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!
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."
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
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.
McCain, Hillary and Obama are taking a walk on the streets of DC, and they encounter a homeless person. McCain pulls out a $20 bill and gives it to the man, adding, "Why don't you come tomorrow to my office and we'll talk about the job".
Hillary, not to be outdone pulls another $20 bill from McCain's pocket, then puts it into her pocket. She then takes out $15 from her own pocket and gives it to the homeless saying, "Five dollars processing fee!".
Obama shines his smile at the homeless man, comes up to him, pets him on the shoulder and says, "Have HOPE! CHANGE is coming!"
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.
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.
There is none. The FCC chairman made a speech, and everyone is reacting to that. The big points are:
1) ISP cannot block any legal content.
2) ISP can throttle anything they want.
3) Wireless carriers can do whatever they want.
Basically, your ISP can continue doing exactly what it is currently doing.
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.
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?
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
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.
You sound like such a bitter person. And why is it that Obama can't get anything done? Is it because his plans are all wrong-headed? Or is it because no matter what he attempts, there is a group of reactionaries that going to be against no matter what and no matter what lies and other indecencies they need to commit? America has become so poisonous that even if the Messiah appeared in his full glory with the angels dancing in the sky, he would be unable to do a thing, because he had the wrong shade of opinion about gays or whatever. Against stupidity the gods themselves labor in vain.
Not true. There's nothing saying that the company that runs the lines has to offer services. In fact, it shouldn't. The company that runs the lines should be completely split from any kind of content.
I hate to break it to the corporatist crowd, but the ISPs built those networks with our money, from government subsidies. They received those subsidies to enhance our national infrastructure. If monopolists have the same property rights as everyone else, the free market dies. And if monopolists control infrastructure without oversight to ensure equal access, democracy dies.
Former US House candidate, TN-5
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?
People who repeatedly bleat "you fail" without any citations to prove their points only weaken their position. I agree with those of your points which make sense, which is about half of them. But telling people who want decent service at a fair price to "find a new [ISP]" or "build your own ISP" is just insulting.
No matter how many times you repeat that the FCC and government bodies don't have the right to regulate this particular capitalist money machine, they clearly do. The FCC could just as easily have come up with a directive which better serves the public. Many pundits thought they would. Maybe Congress will still force them to at some point. If the government can tell me as a restaurant or tavern owner whom I must serve and what conditions I must meet in my dining room and what practices (smoking) I must disallow my patrons, it most certainly can bitch slap AT&T and Comcast into shape. Capitalism as we know it can ONLY exist courtesy of governmental support. Yes, some form of free market can exist absent governmental oversight and regulation, but it wouldn't include the corporations in their present form, their principles by and large protected from legal measures against their actions by the government-provided corporate shield legal system.
Regulation vs freedom is a delicate balance, but one which is grossly, blatantly tipped in the favor of big business and against the public in the US.
In the context of wireless, it's not trivial. There are spectrum auctions, licensing, site acquisition and leasing, marketing and customer support. The fact that you call it trivial betrays a certain ignorance on the topic. It's not dial-up.
More importantly, the "entitlement-crowd" is also known as "the customer crowd". As it stands at this very moment, I have an entitlement with AT&T for data carriage services from my smart phone to any site I so desire. That entitlement remains as long as my check cashes. If AT&T decides that their network infrastructure provides a better return on investment by prioritizing or engaging in tiers of service, then I will indeed find another ISP. And if necessary, I will go without a smart phone if it no longer fits what deem as an acceptable level of service.
I'm not alone in this thinking. While I greatly enjoy all the benefits of a smart phone with internet connectivity, piss me off and I'll slide my SIM into my $40 dumb phone, cancel all my data plans and AT&T just lost $180 month while conniving to get an extra $20 a month out of me in incremental service charges.
Having worked in the wireless industry, I agree that wireless data is fundamentally different than cable or wire-line access due to the scarcity of spectrum. But that isn't an open invitation to fleece the customer, and that is what this is about more than anything. Wall Street wants an ever increasing amount of flesh, and managers are required to deliver in order to justify their own entitlements.
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
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.
How about the government retaining all control of and maintenance responsibility for any service which requires the power of eminent domain or enforced easements to implement. This would include the road systems, sewer systems, power systems, cable and telephone networks, etc. In the 1790 timeframe, roads were basically the only thing that were required for transportation and commerce. The Federal government was given responsibility for the roads, because it made sense for the people to own the infrastructure that all the people used. It still makes sense.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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.
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/
Thank you for your continued interest in what I think is an important line of debate to all, no matter which side they are on.
1) The court ruled that the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress. For some unfathomable reason, internet carriage has failed to be classified as telecommunications. Some "i" has not been dotted somewhere; some "t" not crossed. I don't know why. The FCC could just classify internet carriage as telecommunications. Then that could be litigated. Good luck to Comcast trying to claim that communications over a distance is not telecommunications.
Also; I readily admit I don't know why the litigation stopped at this appeals court; why the appeals court was allowed to be the last word. We have this thing called the "Supreme Court." It must be good for something :-)
2) I would phrase it that a free market, not "true capitalism," needs no government support at all. I doubt anyone can define "true capitalism," but "free market" is self explanatory. That is why I was careful to say that "capitalism as we know it" cannot exist without the connivance of the government.
Your lawmakers didn't put any conditions on those subsidies that allow you to dictate terms.
We don't need to have put conditions on those subsidies. If the cable companies don't play nice with their toys, we will take them away. We, the people, make the rules. If they are not behaving in a way that benefits society, we can change the law to deal with that.
Or to put it another way, those subsidies didn't come with any restrictions, but they didn't come with any promises either.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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).
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.
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??
This is why I've been saying for years that the only real solution to our nation's Internet service problems is for the government to create a nonprofit organization that manages the last-mile infrastructure and leases access to corporations that compete for the right to package and sell the services. That organization must be forbidden by charter from interfering in the operation of those ISPs in any way. Only by the government taking direct action to promote competition can we have anything approaching a consumer-friendly market for Internet service. With such a system, even if all the ISPs in your area suck, you could get a loan for twenty grand and set up your own ISP in your community. That's a far cry from today's world in which a few incumbent, for-profit monopolies hold all the rights to lease their lines (even though those lines were mostly paid for by the government).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You seem to misunderstand how carriers (particularly mobile) set their pricing points. While they might offer 10gb a month they are relying on the fact most people won’t use that much, typically the cost of providing that much bandwidth to everyone would result in a loss for them.
Currently they block or significantly restrict services that encourage people to use a significant portion of their allowance (or indeed detract from other revenue generating measures) which allows them to keep their price point low as their assumptions about how much data people will use (rather than how much they are allowed to use) still hold up.
Bringing net neutrality to the mobile space would mean they would not longer to able to manage their networks to curb excessive bandwidth hogging applications. As soon as a fairly small minority of users is running at their 10gb a month cap they start making a loss and have to raise the price point to accommodate the new higher average usage.
Consider also that the economics of mobile broadband are very different to that of fixed line. Once a fixed line is installed the opex on it is virtually 0, the expense is in providing bandwidth from the local exchange/node through to a backbone and each node has a much greater coverage area then a cell station too. With mobile provisioning a line results in close to 0 capex but has a fairly high opex associated which rises based on the amount of data that needs to reach it.
The exception is appropriate in terms of economics and doesn’t present a realistic problem in terms of net neutrality of mobile data either.