Skip to main content

Yesterday, David W. asked, Why are we still fighting about net neutrality? and then posed the matter in the most straightforward way:

If you like the Internet the way it is, then you're for net neutrality. If you'd rather pay more money for less service, and have a giant company tell you what you are and aren't allowed to see, then you're against net neutrality.

That's absolutely true, and from a consumer and activist standpoint, is very plainly the case we make.

But we're not the ones in charge, and we don't have the very, very deep pockets of those giant companies who want to be able to tell us what we are and are not allowed to see. The giant companies have the upper hand in this debate almost by default. To prove that point, David was posting this in response to the news that Google Inc., AT&T Inc., and Verizon Communications Inc. executives have been holding secret meetings with the FCC to determine how to essentially kill net neutrality. They're the ones able to get into the room to have the secret meetings with the FCC.

So what happened in that room? Google sold out to Verizon. It didn't pressure the FCC to craft open Internet regulations, but cut a side deal with Verizon.

The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn’t apply such limits to Internet use on mobile phones, according to the people, who asked not to be identified before an announcement.

Verizon and Google have been adversaries over the issue, known as net neutrality. Verizon was among cable and phone companies saying they need leeway over the delivery of Web content to protect performance of their networks. Google led content providers and advocacy groups that say restrictions are needed so communications companies don’t favor their own online offerings or those of partners.....

Verizon and Mountain View, California-based Google proposed in a January filing at the FCC areas of compromise for regulating Internet service providers. The companies said preserving an “open Internet” calls for “minimal interference from the government” for applications, content and services, such as Google and Twitter.

“What is good for Google and Verizon is not necessarily good for innovation and competition on the Internet,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president of the Washington- based Media Access Project, a public-interest law firm, in an e- mailed statement today.

The FCC must “stay the course” and enact rules “that benefit everyone, not just the largest companies,” Schwartzman said.

So for Verizon and Google and all of the telecoms, an "open Internet" means open for them, with a minimum of federal regulation that benefits us, the Internet users and the people who have pay for their damned service that they want to be able to restrict. They get to decide that, apparently, because they get to be in the room with the FCC. And we're well on the way to having the telecoms decide "the future of broadband and the Internet in this country."

But as Art Brodsky writes at that link,

Whatever agreement these two big companies reach, however, is no substitute for a legally binding, comprehensive agreement in the public interest that covers not only network management but universal service and the other issues rolled up in the larger question whether the FCC even has the authority over broadband. The authority question also looms over any action the FCC might take if there is an agreement among all the parties....

There is another way, and another example in Washington. Just as the Telecom Empire uses the "leave it to Congress" dodge, so do their cousins, the Utilities, in trying to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to regulate  greenhouse gases. The Utilities follow the same playbook - letters, resolutions, bills, all generated to pressure a captive and craven Congress. And it works, in large measure, as a climate bill was pulled from Senate consideration.

Except that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson decided to go ahead with her rulemaking to control those pollutants anyway. She proposed a more modest rule than might otherwise have been preferred, the EPA version of the Third Way, and went ahead with it despite the harrumphing form the Hill. The EPA didn't screw around with silly, backroom negotiations. It carried out its public interest mandate.

It can be done. It just takes some gumption, which is evident in some agencies, if not in others.

Genachowski needs to be like Lisa Jackson and fulfill his and President Obama's commitment to net neutrality, and not net neutrality as defined by the guys in the room with the closed door.

Update: Google is denying the report in the NYT (not the same story as the one above) that they've agreed to a policy that "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege."

Google: "The NYT is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."

That's a denial of the NYT's claim (which the WSJ has confirmed), and doesn't address the Bloomberg/Businessweek story above, regarding a different policy for mobile phones.

As this story develops, one thing remains clear: These companies should not be determining Internet policy--the FCC should.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:50 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

  •  Hey google has already denied this, haven't (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChemBob, temptxan, Clay Claiborne

    they?

  •  The writing was on the wall with the China (5+ / 0-)

    censorship affair.

    At that point it became plain profits were the driving factor.

    Note that Google is very well connected in DC and their support against net neutrality will likely be conclusive.

    That's what happens when you get such a close relationship between our government and the corporations they are supposedly overseeing.

    "Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." -- JFK

    by Tryptophan on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:55:07 AM PDT

    •  They've denied this (3+ / 0-)

      This post needs to be updated and quick. This is wrong.

      http://www.pcworld.com/...

      "The New York Times is quite simply wrong," wrote Mistique Cano, a Google spokesman, in an e-mail. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."

      However, the Wall Street Journal reported today that Verizon confirmed that it has been in ongoing talks with Google and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for 10 months.

      Those two statements do not contradict each tother. That is really sloppy writing. They could be talking about anything.

  •  we need to get used to calling Google a telecom (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluesteel, esquimaux, neaguy

    The giant companies have the upper hand in this debate almost by default. To prove that point, David was posting this in response to the news that Google Inc., AT&T Inc., and Verizon Communications Inc. executives have been holding secret meetings with the FCC to determine how to essentially kill net neutrality. They're the ones able to get into the room to have the secret meetings with the FCC.

    The same old oligopolies - what will Web 3.0 look like?

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

    by annieli on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:55:37 AM PDT

  •  Google is denying even talking to Verizon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah

    They're saying:

    @NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.

    So if this is happening, they're apparently not paying for it.

  •  I am NOT happy with Google (9+ / 0-)

    My take-away from this is that if you're too big to fail, you're too big to be ethical.

    This is America. Huge multinationals choose our political officials here.

    by thenekkidtruth on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:58:30 AM PDT

  •  One of two sentences? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, PsychoSavannah, maxzj05

    K.I.S.S. please, not only because I am stupid but because reading hurts my eyes and increases today's headache.

    Net Neutrality is something I know already--like the telephone, a neutral net delivers everyone's info without regard to content.....same speed, same priority.

    Google, etc. ....I'd love a quickie summary.

    My favorite activist site on this topic says:

    Google and Verizon will announce a deal that the New York Times reports "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege."

    and that this deal

    marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as you know it.

    http://www.freepress.net/...
    PLUS....

    HERE IS THE ACTION LINK:

    http://www.savetheinternet.com/

    Media Reform Action Link http://stopbigmedia.com/

    by LNK on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:58:47 AM PDT

    •  Thank you for the ACTION links! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, LNK

      IF everyone would send just one, that would ALERT the FCC that we are watching.

      The issue has been intentionally misinterpreted by the astroturf groups.
      Some think that net neutrality is government censorship and interference in the free market! We have to make clear to them that their own favorite websites would likely be slowed down, too, if the big companies have their way..

      •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina, LNK

        It needs to be explained in PLAIN ENGLISH so that most Americans can comprehend the wordage.  Same goes with most political and non-political points that need to be conveyed to the general public.  There is a GREAT need for clear and concise wordage on all important decisions such as this.  We need to remember that the GOP Dept of Education system is coming of age, and well, let's just say that reading comprehension was not among the top priority's in that system. LOL.

        Layman's Terms PLEASE!

  •  google, verizon, and att (6+ / 0-)

    are just doing what's best for their businesses. as they say, it's only business. the ones selling out net neutrality are the government entities and officials.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:00:20 AM PDT

    •  Except they're wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      It's not better for their business. Kill the commons you kill the net and end up with a moribund set of services and no innovation.

      Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

      by nightsweat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:15:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What do you think cable tv is? (0+ / 0-)

        It works.

        •  That shows a fundamental misunderstanding (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          phenry, mmacdDE, esquimaux, LiberalATX

          the internet is NOT cable TV.  Cable TV is an asymmetric medium where there are a small number of high-barrier to entry providers and a large number of low-barrier consumers.  It costs a hell of a lot to put together a cable TV network and to keep it provided with content.

          The Internet is a low-barrier set of people who are simultaneously providers of content and consumers. DailyKos didn't take $1,00,000 to set up initially.  Ditto eBay, YouTube, Digg, Yahoo, or any of the 800 pound Gorilla sites.

          Now, you're saying that the traffic from an upstart site is going to get lagged unless you pay protection money to the mob, er, telcos.  That's killing innovation and destroying the high-speed innovation the internet is known for currently.  

          It's dumb and it'll be bad for the economy.

          Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

          by nightsweat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:29:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But traffic from an upstart site (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah

            will ALREADY get lagged if they don't have enough bandwidth or server space/power.

            Ask anybody whose little upstart site has been slashdotted or featured on the news. Or ask Joe Lieberman.

            If you want a major site, one that gets millions of hits, you have to pay for the bandwidth to support it.

            That hasn't changed at all.

            There's a difference between erecting a firewall that blocks traffic, or managing your network infrastructure by throttling back on high bandwidth formats/uses. And both of those are different from requiring sites to pay for the bandwidth they use.

            •  You're talking about going from zero to a million (0+ / 0-)

              The way sites grow is through incremental growth, sometimes accented with (FARK/Digg/Slashdot) spikes that generate ad revenue that lets them buy the upgraded bandwidth.

              Many of the "major" sites didn't set out to be major sites.  They set out to satisfy a niche need that turned out to be much larger than originally thought.

              Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

              by nightsweat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:03:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course that's the way it should work (0+ / 0-)

                you SHOULD grow incrementally, and the biggest and most profitable sites did exactly that.

                But they STILL had to pay for better servers, more space, upgraded programming, and MORE BANDWIDTH.

                You can't become a major, mega money site without a LOT of bandwidth. And that COSTS.

                If you're not willing to spend the money to upgrade to accommodate the traffic, you will NOT become a monster site.

                No way, no how.  

                •  OK, but try that now with cable TV (0+ / 0-)

                  There's no analogous model.  You can't get a TV show put together without a ton of money, and to put a channel together you have to have a ton of shows and to get a channel onto the cable stations, you usually have to be bundled with bunches of other stations.

                  There's no way to get into the game at all without STARTING with an eight figure plus investment.

                  Web sites can start with a couple hundred bucks and grow capacity with their audience.

                  Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

                  by nightsweat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 01:58:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I was talking about the innovation (0+ / 0-)

            part.  Cable tv was very innovative when it first started.  Now?  Not so much.

            Besides, Google already controls what you see.  The first 5-10 returns on a search are sponsored sites, where someone pays Google to guarantee that you see it.  Money already dictates what you see.  This is a natural progression of what we've already stood still for.

  •  You need an UPDATE. (0+ / 0-)

    This is how offensive rumors get started. You need an update quick.

  •  Well... (5+ / 0-)

    it's been fun around here while it lasted.  The ISP's will have the power to effectively kick this site off the internet shortly because we are the ones trying to fight these oligopolies.  I'm scared that we will not have the ability to get news that Wal-Mart, Comcast, and Microsoft don't want us to know about.

    Show me a teabagger concerned about the deficit, and I'll show you the world's worst hypocrite.

    by farleftloon on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:02:44 AM PDT

  •  I use Google all the time and love it, but I (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    murphthesurf, richmonds, neaguy

    thought about boycotting them when I read about this deal-making in the NY TIMES.

    NET NEUTRALITY is democracy's only hope, IMHO, since the press has already sold out to the corporate interests.

    It's Big Oil's Disaster, no matter how much the opposition wishes it was Obama's.

    by Little Lulu on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:02:53 AM PDT

  •  Net neutrality is (11+ / 0-)
    the last firewall protecting democracy and the freedom of information on which it depends. The Citizens United decision removes any semblance of equal information within the electoral arena and giant corporations with clear interests already own and control the content in all non-internet electronic and print communications. The internet gives everyone some chance to express their ideas to fellow citizens, but if that chance is to continue there must be net neutrality -- there is no way we can outspend those with a vested interest in the status quo to keep discussion forums viable and growing.  

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:03:45 AM PDT

    •  Sooooo.....can we get (0+ / 0-)

      everyone we know, plus their friends and families to stop using Google, give up their AT&T and Verizon accounts, cancel their cable tv and digital phone service and starve the beasts?

      No, you say?  And why would that be?  Would it be "uncomfortable" to not blog?  A little "uncomfortable" to not have that smart phone from which to tweet idiotic, easily misunderstood strings of characters?  It would be a little "uncomfortable" to give up "Mad Men" or some other tv show?

      Boo-hoo....these companies have sooooo much money, yet month after month, year after year, everyone here writes a check for their internet access.

      Opt the fuck out and use the only power you really have.

      •  It is not quite so simple. There is no longer a (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, murphthesurf, LiberalATX

        third estate. The web IS the news, the journalism, what keeps the democracy semi-democratic.

        •  All of this information was in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina

          mainstream media....Joan just copied and pasted.  Half the people up top of the comments don't even believe the twit from Google on the whole thing and want to SEE a press conference, so what difference does it make?

          Seems like taking the food bowls away from the beasts is the only way to lower their strength.

          But, I know, I know.  It would be uncomfortable.  We might have to resort to letters and phone calls to organize for real, instead of raging on the internet.

  •  Google's tweet: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah

    http://twitter.com/...

    @NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.

    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo Galilei

    by Dittoz on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:05:51 AM PDT

  •  enjoyment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pescadero Bill

    I enjoyed this when it was Orwell's fiction.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:06:07 AM PDT

  •  I wonder where Apple is in all of this. (0+ / 0-)

    I mean, they're suddenly the 800 lb. gorilla of the tech world (as head-spinning as that is to an old fanboy such as myself,) and are sitting on forty-six billion dollars in cash.  I wonder if Jobs is for or against net neutrality, and if he's throwing any cash around one way or the other.

    Less Rand Paul, More Les Paul.

    by jazzmaniac on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:06:21 AM PDT

  •  You Could Have Net Neutrality Tomorrow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, marina

    If you defined it as being unable to restrict traffic in any way based on content.  In other words you could NEVER EVER pick a political site or something and slow it down because you didn't like the message.

    Instead the principle that's being applied is to protect protocols and methods -- specifically peer to peer -- which now accounts for 30%+ of all internet traffic and is MOSTLY illegal.

    Whenever I get into this conversation with anyone who is a hardcore proponent of NN it ends with, "Well why SHOULD it be illegal to get songs and movies and porn or whatever online.  It's not like the studios are going to run out of money."

  •  This is all about Android. (3+ / 0-)

    Google wants to cuit a deal with Verizon on providing mobile broadband content to give it a competitive advantage over Apple.

  •  Net Neutrality is a myth (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah

    Unless the internet is made free for all. As long as Kos has to pay to host content he'll always be at the mercy of the hosting service. As long as I have to pay an ISP to get content I'll always be at their mercy. Yes, a long time ago there was a truly free and open internet. But that's gone and has been for years. We just never noticed.

    Bush didn't just drive the country into the ditch. He stole the mirrors, slashed the tires, lit it on fire, then drove it into the ditch.

    by ontheleftcoast on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:09:12 AM PDT

    •  Don't confuse bandwidth providers with content (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ontheleftcoast, sigsauerdude

      Net Neutrality concerns IP agnosticism, not the cost to route (DSL) and maintain (hosting) data.

      Paradoxical Pisces: An avowed Atheist who rejects Reductionism.

      by DavidHeart on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:36:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only reason they care about (0+ / 0-)

        the IP address is because they see it as another way to make more money. Take the ability to squeeze people out of the equation and they won't give a damn about the content provided.

        Bush didn't just drive the country into the ditch. He stole the mirrors, slashed the tires, lit it on fire, then drove it into the ditch.

        by ontheleftcoast on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:55:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oh come on!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    This was debunked HOURS ago. Why are you doing this alarmist nonsense without proper research?

  •  Anyone with a small web biz will be hit (6+ / 0-)

    people don't understand this issue.My husband's site: HeadButler.com is image heavy and if his stuff loads slowly for people we will lose sales.

    Then we will have to pay to be on some middle-man's site that promises faster delivery, yada yada....

    If we are serious about small business and jobs, then net neutrality is KEY to keeping the playing field fair.

    Capitalism is NOT FAIR so we need to regulate this.

  •  Here is the business reality (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, PsychoSavannah

    ...that these corporations should take into account.

    Ending net neutrality by tiering pricing of content essentially kills the market for the internet.  Because it kills the cost basis by which so many websites have be set up.  Non-profits will be taking down their sites, a lot of small-scale online businesses will be taking down their sites.

    And folks can go back to borrowing books from a library and reading.

    Having killed broadcast TV and cable, the profit-hungry companies are now trying to kill the internet.  Newspapers might enjoy a resurgence.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:10:48 AM PDT

  •  Furthermore... (4+ / 0-)

    As this story develops, one thing remains clear: These companies should not be determining Internet policy--the FCC should.

    And the FCC should be deciding this in the public, not behind closed doors in private meetings.

    Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

    by Jonze on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:10:58 AM PDT

  •  Didn't Obama campaign on net neutrality? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LionelEHutz, esquimaux, The Dead Man

    In a change adminstration this topic wouldn't even come up.

    It would already be settled.

    Oh, I forgot, we elected Obama instead.

    "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced." 4-2-10 Obama's George Bush moment

    by neaguy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:11:46 AM PDT

  •  I wonder if Time Warner Cable will allow (6+ / 0-)

    DailyKos access in its $299.99 basic internet bundle?

  •  "One thing remains clear" (0+ / 0-)

    "Maybe I should do some freakin' RESEARCH before I post alarmist nonsense."

  •  Theft of information (0+ / 0-)

    by tracking searches and taking information from unprotected residential wireless networks Google is already performing evil acts. They will sell what they know about you.

    Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

    by LWelsch on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:22:04 AM PDT

    •  If you don't want people looking in your windows (0+ / 0-)

      put up curtains. Radio signals broadcast in the clear have always been fair game for reception by anyone. Nobody makes a wireless device that doesn't allow encryption. Rather than complaining that Google is doing what everyone has a right to do, receive 'unprotected residential wireless' educate people to turn on the WEP/WPA protection for their networks,

  •  i link in NYT comments section (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bay of arizona, PsychoSavannah

    When reached for comment, a Verizon spokesman offered this statement: "We've been working with Google for 10 months to reach an agreement on broadband policy. We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the FCC. We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet and the investment and innovation required to sustain it."

    (my bolding) i don't know what to believe anymore.  

  •  With that type of corporate collusion (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alumbrados, marina, PsychoSavannah

    ... is there any anti-trust issue that may be legally actionable here?

    Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

    by Pithy Cherub on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:22:53 AM PDT

  •  No, the FCC shouldn't, either (0+ / 0-)

    You're just saying that because Obama happens to be the executive at the moment. If he weren't, all that power at the subjective discretion of the FCC chair would be a huge problem.

    Thankfully, none of this actually matters, because the protocols that run the Internet are in the public domain, and network engineers are pushing towards a future where ISPs are irrelevant anyway.

    And that's what we need, more than intervention by the FCC, which will change its mind as soon as there's another Republican president, which I'm sure we all realize is inevitable in the long run.

    To be human in 2010 is to rise in defense of the planet we have known and the civilization it has spawned.

    by beatpanda on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:24:00 AM PDT

  •  Didn't you guys get the Citizens United Memo? (0+ / 0-)

    The more money you have the more democracy you get. The moneyed interests, calling the shots? Say it ain't so!

    I really do want Net Neutrality. However, in the long run, I see us having as much control over this as we do "our" airwaves. i.e. - not much.

    The only way we'll ever ensure net neutrality is if we consumers find a way to develop our own internet, maybe using a wifi type technology and bypass the current infrastructure. Pirate internet. Of course, if we did, it really would be outlawed. Free markets hate competition don't you know?

    The sleep of reason produces monsters.

    by Alumbrados on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:24:56 AM PDT

  •  Providers already have a tiered system. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alumbrados, mmacdDE, marina, LiberalATX

    It's been around since day 1. We all pay for a certain tiering of speed through DSL, cable or satellite. As a consumer, I spend $XX for XXX Mb/sec rather than $X for XX Mb/sec. Claiming they want to recoup some of the "billions of dollars spent on infrastructure" is bogus.

    Watch how they confuse the issue between the internet providers and the content providers.

    Paradoxical Pisces: An avowed Atheist who rejects Reductionism.

    by DavidHeart on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:25:48 AM PDT

  •  A cynic's response... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alumbrados, bay of arizona, marina

    Eric Schmidt was and continues to be one of Obama's strongest supporters. Most always a participant in the "business" forums.

    Should we be surprised?

    "Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave." - Thucydides

    by JasperJohns on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:26:14 AM PDT

  •  What about Quality of Service traffic shaping? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, sigsauerdude

    I never hear net neutrality advocates explaining exactly how the neutral internet is supposed to work.

    All internet traffic is not the same. Things like VoIP, gaming, and streaming video all need to take precedent over HTML webbrowsing or Bittorrent.

    •  The reason you don't see an answer to that (0+ / 0-)

      question is because proponents of neutrality wouldn't even know that question needs to be answered.  Technical geniuses they are not.  None of them have a clue that problem exists.  They are all of the mindset... "Give me equal access to the web or we should nationalize it".  Short sighted at best, without a clue at worst.

      Respect everyone, fear no one

      by sigsauerdude on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:18:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Google's Schmidt explaining exactly how (0+ / 0-)

      the neutral internet is supposed to work.

      "People get confused about Net neutrality," Schmidt said. "I want to make sure that everybody understands what we mean about it. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types...There is general agreement with Verizon and Google on this issue. The issues of wireless versus wireline get very messy...and that's really an FCC issue not a Google issue."

      One of the real problems with this discussion to that most people here know didley about how the Internet works.

  •  The TM (Corporate Media) can cover this story (0+ / 0-)

    without a bias? You betcha! ;)

    "Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave." - Thucydides

    by JasperJohns on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:31:30 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps someone should read the law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina

    COMCAST CORPORATION, PETITIONER
    v.
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS
    NBC UNIVERSAL, ET AL., INTERVENORS

    This case stripped the FCC of its ability to intervene in management decisions for internet providers.  Decided in April 2010. The FCC is unclear based on this decision what its authority is in this area. You can blame the "Supremes"  Clarifying legislation may be necessary.

    •  No legislation required. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bay of arizona

      FCC has to overturn one of its previous policy decisions in terms of where regulating broadband falls.

      I read about it some time ago so don't remember the specifics. But it is pretty clear that the FCC has the option to choose to regulate broadband.

  •  These corporations better beware (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10, marina

    antitrust and treble damages.

  •  Good for Andy Schwartzman! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina

    always nice to see someone you have know  for almost 6 decades being quoted on an issue of importance!

    "what the best and wisest parent wants for his child is what we should want for all the children of the community" - John Dewey

    by teacherken on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:35:54 AM PDT

  •  The law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina

    Whoops-it was the DC District Court of Appeals.  The NYT article is linked.  http://www.nytimes.com/...

  •  Net Nuetrality is dead. How do I know? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, Dave925, marina, LiberalATX

    Because when our current President was a US Senator just a short time ago, he voted to give criminal immunity to the nation's large telecom companies after they illegally spied on US citizens.  Anyone who thinks the Administration will do the right thing on Net Neutrality hasn't been paying attention.

    And no, this isn't Obama bashing. This is a very lucid observation of Obama's behavior on a relevant topic where many of the same corporate interests were involved.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:38:24 AM PDT

  •  Some are shocked dot.com-ers can be evil. (4+ / 0-)

    It's just like any other industry, Kiddies.

    "Philosophy is useless; theology is worse"--Dire Straits

    by Bush Bites on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:42:32 AM PDT

  •  A non-denial (5+ / 0-)

    "The NYT is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic."

    Meaning that Google has had conversations with Verizon, and is narrowly carving out one topic of conversation.  Google is intentionally attempting to mislead people as to what it is doing.

  •  Just nationalize the damn internet (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, marina, PsychoSavannah

    Or at least the US-based portions of it. The US government invented the internet (no, not Al Gore, but ARPA/DARPA, back in the 60's), and given how important it's become to everyday life and commerce, I don't see how leaving it in the hands of greedy self-interested private companies serves the interests of anyone but their shareholders. And even that's debatable. Our entire road system is nationalized. So's the postal system. We even nationalized the railroads for a while. Why not the internet?

    And spare me the drivel about private industry-based innovation. We're all paying the same overpriced rates for broadband internet access that we did 10 years ago, for marginally faster speeds. That's not innovation. That's exploiting a captive market.

    Nationalize the damn internet already, give everyone a level playing field, and let private companies make money providing actual value on it.

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:44:39 AM PDT

  •  It's crazy that Google needs to turn a profit (4+ / 0-)

    They figured out how to link search engines to supercomputers, and found there was monetary value in that. It's no surprise to me that their decisions from now on will be along the lines of Microsoft's corporate performance over the last 20 years: bloated, wasteful, slow to react, and ultimately pernicious.

  •  Dear Diarist, I have a minor quibble with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10, Dave925

    the title of your diary. You misspelled the first word. Instead of "Google," the correct spelling is "Monopoly."

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

    by hestal on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:09:36 AM PDT

  •  The FCC IS determining broadband policy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925

    Under the control of a Democratic administration. That this administration allows private companies secret access to FCC regulators may say something terrible about those private companies. But it says something even worse about the Obama Administration's priorities.

    Lay the blame where it's due, rather than shifting it away from those policymakers who actually have control of the levers of government.  

  •  Well I haven't been using Bing that is until NOW! (0+ / 0-)

    Bye-Bye Google.

    •  How does Microsoft's stance on NN differ? (0+ / 0-)

      Does this surprise you?

      SOFTWARE MONOPOLIST Microsoft seems to be backing away from its long running support for network neutrality.

      Speaking to an FCC hearing on the issue, the software giant admitted it has a vested interest in ensuring that its numerous web applications and services are delivered to consumers without interference from an ISP.

      However it warned against "the adoption of unnecessary or insufficiently tailored regulations, such as a prohibition on all types of discrimination."

      In short we want net neutrality but we don't want any laws that will stuff us up.

      Gates is certainly anti-nationalization, anti-regulation, and supports network providers' right to tiered pricing.

      Daily Kos clearly needs a better tech writer. The tech coverage here is shallow, follows the hysterical tradmed headlines, and ultimately requires updates and corrections in response.

      A lot of the reactionary responses in this thread not only misunderstand the issue, they are ignorant both the players and the landscape.

      Thought exercise: Try to think about why traditional media news organs may not be neutral players in this conversation.

      'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

      by Maxwell on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:23:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Down With Net Neutrality (0+ / 0-)

    The big point, that is being missed by everyone, is that there are LIMITED resources available.  So broadband does need to be rationed in order to most effectively use those resources.  That's not something you can really get around.  

    I have at least 4 options for internet in my area. Cable, DSL, Satellite, and Cell phone providers.  That competition will keep people honest when it comes to giving people what they want.  

    Let's be honest here. We know what is going to happen.  If the gov't limits Comcast's ability to regulate access to sites, we're just going to end up having severely tiered pricing.  And having access to the highest tier (highest bandwidth sites), will just cost a fortune.

    But at least if that happens, you can go someplace else.

  •  No big surprise (0+ / 0-)
    Google has been the worst enemy of privacy on the internet for going on a decade now. Screw Google.
  •  Google is for censorship... (0+ / 0-)

    ...if they're the ones doing the censoring.

  •  I posted a comment at Tea Party nation.... (0+ / 0-)

    just to see what they would do. Knowing they would jettison me asap, I did screen grabs of the stuff:

    Here is the comment about wanting illegals stories.

    And 15 minutes later, I was ejected. .) :) :)

    Yup, thats democracy in action :) :)

    Check out my comment...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site