I would like to see articles about net neutrality on HN; however, I would not like to see this already sufficiently political topic hyper-politicized here. Can we look for more neutral sources so we can discuss the (much more interesting) facts at hand?
Why was it necessary for you to insert a comma between "Obama" and "FCC" in the title you submitted here, when this comma does not appear in the source title?
Your title makes it sound like both Obama and the FCC have caved.
The article reads like this was a decision of the FCC commissioners appointed by the President. It's not clear that he had some hand in their votes or their decision, other than appointing them.
It's because he specifically mentioned how net neutrality will be achieved. Sure, he appointed those FCC members, but he shouldn't stop there. Especially if you make it your mandate. So, when the members he appointed sell out and fail to secure net neutrality, he fails.
Well, the vote hasn't happened yet. But the fact that it has come "down to the wire" literally and figuratively is perhaps foreshadowing for the impending doom of this legislation.
Because it threatens the nature of viral. More eyeballs being directed at fewer outlets is a recipe for ignorance.
Viral can't be viral under the oppression of corporate agenda. It's like the loudest voice in the room getting all the attention. This gives a megaphone to that person. Which wouldn't be that bad, if the loudest person was actually saying something interesting. But they rarely do.
0.) Cut taxes for 95% of America (EDIT: not referring to the most recent tax legislation... these are tax cuts Obama passed a while ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html. They truly are the tax cuts no one has heard of....).
1.) Reserved the policy of forbidding the media to photograph fallen soldiers and reversed Bush's torture policy.
2.) Signed legislation that provided health insurance to 4 million uninsured children.
3.) Prevented insurance companies from denying claims due to pre-existing conditions.
4.) Significantly expanded Pell grants.
5.) Expanded hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation and extended benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.
6.) Created the largest and most significant nonproliferation treaty with Russia in our lifetime.
And considering that the President, you know, doesn't make telecom law. I have no problem complaining about a disconnected Congress and a corrupt FCC, but bashing Obama for this is silly and cheap.
I'm torn... I do support net neutrality. But I guess I also believe that markets get the products they deserve. And if they choose to support operators that constrain their content choices then they are idiots.
I do wonder if net neutrality is supported by a small number of elite/intelligent folk who would be careful in their choices of which providers to support, but realise that given the wider stupidity of the market, their overall lack of market clout will lead to them having no option but to choose a crappy service.
sigh... gives the phrase 'Forcing people to be free' - yet one further dimension.
But I guess I also believe that markets get the products they deserve. And if they choose to support operators that constrain their content choices then they are idiots.
The problem here is that the market for mobile Internet service providers is rather supply-constrained. There aren't a whole lot of players in the game, sadly.
It's a lot easier to stifle competition when it's just you and 2-3 other companies providing service.
The question is: what will the landscape of the internet look like in 5 years? Will it be divided into "basic" and "premium"? Or will we just have a broader range of access plans ranging from a cheap 1mbps plan to a very expensive 1gbps plan. Will the ISPs start restricting traffic from different IP addresses who don't pay up? Will we all start hosting on Amazon because they will make the deals with the ISPs?
Basically from what I understand, all of this is happening now because of the Comcast Vs Netflix war, where Comcast is trying to pass network charges on to Netflix via sending a bill to Level 3. So if Comcast/AT&T and others get their way, Netflix subscriptions should go up due to the increase cost passed on to it by Level 3, and Comcast's eventual goal will be to put them out of business in a few years. The irony of this is that this encourages piracy because some consumers will be priced out and forced find their movie/tv show online if they want to watch. So then I predict Comcast will attempt to convince the government ban freeloder streaming tv/movie sites (probably via DHS/ICE DNS banning) after they take down Netflix.
Industries with scale that are deeply embedded into the American economy (as the cable companies and now the wireless companies are) will always be able influence regulation and legislation in their favor.
[+] [-] carbocation|15 years ago|reply
Though behind a registration-wall, here is an example of a more neutral source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/business/media/21fcc.html
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laujen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anthonycerra|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smokeyj|15 years ago|reply
Coming from the folks who shut down websites for "copyright infringement".
[+] [-] brown9-2|15 years ago|reply
Your title makes it sound like both Obama and the FCC have caved.
The article reads like this was a decision of the FCC commissioners appointed by the President. It's not clear that he had some hand in their votes or their decision, other than appointing them.
[+] [-] batasrki|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shawnee_|15 years ago|reply
Because it threatens the nature of viral. More eyeballs being directed at fewer outlets is a recipe for ignorance.
Viral can't be viral under the oppression of corporate agenda. It's like the loudest voice in the room getting all the attention. This gives a megaphone to that person. Which wouldn't be that bad, if the loudest person was actually saying something interesting. But they rarely do.
[+] [-] dannyb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poet|15 years ago|reply
0.) Cut taxes for 95% of America (EDIT: not referring to the most recent tax legislation... these are tax cuts Obama passed a while ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html. They truly are the tax cuts no one has heard of....).
1.) Reserved the policy of forbidding the media to photograph fallen soldiers and reversed Bush's torture policy.
2.) Signed legislation that provided health insurance to 4 million uninsured children.
3.) Prevented insurance companies from denying claims due to pre-existing conditions.
4.) Significantly expanded Pell grants.
5.) Expanded hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation and extended benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.
6.) Created the largest and most significant nonproliferation treaty with Russia in our lifetime.
7.) Credit card reform to stop abusive practices.
8.) Ended don't ask, don't tell.
Here's a fairly complete list with references: http://obamaachievements.org/list.
Note: I'm not pleased with the mapping between Obama's rhetoric and reality either. But you too are guilty of unsubstantiated rhetoric.
[+] [-] kenjackson|15 years ago|reply
They've compiled a pretty good list of promises kept vs broken since he took office.
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|15 years ago|reply
Oh well, hypocrite time: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ (which probably doesn't include DADT).
And considering that the President, you know, doesn't make telecom law. I have no problem complaining about a disconnected Congress and a corrupt FCC, but bashing Obama for this is silly and cheap.
[+] [-] grovulent|15 years ago|reply
I do wonder if net neutrality is supported by a small number of elite/intelligent folk who would be careful in their choices of which providers to support, but realise that given the wider stupidity of the market, their overall lack of market clout will lead to them having no option but to choose a crappy service.
sigh... gives the phrase 'Forcing people to be free' - yet one further dimension.
[+] [-] brown9-2|15 years ago|reply
The problem here is that the market for mobile Internet service providers is rather supply-constrained. There aren't a whole lot of players in the game, sadly.
It's a lot easier to stifle competition when it's just you and 2-3 other companies providing service.
[+] [-] zoomzoom|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brown9-2|15 years ago|reply
Whatever the answer, I don't want to see Verizon or AT&T having a role whatsoever in dictating access.
[+] [-] davidj|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natmaster|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brandonkm|15 years ago|reply