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.
11/27/09
11/26/09
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.
11/26/09
11/25/09
If some bright designers got together, built a wireless system that not only connects to any available network but to any other nearby available wireless device, be it smartphone, laptop, desktop or whatever, using it as a ad hoc network connection and potential routing hub, it seems like it should be quite possible to build a nationwide network that has absolutely no dependence on the telco's good graces to connect, enabling smartphones to bypass the cell tower grid and get reception anywhere by simply connecting to the nearest other device like the internet does.
With the increasing number of smartphones, netbooks, and the upcoming tablets available, most cities should be saturated with enough potential nodes to provide a connection anywhere within it, regardless of whether there is a tower nearby or not. Especially bad reception cities like San Francisco would benefit enormously from such a system, no?
And you could basically tell the telco's to shove it.
11/26/09
I find it ironic how people can advocate for regulating private businesses (like mandating salaries of CEOs at public corporations) and yet they will fight vehemently against regulating a technology that has become as commonplace as 110V electricity.
The governement already dictates pricing and availablility of power, water and sewage. Why not telecommunications? In part we do regulate certain aspects of the telecomm industry it is just that we don't regulate anything on the consumer side.
There's no protection against fraudulent claims of coverage where none exists. No protection against contracts that can't be broken even though the service provider doesn't deliver the service you have a contract for. No protection against unlimited data plans that have limits. And so forth...
11/26/09
11/26/09
Get over your concepts of "privacy". YOU HAVE NONE. Every single bit of data on your phone is open to anyone with the know how to access your carrier signal. Your "privacy" is an illusion.
11/27/09
I understand what you're saying about privacy and the lack thereof but there are more protections in place today when corporations mismanage your info as opposed to individuals whose cell phone your data passed through.
11/28/09
Take a wireless device, which creates a peer to peer network with every other wireless device. This forms the framework. Like the internet, it does nothing but transmits and receives packet data. All data transferred through this net uses the same routing protocols as the internet and acts as a backbone, only using wireless instead of hardlines. This is solely infrastructure. At various points, this connects to the hardline net enabling traffic to route freely between the wireless and wired web.
Your cell phone treats this network exactly like it does the internet. Any and all data has the exact same protections from this network that it currently does from the internet. It is as safe and secure as it is at present. Data transmissions on the wireless web are as secure as data transmissions on the wired web,
However, this web eliminates the need to access the telco's cell network. It bypasses the cell towers and the telco's systems by routing thorough the wireless web exactly as your phone currently does ones it gets out of the telco's systems.
It also simultaneously builds a wireless network infrastructure that grows more complete with every device which accesses it which means that it could quickly spread to cover even areas without cell tower coverage provided there exists sufficient density of devices to enable a routing solution to be found to the nearest hardline access point.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
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.
11/26/09
Have fun "getting loud" about it, and paying more for your "getting loud" too.
11/26/09
11/28/09
So now you're all bitching again, and as I said, you're going to get something worse. And because of you, you'll force EVERYONE to have something worse. Because you don't get it.
Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with how you will be billed. And since not allowing ISPs to control abusive apps or users using those apps everyone will be forced to pay more. It's coming, thanks to all this unreasonable "i should be able to do whatever I want regardless of it's consiquences on the network" attitude. Oh, BTW, how will they write it to stop DDOS attacks? Packets are packets right? Why shouldn't I be able to get 100 of my best friends to try a coordinated DDOS attack on people or companies I don't like? Just because IP is BROKE doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to send these malformed packets, according to you and your pie in the sky like.
11/25/09
It's not like you don't have options and alternatives with your ISP choice. As much as you hate them, the ISPs are competing to offer more for less than each other, not trying to somehow charge you more for what you already have.
11/25/09
The CTO is using an ad-hominem attack and it is faulty logic.
11/26/09
11/25/09
The internet is not something that was given to us by some sort of creator or naturally, it is a service that we all subscribe to in one way or another; the internet is not a right. The telcos have every right to impose whatever rules they want to on thier networks. If you don't like, don't use thier network.
If a telco makes policy decisions that are not popular, they will loose customers. Free market economics, government intervention, is not the answer for the internet.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
I find it amazing that I have to pay 40 dollars/month to get basic 10Mbit/s downstream internet (which is capped, so I have to use free download manager to max out the line) when in Sweden, my home country, I used to pay 30 dollars for 100Mbit down/10Mbit up ... Even better, after a year the HA picked up the tab and now it's a part of the service which is provided with the apartment.
My sister in sweden has a ethernet jack in her apartment, when you surf the first time you get to choose your internet provider and most provide choices with speeds from 1Mbit/s to 1000Mbit/s (downstream). After you setup your billing, the system switches and presto, you got the service you paid for.
The government NEEDS to act here to make sure that we don't get stuck paying outrageous fees for a poor service.
The solution is extremely simple.
1. Split the infrastructure from the service
2. Make sure that no service provider gets preferential treatment from an infrastructure provider.
This gets us:
1. Competition between service providers (and also infrastructure providers)
2. Choices for the consumer
But it's easier said than done, so I don't expect miracles. But one can hope :)
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
edit: Although you could argue that there isn't enough competition in some areas for data caps to get cheaper.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
I agree with Nathan here. In Portland, OR we are very limited in terms of ISPs. If you want a broadband connection your only choice is Comcast and as a result they can charge an extremely high rate for poor service quality and a sneakily hidden data cap of 250GB. Sure there is Qwest, a DSL provider, and Verizon (who you have to pay an additional wiring fee of hundreds of dollars) in the city, but they are either slow in the case of Qwest or too costly in the case of Verizon. It is very frustrating to be limited in choices while being told that they cannot handle the network traffic. The big companies like Comcast, TimeWarner, Bell, Verizon, and Charter deliberately bought out the local/regional ISPs so they could profit from the market. Comcast used to advertise that their connection was the best for gaming and HD content, but now they say that there is too much traffic. Their own damn fault to biting off more than they can chew.
11/25/09
@Deletham_Tomalak: it's not even that they bit off more than they could chew. They deliberately cap speeds in order to drive up prices. Very few places face the infrastructure problems that they claim.
11/26/09
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Yeah, and it's already been done with Social Security.
In any case, there's no way growth can come from either corporations or government; I mean, even Sony has enough idiots on their Board of Directors to not have a year without horrible tech ideas come to fruition.
With small businesses, there's always a risk to stay put in their industry, as it's 'either provide a great service, or get out.' Sure, there are plenty that have failed, but the most significant growth has come from this competition in America.
As the only growth for government is from territorial aquisition, the only growth for corporations is to swallow up and buy out smaller companies.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
Please through in not requiring that we get TV too, or charging and extra fee for internet to opt out of TV.