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.
11/25/09
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
11/25/09
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.
10/28/09
10/28/09
Call me paranoid, but spam finds its way through places. #voice
10/28/09
10/28/09
Tiered pricing is bullshit: Google, Last.Fm, everyone who has a website or presence on the internet Already Pays for Their Own Bandwidth! No one is getting a free ride through any ISP's network.
You already pay for your own bandwidth! You buy bandwidth that has no restrictions on where you go or how you use it.
Now, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, all the major douches, want you and everyone with a web presence, to pay twice. Pay for bandwidth to the ISP's data center/colo, then pay again for bandwidth from the ISP to the website. Doesn't make sense? No shit. You pay to get to Google and Google pays to get to you, yet that is simply not enough for these assholes who need to make record profits every quarter for the poor investors. They need to put up a toll booth on the bridge and you pay a fee to get past it.
So you'll pay to reach any website that isn't hosted on a server at your ISP. Even though you and the website are both already paying to be able to reach each other. So, awesome, you can get to Google! Have fun paying out the ass to open the websites your search turns up! Because they didn't pay to host at your ISP, and you didn't sign up for the "access to 25 small business/individual websites" package for an additional $15/mo.
All of you that are calling bunk or disbelieving, this has been going on for years, and it will be the end of the internet if you don't pull your heads out of the sand and get educated!
What Net Neutrality is REALLY About:
[www.dslreports.com] #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
First, we should acknowledge that the cheaper service options will probably appeal to some people. My father, for example, is an AOL user and rarely travels outside that ecosystem. He and other basic Net browsers may be quite happy paying less for less service. Don't assume your level of browsing is the same as everyone else's.
Second, what do you think will happen when a limited-tier user gets a link in an e-mail from a close friend, a link to a site outside her tiered service? She'll click on it and Rotten Prick ISP will intercept the connection and tell her she'll need to upgrade her service to access the site. How many times do you think that'll happen before the user gets frustrated and starts demanding an everything-goes access plan? Multiply that by everyone else irritated by the limits.
Suddenly, the interconnectedness of the Net reasserts itself through the end users who don't want to figure out which websites are allowed and which ones aren't. Who wants to wait for the SocialNet upgrade to include the next big thing once Facebook fades away? Who wants to have to install software to parse links to tell you ahead of time that THIS is allowed while THAT isn't? What ISP admins, financial accountants, and sales managers want to deal with sorting, analyzing, checking, ranking, packaging, and adjusting the service plans for the hundreds of new websites that appear each day?
Fewer and fewer people, I'd say. All-in-one packages make the most sense for Net access because you have no idea where your browsing will take you each day.
Speaking practically, I doubt this finely-grained nightmare tier scenario would last long. Think of the competitive advantages to ISPs who didn't adopt tiered service plans? They'd have their PR practically written for them ("Sick of wondering what website is allowed THIS WEEK? Tired of inconsistent download speeds because your Internet service provider plays favorites? Switch to XYZ ISP, where one price is all you need for the whole Internet, at the same high speed.") #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
agreed. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
I'm saying that:
1) Opponents of NN should acknowledge that ISPs may implement the type of plan featured in the graphic above.
2) That type of service is not necessarily a doomsday scenario for some users.
3) The nature of the Net means tiered access will result in increasingly frustrated users who will ask for more freedom to browse.
4) A tiered access system will spawn competition explicitly offering flat-rate, all-access plans.
Therefore, using the state to force Net businesses to operate according to your values is not only wrong, but ultimately not a necessary as some think.
My core argument against NN is contained here: [gizmodo.com] #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
And I don't think it's that over the top... it'd only take some time, a bunch of excuses and lots of small changes.
We've seen it happening on other stuff like cellphone and cable plans, it wouldn't take much for ISPs to do the exact same thing.
They'd start with some excuse of lowering the prices for people who don't use Internet too much, saying it's unfair for them to pay full price, but what would really be happening is unfair pricing for all. #netneutralitychart
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
So regulating ISPs accomplishes what exactly? #netneutralitychart