Net Neutrality - URGENT

[+Dave 2,318]

That's what net neutrality is all about!

[+Typhoid 231]

no, it's not. The FCC wants to regulate the internet by reclassifying it to a public utility where they WILL REGULATE THE INTERNET.

 

by the way, a story out (I'll get the link later) that AT&T is putting on hold any plans to build out further internet capability because of the uncertainty over NN. If this is regulated by the FCC - all that investment will be cancelled. No build out, no increased capabilities, no further investments in expansion.

 

if you like your internet, you can keep your internet..............

[+Dave 2,318]

I support Net Neutrality and the Freedom of the internet.

I do not want cable companies or the federal government to regulate the internet. ALL traffic should be treated as equal.

 

 

That is what I was saying Typhoid. I don't want them idiots (FCC) regulating it either. 

[+eburger68 195]

Typhoid:

 

"I do not want cable companies or the federal government to regulate the internet." we agree

 

Actually, you don't. You're in favor of allowing companies like Comcast and Verizon to set up toll booths all over the internet, use different practices for handling different types of traffic, set different kinds of discriminatory policies against companies and their content, and effectively charge twice for the same bandwidth. Just because it's not coming from government doesn't mean it's not a form of regulation that we''ll be getting. Quite to the contrary, we'll be seeing a massive level of interference in what was until now the relatively unhindered (setting aside technical limitations) flow of data through the virtual pipes that these companies maintain. And it won't be government doing that -- it will be the private telecoms.

 

Net Neutrality may not have been the law for all these years, but is was the de facto standard for the handling of traffic by the various different telecoms whose networks make up a large portion of the internet. De facto net neutrality -- the principle that traffic through the pipes should all be treated or handled equally -- was what enabled the internet as you know it today, with all of its innovation from small startups who grew to be highly successful businesses offering new types of services pushing different types of data through those pipes. An internet that does not protect Net Neutrality and allows telecoms to discriminate against companies, organizations, and their content is an internet that has effectively devolved into a mess of private fiefdoms, each demanding tribute to allow traffic to pass through its pipes. That kind of environment rewards and protects established, entrenched interests -- those with the cash to pay and the relationships to ensure favorable treatment.

 

That's why the Net Neutrality principle -- be it embodied in new regulations set forth by the FCC or new legislation passed by Congress -- is so important, because several large telecoms have decided that it's not enough to charge their customers for the bandwidth they consume -- even through tiered plans based on usage levels. No, they now want to charge content providers with deep pockets (like Netflix or Google) for the traffic that those telecom's customers are already paying for. That's why the push for regulations enforcing the principle of Net Neutrality is happening now -- because the telecoms want to change the de facto rules of the game.

 

For those conservatives out there who maintain deep faith in the miracle of markets to deliver, I ask you to imagine the following scenario, which could take place, say, five or ten years into the future if the principle of net neutrality is not enshrined in law. Imagine a conservative media site that hits on a winning combination of journalism, commentary, broadcast streams, short viral videos and who knows what else -- this is the future, after all, and someone could very well come up with new ideas for pushing conservative news and messaging that we haven't anticipated. The site is wildly successful but, like many startups, is taking some time to figure out its revenue model -- a very familiar situation.

 

The site's traffic has been growing leaps and bounds -- it has become THE place for conservatives to go. It is the Fox News and Rush Limbaugh Show of the internet and stands poised to play a decisive role in upcoming election cycles. But then the dreaded day comes -- a demand from one of the major telecoms for payment to allow the site's traffic to flow to audience members at speeds that allow the most popular parts of its site to work properly. Worse, the rates demanded are steeper than what some had anticipated. Why? And why now? Could it be the presidential selection cycle, which is beginning once again?

 

Then some disturbing news comes to light. The CEO of this telecom -- who has publicly expressed great admiration for George Soros -- has been making  a number of generous contributions to liberal advocacy groups and the Democratic Party, including a new organization whose stated mission is to pick up where ACORN left off and fulfill its mission.

 

I ask you now: would you trust that this telecom's demand for payment was entirely motivated by financial considerations and the desire to be compensated for the bandwidth consumed by the traffic this web site phenomenon has been pushing through the telecom's data pipes?

 

Note that it is no comfort to this web site that there are other competing telecoms and services in the United States, because a good chunk of the site's audience members live in southern and rural areas where this telecom predominates. A good chunk of the site's audience is on THIS telecom's internet service, and the site simply can't tell its users "Sorry, to access our content you'll have to switch providers." If there even are any providers left who aren't making similar demands.

 

That is a possible future. Without Net Neutrality, the telecoms have license to approach any content provider they like with the same chilling message: "Nice internet business you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it -- like maybe your content not getting to your customers."

 

I don't think that's a future any of us want, but without regulation to force the telecoms to perform as common carriers, we would have no option but to trust the telecoms to behave. And given that two of them have already demonstrated that they are perfectly happy to hose a popular internet service (Netflix) for millions of their own customers -- I repeat that: THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS -- I see no reason at all to place that trust in them.

 

Eric Howes

[+Dave 2,318]

You understand now why its important Typhoid? Everything eburger68 said is what Erik has been saying too. Now do you see what this will turn into? The consumer will be nickeled and dimed to death. This will affect the online gaming community to the point its predicted it will shut most of it down as no one will be able to afford to do it. Netflix will charge more so they can make up for what the money they will be charged. The trickle affect will be devastating and I just cannot sit here and believe you are for all that. Because that is what you are saying. This very website will be affected most negatively. Ecommerce will suffer.....it will be such a game changer that the very economy will be affected and not in a good way. 

 

 

That is a possible future. Without Net Neutrality, the telecoms have license to approach any content provider they like with the same chilling message: "Nice internet business you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it -- like maybe your content not getting to your customers."

 

This is exactly what will happen. 

[FastCargo 412]

Nice summary Eric!

 

One other thing...just because a utility falls under Title II, doesn't mean there still won't be competition.  We have competition now in other things in our city...electricity, telephone (landline), etc.  It is a false assumption that competition will go away just because they are reclassified.  But like Eric said, there has already been real evidence of ISPs being unsavory.

 

AT&T is trying to bluff.  And they will lose...Verizon, Google, etc will gladly build out if AT&T tries to take it's toys and go home.

 

FC

[+Erik 1,731]

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT

 

It's very clear that the current model works even at the rates we pay, which by the way are high in comparison to the rest of the world.

 

Just take a look at Comcast's P&L statements  ---------------> http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NASDAQ/Company/Comcast-Corp/Financial-Statement/Income-Statement

 

That's a net income of $6,816,000,000.00 USD. I'm not sure what their adjusted gross is but it's big enough to make them the second largest lobbyist in the USA. I might also mention that we the tax payers subsidized a lot of the build out through our taxes. They are using our money to charge us more. That's just backasswards.

 

Talk about paying for what you only use. Wish that was the case with our taxes.

[+logan4 845]

Very true Erik.

In my opinion. For example when an ISP sells 1000 unit of 180MB "service" and 10000 unit of 40MB "service" with 1 million unit of 3MB "service" with unlimited use then they should have the infrastructure to provide seamless data flow with full throttle use in mind with the combined total. Even if not all the lines/users will be online 24/7 with max usage - but even that will happen occasionally based on the laws of large numbers.

 

Your "pipeline" is already regulated by the "package" you purchased, regardless what flows on it or how much of what. Charging extra for a 3MB user because he uses games or movies is not fair even if an other person using a 180 line to just reads the news on the net.

 

They should not complain or charge about amount of data flow since they sold a service with band width (except mobile they have package sizes).  So if they can not deliver what they promise then should close shop and should not try to control the demand of usage or the way it is being used.

Instead of complaining and extra charges they should grow up to deliver for the increasing and actual demand - which will increase more and more as mankind gets more used to or more access to it.

[+Typhoid 231]

I was not going to comment further since I had already stated my opinion, and it is clear that none of us are going to change anyone else's mind. 

 

However, an article today and the link reinforces a point I had made earlier which is that what is being proposed isn't really what it seems to be. 

 

It is now becoming clear that Net Neutrality is really a false flag to sell something very different - the seizure of control of the internet by the FCC.  The real reason for that was revealed by the FCC Chairman's comment. 

 

This is not about Net Neutrality, which is already the reality without any government intervention to force it.  This is about

 

RAISING TAXES ON ALL OF YOU

 

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/14/obamas-plan-backdoor-internet-tax/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokva3JZKXonjHpfsX56ewkWKexlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4CRMBnI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

 

and;

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/223751-obama-couldnt-be-more-wrong-on-title-ii

 

"the FCC already is planning a “spending spree” on USF subsidies."

 

and you all thought this scheme was going to save you money. 

 

if you like your Internet, enjoy it while you still have it.  It won't last for long under these proposed rules.

 

be careful what you wish for.

 

out.

[+Dave 2,318]

Why can't either side side just leave it alone?

[+Erik 1,731]

Typhoid your argument is wasted on me. You somehow have the belief that Net Neutrality means FCC regulated. That simply isn't true. Net Neutrality means that we don't want it regulated by the cable companies or the FCC. Your argument is moot, in fact you're more a proponent for my case than an opponent. Leave the internet alone, leave net neutrality in place, bottom line.

[+eburger68 195]

Typhoid:

 

It is now becoming clear that Net Neutrality is really a false flag to sell something very different - the seizure of control of the internet by the FCC. 

 

I'm sorry, but that's beyond ludicrous. No one government can "seize control of the internet," given that the internet is not a single entity but a collection of networks spanning the globe, owned and operated by over a hundred countries and thousands of different organizations and companies, all knitted together by a defined set of protocols and technologies.

 

As for the alleged imposition of a "backdoor internet tax" through the extension of Universal Service Fund (USF) to internet providers, the quote in question comes from one of Republican FCC commissioners, not the FCC chairman (as you stated), and was made in a speech to a right wing think tank (by a guy, I might add, who's on the commission to be "in the tank" for the big telecoms). Even he allows that it is only a possibility, not a certainty, because the manner in which the Net Neutrality would be legislated is very much in the hands of Congress and the net effect could actually be to reduce individual USF contributions by spreading them across a wider base.

 

The alleged planned "spending spree" that would cause individual contributions to go up is based on private conversations the commissioner claims to have had with persons who are, as you might have guessed, unnamed. In other words, he's basically asking you to trust him that there's a secret plan to go on a spending spree despite the fact that he can provide no evidence for it.

 

So there it is: the "secret plan" to raise your taxes that isn't quite yet a plan and doesn't have any advocates that the commissioner can identify. But of course that didn't stop the several news articles you referenced from taking that one comment and running with it. One article instantly turns it into "Obama's plan for a backdoor internet tax." (Cue scary organ music.) A Forbes opinion piece cited in the TheHill.com article one ups everyone else by invoking the United Nations' plan to tax the internet. I suppose Obama planned to have this backdoor internet tax plan delivered by a squadron of black helicopters. Hey, it's a "false flag" operation, as you yourself told us, so who knows the extent of the sinister intentions here.

 

Seriously, Typhoid, this is blatant fear-mongering by a powerful industry with expensive D.C. lobbyists and high-powered allies like the FCC commissioner being quoted. It's all of a piece with the earlier article you referenced in which AT&T claimed it would stop building out its network -- and just as believable.

 

Eric Howes

Edited November 19, 2014 by eburger68

[+Typhoid 231]

Dave and Erik, One side does want to leave it alone

 

Eric, I'll grant the point that it was not the Chairman, but his comments are still germane

 

So far as fear-mongering, the entire basis for the false-flag Net Neutrality push is nothing but fear mongering of what the "evil corporations" MIGHT do, not what they have done.

 

This is one of those times that I genuinely hope that I am wrong and you all are right. But nothing in my past or present experience gives me any confidence of that.

 

Out

Edited November 19, 2014 by Typhoid

[+eburger68 195]

Typhoid:

 

So far as fear-mongering, the entire basis for the false-flag Net Neutrality push is nothing but fear mongering of what the "evil corporations" MIGHT do, not what they have done.

 

Wrong. What they have already done. As I noted in my original post, Verizon and Comcast have already demonstrated that they are perfectly happy to hose a popular internet service -- Netflix -- used by their own customers. And they did that in order to subject Netflix to a good old fashioned shakedown. And that's what it was. Don't let the fact that everyone involved was wearing suits and ties fool you at all.

 

And who's going to pay for it? Netflix customers, including Netflix users who are on Verizon and Comcast. That's a neat trick, actually: jacking up the price for your customers but doing it via proxy so that the cost increase appears on some other company's bill. Not too many companies are in a position to do that. Telecoms are, though.

 

So, the issue is not speculative -- it's real. It already happened. And it's likely to get a lot worse.

 

You also wrote:

 

One side does want to leave it alone

 

 

Again, wrong. When the telecoms began making plans to start charging content providers for the bandwidth that ordinary subscribers had already paid for, they changed the rules of the game. This entire Net Neutrality discussion is happening not because the government hatched a secret plan to take over the internet or impose a backdoor internet tax. No, it's happening because the big telecoms decided to change the de facto rules of the game. And they did that in order to fluff their already substantial bottom lines at the expense of you, me, and everyone else.

 

Absent that power grab by the big telecoms, we would not be having this discussion.

 

Eric Howes

[JediMaster 451]

The problem with the "why fix it if it isn't broken?" refrain is that it IS broken, most people just haven't seen it yet. It's like the bridge that doesn't collapse until that heavy snowfall finally overloads the crumbling support. The bridge wasn't fine the day before and broken the day after, it was already broken but the rot was under the surface and no one noticed till it collapsed.

 

The point of regulating it as a utility is because like most utilities there is little to no competition and expensive infrastructure. You don't have three sets of power lines and you're not going to have three cable companies' fiber. If I don't like Time Warner, I can't go to Comcast or Cox or whoever. My choices are slow laggy satellite or AT&Ts Uverse which is like cable on its worst day EVERY day. Your alternative to your local Chili's bad baby back ribs isn't to go get a McRib at McDonald's, that's not a comparable alternative.

 

AT&T is bluffing. They build out more infrastructure so they can make more money. Has ANY company ever said "to make more money is going to take too much effort, we won't bother"? Will this cut into their profits? Certainly. But just like corporate taxes do not restrict hiring if the company needs more personnel to expand (because the company can't choose NOT to expand, Wall Street won't allow that), AT&T won't sit back and do nothing if Verizon decides it WILL do it and gain market share. All would need to collude together and agree to stop, in effect boycotting their customers in an attempt to force the gov'ts hand, and I can't see that happening.

 

These ISP's profit expectations are built on the idea that they sell more capacity to their customers than they can provide. If everyone used the bandwidth they paid for continuously and simultaneously the network would collapse. To continually throttle and increase the rates of those who are using what they're paying for is a bit like throwing out the customer at the all-you-can-eat buffet for eating three people's worth of meals. If you can't afford that, why are you having an all-you-can-eat buffet?

The plans that have caps on them with speeds so high that you can hit your cap in one DAY are ridiculous.

 

The solution that no one will go for is pay-as-you-go internet. If you don't use any, you pay nothing. If you use 100mb, you pay for that, if you use 100GB you pay for that. No limits on bandwidth or data caps, pure usage. Of course, that means the vast majority will never pay that much because they really don't use that much and profits would tumble even as the network would have lower utilization. Yet that less than 1% of their customers who use tons of bandwidth WOULD cut back so their bill stayed manageable while everyone else would pay very little.

 

That's why people are sold a speed. The "some are using too much" argument is just a way to further increase their profits as they're not in any danger of losing money.

Edited November 19, 2014 by JediMaster

[+Erik 1,731]

Don't let congress or the FCC fool you into believing that they are interested in protecting the internet. Tell congress now that they need to leave the basic principles of the internet in place. We do not need congressional oversight, federal oversight, or big business oversight. The internet belongs to each and every one of us. We've already started to compromise it's basic ideas and freedoms. We need to stand together and say no, the rest of the free nations are depending on us, we are depending on us. Take a stand let your voice be heard.

 

Signature needed: Tell Congress you're not fooled by Comcast's lies.   It takes less than a minute.

 

Net neutrality is not a partisan issue. Since the Internet was built it's been based on a few basic principles: like the idea that everyone's data should move at the same speed, and no government or corporation should interfere or decide what you can see and do online.

 

That's not a liberal or conservative idea. It's just a good idea. Everyone from venture capitalists to environmentalists support it. [1]

 

But now that we're potentially days away from getting a rule to prevent Cable company F*$kery, monopolies like Comcast and Verizon are doubling down on manipulating the process: they're calling in all their favors in Congress by tapping the offices of everyone they donated to. [2] And, it's working.

 

Despite net neutrality being obvious policy, their pals in Congress are working to screw things up again by making this into a partisan circus, and unleashing Cable propaganda. All to take focus away from the facts: the Internet has thrived with net neutrality for 20 years, and we need to keep the net neutral to keep it awesome.

 

Tell Congress you're not fooled by Comcast's lies and won't tolerate partisan nonsense. Click here to take action.

 

Fortunately, the public isn't fooled. We know that net neutrality is not "regulating the Internet." It's just ground rules that PREVENT mega-corporations like Comcast and governments from regulating the Internet in their own interest.

 

This Friday is the last day for the FCC to come out with a proposal for full Title II reclassification. If they don't, part of the blame rests with Congress, who have been muddying the waters on this issue even though there is a clear public consensus.

 

Sign the petition to your lawmakers: tell them you're not fooled by lies or partisan politics and you want them to support real net neutrality.

 

We're close. Really close. But this fight is going to get uglier before we win. FOIA'd documents that were just released show just how deep the rabbit hole goes, and just how cozy the relationship between the FCC and the telecoms really is. [3] Stay vigilant. Check your facts. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet and DEFINITELY don't believe what you see on Cable TV.

 

We've come this far -- we've taken Title II reclassification from something that was impossible to something that now seems nearly inevitable. We're ready to take it home and we're proud to have you on the team.

 

We put together a quick website as an easy resource to counteract Cable lies about net neutrality. Check it out and share! https://www.donttrustcable.com/ Let us know if you have other Cable lies we should debunk there.

 

[1] Battle for the Net. https://www.battleforthenet.com/#team-internet
[2] Furnas, Alexander and Lee Drutman. "How telecoms and cable have dominated net neutrality lobbying". Sunlight Foundation. http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/05/16/how-telecoms-and-cable-have-dominated-net-neutrality-lobbying/

[3] Leopold, Jason. "Net neutrality emails reveal cozy 'social network' between FCC and telecoms". Vice Magazine. https://news.vice.com/article/net-neutrality-emails-reveal-a-cozy-social-network-between-the-fcc-and-telecoms

 

 

 

[ironroad 218]

Been trying to follow this as it effects just about anyone and everyone.

 

I hope something can be worked out that prevents stop dirty business tricks, but DOES not stifle innovation and competition. The balance between regulation and deregulation is a tricky one and unfortunately the consumer/tax payer always bears the brunt of someone else's "ideal".

 

As a side note; and not directed at any particular person or group, this is about the only thing the country can seem to agree on and the only thing that seems to have mobilize this generation to actually contact and press their government representatives.

 

It is good to see that individual people are taking this serious (no matter side they are on) and are thoughtfully seeking out their elected representatives at all levels of government.
 

Just so we are clear, lets look at all the important issues that people won't formal contact or talk to their elected officials about (unless on a news blog or web forum)

Disfunctional government: "no"

Global conflict/strife: "no"

national security: "no"

Police misconduct/civil rights: "no"

Jobs/Finance/Economy: "no"

Deficit/Spending: "no"

Obscure antiquated laws/rules : "no"

 

Disruptions to porn and Twitter access: "GET ME THE ******* PRESIDENT!"

[+Erik 1,731]

Given my age that's a very broad stroke with a pen there. I'm very involved in a lot of things, this one just has merit and substance here. I don't care how their voices are heard I only care that everyone gets the option before they get handed the bill.

[ironroad 218]

 I don't care how their voices are heard I only care that everyone gets the option before they get handed the bill.

 

Agreed!

[+Typhoid 231]

"It is good to see that individual people are taking this serious (no matter side they are on) and are thoughtfully seeking out their elected representatives at all levels of government."

 

While I am catching a load of flack here; not one, single local constituent has contacted this local, elected official on this issue. 

 

at the local level there are just the franchise agreements of course. 

[+Erik 1,731]

You're not taking flack for anything that I'm aware of. As a political representative you certainly have to have a thick skin when it comes to debating a topic. That said to what esteemed position have you been elected?

[+Typhoid 231]

You're not taking flack for anything that I'm aware of. As a political representative you certainly have to have a thick skin when it comes to debating a topic. That said to what esteemed position have you been elected?

 

Member of City Council

 

http://combatace.com/topic/77819-starting-a-new-gig-soon/

 

which includes

 

Vice Chair Board of Directors of the Colorado Springs Utilities

Vice Chair Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (18 member governments including 3 counties for transportation planning)

 

 

"As a political representative you certainly have to have a thick skin"

 

oh yea..................!!

Edited November 20, 2014 by Typhoid

[+Spectre8750 167]

Signed!

[+Typhoid 231]

Opened up my latest American Rifleman and 4 pages in is an advertisement from Dish Network for bundled Internet and TV service. Starting at $60/month with up to 4G service.

 

I have it on good authority here that such capability and competition doesn't really exist and that no one actually has such competition available.

 

It is a shame to see such a formerly trusted magazine engage in apparent fiction.......

[+Erik 1,731]

The real shame is that senseless dig at some obscure point that somehow the services satellite provide are equivalent to the high speed network and fiber optic connection system we the tax payers already built.