Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
In February 2015, the FCC's then-Democratic leadership led by Chairman Tom Wheeler classified broadband as "telecommunications," superseding the previous treatment of broadband as a less heavily regulated "information service." This was crucial in the rulemaking process because telecommunications providers are regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, the authority used by the FCC to impose bans on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
Thus, when the FCC's new Republican majority voted on May 18 to start the process of eliminating the current net neutrality rules, the commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) also proposed redefining broadband as an information service once again.
To make sure the net neutrality rollback survives court challenges, newly appointed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai must justify his decision to redefine broadband less than three years after the previous change. He argues that broadband isn't telecommunications because it isn't just a simple pipe to the Internet. Broadband is an information service because ISPs give customers the ability to visit social media websites, post blogs, read newspaper websites, and use search engines to find information, the FCC's new proposal states. Even if the ISPs don't host any of those websites themselves, broadband is still an information service under Pai's definition because Internet access allows consumers to reach those websites.
Related Stories
The Federal Communications Commission has scheduled an April 25 vote to restore net neutrality rules similar to the ones introduced during the Obama era and repealed under former President Trump.
"After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the Internet remains fast, open, and fair," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said today. "A return to the FCC's overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open Internet."
[...]
In a filing with the FCC, Turner wrote that "ISPs have been incredibly bullish about the future of their businesses precisely because of the network investments they are making" and that the companies rarely, if ever, mention the impact of FCC regulation during calls with investors."We believe that the ISPs' own words to their shareholders, and to industry analysts through channels governed by the SEC, should be afforded significantly more weight than evidence-free tropes, vague threats, dubious aggregate capital expenditure tallies, or nonsensical math jargon foisted on the Commission this docket or elsewhere," Turner wrote.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MostCynical on Saturday June 03 2017, @11:33AM (4 children)
most futurism (especially science fiction) has assumed technology leads to Iain M Banks' Culture, or Terminator/Martix enslavement or destruction.
Anyone pick Feudalism returning, *before* the collapse?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Interesting) by butthurt on Saturday June 03 2017, @11:59AM (1 child)
I haven't read Microserfs but it would seem to qualify.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday June 03 2017, @02:31PM
Dial P-O-P-C-O-R-N
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday June 03 2017, @01:09PM (1 child)
Dytopias outnumber any other vision of the future.
"Oath of Fealty" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. The "Four Lords of the Diamond" series by Jack Chalker. The "Foundation" series by Isaac Asimov. And the "Dune" series by Frank Herbert. Also, a fair number of feudal cultures are portrayed in space operas and other stories taking place on an interstellar scale.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 06 2017, @10:36AM
Like disaster or death, feudalism is always near.
We strive for egalitarianism and scripted ("rule of the law", upheld rights and liberties) systems of social organization, but they break down at turbulent times due to their latency, and then we see the rise of direct influence, personal responsibilities (where and upon whom enforceable) and free-form steering, combined with encapsulation necessary for efficiency. It may be called differently across the history, but its essence is the same.
Feudalism is fractal absolutism. If absolutist has an efficient system of power which doesn't depend much on extraordinary personal abilities of his first echelon of minions, then fractal structure is not needed. If it is needed, it means the system is fairly broken and problems are deep throughout all layers of society.
Feudalism as socioeconomic system, serfdom, is "slavery with benefits", it is basically owning people in at least some if not most aspects. You can find many examples of that in latest version of capitalism as well - subscribers to an monopolistic service, corporations expanding their mission to become one stop shops for telecommunication, information, banking, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:02PM (7 children)
Finally a story that wasn't dredged out of milo pedopolous's blog and sourced from Russia Today or the daily heil.
Which means the summary has a good chance of being an accurate representation of reality.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Saturday June 03 2017, @12:58PM (6 children)
finally, a posting without some moron endlessly regaling us with buzzards character failings of using a source they dont like...
oops, spoke too soon...
arent u getting blisters on your butt from endlessly galloping on that hobbyhorse ? ? ?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday June 03 2017, @01:10PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:13PM (4 children)
Is not about sources I don't like it. Its about the editors repeatedly being suckered into uncritically posting stories that are essentially lies and all the fools here keep falling for it over and over again.
The reason he sources from those places is because he isn't interested in the truth or in expanding anyone's knowledge. Only in reducing the signal to noise ratio of the site. A motive he has confessed to. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @04:00PM (3 children)
Yup, one of the more active admins on this site is actively trying to make it worse, spams constantly with garbage posts, promotes the alt-right viewpoints and tries very hard to appear rational. His purported aim? To point out that people will ignore a message based on the messenger. No shit sherlock, if a story comes from the Enquirer I'm going to likely dismiss it until I see it coming from a reputable source. Milo and breitbart? The boy who cried wolf. Trying to validate personal beliefs by trolling other people into saying something in-congruent, or calling bullshit on a valid article just because it came from a garbage source, well that is a really lame tactic that has been driving down the quality on the site ever since the election really got emotions up.
GOOD JOB tearing down what was supposed to be a refuge from corporate bullshit. Now we have community bullshit 100% supported by at least one of the admins. Long live the trolls /s
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Saturday June 03 2017, @05:22PM (2 children)
so-o-o-o, you confess to being intellectually deficient in that you depend upon appeals to authority/credentialism, and your 'facts' being sourced from -you know- only pre-approved mediawhores...
.
i find it a little puzzling as to why a person would admit they are deeply flawed in favoring style over substance... i generally try to hide my character flaws, not flaunt them...
.
curious, but then, you were far too courageous to put your name to that little gem, a non cow...
(you know, cause you might be persecuted for such a brave stance contrary to the conventional wisdom... oh, wait, it was totally a defense of so-called conventional wisdom, NOT a brave, contrarian stance... oh, well, that does makes you truly a coward, then...)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @06:32PM (1 child)
You don't really understand what the fallacy of appeal to authority actually is, do you?
This isn't about believing something because somebody said to believe it.
This is about fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice shame on you.
Buzzard has fooled people here dozens of times. He cites sources that are anti-authorities - proven liars.
How many times are you going to let him lie to your face and still trust him?
Especially since he's outright said his goal is to lie to your face.
As for the rest of your post? L O L
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @06:34PM
cue: Fascist defense that all news sources are equally anti-authorities.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @01:00PM
Dear Mr. Pai, if you are going to do this, please find a better argument.
"He argues that broadband isn't telecommunications because it isn't just a simple pipe to the Internet. Broadband is an information service because ISPs give customers the ability to visit social media websites, post blogs, read newspaper websites, and use search engines to find information, the FCC's new proposal states. Even if the ISPs don't host any of those websites themselves, broadband is still an information service under Pai's definition because Internet access allows consumers to reach those websites."
Using the same logic, telephone isn't telecommunications because the service provided by the service providers permits the consumers to do something useful with the communications.
Now there's a head scratcher.
At least the robber barrons with the railroads were mostly just trolls with tolls. Perhaps because they still had to compete with horse and buggy. In many places, ISP's are competing with snail mail and dialup (assuming POTs stays around). In a speed ratio race, the ISP's are in a much better competitive advantage compared to the railroads. (24 hours * 60mph = 1440miles/day perhaps 100x faster than a horse. 56k*100 is only 5.6meg)
The ISP's have visions of being the transit and also the destination. AOL not withstanding, they might be able to do it.
In sidestepping the issue of providing a fertile ground for new googles, Mr. Pai illuminates a much bigger problem.
The 'even' in "Even if the ISPs don't host any of those websites themselves" means they can and will.
In doing this, Mr. Pai is heading many homes to a choice of either a walled garden from their friend the Cable company, or wireless.
From a bandwidth in a shared media standpoint, wireless seems questionable strategic move for the country.
Additionally, if wireless only has to compete with a walled garden from wired, how long will it stay open?
To support robust competition in access, the country needs rules of the road.
The first rule is access should provide no special treatment of destinations.
Allowing access and destination to be the same company makes this near impossible.
Throw in a monopolistic access market and it's pretty much game over.
Hopefully, Mr. Pai understands this and just thinks Title II is the wrong way to get there.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by chewbacon on Saturday June 03 2017, @02:16PM (2 children)
https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/30/commission-impossible-how-and-why-the-fcc-created-net-neutrality/ [techcrunch.com]
Was reading this the other day. It says telecommunications is moving data, information is storing it. Arguably, ISPs could fall under information service if you count cloud services they offer, email storage, etc., but not by Pai's current argument.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:20PM (1 child)
The guy was a pompous ass. But sometimes he got it right.
One of those times was when he excoriated the same logic in his Brand X dissent. [theatlantic.com]
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Saturday June 03 2017, @04:00PM
Man, my grandma would beat my ass when I was a kid for being such a pompous smartass.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Saturday June 03 2017, @03:59PM (2 children)
The legal argument for not protecting Net Neutrality will be that it is in fact far more important than "telecommunications"? Fuck Ajit Pai and the horse he rode in on. My guess is you won't hear all the usual "both sides are the same" arguments here. When it comes to these issues and the FCC, the 'pubs seem to have been the enemy every time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @04:25PM
Thankfully Hillary will run again in 2020 all but ensuring that we get another term of Trump in the White House.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @04:58PM
I saw Idjit Pai interviewed recently, I think it was a puff-piece pushing his milquetoast non-plan to stop phone spam. But there was one shot that I did remember clearly, he and the interviewer were walking and talking. Idjit's blazer was unbuttoned and his tie hung way below the belt. Yes, he now deliberately takes his fashion cues from president I-have-a-tiny-penis. The guy is the living manifestation of "tool."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @05:42PM
in other news: pi has been legally defined as 3. just plain tremendous ... 3.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by archfeld on Saturday June 03 2017, @06:42PM
Funny, tell that to Verizon, that is where my home comes from and goes to. VOIP is rapidly expanding and far cheaper to implement than traditional PBX systems.
If Idjit Pai is going to declare it is NOT telecommunications then he should forbid internet providers from offering VOPI and 'posing' as telecommunications companies.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03 2017, @11:13PM
Instead of the hassle of changing the rules, they just reclassify it...