Slashdot Mirror
FCC Vote Marks Effort To Take Greater Control of the Web
GovTechGuy writes "The FCC voted today to open an inquiry into how the broadband industry is regulated, the first step in a controversial attempt to assert greater regulatory control over Internet service providers. In a 3-2 vote the Democratic members of the Commission voted to move forward with the FCC's proposal to reclassify broadband as a telecom service, increasing the regulation it is subject to. The move also has large implications for net neutrality, which FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski has made a focus under his watch."
Yeah, the headline on this one is a bit sensationalist. The FCC is for prevention, not takeover.
In before the right wingers start ranting about how net neutrality violates the principles of the free market. (FYI, it doesn't)
1 out of 10 government systems fail, and of course they will. The government puts out a lot of ideas per year. Medicaid was the one that worked. Social Security was one of the ones that didn't.
I find it amazing that corporations are overstepping their bounds and people complain that net neutrality with negate the ability for companies to regulate your internet. In short, they want to take away your freedom unless you give them more money.
Why is it people think the government doing absolutely anything is infringing upon rights but when a corporation does it then it's okay?
Yeah, hooray, as an Administration that has several high ranking members who are on record as saying that freedom of speech is over rated moves to give itself regulatory authority over the one place that it receives criticism.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The Internet is one of the last few bastions of freedom left in the world...
...and since you only have one or maybe 2 ISPs to choose from, the Evil Corporations can steal that freedom pretty much however they want. Unless the FCC tells them not to, which is what this is.
In general media it's forgivable, but can't we make an effort at technical accuracy on Slashdot? I didn't see anything in the summary or in the article itself about "the Web".
Tyranny always rears its head under the guise of national defense, war or some sort of civil protection from the bad, ugly guys out there. The Internet is one of the last few bastions of freedom left in the world...too bad the Statists out there cannot see the Federal Government for what it truly is.
And remember when those damned abolitionists reared their ugly heads and took slavery from the free market? They really showed how much they love freedom then, didn't they? Damn Federal government! Damn them and all those who question capitalism!
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
This headline and summary blow and are almost exactly contrary to the facts. The FCC's position, as outlined here is that the FCC is identifying *only* the transmission component of broadband as a telecom service. In practical terms, this means precisely that they will *not* pursue net neutrality-based oversight at this time, and will ignore content-related matters in favor of simple access and transmission oversight.
In other words, the "web" itself is exactly the thing they are not trying to take greater control of.
The days of the mom-and-pop ISP are over and done with. The lack of regulation let these thrive, but the large telecoms and cable companies have gobbled up every single one of these since the dot-bomb. They are gone, never to be seen again.
Weren't the mom-and-pops thriving under the original rules, back when broadband was classified as a telecom service and hence subject to regulation? It seems that those all died when broadband was deregulated as a telecom service in the past decade.
Just provide a country wide free WiFi/WiMax service paid for by a federal tax on all computers and devices with WiFi/WiMax receivers. Provide strict QoS on this network so that P2P traffic does not drown out VOIP and Web traffic and ... you're done. Now all private companies will need to really stretch their legs to provide a much better service than that if they want to stay in business.
Reading the article, I see that Verizon is against this, so I'm probably for it.
I especially grimaced when I read this part:
That's more transparent than usual, isn't it? In case it's not, I'll translate: "How are we supposed to have free reign to let America's infrastructure steadily decay, if regulation comes from someone other than the politicians we bought?"
The Internet is full. Go away.
Seriously, regulating telecoms does not equal controlling the web.
The reason we want net neutrality is so that network carriers do not control the web, just offer their service without unreasonably interfering in the way a customer uses the network. Reasonable limits could be throttling heavy users WHEN there is high demand in order to more reasonably share network traffic, or when a user is using the network in a criminal way.
For example, without neutral networks, we could have a far-fetched hypothetical situation where an ISP limits the availability or performance of services from competitors, and gives preferential treatment to their own services.
I know that the web becoming more of a high-bandwidth place tossing around videos is pretty far-fetched. I know that it would be pretty crazy for ISP's to start competing with video on demand and telephone providers. I know that it would be ludicrous to expect some cable monopoly, such as Comcast, to manage to come along and snatch up some media outlet, say NBC, around the same time that they push for bandwidth caps and tiered pricing. Certainly they would never do something like make those limits apply to other media outlets, but not apply those limits to their own content.
Furthermore, nobody could imagine that they could manage to produce astroturf movements to gain sympathy from the average Joe so that not only can they get away with it, people will be begging the big bad government to stop interfering with their plans.
It would never even get this far, so we don't even have to worry about the unthinkable future possibilities, such as ISPs giving network priority and affect the actual network performance of their own content, compared to their competitors. We won't have to worry about ISPs extorting money from websites in order to give them enhanced performance (at the expense of the non-paying sites). We don't have to worry about them rerouting traffic, or trying to limit criticism by controlling the web.
Really, they couldn't even get halfway there without a lot of protest, right?
It's not like they were allowed to become a monopoly through the help of our government anyway.
So let me get this straight... in some bizarre way you find ANY moral equivalence between... ownership and enslavement of human beings... and an ISP being able to give preferential treatment to customers based on how much they pay?
Riiight.
Why not try to relate net neutrality to what the actions of Hitler while you are at it? It would be about as ridiculous.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
- Government School/Dept of Education (indoctrinates rather than educates - also very money-inefficient compared to private alternatives that d a better job with half as much cash, or an equal job with one-quarter as much cash)
There is precious little evidence that private schools can do the job cheaper AND better. Seriously. I defy you to find credible evidence to support your claim. I've looked and it simply does not exist. There are little successes here and there but there is no evidence that schools can be privatized on a mass scale and still succeed. It's a worthy idea but no one has figured out a way to make it work.
Taxpayer funded public schools have to take every child, not just the ones they want. I went to a private school and it was academically better than my local public school (which wasn't a bad one) but it was no where close to being cheaper. The teachers at my private school were paid less but worked there because most of the kids were high achievers and it was a nice place to work. The environment of my private school would have been impossible to replicate without the ability to select the student bod and kick out those who seriously misbehave. (plagiarism was an offense that would get you expelled for example)
There are lots of attempts at for-profit and not-for profit private and charter schools but the holy grail of simultaneously being better AND cheaper remains elusive, at least on a large scale.
But individual rights trump the right to trade. For example you can't buy a bunch of computers and then store them in your neighbors' basement. That's infringing upon his individual rights. Nobody is so stupid as to think "free market" trumps the rights of the individual.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
No, I think the real expense in starting up the ISP is in the fact that without government regulation, they would have to go in and set up their own infrastructure which includes running hundreds of miles of line. Now if the government forces ISPs to open their lines to other companies a la electricity...maybe we can fix something.
Without regulation, those with the most wealth have the best chance of making even more wealth. Markets are not necessarily closed systems, but you can't just throw "growth" at the issue of wealth migrating into the hands of a few.
So your very first statement, which seems to put all blame for 'uncompetitive' markets on government regulation, sounds simplistic and even a bit troll-like.
Blar.