Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government United States

President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility 706

vivIsel writes In a move that is sure to generate controversy, the President has announced his support for regulation of broadband connections, including cellular broadband, under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act. Reclassification of broadband in this way would treat it as a utility, like landline telephones, subject providers to new regulations governing access, and would allow the FCC to easily impose net neutrality requirements.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility

Comments Filter:
  • Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10, 2014 @12:47PM (#48350853)

    Say what you want about Obama, but I guarantee the next president (probably Republican) won't care about preserving Net Neutrality.

    • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:22PM (#48351211) Homepage Journal

      Say what you want about Obama, but I guarantee the next president (probably Republican) won't care about preserving Net Neutrality.

      I might be a tree hugging liberal, but the Dems have an awful record when it comes to regulating technology. The toxic relationship with Hollywood is one reason.
      I don't see why the Republicans would be any better or worse.

      Technology sits outside the brain space of politicians, so they treat is as a contribution-for-laws cash cow.

      • Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)

        by towermac ( 752159 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:54PM (#48351599)

        Well, I'm a tree hugging conservative... whatever, and Obama can't get out of bed in the morning to suit me. But this is a really good move on his part. That woman he nominated for Holder's job; good choice also. Sending more help to fight ISIS; another good move.

        I guess he cares far less about politics now than a week ago. It'd be funny if he turns out to be a good president for these last 2 years

      • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:08PM (#48351799)

        I might be a tree hugging liberal, but the Dems have an awful record when it comes to regulating technology.

        No argument but the Republicans record isn't really any better. That said, I still think the basic notion of regulating internet access is an idea with merit even if the ruling parties aren't exactly brilliant at it. Internet access is as important to modern life as telephone access was 30 years ago. It has become an integral part of our lives and the companies that provide it seem to need a bit more oversight than they presently have.

        I don't see why the Republicans would be any better or worse.

        Because while the Democrats tend to screw up the regulations, the Republicans like to pretend that regulations are never good even when there is are clear abuses going on that markets cannot adequately address. Sometimes bad regulations are better than no regulations at all. (and vice-versa) I'm honestly uncomfortable with the amount of power that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, TWC etc have over our internet connectivity. They have effectively an almost unregulated monopoly over internet service and have shown little reluctance to abuse that position when it suits them.

      • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

        by oh_my_080980980 ( 773867 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:22PM (#48351957)
        Really? Headline from the Los Angles Times: "Obama urges net neutrality; Cruz calls it 'Obamacare for the Internet'"

        In case you have your head so far up your ass, Republicans are against government regulation. FYI Ted Cruz is a Republican who opposes government regulation.
    • Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dishevel ( 1105119 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:49PM (#48351533)
      While I kind of agree with the title 2 thing, I have to say. While the utilities have been regulated they have had almost zero innovation. The internet being unregulated for the most part has had major innovation. Would love to see net neutrality able to be done with a very soft regulatory hand.
      • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:15PM (#48351883)

        While the utilities have been regulated they have had almost zero innovation.

        You mean, while the government failed to regulate by not breaking up monopolies they have had almost zero innovation.

        The internet being unregulated for the most part has had major innovation.

        You mean, after AT&T was regulated by being broken up and by being forced to allow third-party devices (e.g. modems), major innovation was able to start.

        The Internet didn't happen because the government suddenly set telcos free; the Internet happened because the government stopped allowing telcos to prevent it!

        • Re:Obama (Score:5, Informative)

          by schnell ( 163007 ) <`ten.llenhcs' `ta' `em'> on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:40PM (#48352147) Homepage

          You mean, after AT&T was regulated by being broken up and by being forced to allow third-party devices (e.g. modems), major innovation was able to start.

          Umm, no. On a couple counts:

          • Divestiture didn't have anything to do with attaching 3rd party devices to the phone network; you're thinking of the Carterfone decision [arstechnica.com] from 1968, which was a full 16 years before AT&T was split up.
          • AT&T was actually more heavily regulated before its divestiture, as a nationwide telecommunications monopoly. It was prevented from getting into whole lines of business (hence why it gave away UNIX because it couldn't sell it). The divestiture was pursued specifically to strip away the heavily regulated parts (the local telcos) from the largely unregulated parts (long distance, cable, etc.) See this book [amazon.com] for more details. Under that regulation, think about the degree of innovation you got out of the Baby Bells... who were still pushing ISDN as "broadband" in the late '90s.
          • The one piece of regulation that did actually manage to spur consumer-friendly innovation in telecom in recent memory was the 1996 Telecom Act [wikipedia.org], which actually reduced regulation in many areas (the "carrot" for telcos) while simultaneously increasing competition in others (the "stick"), such as forcing the Baby Bells to allow competitive access to their DSLAMs to provide DSL service, etc.

          Regulation is very important in many industries, including telecommunications. But it is almost never synonymous with innovation.

          • The one piece of regulation that did actually manage to spur consumer-friendly innovation in telecom in recent memory was the 1996 Telecom Act, which actually reduced regulation in many areas (the "carrot" for telcos) while simultaneously increasing competition in others (the "stick"), such as forcing the Baby Bells to allow competitive access to their DSLAMs to provide DSL service, etc.

            Great example! Now tell me why I can't get cable internet from anyone except Comcast?

        • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dishevel ( 1105119 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:49PM (#48352231)
          I think you are only looking at small parts of what has been going on in the Utilities area for the last bunch of decades.

          Widen your scope a little and you will see some glaring issues with over regulation and under regulation. For the most part under regulation of utilities causes one set of problems while over regulation stifles any real innovation.

          As in many things balance is required.

      • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

        by radl33t ( 900691 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @06:55PM (#48355015)
        What has Comcast innovated with respect to the internet? It's actually rather remarkable the internet has evolved in spite of our grotesque environment. I was one of the first customers on cable broadband in my area (under Time Warner, now Comcast, before one of their infamous territory swaps to trade for monopoly markets) in 1998. I paid $46/mo. I now pay $40 instead of $46 because I own my modem. I have the lowest tier of service, which is 1mb slower down than my 1998 service.

        Since that time the cable companies have come up with such innovations as requiring me to have basic cable to get internet at the regular price, banning modems that remain compliant, decreasing the cost effectiveness of my service, provide additional congestion during peak times, and eliminate or charge extra for services that were previously free (allbeit useless). Yep, that is what Comcast innovated in the last half of my life.

        In that time I lived in out state for one year and had access to two cable companies, presumably enabling the competition that brought me faster internet for $10 less. In that time I lived in Germany, where I got 50mb/50mb for a hair under $30/mo.

        I'd really like to know the innovation Comcast has brought to the table. Perhaps you can counter my experience with your own. Actually what the heck does innovation really mean in this context? How do utilities innovate at all? Why should a utility innovate at all? What do private waste management companies "innovate" that my muni garbage monopoly does not? What are some recent water/sewer/electrical/gas utility"innovations"?? IMO, this is just some bullshit buzzword that means nothing, but signals the correct political team one should join for the sake of lazy argumentation.
    • Re:Obama (Score:5, Funny)

      by OhPlz ( 168413 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:53PM (#48351591)

      If you like your Internet service, you can keep it. Period.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      If Obama was really so serious about it, then why does he wait until he can't do anything about it to even SAY anything? Let alone do nothing the whole time, except appoint a former telecom lobbyist to the FCC?

    • Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:35PM (#48352101)

      Your point is absolutely mute because this is not about net neutrality at all. Obama's statement does not do anything _for_ net neutrality, and I'll argue that it's more to ensure Government intrusion than to ensure access for everyone. Remember that as soon as it's rated as a "utility" it will have to receive more funding from tax payers for Government "monitoring" and "regulation" (read crony appointees). If you have doubts look how AT&T receives funding from tax payers to duplicate ALL traffic to various NSA facilities today.

      If you want to see some of the most corrupt businesses alive today, look no further than utilities. This is nothing more than a front, primarily to stop the debate about Government intrusion but also to squeeze more money from the middle class.

      • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @03:20PM (#48352575)

        If you want to see some of the most corrupt businesses alive today, look no further than utilities. This is nothing more than a front, primarily to stop the debate about Government intrusion but also to squeeze more money from the middle class.

        What utilities are you referring to? My sewers, water, electricity, and gas all keep flowing, and at reasonable rates. I certainly would not want them transformed into Comcast-esque money-grubbers. Privatization in the absence of competition is the worst of both worlds, and that's what broadband to my home currently is.

        With respect to government intrusion, assuming you buy the line that it's any different from, or even separate from, corporate intrusion (which I don't, since companies simply sell it to the govt) - the US Mail has the strongest legal guarantees of privacy, as far as I can tell, with phone being next. It seems to be in decreasing order of when invented, rather than public/private. At least with a utility there's a possibility of meaningful privacy regulations, if the public ever decides to start wanting them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10, 2014 @12:48PM (#48350867)

    This clearly means no net neutrality in the US. If Obama wanted net neutrality, he would oppose it and Republicans would then be for it. But by supporting it, republicans will never start any such legislation now. Maybe even the opposite of net neutrality will be what they will pass.

    • by vivIsel ( 450550 )

      The FCC doesn't need congressional approval to implement net neutrality, or Title 2 regulation. So there's no need to "start regulation." I suggest reading TFA, it's fairly educational!

      • by vivIsel ( 450550 )

        Correction - I misquoted you. There is no need to "start legislation". There is a need to start regulation! Doesn't change the substance of the comment, though.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The FCC doesn't need congressional approval to implement net neutrality, or Title 2 regulation. So there's no need to "start regulation." I suggest reading TFA, it's fairly educational!

        But the FCC does need funding. Which comes from congress.

        If the FCC does do this, and congress gets upset about it, what you will likely see is a budget that reads "...and no part of this appropriation can be used in the regulation of ISPs as utilities..." etc... Congress has done it before (both republican and democrat) and they can do it again.

    • by tgrigsby ( 164308 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:51PM (#48351561) Homepage Journal

      ... If Obama wanted net neutrality, he would oppose it and Republicans would then be for it. But by supporting it, republicans will never start any such legislation now. Maybe even the opposite of net neutrality will be what they will pass.

      Wow. You make it sound like Congress is focused solely on obstruction. Surely a congressional body elected to represent the United States citizenry would never harm the nation by outright obstructing positive legislative efforts?

      Sorry, I've been in a coma for the last 6 years. Did I miss something?

  • he would not have appointed Tom Wheeler, a former telco lobbyist, to head the FCC.
  • Legacy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10, 2014 @12:50PM (#48350873)

    Despite all his other downsides, this could create a legacy perception equal to that of Teddy Rosevelts's "trustbusting"

  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @12:50PM (#48350881) Homepage
    There is little difference between dial up and broadband internet access.

    They both require massive connections to other, unrelated networks - so uniformity in protocals.

    The both must also connect to human interfaces that are always made by a third party, so again, uniformity of protocals.

    They provide something that is in effect a commodity measured pretty much entirety by reliability and 'size of the pipe'. You don't get different flavors, etc.

    We are using it to get to places we want to get to, not for itself. Just like any other utility.

    Broadband is obviously a utility and should be treated as one.

    The attempt to charge people on both ends is an abuse of power. When I buy internet, I expect to get the full speed I contracted for, without regard to whomever I am connecting to at the other end.

    • by CauseBy ( 3029989 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:04PM (#48351035)

      I don't disagree with you, but what you described also sounds like the airline industry: uniform service (seats on a plane) which interface with third parties (airports), used to get to something else we want (destinations). I don't really think of airlines as utilities, though.

      For me that's all a theoretical argument and I'm much more of a real-world guy. Will regulating broadband internet as a "utility" make the world a better place? If so, then I support it -- and it will, so I support it. I don't mind the theoretical arguments but to me they are subsequent to the real-world argument of what policy leads to the best human lives.

      • The airline industry is not a natural monopoly, your not forced to go with one of the one or two (cell/sat broadband is so worthless to not count as a viable option) airlines in any major area.

        The ability to regulate broadband as a utility is potentially great, it's how it's regulated that matters so do not hold your breath with the current fcc leadership.

        • by mcrbids ( 148650 )

          The only reason he airline industry is not a natural monopoly is because of the massive public infrastructure provided by the US Government FAA in public use airports and related flight control infrastructure. In every meaningful sense, an airport solves the "last mile problem" for airplanes. Why wouldn't we expect a similar investment in the "last mile problem" for Internet Service?

          SouthWest doesn't own the Oakland Airport; they merely lease a terminal. Can you imagine what would have happened if Delta had

  • Of course as others are saying, in two years the next president, who will likely be Republican after Obama and the DNC have made such a mess of things, will likely gut Net Neutrality altogether and usher in the Walled Garden Internet. *shrug* Don't know about the rest of you but at least my life won't be made or broken by that.
  • by OldSport ( 2677879 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @12:57PM (#48350973)

    Cue even more millions of lobbying dollars for Republicans to block NN at all costs.

    (Of course the roles would be reversed if it was a Republican president and Democratic congress.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by schlachter ( 862210 )

      Politics aside, how is it that republicans want to fuck over everyone but the privileged and corporate, yet get such widespread support from the people who will suffer most from their policies?

      • Politics aside, how is it that republicans want to fuck over everyone but the privileged and corporate, yet get such widespread support from the people who will suffer most from their policies?

        Because the Republican stance is more nuanced than the "Republicans are evil and want to eat your babies" crowd portrays.

        Why don't other countries have a net neutrality problem? Because they have competition among their ISPs. If an ISP tries to deliberately slow down a popular website to extort the site for extr

        • by DrJimbo ( 594231 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @04:02PM (#48353183)

          Why don't other countries have a net neutrality problem? Because they have competition among their ISPs. If an ISP tries to deliberately slow down a popular website to extort the site for extra payments, it doesn't put pressure on the website to pay. Instead it puts pressure on the ISP's customers to switch to another ISP. In most of the rest of the world, any ISP trying to pull this stunt puts itself out of business.

          It only works in the U.S. because these ISPs have government-granted monopolies over the local customer base. The customer can't flee to a different ISP because there is none - the local government has made it illegal for there to be a competitor. Essentially, net neutrality is more government regulation to solve a problem caused by government regulation.

          According to Ars Techinca (and many others) UK regulators officially mock US over ISP "competition" [arstechnica.com]:

          Here's how US regulators do a broadband plan: talk about competition even while admitting there isn't enough, then tinker around the edges with running fiber to "anchor institutions" and start collecting real data on US broadband use.

          Here's how they do it in the UK: order incumbent telco BT to share its fiber lines with any ISP who is willing to pay. In places where BT hasn't yet run fiber, order the company to share its ducts and poles with anyone who wants to run said fiber. In the 14 percent of the UK without meaningful broadband competition, slap price controls on Internet access to keep people from getting gouged. [...]

          "Aside from small urban countries with highly concentrated populations, like Singapore, the main countries which are currently leading in the rollout and take-up of super-fast broadband are those which have had significant government intervention to support deployment, such as Japan and South Korea."

          I've Googled around and I can't find any evidence that backs up your implication that consumers benefit from less government regulation of ISPs. Everything I've seen says the benefits in non-US countries stem from greater government intervention.

          The nuanced Republican stance you refer to seems to be a code-phrase for BS. IMO the core of the problem is there is a lot of BS flying around because our corporate controlled "fair and balanced" media (including the NYT) refuse to call out politicians on outright lies. This gives a decided advantage to those who lie more. With no checks and balances from the media, public debate is mired in giant echo chambers filled with BS.

      • by iluvcapra ( 782887 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:30PM (#48352047)

        Politics aside, how is it that republicans want to fuck over everyone but the privileged and corporate, yet get such widespread support from the people who will suffer most from their policies?

        This is the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" [wikipedia.org] problem. The short answer is, most rural populist types would probably fare better under a Democratic economic regime, but it really wouldn't be that much better. On the other hand, Republicans make few concrete promises economically, but they make broad promises about how they will sustain rural culture -- they fight for gun rights, and for the protection of traditional religious values, and against abortion, and gays. And in the end both parties mostly work in the interests of large corporations. In the end, Democrats promise a Starbucks in every town, and Republicans promise a cross on every door.

        Also Democrats are generally supportive of state services, and things like Obamacare, which would improve the lot of poor voters in general, but a lot of poor people are simply morally opposed to accepting "welfare," and the slightly-better-off people around them are all downright hostile to the idea. This persists even if the "welfare" in question is completely pro-market, means tested, economically justified and everything else -- it's because American culture has moralistic, puritanical beliefs about thrift and work that are impervious to facts. The liberal tendency in American politics promises poor people a leg up, at the cost of their soul and their meritocratic ideals -- they'll get ahead but "everyone" will know they don't deserve it; meanwhile the conservative tendency promises a boot on your neck, but offers the guarantee that when you get the boot, you'll feel like you deserve it. People are attracted to appearance of order and justice, even if it hurts them.

      • by sehryan ( 412731 )

        Because it is the American dream that one day - through hard work and determination - you can become one of the privileged. As such, any attack on the privileged is an attack on future you - or at least the future you that you hope will one day exist. Of course the irony is that the more you protect the privileged, the more you end up preventing future you from ever joining those ranks.

        The existing privileged understand this perfectly, which is why they craft their message the way they do, bathed in apple p

  • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:03PM (#48351017) Homepage
    It may be "a move that is sure to generate controversy", but it's the right direction for things to be moving. The Internet is not an entertainment service or a toy. It's vital infrastructure that's necessary for our society to move forward economically and technologically, and it should be treated as such. Having crappy Internet should be considered as shameful as having crappy roads, run down train systems, beat up airports, and bridges that are falling down. Unfortunately, in the US, we seem to be fine with all of that.
  • by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:13PM (#48351137) Homepage Journal
    Seems Ted Cruz is not wasting any time in opposing Obama on Net Neutrality by calling it "ObamaCare for the Internet" [businessinsider.com], a laughably stupid hyperbolic statement only a complete moron would make -- unfortunately, he's got a support base of tens of millions even bigger morons who will think this idiotic statement is actually accurate.
    • by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:13PM (#48351853)
      Incorrect. Ted Cruz is no moron. He knows which side his bread is buttered on and he is wasting no time taking the position that his puppet-masters have told him to take, and he's hoping that the moron's who voted for him continue to overlook this behavior.
  • by ortholattice ( 175065 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:20PM (#48351201)

    Does a "utility" mean that we could finally have true net neutrality and use the internet as it was designed, such as having unblocked incoming ports 80/443? I use alternate ports to route around this to access my files remotely, but strictly speaking I'm violating the ISP T&C by having a "server" at home.

    However, I often want to access my home files from wifi access points such as hospitals where outgoing 80/443 are the only ports open (no outgoing ssh, etc. allowed). But my cable provider blocks incoming 80/443, so I'm completely cut off from my home files. I would rather not pay to put a TB of files on the "cloud" or pay some 3rd party service to reroute ports or whatever.

  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:24PM (#48351245) Journal

    Net neutrality means that QoS based on port (e.g., VOIP gets priority over HTTP) is OK; but QoS based on content or the owner of an IP is not OK.

    We all understand that; but the mouth-breathers and cronies that will regulate the Internet will generate 1600 pages of crap that nobody can read, just to define "QoS".

  • by unixcorn ( 120825 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:35PM (#48351375)

    Partisan policy aside, the government wants us to want them to regulate the nets. They want it because it will give them an excuse to tax your connection. Once the FCC steps in, they will need money to "manage" and to prosecute and to investigate. Mark my words, this has nothing to do with Netflix and everything to do with an additional revenue stream.

  • *Common Carrier* (Score:4, Informative)

    by globaljustin ( 574257 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:45PM (#48351485) Journal

    Headline should read "Common Carrier" because that's the option Obama picked....the strongest protection for users.

    This is what we have wanted all along...the best protection for Net Neutrality

    Damn /. or any troll/techies who try to downplay this move by Obama...he gave us *exactly* what we asked for

    No Republican would do this.

    • Don't tell us what we wanted. We want prioritized traffic. We've ALWAYS wanted prioritized traffic.

      Next you're going to tell me that we WANTED a healthcare system with a commercially competitive marketplace.

      Why do you hate America?

      [never try and reason with the /. crowd...they've already made up their minds who they hate]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 10, 2014 @01:48PM (#48351527)

    Back in the 1990s when ISPs were being sued by the MPAA and RIAA for carrying bootlegged stuff, the ISPs claimed common carrier status as the reason they should not be sued - arguing that they just carry the bits and have nothing to do with what the bits actually are.

    Fast forward to the 2000s when Verizon et al start rolling out their own video networks. Well, suddenly they claim "media company" status and not common carrier status, so they can regulate actual content.

    I'm not sure what backdoor deal allowed them to abandon common carrier and still not get sued for carrying pirated material, but I am sure there was something baked into an agriculture or other unrelated bill that did it.

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:07PM (#48351787)

    Everyone thinks that the idea of a monopoly is bad, but I think it would work fine in this case. Raw broadband bandwidth is a utility. AT&T bandwidth isn't (or shouldn't be) any different than Verizon, Comcast or CenturyLink. As it is now, there are tons of companies spending huge amounts of money to keep their networks barely at capacity simply because there's so much traffic to pass around. One company could do this much more efficiently than everyone trying to build their own distribution network, the same way public utilities don't run 4 competing electric lines or water pipes over the same route. In addition, there would be no net neutrality debate, since every user has to plug into the same common carrier.

    People love to complain about old-school pre-breakup AT&T, but the high prices they were able to charge allowed them to over-engineer the phone system for reliability. Cable companies routinely oversubscribe links by a significant amount, and DSL providers don't provision enough bandwidth to the CO to deal with the number of connected customers. Internet bandwidth has become a utility in the US - there aren't very many people who are not users of it in some form or another. The problem is that people have no concept of paying for a service and want the cheapest possible price they can get, so the providers don't invest.

    Even classifying bandwidth as being subject to common carrier rules would allow rural areas to be served more effectively. There is currently no incentive for broadband providers to provide good rural service. The universal service fees that had to be paid for wireline phone service were an attempt to subsidize this cost and make sure rural areas at least had connectivity. It's a similar problem to the federal highway funding formula -- more fuel efficient cars mean less gas tax revenue, which has the unintended effect of delaying infrastructure improvements. And fewer people paying universal service fees (or higher prices in general) mean that the broadband network is neglected.

    Pros I see --
    - Ends the net neutrality debate once and for all
    - Allows AT&T or whoever gets the monopoly power to invest in the network without worrying about shareholders penalizing them
    - Unintended pro might be greater levels of employment at a more stable employer.

    Cons --
    - You know, monopolies are universally evil and the free market should dictate everything
    - Everyone will pay more (but for better service)

    It seems to me that re-forming AT&T or similar is the best way to deal with this ongoing problem. It's not perfect but it does have advantages.

  • by geminidomino ( 614729 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:10PM (#48351817) Journal

    Did he actually support regulating it as a utility, or did he support that bullshit "hybrid" proposal that essentially leaves us where we are now, so we'll take our fake little cookie and STFU about it.

  • by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Monday November 10, 2014 @02:52PM (#48352269)

    Would much rather see legislation focus on promoting last mile fiber infrastructure any ISP can compete to light up on a fair and equal basis.

    That Net neutrality is even an issue is a symptom of larger problem of market failure. As long as the only viable ISP in town is a national cable company you can legislate till your blue in the face customers are still going to get fucked over as long as there remains no serious alternative.

Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.

Working...