FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

Tom Wheeler himself, writing for Wired:

After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

When I saw, what could only be described as the controlled leaks, of the news earlier this week and last week, I began to believe it was the case. I did not believe Wheeler would flip on this issue from last year to this year. I am geuinely surprised and pleased by this. He will never read this, but I apologize to him for the varied and many profanities I call him. Corporate prostitute comes to mind as one example.

Another section from his article drew my attention though:

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second—hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. “We used to worry about you a lot,” Case told me years later.

But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.

While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.

The phone network’s openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America’s broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.

It's hard to make your case that something wont happen to an FCC Chairman who your industry has personally fucked over in the past by the very thing you say wont happen. Make your own bed, you have to lie in it.

In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility

Steve Lohr, writing for the New York Times:

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission this week is widely expected to propose regulating Internet service like a public utility, a move certain to unleash another round of intense debate and lobbying about how to ensure so-called net neutrality, or an open Internet.

It is expected that the proposal will reclassify high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service, instead of an information service, under Title II of the Communications Act, according to industry analysts, lobbyists and former F.C.C. staff members.

This news, if it turns out to be true, is very surprising to me. Given Tom Wheeler's history on Net Neutrality, I had expected him to whichever way Comcast & friends had wanted him to vote. I am still skeptical because of this bit from the article:

But Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, will advocate a light-touch approach to Title II, they say, shunning the more intrusive aspects of utility-style regulation, like meddling in pricing decisions.

Still though, it seems that it will be better than I feared, which is a total rejection of Title II. That's something.

Veteran Microsoft Developer Posts To Reddit About Why Microsoft Software Never Seems To Change

Take this with a large grain of salt, of course, due to anonymity. A supposed 15 year Microsoft developer made a post on /r/windowsphone about why Microsoft's software hasn't really changed much within the past 10 years. It's worth your time to read as he outlines internal problems with how Microsoft makes its products. Make sure you read further down the replies as he outlines how he thinks Microsoft will do over the next few years too.

Brazen Attempts By Hotels To Block Wi-Fi

The New York Times Editorial Board writes:

Some large hotel chains want to block guests from using their own wireless Internet devices. It’s a blatant attempt to limit customer choice, and the Federal Communications Commission should say no.

Marriott International and the American Hotel and Lodging Association are asking the F.C.C. to give hotels the green light to remotely disable the Wi-Fi devices that some travelers use to connect their laptops and tablet computers to the Internet through cellular services from companies like Verizon. This would force guests to buy the wireless Internet service provided by hotels.

...

In October, the F.C.C. fined Marriott $600,000 for preventing customers from using their own Wi-Fi devices at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville. The commission said the hotel was charging people attending and exhibiting at a conference $250 to $1,000 per device to connect to the hotel-operated Wi-Fi service. Previously, the F.C.C. prohibited Boston’s Logan International Airport from blocking Wi-Fi networks set up by airline clubs.

It is truly brazen for these hotels to want to do this and are attempting to get the FCC legally allow them to. My fear is the current FCC leadership is so corrupt that it will side with the corporations to the detriment of the country. Such bullshit.

Fleecing Uncle Sam

Or as Jason Kottke put it, "CEOs Are America's Real Moochers":

Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers International union, writes about a Institute for Policy Studies report called Fleecing Uncle Sam. One of the most eyebrow-raising details is this:

Of America's 100 top-paid CEOs, 29 worked schemes that enabled them to collect more in compensation than their corporations paid in income taxes. The average pay for these 29: $32 million. For one year.

And from the report:

All seven of these firms were highly profitable, collectively reporting more than $74 billion in U.S. pre-tax profits. However, they received a combined total of $1.9 billion in refunds from the IRS, giving them an effective tax rate of negative 2.5 percent.

The seven CEOs leading these tax-dodging corporations were paid $17.3 million on average in 2013. Boeing and Ford Motors both paid their CEOs more than $23 million last year while receiving large tax refunds.

Total bullshit.

Agreed. And the depressing thing is the incoming Congressional class is the least likely to do anything about it in the history of Congress.

Apple Has Lost The Functional High Ground

Marco Arment, writing today what many of us within the Apple community also feel:

The problem seems to be quite simple: they’re doing too much, with unrealistic deadlines.

We don’t need major OS releases every year. We don’t need each OS release to have a huge list of new features. We need our computers, phones, and tablets to work well first so we can enjoy new features released at a healthy, gradual, sustainable pace.

I fear that Apple’s leadership doesn’t realize quite how badly and deeply their software flaws have damaged their reputation, because if they realized it, they’d make serious changes that don’t appear to be happening. Instead, the opposite appears to be happening: the marketing-driven pace of rapid updates on multiple product lines seems to be expanding and accelerating.

Chris Pepper Responds to Paul Graham on Programming Jobs

Gruber linked to this yesterday and it got my attention.

Chris Pepper:

The immigrants I interview and work with are not 100–1,000 times as effective as US Citizens, which is the implication I get from Paul’s article: that the US has plenty of non-great programmers, but we need to recruit outside our borders to find enough great programmers. Immigrants are not hired with an understanding or expectation that they will be twice as effective as US candidates. We hire immigrants (and employers deal with the costs and paperwork) because we need people to do lots of (often basic) jobs, and there are simply not enough qualified candidates — whether programmers, system administrators, or other tech types. […]

But be honest. H-1B visa demand is not high because companies are striving for excellence. The visas are being used to preserve the existing labor market (salary levels) rather than paying higher salaries as dictated by supply and demand.

The entire H-1B Visa argument has been complete bullshit for years. Take this long stanging lobbying effort by all of the established companies in Silicon Valley coupled with the Apple/Microsoft/Twitter/Facebook/Everotherfuckingtechcompany actual god damned conspiracy to wage fix that they're now being sued for in court, and it starts to paint a picture. It paints a picture of companies who are willing to cut their own employees off at the knees to eek out another 3% profit margin at the end of the year. And when you have Paul Grahm write these whiny posts where he tries to legitimate this argument into something than what it actually is, which is the rich just trying to get richer, then it no longer becomes "just business". Its mean, spiteful, and evil.

Fuck that guy.