Slashdot Mirror
FCC Confirms Delay of New Net Neutrality Rules Until 2015
blottsie writes: The Federal Communications Commission will abandon its earlier promise to make a decision on new net neutrality rules this year. Instead, FCC Press Secretary Kim Hart said, "there will not be a vote on open internet rules on the December meeting agenda. That would mean rules would now be finalized in 2015." The FCC's confirmation of the delay came just as President Barack Obama launched a campaign to persuade the agency to reclassify broadband Internet service as a public utility.
Opensource.com is also running an interview with a legal advisor at the FCC. He says, "There will be a burden on providers. The question is, 'Is that burden justified?' And I think our answer is 'Yes.'"
Welp, what ever we do will be legislated out of existence next year. Tough luck, come on boys shut the lights off and turn off the computers, we aren't wanted anymore.
Why should the providers shoulder this burden? They're not marketing, charging for, or making the content available. It's ridiculous. And invasive.
...Steve
Here's hoping this means that Wheeler's plan to split the baby in half is dead, and we'll get some real action in terms of Title II classification.
Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.
Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:
Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.
Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?
To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:
Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes
I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.
I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.
As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.
Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot, I take a free day and spend it reading the story ov
It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year.
Say what you will about the guy, but he didn't exactly swear a blood-oath there.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
No matter when it passes, who passes it, or what the wording is, any new rules put in place by the FCC are beholden to political pressure which is powered by lobbyists. https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...
N/T
I'm willing to bet money the FCC has been bought off to the point they won't make a decision until after the next election and this is just the first of many stall tactics.
This is probably good news. Obama makes a public statement urging the FCC to step in and enforce net neutrality, and the FCC suddenly delays a decision they were about to make. That means the decision had already been made and it was that the FCC was not going to intervene. Now they are reconsidering and thus they want more time to figure out what all Obama's request entails.
Better known as 318230.
in 2015 they'll say it won't be until 2016. just after the elections.
someone elses problem then.
and in 2016 'we're re-evaluating our policys in light of the new administration' and it will be pushed back to 2017.
Pick your tormentor, and enjoy... Dumbasses... you fucking people are just sooo stupid... Morons... You got the FCC you deserve... Now bend over!
Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.
Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:
Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.
Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?
To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:
Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes
I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.
I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.
As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.
Every time Bennett writes a new story on
is desperately trying to come up with a Free Market solution to Net Neutrality. E.g. some way he can get Net Neutrality (which he wants) w/o the government stepping in and requiring it (which he doesn't want).
His only solution is to let Net Neutrality go away. Then when ISPs raise rates through the roof competition becomes viable again. Sorta like how we started researching fracking and Shale Oil after gas hit $4/gallon.
I don't really see it as viable. For one thing gas is only dropping temporarily while OPEC kills off the competition. Comcast has already been caught using lawsuits to stifle competition and has literally told the FCC that's it's OK if they merge with Time Warner since they never have/never will compete with them; and that it's just too expensive for new players to enter the market. Personally I think there's just too much money to be made killing a free internet....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A CDN (Content Delivery Network) is a series of servers placed at or near ISPs in order to get content closer to the user connections. What Net Neutrality means is you can't block or limit any CDN and favor another.
The early days of online surfing had solid walls called Prodigy, AOL, and CompuServe. The WWW was the end of that, but now we've got HTTP sites that don't serve the whole world the same content.
This has been a hot issue for a couple years now and there is no doubt the FCC has been studying this for some time. Obama has allowed the agency to be filled with Telecom industry cronies and lobbyists who stand to get sizable golden parachutes from the likes of Comcast and Time Warner if they hold the line. Obama's only card to play if they stonewall is to fire Director Wheeler and replace him with a pro-neutrality director, who will staff the agency with members who will vote the way he wants. If they can delay until the new Congressional session begins in January, then Republicans can block any pro-neutrality nominee. So firing Wheeler after the new session begins is very risky and will likely fail.
The only way Obama can affect the change he wants is to move on the director now. As long as this issue has been discussed, why should we wait another year for the FCC to rule on this? They clearly already know what they want to do. They are just stalling. I hope Obama can see that.
Peace, K1
It is the vast popular opinion of the people that they want Network Neutrality. The monopolistic corporations however feel that extortion of websites to pay up or get slowed down should be legal. The question isn't whether campaign contributions corrupt a democracy because we're all finding it that bribing politicians shouldn't be legal like it is. The question is,"Just how far do the people with all the money want to screw things up?"
God spoke to me
By taking a public stance diametrically opposed to the desires of the communication companies whose lapdogs Obama appointed as FCC commissioners, Obama is reminding the loyal opposition that when these lapdogs ultimately capitulate to the communications monopolies' desires, they are doing so at great political cost. Delaying the capitulation will reduce the value of Obama's obvious posturing, reducing the magnitude of the quid pro quo that would otherwise be expected in the face of such seemingly insubordinate behavior. Of course, this formula of attempting to leverage any sort of return from favors hasn't exactly paid off for Obama so far, but it seems to be the only tactic he knows.
I miss the good old days when assassinations were viable...
Instead corporations have evolved into hydras.
Net neutrality isn't necessarily what people want, but its the closest thing to what people want that they can get right now in the US.
Think about it. If we had actual competition, and I could go and pick from one of 10 ISPs...none of them would dare, let say, throttle netflix, as they would basically bankrupt themselves. Prices would go down, services would go up (you may have a package that gives videostreaming priority...which is not net neutral, but if its a CHOICE, and you can go to the competitor that gives gaming traffic priority...it may not be a bad thing for you as a customer. Sucks a bit for providers, but still).
The problem is we don't have that. If you're on Comcast, and they throttle netflix, and you want netflix, well, TOUGH. Yay, Netflix makes a deal, and thats cool..but I want Crunchyroll and Funimation. Well, too bad. Its netflix or eat up the throttling! Net neutrality helps that, but it still doesn't give me choice.
Until Obama is no longer in the white house, that a corrupted republican scum is at the head of the country and get paid by the ISPs.
I don't think Congress could zero out the FCC's budget without severe repercussions.
The Republicans held steadfast against a massive budget overrun attempt by shutting down the government for a few weeks and had record wins in the recent elections.
Shutting down the FCC? Who in the real world cares about the FCC? The only ones I could possibly think of would be religious fundamentalists that still agree with the obscenity regulations the FCC mandates.
"Many politicians seem to be of the opinion "we will oppose the other party's efforts even if it means destroying the government"
See: Democrats denying any votes on bills the House passes, refusing to create a budget for years, voting 98-100% of the time time along party lines...
The Republicans are not MUCH better. But they are better about some things, and not worse at the others.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A politician would be assassinated if they stated that.
This also succinctly describes Amercian health care and prescription drugs. I'm sensing a pro-corporate trend here.
Bandwidth costs money.
Eventually every company will go 'Well, Comcast pulled it off. Okay, we'll also throttle netflix that way and charge an additional fee for 'fast lanes'.
Shaw out here in Canada does that basically. They watch what other large telecoms do first, like Comcast and AT&T. If what they do seems to generate revenue and do well, they implement their strategies out here.
Fuck the FCC and Fuck the courts.
This is nothing but an attempt by government to control our communications, and control our right to free speech. Millions will not tolerate any kind of censorship, and considder those behind such a move to be valid military targets. Personally, I don't want to see violence happen, so I recommend the FCC stay out of it, stop trying to seize control over something that has worked just fine for decades, and I am sure the people will control the ISPs in the same way.
Actually you do. That's what the UK did 10 years ago and their ISP market took off.
I would mod you up, but I don't have mod points, but I will instead state my agreement:
Ideally, the government wouldn't *have* to get involved in this discussion, because the free market would have fixed it already. Unfortunately for us, the handful of broadband providers have lobbied themselves into the position of somehow-legal almost-monopoly status, so now we need *some* way of fixing it so they can't take that almost-monopoly status and use it to completely screw us over. I mean even more than they already are.
What we really need is more (read: any!) competition, but that's not seeming likely, so this is a stopgap.
If internet service was a free market, it wouldn't exist. All it would take is one douchebag with the right lot to say "fuck no, you can't put that [junction point/wiring box/exchange] on my property" and that's an entire neighborhood possibly off the grid. And most neighborhood have no shortage of those types.
So they want to control the speed of the Internet!? This is ridiculous we already have shitty internet speed! and to me they want to slow it even further down for the corporate rich 4astds instead? Fine they I mght as well move to Europe then! American commie crap today if they start invading our American lives!ðYðYðY