SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In the recent news, it seems Net Neutrality may not be quite as doomed as earlier news.
The Federal Communications Commission’s proposal for open-Internet rules will align with a blueprint President Barack Obama offered last year for strong regulation to guarantee Web traffic is treated equally, the head of the agency said.
From the article:http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20150107-fcc-head-plans-to-heed-obama-blueprint-to-ban-web-fast-lanes.ece
“We’re both pulling in the same direction,” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said Wednesday at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. “We’re going to propose rules that say no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization.”
I guess we will see how this actually turns out after the vote on Feb. 26.
Also noted on Ars Technica - Title II for Internet providers is all but confirmed by FCC chairman
(Score: 1) by goody on Friday January 09 2015, @02:23AM
The future for net neutrality is looking up if you believe Title II is the solution. There are several of us who want net neutrality but not the baggage of Title II.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday January 09 2015, @02:44AM
What's wrong with Title II?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @08:50AM
The Roman numeral. It simply doesn't fit well with computers. They should have used Title 0x02 instead.
(Score: 3, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Friday January 09 2015, @10:42AM
Sequels are never as good as the original. Well, apart from The Empire Strikes Back. And Spider-Man 2. And Wrath of Khan. But that's it.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 09 2015, @01:09PM
And Aliens (after the first Alien). Remarkable, only one (the 3rd) of the 4 in the franchise was crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @05:55PM
Wow, we finally found the person who thinks that Alien: Resurrection was good.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 09 2015, @09:22PM
I said: the 3rd was crap. You deal only in binary?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Saturday January 10 2015, @12:59AM
Alien: Resurrection was the 4th.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 10 2015, @12:54PM
And it wasn't crap. Maybe it wasn't good, but neither the crap the 3rd was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @03:06PM
Also: Terminator 2.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Friday January 09 2015, @03:10PM
I thought that Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance was better than the original Ghost Rider.
Of course, the only way it could have been worse than the original is if Nicolas Cage came down off the screen and took a flaming shit on your head.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @04:17PM
Wrath of Khan is still the best in the series IMO.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday January 09 2015, @08:08PM
This is Ceti Alpha V!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by fnj on Friday January 09 2015, @11:16AM
He can't tell you what is wrong with Common Carrier status under Title II because he doesn't have the faintest idea why he has fallen for the propaganda of the cable companies. They are the only ones against it. They love being empowered to bilk data sources just the way they bilk consumers - for merely performing their function.
For what goddam reason should providing data service be treated differently than providing voice service. They are both information carrying services. In fact in the case of wireless devices like smartphones they are both provided by the same goddam device.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by goody on Friday January 09 2015, @12:21PM
Nice ad hominem attack. The reason I'm against Title II is because it has a lot of decades-old telco regulations, including tariffs. This will sink alternate access carriers like Wireless ISPs and smaller regional fiber carriers who don't have the revenue or legal teams to deal with this. Unless the FCC packages this with forbearance, it's a mess for small carriers and will ultimately in the long run benefit large carriers who can deal with it. You can Google the terms forbearance and tariffs and learn something new instead of regurgitating what everyone else who has no clue what's in Title II is saying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 09 2015, @02:09PM
The D has had nearly 8 years to do the exact same thing. Yet they putzed around on it. They could have introduced it last year. They apparently had it ready...
This is *meant* to be a dead bill but look the GOP look bad. Nothing to see here ....
Thank you for looking up what Title II means. Because frankly I have seen tons of rhetoric on both sides. I basically want someone to lay these snakes straight and tell me what it actually means. For four of the biggies it really means nothing in how they operate. They already operate under title II when it suits them.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by goody on Friday January 09 2015, @02:59PM
I should stress I'm absolutely 100% for net neutrality. Title II just isn't the right way to accomplish it. This is a time where the law of unintended consequences comes into play. I'm politically progressive, but this is one issue where I'll say neither side of the aisle has a clue. Both want to wreck the Internet with their solutions or do-nothing approaches.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday January 10 2015, @02:30PM
Do you have no specifics whatsoever about why it's not the right way? What unintended consequences are you afraid of?
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Friday January 09 2015, @03:16PM
If not Title II, then what?
(Score: 1) by goody on Saturday January 10 2015, @03:57AM
Something totally new needs to be drafted. But admittedly I have no confidence that the FCC can draft something new that is straightforward and effective.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday January 09 2015, @03:19PM
My goals when it comes to ISPs are basically:
1. Net neutrality is preserved.
2. The ISP is not allowed to wiretap, store, and/or alter what's traversing their network without a specific court order describing exactly who's being tapped for what.
3. The prices get back into line with what the rest of the world pays for the same service.
4. The service operates with high guaranteed uptime (no guaranteed uptime=no uptime sooner or later). That also means making efforts to expand bandwidth as bandwidth gets saturated in a particular geographic area.
I don't have strong opinions on whether that happens via some kind of government regulation, a publicly run ISP, or a free market. I don't care if the organization doing this is large, small, public, or private. Those are the standards I'm going to use to judge the success or failure of communications policies, and focusing more on those goals rather than the specific mechanisms used to get there will tend to lead to better results.
Unfortunately, right now most politicians judge the success or failure of communications policies based on the profits of Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Google, and a few other very large corporations that just so happen to be major campaign donors to both major parties.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday January 10 2015, @02:43PM
Mommy, mommy, the bad man threw me an ad hominem! Do you have the faintest idea what an ad hominem attack is? An ad hominem would be if I accused you of being a paid apologist or a cable insider. But I didn't do that.
Thank you for at least going to the trouble of explaining that what you are really afraid of is big bad regulation, even though couched in very nebulous terms. I know all about forebearance. This [wetmachine.com] pretty well annihilates the mantra of the anti-net-neutrality crowd.
(Score: 1) by goody on Saturday January 10 2015, @11:19PM
Well, you basically accused me of being a cable company shill or something to that effect. But, anyway. I'm not anti-net neutrality. I think I've stated that once or twice. I want net neutrality but without the telco regulation baggage of Title II. Understand?
Thanks for the link, but have you found any credible evidence that the FCC is actually going to instate forbearance to Title II if they apply it to ISPs? I haven't seen any yet.
(Score: 1) by goody on Saturday January 10 2015, @04:01AM
Fnj, have you ever given thought that the ILECs would love to have everyone else subject to Title II? I'm sure you're so focused on the big bad evil cable companies that this didn't even occur to you. You know what an ILEC is, right?
(Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday January 10 2015, @02:28PM
Perhaps you could explain why I would give a bucket of spit for what the ILECs want or don't want? Around the same time as you actually explain why you think regulating the 21st century robber barons is such a bad idea. Give specifics of exactly what you are afraid of.
(Score: 1) by goody on Saturday January 10 2015, @11:07PM
Well, son, the ILECs have been living under shackles of Title II for years. They would love for everyone else to be under the same restrictions.
You can Google for specifics. If you like the innovation and wonderful service you've had from your POTS line over the years, Title II is for you.