dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed
This is a sub-selection from Karl?


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42
reply to Matt3

Re: Karl?

Karl,

What is your opinion on this? You are usually very pragmatic and a little pessimistic about whether the FCC will really enact anything to protect consumers. Do you think this will actually have a backbone behind it, or is it just political posturing in the guise of consumer interests?
I'd have to wait for the actual rules to fully chime in. I will say AT&T and Verizon are still very much in the driver's seat when it comes to both parties of this government, and anybody really expecting tough, pro-consumer rules will be disappointed. I'd expect fairly weak guidelines that do give the FCC a little more legal power for blatant instances of ISP shenanigans (cutting off a competing VoIP carrier), but I think the real push, driven by lobbyists, will be about pre-empting tougher Congressional laws while using "transparency" to help push the idea of metered billing on consumers.


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
let put on an addendum karl; any pro consumer aspects put forth by the FCC will end up being litigated far past this administrations shelf-life in hopes of a new more "business friendly" administration.
What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
said by S_engineer:

What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys!
That would only serve to make the lawyers' jobs extremely easy after any rule enactment. Let the engineers do what they do best....engineer. They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
said by openbox9:

said by S_engineer:

What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys!
That would only serve to make the lawyers' jobs extremely easy after any rule enactment. Let the engineers do what they do best....engineer. They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.
How about we compromise? Let the engineers write the rules, but let the lawyers add their legalese?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
That's kind of what I wrote. The engineers get a technical voice, but the lawyers make the rules legally defensible.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42
Originally, the FCC was a mish mash of great thinkers, great engineers, lawyers, Doctors and just SMART, ACCOMPLISHED PEOPLE. Now it's solely lobbyists and lawyers stopping by on their way between think tank or K-Street employment.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
I know the history, and I'm not disputing it. I support a good "mish mash" of thinkers, engineers, lawyers, PhD types, and "smart, accomplished people". As I'm sure you're well cognizant of, we most likely won't see that again as long as politics reign and money talks.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42
You are correct sir! Other reforms need to happen first.


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by Karl Bode:

You are correct sir! Other reforms need to happen first.
mandatory chlorine in the gene pool?



q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to Matt3
said by Matt3:

said by openbox9:

said by S_engineer:

What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys!
That would only serve to make the lawyers' jobs extremely easy after any rule enactment. Let the engineers do what they do best....engineer. They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.
How about we compromise? Let the engineers write the rules, but let the lawyers add their legalese?
Bingo! This is the way to go!

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA

1 edit
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

That's kind of what I wrote. The engineers get a technical voice, but the lawyers make the rules legally defensible.
Not the way I read it here... I got more of a "everything's fine, please move along.... Nothing to see" vibe from what you said...

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
I left out the part about ensuring the lawyers make rules defensible, but I stated that the engineers should definitely have a voice. How did you discern "everything is fine here, nothing to see"?
said by openbox9:

They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.

SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

Originally, the FCC was a mish mash of great thinkers, great engineers, lawyers, Doctors and just SMART, ACCOMPLISHED PEOPLE. Now it's solely lobbyists and lawyers stopping by on their way between think tank or K-Street employment.
And that's why it's proposing to regulate the Internet. Google spends a lot of money on K Street nowadays, and some folks seem to want to cash in.

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

I left out the part about ensuring the lawyers make rules defensible, but I stated that the engineers should definitely have a voice. How did you discern "everything is fine here, nothing to see"?
said by openbox9:

They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy.
That's currently how things seem to be drafted, so that's all that I meant. I think the layers and marketing department give more input on these matters than the engineering department. No slam on attorneys and marketing people intended...

mdrift

join:2003-08-15
Spokane, WA
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

That's kind of what I wrote. The engineers get a technical voice, but the lawyers make the rules legally defensible.
As an Engineer we don't get squat. The Business Suits dictate, so please spare me on letting the Engineers design and implement. The leash is very short.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
This is about the way the FCC "should" function to draft rules and policy, not how it may or may not be operating currently. I have an engineering background too, so I believe I have a decent understanding of how things tend to work.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to Karl Bode
Quote: Cable industry gets confused over First Amendment right... "The cable industry's chief lobbying organization, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), believes that violating network neutrality is their First Amendment right."

Um, Karl, I know that you put some of your own take on these stories, but I seriously do not see how you're even treading on the first amendment issue in regards to the so-called net neutrality.

Right off the bat, I don't like anything being controlled when it comes to the internet.. they're pipes, and that's it. I also believe they DO have a right to meter their internet now that its evolving into more than just web pages as it was when things really started in the late 90's. With that said...

The 1st amendment is not a law of the land when it comes to how rules/laws are made in day to day life.. the freedom of speech is that of to the government.. There is no 1st amendment protection when it comes to business against consumer. There is, however, regulation that the government can impost on the people which is in the power of the government to exercise. If they want NN rules to be in place, damn it, put them in.. If the people want to sit back and not put pressure on their elected officials as the businesses do through lobbies, then we as people have no one to blame but ourselves.

The people can change things by speaking up LOUDLY and making it an up and front issue.. they can not re-elect these people again for violating the trust of the people that elected them (and they, as was said, need to stop clinging to guns and religion when they go to the polls - that was a valid point. People focus on the major issues and vote accordingly and as long as guns, religion, abortion, and other entitlements are on the line, that's how they vote)

The people need to wake up in this country or get what they're forced into.. But, I still don't see how this is a First Amendment Right.
This is a sub-selection from Karl?