|
The internet has had fast lanes for nearly 20 years - it's direct transit arrangements that cut out transit networks and means large companies get the best speeds and latency.
|
# ? May 4, 2014 23:01 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:13 |
|
Install Windows posted:The internet has had fast lanes for nearly 20 years - it's direct transit arrangements that cut out transit networks and means large companies get the best speeds and latency. Also, paying ISPs to mirror your content on their edge servers. Net neutrality is about not putting artificial restriction between a subscriber and a website. It says nothing about a website paying more to be hosted everywhere.
|
# ? May 4, 2014 23:10 |
|
Relevant to the (idiotic) discussion about why the revolving door is good and the juvenile belief that officials are un-bribable: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/23155418121/elected-officials-get-average-1452-salary-increase-when-they-take-lobbying-job.shtml quote:Elected Officials Get An Average 1,452% Salary Increase When They Take A Lobbying Job As long as people like Wheeler and his coterie serve their masters, they will always get a big payout in the end.
|
# ? May 4, 2014 23:46 |
|
Legislators are underpaid for their qualifications. I make more than anyone in Congress and I am considered a relatively junior lawyer.
|
# ? May 5, 2014 00:28 |
|
Kalman posted:Legislators are underpaid for their qualifications. I make more than anyone in Congress and I am considered a relatively junior lawyer. Not all congresspeople are lawyers, but it's kind of average pay for white collar work. A couple shares of BRK.A are well more than their yearly salary and those have substantial growth potential to boot.
|
# ? May 5, 2014 00:35 |
|
Kalman posted:Legislators are underpaid for their qualifications. I make more than anyone in Congress and I am considered a relatively junior lawyer. You might also want to self-examine a bit regarding your views on the "impartiality of lawyers" (studies show that personal political affiliation is a strong predictor of Judicial practice ... unless this has changed substantially since I lost access to journals * ), and the (underinformed, and/or self-defensive) idea that people do not have their behavior changed by large piles of money. * Some public articles: Affiliation: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/us/judges-rulings-follow-partisan-lines.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1952531?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104109026843 Money: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/11/when-businesses-give-judges-money-they-usually-get-the-rulings-they-want/ That is all an aside from the actual law-creating lobbying industry. The usual thread trolls aside, the idea that the multi-million dollar revolving door is not determining the direction of legislation is a dead horse that died from idiocy. Money absolutely influences the outcomes, by influencing that actors. Only someone that has never cracked open a social/behavioral psych text, someone with a personality disorder, or someone that lives in a proverbial basement could claim, without sarcasm, irony, or dishonesty, that humans are robots, change programming based on decisions that they make every morning, and are immune to influence.
|
# ? May 5, 2014 01:24 |
|
FRINGE posted:Considering the landscape of public finance, and median wages in America, "only making $150,000" is not a good hand-wavey excuse for the kind of corruption you are implicitly accepting. That wasn't my point. My point was that "congressmen make 10x as much when they leave office!" is one of those facts that sounds bad until you realize that if they had never been in office many of them would still be making that kind of money. Is it corruption when an IRS lawyer goes to a firm to practice tax law and gets their pay tripled? quote:You might also want to self-examine a bit regarding your views on the "impartiality of lawyers" (studies show that personal political affiliation is a strong predictor of Judicial practice ... unless this has changed substantially since I lost access to journals * ), and the (underinformed, and/or self-defensive) idea that people do not have their behavior changed by large piles of money. The only people who are surprised by this are idiots who think that legal issues have a single correct outcome. They don't, which is why judges appointed by Democrats (who generally subscribe to more liberal judicial philosophies) tend to vote that way, while judges appointed by Republicans (conservative legal philosophies, oddly enough) vote that way. Is that because they aren't impartial, or because they believe that the law should be interpreted differently? (It's the latter, fyi.). Do people vote the same way as their donors want because they got bought or because people donate money to those with an existing inclination to vote that way? (More the latter than people think.) Lobbying isn't about money, or revolving doors. It's about personal relationships. If I, as a Senator, never vote the way you want me to, I will still find someone who liked the way I voted who will hire me for the relationships I have because that's how I can be effective as a lobbyist. Same goes for staff. All of that is totally separate from the issue of whether lawyers adopt their clients's views. (They don't, though sometimes they are inclined to take clients whose views match their own. I disagree with a number of my clients views as to what's the best direction for law. Doesn't matter, I represent them, not myself.) End of the day Wheeler is still going to implement stronger net neutrality than if he tried to do common carrier because it will actually go through quickly and not be struck down, whereas common carrier would take a decade before they could even start defending against the lawsuits. But yeah, it's because he lobbied for the cable and wireless industries once upon a time, not because it's the right way to implement net neutrality given the court decisions.
|
# ? May 5, 2014 02:21 |
|
Kalman posted:Is it corruption when an IRS lawyer goes to a firm to practice tax law and gets their pay tripled? If they handled cases in which that firm was involved, then yes. I mean, if these were two law firms we were talking about here, a lawyer striking a sweetheart deal for the other guy and then retiring and immediately joining the opposing firm would be pretty unseemly. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:40 on May 5, 2014 |
# ? May 5, 2014 02:33 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If they handled cases in which that firm was involved, then yes. Yes but as that involves the courts its easy to see and prevent. Patent attorneys/agents do similar things.
|
# ? May 5, 2014 03:05 |
|
Anyone that has worked at an ISP will (probably) already more or less know this, but its a current commentary on the behavior of US carriers - by one of the (more serious) carriers. http://bgr.com/2014/05/06/comcast-internet-service-criticism-twc-cablevision-level-3/ quote:Level 3 calls out Comcast, TWC and others for ‘deliberately harming’ their own broadband service Long version: http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-internet-middleman/ quote:...
|
# ? May 7, 2014 03:03 |
|
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/7/fcc-occupy-neutrality.htmlquote:Internet libertarians calling for the equal treatment of all Internet data have camped out in front of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington, D.C., saying they won’t quit their Occupy-style protest until the regulator stands up for Net neutrality. The only group that could possibly smell worse than Occupy after a few days would be a group of "internet libertarians".
|
# ? May 8, 2014 18:16 |
|
Do these libertarians not see the irony in demanding a government committee regulate private business in the interest of the consumer? Surely they understand they're asking for the state to dictate what a set of businesses may or may not do with their property. I'm all for more people behind the cause but god drat.
|
# ? May 8, 2014 20:39 |
|
FAUXTON posted:Do these libertarians not see the irony in demanding a government committee regulate private business in the interest of the consumer? Surely they understand they're asking for the state to dictate what a set of businesses may or may not do with their property. It's probably the same philosophical idea behind libertarians supporting right-to-work legislation. Given that the government has disturbed the free market with Taft-Hartley, further regulation can actually (in their mind) increase individual freedom. Similarly, given that the cable companies already enjoy a privileged legal status that allows them to maintain a local monopoly, additional net-neutrality regulations can make the market act closer to the way it would if the government just got out of the way entirely.
|
# ? May 8, 2014 22:02 |
|
FRINGE posted:Anyone that has worked at an ISP will (probably) already more or less know this, but its a current commentary on the behavior of US carriers - by one of the (more serious) carriers. It's a pretty accurate general picture but the devil is in the details on the peering agreements. Basically, Netflix was getting a better rate with other Tier 1 providers like Level3 and Cogent. This saturated their peering links with Verizon and Comcast. There's suppose to be some gentleman's agreement in peering where the exchange of traffic should be symmetrical. If one side of the output traffic gets larger than the input than the other side might not feel too great about that. If Level3 is pushing hotter traffic than the other accused ISPS, what's the incentive of say Verizon or Comcast to expand the capacity of the interconnection speed? None, since it's going to further saturate their networks so they intentionally let the links rot by mulling with their peers on adding additional peer links. Level3 is complaining now because what Comcast and Verizon has done is cut them out as the middleman between Netflix and them. Nothing like anti competitive practices. FRINGE posted:It was fraud. If you want to dig theres a ~400 page ebook that will get into the whole mess. Most telcos are more interested in paying short term payouts than invest in long term infrastructure. You saw this from Verizon's change in deployment strategy and spinning off their DSL to sucker ISPs. Another example was Qwest aka Centurylink lack of anything due to paying down their debt. The one story that amuses me the most is the story in West Va. Basically, WVA politicians have no clue and hires consultants who tells them to buy lots of expensive routers(campus grade) and put it in like a 50 person public library. The link I have is the first I could google.
|
# ? May 9, 2014 03:48 |
|
CheeseSpawn posted:Most telcos are more interested in paying short term payouts than invest in long term infrastructure. You saw this from Verizon's change in deployment strategy and spinning off their DSL to sucker ISPs. Another example was Qwest aka Centurylink lack of anything due to paying down their debt. A great example of this is how Verizon's sold off tons of their landline phone/dsl/fios territory in rural New England and the whole state of West Virginia to other providers.
|
# ? May 9, 2014 03:59 |
|
Install Windows posted:A great example of this is how Verizon's sold off tons of their landline phone/dsl/fios territory in rural New England and the whole state of West Virginia to other providers. When did this happen? I can't find anything online about it. Can you link it?
|
# ? May 9, 2014 06:08 |
|
Truecon420 posted:When did this happen? I can't find anything online about it. Can you link it? http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/01/41086.htm dslreports.com has some info as well if you search through their site.
|
# ? May 9, 2014 06:51 |
|
Truecon420 posted:When did this happen? I can't find anything online about it. Can you link it? http://www.ibew.org/verizon-frontier/thefacts.html quote:(2009) http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7574975 quote:Verizon Communications vz says it has reached a deal to shed its traditional telephone line business in 14 states in a deal worth $8.6 billion. http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/verizon-to-slow-fios-roll-out-sell-off-midwest-and-west-coast-services/ quote:(2010) It was a normal corporate slash-and-burn-and-steal-the-tax-money-along-the-way game. But the FCC watched so it was ok. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizons-Favorite-TaxDodging-Tactic-May-Soon-Be-Illegal-107602 http://www.pcworld.com/article/186250/article.html quote:As we discussed last week, Verizon's taking increasing heat of its use of sophisticated financial tricks that allow the carrier to unload unwanted assets and debt without having to pay taxes. The problem has traditionally been that this financial maneuver (known as a Reverse Morris Trust) has resulted in bankruptcies for the companies either being spun off or used as acquisition partners, and a lot of headaches for broadband consumers. quote:Verizon Communication's proposed sell-off of 4.8 million rural phone lines in 14 states to Frontier Communications will saddle the smaller telecom firm with a huge amount of debt and should be rejected by the government, two U.S. lawmakers said Thursday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Morris_Trust http://businessfinancemag.com/blog/time-call-end-reverse-morris-trusts They had some problems with "the usual plan" though. quote:s Verizon now attempts to sell 6 million DSL users across 14 states to Frontier using the same method, they've found their favorite tax trick has been made illegal under a House version of a new federal jobs bill: Frontier is still a (years long) developing story. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/12/30/frontier-communications-may-be-hiding-weakness/ quote:(2011) http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/charts/charts.asp?ticker=FTR Some of Verizons other scams: http://www.speedmatters.org/blog/archive/proposed-verizon-frontier-merger-bad-for-consumers/ quote:Verizon is abandoning rural America and leaving a broad swath of destruction in its wake. Verizon sold its telephone lines in Hawaii. The result: consumers received terrible service quality and Hawaiian Telecom went bankrupt. Verizon sold its lines in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont to tiny FairPoint. The result: terrible service quality and FairPoint is nearly bankrupt. Verizon spun off Idearc - its Yellow Pages operation. The result: bankruptcy. The August 11th Wall Street Journal stated "In all, these companies have lost upward of $13 billion in value and counting." The Journal continued "...[Verizon's CEO] extracted prices that literally sucked the life out of the buyers." As usual - history proves the freemarkettards to be wrong. For fun: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-cable-companies-wont-tell-you-1354552919366
|
# ? May 9, 2014 06:57 |
|
CheeseSpawn posted:It's a pretty accurate general picture but the devil is in the details on the peering agreements. Basically, Netflix was getting a better rate with other Tier 1 providers like Level3 and Cogent. This saturated their peering links with Verizon and Comcast. But Comcast customers are the ones consuming these extra bandwidth right? Like what are they paying for if Comcast doesn't pay or peer with L3? Like why is it significant if the world doesn't want stuff hosted by Comcast, thus giving them an uneven ratio? That's the up/dl ratio they sale to home user. I guess if you can force the credit card model, you should. Femur fucked around with this message at 13:52 on May 9, 2014 |
# ? May 9, 2014 13:24 |
|
Femur posted:But Comcast customers are the ones consuming these extra bandwidth right? Like what are they paying for if Comcast doesn't pay or peer with L3? I really dont want to jump into ISP peering but I'd suggest you'd research into it. It can be convoluted which is why it's an ongoing issue today in settlements between ISPs. Don't conflate peer traffic with an individual user traffic. Peering traffic can be viewed as the total aggregate of the end user traffic to a common destination on another ISP network. Your upload and download speeds is what the ISP believes their network infrastructure can handle and get make some profit. Peering traffic is practically transparent to the end user until there is congestion or disruption. Netflix went with other Tier 1 providers because they offered a better rate. So their peering links to VZ got saturated since the transit link is like few 10gig links per POP market. VZ or Comcast notices this imbalance and is also jealous that they didnt score the money with Netflix. As level 3 has stated, VZ and Comcast just let the peering links saturate and their own end users get hosed who complain to netflix when there's nothing they can do unless they also pay Comcast and Verizon to be CDNs on their network. So now Netflix pays twice and loses out. Also VZ was offering Redbox to try and compete with netflix, you cant tell me that VZ was jumping at the heel to upgrade their saturated peer links due to netflix? The argument is that Netflix has to pay comcast or verizon to host in their network to get a decent stream to their end users. You, as a end user, might not care because you get to see your movies without issues again. Verizon wins because they dont have to worry about their peer links and they can also tack on additional fees for no reason because that's what they do. The interconnect they use to hook up to Netflix could have also gone to the interconnect to the peer link. Netflix is the one who really loses and would possibly endanger its future event more. Here's an okay starting place if you need a primer on net neutrality.
|
# ? May 9, 2014 15:46 |
|
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/charts-why-fcc-ditching-net-neutralityquote:Why the FCC Is Ditching Net Neutrality
|
# ? May 11, 2014 22:34 |
|
Femur posted:But Comcast customers are the ones consuming these extra bandwidth right? Like what are they paying for if Comcast doesn't pay or peer with L3? What you have to understand is that the model of a "flat" internet, where you can download any information at the speed you pay for, is completely nonsensical. Computer networks, especially large ones built on old infrastructure, simply don't behave that way. ISPs try their hardest to hang little motivational posters over all the technicalities, presenting the abstraction of a single flat internet, but they do not and cannot do a perfect job of it. The fact is, Netflix wants to deliver content in a way that the existing infrastructure cannot handle. If we say Comcast and Verizon shouldn't be allowed to ask for payment, we are saying that Netflix deserves a subsidy at their expense. Maybe they do, but that's not really "net neutrality" anymore.
|
# ? May 12, 2014 18:05 |
|
Amarkov posted:What you have to understand is that the model of a "flat" internet, where you can download any information at the speed you pay for, is completely nonsensical. Computer networks, especially large ones built on old infrastructure, simply don't behave that way. ISPs try their hardest to hang little motivational posters over all the technicalities, presenting the abstraction of a single flat internet, but they do not and cannot do a perfect job of it. Is that even what the debate is about though? Everyone understands peerage agreements sometimes involve payments. I thought the question was whether the ISPs are allowed to discriminate in bandwidth availability over the last mile, particularly where (as in the case with Comcast/Hulu and Netflix) the ISP owns a competing service.
|
# ? May 12, 2014 18:10 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is that even what the debate is about though? Everyone understands peerage agreements sometimes involve payments. I thought the question was whether the ISPs are allowed to discriminate in bandwidth availability over the last mile, particularly where (as in the case with Comcast/Hulu and Netflix) the ISP owns a competing service. That's what "net neutrality" is commonly understood to refer to, yes. Netflix's issues are completely unrelated to conventional net neutrality. e: To be clear here, there is no last mile discrimination against Netflix. A lot of people have gotten a misleading impression, but not even Netflix itself claims that any such thing is happening. Amarkov fucked around with this message at 18:42 on May 12, 2014 |
# ? May 12, 2014 18:38 |
|
Amarkov posted:That's what "net neutrality" is commonly understood to refer to, yes. Netflix's issues are completely unrelated to conventional net neutrality. Right, but the question is, "will it?" It has been illegal until very recently for the ISPs to discriminate over the last mile and they recently won a court case, wherein they sought just that right. Saying there hasn't been any such discrimination yet is hardly reassuring. Other than that, I don't understand why we're talking about peering and a flat internet if we agree the issue is last mile discrimination. That whole topic seems inapposite to the discussion at hand.
|
# ? May 12, 2014 18:57 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:Right, but the question is, "will it?" It has been illegal until very recently for the ISPs to discriminate over the last mile and they recently won a court case, wherein they sought just that right. Saying there hasn't been any such discrimination yet is hardly reassuring. Well no, there was a quite long time with no particular rules making last mile discrimination illegal or even just fineable. Then there was a short time where it was explicitly forbidden. It's something that seems like doing it "right" (in this context the isps making sure they can implement it to get more money than setting it up and running it would cost them) is very hard, and thus why no ISPs actually did it in times where the legal aspect would be wide open. They can get most of the benefit by simply convincing various big net businesses to hook up directly, a business pattern that's served them great since the 90s. A TON of the reporting out there conflates that stuff with last mile discrimination, often because the esteemed journalists barely understand what's going on.
|
# ? May 12, 2014 19:17 |
|
KernelSlanders posted:Right, but the question is, "will it?" It has been illegal until very recently for the ISPs to discriminate over the last mile and they recently won a court case, This is incorrect. From roughly 1996 to 2005 (brand x), it was believed legal. 2005-2008 (wireline policy order), it was explicitly legal for cable companies and believed legal for DSL. From 2008-2010, there were unenforceable principles that suggested the FCC didn't like the idea of discrimination but didn't create a general way to do anything about it. In 2010, Comcast successfully challenged the principles from the 2008 order. Then the FCC issued the open Internet order. That was basically immediately challenged by Verizon (and others) and effectively treated as a dead letter while being challenged. At no point in the past 20 years has there been anything resembling network discrimination being illegal in an enforceable way.
|
# ? May 12, 2014 19:26 |
|
Thank you for the explanation of exact timelines and status in each time, kalman.
|
# ? May 12, 2014 19:28 |
|
The rumbling is getting louder. https://bgr.com/2014/04/30/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/ quote:FCC chairman Wheeler is just as bad as we thought he’d be https://bgr.com/2014/05/09/fcc-net-neutrality-controversy/ quote:The FCC can’t handle all the net neutrality calls it’s getting, urges people to write emails instead https://bgr.com/2014/05/12/fcc-net-neutality-controversy-wheeler/ quote:The FCC is pretending to back down from its controversial net neutrality plan http://news.yahoo.com/mozilla-tells-fcc-grow-spine-reclassify-isps-common-153554045.html quote:Mozilla might not be as big as Google or Netflix in most consumers’ minds but as the maker of the popular Firefox browser, it does have some clout. That’s why it’s noteworthy that Mozilla on Monday recommended that the Federal Communications Commission use the “nuclear option” against Internet service providers by reclassifying them as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. https://bgr.com/2014/04/30/google-netflix-fcc-net-neutrality/ quote:Google and Netflix are considering an all-out PR blitz against the FCC’s net neutrality plan http://www.vice.com/read/former-comcast-and-verizon-attorneys-now-manage-the-fcc-and-are-about-to-kill-the-internet quote:Former Comcast and Verizon Attorneys Now Manage the FCC and Are About to Kill the Internet https://www.tytnetwork.com/2014/05/09/fcc-gets-a-taste-of-its-own-medicine-bandwidth-throttled/ quote:FCC Gets A Taste Of It’s Own Medicine – Bandwidth Throttled
|
# ? May 13, 2014 01:51 |
|
Is there an overview of what would happen if ISPs were classified as Title II providers?
|
# ? May 13, 2014 01:53 |
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Is there an overview of what would happen if ISPs were classified as Title II providers? Nothing useful (because as it turns out Title II providers are allowed to discriminate in a number of ways) and a lot of things harmful (primarily to do with regulation of rates and physical plant in a fashion that makes no sense for ISPs because it's designed for telcos.). That's the overview. Edit: AT&T's filing from today isn't a bad summary, if obviously biased. You can start at page 4, everything before that is "business people would hate it." Kalman fucked around with this message at 02:20 on May 13, 2014 |
# ? May 13, 2014 02:01 |
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Is there an overview of what would happen if ISPs were classified as Title II providers? It would provide a launching point to address certain things no matter what though (wiki): quote:Common carriers are subject to special laws and regulations that differ depending on the means of transport used, e.g. sea carriers are often governed by quite different rules from road carriers or railway carriers. In common law jurisdictions as well as under international law, a common carrier is absolutely liable for goods carried by it, with four exceptions: You should always be suspicious when the meat of the anti-neutrality argument pretty much always sources back to the industry that is pocketing all the money in the status quo though. The largest "reason" to leave everything as-is is still: quote:Opponents of net neutrality claim that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance. quote:Opposition includes the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Ayn Rand Institute. There is a reason the anti-regulation team on the forums has a great deal of overlap with the corporate apologists in every other thread. If you cant trust ATT/Verizon/Time-Warner/Comcast/Charter and the AEI ... who can you trust? The NCTA wants you to understand that regulation is bad because ... um ... well reasons? https://www.ncta.com/platform/public-policy/why-its-a-good-thing-that-broadband-isnt-a-common-carrier/ quote:... We now live in a vastly different world and broadband is a very different service than any traditional utility service... Oh well now that we all know that. Recognized names that are anti-net neutrality are being proved wrong right now. quote:Robert Pepper is senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and is the former FCC chief of policy development. He says: "The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future. That is exactly what is being hoped for by the carriers. (Also note that limiting and shaping are features that Cisco sells...) Other well known people in favor of net neutrality are being proved right year after year: quote:Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use...Most of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started out in their garages with great ideas and little capital. This is no accident. Network neutrality protections minimized control by the network owners, maximized competition and invited outsiders in to innovate. Net neutrality guaranteed a free and competitive market for Internet content. quote:Alok Bhardwaj argues that any violations to network neutrality, realistically speaking, will not involve genuine investment but rather payoffs for unnecessary and dubious services. He believes that it is unlikely that new investment will be made to lay special networks for particular websites to reach end-users faster. Rather, he believes that non-net neutrality will involve leveraging quality of service to extract remuneration from websites that want to avoid being slowed down. This last one I can promise is true. People intimately familiar with the situation who are not industry lobbyist/plants have opinions too: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/drop-regulatory-hammer-on-internet-providers-says-former-fcc-commish/ quote:Michael Copps, an FCC commissioner from 2001 to 2011 (and acting chairman for several months in 2009), is proof that not every former FCC member becomes a lobbyist for the industries the commission regulates. The only commission member to vote against allowing the Comcast/NBC Universal merger, Copps is now a self-described public interest advocate who leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 10:46 on May 13, 2014 |
# ? May 13, 2014 10:41 |
|
quote:By Wheeler’s own rules, this situation would be perfectly fine because ISPs wouldn’t be actively degrading traffic for anyone who doesn’t pay them a toll — rather, they’d just be keeping them at the same speed while putting the big incumbent companies’ speeds into hyperdrive. This would in effect allow for companies to engage in a kind of passive aggressive discrimination that would leave upcoming disruptive startups at a disadvantage if they’re trying to go head-to-head with bigger Internet companies. Where have I heard this sort of thing before? Oh yeh, with inflation adjusted wages not-exactly-falling-but-definitely-falling-behind. So basically we're facing a century of DSL-speed internet to-the-home while anyone that "matters" gets the latest and greatest technology.
|
# ? May 13, 2014 11:01 |
|
Amarkov posted:That's what "net neutrality" is commonly understood to refer to, yes. Netflix's issues are completely unrelated to conventional net neutrality. KernelSlanders posted:Right, but the question is, "will it?" It has been illegal until very recently for the ISPs to discriminate over the last mile and they recently won a court case, wherein they sought just that right. Saying there hasn't been any such discrimination yet is hardly reassuring. When you say last mile, that means from the provider's pop through most likely existing infrastructure to your house or apartment. There is no discrimination there, it's more at the transit/peering points. Vox has been some great stuff lately so I'll post these here. Everything you need to know about network neutrality quote:
beyond-net-neutrality-the-new-battle-for-the-future-of-the-internet. quote:Yet interconnection disputes are generally treated as a distinct issue from network neutrality. Neither the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order, which the courts struck down earlier this year, nor FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's new proposal, would govern this kind of interconnection dispute. Wheeler has said that he intends to monitor the interconnection situation closely, but he hasn't put forward any concrete proposals to address the issue. To be fair, Netflix was trying to be cost efficient or cheap and they got smacked down by Comcast and Verizon.
|
# ? May 13, 2014 13:51 |
|
The vote happened. It doesn't seem like the actual text is released yet, but the press releases are out.quote:The FCC proposes to rely on a legal blueprint set out by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its January decision in Verizon v. FCC, using the FCC’s authority to promote broadband deployment to all Americans under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At the same time, the Commission will seriously consider using its authority under the telecommunications regulation found in Title II of the Communications Act. In addition, the Notice:
|
# ? May 15, 2014 19:25 |
|
The vote to open a rule making happened, not the vote on a final rule.
|
# ? May 15, 2014 19:33 |
|
Right, didn't mean to imply otherwise. When I said text I meant to be talking about the text of the notice. Which has since been put up here.
|
# ? May 15, 2014 23:06 |
|
At least we can all rest easy in knowing that we can vote the FCC out if they don't choose the right way.
|
# ? May 16, 2014 03:33 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:At the end of the day Congress doesn't have the power to prevent the President from ordering movement of the troops (and the prisoners under their control). He is the Commander in Chief and has ultimate control over the military, Congress being able to take underhanded control of the military by micromanaging funding and cutting off funding for individual troop orders that they disagree with pretty much undermines the whole "commander in chief" bit. Can you imagine how that would go in an actual war? Republicans demand that Fire Base Charlie remain manned and cut off funding for allowing troops to retreat from that position? You would be surprised. The military has flushed millions, possibly billions of dollars, and I personally know dozens of killed and wounded due to Congressional funding requirements. One such requirement is that the military was not allowed to build any sort of permanent structures on their bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is why you end up with tents and sheet-metal walled containers that do nothing to protect the occupants from blast or shrapnel damage. Consequently, you still have people living on 10+ year old FOBs in tents and lovely wobbly plywood sheds instead of brick buildings (or even the old WW2/Korea era corrugated metal huts which could be piled high with sandbags) and getting hit by mortars and rockets and shrapnel. I know too many people who were wounded or killed from that exact thing. Even the KBR/Halliburton C-huts from Kosovo would have been better, and two massive FOBs of those were built in less than 2 years. Another such requirement was that the military was not permitted to purchase tools and light utility vehicles (pick-up trucks and four/six-wheeled Polaris utility vehicles), which they generally needed to do their jobs on the base, especially later in the war as Humvees and such started to be replaced by MRAPS and such. So instead the military leased these vehicles, which was what congress required, and the lease for a single year -especially for the lovely used Polarises and 15 year old Toyota Hiluxes we were getting- would have bought brand several new ones each year. (Supply-side economics ) Every time a vote came up for extending the war funding, they were literally deciding whether or not the military in the war zone would continue to receive fuel and food, and be able to pay its monthly contracts.
|
# ? May 16, 2014 15:28 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:13 |
|
So what exactly is the basic reason that broadband is so expensive in the US? Is it that ISPs are unwilling to build new infrastructure because of monopolism, or is it something else? I recently read this article claiming it's local governments setting up barriers to building new infrastructure, however the guys who wrote it run a think tank affiliated with people like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and the usual suspects. http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ Also, just to confirm, the chance of the FCC declaring ISPs common carriers is essentially zero, right? I thought that was basically the ultimate fix to this problem, or would even that be insufficient? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:01 on May 17, 2014 |
# ? May 17, 2014 01:53 |