The FACT this set of regulation was secret and the public blocked from seeing it until (presumably) after it is passed is an obvious sign that something in the regulations stinks.
Hey! That's not true. It wasn't a secret, because Google's lobbyist got the FCC to add something to the proposal the night before it was voted on.
Presumably the FCC would have shown it to any other special interest that gave a shitload of money to their party. So there you go. Transparent.
That said...is it a situation where the FCC decided to act because Congress declined to take the issue up and craft something more appropriate?
There was actually a Slashdot article about this yesterday. The Republicans in Congress have a bill that, if it became law, would be Net Neutrality without Title II. (Slashdot linked to an NYT article calling the effort dead, but the Washington Post quoted the guy saying the NYT article was wrong.) Democrats are holding the Republican bill up because they really want Title II, not Net Neutrality, and the FCC will give it to them.
If this is true, where's the link to the rules? Where can I find them? By the way, Google had them changed (apparently some lobbyists got a sneak peak) so of you have the pre- and post- Google version, I'd appreciate it.
Am I the only one concerned that Google's lobbyist had something slipped into the proposed regulation LAST NIGHT? We the people weren't allowed to see the regulation before it was voted on, but SOMEHOW Google's lobbyist got their hands on it and proposed a change to PART OF the committee. Not even all five of them, just the three who voted yes. Of course, since the original draft wasn't public, there's no way to know exactly what sweetheart deal was slipped in to benefit Google. That's all this Title II regulation will be... A handout to special interests.
Seriously, Soulskill, what the hell happened with this summary? There were three primary groups opposed to the President's Title II plan, two of which were "Republicans," but all three were acting individually. The Republican FCC commissioners were going to try to get the Title II plan voted down at the FCC. Republican members of Congress were trying to pass a Net Neutrality law that banned Title II regulations. (The third group, telecom companies which give to both parties in equal measure, was/is going to attack the Title II regulation in the court.) Which group of Republicans backed down? Both? Neither?
By begging your telco masters ever so kindly to take twice as much money from you for a promise not to block the websites you want to use like Netflix, only to have them renege like they've been doing with the money you're giving them now?
The Republicans have introduced a Net Neutrality bill that would ban paid prioritization, making this practice illegal. Since it wouldn't mandate settlement-free peering and it isn't explicitly designed to perpetuate monopolies, the Democrats are holding out for Title II.
... an absolute avalanche of public backlash... worked in turning Wheeler around
No it didn't. Wheeler has been grinding an axe against the cable companies for years, ever since his idea of "America Online, delivered over cable networks" didn't pan out. (Wheeler wrote about this in his editorial on the subject.) He just waited until after Obama was safely reelected to implement the plan that Obama has wanted since day one.
In 2008, there was a professor and Net Neutrality supporter who explained the fairness doctrine as "Sometimes you'd go to foxnews.com, and CNN would show up instead." That would be like a fairness doctrine for the internet.
It got coverage at the time, but I haven't been able to find a link. I've been looking for awhile.
The problem with the phrase Net Neutrality is that it refers to two discrete concepts which should each have separate names. Some folks mean a ban on consumer-level blocking or prioritization. (There's pretty much no opposition to this. The Republican Net Neutrality bill, if passed, would implement that ban in law, as opposed to FCC regulation.) Other folks mean mandatory settlement-free peering. (These people say Netflix's ISP shouldn't have to pay more because they push more traffic onto the the network. The counterpoint is that organizations that need or want more bandwidth should pay more for it.) Title II regulation (placing wireline internet under strict government regulation designed to capture but perpetuate natural monopolies) is a third issue that doesn't actually solve either of the other two problems.
These are complex technical issues, and it shouldn't be a surprise that the general public DOESN'T KNOW what any of the three concepts are. The deliberate conflation (of using the phrase Net Neutrality to refer to two discrete issues and then conflating Title II with that) has made the problem worse.
What are you talking about? The organization you linked to wasn't appealing to the government to force their ads onto television. They were making an argument against NBC, and they think that the fact that NBC refused to run their ad strengthens their argument. The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with it.
Also of note, the pro "NN"/Title II crowd did a lot of lobbying and a lot of supporting Obama's election in 2012. TFA only tells half the story. Like everything else in politics, "lobbying" is only bad when people who don't agree with you are the ones doing it.
You know that Obama's Title II plan isn't actually Net Neutrality, and is just a handout to the big companies that supported him in 2012, right? Sounds like your side is susceptible to astroturf too... That is if you're not yourself an astroturfer.
On a more serious note, don't flatter yourself. Slashdot isn't a target for infiltration. The userbase isn't big enough, the groupthink is too ingrained, and the interface is too horrible. (Fuck beta.) The astroturfers would get more influence per dollar infiltrating a number of other sites.
Out of the ashes of Netscape came the phoenix (was Firefox called phoenix at some earlier time?
Close. It was called "Firebird," and you're right. The analogy was to a phoenix that rose out of Netscape's ashes. Thunderbird, part of the same product suite, was named after Firebird. However, there's an Open Source database program that is also called Firebird, so Mozilla had to change it.
The current iteration of all these apps (downloadable from the play store) are free. I'm not sure why they would make the pre-installed versions trialware.
Yes, I recommend teams run plays that go counter to their tendencies in situations that keep the opponents guessing.
The Pats DB who caught the game-deciding INT was signed off the street in November. He didn't realize he could have just knelt in the end zone and saved the Pats from almost giving the ball up via a safety. But, because Seattle's tendencies are so obvious, he sniffed out the "rub*" play and pointed it out to his teammate, who then pressed the WR so the WR was out of position and the DB got the pick instead.
Also the Seahawks had four tries. (First and goal at the one, down four points IN THE SUPER BOWL is the very definition of four down territory.) A pass to the OUTSIDE might have caught the Pats (and was in fact what Carroll expected when he told Bevell to call a pass) but that would have been a lower risk play because it would have been incredibly hard to intercept in bounds. But a pass over the middle out of a bunch formation is asking to get picked off.
*The "Rub Play," by definition, is illegal under the same rule against offensive holding. However, offensive and defensive contact is allowed within five yards of the LOS. Since they were within five yards, the contact wasn't illegal and thus, it wasn't a rub. The Pats are dirty cheaters, but this play is not an example of them cheating.
I don't understand what you think you gain by lying in such an obvious fashion. Internet access is NOT monopolized everywhere in the United States. This is trivially demonstrated. Learn to use the goddamn shift key, and go troll someone else.
You're arguing in circles here. Internet access does NOT lend itself to natural monopolies.
I used to live in an area in Northern NJ that was wired for cable in the 1970s. By the late 1990s, the cable company in the area was offering broadband cable internet. Starting in the mid 2000s, Verizon wired up the area A SECOND TIME with fiber optic internet access, and the two companies have been competing for customers in the area ever since.
It costs more to run fiber optic cabling than coaxial cabling, but Verizon still thought it was worth it to wire the area WHICH ALREADY HAD BROADBAND up so that there would be A SECOND BROADBAND OPTION and potential profit for them. The barrier to entry was sufficiently small that Verizon entered an existing market as an overlapping ISP. Without exclusive franchising, a second cable company could have made even more potential profit than Verizon because it would be cheaper for them to rewire the neighborhood. (Or today, without exclusive franchising, a second Fiber Optic provider could enter the market and make a little profit for themselves.)
The networking gear (carrier grade routers and whatnot) are the no matter what connection media you're using, so overlapping ISPs, who would need to buy their own sets of networking gear, would be buying the same equipment. More demand for the product unlocks economy of scale, which would drive the price of the networking gear (part of the barrier to entry) down.
A lower barrier to entry means that overlapping ISPs make sense in more markets. They'll then need networking gear, and at this point we're in vicious cycle territory.
What we as customers need is more ISP options. Title II will make the situation worse, and the status quo will make it the same. A smart regulation would ban exclusive municipal franchise agreements, but you oppose that regulation. I ask again, why are you against regulations? Are you a libertarian?
One, "Transparency International" looks to blame all corruption on business. They exist to say corporations are bad. They're a terrible source. (Note: I got this from looking at how they quantified their numbers. I clicked the little blue question marks next to the "statistics." They're not very subtle.)
Like you, they have blinders on. The worse corruption is corruption in government. If we were to pass a law banning municipal GOVERNMENTS from granting exclusive telecommunications franchises, we'd see more competition and less corruption.
Two, you gave the examples of Canada and Norway. Canada has the same kind of internet regime that exists in the USA. Canadian Municipalities give exclusive rights to one provider to wire their town for broadband, just like here. On this specific topic, there is no difference between the US and Canada in terms of corruption. If Canada were to pass the regulation I'm advocating, THEY'd be less corrupt.
I also can't find reliable information on Norway other than they don't have a single nationalized provider and that they have a mandatory black list of "hate sites." (One of the concerns that the Open Internet Order and Title II raise is the possibility of the government banning sites run by their political opponents under the guise that they are "hate sites.") Can you tell me anything about how internet access in Norway works?
Internet service is NOT something that lends itself to natural monopolies. There are certain areas of the country where there is a cable internet provider and a fiber optic internet provider, and they compete with each other. (This is in addition to any DSL options that may be in place.)
The reason there aren't more companies trying to service these customers is because municipal franchise agreements prevent more than one provider of internet service, per media. Regulating franchise agreements more strictly (i.e. preventing municipal governments from granting artificial monopolies) would allow multiple groups to enter the market.
Title II regulation won't fix this corruption. Stricter regulation of municipal franchise agreements will. But you're against that regulation. What are you, some kind of libertarian?
Slashdot Mirror
The FACT this set of regulation was secret and the public blocked from seeing it until (presumably) after it is passed is an obvious sign that something in the regulations stinks.
Hey! That's not true. It wasn't a secret, because Google's lobbyist got the FCC to add something to the proposal the night before it was voted on.
Presumably the FCC would have shown it to any other special interest that gave a shitload of money to their party. So there you go. Transparent.
birth control,
There is at least one major world religion that will launch a crusade if that became universal.
You can't actually make it universal. Leave it to Slashdot to not think that one through.
Hey! That's not fair. Google's lobbyist got something changed at the last minute. So it was four people.
That said...is it a situation where the FCC decided to act because Congress declined to take the issue up and craft something more appropriate?
There was actually a Slashdot article about this yesterday. The Republicans in Congress have a bill that, if it became law, would be Net Neutrality without Title II. (Slashdot linked to an NYT article calling the effort dead, but the Washington Post quoted the guy saying the NYT article was wrong.) Democrats are holding the Republican bill up because they really want Title II, not Net Neutrality, and the FCC will give it to them.
Also congress has already banned any taxes on broadband, so at least for the near future that can't happen.
That law expires in November. Congress claims that they will extend it, but they haven't yet.
That's a press release. That's not the actual rules.
If this is true, where's the link to the rules? Where can I find them? By the way, Google had them changed (apparently some lobbyists got a sneak peak) so of you have the pre- and post- Google version, I'd appreciate it.
Am I the only one concerned that Google's lobbyist had something slipped into the proposed regulation LAST NIGHT? We the people weren't allowed to see the regulation before it was voted on, but SOMEHOW Google's lobbyist got their hands on it and proposed a change to PART OF the committee. Not even all five of them, just the three who voted yes. Of course, since the original draft wasn't public, there's no way to know exactly what sweetheart deal was slipped in to benefit Google. That's all this Title II regulation will be... A handout to special interests.
What the hell is wrong with Slashdot these days?
What land is Taiwan mining? They're an island. They don't have land borders with their enemies.
By begging your telco masters ever so kindly to take twice as much money from you for a promise not to block the websites you want to use like Netflix, only to have them renege like they've been doing with the money you're giving them now?
The Republicans have introduced a Net Neutrality bill that would ban paid prioritization, making this practice illegal. Since it wouldn't mandate settlement-free peering and it isn't explicitly designed to perpetuate monopolies, the Democrats are holding out for Title II.
... an absolute avalanche of public backlash... worked in turning Wheeler around
No it didn't. Wheeler has been grinding an axe against the cable companies for years, ever since his idea of "America Online, delivered over cable networks" didn't pan out. (Wheeler wrote about this in his editorial on the subject.) He just waited until after Obama was safely reelected to implement the plan that Obama has wanted since day one.
It got coverage at the time, but I haven't been able to find a link. I've been looking for awhile.
The problem with the phrase Net Neutrality is that it refers to two discrete concepts which should each have separate names. Some folks mean a ban on consumer-level blocking or prioritization. (There's pretty much no opposition to this. The Republican Net Neutrality bill, if passed, would implement that ban in law, as opposed to FCC regulation.) Other folks mean mandatory settlement-free peering. (These people say Netflix's ISP shouldn't have to pay more because they push more traffic onto the the network. The counterpoint is that organizations that need or want more bandwidth should pay more for it.) Title II regulation (placing wireline internet under strict government regulation designed to capture but perpetuate natural monopolies) is a third issue that doesn't actually solve either of the other two problems.
These are complex technical issues, and it shouldn't be a surprise that the general public DOESN'T KNOW what any of the three concepts are. The deliberate conflation (of using the phrase Net Neutrality to refer to two discrete issues and then conflating Title II with that) has made the problem worse.
What are you talking about? The organization you linked to wasn't appealing to the government to force their ads onto television. They were making an argument against NBC, and they think that the fact that NBC refused to run their ad strengthens their argument. The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with it.
Also of note, the pro "NN"/Title II crowd did a lot of lobbying and a lot of supporting Obama's election in 2012. TFA only tells half the story. Like everything else in politics, "lobbying" is only bad when people who don't agree with you are the ones doing it.
On a more serious note, don't flatter yourself. Slashdot isn't a target for infiltration. The userbase isn't big enough, the groupthink is too ingrained, and the interface is too horrible. (Fuck beta.) The astroturfers would get more influence per dollar infiltrating a number of other sites.
Out of the ashes of Netscape came the phoenix (was Firefox called phoenix at some earlier time?
Close. It was called "Firebird," and you're right. The analogy was to a phoenix that rose out of Netscape's ashes. Thunderbird, part of the same product suite, was named after Firebird. However, there's an Open Source database program that is also called Firebird, so Mozilla had to change it.
The current iteration of all these apps (downloadable from the play store) are free. I'm not sure why they would make the pre-installed versions trialware.
The Pats DB who caught the game-deciding INT was signed off the street in November. He didn't realize he could have just knelt in the end zone and saved the Pats from almost giving the ball up via a safety. But, because Seattle's tendencies are so obvious, he sniffed out the "rub*" play and pointed it out to his teammate, who then pressed the WR so the WR was out of position and the DB got the pick instead.
Also the Seahawks had four tries. (First and goal at the one, down four points IN THE SUPER BOWL is the very definition of four down territory.) A pass to the OUTSIDE might have caught the Pats (and was in fact what Carroll expected when he told Bevell to call a pass) but that would have been a lower risk play because it would have been incredibly hard to intercept in bounds. But a pass over the middle out of a bunch formation is asking to get picked off.
*The "Rub Play," by definition, is illegal under the same rule against offensive holding. However, offensive and defensive contact is allowed within five yards of the LOS. Since they were within five yards, the contact wasn't illegal and thus, it wasn't a rub. The Pats are dirty cheaters, but this play is not an example of them cheating.
I don't understand what you think you gain by lying in such an obvious fashion. Internet access is NOT monopolized everywhere in the United States. This is trivially demonstrated. Learn to use the goddamn shift key, and go troll someone else.
I used to live in an area in Northern NJ that was wired for cable in the 1970s. By the late 1990s, the cable company in the area was offering broadband cable internet. Starting in the mid 2000s, Verizon wired up the area A SECOND TIME with fiber optic internet access, and the two companies have been competing for customers in the area ever since.
It costs more to run fiber optic cabling than coaxial cabling, but Verizon still thought it was worth it to wire the area WHICH ALREADY HAD BROADBAND up so that there would be A SECOND BROADBAND OPTION and potential profit for them. The barrier to entry was sufficiently small that Verizon entered an existing market as an overlapping ISP. Without exclusive franchising, a second cable company could have made even more potential profit than Verizon because it would be cheaper for them to rewire the neighborhood. (Or today, without exclusive franchising, a second Fiber Optic provider could enter the market and make a little profit for themselves.)
The networking gear (carrier grade routers and whatnot) are the no matter what connection media you're using, so overlapping ISPs, who would need to buy their own sets of networking gear, would be buying the same equipment. More demand for the product unlocks economy of scale, which would drive the price of the networking gear (part of the barrier to entry) down.
A lower barrier to entry means that overlapping ISPs make sense in more markets. They'll then need networking gear, and at this point we're in vicious cycle territory.
What we as customers need is more ISP options. Title II will make the situation worse, and the status quo will make it the same. A smart regulation would ban exclusive municipal franchise agreements, but you oppose that regulation. I ask again, why are you against regulations? Are you a libertarian?
One, "Transparency International" looks to blame all corruption on business. They exist to say corporations are bad. They're a terrible source. (Note: I got this from looking at how they quantified their numbers. I clicked the little blue question marks next to the "statistics." They're not very subtle.)
Like you, they have blinders on. The worse corruption is corruption in government. If we were to pass a law banning municipal GOVERNMENTS from granting exclusive telecommunications franchises, we'd see more competition and less corruption.
Two, you gave the examples of Canada and Norway. Canada has the same kind of internet regime that exists in the USA. Canadian Municipalities give exclusive rights to one provider to wire their town for broadband, just like here. On this specific topic, there is no difference between the US and Canada in terms of corruption. If Canada were to pass the regulation I'm advocating, THEY'd be less corrupt.
I also can't find reliable information on Norway other than they don't have a single nationalized provider and that they have a mandatory black list of "hate sites." (One of the concerns that the Open Internet Order and Title II raise is the possibility of the government banning sites run by their political opponents under the guise that they are "hate sites.") Can you tell me anything about how internet access in Norway works?
so there are countries in the world that have outlawed the kind of corruption that is rampant in the usa
And then I asked for an example.
Are there countries that have multiple, non-government run internet service in the same area? Please, educate me.
The reason there aren't more companies trying to service these customers is because municipal franchise agreements prevent more than one provider of internet service, per media. Regulating franchise agreements more strictly (i.e. preventing municipal governments from granting artificial monopolies) would allow multiple groups to enter the market.
Title II regulation won't fix this corruption. Stricter regulation of municipal franchise agreements will. But you're against that regulation. What are you, some kind of libertarian?