Slashdot Mirror
US Internet Service In 2014: Net Neutrality Challenges and High-Speed Build-Outs
Ars Technica takes a look at two sides of the world of internet service, as it's available to customers in the U.S., and especially at changes that are in the works for the next year. Thanks to Google, AT&T and other providers (including municipal networks), the number of Americans with access to very high speed household connections is rising dramatically — good news, for those in range of fiber-to-the-home rollouts, and this means at least some pressure on competitors. But as Ars writer Jon Brodkin points out, there are also developments that may dismay many customers, specifically the possibility that the Federal Communication Commission's 2010 Open Internet Order ("a network neutrality law that forbids ISPs from blocking services or charging content providers for access to their networks") may be overturned or weakened. That could come about either through lawsuit (Verizon's suit is mentioned), or through a more market-oriented approach from the FCC. Writes Brodkin: "If the law were overturned, ISPs could more easily steer customers to their own services and away from those of their rivals. They could charge companies like Netflix for the right to have their videos prioritized over other types of Internet traffic, perhaps indirectly raising the price consumers pay for streaming video and making it more difficult for startups to compete against established players who can afford the 'Internet fast lane' fees."
WTF is that, and how does it differ from other forms of Atheism?
Never heard of 'fundamentalist atheism', most of the self-identifying atheists I meet are 'evangelical atheists' who loudly preach their ideology. There are some 'practicing atheists' as well, much more tolerable, they have the decency not to insult people who disagree with their dogma and only get into a philosophical argument if someone else is interested in the debate.
That would be insulting if it described a single person. But hey, if you get off feeling persecuted for being in the majority religion by a tiny minority of the population, go for it I guess.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
They finally flipped the switch and capped their "unlimited" internet to 300GB. They will automatically upgrade my service (with increased monthly fees) for every 50 GB over the original 300 GB. I can manually downgrade my service back to the original 300 GB whenever I feel 300 GB is enough. Xfinity video service doesn't count towards the cap but YouTube and Netflix does.
Other shenanigans from Comcast includes: Charging extra ($35) for the battery inside the cable modem to keep the telephony working during blackouts and starting in January they will charge $2 each per month for the simple digital converters they gave for free more than 3 years ago when they eliminated their analog signal. Funny how it was free when converters were on sale everywhere. Now that the supply dried up, they'll start charging for what they gave away.
Welcome to Comcast!
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
"a more captured market-oriented approach from the FCC"
There we go. Fixed it. Remember, no business droid in their right mind wants a level playing field. They want a playing field tilted in their favour.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Like most US infrastructure, the United States internet build out has lost it's premiere status on the world stage. Overtaken by the higher per capita government investment from much smaller economies, or simply [i]smarter[/i] per capita investment in some cases: the US consumer has a depressing selection of options available to them. In many areas, higher download speeds are actually available through next generation wireless technologies such as 4G LTE than can be found from their local ISP. Some may consider this counter-intuitive status quo to be a damning condemnation of the ideology behind the way this infrastructure development was financed, although interesting enough: when pressed, the author was unable to secure a clear consensus on [i]which[/i] ideology was at fault!
Like most issues of contention in the United States, polled respondents who didn't admit to being completely ignorant of the topic at hand were split in to two groups(who seemed equally determined to point fingers at the Democrats & Republicans). The majority of the respondents were unaware that the internet was the product of financial investment and not a creation of "spontaneous generation" or divine intervention. Some were surprised that internet infrastructure "hadn't always been there". [b]Most were very keen to hear it had been "intelligently designed", although grew instantly distrustful when they discovered that STEM professionals such as engineers were at the helm.[/b] One woman asked suspiciously if the engineers at her local ISP were trying to "Trick her out of her medicare?".
A local college student & her friends were interviewed under the awning of a Starbucks near the author's home. They were much less willing to admit to being ignorant of the topic at hand and kept attempting to shift the topic to "supporting network neutrality". One girl who declined to be named commented that "the waning prominence of US infrastructure could likely be attributed to failures in campaign finance reform, the revolving door of public sector service, and successful regulatory-capture creating a culture of "crony-capitalism" where profits were privatized and risks were absorbed by the public." This comment appeared to make her friends very uncomfortable and an awkward silence followed that was only interrupted when an argument broke out between two of her male colleagues on who bore more responsibility: the FCC appointee under the presidency of Bill Clinton, or George W Bush.
By all means get rid of net neutrality, with one caveat: The Verizon's, AT&T's, Comcast's et al of the world must not be allowed to sue either local municipalities or the federal government for creating their own competing delivery systems when it comes to high speed access. And as soon as said companies file a lawsuit the networks of named litigants are immediately open to other network and content providers (aka Optimum) to provide services for as long as the lawsuit is active.
Nice optimistic idea, but long term it won't work like you think. The entrenched powers are too powerful and the system is way too corrupt; including the incompetent citizenry.
BTW, bogus meaningless lawsuits can shutdown small players and even if you can fight them without going broke, their law firms against your cheap lawyer can make you lose even the obvious cases. I've seen it happen in my area where "cable" in the contract agreement was defined as TV only because it was signed in the 80s so internet and phone were exempted from the franchise agreement - when clearly the city agreement was over the use of public land (what all services use) to run their cables - and not about the signal on those wires. The lousy lawyer couldn't get the stupid or corrupt judge to decide a clear cut case.
Also, since when do such tit for tat agreements hold with mega corporations in the 1st place? After some years they always weasel out of their part of the grand bargain.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Given the return of the walled-garden versions of the Internet, we might as well call it that.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Shoot anyone against it.
Also. The FCC is filled to the gills with politically well connected, revolving door sycophants there to do industry's bidding before jumping back on the gravy train. It's the poster child for a watchdog agency overrun and infested with regulatory saboteurs and common's-hating overpavers.
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/20/136492206/new-republic-the-fccs-revolving-door-is-shameless
http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/search_result.php?agency=Federal+Communications+Commission&id=EIFCC
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62718-2004Nov19.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/30/business/la-fi-mo-powell-20130830
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/20/3670940/michael-powell-fcc-chariman-cable-companies-mercy-contet
met my fair share who are definitely fundamentalist, and want to do me a favor by barring me from my religion.
frankly they're no different from the people who want to do me a favor by saving my soul for me by converting me to their flavor.
what i actually want is of no consequence to either type.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
WTF is that, and how does it differ from other forms of Atheism?
Most athiests, like most Christians, won't shove their religion or lack of same down anyone's throat. "Fundamentalist" atheists (I kind of like that phrase, never heard it before) have to troll every slashdot story explaining to everyone how fucking stupid we are because we're not atheists. They're like the damned Jehova's Witnesses as compared to a normal Christian who usually only discusses religion when warranted (such as a question is asked or when he or she defends against some atheist statement).
There are a lot of Christians who (sinfully) are bigoted against gays. And there are a lot of atheists who don't try in the least to hide their bigotry. Both are wrong. IMO, evangelicals of all stripes should STFU.
Free Martian Whores!
The militant assholes who file a court case every time the hear the name of Christ (or Allah, or Buddha, or Jehovah) are the ones who need to be dragged out behind the barn, for an appointment with a .22 long rifle behind their ears.
Please tell me you're not a Christian, because that was the most unChristian statement I've heard all week, and since yesterday was Christmas it was especially distasteful.
Free Martian Whores!
Yes, I am a Christian. I'm not the imaginary Christian that everyone expects to turn the other cheek though. Distasteful as you might find it, some Christians are willing and able to stand up for themselves.
AC above, for instance, imagines that those militant atheists are standing up for his rights. Little does he understand that it was Christians who saw to it that the freedom of religion was enshrined into our constitution.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I'm not the imaginary Christian that everyone expects to turn the other cheek though.
You should try it, it works. Fighting hate with hate just feeds the hate, love dissipates hate. Those militant atheists? How can you hate the pitiful? The poor fools are doomed unless they see the light.
There's no room for hatred in Christianity; hatred is from Satan. Love those who hate you, do good to those who persecute you. That is the essence of Jesus' message.
Free Martian Whores!
Where does hate come in to this equation? When and where did I imply that I hate anyone? Are we speaking the same language?
If you walk out into the street of your home town, and find a pack of wild dogs attacking a child, what do you do? I would destroy the dogs. Not because I hate the dogs, but because the child has more value to society than any number of dogs. Hate? Being filled with hatred of dogs would impede your ability to deal with the threat to the child. Hatred cripples you.
I just want to see the threat that those militant atheists represent to be ended. They have no right to impose their world view on other people. Nor do Christians have a right to impose their world view on other people. It's written into our consitution, and as I've already mentioned, it was written there by a group of men who were mostly Christian.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Where does hate come in to this equation? When and where did I imply that I hate anyone?
You said "The unshaven fat fucks you describe are beneath contempt, just as any other fat fucks who are to impotent to make a difference in the world. The militant assholes who file a court case every time the hear the name of Christ (or Allah, or Buddha, or Jehovah) are the ones who need to be dragged out behind the barn, for an appointment with a .22 long rifle behind their ears."
That sounds pretty hateful to me.
If you walk out into the street of your home town, and find a pack of wild dogs attacking a child, what do you do? I would destroy the dogs.
You weren't talking about a pack of wild dogs physically attacking a child, you were talking about murdering human beings for filing lawsuits. BIG difference there.
I just want to see the threat that those militant atheists represent to be ended.
They're no threat. As hard as they try and as much as they wish it, there's no way they'll ever kill religion.
They have no right to impose their world view on other people. Nor do Christians have a right to impose their world view on other people.
Entirely true. There should be no ten commandments in a courthouse; the last I looked, merely wanting someone's property is legal, having sex with your congressman's wife is legal, being atheist is legal, but the ten commandments say they're sins (which they of course are). Government should have nothing to do with marriage whatever; why does a childless married couple pay less in tax than a widow with a child who earns the same? If governments were not in the marriage business (and marriage is a religious institution) this "gay marriage" nonsense would have never started. Kansas and Texas should stop trying to push creationism as a scientific theory, because it isn't.
If atheists want to waste their money on lawsuits and billboards, let them. They won't shake my faith, or the faith of anyone who has had God touch them.
Maybe if there weren't so many wolves in sheep's clothing (like that Baptist "church" in Florida that pickets military funerals that's really a bunch of lawyers, and you know what Christ said about lawyers) the atheists might shut up. They just don't realize that there are people who pretend to be Christians. There are an awful lot of people who claim to worship God but in reality worship money and power. These people are far more dangerous than any atheist, no matter how militant.
Free Martian Whores!
Somebody once said, "In every meeting there is at least one asshole. Look around the room. If nobody you see is an asshole, you're it." :D
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
I'll just add (at the risk of getting flamed, derided, or insulted) that there are very good arguments from Systems Science that it is impossible to prove one or the other. For every argument for, there is a counter argument; and vice versa. So let's all just get along, and accept that other people may have thought things through just as intelligently as you and I have, and come to different conclusions.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
I can't argue with that.
Free Martian Whores!