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.
Government agency run by former lobbyists support current lobbyists. In related news it's reported that water makes things wet.
'...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
Two words: Regulatory Capture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
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.
Like Netflix has done, and YouTube is starting to do. Point out which ISP's are not providing you with the bandwidth YOU bought to download the content YOU requested.
Google can even do better. In order to not detract from the bandwidth YouTube has available for an ISP users, it can stop crawling web sites on the ISP's network. After Verizon or Comcast sees that none of their hosted platforms are indexed on Google, then Google can offer to sell them separate 'hi-speed' indexing peering points.
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.
I first heard about regulatory capture in an economics class where it was referred to a the Stockholm Syndrome for regulators. It's a well documented phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... It also doesn't help when regulators are guaranteed well paid future jobs within the industries they are currently supposed to be regulating.
Which is exactly what he gave them. What is an engine rated in? Horsepower. Eats less hay, though, and doesn't crap directly on the street.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
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.
The amusing thing is that if you remove mention of a specific agency or actor, the above tactic is what all the big corporations and industry groups are using to subvert the public interest to serve their profit interest and this infestation of governmental agencies works regardless of who is in power (as long as you contribute to both parties - or at least the party in power).
There's even a term for it: Regulatory Capture
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The problem is that the FCC has limited regulatory power unless it reclassifies Internet access as a telecommunications service, which is considered the "nuclear option." Prior attempts to enforce neutrality have been thrown out by the courts. At this point, to do anything meaningful they'd probably have to involve Congress... And I bet you can figure out how likely that is.
Consultation is NOT about demonstrating that there are a lot of people opposed to a decision; that's what the democratic process of the commision, congress etc is for. Consultation properly is to raise specific issues that the bureaucrats haven't thought of, to ensure that the final regulations will achieve what the bureaucrats want it to do, or to identify why the implementation will fail. So lots of identical objections will achieve nothing; a detailed examination of why the regulation will have unintended consequences in area 'X', will get attention - as long as the people tasked with reading them don't give up because there are so many.
While I'll agree that largely they are going to be ineffectual anyway, I don't think we help the cause with the current "copy/paste this as your comment" mentality. Just go to any of those public comments sections on the government sites and a massive majority of comments are identical, usually a complete set, one each of a pro and a con argument that someone just simply is told to copy/paste to "help the cause" from whatever side sent them. I just cringe when they also contain awkward wording, or even spelling/grammar errors in the original text - that of course propagate to every single one that someone pastes in. There are so few original comments it all just looks like PR/social media campaigns, not citizens giving actual, thoughtful comments.
That said, again, yes, I'm sure a lot of folks don't want to waste time because they don't think it matters any way, and it probably doesn't - but like I said, it doesn't help the cause or likely make anyone monitoring/reviewing them pay attention when they have read the same exact comment worded the same exact (often poor) way hundreds or even thousands of times. It's not a vote, it's an invitation to comment - but we treat it like one.
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.
No, the other option is to force infrastructure owners to stop selling ISP services and create a compulsory license fee for ISPs that wish to have their signal carried over the infrastructure.
Over night you have market competition.
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.