Skip to main content

Kaveh Waddell, a typical Washington D.C. wannabe insider type at the National Journal sniffs at the above video, which envisions what the internet could become in 70 years. "Doomsday rhetoric," he says, and then proceeds to punch a hippie or two (like Sen. Al Franken) who deigns to care about our democracy and how the internet is helping to preserve it.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler would have rules enforced on a "case-by-case basis" rather than creating a rigid structure that could stifle the Internet's natural evolution and growth. […]

Besides, the Internet is hardly a level playing field today. Although the FCC's proposed "fast lanes"—which would allow Internet service providers to slow traffic to websites that don't pay for special service—don't yet exist, many barriers already stand in the way of startups' entry into the high-bandwidth online world. Large content providers like Google and Facebook pay for content-delivery networks that ease the burden caused by high traffic. This allows them to host more photos and videos, and deliver them more quickly to large numbers of users.

Although an FCC decision that strikes down net neutrality could exacerbate this inequality, it is unlikely to plunge the Internet into the corporate-owned abyss. Even 70 years from now.

It's an interesting argument, particularly since having had a more rigid structure of net neutrality in place before now might have actually given us the level playing field he says we don't have now, and then dismisses as basically unimportant. He refutes himself there a bit. But he's refuted more effectively by those large content providers themselves, like Google, who want neutrality.

He's also arguing against all of the giants of the internet as well as venture capitalists when he argues that net neutrality would actually "stifle the internet's natural evolution and growth." All of the people who have succeeded in innovating and growing and creating the internet revolution seem to think that having net neutrality is a pretty key part of that all continuing.

On the whole, I think it's probably safer to trust the opinions of the people who made the internet what it is today on this one, instead of some guy who thinks net neutrality advocates are just too shrill.

Please sign our petition to the FCC to keep a free and open internet.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue May 27, 2014 at 01:08 PM 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 (20+ / 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 Tue May 27, 2014 at 01:08:27 PM PDT

  •  gee, industry concentration and market dominance (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoregon, G2geek

    via verticality of access resources ---- What me, anti-trust-buster?

    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 Tue May 27, 2014 at 01:13:33 PM PDT

  •  "Case-by-case" = "Divided we beg" (0+ / 0-)

    ...just as "commercially reasonable" = "whatever the market will bear". Both are PR weasel words which these Big Telecom con-artists are using to try to swindle us.

    BTW: Good video — though I would also suggest including the link to the organization that made it,

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

    by Brown Thrasher on Tue May 27, 2014 at 03:54:03 PM PDT

    •  "Case-by-case" = workers in "right to work" states (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher

      "Case-by-case" = workers negotiating with their employer without a union.

      Or with a union, but one hamstrung by "right to work (for less)" laws.

      "Case-by-case" = citizens allowed to challenge totalitarian surveillance in court only if they can prove (which they can't because no FOIA for you, it's classified) they were harmed personally and specifically.

      We've seen this many times before. We know how "case by case" will turn out.

      The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

      by lotlizard on Tue May 27, 2014 at 11:41:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm wondering where we would be with a (0+ / 0-)

    1968 Carterfone decision that adopted "case by case" assessments by the FCC of every new gadget that someone wanted to attach to Ma Bell's phone wires.

    Fax machines? OK, that seems fair.

    Phone answering machines?  Wait a minute, that seems very disruptive.  We'll consider that for 18 moths then say No.

    Computer modems? Heavens to Betsy, NO!  The phone call characteristics - duration, location - will play havoc with the phone company's well-running business assumptions!

    Case by case (read, "rule of men, not laws") promotes innovation?  Suuurrre....

  •  As opposed to a net-neutrality-less present? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Any recommendations (0+ / 0-)

    on where to point people to, who are clueless about why we all need net neutrality?

    When lots of people show up to vote, Democrats tend to win.

    by Audri on Wed May 28, 2014 at 09:33:41 AM PDT

  •  But the internet is not American. (0+ / 0-)

    That's the part I don't get in this whole conversation. The FCC doesn't govern the internet - just American ISP's. The rest of the world is going to do their own thing, probably more or less like neutrality.

    So the internet won't be destroyed - only Americans' ability to use it. Because freedom!

    Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

    by Boundegar on Wed May 28, 2014 at 07:34:42 PM PDT

  •  Neutrality has never been the law (0+ / 0-)

    The Internet has been open, not neutral.  Big difference!  The Internet is not regulated by the government; it is a voluntary federation that allows users and service providers to route around obstructions, block spammers, and upgrade facilities and protocols as ISPs and users see fit.  It works.  The only thing that doesn't work is the local access line -- that's usually a monopoly or duopoly. The wire itself used to be common carriage, totally neutral, to allow people to reach the ISP of their choice. The FCC took that away in 2005, and that's all that really needs to be fixed.

    Mucking around with the internals of the Internet, turning it into another regulated telephone network (operator, get me long distance), would break it.  Badly.  Sure, the ITU wants to do that, so that the US can subsidize tinhorn dictatorships where the president-for-life's brother-in-law runs the post-telephone-telegraph-internet monopoly.  You don't.  Really.

    I also love how these articles cite the creators of the Internet.  I know a lot of these people; I work with them, and am quite close to the belly of the beast. We need to fix the problem in the US, but simpleminded NN proposals that pretend "all packets are equal" would just screw things up badly.  Blocking newcomers would indeed be bad, an antitrust violation most likely, but the cable companies aren't that dumb.  Plus they're too cheap to do it -- they just raise prices.

    •  Cable companies are actually pretty dumb. Att l... (0+ / 0-)

      Cable companies are actually pretty dumb. Att least, not the slightest bit concerned with anything they don't see a profit in.

      That is the problem that clouds the future.

      Common carriage is an ethic that derives from the need to ensure equal access to electric power as well as telephone service as a means of overcoming the Great Depression. The FCC was established to enforce common carriage in the critical area of electronic communications.

      Tearing this concept down has more to do with a drift towards corporate oligarchy. It is part of the conservative agenda along with voucherizing social security.

      Because it dates to the FDR era there seem to be a number of people who think it is an obsolete concept.

      It is not. The FCC needs to hear from people who get this core idea.

      Simple, yes. Kind of like "all men are created equal"

  •  Just how big of a dumbass does someone have (0+ / 0-)

    to be to talk about the "natural evolution" of a system that is completely artificial, and is therefore subject to whatever selection pressures its creators choose to place on it?

    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

    by UntimelyRippd on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:34:43 PM PDT

  •  Team Fortress 2! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In case anyone didn't recognize the "actors", they're from the online shooter game TF2. It's actually extremely fun with a deliberate cartoony exaggerated aspect to the characters. I play with my son on occasion who fully understands the difference between a game and real life.

    Meet the Sniper

    It'll be a crying shame if games like this that do well but aren't making a fortune are snuffed out because of slow lane/ fast lane issues. This is a serious concern.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site