Slashdot Mirror
New White House Petition For Net Neutrality
Bob9113 (14996) writes "On the heels of yesterday's FCC bombshell, there is a new petition on the White House petition site titled, 'Maintain true net neutrality to protect the freedom of information in the United States.' The body reads: 'True net neutrality means the free exchange of information between people and organizations. Information is key to a society's well being. One of the most effective tactics of an invading military is to inhibit the flow of information in a population; this includes which information is shared and by who. Today we see this war being waged on American citizens. Recently the FCC has moved to redefine "net neutrality" to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have their information heard, or worse, the message of their competitors silenced. We as a nation must settle for nothing less than complete neutrality in our communication channels. This is not a request, but a demand by the citizens of this nation. No bandwidth modifications of information based on content or its source.'"
So say we all.
Because this time, the Government will listen to a petition of the people posted on a website.
Obama ran on a policy of net neutrality support and staffed the FCC board with members with the intent of establishing net neutrality.
Now the FCC (which the Obama administration controls) is doing a 180.
Is this being done because Obama and the DNC doesn't want it or because Comcast is throwing money around?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...
http://thehill.com/blogs/hilli...
Serious question. These petitions are clearly not only completely absent any actual legal or procedural relevance; they are routinely ignored by the white house, often complete with redicule and mocking, that is if any attention is paid to them whatsoever.
These things are at best a token 'feel good' nod toward public relations and more realistically, these things are just flat out time wasters for all involved.
So why is so much attention paid to them?
Isn't it better to use your time and money towards things that could result in some real policy or legislative changes in government, such as supporting or working to defeat politicians, supporitng lobbying efforts, or other more traditional methods of interacting with the state?
Oh and by the way, president Obama has made his 'transparency' campaign lie completely 'transparent' by now, you all should know that he will follow through on no promise that he doesn't already want to act on (which is most of them) and in the end is happy to lie right to the face of the voter and then go off into a back room and do exactly the opposite of what he states he will do, towards whatever end he pleases. So given that (Gitmo? allowing bills to be reviewed before signing them? eliminating lobbyists from the white house etc.) why would you guys spend any effort at all in trying to influence his decicions or actions? You *know* they could not possibly care less what you proles think.
Real question; what are you guys thinking here? No one cares!
...they can bend it all they want.
Tom Wheeler is a crotchety old sleazebag who has been bought and paid for by Big Telecom. Unfortunately he's probably also foolish enough to think he's doing right by the American public. That's the most dangerous kind.
RIP Internet
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
We pay for our bandwidth and now the greedy ISPs are wanting to get paid by the content providers (Netflix, Hulu, etc). Do you really think they are going to absorb the additional costs if this continues? Of course not, they will raise their prices.
ISPs rarely deliver what you pay for so them crying that its the content providers fault is BS. The problem is lack of real competition in the ISP market. Most folks have a choice between cable and DSL. Two isn't enough to be very competitive.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Basically true when he's at the mercy of the republicans to adopt the stuff that needs to be changed in order to fulfill the job he was elected to do .
Sucks but it's fundamentally true.
Republicans are obstructing every step of the way. The institutions are totally fucked when a President can't do the job he's elected for.
As a candidate, Pres. Obama said he would support net neutrality. He has not, and I am disappointed.
I'm disappointed too, but I was pretty sure that he was just saying things to get elected, both times, so I didn't vote for him. I suggest you get used to being disappointed in Obama because it's going to be a problem for a LONG time after he's gone..
Here comes the modding down and a wreaking of my karma, in three.... two..... One....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
would ask that ISPs be classified as common carriers. Then there could be nothing they can do.
Nice shill post but your assumptions aren't correct. ISPs can and do support massive streaming to large portions of their customers. They simply want to avoid paying for infrastructure upgrades while at the same time milking both ends of the wire for all the money they can.
Would you give up Netflix to protect Comcast's bottom line? How about innovators like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google? Without Net Neutrality, they wouldn't exist. Go back to using AOL and Compuserve, see how much you like networks with no competition, fool.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Yes, it may cause Disney or Netflix to raise prices to their customers to pay for the Fast Lane they're getting, but it does not block access to other sources of content and silences nothing. Car pool lanes don't keep other cars from using the normal lanes. In fact, the analogy is flawed only because that uncongested carpool lane cannot be used by non-carpool users while the increased border gateway router bandwidth being paid for by Netflix users will be used by other users when it is otherwise unused. The closest the NYT could come to "silencing" is this:
Which means that if a gamer gets only the same speed tomorrow that he's getting today he might get bored and go elsewhere. I.e., if there are no Fast Lanes the gamer gets X bandwidth and that's good enough, apparently. Tomorrow with Fast Lanes for other services he gets X and suddenly that's not good enough.
I appreciate the fact that my costs for service won't be forced up by my having to pay for bandwidth that I'm not asking for, and that the cost for high-bandwidth streaming services will be paid for more by the customers of those services. And if a new "Twitter" requires huge amounts of near-realtime bandwidth on day one then something is very wrong with their concept of operation.
Let me put this out there: if they don't want net neutrality, mark my words, all the petitions in the world won't make a whit of difference.
Let's review this topic in two years and see whether I'm right.
*** Don't be dull.***
The trouble is that the ISPs want to promise high speed and unlimited usage but not deliver it. They want to put the blame on the streaming companies. ISPs have gotten away with false promises for years because the content wasn't demanding enough to prove them wrong. Now, rather than raise their own prices or put in caps and limit usage during prime time etc. they want to put the blame on Netflix etc. They make Netflix etc. pay them more money for the same bandwidth they are already charging customers for. Then when Netflix (or whoever) raises their prices to compensate, Netflix takes the blame instead of the ISP. The end user and Netflix (etc) have already paid for bandwidth. The ISP wants to get paid twice because their business model didn't allow for the user actually using the purchased bandwidth.
People STILL believe what he says, even after it is proven that much of what comes out of his mouth is in fact complete untruths. From the beginning it was this way. He is nothing more than a slimy politician who couldn't give a shit about anyone, including his own family (golf or funeral of aunt? GOLF!)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yes, it may cause Disney or Netflix to raise prices to their customers to pay for the Fast Lane they're getting,
You can go ahead and change "may" to "already did."
but it does not block access to other sources of content and silences nothing. Car pool lanes don't keep other cars from using the normal lanes
You obviously don't live in any densely populated enough area (say, Southern California) where there in fact are any car-pool lanes, do you? Where do you think that extra lane came from? The meta-plane of elemental freeway lanes? No, they blocked a regular lane to turn it into a carpool lane and now, one-by-one, they're beginning to systematically charge you extra to use them .
Comcast should be fined for extorting Netflix so they don't throttle their bandwith. The problem is that Comcast buys out politicians so the government no longer regulates monopolies, monopolies regulate the government.
God spoke to me
Are you against overnight delivery options? This is propaganda against the same thing, except for bandwidth.
Companies offer expedited delivery because it increases the amount of business they can do. If it cost them customers to offer tiered services, they wouldn't do it. The internet will be larger and offer more options, not fewer, if Net Neutrality is kept out of the ISP industry.
The righteous indignation against internet freedom in this case is surprising for the community that wants so much choice in software.
Fedex doesn't pay more money to use the roads to deliver an overnight package than to deliver a 5 day ground package.
A more apt analogy to express delivery is that Netflix could opt for a slower service where you choose the movie you want to watch the day before, and they download it to you overnight, reducing their need for peak bandwidth. But that is not the same as paying the carriers more money to get the bits to you.
I suggest you stop with this crap. Why do third party candidates have no chance of winning? Because everyone says third party candidates have no chance of winning. As long as people keep thinking like you, and keep spreading this awful idea, nothing will change.
Netflix is not paying for the bandwidth the customers are already paying for. Netflix is paying for *extra* bandwidth.
Data caps would solve the problem, but US consumers have been very reluctant (to say the least) to accept them. I don't think that's Comcast's fault. In any case, does it really matter whether Netflix customers are paying the extra costs to Netflix or to Comcast? I mean, enough to make it worth putting up with the hassles of a data cap?
Fewer people use high priority mailing. The costs don't scale as much. More empty space is on the planes that carry more of the priority packages. It costs more to deliver things faster.
Fewer people need fiber bandwidth at peak hours. It costs more per mile of cable to serve those people.
There's a scarce amount of things, and the price will have to go up in order for demand to shrink down.
I'm already paying taxes that cover the roads that Fedex uses to deliver my packages, why does Fedex have to pay more money to drive a priority package to my house when they've already flown the package (at their own cost) to within 20 miles of my house?
I've already paid Comcast for 20mbit of bandwidth, why does Netflix have to pay them money to send me data over a pipe that I've already paid for when Netflix is willing to drop that data off at Comcast's front door? If Comcast can't provide 20mbit of bandwidth at the price they sold it to me for, then it sounds like they've overpromised and underdelivered and they should adjust rates accordingly.
For future reference: In Mass and Minn Republicans are Democrats and Democrats are communists.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There are costs besides roads. Trucks have costs associated with them, mostly by mileage. There are gas, oil, repairs to pay for. Drivers to pay.
They have to pay more for a truck that's less full. Fewer people will use priority mail, so the vehicles that have priority packages are more likely to be less full. Being less full is less efficient, and has higher costs associated with it.
Sure, and that's all borne by the carrier that's driving on the roads to deliver the package to my door -- I pay that carrier just like I pay Netflix, but I don't expect my city to charge Fedex Priority truck a surchage when they let Fedex Ground trucks drive for free.
The problem with analogies is that they don't always translate well to the real world problem.
You didn't pay for bandwidth, you paid for 'up to' that amount - unless you have an ISP that wants to be sued for fraud (and more power to you if they did). I don't know of anyone that actually buys data transfer, except on their phone. And that's on top of a flat connection bill
Let's see what Comcast says on their High Speed internet page:
Get download speeds up to 25 Mbps – Share photos, book travel, and watch the latest viral video craze – at super-fast speeds.
Get download speeds up to 50 Mbps – so you can game in real-time, download HD movies, and connect all the devices in your home simultaneously – at incredible speeds.
Connect your devices and do more of what you love online with reliable Internet speeds for your home.
Gee, I don't see anything there or their terms of use that says "Note: High speed internet applies only to providers that pay us to deliver their data to you".
.
An ISP that owns cables is paying off the cost of building them. An ISP that borrows cables is paying off the bulk cost of renting. When a cable is made to serve customers that use it less efficiently, such as mostly at peak hours, or otherwise concentrated in large transfers, then it costs more to accommodate them.
If a business is not allowed to find the efficient means of paying these costs, then that business will fail. Everyone will lose, especially the customer, who will have fewer and worse options.
I don't know why you think I don't want Comcast to be able to recover their costs of providing service -- they already have an efficient means to pay those costs -- they send me a bill each month, and if that bill isn't paying their costs, they can increase the rates I pay. That way I can fairly compare prices among different ISP's (luckily I'm in an area where I can choose from a few). When Netflix subsidizes Comcast, that makes the true cost of my internet service hidden since part of the cost is hidden in my Netflix bill (and eventually Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc will all have to pay). The largest ISP's shouldn't be allowed to use their near monopoly market penetration to extract fees from content providers when they are already charging customers for internet access.
Where did you find an ether party? How do I join?
He is the one who proposed the current chairman for approval or rejection by the senate, following pressure from his party.
FTFY.
Also, chairman != dictator.
Also, some say that Obama did this to regain some political capital with powerful people he rubbed the wrong way earlier. Be that as it may, I'm not claiming he's free from blame. It gets somewhat harder to do the right thing when everything around you is rotten, but that's no excuse, merely a mitigating factor.
Charging very different users the same is obviously not as efficient as tiered services - otherwise there would no such thing as tiered service, anywhere. By forcing them not to use a legitimate business model you are telling them that they may not recover costs as efficiently.
They already charge different users differently -- I pay more money for a faster connection since I use Netflix heavily. If I didn't watch streaming video, instead of a 25mbit connection, I'd buy their cheap 6mbit connection (or would use an ADSL provider). If they find charging for bandwidth alone to be unsustainable, then they can charge for data too -- charge $20 for each 100GB, or whatever covers their costs. They have lots of flexibility in their pricing structure. They can add peak surcharges or whatever else they need to do to pay for their network.
The type of business that will be more likely to fail in this situation is the start-up or the small scale business.
How can a startup expect to charge money to large users like Netflix, Amazon, etc? If Joe's House of Internet tried to force Netflix to pay up, Netflix would tell them to shove off and wouldn't worry about losing a few customers. But when Comcast (with over 15 million internet customers) tells them to pay up, they have little choice, since they can't afford to lose millions of customers.
Sure, allow more competition. I'm all for a freer market.
But don't reduce competition by telling Comcast that they can't incur costs on Netflix, when Netflix is incurring costs on Comcast.
Netflix isn't incurring costs on Comcast, I (as a Comcast customer) am incurring the cost by requesting the data from Netflix, so I should be paying for that -- Netflix isn't forcing me to accept their data, I am requesting it.
Why is it worse to have hidden costs in your monopoly bill than your more competitive Netflix bill?
Because, it's a hidden cost and I can't see the true cost of my Comcast connection. If I pay $50/month to Comcast, and have a hidden $5 for Netflix, $3 for Amazon, $5 for Youtube, $1 for Facebook, etc, the true cost of my bill might really be over $100, and if I knew that, I might find another ISP more cost effective. And more importantly, if Comcast charged their true cost of delivering service and that ended up being $100/month, that might be a level that makes it profitable for another provider to come in, while if the content provider subsidies kept Comcast rates artificially low, then there would be less incentive for a competitor to enter the market since he wouldn't get the same subsidies yet he'd be competing against Comcast's subsidized rates.
This attitude is exactly why we will persist in having such flagrant assholes and abusers of democracy in office. There is precisely one, and only one scenario that it's not good to vote for a third party (supposing that party more correctly aligns with your ideals than the others), even if they're going to lose; rather, especially if they're going to lose.
And that scenario is this:
When the lesser of two evils is on the brink of losing to the greater of two evils.
Whatever the lesser/greater means to you as an individual.
There. That's it. Pretty damn simple.
As you pointed out, if you know a major party candidate is going to lose by double digits, it's pointless to vote for that candidate. It's throwing your vote away. However, if you agree with their agenda even a little bit, voting for a third party in that situation sends a message. A message that says people are fed the fuck up with the other two options. It gives mind-share to the third party in general.
If enough people did that in races where it's going to be no contest, an interesting thing could happen: the two parties might take notice and actually fix something about their politicking (HA HA! Yeah, right), or maybe, just maybe...a third party could become viable enough to be included in debates and start taking a significant chunk of the vote.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.