
When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission (2006) - vaksel
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
======
electromagnetic
I do agree with his point that the internet _should_ be regulated, but it
should be regulated to be _fair_. My current internet is 10 meg download and 1
meg upload... however I only get 60% of this. No matter what speed we have, we
never get 100% of it and the only reason companies get away with it is that
they're allowed to hide this BS in the small print with an "*up to" so it's up
to 10 meg.

I wish for once I could actually get what I paid for when I use a phone
company. I mean it'd be nice that when I'm contracted to pay them, they should
be contracted to actually do what they advertise. This is where I'd like
regulation and serious fines if they don't meet their advertisements 95% of
the time.

~~~
dantheman
This has absolutely nothing to do with the point he is trying to make. He's
concerned over traffic shaping and giving preferential treatment to various
sites/traffic.

What you are concerned with is false advertising.

~~~
jmtame
false advertising is the oldest trick in the book for telecomms.
<http://www.newnetworks.com/tellthetruthverizon.htm>

network neutrality is a lot more serious than any type of false advertising a
telecomm can put out. as consumers, if we're smart enough to see that our
service plans aren't 100mbps, ok no big deal. yes, they're both evil, but
false advertising isn't really even part of network neutrality as a debate.

now if we have no say in how fast certain websites respond, depending on how
much we're paying (or they're paying), that's an entirely different topic. i
can walk away from a provider if they're lying through advertising. but who's
going to stop them from throttling your connection based on which website
you're visiting?

legislation is the only thing that can stop the big 3 from this type of thing.
you'll notice that in the past, the FCC has actually punished traffic
discrimination (like when comcast was shutting off bit torrent, a complete
violation of neutrality rules). if there's no legislation, the duopolies can
do whatever they want and all have a big orgy price gauging at the same time.

------
gjm11
One-para summary: Tim Berners-Lee, in mid-2006, arguing for network
neutrality, pointing out that it isn't the same thing as "you shouldn't be
able to pay more for better internet service" and that regulation is not
always a bad thing (e.g., a market economy wouldn't work so well if there
weren't laws against forging currency).

(His one-sentence summary of the network neutrality principle: if A and B both
pay for access to the net with at least a certain quality of service, then
they should be able to communicate with at least that quality of service.)

~~~
unalone
I know it's vogue to summarize articles in comments, though I'm not sure why,
but this is ridiculous. His article is 11 short paragraphs - each one shorter
than one of your two paragraphs. It fits on a single page even if you have a
small screen and a narrow web browser. Why is a summary at all necessary?

~~~
rms
Most people read the comments first.

~~~
iamwil
I tend to do the opposite since I figured the comments would affect my
reaction to it.

------
jmtame
if you want to get caught up and get all of the background on network
neutrality, feel free to read a paper i wrote last november on it:
[http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-
neutrality-w...](http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-
word97/)

it covers as much as i could think of in <20 pages: history, the problems, the
facts, the evidence, the technology, the culture. the takeaway: it really is a
serious problem.

------
toodlestech
This is from 2006....

~~~
Hexstream
It's still very much relevant, considering the recent news that content
distributors want to force ISPs to violate net-neutrality.

~~~
palish
Links?

------
Allocator2008
First of all, Vice-President Gore invented the Web, not this doofus. (OK, just
kidding there!)

Secondly though net neutrality is immoral by Objectivist standards because it
regulates free enterprise and crushes healthy competition. If my DSL from ISP
1 doesn't give me the bandwidth that a DSL from ISP 2 could give me, I have
the consumer choice to switch to ISP 2. Ayn Rand would roll over in her grave
at this notion of net neutrality which is pretty much close to socialism,
because it ruins consumer choice and competition. If ISP 1 and 2 are forced to
provide the same bandwidth then my consumer choice goes out the window, and if
I am a shareholder for ISP 1 or 2 then my opportunity as a shareholder to
profit from different DSL packages gets reduced to. This hurts the consumer by
destroying competition and thus choice, and this hurts the shareholder by
hurting profit potential by undue regulation.

Think about it this way, as Sen. Stevens of Alaska mentioned, the internet is
like a series of tubes, with finite carrying capacity. I don't want to have to
wait until Monday to get a video emailed to me on Friday because the
government has forced my ISP to adhere to some arbitrary standard of how my
ISP can utilize the tubes of the internet. No, I want my video on Friday, the
same day it was emailed. I want the choice, the freedom, to choose an Internet
Service Provider who can pick the biggest tube out there to use to send me my
video. I do not want my ISP to be forced by the government to send me my video
via a smaller tube, where it has to wait in line behind a bunch of other
videos in that same tube. (Note: I am using the loose terminology here for
clarity, but I actually work in tech as a software qa engineer with a
background in unit testing and gui automation, I am A+ and Network+ certified,
so I do understand what I am talking about, just to be clear.) I want the
consumer freedom to have an ISP that chooses the biggest tube out there to
send me my video and I don't want the government telling my ISP what tube to
use. Period. Net neutrality hurts me as the consumer, and it hurts the
shareholder. An ISP should be allowed to operate however it likes to provide
value and choice to the consumer and profit for its shareholders, and big
brother should not get in the way. Ayn Rand would be ashamed of this
conversation. I hope for the sake of Western civilization that net neutrality
is rejected, or else we will all be singing the Internationale before long.

I realize this might not be a popular sentiment, and I also realize my "karma"
may be affected by it, but Ms. Rand would not let fear of karma reductions
keep her from speaking out on behalf of truth, justice, and the American Way,
and neither should I. :-)

~~~
russell
I hate the Al Gore snide remarks, because we owe him for what we have. He did
not invent the internet in the sense of the technology, but he did help create
it by sponsoring the legislation that funded the Internet, separating it from
DARPAnet.

timbl DID invent the web.

~~~
rdrimmie
Can we define Goredwin's Law as: 'As a technology forum discussion continues
the probability of someone joking about Al Gore creating the internet
approaches 1' and as a corollary stipulate that the participant who jokes
immediately loses any credibility, and perhaps karma?

------
bprater
I believe folks in Obama's administration tend to be pro-neutrality:

[http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2233906/obama-appoints-
net...](http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2233906/obama-appoints-net-
neutrality)

