6 ms·

Protest in front of the FCC

96 points by rqebmm 12y ago

notproductive 12y ago
+ Bump
rayiner 12y ago
It would be far more effective to go picket in front of City Hall to keep them from throwing up stupid roadblocks to companies who want to build fiber and other competing infrastructure in their cities: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21477376-Wilmington-CityDE-Turns-Down-FIOS-TV-Application; http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21477376-Wilmington-CityDE-... http://williamcole.net/what-are-we-chopped-liver-where-is-baltimore-fios; http://williamcole.net/what-are-we-chopped-liver-where-is-ba... http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140219845/mayor-pushes-verizon-to-discount-fios-for-poor; http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140... http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/04/25/att_you_want_to_put_that_box_where.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/04/25/att_you_want_to_put.... "The mayor [of New York] recognizes this as an economic justice issue, and economic justice issues tend to be fought in the courts," said Andrew Rasiej, chairman of the NY Tech Meetup. "It's natural that [the mayor's] counsel would be engaged in that fight." When you turn fiber deployment into an "economic justice issue" you can't be surprised that nobody wants to compete in your community.
- ssmoot 12y ago
  That first link is pretty useless since it never mentions what the terms VZ failed to meet actually are. I would imagine it's most likely something about coverage. That they aren't going to let VZ get a franchise that allows them to only offer service to only the most profitable few. Which seems in the public interest. How much would "jpl" be complaining if the actual deployment meant his street wasn't worth covering even though the high-rise apartments down the block were?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  Yes, build out requirements are stupid. If the government wants companies to build infrastructure in locations where it isn't profitable then they should supply the money to do it rather than imposing a severe hidden tax on the locations where it is profitable and driving out investment. But I still don't see how competition is going to fix it. It's obvious why a newcomer would want to enter a market where its incumbent competitors have build out requirements and it doesn't -- it would have a cost advantage with which to bludgeon the incumbents. But that would destroy the incumbents. How could they compete in the long run on such unequal terms?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Presumably the incumbents would (successfully) lobby to get build-out requirements eliminated. Or, the incumbent would die, leaving multiple companies to compete for the profitable business. Getting rid of the build-out requirement would open the field of competitors. As it stands, build-out requirements mean only big companies with large amounts of capital can enter a decently-sized market. Those companies want to make big returns. But as long as their is some profit to be made, small companies could come in and serve parts of the market that are ignored by the big companies. A small utility company might be happy with 5-10% margins.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      Without build out requirements you would be back to a playing field tilted in favor of the incumbents. Much of their infrastructure is paid off and they could engage in strategic behavior by slashing prices in whatever area a competitor puts a shovel in the ground, which would make investors in competitors skittish to invest only to enter a price war. You're also only solving the problem for a minority of people. Competition could be effective in the highest density areas, but what about all the areas that are only profitable enough to justify a fiber roll out for a provider with more than 50% of the customers? No one is going to be the second to enter a market in which the existence of a competitor would destroy profitability for both providers. I'll give you that eliminating the build out requirements is worth doing. I'm just not convinced that it's enough on its own.
  - 12y ago
Crito 12y ago
I used to be unconvinced that physical 'on location' demonstrations with signs and whatnot were useful. I no longer think that. Now I suspect that they are actively harmful. The moment you do that, you invite easy comparisons between yourself/your cause and several heavily maligned causes/groups which use similar tactics, such as anti-abortion protesters, tea party groups, and worse of all: "Occupy [location]" groups. If the objective is to increase public awareness, then there are more media-savvy ways of going about that. If the objective is to influence the opinions of the people who are in the immediate geographic neighborhood of your protest, then it might work but not in the way that you intended... You will likely inspire disdain where there was once apathy.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Excuse me? Physical, on-site protests using signs to convey disdain is not a tactic limited to any one group, it is the universal protest technique throughout the globe and has been so for longer than I can probably imagine.
  - Crito 12y ago
    I did not say that it is or has been limited to any one group. I am saying that several different groups have poisoned the well for other groups who wish to use that tactic.
- ANTSANTS 12y ago
  On the other hand, physical protests actually get covered by the news, while you'll never see "person got mad on the internet" on CNN.
  - Crito 12y ago
    They are "covered" by the news for values of "covered" which include "mocked". When you give a third party (the media, in this case) the ability to MITM your message (through selective editing, and 'editorial' segments in which the talking heads openly insult and belittle the protesters), "any publicity is good publicity" is no longer true. The way to avoid this is to not rely on the media to broadcast your message, but to do it yourself. That way concerned or interested members of the public can access your unadulterated message, not just a version of it that was hashed up by cable news.
giarc 12y ago
When I saw the url goldenfrog.com I thought they were playing a game of real life Frogger to represent slow lane/fast lane internet speeds. Needless to say, I was disappointed.
batmansbelt 12y ago
Shite turnout.
winterchil 12y ago
It's disgusting that this is necessary but it's a fight we have to win.
- jbigelow76 12y ago
  What is disgustingly necessary, and currently only being done by the opponents of net netruality, is breaking out the check books and purchasing some elected representatives.
  - ArtDev 12y ago
    There is a petition to remove Tom Wheeler from the FCC. Here is how it starts: "Before he became Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, which the FCC is supposed to regulate." https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-tom-wheeler-his-position-fcc-chairman/ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-tom-wheeler...
- rayiner 12y ago
  What exactly is "disgusting" about the idea that the FCC is hesitating to implement something that was struck down by a federal court, and is inconsistent with Congress's regulatory agenda for telecom, and amounts to telling companies what they can['t] do with their private property? I can understand believing that net neutrality is, on the balance, the most beneficial regulatory solution. But dismissing the opposition as "disgusting" shows nothing more than small-mindedness.
  - clintonb11 12y ago
    Because these private companies have monopolies on their infrastructures and use protectionist measures to keep it that way. And on top of that, companies like Comcast have created a huge conflict of interest by owning content providers like NBC. Is it fair if the only high speed internet in an area is Comcast, and they make CBS video load slow because it is a competitor? I run a VoIP company. Should comcast be allowed to charge me so my clients get quality phone service since Comcast offers its own VoIP service? The Internet should be treated as a utility. If you want to be an ISP, you have to treat all sites equally.
kordless 12y ago
Not to be overly obvious about this, but we're asking a pool of power (the FCC) to use their weakly held power to force another pool of power (large companies) to do things for us, the public (a highly distributed pool of power). Given the public's trust has been continuously violated by the US Government over the past years, I'm not sure why we're expecting much out of them and why we're not looking for other ways to implement a fair and equitable Internet for ourselves, by ourselves. Looking at the blockchain for answers.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ArtDev 12y ago
  The opposite of apathy is empowerment. Don't underestimate the power of an outraged public. It worked for SOPA.
metastart 12y ago
Great for what looks like a spontaneous turnout!! Every bit helps (look at this photo/post reaching the top of hacker news) -- I've been a part of much smaller demonstrations :-) Net neutrality needs to be protected & it's great many are getting involved and angry about this & not just because their netflix is going up $1 and they're already paying Verizon or Comcast or someone else a small fortune every year. I predicted abuses like Verizon 5+ years ago and strongly advocated to only allow what I call "Net Prejudice" or prejudicial networks (what Verizon/Cisco euphemistically call QoS) if there is no additional payment involved, otherwise such networks would strongly tend to be extortionist. Sadly only Wikipedia & the Economist of more mainstream publications picked up on it & cited the warning. (Great coverage from Golden Frog & I love their VyprVPN though Hulu seems to have them and everyone figured out ;-)

96 points by rqebmm 12y ago

+ Bump

It would be far more effective to go picket in front of City Hall to keep them from throwing up stupid roadblocks to companies who want to build fiber and other competing infrastructure in their cities: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21477376-Wilmington-CityDE-Turns-Down-FIOS-TV-Application; http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21477376-Wilmington-CityDE-... http://williamcole.net/what-are-we-chopped-liver-where-is-baltimore-fios; http://williamcole.net/what-are-we-chopped-liver-where-is-ba... http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140219845/mayor-pushes-verizon-to-discount-fios-for-poor; http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140... http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/04/25/att_you_want_to_put_that_box_where.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/04/25/att_you_want_to_put.... "The mayor [of New York] recognizes this as an economic justice issue, and economic justice issues tend to be fought in the courts," said Andrew Rasiej, chairman of the NY Tech Meetup. "It's natural that [the mayor's] counsel would be engaged in that fight." When you turn fiber deployment into an "economic justice issue" you can't be surprised that nobody wants to compete in your community.

ssmoot 12y ago
That first link is pretty useless since it never mentions what the terms VZ failed to meet actually are. I would imagine it's most likely something about coverage. That they aren't going to let VZ get a franchise that allows them to only offer service to only the most profitable few. Which seems in the public interest. How much would "jpl" be complaining if the actual deployment meant his street wasn't worth covering even though the high-rise apartments down the block were?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
Yes, build out requirements are stupid. If the government wants companies to build infrastructure in locations where it isn't profitable then they should supply the money to do it rather than imposing a severe hidden tax on the locations where it is profitable and driving out investment. But I still don't see how competition is going to fix it. It's obvious why a newcomer would want to enter a market where its incumbent competitors have build out requirements and it doesn't -- it would have a cost advantage with which to bludgeon the incumbents. But that would destroy the incumbents. How could they compete in the long run on such unequal terms?
- rayiner 12y ago
  Presumably the incumbents would (successfully) lobby to get build-out requirements eliminated. Or, the incumbent would die, leaving multiple companies to compete for the profitable business. Getting rid of the build-out requirement would open the field of competitors. As it stands, build-out requirements mean only big companies with large amounts of capital can enter a decently-sized market. Those companies want to make big returns. But as long as their is some profit to be made, small companies could come in and serve parts of the market that are ignored by the big companies. A small utility company might be happy with 5-10% margins.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    Without build out requirements you would be back to a playing field tilted in favor of the incumbents. Much of their infrastructure is paid off and they could engage in strategic behavior by slashing prices in whatever area a competitor puts a shovel in the ground, which would make investors in competitors skittish to invest only to enter a price war. You're also only solving the problem for a minority of people. Competition could be effective in the highest density areas, but what about all the areas that are only profitable enough to justify a fiber roll out for a provider with more than 50% of the customers? No one is going to be the second to enter a market in which the existence of a competitor would destroy profitability for both providers. I'll give you that eliminating the build out requirements is worth doing. I'm just not convinced that it's enough on its own.
- 12y ago

Crito 12y ago

I used to be unconvinced that physical 'on location' demonstrations with signs and whatnot were useful. I no longer think that. Now I suspect that they are actively harmful. The moment you do that, you invite easy comparisons between yourself/your cause and several heavily maligned causes/groups which use similar tactics, such as anti-abortion protesters, tea party groups, and worse of all: "Occupy [location]" groups. If the objective is to increase public awareness, then there are more media-savvy ways of going about that. If the objective is to influence the opinions of the people who are in the immediate geographic neighborhood of your protest, then it might work but not in the way that you intended... You will likely inspire disdain where there was once apathy.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
Excuse me? Physical, on-site protests using signs to convey disdain is not a tactic limited to any one group, it is the universal protest technique throughout the globe and has been so for longer than I can probably imagine.
- Crito 12y ago
  I did not say that it is or has been limited to any one group. I am saying that several different groups have poisoned the well for other groups who wish to use that tactic.
ANTSANTS 12y ago
On the other hand, physical protests actually get covered by the news, while you'll never see "person got mad on the internet" on CNN.
- Crito 12y ago
  They are "covered" by the news for values of "covered" which include "mocked". When you give a third party (the media, in this case) the ability to MITM your message (through selective editing, and 'editorial' segments in which the talking heads openly insult and belittle the protesters), "any publicity is good publicity" is no longer true. The way to avoid this is to not rely on the media to broadcast your message, but to do it yourself. That way concerned or interested members of the public can access your unadulterated message, not just a version of it that was hashed up by cable news.

giarc 12y ago

When I saw the url goldenfrog.com I thought they were playing a game of real life Frogger to represent slow lane/fast lane internet speeds. Needless to say, I was disappointed.

batmansbelt 12y ago

Shite turnout.

winterchil 12y ago

It's disgusting that this is necessary but it's a fight we have to win.

jbigelow76 12y ago
What is disgustingly necessary, and currently only being done by the opponents of net netruality, is breaking out the check books and purchasing some elected representatives.
- ArtDev 12y ago
  There is a petition to remove Tom Wheeler from the FCC. Here is how it starts: "Before he became Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, which the FCC is supposed to regulate." https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-tom-wheeler-his-position-fcc-chairman/ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-tom-wheeler...
rayiner 12y ago
What exactly is "disgusting" about the idea that the FCC is hesitating to implement something that was struck down by a federal court, and is inconsistent with Congress's regulatory agenda for telecom, and amounts to telling companies what they can['t] do with their private property? I can understand believing that net neutrality is, on the balance, the most beneficial regulatory solution. But dismissing the opposition as "disgusting" shows nothing more than small-mindedness.
- clintonb11 12y ago
  Because these private companies have monopolies on their infrastructures and use protectionist measures to keep it that way. And on top of that, companies like Comcast have created a huge conflict of interest by owning content providers like NBC. Is it fair if the only high speed internet in an area is Comcast, and they make CBS video load slow because it is a competitor? I run a VoIP company. Should comcast be allowed to charge me so my clients get quality phone service since Comcast offers its own VoIP service? The Internet should be treated as a utility. If you want to be an ISP, you have to treat all sites equally.

kordless 12y ago

Not to be overly obvious about this, but we're asking a pool of power (the FCC) to use their weakly held power to force another pool of power (large companies) to do things for us, the public (a highly distributed pool of power). Given the public's trust has been continuously violated by the US Government over the past years, I'm not sure why we're expecting much out of them and why we're not looking for other ways to implement a fair and equitable Internet for ourselves, by ourselves. Looking at the blockchain for answers.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ArtDev 12y ago
The opposite of apathy is empowerment. Don't underestimate the power of an outraged public. It worked for SOPA.

metastart 12y ago

Great for what looks like a spontaneous turnout!! Every bit helps (look at this photo/post reaching the top of hacker news) -- I've been a part of much smaller demonstrations :-) Net neutrality needs to be protected & it's great many are getting involved and angry about this & not just because their netflix is going up $1 and they're already paying Verizon or Comcast or someone else a small fortune every year. I predicted abuses like Verizon 5+ years ago and strongly advocated to only allow what I call "Net Prejudice" or prejudicial networks (what Verizon/Cisco euphemistically call QoS) if there is no additional payment involved, otherwise such networks would strongly tend to be extortionist. Sadly only Wikipedia & the Economist of more mainstream publications picked up on it & cited the warning. (Great coverage from Golden Frog & I love their VyprVPN though Hulu seems to have them and everyone figured out ;-)