Senate Democrats have put together 50 votes for a measure meant to block the Federal Communications Commission's December decision to end net neutrality rules put in place by the Obama administration.
Democrats are just one GOP vote shy of the 51-vote threshold for a Senate resolution of disapproval, which would strike down the FCC's December rules change.
"With full caucus support," Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, "it's clear that Democrats are committed to fighting to keep the internet from becoming the Wild West where ISPs are free to offer premium service to only the wealthiest customers while average consumers are left with far inferior options."
The Democrats' effort won the support of its first Republican backer, Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), last Tuesday.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:17PM (54 children)
This is why they're called Useful Idiots instead of just idiots.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:26PM (49 children)
But who are the idiots? This stuff plays great on the TVs and facebook/twitter posts back home.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:36PM (48 children)
Oh, they still are. They just managed to accidentally be right on an issue for a change.
Given the current setup, we need both the Useful Idiots and the Useful Shitheads. I'd like to see us get to a point where that's not the case but I'm not holding my breath.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:49PM (22 children)
Oh, they still are.
Well, if that's what it takes to keep winning reelection, I can certainly understand why they would play the part. I think you got it all wrong. The idiocy is truly one sided.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:17PM (21 children)
I said it was one-sided, no? Democrats think with their hearts, which is exactly as intelligent as thinking with your ass.
None of the above is in regards to the voters, mind you. Anyone with loyalty to either party is nothing but a sheep who lets others tell them what to believe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:31PM (4 children)
None of the politicians on either side think with what you said they do; they all think with whatever itches their greed the most. Could be money or power or recognition or something even darker. But there is a reason that the majority of their time is spent in one of the many call rooms, press rooms or social events at the Capitol.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:43PM (3 children)
None of the politicians on either side think with what you said they do;
Who cares what they think, it's how they act that matters.
And Dems consistently act towards a neutral internet. While the Reps consitently act to neuter the internet.
I know which I prefer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by crafoo on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:29PM (1 child)
I don't think this is true. Dems vote very authoritarian as soon as copyright infringement comes up. It's not surprising considering who funds them. And it's still pushing for corporate control of the internet, just a different set of corps than republican corporate masters.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:26PM
More Reps voted for the DMCA than Dems. [govtrack.us]
While I'm no fan of the (historical*) Dem position on copyright the worst you can say about them is they're almost as bad as the Reps on that issue.
*With the recent left wing backlash against things like SOPA I doubt the Dems are nearly as aligned on this issue as they used to be. There hasn't been any major legislation either way in a decade, though, so it's hard to tell.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:17PM
This supposed "net neutrality" is about how companies like Verizon and Comcast have to treat the traffic from companies like Netflix and Hulu.
That matters, barely. It's nothing compared to how large end-user-oriented monopolies treat individual users, which is the neutrality that matters. Twitter, YouTube, Google search, Google news, and Facebook have all been caught suppressing viewpoints that are not politically correct in California. Amazon and Netflix have even gotten into that misbehavior, purposely promoting viewpoints that mainstream America finds abhorrent.
When the companies abusing users complain about other companies abusing them, it should be no surprise that this complaint falls on deaf ears at best.
Bonus: with the CAN-SPAM act encouraging spam and the patriotism of the PATRIOT act being questionable, we tend to assume that names are the opposite of what they sound like. So we already have suspicion that "net neutrality" is non-neutral, and then we see it supported by companies that fight end-user net neutrality.
Maybe if those companies wanted neutral treatment from ISPs, they could have provided neutral treatment to end users. There could be some sympathy then.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:08PM (15 children)
Right, I didn't mean "one sided" between republicans and democrats. There is little to nothing to distinguish them. And aside from idiocy, there is little to distinguish them from the voters either, but that is the one sided part. The only "idiot" politician is one that loses, or gets caught and loses and/or goes to jail.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:31PM
Fair nuff.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:42PM (13 children)
I believe that such thinking is the most dangerous to the future of US society.
If you don't think that there is any difference, then there is no reason to vote.
If you don't vote, you allow a small number of powerful people to tip everything in their favor. Ordinary people get screwed.
The real issue isn't what the differences are between the parties: it's where the midpoint lies that is critical. I believe that, for most policies, the midpoint has been moving rightward, resulting in more wealth transferred to the already wealthy, while ordinary people have to deal with the environment becoming worse: more polluted, less access to the better parts of the land, etc..
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:24PM (9 children)
I believe that such thinking is the most dangerous to the future of US society.
You can believe what you want. But for any positive change to take place, the republican/democrat monolith has to at least be reduced to a bit part with more independents in congress.
If you don't think that there is any difference, then there is no reason to vote.
There is this fool over there at the "green site" who takes it exactly that same way. And you both couldn't be more wrong. We have other people on the ballot, and we can nominate whoever we want. The procedure is well documented, and the paperwork is very inexpensive. So, there's no excuse to keep reelecting the same old shit every season. Don't try to twist into advocacy for not voting. In fact the non-voting block alone could vote out almost every incumbent in the house. And they certainly could rid us of democrats and republicans. The real danger to society is their continued reelection.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:39PM (8 children)
Comprehension fail.
I wasn't advocating for not voting.
I was advocating for voting. I believe that voting is very important.
I believe that the idea that there is no difference between the parties is false and that we all have a reason (and a duty) to vote.
I would not be surprised if the idea that there is no difference between the parties is one that is being promoted by paid posters. Who benefits when people don't vote: the very wealthy such as the Koch brothers and the Mercers. Who can afford a campaign to dissuade people from voting: the very wealthy.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:03PM (7 children)
I wasn't advocating for not voting.
Where did I say you were?
From you: If you don't think that there is any difference, then there is no reason to vote.
And where ever do I say the lack of differences between republicans and democrats is a reason not to vote?? In fact I explicitly warned against it, and look what happens...
Oof! Talk about comprehension fail...
The dream, is over
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:50PM (5 children)
Here:
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:02PM (4 children)
Yes, when you say, and I will repeat once again:
If you don't think that there is any difference, then there is no reason to vote.
That statement is wrong. I was quite explicit about why. The comprehension issue here is not mine.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:28PM (3 children)
Once again, you completely ignored the statement that I picked out in which you accuse me of advocating for not voting:
But then, what should I expect from someone with poor grammar skills:
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:32PM (2 children)
Well, if that's your hang up, have a nice day :-)
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:29AM
Beep boop!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @04:35AM
All those down mods.. what as asshole! Of course you know, since you have nothing to say, you can go fuck yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @04:32AM
Well, obviously there's a moderator out there shilling for *business as usual*. He's a fucking idiot. Eh, whaddya gonna do? Fuck ya!
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:36PM (2 children)
There is little to nothing to distinguish them.
And they'll keep repeating this lie even in a thread about 100% of Dems trying to do the right thing while 98% of the Reps try to do the wrong thing.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:36PM
I guess you are more than welcome to continue playing your *good cop/bad cop* soap opera. We have alternatives. Their viability totally depends on your choice to try them.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:52AM
To add to fustakrakich's reply, the roles were reversed a few years ago. Some people have been consistent no matter whether their side was in power or not, but that wasn't many.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:36PM (24 children)
C'mon, TMB, own this! Republicans are against liberty! It was Obama policy, overturned by Ajit, Trump's man at the FCC, on purpose, as part of long-standing Republican policy.
And putting together enough of a coalition to overturn an executive order? Accidently? You are not even fooling yourself anymore.
Maybe it is, at long last, time for the libertarian movement to abandon the right, to abandon racism, sexism, and Ron Paul, and join forces with the left-wing champions of liberty, like the EFF? Just saying. Unless the whole "libertarian" thing is just a cover for being a right-winger, with alt-or-light-right neo-nazi tendencies.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:28PM (6 children)
Obama originally didn't want net neutrality. He went for it after it became clear that enough people cared, but prior to that he was obeying his corporate masters.
Today, democrats are putting on a show to gain political advantage. Their corporate owners will tolerate it because a veto is certain.
It's like what happened during the Obama years, when republicans pretended to oppose Obamacare. Republicans didn't want to piss off their corporate masters (including health insurance companies) but could freely vote to repeal Obamacare as long as a veto was certain. It made great political theater, helping the republicans gain political advantage. As soon as we got a president who might not veto the repeal, the republicans got cold feet. Suddenly, every attempt to repeal Obamacare came up one vote short. Note that it wasn't two votes short. The senators who were least likely to run for reelection were chosen to vote against the repeal. All the others got to pretend they supported the repeal. We can't really know how many of them actually support a repeal. It could be 45, or 18, or whatever. They will always fall one vote short.
Now you're seeing the democrats do this with net neutrality. They'll vote for it again and again, feeling safe that Trump will veto it. As soon as a democrat becomes president, the vote for net neutrality will always be one vote short.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:37PM (5 children)
Obama originally didn't want net neutrality.
Obama was campaigning on Net Neutrality as far back as 2008. (that was his first campaign since you seem to be lacking some historical knowledge)"“I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality,” [youtube.com]
Support network neutrality on the Internet: Promise Kept [politifact.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by e_armadillo on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:04PM (2 children)
Don't ruin a good story with the facts. Oh, wait, that is for "good" stories . . . carry on DM.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:10AM (1 child)
Yes. Let's all get real self righteous and prissy about a President that cared so much about justice and righteousness that he had Citibank literally choose his entire fucking Cabinet for him, before he even took office.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:56AM
Wikileaks is amazing. The stuff that’s coming out, the #PodestaEmails [twitter.com] and so much. Real bad stuff. The press doesn’t even pick this stuff up. You look at the Fake News Media, where are you seeing it?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:27PM
What is so special about 2008? It isn't when Obama was born, at least not according to the forgery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:39AM
Why do you want to cut things off at 2008? Is that, perhaps, a really convenient cut-off date?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:48PM (7 children)
It was Obama policy, overturned by Ajit, Trump's man at the FCC, on purpose, as part of long-standing Republican policy.
Yeah, well, everybody helps their own. What party was it that appointed this guy to the FCC?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:05PM (6 children)
What party was it that appointed this guy to the FCC?
Republicans
(Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:47PM (5 children)
*ahem* [fcc.gov]
He had previously served as Commissioner at the FCC, appointed by then-President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate in May 2012.
Don't shoot!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:33PM (4 children)
*ahem* [wikipedia.org]
In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.
Imagine the shitstorm if Obama refused the recommendation for a Republican position.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:49PM (3 children)
He didn't have to pick that republican. He obviously should have listened to somebody besides McConnell. That was Obama's main problem, his predilection for appeasement. If he put up a fight, people would have respected him and the party a bit more. but, you know, business is business, and everybody just rolls with it...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:29PM
Politics is the art of the possible, said a great German once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:31PM (1 child)
You do know that the other two Republican nominees on the FCC voted for the repeal of the net neutrality regulations also, don't you? Why would you assume that any other Republican nominee would behave differently?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @11:06PM
Well, you have to depend on the luck of the draw. Democrats had their chance and blew it, and they're still passing blame.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:59PM (1 child)
Yes...not to mention that this is in response to an FCC decision driven by the three Republican commissioners who were at odds with the two Democrats! But no...we're supposed to chant "both sides are the same" and assume the Dems just got "lucky" this time? I mean fuck me anyway. Yes...own this one for sure.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:16PM
He's not going to "own it," and for pretty much the same reason all these shithead politicians never "own it" when they fuck up: ego. The darkly hilarious part of this is that he thinks he's somehow different from them deep down. I guess the horseshoe effect works for individuals as well as collectives :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:25PM (5 children)
Why would I own something I disagree with when I voted against the guy who appointed him?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:35PM
Mitch McConnell?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:19PM (3 children)
Why would I own something I disagree with when I voted against the guy who appointed him?
And your Senators, are they in the nay section? [senate.gov]
The ones I voted for sure as hell are.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @11:22PM (2 children)
I voted anti-incumbent on all congressional races except the one guy that was running unopposed; I voted Donald Duck there.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:12AM (1 child)
Admit it Buzzy, you just like people named Donald.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:21AM
Not people, ducks. Ducks are mightier. There's a movie about it even.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:37PM
I'll tell you, there was no executive order. I didn't do an executive order. I can't, unfortunately. I appointed the FCC Commissioners. The Five. They make the decisions. I don't make the decisions. And when they make a bad decision, I don't fire them. They get 5 years, then I can pick new ones. Or leave them in there for longer. Unless our Second Amendment folks do something. I made it very BIPARTISAN, there's two ladies who are Dems. There's Jessica, who I picked. She's 46, a little older than I really like. Not the prettiest woman but at least she's a woman. And Mignon, she's 55 but you wouldn't know it. President Obama picked her. I've said a lot of things about him, I'll say this. He has an eye for the women! Her 5 years ran out in June, but I left her in there. I could kick her out, I didn't kick her out. Would you kick her out of bed? She gives the Commission a little color. And a lot of SEXY!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:19PM (3 children)
It's really fascinating to see your cognitive dissonance at work here: "Democrats are bad, but Democrats agree with me while most Republicans don't. Does not compute, does not compute ..." * head explodes *
Among the dumbest political decisions you can possibly make is to assume that a political party is either (a) always right, or (b) always wrong. In either case, the politicians running with that party's label have no incentive to be right, because you'll either always back them or always back their opponent regardless of what they do. And that pretty well guarantees you won't get what you want. Some examples of this:
- The AFL-CIO has for decades backed the Democrats without much question. As a result, the Democrats have supported efforts to do all sorts of things that are bad for unions and the working people the unions try to represent, because they knew they could do so and still have the support of the unions. The good news is that the AFL-CIO seems to have caught on to the scam [foxbusiness.com].
- Evangelical Christians have for decades backed the Republicans without much question. As a result, the Republicans, with the strong support of prominent evangelical Christian pastors, have backed a president who has proudly committed most of the major sins out there (avarice, pride, lust, gluttony, wrath, etc) without showing any sign of repentance. So far, the rank-and-file don't seem to have caught on, but that could change.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 18 2018, @01:23AM
I tend to go with both political parties are almost always harmful.
Occasionally I am surprised - the first two Obama years, when the Dems were ascendant, were not nearly as bad as the Bush years (and OPG the Trump year we've had... OMG), but that was some kind of freak event near as I can tell. Mostly the Democrats seem to be really, really good at stepping on rights and freedom. Same as the Republicans. Wash, rinse, repeat.
It would be truly lovely if the Dems manage to collar one or two of the Republican Orcs this time around, and get it to vote against the lockstep, but I'm not all that hopeful. Nor am I willing to assume that if they do so, they will do the next thing well or correctly or even at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @02:44AM (1 child)
Evangelical Christians really hesitated to back Trump. What won them over was the supreme court issue, and Trump has delivered as promised. Evangelical Christians are liking Trump more today than they did when the election was held. Trump has now also: ordered the embassy in Israel to be moved, blocked funding for aid organizations that refer people for abortions, supported an act banning most abortions of children who can feel pain, stopped whitehouse celebrations of Muslim holidays, and started saying "merry Christmas" again.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:16AM
Evangelical Christians: "We'll vote for a godless demagogue, but only if he also shits all over the constitution!"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:32PM (18 children)
This "Wild West" is true before, during, and after net neutrality, and in many cases is orthogonal to net neutrality. The ISP can choose to run its last mile (fiber, cable, or maintenance of copper) only to wealthy people, leaving people in less wealthy postal codes stuck on satellite or cellular.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:55PM (10 children)
That is an important point. A couple decades ago it wasn't so important that everyone have great internet service. But now the internet is a global communications network that touches all areas of our lives. Employment. Doing our jobs. Being able to get a job. Entertainment. Communication with friends and family. Shopping and commerce. Politics and political discussion. Enabling corporations to know everything about our lives. Trolling. And other important everyday needs provided by the internet.
The importance of the internet to modern life matches that of electricity, indoor plumbing, telephone service and trailer park reality tv.
There really is no creating of "fast lanes". There is merely fencing off certain lanes (or amounts of bandwidth) to herd everyone else into the remaining lanes (or bandwidth). In other words, there is only the creation of "slow lanes". If a network builds out it's infrastructure, each modern advance should add sufficient bandwidth for decades to come. It costs way more to put cable into the ground or on poles than the cost per foot of excess capacity.
The internet grew to be such an important global force because the network was neutral for so long until ISPs realized they could start trying to advantage themselves by hurting others and creating "slow lanes". ISPs should charge you based on bandwidth used. They should not discriminate certain types of traffic. They should not be snooping on what the traffic is. They should not be monitoring where your traffic goes to and comes from. The contents of your traffic is none of the ISP's business. Even worse, they should not be manipulating your traffic, injecting ads, JavaScript, rerouting non existant DNS requests to special servers, etc. ISPs should be dumb pipes. They should compete to be the biggest bestest dumb pipes they can possibly be. If they all competed on that, and how good their dumb pipe service was, that would be good for everyone. Instead, they cannot seem to resist trying to interfere with and manipulate our traffic. Or try to extort money from the other end of the connection, such as charging Netflix to send traffic to my house. Clue: if I'm using too much traffic from Netflix, then CHARGE ME FOR THAT. That is the surest way to fix the problem, if the ISP is in fact even having a problem.
If ISPs would compete fairly as I've described, then I would be glad to not regulate them and let the market decide who wins. Instead, I want regulation to ensure net neutrality and to allow municipal internet provided service to compete. If they ISPs don't like it, they brought this on themselves!
Just like advertisers. They can never get enough. They just push and push the boundaries until something breaks.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:21PM (9 children)
It took quite a while (decades) for telephone to be mandated as an essential service to be delivered to all homes regardless of how remote, and at an affordable price. And that was in a regulated monopoly atmosphere that allowed long distance charges to be > 10 hours of minimum wage pay for 1 hour of long distance conversation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:46PM (5 children)
That's why we need a more sensible division of services this time. More like in the era where local service was the monopoly but anyone could provide long distance.
One example would be where local governments provide last mile connectivity (perhaps just dark fibre to the home). Anyone could use it to provide ISP service to a group of subscribers.
That would return us to the state of the mid '90s where ISPs were a dime a dozen and competition drove costs from a typical $50/month down to $9.99 or so and most people had a dozens to choose from.
Note that local government providing could be direct, contracted, or through a regulated natural monopoly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:00PM (4 children)
I've got multiple sets of wires running into my home and a monopoly service provider on each.
Somehow the Houston area managed to allow a dozen electric power service providers to compete, while sharing the same infrastructure. I'd like to see more of that model for internet service delivery: no monopolies, period.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:37PM (3 children)
Houston's grid operator is a regulated natural monopoly, not unlike my proposal for last mile internet.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @02:42AM (2 children)
This only works if the "grid operator" accounts for a small fraction of the total bill.
If you put Comcast in as our "grid operator" we'll get arbitrary grid charge increases every 6 to 12 months amounting to 30% annual inflation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:22PM (1 child)
That's why the grid operator must be regulated as a natural monopoly, like Texas does with the electrical grid.
Or better, contracted by the government so they can just put it out for bid if they don't like the encumbrance's latest rate hike.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:33PM
Oh, but, regulation = BAD... yet, somehow, in the most industrial-money-greased corner of the reddest state in the Union, they managed to regulate an essential service like electric power.
I agree, cost of broadband delivery to the home is well understood at this point and should be regulated - and periodically re-evaluated / put out for bid to take advantage of future cost efficiencies. Good luck pushing that agenda when net neutrality can't even settle.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 17 2018, @11:11PM (2 children)
Sometimes, Government monopolies can be a good thing..
Australia had a Commonwealth Post Master General running the telephone system from Federation in 1901.
Calls were charged based on distance, but not at the exorbitant rates that seem to be charged to US phone users.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmaster-General's_Department [wikipedia.org]
http://www.telephonecollecting.org/Bobs%20phones/Pages/Telecom/telecomhistory.htm [telephonecollecting.org]
https://www.vintagephones.com.au/ccp0-display/history-of-the-telephone-exchange-in-australia.html [vintagephones.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @02:44AM (1 child)
I know the fellow who negotiated the monopoly deal for internet service for the city of Brisbane for the period roughly 1996-2006... in his next job contract he had a "business class" clause - wouldn't go to the airport unless the company was paying for business class or better tickets. (In other words, after the Brisbane deal, he never had to work again, but just did it for the fun.)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:50AM
Hey, no one said it stayed good! Even before they ostarted to sell bits of it, it was goingdown hill..
https://www.amscot.com.au/Sell-Shares/Telstra/ [amscot.com.au]
http://www.accountantplus.com.au/telstra-shares-cost-base-for-capital-gains/ [accountantplus.com.au]
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/issue-price-of-ipo.2465070/ [hotcopper.com.au]
Then, https://www.intelligentinvestor.com.au/your-guide-to-telstra-s-share-buy-back-1809186 [intelligentinvestor.com.au]
Some contractors and suppliers did very well; Linesmen, people waiting for repairs, most others, not so.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:56PM (5 children)
Well, it seems to me that Mr. Schumer (being the mental giant he is) has it backwards. Net neutrality is what allows the internet to be the "wild west" of ideas. Without net neutrality, we're looking at a very real risk of the Googles, Facebooks, and Twitters colluding with ISPs (in ways that everybody's marketing department is sure to spin as doubleplusgood) to move from services that (for whatever reason) are merely popular to services that are actually entrenched, with barriers to entry for anybody who wants to create an alternative service.
Net neutrality makes projects like GNU Social [gnu.io] (appears to be decentralized Twitter) and Diaspora* [diasporafoundation.org] (appears to be decentralized Facebook) viable regardless of what the herds of cows do with their iThingies. I wish I knew how to explain to certain reactionary elements that net neutrality is what allows them to have their InfoWars and Brietbart.
Without net neutrality, companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter would be able to use their leverage to get ISPs to offer customers package deals for discount internet where, say, those services are free and included with the package. That's good, right? Who doesn't want a discount? The direction it's likely going is that before long, there will be no package that allows access to the "wild west" portions of the internet outside of the corporate walled gardens without paying an arm and a leg. Maybe if you want to get at the "wild west," you'll have to cough up $300 per month plus thousands in installation fees for a T1 (yes, only a T1, funny to think that's a small pipe these days) to your house.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:43PM
What greater barrier to entry can there be, than needing tens, hundreds or even thousands of millions of dollars to pay the ISP's to allow your traffic through? Google and Amazon and Facefook can all set up budgets of billions, to pay for that bandwidth. Startups? Even with things like kickstarter, they're not going to get that kind of monthly money for a startup. You're looking at something similar to colonialism - a startup MIGHT find the funds to get into a region. They might even become the biggest thing within their region. (region would be defined by however the ISP's chopped things up into slices, cubes, spheres, and planes) The hottest thing in the Washington, Oregon, Idaho section of the US may find it impossible to break out into the larger world.
While you blather about barriers to entry, you've completely neglecting one of the most important barriers, short of direct government censorship.
(Score: 5, Informative) by captain normal on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:08PM
I think you are a bit confused about who is fighting for neutrality and who is handing the TelCo-Cable industries a blank check over our lives. Senator Schumer and the Ds are fighting the Trump administration's rejection of net neutrality.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:43PM (2 children)
You're ignoring the end-user net neutrality, which is what matters more and is what people see.
InfoWars and Brietbart are getting censored. If you search for them, google will put up a little sidebar to scare you away. That doesn't happen for left-leaning sites, even if maximally bullshit. If you post stuff from them on Twitter, you can lose your account. If you post articles from them on Facebook, you may get a warning to not post about them.
This abuse is why there is no sympathy for complaints from the internet giants. Basically, everybody who isn't a leftist now hates those companies. When they want something like net neutrality, the demands fall on deaf ears.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:03AM
It appears my wish to be able to explain it to you has gone unfulfilled. I'll check my genie into the shop tomorrow morning.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:52AM
Never fear. Without net neutrality, your ISP can just route InfoWars and Brietbart into /dev/nul and it won't matter at all whether they're listed by Google or you post about them anywhere.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:01PM
The ISP can choose to run its last mile (fiber, cable, or maintenance of copper) only to wealthy people, leaving people in less wealthy postal codes stuck on satellite or cellular.
That's when it's time to call in the cavalry [si.edu], and make sure all lawsuits against it are dismissed with extreme prejudice.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Redundant) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:50PM (3 children)
I'll believe it when I see it, and probably not even then because I'd be following the money to find out who paid them off to sink the rule change. Congress doesn't do anything because it's right. They do it because the winning interest bribed them more. On rare occasion, it's because the winning interest bribed the key people more.
But if the threat of Trump gets them to temporarily align their actions with something that might accidentally be good for voters, then again I'd have to say Trump has been better in the Whitehouse than Hillary would have been.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:41PM (2 children)
But if the threat of Trump gets them to temporarily align their actions with something that might accidentally be good for voters, then again I'd have to say Trump has been better in the Whitehouse than Hillary would have been.
And somehow you'll still say this with a straight face on the day Trump vetoes it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @02:26AM (1 child)
Trump's victory has motivated activists more than Hillary's would have. There's more support for organizations such as the Justice Democrats and Our Revolution, which are trying to replace corporate democrats with better candidates to improve the party as a whole. It seems that when a democrat is in power, even if they are corporatists like Obama, many progressive-minded individuals just go to sleep. Sometimes you need to lose in the short-term in order to win in the long-term. Whether or not enough people make use of this great opportunity is another matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:46AM
I'll admit, if Clinton had won, I probably be complacent right now and happily moving on with my life in a world where a key achievement was unlocked. Instead a pussy-grabber won. I'm happy to let #MeToo run amok, because right now we live in a country where it's ok that women are sexual objects.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Woosh on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:20PM
I read the cliff note version of this. "Close but no cigar."