Skip to main content

Sen. Al Franken speaking at Senate Antitrust Subcommittee held a hearing on AT&T's plan to takeover T-Mobile. The hearing's title,

The proposed rule Federal Communications Commission chair Tom Wheeler will be bringing to the committee next month would essentially end the Net neutrality that has allowed the Internet revolution. It would allow Internet service providers to charge a premium to content providers to get the "fast lane" delivery. It's being widely panned by policymakers, consumer groups, and content providers.
"It could create a tiered Internet where consumers either pay more for content and speed, or get left behind with fewer choices," warned Delara Derakhshani, policy counsel for Consumers Union. […]

"The proposed approach is the fastest lane to punish consumers and Internet innovators," video streaming company Netflix said Thursday. The plan would be particularly bad for smaller businesses and their customers, said Patrick Clinger, founder and chief executive of ProBoards, an online forum service.

Lawmakers who have been pushing for strengthened Net neutrality rules are staking out their opposition.
“Like many Internet users, I fear that the latest round of proposed net neutrality rules from the FCC will not do enough to curtail discrimination of Internet traffic, but rather leave the door open to discrimination under more ambiguous terms,” said [Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)], the top Democrat on the House’s leading telecom committee.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), another top net neutrality supporter, stressed the "Internet's rules of the road must not open up fast lanes to those who can pay, leaving others stuck in traffic." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, called it a "terribly misguided proposal," and even wagered its implementation would mean "the Internet as we have come to know it would cease to exist and the average American would be the big loser."

And [Sen. Al] Franken described the plan as "deeply disappointing and very troubling." The senator added, "Chairman Wheeler's proposal would fundamentally change the open nature of the Internet, and I strongly urge him to reconsider this misguided approach."

The full committee needs to get the message now that this proposal is unacceptable, before their meeting on May 15 when they'll begin consideration of it. This proposal needs to be nipped in the bud, and the FCC need to get to work on a Net neutrality rule that protects the Internet.

Help us stop the FCC from crushing Net neutrality. Please sign our petition.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:54 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Tip Jar (117+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:54:45 AM PDT

  •  We're going to end up a walled-off little country (27+ / 0-)

    like China if we do this.

    Europe and the rest of the world are ALREADY pissed at us for the NSA. If we do this, they'll take the internet away from us, and refuse to abide by the regulation.

    Content providers will move their operations overseas.

    Systems like TOR and I2P will be used by Americans to get around ISP Throttling.

    This attempt to sell the internet will fail. Just like attempts to rule the internet have failed.

    But the big loser will be our economy which has grown by leaps and bounds because of our control of the internet infrastructure. The only reason that control has continued is because nobody really wants to invest the money to wrest that control away from us.

    Steps like this won't just encourage it.

    Steps like this will force it to happen.

    Save Net Neutrality.

    Keep the Internet American.

    An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail.

    by OllieGarkey on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:01:25 AM PDT

    •  Attempts to rule... (10+ / 0-)

      the internet have failed?  Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.  The large telecommunication companies already have a monopoly on providing service, and I think that means they already "rule" the internet.  They are simply trying to solidify their rule.

      "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

      by cardboardurinal on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:27:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You ever heard of the Deep Web? (6+ / 0-)

        Using Tor and I2P, and other cryptographic technologies, there's a way for ordinary citizens to set up methods to get around content blocking.

        They've lost control over the internet every time they've tried to take it. There's no way for them to functionally block deep web activities while allowing surface web activities. That's how people get around Chinese Surveillance and such.

        The thing is, this kind of action will push EVERYONE into the Deep Web.

        So while right now it's used by hackers, political dissidents, and the populations of nations where their governments are attempting to control the access of the people to information.

        These technologies already exist.

        And if you want them, you can get them here, for free.

        They can't throttle what they can't see.

        An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail.

        by OllieGarkey on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:12:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your choice to sign on to the (0+ / 0-)

        big providers. There are usually little local ISPs you can use.

        I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

        by samddobermann on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 02:31:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I use a smaller ISP, but the wires to my house are (0+ / 0-)

          owned by Verizon. There is no competition in that last mile. I pay my small ISP for 3Mbit DSL, I pay for Netflix, but thanks to Verizon playing games with their wires, I only get Netflix at 1Mbit. Without net neutrality, I will have to pay extra to Netflix for them to pay Verizon for me to get the 3Mbit service I already pay for elsewhere. Where is my "choice"?

    •  And I can't help but think we wouldn't even be (18+ / 0-)

      having this conversation if Obama hadn't appointed as chair a main who spent nearly 10 years with the National Cable Television Association.  Add this to the handful of things Obama has done that just left me scratching my head.

    •  It would more likely (0+ / 0-)

      get more public support if they would drop the geeky nerdie name"" Net Neutrality and name it something everyone could understand .


    •  Well, those enterprises could always offshore (0+ / 0-)

      If attempts to extort them persist, they block traffic to the US.

      Then, taxpayers would raise merry hell when Youtube and assorted other popular video services don't work because the government was bought and paid for.

    •  We're going to end up a walled-off little country (0+ / 0-)

      OllieGarkey, please allow me to clarify a few things here.  First, the Internet is not, was not, and never has been "American".  Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web, did his work at the CERN research center in Switzerland.  Much of the software which provides the Internet services you value - email, the world wide web, etc. was developed by teams of people based all over the world.

      Second, at its foundation the Internet consists of a collection of agreements on how everything is going to work.  This is analagous to the US Constitution which defines how we're going to govern ourselves collectively.  If either agreement is ignored by people with lots of money and power, the whole thing falls apart.  This is precisely what's happening with the Internet.  US corporations such as Verizon, Yahoo and Comcast are now so big that they feel that they can redefine Internet standards to suit their own ends.

      Third, the US has been falling behind in deployment of broadband Internet for years, and is now well behind may other countries, such as South Korea.  Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and other corporate behemoths have worked very hard to prevent innovation by cities and towns by pushing legislation to prevent municipal deployment of broadband service in competition with their commercial services.  The Big Guys boost bandwidth for their customers as it benefits their bottom lines, not for the Greater Good, and as they achieve near-monopoly power in data transmission they have increasingly less incentive to invest in this.  Running roughshod over the basic principles of net neutrality is just the lastest shenanigan by these people in their pursuit of profit.

      Fourth, no one is going to "take the Internet away from us".  We, being the US, never owned it in the first place.  The Internet is an idea whose time has come.  It's hard to say who will ultimately be the winners in Internet technology, but we can safely say that the losers will be people and governments which try to restrict and control the flow of information and knowledge.  Inasmuch as we are losing the "battle for the Internet", it's because of corporate greed and attempts by large corporate entities to restrict and monetize access at the expense of the agreed set of standards which make the Internet work for everyone.

  •  I wonder what it would cost for the 99% to buy (20+ / 0-)

    our government back.

    If we purchase all three branches at once as part of a package deal could we get a discount?

    Would Hillary be willing to broker the deal?

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:06:53 AM PDT

  •  I see it as potential a major betrayal by the (35+ / 0-)

    Obama administration who promised to support Net Neutrality.

    Net Neutrality to me is a proxy for a better anti monopoly solution which would be to ban those who own the distribution hardware from owning the content provision and distribution.

    Too much concentration of power is never a good thing as our founding father knew to well.

    Power corrupts Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Image back after World War II if one single company own not only the highways, the autocompanies, the many or most restaurants and shops along the highway, and the phones you could call along the highway and there might be one or to alternatives.

    We are looking at companies of the future that will be controlling the entire worlds we live in.

    Do we want them to be Mega-Corporate Oligarchies. or Distributed networks susceptible to grass roots democracy?

    If the later we better get off our butts and pull the alarm bells and ask President Obama to wake up and remember his promise. It was not trivial.

    Imagine if the Koch brothers buy Comcast.  

    "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

    by HoundDog on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:11:08 AM PDT

    •  Blah eww (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chimene, rbird, davidincleveland, HoundDog

      Your last sentence is going to give me nightmares for years. :(

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:28:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately, even breaking up distribution (6+ / 0-)

      infrastructure ownership and and content production/distribution doesn't really solve the problem without a strong Net Neutrality standard.

      Granted, we wouldn't have the situation we do now - ISPs throttling streaming from other providers so that you'll go pay On Demand rental fees and get the same movie/show from them.

      But we would still have price fixing.  Even if Time Warner had to spin off the ownership of the cables and nodes, they could still try to get Netflix and Hulu into a bidding war for "premium access to Time Warner customers".

      That's the real crux, in the end.  These fuckers think we're they're assets.  They think they have the right, granted by who knows what foul deity, to charge anyone else who wants to do business with us.

      I suppose this was inevitable once cable companies got control of the last mile.

      Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

      by JesseCW on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:00:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We are assets. Comcast and Time Warner (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland, JesseCW

        have regional monopolies.  They don't compete against each other.

        Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

        by The Dead Man on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:13:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I agree, but what I am arguing is since we (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Oh Mary Oh, JesseCW, freakofsociety

        are not even going to consider breaking up these vertical monopolies Net Neutrality is the absolute bare minimum alternative safety net.

        This industry FCC chairmen talk about how this rule protects consumers and it almost sounds reasonable to say people should pay for what they are getting but when you consider what is actually happening with the Comcast monopolies controlling the entire world the customer is going to be living in, the ability for unfair competition against new entrants is too great.

        This FCC chairmen should be fired immediately, the President should apologize for letting him get this far off the farm and we should start over. .

        "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

        by HoundDog on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:09:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Also.... (39+ / 0-)

    ...I think it creates an incentive against internet providers increasing speeds, in light of how little competition they face.

    Basically, if they can only have a fast lane when it is "commercially reasonable" to do so, then they need a constrained pipe, because the more constrained their pipe, the easier it is to say it's "commercially reasonable" to sell priority access to it.

    •  This x1,000,000 (16+ / 0-)

      "To live in a world where truth matters and justice, however late, really happens, that world would be heaven enough for us all." - Rubin "Hurricane" Carter

      by blueoregon on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:17:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's the argument the phone companies are using (15+ / 0-)

      to stop investments in infrastructure.  They argue all those billions they've collected over the decades to roll out telephone service nationwide no longer is economically feasible to maintain so they stop fixing landline phone service (P.O.T.S.) but instead funnel more billions into cellphone service that then leaves people with no alternative but to buy cellphones and be victims of higher pricing, ridiculous contracts and iffy connectivity.  They're collecting billions for services they then lobby to be let out of the contracts.  This is a big issue here in the widely spaced west but apparently also it's an issue for places in the urban east - I remember reading about the phone company stopping service at Fire Island and even to apartment buildings in New York City because they claimed it wasn't economically feasible (IOW, it didn't give them enough profits and bonuses).

      •  And in cell phone service, Europe and Asia are far (14+ / 0-)

        ahead of the US -- both in affordability and in technology.

        Americans can expect to pay over $100/month for services that cost around $35/month in the EU.

        American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

        by atana on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:55:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's changing outside of the world of contract (9+ / 0-)

          phone deals.  Prepaid, you can get those services for 40-50$.

          The hard part is explaining to many Americans that their "free" 200 dollar phone every two years is costing them 1,200 bucks in needless overpayments.

          Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

          by JesseCW on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:03:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, you can get it that cheap here (6+ / 0-)

          You just have to not use one of the main carriers, and accept that you won't have good service in the more rural places.

          My smart phone plan with Metro PCS was only $40 until I asked to have tethering added back in, bringing it back to $50.  It's unlimited talk and text, with enough of a data plan that I never get dinged even though I use the tethering for playing games on my laptop.

          The trade off is that my phone drops to text and emergencies only if I leave the big cities. I am within a major metro area 99% of the time so that's not a big deal to me.

          Someone who lives in the boonies though HAS to go with a bigger carrier just to get service.

          The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

          by catwho on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:05:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We're ahead in cell phones (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim, davidincleveland

          Don't envy Europe's cell phone mess.  Americans use their cell phones on average about three times as much as Europeans.  The trick is that European cell phones are on "calling party pays", and so calls to cell phones are very expensive (though the EC is pushing it downwards).  So nobody calls up a cell phone to chat, and the cell phone monthly bill is subsidized by the callers.  

          Then there's the real mess with roaming in Europe, where you can get hit by preposterous charges for taking your phone across member-state lines.  Again, the EC is using regulatory pressure to reduce that, but it has been a large part of their economic model.

          In the US, it's mobile party pays, with few roaming charges within the US, and that has pushed down total cellular rates, though the whole thing is paid by the cell phone customer, not people who call him (and hang up quickly).

          •  So I went online shopping for UK mobile plans (0+ / 0-)

            and immediately found one for 3000 minutes, 5000 texts and 3GB data for £17/mth = $28.56/month.

            No extra charges for calling cell phones -- just a plan with extremely generous voice, text and data allocations for less than the price of an ultrabudget plan in the US.

            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

            by atana on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:55:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The charges are levied on others (0+ / 0-)

              The plan you saw no doubt gives you a mobile-phone number, which in Europe is a distinct number, like a 900 number here.  So you can make 3000 minutes of calls, but anybody who calls you will pay through the nose.  That's where they make their money.  They want subscribers who can receive calls.

              And if you happen to leave the Kingdom, and, say, take your phone and its SIM card to France or Ireland or the Netherlands, those 3000 minutes don't count.

    •  we're already behind (12+ / 0-)

      most industrialized countries, and not a few "developing nations" (like Cambodia) for speed. Turning speed into a premium service will not just disincentivize ISPs from improving speeds for everyone, as you say, it gives them a reason to make the "free tier" as slow as possible.

      Like all monopolistic behavior, the end result of this will just be to drive innovation out of the US economy and into other places.

      1. Books are for use.

      by looty on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:34:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's already happening. Time Warner (3+ / 0-)

        has the fast speeds ($50 a month) and the regular speeds ($15 a month).  This isn't about speed.  It's about what content you're gonna get on your computer....what gets through without the spinning circle, and what takes forever based on who pays the ISP to fast-track the CONTENT.

        Google already skews your results based on money.
        Yahoo does too.

        We're already fucked in the "free to everyone" internet.  Now we'll also be fed content based on who has the most money.

        Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

        by PsychoSavannah on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:53:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It also creates a huge incentive (4+ / 0-)

      for killing motivation for November elections.

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      When the rich have tripled their share of the income and wealth yet again, Republicans will still blame the poor and 3rd Way Democrats will still negotiate.

      by Words In Action on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 12:17:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The time has come for all good men and women (8+ / 0-)

    to choose whether they support the Democratic Party and it's leaders or the ideals and principles of democracy.

      There's not much those two things have in common anymore.

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:22:15 AM PDT

    •  So -- what about the Democratic Party? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      River Rover, GreenMother

      There are some definite Good Joes (and certainly a Good Al) on this issue, but the Democrats aren't exactly shining their halos here -- and haven't been.

      As before, it will take the good actors from both parties to overcome the bad.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:40:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which means what, exactly? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trumpeter, River Rover, Oh Mary Oh

      Not voting?  

      Voting for a third party?  


      Pushing the Democrats to the left from the inside and ground up?

      I'd argue the first is simply giving up, the second is ineffectual, the third is doomed to failure and the last is the only real option, although it requires a lot of hard work and patience.

      •  It's helpful to avoid pretending that bluedogs (0+ / 0-)

        don't exist. I can say that voting DEM with stars in my eyes makes for a helluva fall when the BlueDogs chime in.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 03:27:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are, I think, missing the point here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oh Mary Oh, freakofsociety

          Do you have a better idea than mine (Pushing the Democrats to the left from the inside and ground up)?

          •  Did I say you were wrong? (0+ / 0-)


            I simply pointed out that sometimes the Pollyanna selling line sets people up for supreme disappointment when a Democratic candidate strays from certain closely held planks in the larger party platform.

            But then, I live in the land of disappointment when it comes to this issue.

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 04:26:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Vote Republican because Democrats are...?? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      River Rover, Eric K

      ...just not good enough?

      I wish I lived in a country where that made any sense.

      "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

      by jestbill on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:06:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At the policy making level there is no difference, (3+ / 0-)

        I don't know the answer but for myself I will never again support any candidate who supports, indeed,  doesn't actively oppose  those issues I mentioned.

        The any "Democrat is  better than any other brand " argument is getting a little thin.

        Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

        by River Rover on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 01:33:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Got a better argument? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oh Mary Oh, freakofsociety

          You get two choices in America:  Republican Party or Democratic Party. Does that suck?  Yeah, but that's how it works.  Withholding votes from Democrats enables Republicans, period.

          If you truly think there is no difference between them, then why are you even here, at a site dedicated to highlighting every difference?

          •  Correct....but. (0+ / 0-)

            Blue SOBs need to be sent to the showers.

            I (likely) will hold my nose and vote for Udall (Colorado) but I don't care if Republicans nominate Beelzebub himself, Bennet must go.

            "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

            by jestbill on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 11:07:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for doing the petition. (4+ / 0-)

    They need to hear from us.

    If you acknowledge it, you can change it.

    by Raggedy Ann on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:25:09 AM PDT

  •  sign the petition and contact your representative (9+ / 0-)

    Net Neutrality is Under Attack!

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:25:42 AM PDT

  •  Yet another way for the 1% (8+ / 0-)

    to control the information to the other 99%.

    Try to get negative (but factual) information disseminated. Daily Kos ..... lessee, I'll give them .00001% of the current bandwidth .... red state 1500%speed increase.

    I recently read where south Korea has 2GPS available.

    Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. Frank Zappa

    by Da Rock on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:26:44 AM PDT

    •  Da Rock you got that right (0+ / 0-)

      A variant of this comment was previously posted elsewhere when the net neutrality issue first stirred public debate in 2014.  FYI it’s been tweaked a bit and the second-to-last paragraph is a new addition.  Anyway it's fitting that I share the comment here so here it goes.


      It is right that this move against net neutrality generally has the populace up at arms.  Unfortunately people who (a) haven’t been subjected to wrongful stifling, (b) haven’t learned the dangers of limitations on free speech by studying history, and/or (c) aren’t critical thinkers might not see the potential dangers in this type of move until it is too late.  This should be ended posthaste…and I don’t state that on a whim.  History is full of bad acting influential entities that have abused power that they should have never had in the first place.  Think about these couple of scenarios:

      1)  A startup launches and its success is highly dependent on its ability to deliver various web content to the masses.  However, a direct competitor owns and/or operates one or more metaphorical “internet pipelines” (or is an associate of an entity that owns and/or operates one or more metaphorical “internet pipelines”).  No problem…just have the delivery of the startup’s web content degraded and/or charge the startup an exorbitant dollar amount.  Ours is a fast-paced society full of people who are accustomed to instant gratification.  That being the case it is a foregone conclusion that a startup that is subjected to inefficient and/or buggy web content delivery will fail if web content plays a significant role in its business model.

      2)  A group is fighting against influential wrongdoers and the group is effectively and rightfully utilizing the internet during the course of their warranted and rightful battle.  However, one or more of the wrongdoers owns and/or operates one or more metaphorical “internet pipelines” (or is an associate of an entity that owns and/or operates one or more metaphorical “internet pipelines”).  No problem…just have the delivery of the group’s web content degraded and/or charge the group an exorbitant dollar amount.  Again, ours is a fast-paced society full of people who are accustomed to instant gratification.  That being the case it is a foregone conclusion that a movement against wrongdoers that is subjected to inefficient and/or buggy web content delivery will fail if web content plays a significant role in the movement.  

      Those who have a problem visualizing the scenario outlined immediately above need do nothing more than look at corruption-plagued countries that are built upon cultures where censorship is par for the course.  Of the many things that this net neutrality move might be, one of the things that it definitely is is a gateway to the implementation of an alternative form of censorship.  I’ll repeat that so that it will sink in…a gateway to the IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF CENSORSHIP.

      There are probably multiple other scenarios that could be listed above but the given scenarios are sufficient to make my point.  Again, this is not the right move and IT SHOULD END POSTHASTE.  Even if there are conceivably some significant benefits (not that we’re necessarily of the mindset that there are) the very real risks far outweigh any potential rewards.  And just in case anyone is saying “if you’re in one of the two groups listed above then sue”, you are naïve.  The victims—and make no mistake about it, in the scenarios outlined above they are VICTIMS—indicated in the above two scenarios are already fighting against nearly insurmountable odds and they don’t need any other problems piled on.  In other words, in a manner of speaking they are already “down” and don’t need anymore “kicks” such as having their web content interfered with and/or being faced with exorbitant costs.  Although some things are right about America, some things are definitely going in the wrong direction.  People such as Hitler, those who conducted the Tuskegee Experiment, and those whom were responsible for disseminating smallpox infested blankets to Native American Indians (just to name a few) would have a heyday with this move if they were alive and engaging in their bad acts today.  Reason being, it goes without saying that as it stands the internet is the average joe’s most efficient form of a mouthpiece.  And let us not forget that in America (as well as in the rest of the world) some of the greatest achievements have been accomplished by determined average joes who spoke out to the masses as efficiently as was possible.  Rest assured that this move will make influential bad actors everywhere rejoice…they are likely already planning ways to exploit it (assuming that they haven’t already planned a plethora ways).

      In case anyone somehow thinks that I have no idea what I’m talking about.  I will state that I most certainly do.  I am personally involved in a long-running, massive, warranted, and rightful fight against epic public corruption.  I can tell you that it is an undeniable fact that that warranted and rightful fight has been plagued by civil liberties infringements carried out via wrongful attempts by bad actors to stifle our free speech.  For the record the fight is called GATORGAIT and those who are unaware of it can find out more information at the damning, truthful, and lawful website .  Also for the record, the complete website and all of the website’s extensive content works perfectly and efficiently as of the time of this post (i.e. 04/26/2014).  Additionally, there has been various other truthful and lawful Gatorgait-related content that has been posted online by us justice seekers and which has remained not interfered with…that content also works perfectly and efficiently as of the time of this post.

      As the net neutrality proposal involves revenue generation I’ve included this paragraph.  Any “additional billing”, if any, for internet content received through “the internet pipelines” need only be on the end of the content recipient.  Great power for abuse lies in that little area of the unknown created by the uncertainty bred  by billing from “both ends”.  In the proposed new internet model when your internet account (as a content recipient) is in good standing and lawful content you seek out is delivered in a slow and/or buggy fashion—assuming you can access said desired content at all—your natural response will likely be “oh, the content provider’s account with the ISP must be in ‘bad standing’”.  But what if the content provider’s account is not in bad standing and the provider’s lawful content has merely been inappropriately interfered with or censored?  No problem, you’ll know that’s the case right…W-R-O-N-G!!!  You will likely have no idea of the truth behind the content delivery issue for it goes without saying that any notice posted by the content provider regarding the interference or censorship would likely be posted on the very same sabotaged website (and thus not be viewable or be difficult to view) and/or posted on some other distinct high visibility webpage that would itself likely subsequently be targeted and relatively quickly interfered with or censored.  The only thing you could ever be certain of is the good standing or bad standing of your own personal internet service account.  Rest assured that bad actors who would abuse the power granted by this assault on net neutrality know these things and are praying that the citizenry (1) has it’s blinders on and (2) is flush with apathy in regards to the matter.  Those bad actors’ prayers must not be answered for history has shown time-and-time again that when warranted vigorous opposition is left undone when faced with intentionally-implemented incremental, but significant, wrongful acts (if not outright evil acts) what soon follows is sweeping persecution.   If the additional revenue is so necessary—and for the record I’m of the mindset that it likely is not necessary—with all the years that the internet has been operational ISPs have the data available to classify the data volume and speed requirements of the median internet account (as in the median content recipient’s internet account).  Using that data, after possibly incorporating a few infrastructure changes, pricing models could be established and tiered as needed…kinda like with cell phones.  But with that the following must be stated.  In my opinion the anonymity offered by the internet is an awesome thing…sure that anonymity can be abused but it’s my personal opinion that anonymity’s resultant long-term good far outweighs its resultant long-term bad (FYI bad actors who’ve been placed under scrutiny online, to their dismay, know this as well).  Having stated that, I prefer the current pricing models where the ISPs calculate acceptable and reasonable profit margin targets and charge their customers that are generally in the same class pretty much the same thing across the board.  As long as the ISPs meet their targeted profit margins all is well…that is until greed, corruption, etc. steps into the picture.  It is my personal view that anything—that is anything besides the slander and libel remedies already in place and other public-driven backlash—that potentially pushes people towards self-censoring is problematic.  And should this revamp of net neutrality be enacted that is exactly one of the things that would likely happen because the proposed billing would likely usher in closer monitoring of people’s internet usage…in other words more surveillance would likely ensue thanks to internet billing that is less standard (at the expense of being more individualized).  But obviously this time the arena targeted for surveillance would be, reminiscent of CISPA, the internet.  Sure the internet might be a more cordial place for it, but the cost for that is way too high.  Thankfully the ol’ saying “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is true in a significant number of cases.  When the day comes that America’s leaders (1) are by and large above reproach, (2) consistently show that they are more concerned with serving the interests of the common man than they are with serving themselves and/or elitists whom they’ve embraced, and (3) consistently act with integrity I think we will be able to enact policies that don’t account for dissension (including anonymous lawful dissension).  Unfortunately that day hasn’t yet arrived…thus the right to dissent must receive the utmost protection.

      Generally speaking I have lost faith in man’s ability to consistently do what’s right.  Over hundreds of years of bad practices and policies promulgated largely by those who have wrongfully and shortsightedly used their gift of intelligence to increase their power and “line their pockets” at the long term expense of mankind and the world we have, as a whole, lost our way.  Let’s see where this recent net neutrality move takes us.  Just as we opposed the most recent attempt to pass the far too intrusive CISPA and the recent tentative decision regarding search engine censorship we strongly oppose this net neutrality move.  Pay attention…close attention.  As indicated above I’m jaded; therefore, I have no confidence that if there isn’t an abrupt about face that bad acting men and women won’t ensure that action becomes warranted.  It may be soon or it may be later, but rest assured that serious action will become necessary.

      Best wishes to all,

      “Some people see a problem and do something about it.  Others do nothing but sit on their a$$e$ and complain.  Be a doer.”

  •  The US is already a telecom backwater (13+ / 0-)

    compared to Europe and Asia, because they regulate their industry. It's just like health care: Americans pay a lot more and get a lot less. Americans are simply food for Ownership.

    This will remove any incentive for improvement in US internet speeds.

    American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

    by atana on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:33:10 AM PDT

  •  How about Obama? Any word from him on this? (15+ / 0-)

    Has anyone asked him to explain what was going through his mind when he hired a lobbyist for the cable industry to run the FCC? Do politicians even need to explain their decisions nowadays? It's just fucking softballs all the fucking time.

    /end rant

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:33:21 AM PDT

  •  I searched twitter last night for "Net Neutrality" (7+ / 0-)

    and the 2nd result was "Net Neutrality Calm Down" from January when Ezra Klein wrote an article with those words in the title. We should not Calm Down about this in the least. This could be a real turning point, giving away the internet to the 1% just like the Supremes did with our political system.

  •  Any word from Susan Crawford? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher
  •  Does he have exceptions for the government? (4+ / 0-)

    Or will the government have to shell out money to the ISPs to get people decent access to, the National Parks, the Smithsonian, the National Archives, and even all of the documents of the government (not to mention access to sign up for healthcare on the exchanges).  Universities and their online classes?  The many new internet related relations between parents and teachers?  

    Who foots that (new) bill?

  •  Pay-for-Play (9+ / 0-)

    Pay-for-Play is the kind of internet an oligarchy would create.

    The Republican plan is always the same old trickle-down, on-your-own, special-interests-first, country-club, voodoo economics.
    Donate to Oxfam America for the famine in east Africa.

    by JayC on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:45:44 AM PDT

  •  I'm confused (7+ / 0-)

    Who appointed this horrible industry-lobbyist chap to head the FCC?

    She said that she was working for the ABC News
    It was as much of the alphabet as she knew how to use

    by Paolo on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:48:37 AM PDT

  •  First the rich came for (6+ / 0-)

    Our money
    Our environment
    Our voting rights
    Our campaign donation limits
    Our  wages

    Now they are coming for our web


  •  Franken be MY senator. :) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher, Words In Action

    He's been a major proponent of Net Neutrality and I expect him to push hard against this. I'm proud of him.

    But we need to do so as well. I feel confident this will ultimately be shitcanned, but it's best to not take that outcome for granted.

    Makes me wonder if this was all a bluff to activate the Dem base and give Dem legislators the chance to shine. But, no. Hanlon's razor and all that.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:53:15 AM PDT

  •  The internet is one giant bundle (0+ / 0-)

    With people who mainly do email and web browsing subsidizing heavy users who might be streaming a lot of video.

    If a corporation such as Comcast wants to incorporate more a la carte pricing of internet services, maybe they would want to do the same thing with their cable services.

  •  Why are we not reality-based on this topic? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    imicon, Swamp Cat, Eric K

    Just a few facts need to be clarified.  Yes, Tom Wheeler apparently was quite ham-handed in handling the press this week, and managed to be quoted in such a way that he alienated pretty much everybody.  But that's the type of paranoia we're dealing with now.  Everyone goes full CT over anything having to do with the Internet, and everyone assumes the absolute worst.

    Fact: The proposal supposedly being circulated does not change much, and in fact is intended to tighten, not loosen, currently legal bounds of ISP behavior.  (Because there are none.)  Just  not as much as some people might want.

    Fact:  So-called network neutrality has never been the rule.  In 2005, Mikey Powell released "principles" that didn't have the force of rule and were neither enforceable nor meaningful.  In 2010, Julius Genachowski adopted NN Rules (Part 8) that were clearly (and by design) outside of the statutory bounds, a political move intended to be overturned.  So they never took effect and were formally (mostly) overturned in January.  

    You should read the DC Circuit ruling from January. They laid out what the FCC had the power to do, which would have fixed things nicely, and explained that the FCC went out of its way to do things wrong.  They pretty much laid out an FCC road map for how they could create an open, competitive Internet, like we had in the Clinton years.  But Tom Wheeler isn't going there.  It would upset Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.  The fix is simple:  Regulate the actual monopoly transport of bits (the fiber, cable, or DSL) from the home to the ISP, and allow any ISP to have access to it, so people have a wide choice of ISPs.  The parade of horrors people are dragging out of the last decade's freak shows would not be possible if you could just say "sayonara" to your ISP and have many others competing to use your FiOS, UVerse, DSL, or cable connection.

    Fact: Internet Protocol is a terrible medium for common carriage.  It was designed in the 1970s for a small private research network and lacks many features of a scalable, robust public network.  The Internet works because ISPs are free to twirl the knobs and pull the plugs as necessary to keep it afloat.  Strict ISP "neutrality" rules would take away those rules and allow more conflict between applications.   The protocols below IP (DSL/Carrier Ethernet/GPON/DOCSIS), however, are robust.

    Fact:  Adding capacity doesn't fix everything.  Some applications need less capacity but higher quality, like lower loss and delay.  You can't do some things well, like multi-site music jamming, across the Internet today, because the delay and jitter are too much.  Adding capacity alone doesn't fix that; big video streams can still get in the way of much smaller audio streams, for instance, not to mention VoIP.  A more carefully managed network could fix that and make everyone happier, and make VoIP work almost as well as a good old wireline phone, but it wouldn't meet the strictest "neutrality" standards that are intuitively obvious yet wrong.

    Fact: In almost every other democracy, there is a choice of ISPs.  EU rules require the underlying networks (which are indeed bit-neutral) to be open to multiple ISPs, and prices (duh) are usually much lower than here.  And while there are activists there whining about "neutrality" too, most people don't see a problem, because there are many ISPs to choose from, and it's still possible to start new ones,  without investing a billion dollars to pull new fiber. (Google Fiber is nice if you can get it but it's not the real answer.  It probably isn't coming to your neighborhood ever.)

    So we do have a problem, but it's not the latest rumored FCC proposal. It's that the FCC simply refuses to restore competition to the ISP business, to open up the telecom and cable networks to alternative ISPs.

    •  "Reality Based" = equating people who support (6+ / 0-)

      Net Neutrality w/Pol Pot?

      Fuck everyone else, as long as Skype works better?


      Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

      by JesseCW on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:07:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher, Tommymac
      So we do have a problem, but it's not the latest rumored FCC proposal. It's that the FCC simply refuses to restore competition to the ISP business, to open up the telecom and cable networks to alternative ISPs.
      In too many areas, the choice for last mile ISP is between Comcast and Comcast, or laughably, heavily metered cell carriers.

      That is one approach, which might work, but again requires the FCC to enforce it, and the FTC to prevent the big guys from buying up all the small fries.  Right now we are going the opposite direction though.

      But the big guys want no regulation, but it's either make them "common carriers" and force the NN rules on them (which the court said was acceptable), or force them to open up their infrastructure and lease it out to competition.

      But Wheeler's lame proposal should be a total non-starter regardless.

      One other point, there is a conflict of interest in being an ISP and being a content provider.  That also needs to be addressed.

      Bottom line, Wheeler is going to have to classify these big ISP as "common carriers," whether he likes it or not.

    •  Too much straw (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No one is seriously arguing that ISPs should be forced to treat every packet exactly alike. The concern has always been about preferential treatment for specific content providers leading to a fragmented, bundled and strictly corporate internet.

      It's scary even without the big picture implications: Before I cut the cord I remember not being able to get certain channels for days or weeks at a time because of endless contract disputes. I really don't want to find one day that I'm unable to access YouTube because Optimum is caught up in a contract dispute with Google.

      •  You missed the Freak Show (0+ / 0-)

        Back in the last decade, when NN became a big issue, the FCC held a round of public hearings including one at Harvard Law where Comcast arranged to fill most of the seats with their own supporters...  I called this the Freak Show, as it was basically a handful of partisans called out to give their extreme positions to the FCC.

        One of the speakers was a well known former MIT network researcher whose name is well known among Internet insiders.  He very plainly took the view that every single packet should be treated identically.  No blocking spam, and no traffic management.  He took the "end to end principle" (which he helped write) as seriously as Ken Ham takes Genesis 1.  And many of the NN supporters took him as their prophet.

        That's the problem with vague concepts like this.  IP was designed around packet loss (really), so anything that creates a low-loss stream is by definition not neutral, even if it's just sending medical monitoring packets once per second, or E911 calls.

        Preferential treatment of affiliates probably runs afoul of FTC rules, and maybe antitrust.  This really belongs more with the FTC than FCC.

  •  Put a comcast executive in the FCC (10+ / 0-)

    and this is the kind of shit you get.

    This is the guy Obama chose to head the FCC.  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:57:42 AM PDT

  • (9+ / 0-)

    "reaffirms" it's support of Net Neutrality. This was posted this past Feb.

    They specifically state:

    It was also encouraging to see Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, whom the President appointed to that post last year, reaffirm his commitment to a free and open Internet and pledge to use the authority granted by Congress to maintain a free and open Internet. The White House strongly supports the FCC and Chairman Wheeler in this effort.
    And Wheeler's statement is here.

    I am not reassured. And I am so saddened at how government uses our own language against. They always promise "freedom" and leave a loop that drains the freedom out of everything. We are going the way of the Roman Empire. Losing out Republic and being taken over by the crazy greedy humans who are disconnected from their hearts.

  •  This message needs to go to the WH as well (12+ / 0-)

    They have a problem of undermining net neutrality in the way they manage the FCC.

    The US internet should be treated as a public utility. That's the best and most fair approach.  

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:00:23 AM PDT

  •  Free Internet (4+ / 0-)

    IMHO We need someone to start using their platform at a major publication to write about how the internet should be a free utility for all American people, with the fastest speeds in the world, and how this would ensure we remain competitive in the 21st century. This issue needs someone to shift the Overton Window, like Duncan Black did for Social Security.

  •  We already pay more and get less than most other (7+ / 0-)

    countries in the developed world because of the regional monopolies for high speed internet service that has been given away to a literal handful of private companies.  These proposed rules will make a bad situation worse by giving a competitive advantage to larger companies and it will kill any attempts by smaller outlets and non-profits.  The result will be a reduction in access to knowledge and information that will cause the United States to be at a competitive disadvantage for decades.

    I can't believe that anyone would be in favor of this, except of course the small number of companies that already have control.  Ultimately, they will lose as well because consumers will be priced out of the market, especially those who use the internet for specialized content and information.

    Yet another example of short term profit over long term benefit and sustainability.  When will our business stop focusing so hard on the next quarter and look at the next decade to come?

  •  Right Wingers (6+ / 0-)

    Are thrilled right now that Obama's lobbyist henchmen are doing the deed for them as far as creating the fast lane so cable companies can monetize the crap out of it.

    Couple that with the likely sure fire approval of the Comcast merger in which they will own the internet lock stock and barrel and it is a right wingers dream.

    That is the striking part about this whole situation.

    We have a Democratic President giving Comcast a free pass to build a quasi monopoly, and then an industry lobbyist appointed by the President creating the rules for them to put a death grip on the last bastion of free information in this country and bleed it dry for every last dollar they can get.

    The right wing could dream up a better scenario if they tried, as they get what they want and have clean hands.

    Just to rub salt in our wounds I saw it suggested they start selling bumper stickers that said, "Obama lied and the internet died".

    Like they usually do they will demagogue an issue they are thrilled with the outcome on just because that is what they do.

  •  Is the petition here the same as... (3+ / 0-)

    ...the one at  (which i signed)

    Help us stop the FCC from crushing Net neutrality. Please sign our
    i suspect that the powers-that-be will ignore them all, but i would like to get in my maximum "this is wrong" for this issue.

    i also wrote my congressional representatives (one of which is stated to on the FCC's case about this); but again a profound sense of fatalism, (which is useful to the united oligarchic forces of comcast), prevails.   "Democratic" president, indeed...

  •  "Fast lane" is a misnomer (4+ / 0-)

    They're not going to build extra capacity for these companies.  What they'll do is shove all traffic into a new slow lane except for those who pay the bribe: their service will be the same as it is now, I'll bet.

  •  It's the new economy. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Choco8, davidincleveland

    The men who control big business have co-opted our government. Their return on investment from buying politicians and judges, and use of the revolving door with regulatory staff. In the new economy earnings and profits do not come from adding customers or building a better mousetrap, they come from using the power of government to drive more money to their companies. Killing net neutrality not only does this it makes harder for new competition to compete.

    As for Obama's role, he is the same guy pushing for the TPP, which has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with serving the interests of the men who control the large corporations. One explanation is that Obama is a Rubinite, that he believes that shit, and no amount of failures of those policies, no amount of evidence, will deter Obama from his beliefs. The other explanation is that Obama is simply a willing tool of our rich overlords. Obama does not get that the recession has never ended for almost 1/2 of this country; why should you think he could see the threat to net neutrality? This guy thinks the TPP is great.

    Obama says he supports net neutrality, but his office is already saying that's what this bill does. Just like TPP.

  •  Obviously its a bad proposal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    but I certainly sympathize with the difficulty the FCC has here.

    Because I think the courts, particularly the Supremes, are going to side with the cable companies on this if pushed to, and I think the FCC fears that too, so they are trying to come up with something they feel will keep the courts out of it while protecting some vestige of neutrality.

    I think they've obviously bent way too far out of that fear, but I do think I understand the fear, and it's a legit fear.

  •  I wholeheartedly agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher, freakofsociety

    with all the negative implications of the rule change. On the other hand, since when does the government or its agencies give a flying feck about consumers? If the corporate masters of Congress can profit even more at the behest of the peons, it's a done deal. Just wait until the FCC bends over for ATT in the spectrum sale deal.

    BTW, did you know that the leadership of the FCC is a revolving door for shills for the telecommunications industry?

    "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov

    by provocateur52 on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:58:07 PM PDT

  •  FIRE Tom Wheeler (4+ / 0-)

    The  very first thing that needs to be done to protect Net Neutrality is to fire Tom Wheeler. No cable industry lobbyist should be allowed within a hundred miles of any FCC meetings much less chairing the commission itself.

    +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

    by cybersaur on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 02:58:21 PM PDT

  •  internet and telephone infrastructure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher

    Our telecommunications infrastructure should be owned by all of us and operated by the U.S. Postal Service.

  •  when everything is owned by some plutocrat (0+ / 0-)

    in the oligarchy

    who is it that thinks the internet would remain neutral?

    it too will be owned by some billionaire...

    isn't that entirely obvious?

    fighting for net neutrality is not getting to the problem...

  •  Obama has got to get off the fence (0+ / 0-)

    on this and stop hiding behind the FCC to do his dirty work.  

  •  Here's how it works (0+ / 0-)

    I'm hearing a lot of misinformation about net neutrality from progressives, and everyone else.  I've been working with the Internet since the mid 90's, when almost no one had heard of it, and here are some facts.

    Content providers have always had to pay more for higher speed access to the Internet with their content.  This is a fact of life, and the way it should be.  A T3 connection costs more than a T1, which costs more than a fractional T1, etc.

    Internet users have always had to pay more for higher bandwidth connections.  A (now nearly extinct) dial-up modem connection costs less than a cable modem connection, which generally costs less than a fiber optic connection.

    As with all things, you get what you pay for.

    The problem arises when Internet Service Providers, who provide connections to consumers, decide that they can charge content providers so that their customers will have greater bandwith access to said content providers.  This is much like trying to imtermingle the affairs of church and state, as proscribed by the establishment clause of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.

    This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it's a vitally important one, and we need to clearly understand exactly what the problem is if we're going to address it.

  •  I went 'old school' on this one (0+ / 0-)

    I sent my representative a letter -- as in a snail mail letter. Here is the text:

    When the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated and other paradigm shifts to the broadcasting landscape came – such as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 – the rationale was, “With all the different ways there are to get information now, these regulations are unneeded.”
    That sounds good on the surface, but it’s very much comparing apples and oranges. Here’s why.
    In its most basic form, in order to watch or listen to a broadcast signal and the programming contained within, one only has to purchase an appropriate receiver and have a source of power. Then you tune in the desired over the air signal and enjoy yourself.
    However, there is an additional step to access the same programming/information via cable, satellite or the internet. And the key word is “access”. You must purchase the access at an additional cost. And, depending on the method used, you may have to purchase the amount of access. This goes (or can go) far and above the cost of the device and power.
    Therefore, gaining access to information via the internet is ALREADY inherently unequal. By eliminating net neutrality, an already unequal distribution system will be made EVEN MORESO.
    Even if the Fairness Doctrine were reestablished, the landscape of how information and entertainment content have so drastically changed, that it would make little difference.
    For example, in the Modern Family episode “Fifteen Percent”, the character Haley says, “Why should I have to learn how to use the remote? I watch TV on my computer.” (emphasis mine) It’s a throwaway line, but it shows how much our society has changed when it comes to how we get information and entertainment.
    The concept of “If you don’t like the content, simply change the channel/station.”, will be severely undermined if net neutrality is no more. You would still be able to change the channel or station – but all stations would no longer be equal. This is in addition to the already unequal access situation I referred to earlier. Is that REALLY what we want?

    "Free your mind and the rest will follow...."

    by midknightryder13 on Fri May 02, 2014 at 02:34:47 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, Bill in Portland Maine, glitterscale, Bob Love, meg, eeff, mzinformed, dpeifer1949, Iberian, navajo, abs0628, TexDem, Farugia, kj in missouri, Calidrissp, imicon, Steven D, boran2, Sybil Liberty, sb, Brecht, davidincleveland, marina, jrooth, denise b, freakofsociety, LakeSuperior, chimene, sc kitty, citizenx, basquebob, ChemBob, Laurence Lewis, where4art, Kayakbiker, Steve in Urbana, jilikins, LeftOverAmerica, Medium Head Boy, vigilant meerkat, cardboardurinal, HoundDog, DarkestHour, iburl, Rosaura, JVolvo, doinaheckuvanutjob, Lovo, blueoregon, Compostings, slksfca, markthshark, BeninSC, Cronesense, Dartagnan, ColoTim, paz3, Mary Mike, bahesmama, JML9999, Da Rock, TomP, Palafox, JayC, OleHippieChick, Youffraita, bythesea, Sharon Wraight, HarpboyAK, JamieG from Md, fayea, cybrestrike, ARS, maryabein, rbird, JesseCW, kevinpdx, Tommymac, Words In Action, LOrion, Loose Fur, Oh Mary Oh, slice, annieli, pajoly, Bluefin, allenjo, Catherine R, stone clearing, Player to be named later, gmats, Jed Lewison, trumpeter, justsayjoe, PorridgeGun, zukesgirl64, thomask, PhilJD, Liberal Mole, nyer11Oak, Auriandra, allergywoman, AnnetteK, wolf advocate, joanil, a2nite, JGibson, Letsgetitdone, Mr Robert, kellius, jan4insight, belinda ridgewood, OllieGarkey, Brown Thrasher, etherealfire, stvnjon, George3, CalBearMom, Stude Dude, mzkryz, Lily O Lady, atana, jbob, remembrance, Oregonemom, poopdogcomedy, HedwigKos, aresea, Yo Bubba, Drocedus, northerntier, GreenMother, Patango, River Rover, Lordcaradoc, starduster, skepticalcitizen, CenPhx, Rich Lyles, RUNDOWN, karma5230, Dodgerdog1, eagleray, ptressel, paulex, hbk, wiggin01, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, Cadillac64, Silky Humble, NewRomeIsBurning, DocSalvage

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site