SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it-takes-300-pages-to-redefine-neutrality dept.
The bloom may have already fallen off the Net Neutrality rose. As reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled):
When Google's Eric Schmidt called White House officials a few weeks ago to oppose President Obama's demand that the Internet be regulated as a utility, they told him to buzz off. The chairman of the company that led lobbying for "net neutrality" learned the Obama plan made in its name instead micromanages the Internet.
Mr. Schmidt is not the only liberal mugged by the reality of Obamanet, approved on party lines last week by the Federal Communications Commission. The 300-plus pages of regulations remain secret, but as details leak out, liberals have joined the opposition to ending the Internet as we know it.
It seems as though, in their zeal to "stick it" to the ISPs, most proponents didn't consider that when you allow 3 unelected people to issue rulings on something as large and ubiquitous as the Internet, bad things can happen:
Until Congress or the courts block Obamanet, expect less innovation. During a TechFreedom conference last week, dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai asked: "If you were an entrepreneur trying to make a splash in a marketplace that's already competitive, how are you going to differentiate yourself if you have to build into your equation whether or not regulatory permission is going to be forthcoming from the FCC? According to this, permissionless innovation is a thing of the past."
The other dissenting Republican commissioner, Michael O'Rielly, warned: "When you see this document, it's worse than you imagine." The FCC has no estimate on when it will make the rules public.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hopp on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:29AM
Let me say Net neutrality isn't about micromanaging us. It's about stopping the double-dealing monopolistic idiots who sully the name ISP (comcast verizon I'm looking at you.
Submitted for your approval... http://economixcomix.com/home/net-neutrality/ [economixcomix.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:09AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:59AM
I have already flagged this as redundant... but here it is anyway.
FCC comment page [fcc.gov]
It's right there in hopp's link.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 03 2015, @11:16AM
Yes, at the end of the comics. As good an explanation and using suggesting metaphors as it is, many may not have enough time/patience to reach its end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:02PM
many may not have enough time/patience to reach its end.
Trust me, those type of people aren't even clicking the direct link. They'll just bitch incessantly instead.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @09:14AM
Let me say Net neutrality isn't about micromanaging us.
From your lips to God's ear Mr hopp!
The FCC said their expectation was for lite handed rules. I hope and trust that will be true.
But a foot in the door and a camels nose under the tent, and if you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping the big ISPs in line.
But the method (hammer) used by bringing these mostly private networks under public regulation may end up being bigger than the fly swatter that was needed. It was the only tool the FCC had in hand. To do anything different would have taken new legislation, and that would have been much worse. Much much worse.
But there is PLENTY of room in the regulations the FCC is using to start messing with end-users pocket books, their rights, their privacy, and regulating content. These same regulations have already done ALL of those things to phone service. They have padded your bill, they have limited your rights to what you can do on the phone, they have sold your privacy down the river, and they have certainly limited what you can connect to over the phone.
Post back in 10 years, after a change in administration, new political appointees, and years of industry lobbying and let us know how you feel then.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:07PM
Better an organization that is answerable to the people, than a monopolist. You think phone service is bad now? Try the bad old days before the breakup of Ma Bell in 1984. We had to fight their ridiculous rules. The acoustic modem was created only to get around AT&T rules that nothing except their property and their approved devices could be connected to a phone jack. You had to keep quiet about using a modem. If AT&T found out, they used that as an excuse to move you to a "better" quality line and charge you more, never mind that the modem didn't need it. You could not add another phone to your line without AT&T charging you more, and they would check up on you by sending a little trickle down the line to see how many ringers you had. Many a time I heard the phone ring with just one soft tap on the bell at 1 AM. So people made sure the extension had an off switch for the ringer. You could not even switch to a longer cord for the handset without AT&T wanting to charge more money. Another excuse for rent seeking was an upgrade from pulse dialing to touch tone. Oh, and if you wanted to call overseas? Does $3 per minute sound like a fair price? Then there was the whole hacker sub culture of phone phreaking, in part a response to such high rates. AT&T took a very dim view of that and would sic the FBI on phreaks.
After Ma Bell was broken up, phone service was liberated, and innovation really took off. All kinds of phones appeared on the market. Cell phone service started. Competition for long distance service started.
That's not to say that there haven't been some backward steps. However, the net result has been a huge plus for us all. AT&T was stifling innovation. If they'd had their way, the BBS scene of the 1980s would have never happened, as they would have kept modems too expensive for most people.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:32PM
All good points.
But the internet is different. It comes with the presumption that anything can travel on the internet. Its all just data packets.
All we really need is to protect that.
Force them to compete on price and speed alone.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:04PM
Force them to compete on price and speed alone.
That sure as hell isn't/wasn't happening now and before whatever comes of this. How exactly do we do what you suggest?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:21PM
Go read the things that the new ruling subjects ISPs to.
Not only does the FCC rules prevent preferential treatment of some traffic over others, it also mandates cable/fiber companies access to the physical plants, (at reasonable price) the same way as different phone companies are required to share the local loop.
It worked for phones. Could not that work for internet connections?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:13PM
Could you provide an authoritative citation for your wild-ass claim? The FCC decision SPECIFICALLY SAYS it is NOT unbundling the local loop for broadband.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:14PM
Can you cite something believable?
If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
What they assert they are doing (well ahead of the actual regulations being released) has no bearing on what will be in the final regulations.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:33PM
I hope it will as well but I absolutely do not trust that it will. Trusting the government is a fool's last mistake.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:43PM
trusting the big businesses is going to be BETTER than trusting the government?
they both suck, but we have no real control over big business, they are independant and there is no 'voting' or any say in how they do business.
otoh, business cannot arrest or detail you or truly ruin your life like a government can.
both of them suck, when it comes to our freedom.
thing is: the gov has not been much involved and the net has been mostly run by business, to this point. they have done a VERY bad job on it, too, trying to monetize every last fucking cent from it. ads everywhere! do you think that if the net was government run, you'd be flooded by popups and ads and malware? spyware, yes, but not ads, at least. and the businesses still install spyware, so that's a 'constant'.
lets give the other big bad guy a chance. the big bad guy running things (mr. big isp) has done a bad job and we want him out of the loop, as much as possible.
the new guy, we'll watch over him carefully. we know to be cautious. but right now, he's helping us reel in the wrongdoings of the bad guy #1.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:56PM
Nah, I'd say go trust-busters on them like Teddy Roosevelt did back in the day. Monopoly powers in practice if not by the literal definition are what have caused this to ever become an issue and competition alone would solve it quite nicely.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:42PM
It is the very nature of businesses is to invest in their future success, which includes doing whatever is possible to ensure little to no competition can arise, like raising the barrier to entry in any way possible. Monopolies are an inevitable result of markets; the free market cannot be free without regulations to prevent this.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:37PM
You don't have any influence with the government either. You may think you do because you can vote for the people who confirm the appointments. But that is a weak tool.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:51PM
> Trusting the government is a fool's last mistake.
Which is why only a fool would drive on public roads.
100% government management guarantees they are death traps.