Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stimulus Bill Contains Net Neutrality Provision

Posted by Soulskill on from the art-of-vagueness-and-obfuscation dept.

visible.frylock writes "Cnet is reporting that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PDF), currently in the House Appropriations Committee, contains Net Neutrality provisions: 'The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. ... The catch is that the federal largesse comes with Net neutrality strings attached. ... recipients must operate broadband and high-speed wireless networks on an "open access basis." The FCC, soon to be under Democratic control, is charged with deciding what that means. Congress didn't see fit to include a definition.' The broadband grants appear to begin in SEC. 3101 (pg. 49) of the PDF."

83 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. You and your two party system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First of all, I do not live in America (in neither meaning of the word) so I might be a bit off on details but...

    This "FCC will soon be under democratic control" boggles me. In this context I assume it means that it will be led by the democrats (instead of democracic as in having the public vote on all issues).

    But that doesn't really tell anything. There are people on both sides of the net neutrality issue who have different opinions of (foreign) policy, economy, Iraq situation, etc... I, having not followed USA inner politcs very closely, would think that net neutrality is hardly among biggest dividers between democrats and republicans.

    So does this tell anything about it or is it relevant at all? I am not saying that it isn't but honestly wondering if it is...

    I know that here we could tell a lot based on will some issue like this be controlled by the Green party, the Left party, the Pirate Party, the Socialist Democrats, our major right wing party, another right wing party concentrating mostly on countryside issues, or any else of the political parties...

    1. Re:You and your two party system by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This "FCC will soon be under democratic control" boggles me. In this context I assume it means that it will be led by the democrats (instead of democracic as in having the public vote on all issues).

      Yes, that is it precisely. The Republicans have appointed one corrupt bastard after another, perhaps the most corrupt of which was Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, who helped run the travesty that was the Gulf War. So long, and thanks for all the DPU.

      Being a particularly pessimistic sarcast who has lived in the USA all his life my impression of the difference between the two parties is that the democrats are the tax-and-spend party, and the republicans are the tax-cut-and-spend party. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide which position is more fatally flawed.

      Regardless, this is a bill about spending money on internet access for the currently disenfranchised, and the democrats like to spend money on looking like they care about such things, so perhaps the combination means that it will happen and it will actually produce some tangible benefit to citizens.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:You and your two party system by frieko · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're correct, the correct phrase is 'under Democrat control'. 'under Democratic control' is just as wrong as 'under Republic control'

      In any case, in the American system there are for all practical purposes only two parties. There are things they both agree on (increasing spending) and things that are strictly divided along party lines (reproductive rights), and practically nothing that's a gray area.

      If that sounds absurd to you, then now you know why we all just vote for the tallest candidate and go back to drinking beer.

    3. Re:You and your two party system by bruins01 · · Score: 1

      No, the correct phrase is "under Democratic control." "Democrat" is a noun, not an adjective. It is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party, as Bush and rather immature Republicans like to say. The GP confused "Democratic" as it appears in the summary with "democratic" which is a different word.

    4. Re:You and your two party system by frieko · · Score: 1

      whoops, forgot the

    5. Re:You and your two party system by bruins01 · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I forgot to turn on my sense of humor. Sorry about that.

  2. Sounds Great by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in Lake county, California and this would be a fantastic environment for WiMax. We have a volcano (dormant... heh heh) in the middle of the county upon which we already have a radio shack, and I don't mean the store. I helped my pop insulate it when I was a kid. We have a capture-and-rebroadcast system here called LCTV, and I believe Edge (now part of the evil empire) has a tower up there as well (maybe AT&T has some of their own stuff up there too.) There is good road access, so it would be relatively trivial to truck a small shipping container and some building materials up there, and there is far more than sufficient exposure for combo solar/wind power to run the system. If this bill goes through before I move out of here, I may have to start tapping some connections and see if I can finally get a working last mile solution up in here.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Open Access by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't get it... How operating all wireless networks in unencrypted, unauthenticated mode is supposed to provide Net Neutrality?

    1. Re:open access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      it is to be decided by the FCC lead, which is about to be that pro net neutrality Obama has already selected.

      http://i.gizmodo.com/5130203/obamas-fcc-chairman-pick-revealed-net-neutrality-lovin-techie

    2. Re:Open Access by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      It's so funny when Americans bring up NAFTA as the end of our civilization. It's funny because if you talk to Canadians or Mexicans, they believe the US got the better end of that stick. Perhaps the rhetoric Rush, Fox, and the rest of the Ministry of Truth feeds you everyday doesn't actually jibe with reality?

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
  4. feeling better already by Ruvim · · Score: 5, Funny

    so, we are finally getting someone in government who does not just measure Net in truckloads.

  5. A Cherry on Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    of a crap sandwich still doesn't change the fact that it's a crap sandwich.

    1. Re:A Cherry on Top by orielbean · · Score: 1

      It is when you want to pass broad legislation. One man's undigested corn kernel is another man's cherry. :-P

    2. Re:A Cherry on Top by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      But if you dip it in chocolate it becomes cuisine.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    3. Re:A Cherry on Top by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Would it help if we replaced it by a giant douche?

  6. open access by bartok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if it's not defined what open access means, how can anyone say that it means net neutrality? It could mean anything and that usually means the definition will be dependant on lobying dollars.

  7. Eh.. by wanax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My basic problem with methods like this, is that it continues to reward the expedient, eg. short term thinking. While I realize that the new administration has to pick their battles, they will not cause long term 'change' unless they change incentives. And changing incentives first and foremost means changing the balance in compensation 'per customer' between short and long term company interests.

    The only way, that I am aware, to kick start this in an area of natural monopoly... (not to mention massive subsidies which have been exploited), is to either form a government competitor, or enforce line leasing agreements so that the barrier to entrance is reduced.

    1. Re:Eh.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Internet is not a natural monopoly. It's a government-created monopoly. If government moved out of the way companies would be free to run 4 or 5 fiber optic lines in parallel, so that a customer could choose Verizon or AT&T or Sprint or Comcast.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Eh.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh please! I'm as anti government as anybody, but do you honestly think they will EVER run lines out to those in rural areas? Not a chance, simply because it isn't cost effective. My mother has lived in her home since 1980. The house was a block and a half from where the cable and DSL ended. Guess how far it is today? That's right! It is STILL a block and a half away!

      Jobs like this are pretty much what governments are for. if we wouldn't have had the rural electric and water provisions in the 19030's we would still have rural folks reading by candle light and crapping in outhouses. There is NO way a corporation is going to spend the major expense of running fiber to rural areas, simply because it would never bring them a return on investment. So if we want to see nationwide broadband we pretty much HAVE to get the government in on it. Now once those lines are done and we have most of the country blanketed in fiber, THEN we should lease the lines to multiple competitors to break up the natural monopolies. And I bet if we did that we would not only see speed increases but a lot fairer prices than we get now locked into "our way or the highway" monopolies.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Eh.. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is, the reason no company is going to run fiber out to rural areas (assuming your predictions to be correct) is that those in the rural areas don't value high-speed Internet access enough to make it cost-effective. It doesn't matter who actually runs the fiber, government or some private company -- either way it's a waste of resources. The difference is that only governments are capable of wasting other people's resources in this way.

      Private companies are fundamentally incapable of providing services people aren't willing to pay for over the long term, which ensures that the outcome is as close to optimal as anyone knows how to get: no resource is wasted producing a less-demanded good when some other good is known to be in higher demand. The only thing governments can do that private companies can't is force people to accept less-than-optimum solutions in support of some arbitrary political goal.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re:Eh.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhh....there are nearly 4 dozen houses on that 5 miles stretch that my mom lives on, and I'm willing to be you could get 95% to take cable, especially with the bundle of cable+phone+Internet. The simple fact is almost no corporation anymore thinks outside the quarterly earnings report. Which means they ain't spending a dime that they don't have to. in fact in the 29 years that I have lived here I don't think they have moved outwards 5 feet in ANY direction, no matter how many houses there are. I know that the next town over which was a measly 5 miles away and have over 1000 houses had to run municipal lines simply because nobody would serve them.

      But why would they turn down that money you say? Why would they give up long term customers like that, especially with 2 year contracts being the norm? Simple. They are making money hand over fist NOW without having to spend a dime on the lines they dropped nearly 20 years ago, so why cut into your immediate profits for anything that isn't a guaranteed boatload of cash? Especially when it will take a few years to turn a profit? And finally let us not forget the big telecos HATE to let anyone else play in their sandbox. if they decide that all you are going to get is dialup then you WILL take dialup(which they charge nearly $50 for here after "fees") and LIKE it. True story-

      A buddy of mine I went to HS with named Chuck was working in a PC shop about 3 1/2-4 miles out of town. All they could get there was really shitty 15k dialup and it was hurting the business. Chuck talked to the 30-50 house owners in the area and found out they all had dialup and hated it too. So he talked the boss into shelling out the big bucks to have a T-1 ran out there which they would then lease bandwidth off of. He sat up an old server with plenty of freeware like OO.o and ran Windows updates off of WSUS, and while it certainly wasn't cable and they were just making a little over the cost of the line, everybody was happy. Then the teleco got wind of it when all their customers started dropping their $50 dialup and got pissed. They changed the TOS to add some "number of connected machines" BS and jacked up the price 400%. Chuck tried find someone else to sell them service but no luck. So now the building lies empty, since they had to move to someplace with better bandwidth, and the T-1 lies in a field unused while all those houses are STILL stuck on shitty $50 16k dialup.

      The moral of the story is this: Big telecos only compete with other big telecos for the "choice customers" in easy to service areas or in places where the company they bought had already ran lines. They do NOT like startups playing in their little sandbox. And since they own access to the backbone you can take it and like it. If they only offer dialup-tough shit. We just had a WISP startup a few years back trying to fill the void. Capitalism at work, right? If there are folks willing to pay SOMEBODY will fill the void, right? Wrong. The teleco has been raising their access price to the backbone almost monthly. They started out at 2Mbs for $50 after install, then 756Kbps for $75, and now it is over $300 to set up and $90 a month for 256Kbps. When I talked to them and asked why the changes the owner said to me they are getting gouged on the backbone and nobody else will sell to them because there is only one game in town when it comes to backbone access. So in all likelihood they will be out of business by summer and those folks will be back to shitty dialup.

      So never forget there is a REASON we bust monopolies. Because it doesn't take long for the sole business of the monopoly to become making sure that there is NO competition to their business. Just look at what MSFT did to companies like Netscape. Just as if we left road to private businesses everything that wasn't in a big city would in all likelihood be dirt, so is leaving broadband access to the corporations leaving us with huge chunks of the country with no access. And with telecommuting and with Internet sales giving both SOHOs and SMB the chance to com

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Eh.. by shiftless · · Score: 1

      The thing is, the reason no company is going to run fiber out to rural areas (assuming your predictions to be correct) is that those in the rural areas don't value high-speed Internet access enough to make it cost-effective.

      Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. I used to live in one of those rural areas. The fiber lines ended about a 1/4 mile straight shot from my driveway, and there was a box there needing very little equipment to enable DSL. The cable company ended about a mile down the road. Neither company had any interest in providing broadband to myself or my neighbors. EVERYONE out there wanted high speed access, including several businesses, but nobody would take the minimal effort to provide it.

      It doesn't matter who actually runs the fiber, government or some private company -- either way it's a waste of resources. The difference is that only governments are capable of wasting other people's resources in this way.

      It is not a "waste of resources", and neither was the rural electrification act in the 1930s. How incredibly short-sighted of you. The Internet is the future and high speed Internet access should be just as ubiquitous as power and water.

    6. Re:Eh.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I have no objections if the government wants to lay down the cables for rural communities, but then the actually administration should go to a 4 or 5 companies competing with one another. A monopoly, even a government one, is not the solution. I believe in Pro-Choice and giving as much power to the consumer as possible.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Eh.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      (1) If you only lived 1/2 a mile away, and the upgrade to DSL would have been simple, you could have offered to do the upgrade yourself using your own money. This is what my parents did when they need electricity. The company did the work, but they paid the installation bill.

      (2) Many environmentalists think providing electricity, phone, and other services to rural homes are bad for the environment, because they encourage sprawl. They argue that people such as yourself should move closer to the city or town, if you want city services, rather than ruin pristine farmland or forest.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:Eh.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      The government doesn't need to force the company to share their lines. It only needs to step out of the way, so that if somebody else wants to lay lines in parallel, they can.

      Take my area: The government gave the exclusive right to Comcast. If the government simply repealed that exclusivity, then other companies like AT&T or Time-Warner or Cox could run parallel lines.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Eh.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Then the teleco got wind of it when all their customers started dropping their $50 dialup and got pissed. They changed the TOS to add some "number of connected machines" BS and jacked up the price 400%.

      He should have sued them in court under Antitrust legislation.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    10. Re:Eh.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Couldn't afford it. Both Chuck and the WISP have talked to lawyers. They were told that they would be looking at 10 years+ of lawyer fees while it wound its way through the courts. That is why monopolies are so damned powerful in this country. Do you HONESTLY think a little startup can afford to fight the law teams of someone like AT&T? With all the gouging they are barely keeping the lights on as is. And don't forget for these mega corps SLAPPs are pretty much SOP. Chuck's lawyer told him if he had the most perfect case in the world it wouldn't matter, because they would file motion after motion after motion and it would take years just to get TO trial, and then years more for appeals, and that frankly both Chuck AND his lawyer would go bankrupt trying to keep up. He said the research fees alone would probably be well over 100K just for the trial. They simply couldn't afford it.

      This is why the lines need to be public and leased. I even went to the Cableco a few years back and offered to pay for the lines MYSELF just to get mom hooked up. The PHB said "But then we would have to pay to certify and connect and maintain it." The secretary said "Don't bother. They are making money hand over fist and it isn't costing them a dime. These cheap skinflints won't replace ANYTHING until it explodes or literally falls apart. I live 2 miles out of town the other way and they won't run to my neighborhood either."

      That is why we will HAVE to move to nationwide government built broadband, or fall further and further behind the rest of the planet. Our corporations don't look at long term profits anymore. They strictly look at the stock price and quarterly earnings report. And the large capital expense of laying new lines will hurt quarterly earnings so the simply won't do it. It doesn't matter if it will bring them long term growth and multi year customers and new markets. I have talked to those living and working and all the nearby town and over and over I hear the same story. No new lines, no expansions in decades, just a bunch of PHBs cashing fat checks and letting their networks get slower and slower.

      Believe me, if we could get big business to do it I would be happy to see it. But we have had cable here since 79, and DSL since, what 97? And neither have moved a single foot in any direction since. Like I said you can see the cable and DSL junctions from my mother's back porch but she will NEVER have anything other than dialup if the government doesn't run it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:Eh.. by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      Why are you impressed? Lots of places had digital lines in the 80's.

      Back then they were marketed under different terms.

      Certainly, you have heard of ISDN? Would you care to guess what the 'D' in there stands for?

    12. Re:Eh.. by ejasons · · Score: 1

      Certainly, you have heard of ISDN? Would you care to guess what the 'D' in there stands for?

      It doesn't stand for DSL...

    13. Re:Eh.. by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the contribution. The point of the conversation was the infrastructure of the phone company not being extended into rural areas. The fact that a digital line in the 80s was a block away 30 years ago, and a digital line in 2009 is STILL a block away is what is being discussed.

      Do you make a living telling people what they didnt say, or do you do it for free out of the kindness of your heart? I can only imagine the fun you would have been in a discussion about the rural electrification project;
      "Electricity? Well, its not water!"

      And just to point out your incredibly obtuse ignorance, here is how DSL is defined;
      Digital subscriber line technology was originally implemented as part of the ISDN specification

    14. Re:Eh.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I am glad to see I am not the only one that big telecos have screwed. I got together with the neighbors(who by the last man wanted cable) and we sat down and figured what we could each afford to pay and ended up offering 15 GRAND! to the cableco to run the line. Remember this is less than a 5 mile stretch. According to a buddy that worked there at the time with the price of the cable at the time we would have just about paid for the line ourselves, so all they had to pay was the labor(and since the guys were on salary they were paying them anyway). Can you guess what their answer was? They said "Not enough profit potential" but they would "consider" doing it for $75 grand and not a penny less. According to my friend at that price they would have made a FAT profit on the job before they had even flipped the switch.

      This is EXACTLY why this country is sucking the big wet titty in broadband penetration, and why our corporations in general are getting their asses kicked by foreign competitors. At the time there were 37 households on that less than 5 mile strip, and nearly everyone wanted the full package including triple bundle plus the movie channels. At the time that was $146. We had all also agreed to sign up to a 5 year contract to ensure that they would make their money as well as the 15K up front for the line. So let us say it cost them 30K to run it. 30k-15k=15k, and then add the 37 houses at full package and with 5 year contracts, which is 5402 a month times 5 years =$324,120. So in 3 MONTHS they would be in the black and in the 5 years that they had GUARANTEED customers they would have made $309,120 after subtracting the remaining $15k. But because we couldn't give them a nice profit THAT QUARTER my mom and the now 45+ households on that road are still stuck on dialup.

      Our corporations just don't think beyond the quarter anymore. They think more like corporate raiders than corporate owners. All they want is to "get it fast, get it now, and get the hell out". But infrastructure is going to have upfront costs. Imagine what our country would be like if it wasn't for the rural electrification and water acts of the 1930's. Would we REALLY prefer that our fellow Americans read by candlelight and shit in outhouses? And as for the poster that said it causes "urban sprawl" and isn't "environmentally friendly" I have to call BS. Ever here of telecommuting? Or online shopping? Try that with today's "Web 2.0" heavy multimedia pages on 30k dialup.

      We need a broadband infrastructure, just as we needed electricity and roads in the '30s. Once it is built we can then make the corporations compete for the customers and lower ALL our broadband bills. Wouldn't you like to have choice in your broadband? I know I would. The caps here are crazy at 25Gb for DSL and 36Gb for cable. With national broadband we ALL benefit by breaking up monopolies and forcing true competition. And isn't that what we ALL want? And again I apologize for the length of my posts. Some concepts just don't fit in a soundbite, at least not when it is written by me. Sorry.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    15. Re:Eh.. by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Most underrated post of the month.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  8. Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I for one certainly can't imagine ANY possible negatives of more government involvement in the Internet.

    1. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, fascinating isn't it... 2 days ago Slashdotters couldn't wait to get US government off the internet either for wiretapping via AT&T or via ICANN...

      But now, hey... yeah the US government should dictate economic models on the internet and shut up you knee jerk libertarian!

    2. Re:Sweet! by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see that you got a lot of negative comments but you couldn't be more on spot.

      The problem they don't see is that the government won't just say "give people what they paid for" they will start saying things like if you do this, you have to do that or you can do this and so on. What happens is instead of the industry competing amongst itself and benefiting us as a whole, you will end up with minimum guidlines that have to be met which is place a higher bar for competition as well as set a bar so that improvements won't need to be made. The internet companies who have a defacto monopoly because of infrastructure and right of ways in place due to other monopolistic activities like Phone or Cable businesses will find that as long as they meet the minimum guidlines, everything will be fine.

      The contrasting hand in this is something like Micheal Powel's position. His position was that it didn't matter about net neutrality as long as the customer got what they paid for. In other words, if you purchased a 3 meg connection, the ISP couldn't do anything to the traffic to limit information below that 3 meg speed but Google or Yahoo or whoever could contract with your ISP to deliver their streaming content or whatever at 6 meg speeds if it was possible.

      This approach essentially would allow internet companies to pay to increase your bandwidth past what you have paid to receive but would not allow your connection to be slowed below the speeds your paying for based on any company's ability or willingness to pay you ISP. In contrast with net neutrality as being purpose by many, it would be impossible for an arrangement like that to be made. Some have actually demonized Powell for that position. But the government having control of the internet will Shepard in regulations like the EU's firewall and Australia's attempts at net filtering to keep the "bad stuff" from reaching the home. It's simply inevitable no matter who is in charge of the government as we are seeing fairly progressive government's around the world who claim to honor free speech do right in front of us.

      Government controls outside of ensuring that your getting what you paid for is going to cause problems. Ensuing that your not getting ripped of by your provider doesn't even need government to control the internet or direct FCC involvement. It should already be an implied right of fair commerce and subject to laws already on the books. If Cox gives you 6 meg access then denies that because YouTube didn't pay them, you the customer are being cheated not YouTube. It's no different then buying a car by mail to find out that it's a moped or a wheel barrel with a lawnmower engine that doesn't look anything like the picture.

  9. Slaves by DrugCheese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. ...

    How about "undeserved" areas? Just give the money to the people. They worked, it's their money. Instead they slave 1/3 of their life away to retire without anything while corporations buy cheats in the game of capitalism by the way of government.+

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:Slaves by Rue+C+Koegel · · Score: 1, Informative

      i'm telling you, all we need to do is find people in need who are willing and capable of starting non-profit co-operatives to fill whatever need they have, be it clean automobiles or cheap internet services, and they'll take care of the rest.

      our economy isn't going to be saved by giving handouts to the already excessively rich, so they can focus more money into their pockets.

      our economy will get better when joe shmoe has more money to put in his bank account because he's not blowing all his dough on over priced crap he doesn't need because he's being overwhelmed by stressful advertising--stress is bad for america.

      even the most decent middle class stores pocket around 20% off each item sold (how else do you think they make billions of dollars a year, it's not in pennies, it's in dimes).

      anybody ever been to a 70% off sale after Xmas? they're still making a profit off each sale!

      i work for an merchandise inventory service... i see in numbers. and i don't like what i see.

      --
      DON'T CAPITALIZE! CO-OPERATE! AND FREE EVERYTHING!
    2. Re:Slaves by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How dare you live in an area that the corporations do not estimate to be profitable! No modern telecommunications for you! You don't deserve them!

      If I decide to go buy property and build a house out in northern Alaska, dozens of miles from anyone else, is it the government's job to provide me with all the same infrastructure as everywhere else?! I don't understand how I "deserve" anything from the government besides reasonable protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and other constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights. If I choose to live outside the "bubbles" of infrastructure that they've contributed to, I don't see how my choices obligate, or should obligate, the government (federal or state).

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:Slaves by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 1

      Gonna be awfully hard to drive out to that remote place without a road. Just sayin'.

      --
      ~ C.
    4. Re:Slaves by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How dare you live in an area that the corporations do not estimate to be profitable! No modern telecommunications for you! You don't deserve them!

      If I decide to go buy property and build a house out in northern Alaska, dozens of miles from anyone else, is it the government's job to provide me with all the same infrastructure as everywhere else?! [...] If I choose to live outside the "bubbles" of infrastructure that they've contributed to

      It's not about reaching survivalist weirdos going out of their way to keep out of the grid, it's about reaching already established communities that have been overlooked because of a perceived lack of profitability.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:Slaves by Meor · · Score: 1

      So it's invested in what? A fund that's 11 trillion in cash debt? Quite possibly 40 trillion in balance sheet debt? Remember this post through your lifetime. I hope some day it helps you come to realization.

    6. Re:Slaves by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most people have to build their own roads.

      Where I live right now, the road was at one time a cattle path leading to a neighbors land. Cattle have a habit of following relatively level land. Anyways, before my state was even a state, the cattle path became part of a wagon trail which was later turned into a road. There are 5 other roads around me that started off as nothing but driveways to homes or barns put up in choice spots. This was back in the late 1800's after my state was a state. Families multiplies and land split up and the drive ways needed to be improved for more people to have access to it. When the county mapped the place and marked the roads, they stayed. Some are still private roads and some are actual government roads. But they became government roads because the people wanted to collectivly take care of them not because the only way they would be built was by the government.

      When a developer builds, at least in my area, they put in the sewage and water lines as well as the roads going to the development. This costs gets hidden inside the cost of the new homes or buildings. But it's the same principle, the private person/company makes the road and then sells it to the home owners who collectively give control to the city/county governments who collect taxes to maintain them. The US government is charged with creating post roads. The Interstate highways system was justified in that same light even though it was more for military and defense. State's might differ from place to place but most likely the guy is going to have to build his own road just like it has been done in the past. At some times down the road, the state or city or county might take over if enough other people use it or move around him. They might even incorporate and create a political subdivision of their own and be their own local government in charge of caring for the roads. In my state, all you need is 6 square miles of land to be a city. Villages require even less but you need more then 150 residents and no more then 5000 resident (something like that. It's been a while since I looked) within 2 square miles.

      So yea, he would simple be doing it the old fashioned way instead of the new "waiting for government to do everything" way.

    7. Re:Slaves by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it will be. There are a number of "populated" areas of Alaska which can only be reached by plane, after all.

      Yes, the same argument applies to roads, and every other kind of "infrastructure" you can imagine. There is no value to be had in building infrastructure (or anything else) which people don't demand enough to pay for voluntarily.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  10. moment of hope by xzvf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people are hopeful that the right thing will be done. They will be disappointed, unless someone puts out a louder voice than the telecoms.

  11. Copypasta? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    This is the third or fourth time I've seen this troll. At what point can it just be added to the lameness filter and be done with it?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  12. Nice kneejerk reaction. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry, I get a little tired of hearing this time and time again. "Oh noes! It's bigger guberment!" is exactly as stupid a slogan as "Think of the children!" and "Terr'rists!"

    Take a moment and actually think about this.

    Which do you trust more with this decision? An oligopoly (not a free market) of corrupt businesses, whose best interests run directly counter to yours? Or a government, dysfunctional as it may be, that you at least have some hand in electing and keeping in check?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      As of right now, we, the programmers, are pretty much in control. You're asking us to choose between forfeiting that control to one corrupt group, or forfeiting it to another.

      I say fuck that. It's our internet.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    2. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I notice that you used the qualification that the oligopolies were not in a free market. That is a false dichotomy! You're asking us to choose between dysfunctional government with unspecified business firms versus dysfunctional government with corrupt oligarchies.

      In terms of a relatively free market, I would prefer the corrupt oligopolies more than functional and efficient governments.

      You say I have a hand in electing government, but I do not. In terms of the Federal government, I only have a hand in electing the president, two senators and congressman. There are tens of thousands of Federal government members remaining. Also my vote was only one among over a hundred million. My vote does not count. I've got a better chance of winning the lottery than having my vote make a difference.

      No matter what I do, whether my four candidates win or lose, the Federal Government still has direct power over me.

      Now let's look at the oligarchy. If I don't like Microsoft I can go with Apple. Or use Linux or FreeBSD or OpenOffice or Firefox or any number of alternatives. Even with Microsoft at 90% of the market, nothing stops me from using the alternative. Ditto for Sprint versus Verizon versus Horizon etc, etc. Even if there is a true monopoly or oligarchy with no competitors, I still have the option of foregoing. If I don't like any of the auto-manufacturers, I can choose a bicycle instead. Or choose to walk. Our "votes" in the marketplace *DO* count! Our influence on the companies may be negligable, but it's still far more than in elections. Prices themselves come about through consumer preferences. If a price is too high, consumers will buy less. Even in the case of monopolies.

      No, markets are not perfect, and none ever will be. I'm still not going to get everything I want. Duh! But unlike the political system, at least I have choices.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by Cjstone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're not in control of the actual network infrastructure, which is what Net Neutrality is all about. The whole point of the Net Neutrality debate is that the companies that are in control of the wires are starting to discriminate against companies that aren't. Remember the the ISP (I think it was comcast,) that was filtering VoIP providers that competed with their own offerings? Without net neutrality, that kind of thing will only become more common place. As it is now, there are very few incentives for an ISP to not filter low to no cost options that compete with their own offerings, and many incentives for them to do just that.

    4. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Unnhh... you are arguing about Operating Systems, not access controllers. Where I live the choice is between DSL, Cable, and dial-up. DSL and Cable each have one provider. At least for DSL the phone company still leases the lines to other ISPs. I don't know about cable. But this is only because the government forced them to so lease the lines. (They took 6 months to connect my DSL line. This may have been incompetence, as it was several years ago, but it's worth noticing that my business was with an ISP that wasn't the phone company.)

      I don't particularly trust the government, but this is a natural monopoly. I think that each city & town should run it's own wires, preferably by contracting with local businesses, but if no local business is capable, through an outside vendor, or even, if it has the technical competence, doing it themselves. Then they should make the lines available to ISPs.

      This leaves the rural population. This is clearly the job of the state or county governments. Wireless seems a quite reasonable way for them to go to service this population.

      I don't think the Feds should be involved, except by making it clear what the proper way to proceed is.

      The "traditional" means of providing internet access is clearly a bad choice. And long term contracts are also clearly dysfunctional. 5 years renewable depending on good performance is the best choice.

      Notice, however, that if "cell system" becomes the dominant mode of access, then my proposal becomes irrelevant. (Not that it'll ever happen anyway.) But the cell system doesn't depend on easements, so there is no natural monopoly. I don't know whether it still requires governmental intervention to yield coverage of the rural population, however. I suspect that it does. In this case, however, perhaps the intervention could be in the form of allowing higher broadcast power in rural areas. I don't know if that would work, but it seems plausible. Or perhaps allowing the use of a different band of frequencies. (A ham's 2-meter rig can occasionally cover 60 miles at fairly low power if there aren't obstructions in the way. And that's with a "rubber duck" antenna.) So say a hex or triangular grid with a cell tower loosely every 30 miles, and on top of hills where possible. That should be feasible and provide "pretty good" coverage. One would never be much more than 15 miles from a tower. Valleys would still be dead spots, but I live in a city, and I'm in a "pretty dead" spot.

      It's better to avoid natural monopolies than to regulate them, but if they can't be avoided (wired connections within cities) then they should be reduced in size, and in such cases government operation is reasonable. But it should be as local as possible. Cities are a reasonable level.

      And whether you can avoid the natural monopolies or not, the matter of how to provide services to people who are more than normally expensive to provide services to is present. In such cases the government should ensure that services are provided. And the services provided should be of good quality. Contracting such services out has a dubious history. The contracted party is generally under severe pressure to cut costs, and under very little pressure to provide good service. (Why am I reminded of HMOs? When I was a military dependent I got better care than I do now from a rather expensive health insurance policy. [Though I understand that currently dependents get much worse care than I experienced in the 1950's.])

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      As of right now, we, the programmers, are pretty much in control.

      Erm, no. A bunch of MBAs with little to no understanding of programming, or of Internet culture, are in control.

      Or are you under the delusion that programmers run Comcast?

      I say fuck that, at least the government has some premise of accountability. Corporations only have to be accountable to their stockholders.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    6. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Now let's look at the oligarchy. If I don't like Microsoft I can go with Apple. Or use Linux or FreeBSD or OpenOffice or Firefox or any number of alternatives.

      And if you don't like Comcast, you can pack up and move, or rediscover the wonderful world of dialup.

      It's called a physical monopoly -- or, oligopoly. Except this taxation is without representation.

      How is that better than the government? A chance of winning the lottery is better than no chance at all. There's also the chance of organizing other people to vote the way you do -- which, again, is a better chance than trying to organize other people to move to an area where there's an ISP which works in their favor.

      Even if there is a true monopoly or oligarchy with no competitors, I still have the option of foregoing.

      As in, no Internet at all? It doesn't seem likely that this will always be an option.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    7. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unnhh... you are arguing about Operating Systems, not access controllers.

      I used operating systems (lower case) as an example. I could have used automobiles, frozen dinners or toasters instead. Or service providers. Regardless of market seector used, the philosophical principles remain the same.

      Where I live the choice is between DSL, Cable, and dial-up. DSL and Cable each have one provider.

      I notice that you still have three choices. They may be "natural" monopolies, but they still provide you 300% more choices than with the centralized local government monopoly you desire. Even discounting the dialup, the DSL and cable companies are still competing with each other for your business.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    8. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's called a "natural monopoly". The argument with Comcast is that it's impossible for more than one cable company to exist, therefore Comcast is a natural monopoly. This ignores the fact that the local government gave a monopoly to Comcast in the first place.

      Why can't there be more than one set of cables under our streets? There's no reason local governments have to pick and choose which ones get to lay cable, because more than one line can be laid in the same pipe. The problem of dug up streets won't exist if you make the companies pay for the work (duh) and limit such diggings to only once a year (or longer).

      But even with government created monopolies, I find in my town I still have a choice of two broadband providers: DSL and Cable. (Actually I have a choice in DSL as well, because a couple other providers are leasing lines from the DSL monopolist, and making up for the higher price with better service).

      As in, no Internet at all It doesn't seem likely that this will always be an option.

      There is always an alternative. If cable was your only broadband option, and the monopolist decided to charge you $1000 a month, would you still be on cable? Hell no! You will find an alternative! Maybe it's sharing a connection with your block through wifi, splitting the cost ten ways. Maybe you'll get DS3 for the same price, and share it with your neighbors (in effect competing with the monopolist). There are always alternatives, and if the government does not forbid it, competitors will move in to provide them when the monopolist forgets that he is still at the mercy of the market.

      But there are no alternatives when the government is in charge of your access. You pays your internet taxes or you don't get internet. That's why I still prefer a corrupt business operating in a free market than the most wise and beneficent government.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    9. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Why can't there be more than one set of cables under our streets?

      Why should there be?

      more than one line can be laid in the same pipe.

      And more than one pipe can be laid. As long as we're being inefficient, why have a single pipe? Who pays for it?

      I find in my town I still have a choice of two broadband providers: DSL and Cable.

      Wow! Two! Really?!

      What do you do when both of them screw you over? That's what I meant by "oligopoly".

      If cable was your only broadband option, and the monopolist decided to charge you $1000 a month, would you still be on cable?

      I'd rather not find out... but wait, when did this become about money?

      I'd especially rather not find out when it's still some $50/mo, but not to the Internet, rather to some subset of a shadow of the former Internet, because they've throttled and censored it to hell. And when that happens, will you be able to find ten neighbors who care enough to spend twice as much for a shared DS3, versus their current "Internet" which "works just fine"?

      I suppose you could move to a community where people do have better Internet. How will you find such a community? D'you suppose that community paid the premium to be on the right tier of Internet for you to see?

      You pays your internet taxes or you don't get internet.

      Which is not what's being suggested, here. Government regulation, not purely government-provided Internet.

      This is not the only area where this is the case. See: Food industries, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, etc etc... And the opposite is also true; the Post Office is largely beat by free-market alternatives.

      I don't disagree that I would rather have a free-market provider, when that is possible. But in this case, regulation absolutely is required, or there will be no free market, and there will be no free (as in speech) Internet.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    10. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by far1h8 · · Score: 1

      You say I have a hand in electing government, but I do not. In terms of the Federal government, I only have a hand in electing the president, two senators and congressman. There are tens of thousands of Federal government members remaining. Also my vote was only one among over a hundred million. My vote does not count. I've got a better chance of winning the lottery than having my vote make a difference.

      Only as soon as you begin to take that attitude and stop voting does your vote no longer count. And once you stop voting other people's votes start counting more and if enough people don't vote then the government becomes an oligarchy.

    11. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Running 4 or 5 cables gives the customer power. I believe in giving power to the customer, rather than limiting them to just one choice. 4 or 5 companies servicing each home is better than just 1.

      As for the pipe, there's no need to run more pipe because there's plenty of room to increase the current load from 1 TV/interent cable to 5 cables.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      As for the pipe, there's no need to run more pipe

      Suppose we're talking about a different kind of pipe. Maybe a water pipe.

      After all, we do pay for our water usage -- why not have many different water pipes, to give power to the consumers?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  13. Re:This bill is wrong by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    `Communist` said the ex-capitalist and he nationalized a few banks. More businesses to follow.

  14. A matter of definitions by ericferris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are foreseeable problems with this Net Neutrality provision:

    • The definition of what Neutrality is will be decided by FCC bureaucrats and by courts. Both are notoriously clueless about networking and the Internet. Yet we will rely upon their uninformed, harried rulings to decide how to run critical infrastructure. What can possibly go wrong?
    • I am blacklisting whole IP subnets in my mail server. Am I going to be sued by notorious spammers for preventing them from reaching my users? I am not neutral to spammers, that's for sure.
    • If I pay for some costly network infrastructure, can any two-bit business come along and use if for free?
    • I want to bar kiddie porn from my workplace. I am blacklisting the most notorious XXX web sites. Am I going to be sued by Young Flesh, Inc?

    You see where this can go? Fuzzy regulations are often abused, this one will be no exception.

    Good going, guys.

    --
    Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
  15. Neutrality=good, This bill=bad by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Network neutrality is a big deal and should not be stuffed into a poorly thought-out overly-vague rider on a more important bill.

    I don't like it when senators put their own personal agenda into unrelated bills. I'll stick with that principle even when the personal agenda is one I like. Bills should deal with one thing only, and I think that senators who put riders onto bills are doing something immoral -- even when the rider is one I approve of.

    1. Re:Neutrality=good, This bill=bad by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      The thing about spending bills like this one is that money has a tendency to link together rhetoric in crazy ways.
      And 80% of the "logic" that goes on in Washington nowadays is appealing to someone's fear. Even the ones who think that somehow, somewhere, a duck is watching.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  16. It only takes two things to make it neutral by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

    The first is for the FCC to actually enforce the 'common carrier' rules that ALL the ISP's claim to operate in compliance with, but which in fact they do as they damned well please simply because congress has pulled the manpower and legal help teeth to enforce them with.

    What do I mean? Simple really.

    As an example, verizon blocks outbound to the customer port 80 requests. This forces the customer who wants to have a web page, to put it on verizon's servers, where they can then load it up with all the commercials they can sell in the form of shrinking the page to make room for the other crap. This port 80 blockage is a VERY blatant violation of the common carrier rules, yet it has existed for at least 5 years that I know of, and the commission has done nothing about it. I think mainly because most of the sheeple wouldn't have any idea how to go about setting it up on their own machines anyway. So there is little public outcry, unlike the bandwidth controlling that seems to have ComCast in moderately warm water.

    Because losing the common carrier status has an effect on the taxation and license status, these operators will kill to keep it, and there is no way in hell you'll ever get a tech support drone to confirm that they are doing it.

    Enforcing this is the biggest step the commission could take to ensuring net neutrality, but since the likes of the big businesses involved are also heavy contributors to both parties, I really don't expect to see any action unless and until there is a highly visible public outcry against those practices.

    Oh, and expect your bandwidth bill to rise to pay for the infrastructure required to handle that level of bandwidth in both directions. I'd guess about 2x with no other factors thrown in. Throw in the build out costs, and even with gubment support, it will go up, cuz the gubment has yet to pay the going rate to pay for the mandates they've passed yet, like the no child left behind act, which may have gotten 5% of what it would take to do it right. Yes, that is an admirable idea, but it should be accompanied by similar mandates for the truly gifted child, and there is 2 of those for every un-educatable one out there, being held back because the other kids can't begin to keep up with them. So they get bored and say screw it, putting their smarts to use in nefarious schemes that will cause them to clash with the law all their lives in many cases.

    Damn, I love a chance to get a good rant in...

    --
    Cheers, Gene
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
      soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
    -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
    Yield to Temptation ... it may not pass your way again.
                                    -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

    1. Re:It only takes two things to make it neutral by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The first is for the FCC to actually enforce the 'common carrier' rules that ALL the ISP's claim to operate in compliance with, but which in fact they do as they damned well please simply because congress has pulled the manpower and legal help teeth to enforce them with.

      Actually, this is sort of a wrong statement. ISP aren't "common carriers". They do have common carrier protections built into other laws specifically addressing them but they aren't common carriers.

      I know, it gets confusing when they have the protections but not the status or in cased like Time Warner or Verison, they deliver unregulated content over regulated lines. I think it was either the DMCA or the Communications deregulation acts that changed this. Time Warner (I think, it could have been Covad) actually won a lawsuit to deny access to their cable internet by other ISP's because the internet wasn't regulated by common carrier laws like the actual cable was. This sort of added insult to injury because it's obvious that without their common carrier regulated business, their internet businesses simply wouldn't exist.

      I sort of agree with the rest of what your saying to except that you can specify a port other then 80 in the DNS at most of the dynamic DNS services which will redirect the the http request from their server directly to yours and with your port restrictions. So that you "can" evade Verizon's server trap if your willing to jump through hoops and all. Also, you can purchase the commercial service instead and not have any restrictions at all. When I took my Verizon service out, I specifically asked about running a server (recorded the conversation too) and was told I would be able to without an issue but after the set it up and I got the DSL pack, I notices a terms of use thing that said I wasn't able to. I called them back and they said no problem, that was wrong (again with recording it). I haven't tried to run a web server through, just mail here with no problems from Verizon. Outside of that, the entire sentiment seems to be on target. Even without the Common carrier status, the internet isn't something that a company arbitrarily restricts and still calls it the internet. It is their version of the internet but it isn't the classically defined internet. I'm wondering if simply calling the internet access and then restricting that access is enough to trigger some consumer fraud claims or not. I suppose that not enough people know enough about it that any challenge with probably be fruitless.

    2. Re:It only takes two things to make it neutral by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      The point of that is, verizon IS a common carrier, at least for all other services, like the telephone, also delivered over exactly the same twisted pair copper that delivers my dsl. How can that then be separated?

      As for the web server I just picked a port that wasn't in use according to /etc/services file, then fwd that port in my router to the normal port and this machine and used it. Dyndns supplies a free registration for quasi-stable addresses, so the net cost to me is zip. And I have my own page, free of anything I don't want on it. Since its Adsl, the access speed from outside sucks but that is what I'm paying for.

      Figuratively speaking, I get to toot my own horn without any hecklers, other than those to whom I pass out the address. And no, there isn't any porn on it, but my interests as an old fart could best be considered 'eclectic', I'm somewhat of a JOAT. :)

      --
      Cheers, Gene
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
        soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
      -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
      With reasonable men I will reason;
      with humane men I will plead;
      but to tyrants I will give no quarter.
                                      -- William Lloyd Garrison

    3. Re:It only takes two things to make it neutral by Holi · · Score: 1

      Wow since you based your entire rant on a misconception it really was hard to read. ISP's are not common carriers, or do that want to be. They are labeled ESPs (Enhanced Service Providers). This gives them certain protections but does not limit them from choosing what services they offer. The owners of the actual lines are common carriers but the ISPs, the ones offering services on those lines, are not.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:It only takes two things to make it neutral by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The point of that is, verizon IS a common carrier, at least for all other services, like the telephone, also delivered over exactly the same twisted pair copper that delivers my dsl. How can that then be separated?

      The FCC as well as the supreme court has said that the internet is an information service and exempt from common carrier status even when provided over lines transferring common carrier services. I know, it doesn't sound right or seem to fit together but it's the way it is.

      As for the web server I just picked a port that wasn't in use according to /etc/services file, then fwd that port in my router to the normal port and this machine and used it. Dyndns supplies a free registration for quasi-stable addresses, so the net cost to me is zip. And I have my own page, free of anything I don't want on it. Since its Adsl, the access speed from outside sucks but that is what I'm paying for.

      Well, if your using port 80 on your router and Verizon is intercepting port 80 requests, then it would have the same effect as putting the server directly onto the internet. It's probably because the DNS service your using is redirecting something.

      But as long as you have a solution that works for you, good. I too am stuck on Verizon, it's my only choice where I live and there are trees in the way of satellite reception so even that is out of the question. I hate some of the things Verizon does, I have had bad experiences with them at other places but the local crew here seems to impress me. I agree that we shouldn't have to jump through hoops to do things that the internet implies as normal. At least there was a work around and you weren't stuck.

    5. Re:It only takes two things to make it neutral by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      Chuckle, and which is what counts at the end of the day. It works. As far as being directly ON the net, that would be terminally stupid, and if this were a windows box I would not own it more than 5 minutes, but its not a windows box... I kinda like it that way.

      --
      Cheers, Gene
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
        soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
      -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
      Peace, n.:
                      In international affairs, a period of cheating between two
                      periods of fighting.
                                      -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

    6. Re:It only takes two things to make it neutral by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't know about terminally stupid.

      I have several servers directly on the internet at various locations. Some that use a back office behind the firewalls too. Of course these aren't desktops, they are minimal installs like FreeBSD or Slackware Linux, and in a few cases windows server (2003 and 2008) with the software firewall in use and every port but the ones being used closed down. There is potential for problems, I do get hacking attempts quite often but nowadays I use a script that blocks the IPs of the attempts at the router when they are detected so I guess you can say I have a quasi firewall in front of them. But I'm also not running them as a home system or desktop computer either. The windows Systems are artifacts from third part consultants but they are surprisingly stable and safe (secure) too as long as you keep updated and the firewall on.

      But hey, you go with what you know. If your not comfortable in placing a server directly onto the internet, then don't. Especially if your needs are being met. I have to manage a few web servers, VPN systems, and a application server for a remote site to small to justify a server of their own. Of course we set up a VPN connection to the application server to minimize risks

  17. Slope by Meor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Government enforced "openness" will allow government controlled "decency regulation."

  18. Spending orgy by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The US Government is on a spending orgy of bailouts, stimuli and old fashioned pork. All pretenses of fiscal conservativism, from either political party, have vanished. We're into several trillion in promised payouts. The spending is accelerating, even as revenues are falling due to the crisis. There is simply no financial restraint left in government anymore. It wouldn't be so bad if the incoming president said he was going to pull back, but from all indications he thinks we aren't spending fast enough.

    But geeks don't care, they're getting their net neutrality pony, and the rest of the world could burn for all they care.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    1. Re:Spending orgy by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Financial restraint is about making sure your income matches your expenses.
      Ever since the Stupid British showed in 17th century that you could issue treasury certificates and borrow from the public, finance has changed.
      Plus, the external controls of a Gold standard being absent, this was expected.
      Oh, Geeks are needed even if Goths sack Rome. Someone got to keep the computers running.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:Spending orgy by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      It's not only a matter of our government spending far more than it has when it's already in astonishingly deep debt. The federal government is also spending far outside its actual legal authority, as laid out in the Constitution. There is nothing in there justifying Broadband Net access as a federal spending item. Nor health care, nor pensions... I'm hoping that some good will come of the ongoing economic troubles in that people will start to realize their politicians are not just irresponsible but criminal.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
  19. Only mentions wireless, need fiber by rberger · · Score: 1

    Just glanced at the bill and could only find wireless as the only tech available for grants. This is ridiculous as what we need is fiber deployments. Wireless is not going to deliver tomorrows broadband, just the lousy "broadband" of a few Mbps at the max.

    Don't believe the WiMax hype. A cell which can only cover a mile or two (if you are lucky) has to share the 10's of MBps that a WiMax base station sector.

    If we want to stop the US's descent to an Internet 3rd world country, we need fiber to the home and office.

  20. Well-intentioned but... by onemorechip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if the restrictions only apply to those service providers accepting the funding, you get "net neutrality for some". The goal should be "net neutrality for all".

    --
    But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
  21. Someday by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Congress will pass a bill that has one purpose and has no earmarks.

  22. Is local politics any different? by jesterzog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know you're being satirical (probably justified), but are more local politics, such as at the state level, any less absurd? Overseas we don't hear about much other than US federal politics.

    I've never lived in the US, but it seems like a huge government compared with many, and in many ways I can appreciate why there are so many people who don't bother voting. Especially when I compare it with what I'm used to in New Zealand, where the government represents 4 million people, and I guess that's more similar on scale to the population of a typical US state. Personally I think it works okay (opinions vary) and you're never really too far away from other voters or hearing about issues that other people think are important.

    If I had a vote for a government of about 300+ million people, though, I'm not sure I could be bothered because it'd just be too hard to fully comprehend how I fitted in with everyone else. My own vote would be irrelevant because it'd be completely outweighed by people voting because of issues I hadn't even heard of, let alone understood. From the outside, it sounds as if the EU's moving in that direction, too, with a government that's extensive enough to be good for the economy, but too huge for many people to care about or perceive themselves as having the slightest bit of significance in its operation.

    Correct me if necessary, but my understanding was that the USA was formed with the understanding that the federal government was always supposed to be fairly minimalist, with individual states having a lot of independence to choose how to govern themselves. How and when did this change? Was it all during WW2 or something like that, or has it been more of a slippery slope?

    1. Re:Is local politics any different? by alzoron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct me if necessary, but my understanding was that the USA was formed with the understanding that the federal government was always supposed to be fairly minimalist, with individual states having a lot of independence to choose how to govern themselves. How and when did this change? Was it all during WW2 or something like that, or has it been more of a slippery slope?

      I'd have to say it all started going downhill with John Adams. The Naturalization Act, Alien Act, Alien Enemies Act, and the Sedition Act. What a wonderful start we got off too, couldn't even make it 10 years before the corruption started.

  23. No definition means flexibility by jopsen · · Score: 1

    One, or IMO the only, strong argument that opponents of net neutrality have is that net neutrality will prevent backbone innovation...
    but if we have a loosely defined definition of open access, backbone innovation will still be possible within the limit of what is reasonable.

  24. Last-Mile access doesn't work that way now by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Obviously the backbones of the Internet aren't monopoly, and haven't been since we got the NSFnet out of the way, so I assume you're talking about the last-mile access.

    Last-mile access not only isn't a natural monopoly, it isn't a government monopoly either. Sure, telephone wires and cable TV in most places in the US were both installed by monopolies, but that's all changed - the FCC's required that cities allow overbuilding of cable TV for over a decade, and while most copper telephone wires are still owned by the telcos, they're generally required by PUCs to not only rent them to other DSLAM providers like Covad and/or to support virtual circuit connections from other ISPs using the telco's DSLAMs.

    Cable TV franchises were usually originally given out to small companies wanting to provide television, and while *your* town may have decided who got them based on visionary thinking about the future of telecommunications, most towns let them tear up the streets in return for deals about whose brother-in-law got the paving contract and how many channels the town council could extort for public access or broadcasting their council meetings. But that was the 70s-80s, and by the late 90s, most of the little guys had been bought up by national carriers like Comcast or Time-Warner, who then had to modernize the really ugly mess of local infrastructure. But the FCC mandated that competition be legalized, and companies like RCN actually installed additional cable systems in some places.

    The real monopolies are in radio spectrum - the FCC allowed a few small high-interference not-very-useful bands for unlicensed low-power use, so that's of course where the most creativity and competition have taken place (2.4 and 5GHz.) They've also given oligopoly-style licenses to cellular companies, which haven't been as creative because they've had to pay way too much for the spectrum on the expectation of getting it out of their customers' wallets later. And there's a whole lot of spectrum given to TV stations, or kept for themselves, or licensed for other applications (e.g. 38GHz point-to-point microwave.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  25. "Underserved" Area by microbee · · Score: 1

    For a moment I read it as "Undeserved". I was like, WTF?

  26. That's not what you think it is... by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    That isn't chocolate either.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  27. Minor detail, but...... by Mountain+Splash · · Score: 1

    How much will it cost users for regular access if and once installed..? Have yet to see that minor little detail mentioned whenever the topic arises...

    --
    I comment, therefore I am (procrastinating elsewhere)..