Slashdot Mirror
Will the FCC Regulate the Net?
Lam1969 writes "Computerworld's Robert Mitchell wonders if the FCC could one day have regulatory power over the Internet. The causes? As telephone calls are increasingly delivered as an IP service, and traditional telephony fades away, traditional telephone companies are demanding a level regulatory regimen for all service providers. From the article: "Assuming that the FCC buys arguments such as this, we could see a new regulatory focus on the Internet and a decline in the hands-off attitude shown in the past. From the regulators' viewpoint, the Internet increasingly may be viewed as just another utility that requires oversight.""
Geeks around the nation will revolt if this happens. It's not a good idea. Also consider that America isn't the whole world. They can't regulate the whole Internet now, can they?
The FCC has no juristiction outside the US. Plus the article in question pertains to VOIP and telephony not the entire internet.
Mitchell makes the classic error in assuming "the internet" only exists in the US.
I'd like to see him explain how he thinks the US is going to suddenly make rules for the rest of the world, with the many telecommunications providers run as government-owned monopolies, or even provide "Universal Service" for, say, Germany.
The internet will route around the damage, like it always does, and if the US enacts too many rules for its portion, American companies will lose business over it. That's all there is to it. In fact, since everyone is already plenty upset over ICANN retaining monopolistic levels of control, any further attempts to exercise control over countries will possibly lead to them setting up an entire infrastructure alternative in defiance.
Get off my launchpad!
I feel the FCC is one of the most unconstitutional organizations in the Federal government today.
The FCC is basically the big media conglomerates arm in government, creating an extremely high cost of entry in media markets, preventing smaller companies or individuals from trying to compete. The days when we needed the FCC are over -- we have so many different ways to communicate that we don't need any regulation over those systems. Any regulation that takes 5 years to create will be superceded by competitive companies finding loopholes (or bribing their way past restrictions).
Even the old belief that airwaves are limited and should be regulated is bunk. Interference from large broadcasters is a myth. Ever wonder how your house can have 3 cell phones, 3 cordless phones and 15 wireless accessories work together? It isn't the FCC that's helping this situation, it is manufacturers working with one another so they can all compete.
The telephone company is dead -- as WiFi or faster wireless bandwidth is made available, even cell phones will be antiquated. I can imagine a near-future of open bandwidth, frequency-hopping competitive technologies that walk all over each other yet don't conflict. The more power you want to broadcast, the more energy you'll need to do so. If some large radio tower company wanted to block EVERY FREQUENCY for hundreds of miles, do you know how much it would cost them? Look at just the FM radio spectrum -- they couldn't afford it. A 50,000 watt radio station broadcasting at one tiny sliver of a frequency has a HUGE electric bill. The only way you could stay in business is with advertisers, and who wants to be affiliated with a company that burns everyone's communications?
Without the FCC, we'd see thousands or tens of thousands of community broadcasters. Picture Mr. Universe versus 10,000 mosquitos. Who would win?
If the FCC regulates the Internet, we'll find ways to get around it. The user can obfuscate transmitted information faster than our government can decode it. If they find quick ways to decode it, we'll find other ways to hide information within information. The FCC can attempt to regulate the Internet, but it will be a failure. Information has found freedom, and there is no stopping it. 6 year olds are using google, 72 year olds are using Skype. Can a government "of the People, by the People and for the People" go against the People any long?
I'm ready to make an effigy of the FCC and burn it. Are you?
I can just see the international outcry if the FCC tried this. They hate ICANN as it is, this would just lend more credence to their distrust of our "stewardship" of the net.
The FCC is welcome to set up it's own Great Firewall of China in the US and regulate and/or censor its own piece of the net. I, however, don't live in the US and don' t feel that the US government has a right to govern my activities. I didn't vote for anybody in the US government.
But I feel since the MPAA/RIAA claim to only fight for their artists that they should regulate the net with all their trust.
http://saveie6.com/
I had occasion to consult the FCC a few years ago and was told that a major function of the FCC was to ensure that the governmnet didn't take all the aavailable frequencies. There are other regulatory needs for control of frequencies and power of course but I would hope that we can stop them from expanding their control over what should be non-issues for them. Trouble is that the foxes want to control the hen house and this administration favors that view.
Nate
even from the providers point of view.
Ultimately, they will reap greater profits from an unregulated internet. History is replete with fools shooting themselves in the foot in order to satisfy their short term interests.
loyalty above all, save honor
I hope that the FCC never gets control over the internet. They already do a lousy job of regulating what they currently regulate. If anyone should rule the internet in my opinon it should a U.N. body but I like the internet just the way it is right now!
Thank God, a catalyst for creating the Metaverse.
So they go after VOIP outfits, make sure the US.gov can tap them and everyone can dial 911. Most people will accept this and move on, those who dont will use a proxied voip connection outside the US to phone regular phones/people on regulated US VOIP connections. Its when they take it one step further and decide to regulate other sorts of traffic you should be scared.
Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
Free speech in the 1st amendment was more geared towards protecting political speech and ideas, not about letting raunch in the public square.
So how does that square with campaign finance reform? Not well. But those regulations will be coming to blogs in the future.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
With ISPs trying to put restrictions on services, the FCC could guarantee universal service that does not discriminate based on content or business model.
Flamebait? Please. The mods need to re-read the definition of sarcasm.
With all this talk from various Baby Bells about how they will provide different levels of service for traffic originating from someone other than their customers, we might actually *want* a little regulation in the future.
Before the FCC was co-opted by the Religious Right AKA the American Taliban, they actually did things like shut down pirate radio stations and make sure that the phone company actually provided the service they were legally obligated to provide.
Obviously, I don't want the FCC keeping my internet porn from me, but if some routers in the middle are slowing my downloads because I'm not their direct customer, government regulation might be a solution.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Score:-1, Flamebait
Amen.
Simple question: How would the FCC regulate the Internet? They certianly could control US vendors but they would have precious little jurisdiction over foreign vendors. It's safe to say that until a unified system for handling telecom is developed, there are going to be jurisdictional fights and grievances by the EU and others over the US's handling of it, similar to the whole ICANN flap.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I agree that the FCC, which is a US based entity, should never be able to have control over other entities outside the US, however this is not always the case. Political pressure along with economical pressure could force others into a pact of sorts allowing such a thing to happen.
It happens all the time in other aspects of life and government.
Oh yeah, I'm waitin' to FCC come to Brazil too.
Ahhh, the last gasps of a outdated and useless bureaucracy trying to justify its existence. There are many congressmen who want to eliminate the FCC altogether. The main ones trying to keep it alive just want it as a censorship organization.
Regulating the internet is like trying to regulate the sun.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
I'd like to see internet service providers be just that... providing just bandwidth and pipe. Let customers shop elsewhere for things like email and webhosting, much like we can choose our longdistance provider.
Regulations against predatory pricing, filtered connections and the like would be good.
They will not regulate the net because you can't. How will they force say, VoIP providers in Canada to do anything?
You can provide some regulation of VoIP through DID assignment, and that's not a bad idea. It protects consumers by ensuring at least a basic level of service (E911, whatever.) But the FCC cannot and should not regulate the *entire* internet. And what benefit would it provide?
The FCC can regulate communication originating, terminating, or traversing in the United States (from my understanding). Keep in mind VOIP is not always COMPLETELY over the internet, at some point the connection traverses to the actual phone lines (although sometimes it crosses over to it earlier or later than the house level). I'll be anxious to see this.
Just your everyday corporate code monkey.
You have a good point that nobody is eager to do this, but there's only so much they're willing to give up to keep everything together. Let's see what happens when the lawsuit shakes out. Especially if more stories come out in the meantime about automated mass surveillance, etc.
Get off my launchpad!
Nobody wants this, none of us at least, but the power big business has over government could push this through. There's much greater incentive for a stronger industry to lobby the government than, say, satellite radio, so I personally see this as a much more likely change than The Man keeping Howard Stern down. Right?
without the FCC you would never know when you turn on the TV if the rich prick down the street is broadcasting goatse over all the channels at 5000 watts
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
With the proliferation of new wifi tech like wi-max combined with the $100 laptops ability to create a seemless mesh network, and maturing peer to peer, will the point to point nature of the ISPs even be relivent any more. I know whenever the first $100 laptops go on sale (for $200) I plan on buying 2 or 3 for myslef and family, maybe even a couple more for close friends. I already have 3 computers just sitting around my room collecting dust that could be used for servers/routers/proxies whatever. Anyone know a good book on getting started with linux?
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/
Computerworld's Robert Mitchell wonders if the FCC could one day have regulatory power over the Internet.
Well the FCC can regulate the internet as much as it could regulate a web server in Bulgaria or China.
Otherwise known as... Not very much.
However I'm sure they could enforce rules on state side web hosts, but being the internet and all it doesn't take much to move your site to say... Bulgaria or China, but I think Canada or Mexico would do just fine.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Im with you, and so are some Senators. It's S.2113, write to your Senators for support.
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
"One Country To Rule Them All!" --me
muahahahahahaha
Evolution or ID?
without the FCC you would never know when you turn on the TV if the rich prick down the street is broadcasting goatse over all the channels at 5000 watts
Did you read my post? There are 130-ish channels available on UHF and VHS. To broadcast over all 130-ish at 5000 watts would require a million watts or more of constant power, plus an antenna, not including the service to his house and all the other goodies.
Can you really say that a rich guy would want to spend tens of thousand of dollars per hour in broadcasting goatse?
RE:[traditional telephone companies are demanding a level regulatory regimen for all service providers] anything to squeeze a few bucks out of it before becoming obsolete
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Har har but no. Cryptography is an obvious solution to this problem... have the stations sign the goddamned content and don't display content signed with keys you don't trust. I predict as the flow of information becomes more ubiquitous - more digital - and more Internet-centric, PKI will grow in importance and implementation. It's just one logical solution to a million big problems.
I have to agree. And given the FCC has done nothing to get rid of phone porn (1-900 numbers), I find it a tad unlikely they're going to regulate Internet content, especially as there'd be constitutional issues in them doing so.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
HERE HERE!
Have a better idea: Let's get rif od the FCC.
The government never tried to reulgate Internet content when everyone was using dial-up. It seems like they would have had a better argument since dial-up uses regular phone lines to to transmit data.
This is just the old, entrenched telcos trying to shut down VOIP as competition to their antiquited landline systems. They already tried to do this by having the FCC force VOIP companies implement 911 service. And when cellular providers still don't have 911 service wiorking properly, and the cell companies have been around far longer than the VOIP companies.
The telcos are regualted because they were given a limited monopoly in landline service in the early 20th century. VOIP providers have no monopoly, as anyone can send data packets over an existing 'net connection.
The problem is that the exorbitant taxes applied to landlines, and the innefficiencies in the existing infrastructure make landlines unattractive for more and more people. I gave up my landline, and just have cell phones for my family.
If the FCC starts regulating VOIP as a communcations system, will they try to regulate TeamSpeak? What Battlefield 2 or XBox Live, both of which have Voice capability? What about IM systems with voice?
Interesting article, thanks.
I'm not sure if I could ever get behind a law that enforces true de-regulation. If they want to de-regulate old laws, just abolish them. There is ZERO need for new laws. I'm all for a new amendment limiting bills to only 500 words, and another amendment forcing Congress to abolish 3 laws for every 1 bill they propose (even if the bill doesn't pass, the 3 laws get abolished). My final amendment is for Congress to cut $2 out of the budget for every $1 they propose (even if the budget doesn't pass, they must still nuke $2 out of the old one).
That's about all I can support, law-wise.
Things have changed alot in the last decades.
With computers, alot more for much less is possible. So there you go.
Now, do you embrace evolution or you 'extort' from the new means?
With labs 'inventing' (well, do you think there are no severe side effects to 'remedies'?) new deadly diseases, do you really feel inclined to stagnate areas that would make it cheaper to make great advances in other areas?
Let the dinosaurs die. You don't have to pay for the government to support decadent business models, so that 'traditional rich families' can continue to be rich, since they area cheap and don't want to invest in new models. Dinosaurs want no competition.
Poll: Who here wants the internet to be regulated?
*crickets*
*hooting owl*
*tree frogs chirping*
*leaves rustling in the wind*
*lone howling wolf in the far-off distance*
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Ever wonder how your house can have 3 cell phones, 3 cordless phones and 15 wireless accessories work together? It isn't the FCC that's helping this situation, it is manufacturers working with one another so they can all compete
Um, you're kidding, right? These things coexist precisely because there is an FCC to keep them from stomping all over each other.
The Salon article isn't very clear, but it seems that they are excited about UWB and how easy it makes multiple access using simple pseudo-random chipping sequences. I guess that's fine, but my biggest bone with this approach is its colossal spectrum inefficiency. I just don't see how we could have spectrally efficient wireless communication without a regulating body.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
If some large radio tower company wanted to block EVERY FREQUENCY for hundreds of miles, do you know how much it would cost them?
It doesn't matter. All that matters for a company is that expenses income. If someone could find a business model to make it work, they will. Are you entirely certain that NO business model could be established to pay these expensive bills? I wouldn't be. There are plenty of businesses with huge piles of cash just waiting to be burnt should an opportunity like that present itself.
My blog
I can't wait for the FCC to take over the web. We'll finally have the low prices and excellent customer service that the telecom customers have enjoyed for so long!
While they're at it, they might as well come to my house and make sure I don't say anything "incorrect" while I'm with my friends or girlfriend. They can bring an air horn and blast it everytime I'm about to say something wrong. Then, they can make sure that I don't write anything in my diary that can be construed as negative. After this, they'll burn all the books I have that can inspire negative motion.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
one would not need to broadcast all simultaniously, just long enough to interrupt the signal and hang the display enough for the viewer to see
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
They already revolt anyone who sees them. They've been revolting forever....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Taditional telephone companies were regulated because of the monopoly involved in getting a cable to the user's home. Broadcast telecoms were regulated because of the scarcity of airwave bandwidth. Regulation has not been enacted because a competitor feels disadvantaged. Why should this begin now?
...the FCC, like their telco hosts, are doomed to extinction. Consumer protection remains a priority, but currently the FCC doesn't provide even that. Face it, centralized communications facilities are dying, so will their regulators. We might be in for a wild time ('consumer beware' will take on a whole new emphasis) but these dinosaur at least are history.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Even the old belief that airwaves are limited and should be regulated is bunk. Interference from large broadcasters is a myth. Ever wonder how your house can have 3 cell phones, 3 cordless phones and 15 wireless accessories work together?
Wow, man - are you even listening to yourself? The airwaves are limited, by the laws of physics. If we both broadcast on the same frequency, some device somewhere is going to be seeing each of our signals at an equal, and equally useless strength. Why can I be typing this message through Wi-Fi in my house, watching AIM on my mobile phone next to me, and knowing that my wireless house phone will still work, even when I'm microwaving my soup for lunch? Exactly because there are regs and legal recourse when people screw with what makes all of that work. Do you REALLY want the guy next door deciding that it's OK by him if he puts up a megawatt transmitter that happens to step exactly on all of those devices' carriers?
The telephone company is dead -- as WiFi or faster wireless bandwidth is made available
Well, I suppose that depends on what the meaning if "is" is (heh!). Since I talked to my mom on her copper land line this morning, I'm thinking it's not actually dead. And since I talked to my mother-in-law, in rural Virginia, just the other day... you know, in an area that's too mountainous for any line-of-site carrier, and where cable-based broadband is years away, and DSL won't go the distance... the "telephone company" isn't dead there, either. It's the only thing that DOES work, or will work for a long time.
If some large radio tower company wanted to block EVERY FREQUENCY for hundreds of miles, do you know how much it would cost them?
So what? There are people with lots of money that would love vanity moments like that. You know, people like George Soros who are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to impact elections... he'd LOVE to blanket all of downtown NY, even for a few minutes, with a signal no one could escape. Or, what about someone who doesn't care about paying the electric bill? You know, one-last-gasp type idealogical or vandal broadcasting?
Can a government "of the People, by the People and for the People" go against the People any long?
You wouldn't be referring to the government that actually created the 'net in the first place, would you? You know, as a defense research project? You make "the internet" sound like it actually exists as single thing. It's not. It's a bunch of individual, corporate, insitutional, government, and foreign networks all communicating with each other - a network of networks. If municipal governments are supposed to start trusting VoIP for 911 calls, etc, then they are going to expect a certain amount of predictability and interopability in the way that some of the those networks talk to each other. If that can't be established, then they'll just continue to expect "the telephone company" to take care of it for them, and enforce that through the large regulatory burdens that those companies carry.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The user can obfuscate transmitted information faster than our government can decode it.
Then they'll regulate obfuscation, like they do with ham radio.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
The telephone industry wanting to have a level playing field? Utility regulation of the internet in order to protect business?
BS. Utilities are regulated to protect the public, not the profits of a few telcos. The idea is that a public good vital to the citizenry needs to be regulated in order to prevent the provider of the utility from price gouging, selective distribution, etc.
If the internet opens up telephony to multiple providers (since the natural monopoly is being broken), then good! That means that regulation of the industry is actually less necessary.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Government oversight can be very bad when it attempts to tell us what we can think, consume, etc.
But, it can be very good, and actually promote free market solutions, when it focuses on ensuring perfection of market information. In other words, not necessarily regulating the things that ISPs do, but regulating their disclosure of what they do. If I don't know that BellSouth is hindering my favorite Web service, how can I make an informed free market decision to find a new provider?
In addition, the existing telecom infrastructure does not exist in a vacuum; it wasn't created yesterday. The American public paid dearly to help spread telecom to all corners of the nation, through subsidies, rights-of-way grants, and monopoly franchise grants. THAT is an important reason why the FCC is still needed--not to regulate "new" services, but to ensure that the existing companies and monopolies that our parents and grandparents help create continue to serve the public good. One very good example is the concept of "common carrier", which would not exist outside of government regulation.
If BellSouth is going to limit what services I can buy over the pipes that my family helped pay for, Yes, I want regulation to prevent that. Companies like BellSouth and Verizon have legacy obligations based on what they have received from U.S. citizens, and we must act to ensure they meet their obligations to increase the common good. The government is our agent of action.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I hoped this would seem obvious, but so far, no one has mentioned it yet: Regulating "service" does not mean the same thing as regulating "content".
The FCC currently regulates phone SERVICE in the US. You can call up almost anyone, with only the most abusive of calls restricted (go ahead, just try to report someone for harassment... It takes nothing short of a knowingly-taped confession of intent to harass to get anything done). As a result, we have reasonably cheap universal phone access, which without the FCC would cost more, and only even exist for those lucky enough to live in a dense population center.
The FCC also regulates allocation of RF spectrum. This not only allows things like radio and television to exist (imagine trying to watch your favorite show with 100 competing stations all very near the same frequency in the same geographic area), but makes even the somewhat-unregulated uses such as WiFi possible (imagine trying to transmit data with some moron using a sparkgap transmitter next door).
The FCC also regulates broadcast television CONTENT. This, as we all know, counts as a giant crock of constitution-violating BS and should cease immediately. The US government does NOT exist to force wholesome Christian values on us via the whims of the PTC.
But don't make the mistake of assuming "regulation" equals "censorship". Some regulation does indeed contribute to the greater good. We just need to vigilantly watch for and prevent/stop abuses of regulatory powers when they start taking away rights we otherwise have.
That's right.
Let's see... the FCC regulates a technology (such as wireless transmissions, or spectrum) by understanding the underlying technology, and making sure people don't abuse it, or interfere with others' communications illegally, etc.
So, when they understand IP, and the underlying technologies of the internet, they can begin to fathom how to "regulate" it. What they're going to realize is technical regulations are already in place, built into the protocol. It maintains itself. It's social regulation that we need.
Anyone who designs, implements, manages, and troubleshoots interconnected networks would welcome this social regulation. I think they're in for a big surprise. It is not just going to be VOIP, one tiny protocol. I would love to send my abuse complaints, virus reports, compromises, cracking attempts, phising attempts, and whatnot to the FCC. They can contact the parties responsible for the remote networks, and take some of these issues off my back. I'm hoping they're prepared. I'm hoping they're prepared to start diplomatic communications' regulations with other countries.
So FCC, here's your homework... speak to those responsible in China, and make sure all of their IP space reverse resolves to something. When you're finished, come back, and I'll have your next task.
This will be the first of millions of requests I'm (personally) going to have.
Either that or stick to regulating old, outdated communications. I'm ready when you are!
FLR
(: soapbox on :)
:)
This is an extremely important issue to debate, discuss, and put to the test.
I have the feeling that most of us would not like to have the Big Brother effect chilling the beauty of the Internet.
However, an Internet ruled by pure anarchy is not practical, and is only reasonable from a purely academic point of view.
Instead of just posting and arguing simplistic, pre-judged, unrealistically black-and-white things like "get rid of the FCC" or "only complete regulation will make the 'net a safe place to be", why not do this:
Try to come up with a good solution. Espouse that solution to your elected representatives. Debate your good solution in open forums to find out what is good (and what is not good) about your solution.
Try getting involved with root efforts to make the 'net safer and better. Expend energy into making things better (instead of making useless, casual remarks that do nothing about the root issue.)
(: soapbox off
A Passionate Independent Musician
The internet will be regulated. In some countries it already is. There's too much money and power for the government to ignore it.
I'm not a fan of the FCC, but they do have some value. The FCC helps a great deal with blocking interference. The FCC doesn't have much to do with helping wireless devices talk to each other, but they have alot to do with seeing to it that calls don't get dropped when the neighbor's microwave turns on. Yes, this used to happen. The Secret Services' radios used to make garage doors go bonkers during Reagan's term in office. Wireless units don't interfere because of signal and noise filtering. Companies only cooperate when they have a vested interest in doing so. There comes a point when a company gets large enough or has enough of a captive audience that they don't need to cooperate with competitors and upstarts.
The article you link even admits it's own bias. "I have to confess that I'm biased when it comes to David Reed." Unfortunately, I don't have a Salon subscription to read the rest of the article. I never trust a journalist when they write about math, most don't study more than algebra and dont study physics. The first page was almost accurate, but didn't yet discuss that an electric wave has a charge and a photon does not. Since electric fields have charge, they interact when they come in contact. The color metaphor is misleading as well. If you've seen a black light theater, or blue man show, then you know it's difficult to discern to item of the same color standing in line. A black ball in front of a black wall is invisible to the eye if there is no reflection or shadow cast by the ball. There must be contrast for the ball to be visible. It is similarly difficult for radio recievers to distinguish a small signal when there is a wall of noise behind it. Turn your car radio to an AM station and drive around high power lines, you will hear static. It can be done with filtering, but get's expensive fast when the environment gets noisy. Cell phones have both HW and SW filtering and also use a fairly complex transmission wave that is pretty distinctive.
My post is a bit all over the place, but my feeling is that we need many of the services provided by the FCC, including reduction of electronic interference. I also think that there is too much money, information, and power in the internet as a medium for the government to leave it alone.
Doesn't this just show that telephone systems over twisted pair is dying? Why does some government body need to regulate it into extended-existance?
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
The real issue here is not some need for the FCC to regulate the internet, but for the FCC to ensure that the use of VoIP has 911 emergency access. As VoIP becomes more frequently used, it's only natural and smart for the FCC to impose 911 emergency access to VoIP users in order to ensure a very basic level of user safety:
"TCS said that it will partner with infrastructure operators that can deliver VoIP E911 calls to Public Safety Answering Points serving approximately 190 million people in the US.
Its service is designed for mobility and enables the routing and delivery of the E911 VoIP caller's registered location information to the PSAP nearest to the emergency caller's current location.
John Crabill, 911 coordinator for Montgomery county, stated, "Having a full-scale solution in place for the routing and delivery of the caller's current registered location in the event they place an E911 VoIP call provides our citizens with the added security in knowing that we can find them in the event of an emergency." In June 2005, the FCC published its E911 Order requiring all interconnected VoIP service providers to automatically provide E911 services to all customers as a standard, mandatory feature without customers having to specifically request this service, and without the ability to opt out."
source
Health Insurance Quotes
Here's some wiki love FCC
Now go educate yourself. Regulation is/isn't a good/bad thing. Remember: moderation in all things. It makes for a boring personal life, but when it comes to society, it's pretty nice.
Ok, so the FCC was given the right to regulate the air waves under the premise that due to the relative lack of choice (back when there were 4 TV channels), and due to the fact that the EM spectrum is a public resource that is leased by private companies.
But now that there are a lot more than 4 channels, how does this continue to fly? Is it simply because the EM spectrum is leased that the FCC somehow has the power to stop people from saying shit on ABC?
What happens if these broadcasting companies start moving over to WiMAX/UWB-style technologies, where a huge part of the spectrum is used and certain frequencies are no longer require to be reserved (or leased) from the government? Will this then finally kill the last argument the government has to continue to limit free speech on TV and radio?
And how can there be proposals to regulate the internet and cable when none of the "justifications" for censorship exist in these mediums?
Seems to me that is a damn good case to be made that the FCC's power to censor, at least in the case of cable/internet/non-leased-EM-Spectrum mediums, is a direct and unjustifiable violation of the 1st Amendment.
FCC, FTC, OCC keep going. All the departments of this government have their heads firmly up their collective asses. On the bright side the FCC will never regulate the internet because it is not controlled by or does not belong to the US. If they try to regulate it, stand by another world war.
And what does this have to do with the price of beans in Morocco?
In any case, this is a copy of the big bold text on the front page of the site that you linked to, in case you missed it:
Please note that the $100 laptops--not yet in production--will not be available for sale. The laptops will only be distributed to schools directly through large government initiatives.
Good luck getting started with Linux.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
You are right, kida.
It is not the whole world but honestly, do you thin anybody would have the balls to try and stop us if we did decide to regulate it.
"Can you really say that a rich guy would want to spend tens of thousand of dollars per hour in broadcasting goatse?"
Ever the capitalist, he would be that rich because people would pay him not to broadcast.
t-tag.com
That sends messages over IP to landlines. The FCC is already involved.
I believe (the US) government prefers to keep the internet "free and open" as long as they can "monitor" (aka spy) on all content. If general use of hard encryption became easy to use and popular, they would pull the plug damn quick.
The US can serve google with one of those secret warrants and have tons of information. They like that I think...
Be heard || Be herd
Preach on, brother! Amen!
The day that the FCC controlling the internet is a good idea, is the same day that Bush will have an original thought, which isn't illegal, or detrimental to this country's well being.
Or, for you "Stop bashing Bush! I love the big guy" type of people (there must be at least a few of you out there)...
The day that the FCC controlling the internet is a good idea, is the same day that Paris Hilton starts to look appealing. I mean really appealing... In a sexy, feminine sort of way. Not just the usual "She's not too attractive, but she's really dumb, and probably wasted enough of the time that you could steal yourself some money without her knowing" kinda way that most people look at her.
But seriously... The Internet's a global thing. Something that the avg. politician doesn't seem to realize. Unless you (virtually) wall yourself off from the rest of the world (China anyone?), this is a pointless arguement, as this would only hurt the US, and its citizens in the long run. Anyone with any common sense (no... Not the politicians with dollar signs in their eyes) can see this is a dumb idea. The very fact that it's a possibility is just scary as hell!
Absolutely no relevant content Here.
I think you are the one making the assumption about what he thinks. What he's referring to, in a wildly unlikely hypothetical way, would be similar to the way China controls 'the Internet' within it's country using the infamous Great Firewall. He's talking about regulations on the net in the US.
without the FCC you would never know when you turn on the TV if the rich prick down the street is broadcasting goatse over all the channels at 5000 watts
Do not attempt to adjust your set. We have taken control. Slashdot TV is on the air!
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Oh yeah, get the government involved, THAT'LL make it better.
They might be able to regulate internet service providers, making sure they are competitive, making sure that they provide high standards of service, provide service to rural areas etc., and basically all the things that a regulator should do. As for regulating the internet, well this smells like something that a shitload of lawyers would dream up a a way to make money. My comunications are none of their business and will remain so until I commit a crime.
;o)
The packets we send out into the world are our own, and if they want to regulate them, they can bite my shiny metal ass. Of course I'm not American, so they couldnt regulate me anyway.
What if every person outside Washington decided that they wanted to declare a new country called..... I dunno the United States of..., um, Americaa. Make NY the capital and make lawyers illegal. That'd solve most of your problems right there
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Unconsitutional? No. Although some actions of the FCC may be deemed unconstitutional, the FCC in itself is not unconstitutional in itself. Agencies of the federal government are given a great amount of deference in their actions. Lack of responsiveness to the general poulace is certainly a drawback of the system... but unconstitutional it's not. How do you solve the responsiveness problem? Now that's a good question.
Do you know how laws are abolished or modified? A bill is passed.
Did you take any civics class? Or do you have any knowledge of how the system works? Your ideas are simply laughable.
yes, and the flurry of angry emails and slashdot posts from geek nation will surely overcome
Hey clown, you can't broadcast on all the channels at the same time in the same geographic area. Cable TV is different from broadcast TV.
UHF and VHS. Ha!
And the reason all your shit works "perfectly" (it doesn't) is because of the FCC regulating the airwaves. Otherwise I could just boost my WiFi access point to 50 Kwatts and kill every portable phone in the midwest.
Ever have interference between all those wireless things in your house? I have. My microwave used to cause me problems, and don't even get me started on badly configured wireless routers elsewhere in the neighborhood.
The airwaves are a shared medium of limited usable bandwidth. All other things being equal, wireless networks will never be able to reach the capacity of wired networks. Sure they could, if they really tried. It's not hard to trash spectrum. Broadcasting garbage is easy, often accidental. It's keeping your signal well behaved that gets tricky.
What's more annoying...10,000 mosquitos or Mr. Universe?
That this story is perfect for /. and that we will be seeing a dupe sometime next week.
Regulation has nothing to do with distinguishing VOIP packets or controling volume, it's about capitalizing on a growing industry, and for the telcos asking for the regulations it's about leveling the playing field.
Have you ever looked at your (US) phone bill? I rely on my cell phone but keep a basic dialtone at home in case of power outage, tsunami, terroist act (I live in NYC) or some other catastrophe. Ove 50% of the $20/month I pay comes from surcharges, including:
FCC Line Charge 6.40
911 Surcharge 1.00
Federal USF Surcharge 0.66
Federal Tax 0.50
Surcharge(s) 0.91
NY State/Local Sales Tax 1.40
In theory VOIP can offer the same service at the same cost for half the price because of the regulatory surcharges and taxes. The phonecos are put at a competetive disadvantage simply because their bill includes fees the VOIPs don't. If you had a choice of dialtones and one was 50% cheaper than the other what would you choose? More importanly what would the average technologically ignorant consumer chose?
http://www.worldsoccerbars.com
"I have to confess that I'm biased when it comes to David Reed." Unfortunately, I don't have a Salon subscription to read the rest of the article.
I clicked on the ad to read the rest, exactly because it was David Reed making the big claims. He is an EE, from MIT no less, so it's likely he knows what he's talking about. Unfortunately, there wasn't much detail in the rest of the article, but I think he's excited about UWB communication. It turns out that with sufficiently large bandwidth, one can pick random signal spreading codes in a decentralized manner without interfering with unintended receivers. This is important because there is no need to run scheduling algorithms like on 802.11. However, this wastes a lot of the (Shannon) capacity.
The first page was almost accurate, but didn't yet discuss that an electric wave has a charge and a photon does not. Since electric fields have charge, they interact when they come in contact.
Actually, he was correct in saying that radio signals pass through each other without interfering. For example, if your directional antenna's signal crosses mine, it won't affect my signal. Unfortunately, that doesn't matter because the interference problem occurs when the two signals combine additively at the same receiver.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
No, physics does that. There is only so much information you can transmit in so narrow a band of frequencies. Radio bandwidth is far from infinite.
"The days when we needed the FCC are over -- we have so many different ways to communicate that we don't need any regulation over those systems."
Just the opposite is true. We have many more ways to use radio frequencies but still only the same amount of bandwidth. While technology may allow us to use bandwidth more efficiently, it doens't create more bandwidth and the spectrum is getting more and more crowded.
"Interference from large broadcasters is a myth."
The idiot you're using as a source doesn't even understand basic classical wave mechanics, let alone quantum mechanics. I suspect he's never actually tried using the pinhole camera he tries to use as an example, never saw the fuzzy pictures produced.
But that's all moot because we're not talking about physical interference but signal interference, the general inability of broadcasters to stay entirely within one frequency or one range of frequencies. Quantum says there will always be spillover into higher and lower frequencies, potentially into somebody else's channel. This is why you can sometimes find the audio from VHF channels 6 and 7 on your FM radio and why you don't see UHF transmitters within 6 channels or so of each other.
"Ever wonder how your house can have 3 cell phones, 3 cordless phones and 15 wireless accessories work together?"
Because they all use different frequency channels.
"even cell phones will be antiquated. I can imagine a near-future of open bandwidth, frequency-hopping competitive technologies that walk all over each other yet don't conflict."
The more information you need to transmit, the more frequencies you need to use simultaneously (why we talk about FM and TV channels) and the fewer frequencies are useful to you (longer waves can't carry as much information density, hence the disparity in sound quality between AM and FM). So sayeth special relativity. Everybody wants UHF. If you don't try to limit who uses what frequencies when, you're going to end up with a collision domain far uglier than any unswitched ethernet.
And simply because you can use digital signal transmission doesn't mean you must, especially in your anarcho-capitalist wet dream. You can't stop me from using my spark gap.
"The more power you want to broadcast, the more energy you'll need to do so."
But the power needed to transmit is not only dependent on how far you want to transmit but also how much information (i. e. how high a frequency) you want to transmit at.
"If some large radio tower company wanted to block EVERY FREQUENCY for hundreds of miles, do you know how much it would cost them?"
If they're capitalists, it will cost them less than what they charge you to keep from turning on their transmitter.
And you don't need to transmit at "every" frequency, just a few key frequencies in the UHF spectrum (i. e. the useful frequencies) and allow spillover to take care of the rest.
"The only way you could stay in business is with advertisers,"
You are, again, forgetting extortion. "Pay me or I jam your transmissions."
"Without the FCC, we'd see thousands or tens of thousands of community broadcasters."
But the only ones who would produce a clear picture on your television would be the ones with enough money to broadcast strongly enough to drown out the competing signals. Otherwise ever
What you fail to realize is that they did see through your sarcasm and moderated it as flamebait because that's exactly what is it. A bait for flamewars. Besides, I take it you wouldn't have a problem if the government were enforcing some other-than-christian values, right? Because we all know that the occupation of Iraq is bad bad bad, but that the one of Tibet is good good good. Shooting that scumbag in Genova was bad bad bad but driving tanks over students in Tien An Men square was good good good. Down with them!
Global warming is a cube.
Blocking other frequencies does not require multiple stations.
You can trivially broadcast over a very wide band of freq. with a spark gap or a tesla coil design. Keeping a broadcast within band is *hard*. Sending out crap over a big frequency spectrum is easy.
The FCC doesn't have much to do with helping wireless devices talk to each other, but they have alot to do with seeing to it that calls don't get dropped when the neighbor's microwave turns on.
FCC != Property rights. Property rights exist without the FCC.
For example, if company A creates a device that does something useful with frequency X, then company A has homesteaded that frequency. Thus, if a company B creates another device that interferes with the regular use of company A's device, than company B has violated the rights of company A.
Whether or not these property rights are enforced, they exist. You don't need a bearucratic organization to create these rights; you merely need courts to settle disputes (i.e. "What constitutes homesteading of a frequency? What constitutes interference? etc.")
Frequencies are limited...but then, so is land. So long as you do not let people get away with claims that they have homesteaded a large part of the spectrum (in the same way we would not let someone get away with claiming to own millions of acres of unexplored land simply by walking on it), there is plenty of room on the spectrum for everyone.
"Regulating "service" does not mean the same thing as regulating "content"."
/. And here on /., as you know (/. municipal code 133t subpara. pwn3d, to be exact), it is illegal to attempt to usurp the parent article with the voice of reason.
/. luser policy, and you shall be fined 35 karma points. That, or to receive 35 "yes, but..." replies with a score of -1 or lower.
IANAL, but I play one on
As such, the "content" of your comment is in violation of
Whichever comes first.
I actually like the idea of broadband internet as a utility. It implies that
a) everyone have access to it like power, water, phone
b) it must be reliable like power,water,phone
c) it become commonplace like power, water, phone
d) when was the last time your phone company tried to pull stunts like verisign does (sitefinder)
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
1. Every box that can get on the Internet is uniquely identifiable and preferably associated with a person. See the story from about a week ago regarding anonymity and the Internet. Anonymity is a bad thing and the strong preference by everyone with any influence in Washington is to see it go away. Check out the whole trusted computing platform/DRM/etc.
2. FCC will regulate the Internet because it's replacing the things they regulate now. Agencies rarely (if ever) die. The acronym might change, but that's about it.
3. The FCC's reach is limited to the U.S. but Echelon/something like it gives the Gov't what they want from other countries anyway. So, even though the FCC won't ever directly control the Internet, they have the most important parts.
4. My guess is that if a country got the crazy idea that anonymous communication or not sharing their eavesdropping was a good thing, I think there would be indirect consequences in the form of economic benefits evaporating.
In summary, FCC/US Gov't. regulates the Internet. The message to other countries: Cooperate or else.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I completely aggree with you and your statements. The FCC needs to be stopped. It is like they don't even respect the fact this goes against the constitution. Since they are going to break the law by doing this, I say their organization should no longer exist.
C'mon people, all kinds of communications are moving onto the Internet. We all know that.
The agency is called the Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission. Seems like they are the likely regulators.
They certainly aren't going to downsize the FCC because telephones and over-the-air broadcasting are moving to privatized channels.
I'm very disappointed that this comes as a surprise to anyone.
In America, the spys spy on you!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
... until it regulates the thing they are into!
Suck it up! The same thing you have been wishing on everyone else in every other human activity is now going to happen to you. What, you thought the government would regulate just about everything on the planet, but leave your precious internet alone?
If you want the government to keep it's hands off the internet, then maybe you should support other people who don't want the government regulating the things they are into. If the government regulates the internet such that only big corporations and large government agencies can use it, well it serves you right! Perhaps it will get people to abandon their totalitarian "the government should control everything, except what I enjoy" ideology.
Yeah, we're battin' a thosuand.
And don't even get me started on the other stuff. Illegal immigration is topping my personal pet peeve list at the moment. Perhaps the right to vote is already being usurped by government-sponsored (!#@%*&!#*^!!!!) illegal immigrants. But this isn't an appropriate forum for that particular rant.
The point is, the vast majority of our elected officials don't even care about us any more, let alone listen to us. We're given a choice between Kodos and Kang, and they're both gonna screw us.
The intgernet is fairly impregnable in its nature...
Until we learn to harm/kill over the internet anyway.
Although I somewhat agree with the 500 word limit (though not that low; sometimes there are things which require a lot of description to make them unambigious), your other two ideas are almost frighteningly abusable. Think, for a moment, about how much power this would give the determined. A party could start trying to propose as many laws as they could, knowing full well that they wouldn't pass, and use this to take down other laws. Not only that, if anyone wanted to try to negotiate which laws would be removed, there would inevitably be times when good, useful laws would be removed to save other slightly more useful ones.
Same deal with spending. Guess where that $2 cut might come from. Military? Nope. Government works? Unlikely? Medical care, welfare, or other public benefits? Probably.
I'm all for trying to reduce government spending and trying to cut down on some of the absolutely useless laws we have, but that's like giving the less-than-scrupulous members of Congress a free present.
they are beholding to a political structure which is guided by "stare decisis" and the 'net has been regulated by a point-to-point communication which has justly and effectively locked out the broadcasters by definition.
Just because you can answer RSS 'calls' from X thousand people and send them the IP address and 'feature' of a podcast that they can then opt to download, doesn't make you a broadcaster.
People have to know about these RSS feeds first. If you're a podcaster, you have make a promo to entice the podcasting community into wanting to put the web site where your RSS feed is located. For some podcasters, this can be problematic, but that's life.
The obfuscation of information is already a fact of life that the gummint're already dealing with well, as witnessen by Echelon intercepts across international borgers.
(The recent 'leak' is significant in that Bush just wanted nobody to know about the SigInt he was capturing, from whom and for whom. That's a naughty president caught with his hands in the intel 'cookie jar' up to the fuckin' elbow. Who knows how much is retirement into the lap of luxury is now assured?)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Ever wonder how your house can have 3 cell phones, 3 cordless phones and 15 wireless accessories work together? It isn't the FCC that's helping this situation, it is manufacturers working with one another so they can all compete.
Of course, the FCC also limits the amount of power each device may trasmit. This limits the effect a single rogue device can have on the other devices around it (licesnced or not). If not for this little regulation, I could solve any interfearance problem quite easily by simply using a little bit more power than the other devices. Sure, nobody else can use their 2.4GHz devices anywhere within 100 yards of my home, but I don't have any interfearance problems anymore.
I can imagine a near-future of open bandwidth, frequency-hopping competitive technologies that walk all over each other yet don't conflict.
Not quite, it would be better to say "...competitive technologies that walk all over each other without degrading each other's singal to unacceptable levels." Keep in mind that spread-spectrum doesn't let us get around basic information theory. A certain bandwidth will allow the transmission of a certain amount of information with a certain signal to noise-ratio. As more devices make use of a particular frequency range, the signal-to-noise ratio will decrease. At some-point, the signal-to-noise ratio will decrease to the point that your receiver can no longer work reliably. Then you have to either find a different frequency range or increase the power of your signal.
A 50,000 watt radio station broadcasting at one tiny sliver of a frequency has a HUGE electric bill. The only way you could stay in business is with advertisers, and who wants to be affiliated with a company that burns everyone's communications?
If I wanted to jam your spread-spectrum signal, I don't have to transmit on every frequency all the time. All I have to do is transmit on the same frequency at the same moment as you are. If I can't predict what sequence of frequencies you're going to use, I'm probably SOL. However, if your intent for anybody to be able to receive your signal, then there must be some means to syncronise the receivers with the transmitter. If I don't like what you're broadcasting, I can use that synchronisation means to track your signal with my own. If I'm willing to spend just a little bit more than you for a more powerful transmitter, better location, etc. I can probably knock you off the air.
Without the FCC, we'd see thousands or tens of thousands of community broadcasters.
Rather than getting rid of the FCC, I think a better idea would be for the FCC to license community broadcasters (without a fee). Require applicants to demonstrate a minimum level of technical competance and provide a way to resolve any interfearance that pops up. Community broadcasters then work together and with commercial stations to ensure that nobody is interfearing with each other. Any broadcasters (community or commercial) which don't want to play nice risk having their licenses revoked.
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
- The reliable net access made available to all citizens, regardless of how rural they are.
- Unfettered net access. Phone companies would not beable to restrict access to competitors webpages/services.
- Guaranteed levels of service.
- PUC controlled pricing.
- The ability to let communities take over an ISP or local backbone if the service is not up to snuff.
There are a lot of negatives of the FCC control, but there would also be a few positives.The nature of the internet won't allow it. Plain and simple. Rather, I see the FCC keeping things as is, and continuing to regulate the telcos, who have the infrastructure that we use for the internet in place already. The telcos as they exist will fade - not out, just back - and they will simply maintain the basic infrastructure, and for those who continue to prefer traditional landline (which probably won't fade for about 20 years), will continue to provide services.
This sig no verb.
The original reason why the telcos needed to be regulated was because they were a monopoly. Now that they're not a monopoly, but are subject to healthy competition, what is the purpose in extending those regulations to the internet? Why not just stop regulating the telcos... the reason for that regulation is gone.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
actually they are quite interesting, you failed to see that because you were too busy attempting to find a symantics flaw in a vein attempt to look intelligent.
good job, you failed.
does it just suck being you?
I somewhat agree. However equating a government organization with a philosophical concept is a mistake, even negatively. It's a type mismatch. Property rights are a concept. They don't exist at all without laws, be it common law or written law. The concept has different meaning between different cultures and countries.
I prefer an bureaucratic organization of the Executive branch to determine what constitutes homesteading or interference. I can't trust the Legislature to make this determination, too many vested interests and they're technically not qualified. The judiciary is only useful to determine if interference has occured. The judiciary should not, and really can't be expected to set those limits themselves. Their job is interpretation and arbitration, not enforcement. The judicary can only get involved once the damage is done, and someone asks for redress. I prefer a proactive, preventative approach that the FCC provides. Whether the FCC, or something else, the service that is provided must be provided. The FCC should be severely limited in scope, however. It currently isn't.
btw markov_chain,
Good points. You are correct on both. I remember reading an article about this guy a couple years ago. All I got out of it was that he was really excited about it. It may have been the same article.
When I first heard about Internet telephony my first concern was that it would open the Internet up to federal regulation. I still think that will happen.
The problem is that with phone service getting so cheap anyway, the need for Internet phones isn't that great. Hell, I pay 34.99 with verizon for unlimited local and long distance. There is no great savings for me to go to an Internet phone service. I'd rather stay with POTS and dodge the federal bullet.
Probably too late now, though.
for 'pay for download,' catch-it-and-pod-it, DRM-secured, flow of content.
No wonder the broadcasters are shitting themselves.
They'll have no more control of what you see, from a very limited selection of programs, coerced or even designed to maximise their profits (and fuck the audience! Its the ads that put money in the pockets of the broadcasters, not the content.)
I have a TV that gets a very limited number of stations, a digital TV receiver that is slightly less limited and I know that cable and sattelite TV are mostly just rebroadcasters for the same crap.
If I skip over seven channels or 175 channels, clicking for content, what's the diference? There's nothing on.
The sooner we polish the broadcasters off and start negotiating, for content that we actually want to see, directly from the independent content providers, that would actualy produce content that we actually want to see, instead of having snip at, shorten, product-place, censor and otherwise screw with what they want to produce, in orded to stand a chance at getting it out there.
Once we get into controlling podcast production for major projects, we'll finally break the backs of the broadcasters.
That's why I support DRM of the FairPlay variety.
It could kill off broadcasting re-re-re-runs of Nick Knolte in '48 Hours' (It had its run. Now stop it.) or 'WhoeverTheFuckItIs' in '24 Hours.'
We wanna watch something else.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
There are 130-ish channels available on UHF and VHS.
Only because of the FCC, duh.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Can you really say that a rich guy would want to spend tens of thousand of dollars per hour in broadcasting goatse?
Let's just say you'd better hope I never win the lottery!
The right to free spech, now based on the right to private property. Oh, the wonders of ambient ideology.
This is...
O
U
T
R
A
G
E
O
U
S
!
That's its absolutely perfect the way it is *right now* and in no way should the levels or systems of control change. (Excepting, of course, IPv6)
But most of the Internet is fiber or copper wired over with the FCC has no jurisdiction. Not that that will stop them from trying. Bureaucracies expand somewhat beyond their limit of competence.
Frist braodcsat!
Answer: Yes
Why? See this documentary
A couple of points:
1) Internet is not telephony.
Phone company regulator body should not regulate an entity, which is far bigger than telephony.
Internet is also not simply "communications". Communications is a very broad term, still FCC does not cover most form of communication.
If FCC has a sight on regulating the Internet, than telephony services over the Internet should move away from the Internet.
2)Internet is not an American entity.
Phone (or other globally available services over the Net) should not be regulated simply by American regulators.
National regulators should have certain control over the "ramps" only (probably at the local, national service provider level), but certainly not globally over the Internet as a whole.
3) Phone companies are way smaller entities than the Internet.
None of the smaller entities should have a right to negatively influence a way bigger entities than themselves, including phone companies. Should the US Postal Service have the say in any aspects of email?
No way, although they might have argued that email is just an other form of the mail service. If the US Postal Service could not - rightly - influence, block email, the phone companies should not be able telephony over the Internet either. Even if it would mean the existence of two, not connected phone services for while.
Let companies that established their telephony services on the Internet at the first place, accepting the Net as it is, without demanding to change it to serve the conditions of a technically outdated delivery method compete with traditional phone companies.
If at the end traditional phone companies die out - well, that's what happened with several industries during the history. Dinosour industries did die out instead of re-shaping, regulating the new industries, based on new technologies - even if they delivered the same service.
Can you imagine horse cart owner's association regulating the trucking industry?
Can you imagine companies operating Zeppelins regulating airlines?
I can't. Neither should you imagine traditional phone company interests regulating the Net.
Signed content != DRM. It just so happens that crypto can be used for DRM.
And I do agree... I'd like to cut out the middlemen and get real content. But I'm not willing to hand over the keys to my computer and my TV to do it.
No, your vote really is wasted, not because people "think that" but because it's a mathematically certain outcome, in a a first-past-the-post electoral process.
Google, "independence of irrelevant alternatives" for instance.
Furthermore, Under FPTP, a two party system is predicted by Duverger's law.
A system of proportional representation (STV) or runoff voting (IRV) is pretty much the only answer to the spoiler effect. Under Meek's method of couting the single transferrable vote, for instance, you can arrive at legislatures whose membership mirrors the popular vote almost precisely.
Unfortunately, STV is outright illegal in some places in the US for precisely this reason: it had the effect of electing communists and black people to office.
Dont regulate to make it NOT work.
Common carrier baby. Lets regulate the infrastructure in America so that it WORKS. We NEED the internet, so lets make sure the infrastructure is there and works. Lets NOT interfere with whats ON the internet, just like we shouldn't interfere with whats happening on the phone. Like other things the internet will self regulate because of innovation (giving parents power to control the access, not the government). I think there needs to be a distinction between the internet and the infrastructure it travels upon.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
Why do I have to pay extra to keep some company who's product I don't use in business? I'd prefer to pay access charges to get my Internet connection and then have the option to pay for whatever services I want/need from whoever is best able to meet my needs.
Why should I have to pay any per-call or per-minute charges to use my Internet connection one way but not pay them to use it others? In the end it's all just IP packets flying back and forth. Should I have to pay a fee/tax just because the packets going accross the network are carrying voice?
Some regulation is needed but not this type. They should be forcing ISPs to provide non-exclusionary and fair access and not allowing artificial restrictions just because it impacts other aspects of their business negatively. Then again if enough people get ticked off about having their VoIP traffic demoted and change ISPs then maybe the trend will go away.
They are interesting? Did you fucking read them? (Or perhaps you wrote them, Mr. AC)
They would, with sufficient time, result in all laws being abolished, and the budget being reduced to $0. Now, I know there are some freaks out there who think this is a good thing, but the rest of us live in reality.
Again, the ideas are simply laughable. I challenge anyone to post a serious defense of such ridiculous ideas.
Unfortunately, that's usually just fine for people who want a smaller government. When they say "down with big government!" they really mean "down with welfare, education, and gays!"
Living in Utah I've seen some rather blatent examples of this. Recently the state government had about 100 million in budget surplus (all those tax cuts finally paid off?). What did they decide to do with it? Roads. Instead of increasing budgets to the extremely underbudgeted public schools (in elementary we were limited to the amount of posters our class could make each year due to budget constraints, teachers are limited to amount of copies they can make, and the desks they use are older than any teacher who currently teaches. Don't even get me started on the old textbook, class size, teacher salary, or student competency situations) they spent the money on upgrading surface streets. I do have to say though, we've got some pretty fine looking asphalt.
><));>
You're right, it would be totally impractical for a government agency to put spying technology on an entire line of computer products. Yeah, no need to worry about THAT ever happening.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There's absolutely no logic behind a word limit for bills. What can't be done in one bill would just be done in two, or three, or a hundred, having the exact opposite effect of what is intended.
There's nothing wrong with the current rules. They've worked for the past 200 years. What's changed is that we no longer hold our elected officials accountable. We continue to vote for politicians who put corporations ahead of people.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
dada21 doesn't believe in medical care, welfare or public benefits. He envisions a world where everything under the sun is owned by someone, all amorally haggling with each other for advantage, externalizing the damage in their transactions onto others.
/. goes on and on about, maybe not realizing just what it is they're saying.
If he believes in a military or police at all, it's to protect private property rights, but I suspect he's probably all for private policing, Snow Crash style.
It's the sickest, most dog-eat-dog thing I've ever heard in my life.
It is, by the way, the outcome of all this "libertarianism"
"Anarcho"-capitalism, feh. Bakunin is spinning in his grave, somewhere.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What you're paying for is the ability to connect to a separate long-distance carrier. This charge keeps going up, even though the cost of providing bulk transport keeps going down.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There isn't a technical reason to do so. When it comes to radio-wave spectrum, malicious user can obstruct communication and broadcasting. Internet (IP address) user is much more limited in that way. Global regulation isn't needed, there are already laws in place protecting hosts from attacks. Otherwise US doesn't represent a majority of internet (no more) and if that country tends to lock themselves out, noone else will care much.
Then they'll regulate obfuscation, like they do with ham radio.
Banks don't depend on ham radio to cut costs. My bank loves it when I use they're web interface: they don't need to pay a human to interact with me, thereby saving a bundle. Ditto for my broker. This is not possible without encryption.
The FCC won't be able to reguate encryption in any wholesale way because it would piss off the financial industy, and the financial industry has all the political influence that money can buy (which seems to be a lot, these days).
While it's *possible* that the FCC could atempt some very complicated regulation that would outlaw some encryption without annoying the financial industry, they haven't done anything in recent decades that shows that level of sophistication. I think we're safe on this front.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The FCC only has the "power to stop people from saying shit on ABC" for one reason - because people give it to them. Look at the public outcry over the whole 'wardrobe malfunction' fiasco. Many people, probably the majority of people considering our demographics, in this country won't stand for nudity or profanity on TV. Violence and mayhem are fine, just no sex or really dirty words. What I find interesting about this is that most cable channels refrain from this type of content as well - and they aren't subject to FCC regulations. Look at shows like Nip/Tuck. Way too racy to be on network TV and there's currently a public outcry against it large enough that one major advertiser has pulled it's ads. All of the exclusively cable channels could run any show they want, but the vast majority of them keep the shows very 'family safe', appearantly to appeal to their markets.
And how can there be proposals to regulate the internet and cable when none of the "justifications" for censorship exist in these mediums?
I agree with this absolutely. People have the ability to control what comes in to their homes. They aren't restricted to 3 or 4 websites, there are literally millions, go to sites that you find acceptable and leave the others alone. The Internet isn't using a public medium and isn't forcing any content on anyone, so why censor it?
Find coupons in Greeley
Are you part of the sinister international translators' union-cartel, spreading your anti-lingua franca propaganda?
Seriously, though, why the comment about "forcing the world to learn English?" In your mind, is that such a terrible imperialistic imposition? It's actually not such a bad thing. There has to be some "lingua franca" for international correspondence. No matter how multi-lingual you are, you just just can't be expected to communicate with everyone in their native tongue. Someone's language has to be the international standard, it just happens not to be French anymore. Learning English worldwide is a convenience, not a hardship.
I have never seen this post modded down this hard - and in this particular case, it was neither flamebait nor offtopic, nor even a troll. Somebody's got it in for me, or what?
Slashdot's moderation system would seem to be in need of overhaul. I'm beginning to get paranoid . . .
The point is he could if he wanted to.
The FCC regulates "open broadcasting", such as broadcast television and radio. Cable is considered exempt, as a person has to pay for cable service. This is why shows like the Dave Chappel show and the Sopranos which wouldn't pass FCC regulation do run on cable.
The internet is a paid service, just like cable, and by precendent of the FCC's "hands off" approach to cable, the same would be done with the internet. Also, keep in mind that the medium for many internet connections are done via cable, so wouldn't that add an odd double standard if the assumption were to come true?
Granted, there is no formal law prohibiting the FCC from touching cable. It's the most vocal and powerful segments of the public which moreso guide the FCC's choices in regulatory domain moreso than legislation.
I know very well about third-party candidates, thank you.
(I bookmark my AC posts and check on them every so often.
[0] I don't mean this in a deragatory way. At peak hours, there's often standing room only, and they'll usually send out another bus -- which often becomes similarly full.
The FCC only has the "power to stop people from saying shit on ABC" for one reason - because people give it to them.
:)
But the people do not have the power to subvert the Constitution. That's why it's there... to help prevent tyranny of the majority.
All of the exclusively cable channels could run any show they want, but the vast majority of them keep the shows very 'family safe', appearantly to appeal to their markets.
This may be true, and I have no problem with that. There are plenty of explicit programs on cable as well, although most require a nominal fee.
But my question still stands. Why have attempts to challenge the FCC in the courts no succeeded? What rational do these courts, whose job it is to defend the Constitution against an impulsive and tyrannical majority, use to justify something that apparently flies in the face of the document their support to uphold?
He he he, good one. Like the FCC created the ability to broadcast on certain frequencies...
Oh, wait. You were serious. That's even funnier!
Is this being done only on color printers, do you know? Are B&W lasers still safe? Might be kinda important to know before I send my rather long Manifesto to the NYT along with my first threat....
Nicely done. [nt]
As far as I can tell, it was amusing sarcasm, not flamebait. If you want to change my mind, you're going to need to back it up.
Besides, I take it you wouldn't have a problem if the government were enforcing some other-than-christian values, right? Because we all know that the occupation of Iraq is bad bad bad, but that the one of Tibet is good good good. Shooting that scumbag in Genova was bad bad bad but driving tanks over students in Tien An Men square was good good good. Down with them!
So you can go on a crazy rant about unrelated things, good for you.
What's more annoying...10,000 mosquitos or Mr. Universe?
Mr. Universe keeps stealing my girlfriends, you insensitive clod!
He he he, good one. Like the FCC created the ability to broadcast on certain frequencies...
No, the FCC keeps people from broadcasting on whichever frequency they feel like. You h ave no idea what the situation was like before they showed up.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
but america sucks.
- the canadian
SO we get rid of VOIP. Who needs it, it never worked really good anyway, and I don't my warez bandwidth eaten into by stupid old ladies getting called on Christmas for free by their grandbabies.
Axe VOIP, and the FCC can't touch the net. VOIP is about as useful as... blogging... just moer garbage on the net (and people dis wikipedia... for real... at least it is *content*)
The internet has worked far-better at generating new and fascinating content, new technologies, etc. as the anarchy it is than it would with any sort of regulation (on top of what already exists, at least).
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Look at how many ISPs are doing things like:
- Allowing spam, even having special contracts for spammers
- NATing you
- Giving you a single dynamic IP address
- Charging insane amounts for additional IPs
- Charging insane amounts for statis IPs
- Not supporting IPv6, which would eliminate the need for above insane charges
- Firewalling you, "for your own protection", without your consent
- Blocking outbound SMTP, because you might be a zombie
- Reading your email
- Monitoring your browsing habits
Depending on how much consumers allow themselves to be raped, this could only be the beginning. And when was the last time you actually read a contract, or got a lawyer to do it for you? Maybe in the future, everyone will be NATed, all traffic will be HTTP proxied or email sent and received through their servers, their competitor's sites will be blocked, and additional ads will be served on every page.
I've had almost of the above and more happen to me in certain isolated environments, such as schools. I can understand it on a high school network, where I had to get special permission to plug in my laptop. But I would gladly support the FCC regulating ISPs, if it were for good, not evil.
If they truly understand the technology, my only concern would be that the FCC, like most of government today, is probably for sale to the highest bidder, and us geeks aren't it.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I can see why other countries have such an issue with the US and the Internet, when idiotic articles like this get written.
FCC isn't a worldwide body...so it cannot regulate a worldwide entity. It could regulate US companies that use the 'net but that's it.
----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
Only because of the FCC, duh.
By only looking at his first sentence, you missed the point of dada21's post - that jamming even part of the spectrum takes a lot of power. No matter what you position on the issue, the channels (area of the spectrum) still existed before the FCC existed (which was the point of my post).
No, the FCC keeps people from broadcasting on whichever frequency they feel like. You have no idea what the situation was like before they showed up.
Yeah, I was a little crass in the way I made my point, but I really do have a good idea of what things were like before the FCC.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
For a detailed discussion of FCC regulatory authority and the Internet, see Cybertelecom www.cybertelecom.org. The most important proceeding is the Computer Inquiries. But there are also the Internet over Broadband proceedings, the VoIP proceedings, the CALEA proceedings, Erate, Children's Internet Protection Act, Can Spam Act (FCC has authority over spam to mobile phones), and well much more.