FCC - I had to read this a couple of times

[fohat.digs]

As a resident of Georgia (I live in the North Atlanta suburbs), we have long been known for electing transcendentally stupid and ignorant politicians, but this really goes over the top:

[Novus]

love the do not reply address

[jacobolus]

If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend Tim Wu’s book The Master Switch (he’s the guy who came up with the term “Network Neutrality”, and the book is about the history of communications technology, with a focus on the ways new technologies can become centralized or decentralized through business practices [often very dirty ones], regulation, and legal wrangling [patents etc.]). Really puts the recent conversations about the internet in context.

[plegnic]

...derived from an early twentieth century utilities act.

And our federal law is derived from a late 18th century constitution. I'm sure he wouldn't encourage ignoring that.

[trizkut]

Most politicians are criminally stupid when it comes to technology.

[jacobolus]

Most politicians are criminally stupid when it comes to technology.

Stupidity has nothing to do with this. Guys like Ted Cruz know exactly what’s at stake and who they’re helping here.

[jdcarpe]

I'm all for an open internet, but what the hell is "lawful content" anyway?

Also, I don't see how the FCC can simply decree that something like the internet now falls under Title II.

Anyway, government regulation is rarely the answer to issues like this.

[jacobolus]

Anyway, government regulation is rarely the answer to issues like this.

You especially should read Tim Wu’s book. You’ll find that every one of our mass communication technologies (wired and wireless telephone, radio, broadcast and cable television, movies, internet) has been regulated up the wazoo for >100 years (in every country in the world). The main question is not whether there will be regulation, but whether the regulation will favor particular corporate interests or the broader society.

The current telecoms and cable companies are thriving on the guaranteed monopolies granted by the current regulatory regime (not to mention plenty of direct monetary support from the government in the name of building infrastructure, which they sometimes conveniently forget to spend as they’re supposed to), and their basic goals in opposing network neutrality are to figure out extra profits they can squeeze from both ends based on that monopoly power; usually their bargaining tactics are closer to a racketeering scheme than honest business. Their entire MO is opposing consumer choice and resisting the free market.

[fohat.digs]

love the do not reply address

And he probably signs off with "Sincerely," to people who express support for his work (he is the king of sending jobs overseas, to you non-Georgians out there who have never heard of him) or contribute money (oh, wait, money IS speech, isn't it? - aha! now I know what the saying "money talks, bullsh!t walks" means).

[0100010]

Until I get to read the order myself (all 322 pages), I am withholding judgment; with the predisposition of expecting the government to expand its power and generally have very bad effects on everyone.

"If you like your internet, you can keep your internet."

[cmadrid]

Can we now get internet even if we had pre-existing connections?

[jdcarpe]

Can we now get internet even if we had pre-existing connections?

Thanks, Obama.

[metalliqaz]

Jesus,  I hope you aren't serious. 

[demik]

Show Image

Most politicians are criminally stupid when it comes to technology.

and politicians shouldn't be puppets for corporations.

**** ted cruz.

[Melvang]

Like a meme I saw on facebook the other day.  Politicians should wear jackets like NASCAR drivers, that way we know who is paying for them.

[davkol]

I like the Tom Wheeler's quote:

This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.

[derezzed]

As a resident of Georgia (I live in the North Atlanta suburbs), we have long been known for electing transcendentally stupid and ignorant politicians, but this really goes over the top:

"These new regulations represent radical change from the openness policy that previously guided the Internet and encourage innovation and creativity to flourish"

Translation: "I'm a Republican and my owners don't like these rules, so neither should you."

Show Image

Most politicians are criminally stupid when it comes to technology.

FTFW

The upper levels of the FCC are staffed by many former high-level executives of the communications industry.   It's no secret that many of the politicians and bureaucrats in all branches of government go from government positions to lobbying for private industries and "think tanks" and vice versa.  The communications industry has been fighting net neutrality for years because it weakens their power to dictate consumer choice.   So when the new rules were announced, I did not celebrate.  If net neutrality benefits society, that is merely incidental to the real reason net neutrality was instituted.  If net neutrality passed because the communications industry capitulated or because the interests of another industry overpowered theirs, the communications industry is already formulating plans to circumvent the new rules or looking for new ways to exploit the market.

For the people complaining about too much regulation,  Congress enacted the largest banking deregulation in 1999 and look what that got us.   It's possible to have too much regulation, but even when there is an optimum amount of regulation, industries will seek to weaken it or outright violate it in the interests of increasing their profits.  When regulations exist to protect the weak against the overwhelmingly powerful, I am extremely skeptical when those with power challenge regulations and even more skeptical when those with power are unable to prevent regulations from being enacted.  Yes, I have an extremely cynical view of our government and corporations but that results from living in America for several decades.  No, I am not a socialist and I do think that capitalism and democracy (even though America is not a true democracy) are the best models for economy and government that we have invented so far.   

[fohat.digs]

the communications industry is already formulating plans to circumvent the new rules or looking for new ways to exploit the market.

and I do think that capitalism and democracy (even though America is not a true democracy) are the best models for economy and government that we have invented so far.   

So true.

But at least there is a toehold on the concept that the internet is a pervasive "utility" that we all rely on.

And "democracy" has never worked since the ancient Greek city-states in anything much larger than a village because the communication was too slow and cumbersome.

Now, the internet could really create a "global village" but everyone fears the ease with which it could be hacked.

[tp4tissue]

the communications industry is already formulating plans to circumvent the new rules or looking for new ways to exploit the market.

and I do think that capitalism and democracy (even though America is not a true democracy) are the best models for economy and government that we have invented so far.   

So true.

But at least there is a toehold on the concept that the internet is a pervasive "utility" that we all rely on.

And "democracy" has never worked since the ancient Greek city-states in anything much larger than a village because the communication was too slow and cumbersome.

Now, the internet could really create a "global village" but everyone fears the ease with which it could be hacked.

No.. fundamentally SOCIETY, at least human ones, MUST relinquish a large portion of individual rights to function cohesively..


If every human is given equivalent voting power, NOTHING would ever get done..

Everyone would vote for themselves and their own ideas.


What does our "fake democracy" and "capitalism" afford us?

It affords us the ability to organize by "entrusting" the majority of decision power to a "few"..


DESPITE the potential abuse by those in power,  THERE IS NO OTHER WAY to do it.

There just isn't..




Once we invent a "machine god" and have him manage all our affairs..  THEN we can talk about true democracy..

[jacobolus]

Interesting: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-everyone-was-wrong-about-net-neutrality

Also, LOL: http://agoodcartoon.tumblr.com/post/112519623990/the-cartoonist-has-no-idea-how-net-neutrality

[fohat.digs]

If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend Tim Wu’s book The Master Switch (he’s the guy who came up with the term “Network Neutrality”, and the book is about the history of communications technology, with a focus on the ways new technologies can become centralized or decentralized through business practices [often very dirty ones], regulation, and legal wrangling [patents etc.]). Really puts the recent conversations about the internet in context.

Thank you, Jacobolus.

I am 2/3 of the way through this book now and it is excellent.

Highly recommended to everybody out there.

[berserkfan]

As a resident of Georgia (I live in the North Atlanta suburbs), we have long been known for electing transcendentally stupid and ignorant politicians, but this really goes over the top:

Sorry, fohat, I don't understand why you think this is stupid and over the top. I read a couple of times and still don't get what's dumb about it.

[hwood34]

As a resident of Georgia (I live in the North Atlanta suburbs), we have long been known for electing transcendentally stupid and ignorant politicians, but this really goes over the top:

Sorry, fohat, I don't understand why you think this is stupid and over the top. I read a couple of times and still don't get what's dumb about it.

the fact that he (among with many other politicians) is either a complete idiot and doesn't understand the concept of net neutrality or, more likely, is just trying to help out all the ISPs that backed him

[jacobolus]

I read a couple of times and still don't get what's dumb about it.

This part – “These new regulations represent radical change from the openness policy that previously guided the Internet and encouraged innovation and creativity to flourish” – is unadulterated bull **** with no resemblance to reality.

[berserkfan]

I read a couple of times and still don't get what's dumb about it.

This part – “These new regulations represent radical change from the openness policy that previously guided the Internet and encouraged innovation and creativity to flourish” – is unadulterated bull **** with no resemblance to reality.

Um, most legislation passed by Congress IS indeed unadulterated bull **** intended to make the law vague enough to satisfy both parties. Especially the earmarks and additional provisos they tack on to bills to make these passable. It's not intended to make sense as a whole; it's intended to offer competing interests in a democracy something for everyone.

You want fairly clear and specific legislation that aren't muddleheaded concatenations of what different legislators want, you need to look at laws passed by electoral monarchies since the monarch decides all and has a god's eye view of things.

Singapore law is a particularly good example. That's why this country is so favoured as a place to do business and so touted as a place where rule of law prevails. Just so long as you don't threaten the monarch or his courtiers or his royal family... (price for being in an electoral monarchy rather than a democracy)...

[jacobolus]

It's not intended to make sense as a whole; it's intended to offer competing interests in a democracy something for everyone.

If he had said “Comcast and Verizon have convinced me that they could offer more useful services to customers if they didn’t have to worry about the net neutrality that has prevailed on the internet to date,” then that would be a bad prediction, but at least nothing factually wrong. What he said instead was completely false. You don’t have to lie to “offer something for everyone” in a democracy.

You want fairly clear and specific legislation that aren't muddleheaded concatenations of what different legislators want, you need to look at laws passed by electoral monarchies since the monarch decides all and has a god's eye view of things.

This is bull****. You should try looking at the actual legislative results in monarchies sometime. It’s usually a big pile of handouts to the monarch’s personal buddies, and horribly broken institutions. Occasionally you get a particularly good monarch, and the few pet issues that the monarch is paying attention to get handled properly. Even then, the dude’s son or grandson usually ends up being an idiot and the whole thing falls apart.

Singapore law is a particularly good example. That's why this country is so favoured as a place to do business and so touted as a place where rule of law prevails.

Singapore is an interesting place, but it’s not a very good example at all for any kind of comparison with other places, since almost everything about it is highly particular. It’s a great spot for a port connecting different parts of the world, perched along the main trade route between Europe/Africa/the Middle East and East/Southeast Asia, which especially took off, like Hong Kong, in an era when Chinese ports were relatively closed, and other nearby countries were in political turmoil. Like Hong Kong, it was kickstarted by the British dumping a bunch of resources in, because they valued its strategic value. These days, it’s a tax haven for the ultra wealthy and for corporations looking for a spot conveniently close to Asia but not responsible to the citizens of a large country. It’s an authoritarian police state, with the highest income inequality in the world, and few rights for its lower-class residents, or for anyone who disagrees with government policy.