This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
golly, you're right...awesome!!!
hey MY FIRST JUNK...YAY!
hey MY FIRST JUNK...YAY!
Well, it looks like I'm celebrating with you.... HurrraH, what a glorious day indeed !
I will now, in one swift unparalleled C.O.T.M.* action, attempt to Junk myself, effectively trying to double down on my junk-ability.
Wish me luck ...Godspeed
LMAO
Do not try this at home!
C.O.T.M* : Click Of The Mouse
This Junk-yourself app outperforms any i-app app I know of.
LMAO
Now you should un-junk yourself-just click on it again. The Tyler has given us a rating system and a junking system for reasons that I don't fully understand, but will use faithfully against trolls and such.
I often wonder who does the junking and why a comment ends up being junked. A lot of the junking is right out ridiculous and maybe the junkers' name should be visible and even an explanation should be provided to the Junkee and the rest of the community (off toppic, spam....).
Junking sb for being "on the other side of the trade" is the same as saying: "I'm right, you're wrong" without any explanation or whatsoever provided.
Whatever, junk away.
LMAO
This is five times as important as any Federal Reserve pogrom. This is the last line of defense against tyranny - it is low-cost communication
+1. keeping the internet network neutral is keeping access to all kinds of information equal. and because it is equal you can access ZH or some conspiracy nut's crappy website at the same speed.
control the dissemination of information and you can control the population. that is why slaveowners prevented slaves from reading or writing.
>because it is equal you can access ZH or some conspiracy nut's crappy website at the same speed.
So what would happen if someone approached you and they offered you lower Internet bills, and faster access to ZH, but in exchange, your access to crappy nuts' websites will be somewhat slower?
Would you call the police to report the criminal?
I guess if drug dealers can be locked up, then people should be locked up for peddling in asymmetry, too.
If you owned an ISP, and the government threatened to arrest you unless you offered both child porn websites and sites on net neutrality philosophy at the same bandwidth and cost, how would you feel?
You introduce not only an illegal, but a sickly immoral scenario to try to make you point? We're talking about monied interests taking over the access lines, but I guess you don't have any problems with the banking oligarchs. Truly pathetic strawman there, but not unexpected from an objectivist troll.
call godwin: to nazis add child porn too.
"This is five times as important as any Federal Reserve pogrom."
Program or pogrom? I doubt Ben Bernanke is running any pogroms.
"This is the last line of defense against tyranny - it is low-cost communication"
But whom will be tryanically lorded over and forced to pay to keep your communication low-cost? Oh, I see, it's the communication companies and their entrepeneurial owners.
How does being tyrannical defend against tyranny?
who or whom, while you're at it.
i personally like the irony of a jew running a pogrom with its victims the currency, debt and bottom 99% of the population of his nation.
the owners of the communication companies of the u.s. (world) are hardly entrepreneurs. they are in most cases monopolists, oligopolists, toadies/lackeys of the security state (see warrantless wiretapping), bribers of government (how do they get those local cable t.v. monopolies?) and not the allies of liberty lovers. the government and universities invented the internet, it uses lines laid on government land (in most cases) or waves sent through the air owned, at last supreme court decision (but for how long) by "the people".
you would not even know about the federal reserve if it weren't for a network neutral internet.
Oh god, guess who swallowed Atlas Shrugged for breakfast. Who lets these Randian cultists in here anyway?
Wow, you really bowled me over with that rebuttal.
He did. It was spot on.
No thanks. I do not want the Internet "saved" by our beloved government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcjU
I agree. After all, corporations would never collude or conspire together to restrict access or control and fix pricing. And if they did, I'm sure the justice department would put their foot down and stop it just like they're currently doing by tackling all those big bad banks. After all, look at all the banker prosecutions we've had over the past 2 years. I bet those bankers are shaking in their boots.
And I love the YouTube video you link to. The video, made by reason.tv, sounds so......well reasonable. With a name like reason.tv I'm sure they're giving me an unbiased view of the discussion.
BTW congrats on your 6 weeks here on ZH. I am a bit surprised this is your very first posted comment here on ZH. What is it about this story that caught your eye that was missing in all the other ZH articles you must have read over the past 6 weeks?
Monopolies and restrictive control only arise with the support of the threat of force from the government. Specific to internet access -
Ex 1: Cable TV franchising
Ex 2: FCC control of airwaves
If a poster doesn't have seniority in terms of the number of posts or the age of the account here, does that mean their views are not regarded as well as "aged members"?. What is this, middle school?
"After all, corporations would never collude or conspire together to restrict access or control and fix pricing."
Is it wrong to "restrict access" to one's own property?
Is it wrong to "collude or conspire" (AKA cooperate and plan) with others and agree to set prices? For example, if unionized employees make an agreement to not work for less than $X per hour, is it wrong? If it is wrong, who is being victimized by the wrong action? Which person's body is being injured? Which person's property rights are being violated?
"Im sure the jusice department would put their foot down and stop it"
You need to first establish whether the action is wrong before talking about prosecuting it.
@breezer and acula
Dudes, corporations are people without the pain of conscience. They don't have to worry about right or wrong.
The point is, are you willing to let these 'people' (that is, the corporations) control every aspect of your life? If so, good for you, but I do not share your sentiment on the subject.
Anyway, government and the corporation have been slowly melding themselves together for over a decade or longer depending on where you start your count. There is no difference at this point. So to gripe about government intervention in the private market in this case, or at this point in time, is just downright silly.
"corporations are people without the pain of conscience."
Entrepeneurs are only that way because of consumers:
"The consumers... are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit and vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people." - Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
"The point is, are you willing to let these 'people' (that is, the corporations) control every aspect of your life?"
If I don't want to engage in business with them, then I won't. Problem solved. Why do you want to control them through government thuggery?
"So to gripe about government intervention in the private market... at this point in time, is just downright silly."
Even one dying from HIV can catch additional strains of the virus.
you don't get a choice about whether to "engage in business" with them.
you are a subject of a government/corporate cabal at least some thirty years in the making that controls the foreign policy of your nation, the quality of the air and water you consume, the information sent over "our" airwaves, the quality and future of the currency and debt our government issues, the frequency and amplitude of the business cycle, the votes of most of those in government at all levels, the safety and efficacy of most food and medicine.... that we have a metastasizing crony capitalist system instead of any pretense of a free market is moving beyond debate. the old platitudes about "government interference with private enterprise" are increasingly laughable and obsolete.
collective liberty ??? what section of the us constitution did you specialize in at harvard?
The intention with my nym was to trigger critical thought. Or at the very least, just thought.
Let's get back on topic folks. This is a very important issue they're trying to sneak by the public when everyone is with their families and not paying attention.
just tried calling. they're currently closed. time to email them:
Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov
Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov
Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov
MeredithAttwell.Baker@fcc.gov
my own letter, feel free to use it:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please support true "net neutrality" by voting against Chairman Genachowski's proposed rules on December 21st. The internet is currently "network neutral" meaning you can you access videos from Google's YouTube or my blog at the same speed. Because it is "network neutral" my email message to you is being delivered to you with the same speed as one from a corporate executive from Verizon or AT&T. Net neutrality gives everyone an equal platform to present their ideas and content.
Supporting Chairman Genachowski's new rules would bring about a vastly different internet, one in which free speech from non-institutional sources could possibly squelched. Under such an internet, this email I'm sending to you could be delayed significantly by the FCC's internet service provider because it is not from a "prioritized source."
So please, in the name of free speech and concepts which have made the United States great, support real "net neutrality" and reject Chairman Genachowski's proposed rules favoring the large data carriers and not content providers.
Sincerely,
-The Mad Hatter
http://unconstitutional.blogspot.com
Thanks!
Phoned em all to leave messages.
Emailed them all.
Used free fax.
Feels good to take some action.