- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
I understand the net neutrality idea that nobody should be able to have a say on what you do on it but at the end of the day, are't we using privately owned infrastructure to access it? At what point does the rule of "you will use the poo poo I own the way I want" stop applying?
(2006-2007)
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
http://www.smartergeek.com/2008/02/03/the-broadband-scandal/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240.shtml
quote:The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen.
...
Despite this, the FCC says America has the highest broadband deployment rate in the world and President Bush has set a goal of having broadband available to every U.S. home by the end of this year. What have these guys been smoking? Nothing, actually, they simply redefined "broadband" as any Internet service with a download speed of 200 kilobits per second or better. That's less than one percent the target speed set in 1994 that we were supposed to have achieved by 2000 under regulations that still remain in place. quote:The case is simple: Do you have a 45 Mbps, bi-directional service to your home, paying around $40? Do you have 500+ channels and can choose any competitive service? You paid an estimated $2000 for this product even though you did not receive it and it may never be available. Do you want your money back and the companies held accountable? quote:Now here is the really interesting part of this whole deal. Ever heard of the “$200 Billion Broadband Scandal“? Let me summarize then. Basically – back in the mid ’90s the telecos (telephone companies) were supposed to deploy fiber and fiber/coax networks to millions of homes by the year 2000 as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We are supposed to have 45 Mbs connections. All 50 states and the District of Columbia contracted with their local telecommunications utilities for the build-out. Guess what? We don’t have millions of homes with fiber do we? They all failed. The telcos made billions. quote:And where did the money go? Not towards what was promised. Bruce Kushnick, who we've written about before is now coming out with a book that details how the telcos scammed approximately $200 billion from all of us (about $2,000 per household), promising fiber to every home with symmetric 45 Mbps speeds and an open access model that would allow anyone to offer competitive internet services over that connection. This is a promise that they have not kept... though, they have kept our money. That fiber was supposed to be delivered this year (earlier in other cases), but it's not coming. The fiber that telcos are finally starting to offer is much more expensive, much slower, and locked down. In fact, after all of these promises, remember that the telcos said they wouldn't offer fiber at all, unless the FCC promised not to require them to let others offer services on it. Yet, for all of this, there's been very little outcry, or very little discussion -- and the latest moves concerning network neutrality show that the telcos are looking to take more of our money and deliver less yet again.
This is a long term strategy. They knew they would win eventually. Buying politicians is cheaper than building things.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/washingtons-revolving-door-cellular-lobby-and-fcc-have-traded-leaders/
quote:Washington’s revolving door: Cellular lobby and FCC have traded leaders
FCC is led by a former lobbyist; the lobbyists are led by former FCC leaders.
Washington, DC, has long had a revolving door through which government officials exit to become lobbyists, and lobbyists enter to become government officials.
Regulators being led by former executives from the industries they're supposed to regulate and industry groups being led by their former regulators sounds like it should be the stuff of fiction. But the Federal Communications Commission has once again proven that this phenomenon is quite real.
The CTIA Wireless Association today announced that Meredith Attwell Baker—a former FCC Commissioner and former Comcast employee—will become its president and CEO on June 2, replacing Steve Largent, a former member of Congress (and former NFL player).
Largent himself became the cellular lobby's leader when he replaced Tom Wheeler—who is now the chairman of the FCC. Wheeler is also the former president and CEO of the NCTA (National Cable & Telecommunications Association), which… wait for it… is now led by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell.
To sum up, the top cable and wireless lobby groups in the US are led by a former FCC chairman and former FCC commissioner, while the FCC itself is led by a man who formerly led both the cable and wireless lobby groups.
There's more. Baker, the new CTIA CEO, was also an employee of the CTIA before her stint as an FCC commissioner. She was a director of congressional affairs at CTIA from 1998 to 2000, and she started working for the government in 2004 when she joined the Department of Commerce. She was appointed to the FCC in 2009, voted in favor of Comcast's purchase of NBCUniversal in January 2011, and then left the government to become senior vice president of government affairs for Comcast-NBCUniversal in May 2011.
"Meredith is a perfect fit to lead CTIA going forward given her vast experience with the telecommunications industry," Dan Mead, chairman of CTIA and CEO of Verizon Wireless, said in today's announcement. "We're excited to welcome her back to the association."
Baker faces restrictions on lobbying FCC commissioners during the remainder of the Obama administration but can still lobby members of Congress.
Wheeler, who became chairman last year, was president and CEO of the CTIA from 1992 to 2004 and president and CEO of the NCTA from 1979 to 1984. Along the way, he also worked as a venture capitalist; started companies that offer cable, wireless, and video communications services; and wrote a book on President Lincoln's use of the telegraph during the Civil War.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 08:32
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 11:13
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
CTIA is also a lobbying gimmick.
quote:CTIA – The Wireless Association is an industry trade group that represents the international wireless telecommunications industry. Its members include cellular, personal communication services and enhanced specialized mobile radio providers and suppliers, and providers and manufacturers of wireless data services and products.
... The association advocates on behalf of the industry by lobbying at all levels of government.
Obamas new FCC muppet has been working on behalf of the industry, and against regulations, from the 70s until now.
Guess which guy gives no poo poo about public access, net neutrality, or consumer rights:
quote: In recognition of his work in promoting the growth and prosperity of the cable television industry and its stakeholders, he was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame. In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, he was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame.
ATTs head dickhead (Cicconi) and Comcast (using the Royal "We") are pretty happy with an anti-regulation stooge grabbing the seat though:
quote:AT&T, which lost its bid to acquire T-Mobile during the reign of outgoing FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, and which tried to implement consumer-unfriendly policies like blocking FaceTime video chats on some data plans, called Wheeler an "inspired pick to lead the FCC."
AT&T wants a lot of help from the FCC. A few months ago, it petitioned the FCC to lead a transition from traditional public switched telephone networks to all-IP telecom networks. As we've reported, AT&T wants to make this transition without any of the pesky "public utility-style" regulations that apply to old-school telephone networks. Internet co-creator Vint Cerf has warned such a loss of regulation could worsen an Internet marketplace that already has too little competition.
In congratulating Wheeler today, AT&T said it hopes the new FCC chairman will help get rid of "outdated laws" and "antiquated rules."
Now lets count the minutes before someone resorts to CTIA PR about Amber Alerts...
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 14:09
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Don't like 98% of people actually have the level of broadband specified in the act by now anyway?
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
quote:Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it.
...
When the 1996 Act was finally passed, though, the idea of video dial tone had been converted to a justification for deploying ADSL. Where telephone companies had been promising EITHER 45 mbps bidirectional service OR at least the ability to carry HDTV (nominally 20 mbps) suddenly it was an acceptable alternative to substitute ADSL, which for most users would be limited to 1.5 mbps downstream and 128 kbps upstream, which isn't today considered adequate for any video service of higher quality than YouTube.
This could all be credited to technology misadventure and forgotten if it weren't for the money. The telcos played games with state utility commissions, cutting deals with the states to deploy new technologies in exchange for "incentives," which were new charges and new ways of charging customers. One typical ploy was to offer to freeze basic telephone rates for a period of years (typically five) then deploy a bunch of new services, which would be sold on an a la carte basis. The problem with this is that it applied analog economics to what were now digital services. The cost of providing digital services is always going DOWN, not up, so the telcos that might have been forced to cut rates instead offered to freeze them, locking in an effective multiyear rate increase.
It is an ugly story of greed and poor regulation that you can read in excruciating detail in a 406-page e-book that is among this week's links.
The RBOCs cut heads, cut spending, cut construction, increased depreciation rates, failed to deliver promised services, increased telephone bills, and had booming profits as a result. Then each mega-merger brought with it new contortions that inevitably led to poorer service and higher charges. Twenty-two percent of telco equipment, for example, SIMPLY DISAPPEARED. Penalties for missing service goals were often folded into merger payments, so instead of paying the states a penalty for not doing what they had promised to, the companies paid themselves.
As just a small example of the way the phone companies took advantage of ineffectual regulation, they charged an average of $1 per month per customer to run Bellcore, the research organization set up to replace Bell Labs after the 1983 split up of AT&T. But when Bellcore was later sold and the profits from that sale distributed to the telephone companies, not to the customers, ALL BUT ONE RBOC CONTINUED THE $1 CHARGE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT NO LONGER DIRECTLY SUPPORTED ANYTHING.
...
Despite this, the FCC says America has the highest broadband deployment rate in the world ... they simply redefined "broadband" as any Internet service with a download speed of 200 kilobits per second or better quote: The FCC was (and probably still is) managed for the benefit of the companies and their lobbyists, not for you and me. And the upshot is that I could move to Japan and pay $14 per month for 100-megabit-per-second Internet service but I can't do that here and will probably never be able to.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 14:40
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
According to the FCC's latest data at least, it's 99.9% of census-Urban residents (80% of the population) and about 90% of the census-Rural residents (which are 20% of the population) for a total around 98%. With much of the remaining 2% having severe location issues leadign to things like satellite being the only "viable" option.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 14:42
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Where in Japan do you get 100mbit internet service for 2000 JPY or whatever a month? My company paid more than that for 20/10 or so in Kawasaki and it was similar in Yokohama. I somehow doubt its significantly different between the 23 wards and Kanagawa or Yokohama?
This says it was a thing too:
http://boingboing.net/2009/02/17/japan-internet-connection.html
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/the-cost-to-offer-the-worlds-fastest-broadband-20-per-home/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 14:52
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
I'm not in a location where I can read all the URLs, but are we talking about actual crimes, or things which were legal and some feel the actions shouldn't have been?
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm
http://www.muniwireless.com/2006/01/31/the-200-billion-broadband-scandal-aka-wheres-the-45mb-s-i-already-paid-for/
quote:By 2006, 86 million households should have been rewired with a fiber optic wire, capable of 45 Mbps, in both directions. -- read the promises.
The public subsidies for infrastructure were pocketed. The phone companies collected over $200 billion in higher phone rates and tax perks, about $2000 per household. quote:Broadband Scandals is a well-documented expose, 406 pages and 528 footnotes. Using the phone companies’ own words (and well as other sources), the book outlines a massive nationwide scandal that affects every aspect of state of the Internet. Not only the web but broadband, municipalities laying fiber or building wifi networks, not to mention related issues such as such as VOIP, cable services, the cost of local phone service, net neutrality, the new digital divide, and even America’s economic growth.
The fiber optic infrastructure you paid for was never delivered.
Starting in the early 1990′s, with a push from the Clinton-Gore Administration’s “Information Superhighway”, every Bell company ‚Äö?Ñ?Æ SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest ‚Äö?Ñ?Æ made commitments to rewire America, state by state. Fiber optic wires would replace the 100-year old copper wiring. The push caused techno-frenzy of major proportions. By 2006, 86 million households should have had a service capable of 45 Mbps in both directions, (to and from the customer) could handle over 500 channels of high quality video and be deployed in rural, urban and suburban areas equally. And these networks were open to ALL competition.
In order to pay for these upgrades, in state after state, the public service commissions and state legislatures acquiesced to the Bells’ promises by removing the constraints on the Bells’ profits as well as gave other financial perks. They were able to print money‚ billions of dollars per state, all collected in the form of higher phone rates and tax perks. (Note: each state is different.)
ADSL is not what was promised and paid for. It goes over the old copper wiring, can’t achieve the speed, has problems in rural areas and is mostly one-way.
0% of the Bell companies’ customers have 45 Mbps residential services.
It doesnt matter what happens, there are always profit-apologists. "History" has an expiration date you see, and if its more than a couple years old it didnt happen.
Anyone that has worked for an ISP and isnt just talking out of their rear end has seen old DSLAMS still pushing those awesome 1/1 and 1.5/256k connections over copper, even today. Theres still CE150s servicing customers in 2014.
The money was pocketed. It is an after the fact PR spin to say it was spent on other things. Profist rose, rose some more, and continue to rise. Still no door to door fiber. Still no 45M connections.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 01:25
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Yeah I've only got this 60 meg connection in the middle of the Appalachians. It's real horrible I tells ya.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 04:04
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Anyway 45 megabit connections to everyone in the country is impossible now and was impossible then. No one with any sense believed that it was going to happen, and it's not even possible in the countries with the best internet service today.
They could build it (or something more like it) if they wanted to. (Or if the government seized their fraudulent asses and made it happen.)
There is no reason that people are still being serviced over 1M DSLAMS on the same mid 1900s copper that the first modern phone lines were put on. No reason except for greed and deluded consumers guzzling the PR. Even if they wanted to be cheap they could have rolled out the now 15 year old VDSL equipment on the same lovely copper, and then it would have just meant upgrades (mostly) to the base stations and repeaters etc.
http://bgr.com/2014/01/28/att-earnings-q4-2013/
quote:AT&T rakes in $5.2 billion Q4 profit
https://venturebeat.com/2014/01/21/verizon-q4-2013-earnings/
quote:Verizon profits surged to $7.9B last quarter on strong customer growth
Between 1990-whatever and 2014 this could have been easily done. Instead they lied to everyone and counted on their vocal suckups and political plants to defend them.
Well your posts so far have been to whine about how the hyperbolic promise of a CEO
Your posts so far have been desperate defense of criminal behavior because you think the companies are neat-o.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 04:20
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
http://billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-what-happened-to-obamas-promised-net-neutrality/
quote:Bill Moyers Essay: What Happened to Obama’s Promised Net Neutrality?
Running for president in 2007, Barack Obama pledged to keep the Internet open to all, upholding the principle of Net neutrality. Now his FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, has introduced new rules that have caused an uproar among public interest groups and media reform advocates. They believe Wheeler’s proposed changes break Obama’s campaign promise and will allow providers like Verizon and Comcast to sell faster access to the Web to the highest bidder.
The problem, Bill Moyers says, is that “business and government are now so intertwined that public officials and corporate retainers are interchangeable parts of what Chief Justice John Roberts might call ‘the gratitude machine.’” FCC officials, including Wheeler, transit back and forth through the revolving door between public service and lucrative private commerce, losing sight of the greater good. But there’s still time to speak up and make your voices heard.
http://time.com/82409/wheeler-net-neutrality/
quote:Wheeler, a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist, strongly disputed the notion that his proposed Internet rules would imperil "net neutrality" [TO HIS BUDDIES IN THE INDUSTRY, NOT THE PUBLIC]
Federal Communication Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler vigorously defended his new Open Internet proposal during a speech on Wednesday, following a tsunami of criticism from advocates of “net neutrality,” the principle that consumers should have equal access to content available on the Internet.
Appearing at the annual meeting of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry lobbying group that he once led as president and CEO, Wheeler declared that “reports that we are gutting the Open Internet rules are incorrect.”
...
The most controversial aspect of Wheeler’s proposal would allow broadband providers to strike special deals with Internet companies like Netflix or Skype for preferential treatment in the “last mile” to consumers’ homes, as long as they acted in a “commercially reasonable manner subject to review on a case-by-case basis.” Such deals are different from the paid peering interconnection agreements that Netflix has recently signed with Comcast and Verizon, which would not be covered by the new rules.
Critics of these special deals charge that they would allow for Internet “fast lanes” and create a system where deep-pocketed Internet companies, also known as “edge providers,” that can afford to pay for prioritized service would have an unfair advantage over smaller companies. Such a system could stifle innovation on the Internet, critics warn, and potentially hamper the development of the next Google, Netflix or Skype.
Such criticism “misses the point,” Wheeler wrote. “The proposed rule is built to ensure that everyone has access to an Internet that is sufficiently robust to enable consumers to access the content, services and applications they demand, as well as an Internet that offers innovators and edge providers the ability to offer new products and services.”
In his blog post, Wheeler reiterated that he is not proposing that the FCC reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under the common carrier provisions of Title II of the Communications Act.
Wheeler: Dont worry bros! I definitely will not make this a Utility, and you definitely can charge extra money for last-mile penetration! *high-five* *does keg stand*
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 01:15
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
So you're just bolding random sentences at this point and hoping it will convince people of something or what?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 01:24
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
A socratic dialogue implies that both parties are actually talking instead of one googling random articles, highlighting a sentence every few paragraphs and then posting smug one liners.
Articles about Wheelers response (to his buddies) is relevant to the thread. Your smug meta questions are off topic.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 01:29
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Wheeler has lots of freinds.
http://www.vice.com/read/former-comcast-and-verizon-attorneys-now-manage-the-fcc-and-are-about-to-kill-the-internet
quote:The backgrounds of the new FCC staff have not been reported until now.
Take Daniel Alvarez, an attorney who has long represented Comcast through the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. In 2010, Alvarez wrote a letter to the FCC on behalf of Comcast protesting net neutrality rules, arguing that regulators failed to appreciate “socially beneficial discrimination.” The proposed rules, Alvarez wrote in the letter co-authored with a top Comcast lobbyist named Joe Waz, should be reconsidered.
Today, someone in Comcast’s Philadelphia headquarters is probably smiling. Alvarez is now on the other side, working among a small group of legal advisors hired directly under Tom Wheeler, the new FCC Commissioner who began his job in November.
As soon as Wheeler came into office, he also announced the hiring of former Ambassador Philip Verveer as his senior counselor. A records request reveals that Verveer also worked for Comcast in the last year. In addition, he was retained by two industry groups that have worked to block net neutrality, the Wireless Association (CTIA) and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.
In February, Matthew DelNero was brought into the agency to work specifically on net neutrality. DelNero has previously worked as an attorney for TDS Telecom, an Internet service provider that has lobbied on net neutrality, according to filings.
Around the time of Delnero’s hiring, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a former associate general counsel at Verizon, announced a new advisor by the name of Brendan Carr. Pai, a Republican, has criticized the open Internet regulations, calling them a “problem in search of a solution.” It should be of little surprise that Carr, Pai’s new legal hand, has worked for years as an attorney to AT&T, CenturyLink, Verizon, and the U.S. Telecom Association, a trade group that has waged war in Washington against net neutrality since 2006. A trail of online documents show that Carr worked specifically to monitor net neutrality regulations on behalf of some of his industry clients.
...
The revolving door, however, provides a clear and semi-legal way for businesses to directly give unlimited cash and gifts to officials who act in their favor. One of the most famous examples of this dynamic is the case of Meredith Attwell Baker, an FCC Commissioner who left her job right after voting in favor of the Comcast merger with NBC. Her next career move? She became a high-level lobbyist for Comcast, the company she had just blessed. Earlier this week, she announced her next gig, as president of CTIA, the primary wireless industry trade group. She’ll have her work cut out for her in lobbying her former colleagues. CTIA has already warned the FCC from taking up any new net neutrality regulations.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 09:16
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Lawyers always personally believe everything they argue. I mean, defense lawyers believe their clients are great people, right?
(Also, Willkie Farr is one of the better communications law groups out there - there's a reason Willkie attorney's transit back and forth from the FCC, they're exactly the people you'd want arguing on behalf of net neutrality - or against it.)
Bernie Sanders made a direct statement:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/net-neutrality
quote:
Tell the FCC: Protect the Open Internet
For years, net neutrality has prohibited big Internet corporations from favoring or blocking certain viewpoints or websites. Our free and open Internet has made invaluable contributions to democracy both here in the United States and around the world. Whether you are rich, poor, young or old, the Internet allows all people to seek out information and communicate globally.
Federal Communications Commissioner Tom Wheeler reportedly plans to vote on a rule change that would undermine the principles of net neutrality and let companies like Comcast and Verizon divide the Internet into fast and slow lanes. Under this terribly misguided proposal, the Internet as we have come to know it would cease to exist and the average American would be the big loser. We must not let private corporations turn bigger and bigger profits by putting a price tag on the free flow of ideas.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 22:37
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
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
...
For example, former Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) spent his last year in office fighting reforms to bring greater transparency to the derivatives marketplace. Almost as soon as he left office, he joined the board of a derivatives trading company and became an "advisor" to Goldman Sachs. Risky derivative trading exacerbated the financial crisis of 2008, yet we’re stuck under the laws written in part by Gregg. How much has he made from the deal? Were his actions in office influenced by relationships with his future employers?
...
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) made $19,359,927 as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies between 2006 and 2010. Tauzin retired from Congress in 2005, shortly after leading the passage of President Bush’s prescription drug expansion. He was recruited to lead PhRMA, a lobbying association for Pfizer, Bayer, and other top drug companies. During the health reform debate, the former congressman helped his association block a proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate for drug prices, a major concession that extended the policies enacted in Tauzin’s original Medicare drug-purchasing scheme. Tauzin left PhRMA in late 2010. He was paid over $11 million in his last year at the trade group. Comparing Tauzin’s salary during his last year as congressman and his last year as head of PhRMA, his salary went up 7110%.
...
Former Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) makes approximately $1.5 million a year as the chief lobbyist for the movie industry. Dodd, who retired from the Senate after 2010, was hired by the Motion Picture Association of America, the lobbying association that represents major studios like Warner Bros. and Universal Studios. Although the MPAA would not confirm with Republic Report Dodd’s exact salary, media accounts point to $1.5 million, a slightly higher figure than the previous MPAA head, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. Dodd received about a 762% raise after moving from public office to lobbying.
...
Former Congressman Steve Largent (R-OK) has made at least $8,815,741 over the years as a lobbyist for a coalition of cell phone companies and related wireless industry interests. Republic Report analyzed disclosures from CTIA-The Wireless Association, the trade group Largent leads. CTIA counts wireless companies like AT&T, HTC, and Motorola as members. Largent left Congress in 2002, when his pay was about $150,000 as a public official. His move to the CTIA trade association, where he earns slightly more than $1.5 million a year according to the latest disclosure form, raised his salary by 912%.
...
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
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
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
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
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
May 6, 2014
Level 3, a tier 1 Internet service provider based in Colorado, has called out Comcast, Charter, Time Warner Cable and other top U.S. ISPs for “deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers.”
In a thorough post that goes into great detail about the networks that deliver Internet service to homes and businesses across the globe, Level 3′s VP of Content and Media Mark Taylor explained “peering,” a term that has been pulled into the mainstream media recently. Netflix, as we’re sure you have read, has agreed to pay certain ISPs a “ransom” in order to reduce peering congestion and deliver faster streaming video to its subscribers.
“Level 3 builds a route map of the Internet by connecting its tens of thousands of customers together and allowing them to communicate. So a Level 3 customer in Hong Kong can communicate with a Level 3 customer in Sao Paulo. But to complete the map we also need to fill in interconnection to everyone who isn’t a direct Level 3 customer, so that our customers can also communicate with those who are not our customers,” Taylor explained on Level 3′s blog. “We do that through connections to other networks and their customers. This latter sort of connectivity is often called peering. Peering connections allow for exchanges of traffic between the respective customers of each peer.”
The executive went on to explain the process in great detail, and also to explain some issues that might cause peering congestion and slow down Internet service for subscribers.
“Level 3 has 51 peers that are interconnected in 45 cities through over 1,360 10 Gigabit Ethernet ports (plus a few smaller ports). The distribution of that capacity with individual peers ranges from a single 10 Gigabit Ethernet port to 148 ports,” Taylor wrote.
He then said that the average utilization across those interconnected ports is 36%. Utilization at 12 of Level 3′s ports is in excess of 90%, however, which is saturated and causes service slowdowns and packet loss. Level 3 is currently working with six of those 12 partner ISPs to upgrade service and resolve issues.
The remaining six peers, however, refuse to work with Level 3 to address the congestion. These ports have been saturated for more than a year according to Taylor, but the ISPs still refuse to work toward a resolution.
“They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers,” Taylor wrote. “They are not allowing us to fulfil the requests their customers make for content.”
Which six ISPs are we talking about here? Taylor stops short of naming them, but he still manages to shame them.
“Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in Europe,” he said. “There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in their local market. In countries or markets where consumers have multiple Broadband choices (like the UK) there are no congested peers.”
Taylor also noted that the ISPs in question “happen to rank dead last in customer satisfaction across all industries in the U.S.,” and he linked to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, which regularly ranks ISPs including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter, Cox, Verizon and Cablevision at the bottom of customer satisfaction surveys.
Long version: http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-internet-middleman/
quote:...
Level 3 has 51 peers that are interconnected in 45 cities through over 1,360 10 Gigabit Ethernet ports (plus a few smaller ports). The distribution of that capacity with individual peers ranges from a single 10 Gigabit Ethernet port to 148 ports. The average number of interconnection cities per peer is five, but ranges from one to 20.
The average utilization across all those interconnected ports is 36 percent. So you might be asking – what is all the fuss about with peering? And why did we write the Chicken post? Well, our peers fall into two broad categories; global or regional Internet Services providers like Level 3 (those “middlemen” listed in the Renesys report), and Broadband consumer networks like AT&T. If I use that distinction as a filter to look at congested ports, the story looks very different.
A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers. Six of those 12 have a single congested port, and we are both (Level 3 and our peer) in the process of making upgrades – this is business as usual and happens occasionally as traffic swings around the Internet as customers change providers.
That leaves the remaining six peers with congestion on almost all of the interconnect ports between us. Congestion that is permanent, has been in place for well over a year and where our peer refuses to augment capacity. They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfil the requests their customers make for content.
Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in Europe. There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in their local market. In countries or markets where consumers have multiple Broadband choices (like the UK) there are no congested peers.
...
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 03:03
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
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)
...
Why is West Virginia especially vulnerable?
Verizon had already committed to increase fiber investment throughout West Virginia. Given Frontier’s high debt load and potential problems with integrating West Virginia into new systems, Frontier’s ability to build high speed internet is questionable. There is a significant risk that Frontier will run into delays and cost overruns when it replaces Verizon’s operational, support and administrative systems Frontier will have to replace all of Verizon’s operational and back office systems with new systems, on the day the deal closes. This is a daunting task that led to disasters in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Hawaii, which didn’t even attempt the day one cutover of operational and back office systems that Frontier says it will undertake in West Virginia.
Is it true that Verizon will avoid paying any taxes on the $3.3 billion it will get from the Frontier deal?
Yes. Verizon will avoid paying taxes on $3.3 billion by using a tax loophole called a Reverse Morris Trust (RMT). This is “loophole” allows businesses to reorganize and sell assets without having to pay taxes. Thus, taxpayers are subsidizing this transaction at a time when money is needed to expand broadband and expand jobs. Verizon could only obtain "tax free" treatment by selling its operations to a smaller company—no matter the consequences to consumers, workers or communities.
Who has to approve the deal?
The transaction must obtain the approval of the Federal Communications Commission and nine state regulatory agencies, including West Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, Washington, Oregon and, possibly, Pennsylvania.
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.
...
Under the deal, Verizon will create a separate company for the assets being sold. That company will simultaneously be spun off to shareholders and merged with Frontier. It will carry $3.3 billion of debt that will be assumed by Frontier.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/verizon-to-slow-fios-roll-out-sell-off-midwest-and-west-coast-services/
quote:(2010)
If Verizon Communications Inc. hasn’t already started wiring your city or town with its FiOS fiber-optic TV and broadband service, chances are you won’t get it.
... But Verizon is nearing the end of its program to replace copper phone lines with optical fibers that provide much higher Internet speeds and TV service. Its focus is now on completing the network in the communities where it’s already secured “franchises,” the rights to sell TV service that rivals cable, said spokeswoman Heather Wilner.
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:
quote:A provision in a federal jobs bill that outlaws a tax loophole used in Verizon's bid to sell its telephone landlines to Frontier Communications Corp. in West Virginia and 13 other states could derail the sale. On Wednesday, the U.S. House passed legislation that includes a ban on a tax shelter -- known as a Reverse Morris Trust -- that Verizon and other companies have used to spin off operations tax-free. Verizon plans to use the Reverse Morris Trust as part of its $8.6 billion deal with Frontier.
Frontier is still a (years long) developing story.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/12/30/frontier-communications-may-be-hiding-weakness/
quote:(2011)
Frontier Communications May Be Hiding Weakness
Frontier Communications (NYS: FTR) carries $8.5 billion of goodwill and other intangibles on its balance sheet. Sometimes goodwill, especially when it's excessive, can foreshadow problems down the road. Could this be the case with Frontier Communications?
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
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/charts-why-fcc-ditching-net-neutrality
quote:Why the FCC Is Ditching Net Neutrality
Charts: The "open internet" is no match for revolving doors and buckets of cash.
...
Obama's first pick to lead the FCC, Julius Genachowski, was initially a strong proponent of net neutrality. Genachowski made a video explaining why he wanted to reclassify ISPs as "telecommunications services," a legally bulletproof way of preserving an open internet that had long been favored by consumer groups. But he ultimately backed off in the face of an onslaught of lobbying by ISPs. By then their main trade group, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), was spending about 95 times more money lobbying the FCC than the Internet Association, which represents the tech companies that favor net neutrality.
...
Last May, two months after Genachowski stepped down, Obama replaced him with Tom Wheeler, a veteran telecommunications lobbyist who'd served as president of the NCTA before taking the helm of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CITA), the lobbying arm of the wireless industry. Obama called him "the Bo Jackson of telecom." The New Yorker's John Cassidy suggested that a more apt sports metaphor might have been "to compare him to one of the lawyers who helped finagle a lucrative anti-trust exemption for professional football and baseball."
Did Obama like that Wheeler represented two of the most powerful groups that oppose net neutrality, or could he have picked him for some other reason? See below.
...
With a few notable exceptions, you can assume that tech companies, consumer groups, and content producers favor net neutrality, while ISPs oppose it. Which is to say, if the lobbyists have their way, the future clearly lies in net discrimination.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 22:34
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
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
... In exchange for giving Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T something they’ve wanted very badly for a long time, Wheeler says that the FCC will have power to enforce certain rules that will prevent ISPs from blocking or degrading traffic or from “degrading overall service so as to force consumers and content companies to a higher priced tier.”
All of which sounds nice, but this is the kind of genie that really can’t be put back in the bottle once it’s been opened and it gives ISPs’ legal teams way too much room to distort the rules. Allowing ISPs to create Internet “fast lanes” where they can extract tolls in exchange for giving certain big companies faster pipes for their data gives them much more incentive to invest in those faster pipes since they’ll deliver much more value to the ISPs. The “regular lane” of the Internet, meanwhile, is much more likely to suffer from comparative neglect and to constantly fall farther behind the “fast lane.”
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.
The bottom line in this case is that we’re actually better off doing nothing right now than adopting Wheeler’s proposal. Yes, ISPs at the moment are free to block and degrade traffic to their hearts’ content thanks to a court ruling earlier this year that overturned the FCC’s net neutrality rules for wireline ISPs. But at least that discrimination isn’t allowed with the express written consent of the FCC, as similar discrimination would be under Wheeler’s proposal.
As bad as it may seem to just let ISPs do whatever they want, that’s sadly the preferable option for the time being until we get an FCC chairman who is actually interested in preserving the Internet in its current form.
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
... This seemingly indicates that either the FCC is being flooded with calls about net neutrality that its operators can’t handle them all or it just is tired of hearing everyone call about net neutrality and would like to see them send emails instead. Either way, it looks as though people are speaking up about the issue.
This week has been a very bad one for Wheeler’s proposal that would create Internet “fast lanes” that would let Internet service providers charge companies more to ensure faster traffic delivery. Several big-name tech companies this week — including Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Netflix — wrote a joint letter to the FCC telling it to back off any plan that would create a two-tiered Internet and instead urged it to adopt policies that would not only protect against blocking of websites but also the Internet’s traditional architecture where all packets are delivered on a first-come, first-serve basis.
What’s more, two FCC commissioners have come out and said that they want to delay voting on Wheeler’s proposal, which is scheduled to take place at an FCC meeting on May 15th. However, with at least two commissioners seeking to delay the vote and expressing opposition to parts of Wheeler’s plan, it remains unclear whether Wheeler will even have the votes to get his plan passed even if he decides not to table it.
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
... However, just because Wheeler is signaling an intention to back down, that doesn’t mean that he actually is. The Journal’s sources say that Wheeler’s newest plan “is sticking to the same basic approach but will include language that would make clear that the FCC will scrutinize the deals to make sure that the broadband providers don’t unfairly put non-paying companies’ content at a disadvantage.”
In other words, the new plan will still allow ISPs to strike deals with big players such as Google and Netflix to make sure that their content gets delivered on a fast lane while insisting that the FCC will have the right to make sure that these deals aren’t putting competitors at a disadvantage. Basically, this is the exact same endgame as the one in Wheeler’s original plan, only this time he’s decided to add some more language to assure us that the plan really isn’t supposed to do what he’s designed it to do.
These kinds of cosmetic changes that Wheeler will reportedly propose aren’t likely to quiet critics of the FCC’s plan, but it is interesting to see that he at least feels some need to pretend to cave to outside pressure.
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
More bad news for the Federal Communications Commission: It looks like the coalition that came together to kill the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) might be getting back together to rally against its proposed new net neutrality rules. The Wall Street Journal reports that while big tech firms such as Google, Netflix and Yahoo have kept their powder dry so far when it comes to the FCC’s new rules, “officials inside the companies who follow government policy say they are considering mobilizing a grass-roots campaign to rally public opinion around the idea that the Internet’s pipes should be equally open for all.”
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
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
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:
An act of nature
An act of the public enemies
Fault or fraud by the shipper
An inherent defect in the goods
... An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason. As of 2007, the status of Internet service providers as common carriers and their rights and responsibilities is widely debated (network neutrality).
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...
... Part of what we need to do as a nation is to encourage innovation and vibrant marketplaces...
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.
—Lawrence Lessig & Robert W. McChesney
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.
On Wednesday, Copps wrote a blog post titled, "The Buck Stops At The FCC," calling upon the commission to "reclassify broadband as 'telecommunications' under Title II of the Communications Act." The effect of that move would be to designate Internet service providers as "common carriers," making them subject to increased FCC regulation.
Such a move would bring fierce opposition from telecommunications companies and their friends in Congress. But the FCC's previous failure to reclassify broadband blew up in its face when a court ruled that that the agency couldn't impose anti-blocking and anti-discrimination regulations on ISPs because they aren't classified as common carriers. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 10:46 on May 13, 2014
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 10:41
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
So what exactly is the basic reason that broadband is so expensive in the US?
Then they sit back and laugh while the idiotlogically motivated people do PR for them for free. (Sometimes here on this very forum!)
Even Forbes is on to this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rajsabhlok/2014/05/13/forget-net-neutrality-why-are-americans-getting-screwed-by-internet-fees/
quote:So what’s the deal — why do we pay so much for the Internet? The simple answer is supply and demand. There are limited suppliers (i.e., ISPs). In many markets, there is only one broadband provider, typically AT&T or Comcast. Essentially, these two providers form a duopoly that controls the market price for service. The FCC proposal only feeds this duopoly.
According to a New America Foundation report, the most affordable and fastest connections are available in markets where there are at least three providers to choose from. Unfortunately, only nine percent of Americans have that option.
quote:
This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom.
...
...
"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight."
Ignore the idiots defending deregulation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/28/the-price-of-internet-is-too-high/
quote:Americans are still paying through the nose for what residents in some cities overseas get at a substantially lower rate.
In American cities like New York, you can buy a 500 Mbps connection that's 58 times faster than the U.S. average. Here's the catch: It'll cost you $300 a month, according to the New America Foundation's Cost of Connectivity report. In Amsterdam, however, the same connection can be had for around $86.
The same discrepancies hold when you move down the speed ladder, said New America's Nick Russo.
"People may be opting for similar speeds [compared to foreigners] — and that may be what the average speed is — but they're often paying more for it in the United States," he said.
In Seoul, a triple-play package for phone, TV and Internet at speeds of 100 Mbps for both uploads and downloads will run you $35 a month. By contrast, Verizon will charge New Yorkers $70 a month for a triple-play package with Internet at 15 Mbps down and 5 Mbps up on its FiOS service. Verizon's Internet is both more expensive and slower at the same time. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 02:50 on May 17, 2014
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 02:47
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
It's Fishmech.
... I don't know if the fact that his noise dominates this thread means the current neutrality crisis is serious or underplayed.
Someone who thinks that you have a psychological problem for not watching enough tv...
Its also the same Corporate Defense Squad members in every thread. It doesnt matter if its food, medicine, internet, taxes... their response is canned: "You dont 'understand' because I am smart and you are crazy and corporations are cool!"
If you're saying that they correctly find wrong details in an argument, then I think the problem would lay with the person making arguments that contain wrong details. Claiming things are wrong that aren't wrong would be a different matter of course.
Its a persuasion method that works on people that dont know much about a topic. It is also lovely, and only certain kinds of people could possibly stick to a single trick for years on end. In real life you call those people "people with poor interpersonal communication skills". And thats assuming that they are honest to begin with.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304908304579565880257774274quote:A number of companies sell gear that would let Internet providers segregate traffic and bill for different speeds. They include Sandvine, Allot Communications Ltd. ALLT +3.62% , Cisco Systems Inc. CSCO +0.79% and Procera Networks Inc. PKT +0.77%
...
"When there is congestion, everything suffers," said Andrei Elefant, chief executive of Allot. "We just make sure that some types of traffic will suffer less."
In a nutshell.
"Never improve the structure again! Just charge more for the same dwindling supply! Pocket all the BONUSES from your acute business acumen!"
"Oh you have a degree in "business"... "acumen" means "smartyness"!"
From the ACLU page on the topic:
https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality
quote:...
Q. What do you mean, they might "manipulate our data"?
A. New technologies now allow telecom companies to scrutinize every piece of information we send or receive online...
...– websites, email, videos, Internet phone calls, or data generated by games or social networks. And they can program the computers that route that information to interfere with the data flow by slowing down or blocking traffic and communicators that they don't like (and speeding up traffic they do like or that pays them extra for the privilege).
Imagine if the phone company could mess with your calls every time you tried to order pizza from Domino's, because Pizza Hut is paying them to route their calls first.
Q. They're not allowed to do that, are they?
A. The phone company isn't allowed to do that, and, for a while, the FCC said broadband providers...
...couldn't either. In January, however, a federal court overturned the FCC's rules on a technicality. Now, unless the FCC takes action to support a free and open Internet, big broadband providers will actually have a much greater range of options for interfering with our communications than the phone companies ever had. It would be pretty difficult for a landline phone company to block individual calls or make other calls go through faster. Not so much for big broadband providers.
Q. Why would the telecoms want to interfere with Internet data?
A. Profit and other corporate interests. Companies might want to interfere with speech...
...that makes them look bad, block applications that compete with their own, or increase their profit by forcing developers to pay more to avoid having their data blocked or slowed down.
Q. Won't competition prevent them from doing any of this?
A. It should and normally it would — but it won't. First of all, manipulations of our data are...
...not always easily detectable; content can be delayed or distorted in important but subtle ways.
Second, it costs a lot to build a big high-speed broadband service, so there aren't very many of them. They also tend to be big phone and cable companies because they already have the data "pipes" in place. Most Americans don't have more than a handful of legitimate high-speed broadband options at home (the vast majority have three or fewer). That means two things. One, customers can't switch if a big broadband providers starts messing around with their service. Two, big content providers like Netflix have to send their data through these "last-mile" gatekeepers. Right now, market competition just isn't enough to stop them from blocking services or charging more for a fast lane.
Q. Have there been any actual instances of service providers interfering with the Internet, or is this just all theoretical?
A. Real abuses have happened consistently over the past decade (see Abuses below).
...
This wont stop the corporate asslicking.
FRINGE fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 17, 2014
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 21:25
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
They could make it a restricted market wherein there was a legally mandated profit cap and the remaining funds must be used for infrastructure and ratio-mandated wages.
Lets call it "soft socialism".
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 00:39
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Your understanding of the powers of the FCC is rivaled only by your understanding of well, everything else.
No, actually, the FCC couldn't. They have absolutely zero authority for those things.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 06:27
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
What's extra-fun is that what you want isn't really achievable via legislation, either, and if you think there's support for a constitutional amendment for it, well, you'd be proving fishmech's point.
The problem is that we only faux-nationalize things in order to prop them up with public money. We never do it to reign in abuses, correct patterns of public progress that have been crippled by greed, or punish corrupt entities.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 06:43
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
And, again, you're an insane person if you think there's a single chance of the US nationalizing existing private enterprises
You and your buddy are so cute.
Fringe posted:There is still a near-zero chance of what I want
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 06:54
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
So why are you talking about something that is unconstitutional (unless we pay the carriers just as much as they make already, except now they get it for doing nothing) and has a near-zero chance of passing?
The takings clause is extremely unclear on non-physical goods. The "value" that Comcast says they "deserve" would not be handed over with a ribbon. They would more likely be assessed for the physical value of the physical network (hardly anything compared to what they currently pocket from all of us). They would definitely not get the bullshit "we pay the carriers just as much as they make already, except now they get it for doing nothing" that you invented.
quote:The Court has repeatedly held that just compensation normally is to be measured by "the market value of the property at the time of the taking contemporaneously paid in money.
If they wanted to really push it, they could prosecute the $200,000,000,000 fraud case, and stack fees on that. In teh fantasy scenario where the government was pushing this full-force the CEOs would put on a show and then take their bribes final bonuses, sign anything necessary, and sail away.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 07:13
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
the fair market value of a dollar of profit is a dollar. So...
An pro-corporate activist court could decide to try and make that stick (our history is full of activist courts doing terrible things), but there is no fundamental reason that anyone should think that is something to worry about at this particular point.
(For that matter the successes of the USRA is a strong argument for the nationalization of all major US internet infrastructure.)
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 08:14
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Obama ... as usual.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/17/what-to-make-of-obamas-tepid-response-on-net-neutrality/
quote:May 17
What to make of Obama’s tepid response on net neutrality
Nearly a decade after he vociferously defended an Internet that didn't speed up Web traffic to Fox or slow traffic to BarackObama.com, President Obama's stance on net neutrality has considerably softened.
On Friday, White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to say whether a federal proposal that could change the basic economics of the Internet ran afoul of Obama's campaign promises on net neutrality, the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, not slowed down or blocked by Internet providers.
"What was passed yesterday was something that kept options on the table," Carney told White House reporters, referring to a vote Thursday by the Federal Communications Commission to advance the proposal. Pressed further, Carney added merely that Obama would be "looking very closely to see that the outcome of this results in a final rule that stays true to the spirit of net neutrality."
The exchange offered no definitions about what constituted net neutrality, in Obama's view. ...
...
Oh noes! Politics and nightmares!
quote:The president knows he can't force the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as utilities for the same reasons that Wheeler hasn't already done so himself: It would be a political nightmare, filled with lawsuits and angry lawmakers who hold the FCC's purse strings.
Thank god Obama keeps an even keel and has left such a massive legacy of happy bankers and public debt Great Accomplishments through his tactics of licking Wall Street rear end Fair Minded Consideration.
One of the only accidentally decent moments in Scalias life, from about a decade ago:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/net-neutralitys-little-known-hero-antonin-scalia/361315/
quote:May 16 2014
Antonin Scalia Totally Gets Net Neutrality
In 2005, the justice told us to imagine the Internet was a pizzeria. We should’ve taken his advice.
...
The FCC’s argument, says Scalia, turns on whether a cable broadband company can be said to “offer” a service. [SEE END SEGMENT] This is because of the complicated way the 1996 Telecommunications Act defines telecommunications service: First by defining information service, then telecommunications, then, finally, telecommunications service. According to the 1996 law, a telecommunications service is “the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public . . . regardless of the facilities used.”
In his opinion, Thomas writes that analyzing this is tricky, because offering has multiple dictionary definitions. Scalia disagrees. In fact, he says, it’s because:
quote: The relevant question is whether the individual components in a package being offered still possess sufficient identity to be described as separate objects of the offer, or whether they have been so changed by their combination with the other components that it is no longer reasonable to describe them in that way.
In other words: If you sell consumers broadband Internet and an email address, do you really offer broadband Internet? Or are you offering a different product entirely?
Scalia starts in:
quote: It would be odd to say that a car dealer is in the business of selling steel or carpets because the cars he sells include both steel frames and carpeting. Nor does the water company sell hydrogen, nor the pet store water (though dogs and cats are largely water at the molecular level).
These are situations where combining products changes what’s being offered. But, he adds, this isn’t always true: “There are instances in which it is ridiculous to deny that one part of a joint offering is being offered merely because it is not offered on a ‘stand-alone’ basis.
quote: If, for example, I call up a pizzeria and ask whether they offer delivery, both common sense and common “usage,” […] would prevent them from answering: ‘No, we do not offer delivery–but if you order a pizza from us, we’ll bake it for you and then bring it to your house.’ The logical response to this would be something on the order of, ‘so, you do offer delivery.’ But our pizza-man may continue to deny the obvious and explain, paraphrasing the FCC and the Court: ‘No, even though we bring the pizza to your house, we are not actually “offering” you delivery, because the delivery that we provide to our end users is “part and parcel” of our pizzeria-pizza-at-home service and is “integral to its other capabilities.”’
Not only do broadband cable providers sell users a web connection, he says, but they also brag about the speed of that connection. In a footnote, he relates this to the pizza analogy:
quote: The myth that the pizzeria does not offer delivery becomes even more difficult to maintain when the pizzeria advertises quick delivery as one of its advantages over competitors. That, of course, is the case with cable broadband.
Scalia—as many have done—also highlights that, to consumers, cable broadband replaces dial-up. By purchasing it, they’re replacing a telecommunications service… with an information service.
“With dial-up access, the physical pathway comes from the telephone company and the Internet service provider (ISP) provides the functionality,” he writes.
Now, Scalia’s reasons have as much to do with regulatory law as an open Internet. He finds the Brand X case “a wonderful illustration of how an experienced agency can (with some assistance from credulous courts) turn statutory constraints into bureaucratic discretions.” He also, though, can see the FCC’s regulatory issues of the ruling beginning:
quote: The main source of the Commission’s regulatory authority over common carriers is Title II, but the Commission has rendered that inapplicable in this instance by concluding that the definition of “telecommunications service” is ambiguous and does not (in its current view) apply to cable-modem service.
It’s that exact problem that occasioned this week's hearing and the FCC’s confusion in crafting net-neutrality regulation.
... quote:The problem that the FCC is now facing—the reason it’s talking about “commercial reasonableness”—is all a result of that 2002 regulatory decision to treat broadband Internet like an information product, rather than as electronic infrastructure. The FCC could cling to its decision, attempting (for the third time!) to enforce net neutrality among broadband providers it chooses to regulate as information services.
Or it could change its mind. The FCC could take the opening that Justice Thomas left the agency all those years ago. Back during Brand X, the majority ruled that the FCC could change its categorization of cable broadband as an information service at anytime.
So why won’t it?
Just last week, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said he hasn’t ruled out reclassification, but—after two failed attempts to enforce net neutrality under the current scheme—net neutrality advocates are left wondering why he’s waiting.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 08:37
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Nationalization of an industry absolutely presents a Fifth Amendment issue. That's not a conservative trope - it's part of the core of the Fifth Amendment takings prohibition. It's not exorbitant to say that completely removing any economic use for profit above some margin is a taking - there's solid case law that economic interests can be taken (check out 449 US 155), so the proposed "force the telcos into being unable to take profits from their investment" (which is a core case of violating DIBE, which is a key indicator for regulatory takings issues) is targeting a recognized interest in a way that has indicators of takings.
Is it guaranteed? No, but I'd bet on the telcos winning that case long before I'd bet on them losing, and it wouldn't be a 5-4 win.
The public is still half enraged over the trillions in stealth banker handouts. Any text that went above and beyond the law to ensure profits and hand back an improved and rebuilt (public) structure to a bunch of greedy shitbags would be met with extremely vocal opposition. (Probably including Amazon, Google, etc...)
Plus, they could also legally consider in a formal Temporary Usage, and wrangle that into a perpetual cycle. The companies could still profit from theri business as they see fit while the physical structure of the internet was being used to provide service to the nation. This would eventually starve the corporations out and legal witchcraft could be concocted to then seize the infrastructure for the public good. (Granted this is even less likley than the original discussion.)
(This is not even addressing the fact that a lot of the infrastructure is passing through/over/under land that is not owned by the companies. Your defense of their "property" rights based on the 5th is on shaky ground several layers deep.)
For the general discussion:
quote:The general rule is that “just compensation” means that the government must pay fair market value for the property that was taken. Fair market value is not the same thing as the value that the owner places on the property or the amount that the property is actually worth to the owner.
You view on the takings clause is so over-reaching I have no idea what you are trying to do other than mis-inform the audience who wont look it up.
Sure. And that physical good(s) has a value. The takings clause addresses that value. (It would be relatively little.) It does not address "the potential profits on services and future services in perpetuity as an eternal free handout" that Kalman is inventing.
You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the state of Takings Clause law in the interest of trying to twist it to fit what you want.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2014 20:54
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Oh now that youre cornered you want to go back to my original proposal? The thing that does not actually exist and does not have a precedent?
If a new legal definition were created without actually invoking eminent domain then your lovely takings clause diversion is even less relevant.
Youre just pissing in every direction hoping no one wants to get close to you.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 02:18
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Holy mother of god take me now.
If your heart is dark and greedy it will also make you happy to watch the profiteers win another round.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 03:13
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
So we aren't actually far behind then? On a per megabit basis the countries beating America are either small, densely populated areas that can easily build an infrastructure (like Korea) and countries biased by the fact that nobody is online (like Russia).
AT&T rakes in $5.2 billion Q4 profit
http://bgr.com/2014/01/28/att-earnings-q4-2013/
Verizon’s earnings ... The carrier’s net income totaled $5.07 billion in the fourth quarter.
http://bgr.com/2014/01/21/verizon-earnings-q4-2013/
Comcast’s total revenue grew 7% to $16.3 billion and cash flow was up 8.4% to $5.4 billion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2013/07/31/comcasts-nbcu-deal-looks-smart-after-big-revenue-gain/
People make excuses because "<3 the market <3" and other bullshit, but the story doesnt change.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 02:42
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Its the hero of the beleaguered corporate America Fishmech to defend bad behavior again!
Making "some money" is billions per quarter while trying to reduce access and increase prices.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 08:00
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Jon Oliver just did a piece on this over the weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
Don't think he said anything that hasn't already been said here, only he's British and makes a nut-kick joke. But he was super thorough for an audience that I suspect doesn't keep up with this as much as Goons do.
Oh so there is an issue then?
Weird. The Corporate White Knights of Asslicking keep saying that there is Nothing To See Here™.
I think I heard that name "Tom Wheeler" somewhere before..?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 08:24
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
That was quick.
http://bgr.com/2014/06/03/john-oliver-net-neutrality-comments-appeal/
quote:John Oliver’s successful net neutrality appeal broke the FCC
Net Neutrality is one of the hottest tech- and Internet-related topics right now, as the FCC’s proposed regulations could have a negative impact on the way Internet companies work, and ultimately, on the pocket of regular Internet users. But because the matter seems complex, and awfully boring in some cases, not many people take a stance against the FCC’s proposals. That has been the argument of comedian John Oliver’s appeal to Internet trolls. And not only that — during his Sunday HBO show “Last week Tonight” he called upon trolls to tell the FCC how they feel about its proposal.
“At this point, and I can’t believe I’m about to do this, I would like to address the Internet commenters out there directly,” Oliver said, after hilariously explaining the problem with current Net Neutrality regulation proposals.
“Good evening monsters, this may be the moment you’ve spent your whole lives training for,” Oliver added, making fun of the kind of comments Internet users post online showing no remorse, or disregarding any common sense. “For once in your life, we need you to channel that anger, that badly spelled boil that you normally reserve for unforgivable attacks on actresses you seem to think put on weight, or politicians that you disagree with, or photos of your ex-girlfriend getting on with her life, or non-white actors being cast as fictional characters […], we need you to get out there, and for once in your lives focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction.”
And it looks like Oliver’s argument has been more than successful at convincing Internet users to take a stance against the FCC’s Net Neutrality regulations, as the FCC’s website has been swamped by reactions.
“We’ve been experiencing technical difficulties with our comment system due to heavy traffic,” the FCC wrote on Twitter on Monday evening. “We’re working to resolve these issues quickly,” the Commission added, posting the same message a few hours later on Twitter.
Titled “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet,” the FCC’s Net Neutrality page currently has almost 50,000 comments right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 01:00
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/17/322914843/senate-dems-unveil-a-bill-to-ban-internet-fast-lanes-net-neutrality
quote:Now, congressional Democrats want to put a ban on fast lanes, using legislation. A bill unveiled by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., requires the Federal Communications Commission — the authority charged with enforcing net neutrality — to use whatever authority it sees fit to stop "paid prioritization" agreements between broadband providers (like Comcast) and content providers (like Netflix). This aim of the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act is to make sure your Internet providers don't speed up some types of content (like Netflix videos) but not others.
"Americans are speaking loud and clear," Leahy said. "They want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider."
...
Chances that this proposal goes anywhere are slim, as :
"The fact that Republicans control the House [makes] it unlikely that the Leahy-Matsui bill will advance very far. Still, the politics of net neutrality are obscuring the underlying economics at stake, according to [a Democratic] aide, who asked not to be named because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
" 'People are missing the point,' the aide said. 'The point is: Ban paid prioritization. Because that'll fundamentally change how the Internet works.' "
Wheeler takes a stand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkjkQ-wCZ5A
(Watch an industry plant squirm.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 09:54
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 11:13
|
|
- FRINGE
- May 23, 2003
-
title stolen for lf posting
|
Sometimes I play the theoretical propaganda game, like: "what would the topic and tone be for group X?", and its getting to the point where the short ideas I can come up with are the literal ones used instead of the seed idea behind a carefully crafted message.
"Compare Net Neutrality to Marxism!"
Nope. No cunning trickery here. Just literally compare the two as similar entities.
quote:Kerpen suggests that reclassifying the internet as a public utility is the 'first step in the fight to destroy American capitalism altogether' quote:A mysterious conservative group with strong ties to the Koch brothers has been bombarding inboxes with emails filled with disinformation and fearmongering in an attempt to start a "grassroots" campaign to kill net neutrality
... The email suggests that more than 160,000 people have signed the petition, but official numbers don't seem available to the public anywhere.
... One thing we do know: Kerpen used to work at Americans for Prosperity, which was founded by the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers' close ties with the organization have been noted for some time now. Perhaps unsurprisingly, American Commitment has also funded campaigns in support of Koch favorites, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, the coal industry, and against Obamacare.
The group also vehemently defends ALEC, a legislative group that has thoroughly destroyed telecom competition in the states that have passed its legislation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2014 08:21
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 08:32
