Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:fees (Score 2) 256

Actually, it has to do with Franchise agreements between _______ cable and the local municipalities, which is NOT Capitalism, but some bad version of utility.

Bring me fiber via local Municipality, and let me choose which set of services I can get, from whatever company that wants to offer for whatever price the market will bear. Municipal owned COLO that gives market access to any company that wants it.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 3, Interesting) 256

No, it isn't a public utility. It is a "franchise agreement" between the Local Municipality and the Corporation. The fact that this is the way things have always been done doesn't mean it has to continue this way.

I propose that instead, we bring FIBER to a COLO, from where the citizens can CHOOSE (market forces) the options and features they desire from the multitude of companies that offer these services.

BY moving the issue of "last mile" ... to a COLO rather than neighborhood corner, it solves all sorts of market issues.

Comment: Re:Kinda stupid since (Score 1) 505

by Archangel Michael (#49149009) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Socialism requires forced compliance to government will under threat of guns, fines or other forms of governmental aggression to force compliance to arbitrary rules created by those government.

See ObamaCare; forcing people to buy a product they neither want or need, under threat of the IRS, Dept of Treasury and the full force of the US government, and calling it a "Tax", in an effort to create a "health care utopia".

Comment: Re:A rightwing wankfest? (Score 0) 88

by Archangel Michael (#49147761) Attached to: Fighting Scams Targeting the Elderly With Old-School Tech

Well, the left loves to belittle religious "extremism" while siding with religious extremists. A nice progressive democracy in the middle east is derided by many in the left, while at the same time, these same people side with people who support groups like ISIL and Al-Qaeda. It is absolutely amazing the straining at gnats that goes on.

Comment: Re:Be Careful What You Wish For (Score 1) 610

by Moridineas (#49145079) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

No question that the EFF is happy overall (after all, they've been fighting for net neutrality for years). (And see my other posts on this article if you care about what else I've said.)

What I'm objecting to--or at least curious about--is why so many posts here are so rabidly partisan and specifically attacking Fox News. I must have missed the memo that Fox News was responsible for anyone and everyone who objects to the FCC's net neutrality rules. Even the EFF objects to parts of the rules and has complained about the FCC's lack of transparency. Are they too just lackeys of Fox News for uncritically objecting to the FCC's rules?

Comment: Re:So when do we get to SEE these rules? (Score 1) 610

by Moridineas (#49145065) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

However, overall they, like what the FCC is proposing.

No question that the EFF likes net neutrality overall. Over the last decade I have probably flip-flopped about a dozen times on the issue. I loathe greater regulatory loads, but I also loathe many of the ISPs and their practices. Ultimately, I am not happy that the FCC can force through these rules (though I think many aspects of the rules are positive). I believe that any rules that affect such a large portion of the economy (and so many people and companies) should be passed as laws by elected officials.

To say that such concerns constitute "serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules" is hyperbolic.

The FCC's net neutrality rules cover a vast regulatory area, that's not in any question. From the link I posted, the EFF's letter stated:

But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”

I don't think that my saying the EFF has "serious issues" is hyperbolic when the EFF's wording was "deeply concerned."

Furthermore, if you read the ex parte letter [] linked, the EFF actually suggests additional regulation by considering what unbundling rules "might be appropriate for the 21st century, in a separate proceeding." If the EFF is so concerned about the "vast extent" of these new rules, why would they also be asking for additional rules?

That, I think (IMHO), is the EFF's mistake. They are looking at the net neutrality rules in purely utilitarian fashion. That's certainly a valid approach and effective, at least in the short term. The EFF often fights against too much law (even stating here that "[w]e strongly believe that the Commission should...engage in light-touch regulation"), while here they are asking for more law and regulatory agency. I think this is a bit myopic on their part, and I hope they do not end up fighting tougher battles against government regulation of the Internet in the future.

It's a lot easier to fight against a corporation than it is against the government (though good luck either way).

Comment: Re:So when do we get to SEE these rules? (Score 1) 610

by Moridineas (#49145053) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

If you want nutbags, you can find them on either side. The second I see the name "Koch brothers" or "Soros" my eyes glaze over. What I fail to understand is why so many people hide behind their partisan beliefs and pretend that when they disagree with other people, the other people are automatically liars, being manipulated, morally bad, etc.

Whatever happened to just disagreeing with somebody?

Comment: Re:Be Careful What You Wish For (Score 2, Informative) 610

by Moridineas (#49140841) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

It absolutely was an objection! I don't see how you could possibly read the EFF's letter and think anything else.


Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.

But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”

First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.

We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.

The EFF clearly has a problem with the general conduct rule. Leave the partisan group-mindedness behind--there are clearly some not-black and some not-white (grey, you might even say) shades here.

The more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain.