Several members are reporting on a potentially disastrous change of course by regulators:
After the FCC's Net Neutrality rules were struck down by a federal appeals court three months ago there was some speculation that it might reclassify ISPs as common carriers in order to preserve Net Neutrality. That seems like wishful thinking, now that Tom Wheeler, the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist who heads the agency under President Obama has announced plans to allow carriers to charge extra for preferential delivery of content.
The New York Times reports that, after a recent SCOTUS ruling ripped apart current net neutrality rules, the FCC has decided that net neutrality isn't worth arguing over. It's now perfectly fine for carriers (including your last mile providers) to charge different rates for different data. If Congress wants to change this, they can, but until then, the FCC has decided that this debate isn't worth debating any more.
Evidently, ISPs should be able to charge whatever they can get from web sites in order for you to see them. Never mind that this is the opposite of what Wheeler, the head of the FCC, and who is proposing these changes, has been saying all along, that he wasn't an industry shill and would fight hard to keep net neutrality alive.
Ars Technica reports on an article appearing in the Wall Street Journal about the FCC voting on new rules "that would allow content companies to pay Internet service providers for special access to consumers." The report describes that content providers would have to pay for "preferential treatment" of traffic over ISP networks and that the FCC will mediate whether the terms are "commercially reasonable" on a case-by-case basis. Ironically, on the same day, the CTIA announced that it will be hiring another former FCC Chairman, Meredith Attwell Baker, who approved Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal while serving as Chairman. Of course, one must ask whether the FCC would really act as a balanced mediator with respect to these "commercially reasonable" terms between content providers and ISPs, given the latter's close revolving door relationship with the government agency.
It seems that the FCC has made a U-turn in terms of policy regarding Net Neutrality. It seems that the party is over and that the big guys are now going to have to pay more to stream to us, and we're going to have to pay as well. It makes me feel fortunate, however, that I only rent DVD's from a local RedBox.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:12PM
Why isn't there a campaign like the SOPA campaign to put law makers back in their place and get them to write legislation guaranteeing neutrality?
Surely this is going to be bad for everyone including Google, Netflix, Microsoft, and Apple, which are all big companies that have services that depending on the internet and their services being treated fairly in order to compete. What happens when Micorsoft buys out Comcast in order to jump start their ZuneStream service by having Comcast discriminate against AppleTV and Netflix traffic? Does anyone here seriously think that couldn't/wouldn't happen?
Also your "Filter error: PLEASE DON'T USE SO MANY CAPS. USING CAPS IS LIKE YELLING!" isn't letting me use SOPA or S.O.P.A as the subject. That's not yelling, it's an acronym. I know it's unintentional, but it comes off as censoring in this case.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2, Interesting) by SuggestiveLanguage on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:31PM
Putting together a campaign that is even marginally effective will directly affect the bottom-lines of billion-dollar corporate media outfits, big production companies and their large shareholders. The campaign will also require an ambitious campaign hit list that holds members of all political parties accountable. Count on being outspent in every race and vilified and cursed by every talking head and politician in a way that will make Occupy Wall Street look like a Methodist church choir.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:01PM
> Surely this is going to be bad for everyone including Google, Netflix, Microsoft, and Apple, which are all big companies
Actually, it is kind of good for them. Anyone with deep pockets can simple pay off the one or two ISPs. It is the little guys who will get boned -- the upstarts who have a lot of traffic but haven't figured out how to make a ton of money with it yet. Those guys can't afford to pay off the ISPs so it becomes a barrier to entry for them. The result is that the established businesses are actually protected from the threat of new competition. It is literally protection money.
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:07PM
Precisely. If true, it will essentially divide the net between those who can afford to pay for the full service, and those who can't. As if the largest web services weren't monopolistic enough already.
This is what you get for having an ex cable industry lobbyist in charge of the FCC. I also like how the Ars article quotes him as saying "I am a firm believer in the market." Surely as the head of a regulatory body the whole point is that he isn't meant to firmly believe in it, but instead feel that it needs reigning in with appropriate regulation.
Nonetheless, a supposed consumer advocacy group taking such an antagonistic stance to consumers is pretty appalling.
(Score: 2) by TK on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:17PM
Because we haven't started one yet.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:14PM
There is a petition over at the White House web site you can sign [whitehouse.gov]. It's flawed, but it's easy to sign and potentially one factor in a multi-faceted campaign.
Specifically, the petition I linked to is flawed because the whole We the People web site is a sad joke -- 100,000 signatures gets you a politely-worded dismissal from a low-ranking staffer. And this particular petition is badly worded even as We the People petitions go.
I'm probably going to sign it anyway because inconsequential political action is better than no action at all. And I intend that to be my first action, not my last.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:33PM
Signed : ) It is already almost at the needed 100k signatures.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:41PM
Holy crap, 99K signatures in a couple of hours! Hopefully that will send a message.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:05PM
Correction: No, it only has 635 signatures, GP misread the page and I did too when I got excited. :-(
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1) by canopic jug on Friday April 25 2014, @07:20AM
Here is the earlier, apparently ignored petition on restoring common carrier status [whitehouse.gov] to ISPs. Best to follow it up by contact with your representative(s) [opencongress.org], since the petitions seem to carry little to no weight in actual policy decisions.
Also, some of the petitions are whacko. It would be useful to be able to vote against some of them. The response threshold could then be the sum of both the for and against votes, or some other formula taking both into account.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ObsessiveMathsFreak on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:07PM
The last person [wikipedia.org] who organized a campaign like SOPA ( which was in fact SOPA), ended up being hounded by the DoJ on trumped up charges until he committed suicide. The naked political nature of the prosecution was in direct response to Schwartz' involvement in SOPA.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:16PM
Anyone who didn't see this coming from this administration has lost their ever-lovin mind. Let's have a short list of promises vs actions:
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:44PM
Oh get the F over yourself!! Just last week you were complaining there were too many political stories on a tech news site [soylentnews.org] and how terrible any form of regulation was [soylentnews.org], and now you're complaining the govn't isn't using enough regulation to protect your rights and trying to hijack the thread to turn it into political commentary.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:10PM
Said there were too many non-technical, political stories. This one is tech related.
Regulation has its place, that place is simply very, very small. In this context, it should pretty much only be used against business to prevent monopolistic practices, which are anti-capitalistic and thus both anti-consumer and anti-business by their very nature.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:36PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:44PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:02PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:17PM
Let me clarify then. I enjoy talking politics but I'd prefer they have something to do with this site's mandate if they're going to be on this site. I go other places for my general politics fix.
Fair point on the noise level though. We probably could have done without a snark post, even if it was factually correct snark.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:38PM
Ad hominem much?
If you have something of substance to say in rebuttal to his posting, then post it. Otherwise, STFU.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:42PM
8 out of 11 actually, almost 3x: http://www.aim.org/special-report/president-obamas -war-on-journalists/ [aim.org]
What is particularly frightening about Libya was the bald usurpation of war power. Obama went into Libya with Congress telling him he did not have Congressional support (yeah, it's actually Congress' duty to make war, not just rubber stamp the pres, but still, Obama didn't even have that). The President does not have war making power, but you'd hardly know that anymore, and Obama sent a precedent loved by hawks everywhere. Next time we have a Dick Cheney as president, remember to thank Obama for the ensuing wars.
Afghanistan: Obama tripled troops over GWB levels, we are now only just very recently, back to about same levels as when GWB was in office.
Iraq: The consternation I feel about "Obama ended Iraq" is beyond measure. What actually happened was that Obama failed to extend Iraq by failing to convince the Iraqis to extend the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA prevented US soldiers from being tried for crimes committed in Iraq, by Iraqi courts). Failing to extend SOFA, Obama decided to pull out, but this is not a peace-loving-ending-the-war act -- if SOFA had been extended, we'd still be there. Intent matters. And of course, we have the largest embassy office in the world there, essentially a military base with private contractors instead of soldiers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:42PM
Yep, on almost every issue those who voted for him cared about, he's fucked them harder than GWB ever did. And yet almost none of them would admit it under pain of death, even when shown the facts. It's the people that piss me off not Obama. I can't stand the willful ignorance.
As for Barak? I voted for the guy twice because he looked to be the quickest way to fuck the nation up and hasten either political or armed revolution. So far, I'm extremely happy with his job performance.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:33PM
As a liberal, I could not vote for him either time. Anyway, I worked on this for a while, but became way too bitter to keep going:
http://nothingchanged.org/ [nothingchanged.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:38PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:56PM
Drone attacks deserve a distinction. The fact that no pilots are put in any risk whatsoever, aside from fender benders as they drive to their ChairForce jobs, makes these kinds of attacks far more likely. Secondly, they happen in numerous places with which we aren't at war. Is the US the ONLY country in the world allowed to perform drone attacks on sovereign nations in the absence of a declared war? Not likely -- it is conceivable that in 10-15 years as technology gaps close, other superpowers will look at the precedent we are setting, and say "me too." What response will the US have that won't derided as hypocritical when China starts drone bombing Ecuador, or Russia drone bombs Madagascar, or France hits up on N. Africa again.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:22PM
Thanks for the explain. Still don't quite get it really but I'm not going to bother with it anymore today.
No worries. Being hypocritical has never stayed our hand at foreign policy. I'd honestly prefer "because we can get away with it and you can't". It's honest.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:08PM
> they happen in numerous places with which we aren't at war. Is the US the ONLY country in the
> world allowed to perform drone attacks on sovereign nations in the absence of a declared war
However, they are happening with the express (although sometimes secret [bbc.co.uk]) consent of the governments of those countries.
Not that I think they are good idea. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:37PM
what's the beef on drone attacks anyway?
During a discussion of the retirement of the A-10 (the Air Force HATES the mission of giving air support to the Army), I heard a guy describing some gun camera footage he had seen:
A group of humans were doing something suspicious in the road.
(The A-10, which flies low and slow, was able to dwell over the area and get actionable data; an F-16? Not so much.)
The figures in the recording got finished digging and walked away.
As they approached a building with an adult standing next to it, it became very obvious that they were children and just been doing what kids do.
The problem with bombs and missiles (and artillery shells) is that they are rather indiscriminate weapons and, when used with poorly-filtered data, OFTEN kill innocents.
Indeed, virtually every one of USA's strikes yields collateral casualties[1] and every one of those people has family and friends.
Airstrikes, as currently practiced, created far more enemies for the USA than any gain they could possibly achieve--but it's just a video game for the operator of the "pilotless" aircraft.[2]
It's like shooting at the side of a barn and drawing concentric circles around your best grouping: it's bullshit.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of someone living in these foreign countries.
You constantly hear the buzzing of a drone overhead.
You live in terror from the Americans, knowing they could rain down death at any moment--even though you know that you've done nothing that could possibly hurt anyone in the USA.
Even by the most forgiving definition of "terrorist", the USA is a terrorist nation.
THAT is what's wrong with drones, youngster.
[1] Picture a pile of 20 each 5 pound bags of sugar.
Put that into the center of your residence.
Now, replace the sugar with high explosive (a Hellfire missile warhead).
How much structural damage would be done when that is detonated?
How many people would be blown to bits?
How many of your neighbors' homes/persons would also be damaged/injured/killed?
[2] ...then there's the Collateral Murder video where the gunship crew is perfectly cognizant of what is in their gunsights and they simply have depraved indifference toward human lives.
Again, USA is a terrorist nation.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:49PM
Yeah, not what I meant. What's wrong with them as opposed to the same missile fired by a manned plane is what you missed. Drone operators have longer over target than an A-10 or an F16 and can take larger risks as nobody dies if one gets shot down. Sounds to me like your issue is with calls from upstairs rather than the drones themselves, so, again I ask, what's the beef with drones?
Youngster? You looking for a tip, guy? I'd have been collecting full retirement for years now if I'd done my 20 instead of ETSing after 8.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @11:58PM
put yourself in the shoes of someone living in these foreign countries.
You constantly hear the buzzing of a drone overhead.
You live in terror from the Americans, knowing they could rain down death at any moment
again I ask, what's the beef with drones?
sociopath: n. a human devoid of empathy
Your gov't is a terrorist organization and your approval makes you fully complicit.
.
Youngster?[...]I'd have been collecting full retirement for years now
Your thought processes have all the depth of a teenager's.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 25 2014, @12:10AM
Funny, I was going to say the same of your reading comprehension. But then I could understand English a hell of a lot better than you do in, oh, third grade or so.
You want to rant, have a nice rant. You want to put words in my mouth, put a dick in yours first.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:42PM
Interesting summary table.
(Score: 1) by Groonch on Friday April 25 2014, @04:53AM
When Libya was going down, I was amused by the conservatives appalled by Obama's "usurpation" of powers that their favorite presidents had usurped with some regularity. That's not to say the practice isn't troubling, but claiming its some new unprecedented thing Obama has done is ridiculous. Here, you might find this interesting:
http://ideas.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/09/ac tually_us_presidents_have_been_going_to_war_withou t_congress_since_the_beginning [foreignpolicy.com]
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:17PM
So what you're saying is the President is a liar. No shit, Sherlock. And your recommendation is ... what, exactly?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:31PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:50PM
That's not a bad recommendation. I would agree the President is in a position to ignore the will of the people, but Congressmen really care about the upcoming midterm elections, and may be more responsive. If Congress were to pass a net neutrality law, that would probably solve this particular problem. (The President could veto it but A) he probably doesn't give a damn and B) we can make sure the perceived political cost to the Democrats for him doing that is unacceptable.)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:10PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:41PM
It seems to me that one avenue is to start protesting ALL Democrats for Obama's actions. After all, he's basically their figurehead. With his disastrous right-wing policies, why on earth would I want to elect another Democrat to office?
What's really pathetic is the liberals keep holding up Hillary Clinton as the next president, and saying how great she'll be. She's not going to be any different from Obama. But the liberals keep saying how "evil" the Republicans are, while their own politicians are doing stuff like this.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:54PM
Liberal and conservative are just words. They both cover way too many issues for them to really mean anything. Unless you subscribe to the entire platform at least, in which case you're what Stalin called a useful idiot. If you don't, rest assured they will turn on you and call you everything but your name the next time what you differ on comes up.
We badly need to drop the whole team-based ideology thing and start thinking for ourselves for a change.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:08PM
the President is a liar[...]your recommendation is...what, exactly?
Here's my recommendation:
Vote for someone who has a demonstrated history that reflects your philosophy--or as close as possible to that.
Note, in particular, whom that person chooses as advisors.
The Green Shadow Cabinet [greenshadowcabinet.us]
(Note Secretary of Peace, Commission on Corrections Reform, Commission on Ending Homelessness, et al; members are listed alphabetically by surname, so you have to go way down to find Jill Stein, President.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MrNemesis on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:32PM
It's been posted a million times before already, but... http://www.hypnoetic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0 9/net.neutrality.chart_.jpg [hypnoetic.com]
This is a textbook example of the almighty buck hammering the first nails in the coffin of any innovation that may have happened in the future US internet infrastructure. US internet just took its first big step in turning back from a communication medium and back into a broadcast medium. I feel bad not just for the USAians but am also increasingly convinced that someone will use this as an excuse to start demolishing the reasonably effective regulation we have in the UK/europe that allows the small startups, bit-players, niche vendors and MVNOs to piggy-back the big-boy-backbones.
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:54PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/29906052 7/episode-529-the-last-mile [npr.org]
Interesting Planet Money episode. The reason we are having this issue today, is because in the early 2000s, the FCC decided that the internet was not a phone line. Of course today, the internet is actually a phone line for a substantial percentage of people. Anyway, if the internet had been treated as a phone line, then the companies would have to lease out their cables and wires to other providers, just like with POTS lines. It is obvious how well that worked for POTS lines -- lots of competition, lower prices. Had the FCC made that choice a decade ago, everyone would probably have a bunch of options, competition would be rampant, service better, and prices lower. It could in fact, if it wanted to, make that decision now, change the rules. Of course, with the internet actually being a phone carrier of substantial proportions now, that would make too much sense.
(Score: 2) by elf on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:12PM
Content providers who are very successful could block ISP's are don't play nice and encourage customers who want to use their service to go via another ISP. This of course requires competition and the availability of more than one ISP. I'm not sure how likely this is but is a few big ones banded together they could make a big impact.
Also
I for one would be angry if my ISP charged me lots of money for the internet only to find out they also charge the people whose traffic I request. It would make me change ISP if it happened. But again competition of other ISP's is need to have other options.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by snick on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:44PM
Once Netflix buckled to Comcast it was all over. Or are you suggesting that all we need is a content provider who is more successful than Netflix?
(Score: 2) by elf on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:50PM
I don't know really, it could be there is a SOPA like blackout to some ISP's. Wikipedia may not be involved in any of those discussions but it might care.
I think netflicks is still in its growing stage and once it is more global and has less reliance on the US then things will turn around. The whole comcast thing could back fire in the future...here is to hoping it does :)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by WanderCat on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:14PM
...what did anyone reasonably expect?
With a former cable industry lobbyist running the FCC, the power of capital crushes the citizenry again!
(Score: 1) by ticho on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:49PM
We need to build our own Internet. With blackjack and hookers...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:11PM
These guys agree https://thefnf.org/ [thefnf.org]
(Score: 1) by ticho on Thursday April 24 2014, @10:55PM
Looks interesting, if a bit naive. I wish them well, though.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 25 2014, @12:36AM
I'm not coming over if you don't have bacon (hookers? Some small years until they are of no use to me anymore).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by SpockLogic on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:40PM
This is confirmation, if confirmation were needed, that the US Constitution has been amended to read "We the Corporations".
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BradTheGeek on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:43PM
Pirate everything. EVERYTHING. Do not go to the movies. Do not buy an MP3. Do not rent a video. Encourage the same in others. Develop tools to better pirate. Drive the companies under.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:16PM
While that is less harmful than purchasing their wares, and thus more moral, it is more moral still to just avoid them. Patronize only independent music groups. Avoid all MPAA approved movies. (Other countries probably have equivalent organizations, so foreign films aren't really an answer, they've merely less of a problem. Better to just avoid them all.)
Also, avoid any DRMed e-books.
If you aren't willing to just avoid their wares, then pirating them is less dishonorable than purchasing them, but it's not that much better.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Maow on Thursday April 24 2014, @11:45PM
Better yet - boycott.
I don't need (and neither does the reader of this post) TV, movies, music, etc. Some may want it, very few need it.
Boycott is the only way. Piracy will have them calling for (and funding and receiving) stronger, more draconian Internet piracy laws.
Boycott them - undercut their revenue the only way that truly works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:32PM
Time to abandon internet
(Score: 1) by number6 on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:38PM
The internet is an ironical creation.
Its unique qualities and interfaces have been formed by free-thinking individuals and groups viewing it as a common universal environment. The computer intelligentsia and forefathers gave away their algorithms and methods with pure motivation, for the sake of glorifying this universe; it has similarities to the formation of religions.
But....it looks like it (the internet) is heading for the same fate as most other 'organized' religions in the West.
It seems to me that if you were to summarize the fate of the human race on planet earth until the end--when the Sun is gone,
the conclusion may be that it was nothing more than one narrow bitchy exercise trumping all other exercises.