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!

Al Franken Says FCC Proposed Rules Are "The Opposite of Net Neutrality"

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the you-keep-using-that-word-I-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means dept.

United States 282

An anonymous reader writes "Senator Al Franken can be counted among the many who are at odds with the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules. From the article: 'Senator Al Franken has a pretty good idea of what the term "net neutrality" means—and that, he says, puts him head-and-shoulders above many of his colleagues in the U.S. Congress. "We literally have members of Congress—I've heard members of the House—say, 'We've had all this innovation on the Internet without net neutrality. Why do we need it now?'" he told TIME in an interview last week. "I want to say, 'Come on, just try to understand the idea. Or at least just don't give a speech if you don't know what you're saying. Please—it hurts my head."'"

cancel ×

282 comments

ya (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46975759)

ya - let the free market sort itself out, no intervention needed right? we didn't need rules back then, why do we need them now sonny. also, this would have been first post but they slowed my bits...

Re:ya (3, Interesting)

bondsbw (888959) | about 3 months ago | (#46976219)

Actually this brings up an important distinction.

1) If your ISP advertises X Mbps, and the ISP makes a deal with Netflix to put in a separate exclusive pipe that provides enough total bandwidth to keep up with demand, and you still get X Mbps to everything else, then I don't know that I have a problem with it.

2) If the ISP advertises X Mbps and suddenly Netflix is the only thing that gets X Mbps and everything else is slower, or specific services have slowed significantly compared with other ISPs, that is a huge problem.

I'm not sure if #1 is possible especially considering that what an ISP advertises is always "up to X Mbps" and they can always secretly throttle so long as it's not enough to cause a lot of complaints. So if we have to sacrifice #1 in order to maintain #2, so be it.

Re:ya (5, Insightful)

Duhavid (677874) | about 3 months ago | (#46976293)

"and the ISP makes a deal with Netflix to put in a separate exclusive pipe"

You should have a problem with it.

Netflix's costs are higher than they should be.
ISPs should not be picking winners and losers.
As the ISP's customer, you are being defrauded.

It's extortion.
Netflix paid for their connection to the internet
The customer paid for their connection to the internet. The whole reason the customer pays for their connection is access to such sites.

Re:ya (1, Insightful)

laird (2705) | about 3 months ago | (#46976423)

There are more variations.

If Netflix pays for their bandwidth to their ISP to serve their content, and you pay your ISP for your bandwidth to get to the internet (including Netflix), that's the deal. If your ISP slows down Netflix' content to try to get Netflix to pay for improved performance, that's wrong. If Netflix tries to get bandwidth for free, as they were trying to do with Comcast, that's wrong, too.

Re:ya (5, Insightful)

Duhavid (677874) | about 3 months ago | (#46976533)

What variations?
Netflix was not a Comcast customer. ( they are now, because of extortion ).
The various Comcast customers are the Comcast customers. And they paid for access ( bandwidth ).
So, Netflix was not trying to get anything for free, they are providing a service on the web that is part of what makes it attractive for Comcast's customer's to pay them for *their* bandwidth ( to Netflix, among other destinations ). Netflix paid their ISP for their access to the internet.

Nothing more should be required.

Re:ya (0)

Camael (1048726) | about 3 months ago | (#46976451)

1) If your ISP advertises X Mbps, and the ISP makes a deal with Netflix to put in a separate exclusive pipe that provides enough total bandwidth to keep up with demand, and you still get X Mbps to everything else, then I don't know that I have a problem with it.

You subscribe and pay to both your ISP and Netflix. You've therefore already paid your ISP to carry your bits from Netflix.
Your ISP makes a deal with Netflix, and they get money from Netflix.
Netflix raises its prices to pay your ISP.
You pay more to Netflix.

Netflix raises its price by £1 in the UK, €1 in Europe and $1 in the US [thenextweb.com]

Your ISP is getting more money from you indirectly through Netflix.

Re:ya (1)

BradMajors (995624) | about 3 months ago | (#46976549)

Netflix also pays for the bandwidth its servers use.

ISPs want to be paid a three or perhaps four or more times for carrying Netflix bits to its customer.

When Al Franken... (4, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#46975763)

When Al Franken sounds the most rational, things have gotten WAY out of hand...

Re:When Al Franken... (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46975795)

From the article: 'Senator Al Franken has a pretty good idea of what the term "net neutrality" means...

If Senator Al Franken has "a pretty good idea" about this it would be among his first. (I wonder if he made a post anywhere about it?)

Re:When Al Franken... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46975839)

Are you kidding? Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate. It drives people like you crazy he's in there, doing good works, is loved and appreciated, and is there to stay.

Re: When Al Franken...hard core liberal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46975871)

Yes All is hard core liberal, but I agree we NEED net nutrality . carriers should not be inspecting the packets.

Re: When Al Franken...hard core liberal (5, Informative)

Squiddie (1942230) | about 3 months ago | (#46975937)

I agree. The whole competition thing is bullshit. I wanted to change providers, and I just now realized that there isn't a single competing carrier where I live. I'm stuck with what I have. How the fuck am I supposed to vote with my wallet this way? Not have internet?

Re: When Al Franken...hard core liberal (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 3 months ago | (#46975947)

Yes.

Re: When Al Franken...hard core liberal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976159)

God, libruls are so dumb. Just cash in like 10M$ of the stocks your dad gave you and start your own internet provider. I guess Obummer's welfare state lulled you to sleep in its safety hammock.

Re: When Al Franken...hard core liberal (1, Offtopic)

bondsbw (888959) | about 3 months ago | (#46976231)

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re: Trolls (1)

conureman (748753) | about 3 months ago | (#46976319)

I am curious about the troll quotient in the responses to this submission. Could someone do a quantitative analysis to dispel my suspicions of Astroturfing?
I think some professionals are attempting to hijack the thread.

Re: Trolls (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976477)

Sir! You wound me to the quick. I am but a humble amateur troll, trolling for the pure love of the craft. This outrage will not stand. Pistols at dawn!

Re: When Al Franken...hard core liberal (2)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 3 months ago | (#46976383)

Satellite? They'd probably make your local provider look like a bargain, though.

Re:When Al Franken... (4, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46976075)

Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate.

Really? Then you'll be interested in the items below. I assume you'll agree with him since you describe him as " one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate."

The NSA Has at Least 1 Liberal Friend Left: Sen. Al Franken [nationaljournal.com]

It's pretty lonely to be the National Security Agency right now. The revelation of a massive data-collection program has left many progressive senators criticizing the agency, from Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. But one of the other most liberal senators in Congress is so far speaking out in NSA's support: Al Franken.

Franken, the Minnesota Democrat who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, knew about the data-mining. Or at least that's what he told Minnesota's WCCO on Tuesday. "I can assure you, this is not about spying on the American people," Franken said. The senator also believes the data collection has saved American lives:

I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us, and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism. There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know.

Franken defends NSA surveillance [thehill.com]

The Minnesota lawmaker told the St. Paul CBS affiliate that he "was very well aware of" the classified government programs that gathered personal data on telephone and Internet users.

“I have a high level of confidence that this is used to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” Franken said, adding that "this is not about spying on the American people." Franken also defended the program as striking the right balance between national security and the right to privacy, echoing recent assurances from the White House.

“There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” Franken said.

The senator also said it was appropriate for the Justice Department to investigate Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old defense contractor who has claimed responsibility for the leak.

Well, who can argue with Al Franken since he is "...one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate"?

Unfortunately Al Franken owes his election to vote fraud.

Felons for Franken - Illegal felon voters may have handed Democrats 60-vote majority. [wsj.com]

Did illegal felon voters determine the outcome of the critical 2008 Minnesota Senate election? The day after the election, GOP Senator Norm Coleman had a 725 vote lead, but a series of recounts over the next six months reversed that result and gave Democrat Al Franken a 312 vote victory.

The outcome wound up having a significant impact, giving Democrats the critical 60th Senate vote they needed to block GOP filibusters. Mr. Franken's vote proved crucial in the passage of ObamaCare last December in the Senate. The next month Democrats lost their 60-vote Senate majority with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

Ever since Mr. Franken was declared the victor, the conservative watchdog group Minnesota Majority has combed through records comparing lists of those who voted with criminal rap sheets. It found that at least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.

Re:When Al Franken... (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46976189)

It looks like our moderation tonight is "progressive," just not fair or honest.

Re:When Al Franken... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976211)

And it looks like you wedged your original reply in at the top of the page despite not being a response to the parent post. You deserve whatever moderation you get.

Re:When Al Franken... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976241)

Bullshit. The post that was in reply to made assertions about Franken. The post proved them wrong. But hey, any moderation is "good" moderation if it serves a "progressive" viewpoint. Vacuous praise of Franken? +1. Criticism of Franken? -1. It's "progressive."

Re:When Al Franken... (1, Interesting)

microbox (704317) | about 3 months ago | (#46976251)

Haha, sounds like you need to read: why politics makes us stupid [vox.com] .

Re:When Al Franken... (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46976425)

Hmmm, might you already be a victim of that?

Re:When Al Franken... (4, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | about 3 months ago | (#46976315)

To be fair, he also introduced a bill to make NSA more transparent.

Re:When Al Franken... (2)

dryeo (100693) | about 3 months ago | (#46976475)

How can a modern representative democratic country have segregation where whole classes of people can not vote? It's not the early 19th century anymore. And how do you know that those disenfranchised citizens didn't vote for other then Franken?

Re:When Al Franken... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976519)

Uh, no. That is idiotic. Those votes could have just as easily gone to the republicans.

Re:When Al Franken... (1)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#46976157)

franken gets his bribes from hollywood and lawyers
he's only saying what he's told to

Re:When Al Franken... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976543)

Aww, much butthurt I sense in this one.

Re:When Al Franken... (1, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 months ago | (#46976201)

Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate.

Indeed he is, and given his level of sheer stupidity and making his mind up before he has facts, that says a lot about the rest of the Senate, and the People who voted them in.

There are days when I think the Senate would be better off if it consisted of random people from the unemployment lines.

Re:When Al Franken... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#46976481)

Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate.

Indeed he is, and given his level of sheer stupidity and making his mind up before he has facts, that says a lot about the rest of the Senate, and the People who voted them in.

This was my point in the root post. I guess the point was lost on the moderators, however.

Re:When Al Franken... (5, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46976227)

He also defends the NSA and SOPA. He looks like a regular politician [opensecrets.org] to me

Re:When Al Franken... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976317)

Are you kidding? Al Franken is one of the most intelligent, ethical, fair, and progressive-minded people in the Senate. It drives people like you crazy he's in there, doing good works, is loved and appreciated, and is there to stay.

There sure are a lot of Jews on slashdot these days, aren't there?

Re:When Al Franken... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46975865)

I'm pretty sure, just like just about everything else you have posted about, you are utterly and inexcusably wrong

Re:When Al Franken... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46975827)

If all our senators at least gave as much thought to issues as he does, we'd be in a much, much better place.

Re:When Al Franken... (-1, Flamebait)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 3 months ago | (#46975961)

If all our senators were like Al Franken, the Senate debate would have sunk to an even lower level than it is today. His debate style seems to be calling his opponents the most vulgar names he can think off and trying to be a sort of Rush Limbaugh of the left except that his show had no listeners and his network went bankrupt. Then he stole an election.

Parent is a Troll (5, Interesting)

bussdriver (620565) | about 3 months ago | (#46976149)

I lived in MN during his election and I even listened occasionally to his radio show. He was nothing like Rush Limbaugh and at least he bothered to look for facts instead of make them up on the spot. I didn't listen long enough to his show to find fault and it wasn't entertaining; but I read his book which was the most funny thing I've ever read (and why I knew who he was, I never heard of him otherwise.) I wouldn't blame the failure of that radio station on Franken; that is baseless, he quit the show to run for office. One could make equally baseless claims that Franken was keeping that radio station alive.

He didn't steal the election. I was a volunteer. I WAS THERE. No cheating. They video taped and disputed every single stupid thing no matter how pointless (for example, somebody who marked and wrote in the same person.) The GOP propaganda machine lied about the whole thing and their disrespect for the legal system got them into hot water with the judges -- the majority of which were REPUBLICAN judges!!! They let it drag out a year with no chance to win solely to stall because they are so partisan. Plus creating outrage is a good way to raise money-- for both parties, but in this situation 1 side was being quite unethical. Every ridiculous situation was fought in court with a republican majority of judges and they lost most of it (hey, I didn't say the democrat lawyers were perfect... they ARE lawyers...) It's pretty bad when the Republican judge makes comments about how sleazy the Republican lawyers are.

The debate in the senate is mostly BS. I spent years watching CSPAN in the background. We are so bad now it doesn't matter what is said because filibusters have DoS the senate. It's the fall of rome all over again; just waiting for the death count to rise (maybe the "accidents" will just turn into out right murders.)

Re:Parent is a Troll (-1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46976197)

The number of felons that voted in the election were larger than Franken's vote margin of "victory." I seem to recall there were other problems as well.

Felons for Franken [wsj.com]

Franken won the election due to vote fraud and lawyers.

Re:Parent is a Troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976385)

And what exactly is the problem with a felon voting, you piece of NSA excusing shit?

Re:Parent is a Troll (1, Redundant)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46976407)

It is illegal for felons to vote in many states, including Minnesota at the time. (Really? You couldn't figure that out?)

you piece of NSA excusing shit?

Pardon me, were you speaking about Al Franken?

Franken defends NSA surveillance [thehill.com]

It appears to be the case that intelligent commentary is as rare as fair moderation on this topic.

Re:Parent is a Troll (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976389)

Eh, felons should be able to vote, anyways. The fact that they aren't is immoral, anti-democratic bullshit.

Voting is a right, and they're still people, even if they did make some dumb mistake when they were young.

Re:Parent is a Troll (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46976417)

The law is the law when it comes to voting. You can lose the right to vote by committing a felony just like you can lose your freedom. It may not sit well with you, but there it is. Do you want a society that respects the rule of law or not?

Re:Parent is a Troll (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976467)

Do you want a society that respects the rule of law or not?

Like when slavery was legal? All those people helping "free" other people's property... for shame.

Re:Parent is a Troll (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 months ago | (#46976521)

The law is the law when it comes to voting. You can lose the right to vote by committing a felony just like you can lose your freedom. It may not sit well with you, but there it is. Do you want a society that respects the rule of law or not?

Most Western countries allow felons to vote. It's considered an inalienable right.
And those countries appear to have more respect for the law than here in the US, where the ratio of imprisoned to free men is higher than most any other country.

What people have here in the US isn't respect for the law. These days, it's fear of it. That doesn't seem to work too well.

Re:When Al Franken... (3, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46976165)

If all our senators at least gave as much thought to issues as he does, we'd be in a much, much better place.

Al Franken thinks that the "place" for America is under NSA surveillance. Is that the place you were thinking of?

Franken defends NSA surveillance [thehill.com]

Al Franken is often wrong and not especially thoughtful or informed on the issues. He is a pretty reliable "progressive" vote and hence the confusion.

Re:When Al Franken... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976421)

Well, I agree with him on the transparency part and publicizing the secret court findings. I also agree with him on not reauthorizing the Patriot Act, though for different reasons.

“There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that is not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” Franken said.

I hope he's right. I fear he is not. Declassifying the FISA court findings would certainly help inform my position.

>Al Franken is often wrong and not especially thoughtful or informed on the issues.

Have an example?

Re:When Al Franken... (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 3 months ago | (#46975845)

How else are people going to listen to his remote satellite uplink?

Secret! (4, Funny)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | about 3 months ago | (#46975765)

Way to go, Al. The stupidity of your colleagues was supposed to be a secret!

Good for Al Franken (4, Interesting)

thermopile (571680) | about 3 months ago | (#46975769)

From Stuart Smalley [jt.org] to drawing all 50 states from memory on a blank sheet of paper [youtube.com] , Al Franken continues to earn my respect. Would that more politicians were as astute as he is.

Good for him.

Re:Good for Al Franken (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46975853)

Al Franken would regain what respect I had for him if he went back to doing comedy on TV and in the movies for audiences instead of doing it in the Senate on the American people. "Astute" is not the word that comes to mind when I think of Franken.

Re:Good for Al Franken (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 months ago | (#46976561)

He's a bought fool, but better than most of them.
I'd rather have a chipmunk than a snake representing me.

Re:Good for Al Franken (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46975861)

"astute" as a trained monkey. He just practiced for weeks on the tax payer dime to be able to do it. Remember he is an entertainer....so his real skills involve playing an audience.

Re:Good for Al Franken (1)

fightermagethief (3645291) | about 3 months ago | (#46975965)

Maybe, but I doubt it. This is something that many artists can do naturally.

WRONG (4, Informative)

bussdriver (620565) | about 3 months ago | (#46976011)

Franken drew the map from memory BEFORE he was in office and during the campaign for office. He has served ONE term. He never spent tax payer money learning to draw the map.

Given how politicians are sold like products and put on an act to get elected, it makes him no different than anybody else--- EXCEPT he is not a lawyer which automatically makes him better.

Congress (2, Insightful)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 3 months ago | (#46975777)

Those congresspeople are well paid (lobbied) to hold those confusing, illogical views and spout whatever uneducated claims they can to defend them.

Re:Congress (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46975913)

Don't forget that those congresspeople were also put into office by a public that still thinks that they know better as they still keep voting for the same two parties and wondering why things just don't get better.
 
This problem didn't just pop out of the ether. It's the product of laziness on the part of those who can even be bothered with voting anymore.

I've never agreed with Franken on anything (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46975779)

But this.

Too bad the schmo is such a tool.

Al Franken (3, Interesting)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 3 months ago | (#46975829)

...is the only person in the Senate who seems to have not been bought and sold by lobbyists.

Re:Al Franken (1)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#46976161)

really?

check out open secrets. he's been bought by lawyers and hollywood

Re:Al Franken (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976369)

Fucking moron. You've had too much TEA, better switch to coffee...

Re:Al Franken (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 3 months ago | (#46976263)

Depends on the topic. For the most part Al is just one of the few good ones, but on occasion I scratch my head. He voted [votesmart.org] on some extension to the Patriot act, but then later voted against them.

Re:Al Franken (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46976365)

That's not all he did. He is also a big defender of the NSA [thehill.com] . Still a fan of Franken?

Re:Al Franken (4, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 3 months ago | (#46976307)

...is the only person in the Senate who seems to have not been bought and sold by lobbyists.

But he is a strong defender of the NSA [thehill.com] . Are we still here to praise him? Or can we criticize him without being mod bombed?

Re:Al Franken (5, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#46976327)

He is owned by Time Warner, among others [opensecrets.org] and is probably why we see him defending things like SOPA. And in regards to our privacy, he's busy defending the NSA. I am certain that the industries that support him expect a return on their investments.

What if I think Franken is a moron? (2)

redelm (54142) | about 3 months ago | (#46975841)

If I happen to think Al Franken is a moron on the basis of past actions, does that mean I have to agree with the FCC? Ouch! Easier to re-examine Franken!

Re:What if I think Franken is a moron? (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 3 months ago | (#46976049)

If I happen to think Al Franken is a moron on the basis of past actions, does that mean I have to agree with the FCC? Ouch! Easier to re-examine Franken!

Or... you could just realize that it's possible for someone to agree with you on some topics and disagree with you on others. And it's even possible for someone who is not a moron to disagree with you. Personally, I disagree with Al Franken in far more areas than I agree with him, but I'm in complete agreement on this one.

Re:What if I think Franken is a moron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976127)

And it's even possible for someone who is not a moron to disagree with you.

No, it's not, moron!

Gilded Internet (1)

rtconner (544309) | about 3 months ago | (#46975857)

I do like the term "Gilded Internet" that I heard somewhere once. Net Neutrality lobbyists need to recognize the power of catchphrases and terminology in swaying public opinion.

Not the Opposite of Reality (1, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46975875)

What the FCC is doing is the opposite of what people on the internet thought Net Neutrality is.

But anyone who knew better was warning you what the FCC is doing now is what Net Neutrality being implemented actually was or would be.

Yes, this is a told you so. And I will keep telling you all so until you realize asking the government to help you with something is like asking the man in the old windowless van to watch your kids for an hour while you go get a tan.

Re:Not the Opposite of Reality (4, Interesting)

suutar (1860506) | about 3 months ago | (#46975891)

I agree this is not much of a surprise. I gotta ask, though. If not the government, exactly who has enough power to get the telecom industry to actually behave?

Re:Not the Opposite of Reality (0)

felrom (2923513) | about 3 months ago | (#46975911)

All of their customers.

Re:Not the Opposite of Reality (2)

Qzukk (229616) | about 3 months ago | (#46975941)

All of their customers

going to their local governments and demanding an end to the franchise agreements that have locked them into a crappy duopoly (at best).

Finished That For You.

Re:Not the Opposite of Reality (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 3 months ago | (#46975995)

So true. But "small government" means to only allow the corporations to the negotiations.

Re:Not the Opposite of Reality (1)

Kasar (838340) | about 3 months ago | (#46975971)

Many of which are stuck with a government-mandated monopoly for cable.

Re:Not the Opposite of Reality (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 3 months ago | (#46976093)

I gotta ask, though. If not the government, exactly who has enough power to get the telecom industry to actually behave?

The FCC is nakedly captured by telecom industry interests.
That leaves the SEC, the IRS, or the FBI.

Re:Not the Opposite of Reality (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46976435)

If the content providers and telcos have approximately equal power (which they do), over time they will behave because they have to work together.

Any time you bring in a singular more powerful force that always has the effect of INCREASING inequality, not improving it.

Just imagine the hoopla... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46975879)

Just imagine the hoopla and media sound bites if there were a Republican in the White House while the FCC was doing this.

Yup, the FCC isn't run by the White House but if a Republican were in the White House all the fingers would be pointing there.

Thinking is hard (1)

opscure (1099393) | about 3 months ago | (#46975903)

When our elected officials are called upon to vote or decide upon an issue, it is assumed that they are well informed on said issue; however, it is difficult to understand the ins and outs of a field they barely comprehend. It's my hope that one day there people that can make decisions for the good of the populous that are informed.

Mobile Uplink Unit (4, Insightful)

nadaou (535365) | about 3 months ago | (#46975917)

a bit off-topic, but it's worth noting that Senator Franken has a long history as leader on the forefront of new communications and broadcast technology.

some of his reports from his earlier journalism days are very informative, one might even say daring:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Al+Franken%27s+Mobile+Uplink+Unit+ [youtube.com]

Re:Mobile Uplink Unit (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 months ago | (#46975969)

I heard he invented the Internet!

Re:Mobile Uplink Unit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976377)

That's what he claimed but everyone knew he was lying.

Nobama (-1, Troll)

oldhack (1037484) | about 3 months ago | (#46975925)

How do you love your nobama now?

Ha (1)

sunking2 (521698) | about 3 months ago | (#46975955)

If you look at the way things are moderated on here you'd think Slashdot were owned by MSNBC

We know why true net neutrality cannot happen (1)

MikeRT (947531) | about 3 months ago | (#46975967)

It's becase everyone here knows that Verizon, Comcast, etc. have not invested te resources needed to ensure that your 50mpbs plan is actually providing 50mbps reliably. There's always an asterick and that leads to a note that says "well, you'll get 50mbps provided the rest of your neighborhood isn't trying to hit the pipe hard at the same time." You want neutrality and speed? Pay up. When the average consumer is willing to pay the cost of delivering Netflix to them without hosting their content on the ISPs' networks, you won't see the ISPs fighting over net neutrality. Heck you might even see Verizon sell off the TV side because their Internet side would be the cash cow at that point...

Re:We know why true net neutrality cannot happen (4, Insightful)

Vaphell (1489021) | about 3 months ago | (#46976217)

There's always an asterick and that leads to a note that says "well, you'll get 50mbps provided the rest of your neighborhood isn't trying to hit the pipe hard at the same time."

there is nothing wrong with it in principle. Even excellent road systems get congested during rush hours, even the best cellular networks shit their pants on the new year's eve at 23:59, even the best delivery companies experience massive delays around Xmas. The reason is that having huge capacity that goes mostly unused most of the time is expensive, you pay huge maintenance costs yet there is not much going on on the revenue side.

Re:We know why true net neutrality cannot happen (2)

laird (2705) | about 3 months ago | (#46976503)

This is correct.

To elaborate a bit, reserved bandwidth is not the same as shared bandwidth.

The bandwidth that companies buy is reserved bandwidth, which is guaranteed capacity allocated to you and nobody else. That kind of bandwidth is expensive - let's say $10/Mbps (it's more in small quantities, less in large quantities, but let's make the math easy). So if you want 100 Mbps guaranteed, it'll cost you $1000/month. plus circuit fees, etc. In return for that money, you "own" the bandwidth, it's guaranteed available when you need it, and there's a Service Level Agreement with penalties if it's not there. And the cost is buy because to satisfy 100 customers, the ISP has to build 10,000 Mbps of capacity and keep it available, with redundancy.

The bandwidth that consumers buy is shared bandwidth, which is a capacity shared by everyone in the network. So if you get "up to 100 Mbps" you should expect to get 100 Mbps most of the time, but there are no guarantees. But you pay perhaps $100/month for that bandwidth (depending on your ISP, certainly less than $1,000). The way the ISP can sell shared bandwidth more cheaply is that they have a user behavioral model that tells them that if they have 100 customers that their total usage on average will peak at 1,000 Mbps, because not everyone will be home, online, and using max bandwidth. So they only have to build 1,000 Mbps of capacity, and because there are no SLAs, they don't need the redundancy that committed bandwidth would have.

So they're spending 1/10th as much to provision the "same bandwidth" for consumers as businesses, because it's not the same bandwidth. And that means that you can't expect committed bandwidth (SLA's, guaranteed capacity) if you didn't pay for it - if you pay cheap prices, you get what you pay for.

And that's not a bad thing. For most consumers, paying 1/10th as much for bandwidth is a great deal, and the bandwidth is almost always there when they want it. And if the internet connection is down for a few hours, it's an inconvenience, but they'll survive. But for businesses that rely on being reliably online (or they're out of businesses) paying 10x as much is worth it for the guarantees.

Re:We know why true net neutrality cannot happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976409)

> your 50mpbs plan

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or sarcastic. I live in downtown Seattle, and the fastest connection I can get is less than 1 Mbps. If a 50 Mbps connection delivered even 10% of the max, it's still an excellent connection. It would still be two to five times faster than the home connections I've seen here in Seattle.

Re:We know why true net neutrality cannot happen (1)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 3 months ago | (#46976523)

Perhaps a municipal broadband ballot initiative is in order.

What is truly scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976097)

is just how out of touch the folks running the show really are with well. . . just about everything.

Consider what generation most of Congress represents and you cannot help but wonder how they can possibly make an informed decision on any modern day issues concerning technology at all.

I'm not trying to use age as the variable here, but seriously, would you ask your grandparents to weigh in on issues like net neutrality, network security, computer crimes, why our high speed internet is anything but for many in this country, and why competition in the service provider arena is a big deal.

How is it, the most clueless are allowed to write the rules concerning things they barely comprehend ? How can we possibly benefit from such a system in the longrun ?

Final Surge Needed for Net Neutrality Petition (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 3 months ago | (#46976101)

We need one more big surge of traffic, ideally starting Monday or Tuesday morning at around 10 AM Eastern, to get the Net Neutrality petition [whitehouse.gov] to 100k votes on time. I've been tracking the vote rate and it runs fastest on Tuesday, during the work day. We will get the most traction if as many people as possible promote the petition on their social network channels starting early this week. Please consider raising the issue and the petition on your social network channels to help generate the final surge in traffic we need to hit 100k signatures. The petition may not have as much legal authority as we would like, but at least it is a potent rhetorical device for Jessica Rosenworcel [wikipedia.org] and Mignon Clyburn [wikipedia.org] , the two FCC commissioners who are already raising opposition to allowing a fast lane [arstechnica.com] .

Wow. You belong in a glass display case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976429)

I thought all the hyper-gullible young-uns who fell for the Obama machine's propaganda gimicks had awakened by now (after FIVE YEARS of empirical evidence) but apparently at least one of you still exists.... get thee to a museum, quickly!. We need to preserve at least one of you as a warning to future generations of exactly what mouth-breathing, drooling, vacant gullibility looks like and the sort of disasterous results it can lead to.

The white house petitions you idiots fell (and apparently continue to fall) for are as substantial and productive as Obama's economic policies. They are a gimmick; there is NOTHING that obligates the Obama people to do anything in response. If you all "sign" one in low numbers, the administration does nothing and smiles knowing you all "feel" like you've had some input and will keep supporting them even as they ignore you. If you all "sign" one in high enough numbers and if it's a policy they support anyway, then they do it (uninfluenced by the petition) and they know you all are more supportive having deluded yourselves into thinking you had a role and they were "responsive". If you all "sign" one in high enough numbers but the administration does not want to do it, they don't do it and they tell you they could not (for some reason that may have nothing to do with why they did not) but they know you'll be happy you had "input" and you might even be more supportive of them as co-victims if they can offer-up some "bad guy" (like the Koch brothers, Fox news, Glenn Beck, etc) as the excuse (even if the advertized "bad guy" had no power to block the action).

In NO situation, does the administration change its behavior in response to one of these petitions. These online "petitions" were nothing more than a voter outreach, voter data gathering and "social media" tool for team Obama in the age of dumbed-down Gen-Y and millenial voters...they were part of a highly-successful political campaign, but they are not actual methods for citizens to influence government. Heck, when they got too annoyed by you and your "petitions", they even arbitrarily changed the threshold number [whitehouse.gov] (to make it easier to ignore you) making it twenty times harder to reach, while ignoring petitions that had resched the threshold [washingtontimes.com] and they propagandized THAT action as a "good thing" (which their sycophant followers gladly and gullibly swallowed...). Like Facebook, team Obama convinces you that their gata gathering program is actually something done "for free" for your benefit...

credit cart debt (-1)

Sonuç Nedir (3649545) | about 3 months ago | (#46976111)

creditcartdebt.blogspot.com

I'm a conservative (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 3 months ago | (#46976173)

In just about every category of politics, I lean more conservative than Slashdot's median. But I respect Al Franken than perhaps any other Congressman out there. Not because I agree with all of his positions, but because he seems to act with real integrity in striving to help the American people.

bull (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976529)

No actual conservative would respect they guy.... NOT because he's in "that other party". There have been MANY Democrats over the years who HAVE had lots of repect from conservatives (like Senator Sam Nunn, Reagan's UN Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, etc). Note: respect is not the same as agreement. I repected Sam Nunn, even though I often completely disagreed with him. Al Franken is an entirely different sort of creature; he is a slimy dirtbag on par with Grayson, and it's nearly impossible to look at the data from his election and conclude he was not put in office on a mountain of voter fraud (not the usual partisan generic accusation, but in this case very specific and documented data). If you were ANY sort of a serious conservative, the guy's statements, policy positions, etc and his LONG track record of taking political opponents out of context, or editing their quotes, and then calling them the liars (as he did in his infamous book) would completely disqualify him for repect..... not to mention his well-known deep hatred towards conservatives.

Your post is as transparent as mine would be if I had written: "I'm an openly-gay performance artist from the Castro district who just LOVES those kind, happy, adorable people at the Westboro Baptist Church..."

FAIL

Its a good point (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 3 months ago | (#46976179)

The problem here is we didn't make them utilities 15 years ago for EXACTLY this reason. We were afraid of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Its not a completely Luddite-type statement.

Now I know on which side to stand (1)

jebblue (1160883) | about 3 months ago | (#46976297)

Whatever Franken is for, I'm against, finally I know which side of the issue to take, thanks Al.

I support anti-neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46976329)

It makes no sense for me to provide the same bandwidth to webpages of random joes as it does to major companies willing to pay me more. Sorry, gotta go where the money calls.

Don't care for the man (1)

p51d007 (656414) | about 3 months ago | (#46976355)

Never really have, his politics is way to left for me, but, NET NEUTRALITY must be upheld or the web will end up censored like everything else in the world.
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...