Today, 33 hardware manufacturers sent a letter to the Department of Commerce opposing the reclassification of broadband internet back to its original status of a "telecommunications service" as a regulated common-carrier.
The letter suggests that the entire high-tech manufacturing industry and the 450 billion dollars it contributed to the economy in 2012 are at risk if the Internet service is returned to the same status it had up until 2005 when the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC had the authority to reclassify it as an "information service."
Signatories to the letter include Intel, IBM, dLink, Rovi, Cisco, Nokia, Panasonic and Universal Remote Control. Some of their competitors who did not sign the letter include AMD, Hewlett-Packard, Apple, Samsung and Logitech.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday September 10 2014, @05:11PM
I love how they make hysterical claims that this rule change will hurt the economy, cost jobs, slow improvements, and for all I know kill millions of kittens. They present no evidence to back up their claims. I think the opposite is true. A slow and costly Internet is a burden on our economy.
I think their playbook is a bit tired. Been hearing this sort of thing since before Perot's "giant sucking sound" over NAFTA in the early 90s. Note that they've done a 180 on trade agreements. Now they love trade agreements as a means to bypass the legislative process, slip all kinds of environmentally destructive policies and intellectual property extremism past the people. How about we borrow one of their arguments? That copyright should be extended to harmonize it with Europe? How about we harmonize Internet service policy with Europe?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @05:46PM
Perot's "giant sucking sound" over NAFTA in the early 90s
That happened unfortunately... We call it offshoring.
~10 years ago I could drive 1 town over in NC and have my pick of furniture to buy. Today? Not so much. Miles of empty factories and warehouses. The same with clothes. NAFTA crushed what little manufacturing we had here. In many cases they literally packed up the machines and moved them to mexico. I love watching 'how its made'. The number of times... I have seen some dude standing over 100 year old machinery saying 'yeah they shipped this to us from the US'.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:26PM
http://www.npr.org/2014/07/14/331356258/how-a-factory-man-fought-to-save-his-furniture-company [npr.org]
So it was the Chinese, not the Mexicans.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday September 11 2014, @02:25AM
Not that different; while China isn't part of NAFTA, they do have most favored nation status, so they have the same lack of tariffs.
(Score: 2) by unitron on Thursday September 11 2014, @03:05AM
Perot was right about the giant sucking sound, just not about the direction.
I used to wonder, years ago, about the people who talked about China's huge population and how great it would be to open up the market there, because I didn't see the point since such a huge percentage of that population was dirt poor.
Turns out they planned to fix that by moving all the jobs over there as well.
something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Thursday September 11 2014, @04:00PM
-1 Sad.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:36PM
I wish the mainstream media would revisit and evaluate predictions of losing candidates like Perot, instead of giving retrospectives of tragic events. It would be a way of measuring progress (or lack thereof) and considering our present circumstances rationally, instead of grabbing emotions that don't pertain to current issues. Perot, from Wikipedia:
The federal budget and outsourcing are both key issues now. Gun control is an emotional issue still. The only thing there that doesn't ring a bell in American politics is expanding direct democracy, and the technology for it has been put to use in places like Iceland; a reevaluation of Perot's position there would illuminate the difference between US and Icelandic views on democracy and tech. It would be nice to see a documentary or news special on how much Perot was right or wrong. Too bad facts and numbers are anathema to the media. Need some more polar bears and planes crashing into towers to grab viewers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:01PM
I love how they make hysterical claims that this rule change will hurt the economy, cost jobs, slow improvements, and for all I know kill millions of kittens. They present no evidence to back up their claims. I think the opposite is true. A slow and costly Internet is a burden on our economy.
It seems obvious to me that the carriers and the large ISPs are leaning very heavily on these equipment manufacturers, because otherwise their natural reaction would be to lobby for anything that will see increased sales of newer faster equipment. This is a case of very strange bedfellows.
How big of a bully is Comcast that they can tell Cisco and other switch gear manufacturers that "You better stick with us or we will buy overseas when we get pushed into delivering what everybody else calls broadband". How much money is changing hands to get equipment OEMs to take a stance against future sales?
On the one hand you have to admire the OEM's chutzpah, because the know they will get the sales in the end, down the road, but if a few million dollars fall their way for writing a letter today, and they are still guaranteed sales down the road,... well, Profit!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:58PM
It seems obvious to me that the carriers and the large ISPs are leaning very heavily on these equipment manufacturers, because otherwise their natural reaction would be to lobby for anything that will see increased sales of newer faster equipment. This is a case of very strange bedfellows.
I think it's the opposite, actually. The equipment manufacturers see a lot of opportunity to sell new slow-lane-equipped devices to the IPSs. Selectively reducing bandwidth doesn't require any of that pesky R&D that would go into creating something faster.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 10 2014, @09:04PM
But that capability (to limit packet rate) exists already in high-end routers used by ISPs
Hell you can even do that with iptables.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @09:06PM
Really? Hardware upgrades are needed to make a "slow lane" for the internet? Can anyone actually verify this? This seems like just so much BS to me, but I would like to see someone with some know-how weigh in on this.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:44PM
What do you do about it? How do we get our hands on the financial details and wave it in the face of people who are clearly going to follow whatever money is waved in front of them?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Zinho on Wednesday September 10 2014, @05:13PM
I'm struggling to find an actual argument here, or any support for one. I could summarize the entire letter as, "We build hardware for ISPs, and we think they might buy less of our gear if ISPs are reclassified as Common Carriers." In support of this they suggest that the costs of regulatory compliance will cut into infrastructure budgets. Beyond that, they make a handwave about how "Title II allows for so little flexibility and innovation" and complain it removes un-named incentives to invest in expanded infrastructure.
Can someone educate me about what evils Title II common carriers are subjected to? Why on earth would that be such a burden? From the talk around here you would think that it would relieve the ISPs of a lot of liability for content delivered - no filters or sniffing, just deliver the bits. Forward DMCA complaints to the site operators and be done with it. Shouldn't this make their lives easier?
Furthermore, the current networks are under-built as it is; the companies that own the wires are allegedly making record profits while dragging their feet to the maximum possible after taking public funds to gain access to right-of-ways. How would making them common carriers suddenly force them into unprofitability? And if the incentives they have now to build aren't enough, how would they ever be?
My mind boggles.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 10 2014, @05:33PM
"if the service providers are restricted in their ability to gouge both the customers and content providers, they will have less disposable cash to buy more equipment"
You're welcome.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:16PM
But on the other hand, if the service providers have to actually DELIVER on their promises, they will be forced to buy more equipment.
Once the government starts looking into massively overselling the bandwidth the service providers will be in trouble.
Also once the are required to adhere to a standard definition of broadband [arstechnica.com] their antiquated cable plant will have to be upgraded.
Why the hardware guys are against that is beyond me.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:27PM
Because a reclassification would not come without plenty of "upgrade at your own pace" rules (campaign contributions happen).
Plus the ISPs would pull an ACA, and make sure that their implementation of the rules is so spectacularly bad that they can point out to Evil Gobmint Rulz to get them reversed. That's the power of cartels of monopolies.
So the manufacturers would likely lose near-term revenue from less gouging, and potentially never see the long-term benefits.
We know that CEOs can hardly see more than 4 quarters ahead, if that far. A five-year fight is the next-guy's stock bonus problem.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 10 2014, @07:12PM
Every one of the CEO's involved have personal ties to the ISP's CEO's - so yeah.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:53PM
Youve accurately summarized the argument
(Score: 4, Funny) by Nerdfest on Wednesday September 10 2014, @06:20PM
It's not that they won't buy less equipment, it's that they’re threatening not to buy it from people that won't write letters for them.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by doublerot13 on Wednesday September 10 2014, @08:25PM
Common carrier = no packet sniffing / traffic management. Cisco et al make a lot of gear[expensive gear!] that makes all that "let's lag Netflix" stuff possible.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday September 10 2014, @10:56PM
I'll tell ya why they are doing this, because the ISPs have made it clear they won't be spending a single dime on expanding service (they have already cherry picked the nice neighborhoods and don't give a single fuck about serving the poor and lower middle class areas) so the ONLY way these companies is gonna sell more gear is by selling "slowlane ready" gear to the ISPs. I know many will point out that most gear can be configured to slow down selectively, but they key word here is "configured" and talking to guys that work behind the scenes the nasty truth is the ISPs are culling the older guys that know WTF they are doing and replacing them with the cheapest kids they can find. Not to piss on the younger generation (as its really not their fault, its the sausage factory education system) but too damned many of these kids can't do shit without a wizard walking them through it so the ISPs are buying smart hardware so they can hire dumb workers.
This article at least shows us which companies we should support, HP, Samsung, AMD, etc. Vote with your wallet and don't support the companies trying to fuck you seems to be the smart choice. But this just shows me why we should have the government lay the last mile and open it up to actual competition like we had in the dialup days, since when we tried paying the ISPs to run the last mile [pbs.org] all they did was stick the money in their pockets and give us a low res Goatse in return for our 200 billion. We should give them 90 days to pay back the money with interest or turn over the last mile to local governments who should be mandated to open it up to competition and use access fees to expand service to the entire US. The fact that in 2014 we have so much of the country that can't get anything but shitty cellular or satnet is just shameful and its obvious that the corps aren't gonna do shit except gouge the customers they already have.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2, Informative) by mgcarley on Friday September 12 2014, @01:48AM
We should give them 90 days to pay back the money with interest or turn over the last mile to local governments who should be mandated to open it up to competition and use access fees to expand service to the entire US.
Yes.
Founder & COO, Hayai. We're in India (hayai.in) & the USA (hayaibroadband.com) // Twitter: @mgcarley
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Friday September 12 2014, @08:27AM
The bitch is these duopolies pull blatantly illegal shit all the time with impunity, the 200 billion robbery is just the largest example. A friend got tired of his business not getting shit but dialup so paid to run a T3 and then setup his own little ISP and was making a nice profit so you know that the poor folks in that area wanted decent service but then the local branch of the teleco got wind of it, made a few calls and made sure nobody would sell him backbone access unless it was at a 4000% markup. They didn't try to hide it either, telling him "What are you gonna do about it, sue? Good luck against our legal team". His lawyer told him "Oh no doubt you'll win, but it'll cost several million in fees and the better part of a decade to get a judgement and then another 5-7 years just to collect" so he ended up closing down and moving away and to this day that neighborhood can get dialup or nothing.
The frankly racist/classist cherry picking in my area is so bad that there are apts which cost double compared to identical apts literally across the street, the reason being that the duopoly won't run across the street so if you get an apt there you are fucked. If the rumors I'm hearing is true its soon to be a monopoly for large parts of the US as AT&T is letting their lines fall down on purpose because they want to abandon DSL and common carrier status for the gouging they can do with wireless Internet. I know where I am at I have NO choice but cable as even though I'm less than a block from the court square in a fricking college town that AT&T hasn't spent a single dime fixing shit in the better part of a decade so the absolute max speed the DSL gets right next to a DSLAM is a pathetic 2Mbps and that is on a good day, on a bad day you are looking at less than 500k. It just goes to show that capitalism is a joke, as all you end up with is consolidation, gouging, and monopolies. Last I checked we are in the top 5 on cost and #37 on service, with little countries like Romania beating our megacities like NYC and LA, its beyond pathetic.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Thursday September 11 2014, @03:33PM
IBM, Cisco, Intel, and Sandvine make huge bank selling ISPs the networking gear needed to discriminate against online services that haven't paid bribes for access to the "fast lane" -- but it's totally a coincidence that they've told the US government to make sure that the FCC doesn't ban the corrupt practice.
(Score: 3, Funny) by doublerot13 on Wednesday September 10 2014, @05:40PM
These companies don't want regulatory oversight/scrutiny. It is really that simple. The internet ain't going away should it be classified in this manner so they still have a market for their wares.
They just don't want anyone telling them what to do...'cause gubment.
(Score: 1) by Whoever on Wednesday September 10 2014, @11:05PM
Cisco, IBM, Intel ... all companies with their glory days behind them.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday September 11 2014, @02:22PM
Intel? The other two, sure, maybe. Intel has their glory days behind them?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1) by Whoever on Saturday September 13 2014, @03:20PM
Yes. The rise of ARM has Intel in decline.