Print 99 comment(s) - last by HighWing.. on Oct 26 at 5:30 PM

Senator John McCain has introduced Internet Freedom Act of 2009 as alternative to FCC regulations

Net neutrality is one of the top technology topics that President Obama has focused on for his first term and was one of his big topics while campaigning. Obama feels that the neutrality of the internet must be maintained, as does the FCC.

The FCC voted to begin drafting rules yesterday that would require ISPs to treat all web traffic the same. The proposed rules would prevent ISPs from blocking or slowing the bandwidth available to high demand traffic like streaming video or other applications that can strain networks. The proposed rules would allow ISPs to block illegal material like child pornography and spam.

Republican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would block the FCCs proposal for regulating the neutrality of the Internet. The AFP reports that McCain said, "the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 [will keep the internet] free from government control and regulation."

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said, "reasonable and enforceable rules of the road [are needed] to preserve a free and open internet." Genachowski points out that these rules are needed because of "some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications."

Naturally, companies that make their money from the internet are supporting the FCC's proposal. These companies include Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and several other internet firms. McCain calls the FCC's proposal "onerous federal regulation" and calls the proposed rules a "government takeover" of the internet.

ComptuerWorld also reports that McCain does not support including wireless broadband providers in the net neutrality rules saying, "[The wireless industry] exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation."

McCain said of his Internet Freedom Act of 2009, "Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation. It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What about us?
By Josh7289 on 10/23/2009 11:01:16 AM , Rating: 4
"Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."

And what about keeping users free from oppressive ISP restrictions?

RE: What about us?
By allometry on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: What about us?
By n0ebert on 10/23/2009 11:31:00 AM , Rating: 5
The problem is that there are many people out there that do not have a choice in their provider (myself included) and canceling the service means no internet whatsoever.

I'd love to see that nonsense of allowing ISP's to hold monopoly regions and open everywhere to whatever ISP wants to move in and provide services for those communities.

RE: What about us?
By Samus on 10/23/2009 2:17:37 PM , Rating: 4
Well...this pretty much says it all. At least this guy isn't our president. Who knows what other lame-brain idea's he'd be pushing into legislation. In addition to all the bullshit Bush legislated during his time, specifically deregulation of the bank industry eventually leading to the housing market crash, I don't think McCain understands that REGULATING the internet in any physical form is constitutionally unacceptable.

RE: What about us?
By chrnochime on 10/23/2009 10:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly I read somewhere that the Bank deregulation, or rather forcing banks to start to lower requirements for loans started in the Carter era. If that is the case(I can't be bother to research further), then you'd be wrong.

And all the BS? Come on, at least he's not trying to bring the States down the tube with the Stimulus package. It's only more than 1 trillion now?

Want to be a Demo supporter, fine. Next time don't try to bring down the rest of us who don't feel like paying out our *ss for gov't hand out.

RE: What about us?
By snakeInTheGrass on 10/24/2009 3:41:21 AM , Rating: 1
Yep, make sure you don't research too much - nothing sucks like finding out there's enough blame to spread around.

How does needing* to bail these companies out now somehow mean there shouldn't have been more oversight of them? There wasn't oversight to begin with and that seems to have worked out pretty well. It sure as hell wasn't because 'well, someone said make bad loans.' There's some pretty deeply entrenched corruption in the system and a LOT of people who were interested in turning a blind eye to what was bound to be a problem, but I guess it's all in one party!?

And yes, there was political pressure to make more risky loans, I also believe starting in the Carter era - idiotic, but not the reason for the problems today. There was a lot of 'the only way we're going to pass this bill removing oversight and allowing mergers or all sorts (Republican) is if you make loans to low income communities (Dems)' in the meantime. 2 wrongs doesn't really make a right - so again, how is that just the Dems fault? Whining about 1 trillion in stimulus when Bush 2 ran up 5 trills in f'ing debt. I love it - I hope you weren't cheerleading the Repubs when they were screwing us all over. Or maybe we can actually kick back and relax about the debt - sure, it went from 5 to 10 trillion, but the dollar is worth half of what it was, so it's really the same anyway, right? I mean, aside from all of our savings being worth half of what they were. Take a look at the gold standard or lack of it and compare to cost of gold / housing / stock market / food / fuel... hope you don't mind that a penny saved is about 1/20th of the penny you earned in the 60's.

At least McCain has learned and now wants to... oh yeah, make sure large ISPs won't have the government watching over them either. What company needs regulations or oversight? Why even have laws?

*I say needing because... well, really, so if some companies had been allowed to fail, the problem would have been? I was just explaining to my kids that banking is a fantastic sector - take people's money doing stupid business when times are good, and then if you fail get bailed out by the people whose money you took. Nice one.

So you're actually right, don't research it - it's too aggravating.

RE: What about us?
By SPOOFE on 10/25/2009 7:11:51 PM , Rating: 1
so again, how is that just the Dems fault?

There's a reason they were called "risky" loans: Because they were risky, and without the Dems demanding it, those are loans that would never have been made if greed were the only motivation.

Whining about 1 trillion in stimulus when Bush 2 ran up 5 trills in f'ing debt.

Five tril in either years vs. 1.5 trillion this year alone? Yes, you've observed that Obama, so far, has been much more spendy than Bush... if one assumes that the President is responsible for expenses, which he's not (there's a reason Congress's approval rating was far lower than Bush's near the end).

RE: What about us?
By SPOOFE on 10/25/2009 7:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
Five tril in EIGHT years; the dangers of relying too much on a spell-checker.

RE: What about us?
By jebo on 10/24/2009 11:26:43 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think McCain understands that REGULATING the internet in any physical form is constitutionally unacceptable.

You realize that it's the FCC and OBAMA that are regulating the internet, right?

McCain is trying to keep the internet free.

RE: What about us?
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:31:11 AM , Rating: 2
Net Neutrality = Freedom of Speech.

So, according to you, the Constitution "regulates" our behavior too. Are you against it too?

RE: What about us?
By munky on 10/24/2009 5:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the part where the Net Neutrality Act includes provisions to block certain content? No govt agency should have that ability.

RE: What about us?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/24/2009 8:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
First off, it's the ISPs who block the content. They are obliged to block certain illegal activities that happen on their watch. As an analogy, if your store is turned into a place where people openly deal drugs, the government would probably nab you for aiding and abetting. And if, like an ISP, you actually passed the drugs from the seller to the buyer, you'd be in way more trouble with the law.

I'm not saying there aren't logistical issues with implementation, etc., but the principle of the government not allowing a business to be associated with illegal activity is certainly sound, yes?

More on topic...

The problem is, while there's a strong argument that the free market would provide the best internet for the best value for consumers, McCain's bill doesn't ensure that there's actually a free market for internet providers. The free market works only when consumers have the ability to assert their interests in the marketplace, and with the local monopolies prevalent in many parts of the country, that just isn't possible. There are two solutions - the FCC's was to assert the consumers' interest by law. The opposite position would be to open up the local markets to consumer choice. Unfortunately, McCain's bill doesn't do that - it just maintains the status quo, and (to quote NPH) "the status is not quo." If the government isn't going to fight for the consumers' interests, it should at least stop fighting for business' interests.

Of course, breaking up local monopolies would require government action and corporate regulations - anathema to the Republican Party - as well. Probably something like the breakup of Ma Bell. So we won't be seeing any suggestions for that from McCain.

To broaden the scope, why can't the Republicans come up with a better platform than, "Things are working great, let's not change anything"? Because that seems to be their policy on most everything. Heaven forbid they proffer a complete, well thought out solution to the problems of everyday Americans to counter the Democrats in a meaningful and positive way.

RE: What about us?
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
While I appreciate the backup here, I think the regional monopoly issue is orthogonal to the higher-level concept that it would be to enshrine "freedom of internet" as a version of "freedom of speech".

We could create an environment that favors the breakup of regional monopolies, yet still have the same neutrality issue in that my ISP can slow or prevent YouTube for me, whereas it favors its own version of YouTube.

RE: What about us?
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
Precisely what kind of lawful content would be blocked and by which provisions?

RE: What about us?
By rcc on 10/23/2009 2:21:53 PM , Rating: 3
I'd love to see that nonsense of allowing ISP's to hold monopoly regions and open everywhere to whatever ISP wants to move in and provide services for those communities

Ok, I agree. But the answer is to get rid of those rules, not add more.

RE: What about us?
By n0ebert on 10/23/2009 2:48:54 PM , Rating: 4
As long as the rules are regulating the kinds of restrictions that ISP's are allowed to place on their customers I'm all for it.

Dropping government regulation of these companies altogether just gives them a free reign to start nickel and diming their customers into the ground while limiting their bandwidth if they're not a 'ultra premium super subscriber' and paying $400/month for the service. I exaggerate the cost, but the idea behind it wouldn't be far from the truth.

From the brief bit I've read in the proposal, the FCC isn't trying to regulate the internet, just regulate the ISP's so they don't go overboard with bandwidth caps and other anti-consumer ideas.

RE: What about us?
By rcc on 10/23/2009 7:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Once there is free and open competition everywhere, that will creat the control. If you have a choice, you can exercise it, and that is something that the ISPs will take notice of.

ATM I have a choice of Cox, or some DSL with a tenth the speed. Give me and everyone else more options and see what happens. We need a good ISP turf war.

RE: What about us?
By ebakke on 10/23/2009 3:53:04 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is that there are many people out there that do not have a choice in their provider (myself included) and canceling the service means no internet whatsoever.

Bogus. I simply do not believe you only have one option for connecting to the Internet. You might only have one option that's good enough for your desires, but to claim you only have option is absurd.

RE: What about us?
By Awk on 10/23/2009 5:13:30 PM , Rating: 3
Where I live, in an affluent suburb of a large city on the West coast, I have a choice between very fast but very feature-gimped Comcast or 144k IDSL. Or dialup!

This is not a competitive marketplace. These things do not compete with each other any more than a car dealership and a bicycle shop compete with each other.

RE: What about us?
By michael67 on 10/24/2009 6:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's nice to live in the Netherlands if i am reading post like this,

We have a oversight of the telco's (OPTA), by a independent department of the government like the FCC, that keeps the playing field level for all party's.
It make sure that we don's get over prized, but also that smaller company's don't get over run by the big ones.
We have now one of the best infrastructure in the word if it comes to telecommunications.
And personally i think we have to thank the OPTA for this, by steering the market the right way and promoting competition

The result of the work you can see here:
And here:

And on mobile prizes here:

RE: What about us?
By CommodoreVic20 on 10/23/2009 5:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
Where I live in North Carolina, I have only one fast internet choice, ATT DSL, thats it. Believe me I've tried to find alternatives and there are none. Its a DSL connection from ATT or dial-up. I know plenty of people in similar situations across the U.S.

Much to my surprise my company tried getting fast internet service in the Atlanta area and there weren't too many choices.

Whether you are aware of this or not, internet service in America keeps quickly falling behind many other countries world wide. It goes without saying how important it is for any country to have fast and affordable internet access to all of its citizens. Just like the health well being of Americans, our internet access will soon fall off the top 100. But don't take my word for it, go read our 'progress' on the matter.

RE: What about us?
By allometry on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: What about us?
By Ananke on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: What about us?
By Taft12 on 10/23/2009 11:33:06 AM , Rating: 5
Government intervention IS needed to eliminate de-facto monopolies (whose networks were subsidized by tax breaks and even publically funded in many cases).

How many cable and DSL internet providers are available to YOU?

RE: What about us?
By GotDiesel on 10/23/2009 12:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
ONE.. and only ONE.. It's a monopoly, it sux ass and I have NO choice.. way to go America..

RE: What about us?
By HrilL on 10/23/2009 12:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
Just one for me too. When there is no competition government regulations are needed.

RE: What about us?
By rcc on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: What about us?
By TSS on 10/23/2009 12:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
As i've understood it (mostly from the discussion on this website though),didn't the de-facto monopolies came from government regulation in the first place? feel free to correct me if i'm wrong though.

RE: What about us?
By HrilL on 10/23/2009 1:01:10 PM , Rating: 3
Yes they did but that was given to the local municipalities to decided what company they wanted to allow rolling out a network and it is up to them now to let other companies roll out networks but that is not going to happen because the current companies lobbyist already own our local politicians.

What a lot of people seem to over look is that that was created by the same industry that now has control of the market. They lobbied hard to get that government mandate. The put it up as an ultimatum "it will be too costly to build out a network if we're not given an area with no competition."

RE: What about us?
By omnicronx on 10/23/2009 1:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize telcos are in their current situation because of government intervention ;)

RE: What about us?
By allometry on 10/23/2009 4:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, government intervention is not needed. These companies have invested heavily in infrastructure and you selfishly believe that that their infrastructure is owned and controlled by the people. Don't take your line for granted. A lot of resources went into providing a backbone to your home.

I have two providers that are available to me. I'm working on ideas to change that. What are you doing?

RE: What about us?
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Net Neutrality would not change the current state of competition (or lack thereof), ownership of infrastructure or anything else. Either you don't realize it, or you are just manipulating the discussion.

What it will prevent is abuse of The People, much like freedom of speech allows you to pretty much say anything you want.

RE: What about us?
By amanojaku on 10/23/2009 11:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
You fool! The Internet is a "well-functioning ecosystem" without any need of regulation! If it weren't for those unscrupulous downloaders there wouldn't be a need for tiers! Get rid of the downloaders and the ISPs will not "oppress" you!

By downloaders, I mean anyone actually using the Internet, because the way things are today more and more people are using the 'net for things like TV, backup, etc... The "email-only" days are long gone, which means bandwidth use is just going to go up for everyone. A tiered Internet is just extortion.

RE: What about us?
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 11:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
And what about keeping users free from oppressive ISP restrictions?

Government regulation is not worse than ISP regulation. The "cancel your service" free market argument doesn't work because the ISP industry consists entirely of regional oligopolies if you put it euphemistically.

Senator McCain is wrong about the wireless industry as well. A single player would have almost certainly taken over the entire market by now if it weren't for government regulation. Unlike ISPs, cellular providers have actual incentives to and the ability to compete. ISPs don't, so without net neutrality we will almost certainly see ISPs run amok with their pricing schemes. It won't help the country -- just ISP's bottom lines.

RE: What about us?
By Taft12 on 10/23/2009 11:35:44 AM , Rating: 3
McCain is incredibly off-base about the wireless industry - it has exploded because of technology improvements and the birth of a service that did not previously exist.

RE: What about us?
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
That too.

Frankly, McCain is about the next politician I would expect to hear a "series-of-tubes" speech from. I think having a well-informed enough opinion of telecommunications market to legislate said market requires actually having some understanding of how that market works.

McCain is setting himself up to be the next Ted Stevens. I'm just waiting for an analogy even more epic than the "series of tubes".

RE: What about us?
By Parhel on 10/23/2009 1:51:20 PM , Rating: 3
I like McCain, but he does seem a bit out of touch with this.

RE: What about us?
By intelpatriot on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: What about us?
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:35:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I agree. So let's work together to keep it free like other guarantees we have in the US. Let's make sure there are laws that allow me to access whatever information I want when I want without having to pay more because Comcast is sticking it to the website I am trying to access.

That way, we can all come together and ensure we keep the American ability to be at the forefront of technology.

Come on Senator!
By Bateluer on 10/23/2009 11:04:02 AM , Rating: 5
I'm all for deregulation and keeping the government out of private industry. Catch is, in this situation, the private industry is trampling the rights and freedoms of the private citizen. The private citizen has little ability to fight against the massive corporate entities that want to stifle and control all the data that flows over the Internet.

We need the FCC to impose strict net neutrality laws to prevent ISPs and content providers from destroying the open Internet.

Luckily, Senator, I have your Phoenix office number on my cell's speed dial. Expect a call later today.

RE: Come on Senator!
By MeesterNid on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Come on Senator!
By Bateluer on 10/23/2009 11:31:28 AM , Rating: 5
Cancel my ISP subscription? And go where with it? Access to the Internet may not be a right, but its definitely a necessity. I have only two choices for ISPs, same with most Americans. Voting with my dollar doesn't work in this case because I can either go with Cox Cable or Qwest DSL. Since both the dominant cable and phone companies will implement the same anti-consumer practices, we still get screwed. This is exactly the correct kind of government intervention, the kind that protects us private citizens.

RE: Come on Senator!
By MrBungle123 on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Come on Senator!
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 12:18:19 PM , Rating: 3
So how exactly are you being "oppressed"? You admitt yourself that there are two companies providing broadband access in your area. That doesn't sound like "oppression" to me pick the one that you like the best and if the other cleans up thier act switch back.
They will both adopt the same policies. The only difference will be bandwidth and the monthly fee.

The market argument doesn't work when the market fails. Two-player oligopolies are generally a good example of market failure -- ISPs are the prime example. The two or three options most people have basically don't compete with each other, so why would their stances on net neutrality vary? It will increase their bottom lines at little to no cost, and as such virtually all ISPs will implement it.

They might as well be colluding.

RE: Come on Senator!
By AEvangel on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Come on Senator!
By ClownPuncher on 10/23/2009 12:49:29 PM , Rating: 1
In a true free market, I can buy sex slaves and crack cocaine at a Walmart.

Enough with the hypotheticals, voting no on this bill NOW hurts the US consumer NOW. If we are going to fix the broadband infrastructure, why not do that before we have any more problems? I have seen no good bills to open the market up for competition from this "Maverick" or any other politician in history, so we are settling for another lame ass finger in the dyke "fix" vs. the nothing proposed from the other side.

RE: Come on Senator!
By kyp275 on 10/23/2009 12:56:15 PM , Rating: 4
Err, way to contradict yourself in the same post, how can a 3rd company pop up when it's practically impossible for people to start up another provider?

Yes, govt. intervention is not good, but in this case it's not govt intervention against free market, it's one govt intervention against another govt intervention. I can't say I like it much, but it's better than what we have currently.

Best solution? get rid of the govt created monopolies/oligapolies, problem solved.

RE: Come on Senator!
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 1:52:11 PM , Rating: 3

Then a third company will pop up...yes you might have to live a couple of years with some poor service from the current providers, but in a true free market, when enough people complain or get tired of it a third party will present itself as an alternative to existing service.
That's a cute theory, but utterly contrary to reality. The Internet is so necessary that people will take what ISPs give them as long as they can afford it. The entry cost to the market is too high for a third or fourth party to enter a given market and compete over the same service effectively.

Keep in mind the reason you only have two now is due to some Govt intervention 30-40 years ago, that is making it almost impossible for people to start up another service provider.
Yes and no. The truth of the matter is that landline ISPs are naturally inclined towards oligopolies. The entry cost to the market is enormous. For a second company to come in and lay lines and offer the same service is terribly inefficient. The competition won't decrease prices because now they would have to raise prices just to make up for investment and to cope with now sharing the same customer base. There is room to offer different services (DSL, Cable, Fiber) because they are at such different price points, maintenance and installation costs, and speeds that they can actually co-exist. But to say they compete is a joke, and having multiple companies compete over the same type of lines just isn't efficient.

Telecommunications, unfortunately, are little different from utilities. They are inherently prone to not compete because competition over the same lines is less efficient for everyone, even the consumer. We don't want two power companies and we don't want two cable companies. It doesn't help that state and local governments more or less warrant them to not compete, but truly the problem is that they aren't regulated on their pricing and policies. If there's anything we absolutely must cram down their throats legislatively, it's net neutrality.

RE: Come on Senator!
By Parhel on 10/23/2009 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 3
The Internet is so necessary that people will take what ISPs give them as long as they can afford it.

To your point, neither my wife nor I could effectively perform our current jobs without high speed Internet service at home.

To me, Net Neutrality is one of those issues that separates ordinary conservatives from ideologues . . . just a short step down from a "birther."

RE: Come on Senator!
By rcc on 10/23/2009 2:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
To your point, neither my wife nor I could effectively perform our current jobs without high speed Internet service at home.

Ok, I'll buy that. So, what is your ISP doing to hinder this? Does your work require you to go somewhere that the ISP is trottling? If so, where?

Just curious.

RE: Come on Senator!
By rcc on 10/23/2009 7:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
throttling, excuse me.

RE: Come on Senator!
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:40:17 AM , Rating: 1
The competition/monopoly issue is orthogonal to the neutrality one. In fact, its a lower concerns.

Net neutrality is more conceptual. It's like free speech. It would be like living in a country without having the right to free speech and being told to wait a little because the next government might be a little more lenient...

RE: Come on Senator!
By Bateluer on 10/23/2009 12:27:17 PM , Rating: 3
I call it oppression because both companies have the same policies. The consumer has no choice but to use one or the other, forcing all small players out of the market. And this isn't just ISPs. Joe's Pizza down the corner will lose the ability to compete with the large chains because Joe cannot afford to pay what is essentially bribe money to the ISP to get his website on the fast lane.

RE: Come on Senator!
By GodisanAtheist on 10/26/2009 2:05:44 PM , Rating: 1
I hate the republican platform and a lot of the crap the republican party pulls. Theoretically, I have an alternative to the republican party in which to cast my vote. Unfortunately that alternative, the democrats, are equally stupid and perhaps even more incompetent.

To make matters worse, there is no viable 3rd party in the US thanks to voting laws being written by the two entrenched and established parties, meaning a 3rd party has to have a lot of support before it can become official (and paradoxically, must be official before it can garner any support). Simply put, the cost of entry is too high.

Now I could just not vote and call it a day. The idea of not voting is repulsive to me, I have to vote to see what change I could possibly enact. Since there is no viable 3rd party to really vote for, I have to cast my vote for whichever of the two major stinkers is less crappy in that particular election cycle. This, of course, doesn't actually result in any meaningful change or progress, because the party I voted (or did not vote for) for has no way of discerning which of their policies I support and which I absolutely detest. Nothing changes and everything stays the same.

In short, if you are happy with the two party system in the US, you could potentially be happy with "not being oppressed" by two service providers.

If you made it through that torturous analogy, have yourself a cookie.

RE: Come on Senator!
By HrilL on 10/23/2009 12:39:03 PM , Rating: 3
They did take our money to build out their networks. Public money and some ISP's are after more of that money that was in the stimulus package.

IPS's are like scam companies. While the price they pay for bandwidth has gone way down. They continue to create networks that slow your traffic, block connections, and applications. They route traffic over unused routes that go out of the way and cause us to have horrible latency so they can make their operating costs cheaper while they screw us over.

There is no competition in my area. I can get Cox or 3G wireless (It says its not for a main pipe) So really I got one choice. While they internet is not a right it is something I need in order to live. I do a lot of work over the internet so canceling my service is not an option.

Also why should my ISP be allowed to block smtp, http, and ftp ports? While my connection is not commercial, what if I want to run my own exchange server and ftp for personal use? Cox has even told me I can't have a personal file server because they don't allow servers on their network. They need to get with the times. They've told me I can't host game servers to play games with friends. The list goes on my friend.

We need these kinds of rules to protect us from our evil ISP's that are only after more and more money while they screw the consumer more and more. Maybe you should take your head of the clouds and see what is really going on.

Cox has even come out with how they manage traffic on their network. They admit to slowing some types of connections in order to provide better service overall. This just is not the case in my area. My node is never close to full capacity. I've tested this with friends and neighbors connections and my own. Maxing them all with http traffic since they put a high priority on that type of traffic proving there is plenty of overall bandwidth but then you start a p2p connection and they go slow still with clearly plenty of bandwidth available. Uploading is what they slow down the most though. There system makes gaming suck as well. Now if you download a file from a http host cox maxes the speed it goes and if someone else on the same connection is trying to game their latency jumps to 400ms. This never happened before they started "managing traffic" My overall view has been that my service has degraded because they treat most of my traffic as second class and low priority. The internet is more than just http for some of us...

RE: Come on Senator!
By Bateluer on 10/23/2009 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
You bring up a number of very interesting points, of which I only have the time to get into one.

The fact that the large telco's BUILT these networks using TAXPAYER money, and then turn around and try restricting customers to minimal usage only really angers me.

RE: Come on Senator!
By rdawise on 10/23/2009 9:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
Bateluer is 1000% on the money. You tax money did go to build their networks. The money they use now is meant to "maintain" or "upgrade" the networks YOU paid for. Net neutrality is needed to an extent.

Feeding the Trolls
By WoWCow on 10/23/2009 11:24:05 AM , Rating: 2
It (The internet) will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment.

Until I am proven wrong, I firmly believe McCain is out to feed the trolls.

Honestly, the internet granted a sense of self-empowerment to any individual who has access to it, but I have yet to find MILLIONS of people who has a high-paying job on it. ;)

RE: Feeding the Trolls
By Randomblame on 10/23/2009 12:06:20 PM , Rating: 3
Until I am proven wrong, I firmly believe McCain is out to feed the trolls. Honestly, the internet granted a sense of self-empowerment to any individual who has access to it, but I have yet to find MILLIONS of people who has a high-paying job on it. ;)

I run a web design company - I'm one of the millions that we're talking about here :P Without a free and open internet my family would be out on the street. If no one can afford internet access how the hell am I going to sell my customers online marketing?

RE: Feeding the Trolls
By BruceLeet on 10/23/2009 8:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
And you're not even trying to promote your company? Why not? :P

RE: Feeding the Trolls
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 12:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Until I am proven wrong, I firmly believe McCain is out to feed the trolls.
I think he's out to feed the ISPs. Unfortunately, much of Congress -- both Democrats and Republics -- is out to feed the ISPs.

Honestly, the internet granted a sense of self-empowerment to any individual who has access to it, but I have yet to find MILLIONS of people who has a high-paying job on it. ;)
I have never had a job I didn't find on the Internet. So by some logic, there are many millions who rely on the Internet for high paying jobs.

But more logically, there are thousands of firms employing millions of workers that would not exist without the Internet. Data centers, IT support services, IT infrastructure professionals, web designers, developers, companies based around web sites, etc. You really don't think there are millions of people who are well-employed directly because of the Internet? The Internet drives an entire industry of people -- an industry with millions of well-paid workers.

RE: Feeding the Trolls
By HrilL on 10/23/2009 12:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the best paid workers. Developers make a good chunk of change. Pretty much any non help desk level person with a technical job is make quite a bit more than the average American.

RE: Feeding the Trolls
By Parhel on 10/23/2009 2:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much any non help desk level person with a technical job is make quite a bit more than the average American.

That depends on what type of help desk. Depending on the cost and complexity of the product and the level of knowledge required, support can pay quite a bit.

Sure, PC / Windows type support might pay $8 - $10 for level 1, $12 - $14 for a senior type. But call support for an enterprise level system, and you're talking to someone who makes $60K - $80K.

I'm not saying this just to be a contrarian. For those who are working the "help desk," it's good to know there's a career ladder.

RE: Feeding the Trolls
By HrilL on 10/23/2009 2:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
help desk was my way of saying entry level. Enterprise level would be more of a network administrator and systems administrator. But titles are what they are. Just titles.

RE: Feeding the Trolls
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 5:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, PC / Windows type support might pay $8 - $10 for level 1, $12 - $14 for a senior type.
Just to be contrary (not serving any greater point), I've never even heard of a helpdesk job at these price points. When I got in, standard entry level was typically $13-$14 if you were actually providing any kind of technical support. Now, even in this economy, it's more like $15+ from what I've seen.

I certainly would recommend any qualified starting IT profession look for a helpdesk job paying $14/hour at a minimum.

But call support for an enterprise level system, and you're talking to someone who makes $60K - $80K.
That is true in limited scenarios. Very few helpdesk jobs even got to $60,000, much less $80,000. For those that do, you generally don't get there by staying at a helpdesk for years on end.

IMO a gainfully employed IT professional ought to seek to leave the helpdesk as soon as possible and work towards something more hands-on in whatever sub-field they like best. Even in the economy of 2009 this is generally feasible.

RE: Feeding the Trolls
By Parhel on 10/25/2009 6:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think we're defining "help desk" differently. I'm right in the middle of the $60K - $80K range, and I'm basically in a customer support role.

We have to know SQL and PL/SQL, and we're regularly involving ourselves our customers projects and writing custom code, but we're still first and foremost a support team. We're not above walking someone through a level one Windows problem or showing someone how to do a password reset.

And, believe it or not, when I started this job a few months ago, what really sold them on me wasn't my SAP or Oracle background. It was the two years I did desktop support for 3Com back in college! I know there are a lot of people who work the help desk and feel it's a dead end, but it really isn't.

By A5un on 10/23/2009 11:25:05 AM , Rating: 3
Does McCain even know what the "internet" is? Last time I heard, he barely started twittering...and he's probably handing his secretary a piece of paper with hand-written tweets. It's hard for me to swallow when we've got people in politics that for the most part can be considered fossils who've got insufficient knowledge or know-how when it comes to the internet.

RE: Hrm...
By Taft12 on 10/23/2009 11:37:39 AM , Rating: 3
Hey I'll have you know some of those tweets were typed on his typewriter before being handed to his secretary!

RE: Hrm...
By stubeck on 10/23/2009 11:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt he's even doing the tweets. 95% of what people in the public sector "write" is not their own work at all.

RE: Hrm...
By Suomynona on 10/23/2009 12:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
I remember one his staff members during the campaign last year saying that he is "aware of the Internet." So while he probably has a very limited understanding of its usefulness and how important it is to the daily lives of most Americans, he is aware that it exists!

I don't understand why he would be so eager to be pushing this issue when he doesn't even use the Internet himself. You'd think that people would know when to STFU when an issue that they have limited understanding of comes up rather than trying to lead on it. Maybe he just doesn't want the telecom money to stop flowing?

RE: Hrm...
By Bateluer on 10/23/2009 1:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
I've been following Senator McCain on Twitter for months. Unless his secretary is attached to his hip, he's tweeting himself.

Now, the number of times he had to ask for assistance, I don't know. :p

RE: Hrm...
By DotNetGuru on 10/26/2009 2:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
I've been following Senator McCain on Twitter for months

Wow, you must hate your life.

RE: Hrm...
By Parhel on 10/23/2009 2:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
Does McCain even know what the "internet" is? Last time I heard, he barely started twittering...

So using Twitter is essential to a proper understanding of the Internet???

Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By Looey on 10/23/2009 4:38:55 PM , Rating: 1
Net neutrality as defined by the FCC is a proposal for all data to flow over the network equally. If all of an ISP's customers start downloading multi gigabyte files at the same time they will be treated with the same priority as someone sitting at his keyboard waiting on a response from a web site. The FCC (Obama & Google) want to treat bulk data the same as traffic generated by a person.

If a person is making $100 an hour and has slow response because an ISP has his connections choked, it makes no sense to prioritize all the data the same and never has. This will force ISPs to add more hardware and bandwidth to speed up response time. The cost will be passed on to the customers. For ISP haters, don't say sign up fewer customers and there will be more bandwidth to go around. That will raise the costs or make the ISP quit the business.

Technically, net neutrality is bad business. To stop an ISP from setting high priorities to keyboard users and make them fall in with bulk data transfer is asinine.

Net neutrality will not lower anyone's connection costs. Just the opposite, it will enable companies like Google to make a lot of money on consumers backs. The FCC is only doing what it is told. The FCC is not thinking for itself, it is doing what it is being told to do. It is all politics and about money to be made by a few companies and will not benefit anyone but them.

RE: Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By Awk on 10/23/2009 5:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
The rules being considered specifically allow for "reasonable" traffic shaping to maintain QoS. Throttling users' total network usage isn't contrary to the concept of network neutrality at all, as long as ISPs don't discriminate against certain packets. In other words, Comcast can slow down your internet connection because their tubes are full, but not because you're downloading eight gigs of Norwegian midget clown porn.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

RE: Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By Awk on 10/23/2009 5:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
Also, they would be required to disclose the fact that they will throttle you in the case of full tubes.

Imagine, ISPs being required to tell you the secret rules you're operating under.

By Bateluer on 10/23/2009 5:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
Perish the thought.

Net Neutrality is a good thing and the FCC should implement it.

RE: Net neutrality? I don't think so.
By HrilL on 10/23/2009 7:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get why people defend ISPs so damn much. First off it cost them on average less than $1 (this is a 2002-3 estimate it is likely even lower now days) per subscriber per month. I currently pay $50. That is a hefty amount of profit for these companies to offer a lack luster services at best.

I say all data is treated equally. If an ISP needs more capacity then they need to build their networks to support the users they sell a service to. If I pay for a 10Mb/s line then I should get 10Mb/s non stop worth of bandwidth. It is a known fact that ISP's over sell capacity quite a bit and want to use management techniques instead of upgrading their networks like they should be. Simply put they want to make an even larger profit then they are currently making.

And just because I am doing bulk data transfers doesn't mean I want don't want it to go just as fast as someone else loading a web page. Who is to say Joe bob going to a porn site is more important then me downloading the latest linux distro? I don't think we should allow the IPS's to make that choice.

The cost shouldn't be passed on to anyone. They should have been using their massive profit to build out infrastructure to stay ahead of the trends of users. If you have a user base that consumes a lot then that is likely what more and more users will be consuming in the future. Its not rocket science. Its proving a damn network. I mean damn a network is considered full at 80% utilization and a routers CPU is 70% utilization according to cisco. Its networking 101 stuff these ISP don't want to follow.

The only traffic that should have a higher priority is VoIP traffic since packets don't always make it to their destinations in order. VoIP degrades easily when latency fluctuates too much.

regulation schmegulation
By headlessplatter on 10/23/2009 11:04:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'm so sick of my ISP regulating my Internet habits. It's time to regulate them. The whole point of NN is to put an end to the regulation.

RE: regulation schmegulation
By Hardin on 10/23/2009 11:10:57 AM , Rating: 2
So to get rid of regulation we have to have regulation?

RE: regulation schmegulation
By amanojaku on 10/23/2009 11:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. Regulation pisses most people off because the government doesn't know when to quit, but just imagine what happens when there is no regulation at all. Workers' rights are ignored, prices go up, quality drops, competition is elimated through dirty deals, and entry to markets by new entities is stopped by established players. Limited regulation is always necessary.

On the other hand, too much regulation impedes corporate versatility, wastes resources, and results in higher prices. Additionally, regulations need to change with the times, and they rarely do without a public outcry. There has to be a balance.

Illegal material?
By HighWing on 10/23/2009 6:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
The proposed rules would allow ISPs to block illegal material like child pornography and spam.

This is just an open door trick that can later be used to still block what ever they want!

Now maybe I missed something but when was spam deemed illegal? I know there are laws about selling illegal products this way, and getting and sending the spam in illegal ways. But it's my understanding, that for the moment being, there is such a thing as legal spam. Furthermore the very definition of spam could very easily be extend to something as simple visiting a website more often then an ISP deems as normal. ie your "spamming" the site by visiting it more often then they claim an average person would... your blocked from visiting it!

Then of course there is the use of the word "neutrality". I don't care how you justify it, the very act of allowing the blockage of "anything", illegal or not, is no longer being neutral!!! Lets face reality here, they first draft it to say they are blocking illegal activities. However, once it passes with the hole allowing them to block something, how easily would it really be for them to later go back and just "add" things to the list of allowable material to block? ie: lets say bit torrent traffic because it is known to contain illegal material? With the door wide open it won't take them long to through everything they can through it. Now do you see why this is a problem?

RE: Illegal material?
By Awk on 10/23/2009 6:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to repeat myself here, because I think it's important:

ISPs can already do this . The FCC is not granting any new filtration powers with these rules.

The article is poorly worded. The quote in question is referring to exceptions in the (potential) new rules, so that anti-discrimination rules don't prevent desirable (to the consumer) discrimination. The sky is not falling, save your excitement for when it inevitably does.

RE: Illegal material?
By HighWing on 10/26/2009 5:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
I understand that, and You missed the point of my post. Right now Yes ISP's can block traffic at will. But for the moment being ISP's have not done much as it is kinda a gray area and bad PR when discovered.

My point was that if it does become legal for them to block "some" stuff, then the door might as well be open for them to block anything. And at that point we won't be able to do anything about it.

By TSS on 10/23/2009 1:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
McCain might be just as wrong as his opponents, he has 1 thing figured out though:

calls the proposed rules a "government takeover" of the internet.

that's exactly what their doing. By adding this into the legislation:

The proposed rules would allow ISPs to block illegal material like child pornography and spam.

A law against throttling or blocking of certain traffic allows the ISP to... block certain traffic.

In principle there's nothing wrong with trying to stop whatever's illigal. The problem is, what's legal today might not be tomorrow.
The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 was signed into law on December 16, 2003 by President George W. Bush.
By the time the first federal child pornography law took effect in February, 1978

What will be illigal, and blocked, in 3 decades time? Copywrite infringements? Anonimity? Freedom of speech? Remember, once they have the ability to block stuff only the definition of illigal needs to change for things to go terribly wrong.

i was trying to look for a appropriate thomas jefferson quote to end, but i keep finding more :P

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

i'd post more but by the time i'm getting to page 6/9 of quotes i'm so frickin depressed i'd better stop. he'd be very dissapointed if he'd still be alive today (going by his quotes that is).

RE: Worrysome
By Awk on 10/23/2009 4:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Let me adjust that quote to make it easier to understand.

The proposed rules include an exception to allow ISPs to continue to block illegal material like child pornography and spam.

They can already block illegal material like child pornography and spam. So this government takeover comes in the form of allowing ISPs to continue doing what they can already do. And then they'll come for your children and throw them in re-education camps!

Here is the inside scoop
By TheEinstein on 10/23/2009 3:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
I do not have much time, so I will be brief.

Those with one land line provider, who are upset with their wireless provider are skipping another provider as well. Satellite.

We live in an era of options, and yet you refuse to see that if you use your options you will ultimately win.

Yes sometimes it may seem like a choice of 'choosing the lesser evil' yet if you do such switches, vocalize why you are doing such switches to the party being left, the party be joined, and the party ignored for being laughable, you will in the end be heard.

They can try to be 'selective in their hearing' by editing out unfriendly comments, you comment elsewhere, and others post with you.

AT&T lost big on a cable internet ring in Portland Oregon, it is now owned by Comcast, because their service was so poor, their prices so high, it was more efficient to go with dialup still.

Oh so that makes a 4th option.

Net Neutrality is a foot in the door for outright governing of the internet. Various members of Obama's administration have said this would be a good goal.

I do not want the great firewall of China to grow a brother firewall over the vast majority of content of the world.

When you have choices, you can end a company for being wrong to you, it might be uncomfortable to dial down your bandwidth, but so long as you take your speed needs first, your voice comes second.

RE: Here is the inside scoop
By rdawise on 10/23/2009 9:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
You are already being "governed" by ISPs. The can deem what is appropriate (ie what you can and can't download) as well as what speeds (even the you pay for "suggested" speeds).

By TOAOCyrus on 10/23/2009 12:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
I support Senator McCain only if his bill also makes government backed monopolies on internet and cable service illegal. If the ISP's get government protection from competition then consumers also deserve protection from abusive pricing and service policies. Either have a completely free market (which I much prefer but it probably not realistic) or not all, don't selectively regulate to only help some (ie the big campaign donors) and call it a "free market".

It is too easy to sway these sheep
By NA1NSXR on 10/23/2009 2:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone with any sort of intellectual honesty who has tested their points of view knows this issue is not simple at all. I hate it when people act like support for net neutrality is a no brainer when their analysis of the situation probably doesn't go anything beyond "Oh, they won't be able to touch my traffic anymore? That's good. I'm for that." So freaking stupid.

By espaghetti on 10/23/2009 3:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
Unbelievable. Mass kidnappings in his own voting district last year. Did I miss the cleanup effort? Did they stop the flow of illegal aliens in to Arizona?? Have they streamlined the immigration process??? How about giving they people who want to come hear and work for a while the option of using a regular bus (and a passport) instead of running across the desert?? The man is deflecting attention from real issues.

By the way, fixing the internet by making it cheaper and faster would be good...more competition between companies...just like to see this from someone who doesn't have giant glaring problems right in their own voting district.

can't make sense of it
By kssgill on 10/24/2009 12:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
McCain should take a constructive role. His body language says he will never get over the election debacle; its too personal for him.

By nofumble62 on 10/24/2009 12:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
Do you love the carrier of what they are charging for TEXTING? What's a rip-off.

By on 10/24/2009 9:03:22 AM , Rating: 2

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift. commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, myyshop will provide service for you all, welcome to

Air Jordan 7 Retro Size 10 Blk/Red Raptor - $34

100% Authentic Brand New in Box DS Air Jordan 7 Retro Raptor colorway

Never Worn, only been tried on the day I bought them back in 2002

$35Firm; no trades (Jordan)

Free Speech Equivalent
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 11:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone who opposes the principles of Net Neutrality would have to also oppose things like freedom of speech and other cornerstones of democratic freedom.

McCain and followers need to either stop being hypocrites and start also destroying the Constitution while their grubbing for money, or just GTFO of politics.

Where is CAMARO?
By yangyoning on 10/24/2009 7:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
Where is your "oh republican is so great" comment?
Usually you always came to save your beloved party didn't you?

By myhipsi on 10/26/2009 8:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
While the idea of net neutrality on it's face is a laudable goal, one aspect of it concerns me:

The proposed rules would allow ISPs to block illegal material like child pornography and spam.

Notice they don't stop at "illegal material" but make sure they throw in "like child porn and spam", two illegal aspects of the internet that people loath.

What this is designed to do is to turn off the logical, rational part of your brain for the emotional part which just says "yes, anything to get rid of the child porn and spam". What they aren't telling you is that "illegal material" will be defined as anything copyrighted. Say goodbye to bit torrent and news groups for starters. They'll also propose monitoring email to take care of the spam and God knows what else.

When the FCC and a boat load of major corporations are looking for "regulation", it's never a good thing for the consumer. This is a bill being packaged to look like it's a wonderfull thing for the consumer, but I think if it goes through it will systematically kill the free and open internet we have today.

I think before we make any judgements on this bill, we should read it because I've got a feeling that this is an internet control bill in the guise of protecting the consumer.

By rburnham on 10/26/2009 10:56:57 AM , Rating: 2
I liked a good bit of what McCain had to offer when he was running for president, but I decided not to vote for him because of things like this. He just seems out of touch.

I just want to know that I can always find pictures of his hot daughter online.

By rika13 on 10/25/2009 12:33:07 PM , Rating: 1
firstly, this isnt the McCain i wanted to vote for, then again, neither was the one who ran against Obama, the one i wanted to vote for would have kicked Obama's ass during the debate on national tv and screamed "IM TOO FUCKING OLD?! THIS OLD CRIPPLE WHO CANT EVEN FUCKING RAISE HIS ARMS JUST KICKED YOUR KENYAN ASS!!" that John S McCain III had some passion and was more than willing to express it to anyone, even fellow republicans

second, blaming Bush for the budget shows you have NO idea how the budget works, ALL appropriations must come from the HOUSE; and Bush doesn't really get any choice on whether to veto it or not since if there isnt a budget passed by OCT 1, the government shuts down HARD, no soldiers get paychecks, no unemployment, food stamps, medicare, NOTHING, all federal services and most state services stop

if you want to blame someone for the massive deficits, blame congress, if you look at the deficits for the various years, you'll find that the deficit skyrocketed AFTER the dems took congress and Obama's deficit (FY 2008 deficit was 700 billion dollars, less than the worthless Obama stimulus alone)

some budget deficit is actually GOOD, macroeconomics is NOT household or state budgeting, despite what democrats (whom tend to NOT be macroeconomists, but are actors, laywers, and businessmen, who think small) think; a nation that does NOT run a deficit is stealing from its citizens (that extra money isnt saved, it just vanishes, and the rule of 10 means its 10X the surplus, its like setting the money on a barge and burning it, except that actually creates jobs in the shipbuilding and money burning industries)

too much deficit is bad, since it causes a loss of value of the currency, meaning hyperinflation

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA
Related Articles
Verizon, Google Talk Net Neutrality
October 22, 2009, 9:40 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki