Court Upholds Internet Deregulation

Internet Voting writes "Big telecom companies seem to have won big with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding FCC's ruling deregulating the Internet. Opponents argued that telecoms could now deny third parties access to their telecommunications lines and eliminating competition. From the story: "In its September 2005 ruling, the FCC relieved telephone companies of decades-old regulations that required them to grant competing Internet service providers 'nondiscriminatory' access to their wirelines in order to reach consumers.""

I can't wait!

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Hey, did you see that video on YouTube today?"

"No, I can't. My ISP doesn't support that part of the internet."

"Oh... that sucks... well, I can email you the video."

"From your Comcast address? No, that won't do. My hardware is not Comcast-enabled."

Re:I can't wait!

[hobo sapiens]

"From your Comcast address? No, that won't do. My hardware is not Comcast-enabled."
Even without that, things are going that direction. I tried to send a note to a friend's hotmail address the other day. Since I use flat text formatting, it kept on getting rejected by a spam filter and I had to switch to html format to get it to go (needed MORE junk characters, amazingly enough). Gee, I'd bet those eMails would have gone through had I been using hotmail. Denying mail from other providers because it's suspected of being "spam" is really just one step away from only allowing hotmail users to talk to other hotmail users. Thanks, MSFT, for taking a perfectly portable, open, transport mechanism like SMTP and making it incompatible.

It hit me then that the openness of the internet is under attack from many different vectors, not just on the net neutrality front.

Re:I can't wait!

[bmwm3nut]

It hit me then that the openness of the internet is under attack from many different vectors, not just on the net neutrality front.

Yes, you're right, however, I don't fear the loss off "free" communication like the internet currently provides. If we do get to a stage where only Hotmail users can talk to other Hotmail users, or only Comcast customers can see Comcastnet, or whatever, it will be just like the bad old days of AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, even local BBSes. While the "internet" or whatever we call the "internet" today may turn into a walled garden, I'm sure there will be something out there (yet to be invented) that will allow us unfettered access. As first it will be only nerd friendly (like the early days of the internet), but it will catch on. Even look at how much "freedom" the Chinese have with the internet and that's with the totalitarian government doing it's best to curtail it. For example, look at where we are with wireless mesh networking. If something happened that made the internet not free, you can bet there will be even more research into mesh networking and then you don't even have to worry about the telecom layer, you (the user) control it all.

Re:

[WinterSolstice]

This was totally what I first thought of.

I used to have accounts on GEnie and INN, but when a bunch of my friends got Prodigy, I had to buy Prodigy too.

I was so excited when I got my first real "Email" from CompuServe - it was amazing. I cancelled all my other accounts and kept only CompuServe.

Now? I guess it's just another old idea that's new again.

Re:

[HTH NE1]

If we do get to a stage where only Hotmail users can talk to other Hotmail users, or only Comcast customers can see Comcastnet, or whatever, it will be just like the bad old days of AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, even local BBSes. While the "internet" or whatever we call the "internet" today may turn into a walled garden

Basically taking the "Inter-" out of "Internet".

("Internet" being from "inter-network", or "network of networks".)

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Linux distros because of all the ISOs involved"

Yes, how dare I, the consumer, use the entire amount of bandwidth that I have paid my ISP to provide to me!

Re:

[mrsteveman1]

Keyword bandwidth, not transfer limit.

Re:

[Adambomb]

Yes, how dare I, the consumer, use the entire amount of bandwidth that I have paid my ISP to provide to me!

If you merely consume, what does it matter what fodder you're fed?

proper nutrition and balanced diet?

Re:

[HTH NE1]

and Linux distros might realistically be blocked (Linux distros because of all the ISOs involved)

ISP's excuse: We don't support Linux, so there's no reason for enabling you to download it.

no support

[falconwolf]

ISP's excuse: We don't support Linux, so there's no reason for enabling you to download it.

Something like this happened to me about a month ago, but not with Linux, it was with Mac OS X. Occasionally when I click on a link or type an addie in the address bar I'll wait and wait then get a message from my ISP, Earthlink, that it can't find the address. It last happened maybe 1/2 hour ago, I first clicked a link to Google and Earthlink said it couldn't find Google. I next type the url in the address bar

Re:

[Random Destruction]

Yeah I get the same garbage for using linux. The solution is extremely simple.

Lie. Tell them what they want to hear. "I'm clicking on control panel. ok. tcp/ip settings?" etc. That way they aren't confused ("what did you say?" "linux" "you're running a linksys?") and you get your support.

Re:

[Mr. Sketch]

customers would throw a fit if it was blocked

And go where? Dialup? If you only have one or maybe two high-speed internet providers in your area, all it takes is that one or two to block it, and there is nothing you can do besides 1) Take it, or 2) Go back to dialup.

Re:

[Duhavid]

Customers throwing a fit has never bothered the telco's before.
I mean, did you read the article about the old woman with
the claw hammer yesterday? That was a fit. Did you read the
VP's response? "Unique and inappropriate".

They will become modern highwaymen, sitting across the lanes
of commerce, taking a much value as they desire out of
everything that passes by, and adding no value whatsoever.
Till no one will go by, because they have made it impossible,
ruining everything for everyone, including themselves.

S

As long as

[Bananatree3]

I can access Slashdot, I am hap NO CARRIER

Appeal it again.

[dgatwood]

This deregulation is a consumer's worst nightmare. We already have very limited competition in broadband service, and this promises to kill off what little there is.

Re:Appeal it again.

[KiltedKnight]

I'm sure the Verizon execs are jumping for joy over this.

You're quite correct. Verizon screwed us as best as they could within the law (FITL), and now they're going to be able to just get their customers with all the sandpaper they can possibly use... and we're not going to have much of a choice.

This is just further proof of why the entity that maintains the physical lines should not be allowed to also be service providers.

Re:

[SatanicPuppy]

This is just common sense. If they aren't required to share wires, what happens? Well, one thing you get is the owner strangling competition. The other thing you get is every single provider stringing their own damn wires.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees telephone poles bending under the weight of heavy fibre lines. Now imagine more of them on every pole.

On the plus side, the increased bandwidth may help us out somewhat.

Re:

[InvalidError]

The cost of deploying your own FTTN equipment and stringing your own fibre/wire is pretty prohibitive. Unless you can string up a large number of people in densely populated areas in one go, it will take years to recoup the expenses and turn up a decent return on investment. Only the biggest players can afford to foot the bills for large-scale network (re-)builds.

Re:

[JesseMcDonald]

Government should own and maintain all of the lines and rent space on them to the (to any) ISPs. Not control over what goes over the lines, just the physical wire connecting 2 points.

Not a bad idea, provided that by "government" you mean local governments, or better yet a bunch of private co-ops, and not a state or federal government. (Not that the federal government could provide it legally without a Constitutional amendment.)

Re:

[stinerman]

Based on current jurisprudence the feds could do this in a heartbeat as people engage in interstate commerce over the lines. Whether or not you agree with that is another issue altogether. If the SCOTUS says that the feds can prosecute someone who grows marijuana for their own private use because it is related to interstate commerce, then this is a cinch.

I'm not one for having the feds do everything either, but I think that'd be the only reasonable way to regulate access to an interstate network.

Re:

[Gospodin]

Government should own and maintain all of the lines and rent space on them to the (to any) ISPs. Not control over what goes over the lines, just the physical wire connecting 2 points.

Thank goodness they already have high-speed fiber optic lines to nationalize! If the government had controlled all the communications lines all along we'd be accessing the Internet over a 50-baud coffee-can-and-string modem. This one post would take you 3 minutes to download.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

Well perhaps if the public gave a damn and threatened to haul out their representatives and tar and feather them, then you might see something different. It is the electorate which encourages the politicians to be whores.

Screw the nationals.

[SatanicPuppy]

The problem is, it's your LOCAL reps that could be doing the most good in this situation!

The telco's screw you on your local service. It's the wires to your house, your street, your neighborhood. It's not the big ass trunk-lines that connect your city to the next city.

If everyone leans on their city council reps, or their county council reps, or their mayor, and pushes for their city/county to make cable within their county/city a public utility, the telco's will be left with nothing. Lot of communities are

Re:

[SatanicPuppy]

Clarification: "Cable" in this context is "Fibre, pipe, bandwidth, information infrastructure" not "Cable TV"

Re:

[_xeno_]

And the appeal will likely lose again. This isn't an issue for the courts, it's an issue with the FCC and the law. All the court said was that the FCC had the power to make that decision. The fact that the decision is likely wrong (something I agree with) doesn't effect whether or not it's legal.

If you want a change, write to your representatives or write to the FCC. The courts just rule on what the law says, they don't write it.

Re:

[stinerman]

Better write to your representatives. The FCC is accountable to the President and Congress as far as their oversight role. The FCC don't give a shit what you think of them.

Re:

[Hatta]

This deregulation is a consumer's worst nightmare.

Which is exactly why it went through.

Fine... pay the government back, then.

[glindsey]

You want to deny everybody else access to the wires you laid on public easements, using grants, subsidies, and tax breaks given to you by the government? Fine. Pay all of the back leasing costs and taxes that were handed to you so you could establish your geo-monopolies everywhere. Sounds fair to me.

Re:

[garcia]

Pay all of the back leasing costs and taxes that were handed to you so you could establish your geo-monopolies everywhere.

It's apparent to me that they have already paid the government back for all of that. If they hadn't, the government wouldn't be so happy to tear down the walls for them.

Oh, you meant pay it back so that it would somehow benefit the consumer? LOL.

Re:

[Arthur B.]

Hum sorry but to nitpick but there's no reason to pay back a tax-break at least no more than a "mugging-break".

Granted the lines that were built by the government should be auctionned and the proceeds given to the taxpayers.

Re:Fine... pay the government back, then.

[andy314159pi]

He isn't talking about tax breaks; he is talking about direct infrastructure investment made on behalf of the people of the United States that is now being used for profit by private companies. That, by itself, is not problematic, so long as the the companies have equal access to the infrastructure and the profit making remains entirely competitive.

Re:

[andy314159pi]

No, he very clearly says

You want to deny everybody else access to the wires you laid on public easements, using grants

Those wires were laid with public money or money granted by the public. The construction of great portions of the internet infrastructure has been funded by the public for years. Returning that money is what he is talking about.

Re:

[Arthur B.]

That is not quite true. There are other alternative to the free market than fascism, nazism, communism or socialism come to mind. "Fascism" is but one brand of socialism, there are others, varying by degree and ideology.

This was Mr Accurate's minute.

Re:

[Red Flayer]

Look, it's simple: either you believe in the free market, in which case deregulation is a good thing as it will open up the market that regulation is currently closing off, or you believe in fascism. It's that simple.

Ah yes, the good old false dichotomy, tool of the intellectually challenged.

Regulated market != fascism, Mr. AC. Try to learn what terms mean before you use them in sentences.

Furthermore, when the regulated market actually increases competition, you could say that it decreases any tendency t

Re:Fine... pay the government back, then.

[krunk7]

Look, it's simple: either you believe in the free market, in which case deregulation is a good thing as it will open up the market that regulation is currently closing off, or you believe in fascism. It's that simple.

Yeah! that's telling them! Your either Good or Evil, Capitalist of Communist, good with God or a baby eater!

Don't be a dunce. There's no such thing as complete deregulation except in anarchy. In any system of government, local, federal, you name it any system of government there is regulation. And there is enforcement of regulations. That's what government is. For example, "You may not use monopoly status to leverage competition in other markets." This is a regulation that maintains free and equal competition, the very core of Adam Smith's capitalism.

I love how many self proclaimed capitalists and free market advocates fail to understand their founders work.
Here's some quote's from Smith that clearly outline his feelings on keeping big business in check:

• Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
• People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
• As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
• The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.
• The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.
• Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters.
• We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations [that is, unions or colluding organizations] of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual price.

And my personal favorite:

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."

So yeah, buddy, I'm a Capitalist with a capital C. I advocate free and fair markets. And I, like the father of capitalist theory and the invisible hand, am not so dense as to think that deregulation, for the simple fact of being deregulation, is a good thing.

But you keep drinking that cool aid.

Re:

[pilgrim23]

In 1898 Congress voted ina sur-tax on telecommunication (in its infancy) to pay the costs of the Spanish American War. That war ENDED before the tax could be implemented. Regardless, the law was the law and from 1898 till its repeal in 2005 the governemnt collected money ont his tax. You were allowed to request a refund (fill out a zillion forms- but your refund was only for the last 3 years it existed (I think it was 3 years). Phone companies may steal, but government steals more and with their help...

Re:

[vanyel]

That is actually the right solution: the last mile should be public property, just like roads, sewer and water. Then the telcos, cablecos and isps all get access on equal footing.

What difference does it make?

[Cracked Pottery]

The essential problem is the tendency to accelerate the concentration of wealth. Owners can always find proxies to hide the influence of a media outlet. Small players can print any limited distribution screed they want, but it takes a major daily, or a cable channel or a decent powered radio or TV station to get the mass coverage, and those are all going to big corporate ownership. Of course, you don't have to watch, read, or listen, or, especially, believe.

Re:

[Cracked Pottery]

It is beginning to look like we will have to fight for a free Internet, one that is not just another top down distribution system for "content." It's too bad, I am big fan of information being free, even though it is inanimate and has no intrinsic desires.

It is a political problem, and our current politics are based on bribery and commercial media. Public campaign financing also has problems, but candidates can say almost anything if they pay for it, and not be called on it by the "journalists" at Faux Ne

Re:

[falconwolf]

Public campaign financing also has problems, but candidates can say almost anything if they pay for it, and not be called on it by the "journalists" at Faux News, unless they are Democrats.

Or republican.

Falcon

Thus was born the RadioShack ISP

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Radio Shack will finally have an incentive to start a Universal Adapter ISP that'll bridge the various parts of the internet, which all use slightly-different-sized plugs to transmit data.

Joyous day!

[Orange Crush]

This is wonderful news! We can finally return to the exciting days of Prodigy, Compuserve, Delphi and AOL-esque walled-garden networks! No more pesky public websites that haven't paid their dues to the gatekeepers! Finally the network operators will have total control over their infrastructure that was built entirely with private funds with all lines running in under and above their own private land.

Deregulation = political term

[MobyDisk]

This "regulation" was a step toward making sure that companies could compete evenly and fairly, by limiting the power of a government-granted monopoly. How is allowing the monopoly to grow unabated and block competition equal to deregulation? It isn't.

If we changed the law so that banks didn't have to follow standard accounting practices, would that be "deregulation" or "a complete nightmare?" If we removed the requirements that food be edible and properly labeled, would that be "deregulation" too? How about we just eliminate the rule of law, and the constitution, and clear-up a whole lot of regulations?

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Unfortunately this is the default argument for certain easily-influenced politicians trying to rebrand their vote as "fighting big government".

Re:Deregulation = political term

[happyemoticon]

The problem is that they're been able to reach monopoly status during a period of regulation which limited their ability to abuse this status. Competition is supposed to be the force which ensures people will not be taken advantage of, and that they will see the fruits of productivity gains. However, removing the restraints on their powers does not instantly create competition, and the fact that the companies still have de facto monopoly status, tons of resources and no regulation virtually ensures that the customer's going to get fucked.

Land and radio spectrum are still regulated

[tepples]

Are you really that stupid?

Before- regulations
Now- no regulations

It's really not hard.

No regulations, eh? So why can't I just start a wireless ISP and beam signals? Why do I need the FCC's OK for that? And why do I need to get permission from every non-customer who lives between my central office and a customer to put cables under or their land, plus get permission from the city to put cables under or over city streets?

Clarification

[prestonmichaelh]

After RTFA, I think some may be a little confused as to what this means from just the summary. Some seem to be interpreting this as a blow to net neutrality. As I understand it, that is not the case. What this means is that the owners of the physical lines (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) now can make independent deals with ISPs that don't own the lines (Earthlink, Speakeasy, etc.) instead of having to let them all have access.

Where this is bad, as I see it, is that now AT&T can basically tell Earthlink that if they want to use their precious copper to bring the Intertubes to peoples homes, it will cost them eleventy billion dollars. So basically, it means AT&T gets to set the price for DSL to whatever they want, and no one else can really compete on price because AT&T can make the cost of use to the third party provider so high that they cannot compete on price. Anyone feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting something.

Re:

[stinerman]

You aren't misinterpreting anything, but the immediate consequence of decreased competition is that neutrality will more likely go by the wayside.

What's the internet equivalent...

[r_jensen11]

...of rolling blackouts? And can we expect another Enron-type extortion scandal?

Re:

[Sponge Bath]

What's the internet equivalent of rolling blackouts?

Comcast Broadband

Can we expect another Enron-type extortion scandal?

Yes. You don't seriously believe Kenny boy died do you?
He got plastic surgery and a new identity from connections
in the Bush administration and is even now masterminding a new
round of 'deregulation'.

I am the answer man.

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Comcast Broadband

Actually, I think Comcast is more of a brownout ... in other words, it still works, just not as well as it used to.

thank god for the silver lining

[hxnwix]

In the end, the free market will win and the internet will stop being free. It's to be expected given that the same thing has already happened in meat space.

The only thing left to do is to buy stock in the telcos. That way, you can preserve your dignity by claiming that whereas everyone else is merely raped by the telcos, you are actually raping yourself.

Headline Doublespeak - deregualtion is regulation

[Aire Libre]

It amazes me how the press gets sucked into the lingo. This is not at all a ruling in favor of deregulation. To the contrary, it is a ruling authorizing private regulation of the Internet. Moreover, private regulation in this space is much more dangerous than government regulation because it works. The government can't do much at all to regulate the Internet, thanks in large measure to the First Amendment and thanks in no small measure to the fact that the government does not have any physical control over the transport layer. But the major ISPs do have such control, and are not bound by the First Amendment. In short, this ruling says, in plain English, "Whereas the government may not and cannot regulate communications over the Internet that are protected from suppression by the First Amendment, we hereby free those of you who have the power to suppress freedom of speech to go ahead and do so."

Can the free market keep this under control?

[rizzo320]

I don't agree with the ruling, but I don't see the situation as being as "dire" as some suggest. I can't see a major telco blocking access to certain websites or networks due to this "deregulation". If they do, they'll be creating new markets and new competition in which they would have to compete, and probably loose.

Lets say Verizon tries to make Google pay extra to keep the priority of traffic going to YouTube on par with other types of network traffic. Google can either payup, and keep their access, or, decide to go an alternative route, such as working with a different provider to get access to the end user, or build their own network that renders parts of Verizon's network useless. Small providers will collaborate to stay in competition with big ones. The same goes for fiber backbone, and "last mile" service. If they decide to start blocking, others will invest and build, and offer their service as an alternative to those that are blocked, or, overpriced.

Maybe I'm too optimistic on the situation, but, what else can we hope for?

Before this goes too far

[zappepcs]

I don't want them to pay back all the public funds they were give, or the tax breaks etc.

What I want is to know what percentage of their infrastructure was built with public funds and tax breaks and so on, if that is 45% then I want a 45% discount on my monthly bill.

For every site that I am unable to reach because of their deregulation, I want compensation on my monthly bill. For every censored email, I want compensation.

Don't tell me that your 'public internet access' I pay for will only access content you approve of. I will not buy a special car to drive on restricted roads. I will not pay for two services to access both Google and Yahoo. I will simply sue every time I am denied access based on their censorship. Yes, I realize that there may not be any basis for that in law, but we must do something to let them know what their consumers want.

Key passage from TFA

[TheWoozle]

But lawyers for the FCC argued that the agency properly decided to abandon the regulations because they "imposed significant costs" on telephone companies, "thereby impeding innovation and investment in new broadband technologies and services."

Of course the big telcos don't want to roll out snazzy new broadband lines if they have to bear the cost of R&D and deployment, and then immediately allow competitors to use their brand new high-speed lines at the price the government insists on. I mean, their competitors can just lay new fiber optic lines themselves, right?

Oh, wait...the government created the whole mess in the first place with geographical monopolies on the right to run telephone lines, muddied the waters even more by declaring that cable companies are "information services" and thus don't have to share *their* lines, and now want to wash their hands of it and stand back and watch Joe Consumer take it up the ass.

On a *completely* unrelated note, I suggest that any group of politicians hereafter be called a clusterfuck. (e.g., A herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, a murder of crows, a clusterfuck of politicians).

Re:

[stinerman]

I really don't think cable companies should have to open up their lines. AFAIK, all their investment was private. The public telephone networks were largely built with government money. If Verizon, AT&T, and Qwest want to take their lines private, they can buy the infrastructure from us.

Another parameter

[Yaa 101]

In the large scheme to have the US economy locked into a grinding halt.

Well, I have no broadband then!

[MobyDisk]

Where I live, Verizon doesn't offer me DSL. But Cavalier Telephone offers me DSL, over Verizon's lines. (My neighborhood is fairly poor, so Verizon probably thinks we aren't worth it). So does that mean that I won't be able to get DSL then? If that's the case, my only option is Comcast, who doesn't allow me to use Bittorrent. So now I will have only one choice for broadband internet. And it's a company that doesn't believe in neutrality.

Yay for deregulation!

Now for a dose of reality

[davmoo]

Its easy to get up in arms about this decision, and start poo-pooing how its going to lead to less competition. But here's the reality of the matter.

In 2008 there will be an election in the US for President. A good chunk of Congress will also be up for grabs. And unless something really radical happens between now and then, in all likelihood the next President is going to be a Democrat, and the Democrats will hold a majority in both houses of Congress. This is what happens when a Republican President falls to a 24 percent approval rating in the polls (and Congress is doing only slightly better).

Democrats are generally pro-consumer and love regulating things (Republicans, on the other hand, are generally pro-business, and like to deregulate). The first time one of the big telecoms tries to openly block competition, the Dems will be on it like hair on a gorilla. And even the telecoms are smart enough to know that.

Re:

[t0rkm3]

Hate to point it out to you, but Congress is actually slightly worse. Bush is currently at 34.2% average while Congress is still lower at 24.8%. (All the while that people have been jacking with GWB's approval rating, Congress has consistently been lower.)

Personally, I think the American voter is fairly fatigued and pissed off at the moment. Don't know which way that'll fall though, guess whoever manages to sway the voter more persuasively. The D's with the hand-outs for votes or the R's with tough-talk and

Re:

[emurphy42]

Are you looking at the approval rating of Congress overall, or of individual congressmen among their constituents? The latter is routinely higher than the former.

(Not getting into any of your other points, don't have enough time)

Re:

[csteinle]

Well, to be fair I'd much rather be itchy than dead.

Telecom Giveaways

[Doc Ruby]

I wonder how much of these telecom giveaways, including this half-handed "deregulation" that will let telcos do to the rest of the Internet what they did to DSL competitors (ie. kill it), and the NSA spying immunity, are grabbed because telcos just have all kinds of evidence incriminating politicians fool enough to talk openly on their phones?

Such a power can never be broken. Not with the existing generation of crooked politicos, with no relief in the foreseeable future.

The entire country just got fucked again by Bush

[DrJimbo]

... and we didn't even get a tee shirt.

13 Mbit DSL in Tokyo...

[gillbates]

But never in New York.

It really saddens me that those agencies charged with upholding the public trust and regulating natural monopolies to prevent their abuse have actually been using their power to turn the United States into a technological backwater. It won't be long before third world countries have better technology infrastructure than we, and unfortunately, we the consumer will foot the bill.

Nothing like the Telcos getting rich as the US falls farther and farther behind, technologically speak

This isn't deregulation

[Rix]

This is a green light for corporate regulation of the internet.

At least government regulation is, at some level, accountable by democratic process. Corporate regulation is not. (Wallet voting is not democratic.)

I hope they appeal this to SCOTUS

[noewun]

But with John "I never met a corporation I didn't like" Roberts at the helm, I am not hopeful.

And now I will predict the future: the state of U.S. broadband will continue to stagnate as the rest of the world moves to higher and higher speeds. Your monthly bill will now steadily rise, and your speeds will not. I don't know how much longer I will be able to hang onto my ISP now (Earthlink leases lines from Verizon, who owns almost all of the infrastructure under Manhattan) and I'm sure that when Verizon "tak

Maybe it's not all Bad

[Crypto Gnome]

From the perspective of "searching" we're pretty darn close to "Google is The Internet".

Now that Telecommunications Carriers no longer have to allow anyone else (ie competitors) access to Telco Owned infrastructure.....

Perhaps all those billions and billions of miles of dark fibre infrastructure that Google has been buying for the past several years will be Put To Good Use.

But what will they call it?

• gNet?
• gWeb?
• gTubes?
• gSpace?
• gWorld?
• DataSphere?
• gSingularity?

Personally my vote is for calling it the Googl

Expected

[xigxag]

For years, the US political system has relied on this sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge attitude by the common voter. We can talk smack against the "libruls" and "political correctness" and express our devotion to the freewheeling marketplace, but in the back of our minds we take it for granted that, wink-wink-nudge-nudge, the courts will come and rescue us whenever the business tycoons we vote into power get too absurd in their obeisance to their own wallets. But surely, by now, after a generation of primarily right-wing judicial appointees, we see that the situation has changed. The courts are no longer the last bastion of liberal social policies. Nor should they be. Let's stop expecting the old men in robes to bail us out of the messes we are in. We are a nation of laws, and we owe it to ourselves and our descendants to have laws in place that express our true political will.

Of course, that means we actually have to pay attention to whom we elect into Congress, and to what they do once they're there. Even worse, we'll have to stop being hypocrites and realize that most of us actually want a life cocooned by taxes and regulation. Are we up to that?
   

how long before

[Spiked_Three]

How long will it be before the phone company, and their physical infrastructure becomes irrelevant? Can the wireless networks now provided primarily for cell phones replace the copper wire that we are so dependent on any time soon? I sure hope so. I think the best thing that can happen in the long run, is for the phone company to shoot itself in the foot and generate enough interest to get themselves replaced. The sooner the better. Hopefully the power line companies see this de-regulation, and start using their infrastructure to bring internet access to homes. Then the phone company would have real competition. I hope. Then again, they could be like the clueless cable TV operators who seemed to be doing a real shitty job of it.

I watched a TV program the other night. It was an early 1960's version of what the future would bring. They showed handheld telephones (we have them), space flight to the moon (been there), instant food cooking (ala Microwave ovens), tiny refrigerator sized computers (we have more than they imagined) and of course, a telephone system with video. Every prediction came true, except the one the phone company has prevented. The technology has been there for decades, but there is no motivation for the monopolies to innovate. The entire world suffers stagnation as a result. Now, I'm not one to bash self made monopolies. I personally believe in some cases even though they are a monopoly they can be driven by market pressures to improve, but in the case of the phone company it has been an apathetic selfish government sponsored pig. I hope they die soon.

Re:

[techpawn]

How are we not suppose to give monopolies our money? In some sections that's the only option for internet. How much backbone fiber is AT&T?

Re:

[644bd346996]

How much fiber is owned by Google? I think they'll be moving into the monopoly-busting business over then next few years.

Re:If you dont like it...

[Pojut]

I will give you a very good reason why. The Internet is mankind's single greatest invention.

Not antibiotics. Not the motor vehicle. The Internet. Why?

Information has been given the ability to travel the entire globe in less than the time required for you to read this post. Think about that. A coup could happen in an African country, and literally the entire planet could know about it within five minutes. A discovery for an infectious disease could be made at some remote lab in Antarctica...five minutes later, the whole world would know.

Information between teachers, doctors, scientists, philosophers, religious figures....the collective knowledge of our entire species is just a point and click away.

That's why.

not to mention

[circletimessquare]

caturday

AYBABTU

IKISSYOU

dancing hamsters and dancing babies

etc.

Re:

[Pojut]

That just proves my point...the internet can be used for entertainment, which just lends to it's versatility

i don't disagree with your point

[circletimessquare]

i just want to offset your profundity with some moribundity

those who speak of great utopias in the language of high minded intellectual achievement often get it wrong, throughout history. the internet was supposed to be this great philosopher's lounge of high minded thought and rhetoric and dmeocratic action. the truth is that most of it is a drunken barroom brawl at 3 am in the seedy side of london. trolls, flamewars, simple empty negativity: the basest of humanity given voice just as much as the best

consi

Re:

[Pojut]

And it could have been.

And if you watch the History Channel, or TLC, or Discovery, you will see that it can be both educational and entertaining. Just like the Internet.

That's two great communication tools modified by society, then destroyed by greed.

Re:

[Pojut]

To me, writing was an important invention as well...however, by itself, writing is limited by A. the speed in which you could put the letters on paper or what-have-you, B. the speed in which you could make copies of what you had written, and C. The speed in which you could circulate those copies.

The Internet completely sidesteps all of those things.

Re:

[Pojut]

No, I won't /wrists...however, I will sit and watch one of the most complicated and useful tools that we as humans have created be destroyed.

The Internet didn't used to be a bunch of bullshit...but I (kind of) agree with you, it is quickly becoming that. It's purpose is slowly being forgotten as it is being inundated by advertisements, scams, and general greed...just like everything else our species creates.

Re:

[Pojut]

My 1TB raid says you are correct

Re:

[janrinok]

I thought the internet was deregulated by nature, and that censorship is something that's simply routed around.

Yes, of course you are correct however, not in America it seems. Elsewhere, and for the moment, we seem to be faring somewhat better. Nevertheless, I am sure that someone, somewhere, will come along and spoil it all for us as well.

Re:

[wasabii]

Eh. If it requires government interference to keep the internet deregulated by nature, then it is in fact regulated.

Man, some people really don't understand the term regulated. Regulated, controlled or monitored or managed by government.

If the FCC says to Comcast, "No, you cannot do X Y and Z with your lines," then that is in fact REGULATION. The lack of the FCC saying something is DEREGULATION.

Re:

[Vancorps]

Actually deregulation is the reversal of a long-standing and sensible regulation that was one of the few things good about the FCC. Forcing competition on publicly paid for lines is a very good idea in my mind. If we hadn't sunk so much of our tax dollars into laying cable then I wouldn't have a problem with deregulation. Since we've spent billions and continue to spend billions I'm not interested fewer restrictions on powers which have proven time and time again capable of acting not in the best interests

Re:

[idontgno]

John Gilmore expressed that idea in 1994, a time when no one seemed to own the wires and information really did want to be free.

Well, it looks like the wide-open range has been fenced and platted and farmed, and the content barons don't take kindly to scruffy freedom-loving trappers and injuns and migrants traipsing around on "their" territory. (Of course it's theirs: they have legal exclusive title, signed off by the government and everything!)

It would take an extreme of DIY spirit to "route around" a loca

Re:Wait

[RingDev]

The problem isn't censorship, it's competition. Right now, if the copper running to your house is owned by Company A, and Company A offers Internet Service, and Company B wants to provide you with Internet Services, Company A is required to share the copper they laid with Company B. What this ruling does is allow Company A to tell Company B to take a hike. The consumer (you) now has no choice for internet service because the company that owns the copper determines what options you have.

So, if Company A were to drop prices significantly, and crush all local competitors, thus ensuring that they have a strangle hold on the local area's ISP offerings, they can then jack prices up as high as they want and the consumers will have no other options for providers.

I would guess this could also have some higher stream issues if some major back bone provider decided that it didn't want to allow data from some other provider at that level. That might be route able to still get through, but if they blocked it all the way to the last mile, you'd never get that data.

-Rick

Re:

[stinerman]

Company A doesn't even need to lower their prices. They can just tell the CLECs to take a hike. DSL will be provided by your local phone monopoly (AT&T, Qwest, Verizon) or your local cable monopoly (Comcast, TWC, Adelphia, etc.). If you're lucky enough to live in an area served by several cable companies, you might have enough competition to get slightly-better-than-subpar prices and performance.

What really makes me chuckle is that in the name of deregulation, we're getting monopolies.

Re:

[Volante3192]

There's barely two or three competing telcos in any one place as it is, this is just going to make it worse.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so long as there are more than two or three competing telecoms

Uh, there's one in any given location, that's why the regulation was there in the first place.

Hopefully, they will compete for the business of third-party ISPs.

Sorry, that one telco can now just turn off any of the other DSL ISPs whenever they feel like it. The third-party ISPs will either grovel and shovel over a wad of cash to stay on, or they call their customers and tell them how nice it's been, but goodbye.

Presumably someone will event

Re:

[pwnies]

Bad for the end-user, champagne and fine chocolates for the big name telcoms. Reason being the ISP's no longer have to share their telcom lines, whether those be fiber, phone, or coaxial. Which means for the most part, if you want internet/phone/tv you are stuck with the company that owns the cables going to your house.

Re:

[SpeedyDX]

Uh ... it's bad. At a theoretical level, "natural monopoly" sectors (of which telecommunications is a part of), should either be State/Crown Corporations or heavily, heavily regulated. Although the ultimate goal (in free market societies) of any sector is to promote competition to lead to the deregulation of the industry, it is very much impractical (if not outright impossible) for "natural monopoly" sectors. Telecomms is considered a "natural monopoly" sector because the barrier of entry is unrealistically

Re:Fine with it...

[Gaki]

At some point, though, a product becomes so ubiquitous that it is no longer just a common good and has become a staple. At that point, living without it really does have social repercussions and, in the case of the Internet, we are rapidly reaching that point. How many paper resumes do you think get submitted in industrialized nations these days? If the choice was limited to getting raped by my telco and/or not having a job, that's not much of a choice is it?

Re:

[Hatta]

I think you'll find the tyranny of a regulated marketplace preferable to the tyranny of a monopoly. Capitalism depends on a functioning marketplace. Now, there is no marketplace, this regulation is what made a marketplace possible. The economy is far more capitalistic with this regulation than without it.

Socialism is when one party, the state, controls the economy. How different is it when that one party is a corporation?

Re:

[Hatta]

We're punishing them because we gave them money with no strings attached and they used it to benefit themselves...so they're evil because they practice good business?

No, we gave them money with a string attached. Now we're cutting that string for no reason. It doesn't benefit the people at all, and it smacks of corruption. You're right though, the telcos aren't really to blame for seeking profit. It's the politicians who forget they're supposed to serve the people, not the corporations.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The hell we don't have a claim to it. They're running things on public land with tax breaks, government granted monopolies, subsidies, etc. In short, they're using public space and public money. If they want to not deal with us, fine. That's their choice. However, we want our public space back and them to pay back all the money we gave them to build their network. That would basically mean that they'd have to dismantle their network or buy all the space that it's using from the general public.

Also, your ana

Re:

[Lendrick]

They paid for the lines, the installation, the maintenance, etc... ...with help from government grants. If they didn't want to play fair, they shouldn't have taken the money.

What I don't get is why conservatives get so up in arms about regular people getting any sort of government benefits, but when big companies get government benefits (no-bid contracts, public funding, no price negotiations), it's all fine and dandy. Not only is the conservative philosophy of governmental non-intervention demonstrably w

Re:

[MightyMartian]

What I don't get is why conservatives get so up in arms about regular people getting any sort of government benefits, but when big companies get government benefits (no-bid contracts, public funding, no price negotiations), it's all fine and dandy. Not only is the conservative philosophy of governmental non-intervention demonstrably wrong-headed (deregulation -> Enron debacle), it's not even internally consistent (okay to give taxpayers' money to big business, but God forbid we give it to taxpayers).

That

Re:Fine with it... They did NOT pay for the lines

[cdn-programmer]

They presumably made a profit from the installation of the lines. It is the customers who paid for them. Further more most of the POTS lines were installed by our parents and the existing generation of Telco employees inherited them.

Furthermore if you look at the administrations of most Telcos you will find they are filled with non-productive people and paper pushers who sit around all day drinking coffee while they scheme more ways to suck book out of the customers they hold hostage. This is why we see

Re:

[MightyMartian]

The problem largely stems from the fact that those currently in government don't seem to understand that it was taxpayer money that went in large part to creating this infrastructure. I don't have a problem with government giving money to business to build infrastructure, in fact it's an awfully good idea. The problem with the communications infrastructure is that, by and large, the telcos got to retain ownership. When a state government hires a contractor to build and maintain a highway, the contractor

Re:

[MightyMartian]

And at some point, because of the nature of communications, all these services have to hook up to Telco wires, and all will be every bit as much at the whim of the Telcos as the average consumer.

The free market breaks down when a resource is controlled in large part by a very few, large interests with the clout to essentially do as they please as far as control of that reource. The government's job, in such a situation, is to use its legislative and regulatory powers to mitigate that delerious effect, eith