backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by chenjf.. on Jun 22 at 3:10 PM

FCC Democrats in favor while Republicans oppose

The FCC wants to get broadband speeds of up to 100Mbps to 100 million homes in America. One of the ways that the FCC wants to ensure that the content online that Americans can access is not filtered is by increasing its regulatory authority. However, that authority was proven inadequate in April 2010 when a Federal Court ruled that the FCC couldn't stop Comcast from throttling traffic on its network.

To shore up its authority in regulating the internet the FCC has taken a step towards regulation this week. The FCC voted 3-2 to collect public comments on whether or not broadband internet service should fall under the same regulations that are used on phone services. As expected, the major broadband providers around the country like AT&T and Comcast are vigorously speaking out against any proposed regulation of broadband providers.

AT&T's Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president, said, "We remain confident that if the FCC persists in its course -- -and we truly hope it does not -- the courts will surely overturn their action."

Reuters reports that FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and the two other Democrats at the FCC are in favor of regulating the internet to assure free flow of information. However, the Republican members of the FCC voted against regulation.

Genachowski said, "My desire is simply that we restore the status quo and have a workable light-touch framework for broadband access."

The FCC has tried to soothe the fears of broadband providers by saying it would not force regulation of rates and line sharing on the broadband market as it has on the phone market.  The FCC will take public comments until July 15 with reply comments due by August 12.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Be smart
By Chiisuchianu on 6/18/2010 12:17:35 PM , Rating: 3
I hope everyone will do the intelligent thing, and that is to tell government to KEEP OUT of the internet. Don't give them a single foot in the door. And to remove the government contracts which currently give ISPs a monopoly over the internet so there will be increased competition.




RE: Be smart
By RCharles on 6/18/2010 1:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're on the right track, increase competition. But it's really the cost of wiring to the home that prevents more service provider for each home. Most American's have one serious high-speed internet provider, a telco or cable company. That is a monopoly and it's well established that governments MUST regulate monopolies to avoid abuse of the customers.

the telcos and cable companies are fighting Net Neutrality because they WANT to abuse the customers. If they iterfere with your downloading netfix you might buy their video-on-demand. Same for telephone service; support in-house and interfere (degrsde) competitive offerings.

For the new-comers to this arena, the Bell System provided the worlds best voice communication system under both state and federal regulation. After 100 years, new technology eliminated the monopoly by providing competition. If/when we get real competition in internet service there will be less need for regulation.

In the meantime, the network providers should be regulated and forced to open their networks to all comers. The basic network should be a commodity service, which is how other developed countries provide faster internet service at lower cost to most of their citizens.
RCharles


RE: Be smart
By jimhsu on 6/18/2010 2:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
Someone on another forum offered the simplest solution - separate network providers and content providers. More precisely, do not allow network providers to charge for content to end users, and do not allow content providers to charge for network access to end users.


RE: Be smart
By indignation on 6/21/2010 1:09:19 AM , Rating: 2
Then this again calls for regulation. The best thing FCC can do to put out faster fibers is actually doing the work themselves, and introduce/become a competition to ISPs. We don't need them talking about it.


RE: Be smart
By Jaybus on 6/18/2010 3:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
If that happens, then we will be stuck with what we have for a long time. I see your point, but it will prevent any newcomer providers from ever being able to gain a foothold. None would bother to try, because the regulations would make it harder for them to enter the market, and the existing local government granted monopolies would make it impossible for them to even get a chance to try. I'm surprised the cable providers are against regulation, in a way. It would guarantee their market share from now until some future technology renders cable obsolete. But I guess they do want their cake and to eat it too.


Targeting the wrong problem
By cscpianoman on 6/18/2010 12:05:23 PM , Rating: 4
How about we eliminate local ISP monopolies and watch what happens then, huh?

No caps, lower prices and higher speeds

Here in Columbus, OH, I'm fortunate to have 3 companies fighting for my internet dollar. In Arizona, I had one and that was it. In Arizona, speeds were limited and prices were 15-20 more than in Ohio. Amazing what a little competition will do.




RE: Targeting the wrong problem
By skaaman on 6/18/2010 12:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
It was called the Telecommunications Reform Act 1996. It's purpose was to promote widespread competition within the growing broadband industry. Many entrepreneurs stepped up to enter the market based upon the rules put in place by the FCC. Alas, they were crushed by the Big 3 (AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.) It was a simple 3 step process. 1) Don't comply with the rules. 2) Force the start ups to litigate (thus wasting precious and finally waiting for the internet bubble to burst. Bye bye competition,bend over America...


RE: Targeting the wrong problem
By smut on 6/20/2010 6:29:10 AM , Rating: 2
People act like any small business can start a fiber ISP and all of a sudden give more competition. Tell me how many small ISP companies can actually afford to roll out a fiber network. The reason there is monopolies in the first place is because it costs so damn much to build the networks.


RE: Targeting the wrong problem
By skaaman on 6/21/2010 7:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, its called venture capital. There were many choices and they were quietly crushed out of existence. COVAD Communications my be the last remaining of the fledgling DLECS. Only at by the graces of SBC... Verizon crushed Northpoint.


competition would resolve this problem
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/18/2010 6:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
competition would resolve the throttling problem. More competition means more choices and the people can choose if they want throttled slow internet or fast internet for the same price.

It should be the people deciding not the government.

I will bet my tuna fish wrap with lettuce that the people want more choices and more competition. This BS about time warning or comcast being the only choice needs to stop.




By xxsk8er101xx on 6/18/2010 6:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
Meh Time Warner aka Crime Warner***


By Xavi3n on 6/20/2010 12:36:27 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't quite work like that I'm afraid, here in the UK we have literally hundreds of ISPs, but they all fall to one universal truth, you get what you pay for.

Cheaper ISPs will always be severely throttled because they wont have the money to invest in better infrastructure, more expensive ISPs will, its as simple as that. So removing monopolies will not allow you to have your cake and eat it, they'll allow you to choose between cheap and throttled or more expensive and not.

But out of all of this, Caps will happen on every ISP (the only difference will be the amount of GB), networks "cannot" be upgraded fast enough to meet the demands of users on the network, so caps are inevitable.


Free Flow???
By knutjb on 6/20/2010 6:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reuters reports that FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and the two other Democrats at the FCC are in favor of regulating the internet to assure free flow of information.
More regulation to provide "free flow?" Are these the same ones who brought us the current chaos. What is their definition of free flow? Would I like it faster, sure, but not where some political appointee picks his buddies to be the winners who can provide me free flow. I think it will more likely free flow the little money left in my pocket without any improvement.

Since when has more government regulation improved anything? I'm not against some regs but not over regulation like we have. If any company doesn't feel that the rules are fair and stable they will never throw their cash towards any improvement or starting up a new service and no strong arm tactics can make it happen.




RE: Free Flow???
By droplets on 6/20/2010 9:08:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are these the same ones who brought us the current chaos


No. The administration changed in 2008. Lots of people in this thread generalizing, not realizing that there has been a change in the white house.


RE: Free Flow???
By knutjb on 6/21/2010 1:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
I was pointing out the collective mess which belongs to both parties over a long period of time. Obama is accelerating control over the net when it needs a top to bottom revamp to open the market not restrict it further.
quote:
No. The administration changed in 2008. Lots of people in this thread generalizing, not realizing that there has been a change in the white house.
Joe Bidden was in the Senate how long?...

These problems of crazy regulations will not be cured with more regulation. Go read up on Mark Lloyd an FCC appointee by Obama to see where they are really headed. You can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep...


Mobile broadband
By jimhsu on 6/18/2010 12:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
I feel a significant thing they are missing out on is mobile broadband and the abuses there. From outrageous caps and overage charges (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Hints-At-Ne... http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Wireles... required broadband charges (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/108946), and of course all other charges (e.g. SMS in America), the extortionist pricing exhibited by the major incumbent carriers has so far been largely ignored by the FCC. There's nothing wrong with tiered/per-byte pricing for broadband and the industry will probably move towards that in the coming years. However, paying dollars per GB (or even higher) is simply unacceptable -- you don't see your power company charging dollars per kwH, do you? The phone companies are essentially trying to apply early 1990s data costs to today's broadband -- I'm sorry, but that is uncompetitive.

I'm not for gov't regulation, but an indexed per-byte scale (something similar to CPI, but for data) would be a significant accomplishment. Inputs could be wholesale Tier 1 bandwidth prices, plus amortized costs of setting up 3G/4G towers, power/water/licensing, support, etc. Transparency is crucial.




By dxf2891 on 6/18/2010 3:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
The ISPs focus and attention with new technologies are in the areas with competition. Why spend money and upgrade in areas where you're the only game in town. They will likely offer faster speeds and better uptime in areas where they are competing for those dollars. While there are those who are stuck at 768k/128k, others are enjoying 20Mbs/10Mbs for the same price. Along the way, I'm sure during some economic stratedgy meeting, someone said something to the effect: "I we charged per gigabyte, we could maximize our profits." Sooner or later, ISPs will have tiered systems like the wireless phone companies. That's how business regulates itself.




I wanna know where we can comment
By FITCamaro on 6/18/2010 7:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
So I can voice my opinion.




Fear mongering....
By smut on 6/20/2010 6:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
It is a shame this issue has been distorted by fear mongers and hyper partisans.




When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: When you read this...
By MrBlastman on 6/18/2010 10:43:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
They are voting against the FCC trying to take over the Internet in all aspects. The Internet, since day one with no Government involvement, has ALWAYS been about the free flow of information. Does anyone actually believe more Government regulations are going to lead to BETTER end user experiences?


Can you imagine what kind of porn Barney Frank would have you watching if he had his say on what you have to look at?

I shudder at the thought...


RE: When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2010 10:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
lol oh god. I can't believe when he went on some night time talkshow and talked about skinny dipping in his pool with his gay lover.

I mean, UGH, that's a mental image that's not going away anytime soon. Thanks Barney !!!

/puke


RE: When you read this...
By Spuke on 6/18/2010 4:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
talked about skinny dipping in his pool with his gay lover.
Eeeew. Let us agree to never mention this again.


RE: When you read this...
By FITCamaro on 6/18/2010 7:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
I hate you for making me think of this.....


RE: When you read this...
By integr8d on 6/19/2010 5:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that this article is designed to pull people over to the side of the FCC. Why? One of the first statements in this article is that the government wants to give you 100Mb connections. Tell me which one of you jerkies isn't licking your chops over that!

That's the milk. Where's the meat?

I don't buy anything the telcos tell me. But I wouldn't put it past government regulators and their telco CEO golfing buddies to try to pull one over. "Hey. How about this. We're going to announce traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling, etc. Then you come in and denounce it; Tell us you're going to regulate. We'll face off for the public WWF-style, like we always do..." And then what? How will this regulation benefit the companies (because it ALWAYS benefits the companies)?

Anyone have their thinking caps on?


RE: When you read this...
By AssBall on 6/18/2010 10:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but if the FCC could get their bills passed for more regulations, they could set up another whole new division and we could all (those of us that work, I mean) waste even more on the federal government. Wheee!


RE: When you read this...
By viewwin on 6/18/2010 11:06:10 AM , Rating: 4
How many service providers of high speed internet do you have, I only have one that can do 10Mbit a second down. My other choice is dial-up or 4.5meg DSL. If they start doing caps, goodbye Netflix.


RE: When you read this...
By Solandri on 6/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2010 7:50:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's the OP's point. The reason you only have one cable internet provider and one DSL internet provider is because the local government granted one cable company and one phone company a monopoly to service their region. More government involvement has led to less freedom of information flow.


THANK YOU !!!

Jesus sometimes it's like I'm either talking to brick walls, or I'm batsh#$t crazy.

I remember in my area during the Internet boom there were like 10 ISP's. Granted, most of them sucked, but they were still an option. Now, thanks to Government granting monopolies, YES government approved monopolies, I have ONE Internet provider to choose from.

Does anyone else see a repeating pattern here? Business makes money, a problem comes up. Government comes in to fix it. Government fix causes unintended problem. Government blames Business for problem it caused, and proposes NEW fix/regulation. Bigger unintended problem is created, and so on and so forth.

Government is like the bad abusive boyfriend, who keeps saying "I'm sorry, it will never happen again", and we're like the stupid women that take them back over and over again. At what point do we admit the Government can't be the solution to every problem? It was never intended to!


RE: When you read this...
By rdawise on 6/19/2010 2:14:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does anyone else see a repeating pattern here? Business makes money, a problem comes up. Government comes in to fix it. Government fix causes unintended problem. Government blames Business for problem it caused, and proposes NEW fix/regulation. Bigger unintended problem is created, and so on and so forth.


You almost made a point here, but then you went to your illogical bashing mode. The government didn't step in to fix a problem, the telecos ASKED them to step in and grant them the monopoly.

The funny thing here is that the telecos were basically granted a "free card" to business anyway they wanted because they had a trump card...speed. Cable > DSL > Dial-up. This will always be true just by method of delivery. Now the government is stepping back in to try to make them be as competitive as they may have been if there was competition (again that is a big maybe).

I think of it like this, a company asks for a loan, then tells the company that it got the loan from how it will be repaid. Does that make sense?


RE: When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/2010 9:02:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government didn't step in to fix a problem, the telecos ASKED them to step in and grant them the monopoly.


OH I see. So if you ask the Government to do something wrong, unethical, borderline illegal etc etc, they have NO choice but to comply??

And you call me illogical...


RE: When you read this...
By tastyratz on 6/20/2010 1:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
ABSOLUTELY
One thing that agitates the crap out of me is single provider service monopolies!
I can understand monopolies in respect of incentivising new development - but by god put a reasonable federal time cap.

Drug companies can only exclusively retail so long before generics come in. Why cant a FEDERAL time cap be placed on any and all exclusive agreement incentives be it state or town level? Imagine if they actually had to - AND WERE CAPABLE OF - real competition?


RE: When you read this...
By smut on 6/20/2010 6:20:24 AM , Rating: 3
Strawman, no one ever said government is the solution to every problem.


RE: When you read this...
By theguywiththeredmug on 6/18/2010 11:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
You are COMPLETELY wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. The FCC is trying to ensure net-neutrality. I suggest you read about it on Wikipedia.

An internet connection is an internet connection. They can already charge based on bandwidth, or time used, which is all they need to do.

What happens when Comcast says "The more you pay, the more important your traffic will be on our network." ? I'll tell you.

Only a matter of time before someone dies because they try to use their VOIP phone to call 911, and instead, the CEO of XYZ corp that lives down the street is paying for his traffic to be more important, and happens to be downloading 5 movies at once.

The 911 call goes to the end of the queue. Five minutes later when the CEO's movies finish downloading, the 911 call finally goes through and the person is already dead.

This is not far fetched and is EXACTLY the type of traffic shaping that the FCC is trying to prevent. With proper net-neutrality, the CEO can still buy a faster connection, so his movies will download faster than anyone else on the block, but everyone has the same 'priority'.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the web): http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
Video explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U


RE: When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: When you read this...
By chenjf on 6/18/2010 1:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is you either have the public sector (Fed Govt) or the private sector (Companies governing themselves) do the patrolling. Both have cases where they excell at and fail miserably at.

By saying no to the FCC's plan (or any Fed Govt's plan); all you really have left is the companies patrolling themselves and we all know how well that worked out in the financial realm.

What you need is both parties doing some level of regulations to offset each other's interests.


RE: When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2010 2:46:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem is you either have the public sector (Fed Govt) or the private sector (Companies governing themselves) do the patrolling. Both have cases where they excell at and fail miserably at.


What!? There are thousands of pages of Government regulations on the industry NOW. In fact, there is NO industry that is "self regulating" today. They all operate within the laws and regulations of this country. What are you talking about?

quote:
companies patrolling themselves and we all know how well that worked out in the financial realm.


Ugh, stop repeating that talking point. The financial sector is one of THE most regulated things on the planet. There are literally hundreds of thousands of pages of Government regulations and rules on the banking industry. There are entire Government departments who's job is to do nothing BUT watch banking. If your premise is that Government reg's never lead to wrongdoing or the consumer being harmed, then that's been rebuked soundly.


RE: When you read this...
By chenjf on 6/18/2010 4:30:35 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, taking your point regarding the financial sector is the most regulated yet the private firms were able to work around these regulations seems to me that we need better regulations and not less as less regulation will lead to more loopholes for the private firms to try to profit from.

Just having thousands of pages of regulation does not mean that they are working. Nor does it mean more regulations will be better. But your stance of automatically rejecting additional regulations seems close-minded.

quote:
If your premise is that Government reg's never lead to wrongdoing or the consumer being harmed, then that's been rebuked soundly.


Obviously you failed to read where I stated that:
quote:
Both have cases where they excell at and fail miserably at.


RE: When you read this...
By myhipsi on 6/21/2010 9:22:10 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
...automatically rejecting additional regulations seems close-minded.


...And automatically assuming more regulations are going to fix the problem is just as close-minded.

The government and media have done a good job of selling the "wall street got drunk" argument to allow them even more power to help out their buddies at Goldman Sachs et al.

Government regulation is the reason the financial sector "needs" more regulation. There are two major factors why the financial sector over leveraged itself. 1) The corrupt central bank also known as The Federal Reserve, sets interest rates way lower than the real market value. This signals investors to over-borrow. When money costs next-to-nothing to borrow, people tend to over leverage themselves. 2) Too big to fail. When the government (along with the Fed) guarantees to bail you out if you over leverage yourself, this sets a moral hazard where investment banks have no fear of loss because they know the government (the tax payer) will come to their rescue.

There are other factors that negatively affect specific segments of the market as well, like for example, the housing market. Interest rates at all-time lows, along with the moral hazard of Freddie and Fannie (government sponsored entities), single-handedly caused the housing bubble and subsequent crash. Again, government gets their hands in it, and everything goes bad.

The fear of loss is just as important as the motivation for profit in the financial sector. It acts as a self-regulating mechanism. However, when the government steps in and eliminates the fear of loss, imbalance and over leveraging becomes epidemic.

Get the government out of the financial sector, allow the market (not the Fed) to set interest rates, and allow companies to fail, and watch how healthy the financial sector would become.


RE: When you read this...
By chenjf on 6/22/2010 3:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...And automatically assuming more regulations are going to fix the problem is just as close-minded.

Obviously you dont read my comment completely either:
quote:
Just having thousands of pages of regulation does not mean that they are working. Nor does it mean more regulations will be better. But your stance of automatically rejecting additional regulations seems close-minded.


RE: When you read this...
By RCharles on 6/18/2010 1:54:18 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer77
You seem to be arguing both sides of this issue. You say we should have Net Neutrality. The only way we get it is either the FCC establishes it's right to manage internet service OR the congress revises the Telecom Act to give the FCC authority.

We have no time to waste so why not try both?
A. Let the FCC re-classify the service: if they could move internet out of telecom they most surely can move it back in. It's not like the FCC is inventing anything new, just reversing a 2002 FCC decision.
B. Push Congress to get involved and provide broader authority to the FCC for Net Neutrality and whatever else is needed to move the US back towards the top in broadband deployment and services. (We're fifteenth or lower among advanced countries, BTW)

And the senators and reps who are "opposed"; I'm sure everyone of them is on the dole at Verizon or ATT or cable companies.

As you seem to understand, the telcos are more than willing and ready to screw the customers for another dollar. We need to keep the pressure on via the FCC while Congress does it's thing.
RCharles


RE: When you read this...
By Solandri on 6/18/2010 3:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reclaimer77
You seem to be arguing both sides of this issue. You say we should have Net Neutrality. The only way we get it is either the FCC establishes it's right to manage internet service OR the congress revises the Telecom Act to give the FCC authority.

No, what he's saying is that if you let the free market decide it, some internet providers will throttle certain internet services, while others will not. Customers will naturally gravitate towards the unthrottled service (or at least the ones which don't throttle what people find important).

I disagree with him BTW, but he's not trying to argue both sides. He just believes a different mechanism will do a better job of achieving the same goal you and I have. You have to bear in mind that a part of his "less government regulation" philosophy includes no government-granted monopolies of phone and cable service. So if he had it his way, there would be lots of competing ISPs in every region.

(I disagree with him because of the duplicated costs of laying down infrastructure is needlessly wasteful. Ideally, you'd have the government paying a company to lay down the fiber and wire cables, then lease them to the ISPs providing cable TV, phone, and Internet.)


RE: When you read this...
By callmeroy on 6/18/2010 1:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Are you serious dude....is there now an online version of "Candid Camera"?

911 call doesn't get through because of no bandwidth? You know what if someone doesn't have the brains to plan ahead for that in the first place...oh well...

This is what I mean by plan ahead...I have VoIP service for my home phone (Vonage)...works great but you know what? I have a cell phone too because logically I already thought of "gee my phone is tied to my Comcast cable what if that goes down and there's an emergency here?"....

If I'm calling in an emergency and my calls not going through I'm not gonna sit there as maybe I'm dying going "oh geewiz my call isn't going through I hope someone answers before I'm dead..."

I would go for my cell and call...my cell is normally closer to me than my home phone anyway...even at home..

Also thinking ahead for emergencies -- my local police, ems, fire are programmed into my contacts on my cell phone and my home phone already as well. Either phone is one touch dialing for either service when needed.

And that's not all , my vonage service (if my cable dies) automatically routes my calls to my house phone to my cell.

So you see its really just common sense and planning to avoid that stuff...I REALLY hate the notion of people not having ANY responsibility for their own actions/safety/whatever....that actually pisses me off anymore..this world is getting pathetic on that crap.

Finally, the scenario you stated anyway is HIGHLY un-likely because VoIP traffic...yeah its ALREADY PRIORITIZED over data....


RE: When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2010 2:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
Beyond that, he seems to have no understanding of how Quality of Service works. VoiP calls will always have bandwidth priority no matter what. And guess what? QoS isn't Government mandated, it's something the private sector created and utilized, imagine that.


RE: When you read this...
By dxf2891 on 6/18/2010 2:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
They also created unlimited bandwidth. How is that little jewel working out?


RE: When you read this...
By Solandri on 6/18/2010 3:20:35 PM , Rating: 3
That's actually one of the concerns. QoS works fine if the ISP is neutral and gives all VoIP packets the same high priority.

But recently more and more ISPs are providing their own VoIP service (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, TimeWarner are the ones I know of so far). What happens if they tweak the QoS so that their VoIP packets get high priority, but VoIP packets going to, say, Skype get downgraded to the level of P2P packets?


RE: When you read this...
By eskimospy on 6/18/2010 11:47:14 AM , Rating: 3
No, it says that the Republicans voted against the regulation meant to assure the free flow of information proposed by the Democrats. This doesn't mean that information cannot flow freely without this regulation, only that it will not be guaranteed through government action.

Extreme partisans such as yourself find bias in everything. It's known as the hostile media effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

The first step to getting help is realizing you have a problem.


RE: When you read this...
By theguywiththeredmug on 6/18/2010 11:56:22 AM , Rating: 2
I said nothing about partisanship, Republicans, or Democrats.

I'm assuming you did not even bother to read or understand what net-neutrality is and instead just spewed some political rhetoric that is exactly what the large telecoms are hoping for: ignorance of the issue and adherence to talking points that are simply wrong.

This is not a partisan issue (or at least it shouldn't be). Do you honestly think that the telecom companies are going to "self-regulate"? That worked really well with the banking sector, didn't it?

That is an ignorant assumption - they are companies and ONLY care about the bottom line. They will throttle any traffic if it will be financially beneficial for them, free flow of information be damned.


RE: When you read this...
By eskimospy on 6/18/2010 12:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hey guy, my response was to Reclaimer77's post, not yours.

I agree with you.


RE: When you read this...
By skaaman on 6/18/2010 12:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhhh no. The first step is to realize that journalism is pretty much dead and the vast majority of internet content is regurgitated opinion pieces. Take a breath eski lest you start believing to much of what you read...


RE: When you read this...
By eskimospy on 6/18/2010 12:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
The idea that journalism is dead presumes it was ever alive. It's usually based upon an idyllic view of a media that never actually existed.

Regardless of that, if you bothered to understand what the hostile media effect is you would see that partisans from both sides of the ideological divide can look at an identical piece of news and somehow decide that the same piece of news is simultaneously biased against both them. IE: The problem is with the partisans, not with the news. (or at least primarily with the partisans)

Reclaimer views every piece of news through an intensely ideological lens, and so his constant howls of bias are the Dailytech equivalent of the boy who cried wolf.


RE: When you read this...
By dxf2891 on 6/18/2010 2:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
Journalism, like everything else these days, has cow towed to the pressures of Big Business. As journalistic institutions began to get gobbled up by more and more conglomerates, there was less and less journalistic integrity. Until the business sector gets it's collective heads out of its collective @$$e$, and realize that the more profit you covet and hoard (be it due to lay offs or outsourcing) the fewer consumers you have for your product or service. During the bubble effect of the 90s, the economy was soaring due to the fact that companies were investing in their employees in both pay and benefits, as opposed to CEOs making hundreds of millions a year.


RE: When you read this...
By straycat74 on 6/19/2010 10:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
If only we had alternate sources like the internet or radio.
Make all the comments you want about radio, but that is what started to break the monopoly on news from the big 3. The internet followed next, and now the government doesn't want us to have to "deal" with all of that, without their help.
quote:
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia. "With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said. He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets. "All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."
- President Obama
http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2010/05/obama-s...

As for Lies, I like this from the oval office speech -
quote:
After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean: because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water .


Is that really why we drill so deep?


RE: When you read this...
By wolrah on 6/18/2010 12:56:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Does anyone actually believe more Government regulations are going to lead to BETTER end user experiences?


Most often, no. In this case where the telcos and cable companies have already made it clear that they WILL make it worse if the government doesn't get involved to stop them, yes.

The whole point of net neutrality is keeping the free flow of information the Internet was originally built on. AT&T for example has a history of partnering with Yahoo, so what's to stop them right now from deprioritizing any Google-related traffic and favoring Yahoo's competitive services? Now if there was a such thing as broadband competition in this country the end user could just switch ISPs to someone else who didn't do that and I'd agree that the government should stay out of it, but there certainly is not competition in most markets.

I see net neutrality regulations as a stopgap measure which should not be needed, but until we have real competition so the free market forces can actually work I believe regulation is necessary.

I personally believe the long-term solution is to separate the physical infrastructure from the service provider. Amsterdam's network as shown here http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/ho... pretty much hits my ideals right on the nose. Two fibers to each home/business from a local POP where any service providers who want to cover the area can set up their equipment allowing for a wide range of competitive services by bypassing the last mile physical monopoly problem.

Right now I sit here with a duopoly in my area, like most suburban areas. One cable provider, one DSL provider. The DSL is an order of magnitude lower speed than the cable, so in practice there is no real competition. Outside of town, it's DSL only. The only reason anyone in town would be on DSL is if they can't afford cable, so no one has any real choice in internet service here and if either ISP decided to start fucking with our traffic the only other option would be to go back to dialup. Obviously that's a comedy option that no one should take seriously.


RE: When you read this...
By enazster on 6/18/2010 2:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
I live in town and have access to both Comcast and DSL. I dropped Comcast for Internet access because of unresolved connectivity problems. Since I don't watch movies over DSL this combination works out very well. My biggest gripe is the cost of Comcast HD.


RE: When you read this...
By theArchMichael on 6/18/2010 1:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
you mean the
© Internet . At&t, Comcast, Verizon. All their rights reserved.
All you're rights denied at owner discretion.


RE: When you read this...
By Exodite on 6/18/2010 2:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It reads as if the Republicans, somehow, are voting AGAINST "free flow of information".

Indeed, that's an unfair portrayal.

What they are actually voting against is the FCC undermining the ability of service providers to charge extra for access or prioritizing their own services over those of other companies or people transferring data over 'their' wires.

So while I agree it's an unfair portrayal the truth is about as flattering as the implication, i.e. not at all.


RE: When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/18/2010 8:06:26 PM , Rating: 1
Ok call me crazy, but since when did the FCC get out of the censorship business, and into the protecting free speech business? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Wasn't it the FCC that banned Billy Holiday's wonderful recording of "Love for Sale" and Cole Porter's "I Get a Kick Out of You?"

Wasn't it the FCC that agreed with Vice President Spiro Agnew that the recording industry was promoting 'drug culture' with songs like "Puff the Magic Dragon" and "A Little Help From My Friends?"

Isn't it the FCC that gave us Janet Jackson's 'Nipple Gate' and drove Howard Stern off the air and onto satellite radio? Didn't they ban Ice-T for Cop Killer? Fine Bono for cursing at an awards show?

I could go on, but I hope this short list demonstrates the controversial history of the FCC's role in censoring free expression in media.

Net Neutrality supporters tell us to distrust the ISP's, who have, with no Net Neutrality rules in place, given us an Internet that is the closet thing in history to a censorship-free zone. Alternatively, they ask us to trust the FCC, which has been banning, bleeping, and blurring everything in sight ever since the 1930's.

Under Title I, where the Internet is classified as an information service, the FCC could potentially look directly at content in order to see if all transmitters are being treated equally. But what if the FCC decides to do what it has done so many times in the past; and seeks to apply decency rules to content? Therein lies the very serious problem of Title I regulation of the Internet.

Under Title II, if the internet is classified as a telecommunication service, the FCC would purportedly make sure that everyone has equal access to the "on-ramp" of the Internet at the purely data transport level. The FCC promises it would 'forebear' any attempt to control content under Title II. Seriously, they 'promise'.

Laudable as their underlying objective might be, the effect would be to put the FCC squarely into the internet content censoring business. Can you guys at least think about that before bashing me?

So the FCC, which has done nothing but ban and censor, according to this article, is now interested in protecting free speech and free information. And you guys don't see anything wrong with that premise?


RE: When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/2010 8:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone??


RE: When you read this...
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2010 12:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
I think you done broke the drones brains.

I sure as hell don't want the FCC deciding that something is to violent, to risque, to whatever and that I, as a grown ass man, shouldn't be seeing it. That's my choice.


RE: When you read this...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/2010 7:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I rather have my uncensored paid 10 megabit connection than a government filtered 100MB one.

I just can't wrap my head around that idea that there are SO many people who think the FCC suddenly cares about free flowing media. An agency who's only mandate has been to stifle it.


RE: When you read this...
By enazster on 6/18/2010 2:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing popular about Comcast. They are as right wing as you can get. They manipulate programming to maximize their activist extreme right wing ideology. They are gaining a monopolistic strangle hold on cable content by buying existing competition. It is time we replace the controls that have been eviscerated by the Republicans. The time has come to kick the regulators out of the bed of the companies they are supposed to be regulating.


RE: When you read this...
By Jaybus on 6/18/2010 3:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
The only self-regulation there has ever been is capitalism, or more specifically competition. It is currently a feudal system, with local governments granting lordship of the Internet to a single provider. It is the local governments that need to be kicked, not the providers. Regulation at state or federal level to prevent local governments from granting these lordships is what is needed. Then we would see the competition that would force self-regulation on the providers. I think that has the best chance of net neutrality, because the consumer then decides what they want, or in any case what they are willing to pay for.


RE: When you read this...
By dxf2891 on 6/18/2010 2:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
If there was no government in the Internet, there would be no Internet. It was created by the United States government as a way to interconnect (by the way that's where the Internet comes from) military computers to the Pentagon. It was later adopted by MIT as a way to communicate with other educational institutions. Why would you write that irresponsible state above? Oh wait, it's your way of getting even with the evil left-wing media. Can we please leave politics out of technology?


RE: When you read this...
By cruisin3style on 6/18/2010 2:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
EXACTLY.

It's like when Fox News labels two Republican politicians involved in high profile scandals as Democrats with a little "D" next to the state they represent, instead of the "R" that should be there. Not once, but twice within the same year.

All hail the only unbiased news channel!!!


RE: When you read this...
By straycat74 on 6/19/2010 12:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
That is shocking. I'm do my job 100% correct, 100% of the time. How many hours of programming are there in a year anyway?


RE: When you read this...
By xmichaelx on 6/18/2010 3:56:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It reads as if the Republicans, somehow, are voting AGAINST "free flow of information".


They are. Learn what Net Neutrality is.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki