They've been deregulating a broken duopoly market for fifteen years. When the market then continually gets worse (Comcast's awful customer support, for example), they just turn around and pretend it's getting better and better. It's an entirely philosophy based on make believe driven solely by making as much money as humanly possible with a total disregard for the health of the Internet.
I'm really not some blind advocate for government regulation, but I'm an absolute supporter in instances where it's very clear free market dogma, a hope and a magic pony ride isn't going to protect the consumer from abuses (environmental issues, uncompetitive telecom markets).
Your region is the norm, not the exception. It's why the FCC's muni-broadband decision was such a big deal this week.
Yeah I think there's inevitably going to be wording issues, and I get the sneaking suspicion that a lot of the areas that probably need the most policing (zero rating) will probably see the least. But at least the framework will be there (unless they're overturned) to adapt and deal with bad behavior.
I think people are justly skeptical given the government's behavior on so many front (especially surveillance). But as somebody that's been writing about this stuff for fifteen years, I really can say this is an instance where a subsection of the federal government is honestly trying to do the right thing in the face of overwhelming partisan bile and lobbying cash.
Wheeler's point I think is a good one.
"This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech."
You can make it clear to your friend that the goal is maintaining what the Internet is in the face of monopoly power over the last mile, not restricting speech in any way. It's obviously an endless battle to prevent government over-reach, just like it's an endless battle to prevent monopoly abuses. But having some basic rules of the road with teeth is, at least to me, a balance between the two.
I believe it's about 8 pages, with the rest being supplemental material. But yes, lots of conversation still to be had depending on the wording of the rules. The post vote Q&A is painfully ambiguous in terms of interconnection and zero rated apps.
Re: Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
"Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed"
Absolutely not. I realize what Wilson is and that he's intentionally bringing most of this on himself because he has a loud mouth. That said, I still don't think banning the shipping of perfectly legal items because of the way they're marketing sets a particularly great precedent.
But what's being advertised in this case is a device that can legally construct legal weaponry. Can it really be argued that by shipping this product FedEx knowingly supports use of that product to murder? If that's the case, it seems like we'd be seeing a lot more instances of companies refusing to ship all manner of product for fear of legal liability.
See that's what I'm thinking. If we stop shipping items based on bad PR caused purely by marketing of the product, even if the product itself doesn't violate the law, what the hell are we doing?
Fixed the product name, thanks -- apparently I thought Gunner sounded cooler.
"Similar to how general purpose color copiers are problematic when viewed in money counterfeiting context."
Right, but FedEx isn't refusing to ship copiers because they can be used in counterfeiting. Just because a milling machine is advertised as a gun maker doesn't change the law or the actual device being shipped.
" If the advertizing said "CNC machine perfect for milling small parts such as metal straws, rifled barrels, triggers for mechanical devices and other small metal parts that need to withstand explosive force", FedEx probably wouldn't bat an eye shipping it. But that's not what he put on the shipping invoice. He's marketing it as a firearms manufacturing tool. That's also the reason they provided."
So if I take a mannequin, advertise it as a "rotting dead body" (TM) and sell it, FedEx will refuse to ship that too? The fact that something is marketed in a particular fashion doesn't change the nature of that very thing's molecules, or the law.
I cut the cord years ago, and was recently invited to give Dish's new SlingTV service for a spin. Have to admit that the entire concept of watching live television with ads felt aggressively alien to me. The ads in particular seemed even ridiculous than I'd remembered them: a cycle of selling you awful food layered with selling you the medicines you wouldn't need if you ate better.
Well then sir, would you be interested in our premium anti-viral service package that, for a mere $10 more a month, ensures that all of your anti-virus traffic and data due to infection doesn't count against your usage cap? Sound like a good deal?
I've seen countless instances where ISP meters bill customers for bandwidth even during prolonged power outages, so you can be absolutely sure they'd freak out should anybody suggest that these meters be checked for accuracy...
On the post: AT&T's $30 'Don't Be Snooped On' Fee Is Even Worse Than Everybody Thought
Re:
On the post: If You Want To See What The U.S. Broadband Market Really Looks Like, Take A Close Look At West Virginia
Re:
I'm really not some blind advocate for government regulation, but I'm an absolute supporter in instances where it's very clear free market dogma, a hope and a magic pony ride isn't going to protect the consumer from abuses (environmental issues, uncompetitive telecom markets).
Your region is the norm, not the exception. It's why the FCC's muni-broadband decision was such a big deal this week.
On the post: The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality, Voting No On Protectionist State Telecom Law
Re: Prove that link?
On the post: The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality, Voting No On Protectionist State Telecom Law
Re: Re: Re: What about the tinfoil hat guys?
On the post: The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality, Voting No On Protectionist State Telecom Law
Re: What about the tinfoil hat guys?
Wheeler's point I think is a good one.You can make it clear to your friend that the goal is maintaining what the Internet is in the face of monopoly power over the last mile, not restricting speech in any way. It's obviously an endless battle to prevent government over-reach, just like it's an endless battle to prevent monopoly abuses. But having some basic rules of the road with teeth is, at least to me, a balance between the two.
On the post: The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality, Voting No On Protectionist State Telecom Law
Re: Re: Don't cheer just yet
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: Dud link?
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
On the post: Wireless Usage Caps (And Creative Abuses Of Them) Are The New Global Net Neutrality Battlefield
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Usage Caps (And Creative Abuses Of Them) Are The New Global Net Neutrality Battlefield
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/120891
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: FedEx has a point.
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: UPS wont ship it either
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: Bad article mistake
On the post: FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
Re: FedEx has a point.
On the post: Cable's Latest Great Idea: Speed Up Programs So They Can Stuff More Ads Into Every Hour
Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Usage Caps (And Creative Abuses Of Them) Are The New Global Net Neutrality Battlefield
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Usage Caps (And Creative Abuses Of Them) Are The New Global Net Neutrality Battlefield
Re: Re:
Next >>