FTC Says 'Slow Down' on Net Neutrality 106
Bushido Hacks writes "The Washington Post reports that the Federal Trade Commission has fumbled the Network Neutrality Act, again, as of this past week. However, the FTC defended its actions saying that their decision was not a give-in to the big telecom and cable companies. Instead, the FTC report urges caution on Network Neutrality Regulation. While this news is disappointing, the FTC's decision appears to be thought out and a message to remind people to not let the subject of Net Neutrality be abandoned by the general public so corporations could undermine the interest of consumers. We discussed the row this created, but with constant stalling tactics being employed here how long will it be before net neutrality opponents craft their own legislation?"
Let them get rid of their own network neutrality. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the networks go to hell in a flaming hand basket, what would it take for Google to start lighting up fiber they already own? Get a few major metropolitan areas wired up, get word out, and consumers will begin switching in droves. It wouldn't take much pressure beyond that to wake up the telecoms and get them right back into the game.
I'm no free market blind follower, but this seems like a situation when a viable and large enough competitor is sitting in the wings, ready to smack the wannabe monopolists upside the head if they attempt their backwater cousin fucking ideas of raping the connections we pay for.
Pretty one-sided coverage, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you guys SURE you want the US federal government legislating this?
I have said it before, and I suppose it's time to say it again: Most of the time, when I see someone try to articulate what "network neutrality" means, that they want legislated, they end up with a set of words which, if they were a law, would prevent me from blocking spammers and DDOSers. There are good reasons for which networks are sometimes rather decidedly non-neutral about which traffic they carry, and there are real reasons for which people would like to have the option of paying for guaranteed bandwidth.
Most of the horror stories come down to "what if I only got the sorta dodgy networking I'm currently paying for, but other people were able to buy a better network." Not all; there's real potential for abuse. I just don't think I trust the US federal government to come up with something better, no matter how smart or good the people advocating it are... And honestly, a lot of the advocacy I see is knee-jerk reactions that haven't even bothered to gloss over the question of whether teergrubing should be illegal, or any of the dozens of other technical questions this raises.
The FTC needs to shut up! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, because Google, who is in bed with the CIA, would be a MUCH better choice. Google will probably be the Internet 2(read Net Neutralized)bringer of doom. What else would they need all that fiber and all those data centers?
The internet should not be run by a handful of corporations, or one corporation. The Internet should stay the decentralized network that it is.
Simply giving control to a single company, Google(as you seem to be OK with), is not the answer. if anything it is worse than five companies.
Just my two cents.
The Captain
If history has shown us anything... (Score:0, Insightful)
All AT&T and Verizon need to do is give Dick Cheney several million dollars, he will run through some "comprehensive" net neutrality "reform", and lo and behold, ATT and Verizon can do anything they damn well please.
And if anyone wants to know why they gave a few million to Cheney... well that's just executive priviliege, or national security, or whatever bullshit excuse he pulls out of his backside. Have Rush and O'Reilly defend him, and all the conservatives will understand just how evil and anti-American having a free liberal-loving internet is.
The problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:3, Insightful)
So, it plays out like this: Major players start degrading service of non-paying services, Google enters the market and starts providing service that people expect, gaining them an immediate large share of the market. After the major players get told that it's too bad, and that Google isn't violating any anti trust laws, they have no choice but to move to a network neutral policy just to compete.
That's the hope at least, if the government isn't willing to look out for it's own citizens.
Re:The FTC needs to shut up! (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the same companies that you depend on to actually do anything on the Internet and have relied on since day 1 to do so? Why haven't they already ruined it? Why don't you just stop paying them to ruin the Internet?
How some things get modded up on Slashdot is beyond me. How about: If we pass the wrong type of network neutrality law, there will be 0 profit in expanding broadband access, and while that will make everyone on Slashdot extremely happy that those 'evil' companies cannot make money, it will also guarantee no new broadband, because unlike Slashdot, in the real world if you make something unprofitable, companies will take the hint and not do it anymore.
Why is more government the solution? (Score:1, Insightful)
Because the thousands and thousands of pages of rules that will have to be written to define "net neutrality" will NOT aid the consumer. Oh, they'll claim to do just that. But it'll be just like the old AT&T monopoly.
Anyone think today's telcom industry is worse for the consumer than the government-regulated days? Why is there such a push to regulate the fastest-growing part of the US economy?
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:5, Insightful)
What would it take? Well, a hell of a lot more money and influence than Google or any other company has.
Light up some fibers? You think that is all that it takes? It appears you have a poor understanding of the telecommunications infrastructure. Since the telcos and cable companies are no longer required to share their lines, Google (or whoever) would have to dig up every street and yard in the United States to offer a competing service. Google doesn't have that kind of money, the cities wouldn't let them do it and granny wouldn't let them dig up her rose garden. Furthermore, there is currently no wireless technology that can provide competitive bandwidth on a large scale.
While it's true that Google has bought up some dark fiber, that only allows them to bypass the core network to a certain extent. The key is the last mile and it's locked-up in the hands of the telcos and the cable companies.
It is very naive to believe there is a viable competitor waiting in the wings. There isn't one. There isn't going to be one tomorrow, next year or anytime in the foreseeable future. No company has the money and influence to duplicate the infrastructure and there are no viable wireless technologies available to bypass the last mile. It's going to be a duopoly for the foreseeable future and free market economics don't apply.
Re:Pretty one-sided coverage, here. (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got some (like the article) that make the term basically about QoS - whether you can treat streaming video differently than email. I don't really see what there is to get upset about if service providers prioritize real-time applications over non-realtime applications.
On the other hand, you've got others who make the term about business relationships. I.e. is a service provider obligated to provide service to Company A on the same terms as Company B? There it's a lot more murky. If it's just a matter of volume discounts, then I have a hard time seeing what's different about internet providers providing discounts versus, say, FedEx or UPS providing volume discounts for package deliveries. The one potential area of concern, IMO, is the antitrust angle - is a service provider allowed to discriminate against a customer in order to benefit its other businesses in separate markets?
The devil is in the details with these proposals, and the "network neutrality" slogan doesn't really clue you in about what specifically is meant to be neutral. So I agree that caution is very much warranted here.
Keep listening (Score:1, Insightful)
Once you become familiar with his show, a few things start to become apparent. First, Bill is not only intellectually dishonest, but is violently opposed to the concept of intellectually honest. Second, Bill is a religious fanatic- he is the kind of conservative who dreams of a Theocratic corporate police state.
The problem, as I see it, with OReilly's brand of hate-speech is that casual listeners might buy into his claims of being "a centrist". For example, Bill was one of the chief propagandists assisting the Swift Boat Vets, but he was really really slick about it: he would have them on, show after show, for weeks, and the whole time claim he didn't agree with them. He never really did much to articulate this disagreement, however, because most of the time he would simply read off their points or let them take over the show for a few hours... then every so often he would offer the disclaimer that he, being a centrist, didn't really agree with what they were saying... but he thought what they say needed to be given an outlet.
So you don't have to agree with me right now, but just bear it in mind while listening to him. You will start seeing his true agenda leak in through his own words. Because OReilly's true dishonesty isn't so much in what he says, but in what he doesn't say. He may claim he doesn't like Bush, but he will never actually say anything tangibly bad about him. Whether he claims to like Bush or not, he is still carrying water for him, and that's how you see where his real beliefs lie.
Very disappointed in the FTC (Score:5, Insightful)
Most states don't have 20 or 30 options for highspeed Internet. If a company goes nuts you have to put up or go dial up (like that's an option these days).
I urge people to contact the FTC and let them know what's on you mind. This needs to be dealt with before Telco's make their own laws.
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, Google does some cool stuff (gmail, google maps (I really like the hybrid setting), picasa, etc), but at the massive ammount of information they log on everyone is very scary.
Citizens not consumers (Score:1, Insightful)
FCC caves in once again to corporations (Score:3, Insightful)
But make no mistake about it, this is the FCC -- once again -- caving into the large corporations that fund politicians and who more-or-less run the US gov't.
I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just expensive to provide the service.
Without government subsidy they'd collapse within days. Why should taxpayers support private enterprise that stay afloat without massive government aid? Is it better to have private for-profit corporations heavily subsidized by the government (airlines for example) or is it better to simply have the government take over the corporations?
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:3, Insightful)