Net Neutrality - URGENT

[+Erik 1,731]

Hi everyone,

 

Maybe you've seen our petition to keep the internet fair for all users. If you haven't you should know there are couple huge decisions being decided in the coming days that will affect all internet users in the United States. Comcast the largest internet provider in the US currently is trying buy Time Warner. This would make them the largest provider of internet services and allow them to affect all of us in terms of how we use and pay for internet service. This is huge. I can't stress enough how important it is that we all know what's happening and lend our voice to stopping what could be the end of internet as we know it. Don't think for a minute this won't affect you somehow or someway. If you use Netflix, have a smart phone, have home internet service, business internet service, provide websites like ours or even something as simple as an internet enabled vehicle you will be affected.

 

Please take the time, 5 minutes tops, to join my and thousands of voices out there who are in the daily business of providing free access to all. Net Neutrality is real and if you bury your head in the sand today you'll be paying for your indecision later if it is not upheld. Read the following and visit https://www.battleforthenet.com/ and then scroll down until you see their "Battle for the Net" campaign and click there to sign their petition. I welcome you to read all about it if you want but the bottom line is if you're already paying too much we need your signature to stop this craziness.

 

This is an urgent reply I received today from Fight For The Future dot ORG.

 

 

 

 

Hey, there's an urgent update on this.

We are now hearing that the FCC could announce its net neutrality decision sooner than we thought, within the next few weeks. They are finalizing their proposal *right now* and it's not looking good. This could be our last chance to affect their decision, we need to make our voices heard now, louder than ever, or all the work that we've done could be for nothing.

We built a secret weapon to finish the job and make it impossible for the FCC to ignore us. Will you join thousands of other activists calling to demand net neutrality?

If you already made the call, or became one of our heroic daily callers, thank you! You can still help by sharing our CallTheFCC.com tool with everyone you know. How many of your friends can you get to call every day?

Click here to share on Facebook

Click here to share on Twitter.

We are hearing rumors that the FCC is hurtling toward a compromise that will try to appease the public outcry, but will leave the door open for Cable company censorship and abuse. It's absoluitely imperative that we make noise right now and show that we won't back down until we get what we want: a free and uncensored Internet for all.

Last chance! Click here to take action for net neutrality before it's too late.

We'll keep you posted as things develop. Thanks for all you do.
-Kevin at FFTF

Hey,
Net Neutrality was just called "inevitable" by Communication Daily, the telecom industry trade press for cable insiders.

Click here to take action to demand that the FCC enforce net neutrality!

Less than a year ago, Title II net neutrality was thought to be impossible. But the tides have changed in Washington because of how hard we've fought for net neutrality. Now, it's clear we need to make sure everyone at the FCC has a reason to stand up for the public interest and help save net neutrality for good.

That's why we're unveiling a new website that will allow you to call a randomly selected top official at the FCC to demand real Title II net neutrality every day until the they announce their decision.

Take action to demand that the FCC save the open Internet!
Big cable might have the money to send in their lobbyists to strike upon Washington - but we have the entire Internet. If enough dedicated Internet defenders can step up and call as much of the FCC from now until they make their decision, we can win this battle.

We took something that seemed impossible -- getting net neutrality from the FCC -- and made so much progress that Communication Daily is now calling it "inevitable." We've accomplished the impossible together before -- killing SOPA & derailing CISPA. The Internet can do incredible things if we band together and take smart, strategic actions to move the needle. Will you call the FCC with us?

"Yes, I'll take action and demand that the FCC make real Title II net neutrality a reality."

We're so close to protecting the open Internet for generations to come, and it was only possible because of the amazing potential of the Internet as a medium for public action. The other side is spending millions to make sure they can control how the Internet works. To even the battlefield, we need to tell all of the FCC that they still have the chance to be a part of Team Internet and defend Title II net neutrality.

Click here to go use our new action tool to speak out for net neutrality and get more of the FCC on our side right now.

For the Internet,
Kevin and Tiffiniy
Fight for the Future

P.S. Creating organizing tools like these to contact the FCC uses up a lot of resources. Will you chip in $5 (or more!) today to make sure we can keep the pressure on while we have so much momentum?

P.P.S. Because of our work, the deadline for filing comments on Comcast merger has been delayed indefinitely. You can still send the FCC a note to show them that a Comcast takeover is a terrible thing for the Internet. Click here to send your comment to the FCC.

Want more awesome more often?

* Like us on Facebook
* Follow us on Twitter

* Keep us fighting, chip in what you can.

 

 

 

Thanks for your time.

[+Brain32 265]

Are signatures from all over the world relevant or only USA? I saw the petition and know what's it about but since FCC is US Agency I didn't try to sign it however, I am quite aware this will spread all over the world...

[Heck 496]

Just did, Eric.  John Oliver was worth the price of admission.  Time to end government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

[+Erik 1,731]

Are signatures from all over the world relevant or only USA? I saw the petition and know what's it about but since FCC is US Agency I didn't try to sign it however, I am quite aware this will spread all over the world...

 

I would suspect that only US Citizens are allowed to petition but if we squash it here the world will follow. Thanks for checking.

[+Brain32 265]

I did sign the letter to google though, that one I can ;)

[+Dave 2,318]

Signed and spreading the word on Facebook. 

[FalconC45 157]

Just signed it and shared it on my FB Page.

 

Falcon

[Fubar512 1,350]

Done

[+Jarhead1 27]

Signed

[ultramig688 2]

Signed

[+ST0RM 145]

Signed

[MigBuster 2,861]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality?t=dXNlcmlkPTU1Njg1ODAyLGVtYWlsaWQ9OTI3Mg==

 

The Presidents Statement

 

 

 

An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.

“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.

When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:

• No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
• No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
• Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
• No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.

The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.

To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.

So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.

The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.

[+Dave 2,318]

For once I agree with the POTUS. 

[+Erik 1,731]

A nice win in deed. I'm so glad we were able to make a difference. It's an important topic that giants like Comcast think they're just going to slip by us while no one is looking. Let's hope the progress continues. Thanks for being involved.

[Skyviper 1,101]

Whew good ... I guess I can stop researching on how to make my own internet.

[JediMaster 451]

For once I agree with the POTUS. 

 

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[+Typhoid 231]

I'm going to have to disagree with the prevailing crowd here. 

 

Net Neutrality is not exactly what it is portrayed as.  At the core is the idea that every internet service provider (ISP) will be required to treat all data the same.  that doesn't really track very well. 

 

If a company lays out the infrastructure to carry their data, they should be able to charge for that, #1, and should be able to make agreements with content providers for discounts for them and for their customers. 

 

The idea that an ISP cannot make tiered service levels, and prices, hurts the providers since their cost-of-service is different for different classes of users.  This will undermine the economic viability of both the ISP's and the content providers.

 

Essentially, the idea that the internet is a utility and the US feds should be able to regulate what is an open, free-market, international network is not a great idea.

 

The internet has developed and evolved without any such oversight.  What is the compelling need now for the US federal gov't to intervene and regulate?  and especially without any authorizing legislation?

 

This is a power grab, pure and simple. 

 

So those who brought you the Unaffordable Care Act will now rescue you all from - what?  If you like your ISP, you can keep your ISP?

 

what could possibly go wrong...........................

[+Dave 2,318]

Typhoid 

 

This will give ISP's Carte Blanche to restrict your bandwidth. Online gaming, they will charge you extra, steam music, they are going to charge you extra. It's bullshit. I like paying one fee and get to use what I want. This is ISP's trying to squeeze even more money out of you and IT WILL lead to abuses by the ISP's. They are greedy. Like cable, shitty service and prices keep rising. 

[+Typhoid 231]

It's not BS, it is the cost of the capacity that the ISP has to build.

 

Kind of like going to the gas station, your SUV costs more to fill up than the economy car because you use more gas.

 

The ISP has to build a bigger pipe.

[+Erik 1,731]

I understand the analogy between the car and RV but the conclusion is wrong. Just because the RV uses or holds more fuel than the little car does doesn't mean that when you pull into a gas station you get an RV sized hose so you can fill the 100 gallon tank as fast as the 15 gallon tank. The hose and fuel distribution is all the same speed. That's net neutrality. Now if you think that just because you are filling an RV that your fuel should cost more (same fuel, same delivery rate) just because you own an RV then you should vote to end net neutrality. 

[+Typhoid 231]

Not a great analogy, but your cost to go the same distance is the comparison

 

Different net speeds for different users is the issue. If you use a lot, you are putting a higher demand which the various providers have to build the capacity for.

 

Why should someone who browses email and news pay the same as someone who streams 3 or more TV's in the same house?

 

Different service levels for different levels of service is entirely legitimate.

 

What is not legit is the arbitrary seizure of control of the Internet without any authorizing legislation.

There are different costs here for different membership plans. Are you all prepared for those who brought you the Unaffordable Care Act to dictate the same prices here?

[FastCargo 412]

I have to say I'm with the majority here...ISPs suck in general.

 

One only has to look at the customer ratings and practices of AT&T, Verizon, TWC, Comcast.  Arbitrary price increases with no recourse for most customers.

 

The best and closest analogy to the internet is the electrical system.  Watts are watts and bytes are bytes.  What net neutrality is designed to prevent is preferential treatment of different types of data.  Just because I get my electricity from the solar panels on our community's solar farm does not mean the electric company can throttle how much I get because I'm not using their preferred coal generated electricity (this is just a fictional example).   

 

If there is not strong net neutrality in place, the ISPs will be able to do exactly that...slow down your Hulu because they want you to use their cable TV instead.  This wasn't a big deal when 56k dial up was state of the art, and a T1 line was a five-digit investment.  Not so much nowadays.

 

Finally...there is effectively only one internet.  For all intents...it functionally is a monopoly with the ISPs as gatekeepers.  Without net neutrality, those gatekeepers can dictate just how much 'internet' you can get, depending on what site you visit.

 

This is an issue that reaches across all aspects and levels of our modern society.  We cannot afford to fuck this up.

 

FC

[+Erik 1,731]

The bottom line here isn't the explanation itself but the fact that these huge companies are investing so heavily in changing the way information can be delivered for one reason only, to make more money. Where is that money going to come from? 

[+Dave 2,318]

Typhoid

 

You are the wrong side of this for sure. They will throttle your internet if they think you are using too much. Erik's analogy is spot on. So is FC's. They want to charge you for how you use the internet and that is bullshit. Cable companies don't charge you for what you watch. You need to get on the right side of this because if it doesn't pass you will see a dramatic change in our economy just because the ISP's will have us by the balls. 

[+Typhoid 231]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I just don't see it.

 

consider ths - The FCC proposed a set of rules that a district court ruled they don't have the authority to impose. The President also does not actually hae the authority to unilaterally impose these regulations. Legislation for this needs to come through Congress, not Executive Orders.

 

so far as companies investing to make money. that is what companies are in business to do. Yes, the money comes from those customers who choose to use those services.