Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   FCC Chairman: "Why should we regulate anything anyway?"   (arstechnica.com) divider line 53
    More: Hero, ISPs, notice of proposed rulemaking, executive agencies, jitter, voice calls  
•       •       •

5355 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jul 2014 at 7:20 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-10 05:53:03 PM  
The fella seems to be saying that he doesn't think businesses will slow down or block websites or services that haven't paid them off, simply because they haven't yet.

Hero to Comcast and Time/Warner, maybe. Villain to the rest of us
 
2014-07-10 07:26:11 PM  
It's "onerous" to pass the packets unfarkedwith to the destination IP address in the order they arrive?
Really?

/Do your sworn duty or go to jail, you industry shill.
 
2014-07-10 07:26:27 PM  
He thinks there should be no regulation at all. IE ISP's should be free to meddle with the flow of information for personal gain.

/subby deserves the fail tag.
 
2014-07-10 07:28:41 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: It's "onerous" to pass the packets unfarkedwith to the destination IP address in the order they arrive?
Really?

/Do your sworn duty or go to jail, you industry shill.


He IS doing his sworn duty. It's your fault entirely if you think that somehow implies it's to YOU.
 
2014-07-10 07:31:21 PM  
regulators can be captured by industry, its a form of corruption, this seems to be the case here.

/sounds like a job for short term limits and banning office holders from working in the regulated industry afterwards.
 
2014-07-10 07:36:40 PM  
Uh, guys? This nitwit isn't the chairman

/just a commissioner, and one of two Republicans
//nothing new here
 
2014-07-10 07:42:18 PM  
If anything, the tag is for these three:

The FCC voted 3-2 in favor of the proposal, with O'Rielly and fellow Republican Ajit Pai dissenting. The commission is http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=14-28">accepting initial comments from the public until July 15 and then reply comments until September 10. After that, the FCC will work on a final set of rules.
 
2014-07-10 07:48:40 PM  
Because the public goods, externality and natural konopoly aspects of these industries require regulation due to their inherent market failures.  Anyone not understanding that does not comprehend the most basic elements of undergraduate economics.

Instead, they want to focus of titties.  Sheesh.
 
2014-07-10 07:54:41 PM  

AlgaeRancher: regulators can be captured by industry, its a form of corruption, this seems to be the case here.

/sounds like a job for short term limits and banning office holders from working in the regulated industry afterwards.


No, it is the case.
 
2014-07-10 07:56:57 PM  

bronyaur1: Because the public goods, externality and natural konopoly aspects of these industries require regulation due to their inherent market failures.  Anyone not understanding that does not comprehend the most basic elements of undergraduate economics.

Instead, they want to focus of titties.  Sheesh.


To be fair out-of-focus titties are no fun.
 
2014-07-10 08:13:01 PM  
Thanks teabaggers.
 
2014-07-10 08:18:07 PM  
No regulation is best. If the current ISPs FUBAR the internet beyond belief we can just build a new one.
 
2014-07-10 08:22:24 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Thanks teabaggers.


Tsk. The proper term is Solanum t(uberosum) party members.
You're welcome, swiller.
 
2014-07-10 08:25:12 PM  

Tobin_Lam: AlgaeRancher: regulators can be captured by industry, its a form of corruption, this seems to be the case here.

/sounds like a job for short term limits and banning office holders from working in the regulated industry afterwards.

No, it is the case.


A perfectly valid critique of Obama involves these appointments. Tom Wheeler especially is exactly the kind of industry insider that should be kept far away from regulatory agencies. However, once again the derp squad proves they would only be worse if they were in charge.
 
2014-07-10 08:28:01 PM  

Elzar: No regulation is best. If the current ISPs FUBAR the internet beyond belief we can just build a new one.


Yes but you're a herp derp republican so of course you'd say that.
 
2014-07-10 08:34:43 PM  

Elzar: No regulation is best. If the current ISPs FUBAR the internet beyond belief we can just build a new one.


Right. Because we can just buy space on current ISP's fiber backbones for our new internet...

Oh wait...
 
2014-07-10 08:35:56 PM  

spamdog: Elzar: No regulation is best. If the current ISPs FUBAR the internet beyond belief we can just build a new one.

Yes but you're a herp derp republican so of course you'd say that.


Wait, maybe he has a brilliant, free way to replace the infrastructure after he burns it to the ground.
 
2014-07-10 08:43:05 PM  

Saborlas: The fella seems to be saying that he doesn't think businesses will slow down or block websites or services that haven't paid them off, simply because they haven't yet.

Hero to Comcast and Time/Warner, maybe. Villain to the rest of us


Which completely glosses over the fact that it HAS already happened. Netflix didn't have to negotiate a bribe to Comcast for no reason.

Which is almost a farking cliche of course, a Republican trying to pass off a line of bullshiat around a central premise that is completely false in an editorial in National Review Online.
 
2014-07-10 08:43:31 PM  
While i dont agree with some of the points, he does make a few that ive been saying since the whole debate began.  Putting regulations in place will essentially give the ISPs  ways to find all the loopholes.  Handle individual cases of anti-competitive practices (like comcast throttling netflix) by the FTC and leave the FCC out of it for now. The FCC allows for creating a fast lane....exactly the opposite of neutrality.
 
2014-07-10 08:45:50 PM  

Tobin_Lam: AlgaeRancher: regulators can be captured by industry, its a form of corruption, this seems to be the case here.

/sounds like a job for short term limits and banning office holders from working in the regulated industry afterwards.

No, it is the case.


Nah, that implies that government can sometimes be separate from industry when in reality politics is just the shadow that big business casts on society.
 
2014-07-10 08:52:24 PM  

wesmon: Tobin_Lam: AlgaeRancher: regulators can be captured by industry, its a form of corruption, this seems to be the case here.

/sounds like a job for short term limits and banning office holders from working in the regulated industry afterwards.

No, it is the case.

Nah, that implies that government can sometimes be separate from industry when in reality politics is just the shadow that big business casts on society.


BTW, The full quote from John Dewey is "as long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. "

And that quote is even more true now than it was when Dewey said it.
 
2014-07-10 08:56:03 PM  

Elzar: No regulation is best. If the current ISPs FUBAR the internet beyond belief we can just build a new one.


Me and several hundred other people would like to put cable in the street in front of your house for this new Internet. Since there are no regulations, we'll all start digging at once, in different areas, at different times, ignoring safety standards and without regards to existing cables.

Sounds stupid? It is.

So, you need to regulate how cable is placed to prevent Dallas from looking like Mumbai. Those regulations create a government sanctioned artificial monopoly. If you let that monopoly do what it wants, it's going to provide near zero service for the highest prices and still make a fortune while putting everyone else out of business. So the monopoly needs to have regulations on the service it provides.

If you have a better solution, I would love to hear it.
 
2014-07-10 09:03:50 PM  

bronyaur1: Because the public goods, externality and natural konopoly aspects of these industries require regulation due to their inherent market failures.  Anyone not understanding that does not comprehend the most basic elements of undergraduate economics.

Instead, they want to focus of titties.  Sheesh.


They require "proper" regulation.  Everything the FCC has proposed, in my opinion, goes against the fundamental principle that data should flow freely without capping certain data or providing a higher QoS to paying content providers.  The FCC proposals specifically allow a 'fast lane'.  My solution: Boot the FCC out of the picture, let the FTC handle complaints of anti-competitive practices, hold RFC from industry leaders THAN craft regulations, either through the FCC, FTC or form a new committee for oversight.  I have no faith the FCC can regulate this properly with all of the backroom relationships they have within the industry. Additionally, the seem to still operate like the FCC of old and haven't really done much to keep up with the significant changes in communication.
 
2014-07-10 09:21:31 PM  
Joe USer:

If you have a better solution, I would love to hear it.

Complete public utility? Take the profit motive out completely.
 
2014-07-10 09:22:41 PM  

Joe USer: Elzar: No regulation is best. If the current ISPs FUBAR the internet beyond belief we can just build a new one.

Me and several hundred other people would like to put cable in the street in front of your house for this new Internet. Since there are no regulations, we'll all start digging at once, in different areas, at different times, ignoring safety standards and without regards to existing cables.

Sounds stupid? It is.

So, you need to regulate how cable is placed to prevent Dallas from looking like Mumbai. Those regulations create a government sanctioned artificial monopoly. If you let that monopoly do what it wants, it's going to provide near zero service for the highest prices and still make a fortune while putting everyone else out of business. So the monopoly needs to have regulations on the service it provides.

If you have a better solution, I would love to hear it.


I'm not arguing with your point, but throwing out a few hypotheticals to consider.  At this point, having ISPs individually digging up neighborhoods to lay a new cable plant is not an option, I agree.  The short term solution is to handle this like the break ups of the Bell network.  That is pretty well considered a win for the customers when it came to cost and service improvement.   The last mile can now be leased by an internet CLEC-type system. (competitive local exchange carrier). Most major cable plants that exist in your neighborhood because the municipality gave the access to the public infrastructure and right-away-access and in some regards, was paid for by you.  I could go into more details, but I believe they could mirror that to create competition.

Long term (10 years give or take), I'd bet dollars to donuts that most service will be wireless, allowing a much easier entrance barrier to the market which will bring more competition and (hopefully) discourage shady practices.
 
2014-07-10 09:26:09 PM  

wesmon: Joe USer:

If you have a better solution, I would love to hear it.

Complete public utility? Take the profit motive out completely.


Perfect world? I agree.  Unfortunately, we would have needed to start doing that a decade ago.
 
2014-07-10 09:29:00 PM  

wesmon: Joe USer:

If you have a better solution, I would love to hear it.

Complete public utility? Take the profit motive out completely.


I would love that, but most people seem to be against public utilities lately. Also, they would be late to the game, the rollout would take years.
 
2014-07-10 09:33:44 PM  

Infinite Monkeys In Front Of A Computer: Joe USer: Elzar: No regulation is best. If the current ISPs FUBAR the internet beyond belief we can just build a new one.

Me and several hundred other people would like to put cable in the street in front of your house for this new Internet. Since there are no regulations, we'll all start digging at once, in different areas, at different times, ignoring safety standards and without regards to existing cables.

Sounds stupid? It is.

So, you need to regulate how cable is placed to prevent Dallas from looking like Mumbai. Those regulations create a government sanctioned artificial monopoly. If you let that monopoly do what it wants, it's going to provide near zero service for the highest prices and still make a fortune while putting everyone else out of business. So the monopoly needs to have regulations on the service it provides.

If you have a better solution, I would love to hear it.

I'm not arguing with your point, but throwing out a few hypotheticals to consider.  At this point, having ISPs individually digging up neighborhoods to lay a new cable plant is not an option, I agree.  The short term solution is to handle this like the break ups of the Bell network.  That is pretty well considered a win for the customers when it came to cost and service improvement.   The last mile can now be leased by an internet CLEC-type system. (competitive local exchange carrier). Most major cable plants that exist in your neighborhood because the municipality gave the access to the public infrastructure and right-away-access and in some regards, was paid for by you.  I could go into more details, but I believe they could mirror that to create competition.

Long term (10 years give or take), I'd bet dollars to donuts that most service will be wireless, allowing a much easier entrance barrier to the market which will bring more competition and (hopefully) discourage shady practices.


Good luck getting the cable companies to go with that, it would take an act of congress or a major lawsuit to get to something on the level of the Bell breakup.

I'm hoping that wireless can get to the point where anyone can open an ISP, but again, there's the whole radio spectrum problem.
 
2014-07-10 09:42:28 PM  
I am of many minds on this. On one hand, I don't like things being regulated just to be regulated. I do believe that capitalism with the least amount of coercion is the best system of economics on the planet. As a libertarian, I am naturally going to be against most attempts to stick government into places where private citizens can and should interact with each other on their own.

On the other hand, like highways, air travel, etc; internet networks cross state boundaries probably more than anything else. I think that clearly puts internet traffic clearly into the "interstate commerce" arena. Of course interstate commerce is used as an excuse for the feds to interfere with the lives of people for thousands of things where it really doesn't apply. This however I think is exactly the sort of thing the Founders had in mind. Not the internet itself of course, but transactions and business that involves many parties in many states.  Don't forget the Constitution says  that the Federal government has the authority to "regulate" interstate commerce. Regulate simply means to make regular. Which is to make things even and equally applied. Not blanket rules to control and rule over every aspect of something, but the power to make commerce that occurs between states similar and evenly applied.

And making certain that internet traffic is equally available at roughly the same price to everyone regardless of who or where they are seems to fit that perfectly.
 
2014-07-10 09:47:34 PM  
Joe USer: You are correct, the cable companies wouldn't go for it.  That, unfortunately, is why we will not get any real Net Neutrality passed.  They have way too much influence in the FCC for meaningful reform.  It would be a bold move and certainly wishful thinking that this Congress could get a bipartisan committee together to actually do something on the scale of the Bell breakup.  That said, I personally think that is the solution for actual regulation that will benefit the average Joe User if somehow we can get the Critters on the Hill to actually come together and work for us, just once.
 
2014-07-10 09:53:13 PM  

taurusowner: I am of many minds on this. On one hand, I don't like things being regulated just to be regulated. I do believe that capitalism with the least amount of coercion is the best system of economics on the planet. As a libertar...


www.knok.com

 
2014-07-10 10:15:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: taurusowner: I am of many minds on this. On one hand, I don't like things being regulated just to be regulated. I do believe that capitalism with the least amount of coercion is the best system of economics on the planet. As a libertar...


[www.knok.com image 287x332]


Then you missed the point. Our Beamish Boy has said some bone stoopid things in the past, and I'll not pretend to not have taken them on, but in this case, he's right. The interstate commerce aspect means that indeed the Fed has the most interest in making sure that the traffic is regulated in a fair and honest manner.
 
2014-07-10 11:21:03 PM  

hubiestubert: demaL-demaL-yeH: taurusowner: I am of many minds on this. On one hand, I don't like things being regulated just to be regulated. I do believe that capitalism with the least amount of coercion is the best system of economics on the planet. As a libertar...


[www.knok.com image 287x332]

Then you missed the point. Our Beamish Boy has said some bone stoopid things in the past, and I'll not pretend to not have taken them on, but in this case, he's right. The interstate commerce aspect means that indeed the Fed has the most interest in making sure that the traffic is regulated in a fair and honest manner.


Yeah, no. Even though I have you favorited for insightful comments, this guy fails miserably:
"but the power to make commerce that occurs between states similar and evenly applied.
And making certain that internet traffic is equally available at roughly the same price to everyone regardless of who or where they are seems to fit that perfectly.
"

Public utilities are pretty much state regulated. And that reptile, Gingrich, killed off the Interstate Commerce Commission while he was racking up hits for his Contract on America.
 
2014-07-11 12:23:08 AM  
I would say that net neutrality shouldn't be forced if there was enough competition to allow at least one ISP for each area to implement it so that the consumers can choose.

But there isn't and so it has to be regulated.
 
2014-07-11 12:56:58 AM  
 
2014-07-11 01:45:27 AM  
Excellent argument by O'Reily.   I'll assume that the chairman will next publicly provide his credit card numbers and social security number because there's no evidence yet that anyone will misuse them for nefarious purposes.
 
2014-07-11 03:27:06 AM  

Joe USer: If you have a better solution, I would love to hear it.


Rent some of the delta waves the Freemasons use to read our thoughts for W-ifi streaming services.
 
2014-07-11 03:57:55 AM  
WTF is up with the hero tag for this ISP shill?

Why should we regulate anything anyway?

Because that's the whole farking point of the FCC's existence. Maybe just for once try using that power for good?

Further, they argued that "the compliance costs for ISPs would certainly outweigh the hypothetical benefits for consumers, who are not experiencing any concrete harm today. Instead, the FCC made a groundless, impassioned decision to press forward without doing the necessary work."

d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net

What harm caused by a lack of net neutrality looks like. In other situations this is called racketeering.

/nice connection you have there, be a shame if something happened to it...
 
2014-07-11 05:39:24 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: taurusowner: I am of many minds on this. On one hand, I don't like things being regulated just to be regulated. I do believe that capitalism with the least amount of coercion is the best system of economics on the planet. As a libertar...


He seems to fail to understand that libertarian economics doesn't mean no regulation. It specifically requires government intervention around externalities and natural monopolies.
 
2014-07-11 07:08:39 AM  
Regulators (n)

"We regulate any stealing of his property and we damn good too ... but you can't be any geek off the street; gotta be handy with the steel if you know what I mean, earn your keep!"
 
2014-07-11 08:05:18 AM  

WayToBlue: What harm caused by a lack of net neutrality looks like. In other situations this is called racketeering.

/nice connection you have there, be a shame if something happened to it...


Agreed, the precedent has been set, reversing course is next to impossible (though it shouldn't be).
 
2014-07-11 08:08:11 AM  
Still think the UK system works pretty well, and is the reason I have over two hundred ISP to choose from. The old "Phone Co" BT which owns the network has to allow any ISP access to the whole network on the exact same terms as everyone else, even their own consumer ISP.
So I could start an ISP tomorrow from my bedroom and be able to cover the entire country and be competitive on price. There is genuine competition in price and speeds.
 
2014-07-11 10:01:09 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: It's "onerous" to pass the packets unfarkedwith to the destination IP address in the order they arrive?
Really?


You don't understand how difficult it is for them to resist that temptation!
 
2014-07-11 10:03:34 AM  
WayToBlue:

[d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net image 850x605]

What harm caused by a lack of net neutrality looks like. In other situations this is called racketeering.

/nice connection you have there, be a shame if something happened to it...


Came to post this.
 
2014-07-11 10:05:48 AM  

Tigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: taurusowner: I am of many minds on this. On one hand, I don't like things being regulated just to be regulated. I do believe that capitalism with the least amount of coercion is the best system of economics on the planet. As a libertar...

He seems to fail to understand that libertarian economics doesn't mean no regulation. It specifically requires government intervention around externalities and natural monopolies.


You're referring to what Adam Smith had figured out by 1776 without much needed (since he had very little, but clearly enough) in the way of empirical data?
 
2014-07-11 10:08:09 AM  

xkillyourfacex: demaL-demaL-yeH: It's "onerous" to pass the packets unfarkedwith to the destination IP address in the order they arrive?
Really?

You don't understand how difficult it is for them to resist that temptation!


I do.
 
2014-07-11 10:20:22 AM  
Saying there shouldn't be rules for ISPs until there's evidence of a problem is kinda like saying a town shouldn't have a fire department until a building catches on fire.
 
2014-07-11 10:36:35 AM  

idesofmarch: Saying there shouldn't be rules for ISPs until there's evidence of a problem is kinda like saying a town shouldn't have a fire department until a building catches on fire...


... after a recent wave or arson attacks.
 
2014-07-11 10:55:17 AM  

fluffy2097: subby deserves the fail tag.


I knew what I was doing!

I have this problem where all of the (5 or 6?) headlines I've ever submitted to Fark tend to play the "straight man", always forgetting that's not what we want around here.

My first green though so, I guess, woo!
 
2014-07-11 10:58:54 AM  

WayToBlue: Because that's the whole farking point of the FCC's existence. Maybe just for once try using that power for good


Oh, they would try to use it for good.  They would start out trying to create something that looked like net neutrality.  By the time they got done, you'd have a mess of regulations that were expensive for little guys and heavily favored large incumbents.  Regulation would benefit Comcast, Google and Netflix at the expense of you and small startups.  If you really want to make a difference, you need to make it easier for new ISPs to get in to the market. When the customer has a choice and can say "stop farking with my data or I'm outta here", then and only then will you get the internet you want.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report