Slashdot Mirror
The Chiefs of Facebook, Google and Other Tech Giants Aren't Committing To Testify To the US Congress On Net Neutrality (recode.net)
Amazon, Facebook, Google and Netflix -- along with their telecom industry foes -- have not committed to sending their chief executives to testify before the U.S. Congress in September on the future of net neutrality. From a report: Not a single one of those companies told the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is convening the hearing, that they would send their leaders to Washington, D.C., in the coming weeks, even at a time when the Trump administration is preparing to kill the open internet rules currently on the government's books. The panel initially asked those four tech giants, as well as AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon, to indicate their plans for attendance by July 31. Now, the committee is pushing back its deadline indefinitely, as it continues its quest to engage the country's tech and telecom business leaders on net neutrality. "The committee has been engaging in productive conversations with all parties and will extend the deadline for response in order to allow for those discussions to continue," a spokesman said.
It's already plainly obvious that Idjit Patel is going to kill off those rules come hell or high water.
So what's the point of having a discussion? I doubt any of the 'tech leaders' want to waste their time with political theatre, having a bunch of politicians pat their heads and go "There there, it'll be ok."
you're going to have to put the sorts of politicians in office that support it. And that means people who believe government (and government regulation, which NN is) can work. Right now the folks in charge of the government don't think government works. They want to tear it all down and NN is just one more regulation on their chopping block.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I pay. Evey month.
Do you want to charge me for my actual usage? Fine, go right ahead. But I'll bet those Comcast customers will scream bloody murder when they get their bill for watching the Superbowl.
Have gnu, will travel.
And here is why the problem gets so muddied.
First, a CDN is not a "fast lane" It is a copy once, share many server which alleviates the pressure on the ISP's peer with the backbone. In other words it saves the ISP money. Back when there was actual competition of ISP's they all welcomed CDN's as a means to serve their customers better and save money. Now that all competition has been eradicated the remaining IPS's charge content providers for the "privilege" of adding a CDN. Why? Because ISP's now own content companies that compete with the likes of Netflix. For years Netflix begged AT&T to let them put a CDN on their network for free but AT&T refused until Netflix agreed to pay for a "fast lane" The day they signed the contract Netflix throttling on AT&T disappeared despite the fact the CDN wasn't even in place yet.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Nope. That doesn't give them enough money to raise their shareprice.
What net neutrality is if they want to double dip and charge both the consumers and the content providers twice and keep the difference and give the CEO
http://saveie6.com/
Telecoms and cable companies didn't invent anything you tied to innovation (although, to be fair Bell Labs did quite a bit back in the day) after their deregulation. All they really do halfway decently is build infrastructure, which isn't innovative, and isn't something private for-profit companies tend to be comparatively good at.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You're conflating the breakup of AT&T with telecoms deregulation. Which actually happened in different decades, and neither had the effects you're ascribing to them.
But hey, you go on bleating. It won't change reality, but I imagine it'll make you feel better. So there's that.
Corporations ARE people; the corporate-stuffed courts said so.
I would like to see more consumer advocacy and consumer representatives testify.
Table-ized A.I.
I didn't vote for the SOB either, but seriously...
What's likely to get a better result?
Discussing issues with the current administration, trying to convince them, maybe get a little of what you want?
Or spend the next 3.5 years running around hair on fire frothing at the mouth shrieking "NOT MY PRESIDENT NAZI NAZI HITLER RESIST RESIST NAZI HITLER HITLER HITLER RUSSIA HITLER!"
I submit that the first option makes you look reasonable and maybe gets at least some fraction of what you want.
The second option gets none of what you want, and makes it more likely that you're going to have to be doing it for the next 7.5 years.
I have for years been pointing out that:
- The problems with network non-neutrality are mainly due to anticompetitive behavior by monopolistic, duopolistic, or cartel-forming ISPs, or vertical integration between the ISP transport operations and the operations that provide "content" and/or services (beyond commodity bandwidth) transported on their nets.
- Technical solutions tend to push for treating all packets the same, which blocks traffic management (particularly between TCP data transport and media streaming, which do NOT play well together), rather than just anticompetitive favoritism.
- The FCC is oriented around technical solutions and gets into trouble (and censorship) when it tries to deal with content.
- But the FTC is exactly the kind of consumer-protection organization that can attack the meat of the matter with big guns.
- IF, of course, the law was tweaked to LET IT DO THAT, transferring this aspect of regulation to it from the FCC.
I had high hopes for the Trump administration on this. After the way Trump was treated by the media/ISP conglomerates (and the lefties of hi-tech) he has no love for them (and would LOVE to shaft the media moguls who have been flaming him non-stop with what he perceives as fake news).
There was some talk from the administration about putting the FTC on the job, as the other half of killing the FCC's N.N. regs. But I haven't heard anything about it lately.
Of course it's not something the news departments of the media conglomerates who own the ISPs are likely to talk about, is it? B-b
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You're conflating the breakup of AT&T with telecoms deregulation.
No, he did not.
He pointed out that in 100 years phone technology progressed at a glacial rate because government enabled restricted markets through regulations, Acts, and laws which allowed those huge telecoms to dictate the rate of innovation and change to suit themselves. It's called 'regulatory capture'. Once some of those restrictions (which were not all tied to the breakup of the Bells) were loosened, advances started coming at blinding speed relative to the pace set by the telecoms.
It's one of the effects of regulatory capture. Regulations become a means to maintain the status quo and raise the bars for entry to markets for new competition and technologies. We saw regulatory capture in effect with the Deep Horizon disaster.
The internet grew to what it is today without these new FCC regulations, it isn't broken right now, why do we need government to step in where it hadn't been before to 'fix' it?
I don't want to 'Deep Horizon' the internet, thanks all the same.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.