Skip to main content

Net Neutrality - Corporate Interests keep working for death. Cartoon tombstone with
Don't let this happen.

Despite their earlier opposition, two Democrats on the Federal Communication Commission joined with the third, chair Tom Wheeler, to move forward with his proposed rule that would allow broadband companies to create, and charge for, a fast-lane of service for companies delivering content over the internet. That breaks net neutrality. The vote opens up a 120-day comment period, until July 15, when the FCC will vote on a final rule.
The proposal is not a final rule, but the three-to-two vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. […]

The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges.

The proposal has sparked a massive fight between two of the most powerful industries in the country—on one side, Silicon Valley, and on the other, companies such as Verizon and AT&T that built the pipes delivering Web content to consumers’ homes. The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers.

Yes, the telcos are so concerned about their customers. Tell us another, Verizon. Meanwhile, all of the companies that do actually innovate for consumers—the tech firms in question—argue that all of that real innovation will drag to a halt when companies no longer have a free and open internet on which to deliver their products.

We've got 120 days to push Congress, push the FCC and even push President Obama to urge the FCC to reject this rule and do what really needs to be done to save the internet: Reclassify broadband companies as public utilities and allow for real regulation.

Let's keep up the pressure. Please sign our petition to the FCC to keep a free and open internet.

10:03 AM PT: A note from Rachel Colyer on our campaigns team who was at the meeting: One of the Democrats,  Jessica Rosenworcel, expressed a great deal of concern about how the process moved forward. She wanted a delay. She was not an actual "yes" vote on the rule, but instead voted to "concur," which is not as strong as a "yes," and signals to Wheeler that he has a lot of work to do in the next 120 days to figure this out.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:31 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  goddam sellout scumball traitor/whorelets! (23+ / 0-)

    decent wages don't eliminate jobs. Republicans eliminate jobs; and workers, and prospects, and then excuse it all and call for more austerity. there is no end to their ignorant, arrogant avarice. only political dinosaurs support their treachery.

    by renzo capetti on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:39:34 AM PDT

    •  They're just following Obama's orders (28+ / 0-)

      He's the one who appointed them, they were chosen carefully for their willingness to do exactly as they're told.

      Put the pressure on the White House, where it belongs.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:51:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That AND your senators. (15+ / 0-)

        Obama doesn't have to run again so he has no consequence to pay. I have a feeling that's why he saved all this corporate legislation until his second term.

        However, senators will still run and still ask for your support.

        •  The diarist advocates "pushing" congress (15+ / 0-)

          But it's a lie. There's only one way to push a politician and that is to threaten them with your vote. And, as far as I can see, despite watching this country go backwards, year after year after year, it is the policy of this site to continue advocating the same thing - keep electing people just because they call themselves "Democrats".

          It doesn't matter how right wing they are. It doesn't matter what they do to the party and its brand. And it doesn't matter that allowing the Democratic party to move to the right actually helps Republicans get elected, that's the plan.

          Well, fuck that plan. I'm tired of listening to idiots leading the lambs to slaughter.

          I won't vote for one single Democrat if they allow Net Neutrality to be gutted. Period. And I don't give a damn if Satan himself is the opponent.

          •  And if anyone is interested in doing something (13+ / 0-)

            more than whining, here are the actual members of the senate commerce committee which oversees the FCC.

            Start here.

                Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia, Chairman
                Barbara Boxer, California
                Bill Nelson, Florida
                Maria Cantwell, Washington
                Mark Pryor, Arkansas
                Claire McCaskill, Missouri
                Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
                Mark Begich, Alaska
                Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
                Brian Schatz, Hawaii
                Ed Markey, Massachusetts
                Cory Booker, New Jersey
                John Walsh, Montana

            Here are the Republicans, not that it will matter much to them. They don't actually need our votes like the "democrats" do.

                John Thune, South Dakota, Ranking Member
                Roger Wicker, Mississippi
                Roy Blunt, Missouri
                Marco Rubio, Florida
                Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire
                Dean Heller, Nevada
                Dan Coats, Indiana
                Tim Scott, South Carolina
                Ted Cruz, Texas
                Deb Fischer, Nebraska
                Ron Johnson, Wisconsin

          •  They're worried about the midterms (11+ / 0-)

            Use it to your advantage.  They live in a bubble up there on The Hill. Wake them up.

            Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

            by Betty Pinson on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:17:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Betty when i actually start (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z, Betty Pinson

              Agreeing with you that means the situation has gotten really bad. Lol

              I love president Obama!!!

              by freakofsociety on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:54:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm an old hand (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Maverick80229, Words In Action

                at issues lobbying.  Learned a long time ago that, when the issue is really important, you have to step back from being a loyal partisan and hold everyone publicly accountable. Its the only way.

                If good Dems on The Hill change their stance and take a substantive public stance on the issue, you get to reward them, so its not a loss for partisanship.  But nothing is gained by allowing a Dem to get a pass on important issues.  It hurts good public policy and the Party.  

                One trick is to have good, honest relationships with DC Dems and tell them "I want you to do the right thing, here.  I've done my research on this issue.  Please trust my judgement on this issue and know that I will sing your praises loud and clear if you do the right thing. But if you don't, I have to put good public policy ahead of partisanship."

                The other trick is to keep an open mind about the issues you're willing to fight for.  Don't be afraid to go beyond your pet issues and support others if its for the greater good. Watch for issues/policy that aim for negative, wholesale systems change, undoing the foundations of good government. Do your research.

                That said, having to go against your own partisan loyalties on an issue is always difficult, but sometimes you have to do it.  More and more now in the era of Citizens United.

                Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

                by Betty Pinson on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:20:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Good for you!!! (4+ / 0-)

            I've gone to OUTCOMES BASED voting myself.  Now, I admit that this issue is not a core value voting issue for me like Social Security and Medicare but I TOTALLY SUPPORT the idea of just TOTALLY VOTING the issues that matter to you.  

            They got scared out of CCPI, temporarily I fear, but that's the only way.  We don't have money.  We only have votes.

            Petitions don't matter.  All they do is get you on a zillion e-mail lists.  

            VOTE ISSUES!!

            Anyone know where Hillary stands on any issue?  No?  Well that's the PLAN.  

            Don't let them get away with it.  

            And if someone wants to combine with me and VOTE my core issues, I will VOTE your core issues.  If you are with ME I am with YOU but that's got nothing to do with the D beside your name.  Are you with me on issues?  If not, do not count on my vote.

            And no one tell me it's about the Supreme Court.  There are few to no issues that can't succeed if Congress passes the right legislation and the President actually does his damn job and executes policy on behalf of WE the PEOPLE not THEM who BOUGHT THEM.

          •  This is a litmus test (6+ / 0-)

            Anyone that supports Tom Wheeler's plan is dead to me. Any so-called Democrat that doesn't support real Net Neutrality will receive no support nor any vote from me. The Internet is far too important to modern life to allow Net Neutrality to be eviscerated by a bunch of corporatists parading around as Democrats. If the Democratic party doesn't fix this, millions of technical people such as myself will no longer bother to lift a finger of support. If the Democrats thought 2010 was a bad year for them-- fuck over the Internet and find out just how truly morose the party's prospects can truly be.  
            This is a line in the sand, Democrats.

            +++ 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 Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:19:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  What does the White House care? (12+ / 0-)

        Obama has got his.  

        Now, let's all sing HILLARY is the ONE!!!! on cue, just because.  

        •  Because Hillary secretly controls the FCC (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, freakofsociety

          with her Brainghazi glasses.

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

          by atana on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:12:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No one is saying that (3+ / 0-)

            But your comment is a good example of the pushback that advocates for Common Carrier status for the Internet can expect.    If they want to win, they must take it as a sign that their advocacy efforts are working.

            Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

            by Betty Pinson on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:23:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, I see: *I* secretly control the FCC (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mostserene1

              because I support Hillary.

              Makes sense.

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

              by atana on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:25:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  yet.... (0+ / 0-)

              Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

              by annieli on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:26:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry, but I'm calling BS on your comment (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              I support common carrier status for ISPs as being a common sense regulatory solution.  But that doesn't mean that I believe the paranoid crap that some are spouting here about conspiracies involving the president to gut net neutrality.  And I think that Atana's comment does a good job of ridiculing that sort of thinking, as it deserves to be.

              There is a long history of many presidents of both parties treating the FCC as a dumping ground for political hacks and cronies.  This happens because the FCC has generally been considered as being relatively low on the political totem pole, and tends to get scant consideration by the president.  The result is that the quality of the appointments to the FCC has been very hit or miss going back almost to the original creation of the FCC in 1934 -- and, for that matter, probably the predecessor regulatory body, the FRC (Federal Radio Commission) in 1927.  I'm not defending this attitude, as I think that the FCC should get far more attention and concern than it generally has, as communications issues are critically important to our country.

              That said, the appropriate response isn't to spout ignorant and foolish conspiracy theories about secret plans to gut the Internet, or whatever.

              Instead, the response should be to put pressure on the FCC that will shape the final vote in July.  That pressure comes from filing a large number of comments in the rulemaking proceeding, as it becomes difficult for the FCC to justify a vote to gut net neutrality when comments are running about 500,000:1 against that decision.  And believe it or not, the comment record can actually help the FCC defend a decision in front of the courts.

              Political pressure also has it's place, so flooding the White House and congressional offices with comments about this proceeding is also useful.   That can lead to pressure on the commission to make the right decision, as well.  But calling those people whores and sellouts isn't going to do much to get them to pressure the FCC, is it?

              If Democrats proclaim the the Earth is round and Republicans insist it is flat, we will shortly see a column in the Washington Post claiming the the earth is really a semi-circle.

              by TexasTom on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:36:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But they are whores and sellouts. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade

                We can do both. Send the stern letters and call them by their real names.

                I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

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

                by Words In Action on Fri May 16, 2014 at 07:27:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  less risk more progressive support now since (3+ / 0-)

            it would be nice if Hillary came out in favor of Net Neutrality now even if she went against it as POTUS.

            Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

            by annieli on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:25:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Has the president even spoken on this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              atana

              just wondering....

              Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

              by freakofsociety on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:20:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The WH issued a response to a petition to order (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annieli, Betty Pinson

                the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers. In February, they posted this response on https://petitions.whitehouse.gov.

                Official The White House Response to Restore Net Neutrality By Directing the FCC to Classify Internet Providers as "Common Carriers".
                Reaffirming the White House's Commitment to Net Neutrality

                By Gene Sperling and Todd Park

                Thank you to everyone who has signed on to this petition in support of a free and open Internet. Since his days as a United States Senator, President Obama has embraced the principle of net neutrality. As the President recently noted, his campaign for the White House was empowered by an open Internet; it allowed millions of supporters to interact with the President and each other in unprecedented fashion. That experience helped give rise to the creation of this very platform -- the We The People website -- where Americans can express their opinions on any topic and receive a response from the White House. Rights of free speech, and the free flow of information, are central to our society and economy -- and the principle of net neutrality gives every American an equal and meaningful opportunity to participate in both. Indeed, an open Internet is an engine for freedom around the world.

                Preserving an open Internet is vital not just to the free flow of information, but also to promoting innovation and economic productivity. Because of its openness, the Internet has allowed entrepreneurs -- with just a small amount of seed money or a modest grant -- to take their innovative ideas from the garage or the dorm room to every corner of the Earth, building companies, creating jobs, improving vital services, and fostering even more innovation along the way.

                Absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries. The resulting decline in the development of advanced online apps and services would dampen demand for broadband and ultimately discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. An open Internet removes barriers to investment worldwide.

                A wide spectrum of stakeholders and policymakers recognize the importance of these principles. In the wake of last month's court decision, it was encouraging to hear major broadband providers assert their commitment to an open Internet.

                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.

                The petition asked that the President direct the FCC to reclassify Internet service providers as "common carriers" which, if upheld, would give the FCC a distinct set of regulatory tools to promote net neutrality. The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet -- a principle that this White House vigorously supports.

                Gene Sperling is Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. Todd Park is the United States Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President.

                Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.

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

                by atana on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:41:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gene Sperling, enough said (6+ / 0-)

                  Typical response, vague, contradictory, BS.

                  From your comment

                  The petition asked that the President direct the FCC to reclassify Internet service providers as "common carriers" which, if upheld, would give the FCC a distinct set of regulatory tools to promote net neutrality. The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet -- a principle that this White House vigorously supports.
                  What does that mean?  Translation: "We're pretending we have no power over Wheeler's decisions. If he disagrees with you, don't blame us. We're with you folks, until we aren't." Very, very, very vague, which tells us a lot.

                  Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

                  by Betty Pinson on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:29:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Democrat Double-speak (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Betty Pinson, Words In Action

                    Show me what Obama does and I'll show you what he believes. President Obama's words have no meaning. His actions have told a very different story.  
                    If he truly wanted a "free and open Internet" he wouldn't have appointed a piece of shit cable industry lobbyist like Wheeler to run it. Firing Wheeler is the best way to start fixing this latest self-inflicted wound. Short of that, any words out of the White House on this matter can safely be ignored as the dishonest bullshit that they are.

                    +++ 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 Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:31:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Too bad it appointed Wheeler if that's what it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Creosote

                  really wanted.

                  I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

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

                  by Words In Action on Fri May 16, 2014 at 07:28:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  the double speak (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Creosote

                  in this bogus response made my eyes glaze over and my brain just can't do double think. How absurd this WH's statements have become. The current Dem. administration may be more articulate then the Bushies were but they aren't able to make the case for their absurd two legs better.

            •  That gif is a hoot! n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli, Words In Action

              Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

              by Betty Pinson on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:23:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe she does, how would I know? (4+ / 0-)

            I mean it's not like she's talking to ME dontcha know.  

            And she does NOT have my vote.  Not saying she can't EARN it but she isn't getting it by having dinner with every damn plutocrat in the US.

            So far, she's given me NOTHING.

          •  Who appointed Wheeler? When a fox is put in (0+ / 0-)

            charge of the henhouse, you can bet he was put there by a bigger fox.

            Used to be we'd get R's appointing industry shills. Now it's mainstreamed into the "Democratic Party."

            I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

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

            by Words In Action on Fri May 16, 2014 at 07:26:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  When a fox is put in charge of henhouse, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade

        you can rightly assume he was put there by a fox.

        I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

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

        by Words In Action on Fri May 16, 2014 at 07:24:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  link to the blockquote (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevemb, La Gitane

      "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

      by MartyM on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:51:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Corrupt industry shills all (21+ / 0-)

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:44:16 AM PDT

  •  .... (19+ / 0-)
    two Democrats on the Federal Communication Commission joined with the third, chair Tom Wheeler
    Democrats?

    "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

    by smiley7 on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:45:18 AM PDT

  •  Um, I'm not the best mathematician (14+ / 0-)

    in the world, but:

    The vote opens up a 120-day comment period, until July 15, when the FCC will vote on a final rule.
    Is someone inserting a couple of extra months between now and July 15th?


    "Republicans are shameless dicks. No, that’s not fair. Republican politicians are shameless dicks." - Al Franken

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:47:47 AM PDT

  •  state ripoffs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian

    New York: http://newnetworks.com/...

    New Jersey: http://newnetworks.com/...

    New York City cable franchise: http://documents.dps.ny.gov/...={4C5F066C-13E2-468D-9448-594E7BDBBA27}

    New York City: Verizon's Empire City Subway, Comptroller's report: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/...

    Redlining in NYC: http://archive.advocate.nyc.gov/...

    DiBlasio's pick of Maya Wiley shows NYC will tackle economic injustice and broadband: http://www.thenation.com/...

    "Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place." -- Mandela

    by agoldnyc on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:47:53 AM PDT

  •  Reinforcing the (4+ / 0-)

    meme right before the midterm elections. Good job Democrats!  

  •  Possible correction? (7+ / 0-)
    The vote opens up a 120-day comment period, until July 15
    Isn't it only 60 days between now and July 15th? I'm confused...

    We are all students and teachers. I often ask myself: "What did I come here to learn, and what did I come to teach?"

    by nerafinator on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:48:58 AM PDT

  •  Hooray for Democrats! Looking out for the corps (21+ / 0-)

    just like the Republicans...  bipartisanship!

    Also a big shout out to Obama for his pro-business appointments to the FCC.  Where would democracy be without that kind of forward-looking leadership?

    Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

    by The Dead Man on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:49:23 AM PDT

  •  signed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, MartyM, stevemb, Brown Thrasher

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:49:47 AM PDT

  •  As long as our elections are bought... (18+ / 0-)

    then we should not be surprised when the goods are delivered.

  •  Unpaid Verizon Intern Wheeler (15+ / 0-)

    really should not be the one making the rules.  There really should be a non-compete clause for FCC commissioners, stating that if you become an FCC commisioner, you can never work for a telecom.  Ever.  This Quid Pro Quo regulatory bribery needs to end.

  •  This is the reason they give?? (25+ / 0-)
    The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers.
    When are people going to stop believing this bullshit, that rich people will stop being rich if they are taxed, that companies will stop hiring people if the minimum wage goes up, that oil companies will stop pumping oil if there are more regulations, and the telco's will stop upgrading their lines if they aren't allowed to create VIP lanes?? Seriously??

    Listen people, there will always be rich people. Always. The Randian idea that the Koch brothers or Bill O'Reilly will suddenly close shop and disappear in the wilderness if they have to obey certain laws is absolutely ludicrous.

    ATT, you can still upgrade your lines all you want. And well, if you don't want to then someone else will come along and build better lines. That's capitalism, you assholes. What you want is a monopoly. Maybe we should just take it all away from you and let the government run it, in the best interest of all people.

    Money should be treated like any other controlled substance; if you can't use it responsibly then you don't get to use it.

    by La Gitane on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:52:15 AM PDT

  •  This battle is far from over. What we need to do (11+ / 0-)

    is launch a big, successful online campaign just like we did against SOPA and PIPA.  We can stop this but we have to make it a trending topic on social media.  You may hate Facebook and Twitter but these can be our weapons.

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:56:33 AM PDT

  •  Why do these FCC dirtbag scumbuckets ignore (11+ / 0-)

    the public outcry? Has the ACLU filed a brief so its lawyers can testify?

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:56:51 AM PDT

  •  are they going to refund (8+ / 0-)

    all the fees we've paid to provide broadband to everyone, or are those just more profits for the telcos?

    (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

    by PJEvans on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:59:07 AM PDT

  •  And Nary a Word (13+ / 0-)

    from the so called Democratic President who appointed a Telecom Lobbyist to run the FCC.  Need I remind anyone, Geithner, Summers, DeMarco to name a few who did nothing but tow the Republican line.

  •  I suspect the two democrats (0+ / 0-)

    voted yes, simply to move the process to the next stage. Their votes might be very different when the final vote comes in. Harry Reid often casts votes like this simply to move to the next stage where votes count.

    •  They should have killed it (0+ / 0-)

      Even if they see the light and vote no next time around, the idiot republicans will vote yes along with Wheeler the cable industry whore and ISPs will start charging everyone tons of money to carry their content. Dailykos might just get a list of offerings from Comcast one day with tiered pricing for fast lane access to Comcast customers:    

      56k free!
      128k $100/month
      512k $500/month
      1mbps with free Digital Phone only $900/month!  
      This is how the "Democrats" are fucking us all.

      +++ 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 Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:45:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a big one (5+ / 0-)

    Start to complaint to the White House, Congress critters, the FCC, anyone you can. They need to know this is a total sell out stinker.

    Maybe we should send a bunch of guys armed on ATVs to the FCC and claim that a militia of freedom against tyrannical government is needed to be heard. I would like all the damn conservatives that get their anuses tight in knots about cows grazing would comment on a real limitation of the first amendment.

  •  Expect a lot of distractions in the next 120 days (3+ / 0-)

    But the focus must be kept on net neutrality.

  •  Cue the Rotating Gallery of Villains! (5+ / 0-)
    Despite their earlier opposition, two Democrats on the Federal Communication Commission joined with the third, chair Tom Wheeler, to move forward with his proposed rule
    A Democratic Classic. There's always a few potential "recruits" waiting in the wings.
    The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.

    One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

    •  Very, very true (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, Choco8, maryabein, aliasalias

      The WH, corporate lobbyists and conservative Dems in Congress have successfully used this tactic to persuade semi-honest Dems to go along with their schemes.

      Their sales pitch:

      1. These policy changes will be unpopular with the voters, but better for them (yeah, right)

      2. We'll protect you from voter backlash by letting other "safe" Dems take the blame

      3. We'll give you lots and lots of money from the wealthy campaign war chest that we control.  If you don't join us, you won't get a nickel.

      It worked pretty well during the hacking of ACA and the dumping of pro-labor issues from the legislative agenda, but the "strategy" has become less and less successful as time goes by.  It failed completely during the Social Security Chained CPI fiasco.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:58:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Anonymous should team with tech cos. to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nchristine

    create a free code that breaks the wall and lets everyone into the "fast lane". Screw the telcos and their profits.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:09:39 AM PDT

  •  Put heavy pressure on the White House, ASAP (14+ / 0-)

    The WH is the origin of this craptacular privatization public policy.

    They tried to get the ball rolling on Social Security (they're still working on a back door way to privatize it with MYRA).  They almost succeeded. Had it not been for aggressive pushback and pressure from citizen activists, chained CPI would have been implemented.

    We're coming to the time in the arc of the Administration when we have to ask ourselves if we care more about critical issues and damaging public policy or loyalty to our party's currrent POTUS.  When Obama is the person driving the policy, you have to call him on it, loudly.

    If you don't want to take him on, then accept the fact that you'll probably not succeed in your policy advocacy.

    Most importantly, be fearless.  When the WH and Congress start pushing back, using their power in the netroots (yes, even here at DKos) and media to attack you, it means you're winning.

    Do not back down. Embrace the criticism and pushback and you'll win.  That's how we won with Social Security cuts. Failure to do this cost us the Public Option in ACA.  They'll tell you it will hurt Dems to criticize them. Not true, if they're pursuing policy changes that are unpopular with the public.  

    This is not the last of these battles we'll be fighting before Obama leaves office in 2016.  They likely have a very long list of "piratization" projects to push through in the next 2 years.  

    Take the battle to the WH as well as Congress. Fight on both fronts.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:14:19 AM PDT

  •  I can survive just fine without (0+ / 0-)

    any of it-already decided the first time I see any increase--I'm off the Net.
    If enuf people feel the same---If folks can understand "life as we know it won't end" without it.
    I know, I'm old--and likely standing in a field screaming to no-one.
    But hitting them in their pocket-book when they invade Ours? Can be pretty powerful..............

  •  Bastards, the lot of them!! Verizon, ATT, Comcast (7+ / 0-)

    , etc all want every one to pay to get on and to use the 'net.  They want to get paid twice for the same data, coming into the system and going out.

    I swear that they're going to make the 'net messed up packages like the cable system is.  Talk about stiffing innovation.

  •  Sometimes I get the feeling (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbastard, atana

    That the main thing Wheeler wants to avoid is classifying broadband services as common carriers and he is open to whatever you can do for net neutrality that doesn't require reclassification.

    Is there a plan B or does everything ride on reclassifying broadband providers?

  •  Mignon Clyburn & Jessica Rosenworcel (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbastard, Choco8
    Mignon L. Clyburn (born March 22, 1962) is the daughter of U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn and a member of the Federal Communications Commission. She was nominated for an FCC Commissioner on June 25, 2009, and sworn in on August 3, 2009. She was renominated for an FCC Commissioner on June 7, 2012, and her current term as a commissioner will end in 2017. On May 20, 2013, she was appointed by President Barack Obama as Acting Chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission.[1]

    Prior to her nomination to the FCC, she served for 11 years as the representative of South Carolina's 6th congressional district on the South Carolina Public Service Commission (PSC). She was sworn in for her first term in July 1998, and was reelected by the South Carolina General Assembly in 2002 and 2006. She served as the chair of the PSC from July 2002 through July 2004. [2]

    Jessica Rosenworcel (born July 12, 1971) was nominated as a member of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by President Barack Obama. She was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012, and was formally sworn into office on May 11, 2012, for a term through June 30, 2015.[1]

    Prior to joining the FCC, she served as Senior Communications Counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, under the leadership of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D–WV). She previously served in the same role on the Committee under the leadership of Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D–HI).

    Jessica seems like a sharp one who actually knows what a router is.  https://recode.net/...

    Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

    by The Dead Man on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:16:55 AM PDT

  •  Ask nicely, hat in hand? (6+ / 0-)

    So our plan is to "push President Obama to urge the FCC to reject this rule?"  Excuse me, but that is weak, weak, weak.   That "ask nicely, hat in hand" approach has never worked for liberals.  Instead, how about we

    A)  Demand that President Obama acknowledge that appointing a telecom lobbyist to head the FCC was a mistake.

    B)  Demand that President Obama correct that mistake by firing the motherfucker.

    In other words, let's not be timid supplicants for once. Obama needs to be made aware that we believe it was outrageous that a scumbag like Tom Wheeler was appointed in the first place.

    •  Firing Wheeler is a necessary start (0+ / 0-)

      Wheeler is a cable industry whore and kicking that son of a bitch to the curb would be a good start for the White House.  
      I'm so furious about this I may sit out 2014. Voting for "Democrats" that govern like republicans is a waste of time, money and energy and I won't be a party to any of it. I'm sick of holding my tongue every time some asshole Democrat helps enact GOP policy. Enough is enough and Obama has crossed a line this time.

      +++ 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 Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:53:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  what does reclassification get us? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban

    The ISPs will still be the ones building infrastructure, we'll still have congestion, and with "ultra-high def" streaming it will get worse. Service will stink. Prices might go down, in direct relation to the degradation of quality.

    I'm fine with reclassifying them as common carrier, but that would have to come hand-in-hand with federal, state, and local investments in network infrastructure.

    Do you see that happening anytime soon? If it doesn't the result will be exactly what the ISPs are threatening, there will be no new investment in infrastructure.

    And that's assuming that the courts allow the FCC to reclassify broadband, which is not a slam-dunk case. And while that's being litigated we'll have the worst of both.

    •  level 3 claims ISP intenetionally cause congestion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevemb, Brown Thrasher, cybersaur

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

      it's been widely reported

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by greenbastard on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:33:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Level 3 wants to be paid more! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        News at 11.

        What does that have to do with anything?

        •  What does it have to do with anything? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybersaur

          I refer you to your comment:

          we'll still have congestion
          which appears to be the thrust of your argument

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:39:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  for good measure, I recommend this EFF article (0+ / 0-)

            https://www.eff.org/...

            it covers alot of ground

            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

            by greenbastard on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:42:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  very interesting (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              I liked this part especially:

              That meant Comcast was trying to charge users to connect to the Internet and charge data centers to connect to users—a doubly profitable solution. The companies have since struck a cost-sharing deal, the finer details of which are spelled out in secretive peering agreements.
              So in 2010, Comcast charged Level 3 for access to its users and charged its users for access to Level 3. And the internet and everything we know and love was destroyed.

              Oh wait. No. Nothing happened. Nobody noticed except Level 3 and Comcast and the internet continued on pretty much the same as it used to be.

              This is how business works. TANSTAAFL. You want your internet connection to be faster, more reliable and carry more data? You want to watch "ultra high-def" streaming on three tvs and your PC at the same time? Someone needs to build that network out.

              Simply put, non-neutral behavior isn’t only a matter of the relationship between ISPs, websites, and users.
              Yup. "Net neutrality" is far more complicated than that (and a lot more nebulous a concept than many here seem to think). The internet is not going to fall apart, the world is not going to collapse because the FCC allows ISPs to "peer" directly with content providers.
              •  TANSTAAFL is libertatian code (3+ / 0-)

                for "we have to put up with the gross inefficiencies of unregulated capitalism".

                No, we don't. The ISPs are showing exactly why the Internet must be a public good -- like the interstate highway system.

                We want more Internet capacity, we build it as a nation -- and we own it as a nation.

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

                by atana on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:51:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm speaking in libertarian code! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  duhban

                  This is what you said:

                  We want more Internet capacity, we build it as a nation -- and we own it as a nation.
                  And here's the post I wrote that started this thread:
                  I'm fine with reclassifying them as common carrier, but that would have to come hand-in-hand with federal, state, and local investments in network infrastructure.
                  So we're saying the same thing. No one is going to build the network of the future for free. We can (and should) build that network with tax dollars, but if Congress wont, and the ISPs wont, then who will?
              •  Free lunch? WTF? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybersaur
                This is how business works. TANSTAAFL. You want your internet connection to be faster, more reliable and carry more data? You want to watch "ultra high-def" streaming on three tvs and your PC at the same time? Someone needs to build that network out.
                I already pay for the bandwidth I use... twice over. Once for home broadband access and again for bandwidth on the remote virtual server that houses my email/website/VPN/etc. I already pay more money and get less service than almost anywhere else in the 'civilized' world. The telcos are rent-seeking here, period.
                •  you may have a legitimate beef (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  duhban

                  the ISPs may well be rent seeking, though the evidence is mostly circumstantial at this point.

                  I already pay more money and get less service than almost anywhere else in the 'civilized' world.
                  You might pay more, but I think you probably get about the same service. There are places with higher speeds, but if you've got Comcast, you're in the ballpark. We do pay more in the United States (probably not as much as you think), but I think that strongly reflects our costs of living and the amount of public investment that went into building internet infrastructure (along with a number of smaller considerations, like population density, and municipal regulations).

                  Would you pay more to wire up the next town over? What about to connect a rural town in another state with only 100 people? Would you pay more to keep your service the same while your ISP adds customers?

                  I think the answer for most people is "no".

                  •  I checked (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm losing to friends/family overseas in price or bandwidth or both. And telcos in many other places are faster to put new techs into production. Germany might have G.fast as early as next year for example. At any rate, none of this changes the fact that I'm already paying for what I use in 'both' directions.

                    The next town over is wired. Rural communities are wired. There's even dark fiber in the ground. Why in heck should I pay my ISP more to add extremely profitable customers? That makes no sense. They should be working for their margins.

                    Consumers and service providers haven't been 'getting away' with anything under defacto neutrality. That's a self-serving telco lobby frame. None of these objections has anything to do with the actual issue of neutrality.

  •  How do you explain to young voters (3+ / 0-)

    that there is a difference between democrats and republicans? This has made it more difficult.

    If we lie to the government, it's a felony...but if they lie to us it's politics.

    by rmb on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:26:38 AM PDT

  •  a preview of a Democratic USSC nomination (0+ / 0-)

    that's United States Supreme Court, if it's not clear.

    I would think that a nominee to replace Ginsburg would be to her right and a nominee to replace Scalia would be...well, pretty far right! And that's if Obama makes the appointment or if Hillary Clinton wins and makes the appointment.

    Dear NSA: I am only joking.

    by Shahryar on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:30:11 AM PDT

  •  Something to think about. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smiley7, Brown Thrasher, ceebee7

    Obama is currently looking to solidify his legacy. He is worried about being remembered as big brother.  Thus the sudden push for new roads and bridges and the plus the recently released study on climate change.  Seems like a good time for him to push for gutting the internet.  Because anyone who complains can be reminded that there is an election very soon and we should all just be quiet or it could be worse.  He is going to hold the dem party hostage while voters fear a far worse consequence if we don't just look to the future and forget the past.  
    Democrats cannot let this happen, we can't let out party be ruled by the inevitable fear that will descend upon us for speaking out.  We must remind Obama this is how he will be remembered.  Killing the internet is will ultimately kill this country by hindering all that has made it great.  He should be reminded, the people of this country should be told and should be our highest priority.  Because once we start down that road all the other concerns we have right now will seem quite petty.

  •  Obama betrayal (8+ / 0-)

    I have never felt more betrayed by President Obama than I do today.  This is huge, and unlike the failure to prosecute the banksters, there are no complications.  Consolidating power in the hands of the telecoms is 100% terrible and unnecessary.

    I work in technology.  If net neutrality dies in the USA, it may be time to move to another country.

  •  ok so they control the pipe (3+ / 0-)

    we now need a new pipe that they don't control.

  •  The what I really think post will arrive.......... (0+ / 0-)

    after your neighbor finishes streaming "Gone with the wind."

    "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

    by smiley7 on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:39:15 AM PDT

  •  Question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sneakers563

    Don't they already do this, as far as tiered service?  I mean, you have a choice of purchasing really shitty internet service, like a  1.5 DSL line, or pay a lot more for faster service.  I personally pay for a 45mbps line because I can't stand slowness - the point being we're already tiered on service.

    And now, with society moving towards more streaming and dumping their cable providers, those 'series of tubes' are clogging up, mostly on cable lines that are shared with everyone in the neighborhood.  I really don't buy the 'stifling innovation' argument since that would imply that the current technology is as good as it gets.  

    I'm not saying anyone is wrong, just that this hardly seems to be the end of the world.

    'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

    by luvbrothel on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:41:32 AM PDT

    •  Have You Ever Looked at (3+ / 0-)

      the speed you actually get?  Never have I seen mine close to what I pay for.

    •  That's on the consumer end (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nchristine, Brown Thrasher, cybersaur

      This is on the provider end. It won't matter how fast your internet plan is if the provider is throttled because they can't afford to pay / compete with your ISP.

      For instance, suppose you want to watch a new streaming service in HD and so you purchase a top-tier uber-expensive internet plan from your ISP. That won't matter one bit unless the streaming service also pays your ISP to be in their fast lane. Once they hit the limit that the ISP has set for the slow lane, all that extra bandwidth you're paying for is going to go to waste. The situation is even worse if the ISP has a competing service and decides to encourage you to use their service by throttling everyone else.

      To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

      by sneakers563 on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:13:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Those concerns seem to be addressed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        in the proposal.  I seriously doubt that it would be that easy for an ISP to decide to throttle service for no reason other than to give their preferred content provider better access.  But I don't believe we're talking 'throttling' service, rather giving faster service to those who want to pay, like they do for us end users.  Would it affect the current speeds now for those who don't want to pay?  Probably not.  Why would it?  On the other hand, with more and more switching to streaming, content provider servers would be overwhelmed, so in a way, a tiered system makes perfect sense.

        Anywho, this seems to be moving forward, so we'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out.  My feeling is that it will hardly be noticeable to the general public.

        'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

        by luvbrothel on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:20:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am really unsure on this (0+ / 0-)

    What is really wrong with charging users more money based on their total usage and average speeds?    It is done with every other commodity.    Water, electricity, sewage, garbage.   All usage comes with a cost.

    I am in a position different from most folks on here, because I operate several servers that use very little bandwidth except when I am trying to move a big file.

    Almost all ISP's charge for bandwidth at "the 95th percentile".    Just a few high speed usage spikes will push my price up for the whole month.   I am forced into the slow lane already.  Transfers that could take ONE hour take 24 hours or more.

    That means that if I want fast speeds for my server on Sunday to do backups, I have to pay at that max speed as if I was using it all the time.   This is under the current so-called "neutral" system.

    Excess bandwidth is VERY EXPENSIVE now.  I don't see how this law could make it worse.

    I feel like my small business is subsidizing the heavy video streamers and I am not happy about it.   I think heavy users should pay more than I do.

    •  They want to charge Netflix more to upload their (0+ / 0-)

      stuff and they also want the consumer pay for the download.  That's paying twice for the same data stream.

      That's just one issue of 'net neutrality.

      PS - Comcast and others already charge you for x gb download for x price and charge y for y overage.  So, those that watch lots of streaming already have to purchase larger download packages or pay overage fees.

      •  They are each paying half. (0+ / 0-)

        If Netflix dumps a load of data into the 'pipes', somebody has to take it at the other end.

        They are not paying twice for the same bandwidth.   Each is paying half the cost.    For content to move from Point A to Point B there must be somebody at each end.  They should share the cost.

        •  And you just love Hulu's service because they (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD

          provide a similar service and they magically don't use up a whole bunch of bandwidth.  Never mind it's now owned by Comcast and with the trend that ATT is starting by 0 counting their 'preferred' sites/applications, Hulu will get priority and not counted against user download limits.  But, nope, it's not using up bandwidth.  Only Netflix uses up bandwidth.  Neither does on-line gaming, does it??

          You're (general you) making Netflix the bad guy when they're only middlen in bad.  It's companies like Verizon, ATT, Comcast, etc that are the real bad guys in this whole deal.  Netflix was one of those 'net innovators.  Way back in the day, ATT and MCI (now owned by Verizon) were the backbone innovators.  Now, they're just resting on their laurels and not really doing much to improve anything.  (Especially after Bell Labs spun off ATT)  They got us and the federal gov't to shell out tons of money to build the backbone and much of the last mile.  They've gotten the feds to agree to rate increases because they said that they needed the money up front to make improvements. They haven't made any improvements.  Now they're going to the feds and saying if they can't play favorites they won't be able to upgrade.  Never mind we've been paying increased fees for years for the upgrades already.

          It's about greed and control of information.

      •  netflix also uses up over 1/3 of the internet too (0+ / 0-)

        that's not sustainable with peering agreements and if those break then the whole web might actually break

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:39:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The problem isn't charging for use of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher, DeeDee001, aliasalias

      bandwidth, it's giving preferential treatment to certain types of content on that bandwidth.

      We are trying to avoid a scenario where moving X number of gigs of files for backup costs more or less than moving the same amount of gigs via video streaming, for example. It should be treated like water; the cost is the same per gallon whether you are washing your car or using it to make soup.

       

      •  Cost of transport (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        Both water and electricity do cost more if one specific use puts a strain on the system that can't be handled with existing infrastructure.

        The way I see it, Netflix and other streaming content providers  are hogging the available bandwidth and making it harder for small business and low quantity users to compete.

        I should not have to pay for the use of a 20" pipe once a week at the same monthly rate as someone who fills that pipe to capacity all day long.

        At my home, we have a "saver switch" that disables our air conditioner for fifteen minutes every hour during peak demand.    We pay less because we do not demand top tier delivery.

        •  That's kind of my point; (0+ / 0-)

          you already pay more if you put more strain on the system, just like with water.  If you need 10mbps you are going to pay more than someone that only needs 1mbps. Just like how if you use 1,000 gallons of water per day you will pay more than someone that uses 100. That's the existing system.

          What the ISPs are trying to do here is charge you more based on WHAT you are doing, not HOW MUCH of it you are doing. So they want to charge Netflix users more to move a gig of data than they would charge another user to move a gig of different data.

          So basically companies like Netflix will be forced to pay ISPs a fee OR their customers could face slower access to Netflix... or if you are more pessimistic maybe we will see ISP's cutting off access to the websites of political candidates that they don't like, or negotiating with Amazon to block the websites of companies that compete with Amazon, etc. Don't underestimate how ruthless companies like Comcast are.

          It's a can of worms that we don't want to open, and even if it saved the ISPs money I have a bridge to sell to you if you think that ANY of those savings would be passed along to the consumer.

    •  We need to build more capacity (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher, HCKAD, nchristine

      The Internet is infrastructure -- like the interstate highway system. It should not be under private ownership at all. If the ISPs don't want be public utilities, we should nationalize the US Internet infrastructure and form a public-sector utility to run it on a strictly non-profit basis.

      Or, at the very least, if there were a real threat of that happening, the ISPs would curb their greed in public and act like responsible corporate citizens rather than mafioso extortionists.

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

      by atana on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:28:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  :( this makes me really cranky (0+ / 0-)

    N/T

    I love president Obama!!!

    by freakofsociety on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:52:05 AM PDT

  •  This is a problem. (0+ / 0-)
    Jessica Rosenworcel, expressed a great deal of concern about how the process moved forward. She wanted a delay.
    A vote like this (with stated "concern") is chickenshite.
  •  Do they realize how much they are turning (3+ / 0-)

    Millennial voters off with this shit? How out of touch with the voting public are these people? This seriously makes me mad!

    Obama is the most progressive president in my lifetime.

    by freakofsociety on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:18:44 AM PDT

  •  Oh, boo-frickin hoo: (6+ / 0-)
     ...they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers.
    According to Comcast's own documents, they managed to invest in 26 acquisitions and merge with AT&T.  Maybe they could divert some funds from acquisitions  to "faster connections for consumers".

    I don't know what's been trickling down, but it hasn't been pleasant---N. Pelosi

    by Russycle on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:27:08 AM PDT

  •  The problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobtmn, nchristine

    is that it would allow Comcast to, say, allow Hulu (it's own video streaming service) to travel on the "fast" internet, while relegating everyone elses video streaming service to the "slow" internet.  So basically they could make everyone else's video service suck thus forcing you to use Hulu.  Or they could extort huge sums of money (basically whatever price Verizon demands) from the other video services in order for their service to "not suck".  

    This isn't about bandwidth.  It's about packet priority on the internet.  All packets should have the same priority. Once you allow the ISP to say that THEIR packets are more important than their competitors packets, you're f***ed, and THAT is what the FCC is doing.

  •  A 120 day period ending July 15th (0+ / 0-)

    The initial comment period lasts until July 15. Reply comments are allowed until September 10th.  I hope that clears up some confusion.

  •  A link to file official comments to the record (0+ / 0-)

    Link:  http://apps.fcc.gov/...

    Feel fee to copy/paste or email and share.

  •  Here's a copy of a letter (2+ / 0-)

    that I received from Sen. Pat Leahy in response to one of the many petitions I signed about this matter.

    Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to accept public comment on various proposals to reinstate net neutrality rules.  I appreciate that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is soliciting input on a range of approaches, including whether or not to reclassify broadband providers as so-called "common carriers," but I wanted to share my concern over certain aspects of what was voted on today.

    The most troubling aspect of Chairman Wheeler's proposal is the possibility that new rules will allow broadband providers to charge websites or applications tolls for access to end-users.  Paid arrangements between providers and websites do not reflect open Internet principles and I will not endorse any effort by the FCC to support those kinds of agreements.  The very essence of net neutrality is that a better idea or service should be allowed to succeed on its merits and not have to pay tolls to reach potential customers.  Open Internet values have allowed the Internet to grow into the ultimate marketplace for ideas and they must be protected.  

    It is unacceptable to enact rules that simply pay lip service to the phrase net neutrality but actually undermine those principles.  While I take Chairman Wheeler at his word that he would vigorously enforce the rules adopted by the FCC and carefully scrutinize any paid agreement between a broadband provider and a website, future leadership at the FCC may not share his views.  Pursuing weak rules now with the promise of strong enforcement later is of little comfort when we do not know what will happen beyond Chairman Wheeler's tenure at the FCC.  Moreover, case-by-case enforcement that prohibits certain agreements but allows others will create uncertainty in the market.  

    Pay-to-play arrangements will undoubtedly harm innovation and entrepreneurship online, but they will also harm consumers.  Imagine paying for the highest speed tier available – which can cost upwards of $100 per month in some areas – but still being unable to stream high definition video from your favorite streaming service because they choose not to pay your provider a toll that will enable the necessary speeds.  Under that possible future, consumers will never know if what they are paying providers for is enough to access the content they want.  In some cases, no matter what they pay, it may never be.

    Thankfully, Chairman Wheeler is asking for input on other approaches as well, and is explicitly asking whether pay-to-play deals should be banned.  This is a welcome development, but the debate on how we craft new net neutrality rules is just beginning with today's vote.  I have heard from hundreds of Vermonters who have expressed concerns about weak net neutrality rules.  I share those concerns and I want to hear more from you, which is why I announced yesterday that I will be holding a Judiciary Committee field hearing in Vermont the first week in July to more closely examine the various proposals at hand.

    You can be sure that I will continue to be a voice in Congress for strong net neutrality rules that promote an open Internet and protect consumers.

    Sincerely,

    PATRICK LEAHY
    United States Senator

  •  This is a Fucking Disgrace (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, 420 forever
    The Federal Communications Commission today voted in favor of a preliminary proposal to allow Internet "fast lanes" while asking the public for comment on whether the commission should change the proposal before enacting final rules later this year. The order was approved 3-2, with two Republican commissioners dissenting.
    This is a god damn fucking disgrace.  Republicans were out in front to kill SOPA, and now this FCC vote is going to guarantee that the Democrats get blamed for fucking up the internet.

    And you know what?  They are.  This is ALL on Obama.  It is his FCC and his commissioners that are voting for this.  I never thought I'd see the day where Republicans start to look golden to the public, but I think this is the nail in the coffin.

  •  Obama promised not to allow this (0+ / 0-)

    to happen and he's such an honest man that I know he will keep his promise.  I'm 2 years old.

  •  FCC proposed new plans disguised as Net Neutrality (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catilinus

    The companies who claim "they build the pipes" aren't building out. I'm in the 14th century where less than a mile from me in either direction on my road, Comcast cable is run. I have been trying for over 15 years to get cable. I couldn't even get DSL. These are $300,000 plus homes. I finally stopped calling Comcast when the last time I called (appox. 5 yrs ago) they quoted me $19,000. They've since told my next door neighbor that they wouldn't be "trenching" out cable to our area. They're arguments are disingenuous.  At least with telecommunication regulations (title II ?) treatment, infrastructure got built. Why is it we can send robots to another planet but can't get "Broadband"?  Why is it countries like Romania, Korea, etc. can build internet infrastructure, but ours is relegated to pay-to-play gateways?

    I fear our government is a de facto plutocracy

    "Telecom Spies Are The Big Winners in Death of Net Neutrality" - http://www.ringoffireradio.com/...

  •  This is our line in the sand. (0+ / 0-)

    And this fight isn't over. Not by a long shot.

    We can't let this go through. Do your part and spread the world. Let's drown their inboxes with our voice, and make it clear that if they support this abomination, it will mean political suicide.

  •  The Oligarchs (0+ / 0-)

    have proven once again that THEY own the government now, and that We The People have no voice.  Scream, protest, campaign, all to no avail.  The billionaires have bought nearly every legislator with make-or-break campaign funds, packed every agency with their own people.  Net Neutrality is dying, because our Democracy already has.

    •  Either fight or get out of the way. (0+ / 0-)

      Do your part. Contact your congresscritters. Get the word out. We managed to kill SOPA, and that was much closer to the wire than this.

      Throw everything we have into making clear the repercussions for anyone supporting this travesty. We can win this.

      We damned well have to.

  •  Net Neutrality (0+ / 0-)

    All this talk is nonsense, on both sides (although only one is ever presented on KOS - SHAME!)

    The internet is an information delivery mechanism. Period.

    As such, unlike utilities, it is controlled entirely by the consumers of information - me and you sitting on our couches.  We have a clicker: we can choose and change what we see in a millisecond: we can choose when we see whatever we want to see: we cannot be dictated to by the deliverer, because competition for our attention cannot be  controlled by any deliverer: high - speed or not.

    This is Econ 101: who controls consumption? The answer is that I DO!   At the point of consumption - my couch - and there are always MANY alternatives available when the product is just information: nothing is so important that I can't watch something else and be entertained or educated.

  •  The optics of this are horrible (0+ / 0-)

    Two Dems on full-steam-ahead to gut net neutrality; one flashing an amber light; both Republicans flat out opposed.  Are the Republicans to be the party that saved net neutrality; are they more broadly to be the party of civil liberties?  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site