Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
The Internet Government

How the FCC Plans To Save the Internet By Destroying It 217

New submitter dislikes_corruption writes: "Stopping the recently announced plan by the FCC to end net neutrality is going to require a significant outcry by the public at large, a public that isn't particularly well versed on the issue or why they should care. Ryan Singel, a former editor at Wired, has written a thorough and easy to understand primer on the FCC's plan, the history behind it, and how it will impact the Internet should it come to pass. It's suitable for your neophyte parent, spouse, or sibling. In the meantime, the FCC has opened a new inbox (openinternet@fcc.gov) for public comments on the decision, there's a petition to sign at whitehouse.gov, and you can (and should) contact your congressmen."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How the FCC Plans To Save the Internet By Destroying It

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26, 2014 @02:58PM (#46849011)

    Capitalism is nice until corporations grow big enough. At some point they start to strive towards a monopoly and this is where the core idea of capitalism dies. It's the end of competition and consumers suffer the most.

    The political spectrum in the US needs some new parties and fast.

  • by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @03:08PM (#46849055) Homepage

    Pretty damn well. You can't believe the difference things like lifting the bar to pre-existing conditions makes to families like ours. That they could have better job with this behemoth project, I don't doubt. That they would have done a better job if the other half Congress hadn't been obstuctionist jerks, I don't doubt either. Growing pains, not fault with the basic concept.

    To drift back on topic: ditto for net neutrality. Sometimes we do better without the market carved into big corporate fiefdoms and fake competition.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Saturday April 26, 2014 @03:16PM (#46849097) Journal

    unless they think the price is worth it to suppress upstart competition

    Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

    People in favor of "regulation" because of the evils of "big business" need to familiarize themselves with the concept of regulatory capture. Big business loves regulation, because they've got legions of lawyers and compliance officers at their disposal, resources unavailable to any would-be start up. George Will writes about this topic frequently, in industries ranging from undertakers to electricians to nail salons.

  • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @03:28PM (#46849155)
    If the purpose of health care is to help sick people, how does denying health care to sick people help further its purpose?
  • by Belial6 ( 794905 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @03:38PM (#46849193)
    What health insurance doesn't have "death panels"? You do realize that there has never been a time that having health insurance meant that the insurance company would give you unlimited care, right?
  • by Andrio ( 2580551 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @03:48PM (#46849251)

    Anyone who is against net neutrality either (1) has no understanding of what it means, or (2) is being bankrolled by a corporate interest. I doubt that the FCC doesn't understand what net neutrality is, so that only leaves option (2).

    Funny how net neutrality suddenly dies as soon as a former telecom lobbyist/CEO became the FCC chairman.

  • by CAOgdin ( 984672 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @03:48PM (#46849253)
    The United States of America was founded on principles of justice and freedom for all.

    o During the Oklahoma Land Run of 1889, there were no special "carve-outs" for people of wealth. Every participant started racing at the sound of the starter's gun.

    o When railroads were built, there were special coaches for first class, but they were part of the same train, going at the same speed, along the same route, to the same destination.

    o While the rich can buy their own jet aircraft, the Air Traffic Control system that manages all aircraft in the skies give no special treatment to the jet aircraft, nor the lone pilot in a Piper Cub.

    o When Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway system, he did not mandate special travel lanes for trucks or limousines; all traffic uses the same routes.

    Every one of these historical innovations lifted up the poor, the middle class, and the rich. As a result, we became the world's most respected democracy, and the model for many other, newer countries to emulate.

    Now, the FCC would like to change all that history and allow those who can afford to pay for a "special lane" on the Internet, crowding out other traffic, and making it slower. It will reward the oligarchs and penalize the common citizen.

    I have been in the computer and electronics industry, from bench technician to CEO, since 1957. Now retired, I have watched as the very rich people, and the very large corporations have worked tirelessly in recent decades to destroy that equality of opportunity. If we are to survive as a nation, we must return to a democracy, with every citizen treated fairly and equitably.

    We should, instead, be requiring our "common carriers" to expand their Internet capacity, robustness and security for all. Where there is plenty of reliable capacity, everyone will have the opportunity to use the Internet without disadvantage. The large carriers, like Comcast (which the FCC has misclassified), AT&T, Verizon, et. al., have been intentionally restricting their expansion of the Internet to make it slower and slower. Yes, they save the investments they should be making. But, deeper and more cynically, they have been intending to leverage those self-imposed restrictions into higher prices for these restricted servicesby adding a special lane for those willing to pay.

    "Demos" is the Greek word for people; "kratia" is the Greek word for rule. Democracy puts the emphasis on people deciding how to rule. When appointed public officials usurp that decision-making to favor one class of people (or corporations) over another, it has violated basic democratic principles. The consequences will be uncomfortable for the citizens, and will erode our principles and the quality of our beloved nation.

    You are a public, appointed official. I trust you will decide on the basis of democracy that the rich deserve no more preferential treatment than the middle class or the poor. We need to expand our Internet capacity for all, not make it available only to the highest bidders, driving all prices upward for the benefit of the already-rich.
  • So Glad (Score:1, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @03:55PM (#46849277)

    Well we're all so glad millions of people could lose insurance and tens of millions more will pay more, so that your insurance situation is a little better!

    We live to serve. You that is.

  • by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @04:02PM (#46849319) Homepage

    Whoever thought of death panels is a sick, sick bastard.
    Hint: It wasn't the people who invented public healthcare.
    Countries that have had public healthcare for decades don't have death panels either.

  • by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @04:09PM (#46849355) Homepage

    And I suppose big business loves non-regulation, with the opportunities of monopoly. So win-win?

    I'll agree that regulation risks just shifting wealth from one corporate interest to another. Also, that regulaiton introduces its own barriers to competition. But to condemn regulation per se is mindless. We got enough of the robber barons ages ago.

    Now, back to my question.... which way will things tilt, and how much will the public interest matter.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @05:38PM (#46849747)


    Oh I see, Proper Regulation is just like communism - it's just never been done right before!

    Never mind the FACT that you cannot have Proper Regulation, because anytime you centralize enough power to write said Regulation it will naturally become subverted, because Power has that effect - always.

    Just like people are calling for more regulation now and what they will get is anguish until they figure out the root cause of the pain was in fact regulation...

  • Re:Yes they do (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26, 2014 @06:04PM (#46849883)

    > You are REALLY going to see the screws put in over the next decade in most of Europe (probably not Germany).

    Been hearing that for the past four decades, myself. Still nada. In fact, even with the recent austerity measures, my health coverage and access to higher education well into the last quarter of my career is so much better than my US colleagues I can understand why you neocon nimrods are so desperate to try to discredit the European model.

    You're wrong. You've been wrong for 40 years. You'll continue to be wrong. You won't accept this because you are more obsessed with your religious adherence to an economic model instead of looking at the actual data.

  • Re:Yes they do (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cordus Mortain ( 3004429 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @08:00PM (#46850375)
    It's not even just a European model. Canada has had universal healthcare in some provinces as long as England has. You'd think that the US look just over the border and see how it's working for Canada, and realize it's not as bad as they think it is.
  • by TrollstonButterbeans ( 2914995 ) on Saturday April 26, 2014 @08:31PM (#46850491)
    It is bad enough you responded to derail troll. Worse that someone didn't mod both of you offtopic.

    Someone actually hurt this more by upmodding your reply to a derail.

    This is why our political system is broke, try to point out how Net Neutrality is vital, some goon brings up healthcare.

    Then someone else who thinks he is smart, agrees to change the conversation to healthcare to respond to a goon.

    BAM! You've been suckered and taken your eye off the ball: The ball is Net Neutrality.

    Don't take your eye off the ball.

In less than a century, computers will be making substantial progress on ... the overriding problem of war and peace. -- James Slagle