Slashdot Log In
Stimulus Bill Contains Net Neutrality Provision
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Jan 17, 2009 08:17 AM
from the art-of-vagueness-and-obfuscation dept.
from the art-of-vagueness-and-obfuscation dept.
visible.frylock writes "Cnet is reporting that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PDF), currently in the House Appropriations Committee, contains Net Neutrality provisions: 'The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. ... The catch is that the federal largesse comes with Net neutrality strings attached. ... recipients must operate broadband and high-speed wireless networks on an "open access basis." The FCC, soon to be under Democratic control, is charged with deciding what that means. Congress didn't see fit to include a definition.' The broadband grants appear to begin in SEC. 3101 (pg. 49) of the PDF."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
You and your two party system (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, I do not live in America (in neither meaning of the word) so I might be a bit off on details but...
This "FCC will soon be under democratic control" boggles me. In this context I assume it means that it will be led by the democrats (instead of democracic as in having the public vote on all issues).
But that doesn't really tell anything. There are people on both sides of the net neutrality issue who have different opinions of (foreign) policy, economy, Iraq situation, etc... I, having not followed USA inner politcs very closely, would think that net neutrality is hardly among biggest dividers between democrats and republicans.
So does this tell anything about it or is it relevant at all? I am not saying that it isn't but honestly wondering if it is...
I know that here we could tell a lot based on will some issue like this be controlled by the Green party, the Left party, the Pirate Party, the Socialist Democrats, our major right wing party, another right wing party concentrating mostly on countryside issues, or any else of the political parties...
Re:You and your two party system (Score:4, Funny)
In any case, in the American system there are for all practical purposes only two parties. There are things they both agree on (increasing spending) and things that are strictly divided along party lines (reproductive rights), and practically nothing that's a gray area.
If that sounds absurd to you, then now you know why we all just vote for the tallest candidate and go back to drinking beer.
Parent
Is local politics any different? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know you're being satirical (probably justified), but are more local politics, such as at the state level, any less absurd? Overseas we don't hear about much other than US federal politics.
I've never lived in the US, but it seems like a huge government compared with many, and in many ways I can appreciate why there are so many people who don't bother voting. Especially when I compare it with what I'm used to in New Zealand, where the government represents 4 million people, and I guess that's more similar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct me if necessary, but my understanding was that the USA was formed with the understanding that the federal government was always supposed to be fairly minimalist, with individual states having a lot of independence to choose how to govern themselves. How and when did this change? Was it all during WW2 or something like that, or has it been more of a slippery slope?
I'd have to say it all started going downhill with John Adams. The Naturalization Act, Alien Act, Alien Enemies Act, and the Sedition Act. What a wonderful start we got off too, couldn't even make it 10 years before the corruption started.
Sounds Great (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Lake county, California and this would be a fantastic environment for WiMax. We have a volcano (dormant... heh heh) in the middle of the county upon which we already have a radio shack, and I don't mean the store. I helped my pop insulate it when I was a kid. We have a capture-and-rebroadcast system here called LCTV, and I believe Edge (now part of the evil empire) has a tower up there as well (maybe AT&T has some of their own stuff up there too.) There is good road access, so it would be relatively trivial to truck a small shipping container and some building materials up there, and there is far more than sufficient exposure for combo solar/wind power to run the system. If this bill goes through before I move out of here, I may have to start tapping some connections and see if I can finally get a working last mile solution up in here.
feeling better already (Score:5, Funny)
A Cherry on Top (Score:4, Insightful)
of a crap sandwich still doesn't change the fact that it's a crap sandwich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would it help if we replaced it by a giant douche?
open access (Score:5, Insightful)
So if it's not defined what open access means, how can anyone say that it means net neutrality? It could mean anything and that usually means the definition will be dependant on lobying dollars.
moment of hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
it is to be decided by the FCC lead, which is about to be that pro net neutrality Obama has already selected.
http://i.gizmodo.com/5130203/obamas-fcc-chairman-pick-revealed-net-neutrality-lovin-techie
No definition means flexibility (Score:2)
but if we have a loosely defined definition of open access, backbone innovation will still be possible within the limit of what is reasonable.
Eh.. (Score:4, Interesting)
My basic problem with methods like this, is that it continues to reward the expedient, eg. short term thinking. While I realize that the new administration has to pick their battles, they will not cause long term 'change' unless they change incentives. And changing incentives first and foremost means changing the balance in compensation 'per customer' between short and long term company interests.
The only way, that I am aware, to kick start this in an area of natural monopoly... (not to mention massive subsidies which have been exploited), is to either form a government competitor, or enforce line leasing agreements so that the barrier to entrance is reduced.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Internet is not a natural monopoly. It's a government-created monopoly. If government moved out of the way companies would be free to run 4 or 5 fiber optic lines in parallel, so that a customer could choose Verizon or AT&T or Sprint or Comcast.
Re:Eh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please! I'm as anti government as anybody, but do you honestly think they will EVER run lines out to those in rural areas? Not a chance, simply because it isn't cost effective. My mother has lived in her home since 1980. The house was a block and a half from where the cable and DSL ended. Guess how far it is today? That's right! It is STILL a block and a half away!
Jobs like this are pretty much what governments are for. if we wouldn't have had the rural electric and water provisions in the 19030's we would still have rural folks reading by candle light and crapping in outhouses. There is NO way a corporation is going to spend the major expense of running fiber to rural areas, simply because it would never bring them a return on investment. So if we want to see nationwide broadband we pretty much HAVE to get the government in on it. Now once those lines are done and we have most of the country blanketed in fiber, THEN we should lease the lines to multiple competitors to break up the natural monopolies. And I bet if we did that we would not only see speed increases but a lot fairer prices than we get now locked into "our way or the highway" monopolies.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, the reason no company is going to run fiber out to rural areas (assuming your predictions to be correct) is that those in the rural areas don't value high-speed Internet access enough to make it cost-effective. It doesn't matter who actually runs the fiber, government or some private company -- either way it's a waste of resources. The difference is that only governments are capable of wasting other people's resources in this way.
Private companies are fundamentally incapable of providing servi
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh....there are nearly 4 dozen houses on that 5 miles stretch that my mom lives on, and I'm willing to be you could get 95% to take cable, especially with the bundle of cable+phone+Internet. The simple fact is almost no corporation anymore thinks outside the quarterly earnings report. Which means they ain't spending a dime that they don't have to. in fact in the 29 years that I have lived here I don't think they have moved outwards 5 feet in ANY direction, no matter how many houses there are. I know that
Last-Mile access doesn't work that way now (Score:2)
Obviously the backbones of the Internet aren't monopoly, and haven't been since we got the NSFnet out of the way, so I assume you're talking about the last-mile access.
Last-mile access not only isn't a natural monopoly, it isn't a government monopoly either. Sure, telephone wires and cable TV in most places in the US were both installed by monopolies, but that's all changed - the FCC's required that cities allow overbuilding of cable TV for over a decade, and while most copper telephone wires are still own
Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)
I for one certainly can't imagine ANY possible negatives of more government involvement in the Internet.
Nice kneejerk reaction. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, I get a little tired of hearing this time and time again. "Oh noes! It's bigger guberment!" is exactly as stupid a slogan as "Think of the children!" and "Terr'rists!"
Take a moment and actually think about this.
Which do you trust more with this decision? An oligopoly (not a free market) of corrupt businesses, whose best interests run directly counter to yours? Or a government, dysfunctional as it may be, that you at least have some hand in electing and keeping in check?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I say fuck that. It's our internet.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As of right now, we, the programmers, are pretty much in control.
Erm, no. A bunch of MBAs with little to no understanding of programming, or of Internet culture, are in control.
Or are you under the delusion that programmers run Comcast?
I say fuck that, at least the government has some premise of accountability. Corporations only have to be accountable to their stockholders.
Re:Nice kneejerk reaction. (Score:4, Insightful)
I notice that you used the qualification that the oligopolies were not in a free market. That is a false dichotomy! You're asking us to choose between dysfunctional government with unspecified business firms versus dysfunctional government with corrupt oligarchies.
In terms of a relatively free market, I would prefer the corrupt oligopolies more than functional and efficient governments.
You say I have a hand in electing government, but I do not. In terms of the Federal government, I only have a hand in electing the president, two senators and congressman. There are tens of thousands of Federal government members remaining. Also my vote was only one among over a hundred million. My vote does not count. I've got a better chance of winning the lottery than having my vote make a difference.
No matter what I do, whether my four candidates win or lose, the Federal Government still has direct power over me.
Now let's look at the oligarchy. If I don't like Microsoft I can go with Apple. Or use Linux or FreeBSD or OpenOffice or Firefox or any number of alternatives. Even with Microsoft at 90% of the market, nothing stops me from using the alternative. Ditto for Sprint versus Verizon versus Horizon etc, etc. Even if there is a true monopoly or oligarchy with no competitors, I still have the option of foregoing. If I don't like any of the auto-manufacturers, I can choose a bicycle instead. Or choose to walk. Our "votes" in the marketplace *DO* count! Our influence on the companies may be negligable, but it's still far more than in elections. Prices themselves come about through consumer preferences. If a price is too high, consumers will buy less. Even in the case of monopolies.
No, markets are not perfect, and none ever will be. I'm still not going to get everything I want. Duh! But unlike the political system, at least I have choices.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Unnhh... you are arguing about Operating Systems, not access controllers. Where I live the choice is between DSL, Cable, and dial-up. DSL and Cable each have one provider. At least for DSL the phone company still leases the lines to other ISPs. I don't know about cable. But this is only because the government forced them to so lease the lines. (They took 6 months to connect my DSL line. This may have been incompetence, as it was several years ago, but it's worth noticing that my business was with an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I used operating systems (lower case) as an example. I could have used automobiles, frozen dinners or toasters instead. Or service providers. Regardless of market seector used, the philosophical principles remain the same.
I notice that you still have three choices. They may be "natural" monopolies, but they still provide you 300% more c
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's look at the oligarchy. If I don't like Microsoft I can go with Apple. Or use Linux or FreeBSD or OpenOffice or Firefox or any number of alternatives.
And if you don't like Comcast, you can pack up and move, or rediscover the wonderful world of dialup.
It's called a physical monopoly -- or, oligopoly. Except this taxation is without representation.
How is that better than the government? A chance of winning the lottery is better than no chance at all. There's also the chance of organizing other people to vote the way you do -- which, again, is a better chance than trying to organize other people to move to an area where there's an ISP which works in their f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, fascinating isn't it... 2 days ago Slashdotters couldn't wait to get US government off the internet either for wiretapping via AT&T or via ICANN...
But now, hey... yeah the US government should dictate economic models on the internet and shut up you knee jerk libertarian!
Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Insightful)
I see that you got a lot of negative comments but you couldn't be more on spot.
The problem they don't see is that the government won't just say "give people what they paid for" they will start saying things like if you do this, you have to do that or you can do this and so on. What happens is instead of the industry competing amongst itself and benefiting us as a whole, you will end up with minimum guidlines that have to be met which is place a higher bar for competition as well as set a bar so that improvements won't need to be made. The internet companies who have a defacto monopoly because of infrastructure and right of ways in place due to other monopolistic activities like Phone or Cable businesses will find that as long as they meet the minimum guidlines, everything will be fine.
The contrasting hand in this is something like Micheal Powel's position. His position was that it didn't matter about net neutrality as long as the customer got what they paid for. In other words, if you purchased a 3 meg connection, the ISP couldn't do anything to the traffic to limit information below that 3 meg speed but Google or Yahoo or whoever could contract with your ISP to deliver their streaming content or whatever at 6 meg speeds if it was possible.
This approach essentially would allow internet companies to pay to increase your bandwidth past what you have paid to receive but would not allow your connection to be slowed below the speeds your paying for based on any company's ability or willingness to pay you ISP. In contrast with net neutrality as being purpose by many, it would be impossible for an arrangement like that to be made. Some have actually demonized Powell for that position. But the government having control of the internet will Shepard in regulations like the EU's firewall and Australia's attempts at net filtering to keep the "bad stuff" from reaching the home. It's simply inevitable no matter who is in charge of the government as we are seeing fairly progressive government's around the world who claim to honor free speech do right in front of us.
Government controls outside of ensuring that your getting what you paid for is going to cause problems. Ensuing that your not getting ripped of by your provider doesn't even need government to control the internet or direct FCC involvement. It should already be an implied right of fair commerce and subject to laws already on the books. If Cox gives you 6 meg access then denies that because YouTube didn't pay them, you the customer are being cheated not YouTube. It's no different then buying a car by mail to find out that it's a moped or a wheel barrel with a lawnmower engine that doesn't look anything like the picture.
Parent
Slaves (Score:3, Insightful)
primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. ...
How about "undeserved" areas? Just give the money to the people. They worked, it's their money. Instead they slave 1/3 of their life away to retire without anything while corporations buy cheats in the game of capitalism by the way of government.+
Re:Slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare you live in an area that the corporations do not estimate to be profitable! No modern telecommunications for you! You don't deserve them!
If I decide to go buy property and build a house out in northern Alaska, dozens of miles from anyone else, is it the government's job to provide me with all the same infrastructure as everywhere else?! I don't understand how I "deserve" anything from the government besides reasonable protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and other constitutionally-enumerated fundamental rights. If I choose to live outside the "bubbles" of infrastructure that they've contributed to, I don't see how my choices obligate, or should obligate, the government (federal or state).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna be awfully hard to drive out to that remote place without a road. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most people have to build their own roads.
Where I live right now, the road was at one time a cattle path leading to a neighbors land. Cattle have a habit of following relatively level land. Anyways, before my state was even a state, the cattle path became part of a wagon trail which was later turned into a road. There are 5 other roads around me that started off as nothing but driveways to homes or barns put up in choice spots. This was back in the late 1800's after my state was a state. Families multiplies
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it will be. There are a number of "populated" areas of Alaska which can only be reached by plane, after all.
Yes, the same argument applies to roads, and every other kind of "infrastructure" you can imagine. There is no value to be had in building infrastructure (or anything else) which people don't demand enough to pay for voluntarily.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How dare you live in an area that the corporations do not estimate to be profitable! No modern telecommunications for you! You don't deserve them!
If I decide to go buy property and build a house out in northern Alaska, dozens of miles from anyone else, is it the government's job to provide me with all the same infrastructure as everywhere else?! [...] If I choose to live outside the "bubbles" of infrastructure that they've contributed to
It's not about reaching survivalist weirdos going out of their way to keep out of the grid, it's about reaching already established communities that have been overlooked because of a perceived lack of profitability.
A matter of definitions (Score:4, Insightful)
There are foreseeable problems with this Net Neutrality provision:
You see where this can go? Fuzzy regulations are often abused, this one will be no exception.
Good going, guys.
Neutrality=good, This bill=bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Network neutrality is a big deal and should not be stuffed into a poorly thought-out overly-vague rider on a more important bill.
I don't like it when senators put their own personal agenda into unrelated bills. I'll stick with that principle even when the personal agenda is one I like. Bills should deal with one thing only, and I think that senators who put riders onto bills are doing something immoral -- even when the rider is one I approve of.
It only takes two things to make it neutral (Score:2)
The first is for the FCC to actually enforce the 'common carrier' rules that ALL the ISP's claim to operate in compliance with, but which in fact they do as they damned well please simply because congress has pulled the manpower and legal help teeth to enforce them with.
What do I mean? Simple really.
As an example, verizon blocks outbound to the customer port 80 requests. This forces the customer who wants to have a web page, to put it on verizon's servers, where they can then load it up with all the comme
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is sort of a wrong statement. ISP aren't "common carriers". They do have common carrier protections built into other laws specifically addressing them but they aren't common carriers.
I know, it gets confusing when they have
Re: (Score:2)
The point of that is, verizon IS a common carrier, at least for all other services, like the telephone, also delivered over exactly the same twisted pair copper that delivers my dsl. How can that then be separated?
As for the web server I just picked a port that wasn't in use according to /etc/services file, then fwd that port in my router to the normal port and this machine and used it. Dyndns supplies a free registration for quasi-stable addresses, so the net cost to me is zip. And I have my own page, f
Re: (Score:2)
Wow since you based your entire rant on a misconception it really was hard to read. ISP's are not common carriers, or do that want to be. They are labeled ESPs (Enhanced Service Providers). This gives them certain protections but does not limit them from choosing what services they offer. The owners of the actual lines are common carriers but the ISPs, the ones offering services on those lines, are not.
Slope (Score:2, Interesting)
Spending orgy (Score:3, Insightful)
The US Government is on a spending orgy of bailouts, stimuli and old fashioned pork. All pretenses of fiscal conservativism, from either political party, have vanished. We're into several trillion in promised payouts. The spending is accelerating, even as revenues are falling due to the crisis. There is simply no financial restraint left in government anymore. It wouldn't be so bad if the incoming president said he was going to pull back, but from all indications he thinks we aren't spending fast enough.
But geeks don't care, they're getting their net neutrality pony, and the rest of the world could burn for all they care.
Well-intentioned but... (Score:3, Insightful)
if the restrictions only apply to those service providers accepting the funding, you get "net neutrality for some". The goal should be "net neutrality for all".
Someday (Score:2)
Congress will pass a bill that has one purpose and has no earmarks.
"Underserved" Area (Score:2)
For a moment I read it as "Undeserved". I was like, WTF?
Open Access (Score:3, Funny)
I don't get it... How operating all wireless networks in unencrypted, unauthenticated mode is supposed to provide Net Neutrality?
Copypasta? (Score:2)
This is the third or fourth time I've seen this troll. At what point can it just be added to the lameness filter and be done with it?