Slashdot Mirror
Obama Picks Net Neutrality Backer As FCC Chief
Ripit writes "President Obama on Tuesday nominated Julius Genachowski as the nation's top telecommunications regulator, picking a campaign adviser who has divided his career between Washington, D.C., political jobs and working as an Internet executive.
Genachowski is likely to continue the Democratic push for more Net neutrality regulations, which are opposed by some conservatives and telecommunications providers. He was a top Obama technology adviser and aided in crafting a technology platform that supported Net neutrality rules."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the sentiment behind net neutrality. But rather than just regulating, which we know never goes wrong, why not foster a more competitive market as well? I hear that sometimes helps keep capitalism from sucking.
Haiku for you!
Subject says it all.
FSM knows, what the Internet needs is more regulation!
Being against neutrality is like being against equality. It's the internet equivalent of racism and discrimination. There are man many laws and regulations against discrimination, as there should be for net neutrality.
Thanks to recent efforts by the RIAA/MPAA, the threat now isn't just that ISP's will throttle P2P, it's that they will outright BLOCK it (and any sites related to it). Their counterpart in the UK has already succeeded in this effort with most of their ISP's, and you can bet it will happen here too soon. If this guy doesn't step in with some legal protections (and threats) for these ISP's, the days of typing www.thepiratebay.org into your browser and getting any message besides "This site has been blocked for copyright infringement" are numbered.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Drive U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan with international workers struggle on the road to socialist revolution! Forge a revolutionary workers party!
Please explain how forcing banks to make bad loans in the name of "social justice" proves that regulation keeps capitalism from destroying itself.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
While that is a particularly emotional analogy, it's far from a perfect fit. In the naive case, proponents of tiered service argue that the internet is just a bunch of roads (sorry, not pipes in this case). And while we all get to ride cars, some people are in fire engines and ambulances. Voice traffic gets to be so blessed because it can be used for 911 calls.
Implementation is, of course, another matter entirely, and I do not pretend that it will only be restricted to voice or 'necessary' services. But calling tiered service 'discriminatory' or 'racist' is fallacious and needlessly confuses the issue.
the 'hard times' would be easier to negotiate, presently?
we know you are trying hard mr. obama. continued God's speed to you sir. you can do this thing, don't get caught up in the hoopla.
...it's just a matter of time before he caves to lobbyist $$$.
.nosig
Food and drug labeling laws made companies actually research drugs, instead of just giving mothers laudanum (opium and alcohol) to treat teething infants. Very effective - they behaved like angels. Until the stuff wore off.
I just want to know; can I sue if my 911 call is delayed due to my downloading of porn while engaged in asphyxiation-heightened auto-erotica?
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Why does anyone think a Net Neutrality bill wouldn't come with a couple of hundred billion more in spending for special interests, some new regulations mandating national content filtering, maybe even taxing E-mail and so on...just sayin'..
How do you go from "plenty of democrats are opposed to net neutrality" and then turn and say "it's a very liberal agenda"?
I'm not quite sure how you are able to make that statement.
I'm a very liberal person, and I 100% support network neutrality. The idea of networks not being neutral has far reaching implications to our information structure that isn't just about piracy.
We are already seeing the "market" trying to cap internet growth. With recent caps instituted by Comcast and other cable operators, we're seeing competition (in the form of internet streaming services) being held down.
If Comcast could get away with it, they would just charge you extra money for "high bandwidth use" (internet streaming). This cap is their way of instituting this functionality without actually coming out and saying it directly.
Furthermore, what they really want to do is charge the providers of these services. So while Comcast charges its customers, and say, AT&T charges its customers. Comcast wants to charge AT&T's customers to have "priority" bandwidth on their network. And that's where the idea of "network neutrality" comes into play. That all data should be treated equally, rather than separately on tiers.
So this way, Comcast would charge netflix to deliver "priority" packets to Comcast's customers. Netflix's ISP would charge Netflix to have any access to the internet at all. Comcast would charge its users for access to the internet, and then again charge its users for "priority" access to netflix.
I'm quite possibly retarded this morning, isn't this an oxymoron (no, not me) : "Net neutrality regulations" And speaking of retarded, let's have the FNG @ the FCC have to turn around and battle fellow dem's on net neutrality. Can you say Diane Feinstein retardedness. Retarded I say. Retardingly retarded.
So its a completely BS and loaded term, like fair, that can be used to side step the actual debate?
Lets try to make intelligent arguments. Please leave these kind of arguments for the politicians.
plenty of democrats are opposed to net neutrality.
Name them.
Hollywood is opposed to net neutrality.
Proof?
It's not a liberal agenda persay, it's a really liberal agenda.
So?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
I wonder if he pays his taxes...
That was before our litigious society and the internet. Society has changed a lot since those days. I like to think that a self-regulating body would come about if we abolished the FDA. Much like the ESRB came about because they didn't want government interference - and they now are arguably stricter than the gov would have been with their ratings.
Don't get me wrong, I think plenty of people would try to circumvent the private 'FDA' association and buy non-label products... but I think they would be hard to find with such high chance of litigation. Stores wouldn't carry them. People should have the freedom to use unsafe products if they really want to. I wouldn't deny people a proven safe channel, either, though.
Additionally, with so much information at one's fingertips nowadays, there's no reason why people shouldn't be researching drugs they put into themselves. Doctors often don't know what they're talking about - they just care about getting you out of their office. It's really the pharmacists who know their shit, and even then I wouldn't trust them 100%.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
While that is very true that has nothing to do with capitalism destroying itself.
The internet is not and never has been a bunch of "roads". The internet is a series of interconnected post offices. Sure, there are "roads", the fibre and wires and cables that carry signals. But that's not what the internet is, just like the roads and the warehouses and the green vans are not what the post office is. The post office is a service that delivers post.
When I subscribe to an ISP, I am not paying to drive on their "information superhighway". I am paying them to deliver packets from to other IP addresses, and to deliver packets from other IP addresses to me. This is the internet. This is the way it has always been and this is the way it is as it scales upwards from users to ISPs, to Telcos.
Now big Telcos want to turn around to companies like Google and Twitter who are making money and charge them more for deliveries simply because they are deemed able to afford it. In addition, they also want to charge you more for delivering your packets to and from these companies sites. This is bullshit and everyone with half a brain knows that it cannot be allowed to stand.
When I pay for a stamp and post my letter, I don't expect the post office to turn around and say; "Oh, you're sending correspondence to your great uncle? Suit you sir. But I'm afraid that will cost you a bit extra owing to the fact that your great uncle is a man of some means. You'll have to buy a special stamp." Or "Hmmm sir. It seems your business made quite a lot of money last year, and management feels you can afford to pay an extra few pence for deliveries." Is this acceptable? Can anyone justify that?
And don't give me bullshit about "international stamps, etc". That's not what this is about. True, bandwidth corresponds to charging by weight, but on the internet, there are no foreign countries. Every computer is a local one. If you want to separate sites in Europe from one in the States then you may as well just shut the whole network down altogether, because you will have irreparably broken it.
Can anyone give one morsel of justification for why delivering my packets to google.com should cost more or less than delivering to slashdot.org? Do I give a flying fiddlers what kind of "tubes" were used to send them? Do I weep for the packets waiting milliseconds in the queue while mine is processed? Do I contemplate the strain on networks caused by shameless charlatans like myself who actually use the bandwidth they paid for? No, because the whole point of a post office is that I don't have to care how you get my letter there, I just pay you to do it.
Packets are packets are packets. IPs are IPS are IPs. Data is Data is Data. There are no tubes, no roads, no cars, no tiers, no premium IPs or domain names. Net neutrality is the only sane answer.
May the Maths Be with you!
I was wondering what you all thought of this idea and what the feasibility of it would be:
If I can see my neighbor's wireless hub, and he can see the next neighbor's down the street, and he can see the next neighbor's further down, aren't we getting to the point where we can begin decentralizing the internet from the handful of ISPs? IIRC, the early internet was basically a system of interconnected switches. By interconnecting our own personal wireless hubs, we can begin recreating the internet at a grassroots level. While not perfectly protected from government interference, it helps isolate it more. International communications would be compromised, but perhaps someone could come up with a similar solution therefor. Its not perfect yet, as not everyone is within range of their neighbor's system, so we would still need regional wireless providers in rural areas.
But it seems that we're almost getting to a point where, if we approach it correctly, we can completely get around ISPs or at least drastically reduce their control over OUR internet.
Feinstein, Biden, Boucher just to name a few.
Proof: DRM
So, everyone is making it seem like it's only republicans against Net Neutrality.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I didn't know, and never thought, that there were so many conservatives on slashdot.
And yes, that means that when it comes gov regulation, and fiscal policy, you are not a democrat, but a republican.
Enjoy.
You wouldn't STEAL a post office!
Lets take a recent example. How did Mortgage backed investments get so overvalued and rated at AAA status, even though by all accounts they were overvalued and overrated. Oh yeah, it's because the rating agency was unregulated and was Paid based on the rating they gave the investment.
Thanks, you just killed my neice and nephew who are allergic to peanuts. If the peanut recall that spread for weeks and weeks taught us anything, it's that we aren't buying directly from the local guy anymore. Suppliers barely know where their supplies come from, or where their suppliers get their supplies from. Also, without a regulatory agency that is impartial and looking out for the consumer, cost is the only thing that rules. A milk company could use melamine for months, paying off the "self-regulators" until the "good milk" suppliers are driven out of business, because their milk costs more. Then we are left with a cheap substitute for milk that is harmful. I'm simplifying here, but when it comes to Food, I really really appreciate an outside group verifying that my food isn't full of harmful substances.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
for one.
hey guys i made this (game/movie/mod/linux distro/you get the point) but i dont have a lot of money to host it myself so i am going to torrent it so people can download it. oh wait i cant because torrenting is for criminal people that dont pay greedy ceo's their money(wich they dont have a shortage off).
bit torrent shoudnt be blocked piracy is not ruining artist i know artist that are still around because of piracy and that exist because of it. hell i know artist that give world tours and they give interviews on website wich host their pirated content why because that's how they get people to know them.
perhaps you should write less, and read more
Putting in an avowed "net neutrality" advocate is a meaningless gesture. To a politician, "net neutrality" means whatever he wants it to mean. People who hear it assume that the politico agrees with them about what it means.
Just like the rest of Obama's empty rhetoric.
"Federal Reserve Board data show that:
*More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
*Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
*Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
It doesn't take much poking around to see some serious holes poked in the idea that the CRA caused this mess:
http://www.ptmortgage.com/blog/2008/10/01/pointing-fingers-was-it-cra-and-minority-lending-that-caused-the-mortgage-mess/
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=73500
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html
But, let's not get those pesky facts get in the way, shall we?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The carriers can "compete" using their own money. Not with public funds.
You say "carriers" like it's a plural thing.
Oh, you must have meant me, myself, and I...
Respectfully,
- Verizon
I'm disgusted by the blurb for this one. Since it's supposed to be news, not editorial, can we do away with the slant? That's one of the reasons I gave up on mainstream media long ago, most of them write editorial commentary and call it news.
"...opposed by some conservatives and telecommunications providers..."
And supported by plenty of conservatives as well.
There's NO such thing as an unregulated bank. There's no industry as regulated as banking is, not even food. The federal government has tried regulating banks to provide the american dream since Hoover and the more they meddle the more recessions we get.
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
REGULATION = RULES AND LAWS to ensure laws that there happens a FREE MARKET.
deregulation = madoff, stanford, AIG, Merril Lynch et al
Read radical news here
Economy and business are social aspects of life. In ANY social aspect of life, there happens to be exploiters, scammers, bastards, evildoers, crooks, idiots, morons, criminals, every type of person who would harm others AND THE SYSTEM even at the cost of breaking down the system entirely. AND they wouldnt care.
just as you need a criminal law and justice system to ensure your neighborhood doesnt become wild west, you also need laws, rules and regulations for EVERY social aspect of life, INCLUDING BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS, so that you can minimize scam, fraud, exploitation and the chances of system breaking down.
we are in knee deep shit today, but, as he himself put it, alan greenspan was not able to understand that there is a human factor in economics too. 'i dont understand why corporations didnt regulate themselves'. he said. CROOKERY, GREED, BASTARDINESS, IRRESPONSIBILITY. WHAT you were not able to understand, that ceos, executives and board members were humans too ?
and here we are in a global depression. and we have madoff. stanford. god knows how many more.
this example should always be in your mind. you need rules and laws and regulations stemming from them so that the concept of a free market CAN ACTUALLY EXIST.
same goes for internet. maybe more so.
Read radical news here
Mortgages aren't even a close comparison to personal health. When the government has been essentially subsidizing the money business, this was kind of expected.
And no, I didn't kill your niece and nephew. They or their parents killed them for feeding them peanuts.
Anyhow, I think safety nets are fine, government or otherwise, as long as personal freedom is provided for. Victor down the street should be able to make drugs, peanut butter sandwiches, or drug-laden peanut butter sandwiches, if he wants to, and I should be able to buy them, without fear of Big Brother stepping in.
And please don't tell me that the FDA is perfect and not corrupt. At least if a private firm screwed up, they would be held accountable and put out of business, whereas the FDA gets, what, a slap on the wrist?
There IS an argument for stopping people from hurting themselves IF we have a socialized health care system, but you can't make everything that's dangerous illegal.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
The problem in the US is that even when there is "no" regulation things still are regulated in a way that cripples competition. There is obviously something wrong in this country making it exceedingly difficult for new companies to enter the market and next to impossible for one to start from the ground up.
Why is it that in Asia there are literally dozens of internet providers of all types? These companies all fighting for consumer dollars ensures cheap prices and less of an opportunity for abuse. I can't say I always always impressed with the quality of service out there. I switched from cable to DSL because cable was such complete and utter crap. But, what was important is that it was cheap and I had plenty of competitors to choose from.
The US market seems to be one where only the biggest companies can afford to survive. And who's fault is this? The government, thanks to inappropriate and excessive regulation and heavy taxes. The problem isn't just how the government does or does not regulate the internet itself but how they regulate every other aspect of business.
Maybe the government should examine what put us in this situation rather than trying to cram yet another bit of regulation that will just cause further problems.
But then, we have a government that seems to make decisions based on ideology and not what could be truly best for the nation. And more troubling, they seem intent on securing their own power base.
How did Mortgage backed investments get so overvalued and rated at AAA status, even though by all accounts they were overvalued and overrated. Oh yeah, it's because the rating agency was unregulated and was Paid based on the rating they gave the investment.
Wrong. They were rated at AAA status due to misplaced faith in and misuse of Li's formula, due to splitting payments up based on time (earliest payments being the safest, or AAA), and due to a general failure of the people dealing in them to understand the relationship of mortgages in aggregate. A foreclosure in one case was calculated as being irrelevant to all the other mortgages when that is not the case. You say "by all accounts" they were overvalued when in reality there were very few voices saying that until the meltdown had already begun. Payment based on ratings did play a part, as you say, but it was not the primary cause.
For a counterexample of a private regulating body whose work is universally respected and valued, see Consumer Reports.
People should have the freedom to use unsafe products if they really want to.
Thanks, you just killed my neice and nephew who are allergic to peanuts. If the peanut recall that spread for weeks and weeks taught us anything, it's that we aren't buying directly from the local guy anymore.
Your niece and nephew have known allergies and they (or their caregivers) are responsible for avoiding allergens. Think a little farther here: if a company decides not to report that it may contain peanut residue it is opening itself up to a costly lawsuit and damage to its reputation, as the GP stated. "Unsafe products" probably refers more to medicines that FDA has not approved, which are currently very hard to get, even if you're a terminal patient looking at a possible but untested cure. People should have the freedom to use unsafe products if they really want to.
Suppliers barely know where their supplies come from, or where their suppliers get their supplies from.
This IMO contributes far more to the problem than any lack of regulation. Along with that anonymity comes a lack of empathy and concern. Luckily, the local food movement is gaining mindshare and it will soon be more economically sound anyway due to rising oil prices.
Also, without a regulatory agency that is impartial and looking out for the consumer, cost is the only thing that rules. A milk company could use melamine for months, paying off the "self-regulators" until the "good milk" suppliers are driven out of business, because their milk costs more.
Again, Consumer Reports is a great example of an impartial regulatory agency untainted by the problems you mention. Such bodies are unlikely to take bribes because once people get sick, the milk will be inspected, the bribes will come to light, and the agency will die. If you think that government agencies are immune to such behavior then you are deluding yourself. The only difference is that the government agency is "reformed" instead of removed. /AC, already modded.
They or their parents killed them for feeding them peanuts
Well, actually, they were feeding them applesauce, but to save $0.05 in water and $0.52 in labor, the company quit washing down the chopping blades between ingredients, and they got the first batch of applesauce after the last batch of peanut butter.
if Comcast owns 100% of your city.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
But Obama is evil and hates the internet! All those things he told us during his campaign were lies! I'm not going to believe this and instead am going to point out every other example that he is in the pocket of the telcos and the media companies.
There's NO such thing as an unregulated bank.
Of course not, because things that were unregulated were not banks.
GMAC wasn't a "bank" and wasn't regulated as such (until it scrambled and clawed its way to bankhood out of sheer desperation). Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were not "banks"... until they really really wanted to be.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I'll pick an obviously unconstitutional act: the suspension of Habeas Corpus. It's right there, Article 1 Section 9. Only in cases of rebellion or invasion. (You'll have to join me in the reasonable assumption that the Founders didn't mean "when we invade another country.")
Should I also join you in the assumption that a rebellion or invasion didn't take place on 2001-09-11?
Telcos have long claimed non-responsibility for content because they're just providing the information and that they have no way of filtering it. It seems, then, that to promote tiered service breaks down this legal defense. After all, if they can pick and choose between types of traffic based on origin, it erodes their ability to say they can't filter on other criteria.
People should have the freedom to use unsafe products if they really want to.
And what if people dont know that these products are unsafe? I have the option of buying tens of thousands of different products at the store every day, should I have research each and every one of them before buying just to be sure it wont kill me or my family? There needs to be some reasonable expectation of safety here.
Additionally, with so much information at one's fingertips nowadays, there's no reason why people shouldn't be researching drugs they put into themselves.
How about an elderly patient with dementia or alzheimer's, living in a nursing home? Or a patient who gets rushed to the ER with a stroke or heart-attack, gets stabilized (with meds administered by IV), and then gets transferred to an ICU or med/surg unit with a list of newly prescribed meds?
You can't just assume everyone is in a position to say "Wait, let me research those meds you're prescribing before I take them."
We already have net Neutrality, it is call common carrier. Just put ISP in that bracket and be done with it.
Allow me to clarify. Under my plan, things would be no different, except that doctors may be able to prescribe better drugs/remedies that are not necessarily 'approved'. Think about herbal remedies that nobody wants to invest in to get through the 'FDA' approval process, and experimental drugs that are years and many clinical studies away from market.
Whether in this proposed system or in the current system, if you or a loved one is prescribed medications, you have a responsibility to perform minimal research into the effects of the prescribed drug. There are plenty of dangerous drugs being prescribed to people who cannot take them, due to conflicting prescriptions, allergies, or lifestyle conflicts.
If you're in a nursing home, they know everything about you already, so complications are less probable. If you're in the ER, they stick to safe medications until they have information about your medical history. Not to mention, anything you're given in the ER is short-term and thus has less potential for long-term adverse effects.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Well, you know products are relatively safe if they have a label right now, right? What's the difference with having "UL certified" symbol?
Like I said, with the dissemination of information and litigious nature of our society, it is pretty unlikely that widespread complications would happen under such a proposal. At least no more than the current system.
I don't necessarily see why government=safe and non-government=unsafe. Plenty of things have gotten past the FDA. There are plenty of reasons why a privatized FDA would be just as effective - the least of which that if you kill your customers then you have no customers.
I have a reasonable expectation of safety from plenty of products in my life without a government seal of approval. I can see why people are a bit touchy about food and drugs, but let's be a little open minded about it, shall we?
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
"People should have the freedom to use unsafe products if they really want to."
Thanks, you just killed my neice and nephew who are allergic to peanuts.
My sympathies as I have a nephew with severe food allergies. Thankfully, he is not a total dumbfuck like yourself and comes from better genestock. Your retarded relatives are free to eat all the peanuts they want. Captcha: stupid - it's like it knows you.
Again, Consumer Reports is a great example of an impartial regulatory agency untainted by the problems you mention.
Consumer Reports isn't paid by manufacturers to rate their products, and manufacturers don't shop around to find a magazine that will give them the rating they want.
In short: your example of CR is, at best, specious.