Slashdot Mirror
F.C.C., In Net Neutrality Turnaround, Plans To Allow Fast Lane
Dega704 (1454673) writes in with news of the latest FCC plan which seems to put another dagger in the heart of net neutrality. "The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals. The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers."
we are sold.
The rich get more privileges. Nothing to see here my fellow Americans. We love this shit. Fast lanes for the job creators. After all, we wouldn't have all of these jobs if we started impeding them. /s
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
...shame if something where to happen to it...
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
I hate to say it, but I told you so. I said it then, and I'll say it now. The moment Obama appointed yet... another... lobbyist to head the FCC, one who spent years as a cable company and telecom lobbyist:
Net... Neutrality... Was DEAD... PERIOD.
Need I remind all of you Obama-lovers of this little tid bit from no other website but ethics.change.gov:
http://change.gov/agenda/ethic...
"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."
-- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
November 10, 2007
I informed you thusly...
From his Wikipedia page: "Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with prior positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA)."
When the FCC chairman used to be a lobbyist for the companies he's now regulating... well, what did we expect would happen? It shouldn't be surprising that he'd be in favor of pushing through regulations that are more favorable to his cronies.
My userid is prime!
The problem here isn't differentiated services - which can be valuable to a lot of us. The problem is that here in the US we have effective ISP monopolies or duopolies in nearly every region. Whenever your choice is so severely constrained you're going to get screwed at least a hundred different ways. Net neutrality isn't the worst of them - the crappy bandwidth levels are first in my personal book. The battle should be couched in terms of "we'll trade away net neutrality in exchange for getting rid of telecommunications and cable franchises." If I can get 18 different providers competing for my business, then some of them will offer net neutrality, some will offer more bandwidth, etc. Until there is competition we're always in the position of having to beg the government to not cave into the desires of megacorporations, which is always a losing battle in the long run.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Though, some traffic is more equal than others.
I guess some checks cleared today
Ideally, net neutrality should be something that is passed into law by congress. Too bad that doesn't have a snowball's chance against a cash-fueled, industry sponsored flame thrower in hell.
It truly just became pay to play for actual content producers and hosts. Goodbye little guys. Right now, I get content from the internet pretty much as fast as I'm willing to pay for. Now, for the same amount of my money, does this mean the content I'm delivered is at the mercy of how much the companies serving it are willing to pay ISPs backbone peers?
How long until consumers are offered tiered internet to these sites, pay X to get the FB + GOOG + AAPL package, etc etc, pay Y for gaming, pay Z for streaming, if you're caught in violation you'll be automatically charged at the overage level (like cell phone providers).
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
If you look at Comcast's income statement for 2013, you'll see rising profits. They made 6.816 billion dollars in 2013. I find it disingenuous (fucking bullshit) for them to claim these content providers are costing them money.
In reality it is likely the opposite, the content providers are increasing the demand for their product and allowing Comcast to charge more for service. Their relation to content providers is somewhat like Apple's relation to App providers. Except in the case of phone companies, their are alternatives to Apple.
The FCC has an open issue for this, 14-28 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet
You can see existing comments here:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comme...
You can add your two cents here:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/uploa...
and it's a big huge giant if....
internet providers were prohibited by law from degrading connections between their customers and content providers (aka web sites and services) that do not pay the extra.
in other words, net neutrality would remain, but content providers could pay to BOOST the speed at which the internet provider customers received their content (example: subscriber with 5mbit connection could download from youtube at 20mbit IF youtube paid for the **extra** speed, but that customer would still get unmolested 5mbit throughput if google did not pay).
me: "i just created a new 'horoscope by phone' startup, and it's really popular! woohoo!"
at&t: "hey, we've noticed a lot of people are calling your new company. it would be a shame if 20% of your calls were to drop. would you like to pay us to not drop them?"
me: "WTF? your customers are calling me! THEY paid YOU already for their phone service! you can't just threaten me, that's extortion and a violation of the common carrier law!"
at&t: "oh yeah, nevermind. we'll wait until you start a website..."
http://kered.org
What happens if a customer uses a service that he/she only can reach through 2 jumps of peering and the service-provider (ex. Netflix) only has a contract with the first ISP in the chain?
The customer will be SOL, the small ISP's too, that's what. The small ISP's will be forced out of the market or bought out by bigger ones. Essentially this paves the way for a few big companies OWNING everything related to content distribution and access to the internet for which the customers will have to pay an extreme premium to use.
And what hope do the customers have? Google laying down more fiber?
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
Only one reasonable response: Drop all your paid over-the-interent content subscriptions, and start pirating everything. Burn the media industry to the ground.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Last time I checked, consumers paid for their internet access.
This is the right for an ISP to throttle and establish even more monopolies and cartels where Googles and Netflixs and Facebooks of the world have more internet rights than others.
There needs to be some sort of internet bill of rights, some sort of privacy bill of rights in this country. As it is --- there are legitimate web sites that happen to be right-leaning sites that are censored by Google -- and while I am not personally very interested in those politics, we are at risk of a world where the Googles and Facebooks and Verizons and Time Warners are agents to enact the government's will and or censorship, while calling these companies "not the government" and denying that there is any free speech or privacy rights for the consumer and the citizen.
And Google and such advise the government, make campaign contributions, etc. --- are we sold down the river? Where is the silver lining or positive angle in all of this?
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
It's like having a VISA sticker in your window, and not being allowed to charge more for credit transactions.
See? That's totally fair and within both the letter and spirit of the law.. ..or something. :/
The big internet companies managed to turn net neutrality from something they didn't want into something they do. All they had to do was use all their lobbyists to lobby congress to change laws in their favor.
SHOCKING!!!
Now we are going to have the worst of both worlds. We have exactly the internet we didn't want and some more laws for our economy to waste GDP on lawyers and litigation.
If we really want internet freedom, we should be lobbying for actual competition in the ISP game. It may not be possible to have 10 ISPs all competing at the same time, with their own fiber cables, but we could have a system where the lines are owned by the public (rather than the telecoms), and the telecoms just compete for contracts to administer the network. If we didn't like how a company was doing business, it would be much easier to ditch them for a new company if we owned the pipes.
Unfortunately politicians are generally shitty and it takes a lot of public engagement to get them to actually do something correctly rather than way that benefits them the most when no one is paying attention (i.e. cheaply in the short term).
in the tent. Very soon, we'll have the whole camel (freemium/premium websites, extra cost to access those sites not directly peering with or oin your ISPs network, no/degraded access to those sites who won't pay extra to ride your ISPs network, etc., etc., etc.), Sigh.
Posting AC to preserve my mods on this thread.
I've mostly given up mass media. If we can find something else to entertain ourselves without funneling money into the pockets of Greed then maybe something will change.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Can you imagine if some company bought all the highways in your area and then started charging higher fees in order to go in the passing lane but then started really gouging all the food deliveries to certain grocery stores?
People might even try to defend this by saying that it was the free market but the reality would be just like the highways, the government gave these same companies nearly 100 years of subsidies to build these networks and the expertise to maintain them.
Quite simply this infrastructure is quite simply a public good, the companies that are allowed to run it should only be able to run it at our pleasure. The moment they start to get greedy they should be thrown out and a the public good handed to another company to run properly.
Net neutrality is a wonderfully level playing field which old zombie corporations hate and fast lanes are 100% anti consumer.
The problem here isn't differentiated services - which can be valuable to a lot of us. The problem is that here in the US we have effective ISP monopolies or duopolies in nearly every region.
The other part of the problem is that the net neutrality advocates have been fighting on the wrong battleground.
As you point out: The prblem isn't some packets getting preferences over others: Sometimes that makes things BETTER for users. The problem is companies using their ability to configure this to give their own (and affiliates') carried-by-ISPs services an advantage, or artificially DISadvatntge packets of other providers unless an extra toll is paid, to the disadvantage of their customers.
The FCC is not the place to fight that battle. The correct venues are the Department of Justice's Antitrust division (is giving content the ISP's affiliate provides an advantage over that of others an illegal "tying"?), the FTC (is penalizing others' packets a consumer fraud, providing something less than what is understood to be "internet service"?) and perhaps congress.
I don't see how this can reasonably be resolved short of breaking up media conglomerates to separate information transport from providing "content" and other information service beyond information transport. Allowing them to be combined into a single company is a recipie for conflict-of-interest, at the cost of the consumer.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why would you want the FCC to enforce some heavy-handed concept of fair play, when this government entity has no experience at doing so? Why not let the FTC, which has decades of experience at stopping antitrust abuses, and already has ALL the legal authority it needs to throw its weight around in this arena, do the work instead? And besides, narrower, more focused legal doctrines tend to be more enforceable anyways. Can you pick a scenario that Net Neutrality advocates worry over that can't already be tackled by the FTC?
Big money.
The worst part of this is how they allow this nonsense in the name of protecting the free market. The Internet as it has existed up until now has been the purest free market in history, and now they are going to slowly flush all of that down the toilet just to further widen the telcos' already hilariously fat profit margins.
Netflix isn't the bad guy here.
"Left" doesn't mean "freedom from opression by the rich and powerful". Never has. It means "authoritarianism". It means "I think for you because you're not enlightened enough to think for yourselves."
The right wants to tell you what to do based on who paid them the most, and what their pastor said Jebus wants them to do.
The left wants to tell you what to do based on who paid them the most, and what their poly sci professor told them the stupid unwashed masses need to have decided for them.
Maybe you should look towards that party that is based on letting you decide for yourself what's best for you? You know, the one that actually has "liberty" in the name and all? Just a thought...
We put it up on We The People and The White House responded:
Absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries. The resulting decline in the development of advanced online apps and services would dampen demand for broadband and ultimately discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. An open Internet removes barriers to investment worldwide. ... It was also encouraging to see Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, whom the President appointed to that post last year, reaffirm his commitment to a free and open Internet and pledge to use the authority granted by Congress to maintain a free and open Internet. The White House strongly supports the FCC and Chairman Wheeler in this effort.
I think we're going to need another petition, or perhaps a series of petitions that cover the front page of We The People, asking for Tom Wheeler to be executed ... sorry, that should read "terminated" ... you know what? either way. -- and for common carrier to be restored.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
And toll booths should be allowed to charge the people you're visiting for the privilege of allowing you to visit. And trucking companies should be allowed to charge the receiver for the privilege of accepting delivery.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Do I vote for the Democrat that is going to blast me in the ass or the Republican that is blasting my ass?
If rich people cruise by in a slick fast lane, that doesn't necessarily imply the slow lane became "bad" all of a sudden
Given the resistance to upgrading that many of the ISPs have shown for years, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for those upgrades now. Based on their past behavior when new sources of money come in (such as AT&T's reconstitution from the ashes thanks to a liberal watering of broadband subsidies that didn't actually go towards extending broadband), I expect to see more acquisitions and consolidation in the market rather than spending any of this windfall on capital improvements.
Without infrastructure upgrades to build new lanes, those fast lanes are going to come from shutting down slow lanes.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Sure, keep on hoping that none of the 'slow lane' is used to assist the 'fast lane'.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
In theory, maybe.
This would provide an incentive for providers never to improve their base service, since they would then be required to provide that same level of service across the board. Why would they ever give it away for "free" to already-paying customers when they can place a massive new premium on it? Especially when sharing a tiny nibble of the new pie to a few already-paying customers means they'll have to give that nibble to everybody, every day.
Instead of an open infrastructure which is equally accessible, it will statutorily create pay-for-access with a "basement" tier shouldn't get worse than the current status quo. That might seem fine now, but think about what it would be like if this were allowed to happen during the dialup days?
A "fast lane" net neutrality is the opposite of net neutrality. Every lane will be a "fast lane", ie, mostly monopolized toll roads run by corporations which have already shown no qualms in leveraging their positions of power to crush competition and squeeze consumers.
If neutrality is a lost cause, I hope at least for a baseline on neutral performance, say the high-end of what we can get today. This would drive investment towards gigabit+ speeds and new applications that come with it, what ever they may be. This would be a good time for a disruptive technology to come along and give the mega carriers some competition, but sadly, I don't think it will. The placement of a lobbyist into the FCC decision chair is disappointing.
Only one reasonable response: Drop all your paid over-the-interent content subscriptions, and start pirating everything. Burn the media industry to the ground.
The geek has been telling anyone willing to listen that piracy isn't hurting big media --- and now he expects to use piracy to destroy the big media?
The licensed Netflix stream represented fully half of all prime time Internet traffic in the states before Netflix offered a streaming only service, before Netflix began offering high definition video, theater sound, closed captioning....
Tablets. Smart phones. The smart TV. The WiFi Internet radio.
Streaming media is available everywhere. In your home. In your car. No computer required. No P2P clients. I wasted endless hours in my own brief flirtation with P2P trying to find an uncorrupted file of reasonable quality. Never again.
Paying retail list would have been a better use of my time.
In radio this is called Payola where record companies pay to get their records played. It's illegal. There were congressional hearings about it in the 50's and 60's. It continues to this day.
Now the "business model" of paying for content delivery is legal. And there is no limit on campaign spending. Guess what will happen in the next election?
No major news outlet will report when news conglomerates up their rates for political programming so only big players will be able to afford airtime. Remember cable/broadcast/newspapers are now single corporate entities, and money talks.
How long will it take for differential pricing to drive Al Jazeera off the air? Remember they're just a bunch of terrorists! The same for RT (Russian Television) and any non-US centric new outlets as well. I expect NHK will be OK because they will self censor perceived criticism.
Expect the political programming on PBS to disappear as well. Remember that they criticize Corporate America, and it's Bad for Business. Don't worry, you'll get to keep Nature, NOVA and Antique Roadshow. Keep sucking on that pacifier.
Ever notice that PBS NOVA gets "major funding" from the Kock (pronounced COCK) brothers? When was the last time NOVA did a program on global climate change? Sound of crickets...
Welcome to Plutocratic America. No democracy, no free press, no capitalism. Nothing to see here, just move along.
Why is Snark Required?
I wouldn't even look to the court. The court merely read the law, which very plainly states that the FCC may not do what they tried to do. In essence, the law says:
The FCC must regulate common carriers according to a, b, and c.
The FCC may not regulate b or c in regard to anyone other than common carriers.
The FCC wanted to do B without C, so they claimed "ISPs are not common carriers, so we don't have to do C. ISPs are common carriers, so we're going to do B". That's ridiculous, you can't say they ARE common carriers and NOT common carriers at the same time. Therefore, the FCC can't make up net neutrality laws.
If and when we end up needing a net neutrality law, Congress will need to pass one. That should be pretty clear to anyone who has passed fourth grade civics, so I really don't see why the FCC tried to make up the law themselves in the first place. Any half-competent court would strike them down.
I see... you think "smart" means bringing a knife to a gun fight. Good for you.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
for use of a fast lane in delivery of their content?
That way, they still get unfettered choice of which content they can access. If some content (say, 3D 4K movie streams), requires better routes, the end-user's ISP can offer them a plan that allows them at times that the user chooses to be paying more for having their packets travel the autobahn lanes.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Knowing how to work within the system to change the system seems brilliant to me.
If your position is "super PACs are overly powerful, and have been made legal, we want to roll back the law allowing them," forming a super PAC is perfectly logical. Yes, if they win, they're disbanded - but they've accomplished their goal, so they're fine with being disbanded.
From the Wikipedia:
"Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies".
See also: "Exaggerated threat":
1) "If we don't invade Iraq, they're going to bake the yellow cakes and explode a nuke in New York City."
2) "If we don't bail out the financial sector, we're going to have a depression."
3) "If we don't allow companies to favor content, the US technology sector will grind to a halt."
not that this will change much, but at least it will let the Obama Administration and our supposed "representatives" in government that this isn't exactly without controversy: http://wh.gov/lwhr8
If and when we end up needing a net neutrality law, Congress will need to pass one.
Hahaha, surely you're joking.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
You dismiss the authority of the NTIA, White House pressure, Congressional pressure, and the FCC's own rules.
This will come up for comment. The FCC will put it to a vote after comment.
Oh, sorry, after all checks have cleared.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The problem with the internet, especially cable, is that it is a natural monopoly. It's like most utitilities that require infrastructure to the home. It would be stupid to have 10 competing water companies, right? That's because there would be large amounts of redundant infrastructure. Therefore, it is better to have a highly regulated monopoly with pricing set to prevent monopolistic rents.
The current situation is that each cable company has a monopoly in most areas, with DSL providing a duopoly in some places. Obviously, monopolistic pricing occurs, with prices far above the free market rate for inferior service. But that isn't illegal! You have to show that they are acting in an anticompetitive manner, which is very difficult.
Even in the case of oligopilies, price fixing is legal as long as it is implicit: A company can signal to another by unilaterally raising prices in a way that would be irrational if non-cooperative behavior is assumed. Then the other company will raise their prices as well, to acheive a cooperative outcome with both companies making more money. Again, this isn't illegal, unless there is an explicitly communicated price-fixing agreement.
Thus, FTC antitrust stuff means fuck-all.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Pick the country you think has the best set of regulations. How's life there for the median citizen?
Thanks for the links.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
Does NTIA have Constitutional authority to pass laws? Did they pass a law giving the FCC the authority to pass laws? If not, the ruling of the court is (obviously) correct.
The question before the court was a fourth grade civics quiz question:
True or false: the executive branch is empowered the make new laws.
True
False
The correct answer is "false".
Note again, this has nothing to do with whether any particular law labeled "net neutrality" might be good or bad. The court just ruled what everyone already knows - Congress makes new laws, not the FCC.
What makes it bad and undemocratic is when the democratic principle of one-man one-vote is breached because some can contribute vastly more to 'their' PAC than others can to an opposing PAC.
Using the means available is their lawful right.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The NTIA are the winners that gave us ICANN.
They're under the department of *commerce*.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Like I can chose from who I buy power or DSL, including TV and telphone, even though there is only one power line and one telephone or fiber cable to my house.
But I live in a democracy mainly run by and for the people...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
not sure if trolling...
Our system is corrupt from the inside out, and the only way to affect change is through large amounts of money (e.g., this very story). In order to change that system, one must necessarily put together a PAC, even if the change you're going for is to take money out of the system.
The Democrats were the last party to still have some reasonable positions against the plutocracy but they failed for too long. Now they have been captured on this issue too. Likely they were the last few times because a lot of times they make motions KNOWING it will totally fail big time - it's a political move so they can look honest and raise some money.... from people thinking they are legit and from corps afraid that they might be a legitimate risk.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Romney would have rolled over like a trained collie & done anything he was told. It's lunacy to assert otherwise. Obama is a legit President, not like Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bush I & II and Clinton...Obama isn't perfect but he's not illuminati.
Obama stretches decisions bad for the Oligarchary out over time...he doesn't fire Sebelius when all the media heat is on it happens after...the Keystone XL pipeline is another example...
Net Neutrality isn't decided yet. I've seen alot of long well-thought out comments on this story but the FCC has no teeth & Obama likes to avoid using executive privilidge in the FCC.
As for voting...there is never a time you're not "voting for the lesser of two evils" from a systems perspective. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? It's both...and you always are choosing a **representative** that could never possibly do exacty as you would want. It's always a best choice of many (usually two at the national scale...state/local is different at times)
I'm freaking about Net Neutrality, but I have been since 2006 (check my comments)...now more than ever people are aware of it & understand the implications
Net Neutrality will win at the end of the day.
Thank you Dave Raggett
It's almost sad the 'dialup' model of internet service died. Just imagine if dialup continued to evolve and achieve the speeds our broadband connections have now. Yes I know all about the physical limitations of dialup modems, but this is just a hypothetical.
Just imagine if all the lil mom'n'pop ISPs were still in business because dialup was the dominate internet service as it used to be. Net neutrality wouldn't even be a discussion right now, if that were still the way it worked.
I also imagine, the first person who comes up with a new 'dialup' like service that yanks the internet out of the grubby hands of big corporations, this issue will go away pretty quick, and that person is going to be very rich.
Race is on, folks, make dialup (though these days I imagine its going to be a wifi type solution) as fast as broadband, so everyone can compete and this problem simply disappears.
My gun shoots knives you insensitive clod!
Seriously?
Fictional simplified example: everyone can change the law by touching their nose and stating the new law, and all police officers must act accordingly. This is a bad thing, and as expected, chaos ensues. Now everyone can end this nonsense by simply using this very mechanism to abolish the nose-touching law. But doing this would require using this bad thing you're against, so the logical conclusion, according to you, is not to do it?
Ah, you're trolling.
I see... you think "smart" means bringing a knife to a gun fight. Good for you.
Bring a knife to a gun fight... ...stab them while they're laughing.
FCC: can't make a decision on net neutrality. Lobbyists (big telcos) make it for them.
FAA: can't make a decision on small done policy. Lobbyists (defense contractors) make it for them.
SEC/FDIC: no regs for HFT. Lobbyists (banks) make it for them.
DOT: stalling on self driving cards and electric infrastructure. Lobbyists (auto, oil&gas) make it for them.
FDA: pot regs.... Nuff said...
See the pattern here?
I posted this on facebook... The drawback to this is that it encourages providers to build up their "pay for play" networks while ignoring the massive overselling of their default tier and charging the content providers to ensure that their traffic doesn't get lost or delayed in the shuffle.
A solution for this would be for the Federal Communications Commission and/or the Federal Trade Commission to require Internet access providers to have a specific percentage of their sold bandwidth available on their public network. If you have sold 3 Terabytes per second of data connections, you must have 1.25 Terabytes per second of bandwidth connected to the internet available on your public network.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
"If you have sold 3 Terabytes per second of data connections, you must have 1.25 Terabytes per second of bandwidth connected to the internet available on your public network."
No, you should have 3. WTF?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
If you pay attention to recent events, you'll see what happens in practice:
So in the end, Netflix subscribers end up paying more and Comcast receives more money.
And switching from Netflix to a smaller content provider has the problem that "smaller" doesn't just mean they have fewer subscribers, it means they have fewer content to choose from as well.
or more importantly stab them while your Close Air Support gets busy
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I like the sentiment, and we are far to wedded to our parties lately. In a 2 party system, you have to be willing to cross over and vote for the other side.
Republicans voted for FDR and Kennedy. Democrats voted for Eisenhower and Reagan. Those presidents were what we needed at the time, and people did what they had to do. Both to advance whatever particular politics, but also to keep their side honest, and bring them politically back towards the center, when they get to far out into the weeds.
Realize that at this point, it will likely be the Republican party that gives us a good progressive presidential candidate. Not because they are better or anything like that; but because they lose so much lately. They are practically the 'opposition' party these days. When they get tired of losing so much, and are forced to get their heads right on taxes (close) and abortion (far away) and net neutrality (no idea really), they may give us another Teddy Roosevelt. I certainly don't see it in the current crop of front runners, but there's always hope.
If they give us a real progressive like the old Bull Moose, I hope you will allow yourself to vote for him (or her), and not lock yourself into one of these authoritarian liberals that redefine themselves as the new progressive.
The FCC should just fucking go ahead and do C (i.e., make ISPs common carriers)!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Not all of us are protagonists from a Final Fantasy game, you insensitive clod!
"Left" means social authoritarianism. "Right" means corporate authoritarianism. Those of us who care in the slightest about freedom are fucked either way.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"Left" doesn't mean "freedom from opression by the rich and powerful". Never has. It means "authoritarianism".
Bullshit.It means "the other guys" to someone who self-identifies as "right," nothing more. ALL facets of the US political spectrum are high up on the "authoritarian" axis; even the libertarians who are too naive to know that their vaunted "unregulated paradise" would just be feudalism redux.
This is the equivalent of UPS charging an online retailer additional fees for delivering too many packages thereby placing an undue burden on UPS's existing their distribution network, even though all of their buyers already paid for shipping. Common sense should already deem this silly.
(as a foreigner) I am not fully aware of the possibilities of a PAC but I don't see it as a democratic problem when like-minded people band together to push a subject, compare it to starting a political party.
Nothing is wrong with it when you put it that way, but that's not the way it is. The problem is that PACs are about donations. i.e. the situation is becoming increasingly skewed towards the voter(s) needing to donate money in order to have influence. The supreme court is progressively lifting the restrictions on these sorts of campaign donations. It's basically legalised bribery. That is what is fucked up about it and it's getting worse. Furthermore, politicians are now wasting a lot of their time soliciting donations. They're in Washington to do a job, yet they're wasting loads of time not doing it because they need money to get re-elected. It's totally fucked up. The increasing influence of money in US politics is a nasty cancer, the spread of which needs to be reversed.
soylentnews.org
Maybe you should look towards that party that is based on letting you decide for yourself what's best for you? You know, the one that actually has "liberty" in the name and all? Just a thought...
You mean like all those countries that have words like "democratic" in the name?
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
It's odd, your post is rather long, and clearly represents the intent to change peoples minds to your point of view, and yet you throw the word "lefty" around to a ridiculous degree, which indicates your post is simply ranting at other people for their beliefs. I'd venture to say that ad hominem attacks are not going to be the best method to convert others to your point of view. Perhaps you should provide more information, and try a little less to be quite so antagonistic if you're attempting to convince others of your point of view.
If everybody jumped off a cliff, this place would be a lot less crowded with idiots.
The stench from the pile of bodies would be horrific. I'm not cleaning up that mess...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
To work within the current system, you must first have enough money to publicly challenge those few who own most of it. The "system" has been slanted to favor the elite, and you will never get it back. Raise as much money as you can, and see how little it means to people with more resources than everyone else combined.
once more into the breach
If this isn't regulatory capture, I don't know what is.
> Nothing is wrong with it when you put it that way, but that's not the way it is. The problem is that PACs are about donations
FYI, the #1 rule of PAC Club is that they can't donate to candidates. The #2 rule is that they can't coordinate with any candidate's campaign.
What they CAN do, and what the Citizen's United case sought to outlaw, is the kind of thing Michael Moore's organization did - make a political statement separate and apart from any candidate. I happen to think Michael Moore is disgusting, and he's admitted that his movies are full of lies, but I think it's pretty clear that he and his friends have the right to get together and make stupid movies. Citizen's United made movies too, with a political point just like Michael Moore's movies. The FEC sought to prevent them from making these movies. This is a plain violation of the first amendment. It has little or nothing to do with political donations - they were making movies. The FEC said that's illegal because they spent some money making the movies, and under their rules it was illegal to spend any money exercising your first amendment rights.
Europe is about done with dealing with corrupt USA/NSA on the internet.
Europe will have the UN create some new body to take over regulation of international communications infrastructure.
What's the prescription?
I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't set fire to some great public building.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
That would at least be logically consistent - the FCC would, legally, gain vast new powers by treating ISPs as monopoly common carriers. I think at this time, at this point in the development of the internet, it would be a huge mistake. It would essentially outlaw any significant advancement. For example, Google fiber would be illegal in about six different ways under common carrier rules. Maybe in another 30 years there won't be any new innovations taking place and common carrier regulation will make sense for the internet.
Personally, I'd like to see competition. I'd like to be able to tell my ISP that I'll switch to their competitor if they do X. To me, the franchise laws that make competition illegal are a key part of the problem.
Obama has only ensured multi-party politics are dead certainty in the USA.
Every other democratic nation on the planet is multi-party except, like, the Bahamas.
Many nations WERE two-party. Were.
Well, since the Republican has been blasting your ass for some time you might as well stick with the ass blasting you know, understand, and developed coping mechanisms for rather than voting for the ass blasting you know nothing about and need to learn all over to cope with.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Keyser Soze
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Maybe you should look towards that party that is based on letting you decide for yourself what's best for you? You know, the one that actually has "liberty" in the name and all? Just a thought...
Maybe you should join the rest of the democratic world and realise that 3 choices is still far too few.
More != Better
Less != Better
Better == Progressive paradise.
... but they've accomplished their goal, so they're fine with being disbanded.
That worked so well with labor unions, didn't it? Now they're like parasites with a survival instinct of their own. What makes you think this instance will be any different?
Basically the FCC is allowing fraud. Customers are paying for bandwidth and then the company is secretly throttling that bandwidth only for certain content.
They don't really care so much about the details as long as they are in control of it. Gotta be able to move into those nice high-paying industry "jobs". Grab that power, guys.
I don't really blame Obama (for this). if anything, he's more of a symptom.
Arguably. Though I suspect the more the content providers abuse streaming, the more people will turn to offline downloads from "alternative" sources.
From Ars article http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... "The proposed rules would prevent the service providers from blocking or discriminating against specific websites, but would allow broadband providers to give some traffic preferential treatment, so long as such arrangements are available on 'commercially reasonable' terms for all interested content companies," the Journal reported. "Whether the terms are commercially reasonable would be decided by the FCC on a case-by-case basis." To me it sounds like you can pay for faster access but are not allowed to block or discriminate against competition. This sounds like a better deal than you have to pay for access and we will block all of our competitors.
Great description - between 1 and 4, the Obama administration appointed the former head of the Cable Industry lobbying group and also former head of the Wireless Industry Lobbying group to be in charge of the FCC (Wheeler) - he's excited about all the "innovation" that's happening here.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
I'm assuming, from your other post that you are talking about people opposed to Citizen's United
Where do you get that being against Citizen's United means that you think that banding together is a bad idea?
I am against CU because it seems to me to corrupt what democratic traditions and institutions we have remaining and moves us closer to rule by the wealthy.
I think speech is speech and the amount of money a person has should not enter into how much influence they have over the government.
All should have equal influence.
emt 377 emt 4
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg are all Jewish supporters of Obama who as C.S Lewis referred to as the classic do-gooders like we have come to expect from most left-wing liberals who want to rid the world of guns...upsized sodas and oil including the Keystone pipeline and a free internet. We also know that a very Jewish and post hippy Hollywood descriminated against Conservative Script writers for over 30 years. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion... What marks out the tyranny of the way these people operate is that which marks the left of politics and liberal donors. http://www.politico.com/story/... "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C.S. Lewis" But essentialy these attacks on the freedom of the internet are about money and the operations of lobbyists, where....essentially Hollywood is behind the reforms to give away the last controls of the internet including the hire of the lobbyist Robert Holleyman. http://boingboing.net/2014/04/... After a public outcry this decision to give away the last controls of the internet looks to be on hold but now the FCC is stepping in and destroying a free internet after failing to take control of newsrooms. They now are talking about a censorship fast lane. http://act.boldprogressives.or... This after the FCC failed to put monitors and censors in every news room. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014... Americans need to realise how militant the left is and how influential these Liberal donors are. If they supported the giving away of the internet so that they could attack piracy behind the scenes then they likewise support attacks on a free internet and create the tools to enliven political censorship with the Obama administration working behind the scenes to attack opponents. These FCC reforms are part of this...moving into this direction. We see how the Obama administration has used the federal beauracracy to attack opponents. Who is to say that this new FCC proposal for a fast lane will not use information supply with deals behind the scenes to do the same and attack political opponents. Obama is always meeting behind closed doors with the media or Silicon Valley giants. It will happen and it is a disgrace as Google has already proved itself to be left in politics. They are all do-gooder tyrants where we would be better off under robber barons. What is Google and Facebook getting out of this new FCC proposal? What we know for sure is that the left wing silicon valley giants cannot be trusted along with the FCC. They will use the do-gooder justifications to fight against piracy to take away a free internet and you can take that to the bank. Read the quote from C.S Lewis again. If Hollywood can have this much clout....discriminate against conservative scriptwriters for so long and work together with Obama to take away a free internet then all should be concerned. This is an activity of so called do-gooders that believe they have the authority to strip all of us of our internet freedoms. We all need to stand up to these secular liberals and secular Jewish do-gooders that have too much political clout in America.
This is all rooted in the notion that the internet is not like a phone, a decision made in the early 2000s. Of course, the internet actually is a phone, among other things. If the FCC had decided to treat the net like a phone, we would have massive competition, lower prices, and better service. What we have instead, is non-regulated monopoly cable providers.
This planet money episode gives a neat little history, and a comparison with how much better it is in Britain with respect to internet service:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Labour unions are parasites? Thanks for the update John Galt.
OK. So the PAC can't donate to the candidate directly, but they can donate in a way that works towards a candidate's goals. I'm sure there are plenty of ways of skirting around the "can't coordinate with a candidate's campaign" restriction.
soylentnews.org
There's a thread of rather amusing ignorance about government and corporate interests happening all through here, I had to comment. Well rant really - There's more than a few people saying that corporate interests, either as just a natural outcome of superior innovation or whacking gobs of cash, won out here because that's Capitalism. Others lament that government, in this case the FCC, only exists to serve itself, not The People (which is their mandate), and thus like all government is naturally going to defer to it's nature.
What kind of social Darwinian claptrap is this?
Face it. The truth is the problem is money in government. It's way out of control and that's why the FCC has deferred to corporate interests. Essentially moving to turn the Internet into your cable TV box, or radio frequency spectrum sell offs. Which we here are ALL against. Why? It's the fact that the FCC and the lobbiests for those corporations are THE SAME FUCKING GUYS. The "revolving door" of people who have worked at the FCC then "moved on" to lobby positions at these corporations is wide open. That's the problem. That's why this, ultimately, happened. There has been legislation against this 'revolving door' in the past (I'm sure someone will point that out) but it was just fucking ignored. Lobbiests like this are supposed to refrain for something like a year. Didn't happen. They showed up in Washington the next day. Literally! No one was fined, arrested, or even saw a raised eyebrow.
So please, let's speak of the reality of what's happening at the FCC instead of vomiting bullshit theories about the "nature" of shit. M'k?
It's so surprising that big business owners subscribe to a philosophy that can be succinctly summarized as, "Fuck everyone else; I got mine!", isn't it?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
3 choices is still better than 2.
(for what it's worth, I plan to vote third party for the significant future, but I expect it to have little to no impact for a long time)
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Including your "neighbors" two states away that hate everything about your ideology?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Since the last mile is a natural monopoly, we need some sort of legal basis to force competition. A separate, regulated, last-mile company is one possibility.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sure, they can support a position that a candidate supports. Alternatively, they can oppose a policy that a candidate supports. For example, under the Citizens United ruling, Dice can run stories supporting net neutrality. Had the ruling gone the other way, the FEC (via Mcain-Feingold) or FCC (through the fairness doctrine) could prevent publication of these stories because it's Dice spending money in support of a political position.
Could Dice also say "Obama sucks", and do it shortly before the election? Sure, and maybe that's imperfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than the alternative. The alternative, argued in Citizen's, was to say that because Dice and the ACLU are both incorporated, neither may talk about political issues.
The FEC's position in CU was that because the people of Dice and the ACLU work together as a corporation, they can't talk about political issues. Had the FEC won, Dice couldn't run this story without FEC approval because Dice is corporation, they spend money running the site, and it touches on a political issue.
It IS unfortunate that with free speech, some people and organizations can get a bigger megaphone than others. Is silencing everyone really the solution? The CU ruling is what allows the ACLU and the FSF to continue to comment on political issues. Do you really want to silence them, in order to silence those who disagree with them?
I propose an alternative. I propose that ACLU Inc be allowed to make their case publicly, the BSA can make theirs, and the FSF can say what they want to say. Then, you and I, the voters, can decide who we agree with after hearing them.
> If the FCC had decided to treat the net like a phone, we would have massive competition, lower prices, and better service.
Yep, common carrier phone systems (landlines) have so much competition, and service has improved so much in the last 100 years. I want some of what you're smoking.
Yep. Just like the last mile for cell phones is a natural monopoly - why have duplicate towers serving the same area?
I'm glad I get unlimited everything for $30 from Boost Mobile, with no contract, because Washington bureaucrats decreed that was the proper monthly rate. Oh, that wasn't decreed by government? You say that government decreed that my 64k landline, running on copper that's been there for 30 years, must cost MORE than my 4G wireless service? Well that's kinda stupid.
no but he should have his people call me...they could use a guy like me i think
Thank you Dave Raggett
I'm not sure that Dice and the ACLU work together. But that is not the substance here.
Personally, I don't think any corporation should be able to talk politics. Dice, ACLU, GE, BSA, FSF, Labor union, trade union, etc.
A, Corporations will side with whatever makes them money. They will vote their bank accounts, by and large.
B, Corporations are composed of individuals. Let them have political speech. Then it is up to them to represent whatever balance of interests they have.
So, me, I want that whole group to go stone cold silent. People, no. But I would want the effects of money on the process to be minimized. Anything else leads ( as it is leading, as I see it ) to defacto rule by the wealthy.
Failing that, no, "side" of the argument should never enter into it.
The Voltarian ideal of "I disagree, but say what you believe" should be in effect, for all.
emt 377 emt 4
> I'm not sure that Dice and the ACLU work together.
I guess was was unclear. I was saying the ACLU (inc.) is people working together toward common goals, the FSF is people working together, Dice is a group of people working together.
> Personally, I don't think any corporation should be able to talk politics. Dice, ACLU, GE, BSA, FSF, Labor union, trade union, etc.
> . . .
> So, me, I want that whole group to go stone cold silent.
That's very interesting, refreshingly clear and intellectually honest. The old analogy is that it's unfair that some people can see and some people are blind, and the left's solution is to remove everyone's eyes. You're unusual in how clear and honest you are that you do in fact want to do essentially that. Thanks.
> People, no.
Just no GROUP protests, right? YOU can express your opinion and I can express mine, but if you and I get together and make video, that should be illegal. Interesting, truly.
I really appreciate your viewpoint, and how you state it clearly, boldly, without pretending that the implications are anything but what they are. That takes courage.
The internet is expensive in infrastructure, management, security and power requirements.
We must accept that sending a video across the globe costs real money and carbon pollution.
Why should little old ladies sending a couple of emails subsidise an idiot constantly streaming HD video.
Go well
Yes, common carriers do have competition. I don't know how old you are, but I remember when the choice in long distance providers came. Then sometime in the early 90s, more companies sprang up where you would enter a numeric code first, and then they would bill even less for long distance. Back in the 80s and 90s, a long distance call for an hour could easily cost you $6 on top of your monthly fees for basic service and long distance service. So going from 10c a minute to 4c a minute by entering a code or switching providers was a big deal.
Today, who even thinks of long distance? Back before competition, making a call from the county into town a mere ten miles would cost a dime a minute. How much do you pay for a long distance call now? Do you even think about long distance or instead do you think about the flat monthly rate for unlimited calling? I suspect it is the latter. So instead of paying $30 for basic service, another charge for a long distance plan, and then 10c a minute on top of that, you pay a $20 to $30 flat rate and never even think about how long you talk and how far away the endpoint of your call is.
That's what happens when there is competition.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
..Joe "How High Are You Willing to Jump for My Vote?" Lieberman and a number of pro-business, anti-regulation blue dogs. Passing net-neutrality would not have been a walk in the part, and Obama needed all his political capital to get a watered-down Affordable Care Act passed.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
You don't think labor unions exploit their membership to enrich those in control of them, thus giving them a reason to survive even when there's no actual labor abuses to be solved? The enrichment of labor bosses is old news, and their frequent manufacture of problems to then "solve" is also not a shocker. Unions should be event-driven, not continuously polling. The fact that they're the latter at all is because the people controlling them saw selfish opportunities.
I'm a badge-carrying socialist, but abusive labor union hierarchies are just as sickening as abusive corporate hierarchies. They're one and the same, both controlled by sociopathic scum risen to the top of the pond.
Personally, I don't think any corporation should be able to talk politics
Do you realize that the RNC and DNC are both corporations?
Not really, but I'd be OK with them both shutting up.
emt 377 emt 4
Actually running fiber costs huge amounts of money. For a normal city it's easily hundreds of millions or more. The rule of thumb is that you need 30% adoption for it to be worthwhile in an area, which is a significant risk, and is mathematically impossible for more than 3 companies.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
> If I belonged to a union, why should they? Should my Church speak /influence for me? And, frankly, it is the influence part that always comes into play.
That's an interesting point. Thanks. For me, I'm glad I and others can join together and support the EFF in speaking on our behalf on specific issues. You asked why. They can research the details of issues and write more effective, specific proposals, etc far better than each of us can do alone. I happen to think we're better off having subject matter experts negotiating these things, while we support the experts who represent our views. So that's one reason why. The major reason why is because the first amendment says so. It doesn't say "freedom of speech and of the press, unless two people write together. "
The drop in rates was a lot more than 10 to 4. Just a few years before it was 10, it was 43. That's about $2.12 / minute in today's money. That 43 ($2) rate was of course set by regulators. Immediately upon deregulation, the rates dropped to 10, a 75% decrease in rates. As you pointed out, it didn't take long to hit 4. That's a price cut of over 90%.
What's strange is that you point to the huge win for consumers when long distance was DEregulated, and hold that up as a reason to REGULATE isps. You're saying "removing regulation worked great, so let's add new regulation of a similar industry". You've shown why regulation of long distance was a huge mistake - it caused consumers to pay ten times as much as the unregulated rate. So why repeat the mistake with ISPs? You want to pay $500 / month for your internet service?
C> ) Allowing a non-profit to bypass all donation limits that are put on any single individual;
That's doubly false. First, individuals have GREATER freedom to donate. Individuals can donate as much as they want to a super PAC Corporations cannot donate to super PACS. They can _form_ a super PAC, but they can't donate any corporate money to it.
That's a much more palatable way of expressing it. I was only saying that as a vehicle for convincing others of your viewpoint, using (what some could consider to be) inflammatory terms to describe the opposition to that viewpoint isn't conducive to constructive debate or discussion. I'd most certainly agree with your assertion that it's possible to be for a safety net without toppling over the edge into completely supporting people. The issue here lies not in the social welfare programs per se, but rather with the lack of options that people have to get off those programs. College tuition is prohibitively high, and currently the only way financially disadvantaged groups can get access to it is to basically sell themselves into indentured servitude to acquire it (I know, I'm currently serving in such an indentured servitude). There need to be more paths to elevate oneself above the level of McDonalds wage slave. That does nothing but perpetuate the issue. Rather, I'd like to see money put towards making tuition at state colleges free for those below a certain income level. That would provide a path to higher education, and the savings from those that would be graduating past the social safety nets would offset the cost of supplying tuition to those same people. The nation gets more productive folks (possibly in the woefully underrepresented STEM fields) and less folks sucking the "government teat" as it has been so eloquently put. Bottom line is we need to stop viewing these people as leeches on society, and start viewing them as untapped potential. Tarring an entire class of people with the same brush simply because Reagan put forth this concept of the welfare queen thirty odd years ago is disingenuous and prejudicial.
Whatever; that's not important. The important thing is that both "sides" are authoritarian.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
There's only space for one wire to come to your house? Weird. I have quite a few wires connecting to my house.
It's "inefficient" to have two wires to the same house - in EXACTLY the same way that it's inefficient to have two towers covering the same area. Yet, with that inefficiency comes choice and competition. I can, and have, told one cell company to screw off when they didn't provide the best service.
Its quite ironic that the content providers and Hollywood are soon to make more from online content than selling $20.00 DVD's. By the time you pay your ISP and content provider you might as well have paid top price for movies that you can rewatch for free. Then end of tge free internet his here with the Democrats. This outing of this private comment by Sterling courtesy of TMZ and the so called liberals in Hollywood in concert with the Democrats is as political as to what is hidden. Then there are the lies, "You can keep your health plan." Next comes the end of the free internet with Obama and Hollywood and Silicon Valleys FCC reforms. . Here is another thing that is hidden as Americans will be hit with a carbon tax directly or indirectly after the mid-terms with this activist administration. http://www.foxnews.com/politic...