If Google and Verizon thought that their "free except when it isn't" internet plan would have smooth sailing through the US Federal Communications Commission, a response by one FCC commissioner should snap them back to reality. "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward," said Michael Copps in a statement ( …
In the abstract ...
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." ---Friedrich Nietzsche
I think the FCC (the Government) has a role in regulation of the Internet, because Nietzsche was right. Advertisers (Google) and Common Carriers (Verizon) have their separate "wants", which are incompatible with personal privacy and anonymity.
Advertisers hate personal privacy because it makes consumers less easy to group.
Common Carriers hate anonymity because it takes away their billing ease - pay up, what we say, when we say or we'll turn the "debt" over to some scumbag bill collector. There have been so many scams based on this the FCC even has a long standing name for the process - "cramming phone bills".
So Google say you ought to buy Service A, and Fly-By-Night Phone, Inc. bills you for Service A and has Verizon tack it on your bill ... occasionally, the FCC sues Fly-By-Night Phone, Inc.. The consumer has no "standing", Google and Verizon shake their heads in disbelief at the "corruption".
big government ftl
Granted I am not a Republican hypocrite who says no big government but then fights back parring of the DoD death machine white collar bureaucracy. Still I can see in the US and especially the UK how the bureaucracy is more interested in increasing their personal power than serving the public interest no matter their stated intentions. Orwell was right to make the faceless bureaucracy instead of the cult of personality dictator as the greatest danger to our freedoms.
yada yada yada
There are two sides to the republican / democrat examples.
The democrats and alot of the "non-profit" internet groups want every square inch of the world to have internet access regardless if they can afford to pay for it or not (the taxpayers will just be forced to pay for it). Other than the obvious downside where the market dictates that it's not cost-feasable to service some areas; ISPs are forced to than deal with are very insecure networks in far off lands that are quickly hijacked or bought and sold to criminals that use those nice taxpayer funded networks to spam, hack, and commit other cybercrime.
The only company im aware of in 2010 that is running rogue with privacy issues is google. The company is now buying freaking drones to fly around I mean this is laughable but unfortunately it's all true and googles a little too serious about it since their company relies on them knowing as much about you as possible. Did I mention they have a guy in the Obama administration?
The internet of 2010 is not the internet of yesterday. For example your internet providers job is to connect you to the internet. How they do this is up to them and this model has been changed drastically by ISPs who are already deeming how you should be reaching the internet. Their decisions have alot to do with your overall internet experience.
For example comcast has a large network they maintain that in manys opionin is garbage. They came in with a sledgehammer offering very cheap rates for carriers to purchase their bandwidth from (all the while nickle and diming customers for bandwidth usage) and now that there is a backlash over the quality of their network Comcast has started to be a little more selective as to who they link up. The goal is to only link up carriers that are somewhat desperate and won't have a customer base complaining about comcasts poor network.
The reason I bring this up is if you go back in to the dialup years your dialup provider probably had peering with Level3 (which who probably also owned the lines to begin with) and/or Verizon/UUnet. You would dial into a modem bank, and then you'd be on the net via a major internet backbone. On the other side of the country other dialup users were connecting to the internet via similar networks and everything although slow worked just fine.
Now that's not how the internet is working with that always-on internet connection.
Your now carried to major backbones only after you spend alot of time on ISP networks with whom only have 1 interest in mind and that is the cheapest route possible. This is the same market method some internet companies (non-isp-subscriber) use to keep costs down however as an ISP subscriber you are assuming you are being provided the best experience you can have and you simply aren't.
Until google is out of the white house, Verizon is bitch slapped into infinity for bringing up stupid lawsuits everytime it doesn't get it's way and than in the lawsuit offtime trying to control the internet issues like this will always be buzzing around and with the administration we have we might just all end up paying google a fee to be online.
Stranger things have happened.
Both sides are wrong.
This has become such an extremist debate. One side demanding “free as in beer” internet access while the other wants everyone to pay for the costs of infrastructure, executive bonuses, a few yachts, some jets, a harem or two and a literal army of lobbyists. Naturally they can’t even begin to see eye to eye on this while the real worry: “free as in speech” is quietly ignored by both sides.
The market itself should (in theory) sort out access problems. I mean hell, even the Americans have started deploying fibre! There are not many other countries with fewer incentives to invest in infrastructure than the US, but sure as hell competition worked in a few smallish cases there.
How fat your pipe is doesn’t matter one whit if the ISPs and content providers you connect to are allowed to filter or deprioritise access to information they don’t like or that happens to compete with them. If we are going to start making rules, let’s focus first on important likes like guaranteeing free (as in speech) access to information first. We can work on the speeds later.
After all, 1Gbit pipe connected directly to a banhammer is completely ****ing pointless.
The difference between a Republican and a Democratic FCC
is that the former tended to simply rubber stamp industry proposals whereas the Democratic appointed chairman seems to place consumer interests ahead of industry.
If only other Western countries had such an open process - compare that to the UK's slow response to maps of transmitter sites.
Clowns are always first out in the circus.
This is just what you would expect from clowns. Ignore the larger picture of freedom of information and privacy by debating government control or business control. The market has always worked and we have what we need. We don't need 65 million more dollars in Wisconsin to serve an estimated 20,000 rural customers at tax payers expense. If the market was there the wires would be too.. dumb asses.
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- FTC to mobile carriers: If you could stop text scammers being jerks that'd be just great
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro