Stimulus Bill Contains Net Neutrality Provision

You and your two party system by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 01:36 · 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...

Re:You and your two party system by frieko · 2009-01-17 04:06 · 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.

Sounds Great by drinkypoo · 2009-01-17 01:39 · 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.'"

Open Access by DemoLiter3 · 2009-01-17 01:53 · Score: 3, Funny

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

Re:open access by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 05:59 · 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

feeling better already by Ruvim · 2009-01-17 02:01 · Score: 5, Funny

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

A Cherry on Top by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

open access by bartok · 2009-01-17 02:05 · 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.

Eh.. by wanax · 2009-01-17 02:06 · 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.

Re:Eh.. by hairyfeet · 2009-01-17 04:42 · 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.
Re:Eh.. by JesseMcDonald · 2009-01-17 08:31 · 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

Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 02:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 04:07 · 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!
Re:Sweet! by sumdumass · 2009-01-17 07:42 · 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.

Slaves by DrugCheese · 2009-01-17 02:10 · 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*

Re:Slaves by Arthur+Grumbine · 2009-01-17 05:27 · 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.
Re:Slaves by Scrameustache · 2009-01-17 07:16 · 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...
Re:Slaves by sumdumass · 2009-01-17 08:20 · 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.

moment of hope by xzvf · 2009-01-17 03:02 · 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.

Nice kneejerk reaction. by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-01-17 03:27 · 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!

Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by Brandybuck · 2009-01-17 08:19 · 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!
Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by Cjstone · 2009-01-17 09:49 · 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.
Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. by Brandybuck · 2009-01-17 13:21 · 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!

A matter of definitions by ericferris · 2009-01-17 04:41 · 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/

Neutrality=good, This bill=bad by MobyDisk · 2009-01-17 06:31 · 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.

Slope by Meor · 2009-01-17 07:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Spending orgy by Brandybuck · 2009-01-17 07:34 · 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!

Well-intentioned but... by onemorechip · 2009-01-17 08:00 · 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!

Is local politics any different? by jesterzog · 2009-01-17 10:58 · 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?

Re:Is local politics any different? by alzoron · 2009-01-17 13:10 · 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.

Slashdot Mirror

Stimulus Bill Contains Net Neutrality Provision

30 of 129 comments (clear)