OSNews

It's been going downhill since the 60ies. America is in a big mess.

Was America really any better during the days of the Railroad Tycoons or Oil Barons? Big Business and Government have been bed buddies for quite a while, now. We're just finally able to see and discuss how bad things are, so maybe we can actually affect some real change this time around.

Big Business/favours is only a small part of the mess. There are the massive hate movements towards american values come to mind. And those hate organisations are getting federal funds.

It's like this also in Canada... Unfortunately.

There are the massive hate movements towards american values come to mind.

I fail to see how they have anything to do with Google's pushing Congress around.

With some differences, it was a bipolar world, and sure, they were buddies, but they knew if they pushed too far; there was always the potential for communism or a very hardcore version of Socialism with forced nationalisation and loss of private property.

The problem is today, there is no alternative to the capitalist model, or the "US Model", so now, you have the government and business move its 'slap and tickle' from the bed room to public view, and for alot of people, its shocking.

Ultimately, however, we the people CHOOSE to vote in these parties; people CHOOSE to stick with either democrats or republicans, irrespective of what the third party candidate offers; the US system fundamentally favours a two party state, with little possibility of minority parties having a say in how government is run; until the US throws out its cute little experiement with the republican model, and adopt and MMP like system, the same stuff will keep repeating over and over again.

Edited 2006-07-05 06:25

Unfortunately, whilst America may well be more guilty of this than the rest of the West, TROTW is not blameless by any means.

America isn't more guilty than the rest of the world. Europe isn't in such a great shape. Read the news.

So the fact that the European Commission has actually decided to take measures against Microsoft means that it is just as much a friend of big business as Congress, does it?

Yeah, when the drugs wear off, reality sux huh?

Google saying that if Congress fails to do the right thing it will seek justice via the judicial branch is corporate government how?

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, just saying that this doesn't qualify as proof of that conclusion.

"We will not tolerate" is bullying language. At best it is language Congress should be using towards wayward companies, not the reverse.

I think it's their right as a legal entity to make legal threats... Most complaints about lobbying to date have been that companies are bribing officials with special deals, or they're forcing their hand with their unions.

"At best it is language Congress should be using towards wayward companies, not the reverse."

Depends whether you have more respect for Congress or Google. Google helps me search and gives me free software. Congress spends MY money killing people instead of building windmills/better schools/universal healthcare.

That's not the point. Unless you're an anarchist, nations need legislatures; and even if you believe they don't, Google is not a state institution in the way a legislature is.

So far, they have been able to police themselves. I haven't seen this as being a problem yet, they're just threatening to take action in the future. The ISPs are going to have issues with customers and each other if they actually try to do this, and I don't see them doing it anymore then all of the people in the last election who said "if Bush gets re-elected, I'm moving to Canada". I know at least 20 friends who said that, but not one of them has moved to canada for some reason. (One did move after the election and tried to say it was Canada, they actually moved to Texas). I think the telcos are bluffing and I will get to watch them fall if I'm wrong anyways.

With that said, wouldn't net neutrality also create issues for the good things ISPs do with throttling/filtering already, such as blocking the major viruses and trojans that slow down the entire internet? I don't mind them having that capability as its a good thing for everyone in that case,

One man's virus is another man's program.

I undertsand that, but if one man's program is bringing down the entire internet and creating total chaos generating billions of packets that is slowing EVERYONE down, don't you think that packets that contain human generated data (regular website requests) should be given priority over a packet containing random data in attempt to DDoS microsoft.com? It will make the internet feel faster for you, regardless of the websites you visit, if packets are prioritized.

The problem only is when the company decides to deprioritize sites that do not pay them, but what are the ISPs expecting? Surely not every ISP can expect a payment from Google. It won't work, because then the ISPs will start getting greedy with each other, deprioritize each other's sites demanding payments from each other.

The problem with this whole concept is that everyone just ends up paying each other. BellSouth charges me $X for their customers being able to access sites hosted by my ISP and I now begin to charge BellSouth $X for my customers to be able to access BellSouth's website and sites hosted by them. The net result: X-X = 0.

I think he just needs to find something better to do. The less bandwidth equals the better user experience equals market share. I believe that net neutrality legislated will save the internet as a media outlet for us commoners.

I undertsand that, but if one man's program is bringing down the entire internet and creating total chaos generating billions of packets that is slowing EVERYONE down, don't you think that packets that contain human generated data (regular website requests) should be given priority over a packet containing random data in attempt to DDoS microsoft.com? It will make the internet feel faster for you, regardless of the websites you visit, if packets are prioritized.

But that's pretty much the same justification many providers use right now for throttling/blocking bittorrent. Is that valid?

The broadband providers have been getting by for ages overselling capacity, it's similar to the game the airlines play. Want a 2Mb connection? Here you go. Want a 5Mb? No problem. 9Mb? Sure, why not! They don't care. If all you're doing is surfing web pages, sending email and watching the odd streamed video, no worries. You're not even getting close to saturating their network.

But bittorrent for one calls the lie to their model. It's a protocol that demands bandwidth and will use all of the available bandwidth it can. Unfortuantely with oversold home connections, that results in bandwidth robbed from other users because the network isn't designed under the assumption everyone will be using their peak bandwidth capacity at the same time.

Who's right, who's wrong? Certainly the service providers can't be totally blamed, broadband connections can be reasonably oversold (as airlines oversell flights) under the assumption not everyone will require their allotment simultaneously. This keeps costs down and has made broadband affordable, it would be a hell of a lot more expensive if those 5Mb pipes in people's homes actually amounted to a 5Mb pipe straight to an internet backbone.

But to the customer who expects to be able to use whatever internet application they want to use, how do you explain that any more than you explain to the person being bumped from a flight because the ticket they purchased wasn't actually available? What if VPN connections for teleworkers come next on the list behind bittorrent? And the hot button topic, VoIP? A surcharge here, an uplift to a premium service there, cha-ching.

There's no easy answers here, both sides have some valid concerns buried under all the hype and noise though my personal inclination is that the providers will require a degree of regulation on this issue to offset the fact that they have the advantage of being protected monopolies and conventional free market rules do not apply in all instances.

Actually, there have been Net Neutrality problems in Canada too:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#threat

Last year, Telus blocked off access to a pro-union site they were in dispute with. Because of net neutrality rules they were forced to revive access or give up their ISP protected status (i.e. they'd be responsible for any content on the internet).

Ok, so on one side we bash MS for not complying to a country's/community's decisions, then we bash Google for complying. Well, this is our world, countries are different, regimes are different, governments are different. And I still say - despite what's in China - that this is good so. I'd really hate to see americanized countries all over the place.

This isn't bashing Google for "complying with society's rules", it's bashing them for taking it upon themselves to push Congress around. Society should be able to push Congress around, but not companies, and certainly not one mammoth company, whether that is Google, Microsoft, or McDonald's.

who do you work for? at$t

Google is just using the tools available, in some countries it has got nothing to say, in other countries they have the tools(courts) to stand-up against the government with the correct means.

Don't blame Google for the situation in China, rather blame the Chinese people/government that doesn't allow criticism. Google can do nothing to change the situation in China, not going into the market would mean replacement by someone else. Going into the market at least gives them some money and a bit of control should anything change.

We are ALL responsible for China. We-- and other countries-- value cheap goods over human rights.

"Funny how no European or Asian network companies wants to charge content providers."

No, they just want to put those charges on the consumers via things such as Email tax.

did he wear his Incredible Hulk tie?