Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12:22 PM
Piss off, Cicconi. If it's such an affront, do something about it ya punk bitch. I very much look forward for the hammer dropping on traffic manipulation.
11/25/09
11/25/09
AT&T's right.
*rinses mouth, returns*
If we get right down to it, people are dumb. An overwhelming majority of Americans don't know or care about what net neutrality is, and frankly they shouldn't. They needn't be overly concerned with spectrum allotment or any other technical specification that there's debate over. Unfortunately, for net neutrality, many that shouldn't be concerned are. When the public gets involved with things that they don't understand, it gets ugly real fast.
Nevertheless, when Glenn Beck tried to call proponents of net neutrality Marxists and Communists for, interestingly, the very same "controlling content" crap this statement vaguely implies, he was a moron and a fear-monger.
Sorry, but as ridiculous as I think the telcos are for trying to defend their overly-controlling practices....it has to go both ways. They're not communists, they're not dictators. They're simply misguided, trying to take whatever shortcut they can get.
Mr. McLaughlin, a little more high-road, if you please?
11/25/09
However, if you ask me, there's no real defending what ISPs are doing, no matter how they try to disguise it. Net neutrality is important, and I think it applies to more people than you seem to be implying. It affects us all, and so we do need to be loud about it. But let's not just sound stupid either.
11/25/09
well, to be fair, mclaughlin wasn't calling at&t communists or marxists, he's calling them Capitalists, just the capitalists of the worst Dickensian kind (i.e. the reason we have labor laws, unions, etc.). the chinese government's censorship policies has nothing to do with communism or marxism, and everything to do with totalitarianism. and, when it comes right down to it, he's right about the comparison; there's very little practical difference between information being censored for ideology and power, and information being censored for, well, money... and ideology and power.
11/25/09
I don't mean to say that folks should be excluded, but some do need to shutup.
As for telcos, if I'm giving in to unfair rants, yeah, you're right. Telcos are frequently too greedy and too lazy, preferring legislation over investment in their product. This isn't the case often and it sucks.
11/25/09
If you want to support that market research and advisement isn't doing its job properly and giving poor management advice to AT&T, whether it is because they want to make a quick buck and cash out, or simple carelessness, or incompetence, it's not the same as guiding them wrong for the first time.
These are the same advisers who have been costing them money since day one. "Fool me Once, Shame on You. Fool me Twice, Shame on Me".
The ugly truth is, that the company heads really don't care about the consequences, because they don't apply to them. So they try to screw the American consumer out of every last penny in the Short run, never thinking about the long run. Not even the middle run.
I don't know about you, but to me it sounds like abuse of power with complete negligence for the people. And it sounds a lot like totalitarian government at that. Not just communist, but fascist and juntist and any other government that is detached from its people.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
Many of these politicians are indeed out of their area of expertise. It's unfortunate that these are the people we trust with sorting out our laws. However, in the case of McCain, I don't think he's an idiot. I think there's certainly some money changing hands, some interests being protected, and some general sneakery going on here. You don't put your name out there without knowing what you're talking about unless you're getting paid to. And this is something that happens in congress all the time.
As for Joe Schmo, sure, he's got no business sticking his nose in and trying to sound educated when he's really just talking out of his ass and has no idea what he's talking about. Net neutrality is a complicated issue.
So I guess you're right, I thought you were implying that net neutrality only affected some of us; I now understand you meant only some of us actually know what we're talking about.
#tips
11/25/09
I suppose that's more research to be done than. Thanks for the food for thought.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
First you establish precedent for restricting access to videos on the basis of bandwidth... then you restrict access to videos on the basis of their content (because a content provider subsidizes the additional costs)... then you let content providers (or the government?) essentially decide what is or is not allowed through Internet pipes on the basis of which providers will pay. If the government pays a corporation to only allow, say, pro-government media through, then that's the bottom of our slippery slope (welcome to Fascism).
Only way to stop slippery slopes is to stop them at the top - practice full net neutrality.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
If we allow content to be restricted on the basis of how much bandwidth they suck (i.e. how expensive it is to permit people to download them), then it stands to reason that if someone would be willing to subsidize the additional expense, i.e. if Google were to pay Comcast to insert more pipes, then Google would be able to tell Comcast what would be allowed through those pipes - just like how if someone makes a major donation to some educational institution, they can tell the institution how they would like their money to be spent.
If you finance the pipes, you can decide what goes through them. The original reasoning (not allowing videos because they suck too much bandwidth) no longer applies, but only to the videos that are permitted through the special privately-financed pipes - i.e. YouTube videos since Google owns YouTube.
Arguing that this allows the "public" pipes - i.e. non-sponsored pipes, available to anybody who pays for minimum Internet access - to be "freed up" in some way misses reality - either the "public" pipes will be artificially narrowed - i.e. your bandwidth throttled, in order to get you to pay for a "privatized" pipe - or the "public" pipes will be chopped up into privatized sections to be sold off to sponsors because in either situation, the ISP's make more money - similar to the reasoning of how insurance companies make their money today, by refuting legitimate claims. The "public" pipes will be there, they'll be open, but you won't have access to them because denying you access (just like denying your insurance claims) makes the company more money.
The step afterwards is, of course, when the government becomes one of these sponsors - and out-bids all other sponsors for control of all the pipes. The argument is not non-sequitur or a logical fallacy.
11/25/09
Why should my ISP have the right to filter the data I pay for? I am "fortunate"enough to have three ISP's in my area, all of whom have abysmal customer service. I have been arguing for over a month with AT&T that there is a problem with my line. I have had techs tell me that the problem has to be in the line. But they won't fix it. I used to work for Comcast, and know how awful the local techs are. RCN's services aren't competitive with the other two providers.
Why do you defend things like this? You can't argue about customer choice when there are local monopolies in EVERY municipality in the US.
There is not such thing as a free market in nationwide wiring. The barrier to entry is unbelievably staggering. It would cost trillions to compete with the established copper. We HAVE to keep an eye on them, because they have proven time and again that they will screw their customers over.
11/25/09
People give you money. Shut up and build more internets and they'll give you more money.
11/25/09
Come on AT&T you have the iPhone, now shut up.
11/25/09
Take money.
Do not provide reliable or timely service and refuse to use a single dollar of profit to improve your busted-ass network.
Repeat monthly.
11/25/09
Well that's one way of putting it.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
How much does that cost? Might start my own ISP.
11/25/09
11/25/09
And @Everyone else, I know there's more to it than some local fibers. I still wonder what the related expenses are as it may well be lucrative.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Quote being taken WAY out-of-context by some teabagger in 3, 2, 1...
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
i can do that, because i voted for Ron Pail.
11/24/09
Now all you need to do is name Keepon as the head of foreign policies and relations to reach world peace.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
#tips
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Sorta awesome that we actually have a president now who probably knows what "A.I." stands for though.