Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Congressmen Send Letters, Hope For Net Neutrality Fades

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the making-sausage dept.

Government 427

The odds of the FCC implementing net-neutrality rules just got much longer. "A bipartisan group of politicians on Monday told FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, in no uncertain terms, to abandon his plans to impose controversial new rules on broadband providers until the US Congress changes the law. Seventy-four House Democrats sent Genachowski ... a letter saying his ideas will 'jeopardize jobs' and 'should not be done without additional direction from Congress.' A separate letter from 37 Senate Republicans, also sent Monday, was more pointed. It accused Genachowski of pushing 'heavy-handed 19th century regulations' that are 'inconceivable' as well as illegal. ... [U]nless something unexpected happens, the fight over Net neutrality will shift a few blocks down Independence Avenue from the FCC to Capitol Hill. (In an editorial Monday, The Washington Post called for just that.)"

cancel ×

427 comments

Niggers for sale! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344300)

Come to www.niggersforsale to purchase your very own nigger. All our niggers have been house-broken and we offer a 100% money-back guarantee that they won't rape any white women in your home. They are good for all sorts of home uses and they start at the low, low price of only 3 easy payments of $149.99.

Net neutrality never had a chance (5, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344422)

It's not as if net neutrality really had a chance. The incumbent ISPs were going to buy enough politicians off to get the concept killed.

Re:Net neutrality never had a chance (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344534)

Net neutrality is like the GPL for the Internet, where leftists define "neutrality" or "freedom" as you being controlled by them instead of something they oppose.

Re:Net neutrality never had a chance (1)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344764)

GPL software isn't forced on you, there's plenty of competition against free software you can always get non-GPL software if you like.

Broadband is another story, most Americans are lucky if they have more than 1 choice for reasonably fast access, and if net neutrality isn't enforced none of the current providers will provide it.

Re:Net neutrality never had a chance (4, Informative)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344562)

From the WAPO editorial: "Disclosure: The Washington Post Co. has interests in broadcast and cable television and businesses that depend on the Internet..." That says it all. Thus, communication, one of the premier qualities that defines us as human, gets to be thrown around like a political football, to the loss and dismay of all. What is the cost to decisions like this? Answer: a continued receding of innovation and a disadvantaged American public, compared to those who have unfettered access to broadband, a theoretically unlimited resource. We are metered only because we CAN be metered, and only because someone is on the receiving end of a political or financial payoff. Damn the public interest!

I care more about this than net neutrality (0)

microbee (682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344310)

How can we download an entire movie within, say, one minute?

Getting the speed up is more important than deciding how to allocate it. But what have ISPs done over the years?

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (4, Insightful)

Jyncus (690528) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344358)

They've bought congressmen. No need to invest any of that profit in infrastructure when you can just pay some lobbyists to ensure that your consumer-raping-business-model doesn't get threatened.

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (1, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344370)

They've bought congressmen.

What happened to the hope, change and a new kind of politics?

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (4, Funny)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344386)

It left, you just missed it.

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (3, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344392)

You actually believed that? *snickers*

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (1, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344428)

Clearly he didn't. Anyone who did believe it has either 1) Conveniently 'forgot' about it, or 2) Still believes they are getting it.

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344730)

I still believe it, but you shouldn't mistake the republican version for the one that Obama actually ran on. See, republicans want you to believe in Obama as some sort of savior, and then be disappointed when that fails. What Obama actually ran on was that the populace should have more hope, and the populace should enact the change. He wanted people to get involved in government again.

So maybe you should quite your partisan wining and actually DO something about net neutrality.

MOD PARENT UP (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344816)

I work in politics (not in the USA) and this is EXACTLY what is required. The system is a democracy, its just that the lobbyists are getting to more voters than we are. So unless you get off your ass and start telling people about this, and not just the regular crowd of believers but your family and friends about how important net neutrality is then there won't be any change. Obama doesn't have any power of his own, the only power he has is the millions of people who agreed with him and who said they would support those things.

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (1, Redundant)

TouchAndGo (1799300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344480)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344582)

That was before the election, now it's after the election.

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344656)

Well, sadly there was a change since the previous administration. Now the lobbyists are putting more money into the BOTH Dem and Rep pockets -- back in the Bush Administration days the Dems had little if any power to influence any policy change so it wasn't even worth the trouble. And to make it even more painful, corporate America has so much accumulated wealth that it makes no difference whether the payola goes to one party, or the other, or both.

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (3, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344672)

I thought that was Sarah Palin's thing. Wasn't she supposed to be a Washington Outsider? Too bad we ended up with another corrupt, game-playing politician instead.

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344702)

We were just sayin' that.. A catchy phrase will get 'em every time. The party's still in power. It's all good...

Re:I care more about this than net neutrality (2, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344736)

How can we download an entire movie within, say, one minute? Getting the speed up is more important than deciding how to allocate it.

Is it? Who gets to decide how much speed is allocated to the connection between you and the site you're downloading from? Without net neutrality, the answer will be "whoever pays your ISP". In other words, the only sites that will see decent bandwidth are those to which you've subscribed in some way, probably - because it's those sites that will be able to bribe your ISP.

So where are you getting this movie? Also note, since you made the movie example, that in the absence of net neutrality, the MAFIAA will be even stronger - they'll pay your ISP to throttle non-cartel sources of music/movies in favor of their own offerings.

what jobs? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344312)

What phantom jobs are they talking about? Broadband infrastructure investment in the US is dead dead dead. Verizon was the last company investing in broadband infrastructure with their FiOS deployments. They've already announced that they're stopping. No more FiOS. No more broadband.

How can an industry with a current investment level of ZERO be providing jobs? There are no jobs, because there is no investment. Congress is protecting phantom jobs that don't exist!

Re:what jobs? (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344516)

Congress is protecting phantom jobs that don't exist!

That's not true. There's the pilot who flies the CEO around. There's the undocumented laborers that maintain his property. Toss in a few lawyer friends from University for good measure.

Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life.

Re:what jobs? (3, Interesting)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344620)

So you're suggesting we add a little destruction to the mix? I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:what jobs? (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344630)

Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life.

You're a monster Shakrai, but you already knew that didn't you?

Re:what jobs? (1)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344640)

Well you saved me the time of writing it. Exactly.

Re:what jobs? (2, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344520)

What phantom jobs are they talking about?

Jobs for lobbyists, and for retiring regulators.. You know... money mules, of a sort

Jobs? I'll tell you what jobs... (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344314)

The jobs at risk are the congressdroids' - they are fearful their corpocleptocractic campaign donors will support someone else if they don't stop this return to normalcy. Fuckers don't even realize they are acting against their own interests - just wait until they end up having to pay extra to all the ISPs so that the voters can get to their own campaign websites.

Re:Jobs? I'll tell you what jobs... (5, Funny)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344452)

corpocleptocractic

Government by body-snatchers?

Re:Jobs? I'll tell you what jobs... (2, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344636)

Government by employed, thieving, body-snatchers.

Re:Jobs? I'll tell you what jobs... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344690)

Give him the +5.

He meant government by corporate thieves and probably didn't give a moment's thought to the Latin deconstruction, which was an even better description.

C'mon, that's a double pun, that's clever shit! You didn't think of it, goddammit!

Re:Jobs? I'll tell you what jobs... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344710)

Personally, I think it should be coproclepticratic... Government via the uncontrolled theft of people's shit.

Much easier after Citizens United (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344744)

they are fearful their corpocleptocractic campaign donors will support someone else if they don't stop this return to normalcy.

And thanks to a recent supreme court decision [scotuswiki.com] uncapping corporate election spending, they're right to be fearful.

they are acting against their own interests - just wait until they end up having to pay extra to all the ISPs so that the voters can get to their own campaign websites.

As long as incumbents are good at falling in line with the interests of people with money, higher expenses for all comers actually give them an advantage, because it's easier for them to raise money than it is for contenders, and they probably have a war chest from past elections.

Correct (3, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344326)

The problem is that the approach Genachowski wants to use means adding ISPs into the existing structure used to regulate telcos. While this would insure net neutrality it would also open a giant can of worms in applying the rest of a giant regulatory structure to ISPs.

You won't like that.

The correct approach IS new legislation that narrowly addresses the issue of net neutrality.

Re:Correct (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344438)

The problem is that the approach Genachowski wants to use means adding ISPs into the existing structure used to regulate telcos. While this would insure net neutrality it would also open a giant can of worms in applying the rest of a giant regulatory structure to ISPs.

Funny, it sure seemed to work just fine up until the Brand-X ruling [wikipedia.org] in 2005.

Re:Correct (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344638)

The problem is that the approach Genachowski wants to use means adding ISPs into the existing structure used to regulate telcos. While this would insure net neutrality it would also open a giant can of worms in applying the rest of a giant regulatory structure to ISPs.

This is wrong; neither the legislative authority under which telcos are regulated nor the intended use of that authority under the approach outlined by Genachowski would apply the entire "giant regulatory structure" currently applied to telcos to ISPs.

Obvious. (5, Insightful)

Fuji Kitakyusho (847520) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344330)

The government MUST control the flow of information. Otherwise, the balance of power could rest with the people.

Re:Obvious. (5, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344450)

No, the problem is that if the government does not control the flow of information in a fair and balanced way FOR the people, the balance of power will rest briefly in the hands of the people before it gets stolen from them by the corporations, which will then go to war against each other leaving the people in their wake stranded in a marketplace that is a proverbial post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Re:Obvious. (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344506)

Syndicate wars is a documentary.

Re:Obvious. (-1, Troll)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344568)

HAHAHAhahahaha, HOHOHOHOhoohoh, you said "government" and "fair and balanced" in the same sentence.

Re:Obvious. (3, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344634)

The government is the balance to a corporate system, and both together provide fairness. Get with it, man.

Re:Obvious. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344454)

Would you say that traffic potentially critical to an ambulance service should not be prioritized over traffic potentially critical to a porn site?

Re:Obvious. (5, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344484)

Come on if net neutrality doesn't pass do you really think ambulance services will suddenly gain top priority?? That's not profitable... think about it, who has all the money? Porn sites, spammers and related advertising agencies.

Re:Obvious. (4, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344458)

You seem to be unaware that you are responsible for who is in government. Law is how a civilized society addresses grievances between it's citizens without resorting to violence or terroristic threats. You don't just throw the whole idea out because you're too lazy to participate.

"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” -Lincoln

Re:Obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344564)

Hmmm - democracy as a concept is great, as a reality can you show me where it exists? The USA is not actually a democracy at all, it is a republic at best.

Re:Obvious. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344594)

No, mostly because the game is rigged to ensure that nobody can rise to challenge the structures that are.

Re:Obvious. (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344700)

So you can't think of any oppressed group in America's history that has fought the "structures that are" and beaten them?

The landless poor got the right to vote. Then the slaves earned their legal freedom, though they were still denied it for decades. Then the workers united in the early 20th century and fought bitterly for better wages and working conditions, and got them. Then the women's suffrage movement won their democratic rights. Then the Civil Rights movement finally resulted in the beginning of true equality for all Americans.

The battles are still being fought for gay rights, reproductive rights, immigrant rights, indigenous rights, and now the middle class is demanding rights (though they seem to be unaware of who took them.)

The structures can be beaten if you have a populace willing to sacrifice material comfort for real freedoms, but it seems that willful ignorance, apathy, and materialism are the most powerful structure our democracy has yet faced.

Re:Obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344628)

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Re:Obvious. (5, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344714)

American democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, and then they eat one of the wolves because the sheep has better lobbyists.

Re:Obvious. (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344784)

And communism and corporatism are two wolves deciding which 98 sheep to devour. The choice is obvious.

Re:Obvious. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344766)

"Law is how a civilized society addresses grievances between it's citizens without resorting to violence or terroristic threats."

Normally the above level of naivete is exhibited by a child.

Of course, you may well be older and yet have the mental abilities of a child.
This would not be unusual on Slashdot.

In any case, your remark reveals an utter lack of understanding of how the system
really works. You don't know what you're talking about. Your quaint
ideas are nice in principle, but I've spent nearly 60 years living in the US, I am a lawyer
who has spent many years working within the system and idiots like you with their idealistic
bullshit turn my stomach. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Do the world a favor
and shut your trap.

Re:Obvious. (3, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344788)

Is this the level of discourse in your imagined adult world? "No, YOU shut up"?

Sorry guy. You sound like an unhappy person who also happens to be a failed lawyer, judging from your grammar structure and argumentative acumen.

Re:Obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344488)

The government is the people - all facets of the government as laid out in the constitution are in the hands of the population. If the ability to give preferential treatment to certain packets (say the ones going to the perspective company's (or affiliate's) website) is given into the hands of private companies (beyond the legal grip of the population), then we risk the manipulative market practices of the railroad companies or the thought control of the Soviet Union (not allowing a researcher to visit a site unfavorable to the company).

The internet is the greatest grouping of information ever - with the potential for free expression and the sharing of knowledge limitless - and it should remain that way, versus the 'closed' mediums of newspapers and radio (government regulation should be like telephones - no monitoring without a warrant or preferential treatment of certain calls).

Re:Obvious. (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344510)

Don't worry, if the government isn't given control it will stay where it is right now - with a handful of major telecommunications companies, all of whom want to get as much money as possible without doing any work, and if possible degrade service for increased money.

The way I see it (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344332)

The way I see it, net neutrality needs to be mandated for ISPs using state or federal funds to "modernize" America, if they use substantial portions of public lands they also need to use net neutrality. If they use no public funds or public land, let them do what they will. But since most ISPs use public land or funds, we, the taxpayers have a say in their operations.

This isn't about "regulations" its about getting what you paid for: to "modernize" America with faster internet access, not access to a handful of sites, no non-traditional ways of getting content, etc.

Re:The way I see it (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344528)

Most ISPs use public lands AND funds, at least indirectly because the existing infrastructure was MOSTLY paid for by public funds and ALMOST ENTIRELY housed on public lands. It IS about getting BACK what WE paid for, but the ISPs (and sadly most of the tax payers) seem to have forgotten about this.

Re:The way I see it (2, Insightful)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344650)

But since most ISPs use public land or funds, we, the taxpayers have a say in their operations.

A quaint and interesting idea. In this scenario, we should have a say in how all of our tax money gets spent. What do you suppose would happen if we all declared that we wanted our tax money to go to public education and welfare rather than the military-industrial complex?

Re:The way I see it (0, Flamebait)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344768)

We'd end up with a bunch of educated idiots unable to provide from themselves?

Welfare is decent for providing for people who truly cannot provide from themselves, but even at its current form, its prone to lots of abuses. Just ask anyone who has worked at a supermarket, you have quite a few people coming through, buying booze with cash and paying for groceries with food stamps while wearing designer clothing.

Public education ends up being detrimental to the poor also. Because education has become a "right" we have more and more people not trying or in education when they shouldn't pass, but due to our thinking in the US, still manage to. Because of this, a high school degree is more or less worthless. Putting that you have a high school diploma isn't going to attract any attention, considering you can simply ask most teachers for a passing grade and they will give it to you... all it has become is that you've sat through 13 years of classes. It is no longer a qualification.

Because of this, most people need post-high school education which can never be truly free. Yeah, you can get an online degree or a degree at a community college, but that is fast becoming like high school diplomas: a given. And most state or private universities are located where the cost of living is relatively high. Even if you get all of your tuition paid for, you still have the costs of living. Because of this, the paycheck-to-paycheck poor are discouraged from attending university unless they manage to get a full ride which is becoming harder and harder to get unless you are super-good at a sport and good at math/science/english and reading because the SAT/ACT is reported as a composite score, and because the tests are expensive, its more likely that someone better off financially can do better by taking it multiple times.

Spending more money in public education won't help the poor, it will only force them to pay for more education and end up increasing various deficits of the government because fewer people are working.

In short, spending money for welfare and public education are two of the worst things we can put our tax money at work for. We need to reduce government and taxes, not increase it.

Re:The way I see it (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344828)

I'm curious - In your head, does it seem as though you actually responded to the question asked?

Re:The way I see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344786)

What do you suppose would happen if we all declared that we wanted our tax money to go to public education and welfare rather than the military-industrial complex?

We'd get taken over by China. Then not only would we not have net neutrality, we'd lose freedom of speech as well!

The Letters (5, Informative)

discordia666 (940470) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344334)

My how I hate articles which don't reference the main subject. http://netcompetition.org/House_Democrat_Letter.pdf [netcompetition.org] http://netcompetition.org/Senate_Republican_Letter.pdf [netcompetition.org]

Re:The Letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344552)

thanks for that - god damn you Americans are a funny bunch though. I had a little giggle when I read:

...what should be our Nation's foremost communications priority: bringing broadband to every corner of America, getting every American online, and providing the high speed connections needed to realize the promises of telemedicine, distance learning, and other forms of consumer empowerment.

America is such an old-fashioned word isn't it? I mean you are named after a 15th century Italian man for crying out loud. Why not give your country a more modern, more empowered name:

ConsumerLand

Re:The Letters - Thanks (2, Insightful)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344622)

The letter confirms The Corporate Welfare state that replaced the Social Welfare state provides reason to stupidity.

We pay for what we get, what the government gets, what the business C*Os get, and what our government gives to business with privileges, tax breaks, civil rights, kick-backs-by-proxy....

Corporate Institutions are more enfranchised than private citizens in the USA a pure plutocracy of the entitled of Corporate American Governance.

This November.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344340)

Vote for ANYONE but republican or democrat. Anyone. I don't care who. Whatever you do, absolutely do not vote for a republican or democrat. Please?

Bi-partisan only means that the same corporation has bought you both. That is the only thing that word means anymore.

It's important to care who. (4, Insightful)

Vekseid (1528215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344410)

Making a viable third party in this country would require a staggering amount of time, effort, and money. Any such third party would have to have a pretty solid message, with some pretty solid heads on its shoulders, to have a hope of getting anywhere. The rank level of dissatisfaction with the current party structure means that yes, it is probably possible. But if you're going to tell me to vote for and possibly help promote a third party, you'll get a much better reaction if you show me some damned smart people working on some damned smart platforms. Most third parties are not run by the best and the brightest that this nation has to offer.

Re:It's important to care who. (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344688)

Running for an office in the US, at least when you want to run for one that surpasses the office of mayor, requires a metric ton of money to get off the ground. It's pretty hard to afford that, especially given the risk and the minuscle chance of succeeding.

That's the basic problem of the rampart lobbyism. To get anywhere in the US politics, you need money. To get money, you have to sell out to some or many corporations. If you want to eliminate the bribery, you'd first of all have to change that system.

Re:This November.. (3, Interesting)

extrasolar (28341) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344522)

I don't think that will actually work, because by supporting minority parties you're not actually making any changes to the government. Okay, you hope that it would, that if you make enough slashdot comments you'll be able to elect a green or a libertarian, but honestly I just don't see that happening. There are a lot more voters than people reading slashdot.

One thing I think might work is voting against incumbents. What will that accomplish? I don't really know. But it's a stark way of expressing your disapproval of the people who *have* been running things.

Re:This November.. (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344704)

What's better? Voting for the lesser evil, knowing that it's still evil and basically the same turd sandwich, or voting for someone who you know can't win but would be the right candidate for you?

I keep hearing the myth of the "lost vote". Voting for someone who has no chance of winning is "throwing away" your vote. Know what? Casting it for someone I don't want is throwing it away.

...to save jobs. (2, Insightful)

Gaian-Orlanthii (1032980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344344)

Also in a similar self-important whiny voice of proprietary authoritarianism....
Think Of The Children!
Your Country Needs You!
The War On [Insert Topical Cultural Demon Here] Must Go On
Burn The [Insert Topical Cultural Demon Here]!!

There are of course loads more. Anyway, it all sounds as if no-one has moved on since the 11th century so let's remind those that order soldiers around that you can't always get what you want and usually, you regret what you wish for.

Re:...to save jobs. are you saying ...? (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344666)

The "Domino Theory" has again proven to be fallacious logic. Politicians are such idiots, I am amazed we won WWII, maybe the other fools politicians were that much worse than ours. Then again, maybe currently our politicians are that much worse than ....

Re:...to save jobs. are you saying ...? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344776)

I am amazed we won WWII

There are times I have my doubts.. We seem to be in a new age of appeasement and the love of money

Business as usual (5, Interesting)

dcmoebius (1527443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344394)

Cue the unending stream of lobbyists, please. They're on next.

Seriously, how many people ACTUALLY think that this was anything more than Congress muscling the FCC aside to better suckle at the corporate teat?

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I don't see Congress getting territorial over any issue that isn't backed by multi-billion dollar industries.

Re:Business as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344592)

http://stopthecap.com/2010/05/25/eight-members-of-the-congressional-black-caucus-abandon-constituents-oppose-net-neutrality-broadband-reform/ [stopthecap.com]

Our congressmen are WELL compensated *cough* bribed *cough*.

That is but one small example of what goes on. This goes on both sides of the isle.

To any congress critter reading this. Please stop.

Re:Business as usual (5, Insightful)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344726)

The USA only has Corporate Citizens, the human has been disenfranchised.

USA and EU Democracy is simply periodic insubstantial public fanfares, China saves millions by avoiding the public fanfare.

End run (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Struct (660658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344402)

I say the FCC should license a nice fat chunk of wireless spectrum for high power ad hoc peer to peer networking. Then people can put up their own antennas and run their own community-wide public access points. Then maybe the government can help out by connecting the major cities with the longer haul infrastructure. I have to wonder how big of a mess it would be to start, but I also kind of wonder if it might self-organize into a new internet. It'd be delightful to see Comcast's reaction to something like that.

Re:End run (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344612)

That's exactly the fucking way to do it too. It will never ever EVER be encouraged by government or corporations either.

For one, government would just create those "long haul" infrastructure points at considerable cost without any national-security-I-can-see-you benefits. The most they could hope for is setup massive analysis points along the way to deep scan packets and possibly decrypt them. That's not possible too. For all the NSA's scariness and bluster they can't slice and dice their way through AES256 for each and every citizen in real time. I would give them credit for having the resources to do it in a reasonable time frame on a very small scale, but not at a national one. Without the ability for the National Security apparatus to at least isolate where the communication is coming from they can't be motivated to proceed. Look at Clipper and Carnivore. I seriously doubt the government would go along with the creation of any infrastructure that created technological obstructions to carry out the ideals of such data interception programs.

The other very serious issue for law enforcement is that mesh networking would have no way to establish, without any doubt, the business-customer relationships where money was exchanging hands, and consequently, there would not exist a 1) Fairly consistent and reliable information about the customer paying the bill and 2) Reliable way from a networking perspective to establish the identity of the customer.

Mesh Networking is the Holy Grail of Freedom, Anonymity, and Privacy on networks for average citizens. It would be extremely hard and time consuming to identify a single one person on it, especially if you added some TOR/Freenet/Darknet to the equation . At that point all the citizens in a densely populated urban area might as well be a single citizen.

There would be so much pressure against us to get that started I sincerely doubt it could ever get off the ground. The moment that Mesh networking gets serious at all watch how fast from local municipalities up to Federal Government makes it illegal and uses the FCC to make such transmissions dangerous.

Re:End run (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344800)

To be fair, signals is just as much about when and from where to where as it is about the content. NSA wouldn't be crippled, but it would certainly make things interesting.

I've had the vision in my brain ever since I used Gnutella, a massive grid of interconnected wireless devices. Everything that needed to communicate could be on the common platform, authenticated through a simple means to your home. You handshake with your neighbors on an untrusted basis and pass traffic encrypted to the endpoint router. Use simple routing tables to transfer around the information about the wireless networks around you and use basic ad hoc+multi-radio to build efficient robust connections. If every device is a router you only ever have to worry about a broken radio at the hardware level.

So apparently it was a global realization because there are now over 100 different Wireless Mesh routing protocols which make up the foundation of such a vision. Lots of different implementations with lots of different visions. It's actually quite stunning. Even the IEEE is having fun with it and taking a stab in the ring with all the drama that brings.

It's some interesting times we live in.

Re:End run (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344664)

How would the govenment muscle in on and protect the content that is coming to you that way? That sounds too much like a free market where people would go willy nilly all over the internet without the watchful eye of the government while being paid by the Movie and Film Industry of America.

Re:End run (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344746)

I like, but there would be a War on Wireless (WoW) users, and the prisons would be quickly filled with New-Internet criminals.

"heavy-handed 19th century regulations" (5, Insightful)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344404)

Kind of like modern IP laws...

Re:"heavy-handed 19th century regulations" (5, Insightful)

Nugoo (1794744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344476)

Don't be ridiculous. The 19th century had much saner IP laws.

Obligatory (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344412)

It accused Genachowski of pushing 'heavy-handed 19th century regulations' that are 'inconceivable'

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Obligatory (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344756)

The 1800s... back to the telegraph, good point.

I'd like to respond better to this (5, Informative)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344492)

But I couldn't figure out what was going on from either linked articles ? Seeing as net neutrality has become a term that has been so completely trashed by both sides, there is really no way to tell from the information provided. I will say this liberal or conservative, democrat or republican you really don't want these people writing rules to control monopolies. They are the same people that gave us 80 years of overpriced phone service, allowed ATT to use incomprehensible invoices, and had us paying a telephone tax for the spanish american war till after the year 2000, .What we need and there is no way we are getting is laws that allow more companies to become ISPs. More unlicensed wireless spectrum, must carry laws for cable and telco isps, or anything that makes these peoples wires less of a monopoly isn't on the agenda.

Re:I'd like to respond better to this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344706)

Whatever the excuses used to sell or whatever the details of the initial net neutrality regulations or legislation are, the end game is to give the government control over the flow of information.

Even those who think that being paid with tax dollars automatically makes a person wiser and more ethical than someone paid with money earned by running a successful business will be outraged if and when the government succeeds in gaining the authority to micromanage the internet and internet traffic. No one should believe that regulators will be motivated by a desire to make consumers happy.

Despite the histrionics of the usual /. bashers of the free market, the best way to provide high-quality, affordable service to consumers is to open up competition, not smother the industry with mountains of regulations and legions of government bureaucrats.

Re:I'd like to respond better to this (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344822)

Yes, the issue seems confused. That confusion is deliberate. Probably they're trying to hide some corrupt backroom dealing that a few people think will make them a lot of money. Sort of like ACTA. Except they're wrong. Bad enough when corruption is used to hide rent seeking. But in this case the thieves are too stupid to see that laying groundwork to set up rent seeking operations to milk the public via one route will merely push everyone to other routes. Or if they have such a good grip that other ways aren't feasible, it will cause a backlash. They will have to spend most of their ill-gotten takings towards whack-a-mole hunts against facilitators of those other routes. The politicians will be loving it.

If it's not broken... (2, Funny)

CitizenCain (1209428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344498)

it clearly needs government regulation to fix it. :/

So, that's 74 democrats and 37 republicans who... (0, Troll)

Telephone Sanitizer (989116) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344504)

So, that's 74 democrats and 37 republicans who are either too stupid to know/bother-to-learn how common carrier laws work or who are wholly owned by communications monopolists.

Where's the list of assholes who signed those letters?

Re:So, that's 74 democrats and 37 republicans who. (2, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344608)

They're not wholly owned by the telcos. They just hold shares of the congresscritters, nobody needs to buy a complete polidroid. You can rent them these days, you just have to pay more than the guy opposed to you.

Re:So, that's 74 democrats and 37 republicans who. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344624)

You do realize that ISPs are not and have never been common carriers, right?

Re:So, that's 74 democrats and 37 republicans who. (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344750)

That's precisely the problem we're trying to fix. It hasn't been a huge issue until now, because they've historically operated roughly as if they were common carriers.

Re:So, that's 74 democrats and 37 republicans who. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344658)

and we see how well the telecos are doing. Maybe there is a chance that they can do it better. Besides, I think we should be believers in that balance of power thing, where the legislative tells the executive to shove it. You sure were rooting for it 2 years ago.

Same guys that passed the DMCA? (2, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344542)

The people who pass the DMCA and the Sonny Bono copyright act lose the right to complain about g 'heavy-handed 19th century regulations'. Corruption in the US seems to have reached new lows.

What concerns me even more is that world-wide it seems like politicians are more willing than ever to act against the best interests of the people they are meant to be representing, or pass universally unpopular legislation that a well informed public would never vote for directly. Now THAT is corruption. And there seems to be nothing and no one anywhere with the will or ability to stop the landslide.

Net Neutrality (2006) (PBS NOW) (5, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344548)

Watched a old documentary, Net Neutrality (2006) (PBS NOW).
It was amazing how different the issues were then, anti net neutrality then is now common practice that even /.ers do not even seem to notice.

One of the main reasons that the people back then were given to allow the anti net neutrality was that the ISPs could never go overboard and do anything really bad, since the FCC had the ability and power to stop them.

In case you're wondering who... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344556)

This site [netcompetition.org] has the letters on the left-hand side.

The Democrats [netcompetition.org] , The Republicans [netcompetition.org] .

Sure wish they'd put the names in these news articles, so people had a better idea of who to vote for or against.

Blowback 101... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344584)

This may backfire with the Congress people's wishes. It is only a matter of time before someone starts working on better anonymizing protocols. Right now, people don't tend to use tor or I2P. However, if abuses pile up [1] (ISP deciding to route all traffic from acme.com to ajax.com, sell login information gleaned from non SSL connections, fake SSL connections with bogus CA toplevel certs, intercept and take associate credit for click ads, drop connections to VPNs, sniff E-mail and account passwords and selling those to any/all comers, intercept VPN logins and route them to fake domains, intercept message in transit and change them, so E-mail messages are tampered with, and so on, blocking packets to and from game servers unless a premium surcharge is paid, blocking access wholesale to websites unless they pay a connection fee, and a bandwidth fee to their end), people will get fed up with it and start working on a low-latency network that encrypts traffic hop to hop, with perhaps only a temporary public key being the way that an endpoint knows another endpoint by, similar to how a machine outside of a NAT only knows a temporary port number on the NAT server for communication with the host on the other side.

Of course, the cat and mouse game will continue until ISPs block anything encrypted on any port, including SSL connections which persist and have data transfers over a certain limit. However, there will be a point where data has to be transferred encrypted, and ISPs can't do a thing about it, similar to how ISPs do not block VPN connections to businesses overtly. Eventually the encrypted setup will win, assuming it doesn't get infiltrated/cracked first.

Joe Sixpack doesn't want to worry that the list of pr0n sites he visited yesterday will be in the hands of his boss and ex wife's divorce attorney tomorrow, so he will learn somehow to use proxies or an encrypted network.

Of course, this would make legitimate interception for law enforcement impossible.

[1]: Right now these are in theory. This is not saying any ISP is doing any/all of these yet.

great (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344606)

let company's like comcast keep running out of control. they are aruldy losing there subscribers in mass to competing isps and satlite providers.what does that mean for people that are stuck with comcast you guess it even higher rates for throttled lower quality internet. i know people will start the dsl is slower fight but faster does not mean better if you cant use it for anything other then email. and that's what comcast whants and without the fcc stepping in that's what they will get. and by time joe user catches on to this it will be to late. i relly encourage voters to contact there congress and express there disagreement with them stoping the fcc.from forcing these isps to be fair. the fcc should also appeal and go back to court over that ruling that hurt there move badly.

Am I missing something? (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344680)

When did the FCC become the Dauntless Defender of the Little Guy?

Ad hoc networks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32344698)

That's the solution. A router in every pot.

Think of all the jobs at risk (1)

stox (131684) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344718)

Congressional donation specialists, campaign staff, lobbyists, and many many more. Allowing the FCC to have its way could decimate employment in the Washington D.C. area. This is not the time to endanger the fragile recovery.

FEAR NOT! (1, Informative)

The AtomicPunk (450829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344754)

I am convinced that those of you naive enough to beg the government to regulate the Internet will eventually get exactly what you wish for.

Whose interests are being protected here? (1)

rnturn (11092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32344782)

``the fight over Net neutrality will shift a few blocks down Independence Avenue from the FCC to Capitol Hill. (In an editorial Monday, The Washington Post called for just that.)''

Of course, the fight for the public's rights belongs in Congress where it can be carefully watched and modified by legislators bought and paid for by the telecommunications industry. It doesn't surprise me that the Post would get on anti-net-neutrality (i.e. the telecommunications industry's) side of this.

The good part is that this is just a letter. The claim that what the FCC may be thinking of doing being illegal may be just the opinion of the senators signing the letter. It would be most interesting to see what corporations dumped money into their most recent re-election coffers. If we learned one thing from the Nixon administration it's: Follow the money.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...