Slashdot Mirror
FCC Backs Net Neutrality, Chairman's Full Speech Posted
ArmyofGnomes writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski delivered Monday on President Obama's promise to back 'net neutrality' — but he went much further than merely seeking to expand rules that prohibit ISPs from filtering or blocking net traffic by proposing that they cover all broadband connections, including data connections for smartphones. Genachowski stated: 'I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet. ... In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.'"
for the folks who have read this in detail, can anyone spot any omissions or areas that they might have failed to cover in their ideas? Does it open anything up to exploitation?
It sounded good to me but for some reason I got a vibe of "they'll use this to exclude things not covered" in some way. I'm thinking about the promises of "up to" as one thing that's not touched upon, or the forcing of people to purchase certain bundles by financial incentive (such as being cheaper for internet + cable than naked internet - aka comcast again).
Some protocols want high bandwidth, while others want low latency. I see no problem prioritizing like this. Anything beyond this is a slippery slope, though.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I'm curious how services like ESPN 360 will be affected being that they are the content provider and not the ISP. They are still blocking content to you unless you are on the "right" ISP.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I live in Canada.
Does this mean, if this passes, that I'll be able to watch services such as Hulu, which are otherwise blocked to ISP's outside the USA?
I agree with this. The issue is over the connection between you and point b, not whether point b wants to cater to you.
There's actually been huge stretches of time (postwar period, for one) where a lot of thought about policy was actually directed at making policy beneficial for the country and it's citizens. It's only since the '80s that this went by the wayside, and even then it took 20 years to completely die, when we elected an administration that didn't care at all about policy. As John D'Iulio, a Bush insider and student of prior administrations put it:
"In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical, nonstop, 20-hour-a-day White House staff. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking..."
Don't be pushing any false equivalence between this admin and the last or any previous. With any luck, the last 8 years, a low point in thoughtful policy since before FDR, will remain the low point and things will start getting better again.
Play Command HQ online
Or, even better, sometimes you can switch companies. To another company that does the same exact thing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Gotta love the "free market."
Usually these companies don't seem to be fond of standardization, though. So really you're not likely to switch to a company that does the exact same thing... just basically the same thing with different details!
They're showing their corporatism honestly, which is depressing as I used to like Wired. Physical communications is a natural monopoly much like the interstate system, and I would very much prefer to see one utility only allowed to provide physical plant, and mandated to do so, and not permitted to sell any services over said plant.
You would then have service companies sell connectivity over the utilities' physical plant, paying the utility for the base connectivity.
Unfortunately what we have right now, is a hybrid situation, which to be perfectly honest, serves neither goal, and is almost an example of regulatory capture. Complete deregulation would be similar to what New York City looked like in the early days of power distribution (many lines from competitors going everywhere to all buildings), while we had full regulation attempted in the destruction of MA bell back in the day, but its been eroded and sidelined by both competitors/incumbents eeeking out sweetheart deals in order to compete (1996 Telecom Act), as well as the sibling Bell's continued lobbying specifically of both the FCC and their Republican friends in both the legislative and executive branches to relax their restrictions on service, while leaving their right of way easements intact.
Neither of the above options is very attractive, yet the status quo, and the far "liberal" annexation and seperation of service from infrastructure are just as hated by other camps. Honestly, I don't see the status quo lasting forever more (its too self serving at the moment on the primary carriers as evidenced by ISDN and DSL experience), yet I'm not sure what solution will ever be put forth, let alone passed, against a very large base of empowered and wealthy inertia seeking to maintain their own dominance.
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
It seems that you're claiming that the only reason to use BitTorrent instead of some other (presumably less bandwidth-intensive) protocol is for illicit activities -- your example given is stolen music and movies. This, despite leading in with the reasonable-sounding declaration that there are legitimate uses for torrents.
Personally, I would hate to have to rely on FTP or HTTP to download a Linux DVD ISO, or the latest patch for World of Warcraft (yes, WoW patches are distributed via BitTorrent). In most cases, I could get what I wanted via FTP or HTTP, but I can't tell you how many times I had downloads > 75% complete which choked for some strange reason and would not resume, forcing me to start over from scratch. BitTorrent has proven frequently faster and almost always more reliable.
In the case of Blizzard, I think they do offer patches for direct download, but that method seems kind of frowned upon... and you don't get to download that way until after the patch becomes mandatory IIRC.
Thinking of some of the NIN albums I (legally) downloaded, I know Trent made a few things available via BitTorrent -- mostly longer works, like the lossless or 96k/24bit high-res versions of albums. Again, I don't have a problem downloading a smattering of MP3 files the more conventional way, but if I want the lossless version of an album, I'm going to torrent that. And you know what? After the torrent is done, I'm going to leave the BitTorrent client running for a couple days so others can benefit from my seed, which moves traffic away from Trent's servers and helps distribute the load across the network.
Fortunately the commerce clause really does cover something like the large inter-state communication networks, and allows the FCC to prevent one ISP from implementing draconian provisions that affect all of us.