Slashdot Mirror
Spirited Exchange Over Net Neutrality
LukeCage sends us to The Register for a rabble-rousing account of a US Commerce Department official's talk at Supernova 2007. The article is headlined Bush official goes nuclear in New Neut row, and points out that the speaker, John Kneuer, is a former telecom lobbyist. To figure out what really went on in that session — whether it was a shouting match as El Reg reports — be sure to read Suw Charman's notes from the floor and Kevin Werbach's note (Werbach is the conference organizer).
One of the worst things about the last 7 years of US government has been the destruction of rational debate. Everything is now about opinion rather than about facts and its become perfectly okay to have a firm opinion, no matter how insane it is (Cheney and his "I'm not in the executive" for starters).
Its hard to see this changing in the next few years because it is actively supported by the media who much prefer a strong opinion to some dull and boring facts.
At least he didn't claim everyone against him was supporting terrorists......
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
While I understand most of your concerns, somehow I don't think consolidating power to the federal government will improve any of the things you'd like to see fixed. What makes you think it would be easier to change the problems at a federal level, rather than at a state level? Even if you only fix it in one state, that's plenty of market for people interested in setting up wireless ISPs or pulling new cable.
It's also worth noting that, while many ISPs are chartered as telcos for various reasons (like the ability to install their own DSLAMs) and therefore subject to the regulation of state utility boards, simply becoming a wireless ISP does not require such regulation in places -- it's a matter between you, the FCC, and whatever body regulates radio towers in your area (usually the city).
Since the FTC doesn't think there's a problem.
I don't get it... why do we have to wait for the telecomm industry to screw us before we can do something? What happened to "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?"
Politicians (and the telecomm lobbyists who pay their bills) like to bloviate about the "free market"; can someone please point out what they're talking about? I've been looking for competition between broadband providers for a decade now, and the only thing I've come across is phone companies complaining that cable operators are horning in.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Why take somebody else's word for it when you can watch the actual talk? Thanks to conference organizer Kevin Werbach:
k neuer-on-spectrum-policy-and-network-neutrality/
http://conversationhub.com/2007/06/27/video-john-
Summary: Kneuer makes a total idiot of himself, but remains generally calm. He is reciting Cheney-Rove talking points, not actually discussing the issue in any meaningful way. He declares American broadband policy to be a success. He also sets up a straw man argument, that any kind of network neutrality rule would be regulating the "rates, terms and conditions" of Internet access. And he simply assumes that regulating "rates, terms and conditions" (a phrase he repeats over and over) is Bad. This is to be taken on faith, and when the crowd doesn't get it his way (because they're not members of the Orthodox Chicago School of Economics Church of Untrammeled Monopoly Power), he just repeats himself.
He has to leave for the airport by the end of his talk. I wish the taxi had followed his model of deregulation. "Me and my boy Tiny here gotta inspect yer luggage. We have to take care of it, you know, so nothing happens between here and the airport. Hmmm, nice computer you have. You wouldn't want that to fall and have an accident. Let's see, that'll be $100. for safe passage. And gee, your plane leaves in an hour and a half. You do want to make that plane, right? That'll be a $50 fee for rapid delivery. And no, don't get off the taxi, because Tiny and I are going to Deliver this stuff, whether it's to you or not. We gotta pay for this nice taxi, you know. It ain't cheap maintaining a 1994 Plymouth on these streets." Yep, that's what he wants, the transport operator to take a cut of the goods. To (his term) "encourage investment".
Hurricanes? They provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to start up businesses rescuing flood victims for profit.
Local roads? Contract 'em out to private businesses. Let the incentive of tolls release entrepreneurial creativity. Hey, you could put an RFID chip in every car and charge a nickel every time drive down Main Street and a penny when you cruise down Mockingbird Lane.
Wars? Contract 'em out to Halliburton and Blackwater. (Oh, wait... we do, and look how well it works).
Because big, bureaucratic, oligopolistic, greedy megacorporations are always better at everything than big, bureaucratic, patronage-ridden government agencies. And the profit motive always automatically aligns itself perfectly with American moral values. As Engline Charlie Wilson said, "I always thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Related to this is the annoying habit of the most zealous ideologues who post their opinions on web forums to end their unsupported, often ludicrous, assertions with FACT!
It's a fact that the word zealous and zealot are insulting terms used by astroturfers and PR flacks to smear people opposed to them. It's namecalling and people dip to it when the facts are not in their favor.
In this case, the Bush administration intentended to create a "marketplace" of two vendors. Each person is supposed to be able to chose between a cable company and a phone company for broadband and market pressures will make each behave. The most obvious flaw is that the policy has failed to provide even that level of competition. It's performance is poor, even by the FCC's convoluted "broadband" collection statistics, where everyone in a zip code has access to broadband if a single person there does. The second problem is that both parties all obviously collaborating with the powerful entertainment industry, where government "protection" has also led to a catastrophic lack of competition. Finally, the position is not even philosophically sound - if you believe in market forces you will open up the public servitude and spectrum to real competition. They can't have it both ways, you either regulate for the public good or you allow the public to mind it's own business. After a century of regulation, the former monopolies have a tremendous advantage that was built at everyone's expense, and should be as carefully watched as former Soviet companies until real competition emerges. What the impartial observer finds in Bush policy that it's designed to protect select private business, a private-public cooperation favoring few at the expense of all others. There are plenty of names for that kind of thing, Fascism, cronies, but the lables don't do it justice. The contraditions and poor performance are evident on their own, despite the Bush administration's best ability to eliminate facts from the picture. The contry that invented the internet should have the best public network in the world.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday recommended against additional regulation of high-speed Internet traffic.
n ternet_neutrality_ftc
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_hi_te/i
Looks to me like the Federal Trade Commission is enforcing some lack of regulation in the name of economic competition. This may have influenced the fear shown in the Bush guy's rant. They may be right, economically-speaking, but from an information perspective it's a terrible loss if net neutrality goes.
technical writing / development
Where, precisely, did the GP suggest consolidating power to the federal government? If anything, he argued for removing power from government across the board. I believe 'State' in "...mess of State intervention..." was used in a more general sense, not to refer to the states in the US. It's any easy habit to slip into reading political materials, but it can be confusing for people in the US who aren't as interested in political theory.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Last 7 years? I'd say more like the last 30.
This statement is true, if all you've studied is the history of the U.S. for the past 30 years.
Political theater is as old as time and it's not worse now than at any time in the past. You'd do well to take a look at some of the political "cartoons" from elections around the beginning of the 19th century. Also take a look at some of the political deals that were being done.
With each new generation (in this case the post-gen-X crowd), people hit their late twenties (for some it's later) and become alarmed at what they see going on in capital hill. Why? Because they finally own houses, pay more taxes, have kids to worry about, etc. etc. They think their congress is the worst its ever been and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! It was the same in the late 60's when the draft was on (as they say, all politics is local).
A cliffs notes version of the political history of the U.S. won't show you that it's always been the same - but a thorough study of the stuff will. Personally, the only productive consequence of this new-found political outrage I see from folks is that maybe, and I mean maybe, they'll haul their asses off to the ballot box next election rather than talking about how bad things are inside the beltway, and then changing the channel to whatever staged "reality show" they're following for the time being.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume