Slashdot Mirror
Why Is the Internet Association Rewarding a Pro-NSA Net-Neutrality Opponent?
First time accepted submitter erier2003 writes The decision to give a major award to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is curious given McCarthy's many questionable stances on Internet-freedom issues. For one thing, the California congressman is an avowed opponent of net neutrality. In May 2014, as the Federal Communications Commission debated new net neutrality rules, McCarthy—then the House Majority Whip, the chamber's third-highest-ranking member—signed a House GOP letter to the FCC warning that Title II regulation represented "a counterproductive effort to even further regulate the Internet."
I don't know anything about this "Internet Association", but given that the name really doesn't mean anything at all, if they are anti-net-neutrality then maybe they're pro-network-business, and as such they're trying to profit from both ends?
Just a guess. After all, I can name any organization anything that I want, even if that name is Orwellian doublespeak for exactly the opposite of what it sounds like it should be.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The Internet Association -- which counts tech giants like Amazon, Etsy, Facebook, Google, Reddit, and Twitter among its members...
Because these companies have no interest in internet freedom as it pertains to their cattle but as it pertains to fourth quarter earnings. The internet based on these companies is a cash-in-hand libertarian pelvic thrust of states that dont see a red-cent of sales tax on anything from a website, keep their warrantless surveillance quiet, and rubberstamp their patents with a smile. This isnt an award, so much as a dollop of warm grease on an open republican wheel. this group quietly gave an award to McCarthy, the second most powerful House Republican after Speaker John Boehner, because they have a PAC that hasnt donated yet and are making it known to anyone looking for upcoming election year bucks.
Good people go to bed earlier.
What exactly are they being forced to do? Deliver the services that their customers want and not be allowed to use their last-mile monopoly to force out competition? Oh the horrors!!
Do you mean that last-mile monopoly which has been given to them by... local governments ?
Is it because they're whores and will do anything for loose change? That's pretty much my standard answer for any headline in the format "Why is blank blanking?"
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Those local governments only gave them those monopolies because the ISPs demanded them to even deliver service. It's not as if the local governments just up and gave the companies those monopolies against the wishes of the ISPs.
"The Internet Association represents America’s leading Internet companies and their global community of users." - Their members are companies that would hurt without Net Neutrality.
A congress critter has actively worked to harm a cause you care deeply about (one as central to democracy's function as a free and open internet). But shame on anyone expressing their opinion or looking for a way to push back. If anything is the new PC - it is the outrage police.
Woosh... xOra's point was, government's intervention causes harm. That incumbents are happy to use it against newcomers underlines his (and mine) point — we don't love Comcast, we just distrust the government.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
A better question might be who is the Internet Association? They certainly aren't part of the internet's governing bodies. Why should we give two cents for what they think or who they give awards to?
Perhaps you ought to re-read some of Orwell's works...
The problem in Orwell's world of 1984 isn't the "statist enforcement", but rather that the state enforces rules for the purpose of oppressing the majority of the population. Ingsoc's rules and systems are not in themselves harmful. In fact, several times throughout the book, some of the most vile mechanisms are described only as the result of rumors.
Here in the real world, there is no absolute freedom. There is only what you want to do and what others want you to do. When those desires are opposed, someone's freedom will be impeded. If you want to kill me, and I want to live, we turn to the state (as an embodiment of the consensus of the submitting population) to decide who will be able to fulfill their desires. If you want to build a networking monopoly and charge high rates for access to popular web sites, and I want cheap access to everything, we again turn to the state, who has now declared a preference for cases like this.
While reading, be sure to note how the Inner Party is not subject to most of the oppressive rules of the system. They are not subject to the state; the state is subject to their whims.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Because it has been such a horrible thing for phone service.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Woosh... xOra's point was, government's intervention causes harm.
And what you don't get is not whether government regulation is a bad or good thing, but what kind of effort do we put into *good* governance. You know, like what everyone else on the planet does, from countries to corporations. Ever hear about "corporate governance"? Ever think of countries as just large corporations? It's an over-simplification (by far) but I think it's the only way to illustrate the "all regulation is bad" idea as lunacy.
The way broadband is sold in this country, the legality of what ISPs do in their contracts are just shy of outright fraud.
But hey, all regulation is bad.
You people want to toss out everything and leave anarchy behind. Forget about good governance, let's just have more burning rivers, consumer fraud, and land-grabs using private armies.
--
BMO
Because it's either shut up or burn a person's livelihood to the ground? Nice straw man. How about when someone does something shitty, we complain about it and take action to directly address it.
I hate to comment without knowing the facts.
You must be new here.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Are you going to claim, US policy regarding AT&T's government-backed monopoly was a success?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yes, this exactly. The golden age of the expansion of the commercial/consumer internet was when it was primarily run over the phone lines - dialup and DSL. The low barrier to entry allowed tons of new ISPs to enter the market, offering basic unlimited service for a flat rate. The incumbents at the time - AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, and their ilk, were by and large ridiculously overpriced, not to mention did not offer any unlimited plans, with time-based metering. (To be fair they did offer additional services, but over time most people realized there were more/better free alternatives elsewhere on the open internet.)
Pretty soon everyone could get online, because everyone - even in rural areas - had landline phone service (not to mention electricity). Service was slow compared to today, but it was a limit of the current technology rather than any unwillingness of companies to invest or build out in a given area. Upgrades occured, up until about the point that dialup and DSL hit a wall where it was no longer feasible under current technology to increase bandwidth using the (government mandated Title II Unbundled) telephone lines.
Instead, most people were forced to switch to (proprietary bundled) cable lines to get high speed internet. Only recently have fiber lines been available for some lucky few, and most of us are still stuck at the mercy of our cable company. In the meantime, competition has all but disappeared, rates have shot up and service has become legendarily bad for many people.
So explain to me again why Title II is so horrible, because I'm really just not seeing it.
I was recently reading a very interesting article about paid Russian trolls. They'll go to all the small-town Russian blogs and post the same types of rants. But they don't just post pro-gov't rants. They've got this whole cast of characters and script where one person makes a seemingly-well-reasoned pro-gov't argument, while the anti-gov't "villain" will respond with something ridiculous or completely off-point.
It's not enough to make your side seem strong, you also have to make your opponents look foolish.
So when I see a seemingly-well-reasoned-but-wrong "government regulation is bad" argument followed by a "higher taxes and more expensive ISPs are good" argument - both by Anonymous Cowards - I think Soviet Russia. You guys are the worst kind of scum.
Last post!
enforce contracts
Contracts are only valid when both parties negotiate on good faith and without undue pressure. Since natural (and historically government-enforced) last-mile monopolies give ISPs undue power over end users, the best way for the government to enforce valid contracts are to ensure that the ISPs can't use their monopoly or duopoly to deliver less than the customer was due when the contract was signed. Net neutrality, along with other regulation (like punishing AT&T for throttling "unlimited" plans) does exactly that.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
While I'm pretty sure you're mocking the GP I thought someone might actually want that information.
The summary: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...
I think the rules are here (but a fourth of it is commentary): http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...
I think this is the related "title II" stuff so you can see what portions they picked to apply: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
I find it weird that I couldn't actually find that chapter on ecfr.gov but oh well.
Except for a few spurts and a few people admittedly on the fringe of the party will we see anyone tackle the real issues.
Just like conspiracy theories will talk about mass internment camps being set up by FEMA, but no one wants to talk about the mass internment camps that are very real actual prisons and some of the silly things that get people sent to jail for very long sentances, and the very low burden of proof that a good chunk of these people didn't even do the petty crimes they are accused for for such long jail times.
No one wants to talk about the kangroo court systems, corrupt law enforcement agencies, private prisons, all of which is plainly obvious.
I'd say if they don't want to be in that business line, then by all means they should sell it off. Running a regulated natural monopoly business like "being the dumb pipe" is a boring line of business, but it's also a reliable line of business. You won't make ridiculous profits in it, but you'll probably make steady (if small) profits. It's why we still have companies that run the power lines and water pipes and such. Better to have the companies that want to be in those lines of business take over.
And if significant infrastructure upgrades require investments of government/tax dollars... well, I'm perfectly okay with that too. I'd much rather have high speed fiber internet laid down in my county rather than, say, a new sports stadium.
An "under-served market," huh? Alright then: the market I'm talking about is in almost the middle of the ninth largest metropolitan area in the United States, about four miles from the middle of downtown (which, in Atlanta, is not very far at all). If that's not dense enough to support more than one provider, then where the fuck is?!
Yes, and a de-facto monopoly is still a monopoly.
It doesn't change the fact that one of those players (AT&T) got huge government subsidies to wire it up in the first place and then more huge subsidies to upgrade it for "broadband" (money it simply pocketed instead of performing the upgrade, by the way), and the other player (Comcast) actually is a de jure monopoly for services delivered over coaxial cable (it has a franchise agreement with the City of Atlanta, which prohibits other cable providers such as Charter from coming in).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Damn right I'll be outraged. This type of astroturfing hurts both sides of the argument by preventing an actual exchange of ideas. It's FUD designed to reduce the credibility of any claims, making it harder for an uninformed person to become informed.
Last post!