Report: Verizon Claimed Public Utility Status To Get Government Perks

An anonymous reader writes "Research for the Public Utility Law Project (PULP) has been released which details 'how Verizon deliberately moves back and forth between regulatory regimes, classifying its infrastructure either like a heavily regulated telephone network or a deregulated information service depending on its needs. The chicanery has allowed Verizon to raise telephone rates, all the while missing commitments for high-speed internet deployment' (PDF). In short, Verizon pushed for the government to give it common carrier privileges under Title II in order to build out its fiber network with tax-payer money. Result: increased service rates on telephone users to subsidize Verizon's 'infrastructure investment.' When it comes to regulations on Verizon's fiber network, however, Verizon has been pushing the government to classify its services as that of information only — i.e., beyond Title II. Verizon has made about $4.4 billion in additional revenue in New York City alone, 'money that's funneled directly from a Title II service to an array of services that currently lie beyond Title II's reach.' And it's all legal. An attorney at advocacy group Public Knowledge said it best: 'To expect that you can come in and use public infrastructure and funds to build a network and then be free of any regulation is absurd....When Verizon itself is describing these activities as a Title II common carrier, how can the FCC look at broadband internet and continue acting as though it's not a telecommunication network?'"

Comments

Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, all these articles assume that the US government isn't run solely for the benefit of a handful of corporations. If there's evidence that it's not then I'd like to see it.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

Its worse then corruption... its incompetence. Basically its all too complicated for the limited number of politicians to manage and most of them don't really care anyway. So its all left to bureaucrats that often don't really have authority to do anything unless its kept quiet... which means there is a "don't rock the boat" mentality which means they just take the path of least resistance in all cases.

Now you could give them more authority... but then you wouldn't have even a fig leaf of democracy because you'd have a technocracy rather then a democracy. We already see some of that happening already with the EPA etc just doing what they want indifferent to law, court orders, or public opinion. But it could get a lot worse.

Truly, I think the solution is to scale back the government's authority or localize things more so the politicians aren't so overwhelmed with responsibilities. I really think they're just overwhelmed with the complexity of the system they're supposed to govern. So... simplify it by decentralizing it. Increase local autonomy and you if anything enhance democracy while improving efficiency.

Will corruption go away? No... it will just be more local instead of federal which I'm actually happier with because local corruption at least recognizes that the corrupt have to still live in the place they're being corrupt. If its done at the federal level then the corruption can profit people thousands of miles away that care nothing at all for the consequences.

Re:Corruption

[The Rizz]

Decentralization isn't the solution to this. If you think the system is a clusterfuck now, just think about how much worse it would be if instead of one law there were 50+ (states + DC + territories) - or, thousands (county/city level). It would keep small businesses from easily doing work outside of one area, while allowing mega-corps the ability to even more easily venue-shop for their headquarters.

You want a solution that gives more authority to regional/etc. agencies? Simple: Allow each agency, at each level, to throw up a challenge to this type of shenanigans. Verizon pulled some bullshit costing NYC $4.4billion? Then NYC can turn around and enforce the Type II requirements, and send a ripple up the chain to have the feds declare it so nationally. However, you have to be able to stop some in-Verizon's-pocket federal agency from telling NYC, "no."

Re:Corruption

[Black Parrot]

You know the saying: the proper role of government is to help the rich get richer faster than they would without it.

Re:Corruption

[postbigbang]

You ignore the public utility regulatory agencies of the 43 states that have them. This entire morass came after the TCA of 1998 and subsequent revisions of the FCC rules and regs brought on in the post Judge Greene rulings that initially broke up the Bell System.

Public utilities had to deal with all of these regulatory authorities, and then calculatedly lobbied to create US Federal control so that they'd only have to bribe-- I mean lobby and render campaign contributions-- to one target instead of so many. In-state vs Intrastate vs Interstate issues helped hold them to the floor.

NYC is not a regulatory authority. NY State is, as is the FCC, and to a smaller extent, the NTIA.

Decentralization was good for several reasons: rights of way and easements are local, even personal issues. These are last-mile issues. State issues concern everything from keeping infrastructure support fair and even (including low-profit/sparsely populated areas) to zoning policy, and so forth.

The FCC has evolved what was once called "data communications" as a separate classification, away from telephony. Now these things are the same, but the public's needs have evolved. Decentralization isn't so much meaningless as it's the ability to tailor historical infrastructure to locally evolving needs, and is better democracy.

  It's time to conflate consumer communications into a single mandate, IMHO. It has to service we consumers, whether in urban, suburban, or rural areas. Whether it's a text, phone call via wire or cell, or a browser session, it ought to have to meet a set of basic standards, where consumers have well-known and flexible rights.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

This community is too smart not understand the virtues of decentralization in management systems.

Understand... I'm not trying to patronize you or slight you... just express my opinion here and hope you at least give it a look before rendering a judgement.

Here we go:

Think back to the old city states in Europe. Look at them in your mind on a map. Notice how at the center of each is a large capital city from which everything is run. Okay, note the history where in each of those powers going into nation states continually tried to expand. They'd eat far flung islands and various powers all over europe only to lose them again if they were too far from their base of power.

Note the continuing failure of those powers to hold on to anything that was more then about 500 miles from their capital city.

Then consider the great exceptions in this pattern... the colonial empires of Spain and England. Note that they had to employ a decentralized power structure because employing a centralized power structure was obviously impossible at that range. Notice how powers that previously were unable to hold on to things at more then 500 miles suddenly can hold on to things thousands and thousands of miles away.

Why? Decentralization. Limited autonomy.

Now consider the United States. The US is one of the largest countries in the world both by geography and population. Yet it holds together better then many powers a great deal smaller. Why is that?

There is a general lack of insurrection due to democratic and republican governmental forms. However, just as important is the state system where in local populations have a greater say in local administration then does the national system or people that don't actually live there. This ensures that government is more responsive to local issues, attentive to local sentiments, and that if there are conflicts of interest they tend to favor local interests rather then national interests. This helps bind the country together because there is less downside/cost to the union.

What breaks apart big countries is ultimately that the people in those countries decide it is in their interest to break up rather then stay together.

To help hold a union together, you want as much as possible for there to be few if any downsides to the union and as many upsides as possible. The instant it is more in the interest of a given portion of the country to break away then stay together you will have to hold a gun to their head to hold them there.

Holding that gun there is both expensive and unstable because the instant the gun comes off they'll likely slit your throat or equivalent.

Police states are very aware of this which is why they make a point of never putting the gun down. Examples of what happens when the gun gets put down would be the French revolution... bodies in the street, corpses hanging from rafters, and other fun stuff. A general explosion of violence against the authorities.

I'm going through all this just to explain my understanding of the basic political forces that hold large numbers of people together.

Now if you look at the US government, we have a federated system rather then a unitary government. That is, unlike France or England, the US has 50 states with limited autonomy as well as various territories that are afforded something of the same interdependence.

This is a hierarchical command structure. With lower and more localized elements given authority to make certain types of decisions independently while other nominally higher authorities are given responsibility over different decisions.

Ideally, you want the more localized systems to handle all problems that they reasonably can handle while those at the higher and more generalized level are left with either managing the interrelationships of these powers or dealing with miscellaneous problems that impact all the various states.

In effect, you want the localized systems to handle nearly everything themselves... really as much as you can pos

Re:Corruption

[Rich0]

Public utilities had to deal with all of these regulatory authorities, and then calculatedly lobbied to create US Federal control so that they'd only have to bribe-- I mean lobby and render campaign contributions-- to one target instead of so many.

So, I'm the first to agree that we need to rein in the telcos. However, one of the problems of local control is a lack of standardization. Look how hard it is to collect sales tax when every little town with 12 houses in the US can establish a local tax policy. Now, imagine this town wants everything to be charged by the kilobyte paid by the sender, another town wants the costs shared between sender and recipient, and another town wants everything to be flat-rate-unlimited. Some town wants usage for each customer reported to some central authority on 6-copy carbon paper. Another city buys a fancy 911 system from some vendor and the onus is on the telco to make it work with their systems despite it not adhering to any particular standard.

Local regulation made a lot of sense back when most commerce was fairly local. These days it seems like even national-level regulation can barely keep up with stuff like the internet. Could you imagine the decency standards for the internet imposed by every little town in the deep south?

Re:Corruption

[Gr8Apes]

Decentralization for wire ownership is the answer. The wires are owned by local municipalities, and ISPs provide services over those wires. With fiber, there's no excuse not to go this route. The feds can tax and provide service to disadvantaged areas much like the Universal Service Fund now, in fact, there would need be little to no change there. Just that the wires belong to the local municipalities, and they cannot sell the property, only maintain and improve it as necessary. Cities, counties, states, etc, can work to improve the infrastructure, but at it's core, it's still locally owned. What else matches this pattern? Roads, railroads, the electrical grid and various pipelines all at least started this way, as does the global internet. So there's no reason this particular component cannot be handled this way at a more local level and finally remove the evil specter of Ma Bell and its wanna be clones.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

There's nothing really unique about that. That has been the natural state of human politics for tens of thousands of years.

You only get peace when there is something that stops the war... such as a large dominant power or the physical impossibility of conflict.

Without that, humans war with each other. Always have.

Re:Corruption

[postbigbang]

You're talking about sales models, not the wholesale carriage that telcos, actually datacom providers, are supposed to render. I'm not talking about parochial harrassment of companies, rather that regulated utilities ought to be scrutinized at both state and federal levels. The for-profit model that most utilities have changed to was a mistake. Shareholder profit, rather than the basic needs of basic infrastructure to be a world-class connected republic, is the rule.

We're almost a third-world-quality connected country in the US. Consideration for ALL of the connectivity needs, from central switching right down to the WiFi in your home/office, cellular data transport, to tip-and-ring telephony needs to be made where the jurisdiction makes sense: central to the last few inches. The Feds are awful at the last few inches-- states much better. Decency issues are another topic for another time.

Re:Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

Advances in technology also improved communication and projection of force/violence over increased distances.

So it was a mix of that and limited autonomy.

Re:Corruption

[currently_awake]

The wires and the content must not be owned by the same people. Those who own the last mile must not have a vested interest to favour themselves.

Re:Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete decentralization may not be the cure, but some decentralization would definitely help. We currently have one big system far removed from the taxpayers & easily influenced by the companies it is supposed to regulate. Putting it closer to the taxpayers, and hence more visible/accountable would be a good step. When tens of millions/billions of dollars gets blown hundreds of miles away by some bureaucrats, citizens can't really do much about it. When the decisions are occurring at the state/local level waste gets much more attention and said bureaucrats get some very unpleasant questions from those citizens & the local press.

Re:Corruption

[Curunir_wolf]

Understand, I am not saying the feds are evil or bad. I am rather saying that they have information overload.

Actually, it's worse than that. The Federal justice system is a complete mess and totally corrupt.

Take the example of the Gibson Guitar raid, which according to the CEO was incited by Lumber Union protectionists. After years and hundreds of thousands spent in legal fees, the warrant is still sealed. Really. And this is the way the Federal Justice system has developed since the 1980's.

Now I'm no Randian, or Objectivist, but I did read Atlas Shrugged in my youth, and this situation reminds me of the national laws in that book, which were designed to ensure that they could always arrest anyone they wanted to, then find a law to charge them with. We're there now. But even Rand didn't envision the government passing secrecy provisions where you can send the swat team in to raid someone and you don't even need to tell them why.

"When you have a system predicated on jurisdictional interests rather than on specific, identifiable, understandable, definable violations of law, there is a great opportunity for tyranny."

Re:Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

Its worse then corruption... its incompetence.

Corruption is worse than incompetence. Incompetence fails because responsible parties either don't know or don't care enough to do their jobs. Corruption fails because responsible parties get paid not to do their jobs.

If incompetence is the problem, then the occasional good-two-shoes can have some influence. If corruption is the problem, then the existing structure will actively resist any reform. I've got news for you: there's incompetence at every level: government, business, even NGOs. The fraction of people who actually care about their jobs is trivial compared to the fraction who are just looking to get a paycheck. Look at us both, here on slashdot, when we could be doing something productive.

Managing large-scale projects isn't magic: it requires a hierarchical structure with accountability and auditing at every level. It requires benefits for good behavior and penalties for bad behavior. It is harmed by people who know they have 2 years to spend in the "job" as a political appointee, completely independent of their performance. (That's why all of these agencies are run by career bureaucrats and not by career politicians).

Re:Corruption

[cyberchondriac]

The Gibson factory raid was a complete and unjust fiasco; another example (somewhat like the IRS scandal) where an entity is harassed and punished for contributing to the republican caucus, under pretentious bullshit justifications; in this case, "Illegal" use of Indian rosewood... which other companies like Fender (which contributes to the Democrat cause) used with no penalty.

Re:Corruption

[cyberchondriac]

I don't know if you're trolling or serious, but honestly I don't trust either party that much, though I think originally those powers were granted with good intentions.
People are people; no group is solely saints nor demons. But lately I've seen a lot more dirty underhandedness from the left than from the right.

Re:Corruption

[dywolf]

We already see some of that happening already with the EPA etc just doing what they want indifferent to law, court orders, or public opinion. But it could get a lot worse.

you were doing well until this bit of BS.

Re:Corruption

[rpillala]

You're giving them too much credit by ascribing this kind of thing to incompetence. Politicians know what they're doing, or rather they know whom to trust to do what they want. And what they want is to get re-elected. It is impossible to ignore the constant state of re-election campaigning that goes on now. Fundraising and servicing lobbyists are the responsibilities we ought to lift. Not the actual work of government. I think Douglas McGregor described the administrative overhead that appears as an organization grows in size. In our case, the organization that's gaining in overhead cost is not government, but the country itself. Trying to dedicate fewer resources to a growing cost won't work.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

In regards to corruption, I didn't say it didn't exist. And I would agree in the Gibson case. That is clearly a break down in due process with the FBI.

However, if we're honest we'll see that sort of thing at every level of government.

Re:Corruption

[Curunir_wolf]

However, if we're honest we'll see that sort of thing at every level of government.

I don't agree with that. That is, yes, there is corruption, but at the local and state level the system of checks and balances seem to be working well, even if it sometimes requires appeals to federal courts to correct (which sounds ironic, but it's not when you see how things are playing out). Those checks have broken down once you have federal enforcers. The bureaucracies are so powerful they have become impossible to fight. Even getting a court to hear your case is difficult and expensive, as the agencies now have their own "hearing and review" divisions and the courts won't hear your case until you have "exhausted" the internal appeals. They can keep that going for years, which is why Gibson gave up without even getting to see the accusations.

Re:Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians are too worried about their next election to actually give a shit about any of this. Worse, they are too busy worrying about their next election to give a shit about anything that isn't going to be an election cycle buzzword. Do corporations have an extraordinary amount of power in political decisions? Yes. However, the reason is because their money gets politicians elected, not because government is designed around them.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

True, but consider if you will the mongol empire same thing... decentralized...

Point is that centralization is not scalable... if you want to have a big country you need to decentralize or collapse.

One of the two.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

Actually no. The EPA has repeatedly acted and regulated various things without congressional approval for it.

I really have no patience for a moronic political "ya huh, nu uh" debate on the internet right now. We'll just agree to disagree and move on.

Re:Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

Its worse then corruption... its incompetence. Basically its all too complicated for the limited number of politicians to manage and most of them don't really care anyway. So its all left to bureaucrats that often don't really have authority to do anything unless its kept quiet... which means there is a "don't rock the boat" mentality which means they just take the path of least resistance in all cases.

Now you could give them more authority... but then you wouldn't have even a fig leaf of democracy because you'd have a technocracy rather then a democracy. We already see some of that happening already with the EPA etc just doing what they want indifferent to law, court orders, or public opinion. But it could get a lot worse.

Truly, I think the solution is to scale back the government's authority or localize things more so the politicians aren't so overwhelmed with responsibilities. I really think they're just overwhelmed with the complexity of the system they're supposed to govern. So... simplify it by decentralizing it. Increase local autonomy and you if anything enhance democracy while improving efficiency.

Will corruption go away? No... it will just be more local instead of federal which I'm actually happier with because local corruption at least recognizes that the corrupt have to still live in the place they're being corrupt. If its done at the federal level then the corruption can profit people thousands of miles away that care nothing at all for the consequences.

All of this can be easily laid out for politicians to understand by experts from Universities, to Freedom Fighting organizations, ect... All of it in plain english for their incompetent minds to understand. You say " scale back the government's authority or localize things more so the politicians aren't so overwhelmed", but look at the infighting in Washington, it is always about running a puppet show for the Dem or Rep voters, little is actually being done. Anything that is done is is constantly under criticism because it is nothing more then a public display the bills/laws/courts that they do pass is to get the American people vote, it never goes far enough or it was poorly thought/written out then widely abused by any lawyer/court.

Scaling back would be great, you need to start with Federal Regulatory bodies/branches first because the abuse/arrogance/ignorance is far more rampant since there are no cameras around (c-span) to catch them in the act of something sinister, like corruption and abuse. If we lived in a """Democracy"" you would have organizations like the EFF, Public Utility Law Project, ect ect. running things, open/free and public funded organizations looking out for the public, and consulting politicians that like to act or pretend their to retarded to understand anything, besides bribes/lobbyists money/corporate stock portfolios..........

Re:Corruption

[Dragonslicer]

The EPA has repeatedly acted and regulated various things without congressional approval for it.

Considering the level of scientific knowledge demonstrated by Congress lately, is that a bad thing?

Re:Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm no Randian, or Objectivist, but I did read Atlas Shrugged in my youth, and this situation reminds me of the national laws in that book, which were designed to ensure that they could always arrest anyone they wanted to, then find a law to charge them with.

A few years ago, I took my son's cub scout troop to the local sheriff station. The deputy told the kids that at any given time, whatever they are doing, there is a law that regulates it. Pretty scary, people.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

Its only bad if you want to live in rule of law or democracy.

If you believe your various political causes are more important then freedom or rule of law then by all means... put a gun to the heads of your neighbors and threaten to shoot them all if they disagree... You're in the right after all... You know best... ... Right?

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

It really depends. In many areas you're quite right but in others the corruption is deep and institutional. Chicago ad New Orleans are examples of cities that really need to be utterly wiped politically and institutionally to have a chance at being clean.

Detroit is also quite bad I've heard.

But then many other areas are very clean... at the federal level you'll see much of the same... some people and organizations are corrupt and others are not.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

Some of them do... a lot of them don't.

Consider further that a lot of nasty corruption is itself the result of incompetence because they think their actions are innocent or they don't hurt anyone.

You see this a lot of with the bribes they'll take to give one company or another an advantage.

From their perspective it doesn't matter so they might as well take the money.

  What they don't understand is that it does matter because it distorts the market and changes business strategies to be less about providing goods and services and more about pleasing the right political powers. In societies where a lot of this goes on the quality of work goes down radically because the companies realize that its more important to keep the politicians happy then it is to do a good job.

The incompetent politicians don't understand this... yes, they're corrupt as well... but in my opinion most of the problems come from incompetence. Simply not understanding how everything fits together which allows them to rationalize corrupt behavior as benign when it really is quite destructive.

Re:Corruption

[thaylin]

The IRS scandal was just another made up scandal. Reports show that Dems were harassed just as much if not more than the repubs. Just goes to show you that you can trust the repubs just as much if not less than the dems.

Re:Corruption

[Curunir_wolf]

Yea, you make a good point about the islands of tinpot dictatorships.

Detroit is also quite bad I've heard.

That's why I've taken to calling it Detroilet.

Re:Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for fuck's sake...there is another word than then. That word is than. Learn it, love it, USE IT CORRECTLY. Damned near every post you've made has this error. You want to use a wall of words as a shield and a weapon at the same time but your skills as an author are sullied by your horrid grammar. I'm tired of listening to your retarded ass.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

you're right... I didn't poof read a post on the internet... forgive me...

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

I disagree. I'll take a corrupt politician any day over an incompetent one.

The corrupt politician at least knows what the right answer is and could very well control his corruption so that it does no serious harm. While an incompetent one can do the same or greater damage simply because they don't know what they're doing.

I grant that the relative evil of either is subjective. But in my personal opinion, incompetence is worse.

Re:Corruption

[geminidomino]

Its only bad if you want to live in rule of law or democracy.

What does Congress have to do with this mythical "rule of law" you guys are so fond of bringing up?

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

They make laws... They belong to something called the "legislative" branch, you ignorant boob.

Re:Corruption

[Gr8Apes]

The wires and the content must not be owned by the same people. Those who own the last mile must not have a vested interest to favour themselves.

This occurs automatically with small, localized ownership.

Re:Corruption

[geminidomino]

You mean those things that are selectively applied based on money, connections, and political expedience? Your vaunted "rule of law" is either a delusion, or leaves much to be desired.

Re:Corruption

[Karmashock]

Your cynicism as regards the honesty of the legislature leaves us with what?

Are you advocating for dictatorship or would you like to walk that back a bit?

Re:Corruption

[geminidomino]

Neither, I'm just calling bullshit on your "rule of law" fappery.

Re:Corruption

[dywolf]

Bull.
The EPA is an independent government agency.
They are not required to run to mommy for permission for everything they do.
FACT: The EPA Is Essentially Required To Regulate Carbon Emissions By Law.

Same goes for water and everything else they do. After all, what is the point of creating a independent national agency otherwise?

And "Agree to disagree" is the dodge of the ignorant who cannot support his position.

Here ya go, from http://mediamatters.org/resear...
You've been show the path to edumication, but will you take it?

Re:Corruption

[dywolf]

he also apparently doesnt understand the concept of a independent national regulatory agency, an agency specifically empowered to enact regulations with the force of law in a specific "theater of operations" (so to speak). he somehow thinks they are required to run to mommy for permission for everything they do, thereby uncercutting the entire concept of "independent". the entire point in being indepent is to keep them insulated from the pressures and vagaries of political "discourse", ie, lobbying and bribes, so they can actually do their job. an Envirnmental agency who can be pressured by the groups its meant to control is worthless. but apparently thats how Karmashock thinks it should be.

as i said: he's a fool

Who has senators/congressmen on the committee?

[spiritplumber]

They should be hammered with this. Make it simple, so that staffers can relay the information. Make it a net neutrality issue. Make it a no-pork issue. This is great news because it's a simple message. Someone needs to ask, at the right moment, "So Mr. Verizon Guy, were you bullshitting last year, or are you bullshitting now?"

Re:Who has senators/congressmen on the committee?

[ALeavitt]

Verizon does.

Law & Money

[Thanshin]

To expect that you can come in and use public infrastructure and funds to build a network and then be free of any regulation is absurd

To expect a government to take decisions based on reason, morality or legality is naive. In what regards corporations, the only law is money, the only lawyers are lobbyists and the only judges are (corrupt) politicians.

If Verizon has made about $4.4 billion in additional revenue in New York City alone, they clearly had enough to pay for a lot of campaigning, lobbying and bribery.

Re:Law & Money

[sumdumass]

Its not that simple.

First, verizon actually is deveral businesses in one. The internet portion is and has been considered an information service while telecommunications portion is regulated. The problem arises when those portions of the businessvare not separate from each other. The internet should be spun off into a subsidiary that leases access to the infrastructure to make it clear. Of course that would lead to others getting lessvrestricted access and cause competition.

It is the same problem with cable internet. Thecuse the regulated portion to build out infrastructure then ride the internet on top of it. It they were forced to separate and lease this out, there would be more competition for the internet all the way around.

But looking at verizon or comcast as one entity with obe type of product isn't accurate. The separation just needs to be more separated.

Re:Law & Money

[MrL0G1C]

Did you just type that with a 'smart' phone?

Re:Law & Money

[ThatsMyNick]

It would have taken him forever to type that on a 'dumb' phone (I remember the T9 keyboards). Smart phones still win despite their 'problems'.

Re:Law & Money

[Rich0]

The internet should be spun off into a subsidiary that leases access to the infrastructure to make it clear. Of course that would lead to others getting less restricted access and cause competition.

While I agree I'd go a step further. I'd completely split the last mile off of any kind of service provision. Have a utility provide a fiber/wire/whatever to each house from a central office. They would charge each house a flat rate if it is used at a rate based on cost - just like your water bill/etc.

Within the central office the utility would maintain coloc facilities and would charge a basic fee structure for anybody who wanted to put equipment in there, and for the attachment of connections to individual homes.

I'd also have a standardized protocol for multiplexing multiple services over the cable.

Beyond that it is anything goes. If somebody wants to deliver video/phone/internet/whatever over that wire they can have at it and charge whatever they want to for the service. That side of the business would be completely de-regulated, and the last-mile would be completely common carrier. For the cost of a router and the colo fee and uplink you could run your own ISP for a small town if you wanted to.

Re:Law & Money

[Anonymous Coward]

blackberry physical keyboard FTW

Re:Law & Money

[aaarrrgggh]

Well put. GTE became Verizon Global Networks and was a very separate division. As it became integrated and FIOS was rolled out things became very difficult. They obviously chose a favorable way to request treatment, which should be expected. If they didn't have that support, they would have pulled FTTN and limited how much they were willing to spend going to the home. In the end, it would have set things back more.

But, the government should only allow a limited time monopoly for these services. Phase in competition over the infrastructure to encourage competition, higher levels of service, and lower costs.

The decision doesn't have to be binary.

Re:Law & Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Just no. Unless you have small thumbs. And a tiny penis.

Re:Law & Money

[sumdumass]

Yes.. i need to stop doing that too.

Re:Law & Money

[orgelspieler]

um... you're doing it wrong.

Re:Law & Money

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's a dumbass. It's in his fucking name!

Re:Law & Money

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to stop talking completely is what you need to do.

Re:Law & Money

[Anonymous Coward]

And I remember Nokia E7's keyboard. Still the best thing that had happened to the phones with touchscreen.

Re:Law & Money

[sumdumass]

Nah.. if you cannot deal with an opinion different from yours or facts you wish to forget, it is problably you who should shut up and listen more.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[some old guy]

Bullshit. Money knows no party affiliation, and your sainted Democrats are equally as corrupt.

The only difference between the two faces of the Oligarch Party is the range of hot-button issues they use to create an illusion of real choice.

Block their cookies

[paiute]

If I leave a package of Oreos on the floor and a toddler with no impulse control and no reason to have impulse control at that age anyway gets into the package and eats them all, is it the toddler's fault for being a toddler or is it my fault for leaving the goddamn cookies on the floor?

Re:Block their cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

Toddler's parents fault. Oh wait, your analogy fell apart.

If we're going to expect the same behavior as toddlers with no impulse control from organizations run by supposedly non-sociopathic, responsible adults, we really need to rethink how we handle criminal behavior of said organizations.

Re:Block their cookies

[mimino]

Now imagine that the toddler somehow was responsible for forcing you to put the cookies on the floor and then to leave them unattended. Using something like lobbying.

Re:Block their cookies

[Thruen]

How did it fall apart? I think his point was it's up to the parents to keep the Oreos out of reach, much like how the government should do something to prevent this behavior by Verizon.

And we don't just expect these organizations to behave like toddlers with no impulse control, we watch it happen regularly, and we certainly do need to rethink how we handle their criminal behavior. As for them not being run by sociopaths, isn't it already established that sociopaths are ideal candidates for upper management positions like CEO? If they had morals like good people, we wouldn't need to regulate the crap out of them, they'd feel bad screwing us all over.

Re:Block their cookies

[jesseck]

By throwing a temper tantrum until you cave and leave the cookies on the floor? At that point, you didn't give the toddler the cookies... you just placed them where the toddler would be pacified. The toddler is the one who abused your "trust".

That sounds a lot like politics... "I sponsored this bill, but I didn't realize it would be used for this."

Re:Block their cookies

[Jason Levine]

Didn't the author of the Patriot Act say that recently. He was shocked, shocked! that his bill is being used/abused in the manner that detractors of the bill have been saying it would be for years.

Re:Block their cookies

[jesseck]

Yes, he did... that was exactly who I was thinking of.

Re:Block their cookies

[PPH]

By throwing a temper tantrum until you cave and leave the cookies on the floor?

This toddler has enough money to see to it that his current parents are voted out and replaced by more compliant parents in the next term.

End result: The cookies will be left on the floor. Either by you or your replacement.

Re:Block their cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

"How did it fall apart?"

I would suggest that it fell apart the moment that it was suggested that the corporations were analogous to toddlers & the government was analogous to a parent. At best their both toddlers fighting over the package on the floor, at worse the corporations are analogous to a somewhat older child waiving around a shiny object in front of the toddler (government) to distract them while they swipe most of the Oreos.

Re:Block their cookies

[sjames]

More to the point, we need to reconsider how much autonomy we grant them. For a few examples, toddlers cannot sue people or handle their own money. They certainly aren't allowed to handle anything that could injure someone (or themselves) and they are not permitted to have an actual job outside of the immediate family.

Perhaps if the corporations want to behave like they're two years old, they shouldn't be allowed to be more than a social club. Telecommunications is too important to entrust to a toddler.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Black Parrot]

Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison.

Fair? FAIR?!

[korbulon]

Who said the world was fair? Rules and laws only apply to those too meek to resist.

Mark my words: the worst that happens to Verizon is a finger-wagging and maybe a slap-on-the-wrist fine.

The most traditional pass time is...

[phamNewan]

Isn't running circles around government regulation the oldest pass time in America. Look back at how effectively the Stamp Act was circumvented, 250 years ago. The more complex the laws gets, the easier it is to get away with things like this, because even the government can't sort through the complexity of the laws.

The solution is not more regulation, but simplifying it. If a corporation can make billions, by simply hiring 50 lawyers, or 500, to find a way to make billions, that is huge return on investment. Anyone who expects an efficient and responsive government is dreaming. The only effective solution is to make it so simple, that dodging becomes impractical.

Re:The most traditional pass time is...

[Mr D from 63]

The solution is not more regulation, but simplifying it. .

Bingo! Simplify, apply equally, and enforce.

Re:The most traditional pass time is...

[dinfinity]

The only effective solution is to make [regulation] so simple, that dodging becomes unnecessary.

FTFY.

Regulation (and legalese in general) becomes complex because it has to deal with all the crazy ways that creative, highly motivated, self-interested entities will find to circumvent it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that more complex regulation is better. Regulation should be as simple as possible. The key to that sentence and the problem in your understanding of this matter lies in the last part: 'as possible'. Everybody can yell 'Well, just have every x below parameter y be illegal! Problem solved!' until they are confronted with a case for which their simple rule does not solve the problem.

Relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/793/

Re:The most traditional pass time is...

[PPH]

Simple regulation can still be quite onerous. That's why industries lobby for exemptions for special cases. Low profit, high cost markets could not be served were the providers held to the same requirements that higher revenue markets are. And then the corporations start gaming the system.

What we need are less burdensome regulations with clear goals. You want more rural service? Relieve the providers of some of the urban regulations. But then watch them to make sure they aren't playing with definitions.* We also need smarter regulators who are motivated to serve the public rather than seek big future paychecks from businesses under their jurisdiction.**

*A power company I used to work for defined a rather significant city in Washington State as a rural area so as noto to be obliged to increase service reliability there.

**But then 'troublemakers' like this are the first ones to either be hired away by businesses. Just to get them out of the way. Failing that, business lobbies Congress to have them removed.

Bona fide carrier

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

When Verizon itself is describing these activities as a Title II common carrier, how can the FCC look at broadband internet and continueacting as though it's not a telecommunication network?

"Ha ha," he nelsoned.

Reminds me of the WWE, who declared themselves "not a bona fide athletic competition" so they wouldn't have to pay for ambulances on standby*, officially answering once and for all the great debate.

* For the athletes. I'm sure they have ambulances on standby for the dozen or so fat audience members who have heart attacks every stadium-full.

false equivalence_check the policy votes

[globaljustin]

good...let's get the false equivalence of arguments fallacy out of the way right now...

The only difference between the two faces of the Oligarch Party is the range of hot-button issues they use to create an illusion of real choice.

we can check this...we can look at the votes on *actual policy* and see which party votes for dumb wedge issues (creationism in textbooks, anti-abortion) and to enrich oligarchs by deregulating...deregulation is a Republican philosophy

obviously money influences all politicians...just because that fact is true does not mean that one party cannot be dramatically and irredeemably more corrupt

Republicans are, by policy vote which is 100% checkable, the party that supports Oligarchs and conjures artificial budget scarcity to justify cutting funding to government programs that help people who are not Oligarchs

Re:false equivalence_check the policy votes

[Anonymous Coward]

A shining example of blind, willful, hateful ignorance. Go fester in stupidity.

Re:false equivalence_check the policy votes

[Richy_T]

They're only dumb wedge issues when they're not your wedge issues.

Re:false equivalence_check the policy votes

[dywolf]

Bingo. Mod up.

Re:false equivalence_check the policy votes

[dywolf]

Which party is trying to cut food stamps and unemployment when its a known fact these things helps slow and arrest the falling economy?
Which party thinks the poor deserve their fate, and if they die younger, poorer, and more often to violence "oh well its a cultural problem"?
Which party reguarly use dogwhistle attacks to appeal to racism, or openly ponders if certain folks were better off as slaves?
Which party regularly denies basic science because "God said so"?
Which party supports basic rights only for WASHPs and only when convenient, and which supports it for all persons at all times even for people they rather dislike?
You go away gutless AC.

Re:false equivalence_check the policy votes

[kaatochacha]

"Cut unemployment", meaning put an end to the increasing length of time unemployment benefits have been extended. One might also ask "Which party wants a permanent underclass of people dependent on unemployment aid"?

Checking off the old standbys:
racism mentioned: check!
Downtrodden downtrodden further: Check!
Slavery mentioned: Check!

WTF is a WASHP BTW?

I think you need to de-partisan yourself a bit.

Re:false equivalence_check the policy votes

[dywolf]

"Cut unemployment", meaning put an end to the increasing length of time unemployment benefits have been extended. One might also ask "Which party wants a permanent underclass of people dependent on unemployment aid"?

You really asked that?
The answer is republicans and their big business partners of course!
Tool.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Anonymous Coward]

From a European perspective the only difference is that the Democrats at least give lip service to being decent human beings, the republicans truly don't give a fuck.

Once they get in they're both as bad as each other though.

Follow the money

[Vinegar Joe]

Verizon "as paid to Obama and legislative leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his predecessor, former Rep. Roy Blunt (now a senator), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as well as to members of four congressional committees charged with developing the laws governing its business.

The President’s re-election campaign and groups tied to it have been the largest single recipients of the company’s aid, the study found, taking in nearly $224,000. Obama has spoken repeatedly of his support for Net Neutrality but the issue received little attention during his successful re-election drive last year and he’s had little to say about it during his second term."

http://www.commondreams.org/ne...

Re:Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

But Reid is a DINO so you can blame the Republicans for everything bad he has done.

Re:Follow the money

[Richy_T]

Seriously?

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Attila Dimedici]

You are absolutely correct that there is no comparison when it comes to ruling for the moneyed interests. All you have to do is look at which party the moneyed interests make their home. Let's see, John Corzine, Tom Steyer. George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, to name just a few.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[sabbede]

Goldman Sachs and the Democrats: Best Friends Forever.

Re:such deceptiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

such deceptiveness - is the organisation run by Muslims?

Are ACs governed by Doges? - much butt-hurt

I can't blame them...

[sabbede]

...for using whatever argument they can to further their interests. That they are contradictory or just plain BS is another matter entirely.

Which is not to suggest that I think they are behaving as anything other than jerks; just that they are being rational about it.

I think we need to fix the regulations.

Re:I can't blame them...

[thaylin]

By that logic you cannot blame a robere, as what he is doing may be in his best interest.

Re:I can't blame them...

[CrimsonAvenger]

you cannot blame a robere

What the hell is a "robere"? Besides a French surname, I mean...

Re:I can't blame them...

[sabbede]

Ah, but the robber is breaking the law, Verizon is using the law. A key distinction.

Blame two parties for electing immoral idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the fracking two party system is part of what got us into this mess. If you want change, then go make it yourself, or find someone that neither party can dictate terms to. Find an independent, libertarian, anarchist, bull moose, pirate party, it doesn't matter who, just so long as they have morals they stand by despite those excluding them from the big parties. You have a choice, you owe it to everyone else to not just consider two options, but to look at them all before you make a decision that will effect people for at least two years, and may haunt them for the rest of their lives. If I gave you the options to elect Gengis Khan, or Pol Pot, would you really make that choice? Or would you write in a candidate who is fit for the office? We have politicians with the governing ability of children, easily swayed by candy, incapable of making hard choices, stubborn as h**l, with a lack of honesty and sense to match.

I charge you sir, as a person capable of voting, to act as my proxy in electing a government capable of earning back the respect it has squandered, fixing this mess we've made of this country, respecting a persons freedom to choose a lifestyle, and most importantly, behaving in a manner that if they were your neighbor you wouldn't want to hurt them. Can you do that? Or is it too much for a child to ask of a grown man that he take responsibility for the consequences of his and others actions on their behalf? Is it too much for us youth to ask that you deliver into our hands a country we can be proud of? Rather than a source of constant shame, a joke that is refered to as the "Free world", a country where we reward people for producing more drains on society, where we can't take safe guarding our rights into our own hands, where the best men and women go off to be killed to protect this festering boil of a culture, where pricks picket the funerals of hero's and I can't go and be mad at them, where we take half measures as drastic action. I charge you to fix this country, so that no more children have to become like me, bitter, cynical, paranoid, faithless, pessimistic, and almost without hope. Are you capable? Or do you find hardwork to be too much of a challenge for you? Leave the next generation a gift, not a curse. Please sir, I beg you on the behalf of those who will need these changes in years to come, act. Before they become more entrenched.

Re:Blame two parties for electing immoral idiots.

[Richy_T]

I think a different game needs to be played. The two party system needs to be broken by any means necessary, even if it means voting for people that you would otherwise consider unpalatable. Unfortunately, there are too many "lesser of two evils" dufuses out there.

Re:Blame two parties for electing immoral idiots.

[Zynder]

So you ask for a lesser of 3 evils? Or 4 or 5? How many does it take to make it not evil anymore? I ask all of this, not in disagreement, but I'd like to know how you'd actually fix it. I hear the tidbit rally cry one-liners all the time but when it's time to put nose to grindstone, most have no actual plan.

Re:Blame two parties for electing immoral idiots.

[Richy_T]

There is no plan but if it were possible to have one, it would probably be something along the lines of voting for the most likely or most palatable that is *not* a D or R even if they *are* the most evil. At this stage, even a "less evil" D or R is an enabler for the evillest ones.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Mashiki]

Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison.

You're right bullshit. Wanna go look at who the biggest recivers of money from media, pharmaceuticals, and wall street is? Give ya a hint, it's not the republicans.

Seriously, if I can find this shit and I don't even live in the US I guess it's easier to say "fucking partisan hack."

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Anonymous Coward]

Koch bothers and every other billionaire NOT on your list donates to the Republicans.

Never the less, going back and forth, naming names is pointless; since the bulk of done via corporate entities to skirt election funding laws and to keep the anonymity of the money.

Let's look at an actual list of organizations (where the bulk of the money comes from) and see what's up.

And let's look at the most famous case of big money getting into politics, Citizens United where their goals are

"assert American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security."

Now what party wants - at least on its public face - strong families, limited Government, and freedom of enterprise?

Hmmmm, it's not the Democrats. Which leaves,....

Quite easily ...

[gstoddart]

When Verizon itself is describing these activities as a Title II common carrier, how can the FCC look at broadband internet and continue acting as though it's not a telecommunication network?'

Because the head of the FCC is a former cable and wireless lobbyist.

Wheeler knows all of the dirty tricks these companies use, likely because he was involved in them. Which means there is no way as the chief of the FCC he isn't aware of these shenanigans.

Which means he's quietly happy to allow it, knowing that when he finished his term at the FCC there will be some big fat checks waiting for him for all of his help through the years.

In other words, your regulatory system is broken when you start appointing lobbyists to be your regulators.

It's the fox guarding the hen house. You might as well appoint Bernie Madoff as the head of the SEC.

Re:Quite easily ...

[Sir_Eptishous]

I can't believe an avalanche of "Yea, but you have to appoint former industry bigwigs as regulators because they're the only ones who really understand industry" replies haven't shown up yet.

It appears the lobbyist apologists are slipping here on slashdot...

Wheeler knows all of this

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

He has worked deep in telecom, and with Verizon. He already knows all of this, and is just playing a game with us. This is all a show, smoke and mirrors. Wheeler and gang decided this long ago, probably before he was ever appointed. I've watched the way the FCC treated anyone at their "public comments meeting" that stood up and spoke out - they where all escorted out of the room without even finishing what they were saying.

This is all lip service. Every single American could march in the street, and threaten to burn down every FCC office, TV station and radio broadcast system, and net neutrality will still loose. However, the blow back from this could be intense. "fast lanes" for corps sounds like a very juicy target, thanks for separating all those packets for Anonymous.

Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobbyist and lawyers.

I got a subsidized ball

[Anonymous Coward]

So I have this really nice ball, and it was partially funded by the taxpayer. But now i dont want any of the negative outcomes of the regulations of those same subsidies. and if you guys make me comply with those regulations, i'm taking my ball and i'm going home * WAAAAAHH!!!*

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we need to fix the regulations.

Obviously.

But how, when they - Verizon and the whole industry - doesn't want to fix anything. They want the status quo because they are making bucket loads of money.

Net Neutrality. That should be an open and shut case. Right?

Nooooooo. The ISPs - like Verizon - lobbied heavily to make sure it doesn't happen.

With big money corrupting politics, we the people have very little control over what our government does.

Public Utility

[rossdee]

So if they are a public utility they get to charge 10 x the amount shown on the dice

No to decentralization

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

As bad as politicians are at the federal level, they're even worse at state and local levels. The state where I live has a problem that all the neighboring states have too so I can only assume that it's like this everywhere in the USA. Basically our state Senators and Representatives are grossly incompetent and spend most of their time debating things and passing bills that have little use to the average citizen. The only reason that anything useful gets done at all is because we've had a tradition of (mostly) strong and competent governors who force through the really meaningful stuff. I don't believe for a minute that moving the authority away from the federal level and down to the state level would make things better.

Re:No to decentralization

[Karmashock]

Its the same thing at the federal level, they just have more power. That's the only difference.

And in large part your state government is passing laws about nothing because 1A they meet too often and 2B they have less power then they use to because the fed has taken most of it over time.

Education policy for example used to be exclusively a state issue. Now its increasingly a federal issue which means states have less and less control over their education policy.

never mind that many states have never really had a problem with education and did quite well without federal oversight.

True, some did... but imposing rules on all states often creates a one size fits all situation that tends to be a compromise between very different situations and therefore tends to suit no one properly.

If specific states have a problem those specific states need to correct it. Don't drag every state into a giant federal clusterfuck simply because some states are run by halfwits.

Re:No to decentralization

[dywolf]

If specific states have a problem those specific states need to correct it. Don't drag every state into a giant federal clusterfuck simply because some states are run by halfwits.

then dont assume all central regulation is bad just because one current chairman is a former lobbyist toadie without the stones to use existing regulations to what should be done and label ISPs under Title 2.

two can play that game, and I'll win, because regardless of what you may think most government programs are actually successful and achieve the goals they set out to accomplish. and most actually go away once their mandate is met. several dozen come and go every year and you never hear of them, because most of them ARENT the social security's, the medicares, etc.

calls for decentraliziation are not much different from calls for privatization. there are limited cases where it might be warranted but by and large its a useless misdirection because subordinate personel and agencies ALREADY have sufficient autonomy to do their jobs and meet the minimum goals or standard set, and considerable discretion to beyond their mandates in limited ways (and answerable when they go beyond and fail). It's called Delegation and its a form of decentralizaion. We already have that. actually we have more than that: You want total segragation with each state being totally independent, with 50 different standards. We actually have that already too, but its not completely segregated because by and large they are still united by a common minimum standard or framework from the Federal level. You seem to want to abolish even that.

Thats nonsense. In all, you dont seem to actually know what youre talking about. You think the EPA is a technocracy, a rogue agency. You dont seem to actually know what state legislatures are doing or what they talk about, or how often they actually meet (hint: most of them dont actually meet 5 days a week 52 weeks a year). states have TREMENDOUS control over their school systems, and many states pass that control down to the cities and counties. The states micromanage their schools far more than the fed does; all the fed really does is contribute cash. Thats it. Literally. We have one of the most decentralized educational systems in the world.

The US Department of Education itself dictates NOTHING to the states. It exists almost solely to funnel the federal funding allocated by congress to the state departments of education. They also get to enforce federal civil rights and privacy laws regarding schools, cheifly in regards to Universities. The only real federal standard in this area is NCLB which came from Congress. Actual enforcement of standards is handled through accredidation, a process which the USDOE is completely uninvolved in.

So I say again: you post many words, but you say little of merit or value.
You quite literally don't know what youre talking about.

Re:No to decentralization

[Karmashock]

As to not assuming, you weren't paying attention.

Allow me to repeat, indifferent to whether the federal regulation is bad for every single state, if it can be done at the state level then it is likely destructive to the independence of those states.

While you can overrule badly run states with federal policy, keep in mind that you're also overruling well run states with the same policy which has the effect of constraining them to whatever the federal government wants to do. Lets say for example a given state wants to do an even better job then the federal government plans on doing... well, your excessive control prevents that.

or lets say they want to do just as good a job but do it in a way that is slightly different or or unique or superior for their area... you've prevented that.

As such, while the regulation might help badly run states it harms states that are both neutral and superior.

It is not worth it. What you want to do instead is fix the broken states individually rather then impose some giant federal program on all of them.

Do you know why the government rarely does that? It takes more work... and they're lazy. I suspect you'd have no patience for it either which really just underscores why you shouldn't do it because if you don't have the patience to do it right then you have no business doing it at all.

As to what I might think about government regulation and its successes... Every government program that has ever existed has been a success... as described by the people that passed it.

The most fucked up joke of a program that wasted money and accomplished nothing was still cited as a success by the people that passed it.

That is politics. And if we start quoting programs back at each other that's all you're going to do... so why don't we just skip the mindless parroted talking points from that tape recorder between your ears masquerading as a brain... and just agree to disagree on that particular bit of drivel.

As to privatization being evil, I'd like to know where you'd draw the line and why... why not for example nationalize everything? Total state control of every enterprise and industry.

Would you support that? Just curious where you'd stop.

And if you wouldn't nationalize everything, what wouldn't you nationalize and why?

And please, keep in mind that I will be looking for the proverbial slippery slope in your definition. So please try to have a hard and clean separation between what is okay to nationalize and what is not. Otherwise, I'll start picking at it and either show that things you want nationalized don't fall under that definition or vice versa. So please, have a clean definition that doesn't allow for that.

As to the EPA being rogue, they've repeatedly acted without congressional approval and pushed the boundaries of their mandate. That much is recorded fact.

I will not say they're rogue... I will say they've exceeded their authority repeatedly.

As to the department of education not dictating things but only funneling money, that is a half truth. The department of education dictates policy in return for funds. That is, states comply with it not because they must but because they don't get federal grants if they don't.

And given that their citizens pay federal taxes to fund the Dept of Education that means that if the states do not comply money will leave their state and proportionately go to other states.

Thus most states comply with the rules even if they don't like them because of that money pressure.

If you forced the Dept of Edu to grant the funds indifferent to compliance or removed the ability of the dept of edu to disperse funds or refunded taxes taken from states that decided not to comply... that would change the situation.

However, under the current circumstances states are at a disadvantage if they refuse the programs and the money because they pay for them effectively whether they comply or not.

As to your various pathetic insults... you must know that

Re:No to decentralization

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with drywolf for once in my Slashdot existence (that's why I posted this AC, gotta keep up appearances and all): You say a lot of words but don't really say anything at all. I see when you got backed into a corner here you just used a bigger wall of words for defense. They still said nothing of value because we've already tried it your way, way way way back before you were an accident. We've got awesome stories about civil wars, mass indian killings, railroad companies run amok, the wild west and so much more. They had practical full authority and what did they do? Company towns, Standard Oil, George Hearst...I could go on for days. When you have an unruly bunch of children and reasoning and bribing them fails to work any longer, you whip their little asses and put them in bed. I've got a new belt and feel like swinging...

Re:No to decentralization

[Karmashock]

You say I use a lot of words but don't say anything with them yet ironically neither of you presented a counter argument or refuted my argument in my post.

The unfortunate fact here is that I did offer an argument and a basis for that argument and your comment to my argument contains no substance what so ever. You make an accusation and do not back it up.

Kindly back up your position immediately or I will be justified in assuming you have no basis for this claim and thus your accusation will be void by default.

Defend your position or it is forfeit. I repeat myself so you understand... the fact that you read my post and found no content suggests a fundamental lack of reading comprehension.

Reminds me of the airline industry....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

They classify themselves as either a "commodity" or as a "service" depending on what they want to take advantage of.

Re: blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so sick of people thinking they are making an intelligent comment while blaming one part or the other. They are the same party. Bought and paid for by the same monied interests. The differences are only superficial.

If you can't see this, please stop breeding immediately.

Verizon and New Hampshire

[Anonymous Coward]

In New Hampshire, Verizon (land based, not Verizon Wireless which is their cell phone arm) got huge concessions from the Public Utilities Commission based on the promise of rolling out fiber across the state. After they reaped the benefit of those, and rolled out fiber in Nashua, repeatedly delayed rollout elsewhere in the state and then they sold all their "stranded assets" to Fairpoint and exited the state. Apparently when they got the concessions to roll out fiber, they didn't realize the relatively low population density would cause them problems, but they did figure it out later. Why didn't NH PUC recoup the resources that Verizon got under false pretenses?

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Rich0]

Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison.

While the Republicans seem to pull in more money, there are certainly moneyed interests that invest heavily in the Democrats. The **AA and unions come to mind for starters. Then you have stuff like ethanol additives to the fuel which is something both parties can agree to as long as it means paying more for corn.

Sounds like fraud to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is also a good reason to declare all communications services as "common carrier", and then an anti-trust lawsuit to force a split between communications and media.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[cyberchondriac]

The Koch brothers also donate to the Democrats. A lot.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/d...
http://www.americanthinker.com...

Class-Action Lawsuit Time!

[Khyber]

Well, if the PULP lawyers see this, why the fuck aren't they filing suit for the American People?

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Richy_T]

Corrupt government causing problems? Solution?

MORE GOVERNMENT!!!!!

When you're in a hole, keep digging. Sooner or later the walls will fall in on you and you won't have a problem anymore.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Richy_T]

Yep, the corruption is so bad that the only way for even an honest business to stay on top is to pay off both sides.

Nothing new under the sun.

[lfp98]

A real eye-opener, and almost an exact replay of the Credit Mobilier railroad scheme of the 1860s: A government-regulated corporation receives a monopoly franchise as well as generous subsidies from the government, yet still manages to rack up huge losses because so much of the money is siphoned off to other ventures, while a few of the principals accumulate astronomical wealth.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Anonymous Coward]

The CEO of Comcast golfs with Obama.

If left-wingers want to bring right-wingers onto the regulate-the-telecoms bandwagon, then they have to drop the excessive rants against capitalism. There are effective arguments for regulating the industry, but just shouting "corporations are the devil" isn't a solution. A solution is vertical separation of content providers and internet service providers. A solution is last-mile rules. A solution is outlawing new copper lines (to force companies to lay fiber). A solution is to induce competition in virtual ISPs.

The problem is that the cable companies don't really work for their consumers. It's sort of like broadcast television. You sell advertising to companies based on viewership. The numbers matter more than if consumers are happy. An example of this is they Disney/Time Warner dispute over pricing. Time Warner decided to block the channel and put up a message "Disney Has Taken ABC Away From You". How the hell does that help consumers? They want to watch television and the two companies are playing games. It's sort of like the Comcast-Netflix dispute (though Netflix is probably in the moral right here).

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Dragonslicer]

Or you can climb out of the hole, where Godzilla is waiting for a snack.

Arguments about the exact depth of the hole are a distraction from working towards a properly constructed hole.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[whistlingtony]

I can tell you are partisan, because you made NO attempt to name any names that donated to the republican party. I'm not saying the Ds are innocent. I'm only saying that your comment is clearly biased. Do you think we can't find big donors for the Rs? Which do you think pulls in more money from special interests? I'm sure the data is there to find, and we can look at it in an unbiased manner instead of just spouting your own opinion as if it's fact.

Lets go to OpenSecrets: http://www.opensecrets.org/ove... Now, I'm not sure this list includes dark money, or money funneled through PACs, which don't have to disclose their donors...

Now, if you're sick of this, why not do something about it? Join Wolf-PAC.com or look up the MayDay PAC. Help out. Volunteer.

Congress has a 10% approval rating. Yet 100% of the folks up for reelection won. We have less than 50% voter turnout. If those lazy slobs all voted independant, we'd have a completely different country. The country's problems are clearly OUR FAULT.

Everyone talks a big game about revolution, but we can't get 50% of the country to put in a few hours effort every few years to clean out congress. It's pretty fuck'in sad really. Apathy sucks.

Also, people that don't vote shouldn't have any right to complain, IMO.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[whistlingtony]

Your comments mean nothing without data backing them up. Actually, MOST of these comments mean nothing. They are factless assertions. Lets see some numbers. I think you'll be surprised how much money Wall Street splashes around, and how evenly it gets splashed.... Big Pharma gives out PLENTY to everyone. I don't think the media actually donates that much. I think you meant Hollywood. Anyway. Data or it didn't happen.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[ewieling]

It used to be so simple. Democrats wanted heavy regulation of business and light regulation of what I do in my bedroom. The Republicans wanted light regulation of business and heavy regulation of what I do in my bedroom. There are exceptions to both generalizations, of course.

These days the Republications want to privatize profits and socialize risk. The Democrats are a bunch of spineless wankers. Both are entirely useless for anything but looking foolish.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Attila Dimedici]

The person I replied to said the following: "Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison." Yet, you responded to me, not to them. Which tells me that you are just as partisan as you claim that I am. For the record, I do not particularly like the Republicans, but they at least pretend to believe that people can take care of themselves. The Democrats openly proclaim that the "little people" need them, the elites, to take care of them.

Net Neutrality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me be very clear. The concept of net neutrality is that the Internet is just fine the way it is and needs to be left alone. BUT...

Mr. Obama and his FCC, came up with a plan to seize control over the Internet, and they called this plan "Net Neutrality". That's right, they gave it the same name, so they can say they are for net neutrality and claim they are protecting you, at the same time, they can say everybody supported their "Net Neutrality" plan, all because of this tricky wording.

Under their "Net Neutrality" plan, the FCC would have regulatory control over the Internet, just like Obamacare controls healthcare, and the Safe Act is to control firearms, and the Freedom Act is to control your free speech, and the Citizens United grants authority and power to corporations over you. And soon there will be an Affordable Education Act, or something similar.

I don't want corporations throttling back my bandwidth by 20% just for me to access Youtube, but I don't want them charging me 20% more to access youtube either.

I don't want the FCC to require the ISPs to keep copies of all my Internet activities, so police can just ask THEM for it, without a warrant.

I don't want any kind of censorship of my internet post, or videos, or of the news I watch, etc.

I will not accept nor tolerate any government control over the Internet.

Re:Net Neutrality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me be very clear. The concept of net neutrality is that the Internet is just fine the way it is and needs to be left alone. BUT...

Mr. Obama and his FCC, came up with a plan to seize control over the Internet, and they called this plan "Net Neutrality". That's right, they gave it the same name, so they can say they are for net neutrality and claim they are protecting you, at the same time, they can say everybody supported their "Net Neutrality" plan, all because of this tricky wording.

Under their "Net Neutrality" plan, the FCC would have regulatory control over the Internet, just like Obamacare controls healthcare, and the Safe Act is to control firearms, and the Freedom Act is to control your free speech, and the Citizens United grants authority and power to corporations over you. And soon there will be an Affordable Education Act, or something similar.

I don't want corporations throttling back my bandwidth by 20% just for me to access Youtube, but I don't want them charging me 20% more to access youtube either.

I don't want the FCC to require the ISPs to keep copies of all my Internet activities, so police can just ask THEM for it, without a warrant.

I don't want any kind of censorship of my internet post, or videos, or of the news I watch, etc.

I will not accept nor tolerate any government control over the Internet.

All of these comments about Obama programs could be best summed up with 1 word: "doublespeak"

If you have read "1984", then you know what the quoted poster is saying here, right?

Said another way. If you think you have any control over the world around you in the USA, think again. You don't. You only control if you live or die, so suicide is still a (and perhaps the "only"?) viable option if you don't like what's going on in the US government today.

Other than suicide, get used to "getting it...raw, long, and hard...and without any lubricant at all"....

Resistence is Futile

[Zynder]

It looks like apathy but in actuality it is futility. Shit is fucked up. I agree. You agree. We also both agree things are corrupted beyond what many imagine. So using your data set and going with the mega-corruption angle, are you really surprised that all of the runners got elected regardless of what we want? And how many times do we as a nation have to keep trying the same thing to see if we get a different result? You complain we gave up? In any other conversation on here, you'd say it was lunacy but still you want us to keep on voting. Shit is broken. The only way it'll get fixed is to break it so badly the "haves" can't use it. Then they'll care just enough to throw us some scraps and we'll shut the hell up for 20 more years until we're back on here bitching about the same subjects again.

Also, people that don't vote shouldn't have any right to complain, IMO.

Old man, go fuck yourself. Really. I served this country's military to support your right to sit here and call me an asshole. I also served it to support your right to vote- or not to vote- whichever you prefer. I'll complain as much as I want cause freedom and shit. You did serve too, right? If you didn't? Oh well fuck I guess you don't have a right to complain or vote about anything either. But wait, that isn't how this country works is it? We defend the meek with the mighty but don't force them into our servitude because of it. They get the same rights to be miserable and downtrodden upon just the same as the rest of us. In this country, the lack of money is what earns you some servitude, just like it has for the past forever.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Anonymous Coward]

Cherry picking for your side. Wanna go look at who the biggest receivers of money from energy, weaponry, and banking is? Give ya a hint, it's not the Democrats.

Re:blame Republicans for Robber Barons

[Zynder]

Arguments about the exact depth of the hole are a distraction from working towards a properly constructed hole

Spoken like a true engineer even if you aren't one! I salute you!