Slashdot Mirror
FCC Declares Intention To Enforce Net Neutrality
Unequivocal writes "The FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, told Congress today that the 'Federal Communications Commission plans to keep the Internet free of increased user fees based on heavy Web traffic and slow downloads. ...Genachowski... told The Hill that his agency will support "net neutrality" and go after anyone who violates its tenets. "One thing I would say so that there is no confusion out there is that this FCC will support net neutrality and will enforce any violation of net neutrality principles," Genachowski said when asked what he could do in his position to keep the Internet fair, free and open to all Americans. The statement by Genachowski comes as the commission remains locked in litigation with Comcast. The cable provider is appealing a court decision by challenging the FCC's authority to penalize the company for limiting Web traffic to its consumers.' It looks like the good guys are winning, unless the appeals court rules against the FCC."
I did not see this one coming....
Here I am, here I remain.
Assuming they aren't already. You know Rogers and the other providers are going to be watching very closely how this develops.
If "Net Neutrality"= "treat traffic the same regardless of source and destination", then GOOD.
If "Net Neutrality"= "treat traffic the same regardless of protocol", then BAD.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I'd be happier if they vowed to enforce the principles, rather than their violation.
What you don't realize is that by "neutrality" they mean politically; all Republican websites will be required to forward half the incoming traffic to liberal pages.
They'll swap that when (if) the Republicans come back to power.
You know, nothing good will come of this, and whenever the government try anything they just fuck it up and or it should just be left to the market!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The FCC, working for the rights of the consumer and not the rights of the big corporations?
Is it April 1st?
of course the government would never have had any part in creating these massive corporate horrors like say local monopolies would they?... /sarcasm
prosecute fraud [as an example, unlimited isn't] and end the local monopolies and most of the problem should go away. the actions of these companies wouldn't likely be tolerated were there any choice for the internet user in the matter.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Dare we flash back to the FCC under the previous administration and the complaints from /. democrats about how going after Comcast wasn't enough and that the commissioners were in the telco's pockets?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Well, to be fair this does seem like the kind of thing that should be established in, you know, a law or act or something. Not just one commission saying, "We've decided this is illegal now and will enforce it". I'd much rather see this on the books as a semi-permanent change, rather than something that will be easily reversed when the political winds change direction.
Every so often, a foundational concept comes along that could affect development for decades or centuries hence. The concept of "network neutrality" is one of these.
Just imagine the future possibilities:
On one hand, you have a future where you can never be sure what's really "out there", where there are huge swaths of information that you simply can't access, not because you or the information owner have any disagreement, but because some third party that you don't even know has determined that you shouldn't or couldn't see it. In this world, many sites are slowed to the point of unusability simply because your carrier doesn't want to have to compete with them when they offer a similar service. Quality suffers due to the lack of open competition.
On the other extreme, we have a future in which the Internet consists of the "world of ends" so charmingly envisioned by Doc Searls and David Weinberger. In this world, every information provider competes on fairly level turf with everybody else. Services that are genuinely better are allowed to win out solely on their merits, and not on their competitive associations. Quality of service continues to progress at a lightning pace, friction for improvements is low, so the best man truly does win.
Some people would say this is esoteric, that it's not about the "real world". But these people miss the fact that in the world of the future, the Internet will be the primary means of communication around the world. Already we see whole industries being consumed and integrated into the Internet. I no longer have cable, no television antenna sits on my roof, since Hulu + Netflix does everything I ever asked of my satellite dish and then some. I no longer have a phone line, since Vonage lets me do what I wish, anywhere I like for less. I basically don't send letters anymore, Email does the job faster, better, and cheaper. It's easier for me to do my banking electronically than it is to drive downtown to the nearest bank branch.
The world of the future is the Internet. And it's up to us, our generation, to see that this gorgeous technology is established with social norms and laws that allow us to use it to its maximum potential. This is our time. SAY YES TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY, AS LOUDLY AND OFTEN AS YOU CAN.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Of course it is. You must have missed the memo. See here.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
I'd be happier if they vowed to enforce the principles, rather than their violation.
What I'd like to know is on what grounds do they think they can mandate how traffic is managed on ISP networks. There are no net neutrality laws. "Principle" means jack squat legally. I don't think there are even any internal FCC regulations on the books regarding NN, let alone laws passed by Congress. This leaves a huge hole for ISP's to take the FCC to court for what is essentially a privately delivered service.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The FCC's Network Neutrality Principles are:
Neither of the principles you state are, as such, strictly necessary to meet those principles.
That being said, discrimination by source or destination could in some cases violated the principles (e.g., if an ISP that is also a content provider outright blocks access to traffic trying to reach competing content providers over its network, or blocks all port 80 requests, or all requessts that appear to use the HTTP protocol, going to their non-business subscribers IPs.) Likewise, discrimination by protocol might in some cases violate the protocol (indeed, the last example of discrimination by source or destination is also a discrimination by protocol.) Whether deprioritizing rather than outright blocking traffic using certain ports or protocols would violate the principles depends on the circumstances; presumably, deprioritization that made it impractical to use the protocol for its principal purpose would be problematic.
of course the government would never have had any part in creating these massive corporate horrors like say local monopolies would they?... /sarcasm
Are you suggesting that the Federal Communications Commission should tell the States what monopolies can and cannot be setup within their borders?
I agree with your conclusion that more competition would drive out those who seek to limit services, but I seriously question your method.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Most of the types who have traffic shaping explained to them - which is what usually happens when politicians are the ones pushing the cause - still don't understand the concept of port blocking.
When I pay for "Internet Access" I don't expect my service provider to be able to dictate what I can and can't do with my internet connection. This includes hosting my own mail, FTP, and HTTP servers! What business of it is theirs if I post an image on Fark and host it myself?
As long as you're not spamming and/or doing illegal things they need to back the hell off.
As far as I'm concerned, if I'm having select ports blocked I am NOT getting "Internet Access".
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Yes, sometimes they are. Often enough, it's hard to tell, but overall, yeah. They are better than anarchism, at worst, and better than corporate control all the time. They DO enforce law among private and corporate users alike.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
s/Democrats/individuals/;
s/Republicans/idiots/;
And you have a post that's non-partisan, and yet still true!
Note: I don't mean to imply that Republicans are idiots. I do mean to imply that Bush and Cheney are.
Big corporations like Google benefit from network neutrality; that's why they are lobbying heavily about it. In fact, virtually all of the think tanks and pundits are funded by big business; the neutralists are funded by content providers and the anti-neutralists are funded by ISPs.
However, I hate pay by the byte at rates that are way out of porportion to the actual cost of delivery, which includes the actual proportionate share of maintaining the infrastructure.
In other words, if Grandma and Grandson both subscribe to the same nominal maximum speed, but Grandma downloads 1 movie a month then burns it to a DVD, and grandson downloads 500, Grandma's Internet bill should be significantly lower than her grandson's.
However, Grandson should get the speed for the rate he's paying for.
A charge that would make sense is:
Base customer charge.
Charge per TB at a given speed.
In practice, most companies would add a few units to the base customer charge and call that their "non-heavy user" plan.
For example, rather than
5 North Eblonian Currency Units as a base customer charge
1 NECU for each TB at 1 Mbit/sec (slow speed/lifeline service)
2 NECUs for each TB 10 Mbit/sec (normal speed)
3 NECUs for each TB at 50 Mbit/sec (high speed)
They might have:
6 NECUs + 1 NECU for each TB over the first TB for lifeline service
10 NECUs + 2 NECUs for each TB over the first 5 TB for their standard plan
35 NECUs + 3 NECUs for each TB over the first 10 TB for their elite plan
Of course, there will be discounts for those who bundle their cable TV, wireless, telephone, and mud-supply-needs.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
>Is it April 1st?
No, this is what happens when you vote in competent Democrats to run things instead of Republicans like Bush and Cheney.
I agree. Democrats have consistently stood up for the little guy:
I think it's time to wake up. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are deeply, deeply corrupt.
Whoever modded the parent post "Troll," please pay attention to reality.
Yes, yes, in many ways the major parties are depressingly similar; Democrats and Republicans alike take enormous bribes from corporate interests and the little guy is pretty much guaranteed to get screwed no matter who's in power. But on a few key issues, there is a difference between them, and this happens to be one of those issues. Pointing this out does not constitute trolling.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I agree with your conclusion that more competition would drive out those who seek to limit services, but I seriously question your method.
As opposed to now, where one agency of the feds has to undo some of the damage done by the states to their own citizens? I think the OP's suggestion makes more sense.
...but aren't we talking about private property owned by private private companies?
I don't want my traffic shaped one way or another, BUT allowing the government this kind of power is a dangerous road. If the government wanted the internet to be free of these kind of controls, doesn't it make sense for them to OWN the infrastructure so they can make the rules? As apposed to forcing the rules down the throat of a company?
I value lower government interference over funky tubes any day.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
government has one sole reason for existence: enforce laws restraining one person from doing violence/defrauding another. My feelings on the matter are the same as with the drug war- technically the states retain the right to create these monopolies/enforce their own drug wars.. but the results of doing either of these is often negative. The various governments have encroached too far into various parts of the market and the negative consequences are numerous. Currently the states retain the power to create monopolies if they are foolish enough to do so however, an amendment to the constitution forbidding state and federally created monopolies or one at the state level would suffice.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
If the Internet was contained within any one State's borders you might have a point.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Those companies aren't even pretending to be interested in rural network access now. The new FCC policy won't make a difference. In fact, the only interest they do show is when a local government decides to run their own local broadband network access. Then they are sued by the companies who refused to provide service for unfair competition.
In socialist countries where infrastructure is built by government or under massive regulation, they have better cell coverage, better broadband access and speed, and cheaper rates. But that's what you get when you choose the slow and dumb imperial government, which can only be trusted with nuclear weapons and secret armies and national defense, but not running twisted pairs or putting up cell towers.
The stimulus bill that was passed requires any firm getting stimulus money for infrastructure upgrades, to follow the FCC's net neutrality tenets.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I just can't understand how ISPs make this a difficult problem. Obviously there are some users that use a lot of bandwidth, there are others that don't. They have tried to discriminate based on "type" of traffic for a while, but why not just on the users total traffic for the month? It is super simple, keep track of the volume of data for all customers. From this data generate a QoS ordering for every customer (quantized based on QoS technical limits) daily or every so often. Now people that don't use bandwidth get served first and others get their packets dropped when bandwidth is at capacity(which I imagine isn't 100% of the time). Essentially high bandwidth users get all the extra bandwidth left over after the low bandwidth people get as much as they want. Then there is none of this packet filters, port blocking, man in the middle TCP reset junk that they are doing now. If you really want you can guarantee a minimum bandwidth for each customer and make reservations for that in the system.
Remember when the US built out the electrical grid? Or when it built the interstate system? Or when it sent people to the moon? What a bunch of failures.
I'm sure it's not in your opinion, but you're sadly oversimplifying or ignoring every use case and ignoring the drivers behind QoS in general. If you want something simplistic and turnkey, there's certainly products out there. Netequalizer springs to mind.
But hey, let's throw in a few simple examples:
HTTP downloads vs. Flash video streamed over HTTP. One is decidedly interactive (even if buffering certainly helps), the other one is decidedly non-interactive (even if faster = neater, naturally).
SIP telephony vs. SIP videoconferencing. Agnosticism per your definition would make the algorithm punish the SIP videocon.
Or, let's take an even simpler example: P2P. Rather than a few very hungry connections, you get a large number of connections pushing less data per connection.
One can always argue that service providers should provide enougb bandwidth so that they won't even have to prioritize data the first place. Nice in theory, hard (or simply uneconomic) in practice. Take a cable provider - with a limited upstream bandwidth per channel, you need some sort of fairness. Simple per-plug fairness works to some extent, but you don't really want to punish the puny amount of upstream data your average HTTP request would generate just because the same user is P2P'ing like there's no tomorrow. Makes for a bad user experience.
When we get to wireless, it gets even messier with the limited and shared upstream and downstream.
I could go on for a whie, but I believe the point has been made. It's not a case of "You simply XYZ" at all.
I'm not sure that the FCC is really the "good guys" here. They're doing the right thing, so it may be a triumph of "good over evil" (hyperbole a bit, but whatever), but I'm not sure I would say the good guys are winning. The FCC should NOT have authority over broadband companies, because their purpose is to control the airwaves. Every step they take into other domains is a step in the wrong direction. If anything, taking care of net neutrality should be something the SEC has domain over, because right now it's more of an antitrust problem than anything else. As long as it's a 2- or 3-party game, Comcast can get away with things like overcharging and dropping packets. Don't get me wrong; I'm definitely glad to see the FCC step up and be ready to put the smackdown on violators of net neutrality. I hope Comcast loses their case, because it's a good precedent to set for net neutrality. However, we should be wary of setting a precedent where the FCC gets more power over the Internet and how people do and don't use it in the United States. It seems good now, but if we decide they have the power to make decisions, what happens when they decide "maybe a little LESS neutrality would be better"? I really think this is an area where the government should be focusing on helping competition enter the market, rather than just smacking the hands of the few companies that hold a near-monopoly on broadband right now.
What is meant by the FCC with network neutrality is four things:
"Network neutrality" is not a pricing scheme.
The FCC's Network Neutrality principles do not require that "everyone is required to pay the same price regardless of usage."
Many Republicans and conservative organizations have supported net neutrality. Savetheinternet.com for example includes the Christian Coalition of America and Gun Owners of America. While it is true that Democrats have generally been more supportive of net neutrality, (McCain was awful on net neutrality), it isn't helpful to simply assume that Republicans must all have one view of this and Democrats all the other. This doesn't reflect a much more complicated reality. It is common human behavior to assume that because one disagrees with another group on some collection of issues they will disagree with you on everything but that's not always the case. Thinking that way really isn't helpful.
The ISPs won't reduce the rate for granny, they'll just increase the rate for Wayne.
At some point, don't the ISPs risk their common carrier status? They like the protection of saying they don't know what the traffic is that is flowing around their network, then they try to work with the media companies to block downloads of copyrighted material. If they know it is copyrighted material from an unauthorized source, then they no longer can claim to not know what the traffic is.
Either you give me access to the internet to pass whatever I want and are not liable for what I pass, or you get to filter it and become liable when illegal content gets through.
But MegaGlobal, Inc wouldn't have power without government enforcing it's will. So in a sense the far left and far right are correct when they blame big govt and big businesses (respectively). They've both become one in the same. There needs to be a firm separation between corporation and state and a serious review of campaign finance law before any progress is made, but fat chance on the people in power who are benefiting from things they way they are doing anything to change it. I'd say revolution is the answer but that requires public support which is nonexistant as long as people bicker between (R) and (D). I also think the rulign establishment is also smart enough not to push it to that point. Boil the frog. People won't notice as long as it's gradual enough.
In the long run, imposed "network neutrality" is bad for us as a society.
It means 20% of the population can hog 90% of the network resources without any technical measures being allowed to stop them.
Therefore, it is at best a band aid
The real sustainable solution is the one that should be put into law, not net neutrality.
The real solution is one that helps make sure the resources and ability is there for other companies to compete against their connectivity offerings.
Require monopolists offer interconnection to other ISPs on net neutral terms at a reasonable price (no more than X% above fair market), but don't require all connections (or consumer connections) are on those terms.
They're prudes, but they're about as pro-consumer/anti-business as an agency can get.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Nope. Finland, Sweden, and Norway have similar population densities and much harsher climates, and have better cell coverage and broadband access.
ummmm they ahve always doen that.
Believe me, the media companies do not like the limitation on language.
Sadly, a few hicks in BFE write a letter and we all get to suffer.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Better yet, let's review the FCC's anti-public good performance going back to the mid-90s. FCC has consistently worked on behalf of private interests to the harm of the public.
The FCC under Clinton did as much damage to the public as the FCC under Bush. Just looking at the FCC's most recent failures, I am not optimistic about FCC doing anything in the public good regarding net neutrality. At best, we'll get some immediate treat that will keep consumers happy in the interim at the cost of a loss of consumer rights further down the road.
The FCC stated that they will go after violations.
This is not the same as them actually doing it!
Let's first wait and see how this agency, that is stuffed with people from companies that are net-neutrality opponents, actually will perform.
I personally don't believe a word of what a government agency says. Because I learned a bit about rhetorics. And one thing is clear: The reason they are saying it, is never ever to inform anyone about their intentions, but always about reaching a specific effect in the target group.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Roads are mentioned in the constitution as is the post office. I figure if the founders were alive today and rewrote the thing they would probably include the internet given that it's the modern equivalent. Normally i'm against regulation and would say "let the market decide" but there are some areas that only have one provider with no competition. Since the internet is such a necessary thing at this stage I think it's necessary to ensure people have open roads and that their mail is not opened or given preferential treatment based on a commercial sender/reciever. Net Neutrality makes sense constitutionally.
The FCC is acting under general policy direction from Congress. The specifics aren't dictated by Congress, but then, if Congress wanted to dictate the specifics, they probably wouldn't create regulatory agencies in the first place.
Continuing to follow through on a policy statement made in 2005 that it has pursued by various means in the intervening time period is hardly a "whim".
Acting under legal authority articulated by the US Supreme Court (in Brand X in 2005) isn't "ignoring the rule of law."
The first sentence of the FA states:
The Obama administrationâ(TM)s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to keep the Internet free of increased user fees based on heavy Web traffic and slow downloads.
That supports my claim that the government is out to control prices and demolishes your claim that it is not. It would appear that you have reflexively invoked government propaganda in defense of government policy without even reading the article linked in the slashdot summary.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Currently the states retain the power to create monopolies if they are foolish enough to do so however, an amendment to the constitution forbidding state and federally created monopolies or one at the state level would suffice.
That won't do much to prevent cities from establishing their own monopolies, which is where most of them get established anyway around here.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Yes, it does claim that. It offers no support for this claim, and the only person they quote from the FCC states only that the FCC plans to enforce its network neutrality principles, which are published in an official policy statement and have nothing to do with "increased user fees based on heavy Web traffic and slow downloads".
TFA appears to be confusing a statement about the FCC's intention to enforce its publicly-articulate network neutrality principles with a common misconception of what "network neutrality" means that has little, if anything, to do with the principles articulated by the FCC.
If one accepts it as a fact without any evidence, sure.
I expect that my old 56k connection will look pretty good in a little while.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
It means 20% of the population can hog 90% of the network resources without any technical measures being allowed to stop them.
Except that in this case, unlike all the other situations where a small minority have all the wealth, any one of the other 80% can step in at any time and use a large share of the bandwidth. Net neutrality garauntees that anyone that wants it can go out and use a larger portion of the available bandwidth, just because today it is file sharers doesn't mean that tomorrow it won't be someone else.
Dont ever forget the FCC is part of the federal government, and can not be trusted to do what is in best interest of the people. If they do this, there is an angle we arent seeing.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Bring back fairness in advertising and unlimited use :)
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The 1800s sent morse code just now, they want their campaign slogan back.
Verizon may be in violation of the first principle of net neutrality by blocking access to controversial websites and justifying such blocks by falsely alleging that such websites are illegal. In 2006, Slashdot discussed how Verizon terminated its service to Epifora (a host for legal pro-paedophile websites, to whom Verizon provided a backbone). According to a friend who uses Verizon as his home ISP, the company is now blocking access to websites formerly hosted by Epifora (albeit intermittently), sometimes by falsely alleging illegal activites and sometimes through a covert redirect.
One particular website (NSFW but nonetheless legal) which is sometimes inaccessible for Verizon users is LifeLine, which provides support for people who are contemplating suicide or other irrational actions as a result of their attraction to children.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
ok, I'm Canadian, so maybe I'm missing something here, but "Draconian Censorship Laws" Doesn't really seem to apply, at least up here... I see all kinds of nudity, drugs, booze and swearing on TV . I think it could use a little more censorship to be honest.
It's not that simple. The 20% causing the congestion make the network unusable for other services, so that the others can't use the network to do what they want.
For example, VoIP telephone services are unusable if there is any significant amount of packet loss or jitter, or if latency is too high.
The 20% of the population using 90% of the bandwidth hurt the quality of the service of people who the network is really important to, because the people not using large amounts of bandwidth aren't simply sending as many bits as they can down the wire (like transferring bulk data); instead they are transferring small parcels of very important data.
And the moment providers start thinking about offering QoS services to prioritize these people's small 256-kilobit data streams for sending voice and video; the Bittorrent users are screaming bloody murder, and whining to the FCC about how X bid bad provider added a few minutes of extra time to their bulk download spree, how dare they!
you wrote:
TFA appears to be confusing a statement about the FCC's intention to enforce its publicly-articulate[d] network neutrality principles with a common misconception of what "network neutrality" means that has little, if anything, to do with the principles articulated by the FCC.
Here, I will fix that for you:
TFA appears to be a statement about the FCC's confusing intention to enforce its publicly-articulated network neutrality principles with a common misconception of what "network neutrality" means that has little, if anything, to do with the principles articulated by the FCC.
The confusion is attributable to the FCC, not to the news report, because only that interpretation is consistent with the FCC's actual legal actions.
you wrote:
If one accepts it as a fact without any evidence, sure.
How do you choose which "unsupported" facts to call call into question and which to accept? Are only those inconsistent with your own ideology in doubt? You could raise precisely the same doubt about this. You sound like: "maybe the news is wrong because it does not agree with my government-approved belief system".
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
All treaty negotiations are secret, but the treaty itself has to be voted on by Congress and is thus public. Anyone making statements along the lines of "This treaty may do x" is spreading FUD.
As for the difference between the parties, while Democrats can be bought for the right price, Republicans will do it for free. This health care situation is proof of that. A few Democratic senators may have been bought by the health care industry and are holding things up, but you also have Republican ex-governors and senators making shit up about death panels.
Nope. Finland, Sweden, and Norway have similar population densities and much harsher climates, and have better cell coverage and broadband access.
Bullshit comparison.
Lets take Norway (selected at random from your list). Similar in size and population to Arizona.
300,000 sq km vs 325,000 sq km
4.6M vs 6.5M population.
If a company or two had only Arizona to handle, and the full resources of the country's government WRT internet connections, and subsidised by tax resources, they could do wonders in terms of speed and connectivity.
All fair points.
This is a pretty good sign that the FCC expects to loose it's court case. It's a common tactic up here in Cananada, say you plan on doing one thing, and then wait for the courts to tie your hands to stop you. (That way you win all the support, and it's not your fault when you don't have to do it)
It gives me the choice to choice a competitor without having my connection artificially slowed down. If I as a ComCast customer can choice to use a video download service other than ComCast's own service, then I have more freedom. If instead of using ComCast's phone service I choice another, I have more freedom. Or if instead of viewing ComCast's preferred political messages I can view others I have more freedom.
You haven't gained any freedom, what's happened is a private corporation has lost freedom to more government regulation, and I don't see how anyone could think that this is a surprising thing.
BS!!! I have gained more choices than either putting up with ComCast or going without. If you want to live in a world where one entity controls what you can see then Cuba's 90 miles from Florida.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Dear moderators: "Troll" does not mean "Inconsistent with my own political beliefs."
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Why was this modded insightful. It should be "-1 ignorant". There is virtually nothing factual or truthful about the parent post about the ICC, it is a rant from either an libertarian extremist or a far-right extremist. Personally, and without looking at the user's other posts, I vote for far-right with a patina of libertarianism. I say this because the poster appears to claim that the Republicans weren't really conservative. Apparently it seems he may have his own custom definition of conservative not shared by the rest of society.
The article for the ICC at Wikipedia is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission
According to the parent, the ICC was formed after a dispute over four trucks, especially considering that the article states the ICC was formed in 1887 to regulate railroads. I'm fairly sure that interstate cargo transport would not have been done by ICE trucks. If they existed the existing roads would have not been passable, the relative unreliability of early ICE engines and vehicles is another factor to consider. Even better, in the 1970' and 1980's Congress started taking away powers from the ICC (many were probably just redistributed instead) and in 1995 the ICC was abolished by the Republicans in Congress. The remaining functions of the ICC were distributed to the Surface Transportation Board. Interestingly, the ICC was the model for many other federal agencies like the FCC, SEC, and FTC among others. Its hard to argue against the need for a functional SEC and FTC today at least in a credible manner.
While personally I would like more people, who are well informed to be involved in a constructive manner with the government. I prefer inactive, but informed individuals rather than people like the parent, who is badly misinformed or who even knows what they are spewing is untrue. While I'm not saying the parent does this, but acting like hooligans nonviolent or otherwise in order to obstruct the government helps no one, not even themselves.
Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
You are right, but what is missing is an alternative solution. We could avoid this all together if we had competition for broadband providers. Then, the market would (in theory) favor network neutrality.
But, the problem with that is
- Politicians aren't smart enough to figure that out
- Network neutrality is too important to trust to the market
Let me clarify that last item. Network neutrality is as vital as the first amendment. Without it, Comcast customers might click on the FCC link and see a page that says "The FCC has decided that network neutrality is currently being enforced just fine, and the FCC will not get involved." We are in a new and strange world - where one person could read a newspaper and see one thing, and another user could go to read that same newspaper, but there is someone secretly standing between them and the page right in front of them, who can change the article. That slippery slope is more dangerous than the slippery slope that the FCC brings.
For every person like me, there's probably 5000 people who would say "who cares if Comcast/Cox/Whoever changes those boring news articles? I can download my music/porn/games twice as fast!" So I would prefer to see the FCC get involved, rather than not.
As for the difference between the parties, while Democrats can be bought for the right price, Republicans will do it for free. This health care situation is proof of that. A few Democratic senators may have been bought by the health care industry and are holding things up, but you also have Republican ex-governors and senators making shit up about death panels.
An alternative reading of the situation, and one that's just as fair, is that the majority of Democrats are in the pockets of unions. Since health care costs (imposed by the unions) are killing manufacturing, manufacturers and management want to palm healthcare off on the government. The Blue Dog Democrats, along with most Republicans, genuinely think that the plan won't work. (One ex-governor engaged in hyperbole by calling the people who decide on how the rationing will work a "death panel." Apparently, MSNBC has never heard of a politician using hyperbole before.)
This "both parties are stupid and corrupt" nonsense isn't going to help. Given a super-majority the way one party has right now (and the way the other party has had in the past) most of the ideas are going to come from the party in power.Most of what the opposition party is doing is going to be calling those ideas bad. If the ideas are good ideas, support them, and if they're bad ideas oppose them. If a specific government official is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, oppose them personally. But just saying "Both parties are equally as bad" isn't going to make it better.
I say this because the poster appears to claim that the Republicans weren't really conservative.
They aren't. What's Conservative about a massive expansion of an already bankrupt entitlement program? What's Conservative about an expanded role for the Federal Government in education? What's Conservative about responding to an attack on our country by telling people to go shopping?
You can call the GOP of the last eight years many things but Conservative is not one of them.
While I'm not saying the parent does this, but acting like hooligans nonviolent or otherwise in order to obstruct the government helps no one, not even themselves.
How was he trying to obstruct the government and what's wrong with doing so?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
We could avoid this all together if we had competition for broadband providers.
Normally I'd agree with you but I seem to recall that a lot of the discussion about network neutrality got started when some AT&T chairman started complaining about Google using their pipes for "free". If the Tier 1 providers intend on charging at both ends then does it really matter how many last mile providers service your neighborhood?
I would like to see more competition in the broadband market though. It would lower prices and stop Comcast and Time Warner from trying to protect their video services by degrading their internet product.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Normally i'm against regulation and would say "let the market decide" but there are some areas that only have one provider with no competition
And why is that? It couldn't have anything to do with government franchises that grant a single company an exclusive right to do business in a particular area, could it?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
it isn't helpful to simply assume that Republicans must all have one view of this and Democrats all the other.
But I thought our entire political discourse could be boiled down to "Four legs good, two legs bad!"
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
the far left and far right are correct when they blame big govt
So they need to blame themselves and each other. Both the left and right, far and near, want big government. The only difference is what part of government they want big.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
A few Democratic senators may have been bought by the health care industry and are holding things up, but you also have Republican ex-governors and senators making shit up about death panels.
Meanwhile Democrats are making shit up about free markets.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So why is the FCC standing up for the common surfer? Sounds fishy to me and there must be a catch. The government must want something from Net Neutrality, and what it wants can't be good for us. What would they lose without NN? The ability to monitor everything perhaps? The loss of honeypots? Hmmm...
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
My ISP, a national provider, provides me with a static IP address.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It's rare and awesome thing thing when that happens.
My ISP did the same though there wasn't a tyme length in the contract. Not only did my ISP cut my bill they also increased my max speed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Because customers expect broadband internet at dial-up price, and the pipes simply cost more than the average end user realizes.
BS! When I upgraded from dial-up to cable my normal costs went up 2.5X, ie from $20 to $50 a month . Of course the ISP had a special, $30 a month for 6 months, still that was a 50% increase in price.
Flat rate pricing is broken,
Agreed. But when you sell unlimited service, which is what I was sold, don't complain when people take you up on it.
"enforcing net neutrality" is not going to do anything to fix it. Bandwidth is like any other finite resource - it needs to be charged by consumption
There is a big difference between that, charging more for more bandwidth used, and slowing down a service a competitor provides when your own service is not slowed down. It is wrong when ComCast throttles VoIP services that compeats with it's own VoIP service but does not throttle it's service.
There's also a big difference between spending your own money to build-out infrastructure and being given $200 billion of taxpayer money to build out but not doing it. Either build-out broadband or get out of the way of those who would.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well, to be fair this does seem like the kind of thing that should be established in, you know, a law or act or something.
Can you point out where the Constitution of the USA gives the power to pass "a law or act or something" to regulate the internet to government?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Normally i'm against regulation and would say "let the market decide" but there are some areas that only have one provider with no competition.
It was government that created the conditions where there was no competition, governments did that by giving businesses exclusive rights to use easements with no open access requirements.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
They're prudes, but they're about as pro-consumer/anti-business as an agency can get.
This certainly doesn't describe the FCC, ask anybody who setup a pirate radio station in an under served area in the US. It doesn't matter if your station only covers a few blocks, if Clear Channel learns of your station you'll have the FCC send the goon squad knock down your door.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I see all kinds of nudity, drugs, booze and swearing on TV . I think it could use a little more censorship to be honest.
It's easy to censor your TV, change the station or turn it off. Just don't tell others they can't watch on their own TV something you don't like.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Interstate Commerce clause, along with roads and post.
We all know that man never landed on the moon, the electricity grid is a fraud perpetrated by the MSM and you don't want to get me started on the interstate system.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
That's a very good point.
Next step, publish online material in campaign donor-independent media formats.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
>>>A few decades later and now it's about weighing each and every truck
They don't weigh every truck, since oftentimes the stations are closed, and most of those weigh stations are operated by the State Legislatures who are merely trying to protect their roads from damage. They have that right, as expressed by their own constitutions.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
As a libertarian I must say, No good will come of this, and whenever the government tries anything they just fuck it up and it should just be left to the free market!
There is no free market here. It simply doesn't apply.
>>>Without it, Comcast customers might click on the FCC link and see a page that says "The FCC has decided that network neutrality is currently being enforced just fine, and the FCC will not get involved."
>>>
Actually in the case of Comcast it would be less obvious, such as tracking how much you download from hulu.com and charging ~50 cent per gigabyte..... but if you watch television on comcast.com, then there's no charge. Net neutrality is really about stopping companies from adopting anti-competitive practices. (Like how Microsoft gave away IE for free and forced the once-dominant $30 Netscape browser out.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Ok, I deserved that, I honestly didn't mean that Television should be more heavily censored, just that there's already borderline porngraphy on basic cable, I dont see censorship as really being an issue, what is it that you'd like to see/hear more of on TV that you don't already? When was the last time you said "Man, that episode of Everybody loves Raymond would have been so much better if there was some nice big tits in it... and people saying fuck a lot... yeah.. that'd be cool"
you already have the right to download/purchase/rent whatever the hell you want, do you really need more sex drugs and violence coming through basic cable?
And another thing, being American, can't you just order the playboy or hustler channels or something?
I haven't had cable in years, but I'm sure such channels exist, and i doubt they censor out all the good parts on those particular channels, so how exactly is this censorship interfering with your right to watch whatever you want? just because they don't broadcast hardcore porn on NBC During Primetime doesn't mean that you're being somehow oppressed.
You claim a user's post to be invalid simply due to his ideology? Rupublican and Democrat are terms that describe political affiliation, not ideological beleif. Some on the far right may not see moderate Republicans as being paticularly conservative, just as some far left liberals may not see Blue-Dog Democrats as being paticularly liberal. Please, if you're going to debate, do it on the substance of a person's issue rather than attacking him on the basis of his perceived ideology.
Saying 'This person's post is innaccurate because I think he's a far-right liberatarian' belies an certain level of ignorance on your own part, regardless of your ideology.
Wrong. The FCC's actual legal actions to enforce "network neutrality" principles, since they articulated in 2005, have not focussed on either extra user fees or slow downloads. The most notable cases have involved unconditional blocks on certain kinds of traffic (not slowing them, or charging extra for them); this includes the Madison River VoIP blocking case and the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case.
The confusion is attributable to the news report, since its characterization is inconsistent both with the FCC's actual statement (that it intends to enforce the published "network neutrality" principles) and the FCC's actual legal actions.
The only unsupported claim in the article is that the FCC's network neutrality principles are about "increased user fees and slow downloads".
The article claims (1) that the FCC has stated an intent to enforce network neutrality principles, and (2) that that statement of intent includes an intent to take action regarding increased user fees and slow downloads.
It supports the first claim with a quote from an FCC official stating an intent to enforce the FCC's network neutrality principles. It does not offer any support for the second claim, nor can the support it provides for the first claim be used to derive support for the second, since the actual network neutrality principles published by the FCC do not address "increased user fees and slow downloads", rather, they address the consumers entitlement to competition among various kinds of service providers, to access legal content of their choice, and to use legal devices, applications, and services of their choice on their internet connections.
No; in fact, while I dislike violations of the FCC's actual published network neutrality principles, I also dislike increased user fees and slow downloads, so neither what the FCC has actually stated an intention to do nor what the article claims it has stated an intention to do is necessarily "inconsistent with my own ideology".
Certainly, any time a forward-looking intention is stated, one could question whether the intention will be carried out, but claims of intentions are a different kind of claim than fact claims about supposed past events.
No, what I am saying is that the news appears to be wrong because it says that a particular agency stated an intention to undertake a specific course of action when neither the quotes they have from the officials of the agency nor any other evidence presented states the intent that they claim the agency has stated.
That supports my claim that the government is out to control prices and demolishes your claim that it is not. It would appear that you have reflexively invoked government propaganda in defense of government policy without even reading the article linked in the slashdot summary.
Government controlling prices is something which I quite willingly endorse. Want to call me a Communist? In this case, at least, I will quite happily accept that pejorative. Guilty as charged.
The principles don't "reduce us" in the way that you claim. While they do refer to "consumers", they use that in the sense of the relationship to ISPs, not to content -- the role of the "consumer" is not merely to "access content". Note that while the entitlement to access content is in the first principle, the second principle entitles consumers to "run applications...of their choice", and does not exclude server applications from its scope.
If you compare what the USA pays per capita for that health care, compared to developed European countries, you'll find that the cost is through the roof. That a majority of US citizens may manage to stay on the treadmill whilst only a small number actually fall off, is not the issue. The issue is the effort put into staying on that treadmill in the first place. The USA has been like one of those rich people that doesn't mind getting ripped off a bit, because they're rich. That might change however, in which case they might want to take a good look at their health care system. (And if they could keep their companies from trying to buy out the British NHS (National Health Service) while they're at it, we'd appreciate that, thankyouverymuch. ;)
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
The FUD may be true:
Based on the leaks we've seen so far, fears and doubt may well be indicated -- and public uncertainty is the whole point of having secret negotiations.
And what are the chances of an open and honest debate about the impact the treaty will have on ordinary consumers, and then a congressional vote depending on the results of that debate? If we're not getting honesty in the healthcare debate, why would you expect it for ACTA, where big business has just as much to gain or lose?
ACTA (and any other controversial debate you care to imagine) will show up the same weaknesses in American society, media, and democracy that the healthcare debate now exposes.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
You almost had a good point, however the government has a bad habit of enforcing morals that aren't shared by all and by forcing propaganda down peoples throats. So why would we want the government to have sole control over the largest source of information the world has ever known? So they can censor it? Its bad enough they censor it as much as they do already, just imagine what would happen if they had 100% control over the internet.
>>>If you compare what the USA pays per capita for that health care, compared to developed European countries
Yes and if you compare the QUALITY of the cheap "bargain basement" European care, you'll see why the USA is still the better health system. The European may save money, but at the cost of rationing services such that citizens have shitty results:
UK HEALTHCARE WAITING TIMES
8 months - cataract surgery
11 months- hip replacement
12 months- knee replacement
5 months - slipped disc
5 months - hernia repair
SOURCE - The BBC, May 2009
PROSTATE 5-YEAR CANCER SURVIVOR RATE
100%- United States
90% - Canada
77% - United Kingdom
MEP Daniel Hannan said in early August, "The worst thing to be is elderly under the UK Health System..... you will be denied care and left starving in wards." Another young woman asked the UK System for a PAP smear to test for cervical cancer. She was refused three years in a row. And then she developed cancer and died at age 25. In the United States she could have simply *paid* to get the PAP smear, found the early cysts, and survived.
Yeah U.S. is expensive. But it's also LIBERATED so nobody controls your health except yourself. No silk-suited bastard in parliament can say "no" or otherwise run your life. Look at my signature.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Two things to keep in mind here:
1) Even your worst-case scenario is not as bad as the situation I described where ISPs can literally distort reality. So this is worth it.
2) Network Neutrality is not the slippery slope of government regulation that it is made out to be. We have network neutrality on telephones, and it has not caused problem. Can you imagine a world where telephone companies could charge based on what people say over the telephone, or who they say it to? If that was going on, don't you think it would be well worth-it to pass laws to stop it? Even though it meant that the government could now regulation the phone system?
I guess my fear is that corporations, not restricted by the first amendment, could censor the Internet far more than the government could (it already can but is restricted by that amendment). What if all competitors each, indivually, decide that it's in their interest to restrict communication to certain cites and prioritize others. They could make quite a pretty penny taxing websites this way. What if every corporation decides it's simply more profitable to operate like that and it becomes commonplace. I'm not convinced consumers as a whole would demand anything different, especially if they were "weaned" into it. Even if they did, the ones who wanted change would probably be a small educated minority. Most people don't know what "net neutrality" means. The end result is restriction of the population to communicate effectively, and that's bad no matter who does it. What's worse is they might not even know how or to what extent they're censored.
Plus. I'm not arguing, at least at this juncture, that the government should become an ISP. What I am arguing is that in order to preserve a vital communications resource (similar to mail or roads), the government should restrict corporations so they cannot abuse the power they already have.
You are really good at picking the examples that comfort your prejudice, aren't you?
Health care and medical infrastructures in the UK have been going downhill for many years, they only recently started recovering, slowly, from the devastation they suffered from policies dating back to Thatcher. Just a few years ago, many British patients had to cross the Channel for some operations. The UK is far from being representative of European health care systems.
There's nothing like $HOME
You make a good counter-argument. I think there are some flaws in it. For a start, you'd have a weaker case if you picked France or Germany or Belgium for examples. However, I'll think over your points. I try to form my opinions based on a wide range of evidence, so I'll dig further myself rather than just take someone on the Internet's careful selection. But I am open-minded and will think over what you've said. I'm glad at least that you accept the high cost of the US health care system. A great deal of that cost is the profit of the companies involved, which in theory can be cut by socialised models as used in Europe. You could logically have a better system for less money were it also socialised.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
What you say with irony, others say with sincerity...
Scary, isn't it?
Interstate Commerce clause,
I can not find "internet" anywhere in the Constitution, and that includes the Interstate Commerce Clause. What I do see is the ICC saying the feds can regulate interstate commerce, which rules out local ISPs. Using the ICC as the Supreme Court, and you, have done would mean the government could regulate news too. Most news outlets are owned by national if not international businesses.
along with roads and post.
Both roads and the post are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Because I am a Comcast subscriber that came on through a buyout.
In my case indirectly I became a ComCast broadband customer through an exchange. When I signed up Time Warner owned the cable system but then they exchanged some locations they owned for some locations ComCast owned.
If I had another choice I would drop them like a bad habit.
Luckily I do have a choice, I can also get DSL where I live. I didn't know before, I don't have landline phone service and my ISP wanted it to look up whether DSL was available, however I learned someone in another apartment in the building got DSL a few months ago. Now my question would be if I had to have landline phone service to get DSL, all I have is a cellphone and service for it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
there's already borderline porngraphy on basic cable,
Where? I don't see any. I see a lot of violence though.
I dont see censorship as really being an issue, what is it that you'd like to see/hear more of on TV that you don't already?
Almost all I watch on TV is CNN and the movies I bought and own on tape or DVDs. I watch the History channel some but not more than say 1/2 hour here and there.
When was the last time you said "Man, that episode of Everybody loves Raymond would have been so much better if there was some nice big tits in it... and people saying fuck a lot... yeah.. that'd be cool"
I've never said it, I never watched that show. The last series I watched on TV were "Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman" and "Touched by an Angel", that was about 10 years ago. Right now as I'm typing this I have "Mr. Majestyk" playing on DVD. It's almost over, then I might put "Casablanca" in the player. Or another of the hundreds of movies on media I own.
Should there be a Law?
The real issue, IMO, is when they cap 'unlimited' connections, which is false advertising.
That's one issue. Another was that broadband providers were given billions of taxpayer money to build out but didn't. A third issue is that they also have duopolies if not monopolies.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The constitution was written in the 18th century, of course internet is not specifically mentioned, this is ridiculous literalism. An ISP is not a news outlet, local news are published locally and not supposed to be for cross-state consumption, whereas the internet is supposed to be the same everywhere, and the FCC does regulate a lot of news outlets.
Except that the government is a monopoly with the power to jail competitors and to block any companies that would choose to compete against it.
By leaving it in the hands of companies, even if it is only a small minority of people that understand what is happening they would always have the ability to create their own company to compete against the giants. When the government takes over it is there way or no way. There is no longer competition so if you have a problem you have no recourse or alternative.
The constitution was written in the 18th century, of course internet is not specifically mentioned, this is ridiculous literalism.
The US Constitution is a concrete document, even if you and others want to make it say what it does not say. And it does provide a method by which it make be changed, by amendments. And unlike constitutions others have written, I'm looking at the 1000 plus page EU constitution, the US Constitution including the amendments can fit on only a few pages and is a limit on what the federal government can do not what it must do.
local news are published locally
Except there is little local news now. A lot of the print news comes from services like the Associated Press. For radio large businesses such as Clear Channel tape shows which they then distribute to the various stations they own. Take for example the stations in a North Dakota town. Clear Channel owned all 6 non-religious commercial radio stations, all of which were on autopilot. When a train derailed leaking toxic chemicals there was nobody at the stations to broadcast a warning. In other disasters such as when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans it was hams, shortwave radio broadcasters, who helped not Clear Channel or other commercial broadcasters.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Except that the government is a monopoly with the power to jail competitors and to block any companies that would choose to compete against it.
And it's the role of a constitution to prevent that. If that fails, such a government should be overthrown. Again: 'm not arguing, at least at this juncture, that the government should become an ISP. What I am arguing is that in order to preserve a vital communications resource (similar to mail or roads), the government should restrict corporations so they cannot abuse the power they already have.
See subject.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?