Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility
vivIsel writes In a move that is sure to generate controversy, the President has announced his support for regulation of broadband connections, including cellular broadband, under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act. Reclassification of broadband in this way would treat it as a utility, like landline telephones, subject providers to new regulations governing access, and would allow the FCC to easily impose net neutrality requirements.
Say what you want about Obama, but I guarantee the next president (probably Republican) won't care about preserving Net Neutrality.
This clearly means no net neutrality in the US. If Obama wanted net neutrality, he would oppose it and Republicans would then be for it. But by supporting it, republicans will never start any such legislation now. Maybe even the opposite of net neutrality will be what they will pass.
he would not have appointed Tom Wheeler, a former telco lobbyist, to head the FCC.
Despite all his other downsides, this could create a legacy perception equal to that of Teddy Rosevelts's "trustbusting"
They both require massive connections to other, unrelated networks - so uniformity in protocals.
The both must also connect to human interfaces that are always made by a third party, so again, uniformity of protocals.
They provide something that is in effect a commodity measured pretty much entirety by reliability and 'size of the pipe'. You don't get different flavors, etc.
We are using it to get to places we want to get to, not for itself. Just like any other utility.
Broadband is obviously a utility and should be treated as one.
The attempt to charge people on both ends is an abuse of power. When I buy internet, I expect to get the full speed I contracted for, without regard to whomever I am connecting to at the other end.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Of course as others are saying, in two years the next president, who will likely be Republican after Obama and the DNC have made such a mess of things, will likely gut Net Neutrality altogether and usher in the Walled Garden Internet. *shrug* Don't know about the rest of you but at least my life won't be made or broken by that.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Cue even more millions of lobbying dollars for Republicans to block NN at all costs.
(Of course the roles would be reversed if it was a Republican president and Democratic congress.)
I know he's lying because he's a politician, and his lips are moving. This isn't a dems/reps thing...they're all liars, crooks, and cheats. I'm not exactly sure what he's lying about; intentions, outcomes, agenda are all possibilities/probabilities. I'm just pretty sure he's lying about something.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
It may be "a move that is sure to generate controversy", but it's the right direction for things to be moving. The Internet is not an entertainment service or a toy. It's vital infrastructure that's necessary for our society to move forward economically and technologically, and it should be treated as such. Having crappy Internet should be considered as shameful as having crappy roads, run down train systems, beat up airports, and bridges that are falling down. Unfortunately, in the US, we seem to be fine with all of that.
In the highest profile case, Cogent has offered to cover the capital costs of the needed upgrade. The problem is that last-mile ISPs are trying to collect ongoing monopoly rents by charging transit to backbone providers well in excess of the ISP's actual cost of moving the bits, when the ISP's customers are already paying their part of the cost of moving the bits.
So how would one go about taking away home ISPs' ability to get away with charging both sides of the connection?
There is no need to "start legislation". There is a need to start regulation!
Until the major home ISPs get a federal court to declare that a particular regulation is outside the power given to the FCC by Congress. This has happened before in the net neutrality saga. So clearly the FCC and the major home ISPs disagree on what needs congressional approval.
I did read it. It does not say that.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
I'm pretty happy with government. I certainly have a lot of issues I'm unhappy with (surveillance, constant foreign war, too-low taxes, imprudent corporate priorities, insufficient transfer payments to the poor) but those are nitpicks compared to the things I'm fully satisfied with: domestic peace, prosperity, transportation, validity of vote counts, fading homophobia, fading racism.
America has a lot of problems but we're doing a lot more right than wrong. I don't actually have a strong opinion on regulating internet providers but my general assumption would be whatever the industry opposes is the best thing for America. So whatever side that puts me on, I'm on that side of that issue.
/shrug/
The internet was specifically designed to be impossible to segment. It's not impossible to cut off some of the 'net for some people some of the time, but in general the packets will get through if anyone wants them to.
Seems Ted Cruz is not wasting any time in opposing Obama on Net Neutrality by calling it "ObamaCare for the Internet", a laughably stupid hyperbolic statement only a complete moron would make -- unfortunately, he's got a support base of tens of millions even bigger morons who will think this idiotic statement is actually accurate.
You may be correct in your generalization, but what is gained by trotting this out when the gentleman has proposed regulating a specific something which badly needs regulation?
Here is the .gov site which also has the video commentary.
...regulation of every fucking aspect of our lives except border ingress.
I'm so sure net neutrality is the #1 thing they'll go after. Yeah, right after they spy on every last packet, force real name usage, etc all in the name of protecting this "utility" from terrorist attack on our "infrastructure." What can I cite as precident? I think there was this one spying thing with something that like started with an N and ended with an A and I think there was an S in there somewhere.
(the NSA, not NASA)
Of course they want Net Neutrality. Without it, the NSA would have to impose an override, something they'd just as soon not have to do because word would get out and it would be unpopular. I mean, throttling NSA packets just wouldn't do. And an override could be exploitable, before long every network packet would have the NSA signature on it. Net Neutrality solves all that. Plus, they wouldn't want ISPs to do anything to impede nefarious character's ability to freely surf the internet and hang themselves...
Headlines are supposed to be brief, not redundant. This headline could be chopped in half without losing anything, the second half is just redundant. Just say "President Obama Backs Regulation", or since this is a nerd site, "President Obama Backs Regulation of .+".
FTFY.
Right, whatever, turn everything into 'public utility', so that a generation later everybody would be convinced that the only way to run an economy is through government monopolies. Oh wait, everybody is already convinced of it in the USA anyway. Carry on.
You can't handle the truth.
Does a "utility" mean that we could finally have true net neutrality and use the internet as it was designed, such as having unblocked incoming ports 80/443? I use alternate ports to route around this to access my files remotely, but strictly speaking I'm violating the ISP T&C by having a "server" at home.
However, I often want to access my home files from wifi access points such as hospitals where outgoing 80/443 are the only ports open (no outgoing ssh, etc. allowed). But my cable provider blocks incoming 80/443, so I'm completely cut off from my home files. I would rather not pay to put a TB of files on the "cloud" or pay some 3rd party service to reroute ports or whatever.
The problem is that People expect Government to fix Government, while Government fucked everything to begin with. This is the same in every western societies, especially in France, where People have lost all responsibilities... or actually, they have been raised that way, thinking that Government is the answer to all the problem create by... Government... So heads after heads, nothing is changing, every new head lead People to false hope, and the circle continues. In the mean time, People are (kept ?) too busy to realize what's going on.
Net neutrality means that QoS based on port (e.g., VOIP gets priority over HTTP) is OK; but QoS based on content or the owner of an IP is not OK.
We all understand that; but the mouth-breathers and cronies that will regulate the Internet will generate 1600 pages of crap that nobody can read, just to define "QoS".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Welcome to the "free" post cold-war western society. Watching everybody praise the fall of Berlin's wall yesterday was particularly laughable when everybody is being spied on my the western equivalent of the stasi/kgb/fsb/politburo...
... Republicans have been granted their request to be in charge of stuff.
The way this works is that, because they have no super majority, nothing will get done.
The voters have a watchful eye on the Republicans and the promise to move legislation out of Congress.
If the Republicans go for social issues like same-sex marriage, women's reproductive rights, gun control, Benghazi, ISIS, Russia, and other nonsense, the voters will be pissed.
The number one concern for the American voter is the economy.
For the Republicans, it's a black ISIS flag at the White House and Obamacare.
Come 2016, voters will be ready for a change.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Yeah, who needs it? Look how well it worked out for Somalia when their government disintegrated and they were freed from that yoke. Lebanon in the 80s and Kosovo in the 90s were such shining examples, too. And it was so much better in the USA before the Civil Rights Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the creation of the FTC.
You're right. Comcast is so much better at controlling the internet than the government would be.
Partisan policy aside, the government wants us to want them to regulate the nets. They want it because it will give them an excuse to tax your connection. Once the FCC steps in, they will need money to "manage" and to prosecute and to investigate. Mark my words, this has nothing to do with Netflix and everything to do with an additional revenue stream.
Ok, first... extremely liberal... hahah ha lol good one.
Second, if corporations have shown themselves incapable of doing their job then what is are his options? You can't seriously be supporting the status quo?
There is no indication whatever of that in TFA, but suppose it is put in place. What a tragedy! Like those nasty soup kitchens and putting up the homeless where they won't freeze to death. Let them die, and while we're at it let's make sure they are without internet as they are dying.
Why do anything at all to mitigate rich pricks accumulating all the resources? What could be wrong with the fact that the world's 85 richest individuals now have as much money as the 3.5 billion poorest people put together?
Headline should read "Common Carrier" because that's the option Obama picked....the strongest protection for users.
This is what we have wanted all along...the best protection for Net Neutrality
Damn /. or any troll/techies who try to downplay this move by Obama...he gave us *exactly* what we asked for
No Republican would do this.
Thank you Dave Raggett
the idea is, he would rather have the House/Senate pass a law than make a decree via the FCC
a Net Neutrality Bill would have been much better...
but b/c of idiots like *you* Obama now can't use that option
it's because of people like you that Obama can't do what you want
Thank you Dave Raggett
Back in the 1990s when ISPs were being sued by the MPAA and RIAA for carrying bootlegged stuff, the ISPs claimed common carrier status as the reason they should not be sued - arguing that they just carry the bits and have nothing to do with what the bits actually are.
Fast forward to the 2000s when Verizon et al start rolling out their own video networks. Well, suddenly they claim "media company" status and not common carrier status, so they can regulate actual content.
I'm not sure what backdoor deal allowed them to abandon common carrier and still not get sued for carrying pirated material, but I am sure there was something baked into an agriculture or other unrelated bill that did it.
i'd love for *actual* Obamacare that was analogous to the Net Neutrality law!
Thank you Dave Raggett
you're an idiot
this move, treating all ISP's as "Common Carriers" has been pushed for almost a decade in IT policy circles
everyone, including every single tech company, wants this law
all techies want this law
you're getting what you want, then you say "bah...it's just *political*..."
you're the problem here...you're obstinate immature notions of how this country should work are ruining America
people like you are a pox upon Democracy
Thank you Dave Raggett
(Of course the roles would be reversed if it was a Republican president and Democratic congress.)
yeah...what does this even mean?
are you saying that opposing political parties will do things to oppose one another?
why is that relevant?
this is /.'s problem....always have to have the false dichotomy...
why even mention Republicans as if they are rational actors?
they deny climate change...and try to put creationism into textbooks...you can't expect their policies/rhetoric to be taken seriously
Thank you Dave Raggett
There is nothing that says that the government will force ISPs to block illegal content.
That language allows customers on either end of the ISPs pipe to bring action against a blocking ISP, and the ISP can no longer say, "We can block or not as we want".
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility
Which means the republicans will oppose it regardless of the merit of the idea even if it was their idea in the first place.
For the record I think broadband should be regulated as utilities because they are utilities very similar to the electric company, gas company and phone company. Pretending that internet service is a luxury good is not a viewpoint which is compatible with the world we live in today.
I'll add health care...
I support fully socialized medicine....all health care orgs become non-profit...
Health Care scarcity is Artificial Scarcity in 2014....in the US we have more than enough resources to give for free the health care everyone needs...So you might say I "oppose" Obamacare in that *isn't socialist enough*
But conversely, he Republicans have only criticism of Obama's work on health care, but no actual solution for the health care crisis
the GOP didn't even think the health care crisis was any of their concern until liberals forced the issue
Thank you Dave Raggett
The government does regulate those prices. There's laws on the books, for instance, that say stores have to charge you the posted/marked price on items, they can't just decide to charge you more or less depending on who you are or why you're buying the stuff. And while the store can in large part refuse to do business with you completely, the government does regulate even that to a degree by barring them from refusing service based on race etc. (a store can refuse to do business with an individual, but they can't refuse to do business with black people or Catholics). Even loyalty programs that offer discounts are subject to those regulations, they generally have to be available to all customers who ask to enroll.
The government even regulates actual prices to a degree, for instance there are laws on the books prohibiting merchants from significantly raising prices when a disaster strikes and demand for crucial items spikes.
There will be a fee, no a fine.. no a fee on your annual income tax if you don't buy the correct bundle.
Everyone thinks that the idea of a monopoly is bad, but I think it would work fine in this case. Raw broadband bandwidth is a utility. AT&T bandwidth isn't (or shouldn't be) any different than Verizon, Comcast or CenturyLink. As it is now, there are tons of companies spending huge amounts of money to keep their networks barely at capacity simply because there's so much traffic to pass around. One company could do this much more efficiently than everyone trying to build their own distribution network, the same way public utilities don't run 4 competing electric lines or water pipes over the same route. In addition, there would be no net neutrality debate, since every user has to plug into the same common carrier.
People love to complain about old-school pre-breakup AT&T, but the high prices they were able to charge allowed them to over-engineer the phone system for reliability. Cable companies routinely oversubscribe links by a significant amount, and DSL providers don't provision enough bandwidth to the CO to deal with the number of connected customers. Internet bandwidth has become a utility in the US - there aren't very many people who are not users of it in some form or another. The problem is that people have no concept of paying for a service and want the cheapest possible price they can get, so the providers don't invest.
Even classifying bandwidth as being subject to common carrier rules would allow rural areas to be served more effectively. There is currently no incentive for broadband providers to provide good rural service. The universal service fees that had to be paid for wireline phone service were an attempt to subsidize this cost and make sure rural areas at least had connectivity. It's a similar problem to the federal highway funding formula -- more fuel efficient cars mean less gas tax revenue, which has the unintended effect of delaying infrastructure improvements. And fewer people paying universal service fees (or higher prices in general) mean that the broadband network is neglected.
Pros I see --
- Ends the net neutrality debate once and for all
- Allows AT&T or whoever gets the monopoly power to invest in the network without worrying about shareholders penalizing them
- Unintended pro might be greater levels of employment at a more stable employer.
Cons --
- You know, monopolies are universally evil and the free market should dictate everything
- Everyone will pay more (but for better service)
It seems to me that re-forming AT&T or similar is the best way to deal with this ongoing problem. It's not perfect but it does have advantages.
I might be a tree hugging liberal, but the Dems have an awful record when it comes to regulating technology.
No argument but the Republicans record isn't really any better. That said, I still think the basic notion of regulating internet access is an idea with merit even if the ruling parties aren't exactly brilliant at it. Internet access is as important to modern life as telephone access was 30 years ago. It has become an integral part of our lives and the companies that provide it seem to need a bit more oversight than they presently have.
I don't see why the Republicans would be any better or worse.
Because while the Democrats tend to screw up the regulations, the Republicans like to pretend that regulations are never good even when there is are clear abuses going on that markets cannot adequately address. Sometimes bad regulations are better than no regulations at all. (and vice-versa) I'm honestly uncomfortable with the amount of power that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, TWC etc have over our internet connectivity. They have effectively an almost unregulated monopoly over internet service and have shown little reluctance to abuse that position when it suits them.
you're criticizing a policy move that every techie and educated policy thinker (besides ISP's) supports
you're position is not falsifiable
how could Obama do the right thing (Common Carriage) and *not* be criticized by you?
Thank you Dave Raggett
It's either the state, or it falls into the hands of a baronial overclass, pick your poison. Unless you'd propose radical syndicalist ownership of the Internet. Or maybe, in fact, there's actually a middle position where something is neither completely "under government control" nor completely laissez-faire. You know, a compromise where most everyone gets most of what they want.
Naturally this crankish false dichotomy between tyranny and freedom anticipates the obvious Republican rejoinder: Ted Cruz Calls Net Neutrality "Obamacare For The Internet". It's really beautiful how the nutball libertarian worldview of state power has so thoroughly permeated culture that all one needs to say is say something like "X is Obamacare for Y" and people instantly know what you're saying and that it's putatively bad.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Your point is that generalizations can be made. "The GOP opposes regulation of *" would be another equally useless generalization. And yet another would be, "It doesn't matter what it is, the GOP wants it under corporation control."
Don't be a complete troll all your life, m-kay?
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Did he actually support regulating it as a utility, or did he support that bullshit "hybrid" proposal that essentially leaves us where we are now, so we'll take our fake little cookie and STFU about it.
And that is a complete, bald-faced lie.
Wait, Sean Hannity? Is that you?
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Have you ever met a French person? o_0
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I'm not for more regulation but Big Telecom is out to screw us all. I thought market forces might correct the action but because it is an oligarchy with no real competition, Obama has my support 110% on this one. It should be regulated and net neutrality should be enforced! If Obama can break the telecom thumb screws on the American people, he's achieved a lot. Especially when big telecom calls 50Mbps up and down fast. I've got hot news, Japan and the UK have 1GB fbre to the home for less than what TWC, Comcast, Charter, et al.
You lack context and make broad assertions about the powers that are granted to the FCC to regulate a common carrier via Title II. Take your phone calls; no one regulates what you say in your phone calls, but regulators can require that all calls you make to domestic numbers actually get connected and not blocked.
With this form of NN, you get more speech, not less.
If you see dictators under every floorboard and spew extreme right-wing nonsense, then go away troll.
Ok, first... extremely liberal... hahah ha lol good one.
Nailed it.
Second, if corporations have shown themselves incapable of doing their job then what is are his options?
Corporations have one job, to make money, and that's what the ISPs are attempting to do by extorting money from targeted consumers of their monopoly-protected services. Having said that, yes, the President should act within the purview of his powers.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
I see you have falling into the pub strategy.
They stop everything he wants, then blame him for not doing anything.
BTW, he has talked about this before, many times.
You should actually go through his terms and look at what he wants and the stupid shit the pubs did to stop it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Would this apply to Paid peering agreements? Or Just settlement free connections?
What is the "core" of the internet (as he described)?
Not that I'm against the idea, but I want to know what exactly it means? It seems incredibly hard to find specific definitions of how and where rules would be applied.
Don't tell us what we wanted. We want prioritized traffic. We've ALWAYS wanted prioritized traffic.
Next you're going to tell me that we WANTED a healthcare system with a commercially competitive marketplace.
Why do you hate America?
[never try and reason with the /. crowd...they've already made up their minds who they hate]
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Municipalities that treated cable providers like they were utilities to start with is a big part of the problem. This is a great way for lobbyists to get even MORE influence over how ISP service is provided, what it may or may not include, and who can (and can't) provide it.
If Obama had his way, he wouldn't go through Congress for anything.
I'm not saying he should rule by fiat or anything of the sort but I understand the frustration the guy must feel. Would you be eager to go to congress when the republicans oppose everything he does regardless of the merits of the idea? Even when the item being debated was their idea. They don't even try to compromise, they just say no, especially if they are a tea party candidate. Used to be that the two sides could at least talk to each other. Now a republican has to pass an ideological purity test and cannot ever even seem to be compromising or he doesn't even win the primary in the next election. The republicans like to bitch about the Affordable Care Act but they don't ever propose any alternatives or improvements even though there is plenty that could be improved. Instead they just waste everyone's time in futile votes trying to remove health insurance from millions of people that couldn't previously afford it.
Given that Comcast's CEO has golfed with President Obama, he's attended private fund raisers held by other Comcast executives and they, along with Time Warner, have donated heavily to Democrats I find this all very interesting. Is he pandering to certain constituencies by taking on something he knows for a fact is a losing battle? Or are broadband as a utility something ISPs actually want?
Superficially it sounds good, but you don't have to look very far to see that it's fraught with risks. I can't say my experiences with utilities is a positive one. They hold a legal monopoly even more entrenched than what Optimum or AT&T enjoy in my area. Ignoring weird resellers a single company supplies electricity in my area. The same goes for natural gas, and in their case there are no resellers.
Those utilities have to get approval from the state in order to raise rates, but I've yet to see a rate hike get rejected. Even if they have to negotiate a smaller increase, they still get something which translates to a few extra dollars on my monthly bill. If I'm not happy with that increase my only choice is to use less electricity or move out of state.
I wonder if like electricity, where we suffer some of the highest rates in the country, if broadband would be comparatively expensive. Also, how would we be billed, by the MB like we pay now for kWh? I can't imagine that being cheaper or better that what we've got now.
But hey, I could be wrong. It's difficult to trust anything the government proposes nowadays when there are always monied interests involved.
*salutes*
Government regulation of the internet means the certain death of any form of privacy on the internet, not to mention almost certain government mandated backdoors in any encryption used.
Which I am fine with, since as a technologist I'll be able to exploit and work around it all as it suits me. I just feel a little sorry for all of the non technical people it will screw over, but whatever...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
nothing you just stated is true.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Your point is absolutely mute because this is not about net neutrality at all. Obama's statement does not do anything _for_ net neutrality, and I'll argue that it's more to ensure Government intrusion than to ensure access for everyone. Remember that as soon as it's rated as a "utility" it will have to receive more funding from tax payers for Government "monitoring" and "regulation" (read crony appointees). If you have doubts look how AT&T receives funding from tax payers to duplicate ALL traffic to various NSA facilities today.
If you want to see some of the most corrupt businesses alive today, look no further than utilities. This is nothing more than a front, primarily to stop the debate about Government intrusion but also to squeeze more money from the middle class.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yo douche bag, the FCC is not capturing your information it's the NSA with the help of Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc.,...so keep thinking government works alone.
Would much rather see legislation focus on promoting last mile fiber infrastructure any ISP can compete to light up on a fair and equal basis.
That Net neutrality is even an issue is a symptom of larger problem of market failure. As long as the only viable ISP in town is a national cable company you can legislate till your blue in the face customers are still going to get fucked over as long as there remains no serious alternative.
I am a libertarian. I strongly disagree with net-neutrality. To some extend, the whole FCC should be disbanded. It is nothing more than an organisation corrupted by regulatory capture.
you think the ISP's should not be regulated at all?
are you inherently against all government agencies that regulate anything?
Thank you Dave Raggett
I think this will be great if done properly. The issue is that there are a number of ways the this could go badly. To me it is like buying a car, there are a million ways for the dealership to take advantage of you and you must be hyper vigilant. Currently, there are only a few lines to your house and cell service spectrum is owned by a few large carriers, so their can be no real competition. The infrastructure was mostly built through a partnership of government and private business and depended on the use of government eminent domain and franchise agreements, so it is ripe for being regulated. We must be careful during this change that we don't wind up with something worse.
Anyone who buys into Obama's sudden lame-duck, no Congressional majority in either chamber announcement of a decisive position in favor of Net Neutrality as genuine is a blind fool.
Obama can say all he wants. Lame duck president with his opposing party in control of the senate and house. It don't amount to anything but hot air, just what we expected from politicians.
They give plenty to both parties . No reason to think Democrats are in their pockets any more than Republicans.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Obama appointed Wheeler, it's all lies.
Thomas Edgar Wheeler (born April 5, 1946; Redlands, California)[1][2] is the current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
He was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November 2013. Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
You're dead-on, in principle.
The time for Obama to have voiced this firm position was back during Genachowski's charimanship when Verizon sued the FCC for his attempt to implement NN rules, and the courts essentially said that absent Title II CC classification, NN would not be possible.
Today's weaksauce announcement is four years too late and a Congressional majority short to be anything other than political theatrics.
Take that liberals! Justify your crazy behavior in this imaginary scenario I just completely made up!
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Ask anyone who has had Verizon and/or Comcast invoke their utility easements and dig up their yard.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
assuming they want a shot at the Presidency in 2016.
One of the variables* that will determine the outcome of that election will be how much meaningful legislation Congress can get done in the next two years. If they continue the status quo that has been the norm for the past several years, they will hand Hillary the Presidential Election on a silver platter.
*The other big variable will be determined by who the Republicans decide to run against Hillary. If they want any shot at the office, they had best field a damned impressive candidate. Again, go with the past and they may as well stay home on election night.
That said, some of the things Congress should tackle will go against their core beliefs, but they need to take it head on and show the people who will be voting come 2016, that they can do what's best for the country ( for once ) instead of what's best for the corporations and 1% types who are presumably running the show.
Those issues could include:
Net Neutrality- The idea put forth by Obama is the right one, it requires regulation. Get it done.
Break up the monopolies - The giant companies who own both the pipes and provide content need to be broken up otherwise you end up with the shit we have now where Company X is degrading competitor Y because it threatens their own content offerings. They will not police themselves because too much money is at stake here.
Immigration - Personally, I say let them in. The only caveat is that non-citizens will be taxed at much higher rates. ( Say 1.5x - 2x ) This way, they can legally work here in the US while, at the same time, help pay for the infrastructure and services they're utilizing. They get to work here making more than they would at home and the Government gets more tax revenue. Win - Win.
Tax Code for US Citizens- Simplify it. Close the loopholes the corporations are using to hide their assets offshore. Hell, go for a flat tax if you have to. Say, 10-15% across the board. No loopholes, deductions or exemptions unless you make less than poverty level wages. Make less than poverty level, you don't pay tax. Everyone else ( including the big business known as The Church ) pays the tax.
Income Inequality- The economies lifeblood is dependent on folks spending money. When you allow the majority of wealth to be controlled by a minority of people, they end up with a lot of power to influence the economy. I'm not saying to tax them any harder ( as that is in conflict with the Tax Code in the previous paragraph ) just make sure they're taxed equally.
Healthcare- This can also be fixed. Obamacare ( or the Affordable Healthcare Act ) was the wrong way to go about it. We don't need more insurance bureaucracy to wade through. What needs to happen is healthcare needs to be declared critical infrastructure and regulated accordingly. You fix the outrageous pricing the healthcare industry has enjoyed for so long and we won't NEED insurance to pay for it. If you disagree with this, pretend you don't have insurance for a while and take a look at what a two week stay in a hospital would do to you financially if you had to pay it in full. Then tell me again how the service isn't overpriced.
Police / Law Enforcement- Trust in them is at an all time low. You simply need to turn on the news to see how out of control they are. Get it fixed before folks tire of it to the point where they fix it themselves. Since they seem to be failing to police themselves, put together a Federal equivalent of an Internal Affairs division that does nothing but investigate the bullshit that currently infects local Law Enforcement.
Education- Is a joke. Student debt is off the damn charts. Public school X offers a far superior education to public school Y due to the way funding is distributed. Germany recently figured out you don't remain a World Super Power if your education system churns out folks who can barely read or, for those with an advanced education, come out so far in debt that you're basic
If anyone would actually read what Obama is proposing, ISPs WILL be forced to block all ISPs that the government does not approve of.
Bullshit. Reclassification will do nothing like that. Just ask AT&T, Verizon and other "telcos."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I forgot... anyone that isn't a karl marx cosplayer is right wing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Let's imagine that starting tommorrow the government kidnaps you and decides to start torturing you all day long for the foreseeable future.
Would it suck? Sure it would. Would it KILL you? It shouldn't.
Is that reason enough to just accept it ? I don't think so.
Just because something isn't the literal end of the world doesn't mean you can safely ignore it.
Sure... and 1+1=23.4
I'm not interested in your definition of liberal. It is moronic and not related to the way that everyone else defines the parties.
You might as well point at the sun and call it "dog" and then point at a daisy and call it "sun". You're just redefining things randomly for no reason.
By US standards, BO is extremely liberal.
What exactly in your mind makes me not liberal? And by liberal... I assume we're talking about socialism and communism. Because the people that really don't like hard core liberals being called liberals... are the people that classify mainstream liberals as posers... because they're the real communist thing.
Am I wrong? Tell me how you define these things and we'll see who winds up looking like the bigger fool when all is said and done.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Cool, let the FCC regulate speech on the Internet.
Surprised to find such support on Slashdot for the inevitable censorship that would occur should such action come to pass.
As an addendum: Do any of you remember how expensive home phones (and dialup!) were when the telecoms were granted regional monopolies? It wasn't until the advent of cell phones and cable internet that prices dropped drastically, in short order.
No thanks. I'll take the market on this one. It's done fine for the Internet's entire existence and I don't see a "problem" to be fixed.
You clearly have no idea what reclassification of ISPs as type II entails. You're just parroting someone else's talking points. Educate yourself. Otherwise, the adage "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." applies in spades to you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Sure, because Regan tried to socialize everything.
Explain to me what real liberal is please. Point to someone and say "that is a real liberal" I want to know what that means to you. Because your use of the term liberal is not the use that is used by... practically anyone else.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I am born and raised French. Though, I despise everything about my culture. Each time I go back to France, I remind why I exiled myself and rejected it. Every single part of it stink hipocrisy, irresponsibility, submissiveness, weakness, uptightness, whining, and undue privileges. France used to be a great nation, but is now resting on its laurels, living on a past (and long gone) glory. The greatest monument are all from the era of the Napoleonic Empire (arc de triomphe, obelisque de la concorde, Opéra Garnier) and the Kingdom (Notre Dame, Palais du Louvre, Panthéon, Les Invalides, Palais de Versailles, Palais des Tuileries, Palais de l'Élysée, Palais du Luxembourg, Hôtel Matignon), the only exception might be the Eiffel Tower. All French exalt to these "symbol", yet despise the values of the great leaders who built them.
Most European country are following this tendency, as is the US (to a lesser extend, but it's getting worse).
Unless I'm misunderstand, Obama is advocating what a lot of us have been wanting for years
You fucking idiot.
He's advocating that, what will actually happen instead is what I am telling you what will happen.
After the exact same thing happening from solicitations for the last few hundreds years, get your head out of your ass and realize what government control over the internet means and WHY they so desperately want it.
I mean, every time someone tells you you should hand over control of something to the government because of some big scary malevolent evil that actually has never really been a problem, it ends badly for all involved.
Sorry to be blunt but when someone is being a fucking idiot, it's my sworn duty not to sugarcoat their idiocy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There it is. It has been known since Obama and the FCC first started talking about this. You see "Net Neutrality" to the rest of us means, leave it alone because it's been just fine for years. But Mr. Obama and the FCC came up with their own plan to make it a utility under the control of the FCC and they called their plan "Net Neutrality". The SAME name.
This is an attempt of government to seize control of communications, and that is usually what happens just before war.
I will not tolerate or accept or aknowledge any FCC authority whatsoever. and I will encrypt EVERYTHING.
Web sites can and should implement a client side encryption for even posting blogs, so it can't be captured and used by the FCC or anybody else.
It's long over due for everybody to establish a MESH network, outside the control of government or corporations. And the mesh network needs to be without any need of DNS, as that too is a security threat.
Get active in these efforts. :DIME (Formerly Darkmail)
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/di... :SQRL (Pronounced Squirrel).
https://www.grc.com/sqrl/sqrl.... :MESH Networks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... :Eliminate DNS
Sorry, I don't have any good links on this one. :VIDEO - Mr. President
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Work hard, or sacrifice your freedom. This is the world your children will end up living in.
Title II Common Carrier classification will do none of the things you claim it will do. That said, I agree that everything should be encrypted with strong encryption. However, those are two separate issues. Please educate yourself. Or not. But if you don't, you're just making yourself look ignorant.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
And private semi-monopolies such as AT&T would never cooperate with government wiretapping,
Of course they do - and they can get my SSL traffic, which they may or may not be able to unravel.
What will happen after regulation, is that AT&T will no longer need to cooperate as such because cooperation will be mandated and technically inserted into telco equipment. Then later on all consumer encryption must use the ClipperChipMarkVIIX, which lets government agencies with any possible interest in you decrypt anything you've ever sent (thanks to the mandated infinite logging of traffic).
If you don't think any of that is possible, much less likely, you don't know technology or governments.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
*hypocrisy*, my bad.
Do you realize that excessive Government regulations (if not regulatory capture since the beginning), de-facto barring the way to cottage industries, are the main responsible for the actual rich pricks accumulating all the resources ?
You forgot the part where Verizon, AT&T, Comcast were (and always are) legally threatened by the NSA/FBI/Government if they do not comply to their every whim. Consent under duress is not voluntary consent.
I guess the same faith in humanity for all the statement about the closure of Guantanamo...
I use Uverse, it is IPTV. There is no difference if that stream is AT&T's or Netflix's (on the last mile).
Cheap storage VM.
Of course Ted Cruz is going to make up a cute little slogan (Internet at the speed of government!) and go 100% against Obama here - He's riding the wave of anti-Obama sentiment while at the same time doing exactly what his biggest contributors want; go against any kind of regulation that limits their profits. Heck, Obama could say don't punch yourself in the crotch and we'd have a wave of Republican politicians limping into work the next day.
I don't see what any of this has to do with anarchism (as opposed to libertarianism, say).
He appointed a guy to chair the FCC who is openly against net neutrality. The idea that the Republicans, massive asshole they are, stopped him from implementing it is total bullshit. Obama is and always had been a corporatist, and this announcement is the same kind of meaningless populist lip service that got him elected.
I know no such thing, and neither do you. It is of course a truism that excessive regulation is injurious to free enterprise, but that has absolutely zip to do with monopolistic monstrosities like Comcast.You could also make a good point that the government setting up those monopolies is abjectly failing in its duty to the people. But you haven't.
You should read this paper very carefully:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet...
Also, Somalia currently has the cheapest and best cell phone service in Africa.
The "move to Somalia" argument is a pretty standard trope when having conversations about the proper size and scope of government. Of course, there are lots of reasons why overweight white software engineers from America wouldn't necessarily thrive in Somalia irrespective of what kind of government it did or didn't have, but that doesn't really seem to diminish how often the trope is pulled out, so let's try something else -- you know, actual data.
Rather than repeating an unsubstantiated bias, I encourage you to read the paper I linked.
I'll spoil it a little bit: The conclusion, of course, isn't that all governments are bad (that's a philosophical conjecture, not a testable hypothesis). It is, however, quite apparent that some governments are so bad that no government is actually preferable.
This is actually the case in Somalia.
Somalia may at some point transition to a government that is objectively better than their current situation, but their current arrangement is, as the paper argues, objectively better than their previously governed condition.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Born of Liberals?
It was a policy release of the Heritage foundation (Koch Brothers) as a market based approach to healthcare that was offered as a counter proposal to Clinton's healthcare reform effort. Romneycare capitalized on that paper with an implementation that was put in place by a Republican goverenor to satisfy local demand for a solution to increasing healthcare costs. Obamacare took the RomenyCare attributes, re-added some of the heritage foundation items that had been removed from RC by the Mass legislature.
Obamacare is the brainchild of the most conservative think tank in America which was test implemented by the Republican governor that ran for president in the last election. Only a moron would suggest it's a "liberal" plan, guess that's you.
Not break up as in AT&T. Break up as in sledgehammer.
whatever the industry opposes is the best thing for America
I think you're onto something there...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Telco companies are not to blame in the current cable monopoles, local government is. Educate yourself. http://www.wired.com/2013/07/w...
And so, shall we agree to disagree friend? I hope so. I also hope you are feeling well and have a wonderful day!
very polite of you...i'd be pissed (i'm getting better though)
busting out the dictionary in a philosphical discussion like this is not a solution
it's reductive and it shows a fear of complexity
"socialism" is such a charged word, anyone who is being honest in the discussion must admit this
the dictionary isn't going to solve the health care crisis
Thank you Dave Raggett
being "anti-regulation" is the same as being an anarchist...not a leftist...like a true, "anarchist" in that there should be absolutely zero government
police are just "property regulation"...and so on...
that's the only logical conclusion
that's why "libertarianism" is a farce, a non-theory that is really a tautology trolling honest discussion
unfortunately libertards are virtually immune to logic or rationality...
good comment though!
Thank you Dave Raggett
ok...i don't debate when military action is justified with a pacifist, and i don't debate government regulation with a "libertarian"
you should have said that up front...and saved us all the trouble of reading your responses
you really have nothing to add to this discussion...except to remind us that you exist...
"hey look at me! I'm a libertarian! all government is wrong!"
thanks...
Thank you Dave Raggett
The issue is that (state/local) government *is* already in our internet, and the laws they've passed were completely for the benefit of the corporations (and the politicians being paid handsomely by same for their cooperation). So now we need the federal government to come bail us out of the mess the telcos have made. Yes, part of the problem is that broadband is crazy expensive to install, but the bigger problem is that it's way *more* expensive because you have to jump through so many hoops (favoring the giant businesses who wrote the laws requiring those hoops, and who generally got in before those laws were passed, anyway), and in some cases, at the local level, allowing any competition has actually been made *illegal*.
I'm all for the free market fixing issues without having to turn to government, but that's only when there *is* a free market. I have amazingly good, amazingly cheap cell phone service. You know why? Because there's healthy competition. For landline internet, I have a choice between Verizon (extremely awful and getting worse every year) and Comcast (even more worser). Yay capitalism!
but those are nitpicks compared to the things I'm fully satisfied with: domestic peace, prosperity, transportation, validity of vote counts, fading homophobia, fading racism.
Mass surveillance and other mass violations of our fundamental liberties are not nitpicks; they are serious issues that need to be resolved before anyone can claim to live in a truly free country.
I hear you, but getting competition to work with the "last mile conundrum" is tricky. It's not an efficient use of resources for each vendor to build multiple lines to the same house since the customer will only pick one in the end. If I pick Jiff peanut butter, the Skippy bottle is not thrown away or wasted; another consumer buys it. Unless a neighborhood is dense, the losing telecom co would have to toss their proverbial peanut butter in the garbage. They'll have to pass that loss on in their rates.
And in my observation you need at least 4 to 7 companies competing, otherwise the evils of oligopolies appear. 3 doesn't cut it: it's why Japan ate Detroit's lunch in the 80's.
Table-ized A.I.
I know people that relocated to Florida that still have 612 area codes on the cell phones and the only problems they run into are old farts who think they're not "local" because they have a non-local area code.
Area code is one of the very few ways people not wanting to talk to people they don't know have of screening their calls. It is ridiculous that you need a white list just to answer the phone anymore. Caller ID really needs to be fixed, and I'd support regulation requiring jail time for anyone spoofing it.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Saul of Tarsus, on the road to Damascus.
I know many emigres like you -- they all preach with the same zeal of the converted. They all come from Europe, they all despise their homelands, they all watch Fox News and adore their "adopted" homeland, right up to the point it dares not live up to their crank libertarianism and Euro-chauvinism. They have no homeland, they have no people, they have no loyalty to anything, to any place or anyone. They are in thrall to an idea, a magical chimera. Would you really rather live under Napoleon than François Hollande? Is it really worth a couple nice bridges and the Invalides? Napoleon's lust for glory probably would have killed you around Smolensk. It's all a stupendous fraud.
The "promise" of America, the golden door for teaming hordes yearning to breathe free, that's all gone. All that's left is a destination for Norwegian racists, and French people that hate pied-noirs, and Brits who want to save on their income taxes. That what America has become.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
absolutely no one cares about your thoughts on government regulation or that you're "still waiting" because you're inherently, philosophically biased against ALL GOVERNMENT REGULATION
you've removed yourself from the discussion by taking an irrational position
Thank you Dave Raggett
The issues around network neutrality and the tensions about who owes who and how much between content and carriage are perhaps superficial manifestations of a more fundamental issue about public and private roles in the provision and maintenance of common public infrastructure. But doing little other than hoping that Adam Smith’s invisible hand will solve all of this through the actions of competitive suppliers to an open market is probably just wishful thinking. It makes as little sense to festoon our streets with a myriad of cables from competing access carriers, as it does to lay down parallel railway tracks for competing railway service providers. In economic study, this is a case of the subadditivity of costs where the economies of scale do not compensate for the high level of sunk capital in duplicated infrastructure investment. It implies that the costs of service delivery from only one supplier is so
The issues around network neutrality and the tensions about who owes who and how much between content and carriage are perhaps superficial manifestations of a more fundamental issue about public and private roles in the provision and maintenance of common public infrastructure. But doing little other than hoping that Adam Smith’s invisible hand will solve all of this through the actions of competitive suppliers to an open market is probably just wishful thinking. It makes as little sense to festoon our streets with a myriad of cables from competing access carriers, as it does to lay down parallel railway tracks for competing railway service providers. In economic study, this is a case of the subadditivity of costs where the economies of scale do not compensate for the high level of sunk capital in duplicated infrastructure investment. It implies that the costs of service delivery from only one supplier is socially less expensive in terms of average costs than costs of production of a fraction of the original quantity by an number of competing suppliers. In general, an observation that a market has a property of subadditive costs is a necessary and sufficient condition to lead to the formation of natural monopolies is that market.
~
The Internet access market is not a market that naturally tends towards strong competition. The tyranny of sunk capital investment in infrastructure leads to a market that naturally aggregates, and such aggregation has an inevitable outcome in the formation of local monopolies. The “light touch” framework to Section 706 in Title I is just not an adequately robust regulatory framework for this space.
~
At its heart, the Internet access business really is a common carrier business. So my advice to the FCC is to take a deep breath, and simply say so.
If I get competition in the ISP space, tax away. Speakeasy DSL over Qwest lines was one of the greatest services I ever had, and it was competitive at the time. I remember how crestfallen I was when the government decided that next gen fiber and cable internet services wouldn't be title II, and as such, ISP's didn't have to lease their lines. If that hadn't been the case, we wouldn't even have to discuss whether or not it's OK for Comcast to double charge. The second they tried to do that, everyone would just switch to a different ISP.
You fail. I actually moved to Canada. BC's pretty nice in summer. While California has a lot of attraction, I'd probably choose to move to Washington or Oregon if I had the choice.
That's my starting assumption when I consider a proposed regulation. I use that starting assumption because it has turned out to be usually right, although some independent critical thought is required because every now and then there is an exception. I don't think this internet example is one of the exceptions.
They're not nitpicks per se; they are nitpicks "compared to the things I'm fully satisfied with".
If I compare "domestic peace" to "domestic surveillance", which one is more important and by how much? I'd say I prefer a high level of peace to a high level of privacy by, oh, say twenty to one or something.
In my personal opinion those two things are not at odds, so I disagree that I am trading one for the other, I think I can have a high level of both.
But say I had neither, which one would I choose first? I'd choose peace first by a long shot.