Skip to main content

Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC had limited authority to regulate broadband services, and that it could not require broadband providers to adhere to network neutrality rules under its general authority to regulate telecommunications.

The ruling is a result, in part, of the FCC's decision in the 2002 Cable Modem Order "to treat broadband providers not as common carriers subject to regulation under Title II of the Federal Communications Act, but rather as 'information services' which would be subject to much less stringent regulations." The most straightforward response to this ruling, and the one that would ensure the ability of the FCC to enforce net neutrality, would be to revisit that 2002 decision, and treat broadband providers as common carriers and thus regulate them under their Title II authority.

But sources within the FCC say that FCC Chair Julius Genachowski is "leaning toward keeping the current regulatory framework for broadband services in place." Which would mean much weaker

[I]n recent discussions, the sources said Genachowski has indicated he is less inclined to define broadband as common carrier service like regular copper wire phone services, which are clearly under the FCC’s oversight. The chairman was concerned that a move to that regime, called Title II, would be overly burdensome on carriers, they said. Yet he was also concerned that the current framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC’s authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy....

Specifically, he is exploring a legal push under the current legal framework for broadband, which is under Title I, that would make possible the FCC’s push for a new net neutrality rule and reforms under a national broadband plan, the sources said. That could include a legal push in courts where it would assert that the FCC has the mandate from Congress to deploy broadband to all Americans in a timely manner....

The companies that are most affected by the debate are the network operators such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast which provide the transportation of Web traffic on their networks. They would be cheered by a decision from the FCC to retain its current regulatory structure that is a murkier statute and would make it more difficult for the agency to impose rules on them. And they warn that reclassification of broadband would hurt their businesses.

If AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast prefer to have the current regulatory framework maintained, it's because it makes for an FCC that has weak authority over broadband, and net neutrality could be the cost. Law professor Marvin Ammori explains what could happen (based on some things that already have happened) if the FCC maintains the status quo on net neutrality.

If the Post story is predictive, there is almost no list of "horribles" that are not fair game. I'm listing ten. Most of these "horribles" have actually happened as business practices where the carriers got their way. And media companies are believed to refuse ads or stories that criticize them or oppose their position.

Comcast (or AT&T or Verizon or Time Warner Cable) could do any of the following and the FCC could do Big Fat Nothing:

(1) Block your tweets, if you criticize Comcast's service or its merger, especially if you use the #ComcastSucks hashtag.

(2) Block your vote to the consumerist.com, when you vote Comcast the worst company in the nation. No need for such traffic to get through.

(3) Force every candidate for election to register their campaign-donations webpage and abide by the same weird rules that apply to donations by text message.

(4) Comcast could even require a "processing fee," becoming the Ticketmaster of campaign contributions.

(5) Comcast could reserve the right to approve of every campaign online and every mass email to a political party's or advocacy group's list (as they do with text message short codes).

(6) If you create a small online business and hit it big, threaten to block your business unless you share 1/3 or more of all your revenues with them (apps on the iPhone app stores often are forced to give up a 1/3 or more; so are cable channels on cable TV).

(7) Block all peer to peer technologies, even those used for software developers to share software, distribute patches (world of warcraft), distribute open source software (Linux). In fact, Comcast has shown it would love to do this.

(8) Block Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Moveon.org (and its emails), because of an "exclusive" deal with other blogs. Or alternatively, block FoxNews.com because of a deal with NBC and MSNBC.

(9) Monitor everything you do online and sell it to advertisers, something else that some phone and cable have done, with the help of a shady spyware company.

(10) Lie to you about what they're blocking and what they're monitoring. Hell, the FCC wouldn't have any authority to make them honest. The FCC couldn't punish them.

Without 60 votes in the Senate, congressional action on net neutrality is pretty damned unlikely. It's possible that the Supreme Court could overturn the appeals court decision, but that's certainly not guaranteed. The reclassification of broadband by the FCC would be the most effective and quickest solution to ensuring that broadband be brought under strict regulation and that net neutrality remains the rule of the road.

As always, you can go to Save the Internet to ask Chairman Genachowski keep the Internet open and free of corporate gatekeepers.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon May 03, 2010 at 09:46 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  More like "Preserve the Internet" (11+ / 0-)

    Every time we try to "Save" something, the reactionaries brand us as bleating minstrels (Save Teh Whales! Save Teh Spotted Owls!)

    This should be a bipartisan slam dunk. Keep corporate greed-mongers away from the present "Free Market" Internet.

    Let's see the astroturfers Teabaggers find a reason to bicker about that.

    The best way to save the planet is to keep laughing!

    by LaughingPlanet on Mon May 03, 2010 at 09:52:02 AM PDT

  •  Forget "begging" FCC. Congress needs to act. (9+ / 0-)

    Congress needs to give the FCC the regulatory authority which the Supreme Court said FCC lacks and needs to specify that cable, satellite, land line providers are simply utility providers and have no say over control of content.

    With web becoming more important as a political tool for news and information, fund raising and organization it is imperative that web access remain free of any control by the connection providers.

    Fox News buys cable and satellite web access providers and decides only Fox News is available and that any "left wing" political organizing via the web is banned.

  •  Wonderful!!!! Fits so well with... (21+ / 0-)

    ...Citizens United. Not only do they get to claim the free speech accorded to human beings, not corporate entities, these entities get to take away the free speech of actual human beings. More upsidedownism.

    I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon May 03, 2010 at 09:54:42 AM PDT

  •  In all seriousness (19+ / 0-)

    If net neutrality goes away, we will hurt both freedom of expression and thought and help prevent the next Google or eBay or YouTube or Hulu from emerging.

    Billions of dollars of economic growth are at stake.

    Less seriously, imagining this world:

    Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

    by nightsweat on Mon May 03, 2010 at 09:57:23 AM PDT

    •  This is very pretty, but it is NOT the real issue (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, mcjoan, geomoo, erush1345

      You are never going to be charged in tiers like this. What will happen is that they providers will squeeze money out of the sites you list to keep them connected to subscribers at high speeds. All of these well-known sites will pony up and everything will seem normal.

      It's the second and third tier bloggers, open source software projects, and the next new exciting idea that will have trouble getting off the ground because THEY can't afford to pony up. Even places like DailyKos will be hard pressed to pony up, and will undoubtedly have to further intrude with ads, or push subscription fees. You won't be able to buy your way around the blockage as a broadband subscriber, even if you want to, except possibly using business class services.

      This is all about the fact that the broadband providers are pretty much saturated in terms of subscriber revenue, while the rest of the internet base business community is still growing at high rates. The subscriber base can only grow moderately, and the fees are just about at that sweet spot of maximum profit that monopoly pricing allows. The providers are desperate to find a way to keep double digit revenue growth going. Government regulation is the only way to control them because they being a monopoly gives them way too much power in the marketplace.

      "They paved paradise, and put in a parking lot."
      "...Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?"
      - Joni Mitchell

      by davewill on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:41:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think they might come at it both directions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dark daze

        You're right that they will hit the providers more than the consumers at first, but when they've milked that cash cow, they may offer "EXTREME" bandwidth to certain sites at a premium.

        Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

        by nightsweat on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:51:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They may, but the pricing is pretty much (0+ / 0-)

          at the max for them now. If the market would bear any more, they would have already be raising the rates. Creating tiers just encourages people to downgrade, and creates competition confusion that would lower their profits.

          "They paved paradise, and put in a parking lot."
          "...Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?"
          - Joni Mitchell

          by davewill on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:56:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  huh? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuckvw, Cassandra Waites

            these type tiers are EXACTLY what will hapen.  Look at your cable tv choices?

            Hell, the internet started with tier packages basically.  You dont think they may charge for tiers, or go back to minutes used, or bandwidth consumed?  please... you give them a chance they will charge us for every little thing they can.

            (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

            by dark daze on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:08:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, if you paid more attention to the cable TV (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              erush1345

              tiers, you'd find that the upper tiers don't sell very well. It's mainly a goad to get the content providers to pony up more money or be kicked off the basic tier. The broadband providers can't simply cut off access to internet content providers, nobody would subscribe to an internet provider that completely cut them off from lots of websites.

              Getting customers to pay extra to not get slowed down? Never happen.

              "They paved paradise, and put in a parking lot."
              "...Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone?"
              - Joni Mitchell

              by davewill on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:33:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  sure (0+ / 0-)

                Getting customers to pay extra to not get slowed down? Never happen.

                 yeah sure, first off we barley have real broadband now,  in the future we will all need a TON more bandwidth and you think they will just give it to you as part of the basic package?  bullshit,  comcast already has a tiered system for delivery speeds RIGHT NOW.

                (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                by dark daze on Mon May 03, 2010 at 12:16:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  The Wonks May Be the Problem Here (9+ / 0-)

    During the late '90s the argument over how to consider the internet in terms of policy arose.  I was in Austin, serving on a city level telecommunications commission at the time.  One of my colleagues is now an FCC staffer.

    It happens that Austin was the site of some stirring telecommunications history.

    In the 1920s, the city council adopted a policy document stating that precincts on the east side of the city were areas outside of zones for investing in infrastructure, which at that time meant power lines, telephone lines, and other municipal services that the west side was a high priority for.  

    The prevailing philosophy was exactly what today's Republicans would come up with.  The east side was deemed to be poor people, mostly Hispanic and Black, and therefore full of people of "no account."  

    Universal service began with politicians like Lyndon Johnson, who campaigned in a spectacular way that people in their '90s might still recall.  He would appear on a farm out in the hill country.  Someone would be washing clothes in an old washtub, since they didn't have electric service.  He would dramatically upend the tub and, standing on it, point to power lines going overhead.  

    The service companies back then didn't think it was cost effective to drop lines to farms to serve individual families in rural areas.  The lines went from generation facilities to cities where the well-to-do were bunched in clumps of densely populated neighborhoods.  

    Universal service, under the Roosevelt administration, created a scenario in which urban consumers partly paid for rural consumers.  The real benefit to society overall was that this arrangement was a foundation of middle class prosperity in ensuing decades.  

    Now, we have a similar situation.  Broadband is the foundation of 21st century prosperity.  

    Unfortunately, I think the telecom policy wonks at the center of the scholarly debate over the legalities and technicalities think universal service is too old fashioned.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Mon May 03, 2010 at 09:59:12 AM PDT

    •  the wonks are corporatist captives but they're (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Dave925, geomoo

      not the problem as much as the usual industrial suspects including some serious lobbies leveraging the costs of cross-subsidies

      universal service is too old fashioned

      "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

      by annieli on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:07:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lobbying is a part of it, but wonks are a factor (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cassandra Waites, geomoo, annieli

        The point about wonks is that, while lobbying by the telecoms is on a par with big insurance and big pharma, the FCC is staffed by graduates from various universities that have degree programs in telecommunication policy.  

        The playing field that FCC commissioners operate on, as well as members of Contress, and the staff at the White House, include hundreds, if not thousands of people with PhD pedigress who write the reports and the white papers and the policy documents.  They may or may not agree with the corporate crowd, although there probably are also a lot of lobbyists who went through those degree programs as well.

        The problem for most people on this site is that these arguments about policy can only be influenced by a public informed on a high level about what is really going on, what the assumptions are that all these players bring to the process and what the possible pressure points might really be.  

        hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

        by Stuart Heady on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:22:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No disagreement but much of this is also about (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          geomoo

          lawyers who overdetermine the policy discourse rather than technocrats since the commodification of spectrum has moved from administrative agency policy to implementation and legislation.

          "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

          by annieli on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:25:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah yes, the lawyers (4+ / 0-)

            This is a class of player that is hard to distinguish from lobbyists or PhD wonks that staff the system.  

            Generally, the lawyers involved are in it for whoever serves to pay them the best.
            Usually this means there is a heavy pro-telecom bias, although those that have municipal or other public sector clients are in the system as well.  

            The problem that one finds with public sector lawyers is that they have a different concept of government than folks here do.  The Constitution is to empower government to control the population, not to liberate it.  

            hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

            by Stuart Heady on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:28:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm reading these comments with ... (0+ / 0-)

      ...extreme interest. It's a subject in which I am obviously not well informed.

      I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:00:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Better start building alternatives. (7+ / 0-)

    Local wifi cooperatives.

    VPN is a way around the ISP sniffing.

    "Capitalism is irresponsibility organized into a system." -- Emil Brunner

    by goinsouth on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:00:41 AM PDT

    •  Unless they QoS IPSEC traffic... (7+ / 0-)

      Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

      by nightsweat on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:04:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Would be tough. (0+ / 0-)

        There are a lot of road warriors out there connecting to the corporate office.  That should prevent them from clamping down too hard on VPN.

        "Capitalism is irresponsibility organized into a system." -- Emil Brunner

        by goinsouth on Mon May 03, 2010 at 03:12:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Won't help (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cassandra Waites, geomoo, dark daze

      if access to the content is restricted.  Even if you can afford the highest tier and "unrestricted" access, the providers will be able to narrow the bandwith to sites they deem undesirable for any reason.  They could also make putting a site up prohibitively expensive.

      I agree with mcjoan that the FCC needs to sack up and do its job.  Any internet "reform" passed by Congress will be so rotten with loopholes and special provisions to suit the industry that we the people will still get screwed... again.  I imagine, for example, such legislation would include stronger policing of unlicensed wifi frequencies so that none of us little fish escape the net...

      www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

      by chuckvw on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:47:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wholesale is unfiltered (4+ / 0-)

        If your cooperative local ISP can afford to get a connection to a backbone ISP -- a wholesale connection -- then there is no risk.  The backbone is basically unfiltered.  It is not neutral per se:  If any given network (such as an ISP or hosting company) is suspected of harboring spammers, then backbone providers cut it off first, ask questions later.  But other than that, the backbone is wide open.  It is competitive, with no one ISP having control, so if you don't like Level 3, you can go to Verizon Business, or Global Crossing, etc.

        •  That's my understanding as well. (0+ / 0-)

          Back in the days of dial-up, there was a ton of competition at the ISP level, but we were all lured in by higher bandwidth to join up with the f'in' cable and telephone companies.

          These evil deeds forecast in this story would be performed by the ISP.  If you go back to small, local ISPs, you can avoid these problems for the most part.  And wireless eliminates most of the cost for infrastructure.  Right?

          "Capitalism is irresponsibility organized into a system." -- Emil Brunner

          by goinsouth on Mon May 03, 2010 at 03:11:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Local vs. backbone ISP (0+ / 0-)

            These evil deeds forecast in this story would be performed by the ISP.  If you go back to small, local ISPs, you can avoid these problems for the most part.  And wireless eliminates most of the cost for infrastructure.  Right?

            Yes, the evil would be done by your local ISP, most likely the one selling you the retail (vertical) service.  The backbone sector sells wholesale to retail ISPs, corporate accounts, and other large users.

            The problem with going to a local one is that they're dropping like flies.  They can sometimes make a commercial contract (not a tariff) with the local telco for access, but it's entirely at the telco's mercy, and generally at high wholesale rates that make any such ISP more expensive than the Bell's own "service".  And in general, wholesale DSL only gets the slow, older stuff.  You are lucky if a local CLEC has DSL to your location.

            Wireless works in some places, but trees and hills block it, so it's most popular in the Great Plains (flat and relatively treeless).

  •  I think you're confusing hosting with traffic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sceptical observer, geomoo

    While a service provider might be able to block certain kinds of files, or limit bandwidth, it would have to apply to ALL of those files, not just some.

    If you block one particular site, there would be nothing to stop them from moving the site to some other URL, which is not blocked.

    Think about it - the biggest hog of bandwidth for these providers is spam, and they haven't figured how to effectively block that.

    •  You're looking at this inverted (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave925, Cassandra Waites, dark daze

      They'll make a list of allowed URLs, not denied URLs.

      Justice William Brennan was a recess appointment.

      by JesseCW on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:09:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Logically that seems like a non-starter for two (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Iberian, geomoo, erush1345

        reasons:

        1. There are so many websites in the world that drawing up a list of "allowed" sites would fail to be anything but massively restrictive.
        1. A massively restricted ISP is a seriously unattractive ISP.
        •  In much of the country, people don't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, Cassandra Waites, geomoo

          have an immense number of ISPs to choose from.

          The cable company that can deliver 10 mbps and give access to (most of) the 50,000 sites with the most hits for 19.99 a month 'unlimited' will probably (and sadly) do just fine.

          And it will be massively restrictive, but 85% + of customers won't give a damn as long as they can hit dating sites and check their e-mail and watch funny shit on youtube and buy stuff from itunes.

          Justice William Brennan was a recess appointment.

          by JesseCW on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:22:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good points (4+ / 0-)

            But I think that kind of dynamic would be mitigated by the phenomenon where when a customer tried to hit the website for their friend's small business and couldn't, there's be a serious howler-monkey effect on the customer service line.

            You're describing a model that works for cable TV, because most people just take what they get down the pipe, or pay for the extra they want. There aren't too many "mom and pop" cable TV channels out there (if any?).

            Now, these companies being mostly cable companies... I wouldn't doubt they'd see the attraction in that model. Because there's one thing I know about corporate types: they are lazy thinkers, and they gravitate toward the familiar like moths.

            So, to alter your example a bit: 90% of the time a customer is going to go to one of the major-hit sites. But the other 10% they're going to esoterica, and if you take away that 10% you're gonna have 100% pushback in the customer's mind.

            More likely what they'll do is (a) spot censorship and (b) hefty monthly fees for "unrestricted" internet -- which will be the same as what we now call simply "the internet."

        •  The point is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassandra Waites, geomoo, JesseCW

          It will be entirely up to them. They wouldn't attempt to filter every web site, just the ones they want to filter - dailykos, say.  Comcast won't crudely block sites a la China.  More likely, they will require more popular sites to pay a registration/access fee, renewed annually. It would be very fair. Dkos would pay the same fees as CNN and Fixed News.

          And, of course, the user would have to pay more to access "niche" sites. But don't worry.  CNN and Fixed News will available on the basic tier, just as they are with cable tv.

          Total corporate control.

          www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

          by chuckvw on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:02:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's a two-pronged methodology (5+ / 0-)

      They might allow streaming h.264 at a certain rate unless you pay for special access or more likely unless a certain destination WEBSITE pays for special access to give you better quality.

      That leads to the consolidation of high quality content.  If you can't afford the $ to have your content prioritized, you can't get it streamed at decent quality.

      Now imagine FOXNews is happy to pony up to send out better quality feeds.  They quickly become preferred to CNN, MSNBC, DailyKos, or any other non-extorted site because of their image quality.

      It's insidious and causes the popularity of the content to favor the established providers rather than the best providers as happens now.

      Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

      by nightsweat on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:31:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How is the internet, not a COMMON CARRIER (9+ / 0-)

    example?

    Seriously.. How much more "common" (as in the public 'commons') can you get?

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    -Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:03:01 AM PDT

    •  This is a serious question, at the center of it (7+ / 0-)

      Common Carriage is a term that came out of the principle of universal service.

      AT&T for instance, "must carry" signals from non-AT&T originator companies, especially for local phone service.  That way there is a common pathway for electronic service (including electric power.)

      Does the same thing apply to cable companies?  The history isn't instructive really, because they were originally just a way to get some more TV channels to local subscribers.  This wasn't seen as addressing "necessity or convenience."

      ISPs have a similar short history.  Since the Reagan and Bush I&II eras, the
      free market principle" has overwhelmed concerns about common carriage. Even progressive policy wonks have steered away from talking about universal service because the prevailing climate became so "free market," where all this comes from, in the PhD programs where the policy comes from.

      What is emerging, after the Citizens United decision, is an imperative to restore the universal service philosophy.  That may depend on the ability of a lot of embedded PhDs in the system to do a 180 about face turn away from an entire education.

      I think those who read and post here really need to take on the challenge of becoming educated on these issues and to deal yourself into the debate at the policy level.

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:10:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The regulatory tip of an iceberg: Common Carriage (7+ / 0-)

        The ubiquity and concentration of infrastructure makes universal service more palatable more now than ever before, but there are multiple layers of regulatory hurdles for liberating the network and a complex terrain of ownership and property rights. It is less a restoration of universal service philosophy than rethinking it in terms of broadband technologies layered onto actual infrastructure, especially since the issues that impinge on democratic principles will be at risk as well as free speech far beyond Citizens United.

        "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

        by annieli on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:20:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Everybody ought to read annieli's comment (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          geez53, geomoo, annieli

          There are a few comments that really deserve to be highlighted, maybe even carved in stone because they are informed and instructive.

          The above, about the regulatory tip of the iceberg, is one.  

          hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

          by Stuart Heady on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:25:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks Stuart, :) n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

            by annieli on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:28:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Would you mind recommending some starter (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuckvw

            books or links for any of us who take your above comment to heart?  Yes, I do need to educate myself.  We have already seen in this debate that you might be convinced that black is white if you don't know what is going on.

            This is a very informative discussion.  I'm appreciating you experts taking the time.

            We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

            by geomoo on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:13:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Those cable companies were given a monopoly by (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, mmacdDE, Cassandra Waites, geomoo

        communities to pay for infrastructure to that community DECADES ago. They are still riding some kind of free from competition crappola Bell used to get with just phone service. Remember  getting a few $500+ phone bills from them before they were forced to carry competitors.

        Wow had flashback to the Movies...  the one about the phone company as an evil empire.

        Fear is the Mind Killer

        by boophus on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:36:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The scene in Fun With Dick and Jane (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          polecat

          when Jane Fonda and George Segal rob the phone company.  The long line of people waiting to talk with the tyrannical customer service reps breaks into spontaneous applause.

          And don't forget Ernestine, Lily Tomlin's operator:

          We don't care, we don't have to... we're the phone company.

          Tomlin turned down $500,000 from AT&T to play that role in an ad.

          We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

          by geomoo on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:21:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Very simple (7+ / 0-)

      The Internet, by definition, was a network run atop common carrier networks.  It was taking the raw bits from the common carriers and creating something more valuable out of it.  The original FCC term for such networks was, in fact, "value added network".

      If you define the payload as the carriage, then there is no freedom of speech or press, because that's payload, and thus must be treated as common carriage.  So DailyKos would, under the common carriage theory, have to allow birthers, truthers, Freepers, and others to post freely.  Note that under Verizon's definition, accepted by the FCC, Daily Kos is an ISP!  Stupid definition, of course, since it's a user of the net, but then ISPs are themselves users of carrier networks.

      The right framework is to separate content (including ISPs) from carriage, and ensure that carriage is available to anyone.  That's what the Bush FCC broke.  There was no call for neutrality before 2005, but ISPs were allowed to freely block anything.  You just had the freedom to choose which ISP you used over the telephone company's wires.  That freedom is what's gone.

      Network Neutrality is like having only two newspapers, Pravda and Izvestiya, but requiring them to be "fair and balanced".  Open networks -- the restoration of common carriage below the IP layer -- is the free press.

      •  Diary, diary, diary, diary, diary. Please. n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, chuckvw, Cassandra Waites

        I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

        by Meteor Blades on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:58:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mostly covered a couple of weeks ago (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          polecat, chuckvw, geomoo
          •  The intertubes (0+ / 0-)

            are giving me a migraine... Interesting diary.  Maybe repost?

            www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

            by chuckvw on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:41:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is it kosher to repost? (0+ / 0-)

              Or maybe I should write a diary tonight about how the Internet really works?  Hmmm, that might be awfully long.

              •  I think it is (0+ / 0-)

                especially with mb's imprimatur...  Maybe you could excerpt with link in the new diary, or label the new diary "Part 2" and link to the previous one as "Part 1"...  There is a lot to assimilate, to be sure.

                www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

                by chuckvw on Mon May 03, 2010 at 12:45:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  If you do, use metaphor. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chuckvw

                People still laugh at that senator whats-his-name for talking about the internet being a series of tubes... but the moment you start actually talking about addressing of ip datagrams and routing tables and packet inspection their eyes glaze over and their brains shut off. Start using phrases like "heuristic traffic monitoring indexed by port number" and people are so disengaged you can perform root canal without anesthesia.

                Folks really should not have made fun of using a recognizable metaphor to understand the complex structure of the internet.

                I personally think the "typed post card" metaphor is a good fit because most everyone understands the postal service, and you can use visual aids, like a router or switch acts like this alien from MiB2.

                Miseris Succurrere Disco

                by JayFromPA on Mon May 03, 2010 at 02:04:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Definitely need to fit the audience! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chuckvw

                  Technical stuff about datagrams and routing tables can certainly snow an audience, and not help the discussion here.  Technology and policy do need to be in harmony with one another, and I'm afraid that the orthodox neutralist position misses the point.  (The propertarian position needs no technology explained.  "It's mine" is so simple that any Bell can imitate a two-year-old by saying it.)  So yes getting it across right will be interesting.  I've written on this topic elsewhere (not as K.S.L.) but I'll still adapt to the DKos audience.

                •  I generally agree (0+ / 0-)

                  I wasn't making fun of "folks", however.  If anything, I was decrying the fact that one of the most powerful people on earth thinks that the internet - which has been around for half a century - is a series of tubes.

                  But, yes, most people are like me in not having an advanced degree in intertube-ology!

                  www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

                  by chuckvw on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:23:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  That's a good one, and I now ... (0+ / 0-)

            ...feel more educated, having read it. But, as I suspect you know, this kind of stuff needs to be repeated (not verbatim, in different ways) for the information to take hold broadly.

            I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

            by Meteor Blades on Mon May 03, 2010 at 01:04:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Convergence of technology c/fiscal responsibility (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geomoo

    The most straightforward response to this ruling, and the one that would ensure the ability of the FCC to enforce net neutrality, would be to revisit that 2002 decision, and treat broadband providers as common carriers and thus regulate them under their Title II authority.

    There are a variety of methods to ensure this including a review of spectrum policy in terms of providing cross-subsidies for underserved populations with this rhetorical proposal/threat to create free wireless and in exchange for re-regulatory clarity and force net neutrality onto corporate gatekeepers (the alternative being a public PTT-type corporation as an "option"instead of the below article's primary vendor/shill, M2Z):

    Sell us a chunk of spectrum in the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) band (1.9GHz to 2.1GHz). We'll create a fast broadband service with some of it, and with the rest we'll build a free 768Kbps wireless network, rolled out to most Americans over a ten-year period. We'll even pay the US Treasury a percentage of our revenue, and fund the service with our own capital, partnership deals, and ads.

    link

    "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

    by annieli on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:04:32 AM PDT

  •  The "Title I" framework doesn't pass muster (8+ / 0-)

    The DC Circuit Court of Appeals gave Genachowski a very clear roadmap for how he could fix things.  It involves applying Title II very sparingly, to companies with the most monopoly power (spelled "incumbent telephone companies").  I explained this in my recent diary Net Neutrality May Have Been Saved by the DC Court.  For technical reasons well known among the Internet operations community, true "neutrality" is a non-starter, never existed, and would lead to the breakdown of the network.  The result would be endless litigation over what constitutes "reasonable network management".  The company with the largest law firm wins.

    If the article is correct, however, then he's still taking his marching orders from Verizon, who plays Bre'r Rabbit in the Brier Patch.  Verizon wants neutrality rules imposed, since the ones that Ammori (Vuze Inc., a torrent company) wants would hurt cable much more than they'd hurt Verizon, based on cable's lack of uplink capacity.  And Verizon also knows that the rules don't apply to them.  Never have, and they assume that the they never will.  And guess who is (not just "has") the largest law firm on the block... along with co-monopolist ATT.

    Regulatory capture is a tool of the monopolist, and it's still in play.

    •  I hope you continue to diary on this (5+ / 0-)

      The problem with much of the discussion around this is that few people seem to actually understand the confluence of technology, law, and the various players.

      I think this comment is just golden, as a quick stroke synopsis.  This issue needs a lot more exposition.  I hope  you put out more "bite sized" diaries on this.

      Thanks for your work.

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:14:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  telecoms vs everyone else (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, KingGeorgetheTurd, JesseCW

    call this what it really is.

    •  scary to put it like that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur

      cause history shows us "everyone else" is screwed.

      GoP claims Obama was not elected by an "OVERWHELMING MINORITY" and they lack the numbers to prove it!

      by KingGeorgetheTurd on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:41:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  telecom fees vs everyone else (0+ / 0-)

        Nobody likes fees, look a how airlines are doing with bag fees.  So support Net Neutrality or pay more fees.

        •  Not mainly a fee issue (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, erush1345

          There are a couple of different issues conflated under the "neutrality" banner.

          One is restrictive terms of service.  Most consumer ISPs have, or had, terms of service that banned running file or web servers.  This served two functions.  On cable, which has really limited upstream capacity, it prevented congestion, encouraging people to put their web servers elsewhere (like the free service that comes with the account). The other function was to distinguish it from less-restricted commercial accounts, whose basic price was a lot higher, but which were expected to get a lot more usage.  

          Running a server at home means that the circuit is in use when you're sleeping, and that throws off the cost model.  They could allow it, but it would raise the price.  Or they simply put a cap on all usage, which is neutral, but takes away the "unlimited" slogan.  So this is about money, but since ISP rates aren't regulated, you might want to have different option levels to pay for, other than by peak burst speed (which rarely actually impacts cost).

          The second issue is more complex, and includes topics like "next generations networks", IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem), and DPI (Deep Packet Inspection).  These technologies convert the network from a packet relay to an application relay.  This means that the network provider keeps track of every application you run, every site you connect to, every transaction you make.  Why?  To monetize it!  They can charge per email, per download, etc.  This is already done on mobile phones, so the big telcos wet their pants dreaming of bait-and-switching this for their wireline Internet services.  

          The cable companies tend to have higher baseline prices, so the telcos dreamed of going back to their old "cheap line, expensive call" business model.  They'd sell DSL on the cheap but charge for how you used it.  But nobody would buy such crap if they could buy plain old (packet switched) Internet.  So the telcos got the rules changed in order to be allowed to kick other ISPs off of their wire.  This is what Ed Whitacre (then GHP of ATT, now of GM, which is a good reason to buy a Ford) was probably talking about when he made his too-revealing comments in Fortune in November, 2005.

          The best solution for all of this is competition at the ISP layer, and open access to telco wire for all ISPs, not forcing all ISPs to support pR0n-distributor file servers at home (Torrent).

  •  Why don't we just sum up #1-10 by (5+ / 0-)

    saying "If the cable organization doesn't like/approve of your message, business, email, communication, etc. they don't have to provide access to them". If that isn't the most Orwellian Newspeak thing I've ever heard in my life! So anything not considered 'conservative' and 'corporate supportive' is blocked by them...and we think the country leans Right now, just wait til all left blogs, tweets, sites, businesses, opinions and the like are blocked entirely! Oh boy!!

    •  Imagine informed outrage being replaced (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Cassandra Waites

      by an uneasy feeling that something isn't right.  And wondering if you're the only person in the world who is feeling that way.

      We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

      by geomoo on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:26:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Guess i'll draft my GBCW now ...... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geomoo

    So i might have time to publish when i can't afford this outlet either. Canceled Da TeeVee Saturday (waste of money anyway), but it will smart a bit when i can't argue with you aholes engage in intelligent debate with enlightened minds.

    Welcome to the Corporate States of America ®, give us your money, then die quietly.

    by geez53 on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:12:51 AM PDT

  •  The problem is language (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boophus

    the simple sides of this is monopoly or not.

    So the FCC should not say they lean toward deregulation, the language is really, leaning toward "monopolizing the internet should be legal".

    GoP claims Obama was not elected by an "OVERWHELMING MINORITY" and they lack the numbers to prove it!

    by KingGeorgetheTurd on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:13:34 AM PDT

  •  And you know what else bugs me about this whole (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    El Zmuenga, geez53, geomoo

    thing...THIS is happening under a dem president/congress and appointments! This isn't the right-leaning SC making this decision...it's the FCC, a position under the Administration, for pity's sake! It would still be awful coming from a SC decision, but from the FCC! And we wonder why people lose faith in government that HELPS people. Gee, wonder where they get that idea!

  •  Not unregulated. Regulated by Comcast, Fox, Time (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geez53, Cassandra Waites, geomoo

    The diary gets the title wrong. What the FCC advocates is not an unregulated internet. It advocates an internet regulated by Comcast, Fox, Time, Verizon, all the people who control the internet access.

    The court ruled that Comcast can control its customers web content. No DKOS for example as it "takes up too much bandwidth" though Comcast is not required to give any explanation why it bans access to political entities that oppose its monopoly and political power.

    That FCC commissioners soon to be "industry lobbyists" are going to rule against their future employers is not very likely.

    •  Sounds like another part of a plan to control (0+ / 0-)

      political speech of non-corporations. First the SCOTUS does thier part and now this to restrict the internet so that opponents have NO voice.

      Fear is the Mind Killer

      by boophus on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:43:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More to protect profits which rely on politics. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boophus

        Comcast, Time, Verizon, even Fox (especially Fox) care most about profits.  Controlling access to the internet is very profitable for these companies which enjoy virtual monopolies in most areas.

        If taxpayers decide to provide free WiMax access, these companies want to be able to stop that politically and controlling ability to organize against via the web would be key.

        Basically Comcast et al depend on government to protect their monopoly as FCC has done for many years.

        •  Like the gate keepers of health care (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boophus

          health insurance companies sitting atop the real process drawing out a good 30% of the take without contributing much.  The financial industry skims off profits incommensurate with their role in facilitating capital.  The point becomes less about providing a service and more using the power of your position to enrich yourself.  Contrary to what they love to shout, capitalists like nothing better than a captive customer base.

          We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

          by geomoo on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:32:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not saying the guy is wrong... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, mmacdDE, annieli

    ...but everything published at HuffPo nowadays makes me roll my eyes.

  •  Monopolies aren't good. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geomoo, boophus

    The consolidation in the old media is bad enough but now we're seeing the same thing on the internet. The longer we allow entrenched interests to consolidate their positions the harder it will be to finally open the internet to competition.

    My biggest fear is a merger, like that Comcast and NBC.

    I read about a proposition this morning to offer free nationwide wireless internet. Not very fast but still...

    http://arstechnica.com/...

    Imagine you were the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission. One day someone came to you with an offer:

    Sell us a chunk of spectrum in the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) band (1.9GHz to 2.1GHz). We'll create a fast broadband service with some of it, and with the rest we'll build a free 768Kbps wireless network, rolled out to most Americans over a ten-year period. We'll even pay the US Treasury a percentage of our revenue, and fund the service with our own capital, partnership deals, and ads.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:18:27 AM PDT

    •  Far from neutral (3+ / 0-)

      The M2Z plan, which seems like a non-starter, was not what Daily Kos readers would like.  Their free service is supposed to be a heavily filtered "family friendly" Web offering.  Muck with web pages and add ads too, to make some money out of the deal.

      Better to let local ISPs use it with no-exclusive licensing.

      •  The article says that they removed that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        geomoo
        1. Doesn't the M2Z proposal include a "family friendly" filter to block out smut?

        Not any more. That was the original idea, but the concept took a huge hit from civil liberties, publishing, and Internet openness groups. Finally, former FCC Chair Kevin Martin, who first embraced the M2Z plan, announced in late 2008 that he had removed the family-friendly filter idea from the scheme.

        "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

        by sceptical observer on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:49:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  net neutrality threatens corporate oligarchy... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geez53, geomoo

    ...as it should. Are we going to have Free Speech only for corporations?

    F**k that!
    I want a safe and secure communication service (via common carriers) like we used to have pre-BushCo. This bullshit is oligarchy and plutonomy on steroids. Like I said: F**k that!

    They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma The work goes on....

    by ezdidit on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:24:03 AM PDT

    •  ezdidit provide antidote to wonk-speak (0+ / 0-)

      I always found that, around politics and telecommunications, that it paid to be able to stick with the common sense point of it all, spoken in the plain language of the average person.  Lawyers and wonks don't like that, but it tends to call them out on the otherwise unchallenged prerogative they claim to own the language and thus, own the argument.  

      The key is being able to understand exactly what the complexities of the law and technology are about, which requires double discipline.  THe problem with the knowledge in this area is that it indeed can warp the mind and require extra effort to stay connected to common sense.

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:32:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thus my sig line....... (0+ / 0-)

      But i'd rather have yours. ;}

      Welcome to the Corporate States of America ®, give us your money, then die quietly.

      by geez53 on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:32:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What promise won't Obama break to the base (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    El Zmuenga, esquimaux, quagmiremonkey

    It's getting so that if the Democratic base has something that they think is vitally important, the Obama administration finds a way to abandon it. The Democrats are in deep trouble this fall but it isn't because of the stances they have taken.  It's because of the stances that they haven't taken and haven't been willing to fight for.

    This has been a divided country for a long time but the side with the fired up base seems to be the Party that can succeed (except when Republicans cheat like in Florida and Ohio)  So, if Obama really wanted to win he would have stood up for his base especially on an issue as important to all of us as net neutrality.

    •  This is a work in progress. Obama has stood up (0+ / 0-)

      There will be many go-rounds at many levels before one can say there is a result.  The Bush years have really undermined us very seriously.  

      To undo that damage and set up a foundation this might last through the next Republican Administration will require a great deal of intellectual skill and much of the success of this effort may well go over most people's heads.

      The discussion is about Obama's appointee in his attempt to wrap his head around the issues, not about a final policy decision that the whole FCC has come to rest on.  

      The proper use of anxiety over this is to draft emails or make calls to the FCC,
      members of Congress and anyone else who might be relevant.

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:36:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nickel and Diming (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux

    That is exactly why the cable companies, AT&T and Verizon want an unregulated system. None of these players gives a rat's ass whether anyone pirates movies or music, they just want the ability to force people to pay a little extra for the ability to do those things quickly and without restriction. Combine that with the brilliant notion of having certain companies pay to have their websites be favored over others (which would be blocked) and there you have it.

    Congress is needed to stop this foolishness.

    And as the song and dance begins/The children play at home with needles/Needles and pins

    by The Lone Apple on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:29:36 AM PDT

  •  50 Votes are all that is ever needed (0+ / 0-)

    Love your articles here & read them, mcjoan. But, by saying Dems can not do this w/o 50 votes helps validate their failed process that Eric Cantor correctly noted they are responsible for & have created & can change this afternoon if they wanted. It really does takes 50 votes. I can think of at two ways to do 50 quickly - VP can rule it so, new parlimentarian like Repubs did, or new Senate session rules implement 50 votes for everything. "Reform" is a conversation for preserving the current failed Democratic Party process. Dems should just do it. It's totally legal. And voters don't care abt process just results.

  •  This is especially important as choice is limited (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geomoo

    My husband and I have discussed this topic at length and the conversation inevitably turns to choice or the lack of it when it comes to ISPs.  Many areas only have 1 or 2 broadband providers.  It's not like you can choose a different cable company if yours blocks your favorite sites or whatever. (If I had a choice I definitely wouldn't stick with Charter.)  The cable companies already have their customers over a barrel, if net neutrality is not preserved...well I can think of all kinds of horrible scenarios involving the loss of freedoms etc. I think choice in ISPs should be part of this discussion as it is a major factor as well.

    Follow me on twitter: @angellivingston Visit my Cafepress Shop: Politiquips

    by davryanna on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:42:15 AM PDT

  •  We used to shudder at the totalitarianism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poweredbysteam

    of China and the Soviet Union.  This is a solid building block in the rise of tyrannical forces here.  Could. not. be. more. important.

    Here are some other things that could be blocked:

    the wikileaks video of military misconduct.

    information and discussions related to torture.

    information and discussions related to police misconduct.

    information and discussions related to the oil spill.

    Well, you get the point.

    We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

    by geomoo on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:57:42 AM PDT

  •  overly burdensome on carriers (0+ / 0-)

    and

    the current framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC’s authority

    are just ways of saying "We're afraid to do anything to the big bullies!"

    Come on, FCC - that's your friggin' job!  Get up and do it!!!

    My life is an open book, and I want a rewrite!

    by trumpeter on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:58:02 AM PDT

  •  There we have it... (0+ / 0-)

    tiered_internet

    I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it! - Franklin Delano Roosevelt http://meldroc.com/

    by meldroc on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:10:11 AM PDT

    •  Please stop posting this made up bullshit.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      Anyone with 8th grade skills in photoshop could put together the same.. that doesn't mean it is real or resembles anything akin to the truth or real world.

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

      by Skeptical Bastard on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:14:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Marvin Ammori is insane.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    K S LaVida, erush1345

    What a fucking idiot.. Where did he come up with this outrageous bullshit?

    (6) If you create a small online business and hit it big, threaten to block your business unless you share 1/3 or more of all your revenues with them (apps on the iPhone app stores often are forced to give up a 1/3 or more; so are cable channels on cable TV).

    Comcast and/or AT&T did this?  No, you stupid fuck.. Apple did that for the privilege of getting on the app store, without which your app would have made..ummm.. zero fucking dollars!

    Scaremeisters like this can only find a forum on the internet.. how pitiful..  and how much more pitiful that this garbage is picked up and disseminated as "truth".

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

    by Skeptical Bastard on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:13:06 AM PDT

    •  Ammori is shilling for pR0n distributors (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      Ammori led the neutrality charge in front of Kevin Martin at the FCC.  Now Babyface K-Mart was a radical rightist, no fan of pR0n, but he had, and has, a personal vendetta against Comcast as big as the oil slick in the Gulf.  So when somebody discovered that Comcast was using technology to enforce its Terms of Service against home file servers, he put on a big show of supporting neutrality.  Had Verizon done the same, he would have taken the opposite view, you can be sure.

      So when he staged his Freak Shows, Marvin Ammori came out to whine on behalf of his client, Vuze, the BitTorrent software and services company.  Vuze is believed to make their money by distibuting (for money) pR0n across the network, cleverly hidden in between illegal music and DVD sharing.  

      Legitimate content distributors pay for the services of a Content Distribution Network (CDN), such as Akamai (who basically invented it, though they have many competitors).  But that costs money.  BitTorrent builds a CDN out of "volunteered" home PCs, which run file servers all day and night.  Real CDNs pay for connections; Vuze saves money by using end-users' home accounts for their network.  But it is far more costly in global terms, since CDNs put servers right at the best backbone nodes, or at ISP data centers, while Torrent uses very costly "last mile" connections to reach its servers.

      •  Wow.. thanks for the background! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        But unfortunately.. without knowing that background, folks like our front pager mcjoan (and everyone reading her stories) buy into this idiot's spiel hook, line and sinker. #sigh#

        I simply recognized the idiocy in his claims..

        Thanks again!

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

        by Skeptical Bastard on Mon May 03, 2010 at 01:41:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you, Barack Obama! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    quagmiremonkey

    What a great appointment.

    So, all you Obama loyalists, what's your excuse this time? Oh, I know, with the whole world to save, he didn't have time to learn about Genachowski's views on one of the most important issues the FCC faces.

    Whatever. I'm sure you people will find some excuse for Obama breaking another promise in order to sell the citizens down the river to the big-money interests.

    Barack Obama: Just as good at photo ops as Ronald Reagan.

    by expatjourno on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:34:58 AM PDT

  •  FWIW -- my grumpy e-mail (0+ / 0-)

    Mr. President:

    Why does your administration always have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing, even things you promised you’d do during the campaign?
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...
    The latest example is that the FCC chairman whom YOU appointed, Julius Genachowski, is shying away from changing the designation of the internet as a "communication" service, rather than an "information" service.  As I understand, there is little question that the FCC could make and enforce rules to preserve "net neutrality" if the change were made.

    So make it.  It’s drop-dead obvious that plenty of communication happens over the internet.  I’ll use it to send you this irate letter.  An information source is something like an encyclopedia.  The internet happens also to serve as a source of information, but the fact that information can move both ways makes it primarily a communications medium.  

    If Mr. Genachowski lets net neutrality slip away, he’s earned several years of a seven-figure salary from AT&T whether he accepts it or not.  The harm in corruption isn’t taking the bribe, it’s what you do in exchange for it.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Mon May 03, 2010 at 12:46:50 PM PDT

  •  What exactly would you do? (0+ / 0-)

    What do you do when you walk onto the main gambling floor of the casino tasked with re-rigging the games so that the public/casino balance each other? What do you do if you don't have all the keys that unlock the cabinets that hold the parts that rig the games? What do you do if, on top of that, you have to try and achieve your task while avoiding getting steamrolled by casino security and also have to overcome the casino's shills?

    What do you do when you have all that arrayed against you? Do you just run right in guns blazing and hope you can make it through? Or do you carefully plan out which sort of attacks have the best chance of success?

    That's the situation the administration faces with all of these corporate-dominated issues. Now you know why this administration isn't running in guns blazing. Now you have an idea why all of our issues aren't being tackled immediately.

    I point out this paragraph, the comprehension of which should have been obvious:

    Specifically, he is exploring a legal push under the current legal framework for broadband, which is under Title I, that would make possible the FCC’s push for a new net neutrality rule and reforms under a national broadband plan, the sources said. That could include a legal push in courts where it would assert that the FCC has the mandate from Congress to deploy broadband to all Americans in a timely manner....

    Shift to title 2, and leave the current corporations in charge of what areas get upgraded beyond dialup. Leave it as title 1, and make the case for a Federal Rural Broadband Initiative that puts people back to work stringing fiber lines out to the uninformed backwoods fox news folks and watch those people discover life beyond the glenn beck program. Not to mention once they have their fist broadband they will also fight tooth and nail against having their internet controlled by powers beyond their reach.

    Good Gawd, is it really that difficult to put these pieces together?

    Miseris Succurrere Disco

    by JayFromPA on Mon May 03, 2010 at 02:42:12 PM PDT

  •  Information Service? (0+ / 0-)

    What does ATT or Comcast -- the two major providers where I live -- offer in the way of information services?  A default home page/portal for one's browser after you get signed up? Hah! Whoopdi freakin' doo! I use a smaller provider that uses ATT's lines and I don't consider anything provided by ATT to be any sort of information service. All my access provider gives me is an IP address and some DNS servers I can point to if I choose to. All I need from ATT is for them to provide a medium for the bits I send and receive to travel over. Nothing more. I don't want any of the so-called services that ATT provides other than that pipe. Don't need or want any "portal" they may wish to provide. They may think they have information they can provide to me but they're wrong. After looking at ATT's web site -- one of the most hideously designed sites I've ever visited --  I can just imagine the quality of the information they'd be providing. They are nothing more than the pipe I use. Sucks to be nothing more than that but that's their role in the Internet. If they don't like that, too bad.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site