Carriers Release "Mumbo Jumbo" Ad Against Net Neutrality

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060907-7690.html' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...60907-7690.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Network neutrality has been off the front page for the last few weeks, but the issue is alive and kicking across the US. The National Cable &amp; Telecommunications Association has been spending money like a drunken heiress—$6.6 million on telecom reform ads in the first seven months of the year alone. And what did they buy with all that cash? The sort of advertising so devoid of intellectual content that it's an insult to stupid people everywhere. Consider the most recent TV spot, a clip aptly called 'Mumbo Jumbo.'"</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/parekh-20060908-MumboJumbo.jpg" /><br /><br />In case you're wondering, yes, that is an <b>actual</b> shot from the clip. It's arguably one of the worst ads I've seen in a very, very long time. <a href="http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?ContentID=3526">Take a look and see for yourself</a>. I find it depressing that ad hominem attacks like this are aired... oh, who am I kidding? It's just a variation on political attack ads. And, just you wait, the uneducated consumer (and representative), not understanding (or caring of) the subtleties of the issue, will hand over 'Net control to the oh-so-altruistic, honest telecoms. :roll:

[SteveHoward999]

Um ...

Since I have more sense than to watch the rubbish on tv here, I have no idea what Net Neutrality is supposed to be. That 'public information' filmette didn't enlighten me any.

But since it is sponsored by Corporate America I know better than to trust its message, should I ever figure out what it was supposed to be ;-)

[Janak Parekh]

Since I have more sense than to watch the rubbish on tv here, I have no idea what Net Neutrality is supposed to be. That 'public information' filmette didn't enlighten me any.
Net neutrality has actually not been much of a TV subject. When in doubt, Google. ;) Here's one site arguing for it. (http://www.savetheinternet.com/) Corporate America is fighting against it as hard as they can.

--janak

[DaleReeck]

Yeah, instead of giving billions of dollars to the Silicon Valley industries, they want you to give billions of dollars to them ;)

All I know is, between cable TV and internet from Adelphia (now Time-Warner), I pay $222 a month, which is obscene. Thhese comm companies make BILLIONS. Yet we still can't get Fox HDTV channel and may end up losing the NFL network (Sept 14th is the deadline) because of a squabble over a few contract dollars. How greedy can you get? F--- the cable industry.

[DaleReeck]

Since I have more sense than to watch the rubbish on tv here, I have no idea what Net Neutrality is supposed to be. That 'public information' filmette didn't enlighten me any.
Net neutrality has actually not been much of a TV subject. When in doubt, Google. ;) Here's one site arguing for it. (http://www.savetheinternet.com/) Corporate America is fighting against it as hard as they can.

--janak

He he, according to that web site, the potential vote is right down party lines. Big surprise. All the Dems are for it and all the Repubs except one (Olympia Snowe) are against it.

[Jason Dunn]

I have to admit to being confused by the issue, as I've seen some very smart tech people (Tom Halfhill) arguing against Net Neutrality on the basis that it's a good thing that Google, Microsoft, and other bandwidth hogs pay more for bandwidth that we (the end user) would. Problem is of course that I somehow doubt my ISP would drop prices if they suddenly started saving money - they'd probably just call it extra profit.

[ADBrown]

I have to admit to being confused by the issue, as I've seen some very smart tech people (Tom Halfhill) arguing against Net Neutrality on the basis that it's a good thing that Google, Microsoft, and other bandwidth hogs pay more for bandwidth that we (the end user) would. Problem is of course that I somehow doubt my ISP would drop prices if they suddenly started saving money - they'd probably just call it extra profit.

The thing is, there's no need to start prioritizing traffic by who pays the most--which is what this is really all about. The big telecoms are trying to create an artificial bandwidth shortage. There's already so much unused bandwidth out there in terms of fiber, trunks, etcetera, that the current pricing structure is unjustifiably overinflated, yet they want to take it even further.

Take PocketPCThoughts for instance. I suspect that you have a fairly heavy bandwidth bill every month. However, it doesn't really cost your server's ISP X many thousands of dollars to send signals down a wire. In fact, for all intents and purposes, it costs them the same amount of money to maintain their network whether you have one hit a month or 100,000 (ignoring, for a moment, the questions of network overload). They bill you more because they can, because you have to have a connection, and everybody else will charge you too.

Now, what they'd like to do is say to you that you aren't paying them enough money, so traffic to and from your website is going to be given a lower priority than traffic for Google or Microsoft. Give them a little time, and we'll see service providers deliberately degrading access to sites which don't pony up more cash, like a 21st century digital protection racket. Even though there's no actual lack of bandwidth; even though there's no need to charge more; even though the current system works perfectly. The shareholders want more money--that's what this is about.

[mr2kx]

This is exactly the same tactics that Enron was employing. They were creating a 'shortage' with electricity and charging people more because of the 'increased demand'. As for bandwidth, this is all too eerily the same tactic that they WANTED to do with bandwidth. Before they went belly up. I suggest to anyone that hasn't seen the documentary "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" watch it.

william.