The FCC (the U.S. Federal Communications Commission) has approved -by a partisan majority of 3 to 2- the (presumably desirable) Net Neutrality rules (not yet released to the public…) to regulate ISPs -and, of course, other "players"– to ensure a free and open internet… (see here (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board), for instance) by bureaucratic interference, based upon the rules meant to constrain the government-granted monopoly to AT&T in the late 30's.
I am eager to read the "final" 317 pages "agreed to" by this commission, and look forward to the court cases it prompts. (Not to mention, because I don't believe such will be forthcoming, the congressional backlash and remedy…sad to say). I'd like to read it because I might be able to deconstruct its purpose — and argue against such.
(Yes, I think I know what it is…)
My main point here is to highlight the perennial question: What warrants and justifies government regulation? And when and why should such be accepted or promulgated, absent irremediable harms?
Put more simply: If it ain't broke, why "fix" it?
Other thoughts…?
If it ain't broke, why "fix" it?
The Triumph of technocrats, bureaucrats and other rats. They need to be fed and they feed on us.
I agree, Belfrager.
Buckle up, everyone: We're in for a bumpy ride (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2890172/the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules-what-we-know-so-far.html)!
I'm amused by the other side. AT&T and Verizon arguing that the rule is archaic, 1930s and so on--- :jester:.
Now, seriously. Left to their own devices, AT&T and the telcos in general have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern age. If they had had their way--- say, if AT&T hadn't been broken up several years back-- right now you'd be lucky to have touch-tone phones, we'd still all have landlines as our ONLY phones, and the Internet as we know it---- fergidaboudit, it wouldna happened the way it is today. It would still be largely the big universities and the military, and then only because they have the capacity to set up their own system.
I think this because of the glacial speed which AT&T spreads U-Verse here. Comcast has had something much faster for a loooong time, AT&T can only be dragged into getting U-Verse into the neighborhoods and when you finally DO get it---- it's just not as fast as Comcast's offering. If AT&T didn't have to compete with Comcast at all--- say, if cable companies couldn't offer phone service--- well, I think you can figure it out.
So, telcos---- tell me AGAIN about how the FCC rules are archaic. It's YOU who want to return us to 1960s technology--- let's face it, upgrading equipment to 2015 standards is expensive, and if you don't have to do it--- say, by forcing a two or three tiered plan that gives some "high speed" while forcing others to dial-up speeds--- you save money on infrastructure.
What warrants and justifies government regulation?
The Koch brothers and friends.
The title should be
The Koch brothers are the freaking dragoons.
What warrants and justifies government regulation? And when and why should such be accepted or promulgated, absent irremediable harms?
It reestablished your rights to your own device. Regulations that were in limbo for awhile. Your right to ad block or modify your own device had expired and it wasn't sure to come back. Secondly it established ISPs as telecommunication providers and protects them from price gouging from the likes of AT&T trying prevent expansion of better services across their infrastructure (poles).
t reestablished your rights to your own device. Regulations that were in limbo for awhile. Your right to ad block or modify your own device had expired and it wasn't sure to come back. Secondly it established ISPs as telecommunication providers and protects them from price gouging from the likes of AT&T trying prevent expansion of better services across their infrastructure (poles).
And from undermining the information-based economy by deliberately slowing access to network nodes, if not outright blocking them. It's almost insane to be favor of losing network neutrality unless one is dogmatically opposed to all regulation (It's equally crazy to be in favor of all regulation.)
This is a good thing for the economy, the consumer, and the ISP themselves The ISPs use each other's wires so without network neutrality Comcast can slow down access for At&T's customers and vice/versa. That means the ISP's would have to spend more, not less on their own infrastructure to the tune of billions of dollars. I guarantee the actual tech people at the providers are secretly cheering. The old, technologically ignorant men in charge need to go away like the rest of the dinosaurs so new people that actually know what they're the boss of can take over.
I repeat, it's almost insane to oppose network neutrality. What I've said barely scratches the surface of the problems with what the dinosaurs in charge wanted.
Given what I've seen so far, the dinosaurs in charge want it to be 1960 again. The Princess phone was only just coming out, Touch-tone could only be had in select areas, and Ma Bell decided the pace of technological upgrade. The incredibly heavy bakelite phone was good enough for Grandpa, it should be good enough for you.
The incredibly heavy bakelite phone was good enough for Grandpa, it should be good enough for you.
I quite like the look of bakelite, although I'm only familiar with it from the '20s and '30s.
A prediction: When this move by the FCC is rejected by the Supreme Court, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 36 U.S. 420 (1837) will figure prominently!
All the elements are there…
This isn't about stopping the ISP from making internal improvements. I know some Republican politicians talk it up as "internet fast lanes" but that not really what will happen. Because of ISPs being able to control access speed to "hops" along on a service requests route to it's destination, at best it will create slow and less slow lanes. In so doing, loss of network neutrality will cripple the internet and the information economy.
This the scenario we're looking at: The service request from an AT&T IP address must cross fibers owned By Comcast. Comcast notes the origin of the traffic and deliberately slows it and does the same for all other non-Comcast traffic. The other providers behave the same way. The result is not that you can more for better service, but that you pay more for service that is slower than what you have now (regardless of the ISP's advertised speed.)
Perhaps the ISPs can work out an agreement that AT&T pays Comcast a certain amount to carry it's traffic and vice/versa. Even that would be idiocy, since amount of money being exchanged would be pretty much a wash. I give you a hundred bucks and you give me a hundred bucks and neither of us profits and the whole exercise is pointless. However, that would give the ISPs an excuse to raise prices. Onto the information economy. Pre-Google Youtube could exist and provide decent speeds because of network neutrality. Netflix the same. However, future new innovations such as those would not be able to afford what AT&T and Comcast can. Therefore, paradigm shifting new technologies are smothered in their crib which what AT&T and Comcast want. Now what does that do to the future economy?
Sang, you assume everyone else is like you… :) (That whole "The service request from an AT&T IP address must cross fibers owned By Comcast. [Why the capitalization of "By"?] Comcast notes the origin of the traffic and deliberately slows it and does the same for all other non-Comcast traffic. The other providers behave the same way. The result is not that you can more for better service, but that you pay more for service that is slower than what you have now (regardless of the ISP's advertised speed.)"
[You know, this is your fantasy world-view, right? :)]
Not everyone -indeed, hardly anyone hereabouts- is as venal or mercenary as you…think they are. (Unless you mean your state's Senate Minority Leader.) Your view of your fellow citizens is what I'd expect…
You think they're like you, too. Kiddo, they're not.
Netflix did quite well, frequently sucking up 50% of local bandwidth… (You're okay with that?) They were throttled down and given a choice: Pay for more bandwidth or build their own dedicated servers… (You remember what happened, right? :) )
Sang, you always seem to want "free stuff" and never seem to understand why it isn't readily available!
(I'm sure –as per your predictions– your blog has "disappeared"… :) )
Maybe the government should provide internet service! Cut out those pesky middlemen. Just tax everyone and … provide. Don't you think that would work well? :)
You just want free stuff, it seems to me. And you still manage to create incoherence, even in a simple text post: Trust me, Sang, no government regulation will ever make you seem informed or coherent; it's just not possible.
Yet you want to limit or destroy what already gives you free stuff…
————————————————————————————————
I'm sure you have something erudite, to say about the legal issues…
I'll wait.
I can't even describe how networks work without you resorting to personal attacks. That says far more about you than me. It does give me hope that only old men want ISPs to be able to censor out competing content in favor of their own offerings (AOL style), dial own if not outright block speech they don't like, cripple the internet infrastructure and therefore the future and to some extent the current economy. Fine, charge Netflix more I'll pay more for that service (the opposite of demanding "free stuff" ); the effects of network neutrality loss extend far beyond streaming movies and I'll be anything Netflix is just the strawman.
I can't even describe how networks work without you resorting to personal attacks.
Fox News Syndrome.
It's pretty clear he has no idea what it's about therefore it must be unnecessary tinkering by The Government.
Sang might-- or might not-- be thinking the big telcos operate the same way he does. I have no idea about that.
I've been actually watching the way these big telcos and cable companies work, and----- the fact that we have things as good as we do now is through no fault of the telcos. They would gladly have us all on dial-up service, if we were lucky enough to have service--- if they had their way. This is one time when government regulation actually serves, rather than hinders, the general public.
Breaking up AT&T all those years ago actually made today's Internet even possible. Left to their own devices, and with absolutely no competition, AT&T could set the pace for innovation at the glacially slow pace they seemed to favor. I can't imagine that Ma Bell, with the unrestricted monopoly that Ma Bell once enjoyed, would have anything even remotely resembling U-Verse today. You'd get dial-up, and really special customers might get DSL and--- that would be about it. Streaming media? You'd have about as much of a chance of having that as we do of having working transporter beams today. You-Tube would be impossible. Heck, most digital media would be hobbyist applications for the very wealthy, and then not terribly good. This computer I'm typing on right now? Forget about it.
Anytime the telcos want to talk of dinosaurs, they need to look in the mirror.
I've been actually watching the way these big telcos and cable companies work,
Have you also been watching how 80% of internet's physical nodes are located or controlled by your country despite the complains from all the world?
And they speak about "neutrality"...
I've been actually watching the way these big telcos and cable companies work,
Have you also been watching how 80% of internet's physical nodes are located or controlled by your country despite the complains from all the world?
And they speak about "neutrality"...
Is anybody here saying the dinosaur is dead? Actually, in other parts of the world I understand the speeds we here in the US consider "fast" would be regarded as almost painfully slow. So--- the rest of the world has done wonders with 20%, and I can only imagine it's some idea of US security/we invented it/copyright/patents and I don't know what all else slowing things down about getting more physical nodes online elsewhere in the world.
So--- the rest of the world has done wonders with 20%, and I can only imagine it's some idea of US security/we invented it/copyright/patents and I don't know what all else slowing things down about getting more physical nodes online elsewhere in the world. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=893.16;msg=36098)
I suppose you have low velocities (I also do but I'm in mobile connection) just because your infrastructures sucks.
In other words, too much capitalism and too less public benefit.
Sang might-- or might not-- be thinking the big telcos operate the same way he does.
If they operated the same way I do, they'd think about the damage losing neutrality would do to the infrastructure and the fact this action would hurt themselves and their customers. When I say "free". I mean freedom, not "free beer." In the wrong hands, the ability to throttle access to certain sites is a powerful tool for censorship and invasion of privacy. What net neutrality does is protect against such abuses. Giving the ISPs the ability to reduce bandwidth to certain traffic is taking unnecessary chances with network integrity, stifling out start ups that could grow into the key technology and censorship. This is why sudden talk of "internet fast lanes" is so alarming. Unless the network capacity is upgraded considerably, it translates into content the providers want their customers to see gets the fastlane, other content gets degraded speeds and that's censorship.
I've been actually watching the way these big telcos and cable companies work,
Have you also been watching how 80% of internet's physical nodes are located or controlled by your country despite the complains from all the world?
I don't believe that. 80% of all IPv4 addresses - sure, because in the early days they handed huge chunks of address space to just a few companies. But not 80% of all physical nodes. At least not anymore.
But not 80% of all physical nodes. At least not anymore.
That's what one can read from many different sources, who knows.... One thing it's for sure, EU keeps on insisting about it and the only answer they got from the USA it's no cooperation at all.
Are you still in the US? You could count the nodes for us... and disconnect them. :)
I've been actually watching the way these big telcos and cable companies work,
Have you also been watching how 80% of internet's physical nodes are located or controlled by your country despite the complains from all the world?
And they speak about "neutrality"...
Is anybody here saying the dinosaur is dead? Actually, in other parts of the world I understand the speeds we here in the US consider "fast" would be regarded as almost painfully slow. So--- the rest of the world has done wonders with 20%, and I can only imagine it's some idea of US security/we invented it/copyright/patents and I don't know what all else slowing things down about getting more physical nodes online elsewhere in the world.
And at usually 1/3 the cost to the consumer.
Here's an interesting article on how net neutrality affected the Dutch
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/business/dutch-offer-preview-of-net-neutrality.html
I don't know how accurate it is.
As the United States moves to regulate broadband Internet service as a public utility, the Netherlands offers a rare case study of what could await American consumers and companies. The Netherlands was the second country in the world to adopt so-called open Internet rules, after Chile.
...
As with the American plan, Dutch carriers cannot discriminate among types of content, say by putting the brakes on data-hungry services like movie streaming. Nor can they charge extra for faster speeds and more reliable connections to the Internet’s pipelines, which could give deep-pocketed technology companies an advantage over fledgling start-ups.
...
Consumers have not cried foul en masse over the costs. Dutch consumer groups say cellphone and cable packages in the last two years have remained relatively stable, with contracts priced at as little as $25 a month for the ability to stream online content. The average cellphone contract in the Netherlands is about one-third the price of an equivalent plan in the United States.
Sophie van Haasen, 31, a social worker, uses her mobile data package to stream music online through her Spotify account, and she said she was thinking about signing up for Netflix, mostly to watch the series “House of Cards.” She pays about $35 a month for her cellphone, and $40 for home broadband.
More from the article:
THE HAGUE — When Bruno Leenders takes the 50-minute train ride to Amsterdam, he likes to stream blues and funk music through his smartphone. At home, Mr. Leenders, a Dutch technology consultant, watches Steven Seagal action movies on Netflix. Between meetings, he dashes off a few emails.
Mr. Leenders’s digital life has not changed all that much in the two years since the Netherlands started demanding that Internet providers treat all traffic equally, the same sort of rules that the United States adopted on Thursday.
Of course not. Net Neutrality is how it's always been as part of broadband business ethics. Allow some of the premium deals mentioned in the article, but DO NOT give the ISPs carte blanche to start prioritizing traffic, which is the real concern.
Actually, in other parts of the world I understand the speeds we here in the US consider "fast" would be regarded as almost painfully slow.
There's a resource that claims to have some data.
US: http://www.netindex.com/download/2,1/United-States/
Antwerp: http://www.netindex.com/download/4,10547/Antwerpen/
Both average at around 33/34 Mbps, which sounds surprisingly similar. On the other hand, in the Netherlands speeds up to 200/200 over fiber are no longer uncommon (albeit on the flipside in Belgium you're more likely to have at least a 30 Mbit download). Hence I suppose why the Netherlands shows up as 47 Mbit on their map (http://www.netindex.com/download/map). Like I said though, I believe that while the Dutch average might be higher, the average in Belgium is more representative of the median.
My Internet speed is currently 50/4. It used to be 70/2.5, but the subscription changed. The modem actually synced at 70/6 when I last checked, meaning that's the maximum speed I could get over VDSL if I paid almost twice as much. Over cable a slightly higher speed might be possible, but not for less money and besides the cable company has horrid policies.
Don't get too much used to internet. It will be disconnected some day.
My Internet speed is currently 50/4. It used to be 70/2.5, but the subscription changed. The modem actually synced at 70/6 when I last checked, meaning that's the maximum speed I could get over VDSL if I paid almost twice as much. Over cable a slightly higher speed might be possible, but not for less money and besides the cable company has horrid policies.
We're supposed to get something like 20/1 although actual measurements indicate something closer to twice that. Since this is comcast cable my guess is that this:
They use the same wire for IPTV and internet, bandwidth is shared. The bandwidth used by the TV service varies and so does the amount of noise on the cable, so they advertise a lower speed than what they actually run at so they can more or less guarantee that's what you actually get. Also, data throughput is necessarily lower than actual line speed - think protocol overhead, control messages and all that.
What prevents other "players" from entering into the ISP market?
Seriously, Sang (and others…): Where's the snag? Is it capital investment? Or is it local or wide-spread government regulation?
Might it be that the uncertainty of future regulations, which -even if they are onerous- will take, given the current regime's adamant preference for control, most players into ass-kissing mode?
I'd like to know why you think the government is likely to "protect" our freedoms…
Do you have —like— evidence? :)
Oak-- I'd like to know why you think AT&T and Comcast have any interest in protecting your freedoms. Their running record isn't terribly good to date, given free reign they would have monopolies in no time and you would have to accept poor service at outrageous prices, with no recourse.
I don't trust the government. I trust AT&T and Comcast even less. As it is, net neutrality at least gives a start-up a chance-- small though it is. Take away net neutrality and allow the big companies to do as they see fit without regulation---nobody else gets to play and that's that.
Oak-- I'd like to know why you think AT&T and Comcast have any interest in protecting your freedoms. Their running record isn't terribly good to date, given free reign they would have monopolies in no time and you would have to accept poor service at outrageous prices, with no recourse.
Comcast
is a virtual monopoly around here. The only alternative is DSL, which gives you significantly less speed per buck since it's not subsidized by TV subscribers.
I recently switched my internet provider to Charter and experience a large improvement in speed. Pages load much faster.
Comcast is a virtual monopoly around here. The only alternative is DSL, which gives you significantly less speed per buck since it's not subsidized by TV subscribers.
I have Centurylink DSL, which has been experiencing solid growth around here and the equivalent plan from Comcast costs considerably more. Their downside is incompetent tech support. There was an outage, so I tried to call them after the normal solutions failed me. So their tech support guy said there was maintenance in Las Vegas, but my address /should/ be okay and I have no problems since Google can load (despite the fact if I tried to click any link from the search results, that site wouldn't load.) It turned out that the issues was Century Link's DNS servers, but the tech support guy apparently had no way to know this. But I wonder if Comcast's "tech support" is really any better trained and better tools and can do much more than tell their customers to unplug their modem and plug it back in.
I don't trust the government. I trust AT&T and Comcast even less. As it is, net neutrality at least gives a start-up a chance-- small though it is. Take away net neutrality and allow the big companies to do as they see fit without regulation---nobody else gets to play and that's that.
Yup. Even mighty Google was once a small startup but now as become important to the economy and a major driver of technological innovations. What we don't need for the future is the next Google to poor performance and die in its crib all because AT&T and Comcast want to prioritize traffic to their own shitty little offerings just to get the advertising revenue.
Oakdale is not wrong for being skeptical about regulation. As discussed in other threads, regulation can be rigged in favor for current brontosaurus's of companies, slow and lumbering and destructive to the very ecosystem they thrive in but doomed to extinction in the end. But in this case, the regulation is a good thing and could even help Bronto-AT&T and Bronto-Comcast find their final resting place so the small, but fast moving and intelligent critters under their feet can grow. Remember that once mighty AOL is all but dead as service provider at the hands of its own poor service, so that's not as far fetched as it might seem. The dinos are not tramping over wineries and some other relatively unimportant industry, but the very foundation of the economy over the next few decades.
Like it or not, the internet is becoming (or indeed has become) the major conduit of communication for both consumer sector and Business to Business transaction because of defacto Network Neutrality. AT&T would be just has happy throwing us back into the old days of POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) just to keep consumers and businesses alike trapped in their own offerings, which are likely to be inferior to those of smaller, but smarter and more responsive firms.
There's a darth of strong arguments against Network Neutrality. A knee-jerk reaction against all regulation is not one of them. We need intelligent and impartial regulation that doesn't manage to lock in Bronto-AT&T, but allows for competition. We can even allow some exceptions, just Netflix "premium" that allows faster streaming. If there is something pernicious in what the president and FCC want to do, take that part out without murdering the baby while dismantling its crib. But allowing AT&T and Comcast to and Comcast to accelerate and throttle traffic just for advertising revenue and to please the shareholders in the next quarterly report is not acceptable.
Comcast is a virtual monopoly around here. The only alternative is DSL, which gives you significantly less speed per buck since it's not subsidized by TV subscribers.
I have Centurylink DSL, which has been experiencing solid growth around here and the equivalent plan from Comcast costs considerably more. Their downside is incompetent tech support. There was an outage, so I tried to call them after the normal solutions failed me. So their tech support guy said there was maintenance in Las Vegas, but my address /should/ be okay and I have no problems since Google can load (despite the fact if I tried to click any link from the search results, that site wouldn't load.) It turned out that the issues was Century Link's DNS servers, but the tech support guy apparently had no way to know this. But I wonder if Comcast's "tech support" is really any better trained and better tools and can do much more than tell their customers to unplug their modem and plug it back in.
What annoys me to no end is that comcast forces you to buy a TV package in order to get internet. And their sneaky pricing models - "Oh, that's the
regular price. I can give you something lower just for bugging us about it! <whisper>For a time. And may Great Cthulhu make you forget to pester us again when it expires.</whisper>"
CenturyLink's DSL is available in the general area, I'm not sure if that includes my house though. Then again, they've been busy building net infrastructure all over the place for the last few years.
That said, Google's public DNS server is as 8.8.8.8, always good to have as a backup ( and I did have problems with comcast's DNS servers in the past ). There are others too, but with less memorable IP addresses :right:
So their tech support guy said there was maintenance in Las Vegas, but my address /should/ be okay and I have no problems since Google can load
AT&T used to do that too. I always tell Comcast to just send a tech to the house now...
For a time. And may Great Cthulhu make you forget to pester us again when it expires.
You do have to occasionally remind them you exist tho.
What annoys me to no end is that comcast forces you to buy a TV package in order to get internet.
I don't like Xfinity's TV service. Perhaps I just don't watch tv enough to be used to it. Over a year now and I still haven't mastered the interface, lol.
I don't like Xfinity's TV service. Perhaps I just don't watch tv enough to be used to it. Over a year now and I still haven't mastered the interface, lol.
DirectTV does more than I want, mostly PBS documentaries (Frontline, etc.) and recordings of Letterman, but best of all Jon Stewart's
The Daily Show.
The latest Frontline is at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/putins-way/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/putins-way/) Watch it online.
For a time. And may Great Cthulhu make you forget to pester us again when it expires.
You do have to occasionally remind them you exist tho.
Paying the bill should be enugh :right:
What annoys me to no end is that comcast forces you to buy a TV package in order to get internet.
I don't like Xfinity's TV service. Perhaps I just don't watch tv enough to be used to it. Over a year now and I still haven't mastered the interface, lol.
I just don't watch TV. And my wife works for DirecTV so we get their everything-and-the-kitchen-sink package for almost free. The comcast box isn't even hooked up anymore yet we have to pay for it.
I just don't watch TV. And my wife works for DirecTV so we get their everything-and-the-kitchen-sink package for almost free.
Meanwhile, the ISPs are coming out with their own IPTV content such as Centurylink's Prism. So they use bandwidth usage as an excuse to slow or charge extra for Netflix, or charge the service which now their competitor extra and force them to raise their rates. Thus Comcast and friends and all but force users to their own services. What part of this don't people like Oakdale not get? Of course, IPTV itself is dated already. Users want their content on demand, not having to set the DVR to record it and then having to fastforward through the commercials. So again, the dinosaurs are futilely trying to stomp out the smallish, furry, fast moving and intelligent critters under their feet even as even their walnut sized brains slowly realize their time is drawing to a close.
Another bizarre claim is that net neutrality is censorship. I wonder how much ignorance of the Constitution does it take for an American to make that claim. The government is forbidden by the First Amendment from blocking controversial, but legal content. AT&T and friends are not.
Get it, folks like Oakdale? It's not about "fast lanes." It's about content control. Stop knee-jerking against all regulation and see what the regulation is first and get both sides of the story. What's that? I didn't read both sides myself? Yes, I did. Centurylink makes the point that the regulations are outdated. Maybe they are. So let's get Congress to actually work with the President and draft a new title of regulation that maybe allows "fast lanes" but doesn't create slow lanes for competing content. Unfortunately, this GOP Congress consists largely of chimpanzees that can do nothing but scream and fling shit at the President without offering anything constructive. I apologize to chimps for comparing them to Congress.
I've been waiting for the regulations to be published, Sang…. But I enjoy your histrionics! Please don't stop. :)
I've been waiting for the regulations to be published
I thought the whole reason this came up was because they
had published them? Link. (http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order)
Many thanks, ensbb3!
That's quite a lot to digest…
Isn't tho. Seems they just released yesterday.
I just casually flipped thru. It's wordy.
2.
No Unreasonable Interference or Unreasonable Disadvantage to Consumers
or Edge Providers
20.
The key insight of the virtuous cycle is that broadband providers have both the incentive
and the ability to act as gatekeepers standing between edge providers and consumers. As gatekeepers,
they can block access altogether; they can target competitors, including competitors to their own video
services; and they can extract unfair tolls. Such conduct would, as the Commission concluded in 2010,
“reduce the rate of innovation at the edge and, in turn, the likely rate of improvements to network
infrastructure.”23 In other words, when a broadband provider acts as a gatekeeper, it actually chokes
consumer demand for the very broadband product it can supply.
Bold is mine, of course. Verizon, mentioned many times in the regulation before this, somehow failed to note that it provides its own video service similar to Netflix. Funny how all of a sudden Netflix needs to be throttled just as the ISPs come out with competing products, isn't it? Under Net Neutrality, Verizon and others would have to improve their product and service to compete. You know, the REAL free market thing. Without it, they can effectively block the competitor and corral their customers into middling content owned by them. In this way, the virtuous cycle of innovation is broken. The result is something like AOL's semi-walled garden. You do have access to the broader internet, but at reduced speed and high prices for "third party" content and stifled innovation.
More on this from page 55:
Consumers are unlikely to know (or care) about why a particular video takes two seconds to load or is constantly rebuffering, and
will abandon those edge providers that they perceive as providing a slower and thus less enjoyable experience.”);
Kickstarter Comments at 3-4 (“Users will not accept slow load times and choppy videos.”).
Page 22:
70.
Verizon subsequently challenged the Open Internet Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the Open Internet Order exceeded the
Commission’s regulatory authority and violated the Act.88 In January 2014, the D.C. Circuit upheld the
Commission’s determination that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted the
Commission authority to regulate broadband Internet service providers,89 and that the Commission had
demonstrated a sound policy justification for the Open Internet Order. Specifically, the court sustained
the Commission’s findings that “absent rules such as those set forth in the Open Internet Order,
broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately
inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.”90
Yes, the commission does the authority to regulate the ISPs.
Page 25:
The Continuing Need for Open Internet Protections
75.
In its remand of the Commission’s Open Internet Order, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the
underlying basis for the Commission’s open Internet rules, holding that “the Commission [had] more than
adequately supported and explained its conclusion that edge provider innovation leads to the expansion
and improvement of broadband infrastructure.”111 The court also found “reasonable and grounded in
substantial evidence” the Commission’s finding that Internet openness fosters the edge provider
innovation that drives the virtuous cycle.112 The record on remand continues to convince us that
broadband providers—including mobile broadband providers—have the incentives and ability to engage
in practices that pose a threat to Internet openness, and as such, rules to protect the open nature of the
Internet remain necessary. Today we take steps to ensure that the substantial benefits of Internet
openness continue to be realized.
Note the threat to infrastructure that I posted previously
Page 27:
77.
The record before us also overwhelmingly supports the proposition that the Internet’s
openness is critical to its ability to serve as a platform for speech and civic engagement,118 and that it can
help close the digital divide by facilitating the development of diverse content, applications, and
services.
Quite so. Of course I noted before that loss of Net Neutrality is tantamount to censorship.
Technical Ability
85.
As the Commission explained in the Open Internet Order, past instances of abuse
indicate that broadband providers have the technical ability to act on incentives to harm the open
Internet.153 Broadband providers have a variety of tools at their disposal that can be used to monitor and
regulate the flow of traffic over their networks—giving them the ability to discriminate should they
choose to do so. Techniques used by broadband providers to identify and select traffic may include
approaches based on packet payloads (using deep packet inspection), network or transport layer headers
(e.g., port numbers or priority markings), or heuristics (e.g., the size, sequencing, and/or timing of
packets).154 Using these techniques, broadband providers may apply network practices to traffic that has a
particular source or destination, that is generated by a particular application or by an application that
belongs to a particular class of applications, that uses a particular application- or transport-layer protocol,
or that is classified for special treatment by the user, application, or application provider.155 Application-
specific network practices depend on the broadband provider’s ability to identify the traffic associated
with particular uses of the network. Some of these application-specific practices may be reasonable
network management, e.g., tailored network security practices. However, some of these techniques may
also be abused.156 Deep packet inspection, for example, may be used in a manner that may harm the open
Internet, e.g., to limit access to certain Internet applications, to engage in paid prioritization, and even to
block certain content.157 Similarly, traffic control algorithms can be abused, e.g., to give certain packets
favorable placement in queues or to send packets along less congested routes in a manner contrary to end
user preferences.158 Use of these techniques may ultimately affect the quality of service that users receive,
which could effectively force edge providers to enter into paid prioritization agreements to prevent poor
quality of content to end users.
...
245 See supra Section III.B. See also Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group, Port Blocking at 2 (2013)
http://www.bitag.org/documents/Port-Blocking.pdf, (“Because Port blocking can affect how particular Internet
applications function, its use has the potential to be anti-competitive, discriminatory, otherwise motivated by non-
technical factors, or construed as such.”); Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, A View of
Traffic Management and Other Practices Resulting in Restrictions to the Open Internet in Europe at 8-9 (May 29,
2012), http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-
agenda/files/Traffic%20Management%20Investigation%20BEREC_2.pdf
The link to the technical reasons why losing net neutrality, which we've had since the dawn of the internet (it's not an Obama thing, GOPers. I'll need to ask you to at least catch up with the late 20th century at this time :p) is anti-competitive.
This could easily turn into the longest post in history. The long and short of is that FCC did take into account the ISPs' arguments. I'm not really seeing a whole lot to oppose here. ISPs and mobile providers try to defend their offering, such a T-Mobile's music service. It's great the T-Mobile has that service, but it's noncompetitive and stifles other, perhaps better, content providers by giving priority to their own service and giving Pandora and Rhapsody, etc the "slow lane." It's as if the ISPs don't have faith that own offerings can't compete on a level playing field.
I'm nowhere near far enough into this "pronouncement" to form -let alone give- an opinion. But I will say -having decided to download the PDF version, and reading from that- that this bureaucracy (the FCC) can't be bothered to format their words (justifications, reasons, decisions and determinations…) in a readable form.
Some might wonder why this is so… :)
————————————————————————
p.s.,
Love the acronym BIAS… (broadband Internet access service). :)
Some might wonder why this is so…
As legal-speak goes it's fairly readable. Those 'some' would be hard-up for understanding the premise. Being within their abilities and only regulations they are not 'law' therefore can be easily changed. I can only tell you such regulations should be law, but if your generation can't understand why, that's expected. Whether or not it is partisan is irrelevant. I'm not.
The newest trope is that net neutrality would cause new taxes, despite what the regulation actually says. I'm seen bloggers say it avoids taxes by imposing fees, but this isn't true either.
Promoting Investment with a Modern Title II
37.
Today, our forbearance approach results in over 700 codified rules being inapplicable, a
“light-touch” approach for the use of Title II. This includes no unbundling of last-mile facilities, no
tariffing, no rate regulation, and no cost accounting rules, which results in a carefully tailored application
of only those Title II provisions found to directly further the public interest in an open Internet and more,
better, and open broadband. Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees;
the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax
moratorium.
38.
This is Title II tailored for the 21st Century. Unlike the application of Title II to
incumbent wireline companies in the 20th Century, a swath of utility-style provisions (including tariffing)
will not be applied. Indeed, there will be fewer sections of Title II applied than have been applied to
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), where Congress expressly required the application of
Sections 201, 202, and 208, and permitted the Commission to forbear from others. In fact, Title II has
never been applied in such a focused way.
Again, very little to oppose.
Sang, they say explicitly that fees and taxes are withheld, at their "forbearance"… Are you just unsure what that word means? :)
(I'm continuing to read the actual rules promulgated…)
Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees;
the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax
moratorium.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/forbearance
1.1 Law The action of refraining from exercising a legal right, especially enforcing the payment of a debt.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/refrain
verb
[NO OBJECT]
Stop oneself from doing something:
she refrained from comment
The day Republicans learn fucking English is the one I drop dead of heart attack.
The closest to an intelligent argument that net neutrality can result in higher taxes is from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/03/13/net-neutrality-is-setting-the-stage-for-internet-taxes/) and that's only fear that a state or local government might apply a tax, However, he's forgetting Federal prohibits states from applying many taxes on the internet through Internet Tax Freedom Act regardless of its FCC classification.
The only thing keeping the federal government from imposing taxes and fees on BIASs now that such are deemed Title II entities is — the warm, fuzzy beneficence of the FCC board… I feel safer already!
What's to prevent them from simply changing their minds?
Someone in the Federal Government finally does something useful and Republicans are pissed. Smh.
Forgive me for not having the Fox News perspective but if this is as it seems the benefits will show soon enough. At this point all they can do is wait and see.
Looks to me like a really bad choice. Do you trust the government or the telcos? Personally, I don't trust the telcos not to make it like 1995 again, with most everybody on dial-up and only a special few having T-1 service. That way they don't have to spend money upgrading equipment to 2015 and beyond standards.
Oak, I know you're suspicious of big government. Heck, I am too. But, if government hadn't broken up AT&T all those years ago--- if all you had was one big national company with its baby-bell satellite companies--- you would be doing good right now to have touch-tone service. AT&T has never been noted for being in a hurry to give customers the fastest speeds and the best service. Comcast is really bad too, though at least they do try to have faster speeds.
AT&T has never been noted for being in a hurry to give customers the fastest speeds and the best service. Comcast is really bad too, though at least they do try to have faster speeds.
The internet companies compete with each other on the basis of speed, but the key to a fast connection is $$$.$$.
http://isp-review.toptenreviews.com (http://isp-review.toptenreviews.com)
The internet companies compete with each other on the basis of speed, but the key to a fast connection is $$$.$$.
Pretty much all of them have been caught throttling while lying saying they aren't at this point. Especially with the mobile providers. They just want to charge you more if you don't like to use one of their partner sites.
Consider that in my neighborhood, it took until just this past year for AT&T to finally get U-Verse connected up. Before, if you were on AT&T you got land-line phone and a DSL Internet connection. For anything even resembling Comcast's offering of phone, high-speed Internet and cable TV--- you had to go to Comcast. U-Verse made it here-- after many years of half-hearted promises-- last year.
My old place out in Carol Stream still doesn't have U-Verse service. DSL and land-line phone is the best that AT&T can do there as of this writing.
So--- tell me again how taking the government regulations off of AT&T will make it better. I keep forgetting.
I will say based on what I've read so far news reporting has been very inaccurate. This thing is riddled with exemptions and clauses.
Now don't you fret OakdaleFTL. Once democracy becomes the norm you can relax. 8)
History shows quite clearly what inevitably follows democracy,
RJ! (You'll not note -but I'd mention- that the American ideal of self-government is not synonymous with democracy…)
BTW: In case it was missed or has been forgotten, I'd link to this prediction (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=893.msg36044#msg36044) here…(Weird and wonderful are the ways of legal reasoning! :) ) The more I read of the Rule the more I see our current Supreme Court going back this far, to try and untangle the various threads of this "garment" of technology…
————————————————
Since
Sanguinemoon has seen fit to quote bits and pieces of "the Rules" I'll take occasional license to comment (before I've digested the entirety) on portions that trouble me…
First,
[…] the record provides substantial evidence that broadband providers have significant bargaining power in negotiations with edge providers and intermediaries that depend on access to their networks because of their ability to control the flow of traffic into and on their networks.
Another way to describe this significant bargaining power is in terms of a broadband provider’s position as gatekeeper—that is, regardless of the competition in the local market for broadband Internet access, once a consumer chooses a broadband provider, that provider has a monopoly on access to the subscriber.
(my emphasis)
This is obvious nonsense: What is to prevent, say
me, from subscribing to
Xfinity,
AT&T,
Earthlink and my local (and good and responsive)
Fire2Wire services? (Not to mention, various phone services…) This "monopoly" argument fails to account for the government's exercise of regulatory force in creating monopoly in the first place!
Efforts lacking such coercive means have always failed…
[The discussion below what I've quoted here shows the majority of FCC board members to be hopelessly behind the times…]
A brief example from my own experience:
I first got Internet access via an AOL promotional disk. It didn't work well with the hardware I had; indeed, it worked so poorly that I assumed I'd never connected. I used a later version -also from a promotional disk- to finally connect.
When I discovered that I'd been charged monthly fees for both versions for quite a while (I confess, I was often drunk back then… :) ) I discontinued the first, notified those providing the second of my intent to discontinue their service; and -in the time such discontinuation would take to be "effectuated"– bought new hardware and secured another ISP — over the connectivity provided by AOL.
If an old sot like me, such as I was, can manage this, I'm pretty sure there is no monopoly.
I first got Internet access via an AOL promotional disk.
:lol: Me too. Time metered connections. Seems silly now.
If an old sot like me, such as I was, can manage this, I'm pretty sure there is no monopoly.
In many parts of the country there is, or close to one. The reason being in a whole lot of areas there is only one cable company and telephone company's infrastructure cannot support DSL. Broadband is completely different animal from AOL and other dial-up providers from the old days.
, that provider has a monopoly on access to the subscriber.
But look at the text you underlined. What they're getting at is that ISP has the ability to control the customer's access to online content, they can create a walled garden to premium content. Verizon can slow traffic to Netflix to force their customers to use their video streaming service, for example. This is a concern that you dismissed as "histrionics." Now the ISPs demand the ability to slow traffic to services that directly compete against their own to the point of unusability, or demand that the competing service pay more to maintain speed. The underlined text doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a competing broadband ISP in the area, although that might well be the case as mentioned above, but defacto monopoly access to some of the major things the subscriber does online, such as stream video. In fact, at present most of these offerings from the ISPs are below the standard set by the edge providers and simply can't compete on level playing field.
Seems silly now.
They screwed me royally… (Albeit, it was my fault. And the… No; let's not go there! :) )
Sorry to use your sensible comment to post this; but post I must! Here is a typical example of the FCC using its authority:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/order-and-consent-decree-verizon-wireless-pay-125-million (http://www.fcc.gov/document/order-and-consent-decree-verizon-wireless-pay-125-million)
Those of you who won't read this decree (…no, the term is not my hyperbole) deserve what you get!
In fact, at present most of these offerings from the ISPs are below the standard set by the edge providers and simply can't compete on level playing field.
"Meester! Fock my seester! Only two dollares!" Yes, I know what you mean,
Sang. And I know what you'd prefer…
You want regulation, because you believe functionaries and bureaucrats are better, more rational, more moral than the rest of "us"…? (I don't think you consider yourself one of "us" — but that's your problem, not mine.) Have you any evidence to support such a conclusion? :)
I have a trove to the contrary… (Let's start another thread, for that. OK?)
In fact, at present most of these offerings from the ISPs are below the standard set by the edge providers and simply can't compete on level playing field.
These "edge providers" are quite probably "free riders"…
(Not that their efforts might not prove beneficial.)
Does your "level playing field" mean that I have to let you use my agent and the venues we've bargained for, my road crew, amps and guitars? Do I have to teach you how to play on stage and in the studio? Have I to go beyond what even I know and teach you how to write hit songs?
Sang: What I don't understand is
your blind (…it seems so, to me) faith in regulation by government authorities… Do you have a litany of their many successes?
I'll settle for two (that don't involve government enforced monopolies later eased into the free market…).
Okay. I'll actually settle for one.
We can take it from there.
You want regulation, because you believe functionaries and bureaucrats are better, more rational, more moral than the rest of "us"…?
No. The concept of a common carrier dates back centuries and is common sense. Back then, a proto-GOP could argue that the ferryman should be able allow cargo from the firm that owns it to cross the river, but disallow cargo from others. I don't think it takes a genius to see how such arrangements would damage the flow of goods and services and diminish the economy of the region/nation effected. Think in terms of GDP. Today's ferrymen go by the names AT&T, Comcast, etc. Perhaps AT&T invents an business online web-application, but another company that doesn't happen to own the network builds a superior one. By having the ability to slow traffic to the competitor instead of being forced through competition to improve its own product, they're damaging the entire economy by defacto forcing other businesses to use an sub-par ordering system, network monitoring system, etc.
Histrionics you say? Look up the role Seibel had in the destruction of the original AT&T Wireless (at the time not actually owned by AT&T.) Customers left in droves out of frustration with the poor customer service and the internal errors the application created. I worked there and lived it. This does not come from a blog or website. The ISPs cannot be allowed to force B2B clients to use their own software if it's inferior by slowing traffic. Again, saw the results of bad web applications first hand. It's disastrous. The desktops are connected via intranet (ie ethernet cables), but data backup is cloud-based, which can be blocked or slowed to a crawl without net neutrality. I guess you can even use the ISP's cloud service before backups, but suppose there's a bug and its database software, causing it to loss millions of client records but there's no real choice since AT&T slows data to the competitor's server and justifies it with some excuse?
You see it's is not free as free beer, but free flow of information that must be maintained. I'm asking to think beyond Liberal/Conservative stereotypes and understand that the free flow of information is vital to the economy. I used streaming services previously because it's an easy example of ISPs screaming for the need control traffic to a service that's now their competitor, but it does much deeper - straight to the heart of America's business technological infrastructure.
Today's ferrymen go by the names AT&T, Comcast, etc. Perhaps AT&T invents an business online web-application, but another company that doesn't happen to own the network builds a superior one. By having the ability to slow traffic to the competitor instead of being forced through competition to improve its own product, they're damaging the entire economy by defacto forcing other businesses to use an sub-par ordering system, network monitoring system, etc.
(I'll come back to the rest of this… But, first:)
The King gave exclusive rights to ferrymen. And later to bridge-builders. You are no different: You'd ask functionaries to make your way in the world easier than that of others. Can you explain why this is necessary?
It is now the 21st century. There is not much anyone can claim to make desirable the ascendency of "socialists".
DELETED, DELETED AND DELETED.
Another one of those pot and kettle things. :D
Done!
It is now the 21st century.
Times of disorientation.
All the ingredients for a major disaster are present and things are happening at an unstoppable speed.
That's why "governments" are heavily arming theirs (not ours) armed forces while systematically provoking populations.
The objective should be clear for everybody, a drastic reduction, better call it suppression, of human beings will happen.
Another one of those pot and kettle things
He's so plastered that Howie's posts are the epitome of conciseness and clarity by comparison.
This "monopoly" argument fails to account for the government's exercise of regulatory force in creating monopoly in the first place!
That, in turn, fails to account for the role of the industry in shaping government policy. There is now a higher concentration of lobbyists in Brussels than anywhere else in the EU, read a recent news item. Supposedly, only Washington has more.
Oakdale----- When I read---- or attempt to read--- some of the stuff you write, I wonder if they have air on the planet you come from. Your ability to write in the English language is---- well, a little remedial help would do you a world of good.
Sang's writing is at least legible. I might not agree with him on a number of issues, but at least he writes so you can read it.
So--- how about it? Writing like you actually thought about what you want to say before hitting the keyboard?
I would acknowledge Oakdale what you said about the system and democracy and indeed you raised this some time ago. A country being a republic does not of course mean it is automatically democratic as we all know. Perfectly right from you and nothing to argue on that matter of course. Maybe, if i am being generous, your founding fathers even though from an upper class background had thought of a principled republic re democracy and rights then unfortunately they would be revolving at speed on what the place has become instead. :no:
He's so plastered that Howie's posts are the epitome of conciseness and clarity by comparison.
I'm afraid you were right, this time. My apologies… (I've removed the post. Perhaps
Jaybro will delete his quote of it?)
That, in turn, fails to account for the role of the industry in shaping government policy.
Not exactly… As
Sang will vouchsafe, I fear regulatory capture much more than I fear actual over-regulation or anti-competitive violations.
I'm afraid you were right, this time. My apologies…
This is late, but apology accept. I've posted drunk myself before. It's a bad idea.
Now onto the topic. Is a truly bipartisan (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-legislation-20150325-story.html) bill for net neutrality coming? This has the potential to eliminate the need the for broadband having a Title 2 classification.
As Sang will vouchsafe, I fear regulatory capture much more than I fear actual over-regulation or anti-competitive violations.
Yes, but in this case it's censorship by the telcos and stifling new drivers of economic growth that I fear.
/Entered thread expecting the topic to be about the Welsh Gov't
/Left thread disappointed.
:devil:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomjonestribute.com%2FWelsh_Dragon.jpg%23wales%2520dragon%25201181x815&hash=a1494939123d35433563ec67c3b5bc02" rel="cached" data-hash="a1494939123d35433563ec67c3b5bc02" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.tomjonestribute.com/Welsh_Dragon.jpg#wales%20dragon%201181x815)
Entered thread expecting the topic to be about the Welsh Gov't
What in the world led you to think I'd start a thread about Welsh government?
(I do have a grudging respect and admiration for Dylan Thomas' poetry, and voice… That's pretty much my entire connection to Wales. Except for a wonderful cream stout whose name I can't spell! :) )
If somebody for reasons unknown should search* for "the freaking dragon" this thread will crop up third after two games.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.troll.me%2Fimages%2Fcharizard-dad%2Fim-a-freaking-dragon-i-eat-ash-for-breakfast.jpg&hash=73baf14074b5afa6bed8ba85bf1b3d55" rel="cached" data-hash="73baf14074b5afa6bed8ba85bf1b3d55" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.troll.me/images/charizard-dad/im-a-freaking-dragon-i-eat-ash-for-breakfast.jpg)
* anonymous Google
Told ya so! (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/03/08/fcc-commissioner-free-mobile-video-streaming-might-violate-agency-rules/)
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai warned consumers that free mobile video streaming might be found in violation of the agency’s new rules and that a national broadband tax could soon pop up on consumers’ Internet bills.
Net Neutrality… Sure.
I have T-mobile myself and have the "binge-on" feature activated, but rarely use it (at home, just use wifi and the streaming service eats battery for lunch where it would be more useful.) They don't seem to reduce bandwidth services just as Youtube that aren't part of the program. Further, I can just use the provider's app to opt of the program and was told of this when I purchased the phone. So I don't see a problem with what they're doing, as long as it stays this way.
Now onto the tax. First here's (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/03/08/fcc-commissioner-free-mobile-video-streaming-might-violate-agency-rules/) the correct url. There might indeed be a new national broadtax, but it seems unrelated to net neutrality. It's because FCC Might Give All Low-Income Households An Internet Subsidy (http://gothamist.com/2016/03/08/internet_subsidy.php). The key word was "might' the La Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-broadband-fees-20150409-story.html) notes the total fees/taxes could the same.
The "unintended consequences" of arbitrary regulation are already occurring… But, of course, as long as you're alright — it's all good! :)
You missed the point, as usual. The reason for the possible increase in fees appears to have nothing to do with net neutrality, but is because of trying to provide low income people internet access and at this point we don't even if the total fees users pay will actually increase. You didn't tell us anything except that a Republican FCC guy is spreading bullshit to right-wing blogs and every other news source in the world with an once of journalistic integrity knows better. Even Breitbart didn't jump to the conclusion that PJ Media did. It's not like I don't get it; they changed the classification of ISPs (including mobile providers). However, even within the old classification if they wanted to add a fee, they could. How many times I have told you to stop relying on rightwing blogs for your excuse for news? They're factually challenged at best, outright liars in probable reality.
Time will tell, Sang… Your rhetoric won't.
Time has already told. The possible fee has been explained and the right wing media was wrong again. So you don't get confused again, this isn't about if there will be a fee or not but about the actual purpose, Nor does this mean I support the possible fee :rolleyes:
(Not sure what it has to do with net neutrality, though. Wrong link, one assumes.)
Yup! Wrong link. The right one is here (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/03/08/fcc-commissioner-free-mobile-video-streaming-might-violate-agency-rules/)… Sorry 'bout that.
(Fixed earlier link, too. Thanks for pointing me to it,
Frenzie.)
The FCC (the U.S. Federal Communications Commission) has approved -by a partisan majority of 3 to 2- the (presumably desirable) Net Neutrality rules (not yet released to the public…) to regulate ISPs -and, of course, other "players"– to ensure a free and open internet… (see here (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board), for instance) by bureaucratic interference, based upon the rules meant to constrain the government-granted monopoly to AT&T in the late 30's.
Did Mr. Howie write this for you?
Did Mr. Howie write this for you?
Did
he read it
for you? :)
Haha, nice one jimbro.
What Oakdale seems to practically overlook is that with the 2 corporate parties they are both in the same corner on this one i am afraid.
The nation's largest internet service providers are undermining US open internet rules, threatening free speech, and disproportionately harming poor people by using a controversial industry practice called "zero-rating," a coalition of public interest groups wrote in a letter to federal regulators on Monday. Companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T use zero-rating, which refers to a variety of practices that exempt certain services from monthly data caps, to undercut "the spirit and the text" of federal rules designed to protect net neutrality, the principle that all content on the internet should be equally accessible, the groups wrote. Zero-rated plans "distort competition, thwart innovation, threaten free speech, and restrict consumer choice -- all harms the rules were meant to prevent," the groups wrote. "These harms tend to fall disproportionately on low-income communities and communities of color, who tend to rely on mobile networks as their primary or exclusive means of access to the internet."
"We're from the government, and we're here to help…" The nine most frightening words you'll ever hear! :(
(The quote is from Slashdot.)
For those of you who won't click thru, here (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/indias-new-open-internet-law-is-stronger-than-the-united-states)'s an intriguing Orwellian take on the practice… :)
"Free" means "controlled by government bureaucrats…"! How silly of us to think otherwise…
"Free" means "controlled by government bureaucrats…"! How silly of us to think otherwise…
And "restricted" means "open"? Did you know that the companies call their various zero-rating schemes "free"?
I should stop using "Oakdale" and "know" in the same sentence. The world will be a better place.
For those of you who won't click thru, here (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/indias-new-open-internet-law-is-stronger-than-the-united-states)'s an intriguing Orwellian take on the practice… :)
Facebook's plan for India would have simply created a Facebook AOL. On the other hand, Binge-On offers free streaming of services such as Netflix and Hulu, but the cost is getting only 480p quality. What T-Mobile is actually trying to do is reduce data used by the streaming services. At the end of the day, providers are gonna have upgrade their infrastructure to handle today's internet and go eventually go back to unlimited plans (consumers are tiring of effectively having to pay a provider for LTE and another for one cable/dsl.) That means we'll need faster LTE speeds as well as unlimited data to tether the phones to the computer as well as obviously take them with us. We're not gonna take a 1990's style AOL "internet" with the content we're allowed being determined by the provider. Oh you thought this only government take-over or something stupid like that. No, it's about the free flow of information. But you and rightwing buddies won't recognize censorship if it bit you on the ass, as long as it's a corporation doing it.
I'm sure Hillary or Bernie can give you the Internet you think you deserve… :) (They're both so very accomplished!)
No. Only one is.
I'm sure Hillary or Bernie can give you the Internet you think you deserve…
To do that, all they would have to do is....wait for it...nothing. The part about only needing only one internet provider will come as natural evolution of the business model. What even begins to even begin to make you think I demand the government accomplish this? That just silly. Oh wait, it's you inventing positions for me that I never claimed to have yet again.
The main reason that there is someone as way out as Trump and very radical like Sanders is in essence a feeling ny many that the system is not really working properly.
The main reason that there is someone as way out as Trump and very radical like Sanders is in essence a feeling ny many that the system is not really working properly.
Sanders radical? Why, the man is our version of Jeremy Corbyn.
What about Sanders do you find radical?
An intelligent American is asking me that??
Compared to Clinton ad Trump who are well into the money set he is very much different and Corbyn is a sidetrack going nowhere here. Note too the amount of young people in the ex-colonies who respond to the senator. His stance is not the mainstream so makes him well, radical.
His stance is not the mainstream so makes him well, radical.
And who is defining what should become mainstream?
If you are bitching about the USA, are you bitching about those who are not part of the guided mainstream?
Bitching? An attempt to cover the hard truthful fact that both the Republican and Democrat parties are in the money men corner and that is why there are outsiders doing so well because of the vast numbers who feel neither they or your country is getting on well. Yiur problem being a limited form of democracy and well controlled by the usual controllers.
But that doesn't explain why you're hijacking a thread about net neutrality to do the same bitching you do in all other threads.
You are unfortunately getting near the border of being unreservedly stupid now. Eevery thread on the old Operawas always morphed into something else and they were NOT all done by me. Indeed a way back in my early days there when I raised a drift in a thread it was jimbro who enlightened me that was the generalmway of things and that "tradition" HAS continued here. To dump that utter ignorance and put that label on me is the usual mind frame from you. If a direct challenge cannot be answered go into the knuckle-dragging stance. If you are a midnight raccoon your trainer has let you down.
It is one thing to have a strong opinion but being so glaringly incompetent is no constructive stance and neither in passing are the 2 parties who have mucked everything up. If everyone was of your mind I could understand but for the decent you are a stranger mind.
I suspect that what Sang is saying is that you have no interest in the topic and -certainly!- no knowledge of it, but you had to vent your bile! Since this was an active thread, you did so here… That's what you do.
There's usually a reason for "digressions" in threads. You know, what used to be called "going off-topic". But you require none; never have.
Reason is not your strong suit! In fact, it's your bane: You only want to talk about one or two things, and some other people have wider interests… That frustrates you to no end.
Why -you wonder- should a man be expected to know anything about anything? :) After all, you've been interviewed by the BBC and been mentioned in a book! Your opinions surely matter…
Ask your neighbors who twice failed to elect you why they didn't vote for you — in your "wider" democracy.
But enough about you, Howie — which is all you really want to talk about anyway!
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————
I've heard radio spots (from Kim Komando!) touting a "horrible" practice of Verison's and NetFlix: They throttle back the bits sent to cell phones…of movies. Had such movies been sent -in compliance with the strictures of "Net Neutrality" they'd have blown away most everyone's data plans with one movie! The "quality" of the video on cell phones wasn't impaired… But the government regulated "neutrality" was, undoubtedly.
I'd ask, Were the customers well-served?
That seems to be a question none of the (Democrat) regulators want to answer… :(
Regulators seem only to want to enforce regulations. The reasons for them quickly become beside the point; even unknowable…
—————————————————————————
Edited, to add the scare quotes around a word that -for anyone who's ever talked to me- should easily have been recognized as satyric… :)
I've heard radio spots (from Kim Komando!) touting a horrible practice of Verison's and NetFlix:
Is this (http://www.komando.com/happening-now/352187/busted-so-this-is-why-your-netflix-videos-look-terrible/all) what you mean? Her problem isn't necessarily that Netflix is doing this, but that they didn't tell the customers about it. She notes Netflix is is exploring options to let AT&T and Verizon customers choose their video quality.
I've heard radio spots (from Kim Komando!) touting a horrible practice of Verison's and NetFlix: They throttle back the bits sent to cell phones…of movies. Had such movies been sent -in compliance with the strictures of "Net Neutrality" they'd have blown away most everyone's data plans with one movie! The "quality" of the video on cell phones wasn't impaired…
Can you explain the last sentence? How was the quality of the video not impaired while they throttle their videos? As far as I have understood, "throttle the video" means precisely to send a lower-quality stream, even after there is a mutual agreement for better quality (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth).
Is this (http://www.komando.com/happening-now/352187/busted-so-this-is-why-your-netflix-videos-look-terrible/all) what you mean? Her problem isn't necessarily that Netflix is doing this, but that they didn't tell the customers about it. She notes Netflix is is exploring options to let AT&T and Verizon customers choose their video quality.
From there:
A DVD quality stream needs 3Mbps, and HD is around 5Mbps.
I think that should read "Netflix'
low-quality DVD resolution stream needs 3Mbps, and its low-quality HD resolution stream around 5Mbps." :devil:
Yes I know what you are saying about the smart mouth Oakdale but he has no divine right of opinion and that where we disagree that is part of life. That he chooses to talk rubbish is also his right but i don't have to go along with that either any more than he does for me!
I think that should read "Netflix' low-quality DVD resolution stream needs 3Mbps, and its low-quality HD resolution stream around 5Mbps."
Very true. Netflick also hickups on me with certain shows, especially Futurama. So I would go to speedtest.net and I'm getting plenty of bandwidth so I don't understand that part (other shows are just fine.)
Oakdale, the issue of service quality given to those wireless providers and the need for services such as T-Mobile's Binge-On are ones that will be resolved once the infrastructure catches up with all that's possible through the internet. The way technology moves, services such as Netflix will be just the beginning. The service providers that survive will be the ones that can build out the infrastructure, and it will will market forces not the government that kills the rest. In a couple decades people will say "Back in 2016, providers thought they could throttle bandwidth and direct folks only to certain content ?!? LOL"
Very true. Netflick also hickups on me with certain shows, especially Futurama. So I would go to speedtest.net and I'm getting plenty of bandwidth so I don't understand that part (other shows are just fine.)
Well, I'm not talking about that. Merely that 5Mbps is hardly HD
quality even with the best of codecs. I reckon 15Mbps is really the minimum for quality that can be called decent (depending a bit on what it is you're watching, obviously).
It's hard for my crappy eyes to tell the difference with what you mean, unless the playback is really pixelated so Netflix looks fine to me on my little 10Mbps connection but someone with better eyes might notice something I can't.
Try watching a Blu-Ray.
Anyway, I didn't say it was horrible or anything. But quality and resolution are two very different things. I could grab any random DVD off my shelves and it might very well look better than your average Internet streaming HD resolution video.
Me, I care more about audio quality. A heavily aged VHS tape? Fine by me. Horrible low-bitrate mp3 audio? Get that @#$@#$ away from me. It hurts my ears.
Chairman of the FCC Pai is at it again, and in the Age of Trump™ he may get his way…
FCC chairman Ajit Pai said today that net neutrality was "a mistake" and that the commission is now "on track" to return to a much lighter style of regulation. The Verge adds:
"Our new approach injected tremendous uncertainty into the broadband market," Pai said during a speech at Mobile World Congress this afternoon. "And uncertainty is the enemy of growth." Pai has long been opposed to net neutrality and voted against the proposal when it came up in 2015. While he hasn't specifically stated that he plans to reverse the order now that he's chairman, today's speech suggests pretty clearly that he's aiming to. [...] Pai's argument is that internet providers were doing just fine under the old rules and that the new ones have hurt investment.
(Slashdot (https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/02/28/1734219/fcc-chairman-calls-net-neutrality-a-mistake))
Here's the linked (http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14761510/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-says-net-neutrality-was-a-mistake) content…
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU[/video]
And what's your personal take on the matter Oak?
Is it a good or is it a bad thing if net neutrality gets fucked up?
No need to give any reasons for your take, just a simple answer - "good" or a "bad".
Well, krake, sorry to disappoint but I have reasons.
"Net Neutrality" is one of those buzz terms: It's meaning belies its intent. Government control is what it actually means; which is to say, bureaucracy… (Always a good thing, right? :) ) I'd prefer to let the market make most decisions.
The idea that government officials (un-elected and un-accountable) make decisions that affect us all strikes me as — very European!
I'd not like to see such established as precedent here.
I understand trust-busting. But re-establishing Ma Bell ain't that.
What did Net Neutrality accomplish? What was it meant to accomplish?
Myself, I'm opposed to regulators being given free rein to impose strictures and "rules" on the fly…
This may seem merely a domestic concern. But it isn't. If we break the internet — give it over to state actors, including the U.S. — we (most of us) won't like the result.
Iran, Russia and China (sure, I could name many others) would like to "control" the internet; undoubtably, many in the U.S. government would, too. I don't think governments need to "control" the internet.
And each step they take towards doing so is, in my opinion, a misstep. The precedent is bad.
Do you recognize precedent as a determining factor of decision making?
Who knows, maybe your grandchildren will get someday the post modern world their granddad was so keen of... :devil:
What did Net Neutrality accomplish?
The entire internet as we know it :p You still don't get we had net neutrality this whole time and it led to all the services we have today. Don't like net neutrality, here, enjoy your new AOL (https://discover.aol.com/products-and-services/aol-desktop-for-mac)
Sang, free-wheeling regulation at the federal level is hardly neutral… :)
Typical unintended consequences (via Slashdot):
In response to a U.S. Justice Department order that requires colleges and universities make website content accessible for citizens with disabilities and impairments, the University of California, Berkeley, will cut off public access to tens of thousands of video lectures and podcasts. Officials said making the videos and audio more accessible would have proven too costly in comparison to removing them. Inside Higher Ed reports:
Today, the content is available to the public on YouTube, iTunes U and the university's webcast.berkeley site. On March 15, the university will begin removing the more than 20,000 audio and video files from those platforms -- a process that will take three to five months -- and require users sign in with University of California credentials to view or listen to them. The university will continue to offer massive open online courses on edX and said it plans to create new public content that is accessible to listeners or viewers with disabilities. The Justice Department, following an investigation in August, determined that the university was violating the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. The department reached that conclusion after receiving complaints from two employees of Gallaudet University, saying Berkeley's free online educational content was inaccessible to blind and deaf people because of a lack of captions, screen reader compatibility and other issues.
Cathy Koshland, vice chancellor for undergraduate education, made the announcement in a March 1 statement: "This move will also partially address recent findings by the Department of Justice, which suggests that the YouTube and iTunes U content meet higher accessibility standards as a condition of remaining publicly available. Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from 'pirates' who have reused content for personal profit without consent."
(link (https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/03/06/206212/university-of-california-berkeley-to-delete-publicly-available-educational-content))
What the unintented consquences of taking away the net neutrality, you know that evil thing that had been the default during the entire history of the internet and led to creation of the web as we know it?
Under the guise of "enforcing" net neutrality the FCC stifled parts of the market and stalled innovation… Or was that their intention? :)
Under the guise of "enforcing" net neutrality the FCC stifled parts of the market and stalled innovation… Or was that their intention? :)
Source?
The "source" is whatever blog he read pulled out of their ass.
The "source" is whatever blog he read pulled out of their ass.
Yes, but there is a legit way to guide him by his own nose to that realisation.
Nah. You guys just don't get it: We're in the Age of Trump™! The Democrat meme "the importance of the charges" has taken control.
The so-called Net Neutrality regulation (regulation authority, actually; the rules had to be invoked before anyone could know what they were…) had no reason or rhyme. (Well, the Dems always want un-overseen and unaccountable bureaucracy in charge! :) ) Now, more sensible people control the FCC.
But, yes, I pulled the "stifled and stalled" comment "out of my ass"! (If you don't consider the extensive comments to the proposed rule-making pertinent. Which -of course, you don't! :) ) But, hey: you support your way of government, I support mine.
So, Sang, what went wrong with the Obama Justice Department's Americans with Disabilities Act investigation of UC Berkeley's online content?
I saw what you did there: No source, just your regular partisan bs.
But, yes, I pulled the "stifled and stalled" comment "out of my ass"!
No Oak, it's worse. You did suck them out from some lobbyists' ass. :D
Don't mix up
profit for a handful people at the expence of hundreds of millions, with
progress,
innovation or
technology.
(Well, the Dems always want un-overseen and unaccountable bureaucracy in charge! :) ) Now, more sensible people control the FCC.
[…]
So, Sang, what went wrong with the Obama Justice Department's Americans with Disabilities Act investigation of UC Berkeley's online content?
Wait a second… what was that you quoted earlier?
"the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990"
Ah yes, good ol' George "Dem" Bush. :)
But that aside. I'm sure everyone can agree that at least on the surface it seems stupid that gratis content would be forced to comply to this rule. That does not mean it's therefore rational to conclude that the regulation in and of itself is broken and shouldn't exist in the first place. It sounds more like there should be a slight tweak to allow for freely giving away which was technologically infeasible until the last decade.
I'm sure everyone can agree that at least on the surface it seems stupid that gratis content would be forced to comply to this rule.
Not everyone… Specifically, not the Obama Justice Department.
Regulation often leads to such circumstances.
I don't have time to research this, but here's the actual Justice Department letter: https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08-30-UC-Berkeley-LOF.pdf
A quick skim does seem to suggest it's talking mainly about ensuring future videos are accessible ("Develop a system to monitor compliance", "Develop and implement procedure"), and that "UC Berkeley is not, however, required to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its service, program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens."
This doesn't seem quite as unreasonable as it was made out to be, although it does seem obvious that just putting some videos out there is practically free while captioning them is not. Mainly I'm curious to see what came of following communication with the Department of Justice, because right now it's starting to sound more like a knee-jerk reaction.
Finally, UC Berkeley has not established that making its online content accessible would result in a fundamental
alteration or undue administrative and financial burdens. As indicated below, the Department
would prefer to resolve this matter cooperatively.
(from pages 8-9…)
The letter goes on to give the university two weeks to respond and enter into a court-enforceable consent decree; or be sued by the Civil Rights devision.
I've found no consent decree…
Does the mere act of contacting one of the two contacts given constitute a consent decree?
No. The letter laid out what DoJ expected the university to do in the letter (Aug 30, 2016)… The consent decree would be a mediated court-enforceable framework. Failing that, the DoJ intends to sue the university.
Today, the University of California at Berkeley has deleted 20,000 college lectures from its YouTube channel. Berkeley removed the videos because of a lawsuit brought by two students from another university under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
We copied all 20,000 and are making them permanently available for free via LBRY.
This makes the videos freely available and discoverable by all, without reliance on any one entity to provide them (even us!).
(source (https://lbry.io/news/20000-illegal-college-lectures-rescued))
A partial solution. But better than nothing…
Stacy Nowak, a member of NAD, is a professor and PhD student at Gallaudet University and she is deaf.
[…]
Glenn Lockhart, also a member of NAD, is responsible for web, print and video communications at the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center (the birth-age 12 component of Gallaudet), and he is
deaf.
Let's just say I'm not inclined to put much trust in the legal analysis of someone who can't get such a basic fact straight. Has anything surfaced by someone who actually knows what they're talking about? Like I said or implied before, common sense suggests that the video sharing process is likely fully automated or close to it and costs practically nothing. Therefore almost anything more than a token few hundred would pretty much qualify as "undue financial and administrative burdens" in my book. Of course, you could quite validly counter that the Justice Department could've figured that out all by themselves without sending an aggressive letter but pretty much all the coverage I've been able to find merely parrots the Berkeley press releases.
What I did find is that Harvard and MIT didn't decide to pull their material on account of a similar event: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/12/advocates-for-deaf-sue-harvard-mit-over-lack-captioning-free-online-courses/kRyh3K7VNje9vhOSvjro6N/story.html
“However, MIT is committed to making its educational material accessible to our students and online learners who are deaf and hearing impaired,” she said. “For example, in MIT OpenCourseWare, we include subtitles for all the new course videos that we publish as well as all the most popular OCW courses.” (emphasis mine)
The fellow who mischaracterize the litigants has made the whole of Berkeley's output to date available (…shortly!) to everybody. You'd have him cease — because he didn't, in his splash page, correctly identify the folks who sued?
I confess: I don't know where you're coming from…
Who said anything about ceasing to make stuff available?
The title is "20,000 Worldclass University Lectures Made Illegal, So We Irrevocably Mirrored Them." The clarification is that this is "because of a lawsuit brought by two students from another university under the Americans with Disabilities Act." Were they actually "made illegal"? I have no idea, but I do know that they certainly weren't made so "by two students" but rather by two employees.
The statement from a couple of weeks ago reads as follows:
As part of the campus’s ongoing effort to improve the accessibility of online content, we have determined that instead of focusing on legacy content that is 3-10 years old, much of which sees very limited use, we will work to create new public content that includes accessible features.
This is a very sensible course of action and in fully in line with how I (naively?) interpret the letter from the Justice Department.
This move will also partially address recent findings by the Department of Justice which suggests that the YouTube and iTunesU content meet higher accessibility standards as a condition of remaining publicly available. Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from “pirates” who have reused content for personal profit without consent.
But this is what I didn't get from the Justice Department letter and it's also in blatant contradiction with the LBRY project. All that supposed intellectual property protection has been thrown out the door again.
So what we have now is basically what was the desired outcome all along: future content will pay more attention to accessibility while older content is still available. But what I'm interested in is the further communication between Berkely and the Justice Department. Because back in September they wrote:
In many cases the requirements proposed by the department would require the university to implement extremely expensive measures to continue to make these resources available to the public for free. We believe that in a time of substantial budget deficits and shrinking state financial support, our first obligation is to use our limited resources to support our enrolled students. Therefore, we must strongly consider the unenviable option of whether to remove content from public access.
But surely this means the aforementioned "undue administrative and financial burdens"?
Please know that we fully intend to exhaust every available option to retain or restore free public availability of online content. It is our hope that we will find an appropriate resolution with the Department of Justice that allows us to serve the extended seeing- and hearing-impaired community and continue to provide free online content.
Put another way, does LBRY constitute a loophole or a mutually agreed upon resolution? Where's the truth behind the marketing and rhetoric? But of course the Justice Department is to blame for all of my questions, because I haven't been able to find anything there. Berkely gets all the goodwill, but do they deserve merely a bunch or massive quantities?
I've got an idea: Let's "outlaw" American Sign Language, since it discriminates against the blind! :)
The notion that enough rules and regulation will somehow make this world fair is moronic. But it's the currently predominant "philosophy" — on the Left.
What results… Well, the Left has never really cared about results; so, unintended consequences don't matter.
Have you, Frenzie, found that UC Berkeley did indeed rescind public access to its hoard of lectures?
If I go out on the street, kick someone and say you made me do it, are you responsible?
Fine non sequitur! Care to explain?
I first wrote this:
Let's just say I'm not inclined to put much trust in the legal analysis of someone who can't get such a basic fact straight.
In clarification of which I wrote:
The title is "20,000 Worldclass University Lectures Made Illegal, So We Irrevocably Mirrored Them." The clarification is that this is "because of a lawsuit brought by two students from another university under the Americans with Disabilities Act." Were they actually "made illegal"? I have no idea, but I do know that they certainly weren't made so "by two students" but rather by two employees.
You then replied thusly:
Have you, Frenzie, found that UC Berkeley did indeed rescind public access to its hoard of lectures?
To which I in turn replied the following:
If I go out on the street, kick someone and say you made me do it, are you responsible?
To repeat, Berkeley made a very sensible argument about "extremely expensive measures." Did they make this argument to the Justice Department? If so, did the Justice Department reject it? The current state of affairs sounds like it's exactly the kind of quite reasonable resolution the Justice Department wanted, except it's presented as a brave act of defiance. But as long as it seemingly paints a bad picture of "the Left" (still Bush), who cares?
The Justice Department, pursuing a complaint on the basis of the ADA, wanted the courses taken down or restricted to enrolled Berkeley students? I doubt the NAD activists will be happy with such a "resolution"…
The third-party hosting is a wrinkle that arguably is beyond the reach of the U.S. DoJ; so, again, the NAD activists get no satisfaction.
I see no "brave act of defiance"; rather, I see the loss of a resource, as the result of over-zealous DoJ action. Unintended consequence…?
The Justice Department, pursuing a complaint on the basis of the ADA, wanted the courses taken down or restricted to enrolled Berkeley students? I doubt the NAD activists will be happy with such a "resolution"...
Oh, I thought LBRY was a Berkely project! My main question remains unanswered, however. Surely "extremely expensive measures" equals "undue administrative and financial burdens"? If the Justice Department rejected this argument, what was their reasoning? And also, what happened that led to the deaf people ("NAD activists") filing a formal complaint? I know that Americans are litigious, but even so I'd imagine they'd go for a friendly inquiry first.
I'm sorry to inform you of this: The Obama DoJ was always been adversarial, and opposed to
anything Obama opposed… (He was -sort of- our Emperor! He said he wasn't; then tried to rule as if he were…)
If the Justice Department rejected this argument, what was their reasoning?
You can ask the Justice Department…
And also, what happened that led to the deaf people ("NAD activists") filing a formal complaint? I know that Americans are litigious, but even so I'd imagine they'd go for a friendly inquiry first.
As you noticed, the Justice Department went silent about this case: What happened was
not what they expected… (Unintended consequence.)
What I'd say is this: Two deaf people didn't like that they weren't specially enabled to hear/view UC Berkeley's free lectures. They sued; and Berekely -being a California institution- said "We're broke; we can't afford the remedy you propose!" (California is broke for reasons I won't explain; you wouldn't understand.) The federal government said "We don't care that you're broke! Spend the money, or we'll take it from you…"
Berkeley said FU and almost everybody else! (Not an unusual result, of regulation.)
You disagree?
I don't know who or what LBRY is… But their claim of offering these (old) lectures for free, without adequate subtitling, seems bullet-proof. The U.S. government doesn't control the internet.
But -of course- many want other nations to do so!
Hey, this I have been marginally involved with (WAI (https://www.w3.org/WAI/)). For basic A-level compliance the requirement is "don't do stupid things" and it is not particularly onerous (assuming you don't do stupid things) to assure reasonable accessibility.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lolwot.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2F20-architectural-blunders-that-will-leave-you-scratching-your-head-13.jpg&hash=396599eccc8eb4a77f66146ae60ae8b7" rel="cached" data-hash="396599eccc8eb4a77f66146ae60ae8b7" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.lolwot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/20-architectural-blunders-that-will-leave-you-scratching-your-head-13.jpg)
Now the level Berkeley has set for themselves is AA (I don't know if that is law-required for an educational institution, but I don't think so), that level has a few labour-intensive points. Captioning may be one of these.
That said, I think Berkeley should look to TED. Their videos are not merely captioned and quality controlled, the captions double as transcriptions and are interactive and come in multiple languages. Like this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/janette_sadik_khan_new_york_s_streets_not_so_mean_any_more/transcript?language=en
Not only does this provide vastly better accessibility, it makes the videos searchable and discoverable, it allow users to read the talks instead of/in addition to watch them and much more. The whole setup is maintained by an army of unpaid volunteers that translate and control/improve each other's translations, and has been so for a full decade. Berkeley is way behind their time.
What I'd say is this: […]
You disagree?
I agree that this is clearly your position. I disagree in that I simply don't have enough information. And no, I don't care enough about what goes on in California to perform my own investigative journalism. ;)
Not only does this provide vastly better accessibility, it makes the videos searchable and discoverable, it allow users to read the talks instead of/in addition to watch them and much more. The whole setup is maintained by an army of unpaid volunteers that translate and control/improve each other's translations, and has been so for a full decade. Berkeley is way behind their time.
Completely agreed, but even so the costs of setting up a volunteer contribution effort are significantly higher than the practically zero costs associated with adding a video to YouTube almost completely automated. But these are exactly the kind of things I'd like to know about.
A return (http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2017/04/07/fcc-chairman-forms-plan-end-net-neutrality/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl) to Net Neutrality…
Here's the latest in this saga (not Net Neutrality,
per se, but of the hype about government control of the internet… Yeah: You'all knew I was going there! :) Net Neutrality is a chimera; but "slippery slopes" are much admired and sought after! Dems want the government -specially, unelected bureaucrats- to "regulate" — because,
someday, something might break…
(I assume the rest of my pontification is unnecessary. :)
Dems Vow to Take Net Neutrality to SCOTUS, Make FCC Move a Midterm Issue
BY NICHOLAS BALLASY DECEMBER 14, 2017
WASHINGTON – Democratic members of Congress argued today that the repeal of the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules would just help Internet service providers like Verizon and AT&T make greater profits.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has said that eliminating the rules would give ISPs the ability to offer a wider variety of Internet-based products and services to consumers.
The FCC commissioners voted 3-2 today to repeal the net neutrality rules, which had prohibited ISPs from blocking certain content or charging consumers additional fees to access premium content.
“Perhaps certain companies support saddling broadband providers with heavy-handed regulations because those rules work to their economic advantage. I don’t blame them for taking that position. And I’m not saying that these same rules should be slapped on them, too,” Pai said in a statement. “What I am saying is that the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers in the Internet economy. We should have a level playing field and let consumers decide who prevails.”
(more (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/dems-vow-take-net-neutrality-scotus-make-fcc-move-midterm-issue/)]
Pai's "light touch" regime as it has existed since day-one (up to 2015…?), together with all the protections of the FTC and other congressionally mandated remedies for anti-competitive actions, seem good enough — at least, good enough to keep unelected bureaucrats from taking control…
And make no mistake: This is a matter of bureaucrats taking control.
A not so simple question: Who do you trust more? Companies that crave your patronage or faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats who even denigrate your vote? :)
RESIST! :)
History shows one thing clearly: Always go with the bureaucrats. The country/empire/enterprise with the better bureaucrats always win in the end. Soldiers, leaders, entrepreneurs and scientists may have their days of glory, but bureacrats make it stick and make it run.
That's beside the point here, because the battle isn't between craven companies and unaccountable bureaucrats, but between an open society and rent-seekers.
A return (http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2017/04/07/fcc-chairman-forms-plan-end-net-neutrality/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl) to Net Neutrality...
So naif
The only thing to resist are bullets, Not SmileyFaze ones, real bullets. The right bullet into the right brain.