LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-18-2015, 05:09 PM   #1
fogpipe
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Distribution: Slackware 64 -current,
Posts: 550

Rep: Reputation: 194Reputation: 194
Net neutrality


https://www.battleforthenet.com/?call_tool=1

A tool to help contact those to whom your opinion may matter. USA only.
 
Old 02-26-2015, 03:02 PM   #2
smeezekitty
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Washington U.S.
Distribution: M$ Windows / Debian / Ubuntu / DSL / many others
Posts: 2,339

Rep: Reputation: 231Reputation: 231Reputation: 231
Yes!


The FCC voted in favor of net neutrality
 
Old 02-26-2015, 05:00 PM   #3
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171
"Cable TeeVee" companies just can't get over their well-entrenched mindset that "everything which comes to a home over a coaxial cable must be TeeVee."
 
Old 02-26-2015, 05:36 PM   #4
LinuxUser42
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Distribution: Lubuntu, Raspbian, Openelec, messing with others.
Posts: 143

Rep: Reputation: 19
I have to disagree with that assessment. IMHO, it is all about creating billable events. You want your streaming to reach your customers, pay us for better bandwidth. Hey cable customers, you want to use us to get your streaming, pay us for better bandwidth.

They did this with getting the right to show local channels, but encrypt them so the customers would have to rent a box, per tv.
 
Old 02-26-2015, 06:55 PM   #5
Pearlseattle
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 986

Rep: Reputation: 126Reputation: 126
Quote:
IMHO, it is all about creating billable events
Bullseye
 
Old 02-27-2015, 08:16 PM   #6
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171
Exactly. Which is why internet service should be strictly a "common carrier." You must carry all traffic with all possible despatch, without fear or favor.
 
Old 03-02-2015, 04:28 PM   #7
metaschima
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,982

Rep: Reputation: 491Reputation: 491Reputation: 491Reputation: 491Reputation: 491
Breaking: House Judiciary Committee Tells FCC It's Going To Block Net Neutrality Rules
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...ommenced.shtml

I knew it was too good to be true. The ISPs will never let it pass.
 
Old 03-02-2015, 08:19 PM   #8
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171
I frankly see this "development" as "politics as usual" ... b-u-t ... I also happen to think that this entire issue is something that, in the end, will require some "new law." In other words, Congress ... not [just] the FCC.

So far, we have lots of "tried-and-true law" with regards to ... telephones. But a fundamental characteristic of these technologies is that they are "point-to-point." You, calling "from phone #X," place a call "to phone #Y." And, for the entire duration of the call (from a legal sense, if not today strictly from a technical one ...), the communication channel betwixt X and Y is both "dedicated" and "private." (Such that the exception to "private" is called "wiretapping.")

The Internet, however, is entirely different. It was (literally) designed to withstand an atomic holocaust. There is no "dedicated path." (In fact, there is no particular "path.") The route, whatever it turns out to be, is not "private," nor are the packets of the transmission private at any point during their [unpredictable... packet-by-packet...] route.

The "cable companies" and "teevee companies" (and for that matter, "mobile-phone companies") are all trying to monopolize the so-called "last mile," which is the point at which the data traffic passes through the last remaining vestige of their "Ma Bell's Black Rotary-Dial Phone™" former-monopoly: that piece of wire that stretches from the pole to your house. And in this attempt I frankly think that they are only slightly less clueless than the loud-mouthed my-party-driven politicians ... who right now are "speaking for the sake of having spoken" instead of pausing to consider the underlying legal questions.

Ultimately, "new law" is going to have to be created here ... and, the content of that "new law" (which is going to have to last for a very long time) will not be easy to decide.

"Creating bad-laws is easy. Creating good-laws is very, very hard."
 
Old 03-04-2015, 06:26 PM   #9
Pearlseattle
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 986

Rep: Reputation: 126Reputation: 126
Quote:
...will not be easy to decide.
Isn't this going to be much much harder to define than usual?
Or: isn't this one of those rare things that HAS to be completely white or completely black (not-gray-zone-compatible)?

I mean, especially in the "black" case:
as soon as a provider guarantees service X with e.g. 100% reliability, that provider will have A LOT of interest to deteriorate the remaining services to indirectly motivate the issuers and/or the receivers of service Y to pay to reach a certain degree of reliability for service Y.
The budgets for the services Y/W/... will just be reduced leaving only service X with full capability.
Meaning: following the principle of capitalism, if I own a company, why would I be motivated to improve the reliability of service Y if I have already a good income through service X?
 
Old 03-09-2015, 04:48 PM   #10
metaschima
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,982

Rep: Reputation: 491Reputation: 491Reputation: 491Reputation: 491Reputation: 491
Blackburn Bill Attempts To Gut New Net Neutrality Rules. You Know, For Freedom.
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...-freedom.shtml
 
Old 03-09-2015, 05:57 PM   #11
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171
Actually, Meta, this sort of thing is just "irrelevant political noise."

First of all, "$80,000 in political contributions" is "a chicken-feed bribe contribution." You'll have to add at least three more zeros, and quite-possibly four, to your "usual and regular take," before you can call yourself a "Big [Wo]Man On Campus™" in the US Congress ...and you'll probably have to get yourself elected into the US Senate. (Good luck with that.)

There will probably be several dozen bills, more or less just like this one, "introduced" in the next several weeks or months. All of them will die in committee.

At the end of the day, "the Internet is not about 'the Last Mile.'" Why? I can think of two very simple reasons right off the bat:
  1. Internet content is not "an episode" of any sort. It isn't a television or radio 'program.' (Nor, a 'commercial.') In other words: "the Internet is not 'Broadcasting.'" The Internet is a point-to-point communication network, which therefore has no technical, functional, nor legal counterpart from either the "broadcasting" or the "telecom" worlds ... even though both of those worlds have managed to make use of it.
  2. The entire legal/liability issue of actually "trying to 'play favorites'" will expose you to lawsuits easily big-enough to sink you. Please bear in mind that most bankruptcy filings are due to lawsuits, not debt level.
Fifteen seconds after "any company, no matter how big-and-bad they suppose themselves to be," actually tries to set themselves up as the arbiter of "which traffic goes first / which traffic does not," they will have to start serving complimentary coffee to the tens of thousands of Process Servers who will be showing up at their doorsteps, politely asking their Corporate Officers to "sign here, please."

And, long before the Honorable Court actually gets around to processing the first entry in their docket, the international investing community will have already spoken . . . Their share-prices will be in the single digits, and credit will be unobtainable. It can happen in less than 24 hours. . .
 
Old 03-09-2015, 06:05 PM   #12
metaschima
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,982

Rep: Reputation: 491Reputation: 491Reputation: 491Reputation: 491Reputation: 491
I'm not quite that optimistic about this. I think the big ISPs are out to crush net neutrality, and they have the power to do it. Heck, even with net neutrality passing, there is still the possibility that the big ISPs will have workarounds for it.
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...about-it.shtml
 
Old 03-14-2015, 04:38 AM   #13
kuser:)
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Olsztyn, Poland
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 168

Rep: Reputation: 99
I wouldn't be optimistic either.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
 
Old 03-16-2015, 06:54 PM   #14
Pearlseattle
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 986

Rep: Reputation: 126Reputation: 126
Quote:
At the end of the day, "the Internet is not about 'the Last Mile.'
Not sure.
I'm thinking of "the Internet" as "the Sea" and the "last mile" as the "ports" => whoever controls the ports controls the sea, no?
 
Old 03-16-2015, 08:43 PM   #15
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171Reputation: 3171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearlseattle View Post
Not sure.
I'm thinking of "the Internet" as "the Sea" and the "last mile" as the "ports" => whoever controls the ports controls the sea, no?
Actually, I think that the best "legal corollary" for the present situation is that ... the harbor-masters wish to control which ships are able to 'timely off-load their cargo,' and which are, for no compelling "Act Of God™" reason, going to be arbitrarily(!) delayed.

Right now, the "'last-mile' people" are all (old-world) media people, who are content to equate "the Internet" with the one thing that they know: "television."

But: "they haven't a cucking floo."

Truth is, a real-world harbor-master has no idea what ship might show up next, nor how important the arrival of that ship might be to anyone else on the planet. "A real- world harbor-master" is, in fact, therefore very aware of the myriad legal theories under which he might be sued for the act of "playing favorites."

In the eyes of the law,™ as well as reality, the Internet is, and must be, a "Common Carrier." The fellow who happens to own "the last mile" actually has no choice(!!) but to be "studiously neutral." Trouble is, "cable-television people" haven't yet figured that out.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-16-2015 at 08:46 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Interconnection: Or How Big Broadband Kills Net Neutrality Without Violating 'Net Neutrality' LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 05-07-2014 02:12 PM
net neutrality foo_bar_foo General 36 06-25-2013 07:38 PM
LXer: Net neutrality supporters file lawsuit against net neutrality rules LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-29-2011 08:40 PM
Net neutrality. Jeebizz Linux - News 0 09-22-2009 02:50 PM
LXer: How the Net was Lost - the real story behind Net Neutrality LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-20-2006 10:33 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration