×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Obama FCC Caves On Net Neutrality

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the lets-go-spelunking dept.

The Internet 853

An anonymous reader writes "...the rule, which will be voted on during tomorrow's FCC meeting, falls drastically short of earlier pledges by President Obama and the FCC Chairman to protect the free and open Internet. The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What a suprise (5, Insightful)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628598)

Money rules this world...

Re:What a suprise (3, Interesting)

ikirudennis (1138621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628636)

Is this meant as a criticism of Obama or the fact that Obama had to cave in to people who are against net neutrality?

Re:What a suprise (5, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628690)

Yes

Re:What a suprise (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629018)

Kosh, is that you? I thought you died!

Re:What a suprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628758)

It seems like a criticism of a flawed system

Re:What a suprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628832)

It is meant as criticism of Obama, the corporate mouthpiece, the feckless leader, the one who's just as bad as all the rest.

Re:What a suprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628948)

He also isn't any worse than the rest either. It works both ways you know. How interested in net neutrality do you think Old Man River McCain and Dispshit Palin would have been? (Like Palin even has any idea what "net neutrality" means. She couldn't even spell it. And she can't see it from her house.)

Re:What a suprise (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629120)

Have you heard the Tea Partiers and Conservatives on this issue? They're braying about "government takeover" and calling net neutrality an assault on basic liberties.

I think a strong case can be made that he's done better than the rest, even if "better" just means he didn't completely bury net neutrality from the word go.

Re:What a suprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629194)

The crazy right wingers just up and do it. Obama does it slowly, lovingly, so good liberals won't suspect him. But we'll be at exactly the same point with regard to net neutrality in three years' time. There really isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties start the same wars, erode the same freedoms, end up at the same place one way or another.

Re:What a suprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628982)

They're all the same, doesn't matter how good a campaign they put on or what side of what isle they claim to hail from, they're all out for big business and that's it. I voted for Obama and while I still believe he's a damn site better than we'd have gotten from McCain, he's managed to stop just short of every campaign promise that mattered to me. Oh well, it's nothing new.

On the bright side, I have faith that, like they have always managed in the past, people will find ways to get around what ever restrictions are placed on the internet. I've been watching it happen since I was in college in the late 90's and it continues to happen today. It will keep happening.

Re:What a suprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629036)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:What a suprise (4, Insightful)

sarhjinian (94086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629160)

Remember the kerfuffle when Ralph Nader wondered if Obama would become a metaphorical "Uncle Tom" to corporate interests? This is what he meant.

Re:What a suprise (3, Funny)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629198)

Apparently, you didn't hear about "hope" and "change"

Re:What a suprise (3, Insightful)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628684)

There are likely deplorable provisions in the FCC's proposal.

However, at the same time, we'll never know which proposals are particularly egregious because any competently put together "net neutrality" policy will necessarily be very complex, and will necessarily require input from the IT/provider business community.

So even if it were a good proposal, it could still be called "full of loopholes" and "lobbyist driven" by anyone disingenuous enough to cherry pick from it and misrepresent it. Given we rely on journalism to boil these things down, and the total lack of ethics and objectivity in journalism these days, we are guaranteed to hear this same thing about each and every proposal for "net neutrality" that gets anywhere near the finish line.

Re:What a suprise (2)

sageres (561626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628840)

There are many FCC rules with "deplorable" provision. The worst one is the following

This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

:-)

Re:What a suprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628858)

So are there any thorough studies? I'm too lazy to read TFA and I want to get angry.

Aw shucks, I can always get angry now and prove my reasoning tomorrow.

Re:What a suprise (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629038)

...any competently put together "net neutrality" policy will necessarily be very complex...

Civilizations collapse when they become too complex to sustain - http://amzn.com/052138673X [amzn.com]

Re:What a suprise (1, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629050)

any competently put together "net neutrality" policy will necessarily be very complex

So. You are saying that "No internet provider shall at any time or for any reason discriminate against any particular types of traffic going to their subscribers." Needs some industry insider complexity thrown in for some mystical reason?

Re:What a suprise (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629102)

Your rule is uncompromising - what happens when Anonymous decide to DDoS some poor 14 year old who criticised them on his self-hosted blog?

The ISP may be able to handle 10GB/sec, but his ADSL line won't - plus of course the issues that 10GB/sec of traffic the ISP can do nothing about hitting their network... whats that going to do for other subscribers?

Come up with a new rule please.

Re:What a suprise (5, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629178)

More importantly, what if a carrier network is carrying VoIP traffic? Your rule would make it illegal to give 911 calls priority over all other traffic, and would undermine the ideas of QoS. I agree with your rule in spirit, but it needs some amendments to be practical.

Re:What a suprise (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629122)

It would be illegal under your scheme to give real time or streaming applications priority. Try again. How about, "No Internet provider shall discriminate based on end-points." Discriminate by type of traffic, sure. Discriminate based on where it came from or where it is going, no.

United States Government in action (1)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629028)

Government for the corporations, by the corporations. We might as well change the constitution....

"We the Corporations of the United States of America, in order to best subjugate, and bleed the masses...."

Pitchforks (2)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628608)

Before we get all burn-the-town-ey... why did this happen? Who, if anyone, could have stopped it? What's our next move?

Re:Pitchforks (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628670)

No clue. yesterday, I was advocating Net Neutrality in a discussion here on Slashdot, and I continue to advocate for it. What the FCC is showing here, however, is not what I and other like-minded folks are advocating. I think the first post has it right...money runs things.

PS: Sincere apologies to those who told me to read up yesterday...now that I have, I can see why you're calling bullshit. Please note that my support of Net Neutrality stands, but not this version of it.

Re:Pitchforks (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628754)

What are the different types then, and which version of it should we want?

Re:Pitchforks (5, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628774)

The "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" version. You know...what Net Neutrality actually means.

Re:Pitchforks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628936)

Those ICMP packets can go stuff themselves. Always chatting away with nothing really important to say. /packet bigot

Re:Pitchforks (5, Funny)

khr (708262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628964)

Some packets are more equal than others.

Re:Pitchforks (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628966)

Two words... Dumb pipe... That's what we're supposed to be demanding here.

Re:Pitchforks (2)

JWW (79176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629070)

I think the words you're looking for are

Common Carrier

Re:Pitchforks (0)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629020)

The "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" version. You know...what Net Neutrality actually means.

I'd shudder to see what the pricetag for such a data plan would be on AT&T's wireless network, for example. You can run your own VoIP, for example, and not use their phone services? Data prices would have to go up to compensate. That's the way the world works, as far as I know...

Take it all the way to the extreme and FORCE them to provide whatever you want at a mandated low price and then you'll get the most craptastic service you've ever imagined.

Unless we're ready to federalize the entire thing, there's no expectation that we can have whatever we want without paying for it.

Re:Pitchforks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629146)

Yeah, that's definitely the way things work overseas... oh wait.

Re:Pitchforks (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629158)

We could at least have low priced, fast, and fair service like most of the rest of the first world has. How about, oh I don't know, instead of charging us more, they reduce their profits to a fair and reasonable level? Why is it always the little guy who has to tighten his belt?

Re:Pitchforks (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629222)

That'd be unAmurrickan! Redistributing wealth like that...are you with the terrorists? ARE YOU??? HUH??????

Re:Pitchforks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629176)

Take it all the way to the extreme and FORCE them to provide whatever you want at a mandated low price and then you'll get the most craptastic service you've ever imagined.

I never thought of things this way, but it has an innate truth to it that's both hilarious and depressing.

Re:Pitchforks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629228)

Why not just let the price go up? Nobody's asking for it to be free or cheap, just Free.

Re:Pitchforks (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629086)

As soon as e911 was allowed by VOIP, this concept died.

You cannot drop a 911 call because there's a particularly intense Halo deathmatch going on, or your neighbor is streaming Harry Potter in HD.

Re:Pitchforks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629090)

The problem is that unless you're paying for a lobbyist you're not going to get that. Something that's more attainable would be to promote and foster competition in the broadband space. If there are 4 or 5 providers in an area and one starts treating some packets differently (not just for QoS purposes...real throttling) then people that really care have a place to go and can vote with their money.

Re:Pitchforks (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629214)

That's not the version that I would push for personally. The quintessential example is trading latency for bandwidth. VoIP doesn't require much bandwidth, but needs as low latency as possible to function properly. Bit Torrent is the opposite, you could have 10 second latency values and get basically the same quality of service as if you had 10 ms, so long as the bandwidth is high. In an ideal world maybe every service would have access to low latency and high bandwidth pipe, but you can get much better perceived performance out of the same equipment by correctly handling different services differently.

As I understood it, net neutrality means all packets of the same type are treated equally, regardless of the source and destination. Video has to be treated the same, whether it's coming from one of the ISP's servers or Netflix. Audio has to be treated the same whether it's the ISP's VoIP server or Ventrillo. Bulk data has to be the same whether it's coming from a corporate FTP site or a peer.

Re:Pitchforks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628678)

Before we get all burn-the-town-ey... why did this happen? Who, if anyone, could have stopped it? What's our next move?

>why did this happen?
Because it doesn't matter who you vote for, the lobbyists are still the ones with the power.

>Who, if anyone, could have stopped it?
The ISPs, if they felt like it - which they didn't and wouldn't have.

>What's our next move?
over 9000 proxies

Re:Pitchforks (2)

seepho (1959226) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628694)

The time for us to get behind Net Neutrality ended six months ago. Now there's nothing left to do but watch the world burn.

Re:Pitchforks (2)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628714)

What's our next move?

clearly boycotting the internet is our next move. I plan on starting right after this post...

Re:Pitchforks (3, Insightful)

oic0 (1864384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628718)

Next move is the pitchforks and fire... Or we could just smile and take it as we are sold out again.

Re:Pitchforks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628720)

Burn down the FCC? They're clearly only protecting one constituency and it's not consumers.

Re:Pitchforks (1)

lazn (202878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628954)

It happened because we weren't ready to burn the town over it.
If we made it a political issue that politicians must take a stand on something might have been done. (vote this way, or we won't vote for you next time)

Obviously our next move is to burn the town.

Re:Pitchforks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629172)

This _hasn't_ happened yet, but that huffpost writer is pretty sure we're screwed. We probably are. The discussion and vote is happening RIGHT NOW.

FCC stream: http://www.savetheinternet.com/FCCmeeting
C-Span stream: http://cspan.org/Events/FCC-Considers-Adopting-Net-Neutrality/10737418370-1/

Why would the Chair sellout? (-1, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628628)

Wasn't he appointed by the Democrat president? Or was he a Bush appointee? I assume the latter if he's bending-over to appease the megacorps.

Re:Why would the Chair sellout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628652)

*slow clap* Well done there O glorious leaders of the free world...

Re:Why would the Chair sellout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628664)

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/biography.html Check your facts before blathering....

Re:Why would the Chair sellout? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628706)

He was not only appointed by Obama, he was part of Obama's campaign. You should save your partisan assumptions for the time you spend on the Daily Kos.

Kos? (2)

wytcld (179112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629134)

If you've looked at Daily Kos in recent months, you'd know that most people posting there totally agree with the premise that Obama, while perhaps still not worse than W., is worse than any other president over the last century - including Nixon, who on many important matters (e.g. health care, full employment) was well to Obama's left, and who was no worse in getting bogged down in an unwinnable war for the sake of "honor" ... or something.

Personally, I'd say our only hope is that something forces Obama to resign, and that President Biden, liberated from Obama's bad policy judgment and idealization of "bipartisanship," runs the country like a real Democrat - or at least like a man who's still got his balls attached. Then again, given Biden's recent cluelessness about WikiLeaks, this could be a thin hope.

Re:Why would the Chair sellout? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629182)

You mean like posting "Obama FCC" when clearly "FCC" would do? No political bias there. I didn't see "Bush FCC" when the FCC did something annoying during his term.

Re:Why would the Chair sellout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628822)

Julius Genachowsk [wikipedia.org]
Appointed by Obama [whitehouse.gov]

I assume the latter if he's bending-over to appease the megacorps.

Ha! so you think there's a difference between how the two parties appease their corporate masters?
And to be clear, it's not him who's getting bent over, it's YOU.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628642)

Change we can believe in!

Re:LOL (2, Funny)

sageres (561626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628960)

LOL reminds me of the joke that was popular during the Obama presidential compaign.

McCain, Hillary and Obama are taking a walk on the streets of DC, and they encounter a homeless person. McCain pulls out a $20 bill and gives it to the man, adding, "Why don't you come tomorrow to my office and we'll talk about the job".
Hillary, not to be outdone pulls another $20 bill from McCain's pocket, then puts it into her pocket. She then takes out $15 from her own pocket and gives it to the homeless saying, "Five dollars processing fee!".
Obama shines his smile at the homeless man, comes up to him, pets him on the shoulder and says, "Have HOPE! CHANGE is coming!"

Backlash (3, Insightful)

mprinkey (1434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628704)

The ace in the hole for net neutrality is the latest crop of cheap TVs with built-in Netflix and other online services. My in-laws just purchased one a few months ago and they use Netflix constantly. These are dye-in-the-wool, Ann Coulter-reading, FOXNews-watching Republicans. I mentioned to my father-in-law about net neutrality being a big issue. He had never heard of it. When I explained the ramifications for their Netflix usage, his response was to immediately support it. It will be interesting to see this shake out. This is another chance where we can see if FOX and Rush can convince more people to act against their own self interest in support of some bastardization of "freedom."

Re:Backlash (4, Insightful)

sageres (561626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629014)

Why not deregulate the industry and disallow the cable company monopolies (such as Comcast for example) out there so that we actually have competition? That way if any ISP decides to bill "multi-tier" approach, you can vote with your wallet?

Re:Backlash (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629168)

That makes no sense. Disallowing Comcast and its ilk from doing something is regulation.

Now if we split Comcast into a content provider and common carrier and deregulated the former while regulating the latter as a utility, that would make sense.

Re:Backlash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629156)

I thought Freedom meant shooting myself in the foot, literally?

Re:Backlash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629192)

This is another chance where we can see if FOX and Rush can convince more people to act against their own self interest in support of some bastardization of "freedom."

It'll never happen. The issue is too complicated for their audience.

Color me Stupid (4, Insightful)

Sounder40 (243087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628726)

Obama's net neutrality pledge was one of the reasons I voted for him after voting for Republican presidential candidates for so many years. (That, and attempting to right the wrong of voting for dubya--twice.) It is now clear to me that they are ALL a bunch of lying hypocrites. And that I'm just not as smart as I thought I was...

Re:Color me Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628794)

Sounds like you are indeed quite stupid...

Re:Color me Stupid (1)

ikirudennis (1138621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628886)

The real point is: Given the recent election, could Obama afford to actually put up a fight against this? I don't like it, but it's the best we can hope for given the current political climate.

Re:Color me Stupid (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628934)

The election went the way it did because Obama never puts up a fight over anything.

Re:Color me Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629224)

I'd rather see him fight and fail than see him pass something that he said he wouldn't. People didn't vote for him to be weak.

Self-interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628918)

I remain absolutely shocked that in this day and age, the common man still refuses to accept that the people who run the business of government work precisely for themselves. After thousands of years of centralized power and the injustice it brings, it's almost comical (if it wasn't so sad) that the common man still falls for the same old scam, year after year. The people at the top of the pyramid are motivated purely by self-interest, the very thing they claim to save us from.

So let's sit down and take a deep breath here: you are NOT the government, and the government is not you; in fact, the government does not even "represent" you. If that were the case, then why do they need guns?

Again, the only solution to government failure and injustice is STRICT limits on the scope of government (both revenue and power over the people). Of course, that's nothing but a pipe dream for radicals and libertarians, right?

Re:Color me Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628950)

I voted for him only because the Reps were repeating so many ridiculous lies about him... I figured if they couldn't come up with real criticism then he must be better. In retrospect, I still think he was the better choice, but he's certainly not the solution to all our problems... honestly though, with the current conservative climate, I'm not sure even FDR could get anything respectable done.

Re:Color me Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629026)

And that I'm just not as smart as I thought I was...

Well, you did admit to voting for Bush

Re:Color me Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629066)

Net neutrality is a great idea... but I'm nervous about what happens after we open that door. Every time the population asks government for something, politicians start scheming how they can achieve other goals at the same time. Once the FCC regulates one aspect, it's simple to slip new regulations in as future riders. Suddenly it's simple to "think of the children" or whatnot and soon we can't access the "bad" part of the web and the government knows more about our packets than Google.

the people have *already* voted against it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628728)

TFA says: "Instead of protecting openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the Commission has exempted the mobile Internet from Net Neutrality protections"

Guess what? Nobody cares. If mobile users cared about openness, they *wouldn't have bought iPhones and Droids*. Those are closed and locked down devices.

People have already voted with their dollars against neutrality. And if the people don't care, the cause is lost.

Further, they have voted with their time and effort against open standards on the internet. They chose the closed facebook over any open alternative, and similar for dozens of other things. They'll pick closed IM protocols over open ones for example.

You cannot cram freedom down people's throats. They have to want it, and by and large, they DON'T. They're happier with authoritarian control, because then someone else does the thinking for them.

Re:the people have *already* voted against it (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628824)

I agree with most of your post, but...

Guess what? Nobody cares. If mobile users cared about openness, they *wouldn't have bought iPhones and Droids*. Those are closed and locked down devices.

lolwut? I fail to see how Android is "closed", since anyone can put what they want on the Android Market without going through an approval process. Not to mention pretty much every Android phone (except the ones on AT&T) can install apps from any source simply by ticking an option box.

Hell, even the iPhone isn't "closed", so long as you don't mind jailbreaking it (which, at this point, is super easy.)

Mr. Obama wants to prove to the world (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628748)

That you can not trust the black guy at the helm.
What a schmuck!

Poor choice of article for linking (1)

Saishuuheiki (1657565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628750)

While I agree with the articles stance on the Net Neutrality issue being passed, the article fails to mention why the bill is bad. It just repeatedly says how horrible it is without giving any reasons.

When there are so many problems with the bill, the least they could do is mention them.

(Personally, I do agree that it has many problems. I can only base this on articles I've read elsewhere since the one on huffington is all rhetoric and no fact)

Obama is a complete and utter failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628788)

Although, I still have to chuckle at all the passionate supporters at campaign time. They really were convinced he'd reinvent america, now with more unicorns and rainbows.

Americans got EXACTLY the representation they deserved, as always.

Does anyone have a link ? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628798)

Does anyone have a link to the actual rule they will be voting on ?

What did you expect? (0)

sageres (561626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628810)

Was it not obvious that "Hope" and "Change" was nothing more then a slogan and the Great Orator with Teleprompter took everyone for a ride? The mob followed him blindly... Don't feel bad, it happens all the time regardless of the politicians' political affiliations. I believe it was Nikita Khrushchev who once said, "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers."

Can someone give me some details please (1)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628816)

While TFA does a lot of ranting and raving about the upcoming regulation, it doesn't actually give any details about what's in the regulation. One of the linked articles does a bit better, telling you what the bill lacks (seemingly any restrictions on paid prioritization, which makes me wonder how you can actually call it a "net neutrality" bill at all), but doesn't say anything about what the bill does include.

Can someone please tell me what's actually in this bill?

Re:Can someone give me some details please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628988)

SNAFU. Uncle Charlie and Big Bubba says bend over, relax and enjoy it. Details incoming.

Correction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628820)

"it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the bribes of AT&T and cable lobbyists"

FTFY

Unsurprising... (5, Interesting)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628848)

I've been reading Matt Taibbi's book, "Griftopia" (http://www.amazon.com/Griftopia-Machines-Vampire-Breaking-America/dp/0385529953), and having worked in finance for ~10 years, I'm coming to realize more and more that the powers that be -- corporations, CEOs, and everybody that's basically not *you* are the people who are going to run the US for the coming future. A leaked memo from Citigroup (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36059255/23321255-Citigroup-Mar-5-2006-Plutonomy-Report-Leaked-Citigroup-Memo-Part1) has already declared the US a Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy).

This is just another shot in the arm against a citizenry whose arms are already falling off from the shots before. The FCC coming up with a plan to (surprise surprise) support the plutocracy that we've already been labelled by Wall Street is not even a stretch any more. And while the Tea Party clamors about how government is trying to socialize everything, they miss that problem that the government has been co-opted in stealing America as a whole from the citizens themselves, and they are happy to have the folks in the Tea Party carry their banner without realizing what damage they are doing.

I am a bit demoralized nowadays about all this -- and I'd love to take action but I don't know how. So while we as nerds who normally argue, bitch, and complain can actually stand up and figure a way to do something about this (short of something 4chan would do), then I'd be all for it. Let's strategize. Let's plan. And let's execute in the perfect ways I know that we can do thousands of lines of code, deploying hundreds of servers, or anything else "IT" that we do.

I'm here to start the call to arms, I just don't know what to do after that.

Re:Unsurprising... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629112)

Let's strategize. Let's plan. And let's execute in the perfect ways I know that we can do...

Let's just fire up a fatty on the White House lawn.

Re:Unsurprising... (3, Insightful)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629220)

I am a bit demoralized nowadays about all this -- and I'd love to take action but I don't know how. So while we as nerds who normally argue, bitch, and complain can actually stand up and figure a way to do something about this (short of something 4chan would do), then I'd be all for it. Let's strategize. Let's plan. And let's execute in the perfect ways I know that we can do thousands of lines of code, deploying hundreds of servers, or anything else "IT" that we do.

I'm here to start the call to arms, I just don't know what to do after that.

This is my problem, too. Telling the government what we want and what is right hasn't worked. Voting hasn't worked. I'm certain there must be a few more steps we can take before attempting to shoot government leaders is the right answer, though. I just don't have a clue what those next steps might be.

Told You So (0)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628860)

But did you want to listen?? Nooo...

(See my various postings elsewhere)

Sadly, none of this is surprising.

FCC (1)

Gunkerty Jeb (1950964) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628866)

The FCC is and always will be lame.

So what did you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628880)

So what did you wusses expect from democrats? Something of substance? It is all about how much money is given, to them.

Re:So what did you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629006)

It's pretty clear that the US is run by the corporations, so it would have been the same if it were all Republicans, Independents or whatever $party you chose.

Sucks, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628884)

Realistically, this probably wasn't ever gonna go through the way anyone wanted. It doesn't get politicians what they want...more green pocket-lining.

Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34628908)

No surprise, though. Bunch of spineless wimps that easily bend to a few bucks.

Why are you surprised? (5, Interesting)

subreality (157447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628968)

The FCC was bought, sold, and paid for long ago. That's why the vast majority of our spectrum 'belongs' to megacorps, and only the thinnest little slivers are given back to us.

Can you imagine how much more useful WiFi would be if we had more than 3 non-conflicting channels that are completely trampled by microwave ovens? (OK, so there's also the 5GHz band, but I mean a nice big block, all in one clean band.) Cordless phones wouldn't conflict, wireless in-house TV distribution would have happened long ago, and more. Imagine if there was a decently sized band of relatively long-wavelength (sub-GHz), spectrum available that allowed a couple watts total / a few tens EIRP in a narrow beam. We could very easily set up private point to point links everywhere, instead of just barely getting them to work as it is now.

Or standards... The rest of the world uses DVB. The US gets ATSC, which is a mess of patents. Same deal with HD radio.

I'm not the least surprised that the FCC isn't protecting your interests, and is doing everything that keeps huge corporations in control of communications. It's what they do best.

Fucking Republicans (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34628974)

They gave in, and allowed the Democrats to impose regulation on the internet.

That is the cave you're referring to, right?

Re:Fucking Republicans (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629150)

Please forget the Republican vs Democrat paradigm. Debating their relative merits is pointless and diverts us from the real issue - freedom vs everything else.

"We fought for Freedom and all we got was democracy"
  - Pieter-Dirk Uys

Big Suprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629030)

Welching on promises? Less that I bargained for? Par for the course with His Excellency.

B-but ... Freedom! (2)

serutan (259622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629060)

It's all about Freedom! Because how can we be free if the people with a compulsive need to own everything aren't free to own everything?

Is it really so outrageous? (4, Funny)

guanxi (216397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629088)

I know it's a crazy thing to say around here, but owners of the telecommunication companies are just as deserving of having their needs served by government as the consumers of telecommunications services. Government doesn't exist to protect the rights of citizens who are consuming over those who are producing. I don't know much about this ruling, but in general a compromise between those interests is a good thing.

I know the corporations are the 'bad' guys, but you don't want government playing favorites. Maybe it will make you feel better to know that pension funds, which keep a great many of our elderly working class and middle class housed and fed, are among the largest owners of those corporations.

Again, maybe this ruling is different, but it wouldn't be a compromise if everyone was happy.

Re:Is it really so outrageous? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34629162)

So if the government is always siding with industry lobbies on every issue, aren't they playing favorites? Or is this the compromise you speak of?

Internet2, anyone? (2)

oh-dark-thirty (1648133) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629100)

I say we all find a way to hop on before they fuck that one up too.

Just the beginning (2)

Pewpdaddy (1364159) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629144)

ACTA is next, we'll have to create an underground internet to "use it as intended". Leave it to the sheep to let big business decide what is acceptable and what isn't. The media companies firmly believe if you scratch "their" CD/DVD even though you purchased it, your right to copy said legitimate media is null and void.

How to explain it? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34629206)

I'm not a fan of net neutrality, but I see a very cynical and corrupt decision here. Two years ago, Timothy Karr was saying this:

There's been heavy traffic over the Net Neutrality wires since the November 4 Election of Barack Hussein Obama, and it's not just because the president-elect was so outspoken in support of the principle while on the campaign trail.

There has been a sea change in Washington since then, as the wonks, tech pundits and lobbyists align themselves with new leadership and the likelihood that Net Neutrality could become law soon.

[...]

Obama, Gore and Dorgan's support is no surprise. What's "mind blowing" according to some in the media, is AT&T's apparent change of heart.

At the same conference, AT&T's lead policy VP, James Cicconi, said, "There's a lot of people who now believe that companies like AT&T are not plotting to overthrow the open Internet concept."

Yet two long years later, the FCC ends up implementing a contrary policy. And the timing is ideal. It's after the midterms so there's no fallout for that and the old Congress is still in session so they won't get any serious opposition from the Republicans for another month. My take is that they intended something like this all along.

I'm starting to wonder if Obama has written off his chances for reelection in 2012?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?