Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Watch the FCC Vote On Net Neutrality Live At 10:30am Eastern

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the now-now-now dept.

Government 90

New submitter giltwist (1313107) writes "Very shortly, the FCC will begin its vote on proceeding 14-28 regarding Chairman Wheeler's highly contentious Net Neutrality proceeding. Senator Al Franken called Net Neutrality the free speech issue of our time. The vote begins at 10:30am Eastern time today. Make sure to watch it live at the FCC's live stream." "A particularly full agenda" is right; it's a rambunctious crowd, too.

cancel ×

90 comments

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

Irony? (4, Interesting)

NuAngel (732572) | about 4 months ago | (#47008797)

Ironically, without net neutrality, I imagine the FCC's website would be in the slow-lane and we wouldn't all be able to stream this at the same time. Just sayin'.

Re:Irony? (2, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 4 months ago | (#47008835)

Ironically, without net neutrality, I imagine the FCC's website would be in the slow-lane and we wouldn't all be able to stream this at the same time. Just sayin'.

Nonsense. The cable companies have always known that the minor expense of giving the politicians favored access to the media is well worth it. Exhibit A: C-SPAN.

Re:Irony? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47008951)

That's entirely secondary to keeping the public uninformed. It is not in their interests to accelerate any of the arguments to be presented into the public discourse.

Re:Irony? (1)

kesuki (321456) | about 4 months ago | (#47014063)

for live events there is this neat thing called 'multicast' where you beam the same stream in one broadcast signal to as many customers as needed. multicast is way underutilized but it does get used for the big live streams. live streams can only be paused if buffering on the client end allows it. streams from non live media use a lot more bandwith as each user needs to hold open a stream can pause it (though with flash the stream will time out) etc. but flash only has a 10 megabyte buffer and defaults to a single megabyte. anyways google seems to be able to do it, as do netflix hulu crunchyroll etc.

Will there be a transcript linked somewhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47008807)

I'm at work right now, and do not have access to a computer with sound unless I leave my workstation to a spot that has wifi.

Will there be a transcript linked somewhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47008851)

It's closed captioned.

Re:Will there be a transcript linked somewhere? (3, Informative)

Sperbels (1008585) | about 4 months ago | (#47008855)

It's closed captioned.

Re:Will there be a transcript linked somewhere? (5, Informative)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47009387)

You're better off not watching. I watched for about five minutes and wanted to punch somebody. The eloquence with which these spindocs are explaining why black is white is disgusting.

Re:Will there be a transcript linked somewhere? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 months ago | (#47009773)

You're better off not watching. I watched for about five minutes and wanted to punch somebody. The eloquence with which these spindocs are explaining why black is white is disgusting.

Hear Hear! (sorry, no mod points today, but I too vomited a little in my mouth before closing the stream)

So... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47008849)

I'll be able to watch the Internet die in real time? Good to know...

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47008927)

No you will only see its death sentence in real time. It will then be murdered by , but that you won't be abled to see in real time, because the speed and latency will be throttled.

watch ourselves being watched (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47008889)

now you see us http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=media+deception+documentary

The Internet is dead; film at 10:30 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009059)

Fork it.

Re:The Internet is dead; film at 10:30 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47010025)

Let me expand: I'm all for net neutrality, as understood by most /.ers, but I doubt regulations, watchdog commissions, and so forth are going to promote openness, transparency, neutrality, sweetness and light. On the contrary, more likely.

The 900-lb gorilla issue at hand is due to systemic economic factors well beyond the FCC's purview or control, anyway. They can apply band-aids only at the ultimate cost of what they're professing to protect here.

Hey, the Man is forking the Net (This long-coming Firstnet thingy they keep propping up as an excuse for spectrum auctions, and should have been built 3 times over by now, you'd think. So I say fork unto them as they fork unto us. shrug, ymmv, etc. Why the fork not? You want a cause, advocate for more unlicensed specturm, and let the Machine do as it wills with Consuming Sheeple on "The Internet".

Interesting? (4, Interesting)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about 4 months ago | (#47009073)

So far it's not bad, but a lot of people advocating for congress to step in instead. Not sure how I feel about that vs unelected people making decisions - if only there were some way for the common people to decide what we should do...

Re:Interesting? (4, Insightful)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 4 months ago | (#47009211)

What is a shame is that Congress doesn't make decisions based on what is in the best interest of the general public.

If it comes down to it, a single large company making another billion in profit or millions of people getting better and lower cost internet access, I vote for the millions of people.

Shame Congress doesn't vote that way.

Re:Interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009347)

Congress votes in their own best interest.

What will that millions of people ever do for Congress? Nothing except demand more more more!

Why it's offensive enough that Congress has to get their votes to stay in office!

Re:Interesting? (2, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 4 months ago | (#47009477)

Congress votes for what it thinks is in the best interest of the general public.

The symptom you see is a result of corporations coming in and saying "we have 250,000 employees, and they benefit from this", which is then weighed against your one signature on a petition. There's also the bias in that no politician wants to be the guy who pushed a major employer out of the region, so there's a lot of pressure to accept the lesser of two evils between "my constituents lose their jobs" and "everybody (mostly outside my region) has slightly worse Internet service". Given that perspective, the politician naturally has a duty to vote for the greater good of their constituents.

We're not losing to the big corporations... we're winning a Pyrrhic victory.

Re:Interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009841)

It seems most likely to me that Congress votes on whatever will get it re-elected. Currently $$ gain votes, so Congress thinks "money talks" and we effectively have an oligarchy. The people are small potatoes. The Supreme Court even said that 1$ equals 1 vote (campaign financing).

Re:Interesting? (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 4 months ago | (#47009965)

No, that's not what is happening at all. Comcast doesn't go to Congress with "oh but our 250k employees benefit from this" they go in with "This is how you benefit from this, while we rape our customers"

Re:Interesting? (1)

fche (36607) | about 4 months ago | (#47009371)

"if only there were some way for the common people to decide what we should do"

That's called the free market.

Re:Interesting? (4, Insightful)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 4 months ago | (#47009489)

"if only there were some way for the common people to decide what we should do"

That's called the free market.

If it were left entirely to the free market, net neutrality would have been gone years ago. Careful what you wish for.

Re:Interesting? (2)

JeffOwl (2858633) | about 4 months ago | (#47009911)

There is no such thing as a free market when there are government granted monopolies.

Re:Interesting? (1)

Delwin (599872) | about 4 months ago | (#47010151)

There is no such thing as a market without government enforced contracts. Therefore without government there is no market.

Ergo there is no such thing as a free market. Period.

Re:Interesting? (1)

fche (36607) | about 4 months ago | (#47010469)

Sophistry. Enforcement of contracts is different from dictating contractual terms. Heck, even enforcement of contracts is possible without government, just more messy (witness the criminal underworld).

Re:Interesting? (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 4 months ago | (#47011047)

The criminal underworld also have governments with rulers who pass down law, albeit with their own code and ethics. These can be removed, via force, for the new guys with their own sets of rules which are then enforced.

Re:Interesting? (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 4 months ago | (#47018233)

Your wreaking his Libertarian Dream. Truth be known, the "Free Market" is a logical obstraction used to make math easier, it is impossible to acheive a "Free Market", and no sane person would want to live in that system, where everyone is guarenteed to make zero. Adam Smith called for the need for Government intervention into markets in the Wealth of Nations. Further, these "Government Granted Monopoly" folks are ignoring even more present problems, such as without the government creating the markets they wouldn't exist. In a situation where you have a market that is a natural monopoly, there is a choice. We either have a private monopoly or a public one. Since the US is terrified of using the most effient solution to monopoly abuses, ie socializing the industry, you end up with natural private monopolies.

Re:Interesting? (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 4 months ago | (#47010707)

If it were left to the free market I would have long ago dug up the coax that the cable company laid down on my property and is not paying me for. Also in a free market, if they were paying for it to transit my property, they would have had to replace the grass that they destroyed last year when they had to do some work instead because it is on the government granted easement I am stuck dealing with it.

Re:Interesting? (1)

fche (36607) | about 4 months ago | (#47010961)

" left to the free market, net neutrality would have been gone years ago"

Well, maybe, maybe not. But if you're so afraid of this possibility, then don't claim to be speaking for the common person to decide. You want the state to decide.

Re:Interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009709)

That's called the free market.

Oh grow up (or wake up) whichever applies to you.

Re:Interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009881)

What's free about it? Around here, there is only one choice for high speed cable.

Re: Interesting? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47010125)

"Free" markets only stay free as long as everyone works to keep them that way. It is never in the self interest of companies like Comcast to let the market stay free. They will always try to control and capture the market, unless stopped.

Re:Interesting? (2)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47009399)

The whole point of what that person was saying is "please do not make a decision. Please do _anything_ other than make a decision. The longer you can avoid making the decision, the more likely we can finally put a stake into Netflix, those evil vampires."

Re:Interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47010047)

Congress already spoke. FCC may or may not listen. To whatever end.

Only four freedoms??? (1)

Yew2 (1560829) | about 4 months ago | (#47009079)

I count a lot more just on these 2 screens

Vibrant! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009093)

Comissioner Pai believes the Clinton administration and congress at the time's decision to allow the free market to allow internet growth through "unfettered and vibrant competition" was the correct one.

Vibrant competition. His words, not mine.

Re:Vibrant! (3, Interesting)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 months ago | (#47009189)

Yeah, I got a laugh out of that too. Even so, at least he dissented, though at the end of the day, it sounds like the vote will be 3-2 in favor of passing it, with both dissenters doing so because they believe it should be left to Congress to decide, and they both seem to be in favor of eliminating net neutrality.

Re:Vibrant! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009291)

You guys all have to remember that back when Clinton and Congress made that decision we were using dialup and broadband was barely even getting started. Back then there were literally hundreds of ISPs to choose from, since 90% of your home traffic went over a phone line. Odd that Ma Bell and AT&T didn't hardly get their knickers in a twist over that. Although congress was in the process of breaking them up at the time, so they probably had better shit to worry about.

But now we're all fucked because your only choice in broadband is essentially your cable company.

Re:Vibrant! (4, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 4 months ago | (#47009723)

with both dissenters doing so because they believe it should be left to Congress to decide, and they both seem to be in favor of eliminating net neutrality.

Don't kid yourself. The dissenting votes were theater, just like Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel saying they favored net neutrality. If Clyburn and Rosenworcel had voted against and the two R's had voted for, it would have broken the "along partisan lines" story that our one political party relies on. This is the only way the vote could go to achieve the three goals:

1. Kill net neutrality.
2. Maintaining the pretense that Obama and the dem's are fighting for net neutrality.
3. Maintain the "bitter partisan divide" story that keeps the one party (the D's and R's) from having any competition.

I wanted to believe in Rosenworcel and Clyburn. I posted here in support of them. But they are as full of shit as Obama. The Republicans are worse, because they don't even claim to support non-discriminatory communication networks, but they are all selling our future down the same river.

Re:Vibrant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47010427)

I wanted to believe in Rosenworcel and Clyburn. I posted here in support of them. But they are as full of shit as Obama. The Republicans are worse, because they don't even claim to support non-discriminatory communication networks, but they are all selling our future down the same river.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are spies!

Nice to hear (1)

heezer7 (708308) | about 4 months ago | (#47009203)

That even they don't seem to support all of this BS.

Re:Nice to hear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009275)

Double speak... I see a lot of saying they don't support it and then saying they support this bill.

For example right now the guy saying he will stop a fast lane and yet nothing about the fact that Netflix is paying for a fast lane right now and he has done nothing.

Re:Nice to hear (1)

heezer7 (708308) | about 4 months ago | (#47009391)

Yeah I was casually listening, but paid attention to the chairman. He was totally talking out his ass.

Michael O'rielly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009209)

Fucking shill

Woman in pink (1, Interesting)

killfixx (148785) | about 4 months ago | (#47009269)

She had the best idea in the room, and the biggest balls!

Re:Woman in pink (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009375)

Glad she didn't wear a Guy Fawkes mask.

What are they voting on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009335)

Is the proposal they are considering on-line somewhere?

Re:What are they voting on? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009365)

It was just approved:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017589503

Re:What are they voting on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009655)

I think he means (and I'd like to see this as well) the proposal they'd ultimately be voting upon that would govern net neutrality rules. If that's out yet.

It passed. (1)

c4320n (2551122) | about 4 months ago | (#47009369)

Well, we've had a good ride, guys.

Re:It passed. (2)

giltwist (1313107) | about 4 months ago | (#47009389)

I think Commissioner Wheeler's final comments provide hope. "It's not about whether the internet will be open, it's about how and when rules protecting openness will be in place." He also specifically namedropped Netflix and commented that ISPs should not be double-dipping.

Re:It passed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009425)

Sure, it's hopeful if you ignore the fact that the actions he outlined that would be expressly prohibited are already happening.

Re:It passed. (1)

giltwist (1313107) | about 4 months ago | (#47009517)

Of course it's already happening. As Commissioner Clyburn stated, there are currently no rules prevent it from happening. Wheeler conveyed that his rush on this matter was to get some protection in place sooner rather than later. He cannot prevent it from happening until rules are in place that the courts won't throw out.

Re:It passed. (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 4 months ago | (#47009445)

I think Commissioner Wheeler's final comments provide hope.

He offers no hope. He's a CableCo stooge. He gave opponents a slight glimmer to make them think they have a chance but there's nothing there. He might as well have just said "It's not about whether the internet will be open, it's about how little it will be open and when rules protecting my former employers will be in place.

You're hope is like Lloyd's. [youtube.com] Statistically possible, but realistically impossible.

Re:It passed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009497)

I think it was pretty much inevitable that it was going to pass. This vote really doesn't accomplish anything either way - it's merely opening up comment as to how ISPs should be regulated. I think at this point, even Tom Wheeler realizes two things:

A. The idea of a "fast lane" or other anti-neutrality measures are almost universally despised by the American public. The only people in favor of this are the big ISP/content creator hybrids.

B. The American public is willing to act to keep the internet open and neutral.

I think at this point, he's doing a 180 to stop himself being lynched in the court of public opinion (and subsequently removed from office).

Re:It passed. (3, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 months ago | (#47009521)

Don't act as if the war is over just because this battle is lost. This wasn't a resolution "Forever and ever for the rest of time the end." It wasn't even a real fight anyway, the outcome was already known. The "chairman" of the FCC is a lobbyist for the cable industry remember. This was just a show to make it seem like the issue was considered fairly and openly. The first real chance at correcting this is congressional action.

And before any other cynics pipe up, cram that defeatist talk about lobbyists and partisan politics up your ass. Yes, that will add to the difficulty, it might delay it, but no, that will not forestall any possible action on it. The real barrier is public apathy. Your mother doesn't know what net neutrality is or how it will affect her. And cynically telling yourself it's an impossible fight is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Have you called your congressman? Don't say it's a lost cause just as an excuse not to try to win.

Re:It passed. (1)

bmo (77928) | about 4 months ago | (#47012251)

Your mother doesn't know what net neutrality is or how it will affect her

It has taken me years, sometimes, to convince various people in real life that the "big blue E" is not "the internet" nevermind trying to convince them that network neutrality is not "socializum."

And the only politicians that get this are people like Jared Polis or Zoe Lofgren, and they are as scarce as fucking hen's teeth. The rest are either willfully ignorant/stupid technophobes or just paid-off and in the pockets of the industry insiders.

I've talked about this shit for over a decade - until I'm blue in the face - that the FCC should just come out and declare ISPs to be common carriers and it all meets people with fingers in their ears saying "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

Sorry, but we're fucked unless you can invent some sort of pill that eliminates greed and bloody-mindedness all in one fell swoop.

--
BMO

It's official - it passed (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 months ago | (#47009373)

11:30am EST, it passed the vote, 3-2.

Re:It's official - it passed (1)

Aelanna (2695123) | about 4 months ago | (#47009433)

I think I missed the actual vote, can anyone confirm?

Re:It's official - it passed (3, Insightful)

Aelanna (2695123) | about 4 months ago | (#47009449)

Ah, here it is: http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]

The Democrats have killed Net Neutrality !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47010039)

Yep, it's the Democrats who have killed the Net Neutrality !

All 3 commissioners who voted to allow Internet service providers charge content companies for faster and more reliable delivery of their traffic to users are DEMOCRATS !!

Re: The Democrats have killed Net Neutrality !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47010177)

Yes. They're not our friends...

But a little perspective - the Republican members want to eliminate even a pretense of net neutrality.

It's like a choice between one group thst wants to shoot your dog in the leg, and the other who just wants to put him in the wood chipper.

Re: The Democrats have killed Net Neutrality !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47010977)

Yes. They're not our friends...

But a little perspective - the Republican members want to eliminate even a pretense of net neutrality.

It's like a choice between one group thst wants to shoot your dog in the leg, and the other who just wants to put him in the wood chipper.

And here, once again, we see the Democrat supporters using their same tired refrain of "but, but, TEH EVUL REPUBLIKKKANS!" Here we have a clear case of Democrats showing their ass, and all their supporters can do is bleat about how "teh repukelikan fascist dick-taters are worser!!!!1!!!111!!!"

When will you realize that nobody in power gives a shit about you, and trying to turn everything into a "your team is worse than my team" argument is how they KEEP themselves in power? How about holding these clowns responsible for their actions by kicking them the hell out of office next election, instead of immediately screaming about "teh odder teem duz just as bad but wurser!!!!!!"

Grow the fuck up.

Re: The Democrats have killed Net Neutrality !! (0)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 4 months ago | (#47011035)

It's like a choice between one group thst wants to shoot your dog in the leg, and the other who just wants to put him in the wood chipper.

No, it's more like this:
Democrats: want to shoot your dog in the leg to prevent it being a potential menace
Republicans: want to require YOU to shoot your dog in the leg, because it has obviously done something wrong
Green: want to take your dog and shoot YOU in the leg to prevent the Dems and Reps from shooting the dog, but will put it all under the title "dog protection"
Libertarian: will sell licenses for anyone to shoot your dog in the leg for sport
Independent: will talk about how government needs to be reformed, and how everyone should be thinking about the dogs in THEIR constituency, but won't really do anything one way or the other.

Did I miss anything?

Re: The Democrats have killed Net Neutrality !! (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 4 months ago | (#47013925)

Troll? For straightening out the metaphor?

Odd moderating today (or at least moderators that didn't get the point).

Re:The Democrats have killed Net Neutrality !! (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 months ago | (#47010693)

Stop turning this into a partisan argument. I listened to it live, and it was clear the Republicans weren't friends of ours or net neutrality. One Republican made it clear that he wanted to kill the very idea of net neutrality and didn't think this measure went far enough, the other used weasel words to claim he was pro-freedom on the Internet, while wanting to toss the final decision to the firmly-in-the-telecom-industry's-pockets Congress.

The only reason these Republicans voted the way we want is because they think it didn't go far enough to completely kill net neutrality.

Disclaimer: I'm a registered Republican.

Re:It's official - it passed (3, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 4 months ago | (#47009479)

Wow, what a surprise.

.
This was destined to pass from the day it was first proposed. All the public commenting was merely window dressing to make it appear as if there were public involvement. The ISPs control the Internet (and apparently the FCC) in the United States, and this is their way of assuring they will continue to do so and profit handsomely in the process.

Re:It's official - it passed (5, Funny)

organgtool (966989) | about 4 months ago | (#47009715)

On the plus side, the money this brings in will allow the ISPs to back off their threat to stop innovating!

Re:It's official - it passed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009781)

+1, Funny

Re:It's official - it passed (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 4 months ago | (#47011053)

On the plus side, the money this brings in will allow the ISPs to back off their threat to stop innovating!

Unfortunately, they already spent that money on lobbying the FCC. So they still can't innovate without a government grant.

Re:It's official - it passed (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 4 months ago | (#47013267)

They'll innovate new ways to lobby congress and the FCC. It's like you're not even paying attention.

Re:It's official - it passed (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 4 months ago | (#47010053)

Wow, what a surprise.

. This was destined to pass from the day it was first proposed. All the public commenting was merely window dressing to make it appear as if there were public involvement. The content/broadband providers control the Internet (and apparently the FCC) in the United States, and this is their way of assuring they will stomp out any hint of real competition in the content creation/distribution markets and continue to do so ad infinitum and profit handsomely in the process.

There. FTFY.

Re:It's official - it passed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009523)

fuck this shit, I'm going to the moon.

Right on time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009575)

Well, My RSS feed just showed this one.. its now 11:55 EST

Re:Right on time (1)

organgtool (966989) | about 4 months ago | (#47009713)

Looks like you're RSS feed is in the slow lane. You'd better pay up if you want the news while it's still relevant, buddy!

Help us Google Fiber! You're our only hope (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 4 months ago | (#47009691)

Now would be a great time for Google Fiber to announce their nationwide rollout. "If the FCC won't fight for a free and open Internet then we must."

Re:Help us Google Fiber! You're our only hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47009935)

Oh god. I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or weep violently over the thought of Google saying that.

Re:Help us Google Fiber! You're our only hope (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47010145)

Google is only installing fiber in major metropolitan areas. They have a few thousand people served. At best you'll see major markets like New York, Chicago, Austin, etc...

Most places in this country will literally never get fiber. ISPs are slowing deployment of it due to expense. I suspect the ISPs are concerned a wireless tech breakthrough could torpedo their business... and they very well may be right.

Re:Help us Google Fiber! You're our only hope (1)

stdarg (456557) | about 4 months ago | (#47010351)

I'm not sure about that. Kansas City where they started is not a major metropolitcan area. Austin is. What seems to be the common thread is that local governments are willing to play ball to get it done.

Google is interested in the city I live in (Raleigh, NC), but also several of the smaller cities nearby, including Durham (pop: 240k), Cary (150k), and Chapel Hill (60k). One reason is that these cities (and a few more) got together and came up with their own plan to introduce gigabit internet, called the "North Carolina Next Generation Network" (ncngn.net). They made an agreement that to facilitate this network, they would provide for things like easy permitting once a project is approved and non-discriminatory leasing of city owned resources (e.g. http://www.bizjournals.com/tri... [bizjournals.com] ). They put out an RFP for the network before Google showed interest and had 8 respondents. AT&T is one of them, and they plan to roll out their "gigapower" thing, the same one they have in Austin. Time Warner is also participating, but hasn't released more details.

So I'm not 100% sure anymore whether these companies are cherry-picking or just chasing Google (since AT&T announced before Google expressed interest here, and in fact Google has not committed).

Help us Google Fiber! You're our only hope (1)

Zero_NzYme (3637295) | about 4 months ago | (#47010437)

Several NSA members work at Google and serve on their board. The plan is make the current internet so bad forcing you on Google's infrastructure which has every surveillance subsystem you can think of and some you don't even know exist. Google is still collecting data, which is a violation of the 4th Amendment, and they continue to do so.

Media fail (4, Insightful)

jfern (115937) | about 4 months ago | (#47009743)

The media said that "net neutrality" fast lanes passed. Morons. We need media neutrality, too.

Re:Media fail (1)

roninmagus (721889) | about 4 months ago | (#47009987)

This is status quo as to what I've seen so far about this. People who don't know what they're talking about are actually describing both sides with the wrong terms. This happens to be a topic I know a lot about, and I see how they get it wrong; it scares me to think about their reporting of stuff that I don't know a lot about.

Does it matter? (1)

nebaz (453974) | about 4 months ago | (#47009777)

Didn't the FCC vote on net neutrality some time back and get slapped down by the courts saying they didn't have the authority to impose this?

I know what they are doing now is the opposite of net neutrality, but wouldn't the court say the same thing? (Somehow I doubt it actually)

Re:Does it matter? (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 4 months ago | (#47010117)

Didn't the FCC vote on net neutrality some time back and get slapped down by the courts saying they didn't have the authority to impose this?

What the court ruled [uscourts.gov] is that since broadband providers are not classified as "common carriers," the FCC can't impose net neutrality rules on them. The solution (or at least part of the solution, cf. my post in another, related discussion [slashdot.org] ) is, of course, to reclassify ISPs and broadband providers as "common carriers." Well, good luck with that. Although lobbying dollars would be more useful than luck. I've got a jar full of silver change, if that helps.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47010531)

Does this mean the court vacated the DMCA, too? Every outfit that took the sucker bait and registered as an ISP with the Copyright Office to get their common-carrier exemption from copyright liability wants to know. I'm certain Comcast and other cable co.s are among them.

Mr. Left Hand, meet Mr. Right Hand. Play nice, now.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

neurophil12 (1054552) | about 4 months ago | (#47010535)

To provide a bit more detail to what NotSanguine said, there was some legalese in which the FCC classified broadband as an "Information Service" as opposed to a "Communications Service" back in 2002. The court then recently said that the FCC could apply Net Neutrality regulation on a Communications Service but not an Information Service, but the FCC and Congress are refusing to reclassify even though there is nothing legally stopping them (as far as I am aware). I do not understand the distinction between the two, though my understanding that a Communication Service would be a Common Carrier.

From the 2002 FCC news release [fcc.gov] I found, 'The FCC also said that cable modem service does not contain a separate "telecommunications service" offering and therefore is not subject to common carrier regulation.'

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47011143)

It's not hair-splitting to suggest that "Communications Service" should be construed as transmission, reception, and forwarding of signals. "Information Service", in any reasonable definition, is something that should be out of the FCC's jurisdiction altogether. Or any other branch or agency of the Federal government.

Transcript (1)

h4x0t (1245872) | about 4 months ago | (#47010451)

Does anyone have a transcript, or is it posted somewhere, of the speech the chairman is giving (gave) after the meeting? He makes it sound as though the internet is more "open", now, free from the "rules" of net neutrality imposed on it. It's absolutely riot inducing.

"No Lobbyists in my Administration" (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 4 months ago | (#47014557)

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

-- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
November 10, 2007

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>