The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:29 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:37 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Article Linky
Comic inspiring thread title
Quote:
Joelle Tessler, AP Technology Writer, On Tuesday April 6, 2010, 5:38 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government's plans to expand broadband access in the United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

Supporters of network neutrality, including the FCC chairman, have argued that the policy is necessary to prevent broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain Web sites and online services, such as Internet phone programs or software that runs in a Web browser. Advocates contend there is precedent: Nondiscrimination rules have traditionally applied to so-called "common carrier" networks that serve the public, from roads and highways to electrical grids and telephone lines.

But broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. argue that after spending billions of dollars on their networks, they should be able to sell premium services and manage their systems to prevent certain applications from hogging capacity.

Tuesday's unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel was a setback for the FCC because it questioned the agency's authority to regulate broadband. That could cause problems beyond the FCC's effort to adopt official net neutrality regulations. It also has serious implications for the ambitious national broadband-expansion plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs the authority to regulate broadband so that it can push ahead with some of the plan's key recommendations. Among other things, the FCC proposes to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.

In a statement, the FCC said it remains "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans" and "will rest these policies ... on a solid legal foundation."

Comcast welcomed the decision, saying "our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation."

The case centers on Comcast's actions in 2007 when it interfered with an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which lets people swap movies and other big files over the Internet. The next year the FCC banned Comcast from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles it had adopted in 2005.

But Comcast argued that the FCC order was illegal because the agency was seeking to enforce mere policy principles, which don't have the force of regulations or law. That's one reason that Martin's successor, Democratic FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, is trying to formalize those rules.

The cable company had also argued the FCC lacks authority to mandate net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband under the Bush administration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.

The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the "common carrier" obligations that make traditional telecommunications services share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally. But the FCC maintains that existing law gives it authority to set rules for information services.

Tuesday's court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC "untrammeled freedom" to regulate without explicit legal authority.

With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday's decision.

But both of those steps could take too long because the agency "has too many important things they have to do right away," said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press. Free Press was among the groups that alerted the FCC after The Associated Press ran tests and reported that Comcast was interfering with attempts by some subscribers to share files online.

Scott believes that the likeliest step by the FCC is that it will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service. That, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies.

"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."

The battle over the FCC's legal jurisdiction comes amid a larger policy dispute over the merits of net neutrality. Backed by Internet companies such as Google Inc. and the online calling service Skype, the FCC says rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from prioritizing some traffic or degrading or services that compete with their core businesses. Indeed, BitTorrent can be used to transfer large files such as online video, which could threaten Comcast's cable TV business.

But broadband providers point to the fact that applications such as BitTorrent use an outsized amount of network capacity.

For its part, the FCC offered no details on its next step, but stressed that it remains committed to the principle of net neutrality.

"Today's court decision invalidated the prior commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," the agency's statement said. "But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."


I have mixed emotions about this. Generally speaking I would like to say "Yay Capitalism" However I dont like the idea of providers blocking access to certain websites, but I can choose my isp. Hopefully comcasts rivals will realize they can bleed off customers by providing a service more like what most people want.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
I'll start saying "yay capitalism" when we stop government-sponsoring local monopolies in the cable industry.

Conversely, perhaps that just means that neutrality needs to be written into the local laws guaranteeing those local monopolies.

I am, however, against legislating neutrality at the Federal level, because I hate the commerce clause.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
While I dislike government-sponsored cable monopolies, isn't it also horribly wasteful for every home to have four different sets of cable infrastructure run to it?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:06 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Xequecal wrote:
While I dislike government-sponsored cable monopolies, isn't it also horribly wasteful for every home to have four different sets of cable infrastructure run to it?


No, and even if it was, that is for the companies paying for the infrastructure to decide. There was an economist and philosopher who lived in the middle 1800's who espoused something very similar about the wastefulness of capitalism... can you name him?

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:35 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Rynar wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
While I dislike government-sponsored cable monopolies, isn't it also horribly wasteful for every home to have four different sets of cable infrastructure run to it?


No, and even if it was, that is for the companies paying for the infrastructure to decide. There was an economist and philosopher who lived in the middle 1800's who espoused something very similar about the wastefulness of capitalism... can you name him?


Yes it is wasteful and no, there is no reason it is not for the government to decide, nor is that Marxism.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:53 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
They opened up the energy market and I don't have four sets of power lines, gas lines, etc to my house. The technology is the same.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:38 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Yes cable is just a few decades behind those services is all when it comes to deregulation

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:01 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Deregulation is bad in natural monopoly industries. The problem with Cable is that the monopolies are local, artificial, and generally counterproductive.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:18 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Rorinthas wrote:
Yes cable is just a few decades behind those services is all when it comes to deregulation

If I move to California I don't need to buy a new TV set to accommodate for the co-axial cable there. If Cable were deregulated they could share the existing architecture the way electricity does. This argument holds no water for me.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:21 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Hopwin:

Power Delivery is still handled by monopolies and pricing increases outstripped inflation in electricity and telephone markets for a long, long time. In fact, telephone markets didn't start becoming cheaper than the Bell Monopoly until after the rise of a ubiquitous wireless phone service industry.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:28 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
I am not talking about pricing. I am strictly talking about infrastructure. If they deregulated the cable industry I have no doubt the price would not go down a red cent and would most likely increase as they make claims about having to install some new technology, etc.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:33 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Infrastructure sharing is a lot more difficult than you imagine. Indeed, the notion that you can share infrastructure is almost patently foolish when it comes hard line technology such as power and telephony.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Intersting. That's not a position I would have suspected coming from you Khross. I agree with you incidently.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:51 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Aizle:

I'm a classically trained economist, and my position on the matter of monopsony and monopoly has remained relatively consistent over the years. Natural monopolies are logical entities.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Yup, I concur.

I'm curious, what entities you feel are "natural monopolies"?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:28 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Let me take a wild stab and say non-elastic goods?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Hopwin wrote:
They opened up the energy market and I don't have four sets of power lines, gas lines, etc to my house. The technology is the same.


The only reason that is the case is that it was a public utility up until the infrastructure was in place. Then, the infrastructure is privatised, not fully private. The electric generation is private, the infrastructure is not wholly so.

If we followed a similar model with the net, we'd have publicly supported infrastructure that would then run private systems on it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
I generally see one of the purposes of government to provide infrastructure.

If they do it with water, sewer, and roads, they can do it with electricity and net.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
I really don't want the Gov't getting even close to regulating content.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:12 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
I meant that I agree and it will probaby just be a matter of time until the process that governs utility networks catches up to data networks. Look how long it took us to get electrical deregulation despite how long we had a standard for a/c power

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:17 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Rorinthas wrote:
I meant that I agree and it will probaby just be a matter of time until the process that governs utility networks catches up to data networks. Look how long it took us to get electrical deregulation despite how long we had a standard for a/c power
You don't have electrical deregulation, Rorinthas. You have the illusion of consumer purchasing, but prices are fundamentally fixed and managed by regional monopolies.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 171 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group