Slashdot Mirror
House Democrats Shelve Net Neutrality Proposal
crimeandpunishment writes "A compromise on net neutrality appears to be as likely as Google and China becoming BFFs. House Democrats have pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies. House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who shelved the proposal late on Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition, said, 'If Congress can't act, the FCC must,' and called this development 'a loss for consumers.' Internet companies and public interest groups say the new regulations are needed to keep phone and cable companies from playing favorites with traffic, while those companies insist they need flexibility so high-bandwidth applications don't slow down their systems." The net neutrality debate seems to have fallen victim to the extreme polarization evident in the larger political culture.
It would really, really help if we'd explain to my conservative friends just what "Net Neutrality" is. They are convinced that it's some form of Fairness Doctrine for the Web that will limit content.
(The fact that such a "fairness doctrine" might limit Mother Jones and Salon just as much as it does FrontPageMag and World Net Daily, depending on the party in power, doesn't seem to occur to them, either.)
I try to explain to them that it simply means that, if I visit YouTube, I don't want my ISP to limit their bandwidth because Microsoft (or someone else) has paid a premium for priority for *their* bandwidth.
We geeks have several flaws, and one of them is our love of catchphrases and acronyms. We just *assume* that everyone knows what "free software" and "net neutrality" mean. But when you start dealing with the Body Politick At Large(tm), that's not necessarily so. A few minutes to carefully explain just what we're actually talking about will go a long way ...
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
"pulled the plug on efforts to work out a compromise among phone, cable, and Internet companies"
That right there is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington. This debate, like so many others, doesn't consider the interests of the public, but simply the interests of the industry players directly affected by the new law.
There is absolutely no legitimate reason why the US government should be negotiating with AT&T (or Time Warner, or Comcast, etc). None. If the US government wants AT&T to do something, they can pass a law and/or issue a regulation that says AT&T has to do it. No negotiation required - if AT&T doesn't do it, the US government can then bring them to court. That's what makes the government different from a corporate partner of AT&T, and AT&T is subject to the government of the US as long as it's operating in the US.
However, there's an illegitimate reason why the US government negotiates with AT&T: AT&T is in the running at least for largest campaign contributor in the country.
I am officially gone from
As far as I understand it, this ESPN3 issue isn't a choice of MS nor ISPs. This is a choice of Disney/ESPN themselves charging for access to their services. Basically, providers have to pay ESPN for access. If they don't pay ESPN, no ESPN3. This has nothing to do with ISP's deciding what to and not to allow you to see.
Watch it when you mention "backroom deals." Those things are what got us the 1976 copyright extension act, 1998 Mickey Mouse/Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, DMCA, DMCA2, ACTA (thankfully not ratified yet but just watch them slip it through in the dead of night).
We can just bet that the real reason this is being "delayed" is that the Senate right now is busy passing the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (aka the "Fuck Consumers In The Ass Act") under a "fast-track" by the corrupt party in power (as opposed to the corrupt party OUT of power).
They want to have the authority to shut down any website they see fit by accusing it of "piracy." Not only that, they want the ability to order US ISP's to "black out" access to overseas websites they accuse of "piracy."
How long till this starts to be a tool for political repression? Seems the Democrats have taken a page from their funding backers over in China. Maybe in a few years rather than needing Tor to get news out to people inside China, we'll be needing it just to survive the Great Firewall of America...
Ah but the point is that you didn't PUT the content on the net did you, you just consumed it. People like you shouldn't have to pay, and THAT'S what the FCC needs to regulate.
The point is, I used the bandwidth.
Home of The Suki Series
No, what he's saying is that if you make >$75K and you're whining about being asked to contribute +$2K, then you perhaps need a little more critical perspective because, get this, you're already quite rich in relative terms.
He's not expecting to be given extra earnings, he's saying you should count yourself lucky that you are making more, rather than making $40K or less instead of expecting sympathy from the majority of society because you're so hard done-by. As a more wealthy person you, by default, use and benefit more from society, so you, as the the more wealthy person, should foot more of the bill for it.
Don't like it? Want to keep all your money? As tired a cliche as it is, perhaps you should move the Somalia? That way you'll only ever have to pay for your own needs, such as the private police force you'll require to maintain the law and order that allows you to keep the money you make.
--srj/mmv