This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Call the FCC TODAY (1-888-CALL FCC) ... To Defeat Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 21st's Vote to Destroy Net Neutrality
The FCC will vote tomorrow on
a proposed rule written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski which would
gut the Internet. It would allow the big carriers to create different
tiers of mobile Web access and speed depending on how much you pay, allow them
to block what you can access on the web, and would destroy net
neutrality.
Given that more and more of the web is being accessed
via mobile devices, Senator Al Franken calls this "the most important
free speech issue of our time".
As Franken points out:
Mobile
networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off
your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance,
Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone,
forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even
if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile provider
with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that
connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party
group in your area).
It gets worse. The FCC has never before
explicitly allowed discrimination on the Internet -- but the draft
Order takes a step backwards, merely stating that so-called "paid
prioritization" (the creation of a "fast lane" for big corporations who
can afford to pay for it) is cause for concern.
It sure is --
but that's exactly why the FCC should ban it. Instead, the draft Order
would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions on this kind
of discrimination.
What's more, even the protections that are
established in the draft Order would be weak because it defines
"broadband Internet access service" too narrowly, making it easy for
powerful corporations to get around the rules.
Call the FCC today and demand the rejection of Chairman Genachowski's proposed rule, and the adoption instead of true net neutrality rules for both the mobile and plug-in Internet.
Better yet, demand "Common Carrier" status for all Internet Service
Providers - including mobile ones - which would go beyond the net
neutrality debate by ensuring that ISPs have no concern for the content
of the bits they are moving on their customers' behalf, and would help
to break up the "too big to fail" service/content providers, in the same
way the breaking up the too big to fail banks would make the banking system work better.
You can try the main number (1-888-CALL FCC), or here are the Commissioner's individual phone numbers:
- Julius Genachowski (202) 418-1000
- Michael Copps (202) 418-2000
- Robert M. McDowell (202) 418-2200
- Mignon Clyburn (202) 418-2100
- Meredith Attwell Baker (202) 418-2400
Better yet, fax a letter to the FCC at 1-866-418-0232.
Better yet, fax a letter to the FCC at 1-866-418-0232.
Credo Action also has a free fax campaign. Click here to send a fax to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps to support his efforts to defeat Chairman Genachowski's proposed rule.
- advertisements -
Senator Al Franken. I can't help but laugh every time I read that. Perhaps the best joke he has ever pulled off so far. Shame that this is no laughing matter to anyone interested in actual free speech.
Guys, I know what I don't know.
Could someone explain to me how this will affect my internet experience?
Thanks, most of the press I'm reading is saying this is a good thing!
Part of the problem with an activist government is the unintended consequences. The more active it is, the more possibility there is of them.
It's usually a bad thing when government does anything because it effects only you, not it.
FCC 09-93A
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf
Does The Public Have The Right To See The FCC’s Net Neutrality Proposal?http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=1453
Saturday the mother fuckers, in the Senate, sodomized my fucking military and then they started talking about fucking snowmobiling on public lands. Who are these people and where do they come from?
Save the calls. They won't hear you. What is done is done. It is in the plan and come hell or high water, it will be done. The gauntlet is laid down now. No turning back. Another step toward the loss of freedom of speech.
"On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870339520457602345225074854...
Yep, its all about chutzpah, you got that right Mr McDowell. I read you loud and clear pal.
GW, not to worry- net neutrality is a side show
Google is aligned with the NSA and has been for some time
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/google-seeks-nsa-help/
and the NSA know a great deal about your internet habits
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ip-telephony/nsa-book-author-nsa-probably-has-...
Google is also Mossad, through the sayanim network etc. Of course all of these agencies are , these days, for the most part, part and parcel of the same thing. One day, perhaps soon, they will use this information to inform the goon squads, just who it is that needs to be rounded up and put in the camps, imho. Its all about information gathering. Maybe the net was always about that. When we do not have the rule of law to protect us, then just who is it, among them, that will protect us? For a few dollars thrown their way, fools do as they are told, even though they know inside of themselves, that it is wrong, but they do it anyway and say to themselves, well it is their job. Everywhere you look, there is no honor, no integrity, none whatsoever. It is as if a alien race came to America and took over its government and now is doing as it pleases because it has no sense of right or wrong.
Excuse me, where is the window for First Amendment tax payments...
Ha, Ha, Worrying about Net Netural and you already lost Habeas Corpus. How come we got no numbers to complain about that. Get real, its just about over.
If companies try to restrict access to content, people will switch from mobile computing to something else. You don't want to upset the gamers, the world of warcraft types. They can get pretty nasty. As for ZH, it seems to be a pretty lean site. It doesn't take much time to load in comparison to say ESPN Sportzone.
The United States is a PROPOGANDA MACHINE. Find out how they plan to CENSOR the INTERNET and THREATEN AMERICAN FREEDOM.
Please watch the video “FEAR = CONTROL *Internet Censorship and Global War Looms” at (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLwQstnk6tw).
-Anonymous
Wow, this is truly scary and absolutely real consequence of the financial collapse of 2008. What can we do to stop it??
Net Neutrality is the cost of Free Speech and cyber space is the same as the airwaves which are owned collectively by the citizens of the United States of America. If a corporation says they own them and can cartelize communications they are in violation of the First Amendment and any FCC board member who supports anything short of Net Neutrality is a traitor and risks the penalities of their acts.
The Revolution is coming. It can be stopped no easier than the Baranke can rescue his economic house of cards and in fact, is defined by Baranke's looming failure.
Free Markets for Free Men (and Women), Live Free or Die.
"Net Neutrality is the cost of Free Speech"
So unless others are forced to subsidize my access to multi-gigabyte porn downloads, I won't be able to open my mouth? What?!
"same as the airwaves which are owned collectively"
Sorry, I'm not a collectivist. And I don't really understand how the mathematical frequencies of non-rivalrous bosons can be defined as property. You are commiting argumentum ad antiquitatem.
"Free Markets for Free Men (and Women)"
You can't be for your own freedom while simultaneously being against the freedom of communication entrepeneurs. Unless you are just a selfish, unprincipled dolt.
You can support your own freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedom. You need not support the unfettered freedom of corporations when that freedom encompasses the ability to thwart the speech of others. That's the principle upon which American monopoly and collusion laws are based. You can't use your freedom to prevent the participation of others in fair, equitable, free markets. This is a matter of practicality, and it is not undemocratic or (necessarily) socialist. By giving corporations the right to present only the information offered by the highest bidder, you have created a system controlled by the elite few, and a system which, on balance, is less free. It undermines freedom of the press. Just like clean air and water are in the interest of all, so is the fair use of of the limited number of mathematical frequencies to which our government assigns broadcasting rights. Government's function is to secure a common benefit when that benefit cannot be obtained by anarchy alone. This is why we have laws against monopoly - in a perfectly free system, monopolists will manipulate the market to a degree that is harmful to the ordinary citizen. There are no shortage of historical examples. In this case, the goal is to prevent ISPs from throttling the speech of institutions that aren't part of the mainstream media or the corporate elite. That may not be the result of this particular bit of legislation (see the earlier post by Cleve Meater), but you seem to be against the idea in principle. That leads me to believe your initials are not B.L.
"Net Neutrality is the cost of Free Speech"
ROTFLMAO!!!
We don't have NN now and I can read you just fine ;-)
After reading many of Washington's posts, I'm convinced he is a socialist.
Been reading George for over a year now. I don't suffer socialists.
George has a conscience and a rabid appetite for the best meat of issues.
No he's not.
There's just some things he hasn't thought through completely...he may be overly emotional...but he's not a socialist.
I'll give you an example...on the ObamaCare debate, I pointed out that if healthcare was a right (as the socialists/progressives claimed) how could government levy a fine for not exercising a right.
It would be like not speaking or writing or not going to church etc...and being assessed a fine for not doing so.
He agreed that it was stupid to claim it as a right.
He's not a socialist.
Wow.
How about three, no, TWO examples?
Wrong
First Post.
Technically, this is how they'll (probably) pull it off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection
Ominous sounding enough for ya?
So, the right blames big government and the left blames big corporations.
How about we pull our heads out of our partisan asses long enough to see they are the same thing. As long as they keep us divided by this right/left kabuki, they can do anything they want.
Exactly ...
We Can Fix America If We Focus on What ALL Americans - Liberals AND Conservatives - WantArgument ad temperantiam
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation,
"Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that any given compromise between two positions must be correct"
+1
As Ayn Rand noted, the only winner in a compromise between food and poison is: death.
Apparently, the complexity of the real world has escaped your notice. Your (or rather Rand's) idea of compromise misses the point that we are not choosing between poison and food in most instances. Shades of gray is reality, not the black and white of Ayn's novels.
Well, it works pretty darn well as it stands, so I say don't change it.
Done.
That already happens, called bandwidth, this is deeper...this could cut off communication between parties based on a third party receiving money. For example, two telephones require cost of connection, etc., -fine. Now, what if any telephone company across whose network the call crossed not only required payment, but also had the option to block the call? This means whoever controls the telephone companies physically controls the flow of information, ideas, business, intelligence. It makes a Police State look like housewives coffee morning.
Wow CG... Love most of your stuff, but I respectfully part ways with you on this one. Agree with CL this time. As someone who's followed the NN debate pretty closely, this smacks of the worst sort of corporate maneuvering to use the levers of government regulation for competitive gain.
NN isn't about neutrality -- even the proponents can't succinctly argue what exactly NN is. It's about companies like Google, Skype, Amazon and other big Internet companies wanting to remove telcos completely from the value chain and turn them into a dumb pipe.
Google clearly has the most to gain if NN becomes codified... Why? They would prefer not to have to send traffic across the PSTN at all (they don't control it and they can't monetize it), they'd rather have their own network -- that's why they've been buying up so much dark fiber and why they cache all of their content in massive server farms at the "edge" (as close to end users as possible) all over the globe.
And that's where they will get the huge competitive advantage: Google (through regulatory arbitrage) is seeking to relegate its competitors to the Internet slow-lane. For them, and only for them, every bit and byte would have to be treated identically -- e.g. no prioritization.
Now, lets say you're a NetFlix or iTunes subscriber and you want to download a movie. Under a NN regime, your provider would be prevented by law from prioritizing that content to download faster than other content -- let's say your email -- even if you, the customer, agree to it.
Google however, isn't subject to the same NN restrictions -- it's only the legacy phone companies... Google can prioritize traffic any way it wants. This is how YouTube trumps Apple, NetFlix and all of the other content providers. Their content has to travel over "best effort" dumb pipes, Google's content gets to travel at lightning, first-class speeds across its own fast lane. It can be prioritized and/or cached as close to the consumer's premises (the last mile) as possible. No restrictions. They suddenly can deliver a superior user experience than their competitors because they've gamed the regulations.
That may not be so bad, you may say, Google's a great product... But think about what happens when Google controls all of the access to, production of and delivery of content? Google's brilliance is that they realized that they didn't need to OWN content, all they needed to do was CONTROL all of its derivative uses. That's exactly what NN is, and that's exactly what they're attempting here... It's an attempt to hamstring competitors in the Internet value chain, so that all of the CONTROL sits with our whimsical Mountain View monopolists.
I'm certainly no fan of the telcos either (think the FISA debacle) and they are as guilty of using regulatory arbitrage to game the system. But Google's rapidly learning the game (cozying up to regulators; cozying up to the White House; cutting some deals with the NSA; getting some of those exclusive, no-bid, fat government contracts with the acronym soup of our spy agencies, sucking up our private data over WiFi connections with their creepy StreetView cars, etc.)
These guys aren't boy scouts, and NN is ALL about gaming government to get competitive advantage. I'm just sayin...
agreed but it's also about ISP's being able to manage their networks. Networks do become congested at various & random times and congestion management/policies are required in order to ensure the quality of experience/service is maximized for the greatest # of users.
Comcast received much fanfare re: the P2P lawsuit in 2007 that was settled this past summer. Comcast did not communicate and/or contract with its subscribers that it would bblock P2P at anytime.
But congestion on a network is real, especially on a wireless network. So if you have user watching a nba basketball game and user B downloading a song, I would argue the more time sensitive application receive priority treatment only during times of congestion. User B can wait for his/her packets as they are not time sensitive.
All packets are not created equal & an unmanaged network is not a neutral network. If one believes in infinite resources & bandwidth, then one would disagree with the previous sentence.
With that said, there are both positive & negatives uses of DPI technology...
Awww, don't worry about NN. When GOOG is sold to the highest bidder, and it's another country (maybe the one that already redirected internet traffic?), then it'll get interesting.
Great post. Basically you're saying that the corporate proponents of not being evil (Google) have taken an issue (net neutrality) intended to prevent collusion and monopoly on the Internet, and have used it to promote just the opposite? Sounds pretty fucking evil to me.
Congress, in a rare moment of lucidity, has already said that the FCC DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS.
It won't survive it's first court challenge - but can do a world of hurt before it can be stopped.
(Humming to Pink Floyd's "The Wall" - "we don't need no regulation....baa-baa-daa, baa-dunk, baa-baa-daa, baa-dunk-dunk,... we don't need no Net control....)
"net neutrality" regulation?
What about "phone neutrality"? Calling your mom at a 1-900 number should not cost any more than a local phone call. It's OK, your mom will make it up on volume.
Why not "burger neutrality" regulation too? A cheeseburger stacked with bacon and onion rings should cost the same as a plain hamburger.
Why should someone be penalized for voluntarily exchanging a certain level of communications services for a certain amount of money?
How are entrepeneurs going to develop creative solutions to most efficaciously alleviate consumer's felt uneasiness, when they are prevented from doing so by government thugs?
Why do you hate freedom?
**Dr Acula arguing your points is like trying to argue with a moron. It's useless. We do pay for the internet. I pay Time-Warner every month for the privilege to access the internet. Whatever sites I choose to visit are up to me. This internet ruling is about control. The FCC likes to use extreme examples or porn or they are protecting our children to pass their measures. Fear and how they are protecting us is their battle cry. I am old enough to choose what I want to see or not to see on the internet and if I had children let me be the judge of what I want my kids to see or not to see. This ruling is the first of what will be many. We like to judge China and how they censor the media and internet but we are walking down the same road. Its all about control. Always has, always will be.
corporations are not on the side of freedom.
they are on the side of more money and power for themselves. and they don't get either from more freedom for consumers, workers, voters, internet users, investors or anyone else except themselves.
one quick thought experiment: where does one get more truth: the internet as currently configured or the centuries in development by corporate "entrepreneurs" main stream media? hmmmm?
Because voluntary exchange doesn't require government "protection," therefore, it is considered a criminal activity by all of the socialists (who cannot fathom how blocking traffic is bad for business (especially on the internets, where one company's blockage becomes another's opportunity to provide value to people)). The only companies that can profit from such a system are those who are politically connected enough to get the regs written in their favor. (see Rent Seeking 101)
Eric Schmidt/NSA will have their way, step aside peons!
This is a classic case of the inability to think in principles, Mr. Washington. Remember, every communist and fascist says he is for "freedom" (you know, freedom from want, freedom from being offended by other people's opinions, freedom to force everyone else to do whatever you want them to do, etc.)
In this case, certain content providers want the government to force the bandwidth providers to carry their content and not charge extra for high quality-of-service (which is desirable for voice and video). So they LOBBIED THE GOVERNMENT and DID A BACKROOM DEAL. The result was labelled "network neutrality": a way to force bandwidth providers to do things that are against their business models.
Every time someone says that "they" (politicians) are doing this to "us", I keep pounding home this point. It is the sheeple, and bloggers, and a whole community of fools who are perhaps well-intentioned or not, doing the bidding of some Big Corporations.
You cannot use force to make the free market free.
The cosmic irony is that one can easily imagine higher-order content providers wanting to force the lower-order content providers to open THEIR networks to content that is against their business models. Hey Skype, don't you think that all softphone applications should have access to your network? Hey Google, how about letting sites go to the top of your search results regardless of who pays you? Etc.
This is the only kind of "competition" that is allowed under fascism: competition to lobby the government to impose more regulation. The regulation is always sold to fools in the name of the "public interest" or "freedom" or "mom and apple pie". But the regulation always benefits certain Big Corporations and hurts everyone else.
So it is with so-called "Network Neutrality". A better name for this would be the "National Internet Regulatory Act of 2010" (NIRA 2010). It will be about as good as FDR's original NIRA.
"competition to lobby the government to impose more regulation."
you mean competition to BRIBE the govt to impose regulations only favorable to the bribers and harmful to the public.
Yup
Oh and let me be clear about what I mean by "fascism" (no I don't mean goose-stepping fools who worship short men with short moustaches, nor virulent anti-Semites).
Fasism is the system that has nominal private ownership but public control and central planning. Private business or citizen action is strictly limited, and public (coercive) action is unlimited. For example, forcibly setting or resetting a private business' pricing...
Here is where I can no longer follow the distinction between fascism and socialism. I'm probably missing something glaring, but it seems to me that if you run a company that is owned by a socialist state, aren't you performing the exact same societal function as a 'private' company owner who is only allowed to conduct business on the whims of the government in a fascist regime? I mean, the profits all go to the same place, am I right? This has never been clear to me.
You've made an astute observation. Fascism and socialism are essentially the same. Think of the political spectrum as a circle rather than a line. Fascism and socialism ostensibly go in opposite directions on the spectrum, but on a circle they wind up meeting on the other side. They are both systems for centralized control of an economic system, the only difference being who claims to own the system on who's behalf. As Hayek showed, these systems both lead inevitably to authoritarian dictatorships.
it would help if you guys gave examples of governments you regard as fascist and socialist. so i don't know, really, what you're writing about.
but one comment upthread struck me as wrong: you can't use force to make a market free. of course one can and must.
as adam smith wrote, any time businessmen/merchants gather they attempt to subvert the free market (of course): they make more money as monopolists/oligopolists than what profit is left them in a highly competitive free market.
sooo... the government has to enforce anti-monopoly, anti-fraud, anti-the major ways unscrupulous people try to beat the consumer/investor (false advertising, adulterated goods, cooked books) with penalties for lawbreakers. it's not perfect (goodness knows what we have now destroys any faith in government or private industry) but it is better than either all one or all the other.
I agree, there is no real difference between socialism and fascism, other than the slogans by which they delude the populace.
net neutrality or revolution
there is no third path
net neutrality or revolution
there is no third path
Well yes,
net neutrality and revolution.
LMAO