Slashdot Mirror
Obama FCC Caves On Net Neutrality
An anonymous reader writes "...the rule, which will be voted on during tomorrow's FCC meeting, falls drastically short of earlier pledges by President Obama and the FCC Chairman to protect the free and open Internet. The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users."
Money rules this world...
Before we get all burn-the-town-ey... why did this happen? Who, if anyone, could have stopped it? What's our next move?
It's always confirmation bias!
Change we can believe in!
*slow clap* Well done there O glorious leaders of the free world...
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/biography.html Check your facts before blathering....
Your assumption is wrong: http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/biography.html
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
The ace in the hole for net neutrality is the latest crop of cheap TVs with built-in Netflix and other online services. My in-laws just purchased one a few months ago and they use Netflix constantly. These are dye-in-the-wool, Ann Coulter-reading, FOXNews-watching Republicans. I mentioned to my father-in-law about net neutrality being a big issue. He had never heard of it. When I explained the ramifications for their Netflix usage, his response was to immediately support it. It will be interesting to see this shake out. This is another chance where we can see if FOX and Rush can convince more people to act against their own self interest in support of some bastardization of "freedom."
He was not only appointed by Obama, he was part of Obama's campaign. You should save your partisan assumptions for the time you spend on the Daily Kos.
Obama's net neutrality pledge was one of the reasons I voted for him after voting for Republican presidential candidates for so many years. (That, and attempting to right the wrong of voting for dubya--twice.) It is now clear to me that they are ALL a bunch of lying hypocrites. And that I'm just not as smart as I thought I was...
A clever person solves a problem, A wise person avoids it. -Einstein
TFA says: "Instead of protecting openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the Commission has exempted the mobile Internet from Net Neutrality protections"
Guess what? Nobody cares. If mobile users cared about openness, they *wouldn't have bought iPhones and Droids*. Those are closed and locked down devices.
People have already voted with their dollars against neutrality. And if the people don't care, the cause is lost.
Further, they have voted with their time and effort against open standards on the internet. They chose the closed facebook over any open alternative, and similar for dozens of other things. They'll pick closed IM protocols over open ones for example.
You cannot cram freedom down people's throats. They have to want it, and by and large, they DON'T. They're happier with authoritarian control, because then someone else does the thinking for them.
While I agree with the articles stance on the Net Neutrality issue being passed, the article fails to mention why the bill is bad. It just repeatedly says how horrible it is without giving any reasons.
When there are so many problems with the bill, the least they could do is mention them.
(Personally, I do agree that it has many problems. I can only base this on articles I've read elsewhere since the one on huffington is all rhetoric and no fact)
Although, I still have to chuckle at all the passionate supporters at campaign time. They really were convinced he'd reinvent america, now with more unicorns and rainbows.
Americans got EXACTLY the representation they deserved, as always.
Does anyone have a link to the actual rule they will be voting on ?
Was it not obvious that "Hope" and "Change" was nothing more then a slogan and the Great Orator with Teleprompter took everyone for a ride? The mob followed him blindly... Don't feel bad, it happens all the time regardless of the politicians' political affiliations. I believe it was Nikita Khrushchev who once said, "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers."
While TFA does a lot of ranting and raving about the upcoming regulation, it doesn't actually give any details about what's in the regulation. One of the linked articles does a bit better, telling you what the bill lacks (seemingly any restrictions on paid prioritization, which makes me wonder how you can actually call it a "net neutrality" bill at all), but doesn't say anything about what the bill does include.
Can someone please tell me what's actually in this bill?
"it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the bribes of AT&T and cable lobbyists"
FTFY
Julius Genachowsk
Appointed by Obama
I assume the latter if he's bending-over to appease the megacorps.
Ha! so you think there's a difference between how the two parties appease their corporate masters?
And to be clear, it's not him who's getting bent over, it's YOU.
I've been reading Matt Taibbi's book, "Griftopia" (http://www.amazon.com/Griftopia-Machines-Vampire-Breaking-America/dp/0385529953), and having worked in finance for ~10 years, I'm coming to realize more and more that the powers that be -- corporations, CEOs, and everybody that's basically not *you* are the people who are going to run the US for the coming future. A leaked memo from Citigroup (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36059255/23321255-Citigroup-Mar-5-2006-Plutonomy-Report-Leaked-Citigroup-Memo-Part1) has already declared the US a Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy).
This is just another shot in the arm against a citizenry whose arms are already falling off from the shots before. The FCC coming up with a plan to (surprise surprise) support the plutocracy that we've already been labelled by Wall Street is not even a stretch any more. And while the Tea Party clamors about how government is trying to socialize everything, they miss that problem that the government has been co-opted in stealing America as a whole from the citizens themselves, and they are happy to have the folks in the Tea Party carry their banner without realizing what damage they are doing.
I am a bit demoralized nowadays about all this -- and I'd love to take action but I don't know how. So while we as nerds who normally argue, bitch, and complain can actually stand up and figure a way to do something about this (short of something 4chan would do), then I'd be all for it. Let's strategize. Let's plan. And let's execute in the perfect ways I know that we can do thousands of lines of code, deploying hundreds of servers, or anything else "IT" that we do.
I'm here to start the call to arms, I just don't know what to do after that.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
But did you want to listen?? Nooo...
(See my various postings elsewhere)
Sadly, none of this is surprising.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The FCC is and always will be lame.
So what did you wusses expect from democrats? Something of substance? It is all about how much money is given, to them.
Realistically, this probably wasn't ever gonna go through the way anyone wanted. It doesn't get politicians what they want...more green pocket-lining.
No surprise, though. Bunch of spineless wimps that easily bend to a few bucks.
I remain absolutely shocked that in this day and age, the common man still refuses to accept that the people who run the business of government work precisely for themselves. After thousands of years of centralized power and the injustice it brings, it's almost comical (if it wasn't so sad) that the common man still falls for the same old scam, year after year. The people at the top of the pyramid are motivated purely by self-interest, the very thing they claim to save us from.
So let's sit down and take a deep breath here: you are NOT the government, and the government is not you; in fact, the government does not even "represent" you. If that were the case, then why do they need guns?
Again, the only solution to government failure and injustice is STRICT limits on the scope of government (both revenue and power over the people). Of course, that's nothing but a pipe dream for radicals and libertarians, right?
The FCC was bought, sold, and paid for long ago. That's why the vast majority of our spectrum 'belongs' to megacorps, and only the thinnest little slivers are given back to us.
Can you imagine how much more useful WiFi would be if we had more than 3 non-conflicting channels that are completely trampled by microwave ovens? (OK, so there's also the 5GHz band, but I mean a nice big block, all in one clean band.) Cordless phones wouldn't conflict, wireless in-house TV distribution would have happened long ago, and more. Imagine if there was a decently sized band of relatively long-wavelength (sub-GHz), spectrum available that allowed a couple watts total / a few tens EIRP in a narrow beam. We could very easily set up private point to point links everywhere, instead of just barely getting them to work as it is now.
Or standards... The rest of the world uses DVB. The US gets ATSC, which is a mess of patents. Same deal with HD radio.
I'm not the least surprised that the FCC isn't protecting your interests, and is doing everything that keeps huge corporations in control of communications. It's what they do best.
They gave in, and allowed the Democrats to impose regulation on the internet.
That is the cave you're referring to, right?
Best Slashdot Co
Government for the corporations, by the corporations. We might as well change the constitution....
"We the Corporations of the United States of America, in order to best subjugate, and bleed the masses...."
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Welching on promises? Less that I bargained for? Par for the course with His Excellency.
It's all about Freedom! Because how can we be free if the people with a compulsive need to own everything aren't free to own everything?
I know it's a crazy thing to say around here, but owners of the telecommunication companies are just as deserving of having their needs served by government as the consumers of telecommunications services. Government doesn't exist to protect the rights of citizens who are consuming over those who are producing. I don't know much about this ruling, but in general a compromise between those interests is a good thing.
I know the corporations are the 'bad' guys, but you don't want government playing favorites. Maybe it will make you feel better to know that pension funds, which keep a great many of our elderly working class and middle class housed and fed, are among the largest owners of those corporations.
Again, maybe this ruling is different, but it wouldn't be a compromise if everyone was happy.
I say we all find a way to hop on before they fuck that one up too.
If you've looked at Daily Kos in recent months, you'd know that most people posting there totally agree with the premise that Obama, while perhaps still not worse than W., is worse than any other president over the last century - including Nixon, who on many important matters (e.g. health care, full employment) was well to Obama's left, and who was no worse in getting bogged down in an unwinnable war for the sake of "honor" ... or something.
Personally, I'd say our only hope is that something forces Obama to resign, and that President Biden, liberated from Obama's bad policy judgment and idealization of "bipartisanship," runs the country like a real Democrat - or at least like a man who's still got his balls attached. Then again, given Biden's recent cluelessness about WikiLeaks, this could be a thin hope.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
ACTA is next, we'll have to create an underground internet to "use it as intended". Leave it to the sheep to let big business decide what is acceptable and what isn't. The media companies firmly believe if you scratch "their" CD/DVD even though you purchased it, your right to copy said legitimate media is null and void.
You mean like posting "Obama FCC" when clearly "FCC" would do? No political bias there. I didn't see "Bush FCC" when the FCC did something annoying during his term.
There's been heavy traffic over the Net Neutrality wires since the November 4 Election of Barack Hussein Obama, and it's not just because the president-elect was so outspoken in support of the principle while on the campaign trail.
There has been a sea change in Washington since then, as the wonks, tech pundits and lobbyists align themselves with new leadership and the likelihood that Net Neutrality could become law soon.
[...]
Obama, Gore and Dorgan's support is no surprise. What's "mind blowing" according to some in the media, is AT&T's apparent change of heart.
At the same conference, AT&T's lead policy VP, James Cicconi, said, "There's a lot of people who now believe that companies like AT&T are not plotting to overthrow the open Internet concept."
Yet two long years later, the FCC ends up implementing a contrary policy. And the timing is ideal. It's after the midterms so there's no fallout for that and the old Congress is still in session so they won't get any serious opposition from the Republicans for another month. My take is that they intended something like this all along.
I'm starting to wonder if Obama has written off his chances for reelection in 2012?
How? Someone (commonly referred to as a "cable company") has to run and maintain the cable. It's inefficient to have multiple cables running to the same place, which is how you end up with monopolies.
Best Slashdot Co
because the FCC was making back room deals and dallying in areas they don't have the right too. The same FCC which was going to work deals with who could charge for what and for how much. Guaranteed that we would see guaranteed price increases and bundling of "approved services".
The chairman was basically going to hand US (read you/me/etc) over the the big broadband companies. So, how money rules the world is insightful I will never know. Tell me how a government agency working hand in hand with the people selling the service is going to turn out good for me? It would result in fixed pricing meaning no one has to compete. It will probably cause me to have less services to select from as well.
People seem to reading some mythical story about how this was all ponies and kitties, but look a little deeper and it wasn't pretty.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And freedom to do what?
Who are the ISPs customers? You and me? Or are we the product?
Best Slashdot Co
You all have been deluded into thinking that you are the client, that's all. The participants here have done an outstanding job and should all receive bonuses. This is cause for celebration, not despondency.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Scare mongering aside this post has nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with mobile carriers and how they already charge for data plans.
If you happen to be one of the tiny number of people who are on an unlimited data plan now nothing will change, your carrier will still do everything in their power to stop you using Skype (assuming you can, most have had it blocked for years) and other data intensive applications which reduce their revenue and margins.
If you are on a capped service nothing will change either. You are already paying for the data you consume.
I would go as far as to say this is a good thing. If this had landed in mobile internet land the cost of connectivity would have gone up substantially and even the notion of an unlimited data plan would be gone forever. Rather than dealing with data intensive applications by either blocking them or restricting their usage to certain hours / bandwidth they would have had to let them though. The cost of data would have to rise to accommodate the fact the carriers were not allowed to discriminate so the average use would rise with all the Skypers and Torrenters.
I’m pretty sure the last time we tried to tell an industry they couldn’t discriminate in service delivery (you know, 16 years ago when the Clinton administration told the banks they had to lend to poor people and brought in legislation to enforce it) it ended badly, perhaps an experiment not to repeat?
Wasn't he appointed by the Democrat president? Or was he a Bush appointee? I assume the latter if he's bending-over to appease the megacorps.
Party affiliation only determines which megacorps he wants to bend over for. One way or the other, the corporations will bend you over anyway.
Damn, missed the 'i' in the link.
Julius Genachowski
So what? Without that wording, you can have an ISP prefer their own VOIP solution.
Bandwidth is a limited resource. When there isn't enough of it, what to do?
Those replacing their TV service with streaming video want great data quantity.
Those playing low-latency real-time games want great ping time.
Those using little of either want great prices.
Declaring "all packets must be treated equally" isn't realistic.
When there isn't enough bandwidth, what to do?
A per-packet charge creates an unrealistic >4-order-of-magnitude difference in price between couch-potato streaming video vs. email-checking grandma.
A latency-reduction charge violates "all treated equally".
Indeed, some packets are more equal than others.
What to do?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Geeks everywhere who don't want to pay for the bandwidth they use have been betrayed by the FCC. The Federal Communications Commission, having been delegated the Constitutional powers of Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce, absolutely refused to tell all network backbone providers that they were unable to set their own rates for using their services.
"I can't believe the FCC won't make AT&T pay for all the bandwidth I want to use on my iPhone" says Liam McCrossen, who hacked his first iPhone years ago, and has only bricked two since. "Just because I want to see streaming video of the old COMDEX conventions doesn't mean I should have to pay for it." McCrossen, who hasn't taken any economics or business classes, is pretty sure the network providers will raise everyone's rates equally rather than just bumping up the cost of his unlimited data plan. "I'm also against paying for trash removal by the trash can" McCrossen opined.
The FCC has been unavailable for comment in their failure to "stick it to the man" and allow some companies to freely enter into contracts.
I don't like lobbyists as much as the next guy. In fact, I hate 'em. Their screwing up the whole system. This entire administration is built around special interest groups. That said, this Net Neutrality grid lock is a good thing. I mean, yeah, it is going to fail for the wrong reasons (like apeasing AT&T), but an internet in the hands of some big cable providers is better than one regulated by the FCC. The FCC, need I remind you, is responsible for the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule, two of the most outrageous and stupid mandates ever created. Anyhow, do you want that to happen with the internet? Some regulations regarding its content? NO! That's exactly what Net Neutrality is trying to do and failing horribly. Well, people, the FCC is going to do the same thing. Read the fine print: Do you know what regulation means? It means its not going to end with a couple of "don't do this" mandates to AT&T and partway down the road were going to ask ourselves "why the hell did we want this again?"
Could we actually get an article with some details, rather than an editorial about what the policy MIGHT contain?
Commenters here and at Huffington Post are seriously suggesting we have a second American Revolution because you didn't get everything you wanted on a Net Neturality policy change?
Jesus, get some perspective! I hope most of you realize that this is the first time Net Neturality is being tried in the US. At all. Anyone spending more than 5 minutes looking into Net Neutrality realize its a complex issue that can't be solved with "Don't discriminate." There are unintended consequences for any action they take.
You do realize that policies can be changed at a later date, right? They aren't written in stone. These policies make more sense than the alternative of doing nothing, and they make more sense than being heavy handed and creating more problems then they solve. If problems crop up, they can be dealt with.
Can you fold under pressure?
Like a lawnchair I can!
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I hate to break it to the entitlement-crowd, but those corporations built those networks with their own money, and own it outright, and as such, they get to be the supreme authority on what data traverses those networks, who pays how much to connect to any part of that network (as an end-user, a peer, or as a content-provider).
If you want to say "The government paid for ARPAnet", you fail, and get to have a 128kbps US-only backbone.
If you want to say "The government gives the network providers all sorts of tax-breaks and subsidies, so we get to have a say in how it's run", you fail, because your lawmakers didn't tie those sorts of conditions into those subsidies and tax-breaks, and you don't get to play Darth Vader and "alter the deal, pray I don't alter it any further" down the road.
If you don't like your ISP's business practices, find a new one.
If there isn't another, and you think there's like-minded folks out there, find yourself some investors, and build your own ISP. It's actually somewhat trivial to do.
If your local municipality has locked out competition via a "Franchise Agreement", well, now is an excellent time to vote those bastards out of office, or start getting involved in local politics.
The problem isn't that "ISPs are filtering/packet-shaping/blocking traffic", it's that your local governments have been propping up a monopoly. Voting against "net neutrality" is voting for the rights of property holders to do what they want with the property they have paid good money for.
As much as I like Obama, his pledge is to protect the internet for the highest bidder, not for schmoes like me.
He is financed by the likes of ATT, TWC, etc..
But....
All big politicos have to be in someone's pocket.
The money raised from selling and reselling the spectrum to "megacorps" subsidizes the electorate's appetite for underfunded entitlements. The microwave oven spectrum is given to microwave ovens for reasons of physics. I like my microwave... my radios will just have to work around it, which they seem to do just fine for me.
Is this "news for nerds" or "news for lusers"?
There is a tech solution. Invent it. Build it. Patent/open-source it. Sell it. Get it out there.
But DON'T just sit there whining that ulterior-motive politicians and bureaucrats won't do things your way.
One solution:
Build a cheap, open, legal, spread-spectrum, compact, no-setup, easy network relay box. Set broadcast power within legal no-license limits. Make a gazillion of them, plug 'em in wherever you can. Make a giant ad-hoc network. You know what I'm getting at.
Heck, this should already be in place between the innumerable cellphones & wireless routers out there. Get the ad-hoc network big enough, and the individual load should be minimal and the total disruptions minimal. TCP/IP is intended to circumvent network failures, so long as there is a path. Make a path.
And stop expecting powermongers to give you freedom.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
from a relative n00b - can netsukuku or something similar get us out of this?
http://www.netsukuku.org/?pag=about
"sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
yesterday, I was advocating Net Neutrality in a discussion here on Slashdot, and I continue to advocate for it. What the FCC is showing here, however, is not what I and other like-minded folks are advocating.
And I have strongly advocated against Net Neutrality, because I told everyone here time and time again that any regulation would be controlled by corporate lobbying.
I was the one who realized just what regulation would be written in the real world; you are a tool of those who wanted to use the regulation.
In short what on earth made you think the regulation you and others dreamed of was ever possible to have the government produce?
I take little solace in being right because I also have to live in the world you have crafted.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When I explained the ramifications for their Netflix usage, his response was to immediately support it.
Yes, people will support something when you lie about what it does.
Given the regulation we have now it's plain you were lying to him. So will you now go and try and turn him against the regulation to correct your wrongs?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm pretty sure commodore64_love is not a partisan democrat. I have nothing against the guy, but we've argued enough issues so that I would be shocked if he had voted for Obama.
In any story on Net Neutrality, I have raised the point that any regulation in the end will be dictated by lobbying. Oh how many Slashot readers said that I was wrong, that it would cure all ills, imagined or real.
And so here we are, in a world where I sadly am proven correct. What will you do now? Will you call and urge they drop this? Or will you just accept this and move on as if nothing has happened, while over time the regulation goes more and more against the principles you SAID you were supporting?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
TFS is simply a direct quote from TFA, which is hysterical opinion which doesn't include any substantive facts. It would be nice if there were actually some news in the "News for Nerds".
And what's worse, is no one posting these opinions about how good or bad the order that will be voted on is knows what is in the order. While both supporters and opponents of net neutrality are saying that this order is a victory for the other side, with fairly hyperbolic descriptions on both sides, its worth noting the more the more substantive and to-the-point issue raised here -- both as regards the order and the commentary on it from both sides -- the order that will be voted on has neither been published officially nor leaked, all the commentary is based on speculation on earlier drafts.
So everyone crying "the sky is falling" is doing so without having even looked up.
I wonder how close Ed Whitacre will be to laughing his ass off by the end of tomorrow. Granted, he's not in charge at the non-existent SBC anymore, but it's almost like the FCC gave a belated Christmas present to him and his cronies.
This comment blocked by ATT*Comcast's NetMonitor. Category: dissent against corporate overlords.
Well pro-corporate right wingers. You've won again. Since Obama is turning out to be a pretty solid Republican president, do you think you can now lay off that whole Kenyan Socialist bullshit, please?
Land of the free*. *Freedom sold separately.
Thats funny, i thought that you americans did just that by electing someone who was FOR net neutrality. It didn't end up mattering who got voted in though, because as you are no doubt aware money = power, and it seems a "right wing liberal" is just a corrupt as a "right wing conservative".
FUCK. PROPERTY. HOLDERS. I am so tired of the ballad of the oppressed capitalist. You are seriously deluded if you think you will ever be wealthy enough to be in control, if that is what you are betting on. This is about censorship and control, only you, the plutocrat apologist, has decided that FOR PROFIT corporations are more trustworthy than the government that you ELECT. In america it doesn't seem to matter, as you have all broken the system so much that politicans are just paid shills for corporations, but dont you dare use your broken ass "democratic" system to discredit good ideas such as net neutrality.
Do corporations get to dictate who you call on the telephone?
Does the government get to decide on what you can use your electrical power?
Do they get to decide which plants you can water?
Does the post office get to refuse your mail to certain individuals? Or does it not matter who you send a letter to, as long as you pay equally.
Internet is a utility, and should be protected as such. You people need to nationalize the internet. Corporations are unaccountable and corrupt, by nature as they are trying to create profit first and foremost. Utilities should NOT have profit as the bottom line goal! Its amazing in 2010, with all the evidence of life behind you, that this still must be explained.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Does the government get to decide on what you can use your electrical power?
In many parts of the country, during peak usage periods, the answer is "yes", unfortunately.
Do they get to decide which plants you can water?
In many parts of the country, specifically the western portion of the US, the answer is most definitely "yes", again, unfortunately.
You people need to nationalize the internet.
Yeah, because the government does such a great job of innovation. They're definitely who we should have running the show.
Or, maybe, not.
Yeah and the same fools were braying about a "government takeover" of health care. It was actually a health care takeover of government.
In the end it's a central authority with too much power over you. Who cares if it's pure "government" or government proxying a small subset of companies? The end result is the same, it's still bad.
And that is also true, as we can see plainly now, of the FCC and regulating the internet. But if you'd care to make the same mistake twice by all means go ahead.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you're so against regulation you should love this. All it does is create toothless fluff and calls it regulation.
The fluff is obviously a framework to say the FCC has power to regulate the internet.
It appears to be fluff to you because you have not reached the hard, hard crunchy core yet. That comes later.
As a programmer why would I love anything that has no purpose? I see this for what it is, a trojan - if only some others of you were intelligent enough to do so.
It is also madness to claim that someone who speaks out against regulation by a specific body would love any regulation by that body, no matter what it does. Even if it stated explicitly I would be paid a million dollars a year I would be against it, for the greater good.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Woz wrote a beautiful article on net neutrality that was posted today.
I am dumbfounded at the number of Slashdot readers that support this bill. Yes we need to establish net neutrality, yes we need to take SOME power from the ISP, but the giving the power to regulate and "police" the internet to the Federal Imperial Government would be more damaging than unplugging the entire thing. Wake up people, this is not nor was it ever a bill for net neutrality, its a another massive Federal power grab....
Well pro-corporate right wingers. You've won again.
Republicans were against any regulation. So since it is in place, that leaves the only people obviously desiring the result as Democrats.
Congratulations, you have "won". Or at least your hive-leaders have. Go back to making honey for them and do not concern yourself over the laws they pass.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... privately-owned toll roads that turn a profit are not illegal.
Government regulation never protects. Ever. It controls.
Children generally won't understand the difference; adults are expected to.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Well pro-corporate right wingers. You've won again.
The pro-corporate right-wingers are calling this a coup d'état by the left, based on the same level of speculation without the actual order details on which the left is characterizing it as a sell-out to industry.
Maybe, just maybe, before characterizing who won, we should find out what is actually ordered?
The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this ________ chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of ______________
Apply to just about anything they are doing anymore.
This plan was written by the Republican chair of the FCC. The Republicans are fine with regulation as long as it's to the benefit of the paymasters, which this is...
To all of you saying that the telecoms paid for installing their nets and therefore should be able to charge customers differentially based on what they want to do, we experienced this before. In the 1800's, railroads paid for installing tracks around the country, then proceeded to play nasty games and were forced to be neutral by congress. This is not new. See here: http://www.bengarvey.com/2010/08/net-neutrality-and-the-railroad-business/
I have a key that opens a door that contains a button that stops the business I work for. I'm the only one with that key. Many of us have that key and have used it to get to that button. Maybe all we need to do is push the button.
I'm still glad he won, given the screamingly terrifying alternative, but we all knew Obama was a corporate camp-follower when as a Senator, he voted to give AT&T a free pass for gleefully breaking wiretapping laws when asked by the NSA (who seemingly answers to no one).
Then when new regulations are passed that give more power to the corporations, you blame the people who told you that was going to happen if you kept pushing for more regulations.
Naw, I blame the people who talk about about "regulation" vaguely and as if it's some monolithic thing, of course. Always easier rhetorically, particularly when you're preaching to a choir of fellow conservatives who've repeated the "regulation bad" mantra for so long it's become their own personal lobotomy and they are no longer even *capable* of actually thinking about policy specifics.
So here's the question: can you describe the mechanics of how a regulation that, say, prohibited tolls or discrimination based on packet source/destination would create barriers that favor existing big companies?
Tweet, tweet.
How many more abuses of this nature will it take before people realize that the government isn't by and for the people any longer, but by and for corporations? Individuals aren't represented in Congress any longer; corporations are. However, individuals are still obligated to pay taxes. How long will it be before the average person again rallies around "No taxation without representation"?
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Funny enough, if you look at the bottom of another heavily slanted Fox article, you can find some actual information. The details seem much better than hinted at in the Huffington Post.
The rules would require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks -- including online calling services, Internet video and other Web applications that compete with their core businesses.
But the plan would give broadband providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic like spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.
Senior FCC officials stressed that unreasonable network discrimination would be prohibited.
They also noted that this category would most likely include services that favor traffic from the broadband providers themselves or traffic from business partners that can pay for priority... The proposal would ... leave the door open for broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services are separate from the public Internet.
Public interest groups fear that exception could lead to a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane for companies that can pay for priority and a slow lane for everyone else.
The plan would prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices. It would require them to disclose their network management practices too.
But wireless companies would get more flexibility to manage data traffic as wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks.
They couldn't give us ala carte TV but here comes your ala carte Internet. Oh, you want to go to myface.com or yourplace.com? Great, that traffic is now in a different package, which only costs you an extra 6.99 a month, for the first gigabyte...
Not a single one of the Commissioners has a technical background. In reality, not a single one of them would recognize a QoS label if it bit him or her on the ass. Their decision is no doubt based on whatever voices carried the loudest over the cacaphony, and whoever has the most money buys the biggest megaphone.
My interests are not protected by "net neutrality". My interests are not protected by the government gaining legal power to dictate what traffic can and cannot flow. My interests are not protected by establishing a framework in which governmental authority over content classification is established. My interests are not served by the government being able to force one provider to subsidize others, as I know who ends up ultimately footing the bill. My interests are not protected by having spam, malware, media piracy, and DDoS traffic shielded, by law, from being removed from my ISP's network.
Establishing governmental power over communication doesn't increase freedom, folks. Who here thinks that "net neutrality compliance monitoring" frameworks won't be used for entirely legal (thanks to the law) warrantless searches, recording of individual usage patterns, and enforcement of least-common-denominator standards that forbid anyone from having more bandwidth and content than others? Who here thinks that this won't lead to nationalization of the infrastructure, thus giving the government the ability and power to ban content?
Net neutrality has been wrapped in a noble flag, but when you look at the consequences and what it enables, it's a very bad deal which ultimately only serves Big Brother and people who don't like to pay for media and software. I, for one, am quite happy that we dodged this particular bullet... this time, anyway.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
The "mail man" decides which route the mail takes based on what you're willing to pay... you know, allowing people to pay premium rates for priority service, like some sites choosing to pay for better delivery than normal over your pipes.
I thought I was making that choice when I signed up for a 5Mbps fiber-optic uplink. My 15Mbps downlink is the equivalent to setting up a large mailbox (I anticipate receiving a large number of packets, after all); I'm OK with the arrangement that I'm renting it from the delivery service. Netflix does the same for their packets, paying a negotiated amount for the volume of packets they send and receive.
In this scenario my vision for Net Neutrality is that DHL, UPS, USPS, and FedEx don't get to charge each other for access to my address.
Wow. I really like that analogy, stick with it =)
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
More FyckUS, FickEU, and RU and CN applaud the controlling effort of the "Corporate Communist World Order (CCWO). %~P
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I'm seeing both sides of this debate, corps and net neutrality activists, going all foamy at the mouth over this, and I'm not seeing any valid reasons one way or another. It seems to me that everyone is afraid of what could be in this, but nobody knows what *is* in it!
From the WSJ:
"The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services."
From the HuffPo:
"Instead of a rule to protect Internet users' freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola - letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road. "
So which is it??
I'm tired and foreign so don't expect a jewel of literature here, but
1 - People are stupid (meaning that we all perform some epic fails occasionally), but most of us can do better than that ...
2 - Some matters seem so obvious that you'd have to be stupid not to worry about them
3 - Despite your best efforts some seem to be stuck on stupid mode,
4 - You can at least laugh about it - at their expense, preferably
5
6 - Profit!
7 - WRONG!!!111!1!!1
It often struck me that I tend to like people individually and despise them as a group. It got me wondering - and I'm still working at it but it sems that just being nice to others goes a long way. Patience takes you even further. So this is my recipe to effect change:
Do not antagonize those who disagree with you - your true enemy is apathy.
Do not expect to convert others to your cause.
Speak passionately, but listen just as intently.
Never give up!
True strategy works over long periods of time, and often giving in to exasperation only sets back any goals you are trying to achieve. One must realize there are battles that cannot be won, at least in the immediate future - so you keep the communication lines open for next time, you "live to fight another day".
Finally, look at yourself, and you past exploits, under these principles, and see if you can settle for a small victory at a time - or why you couldn't at THAT time. I could go on at length about this, but:
a) My writing probably reads like a crank's
b) Works better if you work it out for yourself.
c) I've not got all answers
Finally, I'm open sourcing this under creative commons 3.0 (I'm aware this post is under "Anonymous Coward")
This plan was written by the Republican chair of the FCC.
Both the chair and the two other members of the FCC that have indicated that they support the version of the plan that will be voted on are Democrats; the two members of the FCC opposed are Republicans. Republicans in the House and Senate have threatened to attempt to exercise a legislative veto over any net neutrality related regulations and, failing that, to block all FCC funding if any net neutrality regulations are approved by the FCC.
One of the Democrats on the FCC was opposed to the earlier drafts of the plan that were publicly circulated because they contained insufficient protections for consumers and too many concessions to service providers interests, but has switch positions on the final plan (though still characterizing it as not ideal.)
While I -- like everyone else outside of the FCC commenting on the plan -- don't know what is in the current version that they are voting on, I am rather suspicious of a characterization of it as containing everything that pro-corporate, right-wing republicans want. That seems extraordinarily unlikely given the circumstantial evidence that is all we have available.
Whoever is in charge of the FCC serves at the pleasure of the president. Please review the prior election results.
You also make the same mistake of assuming the Republicans who set him there are the same ones as the ones coming into power. Many such Republicans were tossed out in primaries.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm not republican and by no means democrat, I don't even really identify with the tea party. Just laying that out on the table.
Keep posting!!! Maybe one day it will sink in. We can only hope...
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
Yeah, because the government does such a great job of innovation.
*cough* ARPANET *cough*
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I want to know, no, I DEMAND to know when the FCC is going to do something about the /. modding system? Some great comments are buried in the links and higher modded comments sit out in the open like fat corporate advertising. All information must be the same. We need the government to free /..
Mod Neutrality Now!!!!
"I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called 'Mr.Evil,' thank you very much!"
I figured out about 20 years ago that the president of the US is no more than a figurehead and is completely powerless to do anything. While we, the idiots, are fighting over whether it's the democrats or republicans that are the good or the evil, the country is being run at a completely different level - much lower level than the figurehead that we swap out every four years. The corruption remains intact, and is firmly rooted. The best thing you can do is not vote - show that you're smarter than actually believing that one has your well being in mind versus the other. Neither do.
We've come a long way since the original ARPAnet my friend, and most of that innovation that got us here didn't come off the government teat.
>>>save your partisan assumptions for the time you spend on the Daily Kos.
The what?
I did make a bad assumption that the FCC Chair is a Bush appointee. I apologize for my stupidity. But for the record I spend most of my time over at reason.com or lp.org or youtube or asimovs.com, not Republi-crat partisan sites called "Kos". I disliked all 3 of our last presidents and actually voted Harry Browne many moons ago, rather than vote either Gore or Bush or Kerry.
Then I decided voting is pointless, since the congress is controlled by a duopoly of Big government party #1 and big government party #2 which will probably never be defeated or change. I wish we had an anti-federalist and pro-states'/pro-10th amendment party like the EU has (Nigel Firage, Daniel Hannan, etc), but I doubt it will ever happen.
-C64_love
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Doesn't it bother anyone that the FCC does not have the power to do what they say they are going to do? Congress refuses to give them the power, the courts already said they don't have the power... You do know that a little thing called the Tenth Amendment exists, correct? How many of you are effected by the 'problem' that this 'vote' is supposed to fix? I for one have never had an issue with my internet (Comcast) traffic that some bureaucrat could fix... Do you not see how these 'powers' (if ruled legal, and there will be ruling one way or another) can be abused? Is no one familiar with the fairness doctrine? Do you not think that this is the first step towards the fairness doctrine of the internet? Is no one concerned about censorship or where this can be stretched to in the future? Once they (legally, not like this) have the power, where does it end? Have none of you learned anything about politicians over the past 10 years? THEY LIE FOR A LIVING! Repubs, Dumbocrats, BOTH parties are in this for themselves and the people who throw loads of cash at them, not you. "Never let a good crisis go to waste"
People like you are why we can't have effective government.
What's really funny is that no regulation vs. regulation written by the those who (should) be the ones that have to comply with it ends up being effectively the same thing. So we're really no worse off than we were before... Except now you get to hold this up as an example of how government doesn't work and expect us to find you insightful.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The only people voting for this tragic regulation are Democrats:
On Tuesday, in a party-line vote, the three Democratic commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will adopt "net neutrality" rules."
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I earned the right to be rude. I warned everyone like you exactly what would happen only to be dismissed as a fool.
Now that we see how things really are I see no reason to pretend I respect you in the slightest since you have shown you deserve none.
The FCC has not decided to let the market decide. They have decided to let the FCC decide.
What is wrong with me is the tragedy of being someone who can predict the future it would appear. Truly, knowing what will happen yet seeing people head like sheep for a foregone disaster is something I would wish on few people.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So we're really no worse off than we were before
And that in the end is the most dangerous assumption.
Now that the FCC has proven they are allowed to write regulations covering the internet, they can in the future impose other restrictions.
It's so easy to predict it's tragic.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Tea Party is reforming the Republicans from the inside, pretty much against their wishes but it is getting done. If you are a libertarian, and really want to change things - support the Tea Party and learn that much slander against them is untrue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Has anyone bemoaning the new rules actually read them? No, of course not. They read an opinion, with which they already agreed, and then started whining. Typical of the American public, really.
Here, read the summary and then whine.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303745A1.doc (PDF wasn't available.)
More definitions are included in the document above, as well as additional discussion.
Both.
If you provide wired service, then the WSJ rule applies.
The HuffPost is complaining that the same rule does not apply to wireless.
This is the only actual information that seems to have come out. It does *some* of Net Neutrality (not clear how much) and does less (or none) for wireless.
My best guess is that this legislation does nothing. There is lots of rabid foaming at the mouth that this is somehow giving the government some new ability to control the internet, but I have not seen it yet. It is possible however, and that would be bad.
Liberals not only tell you to keep digging the regulation hole, but remove the oxygen from the hole while you are doing it and tell you to breathe harder.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Naw, I blame the people who talk about about "regulation" vaguely and as if it's some monolithic thing
It is from the standpoint of giving power to corporations. They are the ones at a federal level who can lobby for things, and thus control what regulations say.
Indeed we find you are the vague one, promising that regulation can in fact exist without corporate input. Well then, give us a counter-example of a regulation that was not written without input from a number of large companies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Could we actually get an article with some details, rather than an editorial about what the policy MIGHT contain?
Nope, because we are not allowed to see the regulation. We never have been. Right away that should raise red flags.
Also we find that the regulation is to be approved down strict party lines, Democratic FCC chairpeople in support and Republicans against. This also raises red flags.
The only perspective it is possible to have is that what we are about to get is very bad indeed, though the exact specific of how bad is yet to be known.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, I am only pointing out what they believe they support is impossible so what they ACTUALLY are supporting is what is happening.
The FCC would not be voting in favor of the regulation as it is without countless people like yourselves crying for them to pass network neutrality. So they decided what that meant and are voting for it with your "support".
Regardless of if you like what is in it you brought it to being.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The word "Obama" has no place in that headline.
Slashdot is a great place. And we'll see dozens of articles about dozens of agencies each year. Let's avoid becoming FOX News and politically labeling everything shall we, and just stick with the essential facts of the stories.
Or were we of the impression that the "Bush FCC" was really pushing for Net Nutrality? Or have we forgotten that the current FCC wants to push net neutrality but has been consistently boxed in over it?
I guess if I was specifically told as a consumer what internet speeds I would get I would be ok with it. For example, if the agreement is for preferred services I get 15 mbps, and standard services I will get 10 mbps, and I can then chose which speed of internet I get based on knowing what I will actually get. The reason we get 15 mbps is because a preferred service company like netflix pays comcast some contracted amount of money, which then causes netflix monthly access amount to go up. This way at least the supposed people using the high amounts of bandwidth get charged instead of the cost being distributed, and non netflix users for example having to pay more because of the amount of bandwidth netflix users use.
However, that is not going to be the way it works. I'll be told I get up to 15 mbps, and not told in any way that most services are limited to 5 mbps.
Like all regulations, they sometimes start with a noble concept to get people elected, but end up nothing like the original concept when actually implemented. The average consumers would be much better off if government would just GTFO. Regulations help big companies remain big companies not help the little guy.
'nuf said.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
So if I support midgets flying, that means I actually support midgets falling off rooftops?
Yes, if you proclaimed loudly you wanted a midget bill and it was plain large companies would benefit more from falling midgets.
See? I can be stupid too!
Too?
I agree with the first part.
I do not support their implementation of it.
Sorry, but you did. You demanded the FCC act and so they have, in the way it was obvious they would.
How many more times are you going to twist what I'm saying into something I'm not?
Sorry but it doesn't matter what you said. It matters what you pushed for and what happens as a result.
What we are witnessing is the easily predictable consequences of your actions regardless of your intent.
You want to abdicate responsibility because you are horrified at the results. But again the FCC would not be voting this in place without the full-on support of people like you, saying they wanted the FCC to regulate the internet. They leverage that support to do what they want.
If they don't care what you actually said in support then I don't see why you are arguing about what you said since it's irrelevant.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Basically it seems that the FCC accepted most of the guidance that Google and Verizon collaborated upon back in August. Basic net neutrality for wired connections, no net neutrality for wireless: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/google-verizon-propose-open-vs-paid-internets/
Oh but you are missing the sneakier way they are gonna get you...caps. I'm in one of the test markets for the new caps, which BTW are 36GB for residential, and 76GB for business. Now that is $106! for the bundle with basic cable and phone, or $180! for the "business" which is the same just with a higher cap. Now here is how they get you:
Vonage? Counts against the cap. Their VoIP? Don't. Linux and Mac updates? Count. Windows? Don't because they got "donated" a WSUS server. Anyone other than Netflix and Youtube? Counts. Their PPV along with Youtube and Netflix? Don't, and the only reason you are allowed Youtube and Netflix is they paid to put a local server. Starting to see a trend?
Yup. I'm seeing a probable violation of today's order. We don't have the full text available, but we do have the news release with excerpts, and it certainly looks like unreasonable discrimination by way of paid prioritization. From the excerpts of the order provided with the official news release PDF (may have availability problems due to high demand), DOC (seems to be available):
Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.
.
.
.
Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy “No Unreasonable Discrimination” Rule
A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., “pay for priority”) would raise significant cause for concern. First, pay for priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current practice. Since the beginning of the Internet, Internet access providers have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees to reach the providers’ consumer retail service subscribers or struck pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements. Second this departure from longstanding norms could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet. As discussed above, pay-for-priority arrangements could raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to access a critical mass of potential users. Fees imposed on edge providers may be excessive because few edge providers have the ability to bargain for lesser fees, and because no broadband provider internalizes the full costs of reduced innovation and the exit of edge providers from the market. Third, pay-for-priority arrangements may particularly harm non-commercial end users, including individual bloggers, libraries, schools, advocacy organizations, and other speakers, especially those who communicate through video or other content sensitive to network congestion. Even open Internet skeptics acknowledge that pay for priority may disadvantage non-commercial uses of the network, which are typically less able to pay for priority, and for which the Internet is a uniquely important platform. Fourth, broadband providers that sought to offer pay-for-priority services would have an incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized traffic. In light of each of these concerns, as a general matter, it is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the “no unreasonable discrimination” standard. The practice of a broadband
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you provide wired service, then the WSJ rule applies.
The HuffPost is complaining that the same rule does not apply to wireless.
That's not at all correct.
Both the WSJ and HuffPo pieces were written based on previous drafts of the Report and Order and speculation about what comments from the various commissioners about what changes were made in the Report and Order actually being voted on. While we still don't have the full text of the Report and Order, we do have "selected excerpts" in the official FCC news release, and the WSJ description (the exceprt provided in GP, not discussing the rest of the WSJ article) is pretty accurate both on wired and wireless. (That is, the looser -- for the carriers -- wireless rule is pretty much exactly what the WSJ describes, the more restrictive -- for the carriers -- wired rule includes a broader anti-discrimination prohibition and even more protection of end-users freedom of choice.)
To recap from GP:
WSJ says: "The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services."
HuffPo says: "Instead of a rule to protect Internet users' freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola - letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road. "
Relevant to the WSJ and HuffPo excerpts in GP, the actual Report and Order (from the excerpts in the official FCC news release) says:
Rule 2: No Blocking
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network
Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination
A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.
Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy “No Unreasonable Discrimination” Rule
A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., “pay for priority”) would raise significant cause for concern. First, pay for priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current practice. Since the beginning of the Internet, Internet access providers have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees to reach the providers’ consumer retail service subscribers or struck pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements. Second this departure from longstanding norms could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet. As discussed above, pay-for-priority arrangements could raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to ac
I suggest Ranked Choice, or Instant Runoff voting. It undercuts the stranglehold the king-makers have had on the process. Imagine if your vote for who you really want to see running things didn't automatically backfire and end up as a defacto vote for who you absolutely _don't_ want to see with power? Imagine Netflix type stars next to each candidate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
It may not have been what you wanted, but it's still a stinking pile of bullshit. The FCC has NO authority whatsoever to regulate the net. When Congress wouldn't give them the authority, the FCC just went ahead as if they already had it. That's not the way things are supposed to work in this country. A bipartisan move is already underway in Congress to reverse this.
Keep going. Fuck up the best thing that's happened to communication and commerce in the last hundred years.
You're already taken the first step, educating yourself and acknowledging your responsibility to act on this knowledge. There is no general answer to your question, you must first pick a problem.
Then what to do depends on what you're good at or are willing to learn. Talking with family and friends about facts is useful. Good at IT? Find a local or national or international group needing some tech help. Check the paper, find out about upcoming group or community meetings and go to some until you find what you're looking for. Go to city council meetings, talk with a speaker that seems to have similar interests, or a decent cause. Volunteer to write, print pamphlets, or knock on neighbor's or congressperson's doors.
There are lots of small groups in your town, but frequently don't know about each other; maybe you could be the go-between and find the common ground, set up some way to share documents, info, skills, people. Good organizers are desperately needed, maybe that's something you could accomplish. Get outside your comfort zone, feel that peculiar aspect of freedom. Get fired up, get sick and tired of it, switch or add causes but don't give up. The plutocracy has been working on this for centuries, we must be too, big results won't come easy or quickly. Heck, you convinced me, now I'm going to follow your lead and do something new. Thanks, sincerely.
Wasn't he appointed by the Democrat president? Or was he a Bush appointee? I assume the latter if he's bending-over to appease the megacorps.
Party affiliation only determines which megacorps he wants to bend over for. One way or the other, the corporations will bend you over anyway.
Actually, I think it's all the same megacorps, and party affiliation just determines how far the bend. I think these days it's statutorily regulated to be an angle of 120 degrees of bending over for Republicans, 117.3 degrees of bending over for Democrats.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Glenn Beck said the nn ruling will require him and his kind to provide time for opposing views on all his broadcasts, (making the broadcasts 'neutral'), which seems like a bad thing. Others have said the nn rule will prevent folks like comecaste from throttling my internet speed if they see me watching a movie streamed from their competitor, netflixt, which seems like a good thing. Both ideas are contradictory to each other; one favors the big corporations, the other favors people's rights. Many of the posts above this one also seem to bounce off the walls about what nn actually says. When will some de-facto intelligencia put into words exactly what the new network neutrality act says? Surely everyone here who has voiced an opinion should be able to enlighten the rest of us?
... with hookers and liquor and black jack. In fact, forget the internet!
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
There are always unintended consequences to increased government control. You may think that Net Neutrality is a good thing in that your precious Bittorrent traffic and cat videos will now run faster but no matter how the government tries to put the screws to industry, industry never bends over and takes it up the a$$. In this case, the ISPs who are suppliers of the infrastructure will simply stop upgrading it because they can't make any money on it. It's no different than the government control over healthcare. You will never get top-of-the-line products or services unless the providers can make money on it. Mark my words: broadband development in the U.S. will grind to a halt. There will be no more rollouts of high end services such as FIOS. There will be no more rollout of 4G services.
My cable company doesn't have to specifically block competing entertainment services. All they have to do is throttle media streaming in general in the name of "traffic management."
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1918172&cid=34642368
and
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
If they do it to "media streaming" but also provide their own streaming media services which are not throttled, it may be "traffic management", but I don't think it is likely to be "reasonable network management" as defined in the present order, rather than "unreasonable discrimination". One might note that the last sentence of the extended discussion of why and how paid prioritization would generally be prohibited by the no unreasonable discrimination provision is this: "The practice of a broadband Internet access service provider prioritizing its own content, applications, or services, or those of its affiliates, would raise the same significant concerns and would be subject to the same standards and considerations in evaluating reasonableness as third-party pay-for-priority arrangements."
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.
John Fund: The Net Neutrality Coup - WSJ.com
"The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html