Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday July 15 2017, @05:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-don't-need-no-stinkin-rules dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Broadband providers made it clear this week: they wholeheartedly support net neutrality... but they want to overturn those pesky net neutrality rules and replace them with something that isn't so strict.

In fact, the way to truly protect net neutrality is to keep the Internet free of regulations, Internet provider CenturyLink wrote. "Keep the Internet Open and Free—Without Regulation" was the title of CenturyLink's blog post Wednesday.

"Reversing the FCC's 2015 Internet regulation order will do several positive things: Increase customer choice, spur innovation and investment, [and] create lasting consumer and competitive protections," CenturyLink wrote.

Comcast, meanwhile, accused net neutrality supporters of "creat[ing] hysteria."

This was part of a flurry of activity by ISPs and broadband lobby groups in response to yesterday's "Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality," a protest of the Federal Communications Commission plan to deregulate broadband and eliminate or replace net neutrality rules. All of the ISPs and lobby groups claimed to support net neutrality even though they have fought against the FCC's attempts to enforce rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

The Day of Action resulted in more than 3.4 million e-mails to Congress and more than 1.6 million comments to the FCC, protest organizer Fight for the Future said yesterday. "More than 125,000 websites, people, artists, online creators, and organizations" signed up to participate in the protest, the group said.

The net neutrality docket now has 7.3 million comments.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @07:24PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @07:24PM (#539634)

    Now I know why my co-worker thought that "net neutrality" implied dismantling a free and open Internet. :P

    Cities in the US have been sued by incumbent ISPs for trying to provide services that they refuse to. They have also lobbied for laws preventing such city ISPs from serving neighboring rural (or even urban) areas.

    It is a little disingenuous to say rural investment is not happening just because of the big bad FCC. Rural access it so bad that Microsoft is talking about investing in rural broad-band. I can only surmise that they heard from irate farmers with automated operations: unable to use their computers (during mandatory updates).

    Error message:

    Unable to complete request

    We're sorry but this page that you're trying to access is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later. We apologize for any inconvenience.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 16 2017, @01:18AM (4 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 16 2017, @01:18AM (#539729) Journal

    Yeah, isn't the problem that big ISPs sues cities and municipalities that tries to build last mile access? How is it with co-operatives? are they fought tooth and nail too by big ISPs using local politicians as goons?

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 16 2017, @05:39AM (3 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 16 2017, @05:39AM (#539812)

      I know a guy who brokered the deal for an ISP to get exclusive rights to a mid-sized Australian city's customers from 1996 to 2006(ish) - just his tiny slice of that deal was enormously valuable, like one small aspect of this wealth was: he never flew coach again, ever.

      The utilities business doesn't have to be lock-up monopolies. Houston figured out how to allow a dozen or more electric service providers to compete for the right to service every home, one infrastructure, they shared the costs of maintenance and expansion, and the customers had real choice at rates slightly favorable when compared to nearby monopoly schemes.

      Most of the utility monopolies are created by local politicians, elected officials - too bad that people can't manage to care enough to elect officials that will improve that situation.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 16 2017, @09:13AM (2 children)

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 16 2017, @09:13AM (#539846) Journal

        There are entire countries that follow the Houston model. Who owns the infrastructure in Houston then? the neighbor cooperation? municipality? state?

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 16 2017, @11:45AM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 16 2017, @11:45AM (#539872)

          I never dug into it, should be easy enough to do via Google... two semi-interesting things about that, though:

          Our house, and about a dozen neighboring houses, had huge backyards due to the addition of land from a utility easement. I surmise that the utilities were probably granted this land back when it was very low cost, held it, and decided they weren't going to need it so sold it off, presumably after it had appreciated considerably - much like the early railroads all over the country (world?) were granted much more land than they needed for tracks and were able to sell off much of it for profit after they increased its value by providing rail access.

          Also, while we were there (2003-6), among the options of providers one could select a company that purchased their generation capacity from wind and solar sources, back then it was a slight (like 10%) premium cost over the conventional provider companies. Other options mostly centered around tiered payment plans, some with low cost low usage with higher costs beyond a threshold, others had a more of a flat rate, though most seemed to have some tiering. Other service rates minimum usage fees, reconnection charges, etc. varied, but not by life changing amounts.

          All I remember was that, after choosing a provider, our call for service turn-on went just about the same as the single provider situation, except in this situation the power had actually been turned off before closing whereas every home we've bought in single provider markets they don't ever get around to shutting down service like they say they will. Otherwise we paid the bill and service was provided more or less the same as everywhere else. Never thought about it again after the initial choice.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @10:16PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @10:16PM (#540054)

            In North Texas the electricity network is maintained by a company called Oncor, and all plans have a fixed cost to cover connectivity and maintenance.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 16 2017, @12:29PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday July 16 2017, @12:29PM (#539876)

    One of the most impressive things about the internet to me in 1996 was that I was using my current sucky ISP to shop for deals with their replacement candidates.

    May that NEVER change.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]