Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-say-you? dept.

In a vote on the morning of Thursday, February 26, the FCC has approved Net Neutrality.

In a story on Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/) the FCC has voted to approve Net Neutrality and reclassify fixed and mobile broadband services under Title II as telecommunications services. As expected, the vote was along party lines.

It is expected that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and others will sue to overturn the decision.

What say you Soylentils, is the reclassification of these services under Title II a good thing?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:06PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:06PM (#150096) Journal

    All I can say is that telcoms had a chance to prove they could self-regulate, and blew it. They blew it by holding services like Netflix hostage. All their claims about free market and free speech and whatever else were perfectly okay to talk about in theory, but in reality, they already showed their true colors.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:19PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:19PM (#150106) Homepage Journal

      Actually, no, they only proved that if given monopolistic powers via state and local legislation, they will act exactly like every monopoly in history.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:27PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:27PM (#150114) Journal

        They were in no way given "monopolistic powers" by legislation.

        The worst part is that people are going to take your arbitrary assertion with no bearing on reality, and buy it because that's the only way these debates continue.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:31PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:31PM (#150116) Homepage Journal

          Really? So giving them exclusive rights to an area for bringing in broadband isn't monopolistic rights? Damn, I must need a dictionary.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 4, Disagree) by ikanreed on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:40PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:40PM (#150117) Journal

            No municipality has done that. Anywhere.

            You might be thinking of measures that prohibit local governments from hosting their own networks, but this thing you've just described is a fantasy.

            • (Score: 5, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:49PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:49PM (#150122) Homepage Journal

              Interesting. I'll be sure and spread that around to all the towns around here that are under exactly that situation.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:02PM (#150131)

                > Interesting. I'll be sure and spread that around to all the towns around here that are under exactly that situation.

                The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 made exclusive cable franchises illegal.
                It was passed despite HW Bush's veto.

                • (Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:05PM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:05PM (#150137) Homepage Journal

                  Yes, it does not however stop a city from signing a deal that bars them from eminent domaining land for others to run their cable of choice on though.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:22PM

                    by isostatic (365) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:22PM (#150159) Journal

                    I'm getting really confused now. Are you arguing for government intervention, or against it?

                    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:27PM

                      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:27PM (#150163) Homepage Journal

                      Against it, both in FCC form and local anti-competitive form. Mostly I'm arguing for competition though, it cures most all ills. I've no problem with well crafted legislation penalizing companies for refusing to lease their backhaul and last mile to competitors, even.

                      --
                      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:51PM

                        by isostatic (365) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:51PM (#150179) Journal

                        So you're against eminent domain then, sorry I misread your original post

                        Yes, it does not however stop a city from signing a deal that bars them from eminent domaining land for others to run their cable of choice on though.

                        I thought you were saying that eminent domain was a good thing.

                        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:11PM

                          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:11PM (#150192)

                          Yes, it does not however stop a city from signing a deal that bars them from eminent domaining land for others to run their cable of choice on though.

                          How can you get "against all eminent domain" out of that? Letting one company use the public land and then keeping any others from doing so forces the others to build their own network, raising the cost of entry to the market.

                          --
                          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                      • (Score: 3, Touché) by GeminiDomino on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:56PM

                        by GeminiDomino (661) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:56PM (#150182)

                        You can't have hardline service without government intervention. No provider is going to manage individual rental/usage agreements for every property line that their cables cross.

                        --
                        "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
                        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday February 27 2015, @03:48AM

                          by Arik (4543) on Friday February 27 2015, @03:48AM (#150279) Journal
                          "You can't have hardline service without government intervention. No provider is going to manage individual rental/usage agreements for every property line that their cables cross."

                          I think that earns a touché.

                          And I'll risk alienating some rigid libertarians by saying I can see a legitimate argument for eminent domain in this case as a result. HOWEVER

                          If you're going to eminent domain a cable or telephone service, it should never ever be a for profit corporation that gets the goodies here. For profit corporations are great in a free market, but we've just ruled a free market out and so what happens is you do effectively hand a monopoly over to that company, even if there is technically no law prohibiting competition, in practice we have created a very heavy barrier to entry and it's hardly a big stretch to call it an effective monopoly grant.

                          This is a perfect case for a non-profit with a charter that requires them to provide service to everyone without discrimination, and to re-invest profits in infrastructure or return them. They could just manage the lines and hook you up to your choice of commercial ISPs.

                          --
                          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:32PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:32PM (#150168)

                    > Yes, it does not however stop a city from signing a deal that bars them from eminent domaining land for others to run their cable of choice on though.

                    Look how the argument changes.
                    Of course the number of such cases is minuscule, so perhaps you would like to try again.
                    Or you could just man up and admit your entire contribution to the discussion has been groundless libertarian delusions.

                  • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:11PM

                    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:11PM (#150191) Journal

                    Maybe instead of proof by repeated assertion (12 posts and growing) you should take a minute and actually cite some evidence.

                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Friday February 27 2015, @08:03AM

                    by sjames (2882) on Friday February 27 2015, @08:03AM (#150320) Journal

                    Once the poles are up (for power) there's no more eminent domaining to do. The owner of the poles (usually the power company) is already obligated to lease space on them for a reasonable cost.

                    Comcast and Time Warner have nbo overlapping coverage because they chose not to.

                    There aren't enough providers to make a free market work.

                • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 27 2015, @04:07PM

                  by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday February 27 2015, @04:07PM (#150502)

                  Um, I have never, ever, seen or heard of any place where consumers had a choice between multiple cable companies. Anywhere you go in America, if there's any cable service at all (there isn't in a lot of rural places, but there is in most urban and suburban places), you have precisely ONE choice for your cable provider, usually Comcast, Cox, or Time-Warner.

              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:02PM

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:02PM (#150132) Journal

                I love this delightful dance of ambiguity. "Around here" should be specified, even if the idea of maybe supporting your statements might seem too hard.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:07PM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:07PM (#150138) Homepage Journal

                  You're really asking me to dox myself? Rural Oklahoma. I'm not getting any more specific.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 4, Disagree) by ikanreed on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:09PM

                    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:09PM (#150141) Journal
                  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:15PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:15PM (#150150)

                    > Rural Oklahoma.

                    That explains a lot.

                    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:31PM

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:31PM (#150166) Journal

                      > Rural Oklahoma.
                      That explains a lot.

                      Quiz: what all the expressions below have in common?

                      • free gift
                      • foreign imports
                      • frozen ice
                      • rural Oklahoma

                      (grin)

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:44PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:44PM (#150175)

                        They all contain the letter 'r' in the first word directly preceding a vowel (though one has an 'r' in the second word as well, that 'r' precedes a consonant).

                      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:46PM

                        by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:46PM (#150176) Journal

                        Lol...

                        As the Alaskan Pipeline construction was winding down, I was living in Alaska at the time. There was a common saying among the locals: Happiness is a Texan going south with an Okie under each arm.

                        --
                        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:43PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:43PM (#150202)

                    The good thing about that place was that it gave us Will Rodgers, who said
                    "I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
                    ...which is particularly apt, in that a Republican minority is the tail that wags the dog there.

                    The most recent example is them getting rid of Advanced Placement History so that the kids don't learn the disgusting side of history like the Greenwood Race Riot [wikipedia.org]--where the race that rioted was white, murdering dozens of black people and attempting to murder hundreds more.

                    -- gewg_

                    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 27 2015, @02:31PM

                      by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 27 2015, @02:31PM (#150431)

                      The good thing about that place was that it gave us Will Rodgers

                      Also Woodie Guthrie, who wrote (among many other great songs) This Land is Your Land, which I believe ought to be the national anthem of the United States.

                      Regarding your point about distorted history: The Greenwood/Tulsa Race Riot wasn't the exception, but the rule until at least the 1970s. A majority of race riots in American history were white people going after black people, including several dozen in the summer of 1919 alone. Its rural equivalent, lynching, was a fairly common occurrence from 1865 through the 1950's, including lynchings of white people who were perceived as being too sympathetic to black people. Much of the rural US, even in the north, were "sundown towns", where any black person found within the town after dark was likely to be killed, and black people had to create special maps with safe places to stay marked in order to travel at all. The fact that black people are now concentrated in run-down neighborhoods in major cities is not an accident, but the result of over a century of post-slavery racial discrimination and even public policy that made it impossible for them to live anywhere else. And today black people are well aware that any black person can be killed at any time with total legal impunity for the shooter. Failing to acknowledge any of that leaves white people dangerously ignorant, and I find it very telling that the stated motivation is trying to make (white) students not feel bad about America.

                      --
                      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:09PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:09PM (#150140)

              Grants of exclusive service have been in place in local municipalities in the US ever since cable TV came out. It was too expensive to build out without guarantees of no competition. For example, where I live I can get cable company A, but not B or C even though they individually serve neighboring towns (one per town) and I see their ads on TV every day. Local cable providers leveraged their existing coaxial cables into homes to take over as ISPs (once again, without any other cable company competitors).

              Companies like Verizon that already had telephone service in the municipalities were allowed to roll out services as "telephone" services (DSL, then eventually FiOS) in order to compete with local cable providers. These services blossomed into telephone, internet and TV services. DISH and other satellite providers could try to get access to homes but some municipalities had local restrictions (issued by cable friendly local politicians) that limited satellite dishes on roofs (though these restrictions have mostly been lifted).

              Where I live, I can get cable company A and FiOS (though calls to Verizon tell me that I may not be in an area that currently has FiOS availability). I've see some satellite dishes on roofs in the last few years (surprisingly after a local installation office for DISH opened in town).

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:49PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:49PM (#150207)

                The cause of all of this is former FCC Chairman, Michael Powell. [wikipedia.org]

                the FCC's BrandX cable modem service decision, which declared cable modem should be free from telephone service regulations, was overturned in the Ninth Circuit case but was reinstated by the [Roberts] Supreme Court.

                He didn't serve The People; he served his masters.
                (Having had no previous experience in the field, he is now a consultant/lobbyist for the corps whose bidding he did.)

                His daddy is another who chose to turn his back on The People and to instead serve the aristocracy--specifically the merchants of death. [google.com]
                (His own intelligence service at the State Department told him Dubya and Cheney were lying about WMD.)

                Both of them are Yes Men.
                ...and not the good type. [soylentnews.org]
                The bad type. [google.com]

                -- gewg_

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:23PM

              by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:23PM (#150161) Journal

              No municipality has done that. Anywhere.

              True and false, simultaneously.

              When residential neighborhoods are put in, cable companies generally get a contract to wire the neighborhood. Mandated by the City, contracted by the developer, and the cable company gets to keep the wires.

              Its vanishingly rare for there to be two or more providers in any subdivision, or for a city to license multiple distribution grids to be trenched in. So it happens by default, by government not insisting on built in competition, by government allowing the cable plant to belong to the installer. True they never passed a law forbidding competition. They just sat by and let it happen naturally.

              Cities should insist who ever installs any coax or fiber lay two sets. One for themselves, and one for the city government to own and lease out to competitors. If only one plant goes in, the city should own it, and MAYBE give the installer 3 years exclusivity.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 2, Informative) by SunTzuWarmaster on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:11PM

                by SunTzuWarmaster (3971) on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:11PM (#150189)

                This. I once lived in an apartment complex which had literally one cable provider (across from the college no less!). I now live in a neighborhood where the cable installer rents the cable out to chosen few companies (3). "I own the cable" is a monopoly when other people aren't allowed to install cable.

                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 27 2015, @12:01AM

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:01AM (#150215) Journal

                  An apartment complex is not a municipality, it is private property.

                  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 27 2015, @12:16AM

                    by frojack (1554) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:16AM (#150219) Journal

                    So what?

                    You just can't show up with a trenching machine and start laying cable in any city you want.

                    --
                    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @12:50AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @12:50AM (#150233)

                      You just can't show up with a trenching machine and start laying cable in any city you want.

                      Clearly you're not attending the right heavy equipment/heavy drinking parties. Try to live a little ;-)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @03:33PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @03:33PM (#150478)

              You need to do your homework. Shenandoah County, Virginia for one grants exclusive rights by ordnance to Shentel. Other examples are legion.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @03:59PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @03:59PM (#150495)

                Shenandoah County, Virginia for one grants exclusive rights by ordnance to Shentel.

                They use missiles to grant exclusive rights? This sounds like a fun town!

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:00PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:00PM (#150184) Journal

          Yes, indeed, the telecoms have been given monopolistic powers. How many cities, counties, and/or states have attempted to build their own infrastructure, because the telcos refused to build infrastructure? I have never attempted to count them, but they are numerous. And - what happened in MOST cases?

          The telcos went to court, and had those attempts blocked because the telcos MIGHT, one day, see enough potential profit to open a market that was not being served.

          If that isn't "monopolistic", then I don't know what it is.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @01:18AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @01:18AM (#150240)

          They were given monopoly market position. Do you have any clue how the cable companies got set up? Or how the new AT&T reassemble herself?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @08:17AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @08:17AM (#150323)

        the FCC and telcos are in bed trying to increase their protection racket. they just give it flashy names like "net neutrality" to make it sound like a good thing, when really they're trying to introduce more regulation to make it harder for new competitors. the media is claiming the telcos are pissed off with the decision, but i doubt they really are. i think its all an act to keep consumers fat and ignorant.

        what would really piss the telcos off is if the FCC was disbanded altogether... no more protection racket

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:16PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:16PM (#150153) Journal

      All I can say is that telcoms had a chance to prove they could self-regulate, and blew it. They blew it by holding services like Netflix hostage. All their claims about free market and free speech and whatever else were perfectly okay to talk about in theory, but in reality, they already showed their true colors.

      Have to agree, at least in general terms.

      The pattern has been to only grudgingly offer faster speeds or lower prices and defacto collusion on prices in those few markets that they were forced to compete. In most places you have one choice for broadband, and maybe a distant second choice if all you want is email.

      Government can be just as bad. And the FCC is fairly insulated from legislative pressure. What we will have to watch out for from now on is the revolving door between ISPs and the FCC.

      It will be interesting to see how much of the regulations costs will get passed to the consumer on their bill, and if any real change in availability and pricing comes along. Personally I doubt it, but at least we can keep those bastards from deciding what we can access and what we can't.

      Its a whole new world. Hang on to your hat.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:17PM

      by SpockLogic (2762) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:17PM (#150154)

      Thanks Verizon.

      Such sweet irony.

      Ha Ha Ha ...

      --
      Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @08:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @08:21AM (#150326)

        Verizon is secretly counting their blessings and praising your continued oblivion while their FCC lobbyists are getting big fat bonuses for their recent success in helping to stifle new competitors.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:12PM (#150100)

    Where "we" in this case means Google, FB, Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon, etc.

    .. but we'll take the win however we can get it.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:10PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:10PM (#150143) Journal
      Don't forget the 4mil people that cared to send comments [theguardian.com]

      FCC chairman Tom Wheeler – a former telecom lobbyist turned surprise hero of net neutrality supporters – thanked the 4 million people who submitted comments on the new rules. “Your participation has made this the most open process in FCC history,” he said. “We listened and we learned.”

      Who would have thought that popular support may still have an influence?
      (grin)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @01:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @01:34AM (#150246)

        I know we are all cynical and everything, but still, do your bit to let them know what you think, even if it don't amount to much. Democracy depends on it.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 27 2015, @01:39AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 27 2015, @01:39AM (#150248) Journal

          do your bit to let them know what you think

          But I am doing my bit. They don't even need to create an account on SN to know what I think.
          (grin)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @02:55AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @02:55AM (#150265)

            (grin)

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:18PM

    by slinches (5049) on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:18PM (#150105)

    It'll be interesting to see whether this will be applicable to mobile data tethering limits. Even T-Mobile and Sprint have separate (small) tethering caps and charge rather exorbitant rates for additional data.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Daiv on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:11PM

      by Daiv (3940) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:11PM (#150148)

      One of the things I'd like to see, too. Doesn't seem be any real reason anyone restricts tethering now that everyone has been forced to buy data in buckets. Many of the MVNOs don't allow tethering AT ALL. It's just absurd.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:51PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:51PM (#150178) Journal

      I thought all that went away when the last round of shared data plans when in place, No?

      I know that AT&T no longer charges for tethering, as long as you stay within your data plan maximum.
      They essentially gave up trying to charge for tethering, because it was impossible to police when people
      could bring their own devices.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1) by slinches on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:27PM

        by slinches (5049) on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:27PM (#150198)

        I thought all that went away when the last round of shared data plans when in place, No?

        I only know the details for T-Mobile since they're the company I've dealt with recently. I currently have one of their "unlimited" data plans and can tether without any extra charges, but only data used directly on the device is truly unlimited. There's a 3GB cap for tethering and after that it gets cut off unless you pay for additional data at $10/GB.

        I'm not entirely sure how they determine whether the data is through tethering unless the stock android feature reports it as such.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 27 2015, @12:43AM

          by frojack (1554) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:43AM (#150230) Journal

          Usually, they do this by controlling your APNs (and locking you out of adjusting those). There is a separate AP name in these phones that gets switched on when tethering. If you BYOD you can set your own APNs (because they can't lock you out of that).

          Even on my prior plan, they could never tell I was tethering because I controlled the APN settings on my Unlocked phone.

          There is only one technical way they can know you are tethering (via wifi access point). They can see if packets arriving over the air from your phone have a hop count of 1 [wikipedia.org]. Hop count of 2 is more indicates the packets originated beyond the phone (tethered). They could also set the TTL on data sent to your phone to 1, so it wouldn't pass it over the tether. But this requires a bunch of smarts at the tower (that typically aren't available) and packet inspection.
          Hackers would quickly defeat it by changing router function built into the phone.
          And it all flys out the window if you tether by bluetooth or usb.

          So effective they could detect it, but its not worth their time and effort.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Random2 on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:19PM

    by Random2 (669) on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:19PM (#150107)

    There are also rules guaranteeing ISPs access to poles and other infrastructure controlled by utilities, potentially making it easier to enter new markets.

    It's not unbundling, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Kind of sad to be excited about something being put into a firm that it should've been in the first place, but hey, progress is progress.

    --
    If only I registered 3 users earlier....
    • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Friday February 27 2015, @11:17PM

      by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 27 2015, @11:17PM (#150810) Journal

      Kind of sad to be excited about something being put into a firm that it should've been in the first place

      No, I think it still is good to be happy about this. Just because a step was taken in the wrong direction, doesn't mean that stepping back towards where we should have gone in the first place isn't worth being happy about. Often after one step in the wrong direction, the next follows the same direction - here we actually turned around and started back. That is worth celebrating in my books.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:23PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:23PM (#150110) Homepage Journal

    This whole thing was a false choice from beginning to end. The Dems wanted power over the Internet and the Reps wanted to keep being able to sell monopoly rights. Now they're both happy.

    What should have happened is for Congress to pass a law illegalizing exclusive and/or monopolistic deals. That's never going to happen though, so a monopoly regulated to keep from screwing the consumers is slightly better than a monopoly that is free to ass fuck them to their hearts' content.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:44PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:44PM (#150120)

      So 20 different cable companies all run 20 different cables to your house? Each with their own junction box hanging off the wall? What would a city look like? It cannot be completely deregulated.

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:51PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:51PM (#150123) Homepage Journal

        Sure it can, trade backhaul in one area that you have it for backhaul in another area where you don't. Capitalism, yay.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:15PM (#150151)

        20 different boxes on poles, but only one cable from the pole to the home. It's times like these I'm glad I have a pole right in front of my house. My cats will get endless entertainment watching guys climb the pole every time another company offers me a better deal (hey, saving $0.50 a month really adds up after a few decades!)

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:38PM

        by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:38PM (#150172) Journal

        So 20 different cable companies all run 20 different cables to your house? Each with their own junction box hanging off the wall? What would a city look like? It cannot be completely deregulated.

        Oh come on, you know better than that.

        Do you have 20 different roads running by your front door, 20 different sewer pipes leading to your house, 20 different water mains?

        Local loops could/should be owned by the municipality, and shared by a multitude of providers. There is plenty of bandwidth on cable plants to handle this. The municipality would specify interconnect standards, just like they specify plumbing interconnects.

        Power and Gas could be handled the same way. (If you are a big enough user of Power, you can buy electricity in West Virginia for delivery in Vermont. Its called wheeling. But it doesn't pay for small fry customers.) Failing that, we create Public Utility Districts or other regulating boards for things like power and gas to regulate their prices and practices. Its worked for over a hundred years.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:12PM (#150193)

          Local loops could/should be owned by the municipality

          Sounds like government intervention to me. No self-respecting libertarian would ever stand for that.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by mr_mischief on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:36PM

            by mr_mischief (4884) on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:36PM (#150201)

            In Houston a private company owns the power lines and other companies compete to sell power over them. They each pay part of the customer's bill to Centerpoint Energy for delivering it across the wire that Centerpoint maintains. I have literally dozens of choices in retail power companies.

            Meanwhile in Houston, I have AT&T and Comcast both wired into my apartment but I can only get wired Internet access from AT&T or Comcast. AT&T topps out around 6 Mpbs for about $80 a month. I can have Comcast at 105 Mbps for around the same price so long as I bundle their cable TV and on-demand video package. There are no other options. Until this ruling, other companies could be turned down not just to use Comcast's cables but even to use the same rights of way. The city is banned by the state from offering or even partnering with a private company to offer municipal broadband. Now, though, another company has to be given the right to run fiber or coax to the complex and can hook into the junction box outside the apartment building.

            All that had to be done for the former situation was to regulate wholesale cabling vs. retail service delivery over that power cable. It didn't require a city-built electricity delivery system at all.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday February 27 2015, @12:27AM

            by frojack (1554) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:27AM (#150225) Journal

            They've already bought into it the mentioned industries decades ago. We out vote them anyway.

            I was in their camp a year or two ago, having never seen local government handle anything well. Everything from parks to roads turns into the tragedy of the commons. However having seen the foot dragging, traffic shaping, price gouging, traffic sniffing, shenanigans of the greedy (defacto) monopolists, I've decided that my local Public Utility District could do a better job. They've kept the water and sewer working, the street lights on and off at the right hours. I'm sure they could handle fiber plants, and as long as you (yes, you personally mr AC) get involved to make sure all the funds they take in get plowed back into the infrastructure and not siphoned off, it will be fine.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by drussell on Friday February 27 2015, @07:48AM

          by drussell (2678) on Friday February 27 2015, @07:48AM (#150319) Journal

          Local loops could/should be owned by the municipality, and shared by a multitude of providers.

          It used to be like this in most places, and that's where we went wrong. Here, for example, the taxpayer paid for the buildout of the copper telephone network over the first 100 years or so of telephone technology while it was owned and operated by the government. In the late 1980s it was privatized and a new company created to take it over. They inherited the system that the taxpayer had paid for and now do essentially whatever they want to make as much profit as they can. I am of the opinion that the basic physical infrastructure should have remained public and there then could have been real competition between providers of services over that publicly owned wiring. I own some of my own DSL distribution equipment and it costs a small fortune for me to lease an individual copper pair when the telco does it for itself almost/essentially for free. I can't possibly compete with them on price, only on specialized services for niche applications.

          As an aside, I also believe that is the main issue with the "media" companies. A few companies now own basically everything including the production of content and the distribution mechanism and have a vested interest in keeping things closed with no competition. I think we would have been far better off with one basic, very simple rule. You cannot own both the content and the distribution, you have to sell to anyone at the same rate. This would create a proper market so the content producers would only be interested in making the best possible content (be it television, movies, music, whatever) and the people that BRING that content to you (the radio, the cable company, the internet streaming service) would be able to buy the content at the same price on a level playing field to distribute however they feel is the most competative way for their niche....

          But, I digress...

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @07:07PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @07:07PM (#150641)

            The phone system in the US was with the exception of one year during WW1 never owned by the government. it was always private, a government sanctioned monopoly.

        • (Score: 3) by sjames on Friday February 27 2015, @09:49AM

          by sjames (2882) on Friday February 27 2015, @09:49AM (#150348) Journal

          But then the Tea party and "Libertarians" will all scream about the government keeping it's hands off of their medicare checks or something.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:46PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:46PM (#150121)

      > The Dems wanted power over the Internet

      Care to expand on that statement?

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:53PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:53PM (#150125) Homepage Journal

        Do I need to? This is step one to the Great Firewall of the US.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:56PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:56PM (#150127)

          Yes, you need to. And not with conspiracy theories.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:01PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:01PM (#150130) Homepage Journal

            Why's that? A party is by its very nature a conspiracy and it has been shown time and again that both parties are the enemies of the people.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:10PM (#150144)

              Why's that?

              Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you should know better than anyone that unless you run a full-scale experiment with a control, your hypothesis can never be proven.

              • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:20PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:20PM (#150157)

                OK, here you go. Al Gore created the internet solely for the purpose of establishing the first domino in the American socialist agenda in order to create the great data harvesting society and economy. What more proof do you need?

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:24PM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:24PM (#150162) Homepage Journal

                Lack of a control is a problem, I'll grant you. The experiment though is running right now and will have to be run again repeatedly until certainty is neared. That's life for you though and a large part of why people never learn.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:00PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:00PM (#150186)

                  Lack of a control is a problem, I'll grant you. The experiment though is running right now

                  And by your own words, an experiment is not valid unless there is a control, so you cannot draw any conclusions from it. It doesn't matter that "the experiment ... is running ... repeatedly" because you have explicitly stated time and time again that experiments are not valid unless there is a control. If you concede that controls aren't always required for experiments, you can certainly bet that you will be quoted the next time you try to say otherwise.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @02:22AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @02:22AM (#150261)

                Clever. It will be lost on most.

                Buzzard is quite mad you know. It is hard to let go of someone so vocal and so wrong about so much, but the world will turn all the same if you let it go. The buzzard will fester and fume, continually being confused by the world while simultaneously convinced that absolute knowledge of it is in hand. Few with a solid mind will listen, all the rest that may possibly be effected do not have efficacy much better than random. It would be a net win to ignore.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:30PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:30PM (#150165)

              My question remains: Why and how are the Dems, according to you "trying to control the internet"? (by opposition to the reps who aren't?)

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:27PM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:27PM (#150199)

                He never said the Republicans weren't. It's called a vacuous truth [wikipedia.org].

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:32PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:32PM (#150200)

                  Er, maybe it isn't. Anyway, they're not mutually exclusive. While our two-party system loves knee-jerk reactions, it isn't a hard and fast rule.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:07PM (#150139)

      > What should have happened is for Congress to pass a law illegalizing exclusive and/or monopolistic deals.

      The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, passed with more than enough votes to override Bush's veto, did exactly that.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:10PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:10PM (#150145) Homepage Journal

        It was a good shot at it, yes. It left plenty of unfortunate loopholes though that are actively exploited.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by paulej72 on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:19PM

        by paulej72 (58) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:19PM (#150156) Journal
        Did it, or was it just worded to look that way to appease the people. If it was we would have more internet providers in big cities. Right now it is usually on cable tv operator, one telco, and possibly one or more wireless systems.
        --
        Team Leader for SN Development
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:36PM (#150170)

          There is this thing called a "natural monopoly." Don't confuse that with active government creation of monopoly.

          • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday February 27 2015, @04:58AM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Friday February 27 2015, @04:58AM (#150293) Journal

            Jeez -- don't be a total moron. The single provider issue is caused exactly by limiting access to public rights of way. Comcast doesn't buy access rights from private people, it goes with public access ways provided by local governments. In fact, Verizon and its ilk tend claim they are regulable under title II while building out, because they then get access to such rights of way, and once done play switcheroo and say they aren't covered by title II: http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5716802/game-of-phones-how-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers [theverge.com]

            If this was a natural monopoly, there would be no special access to these special conduits that cost virtually nothing to use. The internet situation is a perfect example of an artificial monopoly.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @06:40AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @06:40AM (#150311)

              > If this was a natural monopoly, there would be no special access to these special conduits that cost virtually nothing to use.

              If you think that conduit access is the greatest barrier to entry then you are the total moron.

              The story you linked to at the verge has nothing to do with excluding other companies from conduit access. If anything it is proof that any company can get conduit access by claiming their cable plant will be a Title II operation.

              • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday February 27 2015, @05:55PM

                by hemocyanin (186) on Friday February 27 2015, @05:55PM (#150581) Journal

                Which would be fine if once they built it they then continued under Title II, but to then all of sudden to say they aren't -- that's a scam.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:11PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:11PM (#150190) Journal

          To hell with the big cities. What about all the rest of us, who don't live in a city? After all these years, after all the billions given away by congress so that the telcos could build that "last mile", the best service I can get is 2MB DSL. And, my case is far from the worst case - there are still a lot of people in this nation who are on dial up!

          Kansas City is supposed to be enjoying 1GB in the near future, and I can't even get 5MB, many still can't get ONE MEGABYTE!!

          "Last mile" indeed.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fnj on Friday February 27 2015, @03:06AM

            by fnj (1654) on Friday February 27 2015, @03:06AM (#150268)

            Please learn the difference between B (byte) and b (bit).

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @11:46AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @11:46AM (#150375)

              Please learn the difference between B (byte) and b (bit).

              I don't know why you folks keep getting hung up on that stuff. There's really only a little bit (or is it byte) of a difference. I'll fix this right quick with one of those fancy portmanteaus: bite ... as in bite me. Mission accomplished!

  • (Score: 2) by Techwolf on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:26PM

    by Techwolf (87) on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:26PM (#150112)

    >It is expected that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and others will sue to overturn the decision.

    Was there a suprime court case that gave the FCC the right to classify ISPs? If I rememer correctely, is was a case of does the FCC can classify ISP as a *thinks* provider and not common carrier.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by MrGuy on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:29PM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:29PM (#150164)

      You're close. I believe you're referring to Comcast v. FCC [wikipedia.org], which reached the US Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court.

      In that case, the FCC had ordered Comcast to stop throttling P2P traffic (which they were doing at the time), exercising their authority under the "General Provisions" (Title I) of the Communications Act of 1934. [wikipedia.org] This was one of the first times the FCC had intervened on behalf of consumers against discriminatory network management (i.e. the first attempt by the FCC to enforce a net neutrality concept). Comcast sued, arguing that the authority granted to the FCC under Title I (which apply to ALL communications) was insufficient to allow the FCC to regulate Comcast's network management practices.

      The Court of Appeals agreed with Comcast that Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 provided insufficient power to the FCC to regulate Comcast's network management. They noted that the Communications Act of 1934 provided such powers to the FCC, but ONLY for networks regulated under Title II of that act ("Common Carriers"). Since internet providers were NOT classified as Common Carriers by the FCC, the FCC could not use those powers to regulate Comcast UNLESS Comcast was regulated as a common carrier (and so subject to Title II). Given that whether to regulate ISP's under Title II was in the FCC's discretion, the court basically told the FCC "Either change the way you regulate ISP's, or accept you can't require this."

      The FCC has always had the power to regulate ISP's under Title II, but had not (until today) chosen to do so. There are some good and some less-good reasons for this (these are 80 year old laws written to regulate telephone companies back in the day when placing a call was done by hand on a plugboard by an operator, so have some significant difference from modern ISP's).

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 27 2015, @01:09AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 27 2015, @01:09AM (#150238) Homepage Journal

        The FCC has always had the power to regulate ISP's under Title II, but since 2003 has not (until today) chosen to do so.

        There. FTFY.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday February 27 2015, @09:38AM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday February 27 2015, @09:38AM (#150344) Journal

        Exactly. Comcast practically demanded Title II regulation and the FCC has kindly accommodated them.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:54PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:54PM (#150181) Homepage Journal

      >It is expected that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and others will sue to overturn the decision.

      Was there a suprime court case that gave the FCC the right to classify ISPs? If I rememer correctely, is was a case of does the FCC can classify ISP as a *thinks* provider and not common carrier.

      Nope. And nobody sued or complained when the FCC exerted its authority (under the Communications Act of 1934 [fcc.gov]) in 2003 when they reclassified broadband providers under Title I. Until then, they were classified under Title II.

      So. Since no one questioned the FCC's authority in 2003 when they reclassified broadband providers from Title II to Title I, what has changed to remove that authority since then? The answer? Nothing. The FCC is well within the authority granted by Congress under the Communications Act of 1934 [fcc.gov] as amended over the years. Those amendments of course, being passed by Congress and signed by the President each time.

      The difference today is that Title II is a stricter regime (which says absolutely nothing about restricting content -- except to require those under its strictures not to restrict access to it -- how's that for "controlling" the Internet?) than Title I and the Cable/ISP lobbies don't like it, so they pay their shills and lapdogs to claim that it's somehow wrong and/or illegal.

      Let's say this again: Until 2003 broadband providers were classified as common carriers under Title II. They made plenty of money and, more importantly, served the public better under Title II than under Title I.

      I hear a lot of bluster and blather about "controlling the internet" and "restricting speech" and "lawless" behavior, but I've seen exactly zero evidence that this is the case. I'm not omniscient, unlike everyone's favorite Sky Daddy so please, enlighten me. And be specific, with actual evidence (documents, verifiable details that these actions are anti-free expression or can lead to government censorship) if you want to be convincing. Vague statements which boil down to "gub'mint bad" or "evil politicians want to eat my babies" don't count as evidence to me.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:42PM

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:42PM (#150118)

    It is good for us ordinary people. Therefore it hurts the interests of super-rich corporations. Therefore they will fight it with massive loads of money.

    In theory, we ordinary people - who don't have loads of money to fight back - can resist big money by petitioning our government to act on our behalf and in our interest. Unfortunately, our government is bought and sold on the marketplace, and obeys whoever lavishes the most money on them.

    In short, we've lost already. Not today, not tomorrow, but big corporations will have their way eventually.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:52PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:52PM (#150124)

      We'll just get an arbitrary "title 2 costs" fee of $50, rising 10% a year.
      I remember pretty well how many years in a row the health insurance companies jacked up the prices by over 10% "because of Obamacare" long before it started coming into force.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:13PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:13PM (#150149) Journal
      (I linked this in another comment, but seems this one requires a reply)

      In short, we've lost already. Not today, not tomorrow, but big corporations will have their way eventually.

      Or maybe not [theguardian.com]?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:35PM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:35PM (#150169)

      This is bad for the telecom industry. And the telecom industry consists of super-rich corporations. So you are right they will fight it with massive loads of money.

      However, this is good for the tech industry. And the tech industry ALSO consists of super-rich corporations. Some of whom will fight in FAVOR of this with a different and opposing massive load of money.

      So I wouldn't be so quick to concede defeat.

      That said, I'd say this is more bad for big telecom than it is good for big tech - while Big Tech should be happy that Big Telecom can't bleed them for "enhanced service fees," paying such fees might actually allow Big Tech to gain a permanent advantage over Little Tech to keep the dominant players entrenched. And everyone in Big Tech remembers that they were Little Tech once. So, yeah, if this goes for enough distance, I'd be worried that Big Tech will blink first.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @11:44PM (#150203)

      You know Title II was the law of the land for ISPs until just one decade ago.
      That was when the SCOTUS said the FCC had the full discretion to choose between Title II and Title I classification for ISPs and the FCC choose Title I.
      Fighting a return to the way things were just 10 years ago is going to be a really long hard fight, especially since all the arguments the ISPs made to justify the FCC's authority to make the switch to Title I work just as well to justify the authority of the FCC to return to Title II.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:00PM (#150129)

    Legislative transparency in one line:

    diff oldlaw.txt newlaw.txt | mail -s "Here is what we did" everyone@everywhere &

    WTF is so hard about that?

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:22PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:22PM (#150160) Homepage Journal

      Legislative transparency in one line:

      diff oldlaw.txt newlaw.txt | mail -s "Here is what we did" everyone@everywhere &

      WTF is so hard about that?

      Not hard at all:

      diff Title I [fcc.gov] Title II [fcc.gov]

      Oh, and you're welcome.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:40PM

        by MrGuy (1007) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:40PM (#150173)

        Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 contains certain general powers the FCC has over ALL networks (including common carriers).
        Title II of that act contains ADDITIONAL powers the FCC has over certain networks that the FCC has chosen to regulate as common carriers.

        No powers are lost. Certain powers are gained. The diff is "the text of Title II added, nothing removed."

        Also, there is no new law. There is an existing law that applied and continues to apply. The FCC has exercised its discretion (under that same act) to change the classification of ISP's under the act such that Title II now applies.

        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:53PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:53PM (#150180) Journal

          As long as Congress agrees.

          This isn't a done deal yet. All major rule changing has to be approved by congress.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 27 2015, @12:58AM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 27 2015, @12:58AM (#150237) Homepage Journal

            As long as Congress agrees.

            This isn't a done deal yet. All major rule changing has to be approved by congress.

            Ahh, but no rules are being changed grasshopper. Reclassification merely modifies which *existing* rules apply based on the authority granted to the FCC by the Communications Act of 1934 [fcc.gov] as amended.

            If that is not the case, please let me know where and how I'm wrong. Thanks!

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Kilo110 on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:18PM

    by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:18PM (#150155)
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by paulej72 on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:31PM

      by paulej72 (58) on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:31PM (#150167) Journal
      Now that is being douche. Grade a assholery right there.
      --
      Team Leader for SN Development
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by slash2phar on Friday February 27 2015, @12:19AM

      by slash2phar (623) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:19AM (#150221)
      It's interesting how legislators in the 1930s were so much more capable of writing a bill to truly combat the perils of private monopolies in telecommunications than anything congress could come up with today.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Hartree on Friday February 27 2015, @12:02AM

    by Hartree (195) on Friday February 27 2015, @12:02AM (#150217)

    I'm waiting to see how things work out in a year.

    Often, when the lawyers finish dissecting new regulations and interpreting the fine print, the effect is quite different from what was believed at the time of enactment.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @12:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @12:55AM (#150236)

    ....a step in the right direction, though you never know with our pesky US beaurocracy.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 27 2015, @05:37AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 27 2015, @05:37AM (#150297) Journal

      though you never know with our pesky US beaurocracy.

      Uh? Is US sociopolitics degrading so fast that the democracy is replaced by "the rule of the fops/lovers/male escorts" [wiktionary.org]?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @10:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @10:17AM (#150358)

    "If you like your internet you can keep your internet."

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @05:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @05:19PM (#150556)

    it's cheaper to string a 16-core fiber optic cable to a new location even if only one core is used.
    wondering if this will help with lighting up all that dark fiber sitting around and *yawning* all day long?
    also i can see all the now new common-carriers spinning off their "content creation" sub- departments and giving them a few square meters in the colo to put their terra-byte harddisk collection.