Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #5607 > unrolled thread

POTUS backs net neutrality

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  POTUS backs net neutrality Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-11-10 23:31 +0000
    Re: POTUS backs net neutrality RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-11-11 08:05 +0000
      Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-11-11 09:10 +0000
        Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-11-11 14:08 +0000
          Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-11 19:20 +0000
            Re: POTUS backs net neutrality RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-11-12 14:46 +0000
              Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-12 17:26 +0200
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-12 19:07 +0000
                  Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-12 22:12 +0200
                    Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-12 21:09 +0000
                      Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-13 00:27 +0200
                      Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-11-13 11:26 +0000
                        Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-13 14:44 +0000
                          Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-13 17:02 +0200
                            Re: POTUS backs net neutrality RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-11-14 16:18 +0000
      Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-13 16:21 -0800

#5607 — POTUS backs net neutrality

"America’s major telecoms and cable companies and business groups came
out fighting on Monday after Barack Obama called for tough new
regulations for broadband that would protect net neutrality, saying they
were “stunned” by the president’s proposals.

The president called for new regulations to protect “net neutrality” –
the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated
equally. His move came as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
finalises a new set of proposals for regulation after the old rules were
overturned by a series of court defeats at the hands of cable and
telecom companies."

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/cable-companies-obama-net-neutrality-proposals-fcc-fight

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5608

On 2014-11-10, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> "America’s major telecoms and cable companies and business groups came
> out fighting on Monday after Barack Obama called for tough new
> regulations for broadband that would protect net neutrality, saying
> they were “stunned” by the president’s proposals.
>
> The president called for new regulations to protect “net neutrality” –
> the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated
> equally. His move came as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
> finalises a new set of proposals for regulation after the old rules
> were overturned by a series of court defeats at the hands of cable and
> telecom companies."
>

Frustrated American here, and not trying to turn a tech thread into a
political one, but ... these days it matters less what POTUS thinks and
more what Congress does.  Pres. Obama may want net neutrality but
Congress is fully and thoroughly bought by corporate interests and it's
not clear they have the same vision.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5609

On 2014-11-11 08:05, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-11-10, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>> "America’s major telecoms and cable companies and business groups came
>> out fighting on Monday after Barack Obama called for tough new
>> regulations for broadband that would protect net neutrality, saying
>> they were “stunned” by the president’s proposals.
>>
>> The president called for new regulations to protect “net neutrality” –
>> the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated
>> equally. His move came as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
>> finalises a new set of proposals for regulation after the old rules
>> were overturned by a series of court defeats at the hands of cable and
>> telecom companies."
>>
> Frustrated American here, and not trying to turn a tech thread into a
> political one, but ... these days it matters less what POTUS thinks and
> more what Congress does.  Pres. Obama may want net neutrality but
> Congress is fully and thoroughly bought by corporate interests and it's
> not clear they have the same vision.

He may just be politicking, but if it gets more citizens to think about
the issue it may just make a difference. As for political parties
desperately pretending to be different from one another while whoring us
out to their corporate sponsors: it's just the same here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5610

Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> On 2014-11-11 08:05, RS Wood wrote:
> > On 2014-11-10, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> >> "America?s major telecoms and cable companies and business groups
> >> came out fighting on Monday after Barack Obama called for tough
> >> new regulations for broadband that would protect net neutrality,
> >> saying they were ?stunned? by the president?s proposals.
> >>
> >> The president called for new regulations to protect ?net
> >> neutrality? ? the principle that all traffic on the internet
> >> should be treated equally. His move came as the Federal
> >> Communications Commission (FCC) finalises a new set of proposals
> >> for regulation after the old rules were overturned by a series of
> >> court defeats at the hands of cable and telecom companies."
> >>
> > Frustrated American here, and not trying to turn a tech thread into
> > a political one, but ... these days it matters less what POTUS
> > thinks and more what Congress does.  Pres. Obama may want net
> > neutrality but Congress is fully and thoroughly bought by corporate
> > interests and it's not clear they have the same vision.

> He may just be politicking, but if it gets more citizens to think
> about the issue it may just make a difference. As for political
> parties desperately pretending to be different from one another while
> whoring us out to their corporate sponsors: it's just the same here.

As much as I dislike O. as a prez., there is one good thing with this. 
He has "informed" a significant number of voters of an issue that
otherwise they would never have known about.

And as was seen by the sopa/copa attempt, if enough voters push their
purchased congress moles, the moles will listen.  Because all the
lobbying by corporate interests in the world does not count if your
voting base decides to turn you out of office.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5611

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:

> As much as I dislike O. as a prez., there is one good thing with this. 
> He has "informed" a significant number of voters of an issue that
> otherwise they would never have known about.
>
> And as was seen by the sopa/copa attempt, if enough voters push their
> purchased congress moles, the moles will listen.  Because all the
> lobbying by corporate interests in the world does not count if your
> voting base decides to turn you out of office.

The president also has direct influence over the chair of the FCC, who
in turn can influence policy on an administrative level.

Not as good as having acutal legislation, but at least it's a move in
the right direction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5613

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:20:13 +0000 (UTC)
Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> wrote:

> The president also has direct influence over the chair of the FCC, who
> in turn can influence policy on an administrative level.
> 
> Not as good as having acutal legislation, but at least it's a move in
> the right direction.

This was just reported today on SoylentNews:

http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/11/12/0821255

The FCC Weighs Breaking with Obama over the Future of the Internet
posted by janrinok on Wednesday November 12, @02:14PM   Printer-friendly 
from the business-versus-politics dept.
 News
timbim writes:

Hours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fcc-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5614

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fc
> c-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet/

The linked article makes it clear that the interests of the citizens are
not being considered here. It's simply about dividing the spoils between
different business interests:

    an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business

    rich Web firms over start-ups

    favor some services over others


Here's my proposal to consider. Get FCC out of the way and allow the
states to legislate and administer the net freely. Some states will hand
the net to the phone companies, some will set net neutrality rules,
others will build their own infrastructure. After a few years, we'll get
to see whose model is best for who, and those who chose badly will get
to change their ways.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5616

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:26:57 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:

> Here's my proposal to consider. Get FCC out of the way and allow the
> states to legislate and administer the net freely. Some states will hand
> the net to the phone companies, some will set net neutrality rules,
> others will build their own infrastructure. After a few years, we'll get
> to see whose model is best for who, and those who chose badly will get
> to change their ways.


This is a bad idea. What's to prevent an ISP like Comcast to simply
route all their traffic through a "business friendly" state so that they
can throttle/block/do whatever to anyone they want regardless of the
customer's location? Similar to how Amazon was able to avoid charging
sales tax for so long (and still does in many places).

State legislation isn't going to solve this one. Net neutrality is one
of those all or nothing things which needs to be handled on a federal
level.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5617

Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org>:

> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:26:57 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's my proposal to consider. Get FCC out of the way and allow the
>> states to legislate and administer the net freely. Some states will
>> hand the net to the phone companies, some will set net neutrality
>> rules, others will build their own infrastructure. After a few years,
>> we'll get to see whose model is best for who, and those who chose
>> badly will get to change their ways.
>
> This is a bad idea. What's to prevent an ISP like Comcast to simply
> route all their traffic through a "business friendly" state so that
> they can throttle/block/do whatever to anyone they want regardless of
> the customer's location?

I don't quite understand. If, say, Montana enacted a net neutrality law,
how could Comcast escape that in Montana? If Comcast didn't want to do
business in Montana, others would take its business there.

> State legislation isn't going to solve this one. Net neutrality is one
> of those all or nothing things which needs to be handled on a federal
> level.

You have a pretty limited view of the Internet. How do Canada,
Australia, France and Lithuania factor in the "federal level?"

Or should we let the UN administer the Internet? Otherwise, what would
prevent Comcast from routing its traffic around the United States
altogether?


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5618

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 22:12:13 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org>:

> I don't quite understand. If, say, Montana enacted a net neutrality law,
> how could Comcast escape that in Montana? If Comcast didn't want to do
> business in Montana, others would take its business there.

I thought that I just expained it, but let me give it another go:

Say I'm Comcast and I currently do business in Montana. Now say that
Montana enacts a net neutrality law that requires unfiltered access to
the Internet and with no "speed lanes", or preferred sites, or anything
like that. Great.

Now let's say that Comcast also does business in Idaho and Idaho does
not have any such restrictions (or, even worse, explicitly allows ISPs
to filter). And, by circumstance, a large switch exists in Idaho which 
serves the Montana area. Comcast could, in order to comply with Idaho law, 
claim that it is filtering and enacting restrictions in compliance with that
law and not Montana's even though it affects Montana residents, it's
subject to Idaho law and not Montana's. 

See the problem here? 

It's for these reasons (inconsistency of laws) that federal regulatory 
agencies exist and why historically the telecommunications industry fell 
under some strict regulations and why it was a complete mess prior to the 
1990s (remember the old long-distance provider fiascos? I dread going back 
to those days).

>> State legislation isn't going to solve this one. Net neutrality is one
>> of those all or nothing things which needs to be handled on a federal
>> level.
>
> You have a pretty limited view of the Internet. How do Canada,
> Australia, France and Lithuania factor in the "federal level?"

Thanks for telling me what I know. I'm so glad people like you exist to
remind me of these things!

Canada, Australia, France, and Lithuania are different countries. I
doubt that Comcast operates there...but I could be wrong, I suppose. And
not at all set up legally like the United States. That's what we're
discussing here, right? US law?

> Or should we let the UN administer the Internet? Otherwise, what would
> prevent Comcast from routing its traffic around the United States
> altogether?

No, that would be silly. And Comcast is subject to US law since they are
a US company and also subject to regulaion under many different federal
organizations--which is how our legal system is set up. My whole point
was that a state-by-state solution is not a good one because it is easy
to work around in any particular company's favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5619

Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org>:

> Now let's say that Comcast also does business in Idaho and Idaho does
> not have any such restrictions (or, even worse, explicitly allows ISPs
> to filter). And, by circumstance, a large switch exists in Idaho which 
> serves the Montana area. Comcast could, in order to comply with Idaho law, 
> claim that it is filtering and enacting restrictions in compliance with that
> law and not Montana's even though it affects Montana residents, it's
> subject to Idaho law and not Montana's. 
>
> See the problem here? 

We are talking about two different things: the last mile (subscriber
access) and trunk traffic (peering). There will always be trunk
providers that are willing to route bits through obnoxious inbetweeners.
The problem is the stranglehold on the subscribers. The subscribers are
most definitely under the dominion of the local government.

> It's for these reasons (inconsistency of laws) that federal regulatory 
> agencies exist and why historically the telecommunications industry fell 
> under some strict regulations and why it was a complete mess prior to the 
> 1990s (remember the old long-distance provider fiascos? I dread going back 
> to those days).

I don't remember that so I can't judge how the analogy would work for
today's backbone data networks. Relatively small companies routinely
subscribe to WAN VPNs with rate and QoS guarantees so there must be
quite a bit of competition.

> Canada, Australia, France, and Lithuania are different countries. I
> doubt that Comcast operates there...but I could be wrong, I suppose.
> And not at all set up legally like the United States. That's what
> we're discussing here, right? US law?

We are discussing the possible adverse consequences of letting states
handle net neutrality to their liking. If different countries can
operate under different rules, so could different states.

> My whole point was that a state-by-state solution is not a good one
> because it is easy to work around in any particular company's favor.

You would be right if there were a (near) monopoly over the trunk
networks. However,

   Antitrust authorities have acted to ensure that no provider grows
   large enough to dominate the backbone market. In the United States,
   the Federal Communications Commission has decided not to monitor the
   competitive aspects of the Internet backbone interconnection
   relationships as long as the market continues to function well.

   <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone#Regulation>

IOW, the backbone is not the topic of this discussion.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5622

On 2014-11-12, Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 22:12:13 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org>:

[27 lines snipped]

>>> State legislation isn't going to solve this one. Net neutrality is one
>>> of those all or nothing things which needs to be handled on a federal
>>> level.
>>
>> You have a pretty limited view of the Internet. How do Canada,
>> Australia, France and Lithuania factor in the "federal level?"
>
> Thanks for telling me what I know. I'm so glad people like you exist to
> remind me of these things!
>
> Canada, Australia, France, and Lithuania are different countries. I
> doubt that Comcast operates there...but I could be wrong, I suppose. And
> not at all set up legally like the United States. That's what we're
> discussing here, right? US law?

You are aware that Telecommunications standards are defined by the ITU
who are an arm of the UN? They are *exactly* the people who should be
doing this stuff.

-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 25th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3180
"I do not want people to be agreeable, as it saves me that trouble of
                       liking them." – Jane Austen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5623

On 13 Nov 2014 11:26:26 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> You are aware that Telecommunications standards are defined by the ITU
> who are an arm of the UN? They are *exactly* the people who should be
> doing this stuff.

For telecommunication standards, you are absolutely correct. It is an
international ITU standard and set up for exactly these sorts of
reasons. I'm not arguing that...and IMO standardization is a good thing.

But the original issue was net neutrality and whether or not the states
should be able to regulate their own systems. And my point was not a
techincal one but a legal one: that giving states that abilitiy will
cause more complications and ultimately serve to undermine any sort of
neutrality on the Internet.

I honestly don't care if the Feds implement net neutrality or the UN
just as long as we don't go in the direction of censorship.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5624

Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org>:

> But the original issue was net neutrality and whether or not the states
> should be able to regulate their own systems. And my point was not a
> techincal one but a legal one:

I'm thinking it's primarily an economical and game-theoretical
what-would-happen-if issue.

> that giving states that abilitiy will cause more complications and
> ultimately serve to undermine any sort of neutrality on the Internet.

I'm not sure which way divide-and-conquer would work here. Thing is, FCC
cuts bothways. If they turn against net neutrality (as their chairman
wants), they will make it impossible (illegal) for the states to do the
right thing. The "federal solution" might effectively enshrine
monopolies.

> I honestly don't care if the Feds implement net neutrality or the UN
> just as long as we don't go in the direction of censorship.

If you let the states handle it, net neutrality states would attract a
lot of startups and create jobs. It would become a market proposition.
Additionally, there might be one or two enlightened states that would do
it out of a principle for their residents.

Then, after a few years the practical consequences would start to become
evident and the better models would start overtaking other states. Or
maybe not; a lot of people actually *like* their shiny handcuffs. At any
rate, I'm hopeful that it would preserve net neutrality in the US better
than at the hands of the pro-monopoly FCC+Congress.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5631

> Then, after a few years the practical consequences would start to become
> evident and the better models would start overtaking other states. Or
> maybe not; a lot of people actually *like* their shiny handcuffs. At any
> rate, I'm hopeful that it would preserve net neutrality in the US better
> than at the hands of the pro-monopoly FCC+Congress.
> 
> 
> Marko
> 

Fair enough.  Also, a new market can spring up selling VPN
 services from non - net - neutral states who want to appear as
 though they live in others.  I'm not faulting your suggestion,
 just saying it's stupid policy to enact a bad law and then allow
 some states to boast they're less bad, especially if from a
 consumer view the status quo is a better solution over
 all.

In sum I'm annoyed this is even up for discussion.  Should ve been
 a non-starter.

-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5626

On 2014-11-11 08:05:54 +0000, RS Wood said:

> On 2014-11-10, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>> "America’s major telecoms and cable companies and business groups came
>> out fighting on Monday after Barack Obama called for tough new
>> regulations for broadband that would protect net neutrality, saying
>> they were “stunned” by the president’s proposals.
>> 
>> The president called for new regulations to protect “net neutrality” –
>> the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated
>> equally. His move came as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
>> finalises a new set of proposals for regulation after the old rules
>> were overturned by a series of court defeats at the hands of cable and
>> telecom companies."
>> 
> 
> Frustrated American here, and not trying to turn a tech thread into a
> political one, but ... these days it matters less what POTUS thinks and
> more what Congress does.  Pres. Obama may want net neutrality but
> Congress is fully and thoroughly bought by corporate interests and it's
> not clear they have the same vision.

You should consider that Obama's extensive use of Executive Orders, as 
well as the fact that the FCC's regulations are generally set by 
appointed bureaucrats and not by elected officials, makes it so that if 
Obama wanted Net Neutrality he could probably have it by morning.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web