Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes Editorial Board: The FCC Wants To Let Telecoms Cash In on the Internet (nytimes.com)
The New York Times' Editorial Board writes: The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission wants to let Comcast, Verizon and other broadband companies turn the internet into a latter-day version of cable TV, in which they decide what customers can watch and how much they pay for that content. That's essentially what would happen under the proposal by the chairman, Ajit Pai, to abandon the commission's network neutrality rules, which prevent telecom companies from interfering with how their customers use the internet. Net neutrality prevents those companies from having companies like Amazon pay a fee to get their content delivered more quickly than their rivals', and from having the firms throttle other services and websites, even blocking customer access to, say, Netflix or an online newspaper. Under Mr. Pai's proposal, telecom companies would effectively be allowed to sell you a basic internet plan that might include only limited access to Google and email. For Facebook and Twitter you might need a slightly more expensive deluxe plan. The premium plan might include access to Netflix and Amazon. Oh, and by the way, media businesses eager to gain more users could pay broadband companies to be included in their enhanced basic or deluxe plans. Further reading: Associated Press fact check: Net-neutrality claims leave out key context; The death of the Internet.
This model smacks of 1990's style thinking.
Do they think Amazon and Google won't start building out their own 'internets'? Do they think that this type of fragmentation and duplication of efforts would be anything but harmful for consumers?
This isn't free market capitalism. This is crony capitalism.
So now I know that it's more establishment bullshit that I can safely ignore.
"Establishment" = "Anything that doesn't conform to my worldview"
You're confusing toll roads with member-only access to a building.
If NYTimes requires people to pay to view their articles, it's their business.
But without net neutrality, it would give that power to the ISPs and completely fragment and destroy American's internet access.
#DeleteFacebook
We need strong, caring, logical people to join the U.S. government. One way to help that happen is to take the money out of being elected. Could there be free TV channels for those who qualify and are trying to make themselves known before an election?
Another way is to pass a law that says anyone who tries to influence legislation must make all documents public, and must have no personal involvement with lawmakers or their staff.
Glad I got on about '92-'93 while it was still a bit of the old "wild west" and anything went.
I guess you couldn't expect it to last forever...it caught the govt types off guard and it took a long time for them to catch up to it.
I guess they'll be happy letting the corporate world do what they really never seemed to be able to do and kill it for the masses.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Personally if I was them, I would not want this. They'll lose their carrier status and will be responsible for the content viewed
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
A la carte cable channels isn't the same thing. Look, through my apartment building, I get basic cable (however that's defined). That gives me a bunch of channels, many of which, I never watch. I pay a little extra for some more channels, but I'm not paying just for those extra three or four channels that I watch. I'm paying for a bundle of channels that include those three or four.
The equivalent, with regards to the internet, would be paid access sites. Right now, with the internet access I have, I can go to CNN, Slashdot, whatever webcomics I read, etc.
I can choose to pay for extra access to the Washington Post, though. (I don't, that's just the first example of a paywalled site that I could think of.)
Under the worst-case scenario should the Net Neutrality rules go away, I'd still be paying for internet access, but I'd be limited to whatever Spectrum feels like is included in their "basic package". Okay, they're probably not so dumb and greedy as to micromanage every single site access out there, but it's easy to bet that things like Netflix will be in a tiered package. (Although that wouldn't affect me at all, as I don't have Netflix, but I digress....)
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I've said it before, and will continue to say it.
If the Internet goes "walled garden" i.e. AOL style unless you pony up more money, I will just go without.
Give me a dumb pipe where I can do what I please, thank you very much.
I still maintain the lawsuits will fly if this gets repealed, tying it up in court for years (and hopefully long enough where there will be a different administration in the WH)
AT&T blocked access to Apple's FaceTime for customers on their unlimited cellular data plan in 2012. Are you being willfully ignorant, or are you the regular kind of stupid? https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
So, what will ISP's do with VPN users? I pay $5/mo for mine, and connect through another country. I am effectively able to bypass all of this nickle-and-dime filtering about to happen.
ISP's will therefore need to charge a HUGE premium on VPN users.
This is truly the death of the free internet.
It seems to me that the last-mile providers are trying to charge three time for their service:
First, when you buy internet access you're paying for access at 50/mbps (or whatever speed I want). It seems like this should give you access to the pipe at that speed.
Second, the content providers are paying thousands (millions?) of dollars for their "upload" access. They are contracting with Level 3, or buying their own fiber to provide their content.
And now thirdly, the ISPs want to charge the content providers additional fees to deliver their content (initially, it will be fees for "faster", next it will be fees for "not slowing it down" and finally, the fee will be for "delivery").
The water utility analogy (sorry, no cars), is that if you first bought water from a water supplier (not your local utility), then the local water company charged you for a pipe that could deliver 100 gallons per hour, then the utility charged you for delivering the water that you've bought from the supplier, and finally, the local utility charged the company that supplied the water a fee for delivering it.
If I had mod points today you'd have them. The way you ensure a free and open internet is NOT to regulate it, it's to let companies do what they want, and then let people decide what they want to buy.
What people want to buy is not what the NYT is describing, therefore I am sure it's not something we are going to see more than a blip of, if that.
Why is it that such "right" ideas are shouted down with accusations of "Russian medaling" now days? LOL...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Internet Access: 40.00/Mo @ 500Gb
Modem Rental: $10.00/Mo - Mandatory Use of Modem
Modem Insurance Fee: $1.00/Mo
Extra Computer Fee: $10.00/Mo/PC -Must use our router
NetFlix Fee: $10.00/Mo/client
Social Network Package Fee: $4.00/Mo
Email Fee: $2.00/Mo
VPN Fee:$50.00/Mo
VoIP Fee: $50.00/Mo
Skype Fee: $5.00/Mo
Non-Approved Browser Fee: $5.00/Mo
Non-Approved Application Fee: $4.00/Mo/application
Non-Approved OS Fee: $10.00/Mo
Mandatory AntiVirus Fee: $4.00/Mo
Blocked: Bittorrent, SSH, Non-Approved VPN, Non-Approved OS, Non-Approved Routers, Non-Approved Sites
Early Payment Fee: $1.00
Late Payment Fee: $10.00
Early Termination Fee: $100
Fee Payment Fee: $1.00
Fee Payment Fee Recovery Fee: $1.00
Fee Payment Fee Recovery Fee Surcharge: $1.00
Fee Payment Fee Recovery Fee Surcharge Levy: $1.00
Fee Payment Fee Recovery Fee Surcharge Levy Premium: $1.00
Excess Data Fee: $20.00/Gb
Unused Data Fee: $0.10/Gb
Paper Bill Fee: $1.00/pg
I never said such a thing. All they need is to keep ISPs classified as common carriers, otherwise trouble will follow.
http://bigthink.com/design-for...
#DeleteFacebook
AT&T blocked access to Apple's FaceTime for customers on their unlimited cellular data plan in 2012.
Is AT&T STILL blocking FaceTime?
No?
They stopped the blocking without the FCC regulating them?
Huh. How about that.
Are you being willfully ignorant, or are you the regular kind of stupid?
Right back at you.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Reagan
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You mean like how they crafted NN to be what they wanted with the previous FCC commissioners?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If you want a free and open internet, the very, very LAST thing anyone should desire is government regulation. The internet has been as free and open as it's been so far precisely *because* there has been no government regulation
To be more precise, you do not want under the control of *ANY* bit entity.
Be it governments, or be it huge corporation.
And here liese the problem...
If it's so terrible, why hasn't all those bad things already happened?
...because it took some time for the big corporation to be big enough and vertically integrated to be able to pull off easily the kind of shit that forced the creation of net neutrality regulations.
There's a difference between what was once just a bunch of universities communicating with each other on equal grounds, and a huge corporation basically having a monopoly on internet over a whole region and deciding what every one will be able to see or not.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
They have bigger problems...such as selling something called, "unlimited" while limiting it in several ways.
Blocking FaceTime is only one of the things they did to keep from blowing up their network.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
When Obama decreed Net Neutrality he of course fucked it up. Instead of getting new laws passed, he simply had the FCC implement rules treating them like Common Carriers.
Instead of getting new laws passed? How exactly was he supposed to do that with a congress that stated in no uncertain terms - and backed it up with their actions - that they would not work with him on anything? Stop pretending that this is a bipartisan fuck up. It's not. One party, and one party alone, has been pushing for the end of Net Neutrality, and now that that party has full control of congress and the white house, guess what we got? Hint: it's not new laws to preserve Net Neutrality.
It's really a shame, because Canada is going full Net Neutrality and actually listening to what consumers want, and not the corporate greedheads.
(caveat: I indirectly own shares in many telecom firms, and have worked for them in the past)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Prior to the rules being adopted, some two years back, had ISP's actually done this thing you fear?
Yes they had and there is proof. They didn't charge their subscribers they extorted money from companies wanting to get to their subscribers. "It would be a shame if everyone of our internet subscribers constantly got **buffering** screens when trying to stream content from your site. If you pay us a % of your revenue we'll make sure that doesn't happen."
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I didn't realize that those companies had the power to prevent their customers from accessing any part of the internet without paying more.
Um.. No. No ISP wants to tick off their customers like that.
You must not have Comcast.
Under the worst-case scenario should the Net Neutrality rules go away, I'd still be paying for internet access, but I'd be limited to whatever Spectrum feels like is included in their "basic package".
Worst case scenario: Spectrum demands your first born child for ANY access to the Internet, and if you even try to visit a site on the unapproved list they come burn your house down and kill your wife. Beware those embedded links on random web pages, they could cost you more than you know.
If you are going to imagine "worst case scenarios", you should try a little harder. You're not even scratching the imaginary world that could be created here. Go wild! Hyperbole doesn't work if it isn't patently ridiculous. (Well, ok, your scenario is pretty ridiculous, so I guess it counts.)
Why do we ignore that there is more to the government than the FCC? Why should the FCC ignore congress and not let other departments do their job?
When Comcast started charging Netflix for content to be delivered to Netflix customers who already pay both Comcast and Netflix to wat cg Netflix content.
That's what changed. Sips want to charge content providers for delivering content. You want to use Facebook that's extra. You want to use AMAZON over Wal-Mart that's extra for this isp. Want to visit foxnew.com instead of msnbc.com. That's going to cost Comcast customers extra. Comcast owns manic so all of their content doesn't count againistt you. But fox is extra.
That is exactly what Obama prevented. But morons don't seem to realize the difference between content providers and distribution
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Lol. If you look at the history of Telecomm, they consistently try to screw customers. Having worked in Telecomm, that is exactly how the top execs think. You could have tried a little harder to troll, that was pretty weak.
Prior to that, the telecom companies could have done all those things -- but they didn't.
Yes. Yes they did.
Wow.
Do you know the internet never would've even happened without the government right?
CompuServe, Delpha, Genie -- LOTS of companies were offering "internet-like" services back in the 80s. Want to know where they all are? In the garbage.
Capitalism...the premise of everything "good" only happens via competition (and w/o the Government) -- never could develop the internet. The technology was all there - but let's face it - no Board of Execs would every have bought into the idea of a cooperative agency.
When Al Gore suggested it - they thought he was a nut.
You also probably don't want to own ANY comcast / telecom stock. They're all going to tank...the question is when.
Everyone thinks telecoms can charge more for that last mile service. The problem is that their model is that of a cable company.
Cable companies (generally speaking) do NOT provide content. They PAY for content. ABC, CBS, Comedy Central, etc....they PAY for that. The stuff that is offered for free is "The Shark Vacuum cleaner channel". No one wants it.
These telecoms think they can charge Netflix/Google? But without Google (for most people) and you aren't offering an internet service anymore - all you're offering is an end of cable (perhaps with videos of a "Shark Vacuum Cleaner").
Finally...this "removal of roadblocks" works BOTH ways. Finally Google can run fiber out to Comcast's best (most profitable) areas and charge whatever they want?
Competition? Google can slow Comcast's content in that area to whatever they want. Are you going to pay comcast for an internet that isn't responsive? Or are you going to switch to Google Fiber?
I tell people this. Most don't believe me. That's fine. But I wouldn't own any telecom stock.
Because I'm not seeing it. Data caps have been a thing even on home connections. That obviously took care of any major problems they had. Why change rules around that could be potentially catastrophic?
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Reagan
I hope everyone realizes that this quote was one of many from Reagan describing what's wrong with government.
You have to admire people who don't bother learning internet history.
I remember when the internet didn't allow ANY commercial traffic. Do you?
Thus far, ISPs haven't been given free range to do what they want. While most of us would agree this is a "Good Thing(tm)", the fact that this keeps coming up indicates that some powerful people think otherwise, and we don't really have any counter data to show them other than what we think will happen ( and given the companies involved, it's almost assured that will happen ).
So at this point, given how much the FCC isn't listening to anyone but their corporate sponsors, I'm kinda of the mind to let them do it. Let them give the ISPs free reign, that will generate a TON of data for us to use later. Then, when congress gets involved and enshrines net neutrality in law, we'll know precisely why and be able to point to historical examples.
Given laws are painful to create and pass, while FCC regulations are seemingly easy to overturn, I'm kinda digging the idea of creating a net neutrality law anyway.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Oh you want the internet to be "open" the same way cable TV channel bundling is? You're hilarious.
Guaranteed he works for Comcast.
Last we checked, supermarkets, clothing stores don't have monopolies. What is it you do not get about monopolies, or industries with a few colluding providers?
Comcast was asking Netflix for more money for their CONNECTION based on data rates (supply side). That seems reasonable to me. Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix packets or routing them differently, but the Netflix traffic was swamping various links in Comcast's network. and Comcast was asking them to connect differently to their network, albeit though a connection purchased from Comcast.
So what you are saying is kind of true, but it's not fully explaining all the facts or what each side was saying. You are just parroting what Netflix's PR folks wanted you to hear about this. In reality, both sides had valid points and the compromise solution we now have is working without all the dire consequences you speak of or the massive expense Comcast was complaining about. In short, the market worked, Comcast's customers can stream Netflix again and despite fairly flat rates Netflix is still making money.
Hype always makes bad law and this whole thing was hyped way out of proportion.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Read their Manifesto: https://www.savetheinternet.co...
A little background checking shows that SaveTheInternet is a coalition of organizations lead by the Free Press advocacy group whose chair is Tim Wu who invented the phrase "net neutrality." His Wiki page says "Wu ran for the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor of New York against a conservative Democrat." So the top name in this effort is a person very much on the left who is also fighting for his legacy. Now that doesn't mean he isn't necessarily correct, but NN was voted in only 3-2 along party lines in 2015 so we'd need someone more neutral to make the case.
But let's look at some of their claims:
"The consequences would be particularly devastating for [...] people of color, the LGBTQ community, indigenous peoples and religious minorities"
"The mainstream media have long misrepresented, ignored and harmed people of color. And thanks to systemic racism, economic inequality and runaway media consolidation, people of color own just a handful of broadcast stations. The lack of diverse ownership is a primary reason why the media have gotten away with criminalizing and otherwise stereotyping communities of color."
"The internet without Net Neutrality isn’t really the internet."
"This would destroy the open internet."
"Without Net Neutrality, the next Google or Facebook would never get off the ground." Well they did get off the ground without Net Neutrality, and have fortified themselves more than ever since NN.
Essentially we must support NN to prevent racism. If they need to bring up that argument, do they really have an argument?
Guaranteed he works for Comcast.
Worse... A defense contractor... ;)
Oh, and I used to work for the phone company way back when...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Do you realize it's perfectly possible to approve of someone's specific actions without approving of the person or the rest of their actions? That you can approve of something that someone did because something needed to be done, even though it wasn't the best way to go about it? Sometimes it's not about how they go about it, but that they're doing it for the right reasons.
Something needed to be done to protect the people. People are bad at realizing how bad things can get unless they see it. People need net neutrality, the principle, even if they don't realize it.
He means maybe nobody will bother creating websites anymore and we'll all go back to distributing content on disks delivered by truck.
How would that have helped? In a democratic society you can reverse whatever you want. Obama passed healthcare with a law, and that is on its way to being dismantled. It is only a question of how complicated it is to reverse the steps. Give congress and the president enough power, and they can ruin anything they want.
No, it wasn't. Paying an extortionist for the rest of your life is not a resolution. What people always miss is that the government is ALREADY involved in that it gave the power these telcos turned ISP's have in the first place by granting them exclusive rights of way. If you want to make it right then the infrastructure needs to be taken back and given to a third party to maintain much like the electric grid was when it was deregulated.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Quick, we need some "store neutrality"!
They're called company stores, and we did need to outlaw them because of their abuses of citizens. The idea was that the company wouldn't pay you in currency, but in script only redeemable at its own store. So we made laws in the 1930's make it illegal to make base pay be in something besides common currency.
Because regulation is the opposite of freedom, right? The freedom to form a monopoly, the freedom to pollute without repercussions, the freedom of banks to set their own leverage ratios, etc. Is that really the world you want?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Don't post hostile comments on Slashdot. They waste everyone's time.
Now that municipalities are building their own fiber to the curb because the big telecoms won't, is a good time for those municipalities to start interconnecting those networks. They can run a neutral network that way. As soon as there is a local alternative to big telecom near me, I'll take it. Currently only 1 ADSL provider and ADSL is less reliable than cable which is less reliable than fiber.
Oh, so you're from Verizon. Figures.
Do you realize it's perfectly possible to approve of someone's specific actions without approving of the person or the rest of their actions?
Of course. This doesn't really have anything to do with who did it. The only "person" issue here is that if one person who is President can do it, then the next one who is President can undo it the same way. I think there's a saying for that: "sauce for the goose". That seems to upset some people (who have mod points today), but it's a fact.
That you can approve of something that someone did because something needed to be done, even though it wasn't the best way to go about it?
No, sorry, but the ends do not justify the means. especially when we are talking about the government. Assuming that "something must be done" justifies bypassing the correct process is a dangerous thing. "'Something must be done' about all the Japanese living in the US now that we are at war with Japan. I know, I think the best way to handle it is to put them in internment camps..." "'Something must be done' about the potential entry of the US into our war in Asia, and I think the best way to handle it is to bomb the hell out of the US Pacific fleet while they are at anchor in Honolulu." "Something must be done" about hackers and intellectual property violators ... "Something must be done" has led to some very very bad laws and actions.
Sometimes it's not about how they go about it, but that they're doing it for the right reasons.
Do you really want a government that operates under the premise that "it doesn't matter how we go about it, it only matters that we did it for 'the right reasons', in our opinion"? Do you not understand what kind of abuses that can lead to?
"Well, we think Xenx is doing something illegal, and that's bad. We searched his house without a warrant, but we did it for what we thought were the right reasons." "For the right reasons" is right next to "something must be done" at the bottom of the list of excuses for government doing things the wrong way.
People need net neutrality, the principle, even if they don't realize it.
Problems with that excuse. First, government isn't mother and father, providing for us things we don't know we need. Second, there is a right way to do this, and "fiat" wasn't it. And third, laws are not principles, they are laws that try to enact principles but never seem quite able to avoid unintended effects.
"Principles by fiat" is a particularly bad way to govern from the Executive branch, especially when the Legislative branch has already provided their guidance in the form of laws.
Now, stop acting like the FCC undoing their regulations on net neutrality means that there are no and can never be any net neutrality regulation. Forcing congress's hand and moving the regulation to the right place isn't destroying the net as we know it. Companies that didn't do everything everyone is dreaming up before the FCC started controlling the internet won't suddenly start doing it when they stop.
That is because he expended all of his political capital with the American people on the ACA and Dodd-Frank. Instead of passing laws that the voters wanted he jammed through the ACA, which cost him the Democratic majority in Congress. When Obama had a majority in Congress he made no effort to reach across the aisle and peal off a couple of Republican votes. That was because he was convinced that the ACA would be popular once it was passed.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The only important part of Net Neutrality is Free Speech. Neither the republicans nor the democrats seem to feel it's important to focus like a laser beam on that issue.
They'd love to focus, like, a laser beam on Free Speech, both parties. Or any other kind of weapon they can get their hands on.
you pay comcast for your internet bandwidth. netflix pays its ISP for its internet bandwidth.
now for some reason comcast wants either you of netflix to pay them again? for what?
but this is just plain false. netflix arranged a more efficient method to get its traffic to comcast, a method that would have been cheaper per bit for both of them. there's no reason for comcast to require additional payment, it just saw that its network wasn't going to be capable to handling the additional bandwidth and wanted to pass the blame/cost onto someone else.
No.. Never worked for Verizon, though I was a customer at one point.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
i just hope that companies like netflix will give a discount to those users that predominantly use their service over fair (un-classified) internet connections. this would help to promote fair & local ISPs over the likes of comcast & verizon.
That's right frogs get ready for the slow boil.
Chris Mesterharm
Apparently your definition of right reasons is different than mine. My right reasons don't involve internment camps. When dealing with opinion, people are allowed to have their own. Supporting or not supporting actions is based upon a personal opinion of said actions. Ends justify the means only goes so far as the means don't outweigh the ends in importance. Each person has to make that decision on their own. The people in power are supposed to make that decision based upon the needs/will of the people. Obama going through the FCC for net neutrality was, to me(apparently I need to specify opinions as such), the right decision. Stopping ISP abuse of the internet was more immediately important. It was a stopgap. In a perfect world, congress would do what is right for the people instead of their pocket book. They would have enacted law to protect the principle of net neutrality. However, they're beholden to the companies and their party instead of the people.
Well, and where ISPs have monopolies, they are largely due to government. If you want to get rid of those monopolies get rid of those monopolies. What you're proposing to do instead is to leave those monopolies in place and then add even more regulations on top of it that will ensure that Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. maintain their monopolies as well.
What is it that you don't get about monopolies? They are government-created... by people like you.
And that has to do with net neutrality... exactly nothing.
Really, you people are grasping at straws, and all because you want to defend the Google/YouTube/Facebook/Netflix oligopolies that many of you work for or depend on.
I've got to say, this sounds like willful ignorance from you.
Netflix pays its ISP for a connection to the Internet backbone.
We pay Comcast for a connection to the Internet backbone.
What bits are on those connections (*should*) have no meaning.
By the logic you're presenting Comcast should be trying to bill Level3 networks for all the traffic coming from their backbone customers, or CloudFlare for all the data they're sourcing into Comcast's network, but they don't. They are attacking Netflix because they compete with Comcast's offering and they know they can get away with it.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Companies can only get away with screwing customers if they have government-granted monopolies. So, if you don't like customers being screwed, stop granting monopolies to these jerks. Don't add more corruption (net neutrality) on top of existing corruption (telecom regulations and local monopolies).
I fully support net neutrality, but one thing that seems to keep getting lost in discussions about Comcast vs Netflix is that back when Netflix live HD streaming was *new*, Netflix users were consuming *inordinate* amounts of bandwidth relative to "everyone else". On one hand, it was Comcast's fault for overselling their capacity... on the other hand, Netflix was an easy target PRECISELY because it was such a big, easy-to-see target.
The danger isn't that Comcast is going to start charging higher fees for Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, Youtube, and SlingTV... the danger is that Comcast will roll out some $9.99/month (+ thirty dollars of unavoidable fees) plan that provides "100mbps" connectivity ONLY to big, established companies willing to pony up and subsidize their cheap plan, then jack up the price of REAL 100mbps connectivity (to all internet hosts, including RDP servers and non-Facebook/Netflix/Hulu/etc) to $150/month.
It's a variant on Gresham's Law... cheap shitty service drives out good service & makes buying something even *slightly* better than "total shit" WAY more expensive.
Look at laptops... you can buy a shit netbook with 1.2ghz cpu, inadequate ram, useless keyboard that misses 1 in 20 keypresses, and hard drive that isn't even big enough to survive the next big annual Windows update for $199... but getting one that's meaningfully better (i5 or i7, 8-16gb ram, 256gb+ SSD, etc) increases the price to $1,000-2,000 because all of those shit netbooks soak up 99% of the economies of scale & make GOOD computer hardware 4-10x more expensive. And the pervasive existence of under-powered hardware induces companies like Microsoft to take away nice things like Aero Glass & replace it with ugly, awful things like Metro for the sake of making it run semi-acceptably ON shit hardware.
Apparently your definition of right reasons is different than mine. My right reasons don't involve internment camps
He didn't say that the right reasons were internment camps. The "right reasons" were protecting against Japanese invasion, and protecting against foreign infiltration and sabotage during wartime. The internment camps were an abhorrent means to get a reasonable end. The camps were not the goal, they were not put into place because jailing Japanese Americans is fun. It was a horrible means to gaining security from Japanese sabotage and attacks, and as the GP stated, the ends do not justify the means.
Ah yes, "toll lanes." The lanes whose very existence slows down the rest of the freeway so that some other folks can pay to go faster.
Meanwhile, folks who don't pay find that they're closing slower, and that's the beauty of it it: Make a situation worse so that someone will be willing to also pay you to make it better. That's what you get in a society when the almighty dollar is valued higher than anything else.
The people in power are supposed to make that decision based upon the needs/will of the people.
This justification leads to the tyranny of the majority. If the "needs/will of the people" say that we do something that the Constitution says is not an authorized privilege of government, then the "needs/will of the people" will just have to go lacking, and the government official has no authority to do it. If the Congress crafts laws that say one thing, it is not up to the "people in power" to decide they'll do something different because obviously, they're doing it "for the right reason".
Compare this to corporate activities when it comes to taxes. They will go to great lengths to minimize the amount of taxes they pay, short of breaking the law, because they know that they have "the right reasons" for ignoring the intent of tax law and relying on what tax law actually says. These corporations are evil because they do that. How is it not evil if the executive branch of government looks for ways to ignore the intent of Congress and instead find the "loopholes" that let it do what it wants?
Obama going through the FCC for net neutrality was, to me(apparently I need to specify opinions as such), the right decision.
It is often hard to accept that something you dearly want to happen cannot happen the way it has, but that's what being in a society with a limited government can result in. The government has limits. And no, we can recognize opinions when they appear, and we know that it is your opinion that the FCC decision to manage NN was "the right decision". It is also somewhat clear that you admit that it was done the wrong way. ("Ends justify the means" isn't used unless the means were questionable.)
In a perfect world, congress would do what is right for the people instead of their pocket book.
That may be. But the fact is, they did not vote the way you wanted them to. That fact does not mean that other parts of the government get to do what they think is better "for the right reason".
They would have enacted law to protect the principle of net neutrality.
We do not know that. That's your assumption based on your opinion that NN is so obviously Necessary and Good that there can be no valid opposing opinion.
You can't let every mom and pop ISP tear up the roads. Municipalities give monopoly rights to cable and telco companies because easements on private properties suck. Tearing up the streets sucks and is expensive. The Comcasts and Verizons and AT&Ts get away with this because they CAN. Consumers have no choice. They are not able to choose broadband alternatives. In the glory days of the 90s and the early 00s, we had the Golden Age of DSL, when the telcos were required to lease their lines to ISPS. ISPs popped up, all offering up different plans to entice subscribers. We don't live in that world anymore.
You know, I'd actually be fine with no network neutrality. I really would, if the ISPs didn't own the last mile. If they had no way to dictate any terms, and everyone was on the same footing. But no, ISPs DO own the lines, so if they want these guarantees, I think it's reasonable for us to demand decent behavior from them.
I am sure not every country in the world has net neutrality laws. Are they living this scenario right now? Or does consumer demand ensure availability of unrestricted services?
That whole episode played out in the court of public opinion exactly how Netflix wanted. But I ask you a serious question. First, has NN gone into effect yet? Nope, it hasn't. So how has this been resolved for Comcast's customers? They ARE watching their Netflix now are they not?
Yes, Netflix is now paying protection money -- Comcast inserted themselves as a middleman, threatening to choke off access. So now, everyone is going to pay more. Comcast customers pay for their Internet access just like they did before the throttling began. Netflix pays for their Internet access, just like their did before the throttling. That's exactly how the Internet worked for a few decades until the ISPs gained trust power. They now have the ability to choke off huge numbers of customers in ways that ISPs back in the old days were incapable of doing. This is what happens when someone has no choice but to purchase your offering: you can charge all sorts of fees, and they'll pay. They have to. So now a third payment is being made, from Netflix to Comcast, for nothing other than to buy access to Comcast's subscribers. That means Netflix has had to raise prices and eat losses which is fine since the ISPs were also content companies trying to kill Netflix's offerings. So we have higher prices to pay for Netflix, all so those coins can go straight to Comcast's coffers.
A la carte cable channels isn't the same thing. Look, through my apartment building, I get basic cable (however that's defined). That gives me a bunch of channels, many of which, I never watch. I pay a little extra for some more channels, but I'm not paying just for those extra three or four channels that I watch. I'm paying for a bundle of channels that include those three or four.
PEople never really wanted a la carte cable channels either. They just wanted specific shows, but the way cable worked that wasn't technologically feasible. It's now technologically feasible for every "channel," (netflix, amazon, etc) to have every show, all the time, but the content companies don't want that either.
yeah, maybe those "good old" lans, and IPX, make a comeback too ;)
Do you have to work at being this stupid? Net Neutrality was the reality when Facebook and Google got started. It only got codified into regulations when ISPs like Comcast started breaking it.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Net neutrality being allowed to exist is no different than if I were to buy 10k acres of land and I built a system of private roads across that land
and then the government came and told me who was allowed to drive on my private roads, on my private land and in what manner, causing
damage, etc, to my business, to my property and told me that I wasn't allowed to prevent it from happening.
NOTE: for your metaphore to work and actually precisely describe the situation, the 10k acres of land need to be not continuous, but all the free space between the private houses of private home owner that where here before you came.
(i.e.: you only own the land where you build your network of private roads. The people living here aren't living on your privately owned land, they own their own land).
Nice metaphor you have here, because when you look into the details it breaks in the exact same way that anti-net-neutrality-trolling breaks down to.
So you want to decide who can drive on your private roads and who can't ?
On the grounds that it causes you damage to accept any random vehicle to drive there ?
Then why the hell did you pretend your private roads network is "18-wheeler truck ready" when all you build is small gravel bike paths ?
(ISP: Why complaining that traffic from website XyZ that you want to throttle overloads your network ? Should you have provisioned the network well enough to be able to sustain the bandwidth that you sell to your customers. If you complain that youtube causes too much traffic on your network, you're the bloody idiot for having oversold your capacity to your customers. No you can't be an ISP selling "up to 100 mbits connection" to 20'000 customer while only having a 1Gbit upstream, even if you put the magical "up to")
- That point by itself is already very close to false advertising. Something which can get you sued for in some jurisdictions (those with strong consumer protection)
Also, all the people who own houses which are enclosed in enclaves in your territory are already paying for said roads. They are paying all the costs. Then why do you also want to tax incoming delivery trucks into your private network ? The delivery company has paid tax to the government (or whatever entity) for the building and upkeep of public roads. The home owner are paying your for the building and upkeep of your private road network. There isn't a single meter of road that isn't being paid for. But you still want to get profits, just because you happens to be in control of the gates around the private land ?
(ISP: companies such as Netflix are already paying to have a given bandwidth in their data center. Customers are already paying for a certain bandwidth on their data plan. All involved bandwith and interconnection is paid some way or another. Why the fuck to you suddenly want extra money from Netflix ?)
- That point by itself is already very close to raketeering. You can get into real trouble with this in lots of jurisdiction.
Also how can we be sure that you have no vested interests in how you are taxing incoming delivery truck ? It's a bit fun when every milk delivery man needs to pay exorbitant fees to enter your network, except "Joe's Milk Jugs" which happens to be *your uncle joe* who own a dairy farm ? into whose company you're a shareholder ? and sit on its director's board ?
(ISP: the whole point of taxing Youtube and Netflix is to favour ipTV services from a provider who is part of the same mega-corporation).
- That point by itself could bring legal wrath on you because of violation of rule about competition, antitrust, etc.
And by extending further all the above to there most extreme conclusion :
Actually you're in a very critical position : By applying insanely big fees, you can control who goes in, who goes out. You can completely wipe out competition. You can end up deciding which companies are allowed to deliver food. You can severely limits the acces to anygoods. You can bascially decide which news
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Shesh... This "Big companies make profits = bad" thing is getting old. You do release that both companies make money right?
Comcast is currently trading at about 19 P/E, earning less than $2.00/share and currently pays under $0.70/share in dividends. I'd be willing to bet that YOU benefit from this, directly, if you have any kind of investment. So Big Bad Comcast is owned by people like you and me and are not making obscene profits if you look at the situation on a per share basis.
Netflix doesn't do badly either. Althogh it's trading at nearly a 200 P/E, it earns more than $1,00 /share. It's obviously the smaller company, but their profits where not bad at over $100 Million/quarter.
So why do we have this attitude about corporate profits being bad? Or that Comcast somehow took advantage of Netflix's customers?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If you are tearing up the streets to bury cables, you are doing it wrong... Seriously wrong...
We have things like directional boring machines that allow you to shove cables under the pavement and keeps you from having to dig trenches to bury stuff. Just a couple of hand dug holes every few hundred feet.
Also... If you are a Mom and Pop shop trying to bridge that last mile, then may I suggest you use any number of RF or Laser optical options and not bother burying wires? It's a LOT less expensive than burying wires... Then as your customer base grows in specific areas, then you wire them up as it becomes cost effective? Heck, start with a couple of apartment buildings or something...
Come on, there are lots of options. The way this works is to innovate. Do something the big guys won't or can't. OR buy capacity from them in bulk for that last mile then blow the doors off them with customer service... The possibilities are endless here.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You're right that it's not a bipartisan fuck up. But you're a credulous simp if you actually think the GOP congress was going to work with Obama on a single thing. One party and one party alone is responsible for the death of Net Neutrality, and that's the one that's in power now. Anyone claiming otherwise demonstrates either a serious lack of knowledge about the subject, or a willful attempt to obfuscate.
Interesting that you absolve the GOP of any need to work across the aisle themselves, and put more weight on the nine months of unassailable congressional majorities the Democrats had than on the six years of majorities that the GOP had after that. They could have put through a law enshrining some form of Net Neutrality at any point in time. With all the time they spent voting to repeal the ACA and not giving nominees hearings or votes, I'm sure that they could have found a way to get something like that passed if it were something they cared about.
I didn't say he said the right reasons were internment camps. I said my right reasons don't involve internment camps. As in, they wouldn't be involved. I also further explained having to weight the means and ends.
Well, and where ISPs have monopolies, they are largely due to government.
The idiotic idea of the day?
If you want to get rid of those monopolies get rid of those monopolies
Like link every house to four more sets of wires and pipes in addition to the existing one? Sure, we'll get right onto it!
Ezekiel 23:20
You're obviously coming from a different tact and that is all well and good. However, if everything had to be done exactly as the laws(etc.) intend... this country wouldn't exist in the first place. You should not base every decision solely upon the law and how it's intended to be interpreted. I'm not talking anarchy, but there is more than cut and dry law. As for net neutrality being necessary, it isn't an opinion. Government regulation was needed. Net neutrality was a counter to actions ISPs were already taking to restrict open access to the internet. As ISPs are a monopoly/duopoly in a given locale, the only alternative is no internet access. That isn't a viable option for most of society.
Being we are just spitbaling pet scenarios here...
I don't think that any ISP will bother with this "Cheap but filtered" internet connection thing. Why? It's WAY too hard to make work. Maintaining the route tables will be a horribly complex and labor intensive task so it will cost them a lot to maintain and blow the economics of this idea of yours. Remember, an ISP's highest variable cost here is LABOR, and they are not going to do anything that adds to that expense. Also, the "cheap" priced customers will rarely be happy with them and believe it or not, large ISPs do try to avoid upsetting their customer base (Or perhaps we should say they avoid upsetting a large percentage of customers enough that they will consider alternatives). ISP';s make the most money from the long term paying customer who doesn't consume provisioning labor hours or tech support hours and automatically pays their bill every month. (Which is why they usually give you a break on price for enrolling in auto pay and committing to one or two years).
So I don't think your scenario is likely to happen. ISP's won't bother with this. It's to hard to make work, will actually cost them money and is likely to drive more customers off than it attracts.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Shesh... This "Big companies make profits = bad" thing is getting old.
When there's no competition, yes, it is bad. That's the whole rationale behind various anti-trust actions. "Excess profits" are balanced out by competition, because they allow companies that are better for the consumer to make gains. Get rid of the competition and there is very little upside. It might as well be a utility and should be treated as such.
Comcast is currently trading at about 19 P/E, earning less than $2.00/share and currently pays under $0.70/share in dividends. I'd be willing to bet that YOU benefit from this, directly, if you have any kind of investment.
I find the "don't criticize/take action against this company because most people probably have it as some type of mutual fund" to be a BS argument. I don't particular care if my funds "benefit" from it, I can guarantee we individually pay a hell of a lot more to more than balance that out.
But.... Comcast is a business, albeit a big one. The "Big Business = BAD" mind set is inappropriate. Why does it matter what size a business is? It's not like Comcast is a monopoly in the legal sense. They are big, but that doesn't mean they can or do take advantage of customers.
If Comcast is returning 4% on their investment, but that local corner grocery is turning 20% a year, who's abusing their customers? You see, THAT is the issue I have with this picking on the big companies and assuming they abuse their customers based on the amount of profits they make. Nobody cares to compare what Comcast makes per customer or per share with other businesses we just accept as valid because they may only clear $200k a year, even if their profit per customer is an order of magnitude greater than Comcast.
PLUS, if you own a part of Comcast in some mutual fund, it DOES matter. Share holders are the owners of Comcast. Share holders pick the board of directors who pick the management staff at Comcast. You may not have much control, but ALL of you DO and if enough of you don't like what Comcast is doing, you could stop it. So you carry at least some responsibility for what Comcast does if you own part of the company. Then you bite your own hand when you nip at Comcast.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I do not "absolve" the GOP of not passing a "net neutrality" law. I praise them for not expanding government power to "fix" a problem created by the misuse of government power.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You should not base every decision solely upon the law and how it's intended to be interpreted.
I should not, but you keep forgetting that we are talking about the government here. The GOVERNMENT should not be looking for loopholes or deciding what to do based on the ends while ignoring the means.
As for net neutrality being necessary, it isn't an opinion.
Yes, I'm sorry to tell you, it is. It may be a well-supported opinion, and it may be a good thing to try to implement, but it is still nothing more than an opinion.
Government regulation was needed.
It was necessary to prevent internal sabotage and espionage when Japan brought war to us. You see, here we are again at the ends not justifying the means, and "for the right reasons" not being a valid excuse. "Government regulation was needed" does not excuse bypassing the process or using the wrong solutions.
Net neutrality was a counter to actions ISPs were already taking to restrict open access to the internet.
A few egregious examples that were being dealt with.
As ISPs are a monopoly/duopoly in a given locale,
The solution to ISPs not providing the service they contracted to provide is either FTC investigations (which they have proven they can handle), or go to a different ISP. If there is a customer base, this pretend monopoly will vaporize. In many places it has. Please tell me again how 13 ISPs in one city create a monopoly -- and that's ignoring the multiple cellular ISPs.
Companies can only get away with screwing customers if they have government-granted monopolies. So, if you don't like customers being screwed, stop granting monopolies to these jerks.
Name one ISP that has a government-granted monopoly in the US.
I've already stated that ends can justify means, but don't always justify means. There is no point trying to bring up obvious examples where they don't. As for net neutrality being an opinion, you're focusing on the wrong point. My belief that we should have an open internet is an opinion. Net neutrality regulation is proven to be required to maintain an open internet. Further, trying to claim 13 ISPs is a joke. There might technically be places with that many options, but most people get to choose between DSL or cable internet. For example, I have a choice between Comcast and Frontier. Neither are customer focused.
I just realized I left out a major detail from my "$9.99/mo (plus fees)" scenario -- non-partner services wouldn't be BLOCKED... that would be too blatant & would guarantee pushback. They'd just be throttled to some point that's not glacial, but not fast enough to sustain realtime high-quality HD streaming video (say, 3-5mbps).
If your choices were:
a) $9.99/mo (+ fees) for (up to) 100mbps to "partners" (with nearly every major service being a partner) and 3-5mbps to "everyone else"
b) $99.99/mo (+ fees) for (up to) 100mbps to "partners" and 10mbps to "everybody else"
c) $249/mo (+ fees) for (up to) gigabit speeds to everyone
(all with "up to" gigabit local loop down & ~20-50mbps up... throttled speeds are per-host) ... you'd probably agonize long & hard between 'a' & 'b' (unless you really, really NEEDED 'c'). And you'd probably end up grudgingly choosing 'a' & hating them for charging SO MUCH MORE just to get the next step up.
Oh, and I forgot the other detail... $9.99/mo is the 6-month "promo" rate, with $69.99 regular price, 2 year contract, and outrageous ETF. Ditto, for the $99 plan... $99 for 6 months, jumping up to $149 thereafter with 2 year commitment.
I've already stated that ends can justify means, but don't always justify means.
If the "means" need justification because of the "ends", then no. That's why that sentence is significant. The ends can NEVER justify the means. Ever. The means have to stand alone. If the means are justified already, then the ends are irrelevant.
As for net neutrality being an opinion, you're focusing on the wrong point.
I am focusing on the point you made: that it isn't an opinion that NN is necessary.
Further, trying to claim 13 ISPs is a joke.
No, I am not joking. I recognize the names of many of them, so I know they exist. And, as I recall, the wireless cell services were not included.
but most people get to choose between DSL or cable internet.
So more than one. And that limit is only if you ignore the other choices and focus on the common ones.
So more than one. And that limit is only if you ignore the other choices and focus on the common ones.
If you have two bad choices, you cannot choose either without being screwed over. The only option then is to either pick which devil, or forego an increasingly necessary service.
(I'm sorry, I forgot how provincial and dull-witted some people are on Slashdot, so let me explain.)
No, a single set of wires is sufficient. The way this is handled in some places is that the wires from each house go to a common junction box, where they can be connected to the desired provider. In other places, this is simply done virtually, meaning the last mile wires are shared by different ISPs.
Yes, the single set of wires carries ASDL, VSDL, cable TV, fiber signals...oh wait, it doesn't!
Ezekiel 23:20
That's a "set of wires" isn't it? And if you feel like you don't get enough options with that "set of wires", as you seem to because you justify net neutrality based on not having enough provider choices, then that "set of wires" could be either shared by, or connected to, different providers.
as you seem to because you justify net neutrality based on not having enough provider choices
And your smart idea is what, to subscribe to as many ISPs as is the number of networks that I need to access and bond them?
Ezekiel 23:20
Well, you evidently picked a poor place to live. Why should anybody else care? In any case, when it comes to DSL, you probably already have multiple ISPs offering services over the same line, because that's how DSL is usually set up.
No, not at all. If there is a demand for the kind of unrestricted service you want in your neighborhood and there are no government-imposed restrictions on line usage, then some ISP will supply it at market rates. That's how markets function.
Evidently, what you want is multiple Internet providers to cater to your whims wherever you find it desirable to live, with no restrictions on content, at below market rates, and you want to force others to subsidize your preferences by passing laws like net neutrality. To which I can only say: you're a greedy prick and you can GFUS.
I've lived in places where the only ISP choice was fixed wireless with restrictions on streaming, and unlike you, I didn't go around trying to bully others into subsidizing my Internet service.
You can actually voice your opinion directly from this link: http://gofccyourself.com/ [gofccyourself.com] It takes you directly to the FCC website page to voice your opinion. Click the "Express" link there to get to the relevan case page. Then, finish filling-out the info and submit. It is EASY! it is your duty to chime-in! We, the People, really need to understand and demand what truly serves the People! (This link was created/maintained by John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" organization.)
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
You can actually voice your opinion directly from this link: http://gofccyourself.com/ [gofccyourself.com]
It takes you directly to the FCC website page to voice your opinion.
Click the "Express" link there to get to the relevan case page.
Then, finish filling-out the info and submit.
It is EASY! it is your duty to chime-in!
We, the People, really need to understand and demand what truly serves the People!
(This link was created/maintained by John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" organization.)
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Okay, so the end of reaching my job does not justify the means of driving 25 miles; the means must stand on its own.
So what's my reason for getting on the road again?
If you have two bad choices,
Then you cannot claim that one of them is a monopoly.
Okay, so the end of reaching my job does not justify the means of driving 25 miles
That's correct. If "driving 25 miles" was illegal, then the fact that you could get to a job 25 miles away by driving 25 miles would not make the drive legal. "Justify" does not mean "explain why I do something", it means "make it a valid thing to do", in the context of that statement.
So what's my reason for getting on the road again?
Because you chose to use a legal means of getting to work that you chose to be 25 miles from home.
Ah, you're defining justify differently than I. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying :)
but this is just plain false. netflix arranged a more efficient method to get its traffic to comcast, a method that would have been cheaper per bit for both of them. there's no reason for comcast to require additional payment, it just saw that its network wasn't going to be capable to handling the additional bandwidth and wanted to pass the blame/cost onto someone else.
On the contrary, your assessment is faulty. Netflix started using Cogent as their transit provider, and this caused the links between Cogent and Comcast to become saturated. The solution was for Netflix and Comcast to setup private peering, which Comcast refused to do settlement free. Either way it would not have been "cheaper for both" to use Cogent. It would have been cheaper for Netflix.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
No, but that would be a duopoly... as mentioned.