×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

790 comments

Your official guide to the Jigagoo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750298)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Re:Your official guide to the Jigagoo presidency (0, Troll)

philathea80 (687259) | about 4 years ago | (#31750420)

wow, are you really this ignorant?

ROFLCOPTER (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750704)

wow, are you really this ignorant?

Jesus Christ, this copypasta has been floating around /. for nearly a year now... are you really such an infrequent reader as to think that GP was a legitimate post?

Here's some fresher copypasta for ya: Jews for Nerds!

Jews, also known as kikes, hebes, hymies, yids, gold niggers, oven magnets, hook noses, sheenies, swindlers, criminals, "firewood", and Arabs in denial are a subhuman species of reptilian extra-terrestrials and adherents to one of the world's oldest major religions, called "Judaism", otherwise known as "The Worship of Money" or "Eating Arab Babies".

Judaism was the world's first master race theory. The Jew religion teaches that Jews are the Chosen People of God and that there is a sacred mystical quality to Jew DNA. In olden times, Jew prophets would, under the command of YHWH, frequently lead the Jews on genocidal rampages against neighboring populations, and even today Jew leaders often cite Jewish religious ideals to justify their ongoing genocide of sandniggers. Judaism ironically found its mirror-image inversion in the anti-Jew Aryan racialism of the Nazis.

Despite only being 0.22% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. Not only do the Jews control the world, but also the media, the banks, the space program, and LiveJournal's porn communities and Gay communities. All Jews possess the following features: an extremely large nose, fake boobs, curly hair that reeks of faggotry, one of those gay hats, a love of coke, a law practice, a roll of money, a small cock, or shitty taste in dental hygiene.

Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism. Karl Marx, of course, was a Jew, which was why he understood money so well, and in fact he was converted to Communism by another Jew, Moses Hess, the actual founder of Zionism, who ghost-wrote Marx's The German Ideology. Capitalism was created when Christian Europeans threw away their morals and decided to embrace Jewish practices like usury (see: John Calvin). Jews were the first group to create a sophisticated banking system, which they used to fund the Crusades in order to pit Christians and Muslims (both adhering to religions derived from and controlled by Jews) against each other to kill as many people as possible in a macabre human sacrifice to YHWH.

The Jew banking system was based on fraud and lies, so when it inevitably collapsed, the Jews just pwned as many people as possible by unleashing the Black Plague on them. Later, Jews economically controlled medieval Venice (the first modern maritime trade empire), and then crypto-Jewish merchants economically controlled the Spanish Empire, including the slave trade. Openly Jewish bankers orchestrated the Dutch Empire and founded Jew Amsterdam (later Jew York). Later the Dutch Jews moved to London because they thought it would be a better base for a global empire, and actually brought a Dutch nobleman, William III, with them, who they installed in a coup d'état (more like Jew d'état, amirite?) as new King of the British Empire. For hundreds of years, Jewish bankers controlled global trade through their bases in Jew York City and London. European colonialism was, through its history, essentially a plot whereby Jews could gain control of gold and diamond mines in poor countries and increase their stranglehold over the global economy.

Jews also enjoy slicing up baby penises for fun, some even enjoy sucking them. See below.

Jews also created Jew search engine Google, so now they can find all Jew information on Internets.

Some suggest that we should use Jews instead of dogs to sniff out large amounts of concealed cash or anything else worth smuggling at airports due to their sensitive Jew noses. Obviously, this is a horrible idea, because the pay is bad, and the dirty Kikes would probably form a union and demand moar money, thus increasing the burden on taxpayers everywhere.

Oh goody (3, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 4 years ago | (#31750302)

Bye-bye internet, was nice knowing ya.

Re:Oh goody (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750354)

We shouldn't want the FCC regulating our internet. That's not why it exists, and it shouldn't be allowed to expand its purpose just because it wants to.

Re:Oh goody (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750436)

Hello, this is $BIGCORP

You have agreed to be fucked up the ass.

Would you like:

A. To be fucked in the ass by a dildo made of fused broken glass OR
B. To be raped by each member of our billing department?

Please reply within 7 days.

Your humble servant,
$BIGCORP

Re:Oh goody (5, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31750450)

From the FCC's charter:

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio

Seems pretty clear that this falls squarely within it's right to regulate. Unless you can explain how the Internet isn't "communication by wire or radio".

Re:Oh goody (2, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | about 4 years ago | (#31750606)

When did "regulate" become "micromanage"?

Re:Oh goody (3, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31750666)

When the government got involved.

Re:Oh goody (3, Insightful)

jaweekes (938376) | about 4 years ago | (#31750830)

When companies became involved and wanted to spoil the golden goose, the government stepped in to save the goose. Now the courts have given the companies the rope to kill the goose.

Re:Oh goody (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750776)

How exactly is saying that you have to resell (on reasonable terms) the monopoly that you are being given (OK, paying a paltry sum for) to others who will do work and give you a reasonable profit from "micromanaging"? The FCC does not seem to be dictating a lot more than "you have to allow for competition". With all the rhetoric going around about "the free market", this seems to actually be a great example of where a more free market would benefit the public, with the only downsides being to the established (and government sanctioned) monopolies.

This same idea has worked out pretty well for phone service, while still allowing the major monopolies to still be the dominent players.

Re:Oh goody (3, Insightful)

TheWizardTim (599546) | about 4 years ago | (#31750790)

Why not micromanage? How is the internet not necessary to function in daily life. The government is moving more and more services to the net. Without high speed access, people will be left out. If we don't make the net a public utility now, we will lose our access to government in the future.

For example, if you live in Mass. you can't have your natural gas cut off, no matter how much you owe in winter. If companies were allowed to do whatever they want, it would cut off gas in winter and let people freeze to death. We have similar rules all over the US for phone, water, power, and others.

Net access needs to be treated the same. It should be a right to have cheep, high speed, unfiltered, unshaped, internet access.

Re:Oh goody (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31750718)

>>>For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce

Because most Comcast companies are organized to handle INTRAstate communications. They lay their wires to serve a town or county, but don't cross the state line except at the highest level. Therefore they are can choose which websites they will, or will not carry, to the local homes.

Therefore I'd suggest you try lobbying your State government, and have them regulate Comcast, in the same fashion that they regulate the electrical and natural gas monopolies.

Re:Oh goody (1, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31750870)

Because most Comcast companies are organized to handle INTRAstate communications. They lay their wires to serve a town or county, but don't cross the state line except at the highest level.

Bullshit. They have fiber crisscrossing state lines all over the country.

Re:Oh goody (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750846)

Unless you can explain how the Internet isn't "communication by wire or radio".

Because it's TEH INTARNETS, of course. They are magical and good and an entirely new, wonderful medium full of expression and equality and willful disregard for the wishes of copyright holders you don't agree with! Thus, they should be treated differently and have completely different rules.

That IS what we've been bitching about endlessly for the past decade or two, right? It's what we've all wanted all this time, right? To be treated differently and separate from the arcane oldness of old laws and old people technologies? Right? Right? Anyone?

Why are you crying now?

Re:Oh goody (2, Interesting)

lwsimon (724555) | about 4 years ago | (#31750366)

Nah - ISPs may try to shape traffic, but so long as the government stays out of it, two things will happen:

1) Techniques will be developed to circumvent traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing

-or-

2) ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.

There is no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.

Re:Oh goody (4, Insightful)

Vancorps (746090) | about 4 years ago | (#31750410)

Except for the fact that the big ISPs got that way because of billions of dollars of tax payer funding. That alone I would have thought would have given the FCC authority here. At seems, that presumption would be incorrect though which sucks.

Re:Oh goody (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31750588)

That would be true but the 1996 Bill tied no strings to the dollars. For example Congress typically says, "Raise your drinking age to 21, else your federal highway funds will be reduced by 5%."

Congress could have done something similar, mandating companies have equal access to all websites else get no funds, but they did not. As is typical of Cognress they handed corporations lots of money and no strings attached.

telecom (3, Interesting)

slashnot007 (576103) | about 4 years ago | (#31750804)

Remember the FCC is the Federal Communications Commission.   Notice the word Communications.  So it seems like they might have some authority here.

One place we know they do have authority is telephony.  And the largest immediate threats posed by the decision I think are to 1)  VOIP  and 2) Netflix.  For brevity, I'm going to ignore bittorrent because at present while a big bandwidth hog, it's not a commercialized bandwidth hog like the other two.

it will be easy for comcast to squeeze out all VOIP and streaming video providers with simple QOS tweaks.  Already Netflix is barely tolerable and it would not take much for me to give it up.  Likewise Comcast is now in the VOIP market so why not prefer their own packets over others?

You can't even call it Anti-trust since they are not leveraging one market to enter another.  Indeed Comcast has been in the movie providing market longer than netflix.  You might make the anti-trust argument for voip however.

Which brings me back to the FCC.  the FCC might not have the authority to regulate all of the internet but surely they can regulate VOIP since that is telephony.

I sure hope they do, because once all the VOIP and netflix competition is squeezed out to either comcast itself or to people that partner with comcast  it's going to be hard to decentralize it again.

I'll make one other prediction.  the fate of bit torrent.  right now bit torrent is nothing but cost to COmcast.  if it went away people would not stop paying for their internet connection so there's no downside to squeezing it out.  I suspect the future of Bittorrent is how it becomes monetized.  If comcast could profit from bit torrent then they will be happy for it because, when done correctly, bit torrent more efficiently broadcasts across the edges of the network rather than the backbone.    I suspect the way it will be monetized is that someone will start selling movies using some set top internet box (roku, apple-tv, etc...) that uses bit torrent rather than limewire to deliver the content.  you park the top 200 movies in slices out on people's set top boxes-- these are not movies they ordered, you are just parking them there for delivery.  then you distribute this from these boxes.  You could even compensate the box owners for using some of their bandwidth.  THe key is you do this in a locked down DRM way where one company is selling the service.  now it makes money and costs less infrastructure wise than direct streaming.  Comcast will get a cut.

I suspect that's the future of peer to peer.

Re:Oh goody (1, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31750462)

There is no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.

That's why big corporations welcome regulation. They know it's easier for a big corporation with legions of lawyers to comply with said regulations than it is for a small start up. They also have lobbyists working for them to ensure that the regulations are written in such a manner as to protect their existing business model.

ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.

Of course, thanks again to governmental interference in the marketplace (franchise agreements) starting a new ISP is easier said than done. More's the pity.

Re:Oh goody (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31750774)

If what you say is true, then Comcast would be fighting FOR net neutrality. If you've noticed, they are fighting against it.

Government regulation occurs locally as a defense against a particular kind of market failure: natural monopoly. The monopoly is going to exist whether the government gets involved or not, so the best course of action is to regulate it. If another start-up came along and ran another set of cables to every house, they would go bankrupt. In this case of natural monopoly, having more than one set of wires running to each home is simply less efficient than having only one. Everyone loses if companies run more than one set of wires, as everything gets more expensive. It's a simple fact: a natural monopoly means that a monopoly is more efficient. So, we can either encourage a fake competition (which means everyone loses) or we regulate a single entity. Or, we wait the decades or more for technology to change the market, but an unregulated natural monopoly is going to do everything in its power to kill any technological change that threatens it. Regulation really is the best option. Only closed minded free market ideologues think the free market is always the best option. Reasonable people know that it fails sometimes, and then government must step in. As with most things in life, the middle ground is often the best.

Re:Oh goody (5, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | about 4 years ago | (#31750474)

Load of crap. You could use the same logic to say we don't want the government putting regulations on our food supply. I am sure someone will provide us an alternate source of water that has much less arsenic than the other company.

You ignore reality. There isn't a lot of choice for most people on what ISP they use. So no, there will not be a better option. As far as techniques, it will be a constant escalation between the two sides which will just take up more bandwidth and cause everyone's connection to be slow.

You folks need to wake up and understand that corporations do not and never will have your best interest in mind. Government regulations may not always be good, but in this case having a regulation that guaranteed net neutrality would benefit everyone. Of course that doesn't resonate well with the tin-foil hat and Fox News watchers out there.

Re:Oh goody (1, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31750752)

There isn't a lot of choice for most people on what ISP they use

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that your local government grants monopoly status to your local cable and telco, would it?

Government regulations may not always be good

Indeed. Government regulations are the very reason why most Americans live under a monopoly/duopoly environment for internet access.

Of course that doesn't resonate well with the tin-foil hat and Fox News watchers out there.

A genuine free market for internet services would also help everyone, but that doesn't resonate well with the MSNBC watchers out there.

Re:Oh goody (2, Interesting)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 4 years ago | (#31750486)

Once again, an answer for the Slashdot crowd that's useless to the public at large.

Sure, we can figure out valid proxies and cobble together specialised software to route around damage, but the other 95% of humanity will basically have their internet hobbled permanently, with no recourse or no clue.

Re:Oh goody (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#31750734)

No. They will install Kazaa or AnyDVD or Azureus or it's corresponding analog.

ANY THING that the rubes do with computers needs to go through some sort
of programmer gatekeeper. The fact that the programmer gatekeeper in
question will have to hop through an extra few hoops will be completely
transparent to the rubes as it always has been.

Re:Oh goody (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31750542)

>>>no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.

That's equivalent to saying there's no need for the government to regulate the Gas & Electric companies, or the Phone company, because it would only benefit the monopoly. I say "bull" to that. Whenever a monopoly exists, the government should either regulate the monopoly, or regulate it, or break it up and restore competition.

Re:Oh goody (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31750816)

Whenever a monopoly exists, the government should either regulate the monopoly, or regulate it, or break it up and restore competition.

In this case the government created the monopoly. Ever heard of franchise agreements?

Re:Oh goody (5, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31750614)

2) ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.

This has been claimed for years and yet this hasn't actually happened. You live in a fantasy world if you actually believe such nonsense. The entrenched ISPs would kill off any such company.

Re:Oh goody (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | about 4 years ago | (#31750814)

Nah - ISPs may try to shape traffic, but so long as the government stays out of it, two things will happen:

1) Techniques will be developed to circumvent traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing

-or-

2) ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.

There is no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.

Right... and when ACTA gets enacted what on God's green Earth makes you believe that circumventing traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing technology will not be classified a criminal act with mandatory minimum prison terms?

I'd even put $1USD that says once ACTA is shoved down our throats traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing will actually be mandated by the Federal Government, thus ensuring the labeling of Yet Another Social Group as Criminals.

Re:Oh goody (2, Interesting)

SWolf1 (1569499) | about 4 years ago | (#31750466)

Could someone explain to me why they trust the government to make things "fair" on the internet? Everything they touch they try to control more and more. At least with rrivate companies you get a choice.

Re:Oh goody (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 4 years ago | (#31750538)

And can you tell me why you trust corporations to do anything besides slavishly tend to their bottom line?

I've got no problem with a general distrust of government, but when you turn around and bend over for someone who doesn't even bother to pay lip service to your welfare, I gotta question your sanity.

Re:Oh goody (0)

SWolf1 (1569499) | about 4 years ago | (#31750642)

In a free market, if their product is crap, you don't buy it. You don't have the option with the government. Also, the most technologically illiterate yahoos in the country are in Government. One of my buddies forwarded an obvious spam to me about a free laptop. He works in IT for the State Government. They'll make retarded regulation that only the biggest companies can afford, thereby actually causing monopolies.

Re:Oh goody (5, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | about 4 years ago | (#31750764)

In a free market, if their product is crap, you don't buy it. You don't have the option with the government.

You also don't have that option with ISPs. There's no free market there.

Re:Oh goody (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#31750810)

Except there is no free market in this stuff.

How many times does that have to be said?

If you are lucky you will get to choose between 2 land line monopolies and perhaps one of them might offer something decent.

Last week, Tweedle Dee's real measured speed was about on tenth what it should be. This week it is only one half.

I am almost sorry that I slammed the door in Tweedle Dum's sales respresentative the other day.

Although they were just barely on the other side of legal in terms of trying to defraud me and the neighbors.

Re:Oh goody (1)

Khisanth Magus (1090101) | about 4 years ago | (#31750874)

Yes, because everyone has so many options for internet. In most areas you generally have one option for broadband. One. If that option is comcast...you get comcast, or you have dial up and are only able to check your email.

So many anti-government/super-capitalist people say that the market will take care of itself, but it doesn't. The cost of entry into the ISP market is too high, and even if you can afford the initial cost the big companies will do everything they can to bury you so deep they would need a drilling team just to find your company.

Don't give up so easily (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31750502)

The State government would have the power to regulate any monopolies inside its borders, including electrical providers, natural gas providers, phone companies, and yes Internet providers. - The local government/town that granted the exclusive license to Comcast also has the right to regulate, per the terms of the monopoly.

Both these levels of government could mandate that Comcast provide equal access to ALL websites.

Seriously? (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#31750634)

What is the point of having the FCC if you don't let it do its job? Under what guise could anyone come under the impression that this isn't FCC Jurisdiction?

Lacks the Authority? It should be the Authority. The courts should only be called in when the FCC is doing something that is questionable. Instead, they have prevented the FCC from stopping all of the questionable behavior that is undoubtedly going to be spawned by this.

With Wikileaks the other day, and now this, news is giving me a serious headache this week.

Re:Oh goody (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750770)

-Bye-bye internet, was nice knowing ya.
+Bye-bye freeloaders, was nice knowing ya.

There. Fixed that for ya!

Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750328)

Humbug, I need no network neutrality. I have newsgroups.

misplaced priorities (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about 4 years ago | (#31750332)

and yet, they probably shall maintain the authority to 'regulate' 'Foul Language'. :(

Re:misplaced priorities (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | about 4 years ago | (#31750452)

Sorry, but I think I am missing something. What government body, precisely, regulates your use of foul language?

Or maybe you were implying that Comcast does? I suppose they censor it on their cable channels, but if I Google, 'fuck,' on a Comcast connection, I find plenty of foul language.

Furthermore, I am pretty sure you can and do have every right to walk into Comcast's local office and say, "Fuck you and your non-neuatral internet," right to their face.

To my knowledge, nobody regulates foul language these days. I would be very interested in knowing if someone did though.

Re:misplaced priorities (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31750782)

>>>To my knowledge, nobody regulates foul language these days

The FCC forbids the use of foul language on broadcast, over-the-air television and radio. Also nudity (not allowed) on the grounds that it would be easy for a child to turnon an antenna-equipped TV or radio and see/hear something they should not be exposed too.

A more accurate summary... (1, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | about 4 years ago | (#31750336)

... would be "The government's policy suffered a setback today". Not everyone agrees on what Net Neutrality even is, whether or not to support it as envisioned.

Re:A more accurate summary... (2, Insightful)

BobPaul (710574) | about 4 years ago | (#31750460)

And the policy in question is "Net Neutrality"... so I fail to see how you offer a more accurate summary. All you've done is add an unnecessary level of abstraction.

Re:A more accurate summary... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#31750720)

I think everyone can agree that the subject in question (all information being treated equally) is a very big part of Net Neutrality.

Well... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750362)

That sucks. Though couldn't there be some argument about whether or not the companies are selling Internet access if they're only allowing you access to parts, slowing others down, etc.?

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750526)

That's a fucking huge-ass font

Meme (3, Interesting)

TheWizardTim (599546) | about 4 years ago | (#31750364)

Step 1. Send a letter to your ISP asking them to filter your access by a defined criteria.
Step 2. Wait to get content that you requested filtered.
Step 3. ??????
Step 4. Profit.

If they can filter content, based on whatever they want to do, they lose their common carrier status, and are now responsible for all content passed over their networks. If you get a spam message that you did not want, you can sue, at least in a perfect world. I am sure they will get out of it somehow.

Re:Meme (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 years ago | (#31750482)

If they can filter content, based on whatever they want to do, they lose their common carrier status,

Lose what? They don't have common carrier status. They never were common carriers.

In fact they have lobbied and fought hard to AVOID getting common carrier status. Being a common carrier would expose them to regulatory oversight they DO NOT WANT. And would limit them from doing certain types of Deep packet inspection, traffic shaping, etc, etc, that they DO WANT.

and are now responsible for all content passed over their networks.

Except libel and slander because they are exempted from respoonsibility in the communications decency act. Except Copyright infringement because they are protected provided they follow DMCA takedown requests. And so on.

I am sure they will get out of it somehow.

Of course they will. By and large they already have.

Re:Meme (2, Interesting)

TheWizardTim (599546) | about 4 years ago | (#31750656)

In which case, it is time to have a public utility internet access, run by the local/state/federal government. Like Finland, we need to get a law passed that says people have the right to 1/10/100 mb access to the net. In the past, the US government had to step in to get companies to provide phone and power to rural locations in the US. The same needs to be done for high speed internet access, but not just limited to rural locations. Everyone in the US should be able to access the net at a high speed. As we move more and more functions of the government and business to the net, people need equal access.

Like the roads, power, phone, water, garbage collection, natural gas, and others, the Internet has to become a public utility, and companies that want to provide access need to be regulated as such.

Re:Meme (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 4 years ago | (#31750562)

If they can filter content, based on whatever they want to do, they lose their common carrier status

ISPs don't have common carrier status or the various obligations that go with that (net neutrality parallels some of those obligations), which is one reason why telcos want to be ISPs more than they want to be telcos.

They do separate from common carrier status have many of the same kinds of protections granted to common carriers, as a result of lots of lobbying, but without the conditions that go with that for common carriers.

Re:Meme (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | about 4 years ago | (#31750852)

If they can filter content, based on whatever they want to do, they lose their common carrier status, and are now responsible for all content passed over their networks.

They don't have common carrier status in the first place. It's a common assumption, but incorrect.

since the FCC likes to use telephone comparisons (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750374)

Isn't this P2P blocking bit, a little like allowing AT&T arbitrarily and capriciously to prevent you from calling anyone in Chicago (not that it would be a bad thing)?

What now? (0, Troll)

spleen_blender (949762) | about 4 years ago | (#31750396)

We're so screwed. All politicians are so technologically ignorant they can't tell when a lobbyist is lying to them, and even if they could tell many wouldn't care.

I am moving the hell out of this country ASAP. Day after day its just worse news. US is going to have some massive brain drain soon, I predict.

Re:What now? (1, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | about 4 years ago | (#31750568)

"We're so screwed. All politicians are so technologically ignorant they can't tell when a lobbyist is lying to them, and even if they could tell many wouldn't care."

Or perhaps they understand that government shoudn't be micromanaging ISP's.

"I am moving the hell out of this country ASAP. Day after day its just worse news. "

No you're not. Like the people that screamed about how they'd move to Canada or New Zealand in 2004 if Bush won re-election, you're going to stay right where you are and bitch some more on the Internet.

"US is going to have some massive brain drain soon, I predict."

I'll take that bet. Where's all this talent going to go? Bastions of Internet freedom like... China? How about Europe, where governments are increasingly using technology to snoop on every aspect of the lives of their citizens and subjects? But hey, lets leave America because Comcast is throttling bandwidth when we're downloading illegal movie torrents. See ya. The airline ticket counter is that way.

Re:What now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750574)

Digital Economy Bill, ACTA, etc.

Re:What now? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31750862)

>>>I am moving the hell out of this country ASAP. Day after day its just worse news.

If you were thinking about moving to Europe, you might want to think again because I've been following EU politics and their leaders seem to be making a lot of dumbass, US-style decisions too.

So... (2, Insightful)

hoytak (1148181) | about 4 years ago | (#31750398)

(possible lost profits from complying with net neutrality) > (potential financial benefits as proposed by FCC)? Are there some bargaining chips still on the table? Or is it just about "freedom of doing business how we want to"?

And yeah, I assume the "benefits" implied by the article -- funds for improving internet to rural areas -- are peanuts to comcast...

Did you hear that? (2, Insightful)

calibre-not-output (1736770) | about 4 years ago | (#31750414)

It's the sound of the FCC never having anything to do with regulating the Internet to begin with. If someone says that the FDA doesn't have the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks, will that also be a major setback for Net Neutrality?

Re:Did you hear that? (1)

trurl7 (663880) | about 4 years ago | (#31750484)

FCC - Federal Communications Commission

I take your point - what passes for content on the Intertubes can hardly be defined as "communication", nevertheless, which part of the "communication" confused you?

Re:Did you hear that? (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 4 years ago | (#31750610)

So you're saying that since it has "Communication" in the name, it has free reign to decide over all matters of communication? I suppose, then, that you feel the FCC is entirely within its right to dole out fines and restrictions that censor the airwaves as well...? After all, that falls under "communication."

If you reject that argument, and want to claim there are limits to what the FCC can do, then you have to reject that naive argument that merely having "Communications" in the acronym does not give the FCC license to do just anything with "communications" media.

Re:Did you hear that? (1)

trurl7 (663880) | about 4 years ago | (#31750844)

I don't have to do either. I believe the FCC should not be censoring the airwaves, because their mandate is to ensure, for example, that radio stations do not interfere with each other. But does it arguably fall into their purview - yes it does. Also - the FCC should obviously not have 'free reign' over content of communication. Should it have authority over the structure of communication - again, yes.
To use Comcast's example: it is properly prohibiting violations of net neutrality as per it's "communication" statute. If it decided to get involved with censoring chat messages on Comcast's network, that would be regulating "content", which I believe to be wrong. Could they make a case for it though - yes. And again, properly so.

Basically, I would like their authority over providing regulated structure formalized - ensuring that communication can be fairly competitive, etc.. But they need to get out of the censorship business.

Re:Did you hear that? (1)

BobPaul (710574) | about 4 years ago | (#31750512)

The FCC has the power to regulate the companies that are supplying last mile to consumers. I understand what you're saying as a general view, and it would seem the court agrees with that view, but there is sense to the FCCs position. They regulate the cable companies. They regulate the phone companies. The phone and cable companies supply internet to users.

Re:Did you hear that? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#31750760)

It's the sound of the FCC never having anything to do with regulating the Internet to begin with.

Given its charter and even its full name, one would assume that it would, and if not, should.

Pretentious summary (1)

Cigarra (652458) | about 4 years ago | (#31750416)

It's not "net neutrality", but the people of US of A who will suffer the consequences for this kind of setbacks.

this is not unexpected (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 years ago | (#31750424)

and i don't think Congress can pass a law either. You have ISP's on one side some of whom are also cable companies and in the business of reselling media content via their cable TV business. and on the other side you have companies like Google who think up of new digital products that cause ISP's to spend more money for capital upgrades. if there is a net neutrality law then i can see the ISP's coming out with tiered pricing overnight. it's like electricity, in the last 10 years people's demand for it has grown and they have accepted paying more for it. but with internet access people scream that it's the end of the world

Re:this is not unexpected (1)

DJ Jones (997846) | about 4 years ago | (#31750524)

You're missing a key point. The American tax payers paid for the majority of broadband cable laid in our country through enormous government subsidies. The ISPs have no right to turn around and charge us extra to use our own cable.

Tariffs are a comin'.... (3, Interesting)

vinn (4370) | about 4 years ago | (#31750432)

ISP's operate in that magical land of no tariffs. I bet not for long. If the FCC has any backbone (I'm not necessarily convinced they do, but hey, sometimes you can hope) they'll turn this into a regulated service. Just like all of those other wonderful tariffs we've had, for basic POTS lines, T1's, ISDN, etc, etc, look for that to happen with all sorts of Internet connections. So, in return for keeping net neutrality we'll lose ISP's... and the vicious dog eat dog cycle begins.

Re:Tariffs are a comin'.... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31750602)

If the FCC has any backbone (I'm not necessarily convinced they do, but hey, sometimes you can hope) they'll turn this into a regulated service.

And then you can kiss any hope of innovation goodbye. In the last few years the speed of my consumer broadband connection has quadrupled. It went from 5 mbit/s to 8, to 10 and finally to 15. You really think that such improvements would happen in a hyper-regulated marketplace? When was the last time your landline phone company or electric utility came out with anything new and exciting?

The solution isn't to treat them like utilities, the solution is to remove the stumbling blocks that prevent upstarts from competing with them. The solution is to take away their special tax/franchise agreements and force them to compete on a level playing field.

Re:Tariffs are a comin'.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750732)

In the last few years the speed of my consumer broadband connection has quadrupled. It went from 5 mbit/s to 8, to 10 and finally to 15.

15/5 = 3

Re:Tariffs are a comin'.... (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 4 years ago | (#31750772)

You really think that such improvements would happen in a hyper-regulated marketplace?

Actually, yes. Moore's Law, with us since the 50s, has been operational through wars, recessions, Democrats and Republican administrations alike without ever significantly changing. Sounds like innovation is safer than you think.

Re:Tariffs are a comin'.... (1)

Frenchman113 (893369) | about 4 years ago | (#31750800)

When was the last time your landline phone company or electric utility came out with anything new and exciting?

Never. And I like it that way. I like knowing that when I pick up my phone and call someone, it will Just Work. Likewise, I like knowing that I can plug my appliances into my power outlets and have them turn on.

For a lot of things, nobody wants "new and exciting" versions, merely "not broken" versions, something that does not exist with the American Internet system.

Brave new America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750446)

By the government, for the corporations!

No single US Court of Appeals (5, Insightful)

Sentex (625502) | about 4 years ago | (#31750448)

This is just one Circuit of the US Court of Appeals (although very influential). There is no "The United States Court of Appeals".

win for the constitution (2, Insightful)

viridari (1138635) | about 4 years ago | (#31750528)

The end result might suck for net neutrality but it's a win for the US Constitution, which has been sorely hurting. If you want net neutrality, don't expect it to come legitimately from the pen of a bureaucrat; demand it from Congress.

Re:win for the constitution (1)

yumyum (168683) | about 4 years ago | (#31750780)

First time I've seen a judge equated with a bureaucrat. And what do you think Congress is filled with? And I believe the FCC Charter (created by those people in Congress) states that the FCC has this regulatory authority:

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio

When people disagree with the rules set forth by Congress, they go to the courts to have the wording parsed and weighed. I think you are barking up the wrong tree of "activist judges" here.

Free Market, love it? (2, Insightful)

jwhitener (198343) | about 4 years ago | (#31750532)

Once the internet is completely metered and locked down, with corporate traffic given huge priority over private traffic, I wonder if all the "free market solves everything" libertarian types will still be so anti-regulation....

Slashdot seems to have a fairly large amount of 'free market solves all' people. Maybe strangling the internet is the thing that will make some of them realize that certain things do deserve either heavy regulation or government ownership:)

Since this is the "information super highway", maybe it should get the same level of government control as the Federal Highway System.

Hell with this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750536)

Further proof that the US government no longer represent "we the people". It's all about the corporations and their greedy interests.

It's time to alter or abolish our government, as is our right to. Seriously.

Stop shrugging your damn shoulders and thinking things will be fixed eventually. Those days are long gone. If we don't do something, we will have NO freedoms left.

Get up, disobey bad laws, speak out, say something. Start a movement to stop our corrupt government.

Pyrrhic Victory? (2, Interesting)

javakah (932230) | about 4 years ago | (#31750550)

Without net-neutrality, Comcast's purchase of NBC (and Hulu) could start raising some major questions about whether it is forming a monopoly, especially when the government is already looking at the broadband situation in the US (and possibly unhappy about it).

Additionally, the FCC has made it pretty clear that they want some authority over the net, so far assuming implicitly that they have such authority. With this ruling, we may yet see them given such authority explicitly.

I almost wonder if this may be a pyrrhic victory for Comcast. Imagine them having the NBC/Hulu sale blocked, and then later the FCC gets it's authority specifically created, enforcing Net Neutrality (perhaps with some fangs), and having a bit of a grudge against Comcast.

FCC Got bit by it's own Teeth. (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | about 4 years ago | (#31750688)

Apparently, from this article [comcast.net] , Comcast madea successful argument based on the fact that the FCC fought to keep broadband deregulated in 2005 in the Supreme Court. While spitting on net neutrality basically spits in the face of the intent of that battle, I think the FCC could successfully file this particular incident under, "Lessons on Things Coming Back to Bite You in the Ass."

Proactive or Reactive? (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 4 years ago | (#31750690)

If congress doesn't weigh in on this soon they're going to pass the point where massive head breaking won't be necessary (not that Comcast doesn't have a big head in need of some slapping). And when it comes to head breaking, I'd rater see a TR progressively taking on Standard Oil than FDR reactive style acts against those who tanked the economy. (There's more corollaries here to the current US banking system than are immediately obvious). Information and transit of information are the commodities of the day.

Restore Common Carrier (1, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 years ago | (#31750736)

Excluding data carriers from common carrier requirements was one of the dumbest things we have ever done.

Simple principle: If you want to make decisions about which traffic to carry at what speed, you are legally liable for all traffic you carry. If you want safe harbor from liability, you cannot decide which packets get special treatment.

Throttling is fine if it is unbiased. Picking winners and losers is not the ISP's prerogative.

The decision is somewhat moot (5, Interesting)

jmichaelg (148257) | about 4 years ago | (#31750778)

The FCC knew Comcast was going to win quite a while back. Comcast's basic argument rests on the fact that the FCC didn't follow it's own rules in how it created the net neutrality rule. Since the rules weren't followed for creating a new rule, Comcast argued the net neutrality rule was unenforceable.

  The FCC recognized Comcast had a point and restarted the rule making process to enable them to legally enforce net neutrality.

Personally, I'd like to see the FCC say that if you own a cable or phone company, you can't provide internet service. We've just been through the consequences of companies that were too big to fail failing and are quite a bit poorer because of it. Letting monopolies form is just taking us down that path again.

Both At&t and the cables are scared shitless that the Internet will make their business models obsolete. Of course, they're right.

FCC vs Canada's CRTC (1)

Korbeau (913903) | about 4 years ago | (#31750794)

Did the FCC at least force ISP to give the users the exact throttling rules like Canada CRTC ruled last autumn?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/21/2223229/ [slashdot.org]

I would have loved to see slashdotters' reaction to the CRTC announcement after this news came it, would have put things in perspective. It's good to be pro-net-neutrality (CRTC also is pro-net-neutrality), but even with limited power it tried and succeeded to at least get some basic ruling done so we are not (the users) completely screwed.

In the end though, I guess both organizations will reach the same kind of decision (Canadian politicians being what they are) and Big Industry will flourish.

Law #23 of Government policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31750796)

Evil Always wins.

Comcast missing a crucial point (1)

HaeMaker (221642) | about 4 years ago | (#31750850)

Comcast Cable pays networks for the privilege of carrying their content. If I were Google, and Comcast came knocking, I'd say, "YOU pay ME $1/subscriber, or I will filter your users from my site."

Eminent Domain (1)

Migraineman (632203) | about 4 years ago | (#31750866)

The cable companies are using eminent domain [wikipedia.org] to run their wires through the right-of-way in my yard (buried, on the pole ... doesn't matter.) That little tidbit should force the neutrality issue upon them. Don't like it? Fine, contract with each and every individual for compensation for running the cables through private properties. If the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction on this, the states certainly should.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...