Slashdot Mirror
FCC Says Net Neutrality Decision Delay Is About Courts, Not Politics
blottsie writes with this news from The Daily Dot: "The Federal Communications Commission's seemingly suspicious timing in delaying its net neutrality decision has absolutely nothing to do with recent politics, according to an FCC official. Instead, it's a matter of some people in the agency insisting they be more prepared before going to court to defend their eventual plan. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., ruled in favor of Verizon, which challenged the FCC's 2010 Open Internet rules, striking down the agency's net neutrality protections. The court found that the FCC did not use the proper legal structure to establish its regulatory authority over broadband service—something that many legal experts say would not be the case if the FCC invokes Title II. The FCC's move to delay the net neutrality decision, which followed President Obama's support of Title II reclassification, was just a coincidence, according to the FCC official:" Before the president weighed in, several of our staff felt like the record was a little thin in areas, and the last thing you want when you go to court for the third time is for a court to say the record was too thin, or you didn't give adequate notice. We are going to be so careful this time that we have crossed every T and dotted every I. Some of the staff felt we're not quite there yet."
The best days to announce things like, "We've decided to completely ignore the will of the people and do what the guys with wheelbarrows full of money tell us to" are the days right before Thanksgiving and right before Christmas. My bet is on Nov. 25, leaving a day to get home to family, but Nov 26, or Dec 19, 22, or 23 would not surprise me.
We can also say with some certainty when they won't announce; Dec 2, 9, or 16 -- Tuesdays during full work weeks -- are extremely unlikely.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It's about money.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
It's been a conspiracy since day one, Obama appointed a lobbyist for the industry to the head of the FCC, then after it's a republican controlled congress and he has zero clout he comes out for "Net Neutrality" mean while fascist like Cruz say it will hurt Internet commerce, and that it's extreme.
This is about buying time to grease the congressional wheels with industry cash and figuring out the best argument against the common carrier.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Hi Bennett.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"Some of the staff felt we're not quite there yet." by "staff" they mean Verizon, right?
You make some interesting points but I'd like to hear about what Bennett has to think about your position.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
I hope you realize, you're helping Bennett become the next John Katz (if you don't remember him, you are a seven digit UID twerp and are irrelevant)
Love him or hate him, you had to read him. He would still be with us, except his panties became so twisted that it strangled him and he couldn't take it any more. I miss him, but thankfully, we now have Bennett to hold our attention. And you're helping raise Bennett awareness, and for that, I thank you :)
If they weren't opting for a trashy "hybrid" approach designed specifically to avoid preventing ISPs from abusing consumers, and instead were going for full bore Title II reclassification, they wouldn't need so much time to create a legal defense.
It's not like we the people ever believe anything the government says anymore. The American people have been so filled with BS over the last few administrations regardless of which part is in power that we have all become jaded. If you are a republican you don't believe anything the democrats say. If are a democrat you don't believe anything the republicans say. If you are one of the aforementioned parties you have been sucked into the false dichotomy and they have you pitted against each other so they can maintain control. To quote one of the wises men ever to be quoted... "It's a big club, and you ain't in it!" -George Carlin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Constant repetition is a proven method of reenforcing an idea, no matter how absurd it might be. People are believing. All is well. There is nothing to complain about.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Only today, I realized that slashdot is actually over. I've been wondering why I get 15 mod points every time I log in, and only now does it hit me. I'll bet that I'm one of probably 5 people that are moderating, and I'll bet that there's less than 50 people that are actually participating in slashdot at all (commentators and moderators). Looking at the last few stories, it looks like there are less than 30 comments to most stories these days, and I haven't been seeing many posts even getting points, most (that aren't AC) are staying at 1 or 2, depending on karma I'm assuming. The stories are crap, and no one is actually participating.
:)
I'm out. It was fun.
Oh, and to "I kan reed" it was me that modded you flaimbait today.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Total nonsense. You've been sucked into the false equivalence trap.
Really, AC? What's the real truth? You obviously have the corner on the "way it is," so do tell.
The way I see it is (sorry not a car analogy) that with the Center Right party (the Democrats), it's like walking through an underground access tunnel with a sewer pipe at the ceiling. The pipe is cracked and raw sewage is dripping on your head.
With the Far Right party (the Republicans), it's the same tunnel, but the sewer pipe is ripped wide open and you're choking on the raw sewage instead of getting drenched.
I suppose you could say that one is worse than the other, but I'd rather not be in that tunnel at all.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Do NOT be fooled by the "Net Neutrality" cover story. This is an effort to regulate the Internet by hardcore leftists, and if allowed to proceed will be the end of the Internet as we know it.
The unregulated Internet CHANGED THE WORLD. Allowing government regulations will only destroy what has been created.
I think we need to get Bennett's opinion on Katz before we can form an opinion about such an important issue.
Who would you rather control the Internet? Government or Big Business (who pays off Government)
I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that it's inevitable to be one or the other.
> Total nonsense. You've been sucked into the false equivalence trap.
Except for the part where it perfectly describes the behavior of the political bodies. You've been sucked into the twilight zone, so of course you think anything rational is nonsense.
Such absolutism only encourages the worst-case scenarios.
Far more likely is that it is a competition among all parties and that the balance of power will shift depending on the circumstances. The best we can hope for is that the balance of power does not become too rigidly fixed in any one position because that makes corruption much easier.
Do you really think that getting an opinion from Bennett is the right way to go? We should consider getting an opinion from Bennett whether to get an opinion from him first. After all, he contributes frequently.
Do NOT be fooled by the "Net Neutrality" cover story. This is an effort to regulate the Internet by hardcore leftists, and if allowed to proceed will be the end of the Internet as we know it.
The unregulated Internet CHANGED THE WORLD. Allowing government regulations will only destroy what has been created.
You sir, are uninformed. Until 2002 Cable inernet service *was* classified as a common carrier under Title II. DSL Internet was also a common carrier until 2005.
Since those orders reclassifying internet access under Title I rather than Title II, the ISPs have slowed innovation, dragged their feet with infrastructure upgrades despite the USD$200 billion subsidies given to them, raised prices, created ever more abusive terms of service, and consolidated their stranglehold over both content distribution and last-mile infrastructure through consolidation, lobbying at the municipal, state and federal levels and plumbed the depths of poor customer service.
All of this since we lessened regulation on the ISPs. There was huge growth, innovation, new infrastructure, more competition and fairer terms of service, *before* that. So, as I said, you're uninformed. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse for partisan reasons. Or, you're just a shill for the big ISPs. I'll assume you're just uninformed, rather than a liar.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Don't forget that Obammy has been pimping out Sasha, Malia and Michelle for years. Mostly for the campaign contributors, but also to anyone with the cash to pay to use each of those whores. Malia and Michelle will even take it up the ass with a smile. But Sasha's asshole is reserved for Obammy's cock.
And don' even get me started on ObammyCare. It's a complete fraud. All that money that was *supposed* to go to medicaid and the exchanges was secretly redirected to offshore bank accounts controlled by Obammy and his old whore Michelle.
What is more, Obama has one out of every six hospital patients murdered and pockets the medical payments from the insurance companies. The families of those he murders are left with huge bills and Obammy laughs and laughs all the way to the bank.
Some days, he goes around to hospitals in DC and murders the patients himself, usually beating them to death with a pipe and then raping them with the pipes. If the patient is female, he makes sure to rape them before beating them to death. Usually forcing the families of the patients to watch.
Obammy hates Americans and America. He wants us all to suffer and die, preferably by his hand.
We know net neutrality is something that could be enforced, there is enough bandwidth available now over fiber to give everyone a standard amount of bandwidth. Fast lanes are probably inevitable; if that is the price for getting standardized internet access then fine, do it. It's a reason for companies to roll out the upgrades.
Let's face it, business will not upgrade the networks to the speed required without being told that they will get to charge for premium access. It's a fact, you can't get around it. It's better for everyone to just accept what can't be changed, live with it, deal with it, and let's get IPTV to everybody nationwide so we get more channels, more content, etc, etc.
Just imagine a future time when you don't have to watch football on the weekend, where you can watch whatever minority sport you prefer, be it surfing or chess or mountaineering or whatever. Imagine having the freedom to choose what shows you watch when. It's not going to happen if we don't get the networks upgraded and that is not going to happen without fast lanes, I don't believe.
I don't think we'll ever get net neutrality, but by the trickle-down theory, we should be able to get serviceable internet to everyone which is sufficiently neutral for it not to matter. Let's shift the cost onto content rather than the medium, and we'll need fast networks to do that, and that requires fast lanes for now, I think.
In fact. the original Internet was heavily "regulated" with rules against commercial use of any kind. I worked for a company that had an Internet connection through a regional educational network, and we were careful to even only send e-mail messages that were related to either educational subject matter or subject matter related to the work we were doing under government contracts with organizations reachable through the Internet.
Total nonsense. You've been sucked into the false equivalence trap.
It's not false equivalence, because the argument is not that they are two things which are the same. The argument is that they are two parts of one thing, and that they are united in screwing over the non-wealthy public because they both work for the wealthy. The wealthy write the laws, then pay for them to be passed, and sometimes they pay the (R)s and sometimes they pay the (D)s and sometimes they pay both. Big Pharma, for example, gives lots of money to both sides. After the failure of Hillary Clinton's Single Payer Healthcare campaign, she took a massive wad of their money and shut the fuck up about health care reform. Then we got Romneycare (not really his idea anyway) relabeled as Obamacare. Obama is supposedly a Democrat, but he brought us the Republican health insurance plan. (It is not a health care plan. Many of us are receiving less care under the new system.)
Also, your vote doesn't count. The People never elected GWB. Given that we can vote for one candidate and get the other, either vote is equivalent. They'll assign us whichever president the wealthy have chosen.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
EVERYTHING about this is politics. Politics is power, control and legacy. Senators, legislators, the President, the FCC, special interest groups, and the corporate decision makers. It's what they do. It's what they eat, drink, sleep and breathe.
Sounds like somebody just needs more time to spin their arguments. God knows there's enough of it on both sides...should I root for big corporations or big government today?
Do NOT be fooled by the "Net Neutrality" cover story. This is an effort to regulate the Internet by hardcore leftists, and if allowed to proceed will be the end of the Internet as we know it.
The unregulated Internet CHANGED THE WORLD. Allowing government regulations will only destroy what has been created.
Hardcore leftists? Who exactly are you talking about? Dennis Kucinich is about as left as it gets in major parties in the US, and he isn't too far to the left of center. Obama is center-right on most issues. Eizabeth Warren is straight up center-left, as is Bernie Sanders. Based on their policy decisions, most of the rest of the Democrats in the house/senate would have been considered moderate Republicans not so very long ago.
What the hell is it with you guys? Based on the rhetoric, if Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon ran on their records and platforms, you'd be calling them communists.
Seriously. Go and actually look at the policies those guys pursued -- if their names weren't on them, you'd be screaming bloody murder about marxist ingrates with most of it. Geez Louise.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
What does Katz think about Bennet? Does he view him as the rightful successor or as a mere pretender?