Slashdot Mirror
Why the FCC Is Likely To Ignore Net Neutrality Comments and Listen To ISPs
Jason Koebler writes: Time and time again, federal agencies like the FCC ignore what the public says it wants and side with the parties actually being regulated — the ISPs, in this case. Research and past example prove that there's not much that can be considered democratic about the public comment period or its aftermath. "Typically, there are a score or so of lengthy comments that include extensive data, analysis, and arguments. Courts require agencies to respond to comments of that type, and they sometimes persuade an agency to take an action that differs from its proposal," Richard Pierce, a George Washington University regulatory law professor said. "Those comments invariably come from companies with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars at stake or the lawyers and trade associations that represent them. Those are the only comments that have any chance of persuading an agency."
I am shocked, Shocked I say.
'...time and time again, federal agencies like the FCC ignore what the public says it wants and side with the parties actually being regulated...' This is because the FCC -- just like the CRTC here in Canada -- are run by former employees of the companies, and will side with their former employer every time, as they'd rather help them than the public at large. It boils down to conflict of interest, but nothing is ever done about it.
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
...where she stops, everybody knows. They are going to listen to the ISPs because the current head of the FCC is the former head of a communications lobby group, and the current head of a communications lobby group is the former head of the FCC.
And corporations are people, my friend...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Turn the EFF into the NRA of online rights. If the EFF had 5,000,000 dues paying, donating, voting, vocal, invested members, we wouldn't be having these discussions about ISPs writing their own laws. The hardest part is already done: organizing some people who know what they're doing into what is now the EFF.
People just need to decide that their rights are worth at least $25/year.
Herein lies the kicker. Yep, Wheeler was placed there specifically for that purpose. It's an old Scientologist trick. They couldn't get the OK as far as their tax exempt status so they got their own people hired into those positions in order to make the decision in their favor. And, you know what? You can't do anything about it other than try to show proof that they did so with that intent, the intent to subvert the democratic process. It is a subversion of it but they know you can't do anything about it, so all they have to do is feign the desire to have the public concern heard even if they never intended to listen, and then make the decision in the ISP's favor. Wheeler, and his masters, knows that once the decision is made it will take Congress to counteract it. Then of course you have the President and the Vice President both of which favor the big corps that pay for this lobbying.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
When you respond to a call for comments from a federal agency, don't say it sucks. Say what's wrong and provide solutions.
Solutions should come in the form of exact text changes that the editor can copy and paste into the document. People are lazy. Text talks.
See this: http://csrc.nist.gov/publicati...
In my comments, each comment comes with a resolution..
E.G.
The diagram shows inputs to functions including entropy, personalization string, nonce and Additional input. However the text calls out only the
nonce input as being optional. By omission it leaves the optionality of the other inputs ambiguous. In a specification, where there is a list of items,
some optional, some mandatory, it is necessary to identify the optional or mandatory nature of every item.
Also, “depending on the implementation” is redundant and adds no meaning.
Proposed resolution:
Replace
Figure 1 provides a functional model of a DRBG (i.e., one type of RBG). A DRBG uses a DRBG mechanism and a source of entropy
input, and may, depending on the implementation of the DRBG mechanism, include a nonce source. The components of this model are
discussed in the following subsections.
With
Figure 1 provides a functional model of a DRBG (i.e., one type of RBG). A DRBG shall implement an approved DRBG algorithm and at
least one approved source of entropy input, and may include additional optional sources including a nonce source, personalization string,
and additional input. The components of this model are discussed in the following subsections.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Can it really be Stockholm Syndrome though?
That would be like saying that with Stockholm Syndrome you are paying the hostages.
I think when money changes hands you would go, IMHO, from "hostage" to "collaborator".
The government is corrupt, morally bankrupt, and will do what those with the most money want them to do. As someone suggested above, if the EFF was the NRA of Internet it would be a different matter. But, in the end, since this really is an issue of two conflicting corporate interests, and one of these interests just happens to mirror that of the people.
Frankly, I think net neutrality will win out in the marketplace because of the things some companies, e.g., Google, are doing to let their users know that the ISP's are throttling them. The ISP's can't prevent them from doing this and ISP's customers can choose another ISP that doesn't do it, or at least offers better performance. Another possibility is that the content providers the ISP's are throttling will eventually become ISP's themselves, especially Google.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
This is a very natural (and I believe very intended) consequence of the drumbeat campaign in this country against people who work for the government. The notion at the outset was that government work is supposed to be compensated well but not lavishly, there's supposed to be job stability, and retirement stability. The idea is that you give up a lot when you work for the government: a good deal of your privacy, the ability to earn a lot of bonus money and other incentives, and of course dealing with blood pressure raising rules more than a bit.
The idea was you trade the possibility of becoming extremely rich for the probability of being comfortable. Some personalities prefer that sort of arrangement, and government work has its share of superstars and super losers just like any organization.
Enter the right wing: we need to stop raises, get rid of job security, get rid of pensions, and generally make working for the government have none of the benefits of the private sector and none of the previous benefits of the public sector either.
What this promotes is the revolving door. It promotes corruption. It promotes regulatory capture. It promotes people doing whatever they have to do in order to get back what was taken from them.
This was very, very intentional on the part (primarily) of right wing and libertarian types whose mantra should be "government is broken, and in case you find someplace it actually works just put us in charge and we'll break it for you". Those of you who hire people: would you really seriously let someone work for you whose opening in a job interview is to tell you that he or she doesn't believe in your organization, its mission, or anything about it? I think not. Yet that's exactly how a lot of people elect their politicians these days.
Let's face it: government can be oppressive and controlling, and in fact these days is very much so where ordinary people are concerned at least. It is ALSO the only force that can stand up to monied interests when it is controlled by the people it represents. We don't have that now. The solution is to take back government and force it to do what we want. Throwing it away or gutting it simply gives power over to the huge corporations and the ultra wealthy that you cannot control by any other means.
The FTC seems like they have the right tools to tackle net neutrality, whereas it's not clear that the FCC does. For example, they could declare that ISPs letting certain peering links saturate to unreasonable levels without disclosure is an unfair and deceptive trade practice. If a customer purchases Internet access, they expect equal access to all of the Internet. They could also declare that cable franchise monopolies interfering with competing video services (like Netflix) is an anti-trust violation.
give up, the system is rigged. If they can't fool us, maybe they can persuade us to give up.
The chairman of the FCC is a dirty industry insider and does not give a fuck about the American public. All I know is that the next president had better fire his ass and put someone in there that will not game the system.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.