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!

FCC To Vote On Net Neutrality On December 21

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the get-your-voice-on dept.

Businesses 319

GovTechGuy writes "The FCC just released its tentative agenda for the December 21st open meeting, where the Commission will vote on whether to adopt rules to preserve net neutrality. According to the agenda the FCC will consider 'adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression.' House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."

cancel ×

319 comments

There it goes. (4, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404562)

Well, we're boned.

(No, I have no faith that the Right Thing(TM) will be done given the number of asshats involved. It's only a question of where it goes wrong)

Re:There it goes. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404618)

I thought the issue was that the FCC had no power in the issue - not that they couldn't decide what to do?

Have I been wrong all this time?

Re:There it goes. (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404836)

They might actually go forward with the reclassification. That would be awesome :)

Re:There it goes. (5, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404950)

Instead of fighting Republicans, the FCC should just re-designate the internet lines as "phone lines" and apply existing common carrier rules.

Re:There it goes. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404850)

How does the FCC propose to regulate Net Neutrality for the parts of the internet that sit outside of the US but may still impose extra fees on US ISPs?

Re:There it goes. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405040)

Net neutrality is not about outside ISPs. It's about the local monopoly ISP not blocking your access to sites they don't like - such as rushlimbaugh.com or netflix.com

Re:There it goes. (4, Interesting)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405228)

FCC doesn't care about content in and of itself, but rather how it's treated, which is the entire point. It doesn't matter if the 'content' is outside of the US. What matters is how your local ISP treats your connection to said content. It's also not strictly about blocking content (although that is inherently a part of the larger picture as some will threaten exactly that, like Comcast has threatened with Netflix.

It simply requires that an ISP will treat all content equally. That way they can't discriminate against a competing firms 'content' by reducing the quality of service for that content, while increasing the quality/bandwidth of their own offerings. It levels the playing field.

This wouldn't be as big an issue if content providers were not subsidiaries of telecom providers and vice versa. The first step that should be taken is to separate the internet provider from any content. It is a conflict of interest and spells nothing but trouble for the end user.

I just wish they would regulate internet like they do utilities. it has become an integral part in peoples lives. It is not much different than phone service in that regard.

Re:There it goes. (5, Insightful)

haapi (16700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405404)

You have it backwards. Nobody is imposing fees on ISPs. Net Neutrality is to protect ISPs from imposing fees on content providers.

Cue gangster voice:

"Nice content you have here.. Would be a shame should anything untoward happen to it during delivery over our networks."

Re:There it goes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34404900)

Agreed. The FCC is no friend of free speech. They are at best an instrument of control and at worst a source of control in and of themselves. Is it so far fetched to believe that if this goes through congress might decide to stretch this new regulatory power to prohibit any DNS used by US based ISPs from resolving certain domain names (wikilikeaks.org perhaps?) Claiming that net neutrality won't give congress this authority means little when somehow "The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce... among the several states " justifies the federal war on drugs and federal gun laws. Yeah, most of us could access the content still by using an alternative DNS or simply typing the IP address, but 99% of the public won't be able to. The supreme court MIGHT overturn it, but even then the litigation could take months.

Re:There it goes. (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405102)

You've been seriously misinformed about what "net neutrality" actually means.

Net neutrality basically means that ISPs can't throttle traffic for any reason other than maxing out a connection at the advertised download/upload rate. It says nothing about the content. It gives no extra power to the FCC or any other government agency. What it takes away is the ISPs ability to censor content, or say something like "that's a nice website, real shame if it were unable to be viewed by any of our customers."

Re:There it goes. (2, Funny)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404912)

Well, we're boned.

I dunno about that...
It *is* the solstice and a total lunar eclipse on that day, after all. Maybe there are enough pro-Net-neutrality moon gods to swing the vote our way?
Yes, I'm putting my faith in some rare planetary alignment. We're boned.

Re:There it goes. (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405104)

and when people ask me why I don't like Republicans, I just give them answers like this. Whenever it's Big Business vs The People, we know where they're lobbying.

Would be nice if they lose and We (The People) win this time.

Re:There it goes. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405188)

We the people lost when the SCOTUS decided that corporations were people and thus entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Re:There it goes. (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405352)

I'm not sure this the case here.

I think most Republicans in the Senate have no clue what Net Neutrality really means. McCain said in the Presedential debates that he didn't understand the issue completely, but he was against more government regulation of business.

This is more ignorance than evil.

Overall I believe both parties support big business. There isn't a political party that doesn't love money.

The massive difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want social freedoms, but want to regulate the hell out of everything else. Republicans want financial freedoms, but want to regulate social issues.

It seems the public just wants freedom period, and neither party is really interested in delivering that.

Why? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34404576)

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404646)

All kinds actually. Cell phones, wifi; anything that takes up spectrum space is under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

Re:Why? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404740)

Funny you mention that, since they have a gigantic amount of jurisdiction over cable TV.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404892)

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

God damn there outta be an IQ requirement to post here! What part of "Federal" or "Communications" or "Commission" equates to only "over-the-air"?

Here is a formula for figuring out whether things will pass in the US: Does it pander to a moron's sense of morality? pass Does it benefit only the super-rich? pass Does it look like it benefits the middle class but really does nothing or actually just benefits the super-rich? pass Does it do something to really strengthen the US? fail

Ask yourself: what does not having net neutrality do? It benefits the super-rich. Net neutrality laws will fail. No matter what you do. No matter what you think. No matter how many "middle class" do-gooders you have on your side. It will fail. The super-rich will somehow convince the silent majority (morons) that it is somehow in their best interest that net neutrality does not succeed. Don't believe me? Just watch.

Re:Why? (2)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405286)

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

Where did you get the idea that the FCC only regulates over-the-air signals? Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter I, Section 151 [cornell.edu] describes the purpose of the FCC, and includes the words "by wire and radio."

Not even there's to legislate. (1, Informative)

Chaymus (697182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404624)

So the same governing body that allows me to be forced to a single ISP now wants to tell me what "Free" really means. They need to let a free market determine what should be supplied instead of protecting the monopoly.

Re:Not even there's to legislate. (4, Informative)

wurble (1430179) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404706)

The FTC handles monopolies, not the FCC. The fact that you are forced to a single ISP is either due to a poor choice of location (e.g. some place only one provider is willing to spend the money to give access) or due to local government enforcing a monopoly (e.g. most towns in New jersey which enforce cable monopolies). None of these are the FCC.

Re:Not even there's to legislate. (0, Redundant)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404840)

They need to let a free market determine what should be supplied instead of protecting the monopoly.

Free markets led to the Great Depression. Unregulated capitalism leads to mass exploitation, poor working conditions, and boom/bust cycles. A completely unregulated market is a disaster waiting to happen. You need a hybrid system where critical economic infrastructure is protected from wild fluxuations in price, and where there is government oversight to prevent any corporation from monopolizing such infrastructure. We deregulated the financial sector and look what happened - subprime mortgages and a huge housing bubble which later crashed and caused a global recession. We didn't have sufficient oversight on offshore drilling and now the Gulf of Mexico is an ecological disaster.

Free (unregulated) markets don't work. And even if they did, this market was artificially created and now has a few corporations monopolizing the vast majority of the resources, the cost of entry is exorbinant, and there would be no return on the investment for years, possibly decades, once you factor in all the legal challenges and bartering with the thousands of municipalities which have to approve the contracts for new infrastructure to be built. You cannot, after creating such an unbalanced system, simply step back and say "Oops. Well, I'm outa here!"

A more sound economic approach would be taking away the municipalities rights to negotiate said contracts and mandating it be at the county, or state level. This would sharply reduce the number of middlemen at the bargaining table and greatly lower the cost of entry into the market. As well, the federal government could pass legislation mandating that service providers and carriers be separated, allowing anyone to purchase contracts to gain access to the so-called "last mile". And hopefully they won't screw it up like they did with xDSL this time.

Bottom line: Once the government has created a monopoly, either by action or inaction, it needs to step in and dismantle it so that the market returns to equilibrium. This does not happen on its own by simply returning it to an unregulated status, at least not in any reasonable timeframe.

Re:Not even there's to legislate. (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405202)

If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Regan.
He understood how the government likes to do things.

Re:Not even there's to legislate. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405308)

>>>You need a hybrid system where critical economic infrastructure is protected from wild fluxuations in price, and where there is government oversight to prevent any corporation from monopolizing such infrastructure
>>>

Hey Mussolini! Is that you? Yep. We should have private corporations but under the control of government, to order them when and what to build. AKA national socialism, aka fascism. Preach it man.

>>>Free (unregulated) markets don't work.

Damn straight. What we need is an ANTI-choice market. Everything controlled by government because the People are too damn dumb to make their own choice. Govt-run public or private monopoly is the way to go. What do people need 10 grocery stores or car makers or ISPs for? 1 is enough. No choice but the approved choice. /end sarcasm

Re:Not even there's to legislate. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405344)

Free markets led to the Great Depression.

No, government imposed central banking running artificially low interest rates in order to make people thing 'you've never had it so good' in order to keep them voting the usual suspects back into power led to the stock market boom and bust, and then the government created the Great Depression by raising taxes when the economy was tanking.

Free (unregulated) markets don't work.

The free market is what people do when some guy isn't holding a gun to their head to force them to do something else. Obviously it 'works' because otherwise we'd still be living in caves and fighting over yak bones.

And even if they did, this market was artificially created and now has a few corporations monopolizing the vast majority of the resources, the cost of entry is exorbinant, and there would be no return on the investment for years, possibly decades, once you factor in all the legal challenges and bartering with the thousands of municipalities which have to approve the contracts for new infrastructure to be built.

Bingo. The problem is that the government created many of these big corporations (typically by building the infrastructure using the powers of government to force access to people's land or simply take it at gunpoint and then selling off the infrastructure to private companies) and now they prevent access to new competitiors.

So why are you arguing for more government interference when it's clearly been a disaster?

At the behest of the free market... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34405424)

At the behest of the free market. Yes, the banks themselves demanded less regulation and artificially low interest rates from the Federal Supply.

The free market only works if the company is open and honest. If you think you've found one, you're mistaken.

The problem is that the government is being told by idiots like you to let corporations be the government you cannot vote out.

Re:Not even there's to legislate. (1)

pitdingo (649676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405074)

Yes the same body you voted into office...the same body you are responsible for electing. Either you voted for people who created the franchise laws, or you voted for people who are not tearing those anti-competitive, innovation stifling, laws/ordinances up.

Re:Not even there's to legislate. (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405140)

>>>So the same governing body that allows me to be forced to a single ISP

What the hell are you talking about? The FCC is part of the national government, and it's your *local* city or county government that gave Comcast a monopoly. Wakeup man. We live in a federalist system which means power lies at different levels.

You can't blame the national FCC for something controlled locally. Go to your townhall meeting and bitch at them about the monopoly they've created.

why havsn't Obama called out the republicans yet (5, Insightful)

vxice (1690200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404634)

This is one of my major problems with our president. He barely calls out republicans for stuff like "House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski." They are not looking at the issues they are rejecting it without looking at it. Not that dems have never ever done this but Obama ran on a platform of ending this kind of thing and only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (2, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404764)

What do you want Obama to do about it? It's up to the people to not vote for politicians that pull those stunts. Obama agreed to work with Republicans, but if they dig their feet in and say they refuse to cooperate, what can he do? At least when the house and senate had Democratic majorities he could simply ignore them, but apparently that wasn't the right thing to do either.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (2)

vxice (1690200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405050)

but what he can do is say "look I am trying to work with republicans they wont have any of it."

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405062)

vxice: He should call them out.
bunratty: What do you want him to do about it?
Perhaps he could, oh I dunno, Call them out on it! It usually involves pointing out the congressmen that simply refuse to even look at the issue and ask them why they reject it all out of hand. Ask them to simply stop obstructing all progress and maybe consider the possibility of working together. Just maybe.

And if they ask him to, oh I dunno, cut taxes, kick out the immigrants, or defend our longtime ally or N. Korea, he could respond that he's simply going to block the whole affair out of hand... Until they actually take a look at the FCC's proposal.

It's, you know, political hardball. Not exactly his sort of thing, but he could do it.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404782)

I hear its because he's been behind closed doors dealing with The Gregory Brothers to get the sound JUST right - so that when he makes such an announcement it can easily make the next "Auto-Tune the News" Episode and go viral in mere seconds.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34404796)

You actually believed Obama's promises?

Did you forget that Obama is a politician?

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404834)

Not that dems have never ever done this but Obama ran on a platform of ending this kind of thing and only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

No matter what he ran on, Obama can do nothing but set and example, and show his willingness to work with them.

It's not like he can just tell the Republicans to play nicely. And, if as you suggest, he "calls them out", then all he's going to do is piss them off even more, and they'll work with him even less.

I don't see how Obama can actually make them do anything.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

rotorbudd (1242864) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405046)

Do you happen to remember when democrats had a large majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate for 2 years?
Democrats could have passed anything they damn well felt like passing without a single republican vote

Obama didn't have to "make" the other side do anything.

  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - - - Pete Townsend

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405194)

Do you happen to remember when democrats had [...] a super majority in the Senate[...]?

The Democrats have never had a super majority in the Senate, that would almost be impossible. For the big 'D's (should be 'P' for pussy) to have a super majority in the Senate they'd need to hold 100 seats, and only then would it be a super majority if the Vice President was a Democrat as well. Well, that and ALL of the fucking lobbiest had decided to take a vacation.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405272)

Do you happen to remember when democrats had a large majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate for 2 years?

Is that in any way related to the OPs suggestion that Obama "call out" the Republicans for their current behavior? Or is it a parallel set of circumstances?

Would that two year period of time have had any bearing on a vote which is happening on December 21st?

In short ... have you said anything on topic? Or thrown out some random and unrelated items? (Honest question, I'm confused.)

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405216)

If somebody has already made up their mind to kill you any way they can, it hardly matters if you make them mad, you might as well kick their crotch and get something done.

The problem is that for several years the Democrats have been unable or unwilling to overcome the Republican's underwhelming minority, so people voted them out for being do-nothings.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404844)

And this sort of thing is why I'm a Groucho Marxist:

I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.

Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.

(watch Groucho sing it [youtube.com] )

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405386)

It's difficult to compromise when the choice is between enslavement with chains around your neck, or a plush felt collar. The latter IS a better compromise but the end result is still Anti-choice and Anti-freedom.

Obama keeps pushing ideas that would take away freedom of choice, and leave us as Wards of the new Lords... like serfs. He who holds the money, holds a monopoly and the citizens are left with no options.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404866)

He is still trying to figure out how to fit it into his "car in a ditch" metaphor.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404914)

Obama mentions it all the time.

Perhaps you should choose a different media outlet thata ctually talks about all the issues for your news?

I suggest your local NPR stations.

And no, NPR isn't biased. Contrary to what the morons here think.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405078)

And no, NPR isn't biased. Contrary to what the morons here think.

Your ad hominem has me convinced.

Not his style. (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404934)

He's too cool (in several senses of the word) for that.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405044)

He barely calls out republicans for stuff like "House Republicans have already promised to oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski."

Good hell! He won't call out Republicans for the hypocrisy of how they won't extend unemployment benefits because they'll add to the deficit, but want to extend the Bush tax cuts to the rich without any mention of the deficit.

Not that dems have never ever done this but Obama ran on a platform of ending this kind of thing and only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

I think that you have the way he bends opposite of the way he really bends, and I think that you have the length of time that Republicans spend on top of him and what they do there wrong. Hint: it doesn't involve lube, although it should.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405154)

They don't think FCC should regulate the Internet, full stop. What difference does it make what the proposal by Genachowski contains?

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405238)

>>>only seems to bend over backwards continuing to let republicans to run him over.

Not correct. The Republicans only had ~40% of the congress and zero power to stop anything. It was the Blue Dog DEMOCRATS that have been opposing Obama. They are the ones that were blocking health reform and opposed single payer. They also demanded Obama write an XO forbidding the funds be used for abortions.

Obama had problems these last two years, but those problems existed *within* his own party, since many Dems are quite conservative & not agree with Obama's agenda.

Re:why havsn't Obama called out the republicans ye (1)

N1ck0 (803359) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405318)

Anyone in congress who blanket refuses to look at matters that a Chairman of an government agency recommends is not doing their job. Yes I understand that their opposition is just a letter from a committee saying they do not like the FCC's approach to Net Neutrality. But the fact is they are objecting before the FCC has even discussed the matter yet. The real thing to do is wait till the FCC has a proposal and then the committee should discuss and provide a detailed critique of the individual rules in the plan that they need revisited. Representatives and Committees are defying the oath of their position every time they stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'La La La I am not listening to this branch of government La La La'.

Wait... (2, Interesting)

lordDallan (685707) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404664)

I always hear that the Democratic Party is as much "in the pocket" of big business as the Republicans. But isn't the FCC part of a Democratic Party led executive branch? Am I missing something? Is Hollywood or some other big Democratic Party contributor pro-net-neturality?

Re:Wait... (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404964)

Yes,, your are missing the point that the Dems aren't obstructionists.

Currently attitude:
Pubs idea of bipartisanship is 'you're more then welcome to do what we want, or we will stop as much as the government as possible.'

The current attitude an behavior of the pubs is shameful, unamerican, and disgusting.

Also, the Dems want to help the citizens, the the pubs want to let corps do what they want.

Re:Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34405302)

Yes,, your are missing the point that the Dems aren't obstructionists.

Ah, yes, the same dems who stalled procedure until it was time to adjourn so they wouldn't have to vote on several bills they didn't want to risk passing?

Seriously, once they get into congress, repubs and dems are the same. It isn't about what's "right" and what's "wrong" or what's "good" and what's "bad," it's about preventing the other side from getting what they want.

Re:Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34405002)

They belong to the "Say one thing, then do the opposite" business. At least the repubs are sticking to their guns about opposing everything, even if that is a pants-on-head-retarded position...

Re:Wait... (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405366)

"Sticking to their guns"? Haven't you heard all their carrying-on about reducing the deficit and in the same breath killing all tax increases? That they want to do reduce the deficit by cutting spending by [billions] and cutting taxes by [trillions]? That sounds like saying one thing and doing the opposite to me, or else their pants-on-head-retarded position prevents them from counting zeros properly.

It's amazing how cognizant everyone in Congress is of their own hypocrisy--when Stephen Colbert trolled Congress, the only laugh he got was for saying "I trust that [...] both sides will work together in the best interests of the American people, as you always do." [npr.org]

i can see it now (1)

mikeru22 (1222780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404674)

"if you would like to view live stenographer's report online the cost is $0.10/kb. HD Video will be $0.50/min, otherwise with the free option you will experience 28.8kB/s download speeds..."

Re:i can see it now (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404692)

And I see a ripe opportunity to re-open my old dial-up BBS.

Re:i can see it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34404886)

And I see a ripe opportunity to re-open my old dial-up BBS.

Fuck Ice-Zmodem, time to invent a new kick-ass compression protocol!!!

Re:i can see it now (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405190)

That'd be fun. I miss those days! :)

So why? (4, Interesting)

rakuen (1230808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404676)

Are the Republicans promising to vote it down because they're opposed to Net Neutrality, or because they're opposed to a Democrat? Serious question.

Re:So why? (3, Informative)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404722)

Mostly the latter. If a Republican administration did the same thing, then a few of them would complain, but they'd go along with it.

Re:So why? (2, Insightful)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404880)

Probably a little of both. They're against govt. regulation and pro business. Of course this will hinder potential profits for telecoms, but they don't have the foresight to see the damaging effect this will have on any new Internet businesses in the future. And when they have to stand-up for their actions the inevitable answer will be

"Well, the American people don't want government regulation and I am required to abide by their wishes instead of actually making a sensible decision. Besides, these friendly telecom funded studies have informed me of the dangers to our fragile economy that this new regulation will surely impose on the hard-working middle class American people.

Re:So why? (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404894)

Why didn't he do this during the past two years if you believe it was that important? Surely they can walk and chew gum at the same time?

Did it occur to you that they waited until they knew it would fail to bring it to vote?

Re:So why? (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404906)

Well if they really said "oppose any solution put forth by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski" then that means they must simply be opposed to a Democrat.

This is the problem with a party system.

Both (1)

MDillenbeck (1739920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405116)

It is true we are becoming more politically polarized as a nation, with less willingness to find a common ground or consensus on difficult issues. Negotiation between Democrats and Republicans is mostly dead, both between the representatives in office and the individual citizens who voted them in.

However, there are two major reasons I see Republicans opposed to Net Neutrality. First, it is increasing government regulatory power - and the Republicans often campaign on a platform of deregulation. Second, Republicans often are seen as pro-corporate/free market. They would argue that if the market doesn't support the pay-for-tiered access model then those businesses that adopt it will be unprofitable and thus be removed from the market. Undoubtedly, Net Neutrality is most likely perceived as a form of Socialism in their eyes - that is, the State forcing a redistribution of wealth by making corporations treat all users of data equally.

Net Neutrality is something I am mostly in support of, but not entirely. After all, if a telcomm wants to prioritize credit card/ecommerce/banking transactions, would there not be a benefit in speed of transaction processing? What if they want to prioritize medical data? What if they want to increase the cost to these users for the priority since they will need money to develop the technology (and harm their income by removing priority from their other customers)? I recently saw the article that 20% of prime-time data usage is Netflix. What if the telcomm realizes that Netflix is driving their services and wants to offer them a discount on internet volume - allowing Netflix to lower their monthly costs for streaming and attracting more customers to the broadband services needed to access Netflix? Thus I am not 100% convinced yet.

An ounce of prevention (2, Insightful)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404690)

If it's already the government's job to break up monopolies, then why is Net Neutrality needed?

Re:An ounce of prevention (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404746)

Because the monopolies have too much power to get broken up by the government, so some of the government bodies that are not entirely in their pocket are trying to do something about it since the parts that should be dealing with it are bought and paid for by the monopolies.

Re:An ounce of prevention (1)

pr0f3550r (553601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404984)

In order to break up an monopoly you will have to prove that they are a monopoly or that practices were done that were monopolistic. Part of the aim for net neutrality is to define what this monopolistic behavior is for an industry that did NOT exist when the antitrust laws were created.

Natural monopolies are tougher to break up. (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405030)

A natural monopoly being one where actual physical things, like cable, have to be invested in on a large scale.

Re:Natural monopolies are tougher to break up. (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405264)

Seems to work for energy and phone companies who share the same cables.

Re:An ounce of prevention (4, Insightful)

dwandy (907337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405170)

Net Neutrality is a bit of a red-herring: as long as the last-mile is owned by the retailer there will never be competition in the market.
With true competition there would be no need to discuss net neutrality as those that offered unimpeded access to the web would be the ones people would use. More specifically, there would always be a competitor who offered up neutral access for those of us who cared.
Like streets, communication access is a natural monopoly (oligopoly at best) and should be either directly state owned (like our streets) or set up as a non-profit stand-alone with a mandate to maintain and upgrade the wires. Retailers would then connect and be charged for connection + (time-of-day?) bandwidth. Retailers would be free to make price plans as they see fit.
Fighting for net neutrality is working on symptom and failing to cure the problem.

Want a free/libre internet? Take back control of the last mile.

Re:An ounce of prevention (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405208)

Does Microsoft have a monopoly?
Does Microsoft perform anti-competitive practices?

I highly doubt anyone could ever establish a monopoly on the Internet, or even any Internet service. But that sure as hell doesn't mean that the wonderful and cherished Internet, which currently has an incredibly open and free market, is somehow inherently immune to anti-competitive practices. Such practices that would make it less open and less free.

Like contracts between ESPN3.com and ISP directly, bypassing the users altogether. Or discriminating against specific protocols like bittorrent. Or boosting one service over it's competitors. Or blocking access to competitors sites. Or chopping up the Internet into tiered network channels like CableTV.

Greedy People who Run Things (1, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404768)

Greed is the driving force behind politics, the economic mess we are in, and now anti-consumer measures like the tiered-internet that companies like Comcast are proposing.

Does anyone else think that the relentless pursuit of money-at-all-costs mentality is greatly hindering science, freedom, innovation and technology?

Re:Greedy People who Run Things (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34404804)

Greed is the driving force behind being alive. Every single person is greedy to an extent.

It's not specific to politics.

Re:Greedy People who Run Things (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404814)

Yes.

Re:Greedy People who Run Things (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404848)

what's your point? seriously, life is not a disney movie. life is mostly about bad people abusing their power and the not so bad guys having to deal with the brunt of it.

this is how humankind has been forever; its not a new phenomenon.

lose the fairy tale about concepts such as freedom and justice. life is not about that. at the core, its about power and those who have it vs those who do not. all else is decoration for show.

Re:Greedy People who Run Things (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404972)

I guess my point is that as our country continues to implode due to unabashed and unrestricted greed, no one even seems to care and no one is ever held accountable.
It seems that in the past, people were actually held accountable for ripping people off. Now, it is the new way of doing big business.

Re:Greedy People who Run Things (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405320)

Well, revolutions were fought over these ideas, most turned out crappy, but one turned out pretty awesome for about 200 years. Thats the US. We used to have a lower disparity in wealth. There used to be a middle class that could buy homes with savings. Now there is only super rich, rich and a bunch of lower middle class to poor people. Since everyone is either like you or in a position of power nothing gets done about it. The real problem is people that gave up on achieving ideals.

Re:Greedy People who Run Things (1)

Vetruvet (1639267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405184)

I agree completely, but that's nothing new...

Re:Greedy People who Run Things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34405220)

Does anyone else think that the relentless pursuit of money-at-all-costs mentality is greatly hindering science, freedom, innovation and technology?

No, not in any way. In fact, greed is most likely the reason *for* innovation. Great innovation very, very rarely comes at the direction of the government. It is almost solely driven by an individuals acting in their own rational self interest...or at least that's what Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman says...which he borrowed from Adam Smith.

Do you think that government just pass a bill and *make* people innovate? No, but they can provide incentives and get out of people's way...something elected officials rarely do.

Milton Friedman succinctly refutes your argument against Greed in under 2 minutes on Phil Donahue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

All in Congress' hands now... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34404794)

Hopefully Congress will vote before December 21 to actually grant the FCC the power to actually govern communications as originally intended... you know they are Federal Communications Commission, its got the word in its name...

Do your worst (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404826)

I'll start my own internet with black jack, and hookers.

Re:Do your worst (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34405280)

In fact, forget the Internet and blackjack!

tl;dr (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404862)

That was the shortest article I've ever seen. I had more information in my 4th grade "Weekly Reader" pamphlets.

Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans (4, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404888)

For as much as they rile up their constituency about how America has lost all it's jobs, the economy being in the tank and how China is taking over, they do their best to constantly oppose new job creation and assist large corporations in stifling competition and innovation. Opposing Net Neutrality shows that the Republican party is against innovation, against American competitiveness and only seeks to put more money in the hands of their friends and contributors, the Nation and the people be damned.

But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.

Net Neutrality assures more jobs, more innovation and continued competitiveness in an open marketplace. Opposing it will only benefit Comcast, Verizon and AT&T while preventing new startups who can't pay the extortion fees if they aren't blocked all together for daring to compete with their own "premium services"

America is already falling far behind in internet infrastructure. Asians can get Gigabit lines for what we pay for standard DSL, yet AT&T and Comcast are still stumbling around dragging their feet with IPv6 and it's taking an act of Congress to FORCE them to get internet access speeds to 1/10 of what Japan has today by 2020! Yet they have spared no expense suing municipalities who wanted to offer free wifi services and opposing Google's plans for municipal WiMAX offerings. Opposing Net Neutrality will only insure this situation grows exponentially worse.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans (0)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405092)

i agree. fuck republicans in their fat saggy white asses.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans (0)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405414)

I wouldn't fuck them with your dick.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34405124)

Opposing Net Neutrality shows that the Republican party is against innovation, against American competitiveness and only seeks to put more money in the hands of their friends and contributors, the Nation and the people be damned.

But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.

Actually, I find it far more likely that they're just anti-democrat, since that was their campaign platform. This isn't hypocrisy, this is sticking to their guns of opposing everything the dems put forth. Which, as is shown by the latter part of my quote, is a position held by the ignorant, biased, foolish masses on both sides. It's not either side's fault we're in the position we are in. It's both side's fault for being that freaking stupid.

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34405254)

Mod the parent "Fucking Obvious", not "Insightful".

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans (4, Interesting)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405304)

But hey, when your core voter base is a bunch of pisswater guzzling, bible-banging, NASCAR fans who get their news from Glenn Beck and social opinions from Reality TV, I guess you don't even need to attempt to hide your hypocrisy since the majority of retards who voted for you are too dumb to think.

Wow. If that isn't blatant typecasting if I have ever saw it...

Time for a true story...
The night that Obama was elected into office, I was downtown in a major US city. The moment that it was announced, a woman working a local convenience store turned from the TV she was watching and shouted, "Obama is elected! Everything is going to get better now!" Her coworkers cheered. She then proceeded to go back to her TV and cigarettes and not worrying so much about doing a good job. You see, the problem with your typecasting is that it can work both directions. In my case, I saw someone who was relying on another person to fix their life for them. It made me sad, actually. I ended up not even buying what I wanted to get because I just wanted to get out of there.

The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of smart people and a lot of dumb people living in the US, and a lot of people in between. However, we're all just human, and classifying a group of people as you did does nothing to actually solve the problems of this nation that we live in and only exacerbates the divide between political lines.

Or maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to swilling a Bud while I read 1 Corinthians and yell at the driver's on TV (and hope for a good crash).

Re:Yet more blatent hypocrisy from the Republicans (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405420)

To be fair, the US is a lot larger than most other countries with the infrastructure you speak of. However, that aside I agree with most of what you said. Its amazing that Republican people (like the pisswater guzzlers you speak of) continue to vote for politicians who don't give a shit about them and support/oppose measures that would actually benefit them the most. I think one major problem is the Baby boomers like my grandmother. She continues to believe this crap spouted out by Fox news and Glenn Beck, and supports anything Republicans say to her detriment. This will sound really bad, but I will rejoice the day the last Baby boomer is dead as they seem to be causing the majority of the problems these days, as they are a large voting population and they also are our politicians many times. I love my grandmother but god she is stupid when it comes to politics.

Comcast's overreach might help the cause (2, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404890)

The timing *could* be right since they've just tried extorting content providers.

how does that square with govt censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34404896)

Such as we have seen recently taking over DNS queries for 80 sites? Is that the same govt that we're supposed to trust with "neutrality"?

I'm in favor of neutrality, but I have zero faith the US govt will accomplish that without a ton of special interest influence, corruption, and graft.

An ex-pat's view (1, Interesting)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404946)

The American people are getting the government they deserve, and I hope they fucking choke on it.

Re:An ex-pat's view (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405024)

The world is getting the government they deserve, it is a global economy run by a relative few individuals and there is nothing you can legally do about it.

Re:An ex-pat's view (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405368)

I can make enough money to buy a sailboat and a lifetime Iridium data connection, bid the world fuckin adieu and set off to spend the rest of my l

Re:An ex-pat's view (1)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405324)

How did this get a positive moderation? This is absolutely nothing more than anti-US flamebait - something that's becoming Slashdot groupthink du jour.

What's in a name ... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34404976)

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. . . Sarah Palin : "I'm against any legislation from a legislator whose name I can't pronounce. And you, North Korea, and South Korea get your names sorted out, and stop confusing us! Oh, and I am also looking at you, Dakotas!"

"Wait, Carolina, too? And why would someone find West Virgina, like kinda west of Virginia? I'll get back to you on this."

At least Sarah Palin can pride herself with not having any dirt flung at her from all those WikiLeaks.

Bye Bye Net Neutrality! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34405014)

21st December? Right before Christmas holidays?
Too many laws, bad laws, passed in that time of the year in past years.

I am always disappointed that with such things... (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405112)

I am always disappointed that with such things, the decision to move one way or the next is left up to people who don't understand the topic. The founding fathers were educated men and philosophers. They wrote books on concepts and engaged in intellectual discourse regarding those concepts.

Congress, in its short history, has been almost entirely a political game, however. Money interests and personal bias determines how important decisions are made.

Have there been congressional debates guest-starring important people on the topic? Have actual academics and their research been given at least equal priority and importance to industry power house CEOs?

The idiots are confusing this (2)

haapi (16700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34405292)

with the Fairness Doctrine, dead since Reagan.
Gah, you gotta read the comments over in the Yahoo! pages on this.

"I feel a strong stupidness in the Force."

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...