact that my costs for service won't be forced up by my having to pay for bandwidth that I'm not asking for, and that the cost for high-bandwidth streaming services will be paid for more by the customers of those services. And if a new "Twitter" requires huge amounts of near-realtime bandwidth on day one then something is very wrong with their concept of operation.

Re:Abusrd (1)

ClownPenis (1315157) | about 7 months ago | (#46836305)

Gamers don't need much bandwidth, they need quick RTT and low (read: no) packet loss. That would be another ideal class of service for a "fast lane".

Re:Abusrd (4, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | about 7 months ago | (#46836353)

Yes, it may cause Disney or Netflix to raise prices to their customers to pay for the Fast Lane they're getting,

You can go ahead and change "may" to "already did [slashdot.org] ."

but it does not block access to other sources of content and silences nothing. Car pool lanes don't keep other cars from using the normal lanes

You obviously don't live in any densely populated enough area (say, Southern California) where there in fact are any car-pool lanes, do you? Where do you think that extra lane came from? The meta-plane of elemental freeway lanes? No, they blocked a regular lane to turn it into a carpool lane and now, one-by-one, they're beginning to systematically charge you extra to use them [metroexpresslanes.net] .

Re:Abusrd (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 7 months ago | (#46836515)

Where do you think that extra lane came from?

In some places they are built in the existing median, with controls to allow them to be used for "inbound" traffic in the morning and "outbound" traffic in the afternoon. I've apparently been to the big city enough times to have seen such wonders and marvels.

No, they blocked a regular lane to turn it into a carpool lane

Ok. So the analogy fails in that the Fast Lane is added bandwidth. But still, nobody is prevented from using the normal lanes and they are still there.

they're beginning to systematically charge you extra to use them .

And you can avoid that extra charge by not driving in the carpool lanes. I understand that you're unhappy with the roads in SoCal and I certainly would not choose to live there (traffic being just one of several reasons) but the carpool lane analogy the NYT used was only an analogy, not a congruency. There will be some differences between the two. One being them difference in damage created by a "packet" collision, of course.

Re:Abusrd (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 7 months ago | (#46836827)

You obviously don't live in any densely populated enough area (say, Southern California) where there in fact are any car-pool lanes, do you? Where do you think that extra lane came from? The meta-plane of elemental freeway lanes? No, they blocked a regular lane to turn it into a carpool lane and now, one-by-one, they're beginning to systematically charge you extra to use them [metroexpresslanes.net] .

Actually, CalTrans is not allowed to convert an existing lane to an HOV lane, only "new" lanes can become HOV lanes:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffa... [ca.gov]

Regular "mixed-flow" lanes are never converted to HOV lanes. Rather, HOV lanes are always added to existing facilities.

Re:Abusrd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836603)

Lol they wont be adding new high speed lanes, they will convert your regular lanes in to high speed lanes. This will crowd more and more data on to reduced lanes of travel (to stick with the analogy) and cause all of your non prioritized traffic to go slower then shit.

Good Timing (1)

jtw78 (2555926) | about 7 months ago | (#46836033)

I had just searched this out and signed it based on the FCC news. Good to see that my mind and the hive mind are linked.

QoS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836047)

What about QoS for VOIP?

Re:QoS (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46836129)

QoS if fascist. Didn't you read the OP?

Re:QoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836241)

QoS is paying your carrier to throw away someone else's traffic (who is also paying your carrier, btw).

The thing I don't get is that the SP's are saying they aren't getting compensated for the data, yet they are. I pay them for the bandwidth I consume. It should not matter to them who it's coming from, it costs them the same if they are carrying a bit to me no mater where that bit originated (unless it was an internal bit, but that's another point).

Furthermore, the sender is also paying, or getting free peering from the carrier because of the value they bring to the network. So the sender is paying someone, that someone has a business arrangement with my SP to exchange traffic, and I pay my SP to consume that traffic. I don't get where they aren't getting compensated for this. The fact that they've made stupid decisions in how they've architected their networks, and are now paying for that lack of foresight is an internal mater, and one that I (or anyone else, other than their owners - the shareholders) shouldn't have subsidize them out of. To paraphrase, piss-poor planning on your part, should not constitute a financial debt on my (or my correspondents') part.

Re:QoS (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#46836631)

Butthurt that your ISP disconnected 'your' zombies? You realize they weren't yours anymore?

Crying about the Oligarchy (0)

mfh (56) | about 7 months ago | (#46836063)

Oligarchies [bbc.com] don't have to listen to anyone, sadly. Everyone needs to learn how to do everything for ourselves or we'll become extinct when all the resources run out. (sooner than you think)

We'll all have to learn how to adapt to space without governments if we are to survive as people. If you were to set a course for a distant nebula, nobody could catch you as long as you kept your heading.

But that kind of travel is very far off. One breakthrough could trigger a chain reaction... a singularity [reddit.com] .

WTF is this going to accomplish?! (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836075)

Obama ran on a policy of net neutrality support and staffed the FCC board with members with the intent of establishing net neutrality.

Now the FCC (which the Obama administration controls) is doing a 180.

Is this being done because Obama and the DNC doesn't want it or because Comcast is throwing money around?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/re... [forbes.com]

http://thehill.com/blogs/hilli... [thehill.com]

Re:WTF is this going to accomplish?! (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 months ago | (#46836163)

Is this being done because Obama and the DNC doesn't want it or because Comcast is throwing money around?

I suspect that the latter directly impacts the former.

Pro Net Freedom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836079)

Are you against overnight delivery options? This is propaganda against the same thing, except for bandwidth.

Companies offer expedited delivery because it increases the amount of business they can do. If it cost them customers to offer tiered services, they wouldn't do it. The internet will be larger and offer more options, not fewer, if Net Neutrality is kept out of the ISP industry.

The righteous indignation against internet freedom in this case is surprising for the community that wants so much choice in software.

Re:Pro Net Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836135)

Comcast, if you're going to post on Slashdot.. at least sign in to your account.

Re:Pro Net Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836155)

ad hominem

Re:Pro Net Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836629)

Truth hurts?

Re:Pro Net Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836671)

i'm embarrassed on your behalf

Re:Pro Net Freedom (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 months ago | (#46836177)

That might be more of a valid analogy and less of an obvious shill if the "recipient" of overnight delivery was already paying for it.

Re:Pro Net Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836235)

again ad hominem

And I don't get what you mean exactly. Could you expand?

We are already paying more for letter delivery, via the Post Office monopoly. They have to keep people from competing with them by using force.

And again I don't get why any dissenting post here is a 'troll'.

Re:Pro Net Freedom (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 7 months ago | (#46836941)

again ad hominem

It's not ad hominem if there's no "hominem" -- sign in to an account if you want someone to argue the merits of your argument. When you post as an AC, you're just one of many anonymous voices shouting from the back of the auditorium.

Re:Pro Net Freedom (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 7 months ago | (#46836865)

Are you against overnight delivery options? This is propaganda against the same thing, except for bandwidth.

Companies offer expedited delivery because it increases the amount of business they can do. If it cost them customers to offer tiered services, they wouldn't do it. The internet will be larger and offer more options, not fewer, if Net Neutrality is kept out of the ISP industry.

The righteous indignation against internet freedom in this case is surprising for the community that wants so much choice in software.

Fedex doesn't pay more money to use the roads to deliver an overnight package than to deliver a 5 day ground package.

A more apt analogy to express delivery is that Netflix could opt for a slower service where you choose the movie you want to watch the day before, and they download it to you overnight, reducing their need for peak bandwidth. But that is not the same as paying the carriers more money to get the bits to you.

Why do you feel these petitions are relevant? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836097)

Serious question. These petitions are clearly not only completely absent any actual legal or procedural relevance; they are routinely ignored by the white house, often complete with redicule and mocking, that is if any attention is paid to them whatsoever.

These things are at best a token 'feel good' nod toward public relations and more realistically, these things are just flat out time wasters for all involved.

So why is so much attention paid to them?

Isn't it better to use your time and money towards things that could result in some real policy or legislative changes in government, such as supporting or working to defeat politicians, supporitng lobbying efforts, or other more traditional methods of interacting with the state?

Oh and by the way, president Obama has made his 'transparency' campaign lie completely 'transparent' by now, you all should know that he will follow through on no promise that he doesn't already want to act on (which is most of them) and in the end is happy to lie right to the face of the voter and then go off into a back room and do exactly the opposite of what he states he will do, towards whatever end he pleases. So given that (Gitmo? allowing bills to be reviewed before signing them? eliminating lobbyists from the white house etc.) why would you guys spend any effort at all in trying to influence his decicions or actions? You *know* they could not possibly care less what you proles think.

Real question; what are you guys thinking here? No one cares!

Network Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836107)

The petition could be written on expensive parchment and soaked in Chanel #5 as people bow and scrape hope for the best, and it will still never fly!

The white spaces rules only allow 40 MILLIwatts (Gee thanks Barry Bubba!) and the FCC and broadcasters act like it's tearing up the Constitution!

Pump in something like 5 watts, set up your own local IPnetworks (be willing to sacrifice a few cheap and anonymousPC boards carefully hidden away until they confiscate them, and antennas made of coat hangers etc. they can't get em all); if you beg them to allow communication. they'll turn you down every time while they suck up to the plutocrats.

When they own the information... (5, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 7 months ago | (#46836113)

...they can bend it all they want.

Tom Wheeler is a crotchety old sleazebag who has been bought and paid for by Big Telecom. Unfortunately he's probably also foolish enough to think he's doing right by the American public. That's the most dangerous kind.

RIP Internet

bandiwth hogging is bad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836117)

I think not all information costs the same. Streaming movies is much more costly than reading news stories and it's impossible for ISP to guarantee that all of their subscribers will be able to stream movies at the same time. I would be ok if net neutrality rules were suspended for bandwidth hogging services.

Re:bandiwth hogging is bad (2)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 7 months ago | (#46836201)

Nice shill post but your assumptions aren't correct. ISPs can and do support massive streaming to large portions of their customers. They simply want to avoid paying for infrastructure upgrades while at the same time milking both ends of the wire for all the money they can.

Would you give up Netflix to protect Comcast's bottom line? How about innovators like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google? Without Net Neutrality, they wouldn't exist. Go back to using AOL and Compuserve, see how much you like networks with no competition, fool.

Re:bandiwth hogging is bad (0)

harryjohnston (1118069) | about 7 months ago | (#46836805)

OK, at least you understand that infrastructure upgrades are necessary. So ... why should Comcast customers who don't use Netflix pay for upgrades to benefit those who do?

If I only use the internet for email and online shopping, why should my prices go up because other people are using it for video streaming?

Re:bandiwth hogging is bad (5, Insightful)

Gavrielkay (1819320) | about 7 months ago | (#46836253)

The trouble is that the ISPs want to promise high speed and unlimited usage but not deliver it. They want to put the blame on the streaming companies. ISPs have gotten away with false promises for years because the content wasn't demanding enough to prove them wrong. Now, rather than raise their own prices or put in caps and limit usage during prime time etc. they want to put the blame on Netflix etc. They make Netflix etc. pay them more money for the same bandwidth they are already charging customers for. Then when Netflix (or whoever) raises their prices to compensate, Netflix takes the blame instead of the ISP. The end user and Netflix (etc) have already paid for bandwidth. The ISP wants to get paid twice because their business model didn't allow for the user actually using the purchased bandwidth.

Re:bandiwth hogging is bad (2)

harryjohnston (1118069) | about 7 months ago | (#46836943)

Netflix is not paying for the bandwidth the customers are already paying for. Netflix is paying for *extra* bandwidth.

Data caps would solve the problem, but US consumers have been very reluctant (to say the least) to accept them. I don't think that's Comcast's fault. In any case, does it really matter whether Netflix customers are paying the extra costs to Netflix or to Comcast? I mean, enough to make it worth putting up with the hassles of a data cap?

The customer always pays (5, Insightful)

Monoman (8745) | about 7 months ago | (#46836121)

We pay for our bandwidth and now the greedy ISPs are wanting to get paid by the content providers (Netflix, Hulu, etc). Do you really think they are going to absorb the additional costs if this continues? Of course not, they will raise their prices.

ISPs rarely deliver what you pay for so them crying that its the content providers fault is BS. The problem is lack of real competition in the ISP market. Most folks have a choice between cable and DSL. Two isn't enough to be very competitive.

Re:The customer always pays (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 7 months ago | (#46836221)

Most people don't even have that choice. As sad as it is, Google Fiber is practically our last light of hope illuminating the shadow cast by ATT, Verizon, and Comcast.

Re:The customer always pays (1)

HaeMaker (221642) | about 7 months ago | (#46836239)

Yeah, but try setting up your own web server on Google Fiber... Net Neutrality is only for the big boys, it seems.

Re:The customer always pays (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836423)

I think your information may be out of date. As long as you're not doing so commercially [slashdot.org] , you can in fact run a web server on Google Fiber without violating their TOS.

Re:The customer always pays (1)

quarterbuck (1268694) | about 7 months ago | (#46836443)

The effect you describe are correct, but the intermediate steps will be different in my opinion.
If I follow what you say , Customers pay more, Cable companies become more profitable and internet companies pass on the cost and remain about the same in terms of profitability.
The situation will probably be worse. All the larger companies (established ones) will be able to pay (And probably not take a serious hit). Any new entrants will find it a barrier. So will any non-US website. So, other than Netflix,Hulu and Amazon, the market will have no movie streaming business. Youtube will be free from tiny competitors. Facebook and Google+ will have no alternatives. There will be one or two streaming music companies (not 10 or 15 as today). As a result, they will be able to charge you monopoly profits. So the actual results will probably be that established internet companies become more profitable, innovative start-ups die, consumers pay more and cable companies collect more. This is a far worse outcome for US innovation than what you describe.
Actually what surprises me is that Google actually supported net neutrality. Traffic shaping would actually allow them (through these bribes) to kill all competitors. Just pay Comcast a large enough amount and they will gladly throttle anyone else to death.

Re:The customer always pays (1)

phorm (591458) | about 7 months ago | (#46836687)

"Do you really think they are going to absorb the additional costs if this continues? Of course not, they will raise their prices."

That's the point. Keep in mind that these guys are the same ones that have been making megabucks on cable TV etc, which is now in decline. So instead they'll either f*** up 3rd-party services or collect a danegeld on them in hopes that it'll drive prices up (and people back to cable).

Re:The customer always pays (1)

harryjohnston (1118069) | about 7 months ago | (#46836753)

The amount you pay your ISP is based on traditional usage patterns. Someone has to pay for the extra equipment.

Either the ISP raises their prices or the content providers do, and why should Comcast customers who don't use Netflix pay extra in order to subsidize those that do?

Whitehouse petitions. Pfft. (1)

Chas (5144) | about 7 months ago | (#46836169)

Sorry, but just about every one of these I've seen have been coming back from the office of Mr. "YES! YOU CAN!" has been "NO! YOU CAN'T!"

Online petitions are worth exactly the amount of energy it takes to ignore them completely.

A better petition... (4, Insightful)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 7 months ago | (#46836191)

would ask that ISPs be classified as common carriers. Then there could be nothing they can do.

Why not? (1)

zymano (581466) | about 7 months ago | (#46836219)

If it brings prices down.

The Oligarchy won't let it happen. (5, Insightful)

XB-70 (812342) | about 7 months ago | (#46836245)

The recent Princeton research shows that the U.S. appears to be an oligarchy.

Let me put this out there: if they don't want net neutrality, mark my words, all the petitions in the world won't make a whit of difference.

Let's review this topic in two years and see whether I'm right.

Sure. (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 7 months ago | (#46836249)

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

Comcast lowered bills? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836269)

Since Comcast is now getting paid by Netflix - have they turned around and cut everyone's bill? Surely, they aren't just pocketing that money.

Re:Comcast lowered bills? (1)

harryjohnston (1118069) | about 7 months ago | (#46836737)

No, they didn't cut prices and they didn't pocket the money - they spent it. You know, on the extra equipment that was needed to improve performance for Netflix customers?

its time (1)

bugger41 (2557910) | about 7 months ago | (#46836279)

its time we see to it the the corporate influence on the net abolished they ruin every thing they touch the internet is no exception the f.c.c. has lost there minds it time we tell them ether they rule in the favor of the people and the people alone or we find a way to faze them out. im sick of hearing how the internet is under attack and corporate influence is the cause they don't make laws we do when is that ever going to be expressed. they need to be told once and for all to shut up and go away the internet belongs to the people not them they just don't deserve a vote. they ruined the main steam media let them feed from that filthy troff until it runs dry then they can starve to death as it is a deserving fate.tell them to take their collectivist ideas and jam them where the sun don't shine. it time we let them rot on the vine.we don't need them we have the internet for now.

Go to hell, FCC (1)

nwaack (3482871) | about 7 months ago | (#46836293)

So I guess this page [fcc.gov] on the FCC website doesn't actually mean anything then. I guess the bribes finally became large enough.

Well then we need another petition (1)

KingTank (631646) | about 7 months ago | (#46836359)

One that has the same sentiment but doesn't sound like a 14-year old wrote it.

Comcast should have been fined for extortion. (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 7 months ago | (#46836393)

Comcast should be fined for extorting Netflix so they don't throttle their bandwith. The problem is that Comcast buys out politicians so the government no longer regulates monopolies, monopolies regulate the government.

Re:Comcast should have been fined for extortion. (1)

harryjohnston (1118069) | about 7 months ago | (#46836711)

Oh, for heaven's sake - haven't we gone over this enough times by now? Comcast *wasn't* throttling the bandwidth. They simply declined to pay for additional equipment that would only be of benefit to Netflix customers.

Why should Comcast customers who don't use Netflix subsidize those that do?

Re:Comcast should have been fined for extortion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836825)

Which they mysteriously managed to buy and install immediately after they started paying.

source-based not the problem (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 7 months ago | (#46836529)

As I see it, an ISP should first of all do QoS on their traffic based on *subscriber*...what their plan is, whether they have any SLAs in place, etc. At this stage the *type* of traffic should not be considered.

As a second optional stage, *if a subscriber asks them to do so* then they could do type/source/whatever-based QoS, but that would *only affect packets belonging to that subscriber*.

That way, your traffic can't affect mine, and mine can't affect yours. If I want, I can do my own QoS, or I can let the ISP do it for me. It is *not* the ISP's job to prioritize your VoIP packets ahead of my bittorrent packets. They should be equal. If you want them to prioritize your VoIP packets ahead of _your_ bittorrent packets, then that's fine.

Re:source-based not the problem (1)

harryjohnston (1118069) | about 7 months ago | (#46836787)

This isn't about QoS. This is about who pays for the extra equipment necessary to support streaming video.

What's wrong with this picture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836563)

Isn't the very fact that the service providers CAN determine what we're getting and sending to and from whom is itself a violation of privacy? I don't care about net neutrality if the packets I'm dealing with are properly secured.

Good I'm in Brazil! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836599)

Net neutrality is the law here (signed yesterday)!
In this deep shit country I feel better each time I read the news about justice, democracy or fairness in the US.

Just wish folks would chill out (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 7 months ago | (#46836601)

As a veteran of the early days of the Internet, I wish people would just chill out from trying to get the Federal government to put more regulations on the Internet. The lack of regulation is what enabled the Internet to be what it is today.

Someone has to pay to put bits into a network, someone has to pay to move bits in a network, and someone needs to pay to move bits out of a network.

Leave it to the content providers and ISPs to figure out how to slice up the pie.

If you want more competition in local ISP access, work on that instead. Go start one! You could even offer 1 Gbps non-oversubscribed bandwidth. I'm sure you won't run into any regulation causing a barrier to entry...

Time for a new internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46836605)

Seriously, slashdot, why can't we discuss the possibility of a new internet? Is it too revolutionary for you? Does it make you nervous? NSA instruct you to censor all such talk?

Is it even technologically possible to make a new internet with ISPs that are co-owned by all the users? I feel like someone has already suggested this a few years back.

Won't win this fight with philosophical arguments (1)

Tanman (90298) | about 7 months ago | (#46836649)

As bad-taste as it is to post another submitted story in a front-page story, here is another whitehouse.gov petition story that addresses net neutrality from an angle that is actually winnable:

http://slashdot.org/submission/3512823/whitehousegov-net-neutrality-petition [slashdot.org]

That links to this: http://wh.gov/lfOKl [wh.gov]

In order to win this fight, we need to make people understand that net neutrality is a services-paid-for issue. They paid for something, but they are being robbed out of getting what they purchased. To win net neutrality, you MUST sell that point to people.

Re:Won't win this fight with philosophical argumen (1)

harryjohnston (1118069) | about 7 months ago | (#46836781)

No, the problem is that people don't understand what they've paid for. If you'd really paid for both ends of the traffic, with unlimited bandwidth, the prices would have been much higher than they are.

Why should Comcast customers who don't use Netflix subsidize those that do?

Petitions need to be more specific (1)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | about 7 months ago | (#46836757)

i've signed on to the one linked in the article, but that petition lacks specifics. for example, one of the biggest problems is having a former CTIA lobbyist as the chairman of the FCC. that has to end.

sign this petition if you agree: http://wh.gov/lwhr8 [wh.gov]

yes, the usefulness of these petitions are questionnable. but if enough *voters* make a fuss, people notice. cynicism and total inaction never changes anything.

This is nonsense (1)

harryjohnston (1118069) | about 7 months ago | (#46836879)

"[...] to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have [...] the message of their competitors silenced."

The new rules, as described in the previous article, allow a content provider to pay an ISP to install extra equipment to increase the bandwidth they have to their customers. They do not allow a content provider to pay to have an ISP block or degrade access to another content provider.

The new rules are just common sense. ISPs should not be permitted to sell content providers exclusive access to the bandwidth their customers already paid for - but why shouldn't they be permitted to install extra bandwidth for a content provider at that provider's expense?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?