wiredog writes "From The Washington Post comes news that the FCC is preparing to propose net neutrality rules on Monday. Quoting: '[FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] will discuss the rules Monday during a keynote speech at The Brookings Institute. He isn't expected to drill into many details, but the proposal will specifically be for an additional guideline on how operators like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can control what goes on their networks. That additional guideline would prevent the operators from discriminating, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content and services. ... The agency is expected to review what traffic management is reasonable and what practices are discriminatory. The guidelines are known as "principals" at the agency, which some public interest groups have sought to codify so that they would clearly be enforceable.'"
Define "reasonable" - reasonable according to the end-user (okay, somewhat geeky end-user), or "reasonable" to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T...
Here's my take: if you provide service to the end-user, you only take money from the end-user. When providing said service, you don't look at where a packet is coming from, only where it goes.
If your network can't handle it, you upgrade your network.
Totally agreed. And beyond that, don't look at the type of packet. You're providing a data pipe, and that's it. If it's VOIP or P2P or constant video streaming from a service that competes with one of your own, sell the bandwidth that you can afford to sell, and if you can't afford to sell it raise the price and get ready for competition.
And speaking of competition, all this net neutrality stuff would go away if there were any real competition. Almost all markets are duopolies, with basically the tel
Not sure I agree with that. If I'm downloading an ISO, I care about throughput but not about jitter or latency. If I'm making a VoIP call, my throughput is around 5MB/hour, but I care a lot about jitter and latency. I'd like my ISP to respect the flags in the IP header that request low jitter and low latency for a connection, so that my VoIP packets will be prioritized for the whole time that they are on the ISP's network. I don't care if my download has peaks and troughs in its throughput, as long as t
The operators will think that any level of control they have is insufficient and the users will think that any level of control the operators have is far too much.
I know this is going to modded troll, but you know how Congress always tacks on stuff to bills, nobody will dispute that.
I heard a warning in November (from Republicans of course) that the Fairness Doctrine, trying to legislate the content of the internet and talk radio, would come under the guise of Net Neutrality.
I bet a dollar and a nickel that debate will somehow come out of this bill.
I heard a warning in November (from Republicans of course) that the Fairness Doctrine, trying to legislate the content of the internet and talk radio, would come under the guise of Net Neutrality.
Republicans spreading FUD against a proposal (net neutrality) that favors consumers over big business? What a shocker!
The fairness doctrine has never had anything to do with the internet, BTW. There aren't even any serious proposals to bring it back for radio, much less apply it to the internet.
Troll? No, because I had the same thought - and wondered if this was a step in that direction. I don't think it is, but to your point: don't believe the Republicans. Believe the words of the FCC diversity czar himself, Mark Lloyd. Among other things, he believes the first amendment is an exaggeration:
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press," [Lloyd] said. "This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies." (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055)
Notice he first says that his focus is not freedom of speech, but then dismisses it as unimportant and irrelevant. Lloyd apparently, by his own words (read the rest of the article in which he outlines his plan) believes the federal government, through the FCC and other satellite offices should be carefully controlling not just ownership (which in itself is an issue) but also the *content* of the media.
Because he's correct - FCC is not there to guarantee freedom of expression. Far from it. FCC is there to guarantee that *communication* stuff works - to follow the rules of communication as outlined in the law. And to put it simply, communication fails when Comcast or Verizon start to filter one content over another.
Now, Net Neutrality law would specify the meximum amount of filtering that the companies can do. What type of policies are allowed and not allowed under that law. And FCC *job* is then to enforc
The FCC regulates what goes on in our communications commons -- traditionally, the electromagnetic airwaves, but others too (think publicly-owned, -funded, -subsidized, and/or -monopoly-granted cable/Internet/telephone infrastructure). Since these are owned by (or owed to) the public, they must be regulated for the public good. You have the right to speak freely, but you don't have the right to do whatever you want to alter, pollute, or dominate our commons. And just because some have built huge business
And to bring myself back ontopic: While I agree this law is horrible I doubt it will change anything. If a politician ever gets punished for calling the president intellectually dishonest and has something to back it up the president will be in a lot of shit. The law will likely have the opposite effect as it intends.
I mean who doesn't want a double whammy? You insult your opponent, prove him wrong when there is TONS of press on you and to top it off you get to prove the pres is a wad for enacting the rul
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is, and also knows how to correctly spell "the Democratic Party". But more importantly, even the fairness doctrine that conservatives dread so much (even though no one is trying to bring it back) was never about silencing opposition. It was about providing a balance of viewpoints -- you know, like Fox News claims to do.
BTW, your second link requires paid registration. I'm amused that you're paying to hear conspiracy theories when there are already plenty online for free.
what business is it of the government whether or not there is a "balance of viewpoints?" how would it be enforceable and who would decide what "balance" means? Don't like what Fox news is spewing? Good. You can think for yourself. Change the channel.
That's ALL it was about. Specifically talk radio. Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
It's not exactly healthy for the only voices to be heard are those who can afford to make themselves heard, i.e. big businesses. It sounds to me like it's the left who have been silenced, if what you say is true.
Less of an issue with the internet, of course, with its much lower barrier to entry.
That's like saying "it isn't healthy to ignore flat-earthers so we need to force you to listen to them!" If customers don't want to listen to left talk-show hosts, you must not force them to. They have been tried, a small few do manage to make it, but the truth is the demand just isn't there.
The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
or more simply, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press"
... and whiny martyrdom among certain conservatives that sometimes make me wish that Democrats were in fact exactly as dirty-handed, ruthless, and out to get the GOP would-be victims seem to think it was.
So, yeah. The Fairness Doctrine meant that you could be "harrassed" to provide alternate points of view if you dedicated a broadcast outlet to partisan purposes.
Here's some interesting questions:
If the article of faith on the right that The Media(TM) is a veritable fifth column of liberal political support is true, why wouldn't this state of affairs benefit conservatives *far* more than it would liberals?
For the obviously very few and utterly beleaguered bastions of conservative broadcasting, why would it be "silencing" them media outlet to require them to broadcast expressions of other views? Do conservatives consider themselves silenced when they are encounter opposing views? Is freedom of speech for conservatives the right to avoid this?
Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
Yeah. Apparently the prospective audience was less interested in transparent polemics and more interested in reality than their conservative counterparts.
That's ALL it was about. Specifically talk radio. Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
There is a helluvalot of rightward spin on those words.
Following a time when unscrupulous politicians were able to lead the country into hell-holes by abusing mass media with "silent majority" fictions, the Fairness Doctrine was a much needed correction. Its adoption made it much harder for ethically corrupt politicians to claim that the apathetic were actually supporting their position. And in a democracy like the USA, a large segment of potential voters are going to be too apathetic on just about any is
"But more importantly, even the fairness doctrine that conservatives dread so much (even though no one is trying to bring it back)..."
No one is trying to bring it back now, at least not openly. Last year was a different case. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Majority leader both expressed support for it [wikipedia.org]. It's unpopular. Presidents from FDR to Nixon used it to smother opponents. That's why it was eliminated (by a Democratic Congress in the 80's, I would add).If Democrats ever do try
It mandates, under government authority, that you give an "equal" block of airtime to someone in opposition to your programming, whether or not your listeners want it. It's Big Brother on the radio.
Actually, it's the opposite of Big Brother. Read 1984 again; it sounds like you missed the point entirely.
Your only alternative is to turn the radio off.
No, you have other alternatives: change the station, listen to internet or satellite radio, do something else for a while, or even (gasp!) just listen to a dissenting opinion once in a while.
That's regulating speech and micromanaging private enterprise.
No, it's not regulating speech, it's regulating the use of one particular forum (the public airwaves). The First Amendment doesn't entitle you to say whatever you like on the radio any more than it entitles you to s
No, it's not regulating speech, it's regulating the use of one particular forum (the public airwaves). The First Amendment doesn't entitle you to say whatever you like on the radio any more than it entitles you to say whatever you like on your neighbor's lawn.
Being on your neighbor's lawn has nothing to do with free speech, it has everything to do with private property. What you say is irrelevant to the law.
They paid for the right to broadcast on those frequencies, but their use is subject to certain terms, which they knew when they paid for it.
BTW, radio was still profitable when the fairness doctrine was in effect.
Air space is just as much private property as land is, it can be owned and within a specific area. The FCC was created to defend this private property right, so broadcasters would not interfere with each other, and nothing more.
Yes, profit is a good thing, but in this situation the existence of a profit is not what matters: economics is about value on the mar
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is,
You mean the way that the Obama Administration prosecuted the members of the New Black Panther Party who were carrying weapons in front of a voting location and yelling racial slurs at whites who approached to vote (oversimplifying for brevity, if you are familiar with the case, you know what happened. If you aren't familiar with the case, why not?)? BTW for those who don't know, the Obama Administration dropped the charges when they were about to get a guilty verdict. If you aren't familiar with the case g
You mean the way that the Obama Administration prosecuted the members of the New Black Panther Party who were carrying weapons in front of a voting location and yelling racial slurs at whites who approached to vote (oversimplifying for brevity, if you are familiar with the case, you know what happened. If you aren't familiar with the case, why not?)?
I must be missing something. How is this connected to the question of whether or not the Democratic Party is interested in silencing the opposition?
On that basis, I would be fascinated to hear your description of the BBC, considering how outrageously right-wing Fox really, and consistently is.
I will occasionally visit bbc.com for news. Being in the States (and without cable or satellite) I only rarely get the opportunity to view their news broadcasts. (Video at bbc.com is off limits to Americans.)
I have little specific opinion of the BBC, but acknowledge that they do have a good reputation. They do have some British bias, but they can hardly be faulted for that! I simply haven't seen enough to label them (or to see if they are above labels).
The FCC are actually proposing rules that could potentially favor us, the consumers? I've only had 1 moldy sandwich today, so I can't possibly be hallucinating.
just because they say they're going to do it is no guarantee that it will benefit us. the real problems which allow these carriers to be discriminative still exist. that is to say that local monopolies, fraud and such still exist.
I know. Sometimes reality is stunning. I think the FCC has gotten a heap of pro-neutrality comments. Be aware, the FCC is driven by its public comment process to the point of almost ridiculousness.
It's the reason that the six participants of the Parents Television Council can through their weight around regarding obscenity. They essentially game the system, commenting over and over again on the same issue and the FCC counts each one as distinct.
Right, as opposed to now, where we give all that money directly to the corporations and nobody else benefits. I'm constantly amazed at how us crafty Americans aren't happy until we're paying at least 4x what everybody else is paying for something while getting the lowest quality possible. I'm sure that will show those socialists who's superior to whom.
Finally, maybe wireless providers will be forced to allow VOIP apps on their data network. Why is it that if Comcast decided to block Skype, people would be up in arms, but a cell phone provider blocking the same service is considered legitimate? People need to wake up to the fact that cell phone networks are no longer just phone services. It's not a matter of allowing competitors to use their network. It's about letting the consumer use their DATA network which they pay just as much for as the phone network as they please. If I have a certain amount of data allocated to me, I should be allowed to USE that data, as far as their network and costs are concerned, what I use it for doesn't make the slightest difference.
While what you say is true, it doesn't go far enough. Net Neutrality says: not only do they have to allow Skype, they can't charge the company running Skype extra for letting you get to it, or letting you get to it as quickly or as reliably as you do to anything else. Without full end-to-end protection against gotcha-games like this, the situation will hardly improve.
Yes, it really does not make much sense, except for the 17 people in the country that have the massively over-priced unlimited data package (OK, I don't know exactly how much it costs now, but 2 years ago it was pretty pricey.) For everyone else, they are going to wipe out their data quota in about 5 minutes and start paying the equally massive overage costs. You would think that the cell companies would even encourage such behavior.
VoIP traffic uses about 5MB per hour. I don't have a data package attacked to my phone, but I pay about as much for 40MB of data[1] as I do for ten minutes of calls. That works out at 8 hours of VoIP traffic, but let's assume lots of protocol overhead and say it's only 4 hours. That's still a lot cheaper than making a call over the mobile network.
[1] Technically it's 'unlimited' with a 40MB/day AUP, so they won't charge if I go over 40MB, they just may decide to stop allowing me data access in the futu
Whatever the FCC proposes, it almost certainly won't be the real thing [slashdot.org], but a legislative band-aid. It's sad that we still can't correct century-old mistakes.
...it's only a matter of time until, combining precedent with hideous abuse of the Commerce Clause, they finally manage to control the content of the internet traffic. Make no mistake, once the government has the power to control the traffic, whatever the rationale given to dupe the inattentive, it won't unilaterally decide not to then further its scope of control.
There are so many people per representative now that the constitution is virtually worthless. It was written for a time when each vote counted for so much more than it does today. To your senator you are one of an innumerable faceless mass. Freedom is a necessary sacrifice to unchecked population growth. It MIGHT help, up to a point, if the number of representatives increased with the population, proportionally.
But using the same government structure for 300 million people that worked for ~3 million
i want to beat them each with a thick stick. maybe this can put some sense into their heads. how STUPID can someone be, to leave his/her freedoms in the hands of private people and groups, over whom s/he has no control with. it seems like some morons are SO affected by decades of brainwashing that they think that word 'private' is synonymous to the word 'good'.
die out please, will you ? most of you are generally old anyway. just phase out and leave this world be. your time is past.
It's not about deregulation, it's about ownership of infrastructure. The physical infrastructure should be owned by the people it serves. This has been done in a few towns in the USA, and works very well. Rather than cable and telephone companies getting government grants to build the infrastructure, suburbs build their own. They then get competing upstream providers to bid to offer them connectivity and competing local companies to bid to maintain (and upgrade) the infrastructure.
Just one question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Define "reasonable" - reasonable according to the end-user (okay, somewhat geeky end-user), or "reasonable" to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T...
Re:Just one question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Define "reasonable" - reasonable according to the end-user (okay, somewhat geeky end-user), or "reasonable" to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T...
Here's my take: if you provide service to the end-user, you only take money from the end-user. When providing said service, you don't look at where a packet is coming from, only where it goes.
If your network can't handle it, you upgrade your network.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And speaking of competition, all this net neutrality stuff would go away if there were any real competition. Almost all markets are duopolies, with basically the tel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If it's VOIP or P2P or constant video streaming"
Personally I would rather them downgrade the P2P priority so that my Skype call doesn't break up. Traffic shaping in moderation is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I would rather them downgrade the P2P priority of other people so that my Skype call doesn't break up.
I see what you did there.
Re: (Score:2)
Reasonable... (Score:3, Interesting)
From the summary:
prevent the operators from discriminating, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content and services.
My initial prediction.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The operators will think that any level of control they have is insufficient and the users will think that any level of control the operators have is far too much.
Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this is going to modded troll, but you know how Congress always tacks on stuff to bills, nobody will dispute that.
I heard a warning in November (from Republicans of course) that the Fairness Doctrine, trying to legislate the content of the internet and talk radio, would come under the guise of Net Neutrality.
I bet a dollar and a nickel that debate will somehow come out of this bill.
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard a warning in November (from Republicans of course) that the Fairness Doctrine, trying to legislate the content of the internet and talk radio, would come under the guise of Net Neutrality.
Republicans spreading FUD against a proposal (net neutrality) that favors consumers over big business? What a shocker!
The fairness doctrine has never had anything to do with the internet, BTW. There aren't even any serious proposals to bring it back for radio, much less apply it to the internet.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that off-topic posts don't deserve to be modded down?
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press," [Lloyd] said. "This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies." (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055)
Notice he first says that his focus is not freedom of speech, but then dismisses it as unimportant and irrelevant. Lloyd apparently, by his own words (read the rest of the article in which he outlines his plan) believes the federal government, through the FCC and other satellite offices should be carefully controlling not just ownership (which in itself is an issue) but also the *content* of the media.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because he's correct - FCC is not there to guarantee freedom of expression. Far from it. FCC is there to guarantee that *communication* stuff works - to follow the rules of communication as outlined in the law. And to put it simply, communication fails when Comcast or Verizon start to filter one content over another.
Now, Net Neutrality law would specify the meximum amount of filtering that the companies can do. What type of policies are allowed and not allowed under that law. And FCC *job* is then to enforc
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC regulates what goes on in our communications commons -- traditionally, the electromagnetic airwaves, but others too (think publicly-owned, -funded, -subsidized, and/or -monopoly-granted cable/Internet/telephone infrastructure). Since these are owned by (or owed to) the public, they must be regulated for the public good. You have the right to speak freely, but you don't have the right to do whatever you want to alter, pollute, or dominate our commons. And just because some have built huge business
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I mean who doesn't want a double whammy? You insult your opponent, prove him wrong when there is TONS of press on you and to top it off you get to prove the pres is a wad for enacting the rul
"emberassing" (Score:2)
Eww you just admitted something emberassing, you are subscribed to rush limbaugh's site.
And that is bad... why?
Re:"emberassing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Backdoor for fairness doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is, and also knows how to correctly spell "the Democratic Party". But more importantly, even the fairness doctrine that conservatives dread so much (even though no one is trying to bring it back) was never about silencing opposition. It was about providing a balance of viewpoints -- you know, like Fox News claims to do.
BTW, your second link requires paid registration. I'm amused that you're paying to hear conspiracy theories when there are already plenty online for free.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
what business is it of the government whether or not there is a "balance of viewpoints?" how would it be enforceable and who would decide what "balance" means? Don't like what Fox news is spewing? Good. You can think for yourself. Change the channel.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
never about silencing opposition.
That's ALL it was about. Specifically talk radio. Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not exactly healthy for the only voices to be heard are those who can afford to make themselves heard, i.e. big businesses. It sounds to me like it's the left who have been silenced, if what you say is true.
Less of an issue with the internet, of course, with its much lower barrier to entry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's like saying "it isn't healthy to ignore flat-earthers so we need to force you to listen to them!" If customers don't want to listen to left talk-show hosts, you must not force them to. They have been tried, a small few do manage to make it, but the truth is the demand just isn't there.
The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
or more simply, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press"
That means no regulation, period. T
There's a hint of persecution complex... (Score:5, Interesting)
... and whiny martyrdom among certain conservatives that sometimes make me wish that Democrats were in fact exactly as dirty-handed, ruthless, and out to get the GOP would-be victims seem to think it was.
So, yeah. The Fairness Doctrine meant that you could be "harrassed" to provide alternate points of view if you dedicated a broadcast outlet to partisan purposes.
Here's some interesting questions:
If the article of faith on the right that The Media(TM) is a veritable fifth column of liberal political support is true, why wouldn't this state of affairs benefit conservatives *far* more than it would liberals?
For the obviously very few and utterly beleaguered bastions of conservative broadcasting, why would it be "silencing" them media outlet to require them to broadcast expressions of other views? Do conservatives consider themselves silenced when they are encounter opposing views? Is freedom of speech for conservatives the right to avoid this?
Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
Yeah. Apparently the prospective audience was less interested in transparent polemics and more interested in reality than their conservative counterparts.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
never about silencing opposition.
That's ALL it was about. Specifically talk radio. Far-left-wing talk shows simply couldn't turn a profit on radio (and were thus dumped) so they figured they could legislate themselves onto the radio waves.
There is a helluvalot of rightward spin on those words.
Following a time when unscrupulous politicians were able to lead the country into hell-holes by abusing mass media with "silent majority" fictions, the Fairness Doctrine was a much needed correction. Its adoption made it much harder for ethically corrupt politicians to claim that the apathetic were actually supporting their position. And in a democracy like the USA, a large segment of potential voters are going to be too apathetic on just about any is
Re: (Score:2)
"But more importantly, even the fairness doctrine that conservatives dread so much (even though no one is trying to bring it back)..."
No one is trying to bring it back now, at least not openly. Last year was a different case. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Majority leader both expressed support for it [wikipedia.org]. It's unpopular. Presidents from FDR to Nixon used it to smother opponents. That's why it was eliminated (by a Democratic Congress in the 80's, I would add).If Democrats ever do try
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It mandates, under government authority, that you give an "equal" block of airtime to someone in opposition to your programming, whether or not your listeners want it. It's Big Brother on the radio.
Actually, it's the opposite of Big Brother. Read 1984 again; it sounds like you missed the point entirely.
Your only alternative is to turn the radio off.
No, you have other alternatives: change the station, listen to internet or satellite radio, do something else for a while, or even (gasp!) just listen to a dissenting opinion once in a while.
That's regulating speech and micromanaging private enterprise.
No, it's not regulating speech, it's regulating the use of one particular forum (the public airwaves). The First Amendment doesn't entitle you to say whatever you like on the radio any more than it entitles you to s
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not regulating speech, it's regulating the use of one particular forum (the public airwaves). The First Amendment doesn't entitle you to say whatever you like on the radio any more than it entitles you to say whatever you like on your neighbor's lawn.
Being on your neighbor's lawn has nothing to do with free speech, it has everything to do with private property. What you say is irrelevant to the law.
They paid for the right to broadcast on those frequencies, but their use is subject to certain terms, which they knew when they paid for it.
BTW, radio was still profitable when the fairness doctrine was in effect.
Air space is just as much private property as land is, it can be owned and within a specific area. The FCC was created to defend this private property right, so broadcasters would not interfere with each other, and nothing more.
Yes, profit is a good thing, but in this situation the existence of a profit is not what matters: economics is about value on the mar
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The Democrat party is all about silencing the opposition.
Anyone who has paid any attention to politics in the past 9 years knows how ridiculous that statement is,
You mean the way that the Obama Administration prosecuted the members of the New Black Panther Party who were carrying weapons in front of a voting location and yelling racial slurs at whites who approached to vote (oversimplifying for brevity, if you are familiar with the case, you know what happened. If you aren't familiar with the case, why not?)? BTW for those who don't know, the Obama Administration dropped the charges when they were about to get a guilty verdict. If you aren't familiar with the case g
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the way that the Obama Administration prosecuted the members of the New Black Panther Party who were carrying weapons in front of a voting location and yelling racial slurs at whites who approached to vote (oversimplifying for brevity, if you are familiar with the case, you know what happened. If you aren't familiar with the case, why not?)?
I must be missing something. How is this connected to the question of whether or not the Democratic Party is interested in silencing the opposition?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because they are all examples of, oh, I don't know, SILENCING THE OPPOSITION?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
At least Fox leans to the center periodically.
On that basis, I would be fascinated to hear your description of the BBC, considering how outrageously right-wing Fox really, and consistently is.
Re: (Score:2)
On that basis, I would be fascinated to hear your description of the BBC, considering how outrageously right-wing Fox really, and consistently is.
I will occasionally visit bbc.com for news. Being in the States (and without cable or satellite) I only rarely get the opportunity to view their news broadcasts. (Video at bbc.com is off limits to Americans.)
I have little specific opinion of the BBC, but acknowledge that they do have a good reputation. They do have some British bias, but they can hardly be faulted for that! I simply haven't seen enough to label them (or to see if they are above labels).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cannot believe... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cannot believe... (Score:4, Insightful)
just because they say they're going to do it is no guarantee that it will benefit us. the real problems which allow these carriers to be discriminative still exist. that is to say that local monopolies, fraud and such still exist.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's the reason that the six participants of the Parents Television Council can through their weight around regarding obscenity. They essentially game the system, commenting over and over again on the same issue and the FCC counts each one as distinct.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While what you say is true, it doesn't go far enough. Net Neutrality says: not only do they have to allow Skype, they can't charge the company running Skype extra for letting you get to it, or letting you get to it as quickly or as reliably as you do to anything else. Without full end-to-end protection against gotcha-games like this, the situation will hardly improve.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it really does not make much sense, except for the 17 people in the country that have the massively over-priced unlimited data package (OK, I don't know exactly how much it costs now, but 2 years ago it was pretty pricey.) For everyone else, they are going to wipe out their data quota in about 5 minutes and start paying the equally massive overage costs. You would think that the cell companies would even encourage such behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
[1] Technically it's 'unlimited' with a 40MB/day AUP, so they won't charge if I go over 40MB, they just may decide to stop allowing me data access in the futu
Not real network neutrality, anyway.... (Score:2)
Whatever the FCC proposes, it almost certainly won't be the real thing [slashdot.org], but a legislative band-aid. It's sad that we still can't correct century-old mistakes.
Once the goverment can control internet traffic... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But using the same government structure for 300 million people that worked for ~3 million
Principals? (Score:4, Informative)
Principals run elementary schools. The word you want is "principles".
There STILL are morons who can tag this story (Score:2)
with 'bigbrother'.
i want to beat them each with a thick stick. maybe this can put some sense into their heads. how STUPID can someone be, to leave his/her freedoms in the hands of private people and groups, over whom s/he has no control with. it seems like some morons are SO affected by decades of brainwashing that they think that word 'private' is synonymous to the word 'good'.
die out please, will you ? most of you are generally old anyway. just phase out and leave this world be. your time is past.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, if they were planning on doing that, I imagine they should have done it when they invented the damn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about deregulation, it's about ownership of infrastructure. The physical infrastructure should be owned by the people it serves. This has been done in a few towns in the USA, and works very well. Rather than cable and telephone companies getting government grants to build the infrastructure, suburbs build their own. They then get competing upstream providers to bid to offer them connectivity and competing local companies to bid to maintain (and upgrade) the infrastructure.
In this situation,