FCC To Make Move On Net Neutrality

GrApHiX42 writes "The FCC will announce on Thursday it plans to pursue a 'third way' forward in the fight for tough net neutrality rules, opening a new front in an ongoing legal battle that could come to define the commission under Chairman Julius Genachowski. A senior FCC official said Wednesday that the chairman 'will seek to restore the status quo as it existed' before a federal court ruled it lacked the authority to regulate broadband providers and set rules that mandate open Internet. The goal is to 'fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet,' the FCC official said."

Comments

The middle path?

[garyisabusyguy]

Good luck with that

Re:The middle path?

[Anonymous Coward]

Offer them a deal..

Common carrier status in exchange for net neutrality.

Re:The middle path?

[bistromath007]

Personally, I fear this won't be "middle path" so much as "Third Position."

Re:The middle path?

[Pojut]

Yesterday Apple finally launched its much hyped iPad to the world

Seriously? I mean, come on dude...if you fail at shilling, you need to really examine your life.

Re:The middle path?

[Imrik]

That's what classifying them Title II would mean, they don't want that.

Re:The middle path?

[XnR'rn]

Mod parrent up. Also, look up Third Position in wikipedia (too lazy to post a link). :>

Re:The middle path?

[mick129]

Personally, I fear this won't be "middle path" so much as "Third Position."

Sounds like the third position is a compromise after all:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/06/fcc-outlines-new-third-way-internet-regulatory-plan-will-spli/

No need to worry.

in other words

[gangien]

fuck the law, we'll do what we want

Re:in other words

[PopeRatzo]

fuck the law, we'll do what we want

Yes, that's exactly what the activist judges on the federal court said.

Re:in other words

[pipedwho]

Or more precisely, 'bought and paid for' judges.

Re:in other words

[pudge]

Um. No, the judges correctly noted that it was the FCC that was saying "fuck the law," by making up their own laws.

Do you really want federal judges who are going to allow federal agencies to do whatever they want, even when the law says they can't? That's scary stuff.

Re:in other words

[Kirijini]

Do you really want federal judges who are going to allow federal agencies to do whatever they want, even when the law says they can't?

The problem the FCC had wasn't that the law said they can't enforce net neutrality. The problem was that their prior interpretations (i.e., the laws they made up previously, in their rule and order Computer II.) are inconsistent with what they want to do now.

Re:in other words

[pudge]

The problem the FCC had wasn't that the law said they can't enforce net neutrality.

It's that the law says the FCC can't write new laws, and this was, in effect, a new law. From the ruling:

... notwithstanding the "difficult regulatory problem of rapid technological change" posed by the communications industry, "the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer ... Commission authority." ... Because the Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary authority over Comcast's Internet service to any "statutorily mandated responsibility," ... we grant the petition for review and vacate the Order.

The FCC must be able to point where in a law, passed by Congress, they have the authority to do this. They failed to do so. They can't make up a new law on their own. It's basically that simple.

Re:in other words

[Kirijini]

Through the Communications Act of 1934 as amended over the decades Congress has given the Commission express and expansive authority to regulate common carrier services, including landline telephony; radio transmissions, including broadcast television, radio, and cellular telephony; and “cable services,” including cable television. In this case, the Commission does not claim that Congress has given it express authority to regulate Comcast’s Internet service. Indeed, in its still-binding 2002 Cable Modem Order, the Commission ruled that cable Internet service is neither a “telecommunications service” covered by Title II of the Communications Act nor a “cable service” covered by Title VI. The Commission therefore rests its assertion of authority over Comcast’s network management practices on the broad language of section 4(i) of the Act [which the courts have come to call ancillary jurisdiction] [citations omitted]

Yes, the DC Cir. ruled that the FCC didn't have ancillary jurisdiction. But way up at the top of the opinion is the bit quoted above, where the court recognizes that this issue is raised because the FCC determined, in a still binding order, that internet service was not a telecom service, which it can regulate under title II, common carriage.

If the FCC determines that internet access is a telecom service - which they have the authority to do - then it can enforce net neutrality using its normal common carriage authority. No new laws from Congress required.

Re:in other words

[pudge]

If the FCC determines that internet access is a telecom service - which they have the authority to do - then it can enforce net neutrality using its normal common carriage authority. No new laws from Congress required.

That's unlikely. It would cause a lot of practical problems (which is the reason it changed in the first place ... to change it back just for Net Neutrality is short-sighted), and the change itself could be challenged on various grounds.

And why bother? We have a process for doing this: it's called "Congress." :-)

Re:in other words

[jackspenn]

Are you retarded? The FCC just "determines" Internet Access is a telecom service so it can regulate it. Seriously?

Under your logic perhaps the FDA should declare the Internet a drug so it can regulate it.

Heck it is the Information Superhighway, perhaps we should get someone from our local law enforcement community to regulate it.

Perhaps we should contact NASA and have them draft an exploratory counsel given it is often referred to as cyberSPACE.

I hate many things about ISPs, but I hate the idea of government bureaucrats deciding what is best for me even more.

Perhaps I should remind you that we live in a Democratic Republic where only elected representatives are to make the laws, not government agencies. And for your information that is a very good thing.

Re:in other words

[OrwellianLurker]

Um. No, the judges correctly noted that it was the FCC that was saying "fuck the law," by making up their own laws.

Do you really want federal judges who are going to allow federal agencies to do whatever they want, even when the law says they can't? That's scary stuff.

Yeah, good thing we have our great judicial branch to protect our Constitutionally protected rights and clearly established limits on the power of the Federal gov- oh wait.

Re:in other words

[Kirijini]

Perhaps I should remind you that we live in a Democratic Republic where only elected representatives are to make the laws, not government agencies.

Allow me to introduce you to administrative law. I think you'll get a real kick out of agency rulemaking.

Re:in other words

[ffreeloader]

They can't make up a new law on their own. It's basically that simple.

If only that were true. All government agencies legislate through creating rules. Many of the freedoms we have lost have come about through bureaucratic rules.

Re:in other words

[Myopic]

Ha ha ha! Dude, I hope you are kidding, or you have a woefully inadequate understanding of the legal system you live under. Good luck.

Re:in other words

[Anonymous Coward]

What he posted is accurate in terms of how our country was established and setup. Our Constitution, which grants the US Federal government it's powers states clearly in Article I Section I
 
  "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Re:in other words

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Are you retarded? The FCC just "determines" Internet Access is a telecom service so it can regulate it. Seriously?

Seriously.

But they'd then have to scrap the current Cable Modem Order and rework it, probably reclassifying cable modem service as either cable service or (most likely) telecommunication service. This would reopen an issue between the FCC and the Ninth Circus and other federal courts over things like granting competitors wholesale access to cable companies' data transport. That would imply a claim to be able to regulate the transport level of the internet, turn (non-virtual) ISPs into common carriers, etc.

There are a lot of worms in that can.

Re:in other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus there is also the minor detail that Internet Services aren't Telecom Services.

Re:in other words

[Myopic]

You say that as if 234 years of jurisprudence hasn't taken place. Again, I'm not arguing with you about the meaning of the Constitution, I'm saying ha ha ha, either he's kidding or he woefully misunderstands his legal environment. My guess is he's kidding -- he does actually understand something about the law, but he stated as true something that he merely wishes were true.

More government encroachment

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I'm not being facetious when I suggest this, but why doesn't the government just nationalize the communications infrastructure?

If they are so worried about every kid missing out on viagra spam and cartoon porn, they should be out there putting lines into the ground instead of waiting for the efficient hand of business (laff) to reach out and touch the poor and underclass who aren't going to be able to pay anyway.

The idea that everyone needs internet is mistaken. Let's concentrate on getting real books into the hands of students. And ones without little penises drawn on them and without Creationism taught alongside Evolutionism.

It's a noble idea to get unfettered, free access to everyone, but if you want to keep business in the loop, you're either going to get extremely draconian with laws and enforcement or you'll have to give up trying to police them altogether. There isn't any way to trust businesses to do anything that isn't in their own interest without threat from above.

Take away that business and the government can run the Internet as it sees fit.

Re:More government encroachment

[Attila Dimedici]

If they were to do that they would be unable to disguise their real goal: suppressing the ideas of their opposition.

Re:More government encroachment

[n6kuy]

Just what we need, a government takeover of another entire industry.

How 'bout we do something to increase competition, instead.

Re:More government encroachment

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh.. really? the slashdot crowd hasn't seen through this smokescreen yet?

wake up. both parties are full of shit. so are their talking heads in the media.

Re:More government encroachment

[selven]

Like having the government take over the parts of the industry that are inherently monopolistic (ie. wires; the barrier to entry for that essentially amounts to putting your own set of wires around the entire country) and having them rent out those wires to ISPs, who would then become competitive?

It's really the only way to have a free market in internet service at this point.

Re:More government encroachment

[interkin3tic]

The idea that everyone needs internet is mistaken.

I think the hypocrisy here would be a little less obvious were you not making that argument on the internet.

Re:More government encroachment

[interkin3tic]

Just what we need, a government takeover of another entire industry.

What's up with people saying this? Look around, especially to wall street and the gulf of mexico. I see industry messing up on the exact same scale or bigger than the government messes up.

I'm not saying "Some companies have messed up so lets give it all over to the government," I'm just saying "Government takes over an industry" isn't as scary to me as it once was.

Re:More government encroachment

[tpstigers]

Like having the government take over the parts of the industry that are inherently monopolistic (ie. wires; the barrier to entry for that essentially amounts to putting your own set of wires around the entire country) and having them rent out those wires to ISPs, who would then become competitive?

It's really the only way to have a free market in internet service at this point.

Just a quick question: Who put all those wires there in the first place?

Re:More government encroachment

[PopeRatzo]

Just what we need, the government to regulate safety standards on off-shore oil rigs. Just what we need, the government to regulate the largest banks. Just what we need, the government to regulate environmental rules and protect wetlands.

You're fucking A-right.

Just what we need, for Comcast to turn the Internet into the Disney/TimeWarner Channel.

When the federal government was building the Internet, were you saying, "Just what we need, a fast open data network that anyone can connect to".

If you had waited for AT&T to build the Internet, you'd still be waiting. And I guarantee, that whatever they had built wouldn't have allowed for political blogs and bittorrent trackers and news aggregators and open source HTML standards. No YouTube. No Slashdot. And no teabaggers (well, I guess there would be some good points).

Re:More government encroachment

[blackraven14250]

Sure as hell not the corporations. They're the local governments, and therefore the people's.

Re:More government encroachment

[Anonymous Coward]

"The idea that everyone needs internet is mistaken. Let's concentrate on getting real books into the hands of students. And ones without little penises drawn on them and without Creationism taught alongside Evolutionism."

You're assuming the people concerned about the internet are the ones defunding schools and substituting pcs for actual education.

Re:More government encroachment

[Anonymous Coward]

you're fucking idiot. "Congress shall make no law...". Not too hard to understand, yet campaign finance reform stifles free speech while protecting incumbents. Go cry about faux news while ignoring msnbc, cnn, abc, cbs, nbc... (don't worry, viewers are ignoring them too).

Re:More government encroachment

[aztracker1]

Oh, you mean like prodigy?

Re:More government encroachment

[n6kuy]

Reasonable regulation where it's due.
Not taking over entire industries, though.

Competition is what drives quality of product in other segments of the economy.

There is not sufficient competition in internet service though, even with the available choices of dialup, DSL, cable, fios in some locations, several cellphone companies, satellite and terrestrial wireless.

With all those choices, why isn't competition driving prices down and quality up, like in other industries?

My guess is that there is already too much government regulation that stifles competition.

Oh, and "teabaggers?"
Why the homophobic language?

Re:More government encroachment

[tpstigers]

Guess again. The utilities run the wires and are responsible for them. When wires get blown down in a storm, how many 'local government' trucks do you see out there fixing them?

Re:More government encroachment

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a quick question: Who paid for/subsidized those wires?

Re:More government encroachment

[gangien]

What's up with people saying this? Look around, especially to wall street and the gulf of mexico.

wall street was largely because of the government(dot com bubble collapsed, what's the response? to try to reinflate the bubble. Housing bubble collapses, whats the response? to try and reinflate the bubble. We're going to go through another crash). the oil spill sucks, and shit does happen, but who's gonna pay for it? the company that spilled it. And Likely no one will die. There will be some damage, it's true, but there's a huge incentive for this not to happen (like it costing BP 3billion, the number i got from CNN).

Re:More government encroachment

[jmorris42]

> Just a quick question: Who paid for/subsidized those wires?

You are getting close to the truth of the matter. Yes the telcos paid to put in the wires but it was subsidized in a way. It was part of a deal where AT&T would run wires to MOST[1] of the country in exchange for a monopoly.

So every time this topic comes up I remind people of the only long term solution that would actually work and get ignored. Break up the phone companies one more time, this time along the correct lines. Company A gets the monopoly, the local loops and the COs and sells access at rates set by the government. Company B puts dialtone, IP or video on the wire along with as many other companies who want to compete. And do it for the cable companies as well, they have had enough time extracting monopoly rents they can be split along the same lines of the natural monopoly vs the value added services.

But of course what we get is the government will essentially nationalize the Internet. Service will go to hell if you can even get past the political cleansing. And with Big Media having achieved regulatory capture decades ago the p2p scene will be toast.

[1] Even then they carved out a lot of really rural areas that they wouldn't serve, which is why there are small local phone companies that have been around for a really long time. But all are way out in flyover country where 'real' people never go and thus are ignored.

Re:More government encroachment

[tpstigers]

Just a quick question: Who paid for/subsidized those wires?

The company that put them there. Actually, they're required by law to do so.

Re:More government encroachment

[Shakrai]

Like having the government take over the parts of the industry that are inherently monopolistic (ie. wires; the barrier to entry for that essentially amounts to putting your own set of wires around the entire country) and having them rent out those wires to ISPs, who would then become competitive?

You realize that the only reason that the wires are "inherently monopolistic" is because of governmental interference, right? Your local government signs "franchise agreements" that give a single cable and/or telco company exclusive rights to service your town. Even if you had the capital to lay your own wires you are prohibited by law from doing so.

Re:More government encroachment

[Zakabog]

Oh, and "teabaggers?"
Why the homophobic language?

Whoosh.

Re:More government encroachment

[ffreeloader]

You are getting close to the truth of the matter. Yes the telcos paid to put in the wires but it was subsidized in a way. It was part of a deal where AT&T would run wires to MOST[1] of the country in exchange for a monopoly.

Really? AT&T put in all the miles of fiber we now have back in the 40's? AT&Ts deal with the government was so many years ago that the lines they installed have long ago been outmoded. They were never designed to carry the amount, or type, of traffic that our modern communications systems use.

Re:More government encroachment

[clarkkent09]

There are problems with the free market. There are far bigger problems with government control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-o0kD9f6wo

Re:More government encroachment

[bennomatic]

You realize that the only reason that the wires are "inherently monopolistic" is because of governmental interference, right?

Well, you're ignoring half the picture. If there were no regulations at all, then anyone with the money to do so would be building poles or digging up right-of-way through our main thoroughfares, breaking other companies' connections all along the way and interrupting your daily commute to work.

The only thing that would limit this would be the money factor, which is actually the main reason that natural monopolies exist. It takes a lot of money to build a railroad, to build a phone network, to build gas or electric pipelines. And it'd be wasteful right down the line, all the way to the consumer for everyone to build redundant infrastructure. Once services like this become ubiquitous, the best thing to happen is for the government to take over the infrastructure and consolidate it.

Private companies did a great job building hundreds of independent subway lines in Manhattan. Until the state took it over, though,it did not become the great urban network that it is today.

Re:More government encroachment

[cromar]

"Fly over country" is a really mean thing to say. Sure, there aren't the largest centers of culture in the vast swath between the coasts, but there are metropolises of some merit. And while I'm not trying to equate mid-US small towns with Bath or Florence, it is not as if there is not a rich culture and history around here. If less exciting socially than more cultivated regions, there is certainly merit in the rustic fare, as well as the many other gifts oft overlooked.

Re:More government encroachment

[bennomatic]

We, the rate payers subsidized them. In fact, last year, we subsidized millions of dollars in bonuses for Comcast executives.

Re:More government encroachment

[clarkkent09]

Just what we need, the government to spy on our phone, email, medical and financial records. Just what we need, the government to wage war on medical marijuana users. Just what we need, the government to receive money from countless lobby groups to stealthily enact laws which benefit the said groups while harming the American people. Just what we need, the government waste, corruption and incompetence that operates the postal service at an annual loss of $70B, overpays military contractors by orders of magnitude, and bails out failed banks and car companies with taxpayers money.

Is your point that because some things are appropriate for the government to do it follows that everything is?

Btw, while the government certainly had a large role in building the infrastructure of the Internet, the Internet is what it is today due to private initiative (whether for profit or not) which gets stifled every time the government gets involved.

Re:More government encroachment

[clarkkent09]

What whoosh? "Teabaggers" is a sexual slur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_bag_(sexual_act) which makes it particularly inappropriate for the president to use.

Re:More government encroachment

[Shakrai]

Did I suggest having "no regulations at all"? I merely pointed out the fact that local governments sign franchise agreements that grant monopoly status backed by law. You are implying that I was advocating for anarchy, which could not be further from the truth.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be overly disruptive to my daily commute to allow a fourth company to string wires along the telephone poles that already exist in my town. Why should three companies (the power utility, cable and telephone companies) have exclusive rights to use those poles? Those poles exist on the public right of way but I'm to be denied access to them if I wish to compete with Time Warner? How do you justify such a policy?

Once services like this become ubiquitous, the best thing to happen is for the government to take over the infrastructure and consolidate it.

If the Government sets a precedent for taking over infrastructure that was built with private dollars then what's the incentive for investors to put their money into building said infrastructure in the first place?

Private companies did a great job building hundreds of independent subway lines in Manhattan. Until the state took it over, though,it did not become the great urban network that it is today.

You mean the great urban network that's going broke and which only survives on taxpayer subsidies? Let the straphangers pay the full cost of the service they receive and you might have a valid point.

Re:More government encroachment

[addsalt]

who's gonna pay for it? the company that spilled it

And they will, which will in turn decrease their profit margins which will be unacceptable for shareholders. That, along with the "decrease" in oil availability because of the spill will result in higher gas prices for a while.

With large scale problems such as this, we can't be blind for the fact of who really foots the bill. Regardless of if governments or corporations front the money, you and I always end up providing the cash.

Re:More government encroachment

[TapeCutter]

In the 60's and 70's the term "tea party" was a euphemisim for a swingers party.

Re:More government encroachment

[Anonymous Coward]

And there you have it... a simplistic solution for a complex problem (... too much govt regulation...). A classic case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Your line of reasoning for the lack of competition can also be very well attributed to powerful monopolies that stifle competition by raising barriers to entry and survival.
Yet you do not conveniently mention that.

Look - all I am saying is that swaying to either side (excessive govt hegemony vs. veneer of regulations) is bad. To be honest, I find the current mood to oppose everything done by the government to be extremely distasteful.

Note I am not espousing govt takeover of everything, but I believe a healthy economy and vibrant consumer freedom entails a little trust and suspicion by the consumer on both the government and the corporations.

Oh by the way, I am a gay man and I am acutely attuned to homophobic remarks everywhere. So thanks for pointing that out.
But having witnessed the vile tone of discourse set by the tea party, I welcome them being called "tea baggers".
Honestly, the epithet is far less innocuous than their vitriol and aptly justified.

For fairness' sake - I am hoping that if you do converse with tea party members you reprimand them with equal enthusiasm about the way they have been insulting our President.

Re:More government encroachment

[Anonymous Coward]

What, no link? This seems like an easily linkable subject...

Re:More government encroachment

[jmorris42]

> AT&T put in all the miles of fiber we now have back in the 40's?

Ok, you asked for it. So sit right down and lemme tell ya a tale.

Back in the 90's there were first stirrings of the sort of reform I am talking about. They didn't split em but they did force the telcos to allow competition of a sort. Remember the CLECs? There was a lot wrong in how that scheme was setup, with the incumbent carrier retaining an unhealthy advantage but it was a start and it scared the piss out of the telcos. So they got their pet congressman (Rep Billy Tauzin R-LA in fact but R-BellSouth in reality) to knife the CLECs. This set off a chain reaction that led killed off the CLECs, and most small ISPs because they had become CLECs to get access to low enough rates to stay in the game; that in turn killed the equipment makers that depended on them, i.e. Lucent, Nortel, et al. The contagion spread until it became known as the .bomb.

Perhaps you read about that back in 2000 if you were the sort to read business pages. The rest of the country found out in 2001 after the Presidential race was over with, a major market meltdown didn't fit the media's narrative of that race you see; the story of the Clinton economic miracle that we could keep going if we elected Algore.

While the threat was solved for now, the telcos were determined a shift in their political fortunes wouldn't see a rebirth of competition. So while they had the power they used it. They bought themselves a law that would exempt any new fiber investment from being subject to being opened to competition. They told us that without that promise we would all be stuck on dialup and become uncompetitive in the world economy. And so Congress gave them what they wanted and then some, heck they even threw direct cash at em! And they are slowly rolling out fiber.... and rolling up the copper as they go. So they just refreshed the monopoly. Who cares what it cost, that gets passed to the end customer anyway.

Note that the government is just as liable for the Kaboom! as the telcos. So giving any of them more power is a bad idea.

Re:More government encroachment

[thetoadwarrior]

The communications act doesn't cover just lines from the 40's. Where I lived in PA the lines were much newer because no one really lived there until the 80's. In fact I got to see some lines go up as a kid. They're still covered otherwise verizon would have told people to fuck off judging by how unfriendly they were regarding the area.

Re:More government encroachment

[sonicmerlin]

Yeah, nice try. The last time telcos had to worry about the meddling regulators was after the 1996 law passed. I remember...there was a period of about 5 years where the ILECs stumbled because they didn't know what hit them. There was budding competition, plenty of CLECs, that's when cable got in the broadband and telephony business. ILECs were fined for delaying facilities and repair orders for CLEC customers. You could get dial tone or DSL from a dozen competing providers.

Eventually, the ILECs regrouped, merged their way back to consolidation and monopoly status, put their competitors out of business with a combination of downright dirty tricks like delaying orders or claiming lack of facilities and predatory pricing....and what little complaints there were got silenced by their well paid lobbyists.

Revising history to conform to an idealogy is fun...but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

You think Tauzin or Dingell knew what they were doing? And Crazy "My Tubes" Eddie knew anything past his bottom line? Someone has to represent the public interest....clearly industry leaders and elected officials are not up to the task....the FCC needs to be strengthened and chartered with regulating all facets of "connectivity" before India and China eat our lunch. Oh wait, they already are.

Re:More government encroachment

[sonicmerlin]

Reasonable regulation where it's due. Not taking over entire industries, though.

Competition is what drives quality of product in other segments of the economy.

There is not sufficient competition in internet service though, even with the available choices of dialup, DSL, cable, fios in some locations, several cellphone companies, satellite and terrestrial wireless.

With all those choices, why isn't competition driving prices down and quality up, like in other industries?

My guess is that there is already too much government regulation that stifles competition.

Oh, and "teabaggers?" Why the homophobic language?

Are you kidding? Have you even bothered to turn an analytical eye on the broadband industry? Have you ever heard of a natural monopoly?

Satellite isn't broadband, and it along with dial-up and wireless can't compete with DSL and Cable. Heck, Cable is fast pulling ahead of DSL with DOCSIS 3.0 now. The things you mentioned aren't "competition", which requires similar products that can substitute for each other.

Essentially we have a duopoly in most areas, a monopoly in some. Without government forcing open-access rules on cable and DSL, we'll never have competition.

Re:More government encroachment

[ffreeloader]

Just where did I mention any company besides AT&T? That was the one company mentioned in the post I replied to, and they got their monopoly on phone service lines several decades ago.

I realize the games that have been played since then, but that isn't the point. If you're going to mention one specific company as an example then make it something relevant, something current. AT&Ts original lines, as well as their original equipment, are now basically irrelevant. Land(twisted pair copper) lines are dying, although there will be large parts of rural America that will be stuck using them for quite a few years. My in-laws didn't even get a party line until about 10 years ago.

Re:More government encroachment

[selven]

Wait, so if government interference didn't exist anyone with a few hundred thousand bucks of capital would be able to set up an ISP? Do you know how much it costs to put wires all around the country even with no regulation whatsoever?

Re:More government encroachment

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you might have a misplaced idea of what a taxpayer does in New York (*).

You see, New York City has an unusually high 3% income tax. This applies only to people living in the five boroughs. All of them have access to the MTA public transport system, and while a small percentage might avoid using it, most enjoy the relatively good reliability and performance it has. This is a good thing in itself, because the last thing I want, as a resident of Manhattan, is more cars.

Now you might ask, why not make everyone pay the full price in tickets and lower the tax, right (**)? Well, using income tax for the purpose of funding MTA effectively makes your ticket price relate to your income - the higher your income, the more you pay. I'm sure a lot of Ayn Rand slashtards will start shouting about White Man's Burden etc., but if my ticket costs effectively $5 and, thanks to that, my fellow human beings' ticket costs $2.50, I'll deal. This kind of social welfare does not insult me too much; it's in everyone's interest to keep the City running smoothly.

(*) And no, "whimpers under the terrible tax burden" is not it.
(**) Well, apart from the simple fact that "lowering the taxes" never happens (there's always another money sink ready)...

Re:More government encroachment

[Jawn98685]

[sigh...] And you would accomplish this magic of increasing competition, in a marketplace that is by it's very nature a monopoly..., how? Exactly?
I'll save you some time. You can't do it without regulation. Expensive, complicated, and inefficient regulation. Yes, all of those, which you'd know if you'd ever once read transcripts from public utility commission hearings on things like rate increases for regulated service (think dial tone).
What you can do, and without the burden of enforcing regulation like that, is socialize the operation of the infrastructure (that portion of the whole thing that defines the monopoly) and then open up that infrastructure to all qualified comers.

Re:More government encroachment

[flitty]

"which makes it particularly inappropriate for the president to use."

Spare me the pearl clutching. Anybody who was paying attention knows that the tea-party used the term first.

Re:More government encroachment

[Myopic]

I've often thought how thankful I am that the spark of human inter-connectivity came from academia and government rather than private industry. It's clear now, and will become more clear in the coming century, how we dodged a bullet by making the internet an open medium.

Re:More government encroachment

[Myopic]

My guess is that there is already too much government regulation that stifles competition.

Hmmm... no. I totally disagree.

Re:More government encroachment

[wkcole]

Just where did I mention any company besides AT&T? That was the one company mentioned in the post I replied to, and they got their monopoly on phone service lines several decades ago.

Yes, and it is important to understand that their monopoly was not simply on physical wires, it was on the whole business of telephony. AT&T ceded local service in some low-margin bits of geography to smaller companies, but they effectively owned the equipment market, the interconnect facilities, the long lines, the technical standards process, the patents, the rights-of-way in profitable markets, the customers, and the political pull at all levels of government. Some of those areas were whittled at before the AT&T breakup and some were addressed by the breakup. The huge failure of the breakup was that it left in place the most exploitable and self-perpetuating features of the Bell System monopoly, sliced them regionally between the ILEC's, and effectively gave them each more leeway to exploit their monopoly positions in their regions than 'Ma Bell' ever had. The big bundles of last-mile POTS pairs running out of thousands of local CO's were not themselves such a valuable asset, but they are the physical manifestation of the crown jewels of the Bell System which were handed over to the ILEC's: captive customers, CO's, rights of way, and finely divided (and hence easily conquered) regulators.

I realize the games that have been played since then, but that isn't the point. If you're going to mention one specific company as an example then make it something relevant, something current. AT&Ts original lines, as well as their original equipment, are now basically irrelevant. Land(twisted pair copper) lines are dying, although there will be large parts of rural America that will be stuck using them for quite a few years. My in-laws didn't even get a party line until about 10 years ago.

The local ILEC remains the only provider of basic phone service and a physical layer for Internet access in many places, they are one of two choices for most people, and wherever any number of communications providers can connect a customer, a corporate heir of the 1980 regulated monopoly phone company (overwhelmingly, of one of the old Bell System entities) is one of the dominant mass-market providers of voice and data service. For the bulk of people who have 2 competing wire-providers, the other one is essentially always the heir to whatever cable company bid highest for their municipal officials^W monopoly cable franchise back in the 70's or 80's. The duopoly exists because circa 1980, the phone company was at the lowpoint of its political influence and mostly lacked the vision to understand that geographically balkanized monopoly franchises to run coax for analog video on "telephone poles" were a fundamental threat to their most important monopoly leverage. Cable companies and phone companies have had slightly different monopolies because of how their networks of wires were originally structured. Both have used their iron grip on one type of service to exclude true direct competitors and maintain margins that have allowed them to evolve their physical plants towards the ability to make a run at each others' core services. The problem with that isn't the evolving competitive duopoly, it is the fact that both classes of monopoly wire-provider have used their nominally regulated monopolies on the wires to become dominant players in the unregulated areas of business that depend on their wires. The ILEC's (today being mostly the re-assembled AT&T and Verizon, which is most of the rest of the old Ma Bell plus MCI and GTE) have pushed CLEC's and independent ISP's into low-volume/low-margin niches, while the cable companies have consolidated themselves to the point where they are big enough to buy NBC/U and blackmail companies like News Corp. and Disney, while essentially doing away with the quaint old concept of municipal grifts^W franchises.

This is wh

Re:More government encroachment

[ffreeloader]

So, your basic point is that I should have ignored the fact that post I originally replied to specifically referred to wires, and instead gone off on a rant about how evil all the telcos are.

[sarcasm]Yeah, I'm really evil for replying to a specific point in a specific post. Oh, I'm so ashamed of being so ignorant that I remained on point. Your post taught me so much I didn't already know.[/sarcasm]

Re:More government encroachment

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm just saying "Government takes over an industry" isn't as scary to me as it once was."

Then you are a fool.

Do you not understand that the limits placed on government by the constitution are there to protect *you* and *your*family*? Do you believe that the government, in the end, will do what is best for you? Then you are a fool. They will they do what is best for them; don't take my word for it, just read your history.

Do you not understand that the financial disaster we are facing is and was caused by those in power in the government? Do you really think any corporation has that much power and the will to make these things happen? Then you are a fool.

What does an oil spill have to do with any of this? Do you think BP wanted this to happen? If so you are a fool. Do you not understand how this will impact them and how hard they are working at this very minute to stop this leak and reduce the damage, yet you in your infantile media directed rage feel confident in accusing the corporation above all else, and place your trust in the government.

You are a class one idiot.

Re:More government encroachment

[Anonymous Coward]

"When the federal government was building the Internet"

Oh-for-crying-out-loud.

The internet was created by universities and the defense department. This is not the Federal government.

"...teabaggers..."

Oh now it makes sense, I'm responding to a statist moron.

Re:More government encroachment

[Zakabog]

What whoosh? "Teabaggers" is a sexual slur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_bag_(sexual_act) which makes it particularly inappropriate for the president to use.

How is it homophobic to use the term "teabagger" especially given the context. Tea bagging isn't strictly a homosexual act, even the article you linked to shows a woman tea bagging a man.

Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

FCC: We have now made rules and regulations that mean violating net neutrality is forbidden
Court: Actually, that was not part of the authority given to you in your mandate
FCC: Oh, in that case we will use the powers everyone agree we do have in creatively interpreted ways so that we create the same effect as if we wrote the laws

Uh, how is this OK?

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[unity100]

because we need a fucking free internet so that mega cartels wont make it into another cable tv clone.

by blood or by words if necessary. that is as important as any independence struggle in the history of universe.

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[Agarax]

by blood or by words if necessary. that is as important as any independence struggle in the history of universe.

You. Are. High.

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

By blood or by words? Take a pill, amigo. This is a mortal empire of a mortal race. You don't need to martyr yourself to get things done. Some strategy and a little time will usually suffice when facing off against lumbering beasts.

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[selven]

There's nothing illegal about circumventing the law. That's why it's called "circumventing", and not "breaking". The court is reminding the FCC that there are limits on their power, the FCC is working within those limits. Provided that you agree with the limits that the court gave the FCC, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[Lunix Nutcase]

by blood or by words if necessary. that is as important as any independence struggle in the history of universe.

Says the pasty armchair general from his parents' basement.

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[unity100]

hahahaa. says the stereotyping american with his 'parent's basement' bullshit, while not having even served time in his country's military.

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you could at the very least try to persuade us by using capital letters in the appropriate places. Maybe even try "parent's basement" in double quotes so the possessive apostrophe doesn't look out of place. And you need some quotes around your "hahahaa", and you need to replace that "." with a "," unless you think it's some sort of non-American decimal number.

And whose country is "his" country referring to? Would that be you? If so, you should really watch a little more Seinfeld so you could use the 'third person' self-reference properly as in "George's country!".

Come to think of it, your fight with grammar and creative writing "is as important as any independence struggle in the history of universe" (except with a 'the' in front of that "universe" reference). Me fail English? That's unpossible.

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[DirkBalognapantz]

Nice clarification regarding circumvention, selven. I like the way you put that.

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[gangien]

There's nothing illegal about circumventing the law. That's why it's called "circumventing", and not "breaking".

Which is a nice indication of the system being broken.

Re:Announcing your intent to circumvent the law?

[unity100]

content over container. there is much to say in this world, yet not enough time.

And whose country is "his" country referring to? Would that be you? If so, you should really watch a little more Seinfeld so you could use the 'third person' self-reference properly as in "George's country!".

his country is usa. my country is turkey.

and i dont give a shit about grammar or creative writing as long as the person who takes the time to read understands what i say.

We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[onionman]

Without net neutrality regulation, I fear that providers will have far too much power to censor content. In my area, there is only one choice for broadband: Comcast. My provider has already demonstrated a willingness to censor based on protocol and re-direct DNS lookup failures to their own search engine. I don't trust them at all to act in the best interest of the consumer when sites like Hulu and iTunes start directly competing against cable TV offerings for content.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about their right to free speech through censorship? It's just their own way of communicating with you!

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[bhtooefr]

There's another provider in your area, that gives access to quite a few other providers.

Downside is, 56 kbps downstream.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[GrApHiX42]

What stops the government from doing exactly the same thing?

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[laughingcoyote]

For a lot of people, that isn't an option.

Boss: I need those reports back from the 20 MB spreadsheets I gave you.
Employee: Sure thing, boss! You should have the first one a couple days from now!

Even for standard "web surfing and email" type access, dialup is inadequate. For any type of real work, it's not an option at all.

That's quite aside from the fact that fewer and fewer people need or want POTS anymore at all. To get POTS just to accommodate dialup, plus the dialup, you'll probably be paying more than basic broadband.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Ichijo]

In my area, there is only one choice for broadband: Comcast.

Surely you have more choices than that. There's satellite broadband and cellular broadband available just about anywhere, or you could VPN past your ISP's traffic shaping (they can't shape what they can't inspect), or you could get a leased line, or set up a neighborhood Internet co-op.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't even get comcast where I live, no cable, no dsl, terrain blocks access to satellite, no cel signal.. dialup is the only option now that the phone company doesn't offer isdn anymore.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Rockoon]

They can shape everything that they cant inspect.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Lunix Nutcase]

they can't shape what they can't inspect

Sure they can. They'll just throttle any encrypted traffic that isn't on standard ports.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing censorship with rights.

Sorry, but you don't have the right to any content, anywhere, anytime, just because you want it.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[T Murphy]

Even a politician racing after power can't keep up with a corporation chasing money.

There is money to be made breaking net neutrality, so as soon as corporations think they can get away with it, they will. With politicians, though, we've seen that there is power to be had both supporting and fighting net neutrality, so at the very least we get a little longer before neutrality is gone.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[blackraven14250]

Nothing. That's why you don't give government the power to take over the wires, but to bitchslap the people using the wires.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[shentino]

Assinine companies suing them when they try.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[smidget2k4]

Do you live on the moon?

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Just Comcast? So there's no DNS provider, and no wireless providers, and no cell providers? Yeah, right.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Khyber]

You know, I remember my 128 kbit ISDN. I seem to recall having no issues uploading or downloading 20MB within a reasonable amount of time.

And I remember that cost about $1,000 to install when I had it.

Show me a $1,000 56kbit POTS line, please.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[geminidomino]

ISDN is barely broadband, much less "basic broadband" so what exactly was your point?

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[pclminion]

And they will know it's encrypted how, exactly? Yes, your typical encrypted data stream looks like random bits, but so does well compressed data.

So either you have to block all data that looks compressed or encrypted, which is a nice way to fuck yourself as a bandwidth provider since people will stop compressing shit to get past your filter, or you have to actually attempt to decompress and look inside any high-entropy data stream. How many reasonably well-deployed compression methods are there? Well, I'd guess about a hundred, if you include various audio and video codecs. So you need to run a number of decompression attempts just to distinguish compressed data from encrypted data. And you really have to DECOMPRESS IT, not just scan for magic numbers or certain headers, because hell, I'll just throw those on there for good measure to confuse you.

Okay, so now that you've established that the data is a compressed stream, you need to look inside the decompressed data to see if that itself looks like its encrypted. Sure, it's boneheaded to compress encrypted data, since it's already such high entropy, but how can you know? Especially when there are people like me trying to get around your filter? You can't, unless you try the whole process again recursively. Obviously, at some point you'll give up. Say you set the bar at two levels of nesting -- at that point it's just too expensive to keep analyzing. Well, that's going to have a shitload of false positives, because people do stupid shit like zip up a video file, which doesn't really gain you that much but is certainly widely done, and would trigger your "give up" signal -- at that point, do you fail open or fail closed? Do you reject a huge amount of traffic that's not encrypted, pissing everyone off and rendering your own service unusable and therefore worthless -- or do you throw your hands up and let the data stream through?

Yeah, sure. They'll just "throttle any encrypted traffic." Good luck with that.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[rhadc]

Check out http://dns.comcast.net/dns-ip-addresses2.php

It's a Comcast site that provides its customers with the Opt-out DNS Servers in case they don't want the DNS Redirect functionality.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[laughingcoyote]

Maybe I should say "what basic broadband costs now". I strongly doubt ISDN costs that now, though I also haven't looked into it in quite some time.

As to 20 MB being a reasonable amount of time, you've got a very tolerant boss, apparently. Even if we figure that the ISDN operated at absolute maximum capacity for the full transfer, 128 kbit = 16 kB per second. At that rate, transferring a 20 MB file would take (20000 KB/16 KB/s) = 1250 seconds = 20.8 minutes. And that's under the most optimal circumstances. A 20 MB file is by no means the largest file size I work with in a given day, nor is my connection idle while I'm sending one.

And while we're at it, why don't you show me a $1000 ISDN setup? I'm finding plenty for no setup charge at all. That may have been true years ago, but many things were. I'm old enough to remember when a 56k modem seemed blazing fast, as compared to a 14.4. Times change. That's not true anymore.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[fnj]

It pleases me to imagine a new data protocol, one with an encrypted data channel riding on a "plain text" channel. Imagine a stream of HTML with images and attachments, the encrypted data being impressed like steganography on the images and attachments. Sure, it's very low efficiency, but it would be highly difficult and unprofitable to try to discriminate the encrypted data channel. The scheme even carries a pleasing level of schadenfreude in that you are screwing The Man with lots of frivolous plain text and by making it super hard to detect and counter.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[adolf]

Your scheme, while brilliant, is inefficient to such excess that it is self-defeating.

To perform steganography effectively (read: "undetectably"), one must bury the data within normal-looking noise. The amount of adjustable noise required increases proportionately with the amount of desired steganogaphically-encoded data. So, to encode a Big Thing (a movie, say), you need Lots Of Noise, or rather, a substantially larger amount of adjustable normal-looking data than that which you intend to send.

This makes the steganographical usage you describe very easy to classify: Those who aren't using it for a given task are going to consume (just to throw some numbers out there) 1x bandwidth. Those who ARE using it for the same task are going to consume, say, 10x.

If this attempt to screw The Man ever became common enough to be useful, The Man would simply counter with appropriately-higher fees for high-bandwidth users, or worse.

Steganography is indeed very useful for transferring some quantity of relatively small data in an undetectable fashion. But, in this context, it doesn't seem that the parties are concerned with relatively small bits of data -- they're more worried about bulk. So, by increasing bulk through steganography usage, one makes them self stand out even more in a non-neutral network than they would have by not bothering with such charades to begin with.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[vlueboy]

Without net neutrality regulation, I fear that providers will have far too much power to censor content.

Binary usenet comes to mind. Alive for decades... gone on one company's whim that was greedily copied by everyone else's.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Mathinker]

> To perform steganography effectively (read: "undetectably")

He's not talking about standard steganography where one is interested in having a very small probability that an opponent with practically unlimited computing resources will be able to detect the presence of a message. He's talking about steganography against an opponent with very limited computing resources (on a per-message-byte basis).

It's similar to someone "encrypting" some of their Google Calendar events with a substitution cipher. The point isn't that Google couldn't break the ridiculously weak encryption, it's that Google has no economic incentive to do so, and even if it had, it couldn't invest the computing time to try to break thousands of such calendar entries (if this would happen on on a massive scale).

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[newhoggy]

Just because it is fraught with technical issues, doesn't mean it won't be tried at the expense of users who have very little by the way of choice.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sure. They'll just "throttle any encrypted traffic." Good luck with that.

No need for that...They're just going to throttle any traffic that doesn't meet their criteria: if it isn't on port X to Z or if the protocol is unidentifiable by the header or suspicious then throttle.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

they can't shape what they can't inspect

Of course they can. It's trivial. Throttle everything to base-level (or even less), except for those things explicitly allowed reasonable bandwidth. Anything they can't identify (i.e inspect) gets lower priority.

You're far too naive.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Attila Dimedici]

Without net neutrality regulation, I fear that providers will have far too much power to censor content. In my area, there is only one choice for broadband: Comcast. My provider has already demonstrated a willingness to censor based on protocol and re-direct DNS lookup failures to their own search engine. I don't trust them at all to act in the best interest of the consumer when sites like Hulu and iTunes start directly competing against cable TV offerings for content.

That's right, there is a danger that a private company will censor content on the internet, so let's give the government the power to decide what content ISPs must deliver to end users (and by correllary, what content they may not deliver to end users.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Attila Dimedici]

they can't shape what they can't inspect

Sure they can. They'll just throttle any encrypted traffic that isn't on standard ports.

Except that some of that traffic will be from players who are bigger and more powerful than they are.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[vonart]

Oddly, in my case, that's not an option. While Comcast has a drop to my home, the local telco, Fairpoint, does not, and when called, has no desire to dig up my yard to run a line (not that my landlord would let me tell them to do that anyway).

As such, I can get Comcast. No southern exposure for satellite either.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

And they will know it's encrypted how, exactly? Yes, your typical encrypted data stream looks like random bits, but so does well compressed data.

And compression isn't even the half of it. Suppose they throttle encrypted streams and go four deep into compression layers to eliminate the vast majority of false positives. Suppose they're prepared to ignore the shitstorm that will result from degrading the VPN connections that network admins and executives use to work remotely, who at work make purchasing decisions about $10,000+/month business data connections from the same companies who are degrading their VPN at home. Suppose they're willing to tell the entertainment industry to go to hell if they try to use any encryption in DRM on streaming video.

What happens if the encryption isn't in the protocol? There is no way to distinguish Joe Hacker designing a protocol to look like it's an unencrypted protocol which is transferring an encrypted file, and Joe Blow using an unencrypted protocol to transfer an encrypted file. What are they going to do, prohibit the transfering of encrypted files? Joe Blow has to totally unencrypt his proprietary business data and send it in the clear over the internet? Even if they don't get sued for the practice in and of itself, just wait until some foreign intelligence agency steals some major American company's trade secrets because no one can encrypt anything. No, I don't think you'll even have to wait that long, because no business is actually going to stop encrypting their proprietary information just because Comcast has a fiber deficiency. If it really comes to that, where it's Every Business in America vs. Comcast, I think you can guess who is going to fold.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, you're reading into this way too much. a packet is a packet is a packet. if it is a packet it can be throttled.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Khyber]

I'm old enough to remember 300 baud, Z, Q, Y, X modem, and much more. Wanna see a $1,000 ISDN setup? My dad's on here, I bet he still has that huge box lying around somewhere in storage. He's about as bad as I am in pack-ratting old stuff.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[adolf]

Oh.

I'd like to think that you're right, but if fighting the War On Spam from both sides in various capacities over the past 12 years has taught me anything, it is this: Don't underestimate your opponent.

In this particular context, I'd like to suggest that the MAFIAA grows more cunning by the day, and that available CPU work is still increasing at Moore's Law rates at the present time while also being astoundingly cheap at the moment.

So, no: ROT13'ing data (or the moral equivalent thereof) isn't good enough to stay ahead in that particular battle. P2P standards have a huge amount of inertia, and it takes -years- before folks move onto something "better." So, whatever you do, you want "better" to be as strong as possible, not "just enough for today."

Like chess, one has much better odds of success if they're thinking several moves ahead of what their opponent is considering.

I fully support OP's idea of steganography on the basis that it works. I simply discount it, as a whole, on the basis that it's inefficient, and is thus very easy to spot. After that, applying substantial resources toward figuring out some of what's going on is trivial, since they've already got a select list of targets.

It is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for the purposes of spying, and thereby they achieve great results.
Sun Tzu

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[Mathinker]

> if fighting the War On Spam from both sides

Ouch. That doesn't sound all that good... or did I misunderstand?

> I'd like to suggest that the MAFIAA grows more cunning by the day,
> and that available CPU work is still increasing at Moore's Law rates

This won't really help them that much (well, maybe the cunning part) if they convince enough people that it is too dangerous to continue to use P2P in its present, well-known forms. OK, a certain small number of those people will just quit totally, but most will search for new ways to get what they want. Since some of this also includes things like sneakernets, against which the only defense is paying real investigators to infiltrate things like sharing parties in real life, Moore's law isn't going to really make a difference.

I've heard stories from people who know people who work at a company who make some of the hardware used by the Chinese in their firewall, and from what they tell me, new protocols to bypass the filtration are invented on a weekly basis. So I'm not totally convinced by your idea that

> P2P standards have a huge amount of inertia, and it takes -years-
> before folks move onto something "better."

If you give people enough incentive (their level of fear is high enough) then I think you will be able to see relatively large-scale change in a relatively short time.

> So, whatever you do, you want "better" to be as strong as possible,
> not "just enough for today."

No, I think what you want is that this "better" protocol has a built-in parameter/s which can trade off efficiency for strength. In fact, you've inspired me. I think I'll try to invent a good steganography algorithm with this property and if I find a good enough one, I'll post it on my journal here.

Re:We need net neutrality to prevent censorship

[adolf]

Ouch. That doesn't sound all that good... or did I misunderstand?

Perhaps. I guess I wasn't very clear. I've done work for both sides of the spam war, but not at the same time. The first real, steady job I had, in fact, was based around helping folks send spam...way back when. Nowadays I wear a hat of a different color, but I keep my options open: I'm anyone's whore. :)

Your commentary about the Chinese firewall is interesting. I guess if attrition were higher here in the States (due to the law, the MPAA, or whatever), things would be forced to evolve more quickly than they have in the past.

So, all said, I think you're probably right. Easy-to-use steganography with sliding-scale efficiency would be a good tool to have available.

Better to me

[DirkBalognapantz]

I think this is a much more admirable endeavor than being the nipple and potty mouth police. I always considered the FCC toothless moralists. I welcome our new internet overloads.

Just make them common carrier

[jonwil]

Just make ISPs common carriers like the phone companies. Then the FCC can enforce the rules it wants.

Re:Just make them common carrier

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Just make ISPs common carriers like the phone companies. Then the FCC can enforce the rules it wants.

Not "common carriers" but rather just "telecommunications services" rather than "information services."

Ironically, it was the FCC itself that recategorized ISPs as "information services" and thus opened the door for all of this bullshit in the first place. You would think that since the trouble started with the FCC, they could just change their minds and put things back the way they were so that IP was treated the same as Voice and all the neutrality rules would then apply again.

Re:Just make them common carrier

[butlerm]

That is more or less what the FCC is going to do. Correct the linguistic sleight of hand that let them get away with considering Internet access as an "information service" instead a common carrier "telecommunications service" in the first place.

Internet access is _not_ an information service. It is a communications service that allows customers to connect to or provide information services. The good news is that the FCC is planning a lightweight approach to Title II (common carrier) style Internet access service regulation, that uses "forebearance" to only regulate the important things. A heavyweight approach could have all the disadvantages of the government approach to the telephone network. Like a dozen fees tacked onto every bill, for example.

Re:Just make them common carrier

[butlerm]

You would think that since the trouble started with the FCC, they could just change their minds and put things back the way they were

They have changed their minds, they have ample reason to do so, and that is what they are planning to do. They just have to be able to convince the courts that they are not acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. I am frankly amazed that the courts deferred to their original (mis)classification in the first place, because it was obviously wrong by any reasonable standard.

Free as in speech

[Chris Burke]

It's a noble idea to get unfettered, free access to everyone, but if you want to keep business in the loop, you're either going to get extremely draconian with laws and enforcement or you'll have to give up trying to police them altogether.

Free Internet access isn't the big deal here as far as I'm concerned. Libraries provide free Internet access, and while like you say the internet isn't needed, neither are books technically speaking. Having information available for free is a good thing. It's just not something I think we need to be spending a lot of energy providing with tax money and regulations and what not.

Having a Free Internet, on the other hand, is of the utmost importance to me.

Re:Free as in speech

[PopeRatzo]

Having a Free Internet, on the other hand, is of the utmost importance to me.

Chris, I'm afraid your arguments are casting pearls before swine.

You can reach a point where some peoples' heads are so filled with free-market talking points that they just can't see the monitor in front of their face.

If we let Comcast and AT&T decide what the internet is going to become, the one technological advance that has actually brought to reality the hopes and foresight that I read about in science fiction way back when will disappear faster than coke up a super-model's nose.

Maybe there aren't flying cars, or AI's that can pass the turing test, or domed cities, but goddamn it, we've got a fucking internet onto which any fucking human being with a connection can broadcast information and ideas to the entire world.

All you free-market fantasists ask yourself this: If AT&T and Comcast decide who gets bandwidth and who doesn't how long do you think there will be a Wikileaks? Why the fuck am I asking you anyway, because you don't lack the foresight to even understand why that's such an innovation (not you, Chris, but the butterbrains who think the "free market" is anything but a mechanism to siphon wealth from the bottom of society to the top).

Re:Free as in speech

[gangien]

You can reach a point where some peoples' heads are so filled with free-market talking points that they just can't see the monitor in front of their face.

that's because the monitor was provided by the free market. And people love to over look all the good things they have because of the free market.

If we let Comcast and AT&T decide what the internet is going to become, the one technological advance that has actually brought to reality the hopes and foresight that I read about in science fiction way back when will disappear faster than coke up a super-model's nose.

Well, they can't really just decide, can they? no. they have plenty of competition. And if they somehow bought up competition, and they started to be to restrictive, guess what? new competition would be born. So long as they haven't bought off the regulators (in other words, so long as we still have a free market)

All you free-market fantasists ask yourself this: If AT&T and Comcast decide who gets bandwidth and who doesn't how long do you think there will be a Wikileaks?

like i said above, it wouldn't happen.

Why the fuck am I asking you anyway, because you don't lack the foresight to even understand why that's such an innovation (not you, Chris, but the butterbrains who think the "free market" is anything but a mechanism to siphon wealth from the bottom of society to the top).

in a free market, you cannot force others to pay you. So the only way you get their money, is to offer them something the want. So the net wealth goes up. You think the world would be better off without bill gates? I don't think so. look at all the jobs he created. you think it'd be better off without ted turner? same thing. People get rich, largely, by providing something other's want. Of course, with regulations you and everyone else wants, they can then also get rich by bribing government officials.

It boils down to a simple principle: freedom. You know, what we supposedly cherish in this country(US). What you and most people don't get is, it means freedom for everyone, not just the people you choose.

Re:Free as in speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, once the government has its claws around the ISPs, Wikileaks is finally going to be safe! Because fucking with its bandwidth was the real threat, not, say, censorship.

What gets me is that technologists think ISPs can actually DO this. You can't think of like 1000 ways around bandwidth restrictions or filters? How about starting with end-to-end encryption and DNSSEC, and then adding in proxies? Woops. Done.

Re:Free as in speech

[jmorris42]

> If we let Comcast and AT&T decide what the internet is going to become...

Yes, letting Comcast or AT&T decide the fate of the net would be a disaster. So would letting the government decide. Putting that decision into ANY select group's hand means we get hosed, the only difference is HOW we get hosed by WHO. Don't know about you but I don't like getting hosed. So why not pick a course of action that doesn't involve getting hosed?

> You can reach a point where some peoples' heads are so filled with free-market talking points that they just can't see the monitor in front of their face.

You are missing the point. The current telco situation isn't a Free Market. Two massive government sponsored/controlled enterprises wielding monopoly power has exactly zero to do with a free market. Sure they are listed on the stock exchanges, big whoop. So do Freddie and Fannie. None of them take a dump without government permission right now and act safe in the knowledge that it is pretty much ILLEGAL to compete with them.

We need more free market not less. Break off the monopoly over the physical plant and make it lease out access to all comers, including the other part which could then be safely deregulated almost entirely.

Re:Free as in speech

[Big Boss]

I agree with the basic principle, but you're overlooking the fact that the telecom industry is NOT a free market and hasn't been for over 100 years. They have been granted monopoly status by government action. That's exactly the opposite of a free market. Cable TV has never been a free market. There is no competition that is legally allowed to come in and fight back. The only hope of any competition is wireless, but they can't compete with the raw speed a wired line can. And the entrenched monopolies can just lower prices and push speeds up to force new competition out of business. With protected monopoly profits no less.

In this industry, there is no freedom, no free market. Even removing the laws preventing competition isn't enough in this case. The existing companies also got huge subsidies and tax breaks to pay for the networks. Can you think of a business plan that can compete with that?

Re:Free as in speech

[gangien]

So you agree that government interfering is a problem.. but you think more government intervention is the solution?

Wireless is a huge competitor. Why would someone buy the internet at home, if they can get it on their phone? assuming they do little else beyond email/occasional web browsing. it's not what I want(mostly cus of gaming habbits), but i also have options.

There's so much money to be made.. people won't just sit back and say, comcast is censoring and fucking their customers, I'm gonna sit back and do nothing.

Re:Free as in speech

[david_thornley]

You're also overlooking that data communications is a natural monopoly (or at least oligarchy) situation.

The obvious technique is a physical line to the house. For that to be an unregulated market, there would have to be some scheme to allow anybody to start wiring up the neighborhood. Standard utility poles can't hold unlimited wires, and adding wires is disruptive as it is. Digging is potentially worse: should any company have authority to dig up your street whenever they want?

There's also wireless, but that's iffy in some respects. Minneapolis, Minnesota is a fairly large city that's tried to implement a municipal wireless system, but there are still what they call "challenge areas" (including where my mother lives) that don't get a signal, and it's not particularly high-quality in any case.

In the case of any utility that delivers to the home, either the municipality provides it (like our water system) or a closely regulated company provides it. There's really no other way to work this.

If we are to provide internet service on the same basis as, say, telephone service, we need to regulate it similarly to the telephone service.

Common carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they just make ISPs common carriers. A common carrier has to take anyone's traffic without favor or discrimination (as long as the customer can pay). The concept has served us very well for things like telephones and railways. I find it hard to understand why it doesn't automatically apply to ISPs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

Re:Common carrier

[T Murphy]

Telephones and railways have gone through antitrust cases. ISPs have not. My guess is we need a full-fledged monopoly to form before things get better.

Re:Common carrier

[TubeSteak]

Why don't they just make ISPs common carriers. A common carrier has to take anyone's traffic without favor or discrimination (as long as the customer can pay). The concept has served us very well for things like telephones and railways. I find it hard to understand why it doesn't automatically apply to ISPs.

ISPs don't have the history of monopolistic abuse that telcos and railways do.
Fundamentally, that's why they've managed to play by a different set of rules.

IMHO, the FCC is changing the regulatory landscape because of ISPs' greed.
It was pretty much over for them once they started saying things like:
"We're going to filter what we want"
"Google should pay us to reach our customers"

They really did this to themselves.

Re:Common carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they haven't yet?

Re:Common carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs don't have the history of monopolistic abuse that telcos and railways do.
Fundamentally, that's why they've managed to play by a different set of rules.

Except that the ISPs are the telcos. I mean sure, some of them are cable TV companies, but that seems to be hair splitting at this point. They both provide voice, television and internet service over digital data connections. There is no material difference between them and what differences do exist (e.g. cable as 'broadcast'-like shared medium vs. telco as point to point) will disappear over time as both transition to point to point fiber.

But let's go with the distinction for a second. AT&T is a telco/ISP and Comcast is a cable/ISP. Assume that isn't the same thing somehow. Can't we then make AT&T the common carrier and not Comcast? Give everyone the option of choosing the local telco and getting network neutrality or the local cable provider and getting whatever Comcast is willing to give? See how discrimination works in the marketplace when a nondiscriminatory baseline is established? Any argument for this not being the case has to be based on the lack of material difference between AT&T and Comcast, and if that's the argument then it just makes the case for calling them both telecommunications providers.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"We need [to give the government the power to censor] to prevent [private] censorship."
.
There I fixed your comment for you.
.
Don't be too quick to bring the Trojan Horse into the city walls.
.
I don't like private or public censorship but I can tell you that private censorship is a lot easier to get away from and likely to be a lot shorter lived.

Re:Wrong

[dontbgay]

I don't think you're looking at this the right way. It's not viewed as the government censoring Comcast or ANYONE for that matter. There is no removing the freedom of speech by the FCC anywhere in this. The only perpetrators of that in this particular instance is the content provider.

It's funny how these days people view it as "I gotta be in the corporations camp" or "I gotta support the government" when there's a hidden option: "I support my own views." Google tries to kick China in the balls for freedom of speech? Great! Uncle Sam trying to give the ISPs a slap for being mean to their customers? Great! Now, the converse is not supporting things you don't like. Don't jump on a bandwagon here, unless it's going in the direction that's best for all.

Re:Wrong

[dontbgay]

Should have previewed. The service provider

Grabby Genachowski

[MSTCrow5429]

The single "A Question of Time" comes to mind...ick.

Can someone please explain this?

[toiletbowl]

I mostly understand that our elected representatives are beholden to the corporations that help them earn that office, and that has a trickle down effect to appointed positions. But wouldn't it be possible for the head of the FCC to explain to people how his ruling will affect them? Maybe if things were explained in simple terms?

... OR

[pudge]

The FCC could just, you know, respect the fact that we live in a representative democracy and that as unelected bureaucrats that don't get to invent new laws restricting the free behavior of the people. The FCC could lobby Congress to write a law implementing what they want, instead of trying to tyrannically decide for us what they think is best.

I am mostly in favor of Net Neutrality (especially in cases where there's a de facto monopoly for a particular broadband provider). But I am not in favor of the FCC making up its own rules. I am in favor of elected representatives voting so we can hold them accountable in the end.

Re:... OR

[Anonymous Coward]

Allowing Congress to write the Net neutrality laws is a recipe for red-tape and a sure fire way to disaster, especially with a partisan atmosphere and the-party-of-NO-GO republicans.

At least with the tyranny of FCC we have this sizable probability of it actually being relevant.

Let the FCC come up with a framework and guidelines and have it be voted upon by the representatives via a quick simple procedure.

Our representatives are too vulnerable to be swayed by ISPs and their lobbyists, so lets not turn into another debacle.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

Allowing Congress to write the Net neutrality laws is a recipe for red-tape and a sure fire way to disaster, especially with a partisan atmosphere and the-party-of-NO-GO republicans.

Irrelevant.

At least with the tyranny of FCC ...

It is NOT LEGAL. It VIOLATES OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. You're not getting it. This is simply unacceptable. Unelected bureaucrats have no right to make laws to tell us what to do. Period.

Let the FCC come up with a framework and guidelines and have it be voted upon by the representatives via a quick simple procedure.

The FCC can writes laws any time it wants to, and give them to someone in Congress to submit as proper legislation.

Our representatives are too vulnerable to be swayed by ISPs and their lobbyists

No moreso than the members of the FCC.

And you forgot to mention "and other special interests" (which includes groups like the EFF) If you make this government-vs-ISP then you're already setting it up to fail. It's about doing what is best for everyone, not for going against the ISPs.

Re:... OR

[Anonymous Coward]

You are either uninformed or choosing to ignore the facts, so either you're ignorant or an ideologue who doesn't let the facts get in their way.

Telecommunications services ARE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE FCC, they have the power to classify the services how they see fit. Previously ISP services were Title II, and I could buy DSL from a third party company buying access through the local monopoly(Verizon).. and things were better. Then, during the Bush admin the FCC changed the rules to make them Title I, 'to foster competition'. That hasn't worked so well, in addition the ISP's are now messing with MY and YOUR traffic. The court case was about the FCC not having the right to add extra rules to Title I services as already written under congressional laws.

So, in effect they sell you a service, X Mbps, and then muck about with your communication. Imagine if they could do that with your phone calls.. 'Excuse me sir, are you sure w=you want to be talking to that illegal bookie?'

This will put the ISP's back in the pen, and hopefully the 'third way' will do more than just 'net neutrality and will do a bit to open up the ability of 3rd party resellers to use existing infrastructure.

Remember, capitalist monopolies will do whatever they can get away with to wring the last cent from your grasp and by definition since they are local monopolies you don't have a choice to go elsewhere.

Re:... OR

[astar]

something off center about your argument. fcc is executive, but it also has legislative and judicial functions. In fact, these extras are impossible to get rid of.

this area is called administrative law. It is supposed to be simple, informal, and navigateable without a lawyer :-)

the reason it is constitutional is that while you have go into the admin court system, when you exhaust your remedies, you get to go to the usual courts in the other branch of government.

as far as rules, agencies can make all sorts of binding rules, persumedly from within their enabling language. and all the admin judges will take them as gospel. but once you leave the admin system, the other judges will feel quite free to slap the agency around.

Actually, having rules is a positive. I have seen programs repeatedly try to run without any rules! for the admin review judge, a question becomes "do i shut this program down". Interesting considerations at that point.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

You are either uninformed or choosing to ignore the facts

Identify such a fact. (You didn't. You added more to what I didn't say, but nothing you said contradicted or argued against anything I said.)

they have the power to classify the services how they see fit.

False. They have to do it within the standards set by the law. But they do have significant latitude, yes.

And -- at the very least -- since the FCC did change the classification, they have to abide by the laws governing that classification until it changes again. And I can't see them changing it again any time soon, but, you never know.

and by definition since they are local monopolies you don't have a choice to go elsewhere.

Yes, again, this is why I said -- in the comment you replied to -- I am in favor of at least SOME Net Neutrality regulations, especially for de facto monopolies, where they exist (which is probably in most places). But it has to be done, you know, legally.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

the reason it is constitutional

It's not. That's why the FCC lost the case 3-0.

Re:... OR

[Shakrai]

I am in favor of at least SOME Net Neutrality regulations, especially for de facto monopolies

Why don't we get rid of the regulations (i.e: franchise agreements) that created those de-facto monopolies in the first place?

Re:... OR

[elashish14]

Your argument makes sense, but the flaw is that democracy doesn't work that way. Yes, in theory, we could remove any elected official that blocks net neutrality, or any other law that would make sense to any reasonable, moral human being. In truth, all that matters is how much PR you pull, how much the lobbyists bribe you, etc. that wins you an election.

Where everything really gets derailed is in the court's ruling that gave cable companies a monopoly on their lines. If you open up the lines to allow competition, then maybe you'll get a decent service provider (which again falsely assumes that consumers are smart enough to support the right ones).

But if this is what it takes to get net neutrality, well better than nothing I say.

Re:... OR

[astar]

yah, this particular rule was unconstitional, presumedly because the fcc could not make a good case that congress had given them that particular authority area. I admit i have not read the actual decision. but no one is ever going to say the fcc cannot make rules. but originally, someone was seemingly complaining about the existence of fcc rule making apparatus.

The appeals court’s 3-0 decision, which was written by one of the court’s more liberal members, Judge David S. Tatel, focused on the narrow issue of whether the F.C.C. had authority to regulate Comcast’s network management practices.

 

Re:... OR

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. A holy Constitutionalist. Except probably for the parts of the Constitution you don't like.

I wonder which they are, but most Holy Constitutional Fundamentalists have radical interpretations of how THEY see things and ignore 200 years of tradition or parts they don't like.

Like the fact that regulatory authority is in the purview of the constitution. But holy constitutionalists don't care about that. They only respect their interpretation of everything.

Re:... OR

[bennomatic]

So you think that, until Congress gets around to approving net neutrality laws, that instead of being regulated by the body designed to do just that, the corporations which provide the service should be able to control what you have access on the net? It seems to me that if you're concerned about civil rights, your argument hands your nose over to Comcast, just to spite your face.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

So you think that, until Congress gets around to approving net neutrality laws, that instead of being regulated by the body designed to do just that ...

There is no body designed to regulate Net Neutrality. That's the point.

It seems to me that if you're concerned about civil rights, your argument hands your nose over to Comcast, just to spite your face.

It seems to me that you would have the law violated just to get what you want.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

Ah. A holy Constitutionalist. Except probably for the parts of the Constitution you don't like.

You're a liar. You cannot give an example of me disfavoring something in the Constitution just because I don't like it.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

Your argument makes sense, but the flaw is that democracy doesn't work that way.

No offense, but tough shit. The fact that representative democracy doesn't always work well doesn't give anyone the right to make up laws outside of that system.

But if this is what it takes to get net neutrality, well better than nothing I say.

If by "this" you mean "the FCC illegally making up its own law," that's unacceptable. The rule of law must be followed, because if we don't follow it here, we can't rely on it later.

That said, I agree with you that the problem is the overregulation. Net Neutrality is "needed" because of a lack of competition created by federal regulation.

I can't see this happening by a federal bureaucrat, but how awesome would it be if the FCC's "third way" was actual deregulation that gave consumers more choices?

Re:... OR

[pudge]

Indeed.

Re:... OR

[Nathanbp]

If by "this" you mean "the FCC illegally making up its own law," that's unacceptable. The rule of law must be followed, because if we don't follow it here, we can't rely on it later.

What are you smoking? The entire purpose of the FCC is to "make up laws" (as you put it) about the communications systems in the country. Do you think Congress passes a law for each frequency band saying what it can be used for? No, they delegated that authority to the FCC. Now, obviously they can only regulate the matters that have actually been delegated to them by Congress, but to try to imply that it's totally outrageous for the FCC to regulate on net neutrality is bogus.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

The entire purpose of the FCC is to "make up laws" (as you put it)

No, it's not. As I put it -- as the court put it -- there's a distinction between a "rule" that the FCC is empowered to create, and a "law" that is needed to give the FCC power it doesn't currently have.

Do you think Congress passes a law for each frequency band saying what it can be used for? No, they delegated that authority to the FCC.

Exactly. And Congress did NOT delegate THIS power to the FCC. That's the point.

Now, obviously they can only regulate the matters that have actually been delegated to them by Congress

So you therefore agree with me. Thanks, I guess.

Re:... OR

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress explicitly delegated the responsibility to regulate wired communications to the FCC. If they want that power back, they can claim it at any time by eliminating the FCC or modifying its mandate.

Nothing illegal or tyrannical is going on.

Re:... OR

[sonicmerlin]

Sigh... over and over again:

"Practically speaking, the natural monopoly model lost much of its applicability in 1992 when the U.S. Congress prohibited local governments from engaging in exclusive franchise agreements."

http://www.mackinac.org/10118

Re:... OR

[sonicmerlin]

Have you ever heard of the 1996 Telecommunications Act? Your anti-government bent is baffling.

Re:... OR

[Anonymous Coward]

Parts of the Constitution that Pudge "disfavors":

• Supremacy Clause
• General Welfare
• Commerce Clause
• Necessary and Proper Clause
• 1st Amendment
• 4th Amendment
• 5th Amendment
• 6th Amendment
• 7th Amendment
• 8th Amendment
• 9th Amendment
• 14th Amendment

- Different AC

See also: National Mysticism

Re:... OR

[internettoughguy]

It seems to me that you would have the law violated just to get what you want.

Most would, but give him some credit, he would have the law violated for what he thinks is right.

Re:... OR

[thomst]

The FCC could just, you know, respect the fact that we live in a representative democracy and that as unelected bureaucrats that don't get to invent new laws restricting the free behavior of the people. The FCC could lobby Congress to write a law implementing what they want, instead of trying to tyrannically decide for us what they think is best.

The problem, as /.ers from time out of mind have pointed out, is that Congress is bought and paid for by the telecom and cable TV industries - who are the very folks you're proposing the FCC ask them to regulate here. So - good luck with that.

It's important to understand that the American system of checks and balances is tripodal, and that the FCC is a quasi-independent function of the executive leg of that tripod. Congress makes the laws, but, by design, the executive branch implements those laws. One of the most important ways in which the executive branch performs that duty is by creating a regulatory framework that defines the specifics of how the laws Congress passes will be implemented. And it's absolutely vital to understand that the executive branch is not subordinate to Congress in this regard - and, for the checks and balances system to actually work, all three legs of the tripod have to push against each other. Congress must assert its authority to make law, the executive branch must assert its authority to parse and implement those laws, and the judicial branch must asset its authority to test the validity of those laws. When one branch allows itself to become subordinate to another - as happened with Congress during the Bush years - disaster inevitably ensues (Patriot Act, anyone?). So, in the absence of specific direction from Congress to the contrary, the FCC is absolutely within its mandate to change its mind about how to regulate a particular segment of the communications market in this country, just as Congress would be within its mandate to provide specific direction on the issue (and note my point above about who would most likely dictate Congress' lawmaking in this regard), and the judiciary would most definitely be within its mandate to rule on one, the other, or both assertions of authority.

It's messy, it's frustrating to observe, and it's inefficient as all hell, but it's the system we've got. And, bellyaching from those who dislike its outcomes in specific cases on specific issues, short of a serious Constitutional revamp, the system will continue to sort-of-work this way for the foreseeable future.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

Congress explicitly delegated the responsibility to regulate wired communications to the FCC.

What Congress did was give the FCC SOME power to regulate in SOME ways. It was not a blanket grant of approval to regulate in any way the FCC wishes.

You're wrong.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

Have you ever heard of the 1996 Telecommunications Act?

Have you ever heard of non sequiturs? You're soaking in one!

Your anti-government bent is baffling.

What's baffling is that you think my claim, that says the ELECTED GOVERNMENT makes the decision here, is anti-government.

I mean, seriously. I've said many things that are anti-government, but this isn't one of them. It's anti-executive-agency-making-up-its-own-laws, not anti-government.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

False on all counts.

You simply cannot come up with a single example of me disfavoring any of those things.

As to National Mysticism, wow, that is something I'm diametrically opposed to. That demonstrates even better than your unexplained list of parts of the Constitution how completely wrong you are.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

It seems to me that you would have the law violated just to get what you want.

Most would, but give him some credit, he would have the law violated for what he thinks is right.

That's a distinction without any difference whatsoever.

We're talking about the rule of law here. Regardless of your motives -- whether you think it's "the right thing" or not -- there's never an excuse for violating the rule of law. The process matters more than the immediate outcome, because that process is the only thing ultimately guaranteeing our rights.

If the Court says our law can be ignored because the specific goal is "right," then we've effectively put the judges over the law, and it is now only their view of what is "right" that matters, and if they decide it's "right" to censor political speech, or to wiretap without a warrant, or to ignore due process for terror suspects ... well, so be it, because it's "right"!

The outcome matters too, of course, but the outcome will take care of itself if the process is followed. It might mean we don't get Net Neutrality now, but if the people generally agree that it is the right thing, then it will be implemented sooner or later, following the rule of law.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

The problem, as /.ers from time out of mind have pointed out, is that Congress is bought and paid for by the telecom and cable TV industries - who are the very folks you're proposing the FCC ask them to regulate here.

First, that's completely orthogonal to the fact that only Congress gets to make new laws and grant new authority to the FCC. If that's a problem, fine, address it separately.

Second, you're asking me to believe that the FCC -- which is beholden to Congress in many ways, and selected by a President who is similarly "bought and paid for" -- is somehow immune to the same pressures you say is on the Congress. That doesn't even pass the smell test.

It's important to understand that the American system of checks and balances is tripodal, and that the FCC is a quasi-independent function of the executive leg of that tripod.

In truth, it's not independent. The Constitution (very first line of Article II) is clear on this: it's an executive agency and therefore its power belongs to the President (as all executive power does), and the President can tell them what to do with that power. In practice, the President may decide to allow the agency to function of its own accord, but he doesn't have to do so. Perhaps that is what you mean by quasi-independent, though.

Congress must assert its authority to make law, the executive branch must assert its authority to parse and implement those laws, and the judicial branch must asset its authority to test the validity of those laws.

I am entirely aware of this, but I don't see the point you're making.

When one branch allows itself to become subordinate to another - as happened with Congress during the Bush years - disaster inevitably ensues (Patriot Act, anyone?).

I don't see what the Patriot Act has to do with this. That was an example of the Congress (en masse) agreeing (on multiple occasions) to grant authority to the Executive. There was no subordination.

What the Congress has done in recent years is worse than subordination: it's refused to take its proper role of supremacy. Note that there's never an implication in our founding documents that the three branches are "coequal," but when Congress and the President fight, the Congress inevitable asserts "well, but we're coequal to you!" No, you're not: as Madison wrote in Federalist 51, "In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

This is why the Legislature is Article I, and why on a cursory reading of the Constitution, the Legislature clearly has more power over the other two branches than they have over the Congress. Congress can disband most of the judiciary, write laws and propose amendments to overrule the judiciary, pass laws without the President, cut funding to everything the President does, and even remove any of them from office. There's no coequality.

The phrase "checks and balances" does not appear in our founding documents either, although SOME of the sense of it is there (not the coequality sense, though). Well, the phrase does appear in a particular form, but it applies to the checks and balances between the House and Senate, not between the three branches.

Anyway ... not sure what all this has to do with the point that the FCC cannot act except within its statutory authority.

So, in the absence of specific direction from Congress to the contrary, the FCC is absolutely within its mandate to change its mind about how to regulate a particular segment of the communications market in this country

Only if the law gives them that authority. If you're making the case that the FCC can, under existing law, reclassify this segment such that it can apply other existing law in order to implement Net Neutrality, this is not the point. I am simply saying they must rely on existing law to do anything they do.

Re:... OR

[butlerm]

In this case Congress has already given the FCC extensive authority to regulate Internet access providers. The FCC simply has to use Title II to do it.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

In this case Congress has already given the FCC extensive authority to regulate Internet access providers. The FCC simply has to use Title II to do it.

That's beside the point: they were NOT classifying ISPs using Title II, and they do not WANT to classify ISPs using Title II, because it creates even more problems to do so.

Re:... OR

[holmstar]

I agree with you that the FCC shouldn't knowingly attempt to make rules outside of their area of authority, but as far as I can tell in this particular situation, the system is working as it is supposed to. Ie: The FCC tried to instate a questionable rule. They were called out on it by those that they regulate. A judge ruled that the new rule is outside the FCCs realm of authority and thus void.

But like others have said, the fact that their last rule was judged to be outside the realm of their authority does not automatically mean that they cannot achieve the intent of the rule via other means that are within that authority.

In any case, I'm not sure exactly what you are worried about. No matter what the FCC attempts to do, the industry is going to fight it, so there is essentially no chance of the FCC getting away with an illegal rule/law.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

I agree with you that the FCC shouldn't knowingly attempt to make rules outside of their area of authority, but as far as I can tell in this particular situation, the system is working as it is supposed to. Ie: The FCC tried to instate a questionable rule. They were called out on it by those that they regulate. A judge ruled that the new rule is outside the FCCs realm of authority and thus void.

I don't disagree with that, and it doesn't disagree with me.

But like others have said, the fact that their last rule was judged to be outside the realm of their authority does not automatically mean that they cannot achieve the intent of the rule via other means that are within that authority.

I didn't imply that they could not.

In any case, I'm not sure exactly what you are worried about.

I didn't imply I was "worried" about anything. I am disappointed that they are not doing this the Right Way, which is through Congress. They are working hard, instead, to shoehorn a rule into a framework that isn't designed to accept the rule.

Re:... OR

[butlerm]

they do not WANT to classify ISPs using Title II

Boo hoo. The FCC exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, not execute its own whims. And if the laws that Congress passes makes it a burden to regulate common carriers, well then perhaps Congress should look into that rather than expecting the FCC to make a politically opportunistic end run around the law.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

they do not WANT to classify ISPs using Title II

Boo hoo. The FCC exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, not execute its own whims.

Right. That's my point.

And if the laws that Congress passes makes it a burden to regulate common carriers, well then perhaps Congress should look into that rather than expecting the FCC to make a politically opportunistic end run around the law.

Yep. Again, that's my point.

Re:... OR

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't imply that they could not.

But you seemed concerned that they would.

I didn't imply I was "worried" about anything. I am disappointed that they are not doing this the Right Way, which is through Congress. They are working hard, instead, to shoehorn a rule into a framework that isn't designed to accept the rule.

Ok, disappointed then. Fair enough. I can see your point, but honestly the correct way would be for the FCC to re-designate ISPs back to Title II which, as I understand it, they already have the authority to do. No congressional approval needed. However, I think that they expect such an action would result in the ISPs lobbying congress to reign in the FCCs authority. Not that they don't already do that. The current rule-making approach is probably viewed internally as a lower resistance/politically easier choice.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

But you seemed concerned that they would.

Nope. As long as they stay within their statutory authority, I expressed no misgivings (other than that the only reason we "need" Net Neutrality is because of over-regulation in the first place, but that's beside the point).

Although, since then I've read the "third way" document and now I do have concerns: that they are trying to shoehorn Net Neutrality into a regulatory framework not designed for it.

I can see your point, but honestly the correct way would be for the FCC to re-designate ISPs back to Title II

I disagree. I agree with FCC Chairman Genachowski who said today:

... fully reclassifying broadband services as “telecommunications services” and applying the full suite of Title II obligations, has serious drawbacks. While it would clarify the legal foundation for broadband policy, it would also subject the providers of broadband communications services to extensive regulations ill-suited to broadband. Title II, for example, includes measures that, if implemented for broadband, would fail to reflect the long-standing bipartisan consensus that the Internet should remain unregulated and that broadband networks should have only those rules necessary to promote essential goals, such as protecting consumers and fair competition.

As I said in another comment yesterday: reclassifying to Title II merely to be able to implement Net Neutrality is short-sighted, because a lot more comes along with it.

Re:... OR

[BJ_Covert_Action]

The rule of law must be followed, because if we don't follow it here, we can't rely on it later.

What if the law is wrong? What if the law is outdated? What if the law is discriminatory or unjust?

I don't mean to imply that is necessarily the case with this particular matter. I am just curious if your hard line faith in the law is absolute or not. Frankly, I don't consider the law to be something that must be followed, at all times, in all cases. I don't feel that any hard-coded rule can appropriately account for the plethora of various situations that arise in the real world. The way I see it, the law is a best fit guideline to follow most of the time. However, in extreme circumstances, or even just unaccounted ones, it is perfectly appropriate and just to circumvent or even outright break the law. I figure that's a good part of why we have the executive and judicial branches in our government. The executive branch determines when it is appropriate to enforce the law, and when it is not. The judicial branch interprets what situations, exactly, the written laws are meant to apply to and which they are not. Having an undying faith in the law, in my opinion, gives far too much power to the legislative branch of our government.

Anyways, all ramblings aside, I am curious, do you feel that the rule of the law must, truly, always be followed?

Re:... OR

[pudge]

What if the law is wrong? What if the law is outdated? What if the law is discriminatory or unjust?

Change it.

I am just curious if your hard line faith in the law is absolute or not.

It's not about "faith." Nothing in what I said implies the law is always right, or that it will always lead us to the best outcome in a particular circumstance. I am saying that it is much more important to follow the law than to do what is right in the short term, because rejecting the law for your subjective view of what is right gives us precedent where it is essentially arbitrary whether or not we follow the law.

Frankly, I don't consider the law to be something that must be followed, at all times, in all cases.

OK. Then you hate the rule of law, and prefer the rule of men, which means our liberties have no serious protections and no guarantees, but are subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power. If we say that people joining together lose their freedom of political speech because we dislike some of the people who join together, then we create a precedent whereby anyone's right to political speech can be abridged, because we've already said that the First Amendment doesn't apply if we simply don't want it to.

If the FCC is allowed to make up its own laws to get net neutrality, then it can make up its own laws for anything else, including whether or not you're allowed to post comments on Slashdot.

Anyways, all ramblings aside, I am curious, do you feel that the rule of the law must, truly, always be followed?

It depends on what you mean. I am not saying someone must never violate the law; that is completely separate from any point I made. I may decide to break the speed limit so I can get someone to the hospital, but that's irrelevant to my point. I am talking about executive policies and judicial decisions.

Re:... OR

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I may decide to break the speed limit so I can get someone to the hospital, but that's irrelevant to my point. I am talking about executive policies and judicial decisions.

I understand it's a separate point, which is why I posted this with a reference to rambling. I am not necessarily trying to argue your position on the FCC's actions, which really makes this all offtopic. I was just curious what your personal take on the law was.

OK. Then you hate the rule of law, and prefer the rule of men, which means our liberties have no serious protections and no guarantees, but are subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power.

I found this part of your response particularly interesting. I am not sure that you can make the leap from "I don't consider the law to be something that must be followed..." to "...you hate the rule of law..." I actually think the law has a place in society. It serves a very particular function in that it gives folk a basic framework from which to derive their ideas on what is appropriate in a particular society and what is not. I also think that it serves a very important function in that it gives a society the power to eliminate diseased cells (dangerous people) from the rest of the body. That said, I think the law needs to have its roots in some form of basic rights in order to have any teeth. Once you start moving beyond that, the law starts becoming an entity which no longer serves its original function of protecting the body (society) from diseased cells (dangerous individuals), but rather becomes an entity that serves the subjective agenda of whatever particular subgroup of people control the law at that point. That's a problem. However, that's also a different discussion to have. In my opinion, the law is a very necessary and beneficial part of society, so making the leap to say that I hate it, and prefer the rule of men seems odd odd to me...Furthermore, the law is handed down by men, so I am not sure where the distinction comes from. I guess the part of your claim that I find most intriguing is the following:

...which means our liberties have no serious protections and no guarantees, but are subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power.

That, to me, is precisely what defines the concept of law. Our liberties are simply our liberties because they were handed down to us by folk that claimed power years ago. The only reason the law is shaped the way it is today is because, at some time in the past, a particular group of humans that were in power declared that these liberties are essential, and these are the means by which they could be protected. If a different group of humans were in power at the time the law, our liberties, and the protection of those liberties available to us, the people, would be quite different. I suppose I don't see how the law is in any meaningful way distinguishable from men with power. When it comes down to it, the most powerful humans, be it through violence, or money, or charisma, or whatever, are the ones that will, inevitably, influence and determine the law. It is through their power that the law is enforced (even if that means giving a small amount of controllable power to some other subset of people). So I fail to see how the rule of law is in any way distinguishable from the rule of man.... Perhaps you could expand upon that?

...because rejecting the law for your subjective view of what is right gives us precedent where it is essentially arbitrary whether or not we follow the law.

Regarding this it seems that it is already arbitrary whether or not we follow the law. There is nothing keeping me from breaking the law at my will. If I want to do something illegal, I can. It's that simple. Of course, I do so knowing, full well, that I will have to take responsibility for that decision, even if it means prosecution by the powers that be. If I deter

Re:... OR

[pudge]

I am not sure that you can make the leap from "I don't consider the law to be something that must be followed..." to "...you hate the rule of law..."

Again, it depends on what you mean by "follow." If you mean you don't think the FCC has to stay within the law -- which was the context I was thinking in -- then yes, you hate the rule of law, in my view, and I'll stick by that unless it's demonstrated to be wrong.

I actually think the law has a place in society.

I did not say you hate law. I said you hate the rule of law. Obama, for example, loves the law. He loves crafting it in certain ways to reach certain outcomes; he loves relying on it when it suits his purposes; but, he also ignores it when it suits his purposes. He loves the law, but he really, really hates the rule of law. He demonstrated this even in his Inaugural Address, when he impugned people who wanted to abide by the law as people bound to the "old way" of thinking.

There's two ways we've got here: the rule of law, and the rule of men. If you believe that the executive may make up rules as it goes along (such as John Yoo says Bush was allowed to do during wartime, which is why Yoo is disliked by many conservatives), or if you think the court can decide whatever it wishes regardless of what the law and Constitution says, then you prefer the rule of men, which is contrary to the rule of law.

Furthermore, the law is handed down by men, so I am not sure where the distinction comes from.

Men can violate the law. Men can disregard the Bill of Rights. Law is something written that we initially agree upon and then rely upon to protect our activities. If the law says I can do something, I can act freely, with the knowledge that the law is protecting my activities.

It is through the rule of law that my rights are provided a guarantee. The rule of law says, "you have a right to speak, to due process, against self-incrimination, and there's not a thing government can do about it, because it's in the law." Rule of men says, "well, yeah, you have those rights, but if we decide not recognize them, tough."

Rule of men says that I can never know if what I am doing is going to be protected by government, or attacked by it. Tomorrow I could get arrested for something the law says I can do, and a Court could rule that this is appropriate just because they don't like what I did.

Rule of men is injustice. Rule of law is justice. That doesn't mean the law in question is itself just; that's a separate issue. We need both just laws AND the rule of law. But unjust laws is no excuse for rule of men.

I suppose I don't see how the law is in any meaningful way distinguishable from men with power.

I hope the above has explained it sufficiently to you. They are very different. This goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, where the King accepted that he must abide by what the law said, by the rights granted to the people, and by the restrictions placed on him. It's about justice and respect for the dignity of each individual.

Re:... OR

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Interesting...okay so let me try for a bit more here before karma gets modded to hell for off topic. You are talking about how society needs to be driven by the rule of the law, which, so far as I can tell, says that the law is absolute and no men, man, or group of people is above or beyond that law that is written. Furthermore, this is distinguished by the rule of men which says that people abide to any set of behaviors and that may be safe or unsafe depending on what those around them (whom are more powerful) decide to let slide.

I guess my conundrum is that even the rule of law, that nobody lives outside the scope of the law, derives its power from a society deciding that is the way things should be. Essentially, the rule of the law states that all members of a society shall be treated equally with respect to the law. However, the enforcement of that rule is still derived from whoever holds the power. In other words, it only works as long as those in power want it to work. As you said, at that point, you are no longer operating within the rule of law, but it doesn't seem like the rule of the law, in any way, protects those who are less powerful, from those who are more powerful any more effectively than the rule of men does. It's justice is only derived from the power holders self-imposed, "I must be held accountable to the law," doctrine. So it doesn't really seem like it protects anyone or anything. It just seems like it gives the illusion of protection.

As a personal side-note, I still take exception to the implication that I hate the rule of law. I agree that the rule of law is a good way to run a society. However, my statement that I don't think the law must be followed, does not imply that I expect any exception from the punishments of such action. I feel that the law itself can and should be breached in certain circumstances. I also think that those doing the breaching should be held accountable for the breach. The reason I wanted to make this point is that, when the law itself is wrong, I think breaking said law, and then fessing up to the fact that you did break it because it was wrong, is an entirely suitable way to change a bad law. That said, the rule of law is still being applied as the necessary punishment will still be levied. The idea is simply that the punishment carried by the criminal is worth the greater gain of shining a light on a bad law. In the context of the FCC case, this would be like the FCC deliberately breaching the law, in order to show that the law is unjust or flawed. At which point, the FCC admits to having broken the law and agrees to pay whatever fine or sentence is levied upon them for said transgression with the hope that the law will now be questioned so that it may be changed later. So saying that I hate the rule of law still seems disingenuous to me.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

it only works as long as those in power want it to work. As you said, at that point, you are no longer operating within the rule of law, but it doesn't seem like the rule of the law, in any way, protects those who are less powerful, from those who are more powerful any more effectively than the rule of men does.

Well, no: if "those in power" are not protecting those who are less powerful -- making sure that they are as protected by the rule of law as everyone else -- then the rule of law is not being followed. That is the rule of men, rather than the rule of law.

As a personal side-note, I still take exception to the implication that I hate the rule of law.

Noted.

my statement that I don't think the law must be followed, does not imply that I expect any exception from the punishments of such action

I didn't imply that.

I feel that the law itself can and should be breached in certain circumstances.

The context here is something like what the FCC did: going around the law, outside of the law, violating the law. You, to my mind, expressed approval of this, so long as it's for a good reason. This is hatred of the rule of law.

If that was not your intent, then what I said does not apply, but that's how I understood you.

Re:... OR

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Well, no: if "those in power" are not protecting those who are less powerful -- making sure that they are as protected by the rule of law as everyone else -- then the rule of law is not being followed. That is the rule of men, rather than the rule of law.

Well that was kind of my point. The only thing that makes the rule of law work is the good will of those in power. That said, there is nothing inherent about the rule of law that protects anyone. The burden of protection of the society still falls upon those in power. All I am trying to get at is that the rule of law is a great theory and, when followed, is just. However, there is nothing inherent to it that keeps a society that is following the rule of law, from breaking down into a society that follows the rule of men. It may seem like a semantic quibble, but I thought it was an interesting observation.

The context here is something like what the FCC did: going around the law, outside of the law, violating the law. You, to my mind, expressed approval of this, so long as it's for a good reason. This is hatred of the rule of law.

Regarding this, it was not my intention to express approval of what the FCC did. I was more just interested in the language you were using and speaking from a general point of view. Like I said, the whole thing was off topic on my part so I can understand why you would make the assumption that I was speaking in the context of the FCC case, but that was not my intention. That said, I was simply looking to get a feel for your thoughts regarding some of the things we discussed. So, thank you for your time and the dialogue. It was quite an interesting read for me.

Re:... OR

[pudge]

there is nothing inherent about the rule of law that protects anyone. ... All I am trying to get at is that the rule of law is a great theory and, when followed, is just.

Your first sentence disagrees with your first.

However, there is nothing inherent to it that keeps a society that is following the rule of law

Of course. No one ever implied any such thing. I've said, you need to elect people devoted to following the rule of law. It doesn't just happen. This is obvious from looking at our Constitution, for example. As Justice Hugo Black said, for example (regarding the 14th Amendment): I can say only that the words "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that, henceforth, the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States.

Makes sense, right? But our Court, for more than 100 years, has declined to intepret the plain language of the Constitution to mean what it says (before the Court right now is a case that could -- but probably won't -- finally overturn this precedent, the Chicago gun case). Our people in power often don't follow the rule of law. This is a given. Our Congress passes laws and our states ratify amendments, and they expect they will be interpreted in an obvious way, but they often aren't.

The problem of rule of law versus rule of men is one primarily of people, not of structure. Structure can help, but it's only the beginning of the process, not the end of it. And the process never, ever, ends, until human government is no more.

FCC Go Away!

[Anonymous Coward]

What value do we get out of the FCC? Nothing! Why can they regulate the terms of a private contract between a customer and the ISP?

Here's a novel idea: if I don't like the actions of my ISP, I dump them and get a new one. I've done just that before and I'll do it again, if I need to. I now have an ISP that does not throttle bit torrent and I was able to get that through *gasp* capitalism.

Net Neutrality is just another example of people falling for the whole nanny state idea. I'm just a dumbass internet user who's too lazy to vote with my dollars. I'll just rely on big brother to punish that nasty ISP instead.

Re:FCC Go Away!

[SheeEttin]

Here's a novel idea: if I don't like the actions of my ISP, I dump them and get a new one.

Hey, I never thought of that! I'll dump Comcast and choose another ISP from this list of ISPs that serve my area:

• Comcast

...oh wait.

Re:FCC Go Away!

[Shakrai]

So start your own cable company to compete with them.

...oh wait, your local government won't allow you to do that, because it gave Comcast exclusive rights to service your town. Never mind.....

And furthermore...

[PopeRatzo]

Actually, we don't have to guess at what the broadband carriers would have built had they been entrusted to create the Internet, because they already have done it.

It's called "cable television".

Those of you who are old enough can remember that when the internet was still Darpanet, the big telcos and media companies were telling us how "cable television" was going to revolutionize communications. It was going to be small-d democratic, with tons of opportunities for local programming and public access.

And what did we get? Spike. And fucking infomercials out the ass. And some very expensive programs (with commercials no less) and lots of reruns. For this, they were given the right to public lands and the right to gouge customers. And we got "pay television" where you have to pay to watch the baseball game you used to watch for free. And monopolies. Don't forget monopolies.

The "free market" and "competition" had their shot at the internet, and they gave you cable fucking television.

Re:And furthermore...

[gyrogeerloose]

Those of you who are old enough can remember that when the internet was still Darpanet, the big telcos and media companies were telling us how "cable television" was going to revolutionize communications. It was going to be small-d democratic, with tons of opportunities for local programming and public access.

And they delivered--for a while.

I worked in the cable TV business for a number of years and at one time worked my way up to become the system engineer for a CATV system in a suburb of L.A. One of my duties was to design and outfit a small TV studio for producing public access programming and the the project was thought of as a minor nuisance by the management but it had to be done because it was part of the franchise deal. Being more of a civic-minded type of person than my bosses, however, I thought it was an important civic asset and had gotten well into the project when the Reagan-era FCC de-regulated the industry and the corporate interest completely evaporated, along with the funds. The studio was never completed and I eventually left for greener pastures in a different line of work.

Re:And furthermore...

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, they did deliver for a short while.

I was involved in some public access stuff too. It was there one day and gone the next.

Man, the '80's really left me with a chip on my shoulder.

Re:And furthermore...

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, we don't have to guess at what the broadband carriers would have built had they been entrusted to create the Internet, because they already have done it.

It's called "cable television".

Those of you who are old enough can remember that when the internet was still Darpanet, the big telcos and media companies were telling us how "cable television" was going to revolutionize communications. It was going to be small-d democratic, with tons of opportunities for local programming and public access.

And what did we get? Spike. And fucking infomercials out the ass. And some very expensive programs (with commercials no less) and lots of reruns. For this, they were given the right to public lands and the right to gouge customers. And we got "pay television" where you have to pay to watch the baseball game you used to watch for free. And monopolies. Don't forget monopolies.

The "free market" and "competition" had their shot at the internet, and they gave you cable fucking television.

And why did this happen? Because of government regulations limiting who could build cable services in an area.

Re:And furthermore...

[gyrogeerloose]

Man, the '80's really left me with a chip on my shoulder.

Same here. You should have heard me rant when I heard there was some talk about replacing the image of FDR on the dime with one of Ronald Reagan.

This should be under the FTC control...

[Anonymous Coward]

....if it isn't already.

I don't understand why a commission that was supposed to assure orderly communications by managing the radio spectrum has their hands in this anyway.

This should be handled by the Federal Trade Commission. It already manages consumer protection from phone scams, handles the do-not-call list, cracks down on shady business practices. They definitely have the power to handle network neutrality.

Mod down please

[Bruce Perens]

This user has a history of comment spam.

Third way?

[javakah]

Hmm, I'm guessing large subsidies for improving broadband, but with strings attached, such that the businesses receiving the money have to abide by net neutrality and respect the FCC.

We did get RSN's and out of market sports packs ou

[Joe The Dragon]

We did get RSN's and out of market sports packs out of cable and sat tv.

But the RSN's Idea did get start with the OTA pay channels right before cable go going.

If you are in Chicago check out CSN CHI to see the way to do local sports! CSN CHI get's better ratings then VS and other networks. Yes putting the Blackhawks back on CSN and WGN trun them for no one going to games to sell outs and big time TV ratings.

Comcast needs to give up CSN Philly to sat tv! NBC

[Joe The Dragon]

Comcast needs to give up CSN Philly to sat tv! If not then Comcsat may buy NBC and try to make it cable only. Just think if CSN Chi was not 80% team / 20% comcast owned then it very well of been comcast only like cltv was comcast only for a long time but at least CSN + that was on CLTV and MOJO HD was on all other systems and sat tv as well.

The FCC needs to hear from you

[mbishop]

A lot of you have very good arguments for this. I encourage you to take the same few seconds it takes you to post here, and send an email to the FCC Chairman himself. Please be understandable and civil. It helps their cause when they hear a lot of support.

    http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/mail.html

This might be the time

[dave562]

If anyone has ever had anything to say on the subject, now might be the time to repeat whatever has been said to those with the potential to influence this process. It would be ashame to look back on a period of time, and realize that the moment to really influence it has passed.

More faceless monstrosities

[fnj]

Governments running monopolies SUCK. Megacorporations running monopolies SUCK. That's because MONOPOLIES SUCK, period. Government corruption or megacorporate greed: neither is any better than the other.

But you know what sucks with an unholy vengeance? A corruptocracy composed of government, bureacracy, and megacorporations all COLLUDING TOGETHER. And it can't ever be broken except by revolution. Let's just hope we have a comparatively peaceful revolution like the breakup of the USSR. Oh wait ... the new Russia and the other states from that breakup are now emulating our own corruptocracy.

Re:More faceless monstrosities

[zelda43]

Freedom rings...

You know girls hate that...

[frank_adrian314159]

It's just like my wife says of her pre-married days: There you are, Some guy asks you out and seems like a nice enough guy, so you agree to go out for dinner. You get into his car afterwards and... WHAM!!! He thinks he owns you and tries to put a move on you.

I agree. I hope that this Net Neutrality gets more than dinner for her trouble (BTW, what kind of name is Net? Is that one of these crazy modern names like Jak and Jada and Nevaeh? What the hell happened to Suzy or Jane, huh?). Remember Net, if the FCC starts to get fresh, just give him a good whack in the 'nads and get out of the car. Have cab fare. That should keep him from putting a move on some other poor girl in the future.

hi

[katehudson06]

Do you really want federal judges who are going to allow federal agencies to do whatever they want, even when the law says they can't? That's scary stuff. Bol Apartments

Fight the FCC?

[Torino10]

Considering that the FCC can open up WiMax, and initiatives such as O3b may demonstrate that MEO satellite systems can offer nearly fiber speeds to third world nations, aren't the TelCo's just slitting their own throats? If companies like Google, ones that make more money by increasing the number of people who can access the internet and there services, are willing and able to offer free or nearly free internet access via low latency MEO satellite constellations and other radio transmission methods. why would agencies such as the FCC want to stop them?

Re:Fight the FCC?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

can offer nearly fiber speeds to third world nations,

I wonder if I can fill out an application to have my condo classified as a third world nation...It is ruled by an over-powered, belligerent aristocracy (HOA) after all....

They don't need to.

[Anonymous Coward]

> And they will know it's encrypted how, exactly?

They don't need to care if it's encrypted or not. They just have to shape everything they don't understand and maybe a few of the things they (think) they understand, lest people start doing crazy tunneling things like IP over DNS.

Let's get on this in real life! Get up stand up..

[RabbitWho]

Maybe if we have a problem with things that are happening we need to get out from behind our computers and have these discussions in real life. Anyone you meet on the internet is pretty likely to be pro an internet without censorship. We need to find people who don't know what "in RL" stands for and get them worried about this.

What can we do?
We can ring the ISPs and complain?
Explain the problem to friends and families and get them to complain too ?
Write to local newspapers?
Write to local politicians?


Other ideas?

The internet is a great way to spread information but it so often never transfers into real life.

No, it exceeded their rulemaking authority.

[Xenographic]

> It is NOT LEGAL. It VIOLATES OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. You're not getting it. This is simply unacceptable. Unelected bureaucrats have no right to make laws to tell us what to do. Period.

They have never made laws. They make rules. And the rulemaking authority is delegated to them by Congress. I realize that the difference between "law" and "rule" may seem arbitrary, but that's how it works. What they exceeded was their rulemaking authority. If you can find anything in the Court's opinion about "violat[ing] our civil rights" please quote it, because I believe that the opinion says nothing of the sort. That's probably what you want it to say, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere. While Comcast did indeed claim that "the Commission’s adjudicatory action was procedurally flawed because it circumvented the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and violated the notice requirements of the Due Process Clause," the Court only addressed the matter of jurisdiction. As the Court wrote, "We begin—and end—with Comcast’s jurisdictional challenge." In short, they didn't decide that issue. At all.

But yes, the FCC was ruled to have exceeded its rulemaking authority. But you're wrong if you think they can't do anything about that. They're doing this to follow the letter of the law. And yes, they DO have authority to reclassify services because they're the ones who reclassified the service to begin with.

You appear to think that, just because the way they did it overstepped their bounds that there's no way for them to do it without overstepping their bounds. I don't believe that is correct. The Court did NOT say they couldn't do this. The Court never addressed what they're doing now, because they're doing it in response to the ruling, so the Court never gave its opinion of what they're doing now.

Any appeal to "they just lost in court!" is therefore irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Re:No, it exceeded their rulemaking authority.

[pudge]

They have never made laws. They make rules. ... What they exceeded was their rulemaking authority.

In this case, their rule -- not being backed up with statutory authority -- amounted to an invention of new law. That's the point I made. This is how it is often described when an Executive agency tries to enforce something it has no right to enforce.

You can say it's not actually law, just an unauthorized rule, but that is an arbitrary distinction. The reason why the FCC cannot make rules it's not authorized to make is because virtually anything the government does must be backed by the law; and the law is made by Congress, and not the FCC; and thus, any rule made without existing legal authority is as if a new law had been invented.

If you can find anything in the Court's opinion about "violat[ing] our civil rights" please quote it

Shrug. They didn't say it, but the logical path is undeniable. As I noted above, this is akin to making new law. One of our civil rights is to elect our own representatives who make our law. When someone else makes law and enforces it over us, it violates our civil rights, obviously. I didn't say the Court ruled this way: I merely asserted it, being obviously true.

They're doing this to follow the letter of the law.

And it's amazing so many people are in favor of violating the law.

And yes, they DO have authority to reclassify services because they're the ones who reclassified the service to begin with.

That isn't dispositive. You're assuming that the original classification was proper, and that a further change in classification won't cause harm the FCC is prohibited from making. That said, yes, they facially have that authority, but that doesn't mean it would withstand a legal challenge if they did.

You appear to think that, just because the way they did it overstepped their bounds that there's no way for them to do it without overstepping their bounds.

That's not correct. I was specifically addressing the situation as it existed.

The Court did NOT say they couldn't do this.

If by "this" you mean this "third way," well, I'll wait to see what the "third way" actually is before agreeing with you.

Unconstitutional!? That's NOT what they said!

[Xenographic]

> yah, this particular rule was unconstitional,

The Court didn't rule on constitutional grounds at all. The ruling was based on a lack of FCC jurisdiction because they thought that the FCC did not properly apply its rulemaking authority. That has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional claims. Maybe you could point out that Comcast raised a Due Process claim, but the Court didn't bother addressing it (they don't have to; they would only have to address that if they had found in the FCC's favor, in which case they would have spent all their time explaining why they didn't buy Comcast's argument).

But don't take my word for it, read the Court's opinion [PDF] for yourself. If you find anything indicating that the Court (not just Comcast) thought this was unconstitutional, please quote it.

Yes, and no

[Mathinker]

Your post insightfully points out that it's not trivial (at all!) to distinguish between compressed and encrypted data, but ignores the well-known fact that even totally encrypted channels can leak protocol-identifying information via traffic analysis.

See: http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~cwright/ and http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/13/1449232

But, of course, as usual, this is cat-and-mouse. Once some kind of disguise for encrypted traffic is discovered and blocked, another one will pop up. In the long term, the advance of bandwidth will make even inefficient cloaking a viable proposition for some applications.

It's about time they fell under title II

[FreeUser]

Provided that you agree with the limits that the court gave the FCC, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Actually, unless the GP seized power in a coup none of us were aware of, their agreement or disagreement with the court's decision (and underlying law) is immaterial. The court explicitly noted that the FCC is perfectly within its rights to determine ISPs are subject to title II and regulate accordingly, thus bringing into action net neutrality.

Which is what they should have been all along: common carriers of data, as opposed to voice. It was always a byzantine argument that excluded ISPs from title II in the first place ... one that is long overdue in being reversed.

To the telcos: be careful what you wish for (courts striking down net neutrality). You just might get what you wish for (provision struck down under title I, and -- oops -- regulated even more effectively under title II).

Cheap limitied access Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make it illegal to advertise "traffic shaped" Internet in a way that you are not allowed to use the term Internet without using the term limited in front of it if you want to sell a traffic-shaped connection. When I see a product advertised as "Internet" I expect it to be the real deal. I do not see the point of a censored version or a traffic shaped one.

Fairness Czar

[tbgreve]

DANGER DANGER!!!!! "ensuring fair competition" Don't you love when Govt. decides, for you, what is fair? As long as it is in step with BHO's opinion, it is fair. All others must shut up.

ISPs biting the hand that feeds them

[Nerdposeur]

"Web sites should pay us to reach our customers" is the maybe the dumbest thing I've heard from ISPs. Hello? Your customers are paying you to reach web sites.

Forget double-dipping; this is about biting the hand that feeds you. Without those web sites, an ISP literally has nothing to offer. "We offer you a high-speed connection to"... to what, exactly?

That's right. Youtube. And all the other sites you claim are victimizing you by flooding your bandwidth. As if that weren't exactly why your bandwidth exists and can be sold.

I don't want government censorship, so I'm uneasy about regulation. But seriously, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to even try some of the garbage they want to do.

Re:Unconstitutional!? That's NOT what they said!

[astar]

you are right. i as getting sucked in by the op. sloppy.

Activist judges have no place in boxing.

[elucido]

Instead they belong in federal courts.

You are thining short trem

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet (for good or evil)
If they get the Net Neutrality laws, they will have established the idea that the government can control what is going on on the Internet.
Now, Net Neutrality is something nice (like a gift to the God Posiden), and we'd all like it.
But if you bring that Trojan Horse in and accept it, you have opened the door to the government regulating other parts of the Internet for whatever reason they want (e.g., "for the children")

I think establishing ISPs as common carriers brings a lot less danger than direct FCC regulation. The common carrier rules already have 100+ years of anti-censorship in them. Direct FCC regulation has ALWAYS included direct censorship by the government.

AntiRegulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Regulation IS censorship.

The government will be able to decide what can and can't be viewed on the internet. Opposed to Companies deciding how they don't want their bandwidth used, the government will be deciding what is and isn't okay. Just like China does. Tyranny.

Re:Let's get on this in real life! Get up stand up

[ZonkerWilliam]

Facebook is pretty good for things like this.

Undeniable?

[Xenographic]

>> They're doing this to follow the letter of the law.

> And it's amazing so many people are in favor of violating the law.

I'm not sure how you got from what I said to what you said, particularly when you agreed that, if they do what everyone is saying they'll do and reclassify the service, that "they facially have that authority."

Of course it'd be subject to legal challenge, though. Everything is. As far as taking a wait-and-see, though, the point is well taken.

> Shrug. They didn't say it, but the logical path is undeniable.

I'm not sure how it can "undeniable" be unconstitutional when they didn't want to touch that issue, given that they almost always base their decision on the easiest-to-justify reason. If it was truly undeniable, they'd have gone to that reason first, rather than refusing to address it. As it was, they relied on a lack of jurisdiction, and they said something to the effect of Comcast's argument being "more persuasive" than the FCC's. We're not quite in "undeniable" territory here. They could have ruled on those grounds, but didn't.

The real test will be if they uphold a challenge on those grounds later. If they do, then I'll agree with you.

Re:Undeniable?

[pudge]

I'm not sure how you got from what I said to what you said, particularly when you agreed that, if they do what everyone is saying they'll do and reclassify the service, that "they facially have that authority."

So you're arguing that if they TRY to follow the law, they arne't violating the law?

I'm not sure how it can "undeniable" be unconstitutional when they didn't want to touch that issue

I didn't mention the Constitution at all. I said it undeniably violates our civil rights.

If it was truly undeniable, they'd have gone to that reason first

You're backward. I said it is undeniable that it violates our civil rights GIVEN THAT they implemented the rule without the authority to do so (which the court did say). IF an executive agency enforces rules on people without the authority to do so THEN civil rights have been violated.

Probably covers too much though...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I see is that net neutrality means something different to different people.

I think an internet provider should be able to do some balancing of traffic to ensure everyone has reasonable transfer rates. But I also think providers have a responsibility to build their networks such that they don't have to rely on balancing to provide what they advertise. I'm at a loss as to how to ensure they do this.

Net neutrality to me means the providers can't affect access to any content. I think this is extremely important given that all the providers also own the majority of entertainment content. I don't want to have to subscribe to two providers to get access to different collections of movies. There's great danger in having single entities both own "TV Cable/FIOS" and entertainment content. It's not in their interest to allow downloading a movie that they're trying to provide on your cable TV plug. Eventually, I think these companies will need to be forcefully split up by the government in the same fashion that AT&T was split up. (Not that I think the AT&T split up was a good idea)

IMO, the access part, both physical and content, should be viewed as a pure utility service and put under heavy federal regulation. The owners of content can do what the want with it I guess. I know everyone likes free downloads, but this isn't part of net neutrality to me. I'm happy with letting the market and social views work out the nitty gritty here.