

Protest in front of the FCC - rqebmm
http://www.goldenfrog.com/blog/this-is-happening-right-now-in-front-of-the-fcc

======
rayiner
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-...](http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21477376-Wilmington-CityDE-Turns-
Down-FIOS-TV-Application;) [http://williamcole.net/what-are-we-chopped-liver-
where-is-ba...](http://williamcole.net/what-are-we-chopped-liver-where-is-
baltimore-fios;)
[http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140...](http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140219845/mayor-
pushes-verizon-to-discount-fios-for-poor;)
[http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/04/25/att_you_want_to_put...](http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2011/04/25/att_you_want_to_put_that_box_where.php).

"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.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
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?

~~~
MaysonL
_If the government wants companies to build infrastructure in locations where
it isn 't profitable then they should supply the money to do it_

Some people think that they _did_ : to the tune of $200 billion. See [1]: the
$200 BILLION Broadband Scandal

[1][http://www.free-conversant.com/realtruth/686](http://www.free-
conversant.com/realtruth/686)

~~~
rayiner
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910)

The government can't build fiber with money it never had. Read the referenced
PDF. Its Glen Beck-worthy, "connect the dots" bullshit.

------
metastart
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 ;-)

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

~~~
rayiner
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
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.

~~~
rayiner
> Because these private companies have monopolies on their infrastructures and
> use protectionist measures to keep it that way.

Cable companies are not legally monopolies almost anywhere. Any franchise
renegotiated since 1992 must be non-exclusive under federal law. And if you
dig into it, it's cities that kill competition deals, not cable companies.
Houses have FIOS in the shadow of Comcast Center in Philadelphia. Meanwhile,
San Francisco blocked U-Verse expansion because AT&T's cabinets were ugly. Who
exactly is at fault of perpetuating the lack of competition?

> The Internet should be treated as a utility.

That's how we got in this mess in the first place, monopolies and all. Cable
companies were treated as public utility monopolies. Capital investment
stagnated, because public utilities have little financial incentive to do
anything other than simply keep infrastructure (barely) functional. The 1992
reform to deregulate cable and make exclusive franchises illegal wasn't a
total success, but look at what happened to cable technology and investment
since then relative to DSL (which remained relatively more regulated).

------
kordless
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.

~~~
ArtDev
The opposite of apathy is empowerment.

Don't underestimate the power of an outraged public.

It worked for SOPA.

------
giarc
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
Shite turnout.

------
notproductive
\+ Bump

------
Crito
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.

~~~
ANTSANTS
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
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.

