Skip to main content

View Diary: FCC Chair: I could make Net neutrality happen today, but I don't wanna (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am talking about ISP's. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sydneyluv, CS in AZ, Catte Nappe, duhban
    There's also no need to be limited to "Tele"-communications - the internet is a communication medium that the Federal Communications Commission has every right to regulate.
    The internet's a communication medium but it's also a information service medium.  Is there a big difference between an ISP limiting access to it's network and a Cable company limiting a cable tv channel access to its?  No.  A Netflix stream no no more of a communication stream than HBO.  The FCC has right to regulate communication mediums but it's not an unlimited right.  It's powers are limited by the law and by precedence both of which make distinctions between content types.  

    You can't think too hard on a subject as complicated as this one.  The issues are just too important and no solution is a good one.  Further complicating it this could possibly be the last bite at the apple.  If a Republican is elected we're back to the pre Obama administration FCC where Net Neutrality is a cute idea that all those lefties want.  Even if it's a Democrat, they could have their hands tied if the FCC reclassifies and ISP win the argument in the courts that they are entitled to control certain types of content traffic.

    Common Carrier classification isn't a silver bullet and shouldn't be treated as such.

    •  Except in this case, it is. (10+ / 0-)

      Namely, the legal precedent is already there, as telephone pole owners have to allow Cable to run lines along their poles...because of their status as a telecommunications provider.

      Any decision still needs to be backed by the force of law, but reclassification isn't nearly the challenge you're making it out to be.

      Everyday Magic

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      -- Clarke's Third Law

      by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 07:50:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rec'd for this, so true! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, duhban, sviscusi
      You can't think too hard on a subject as complicated as this one.
      This is what rings most true for me right now. This is highly complicated, and I have been trying in my "spare time" haha to learn about what is really going on and what should happen to fix it, and I've read enough to know there are a lot of questions and complexity.

      I am suspect of ideas that seem to involve 1. oversimplifying the issue, combined with 2. blame and outrage aimed at the white house. A message that consists of basically "They are screwing us! Quick, sign this petition!" is just not enough for me to jump on any bandwagon. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not that simple. On this issue, the latter seems to be the case.

      I want to be clear, I do not automatically trust the administration on whatever they say. Where I differ from many here is that I also do not automatically distrust everything they do or say either. I like to know the full story. Two-word policy solutions don't tend to work. I appreciate deeper discussion of the details involved.

      I know that as things are now, I already pay extra to my ISP for faster access, better download speeds. I gave up my cable TV and went to all online for video, paying for an increase in my access speeds which was less than the cable bill so it was an ok deal. So do we have "neutrality" now? I don't see how! I pay for better access than someone who cannot afford that level of service.

      Using the internet for access to information, and entertainment, is just as important to me as email and social media sites where we use it for 'communication' like writing this comment. I don't use it for online gaming but I know people who do, logging on to play some highly intensive game in real time is "communication" -- no. It's entertainment.

      Companies are using the internet to deliver entertainment, and information, but calling these "communication" between the content provider and the customer really is a stretch.

      It's clear that technology has surpassed current law and regulatory structure and those need to be changed to address this in a fair way. I know I'm not expert enough to know what all and exactly that will entail, but I agree it is not as simple as it's being made out to be.

      •  Except that's just not the case. (9+ / 0-)

        Net Neutrality doesn't refer to the speed at which you access the Internet.  It refers to the ISPs having to treat all bits of data the same and deliver them to you as a dumb pipe, regardless of the source of the bits.

        It actually is very simple, and this is coming from a professional in the industry.  The Internet has worked for years and companies have made plenty of money off of treating all 1s and 0s as equal, with few exceptions that usually have sound reasons, such as blackholing spammers and the like.

        Just because you can call a party line or phone sex line and therefore use the phone line for entertainment purposes, doesn't change the fact that it's a communications line and is regulated as such.

        The problem is that people keep trying to paint this as an administration issue, and that missed the point entirely, because they've been trying to do this through multiple administrations now, and will continue to try to do so long after this president or the next is gone without proper regulation.

        At the end of the day, it doesn't even really effect people with my skill set -- we know how to bounce our traffic around to make it look like the origin coming from somewhere else.  Makes it a pain in the ass, but it works.  US ISPs aren't doing deep-packet inspection or anything yet.

        There's a reason why we still advocate for net neutrality (at least, those of us with a conscience).  Unless you'd like to pay my new company that I'll be starting if Net Neutrality dies an extra $20 to $50/mo to bounce your traffic around for you so you can get what you were paying for before Net Neutrality died.

        Everyday Magic

        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        -- Clarke's Third Law

        by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:33:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  but is that really sustainable? (0+ / 0-)

          We both know that increasing Netflix (which right now is the only site being 'effected') is driving the majority of traffic.

          It feels to me that with the advent of video over the top it was only a matter of time before the old agreements of 'share equally' would fail. I think that's what we're seeing. Not an attack on the nets but a logical progression of matters.

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 09:52:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, it is. (7+ / 0-)

            You're right in that the reason we're seeing this is due to peering agreements breaking down, but that's a B2B negotiations issue, not a technical issue.  Backbone peering agreements are set up so that the backbone provider has enough revenue coming in to maintain and expand their network along with making a profit.

            There's not a physical limitation here as far as how much data can be pushed over the backbones -- at least, not one we're in danger of reaching as there's still plenty of already laid dark fiber not in use.  We're not running out of throughput.  This is why you're still seeing the 'Net work with nary a blip when a 400+Gb/s DDoS attack is going over a backbone and crushing some poor VPS somewhere.

            Everyday Magic

            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:02:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I did not say it's about physical limits (0+ / 0-)

              but honestly it might as well be given that the 'old model' is falling apart with peering agreements falling apart.

              Maybe it's the wrong stance but I have no problem with major content deliverers having to pay for the massive content they generate.

              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:09:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Perhaps.. (4+ / 0-)

                ...but that model is unprecedented in the US business market.  There isn't another industry, either in communications or entertainment, where the content creator or syndicator pays the last mile delivery mechanism (radio, cable, fiber, or phone) to get delivered rather than the mass distributor paying the content creator for the right to carry the content and make a profit.

                This is pretty much the same thing as if HBO suddenly had to start paying Comcast because they were taking up a channel listing or 4, rather than Comcast having to pay HBO $7/mo per customer subscribed or on promo.  If you can think of a better analogy than that, I'm all ears.

                Everyday Magic

                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:17:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's because the delivery is unprecedented too (0+ / 0-)

                  there's really nothing that functions like the internet under the current model and delivery system.

                  I actually don't think there is an analogy for what's happening right now. Nothing really fits.

                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:22:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, there is. (4+ / 0-)

                    Namely, a Netflix 1080p stream takes less bandwidth to push than the 1080i or 720p stream that's getting pushed over your coax right now from the cable or satellite provider, thanks to better compression than what TV providers are using.  Moving from bound channels to IPTV actually saves throughput, and opens up way more last mile space.

                    It's all data at the end of the day.  Your DVR is a system-on-a-chip with a hard drive and minimal OS.  Your channels, when broadcast OTA or over the wire, is MPEG-2 video.  This isn't unprecedented, nor is it unmanageable.  Let's not muddy the waters here.  Data is data is data, and the amount being sent might be great for one company, but it's consumers requesting it, and ISP companies advertising how we can access our favorite sites like that when they sell us the service.

                    Everyday Magic

                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                    -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:47:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  except your analogy (0+ / 0-)

                      doesn't take into account that the networks can not handle millions of people all demanding high quality streaming during prime time.

                      That's why it's a poor analogy. Services like Netflix  need high quality service and that creates a backlog.

                      Let's not muddy the waters here cable isn't an analogy here to what is happening with streaming video and never will be.

                      Der Weg ist das Ziel

                      by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:25:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They're all handling them right now. (1+ / 0-)

                        At least where any net neutrality discussion is concerned.  I've said it before, if Comcast is overselling their capacity at the last mile, that's not Netflix's fault.  Comcast says they can deliver 150mbps to my cable modem.  Netflix at 1080p is roughly 7.5MB/min, 4k is 4x that. 150mbps is just under 19MB/sec, well below what Comcast says they can deliver to me and everyone else on my local loop.  But Netflix is putting out as much traffic as they are because people are watching it.  It's getting delivered to them -- that alone breaks down your argument that networks can't handle it.  There's not a backlog, the tubes can't get clogged like Ted Stevens thought -- it's a business and policy dispute with you and me as consumers caught in the middle.

                        Netflix is successful exactly because it does NOT need a high quality connection to you.  It's latency tolerant, adjusts bitrate on the fly, and IPTV like that takes up far less bandwidth than current cable broadcasting methods.
                         You're just incorrect here, dude -- and that's expected because you don't have to deal with it on a daily basis.  IPTV being more efficient than Cable is why AT&T uVerse can offer a full selection of HD channels for up to 4 TVs over a single 20mbps channel.  It's not that it's harder to do streaming video.  It's less bandwidth intensive to do IPTV and streaming video than it is to broadcast over standard channels.

                        Everyday Magic

                        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                        -- Clarke's Third Law

                        by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:20:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  all very fair points (0+ / 0-)

                          but it's also not Comcast's fault that Netflix is demanding a very large, quite asymmetrical distribution of bandwidth.

                          And whether the networks can handle that or not the fact remains the agreements in place are not designed to handle that.

                          This also isn't about a single stream multiple your number times a couple thousands if not far far more. That's the demand that is being placed on the network during prime time and that's just from netflix. Never mind youtube, hulu etc etc etc.

                          Lastly Netflix is only latency tolerant to an extent even then it's a band aid trying to fix the high spike demand. My technical expertise doesn't match yours but you're only looking at half the picture.

                          Der Weg ist das Ziel

                          by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:40:49 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, it sort of is. (1+ / 0-)

                            More specifically, Comcast sells you an account that ensures that you'll be download-biased and consumption heavy, because your max download speed is anywhere from 3x to 10x your upload speed.  Comcast bills itself as the company where you can get access to all these great things on the Internet at blazing speeds!  Comcast is raking in $6B a year in profit off of those claims, and is throttling entire carriers over a relative drop in that bucket, and blaming it on a popular consumer service, same as they do whenever there's a content dispute on their cable service.

                            And while we are talking hundreds of thousands of streams from Netflix, we're not talking about more than one or two to a single home at a time, so the comparison is still apples to apples.  Data's data, whether you're using older delivery messages or newer ones.

                            Netflix is latency tolerant by design.  It's why they use Silverlight as their video technology.  It's latency tolerant enough to give you a decent viewing experience over 3G+ wireless, which is much higher latency than anything Comcast has to deal with.  It has nothing to do with high spike demand.  It was designed that way from the start, and it's why it's been the killer app for video thus far.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:51:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  netflix is not a drop in the bucket (0+ / 0-)

                            I would also think you would realize that given how networks work it doesn't matter if there's 1 stream or a dozen what matters is the entire demand on that region at that specific time.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:05:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I do realize that. (1+ / 0-)

                            And I've told you multiple times that that's not a strain on the networks.  It makes for inequitable peering agreements, but that's solved by money between companies, not more fiber and routers.

                            If what you're saying was true, every time there's a sustained distributed denial of service attack, the 'net would crawl.  There's a reason why it doesn't do that, despite the fact that we see regular ones crossing the 100Gbps threshold now.

                            It's not a network strain.  The only place where there is a network strain is on certain oversold last mile loops, and that's like saying it's Oahu's fault if Hawaiian Airlines sells 250 tickets for a flight on a plane that seats 200.  And then, that's not regional, that's at those individual local loops and a problem with Comcast overselling their capacity.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:13:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  um actually DDOS attacks (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Technomancer

                            have in the past effected general net speed.

                            The recent use of the time request for example effect general internet speeds. Granted the attack has to generally be both large in volume and specifically targeted at the right node but it can and has happened.

                            Honestly I'm punting on whether this generates network strain. I've been told that netflix can, I accept that I lack the technical expertise to defend that position or really talk about that in general with you. It's probably a bit like you and me talking chemistry ;). To me though whether it generate strain or not is only part of the problem. The far worse problem is what this does to peer agreements which is namely destroys them.

                            I can't find the article on the time stamp DDOS but here's another example: http://www.bbc.com/...

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:27:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In the past, yeah. (0+ / 0-)

                            What's actually pretty nifty is that a lot of the tricks the industry learned in mitigating the impact of DDOS attacks helps with managing Netflix's traffic.

                            I think the big place where you're getting confused (and where a lot of other people get confused), and please, correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to be putting words into your mouth, is that because all of this traffic originates from Netflix, that that's the problem because it can impact that region's traffic.

                            In reality, Netflix has built out a content delivery network (and previously used other companies' CDNs).  A content delivery network works like this:

                            I have content that I want to show all over the world.  The source for this content is a server in data center A.  Rather than having everyone connect to that server or bank of servers in data center A, I upload that source information to banks of servers spread all over the world, and direct people there to the bank closest to them as determined by geolocation methods.  Once that data's in those content delivery server fleets, it gets cached, replicated, and served from there until the information expires, at which point it then grabs it once from Netflix's origin server in data center A and does that replication/delivery cycle all over again.  Even at primetime, all that traffic and nicely and neatly geographically distributed in this manner, which is what stops that amount of traffic from crushing either the heaviest region of Netflix use or the region that houses Netflix's main data centers or cloud instances.

                            Does that help clear it up, or did I just make it more confusing?  :P

                            And yes, I'd imagine you'd blow me the hell away when it comes to chemistry...my education there stops at a high school class I skipped pretty often.

                            Getting back to the DDOS though, you're more likely to be impacted by Amazon Web Services having a network partition in their Virginia (US-East-1) data center, since I swear it seems like a quarter of the US Internet is hosted there nowadays...at least it seems that way when it goes down.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:41:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, Technomancer, I respect your opinion on this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban

          In fact it was your diary the other night that first raised my interest in this and led me to the idea it's not all that simple, as you said with reluctance that "Comcast had a point" too, and there were complicated technical as well as policy issues involved.

          I fully accept your technical expertise, but not so sure you fully know the legal implications. For instance, can you address this, which is from an article in PC magazine:

          If all else fails, meanwhile, the FCC could consider reclassifying broadband as a telecom service rather than an information service - which would give the FCC a more firm authority over the issue. In D.C.-speak, it's known as Title II for its placement within the Communications Act, but the move would not be an easy one. The road to classifying Internet as an information service, after all, went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2005 via the Brand X case. So reversing that decision would probably prompt a lengthy legal and political battle.
          Are you completely certain this is not true?
          •  It's sort of related. (5+ / 0-)

            Brand X was trying to overturn the FCC's classification of internet service, which was a challenge to the FCC's right of classification.  That's why the Brand X case failed.  The Supreme Court was upholding the FCC's classification of Internet service as an information service.  The FCC has the right to reclassify.

            It would end up going through the courts again, but Brand X would actually provide stare decisis for ruling that the FCC has the authority to make such a classification change.

            Everyday Magic

            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:28:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "It would end up going through the courts again" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban, sviscusi

              Yes. So the idea that they could just wave a pen and fix the entire issue in one minute is not quite the case after all. Just as I thought... maybe there are reasons for another approach then? beyond that... sigh, being at my job as usual, I am reading and trying to learn but cannot devote more time to this right now. And being insulted in the process, well that doesn't help. (not by you, others down below. Frustrating to be insulted for daring to think, question, and consider things.)

              •  But while it goes through the courts... (2+ / 0-)

                ...the reclassification stands, or if a stay is put in place, it becomes the default probability, which prevents ISPs from assuming it'll stay that way.  And if there's one time you can count on capitalism to work in your favor, it's that businesses will wait for a clearer risk picture before moving on with a plan at Comcast's size.  They won't build out services assuming they won't get regulated as a common carrier until that's cleared up.

                Everyday Magic

                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:38:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It only 'stays' if a judge refuses (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sviscusi

                  to hold the law while it is being challenged which often is not the case.

                  Case in point all those voter id laws and abortion laws getting thrown out of court? They were never implemented.

                  Would a judge issue a stay? I'd think so given the sweeping changes we would be talking about.

                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:34:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Right. (0+ / 0-)

                    I'd expect a stay is issued.  I also expect Comcast to not proceed with any plans to build out a fast lane until the case is resolved -- too much risk on their end, stay or not.

                    Everyday Magic

                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                    -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:07:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no I'm talking common carrier designation (0+ / 0-)

                      if the FCC issued that there would be a fight all the way to SCOTUS and likely it would only be enacted if it won there. Which would likely be a minimum of 5 years from now.

                      Speaking personally I'd rather the FCC try this and see what happens than do that.

                      Der Weg ist das Ziel

                      by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:34:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I know you are. (0+ / 0-)

                        I am too.  And Comcast won't be putting in place any new rules (or network expansion buildouts, to be fair) until that question gets decided.  Too much risk of investment that can be lost by a court decision, and having the appeals process start is a surefire way to ripen that risk.

                        Everyday Magic

                        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                        -- Clarke's Third Law

                        by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:44:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  exactly which is why (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sviscusi

                          even though I ultimately think common carrier will have to be the choice we should explore other less dramatic options first.

                          Der Weg ist das Ziel

                          by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:50:15 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The less dramatic option is what we have now. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's treat 1s and 0s from legitimate services the same (I'd be against any net neutrality reg that said my ISP couldn't filter spam for me, per se).  Without that, you have to have common carrier so that if my ISP does some stupid crap like throttle Netflix, I can leave them for the ISP that doesn't pull those stunts.

                            I'm not aware of a middle ground between those two.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 02:55:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the middle ground is what is happening now (0+ / 0-)

                            where in asymmetrical upstream providers are being asked to  pay for the difference.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:03:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  It's not that complicated, and you do not (4+ / 0-)

        understand it.

        We have net neutrality now (or did until very recently).

        It has NOTHING to do with what speed of broadband you, the end user, purchase.  If you think it does, I don't believe you've made a good faith effort to understand the issue.

        It's stunning to see how consistently the Dkos right falls into lock step on literally every issue.

        "If anybody is wondering about Tom’s qualifications, Tom is the only member of both the cable television and the wireless industry hall of fame. So he’s like the Jim Brown of telecom, or the Bo Jackson of telecom.” President Obama

        by JesseCW on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 10:11:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh FFS, I cannot believe you get away with this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban, sviscusi

          shit of insulting people on here like this! You don't know jack shit about me, and calling me "the Dkos right" is fucking insulting and totally ridiculous. People rec'ing this insulting bullshit should be ashamed too.

          I happen to work full time and have a  LOT of shit I'm dealing with in my life, and I have nonetheless spent a lot of time reading about this topic. Your rude insults don't do shit to convince me of anything except that you are not worth listening to.

        •  the only thing stunning (0+ / 0-)

          is how often and reliably you reach for insults instead of common ground.

          I disagree with Technomancer on this but I respect his position and understand where he is coming from. You on the other hand have a lot to learn about how to disagree without being disagreeable.

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:36:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "The Dkos right"? (0+ / 0-)

          God your pathetic.

      •  Common misunderstanding (5+ / 0-)
        I know that as things are now, I already pay extra to my ISP for faster access, better download speeds. I gave up my cable TV and went to all online for video, paying for an increase in my access speeds which was less than the cable bill so it was an ok deal. So do we have "neutrality" now? I don't see how! I pay for better access than someone who cannot afford that level of service.
        Yes, neutrality is more or less what we have now (and is already being challenged). Neutrality doesn't mean everyone has the same rate or the same service, it means that within a given service tier the ISPs are not allowed to 'favor' traffic from specific sources. Ideally, Netflix packets don't get to me any faster than those from some upstart streaming service, all other things being equal.
        Companies are using the internet to deliver entertainment, and information, but calling these "communication" between the content provider and the customer really is a stretch.
        It's not a stretch at all. The internet literally runs on a communications protocol. The coax cable running into my basement doesn't care if I'm using it to make a VOIP call to London or to stream a cat video from Japan. It's all just data flowing over a vast communications network.
      •  Look at the upper left corner of your browser. (2+ / 0-)

        Somewhere in there you will find applications for writing in some version of HTML, the scripting language used to make web-pages. Anyone can fiddle around with this & create a website.

        You likely have a built-in webcam too, or at any rate some means by which Windows/Mac/whatever will allow you to use pictures & even make short films if you learn how.

        For that matter, you're here typing on Daily Kos (& I'll bet the site admins didn't make you get a journalism degree before being able to do that).

        In short, YOU are a content creator. Most importantly, you did not have to fork over a big chunk of your hard-earned cash in order to attain that status.

        The Internet is an active medium of participation, not a passive "information" service like TV. That is what makes it what it is to us all.

        That is what Tom Wheeler wants to take away from you.

        Stop the FCC from killing the Internet! E-mail them. Call them. Tell the President & your congressmen to help save Internet freedom!

        by Brown Thrasher on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:00:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The real problem is Congress (0+ / 0-)

        The FCC should have the authority to regulate ISP's the way it's tried to under the Obama administration.  ISP's don't fit the current molds that the law allows.  But Congress is useless at this point because of Republican control, and didn't want the fight when Democrats controlled the House so we're stuck where we are.

        Ultimately reclassification may be the only livible solution.  Packet throttling is the antithesis of what I believe when it comes to the Internet and it's going to be pretty hard for the FCC to convince me that they are going to be able to ensure that ISP's keep the current quality of service while allowing a fast lane.  But anyone who claims the decision is cut and dry or an easy one is lying their ass off.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Media (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Health Care (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site