Net Neutrality Vets Join Obama FCC Transition Team 179
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.
Why do "net neutrality" advocates (Score:4, Insightful)
Better than the alternative. (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
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
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reason the later part doesn't work that good over here is because the electricity is sold on a scandinavian/nordic "market place" anyway, so someone have already bought the electricity for the best price I believe and therefor they remain quite similar.
I can't do shit to change the fixed fee but I can pick any company in the country for the energy bill. Most often you can lock the cost for 1, 2 or 3 years which give both them and you more safety in what you know what the price is but it usually
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I am really getting sick of people propagating the myth that Wall Street was deregulated. The US Government intervenes every single day in the financial markets. The Federal Reserve sets the cost of capital in a committed effort to manipulate the cost/benefit analysis of businesses deciding how and when to grow. The government has a very heavy hand on the financial markets, especially when it comes to encouraging individuals and companies to spend when they wouldn't otherwise spend, and yet when a bubble (w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Glass-Steagal act, which was a regulation; was mostly repealed. That's a DEregulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives love to point fingers at the CRA, because then they can blame liberals and poor people instead of the rich assholes on Wall Street, but the fact is that it had almost nothing to do with the current crisis. Here's what BusinessWeek has to say about it:
From http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html [businessweek.com]
Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we're hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Communi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Conservatives love to point fingers at the CRA, because then they can blame liberals and poor people instead of the rich assholes on Wall Street, but the fact is that it had almost nothing to do with the current crisis.
And liberals love to cover their asses, when they were at fault of the core of the greatest economic collapse since stagflation in the 70's. BTW, you guys were responsible for that one too. The rich did trade the toxic paper, but Democrats in Congress covered for them because it suited their
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with a Democrat vs Republican thing. Both parties have been obsessed with encouraging home ownership for decades. "Encouraging home ownership" is a euphemism for intervening in the market such that people who would otherwise not purchase homes due to normal market forces end up purchasing homes. This has been done in a lot of ways, one of which certainly is the CRA. Others are: cutting interest rates below what the market would have it, allowing the interest on a first home purchase to
Free markets need regulation (Score:2)
That's where you and libertarians are ideologically out of touch. Markets can't be free without the proper regulation. Even 'bubbles' Greenspan admits it now. But there are still fanatics of the cult long after the comet has passed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where you and libertarians are ideologically out of touch. Markets can't be free without the proper regulation. Even 'bubbles' Greenspan admits it now. But there are still fanatics of the cult long after the comet has passed.
There are none so blind that will not see.
And you honestly think Bush was the end of regulation? Are you kidding me? Do you know how many pages are in the Federal Code of Regulations now? Do you think it's actually less?
There's still miles of regulation on the financial sector. And the Glass Stegall repeal played no part in this... it wouldn't have stopped the subprime loans, and it wouldn't have stopped the fraudulent securities ratings that the toxic paper got because of political pressure.
BTW, markets ar
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> Markets can't be free without the proper regulation
I was going to respond to your comment, but I can't make any sense at all of this part of it. Maybe you should read up a little on what a free market is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market [wikipedia.org]
Here, I'll even quote a bit of it since you probably won't bother clicking the link:
Got it???
Regulation != regulated market (Score:2)
An example of regulation would be: "you can not lie on your IPO advertisement"
An example of regulated market would be: "copper will now have to be traded at $10 a kg"
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.
Re: (Score:2)
When you disagree with the vast majority of people in the country there's no reason to bother. Might as well just do something actually productive while the rest of the people in the country get to tell you how to live.
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....
Because there's no other choice. (Score:2)
> Why do "net neutrality" advocates ridicule politicians for comparing the Internet to a "series of tubes," and then trust them to regulate it?
A) Ted "Tubes" Stevens [youtube.com] is a convicted felon who won't be in the Senate much longer [fivethirtyeight.com] (even if that count goes the other way, he'll get expelled by the Republicans [washingtonmonthly.com] and replaced by Gov. Sarah Palin).
B) There's no true competition among ISPs. If a backbone provider does this, we're screwed. Period. Full stop. You can't just stop using the backbones. That's why t
Re: (Score:2)
(even if that count goes the other way, he'll get expelled by the Republicans [washingtonmonthly.com] and replaced by Gov. Sarah Palin)
A correction: if Ted Stevens wins the election and subsequently vacates the office, Palin will not appoint his replacement.
After former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter to a vacant US Senate seat, the Alaska state law was changed. A special election will be held to fill the position.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the set of politicians who believe that the Internet is a series of tubes and the set of politicians who are competent to regulate the Internet are disjoint.
Re: (Score:2)
No ridiculed politicians for comparing the Internet to a "series of tubes". We ridicule Ted Stevens for comparing the Internet to a "series of tubes".
And it looks like Ted Stevens isn't going to win his bid for re-election, so there goes your theory about people trusting him.
Re: (Score:2)
How many politicians actually used the "series of tubes" analogy?
One, and he's a felon now.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Obama seems to understand the issue and is designating responsibility to qualified professionals--
Not to a 75 year old, internet illiterate convicted felon like Ted "Tubes" Stevens?
Re: (Score:2)
Worf does. That's good enough for me.
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: (Score:2)
from dictionary.com:
- verb (used with object)
1. to pour out and spread, as a fluid.
2. to spread or scatter widely or thinly; disseminate.
3. Physics. to spread by diffusion.
It was meaning 2 I had in mind, as missiles can also literally "scatter things widely".
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?
Re:Refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but you're going to have to tell the right-wing 'tards to stop hyperventilating about him being the antichrist. [photobucket.com] while you're at it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
oh please...there are "tards" (as you so eloquently put it) on both extremes. I don't paint left wingers with the same brush as Stalin just as I shouldn't be painted with some racist overtone. The point the picture [terribly] put it is that most on my side of the aisle are wondering what exactly is going to change and how? The message of "change" has come from just about every candidate if it was popular - Reagan, Clinton, Bush (2), Kerry and now Obama. Have they changed in the way they promised? And as
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)
The key to the monopoly problem is municipal fiber for transport, allowing large and small data providers to compete on a level playing field for customers.
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)
Sure, it's about who pays -- almost everything is in the end, after all.
The reason there's a reason for legislation to stop the pipes from favoring certain content providers is that some of the folks who own those pipes have stated (very publicly) that they believe they're owed some of the profits being made by service providers (like Google)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So, if Comcast partners with Google and Verizon does so with MSN (these are the only two service providers in my neighborhood) and I want to use Yahoo!, I'm screwed. Either provider is free to block non-partner services (not likely) or tack on a surcharge (like the ex-CEO of AT&T stated he has the right to do). The latter will make the use of services that compete with my telecommunications provider partners group uneconomical.
And what if I'd like to start my own competing search engine. I've got to cu
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Who pays is certainly relevant, but the technology is important. Consider...
Telecoms would like to collect subscriber revenue from their customers, then turn around and collect more revenue from content providers as well.
And, in the process, also destroy any protocol or network which can't pay -- like, say, BitTorrent.
It would also considerably reverse the democratization of the Internet -- as you say:
Larger providers, incidentally, will have some leverage in this model
And smaller providers will have less leverage. It'll increase the barrier of entry, and effectively kill real innovation on the Internet.
"Who pays" can't be separated from the issue, and price is the reason this is being made such an issue -- Google's
Bizarro World (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The new President is appointing knowledgeable experts to important government posts instead of industry cronies? Pinch me.
Well, sort of. These aren't permanent positions - just his transition team. He could still choose to appoint industry cronies to the actual important government posts. That said, this is still surprisingly good news.
And how do you end up with a (Score:2, Troll) anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, in this one instance maybe, but don't get too excited [washingtonpost.com].
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...
Deregulate the spectrum! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality would be an irrelevant issue if we'd just deregulate the spectrum, giving people access to a plethora of competitive wireless carriers
What about interference? Seems to me Comcast might have an interest in simply jamming as much wireless as they can, to force people to use wired (cable) connections.
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)
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".
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.
Allow me... (Score:2)
> "Boobies" are always reasonable. They are quite easy to find [snip]. The "Boobies" are in most every community. Hence based on the standards of the community in your area, boobies are indeed acceptable.
There, fixed that for ya.
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.
Re:Sounds Good, But Won't Work (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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
It's an interesting idea, but ultimately wrong -- look at the Internet.
Certainly, there is a ton of sex out there. There is also a ton of stuff out there that is not sex.
Signal-to-noise ratio with spam vs email is pretty bad -- but there is still more legitimate, interesting email than any one person could ever read, even if we only count public mailing lists.
90% of everything is crap -- but 10% of everything still adds up to a huge amount of stuff that isn't crap.
If you were right, I'd say, bring it on --
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Impending doom! More seriously, I'm French, and here, we see boobies anytime of the day. Mainly in commercials. All types of commercials that is. Also in movies, I mean, it's like French actresses really HAVE to show their boobies. It's almost irritating. I don't want to see your boobies at incongruous times, Eva Green.
Anyways, it's not smut, it's not garbage, it's just boobs. It's not alienating anyone. You get used to them. I mean babies don't only stand the sight of boobies, they SUCK on boobies. So if y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.. The point isn't really that it was said or something was shown. It was that an otherwise non vulgar or none racy show was supposed to be playing. Take Bones for instance, people expect bones to be gorry and so on and they will not let their kids watch it if it violates their morals. But take a rewards show on OTA broadcasts and then out of the blue, fuck or tits or whatever. Your basically saying that if anyone wants to watch TV free of that stuff, like maybe those with your kids or deep views, they
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)
Such an interesting phrase, in a discussion of net neutrality.
While I veered FAR off topic of net neutrality, free speech is very different. Net neutrality falls into the category of things that should be regulated by the government in one way or another. It's not unlike RF spectrum. If the government doesn't regulate it, then only those who can shout loudest (most powerful transmitters) or have the best gear will be able to get anything whatever done. Ever.
Free speech is much less dependent on technology, and rather is a concept. For free speech to work, a mino
Re: (Score:2)
The government doesn't need to regulate net neutrality. All they need to do is ensure that you get what you pay for. It really is as simple as that. If your paying for 3 meg DSL and google is paying for a t3 or DS3, then the ISP on either side should not be able to limit you accesses to either on the bases of an extra payment. Now there is no reason why they can't ask google to pay more so you get access to their site at 4 or 6 megs when your only paying for the 3 meg package which net neutrality would limi
Re: (Score:2)
No, conservatives just wouldn't want private corporations to have to pay for someone else's broadcasting costs.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Reeboks "Nipple Pump" basketball shoes have just gone too far!
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.
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)
Parents can't be everywhere all the time.
Nor can the government.
Immunize, don't insulate. Raise a child who, when exposed to the garbage of the world, will make the right choice.
Not swearing out in public in front of children is common adult decency.
Why? Children will hear these words anyway, and they will grow up to swear.
Maybe even call the cops.
And if the cops can put me away for swearing, I am fucking done with this so-called "land of the free". If you insist on protecting your child from me, take your child away from me, and tell them to stay away -- because it is ultimately your responsibility, not mine.
I have 4 of the best behaved kids... So I know about, parent responsibility.
And you should take the credit fo
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)
That's sort of the problem here. There was no warning so you don't know if the child saw it and needs some explanation or not. When nudity is shown without warning or cusswords and so on at times when children would be watching TV normally, you don't know that they were exposed to it or that they need something explained until after it becomes an issue.
Pay channels and cable channels are one thing, but over the air broadcasting during an awards show or the Su
Re: (Score:2)
I find it amusing when people get offended by words.
The word "cunt" seems to get the most reaction, especially from women.
Why? Are people that lame they had to decide "ok, I think im going to start being upset by, *list of everyday words*"
Its kinda sad.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when there were 13 channels...total. They were 2 through 13 + UHF. You could severely mess with the tuner dial to get HBO to come in monochrome, and fuzzy, with no sound.
Let me tell you, back then, at that age, it was AWESOME! The programming guide came in the mail back then. I saw grainy black & white boobies. Often.
Healthy kids ARE going to look. In addition to the excellent last line of your post,
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:2)
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)
I not only voted for the opposition candidate who's views on telecommunications were diametrically opposed to that of the current administration, I donated to his campaign. If that's not acting, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least if you rule out bribery, blackmail, and assassination. Actually, a sufficiently large mailing campaign might sway Obama's decisions too, so I suppose there are actually quite a few things you could do.
Not that I'm saying you should do these things, but voting isn't the only tool for change in a democracy, just the easiest.
Re: (Score:2)
Then listing both would've been "deeply" redundant, wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, no.
Secondly, their description as "highly-regarded outside-the-Beltway experts" who have "both been pretty harsh critics of the Bush administration's telecom policies in the past year" was written by the reporter, not the people who made the selection. For all we know neither of those are related to the official selection criteria.
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)
True enough. But, of course, then they're not as likely to be able to make an unbiased decision either.
For example, many of the Bush administration appointees to various regulatory agencies were experts who worked in the fields they were expected to regulate and the results were often less than satisfactory to anyone outside those particular industries.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is fully unbiased. Hence my original question, now moderated down into the stone age: was the new people's expertise the main criteria, or their past criticism of Bush's policies?
You know, it depends on the priorities of the people... Here is an example of the much smaller government, a lot closer to its subj
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
Re: (Score:2)