Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Government The Internet

FCC Moving To Retain Control of Net Neutrality 90

An anonymous reader writes "The FCC is moving to take control of Net Neutrality once again due to public backlash over the issue, and plans to produce new regulation for broadband providers, as well as take a more rigorous role in their oversight. The details should be released on Thursday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Moving To Retain Control of Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • Useless (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @02:06PM (#32114408)

    Net Neutrality as proposed is useless.
    It has giant loopholes to allow ISPs to do the same exact shit that got them in trouble in the first place.

    And we won't be able to bitch because they'll just say they're Net Neutrality compliant. []

  • Re:Useless (Score:2, Interesting)

    by smoothnorman ( 1670542 ) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @02:15PM (#32114580)
    There will always be loopholes in any legislation, (it's like the fourth law of thermodynamics or something). So understanding that, we shouldn't attempt to protect our rights via legislation? Or said another way: they're just politicians, you have to encourage them once they've made *any* step in the right direction.
  • Re:Fail-fail (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Unordained ( 262962 ) <> on Thursday May 06, 2010 @02:28PM (#32114858)

    Are you a minor, convicted felon, or illegal alien? No? Then you probably have the right to vote, which means you have a choice.

    You're probably thinking it's not a useful choice. Maybe you're one of the lucky few to live in an area served by multiple ISPs. Many aren't; there's a reason for regulating broadband like any other public utility -- it's so expensive to run new lines to setup parallel service that most areas won't ever see more than one provider. And there's really no reason they should; the cost of running new lines just gets passed on to us, the customers, and when competition ultimately succeeds and leads to the defeat of one of the competitors, leaves behind wasteful redundancy.

    We're not complaining that we don't have competition in the clean-water market; even areas that privatize the service just privatize bits and pieces (customer service, billing, etc.) on top of a single monolithic operation, with government-mandated quality levels. You don't get different water when you switch water companies, and you shouldn't get a different internet when you switch ISPs, either. The less innovation a service needs to provide (how much innovation do you need in gas, electricity, water, phone service, roads, or broadband access to the internet?), the more the service is about connecting and not creating, the less need there is for competition to get it. Regulation can be sufficient.

    Where companies have tried to innovate / value-add to the internet, it's been terrible -- AOL or MSN, anyone? We don't want fancy features on the service itself, we just want good, clean, fast access to any part of the internet, where the real innovation happens. And we don't want to pay for competing companies to fall over each other tearing up streets, putting up poles, running various cables everywhere to get it.

  • by BJ_Covert_Action ( 1499847 ) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @03:36PM (#32115988) Homepage Journal
    For the details, you can head on over to The FCC's site [] and read their headlines released on today's (5/6/2010) date. Also, the general counsel of the FCC gives a decent explanation of what the FCC is trying to achieve here [] and you can read the chairman's remarks on the matter here []. The rest of the headlines are in pdf format and I haven't bothered to read them yet as I prefer HTML.

    The approach the FCC seems to want to take is applying very select sections of Title II regulations to Comcast while still keeping all ISP's classified in the manner they are. They seem to think this is the best approach because it will give the FCC the authority to step in on ISP business when necessary, without giving the FCC sweeping authority to over-regulate the internet as some 'dotters have worried about. All in all, it seems like, theoretically, a nice approach to take. Of course, there was so much legal jargon in the statements made that I am certain both sides in the Comcast case will find all sorts of loopholes to exploit if things don't go their way in the future. Then again, this kind of political maneuvering really isn't my field so I am not one to judge the matter particularly well.
  • Re:Fail-fail (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Imagix ( 695350 ) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @03:37PM (#32116004)
    The customer is exactly where this bill should go. Google already pays their ISP to carry traffic. Why should they be paying their ISP _and_ yours (directly)? If more users download stuff from Google, then Google's bill to their ISP will go up, and Google has thus paid their part. If your ISP really wanted to get paid from somewhere and not increase the customer's bill, they should charge their peering partners more to carry the traffic originating from them.
  • Re:False dichotomy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by clarkkent09 ( 1104833 ) * on Thursday May 06, 2010 @03:42PM (#32116064)
    In market in which any one player can have undue influence on the market is no longer a free market. Therefore, you are technically correct: free markets cannot produce monopolies, because they cease being free long before any monopoly is created.

    I didn't say that the free market cannot create monopolies but that that is a mostly theoretical problem since it does not tend to happen in practice. If you think it does please name some monopolies that have formed without direct role of the government in creating them (such as with utility companies). The scenario that people have in mind is a company getting so big and powerful that it drives all its competitors out of business and then does whatever it wants has never happened in reality.

    Yes, I'm against letting the government pick the winners and losers in any market (that is inherently corrupting), but to pretend that in today's world a true free market would exist without any government regulation is the epitome of intentional ignorance. Adam's Smith's "Invisible Hand" was a good model for the agricultural market of 235 years ago, with family farms selling food to families, every player in the market was infinitesimally small, and no one player has undue influence. It is NOT a good model for the modern international corporate economy.

    You see, that is not an argument. It's not enough to just state something while capitalizing certain words and using terms like intentional ignorance. Btw, completely unregulated market is mostly a straw man. Nobody is really for it, certainly not most libertarians, apart from anarcho-capitalist fringe.

    Do you really believe Walmart participates in a "free market"? Their ability to drive supply costs down much lower than their competitors suggests that they do not.

    Of course they do, what on earth makes you think that they don't. What special position was magically granted to them and by whom so that they are immune to the same competitive pressures as any other company, other than they were very good at what they do. People don't have to shop there, but they do because they provide lower prices than tehir competitors. They drive supply costs down because they have over time put themselves in a strong position v. their suppliers since they all want to sell their stuff at Walmart.
  • Re:False dichotomy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CyprusBlue113 ( 1294000 ) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @04:26PM (#32116780)

    I find it amusing you use New York as an example, as New York is actually the historic example that *caused* franchise monopolies, as there were far too many power companies in the very beginning, and the distribution lines were a horrendous mess, and the goverment rightfully decided that delivery infrastructure should become a controlled utility.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser