Net neutrality: Growing flames of criticism lick FCC chief's secret plans As the big vote on new net neutrality rules draws close, opposition to the FCC chairman's plan to reclassify broadband under so-called Title II legislation is growing. On Thursday, the Washington Post formally came out against the idea, arguing that such an approach would "expose broadband providers to a new world of federal …
* Please don't ref and assume that it will be read (I did)
* Please don't assume that we understand what all the acronyms mean (I looked them up)
* Please don't assume that a UK reader of a UK site will automatically understand what an FTC and an FCC actually is (still non plussed)
This is an important topic and I got lost and I don't think I should have done. Please try harder to spell out the goodies and baddies (from your perspective) and I'll use my inbuilt bias to colour my comments.
Cheers
Jon
Working: ..." the Washington Post formally came out against the idea, arguing that such an approach would "expose broadband providers"... . This came across to me as WP being against NetNeut (your article.) Their article dispels that (my reading.)
FTC - Federal Trade Commission - tasked with regulating commerce between the 50 states, various territories and, to a lesser extent, between the states/territories and foreign interests doing business here.
FCC - Federal Communications Commission - tasked with regulating electronic communication and the transmission/reception/interactions thereof.
The grey area and subsequent confusion over which (if either) should do what is caused by the fact that the internet is simultaneously a medium of communication AND of commerce.
The FTC, or at least the principle behind it, is significantly older because regulation of trade is one of the cornerstones of Federal power in the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). However, the FCC also has a valid point because the electronic communication capabilities of the internet allow users to conduct commerce in ways and with trading partners previously unavailable by other means.
It is my opinion that NEITHER should have anything even remotely close to "full" control over the internet, but each should probably have SOME control over certain things that happen within the borders of USA. That is their chartered responsibility. It is the responsibility of Congress (and those of us who supposedly elect them) to ensure that the FCC, FTC, and other Federal agencies do not EXCEED their charters and are appropriately smacked down when such excess is attempted.
The Washington Post is a newspaper. Its current and only core business function is to generate maximal revenue by:
- selling as many printed copies as it possibly can
- generating advertising click-through revenue on its online edition
Decades ago, Washington Post's business function was the dissemination of news and commentary on the news. That goal was apparently abandoned in favor of a much more lucrative business model: clueless lobbying for sale to the highest bidder.
Washington Post's opinions about Title II regulation of high-speed Internet are just about as irrelevant as Kim Kardashian's. Washingon Post - a.k.a. Pravda - has no demonstrable track record of competency in the areas of Internet infrastructure, regulatory construction, Net Neutrality, or any other topic or subject covered by the authority of the FCC.
I believe everyone would be very interested to know how come the Washington Post is able to opine on a set of regulatory proposals which haven't even been made public yet. Perhaps they have obtained this information from a new and improved Deep Throat. Let's call it Deeper Throat.
Next up: Justin Bieber files an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in favor of Title II regulation of high-speed Internet.
The Washington Post's function was never to disseminate news. Like many papers in the UK, it was founded with the express purpose of advocating for the advancement of a particular political party. In this case it happened to be the Democrats. Which means that if the Post is coming out against this FCC rule grab, the details are worse than the FCC's Republican members have said they are.
how come the Washington Post is able to opine on a set of regulatory proposals which haven't even been made public yet.
That's easy. As THE go to source for leaks in DC, the FCC Democrats have already passed them a copy of the proposals on the assumption the Post would flack for them. That the Post isn't is seriously bad news.
> Doesn't "Pravda" translate as "Truth?"
Literally, yes. Pravda was also the name of the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It was the official mouthpiece of the Soviet Politburo.
More about Pravda - the newspaper - here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda
Let's see how this shakes out. The rules have even be published yet. Then there's Congress sitting on their hands and fondling the cash. It may be a disaster for consumers/customers and probably will be. But it might also be entertaining to watch the various weasels jump through their masters hoops.
"That the US is investing much more and expanding much faster than Europe is in terms of broadband networks - both wired and wireless"
But I cannot help but think that Google rolling out Google Fibre, is the biggest reason for wired infrastructure upgrades than the existing Telco's actually caring about their customers and having excellent infrastructure.
I wouldn't call that cynical - it's fairly well known that providers will generally only compete if they have competition.
Looking at how things have gone over here in the UK, there's a community project not too far from me - sadly not actually near me :-( - which set out to roll out "community installed" fibre to a load of rural villages and small towns. Yup, gigabit fibre for a modest monthly fee which can be even smaller if you've contributed to the build and/or upkeep.
Apparently, many of the villages were on BT's "won't ever get FTTC" list - hence the community project. Amazingly, once the project announced where they were going, then many of the villages suddenly became commercially viable for BT to install FTTC !
BT has a long history of doing nothing until it risks losing business to competition - then it'll wake up and do all it can to kill that competition.
I strongly suspect we'd still be paying a premium for "up to" 8Mbps ADSL (vs 512k or 2M ADSL) if third parties hadn't come along and started offering ADSL2+ ("up to" 24Mbps) using their own kit in exchanges - and the regulator had to step in to force BT to allow that.
In itself, this is an extraordinary turnaround given that no one seriously considered Congressional legislation as even a remote possibility just a few weeks ago.
Because I made exactly these points 7 days ago here on El Reg, and collected the obligatory 4 downvotes from the freetards and fascists who want their will imposed on everyone without even a basic check on reality:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/2433390
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/2433395
They were even posted in another Kieren McCarthy hit piece. I guess the somewhat more conciliatory tone of this article means truth is finally beginning to penetrate the zone of propaganda.
<QUOTE>
Because I made exactly these points 7 days ago here on El Reg, and collected the obligatory 4 downvotes from the freetards and fascists who want their will imposed on everyone without even a basic check on reality
</QUOTE>
You collect downvotes because your comments are - generally speaking - emphatical and clueless, and peppered with uncalled-for epithets such as "freetards" or "fascists". See quote above.
You can afford to be unpleasant and insulting if you are always 100% mind-boggingly accurate.
Or
You can be inaccurate and clueless, but then your comments should be pleasant to read. Hoping for wit would probably be too much to ask, so let's settle for not unnecessarily asinine.
Being consistently wrong and bitchy doesn't collect upvotes.
Please try to remember that there are TWO kinds of Net Neutrality.
1. The original kind, and one most people believe the FCC is pushing. Which basicaly means leave the Internet alone because it's been working just fine this way for years.
2. Mr. Obama and the FCC came up with a plan to seize control over the Internet; mainly "news" sources on the internet, to censor communications, determine what we see and hear, and say to others. They called this plan "Net Neutrality". So everytime FCC says Net Neutrality, most people chear it on, thinking they get definition number 1, but the FCC is planning to implement definition number 2.
It's a power grab. Do you get it?
Please try to remember that there are TWO kinds of Net Neutrality.
There are far more than that, and most of them are uninformed rubbish. Anyone who thinks "net neutrality" does much of anything to help speaker and audience converge on similar concepts is deluded.
For most people, it seems to mean "I want more / cheaper X online without interference from Y", where X and Y are selected at random from large and growing sets.
Europe is deregulating... but maybe because there actually is multiple Broadband options.
There may not be ADSL to rural areas, but line-of-sight is a possibility, and the local projects mentioned above are actually possible.
The USA is nowhere near Europe's situation - they need to spend a good few years regulating, before they can start deregulating.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
