GOP Senators Move To Block FCC On Net Neutrality 709
suraj.sun writes "Seven Republican senators have announced a plan to curb the Obama administration's push to impose controversial Net neutrality regulations on the Internet."
"The FCC's rush to take over the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers," says Sen. Jim DeMint, who I'm sure truly only has the consumer's needs at heart — since his campaign contributions list AT&T in his top five donating organizations.
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers.
The FCC is trying to protect consumers, you fuck. Honestly, do these people believe that anyone will swallow lies like that?
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
That is what typical people who do not understand the net neutrality issue think when they hear that the FCC wants to enforce net neutrality. It does not help that Fox news, the most popular news network in America, has people like Glenn Beck calling net neutrality a socialist plot.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you describe this as anything other than the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet?
Well, you can start by realizing that net neutrality has nothing at all to do with "the government deciding what's allowed and what's not allowed on the Internet," and go from there.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, net neutrality is exactly the government deciding what is allowed on the Internet, by definition.
It just so happens that they are deciding that all traffic should be treated equally by all carriers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I know, the government is involved, so automatically we should be distrustful. Never mind that it was Comcast that was caught deliberately interfering with BitTorrent traffic
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FREE SPEECH != NEWS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>FREE SPEECH != NEWS.
Actually it does in America. Quoting the Law: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It's one and the same. After all the news/press is just speech in written form. I can SAY that I think our last three presidents were tyrants. Or I can put my speech to paper. It makes no difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, dpolak's message is more apt than you might think.
Fox went to court against two of its former reporters who were fired for exposing high hormone levels in milk. Fox wanted them to show the milk was OK when it wasn't. So the case was about Fox's "right" to knowingly distort information and lie to its viewers.
Comcast's issue with net neutrality is that it was caught distorting information (falsifying data packets) to prevent P2P type protocols from working.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
The government is not the one that needs to do something about it. There is more to the US than the government. The American *people* need to do something about Fox News -- namely, stop watching it, and boycott its advertisers.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Opinion is fine as long as it is defined as opinion and not FACT. They should have a disclaimer bar that scrolls across the top of the screen at all times stating this network (Fox News) is not reporting news, just their opinions on what they consider the news.
Wow... that would pretty much destroy every cable news outlet in business today, at least as a "News" outlet.
Good! And why not? They certainly deserve to die...
I'll tell you a story. Back in the old Republic, before the dark times, before the Emperor (Reagan), in order to get a license to use the public airwaves, television stations actually had to do things that were in the public interest... Among the things they did were broadcasting public service announcement, broadcasting programming suitable for children at certain hours, and broadcasting informative news programs. The news was required to be fair and balanced. It was not allowed to pander to one political party or another. When a license was up for renewal the FCC would ask for input from the public and look to see if the station had acted in the public interest. If it had not the license might not be renewed.
In order to ensure licence renewals the three networks spent lots of money on news programming. They had quality anchors and quality reported and the ratings weren't bad. Because there were only three networks there was nothing else you could watch. But as more and more stations came on the air and cable TV started to catch on, there started to be options besides the news. And with CNN and Headline News, now you could watch the news anytime. So the network ratings started slipping. To get their ratings back the networks started to add more fluff to their news broadcasts.
And the FCC did notice and mentioned it. "But TBS can show the Braves game and Cheers all day long without any news! That's not fair!" the networks did cry. Their cries reached the ears of the Emperor who screamed "Requiring that corporations act in the public interest is communism! No more shall we require anything of the broadcasters except that they not kill a whole bunch of people." Later the requirement that broadcasters not kill people was rescinded.
And the networks did try to rescue their news programs by removing news and adding fluff. The the news sunk anyway. CNN and Headline news did prosper for a while, until copycats Fox News and MS-NBC came along. With more competition, a new way to survive was reinvented: Remove all your news and add pointless fluff. The best pointless fluff was right wing propaganda that would make people angry. Americans used four news outlets. but none of them had news. Those few that actually wanted news went to the British or to the last bastion of American communism, NPR.
And thus the fourth estate died alone, and the Republic shortly thereafter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Compared to the rest of the world they're a right-wing party, really.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to know something.
Why are we all worried over 7 republicraps when yesterday it was 73 paid-off democraps [arstechnica.com] doing precisely the same thing?
The problem is ALL OF THEM, corrupt boobs on both sides of the aisle, not one side or the other. Sheesh.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, do these people believe that anyone will swallow lies like that?
Given the hysteria that greets any attempt at ensuring net neutrality, the answer to your question appears to be "yes." And I'm not just talking about telecom industry shills and their bought-and-paid-for politicians, either. Read any story that mentions net neutrality on Slashdot -- where people really ought to know better -- and you'll see that many people have swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. There are a lot of people, including many technically literate people, who actually believe that (a) net neutrality decreases broadband users' freedom of choice, (b) telling telcos that they can't discriminate based on packet origin will somehow morph into forcing discrimination based on content, or (c) some combination of the above. And it seems that there is simply no amount of explanation of what net neutrality actually is, and how it works, which will get through to people who think like this.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
I am somewhat conflicted on the whole issue, but to me giving a government agency ANY authority over the content on the internet is a huge flashing red light and and potential slippery slope
And I agree with you. Fortunately, net neutrality has NOTHING AT ALL to do with content.
Net neutrality means this, and only this: all packets are created equal. Comcast has to treat packets originating from Google the same as those originating from Bing, and treat packets sent in response to http requests the same as packets sent in response to ftp requests. That's all it is. The whole thing, right there. Content has absolutely nothing to do with it. And the ONLY role the FCC has in this is enforcement of this simple rule.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yes, they believe that people will swallow them. I'm making a kind of personal anthropological study of the changes to the US right (which, to most of the Western world, is becoming the "far right", or possibly "So far right, it's in danger of wrap around"). These people truly seem believe that *any* kind of government is an evil threat to liberty (how these people can draw a salary as a government employee is an excellent example of living with cognitive dissonance - *my* government job is OK, *my* farm subsidy is an exception to the rule of free markets). There seems to be a growing group who would prefer that the sum total role of government would be to issue all newborns with a bible and a gun, then vanish for all eternity.
I caricature, of course. Not all republicans are this far gone. Unfortunately, It's getting hard to find any vocal examples who are not.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers
Oddly enough he still uses the words "fundamental reform", which would imply a piece of legislation.
DeMint probably supports McCain's Internet Freedom Act of 2009 [loc.gov]. Which prohibits the FCC from placing any regulation over the internet.
Of course, not to be confused with the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 [loc.gov]. Which is the actual net neutrality bill that asks the FCC to enact consumer protections.
Though neither bill is technically aptly named, since in both cases the "freedom" of one body is going to limit another. Consumers and corporations just have competing interests here. That's how it goes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Consumers and corporations just have competing interests here.
please explain me how internet neutrality is bad for corporations ?
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
It is bad for specific, very large, very profitable, very influential corporations who currently happen to enjoy local and regional monopolies or duopolies.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
HOW does net neutrality hinder profits ?
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if the ISP can't say:
"Oh a packet from Google... that's a nice packet you got there Google, be a shame if something were to happen to it. Gimme $100 and I'll make sure it get's where it's going real quick... unlike "lucky Bing" over here"
That hurts my profits.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
they do swallow his lies (Score:5, Insightful)
in the united states, you have people who will vociferously fight even legislation that is good for them and increases their rights, like common sense healthcare reform, because they would rather believe demagogues on the radio and propaganda outlets on the television that report "the news"
behind these demagogues and propaganda outlets are big business concerns, who have realized they can pay to have opinion swayed in their direction by demonizing brain dead obvious common good legislation that costs corporations money. they have convinced the idiots to fight for the reduction of their own rights. they call legislation in the name of the common good "socialism," "liberalism," or any number of demonized words whom those who oppose "socialism" or "liberalism" don't even really understand
all they know is "socialism is a bad word." well, what does socialism mean? "its means bad stuff." could you define it ideologically please? "it's anti-american." would you like to know the 19th century american history of labor rights- "shut up you communist fascist terrorist"
this is what intelligent americans are up against: corporations whipping up the low end of the iq curve into a rabid hysteria
americans: go to europe. ask a european about socialism. you will find out the word is boring and just common sense. europeans have a much higher standard of living then you, dear propagandized low iq americans. they also have much higher taxes... but they DON'T PAY FOR SERVICES YOU PAY A LOT MORE FOR
truth, idiots: you're still taxed, whether for health care or oil or broadband, but by corporate boardrooms instead of uncle sam, and you are taxed a heck of a lot more! idiots: you are being manipulated by trolls in the employ of big business to think things against your own self-interest, and you are too stupid to see it. wake the fuck up
rest of the world: i apologize that the american experiment in democracy has been warped by corporate influence. there are still americans who recognize the threat and would like nothing more than to remove that corporate financial influence from our democracy. unfortunately, it is very difficult to fight billions of dollars in lobbyists and media buys. but we're trying. wish us luck. if we fail, then the usa becomes nothing more than a slave state to corporate interests, and any slave who dare suggests big business should pay more for the care of their slaves is "unamerican." unbelievable
Re:they do swallow his lies (Score:4, Funny)
I'm reminded of an old Adlai Stevenson quip:
Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"
Adlai: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"
ok, the democrats play the same game (Score:3, Insightful)
now that i've equalized you're knee jerk partisan trigger points, are you with me on the rest of my words?
or is it that you say its ok that you are a manipulated fool... because democrats are manipulated too
seriously? that's your weak ass fucking argument?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"raping" the government? I'd say that it's a good deal more consensual than you paint it.
No, I see the corporations as subverting the process of government to suit their own needs - it becomes a tool by which they stifle competition, choke off competitors, and take advantage of consumers.
I disagree that the solution is to "enact socialism
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect consumers.
The FCC is trying to protect consumers, you fuck. Honestly, do these people believe that anyone will swallow lies like that?
The strategy of "if you say something enough times, it becomes true" is so common in politics these days that it might as well get it's own sunday morning talk show. If his statement upsets you, seriously, either your ears just started working or your head is about half a second away from exploding.
"Say whatever puts you in the best light and hope at least half of the people believe it" is a staple of the brave new partisan world we find ourselves in. Good luck out there.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, do these people believe that anyone will swallow lies like that?
Um yes? Have you not been paying attention? The entire history of politics, during my lifetime at least, has been the people swallowing one ridiculous lie after another. From "trickle down economics" to Obama's "change" rhetoric, they lie and lie and lie and people still believe them.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Well they believe Obama is a socialist, that ACORN is primarily an institution for providing tax advice to pimps, and that lowering taxes increases tax revenue no matter how low the taxes go.
So yes. Yes I do.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we better off with the FCC calling the shots?
The Federal Communications Commission would seem like the right agency to be "calling the shots" when it comes to the internet.
Would you like to suggest a different agency?
The trouble is that if they do maneuver themselves into Internet Regulator status, we will never see the alternatives.
::facepalm::
What alternatives?
Self-regulation by the industry?
Because that's obviously going to lead to a fair and open market place?
The FCC imposes fines for broadcasting nudity, right? Even half-a-million-dollar fines for accidental nudity on live broadcasts (superbowl halftime show...) that must later be thrown out in appeals court, right?
Uhhh... Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhhh... Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.
The FCC is influenced by politics, then, right?
The FCC is a member of the executive branch, so will be influenced by whatever president is in office, right? Do you really want the precedent to be that the internet is to be ruled by a revolving door of figureheads?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Somewhat, but not like most federal agencies. It's a quasi-autonomous agency (like the Fed), in that once appointed you cannot be removed for your five-year term (short of impeachment). The Senate has to confirm appointments. Also, no more than 60% can belong to any one political party.
But you are right... how dare we leave regulation up to the internet to simply whoever happens control the presi
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really want the precedent to be that the internet is to be ruled by a revolving door of figureheads?
No, I want to precedent to be that I can use the Internet in any legal way I see fit without my provider telling me what sites I can and can't view, or slowing down my access to certain sites.
If the government needs to step in to ensure that I have this freedom (and the obviously do, or Comcast wouldn't be throttling) then so be it.
Without net neutrality, there's nothing stopping a site like Amazon from paying Comcast to slow traffic to any other retail site. Similarly, there's be great disincentive for network owners to allow access to bandwidth-hogging sites, so YouTube, Hulu, and most other video sites would never have been created, let alone new ones allowed to thrive.
Net neutrality means that access remains free (as in freedom). Lack of it is a massive gift to network providers at the expense of free information. When the government abuses their power, then it's time to get your panties in a bunch. This bill abuses nothing, and grants no powers that the government doesn't already have.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
Negative user feedback requires both consumer choice and consumer awareness. Amazon and Comcast could simply keep their dirty dealings secret.
They have nowhere else to go. The businesses understand this very well, which is why they cry out against Net Neutrality.
No, it doesn't exist. There have been numerous stories on this very website discussing htis matter. But even if it did, the profit potential by abusing customers is simply too great in a market with such high barriers of entry for losing the lucky few who can choose to matter.
This is in an outright lie. Net Neutrality means that an ISP may not throttle or block traffick based on what remote machine it's going to or coming from. Of course they can still offer different connection speeds for different pay.
I already pay for bandwidth. Net Neutrality simply makes it impossible for the ISP to try and make the other endpoint of my communications also pay.
This, again, is a lie.
This is a non-sequitur based on your earlier lies.
You're either an astroturfer being paid to spread lies, a libertarian spreading lies due to ideology, or a moron who has no idea what you're talking about. Which one is it?
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
Uhhh... Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.
And the previous comment was brought to you by the willfully ignorant and political ideology blinded. However, it's not too late as he can still read the article, but I can't guarantee that anything will ever open his mind.. Here's a snippet that may help him get educated.
"But theory doesn't always mesh with political practice. More than 70 House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski instructing him to abandon his Net neutrality plans. A majority of Congress now opposes Genachowski's proposals."
and
"The new bill--called the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act, or FCC Act--doesn't eliminate the FCC's power over broadband providers. But that power would be narrowed in scope, and come to resemble the antitrust enforcement power of the Department of Justice."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Newsflash: this moral panic was brought to you by social conservatives. You know, people who almost always vote Republican.
LOL! How soon we forget [wikipedia.org].
Don't ever be quick to blame censorship on the other guy. Both major American political groups are pretty quick to "protect the children".
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody is going to be in control of it, one way or another. Better that it be a government agency that's at least theoretically answerable to the voting populace than a corporation that is only beholden to its investors.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes! It (the Internet) needs to be regulated insofar as keeping big business from strangling it.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what? You just argued in favor of regulation. If you want consumers to have choices for broadband, then you are talking about forcing companies, through regulation, to make their infrastructure available to everyone.
Thanks for making my point for me.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what the old phone system would be like if it hadn't had common carrier net neutrality status, or roads, or railroads, or airplanes. In fact, I wonder about so-called business-friendly conservatives who think it's perfectly hunky dory to have racism in publicly accessible businesses. Can they even imagine a world where every single place you went, every single thing you did, was subject to a zillion different whims? Oh, no, don't shop there, the owner hates left handed people, red headed people, people taller than him ....
The whole point of all these laws, from anti-racism to net neutrality, is to level the playing ground. These so-called business-friendly nincompoops can't think past the end of their noses, that fragmenting life like that would send the economy back to the stone ages.
Aside from the basic fairness of it all, of course. But from the pragmatic point of view, they are short sighted beyond belief.
Bah. The rights wingers want big business to control big government, and the left wing wants big government to control big business. Neither of them has any faith in individual power.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Interesting)
You do not need to legislate that businesses serve all people, those that will take money from anyone who wants to buy their services will be more successful than those who refuse to do business with certain persons for reasons not related to business. For example, in the 50s, many white owned night clubs would only book white acts and only allow whites in. Amazingly, the most successful night clubs at the time were black owned night clubs that would allow anybody in who wanted to pay (and after one booked Buddy Holly because they thought he was black, would book any act that appealed to their audience).
Personally, I do not know any conservatives that want big government in any flavor at all. All the conservatives I know have seen that the more that people strive to get big government to control big business, the more big business controls government.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Interesting)
Rather than allow other vendors to string their own "wires" the wires should be run as a public utility allowing anyone to sell their wares over them. I don't want to see 10 more wires hanging on the poles outside my house to to have my street dug up 5 different times so someone can bury their own wires. Just give me one pipe and allow any ISP or other service to sell to me as they will.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't seem to have any idea how cable monopolies were established in the first place.
Cable companies struck deals with local governments in order to get permission to lay their lines on public land and on private property. It was completely infeasible for cable companies to lay their lines without the cooperation of the local government, as private properties are not contiguous enough to permit it and it's far too much hassle to ask every single property owner for permission to lay cables on their land.
In exchange for building this infrastructure, cable companies got their monopolies. At the time, nobody realized they would eventually be used for the breadth of data services we have now. In retrospect, it wasn't a great decision but it was the best option at the time.
Now that the cable monopolies are fully entrenched, the only way you're going to get fair competition is to socialize the infrastructure--which cannot be done solely at the local level. For it to work, it has to be done nationally, otherwise you just wind up with varying degrees of local/regional monopolies, which we already have.
If government at all levels just steps away from the whole thing and leaves everything status quo, you will not see more competition. The cable companies will still have their local monopolies because no one else can get in unless the local government allows someone to lay cables on public land again--which would start this whole process over and we'd be left with the same problem in the end.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable monopolies were encouraged by the Federal government. If the government at all levels would stop promoting telecom monop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to forget that the Internet is an Internet, not an intranet.
If these companies don't cooperate, it ceases to be the Internet at all.
Cooperation is KEY to the Internet's existence. It is not and was not designed to be a private enterprise.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy is flawed.
The grocery stores are the content providers (those creating websites). Net neutrality deals with the roads connecting those stores.
It may be really easy to drive to a different grocery store when one charges too much or lacks what you want, but depending upon how the roads are laid out, you may be stuck driving over the same few stretches of road regardless of which store you go to. What's worse is that the existing roads were largely subsidized with public money, and building new roads to compete with the old ones is often times difficult to impossible due to a variety of reasons (e.g. zoning).
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
You're splitting hairs. The FCC is an executive agency that answers to the President. You do vote for President. Would we like to start voting for every last government employee, too?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you think Comcast doesn't have a right to regulate traffic on its own networks?
Not a hard question. Because in the past they didn't have enough self-restraint to keep from interfering with and falsifying customer data packets.
The government FUCKS UP EVERYTHING IT DOES.
Mainly at the hands of people who espouse that bullshit libertarian-right philosophy. The LAST political candidates you should trust are the ones saying that government is necessarily evil; they sneer at government's stated purpose to promote the COMMON good and end up running the nation into the ground with their greed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I actually am grateful that there are no more wardrobe malfunctions due to the FCC.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not. There's no reason why there shouldn't be toplessness on American TV as seen on European TV. I routinely what Euro TV and I'm amazed how much is blurred by the FCC censors. Instead we get to see Jack Bauer slitting people's throats which is far more harmful than a naked chest.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you give me an example of government regulation that did not end up favoring entrenched incumbents in the industry more than potential competitors or consumers?
Telephone number portability
It's not perfect so it's useless. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm so tired of that sentiment.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Well for starters:
Sherman anti-trust
Glass-Steagall
Minimum Wage Act
Wagner Act
The Clean Air Act
The Clean Water Act
the OSH Act
FMLA
Sarbanes-Oxley
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
The Superfund cleanup projects. Breaking up Standard Oil. The limitations on media homogenization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Fairness Principle..... as part of the agreement that they can license the 'publicly owned' airwaves, and presto, Fox "News".
FOX News doesn't use the public airwaves. FOX is wholly-and-completely distributed by private cable lines. The same is true for all cable channels (TNT, FX, USA, et cetera). Perhaps you should learn how things *actually* work? The Fairness Doctrine only applied to over-the-air television.
As for balance on *public* spectrum several AM/FM stations routinely air liberal talkshows to counterbalance the Becks and Limbaughs. On TV there's the left-leaning PBS and NBC. I also have a local station called "MiND" that shows Democracy Now and GritTV and other liberal programs. There's really no need for a Fairness Doctrine, since there's already plenty of programs on both left and right.
Note when I say liberal I refer to pro-"making government bigger"
You rarely here the counter-argument that government should be smaller.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
If you truly believe that this is just a "republican" agenda, then you have been suckered into believing the other sides message.
BOTH parties are trying to do this, they aren't stupid. Once any party has some sort of power, they're not going to give it up. Don't be fooled by party "marketing" tactics.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
From the same article under discussion:
It's not just "the republicans" that are doing this, wake the fuck up and stop with the "My team is better than your team" bullshit - the only difference here is that YOUR whores are disingenuously claiming to be in favor of it while working to undermine it.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
Look you troll, she was talking about something she did wrong. If you see the whole video, not the FOXNews version you will see this was about a time in her life when she learned to change, not what people should do.
The simple answer to why fox news beats other cables news channels is their lack of news. Rather than reporting they concentrate on angering crazed rednecks.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
Did you listen to all 40+ minutes of her talk? This is a woman whose father was murdered by a white man when she was 16 years old. She had reason to dislike white people. It's a story about how she overcame her racism and came to understand it was more about the haves and have nots than race. When you cherry pick a line or two to make a point opposite to the point the speaker was trying to make I'd call it butchering.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee, I don't know . . .
Vaccination Programs
heavily favor vaccine manufacturers
School Lunches
maybe
Schools, in general
schools are a government program not a government regulation
The road you drive on
not a government regulation at all
The Internet I'm typing on
not a government regulation
Social Security
not a government regulation
Medicare
not a government regulation
Food Stamps
not a government regulationbr I did not ask about government programs, but about government regulations. What corporate interest is being regulated by any of these which supposedly favored consumers more than they favored entrenched incumbents in some industry?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Way to selectively quote the part that wasn't being responded to. Good show.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
the ham radio space
That, right there, is a perfect example. The FCC not only gives licensed individuals the go-ahead to transmit over the airwaves, but it specifically prohibits all commercial communication over the spectrum to prevent for-profit industries with high-power transmitters from totally ruining any competing signals. The media industry can do what it wants (unfortunately) on the commercial spectrum, but amateur radio is completely separate, as it should be. It's a shame that the usable spectrum for amateurs is getting smaller and smaller, though.
Jim DeMint (Score:4, Funny)
That's what happens when you put Clemson grads in the Senate. :-)
Ends don't justify... (Score:5, Insightful)
I like that the FCC is trying to ensure net neutrality but I have two problems with it.
First and foremost, if you're being honest with yourself, these kinds of decisions are too important to leave up to people in non-elected positions. Just because I agree with the decision they made doesn't make it right to try and do an end run around the politicos to get their way. Imagine if the FCC were doing the opposite, and trying to encourage a non-neutral net.
Secondly, this wouldn't be a law on the books. All it would take for this policy to change would be a new management at the FCC. That means both that businesses couldn't count on it staying the same for any kind of long term and that the next election cycle could see it thrown out the window without so much as a vote in congress.
Put it through congress the way these kinds of policies were always meant to be. At least give the American people the chance to pretend that they can still influence their congressmen and make it a bit more difficult for the policy to be overturned when the political winds change.
Re:Ends don't justify... (Score:5, Interesting)
The old "all bureaucrats are Satan's Spawn!" rant (Score:3, Insightful)
I trust bureaucrats very little but I trust politicians not at all.
I live in New Jersey... I KNOW better.
A promise is something a politician breaks at the first smell of a dollar bill waved in his tax fattened face.
We'd do a lot better without elected officials (who owe favors and/or money to the people who paid for 'em.)
Re:Ends don't justify... (Score:4, Interesting)
First and foremost, if you're being honest with yourself, these kinds of decisions are too important to leave up to people in non-elected positions. Just because I agree with the decision they made doesn't make it right to try and do an end run around the politicos to get their way.
The FCC can only do what the law that created it allows it to do, plus other powers granted to it by Congress through additional legislation. This isn't an "end run around the politicos." The legislature has already given the FCC the power to do this. It's the whole reason we have agencies: we grant rule-making power to experts so that Congress can focus on other issues.
Imagine if the FCC were doing the opposite, and trying to encourage a non-neutral net.
Then we'd have to live with the consequences of an agency exercising the powers duly granted to it by Congress. We could petition the FCC not do so, and we could lobby Congress to override it, but there wouldn't be anything inherently inappropriate about it as long as it's within the FCC's rulemaking authority.
Secondly, this wouldn't be a law on the books. All it would take for this policy to change would be a new management at the FCC. That means both that businesses couldn't count on it staying the same for any kind of long term and that the next election cycle could see it thrown out the window without so much as a vote in congress.
As a technical point it would be "on the books" (the Code of Federal Regulations) and it would probably carry with it the force of law. But anyway, your argument could just as easily be applied to all regulations. The fact that they can be changed without Congressional approval is a feature, not a bug. It allows the regulations to be updated more frequently, for one thing. For another, deference to the executive branch is a decision Congress made when it passed the law giving the FCC the power to make these kinds of rules.
And anyway, that argument basically amounts to "since this good thing might be taken away later, we shouldn't bother with it in the first place," which isn't a very good argument at all since ultimately everything is subject to change, even the Constitution.
And who will protect consumers from comcast & (Score:5, Insightful)
really. who will protect the consumer from their stranglehold ? 'invisible hand' of the market ? fairies ? what do you do when 4 companies hold an entire nation hostage, act together ? wait for 4-5 years for a new backbone provider to come up ? do you have that time ? and dont bullshit me about 'competition' by the way - it has never been a reality in between mega companies at the very top. they always act in conjunction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not only that, software market is totally different than other markets, in that if you have an app made for a certain platform, you are stuck with it, for aeons. you cant change it. there are still many banks using as400.
whereas on ALL other fields of life, megacorporations dominate everything.
its really
Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Noting that an evil republican has AT&T (the PAC and its employees on their own) be #3 on his donors list makes him bad... but the fact that both the Telecom Services & Equipment [usnews.com] AND Telephone Utilities [usnews.com] (just to name a few industries) overwhelmingly has been giving to Democrats makes them... good? Or is that just not worthy of mentioning?
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine that this is why Obama is trying to do this with the FCC (and not congress).
That said, I'm fairly convinced that Julius Genachowski and his crack squad of broadband-all-the-time lawyers and business types have no friggin' clue how the technology works or how to address problems of scale.
Net Neutrality, yes, good. Massive hand-over of wireless spectrum to private wireless providers instead of building up a national infrastructure? Dumb.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
This issue of who AT&T donates to is really really easy to settle. All we need to do is go to research that looks directly at who's giving what to whom, which is thankfully available right here [opensecrets.org].
As you can see, the general story is:
1. AT&T has given more to Republicans since 1994, but gives huge amounts of cash to candidates of both major parties.
2. AT&T has handed out more cash than any other organization in the country since 1990.
Legislation Title Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legislation Title Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legislation Title Misleading (Score:4, Interesting)
Its every little community preventing the build-out of alternative infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Its every little community preventing the build-out of alternative infrastructure.
Last I looked, it was the corporations preventing the build-out of alternative infrastructure by little communities. There are quite a few states that have laws outright forbidding municipal internet service, and quite a few more states have erected some pretty nasty roadblocks, though they haven't forbidden it outright.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And so the cycle continues (Score:3)
It shouldn't take much longer, with the republicans again in charge they can replace all education with bible schools, and deprive everyone of the internet, thus providing the total mind control they so desperately seek, making the country ripe for attack (again).
I have given up arguing with people in my area. The Republicans make some of the stupidest talking points, and my town soaks it up like a sponge, the weak minded bunch that they are, willing to be lead to any demise, because Jesus will save them.
fixed (Score:4, Funny)
"The FCC's rush to takeover the Internet is just the latest example of the need for fundamental reform to protect big cable companies".
There, fixed that for you Jim (Sen. Jim DeMint)
Talk about a corporate sell-out (Score:3, Insightful)
Fucking hell. What about the need for fundamental reform to protect citizens?
I'm glad my elected officials feel they need speak up for consumers, and not constituents.
Hold the Spin (Score:5, Informative)
And READ THE -~=*FRIENDLY*=~- ARTICLE. All of it.
DeMint's received contributions from ATT: $37,500. Total Funding Received: $6.33M
As far as Candidates receiving funds from Computer and Internet Industries: DeMint ranks #35.
Telecom Services & Equipment: #20.
Both of those rankings are WELL below several names of Democrats.
If DeMint's in anybody's back pocket it's Old People. Retirement. Insurance. Real Estate. Securities and Investment.
Quoted:
"In theory, many Democrats favor Net neutrality. President Obama recently reiterated through a spokesman that he remains "committed" to the idea, as have some Democratic committee chairmen.
But theory doesn't always mesh with political practice. More than 70 House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski instructing him to abandon his Net neutrality plans. A majority of Congress now opposes Genachowski's proposals. "
I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?
the US vs the rest of the net enabled world (Score:3, Insightful)
Im usually not pro regulation, but in this case I cant see how doing nothing is pro-consumer. The arguments about regulation stifling innovation would have made more sense 15 years but today its usually just small companies creating stuff that gets bought up by the big companies. The costs are already passed to the consumers so its not like regulation would make that any different, if anything it would encourage the companies to actually become competitive and put some effort into support and network quality rather than just sitting back and enjoying their monopoly knowing that in many areas you have no choice.
In the area I live, I have 2 choices for Internet access, Time Warner or AT&T, i can opt for 3rd parties for DSL but have to pay local loop and access charges that make 3rd party solutions more than twice as expensive. Many parts of town have one or the other but not both. The rural areas south of me have no choice other than hughes net since the cable and phone companies don't feel expansion out that way is worth their time and money. Both the cable and phone company bundle their services to the point where the "cheap" access ($30 a month) is barely better than dial up. The area is so over subscribed and even on a good day in the off peak hours I rarely get half the advertised speeds. I support my clients via vpn connections and regularly do offsite backups, etc. I was forced to move from a residential connection to a business class because according to the cable company I used too much bandwidth. I now pay around $100 a month for a slower connection than I had 5 years ago and each year sees an increase in prices of at least a couple bucks.
I was involved in a project years back to attempt to bring municipal wifi to our downtown area, the cable and phone companies pitched a fit and managed to block it. 3 years ago a second cable company tried to expand into the area, it too was blocked.
The US model of telecommunications is extremely flawed IMHO, between locked carriers, subsidized phones, local carrier monopolies, and free reign to change the "rules" at any time the current model is a mess and as is there is absolutely no hope of it getting better.
The biggest problem I see is that the carriers want the best of both worlds, they want us to pay for their buildouts and upgrades through tiffs and tax incentives, but then want to be the sole provider as well. Rather than spend money expanding capacity, they throw in caps to artificially increase capacity while at the same time advertise streaming media, online gaming and other bandwidth intensive things as the reason to get them in the first place. I cant see things really improving until something changes.
Make sure you correctly define "Net Neutrality" (Score:4, Insightful)
The other is the politician way of defining it: "all speech on the Internet must be neutral and balanced". Essentially, the equivalent of the "Fairness Doctrine" that was imposed (and revoked) on the visual and audio media years and years ago.
Unfortunately, this distinction is lost in a lot of these discussions. Do not assume that just because it says "Net Neutrality", that it is defined as you think it is.
For the record, I am for the former and against the latter.
Call your Senator (Score:5, Informative)
Called my Senator's office and gave my opinion. I keep their numbers in my phone so this kind of thing is easy to do.
Everybody (US Citizens) should call theirs to shoot this bill down. The FCC has been doing a good job so far to protect consumers. There's no need to limit them like this. You can find your senator's contact information here: http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm [senate.gov]
When you call the number, just tell the person who answers that you'd like to give your opinion. They will ask for your name and address and what message you wish to pass along to the senator. You might get a letter back in the mail concerning your opinions and what actually happened with the bill. You can hang these letters on your fridge and any ladies passing by will be impressed with your official correspondence with the government.
Pay a little attention to history, please! (Score:4, Interesting)
Summary: The US private sector has already proven itself incapable of creating the internet. What makes ANYONE thing that in managing it they won't make the same type of mistakes that prevented them from creating it? What makes anyone thing that given a free hand, they won't simply destroy it, or at the very least cripple future growth.
There are certainly some grey-haired ones here on Slashdot. Think back a bit... a bit further. Go back to those prehistoric days before 1995, for a moment. Better yet, back a bit further still.
There was an internet. It existed in some universities, DOD installations, and DARPA contractors. It had email and ftp. To exchange information there was this thing called Usenet, which was actually useful before Green Card and AOL opened the floodgates. To publish information there was this nifty thing called gopher. Something called a web might have just barely been starting. Oh yeah, bang-paths, too. I almost forgot about those.
Then there was the private sector. Compuserve, AOL, GEnie, Prodigy, TheSource, home-grown BBSes. People on Compuserve talked to people on Compuserve and accessed information Compuserve made available or partnered for. Ditto for AOL, GEnie, Prodigy, TheSource, etc. NONE OF THEM WERE ANYTHING LIKE THE INTERNET!! ALL OF THEM WERE VYING FOR THE WHOLE PIE!! Now I'll quit shouting. In the private sector, many of those home-grown BBSes networked with each other. Modems dialed modems late at night when rates were low, and moved information from island to island.
My point is simply this in the US the corporate sector plays a winner-take-all game, cooperating only when necessary. They had several years in which they could have bridged their networks together, (peering?) and they didn't. They all wanted to be the Winner, they all wanted to take all.
It's even worse than this, because NONE of those prior networks were terribly versatile. They all fielded what the corporate business plans called for. They supported applications, they supported functions.
This is also really key. The corporate networks were essentially fixed-function - they didn't support simple transport.
The internet came along, and not only was it built on cooperation, so EVERYONE could play, it was built on transport, not function. Who thinks that when they sent the first email from node to node, they were thinking about p2p, streaming video, TOR, bittorrent, MMORPG, skype, SETI and Folding @Home, clouds, grids and the like? They were thinking ahead though, and realized that things could come beyond their current imagination.
From what I can see, business interests haven't learned SPIT in the intervening 15-20 years. They want to erect walls so they can extract more money from under any rock they can turn to find it. They want to give preference to their content over any other. They know what they like, and make sure it can happen, they know what they don't like and hinder it as they can get away with it, and they neglect what they don't or can't imagine, or perhaps hinder it out of caution.
In the US, the government has no monopoly on stupidity.
In the US, the marketplace is so messed up as to be virtually incapable of addressing corporate stupidity.
In the US, the campaign process is so messed up as to be virtually incapable of addressing government stupidity.
Re:So let me get this straight. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you want to get rid of both Democrats and Republicans then? Seriously, there is no left party in the US. Maybe if the Pirate Party gets enough clout that they can be put on the ballot, you may be able to see a centrist party but all the rest (Current Ruling Party, Previously Ruling Party and Independents) have been respectively fascist/nationalistic, far right and right.
Re:FCC = Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the FCC censor your telephone calls? No.
Because making ISP's common carriers would give consumers the same protections to the internet that the FCC gives for telephony.
Learn what the fuck you are talking about before you post, please.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What is wrong with the way that Internet has been run for the last 20 years? Nothing,
Exactly. For the past 20 years, Net Neutrality has been the default situation. We just want to codify it so it doesn't change.