circleid writes "The Obama-Biden transition team on Friday named two long-time net neutrality advocates to head up its Federal Communications Commission Review team. Susan Crawford, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, member of the board of directors of ICANN, and OneWebDay founder, as well as Kevin Werbach, former FCC staffer, organizer of the annual Supernova technology conference, and a Wharton professor, will lead the Obama-Biden transition team's review of the FCC. 'Both are highly-regarded outside-the-Beltway experts in telecom policy, and they've both been pretty harsh critics of the Bush administration's telecom policies in the past year.' The choice of the duo strongly signals an entirely different approach to the incumbent-friendly telecom policy-making that's characterized most of the past eight-years at the FCC."
Reuters has a related story about Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who plans to introduce net neutrality legislation in January.
Deregulating Wall Street has done wonders for the US economy, unleashing the creative powers of the investor class unto the world. Deregulating the telecom industry is working just as well!
When and how was the telecom industry de-regulated?
In every state I am familiar with, there is one company that has a government granted monopoly to maintain the phone lines and to provide service over them. That's not deregulation to me.
I know that some states have laws that force that company to lease the lines to other providers, but it usually doesn't work since they aren't required to lease them at a fair price, and nobody can compete with the company that maintains the lines any way.
Over here in Sweden the telephone system was made by the government of course, social democratic as we are. In the 90:s it was sold out however and since quite a few years it has been a free market for the providers.
The lines does obviously still belong to a single owner, I don't know who sets the price but usually you pay one fee for subscription and then you pay another one for the calls you actually make. Same for electricity where you pay one net fee and one power fee.
The Clinton FCC had forced phone companies and cable companies to lease their lines to competitors at fair prices. One of the first things the Bush FCC did was to undo this. (The exact opposite happened in France around the same time; the EU forced phone line unbundling to the former state monopoly. Result? Cheap, abundant broadband)
"Clinton FCC" and "Bush FCC" are sort of misnomers. The FCC is an independent Federal agency that does not fall under the Executive branch.
Commissioners are appointed to five year terms by the President, with approval of the Senate. Once appointed, they are similar to Federal judges in that they may only be removed by impeachment (or the expiration of a term). The President has influence over who gets onto the Commission, but he cannot fire them or tell them what policy to make.
There is an additional check on the influence of the President in that no more than 3 of the 5 commissioners may be of the same political party. So the President can have some influence in who he appoints over time, but even if he gets two terms, he cannot completely alter the partisan make-up of the Commission.
What does this have to do with that? And I'm not aware of politicianS doing this stupid comparison; only of one, who has just been convicted of corruption and lost his bid for reelection.
exactly. the gp's question is just silly (or poorly thought out).
if people want to call America a free and democratic nation, then we need to start acting like one. stop thinking of the government as this separate ruling entity that you have no power or influence over. yes, it's convenient to disassociate yourself from the policy makers of our nation as that makes it easier to wash your hands of the government's actions and their consequences (like war, encroachment of civil liberties, corruption, etc.). but if that's the attitude you're gonna take then what is the point of having a democratic republic?
if you don't trust a small group of political elite to regulate the internet and other public infrastructure, then why would you trust a small group of corporate elite to do so. at least the public has a say in government policies, thus we have the right to demand changes to the government regulates the internet if we're unhappy with it. however, the public has no say in corporate policies and have no right to dictate how a private corporation operates.
being a natural monopoly and a vital service with inelastic demand, communications networks like telecoms/ISPs cannot be boycotted effectively by consumers. so even if you believe in having the invisible hand of the Free Market make everything alright, that will not work in this case. but the social apparatus constituting a democratic government exists precisely for situations like these where it provides the only mechanism for carrying out the will of the people in protecting public interest.
It is refreshing to see that Obama is pulling from academia and groups such as ICANN, rather than just from industry to populate his cabinet. I believe that those that have served in industry can offer some of the best insight into policy, but choosing a significant number of executives definitely skews policy in the wrong direction. For that matter, having too many of any one group leads to problems.
I hope that Obama can see beyond what his party wants, and make decisions based on advice from all sides. Lincoln and Kennedy were both known for filling their cabinets with diverse members from a wide political and social background. After the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs [wikipedia.org] Kennedy sought to limit group think [answers.com] - where all dissenting opinions are squashed by excessive group homogeneity - Kennedy specifically divided up similar advisors and brought in outside experts to help successfully diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had the political savvy to understand that difficult decisions have no right answer, just answers that are more or less positive for everyone.
Hopefully Obama will balance his cabinet appointments in a similar way. Drawing from universities is a good start, but some industry experts mixed into the bunch is an excellent step in the right direction as well. As L. B. Johnson said of Hoover, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in." It's better to have dissenting opinions inside helping you make positive choices, rather than showering you from outside and making your life more difficult.
"successfully diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis"? I think you mean "defuse". In the context of missiles, diffuse has pretty much exactly the opposite meaning.
Look, I was all out supporting Obama, especially considering the alternatives. But can we PLEASE stop comparing him to Kennedy and Lincoln before he has even started?
The public would not pay for its Internet services if AT&T discriminated against content, [Jim Cicconi, AT&T executive vice president for regulatory affairs] added. "We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot."
But, if the public only had a choice between DSL w/ AT&T, cable w/ Comcast, or no internet at all, and both companies throttled content, then the public is really left without a choice. It used to be that consumers had a choice between their internet provider. Nowadays, many major cities and municipalities only have one or two choices, usually both of them major players. And when regional monopolies exist, regulation has to exist to ensure that the monopolies aren't abused.
Exactly. Where I live, my choices are Comcast, or satellite. And we all know how bad satellite is. It would probably be cheaper to rent out a tiny house somewhere where I could get un-filtered access, and then buy Comcast and route everything through a VPN to there or something. Seriously. Satellite costs twice as much as Comcast and the service is _horrible_. I actually know people that have switched _back to dial-up_ because satellite was so bad.
The basic issue with Net Neutrality is not how the service should be offered, or anything to do with the technology. It's fundamentally just an issue of who pays. Telecoms would like to collect subscriber revenue from their customers, then turn around and collect more revenue from content providers as well.
The important thing to understand here is that as bad as the current ISP situation is, under the current model a customer theoretically has the option to respond to price signals by changing their service options, e.g., switching to another provider, or --- if none is available --- simply reducing their consumption. That keeps costs under control to some extent.
Under the proposed model, it's the content provider who pays. Since a content provider is not a direct "customer" of the ISP, they have very little leverage with the ISP. If, say, Google wants to reach a given class of customers (e.g., the tens millions of customers served by Comcast), they have no choice but to deal with Comcast on whatever terms it chooses--- or give up a huge percentage of the market.
Now on the surface this seems like a fine deal to Comcast's customers, since they get enhanced network services without any additional service charges. But this leads to a problem: without any price signals, there's no strong incentive on Comcast to moderate their prices. Anything they charge will ultimately be passed along to the customers by the content providers, in the form of higher service charges, reduced quality, and/or dramatically increased advertising. But customers won't see this directly and link it to the ISP, so there will be very little incentive to control costs (no doubt Comcast will mandate that content providers distribute these costs equally, and not single out their customers for additional surcharges). It imposes a huge tax on a very dynamic and growing part of our economy, and it's certainly one we don't need now.
(Larger providers, incidentally, will have some leverage in this model--- since who wants to be the ISP to cut off iTunes service? But their leverage will come at the cost of squeezing smaller providers for more revenue, dramatically increasing barriers to entering the market. Goodbye new ideas.)
There are various solutions to this problem, all of which require the ISP to bill their enhanced services to the customer. In the end this gives the same set of enhanced services, but also allows customers to make a decision as to whether they want to pay the ISP, cut down on service, or switch to another provider. Done correctly this should encourage ISPs to open up their networks to many providers, since their revenue will be driven by customer interest and not self-interest.
Under the proposed model, it's the content provider who pays.
Link please? That's not mentioned in the reuters article [reuters.com] about the bill. If that is what this law says, then it has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is not about who pays. It is about the pipes that deliver the content being neutral to what the content is. The pricing model should stay the way it is.
No, because the content providers already pay. They already pay quite a bit actually. What the issue is is an attempt to charge them again - many, many times. They pay for their connection already. Why should they now have to pay extra so that they can actually use it? Why should they have to pay every ISP separately to carry their content?
Sorry to pinch you, but he named people to a review team which is advising a transition team, not exactly an important government post. He still has time to put doofuses there.
All this noise about net neutrality, supporters and against'sers would not have come at all had AT&T CEO kept his trap shut that fateful day. By showing his greed for double-dipping and charging websites AND ISP consumers for directing traffic, he showed the face of corporate greed prematurely. This resulted in congress and Obama forcing ISPs to agree to neutrality. AT&T CEO must be cursing himself for opening his mouth that day...
Considering that 90% of all complaints were filed by one religious group (can't remember the exact year and name), I don't think the morale police is at the FCC.
I hope we can find a better way to "regulate" OTA TV and radio. I prefer a more libertarian approach here. If CBS wants to show boobies after a reasonable time, say, 9:00 (the internationally accepted "Boobie Hour), have swear words and show people's heads exploding like a melon, let them. The market will sort things out. People will either watch and support CBS' decision and CBS will show more boobies. If people don't watch, CBS will move away from that type of programing, or go out of business. Little kids that are up at 9:00 watching porn are already suffering from parenting fail [youtube.com] and no amount of FCC nanying is going to save them.
If all the OTA networks paid say.5% (or some other equally made up number) of their advertising revenue into a PBS fund that focused on education, solid news and community events, that could satisfy everybody. Anybody who wants to watch TV at the boobie hour, without seeing boobies still has an option and the rest of us can see our boobies and hear fill of swear words. Problem solved. Next?
Besides, I think that seeing a flaming and charred body fly out of an exploding meth-lab-camper on Bones this week is way more scarring to me and just about any kid than hearing an occasional "fuck".
"Boobies" are always reasonable. They are quite easy to find on the Internet. The Internet is in most every community. Hence based on the standards of the community in your area, boobies are indeed acceptable.
This being said (with as much tongue in check as possible), just stop telling people what they can broadcast. It's none of your business, even if you did license them the airwaves they're using.
I prefer a more libertarian approach here. If CBS wants to show boobies after a reasonable time, say, 9:00 (the internationally accepted "Boobie Hour), have swear words and show people's heads exploding like a melon, let them. The market will sort things out. People will either watch and support CBS' decision and CBS will show more boobies.
And you know what will happen? Ratings will skyrocket, resulting in 3 dozen copycat stations - and virtually none for those people who don't want to see nudity and violence all the time (like the reality show trend). Market numbers will always look good for that type of trash, because a large percentage of people who don't like smut 24/7 have already given up on TV anyways (prime example: the book readers). So realistically, you would have to bring those people back to TV to even know what audience you're missing. It's similar to the American Idol effect: ratings went through he roof, because people you didn't even know existed tuned in because it wasn't tabloid TV.
I'm 26 years old, I don't have any kids, I'm not a very religious person, and I don't have a college degree. I don't belong in any of the groups that would typically go for this sort of thing - yet I feel TV is complete garbage. Entirely too much shock value, and not enough substance.
Look, I'm a "Full Blooded American", but I'm honest enough to know that American citizens are neither smart enough or responsible enough to decide what's good for TV. We'd sell our souls and our youth for good entertainment, and we'd do it without hesitation. We're prisoners of the moment, and we never understand - or even care about - the big picture.
I don't think the idea is to turn tv into porno central.
Up north in Canada, stations are allowed to show nudity at certain hours. What it allows is for stations to chose to not censor tv shows or movies from the creators original vision. I can only think of two stations (showcase & citytv) in my area that show any sort of blue movies and that's usually one day a week. It allows us to watch the sopranos as it was filmed. It also goes for the radio as well. I remember listing in the car while I was driving my mom somewhere and Closer by NIN came on. Awkward.
It is true that the morally conservative would rally against smut on TV, but perhaps we can move past the vocal minority and allow the market to sort this one out. When one group is allowed to dictate what is and is not obscene, constitutional rights start to get trampled. My art becomes your porn; your ideas become my dangerous propaganda. Clearly, the slippery slope theory isn't very accurate, and we're not going to slip into a 15th century age of repression, but the idea of a minority advocating for th
but perhaps we can move past the vocal minority and allow the market to sort this one out.
Such an interesting phrase, in a discussion of net neutrality.
Note that it applies just as well to net neutrality as it does to smut on TV. Or do you really think the people screaming about net neutrality are anything other than a vocal minority? Hint: most people neither know nor care about net neutrality.
You're technically right, but with all the overlays and shit they put right over the shows these days, you could easily find many OTA and cable networks who realistically push over 30 minutes of advertising per hour.
I think you're looking for the Parents Television Council [wikipedia.org] and some would place the number closer to 99% of all complaints.
This is the same organization that had form letter email campaigns that encouraged people who didn't even watch the damn shoes to report them as "indecent".
I guess you could say they figured out how to DDoS the FCC with complaints.
yea I got little kids that don't need to be hearing certain things. Its called adult responsibility.
Exactly! It's your adult responsibility to make sure your kids are not watching smut. If you leave your 5 year-old unattended in front of the TV with the remote, then that's your parenting fail. If you can't trust your 12 year-old to not watch smut when you're not around, then again, that's your [NSFW] parenting fail [failblog.org]. Expecting the government to instill and uphold morality in your family is ridiculous. That is your job.
There has always been opportunity for kids to make poor moral choices and be exposed to media and events that were outside the parents' moral-comfort zone. If you lived in 18th century Paris, you had the choice to go to the guillotine, or you could keep your kids home. It has and always will be up to the parents. If you let your kids run wild and don't take the time to set expectations, they're going to do wrong. Expecting some hand in the sky, or white-house, or capital hill to come in and do it for you is just plain crazy.
Spend time with your kids. Talk to them. Explain why you make choices and how you feel about their choices. No amount of legislation will substitute that.
yea I got little kids that don't need to be hearing certain things. Its called adult responsibility.
Exactly! It's your adult responsibility to make sure your kids are not watching smut. If you leave your 5 year-old unattended in front of the TV with the remote, then that's your parenting fail. If you can't trust your 12 year-old to not watch smut when you're not around, then again, that's your [NSFW] parenting fail [failblog.org]. Expecting the government to instill and uphold morality in your family is ridiculous. That is your job.
There has always been opportunity for kids to make poor moral choices and be exposed to media and events that were outside the parents' moral-comfort zone. If you lived in 18th century Paris, you had the choice to go to the guillotine, or you could keep your kids home. It has and always will be up to the parents. If you let your kids run wild and don't take the time to set expectations, they're going to do wrong. Expecting some hand in the sky, or white-house, or capital hill to come in and do it for you is just plain crazy.
Spend time with your kids. Talk to them. Explain why you make choices and how you feel about their choices. No amount of legislation will substitute that.
no kidding. But it takes a village to raise an idiot. As a society we have a responsibility to take care of our offspring whether its our child or our neighbor's that will grow up to be the next rapist, thief etc. Parents can't be everywhere all the time.
Not swearing out in public in front of children is common adult decency. Public TV that gets piped in. Ya know not too long ago I remember being able to watch certain action shows with my dad. They were tailored quite well for age appropriate things. Now, T
While I believe cursing and harsh language aren't protected under the First Amendment (I'm told, though maybe it's just cursing AT people that isn't), I grew up in a household where everyone dropped F-bombs constantly. I, however, did not. It was explained to me by my family . ..
*YES. FAMILIES CAN EXPLAIN THINGS TO CHILDREN.*
. . . that these aren't things little children should say. So I didn't.
I also was basically raised by television, and instead of turning into a violent psychopath, I LEARNED THINGS. So
So, what was the main criteria for choosing them? Both are highly-regarded outside-the-Beltway experts in telecom policy or they've both been pretty harsh critics of the Bush administration's telecom policies in the past year.'
You act like these are two distinct, unrelated issues--- when in fact, they're deeply interdependent.
Are there any outside-the-Beltway experts who _aren't_ harsh critics of the Bush administration's telecom policies?
Of course, there are. None of the major telecommunication companies have headquarters inside the Beltway... And, surprise-surprise, a real expert is more likely to work in their field, than be a college professor (in the field). And not all of them hate Bush with Academia's passion.
What are you babbling about and what does this have to do with net neutrality? Please, wipe the drool off your chin and go back to quietly reminiscing how cool you used to be.
On topic now, it's good to see that net neutrality is getting some serious consideration. Like the GP said, when you only have 1-2 choices and they are both behaving the same way, well, you have no choice. I will say, however, that there has never really been much choice for broadband outside of bit metro areas. When there was choic
Why do "net neutrality" advocates (Score:4, Insightful)
Better than the alternative. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Regulation is bad mmm'kay (Score:5, Funny)
Deregulating Wall Street has done wonders for the US economy, unleashing the creative powers of the investor class unto the world. Deregulating the telecom industry is working just as well!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When and how was the telecom industry de-regulated?
In every state I am familiar with, there is one company that has a government granted monopoly to maintain the phone lines and to provide service over them. That's not deregulation to me.
I know that some states have laws that force that company to lease the lines to other providers, but it usually doesn't work since they aren't required to lease them at a fair price, and nobody can compete with the company that maintains the lines any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Over here in Sweden the telephone system was made by the government of course, social democratic as we are. In the 90:s it was sold out however and since quite a few years it has been a free market for the providers.
The lines does obviously still belong to a single owner, I don't know who sets the price but usually you pay one fee for subscription and then you pay another one for the calls you actually make. Same for electricity where you pay one net fee and one power fee.
There is various companies to selec
First thing the Bush admin did (Score:5, Informative)
The Clinton FCC had forced phone companies and cable companies to lease their lines to competitors at fair prices.
One of the first things the Bush FCC did was to undo this.
(The exact opposite happened in France around the same time; the EU forced phone line unbundling to the former state monopoly. Result? Cheap, abundant broadband)
Parent
Re:First thing the Bush admin did (Score:4, Informative)
"Clinton FCC" and "Bush FCC" are sort of misnomers. The FCC is an independent Federal agency that does not fall under the Executive branch.
Commissioners are appointed to five year terms by the President, with approval of the Senate. Once appointed, they are similar to Federal judges in that they may only be removed by impeachment (or the expiration of a term). The President has influence over who gets onto the Commission, but he cannot fire them or tell them what policy to make.
There is an additional check on the influence of the President in that no more than 3 of the 5 commissioners may be of the same political party. So the President can have some influence in who he appoints over time, but even if he gets two terms, he cannot completely alter the partisan make-up of the Commission.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Glass-Steagal act, which was a regulation; was mostly repealed. That's a DEregulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that instances of true net neutrality issues have been extremely far and few between (basically, nonexistant)... hmmm.
WHAAAAAARGAABBBL (Score:2)
What does this have to do with that?
And I'm not aware of politicianS doing this stupid comparison; only of one, who has just been convicted of corruption and lost his bid for reelection.
Serious question? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do Linux advocates ridicule operating systems for being closed-source and bloated, and then trust an operating system to run their computers?
Why do vegetarians ridicule food for being immoral and unhealthy, but still eat food?
Why do voters criticize candidates for holding positions they don't like, and then vote for a candidate?
Re:Serious question? (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly. the gp's question is just silly (or poorly thought out).
if people want to call America a free and democratic nation, then we need to start acting like one. stop thinking of the government as this separate ruling entity that you have no power or influence over. yes, it's convenient to disassociate yourself from the policy makers of our nation as that makes it easier to wash your hands of the government's actions and their consequences (like war, encroachment of civil liberties, corruption, etc.). but if that's the attitude you're gonna take then what is the point of having a democratic republic?
if you don't trust a small group of political elite to regulate the internet and other public infrastructure, then why would you trust a small group of corporate elite to do so. at least the public has a say in government policies, thus we have the right to demand changes to the government regulates the internet if we're unhappy with it. however, the public has no say in corporate policies and have no right to dictate how a private corporation operates.
being a natural monopoly and a vital service with inelastic demand, communications networks like telecoms/ISPs cannot be boycotted effectively by consumers. so even if you believe in having the invisible hand of the Free Market make everything alright, that will not work in this case. but the social apparatus constituting a democratic government exists precisely for situations like these where it provides the only mechanism for carrying out the will of the people in protecting public interest.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason that you write your post: It feels nice to complain.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is not about Obama choosing Ted Stevens, so I'm not quite onboard with your analysis here....
Refreshing (Score:5, Interesting)
It is refreshing to see that Obama is pulling from academia and groups such as ICANN, rather than just from industry to populate his cabinet. I believe that those that have served in industry can offer some of the best insight into policy, but choosing a significant number of executives definitely skews policy in the wrong direction. For that matter, having too many of any one group leads to problems.
I hope that Obama can see beyond what his party wants, and make decisions based on advice from all sides. Lincoln and Kennedy were both known for filling their cabinets with diverse members from a wide political and social background. After the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs [wikipedia.org] Kennedy sought to limit group think [answers.com] - where all dissenting opinions are squashed by excessive group homogeneity - Kennedy specifically divided up similar advisors and brought in outside experts to help successfully diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. He had the political savvy to understand that difficult decisions have no right answer, just answers that are more or less positive for everyone.
Hopefully Obama will balance his cabinet appointments in a similar way. Drawing from universities is a good start, but some industry experts mixed into the bunch is an excellent step in the right direction as well. As L. B. Johnson said of Hoover, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in." It's better to have dissenting opinions inside helping you make positive choices, rather than showering you from outside and making your life more difficult.
Diffuse Missiles? (Score:2)
"successfully diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis"? I think you mean "defuse". In the context of missiles, diffuse has pretty much exactly the opposite meaning.
Re:Refreshing (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I was all out supporting Obama, especially considering the alternatives. But can we PLEASE stop comparing him to Kennedy and Lincoln before he has even started?
Parent
Re:Refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
AT&T's flawed reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
The public would not pay for its Internet services if AT&T discriminated against content, [Jim Cicconi, AT&T executive vice president for regulatory affairs] added. "We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot."
But, if the public only had a choice between DSL w/ AT&T, cable w/ Comcast, or no internet at all, and both companies throttled content, then the public is really left without a choice. It used to be that consumers had a choice between their internet provider. Nowadays, many major cities and municipalities only have one or two choices, usually both of them major players. And when regional monopolies exist, regulation has to exist to ensure that the monopolies aren't abused.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Where I live, my choices are Comcast, or satellite. And we all know how bad satellite is. It would probably be cheaper to rent out a tiny house somewhere where I could get un-filtered access, and then buy Comcast and route everything through a VPN to there or something. Seriously. Satellite costs twice as much as Comcast and the service is _horrible_. I actually know people that have switched _back to dial-up_ because satellite was so bad.
Re: (Score:2)
How it should be done (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said this before, but why not say it again :)
The basic issue with Net Neutrality is not how the service should be offered, or anything to do with the technology. It's fundamentally just an issue of who pays. Telecoms would like to collect subscriber revenue from their customers, then turn around and collect more revenue from content providers as well.
The important thing to understand here is that as bad as the current ISP situation is, under the current model a customer theoretically has the option to respond to price signals by changing their service options, e.g., switching to another provider, or --- if none is available --- simply reducing their consumption. That keeps costs under control to some extent.
Under the proposed model, it's the content provider who pays. Since a content provider is not a direct "customer" of the ISP, they have very little leverage with the ISP. If, say, Google wants to reach a given class of customers (e.g., the tens millions of customers served by Comcast), they have no choice but to deal with Comcast on whatever terms it chooses--- or give up a huge percentage of the market.
Now on the surface this seems like a fine deal to Comcast's customers, since they get enhanced network services without any additional service charges. But this leads to a problem: without any price signals, there's no strong incentive on Comcast to moderate their prices. Anything they charge will ultimately be passed along to the customers by the content providers, in the form of higher service charges, reduced quality, and/or dramatically increased advertising. But customers won't see this directly and link it to the ISP, so there will be very little incentive to control costs (no doubt Comcast will mandate that content providers distribute these costs equally, and not single out their customers for additional surcharges). It imposes a huge tax on a very dynamic and growing part of our economy, and it's certainly one we don't need now.
(Larger providers, incidentally, will have some leverage in this model--- since who wants to be the ISP to cut off iTunes service? But their leverage will come at the cost of squeezing smaller providers for more revenue, dramatically increasing barriers to entering the market. Goodbye new ideas.)
There are various solutions to this problem, all of which require the ISP to bill their enhanced services to the customer. In the end this gives the same set of enhanced services, but also allows customers to make a decision as to whether they want to pay the ISP, cut down on service, or switch to another provider. Done correctly this should encourage ISPs to open up their networks to many providers, since their revenue will be driven by customer interest and not self-interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Under the proposed model, it's the content provider who pays.
Link please? That's not mentioned in the reuters article [reuters.com] about the bill. If that is what this law says, then it has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is not about who pays. It is about the pipes that deliver the content being neutral to what the content is. The pricing model should stay the way it is.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the content providers already pay. They already pay quite a bit actually. What the issue is is an attempt to charge them again - many, many times. They pay for their connection already. Why should they now have to pay extra so that they can actually use it? Why should they have to pay every ISP separately to carry their content?
Bizarro World (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
because of AT&T CEO opened his mouth w/o think (Score:2)
All this noise about net neutrality, supporters and against'sers would not have come at all had AT&T CEO kept his trap shut that fateful day.
By showing his greed for double-dipping and charging websites AND ISP consumers for directing traffic, he showed the face of corporate greed prematurely. This resulted in congress and Obama forcing ISPs to agree to neutrality.
AT&T CEO must be cursing himself for opening his mouth that day...
was, yes we can!, now, yes icann (Score:5, Funny)
was, yes we can!, now, yes icann
in too late to get mod points
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope we can find a better way to "regulate" OTA TV and radio. I prefer a more libertarian approach here. If CBS wants to show boobies after a reasonable time, say, 9:00 (the internationally accepted "Boobie Hour), have swear words and show people's heads exploding like a melon, let them. The market will sort things out. People will either watch and support CBS' decision and CBS will show more boobies. If people don't watch, CBS will move away from that type of programing, or go out of business. Little kids that are up at 9:00 watching porn are already suffering from parenting fail [youtube.com] and no amount of FCC nanying is going to save them.
If all the OTA networks paid say .5% (or some other equally made up number) of their advertising revenue into a PBS fund that focused on education, solid news and community events, that could satisfy everybody. Anybody who wants to watch TV at the boobie hour, without seeing boobies still has an option and the rest of us can see our boobies and hear fill of swear words. Problem solved. Next?
Besides, I think that seeing a flaming and charred body fly out of an exploding meth-lab-camper on Bones this week is way more scarring to me and just about any kid than hearing an occasional "fuck".
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This being said (with as much tongue in check as possible), just stop telling people what they can broadcast. It's none of your business, even if you did license them the airwaves they're using.
Sounds Good, But Won't Work (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer a more libertarian approach here. If CBS wants to show boobies after a reasonable time, say, 9:00 (the internationally accepted "Boobie Hour), have swear words and show people's heads exploding like a melon, let them. The market will sort things out. People will either watch and support CBS' decision and CBS will show more boobies.
And you know what will happen? Ratings will skyrocket, resulting in 3 dozen copycat stations - and virtually none for those people who don't want to see nudity and violence all the time (like the reality show trend). Market numbers will always look good for that type of trash, because a large percentage of people who don't like smut 24/7 have already given up on TV anyways (prime example: the book readers). So realistically, you would have to bring those people back to TV to even know what audience you're missing. It's similar to the American Idol effect: ratings went through he roof, because people you didn't even know existed tuned in because it wasn't tabloid TV.
I'm 26 years old, I don't have any kids, I'm not a very religious person, and I don't have a college degree. I don't belong in any of the groups that would typically go for this sort of thing - yet I feel TV is complete garbage. Entirely too much shock value, and not enough substance.
Look, I'm a "Full Blooded American", but I'm honest enough to know that American citizens are neither smart enough or responsible enough to decide what's good for TV. We'd sell our souls and our youth for good entertainment, and we'd do it without hesitation. We're prisoners of the moment, and we never understand - or even care about - the big picture.
Parent
Re:Sounds Good, But Won't Work (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is true that the morally conservative would rally against smut on TV, but perhaps we can move past the vocal minority and allow the market to sort this one out. When one group is allowed to dictate what is and is not obscene, constitutional rights start to get trampled. My art becomes your porn; your ideas become my dangerous propaganda. Clearly, the slippery slope theory isn't very accurate, and we're not going to slip into a 15th century age of repression, but the idea of a minority advocating for th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Such an interesting phrase, in a discussion of net neutrality.
Note that it applies just as well to net neutrality as it does to smut on TV. Or do you really think the people screaming about net neutrality are anything other than a vocal minority? Hint: most people neither know nor care about net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
No, conservatives just wouldn't want private corporations to have to pay for someone else's broadcasting costs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
This is the same organization that had form letter email campaigns that encouraged people who didn't even watch the damn shoes to report them as "indecent".
I guess you could say they figured out how to DDoS the FCC with complaints.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
yea I got little kids that don't need to be hearing certain things. Its called adult responsibility.
Exactly! It's your adult responsibility to make sure your kids are not watching smut. If you leave your 5 year-old unattended in front of the TV with the remote, then that's your parenting fail. If you can't trust your 12 year-old to not watch smut when you're not around, then again, that's your [NSFW] parenting fail [failblog.org]. Expecting the government to instill and uphold morality in your family is ridiculous. That is your job.
There has always been opportunity for kids to make poor moral choices and be exposed to media and events that were outside the parents' moral-comfort zone. If you lived in 18th century Paris, you had the choice to go to the guillotine, or you could keep your kids home. It has and always will be up to the parents. If you let your kids run wild and don't take the time to set expectations, they're going to do wrong. Expecting some hand in the sky, or white-house, or capital hill to come in and do it for you is just plain crazy.
Spend time with your kids. Talk to them. Explain why you make choices and how you feel about their choices. No amount of legislation will substitute that.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
yea I got little kids that don't need to be hearing certain things. Its called adult responsibility.
Exactly! It's your adult responsibility to make sure your kids are not watching smut. If you leave your 5 year-old unattended in front of the TV with the remote, then that's your parenting fail. If you can't trust your 12 year-old to not watch smut when you're not around, then again, that's your [NSFW] parenting fail [failblog.org]. Expecting the government to instill and uphold morality in your family is ridiculous. That is your job.
There has always been opportunity for kids to make poor moral choices and be exposed to media and events that were outside the parents' moral-comfort zone. If you lived in 18th century Paris, you had the choice to go to the guillotine, or you could keep your kids home. It has and always will be up to the parents. If you let your kids run wild and don't take the time to set expectations, they're going to do wrong. Expecting some hand in the sky, or white-house, or capital hill to come in and do it for you is just plain crazy.
Spend time with your kids. Talk to them. Explain why you make choices and how you feel about their choices. No amount of legislation will substitute that.
no kidding. But it takes a village to raise an idiot. As a society we have a responsibility to take care of our offspring whether its our child or our neighbor's that will grow up to be the next rapist, thief etc. Parents can't be everywhere all the time.
Not swearing out in public in front of children is common adult decency. Public TV that gets piped in. Ya know not too long ago I remember being able to watch certain action shows with my dad. They were tailored quite well for age appropriate things. Now, T
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While I believe cursing and harsh language aren't protected under the First Amendment (I'm told, though maybe it's just cursing AT people that isn't), I grew up in a household where everyone dropped F-bombs constantly. I, however, did not. It was explained to me by my family . . .
*YES. FAMILIES CAN EXPLAIN THINGS TO CHILDREN.*
. . . that these aren't things little children should say. So I didn't.
I also was basically raised by television, and instead of turning into a violent psychopath, I LEARNED THINGS. So
Re: (Score:2)
The question is if kids really gets corrupted of seeing sex? And why that would be so?
I think a harsh stressful world with to little time for the kids is much worse than a TV showing porn when they is asleep anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You act like these are two distinct, unrelated issues--- when in fact, they're deeply interdependent.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice point except that here on Slashdot we do not *act* at all, we just witter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then listing both would've been "deeply" redundant, wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Both seem good qualifications to me [ducks]
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any outside-the-Beltway experts who _aren't_ harsh critics of the Bush administration's telecom policies?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there are. None of the major telecommunication companies have headquarters inside the Beltway... And, surprise-surprise, a real expert is more likely to work in their field, than be a college professor (in the field). And not all of them hate Bush with Academia's passion.
Re: (Score:2)
On topic now, it's good to see that net neutrality is getting some serious consideration. Like the GP said, when you only have 1-2 choices and they are both behaving the same way, well, you have no choice. I will say, however, that there has never really been much choice for broadband outside of bit metro areas. When there was choic