Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I find Carly Fiorina offensive.
Only offensive? I find her to be nothing short of reprehensible - but that's me.
It was actually put in the FCC hands by the courts which in ATTv Portland the 9th circuit said Portland could not regulate broadband internet access over cable because the "Communications Act prohibits a franchising authority from doing so". The FCC adopted the rule making process and comments period and then classified it as information services.
So, what you just admitted is that the FCC does have jurisdiction in this matter. Thank you.
Now if you'd like to make the case that Chairman Wheeler needs to go to the NPRM process, I don't know if you've been under a rock for the last year or so but the FCC has received record breaking amounts of comments on this subject.
Where voice communications go to or from or travel is meaningless. They can go anywhere they want.
Really? So in cases of emergencies, say a Katrina or a Sandy, we don't need no stinking regulations?
You could possibly make the case that internet connectivity isn't crucial but voice communications are used to call police, fire and for medical help - in other words, critical infrastructure.
If a car runs through your back yard, it doesn't automatically give some government agency the right to declare your back yard a road.
Whoa there buddy, you've gone off the track and aren't really making sense on that one.
The classification of internet services as an information service has went from being thrown on the FCC by the courts, to appealed and rejected by the courts, to validated by the supreme court.
That explicitly means that the FCC also has the power to reverse that decision.
To all the sudden say that all this court process (precedent) including the Supreme Court's ruling is BS and doesn't apply because a government agency by executive fiat is going to change the rules of the game without any legislative input is severely troubling as well as unconstitutional
Bullshit. The SCOTUS ruled that the FCC does have that authority and you just admitted that.
And you will find this will end up as unconstitutional in the US supreme court because if they do change the classification, there will be court challenges out the ass and quite a few of them will include expectations of payment via the 5th amendment just compensation clauses.
I would agree that Title II isn't exactly tailored for the job, it's a holdover from the past. And to be quite frank with you, I would have loved to see Congress step up to the plate and do something for the American people for a change - but that's not what's happening here. Since Congress isn't going to do it, the FCC should impose Title II and then fix what doesn't work, even if that means having the courts argue over what works and doesn't. What we can see here is that Congress isn't fixing the problem, they are making it a lot worse.
Instead, we're handing control over one of our most critical pieces of infrastructure to monopolies who survive by using the public right of way as well as spectrum owned by the American people. I maintain that if any American wants access to that right of way, they have every bit as much right to do so as any large company. Further, if the voters in any municipality vote to roll out their own network, no one should be able to take that right away form them - unless you want to make a case that the local people shouldn't have that right of self-determination. Personally, I'd love to hear you make that argument.
If you somehow think that is double speak, you simply have not been paying attention.
The problem is the net neutrality agenda wants to invalidate these explicit access contracts so anyone can come on and compete with the profitable sections of towns.
Indeed they do. And as someone who lives in that section of town, I would really like to have an option overpriced crappy cable and dialup 2.0 (DSL). And you know what? That isn't going to happen with the way things are setup now, is it?
Cities will be able to build out their own service which will pretty much kill off any competition in the area so those outside the city limits will be stuck with whatever they have now until it degrades to the point it isn't usable.
I think you've got that backwards in many cities. What I see is the Fios being rolled out in the wealthy neighborhoods, typically rich suburban ones, while the inner cities are screwed.
But even if you were correct, why the heck would anyone want a monopoly system?
No, I'm not against regulation if that is what you are trying to suggest. And yes, I do see where governments mandating access and companies service the unprofitable areas as a condition of servicing the profitable ones has helped the economy quite a bit.
Where do you get this? Companies being mandated to serve low income neighborhoods? Do you see Verizon rolling out Fios in your low income neighborhoods? No? Me either.
In fact, with the exception of Google deploying FTTH in St Louis, do you see any low income neighborhoods with state of the art connectivity?
No, you don't and neither do I.
But you seem to be missing the boat on everything involved. Have you even bothered looking some of this shit up yourself instead of relying on what someone posts at slashdot?
Let's see, began a broadband only ISP back in 1999, co-founded an industry, non-profit trade group in 2004, acted as an industry spokesperson in the MuniWireless space for a couple of years - so, you thinking that I only rely on SlashDot comments is pretty funny.
Where exactly do you get your misinformation? Apparently, I need to dumb myself down.
I mean the guy I was replying to thought government regulation was fantastic until it came to government regulating which is the entire reason I posted what you replied to.
Has it occurred to you that government regulation built what was at one time considered to be the gold standard in telecommunications worldwide?
And now look at where we are, we glorify asking if you can hear me now.
Well, can you hear me?
You mean why do they allow local jurisdictions have explicit access to areas provided they build out into the unprofitable portions of those areas? If some of these areas did not have monopolies, you would only find these services within the most densely populated portions and everyone else would be screwed.
Damn, if I didn't know better, it would seem that you are advocating this type of regulation. And if not, can you concede that our government mandating telecommunication being provided to almost every corner of this country which was directly responsible for later economic growth? From where I sit, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. Have you given any consideration towards going into politics for a living?
... it has to presume that the FCC has authority already over the internet. It doesn't...
Strange, the FCC doesn't have the ability to place ISPs under Title II? How did Kevin Martin (acting in his capacity as FCC Chair) get the authority to declare ISPs informational services? And given that ISPs now provide the pipes where many of our voice communications now travel, why is it that you don't think this is exactly what Title II (and the FCC) is supposed to regulate?
The entire country of Macedonia was connected in less than a year for about 2% of that $200,000,000. Through in open source cell phone infrastructure and Cuba could be pretty much fully connected quickly and cheaply - depending on what they are willing to accept for infrastructure.
"Funding for science under Republic administration's has been historically higher than other Democrats."
Perhaps you don't understand that the Administrations do not set the budget and that Congress controls the purse strings. While the White House can ask for whatever it wants in a budget, Congress gets to do whatever they want and then send it back to the president to sign or veto.
You giving credit to President Bush for things he didn't do while slamming Clinton for things he had almost no say in.
If you wish to educate us all, the least you could do is have a passing knowledge in the subject.