Home Forums General Discussion OT-Net Neutrality

This topic contains 20 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  Pip 3 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #308560
    Jan Lucinda1
    Participant

    Has anyone read about the possibility of the Internet being classified as a telecommunications service rather than a public utility which would involve large fees? This is described as Net Neutrality. I received some information about this and was wondering.

    #373892
    Pip
    Participant

    OMG, Jan – we are on the same page!

    This is THE most important issue we’re facing in America.

    Obama appointed Tom Wheeler to the FCC which regulates telecoms and cable. He was supposed to look out for the public interest but many, many people were very concerned that Obama put a former lobbyist for Telco’s and Cable in charge. Yes, a lobbyist. For the very companies he now is in charge of regulating.

    Wheeler immediately proposed a two tiered system for the Internet. The fast lane, that companies like Netflix, or Google, or people, like you and me, can pay for, or the regular slow lane, which will get MUCH slower because, hey, they’re not paying the companies extra money for something that they used to get for ‘free’.

    This is John Oliver’s monologue (warning – swearing) that inspired over a million people to bombard the FCC with complaints when they opened the issue up to public input. Notice the chart where they show what happens when they ‘throttle’ the competition.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

    Oliver’s million people who registered a complaint with the FCC turns out to be a drop in the bucket. It’s around 4 1/2 million people who’ve complained about the ‘fast lanes’ for the rich. To put this in perspective, up until this issue, the most people who’ve contacted the FCC was 1.2 million over Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction. And it’s not just the people contacting the FCC – there have been protests all around the US, coordinated, nationwide, from NY to LA.

    There were so many protests that the FCC backed down because people began demanding making the Internet into a utility, like the phone company, that is regulated to keep it ‘equal access for everybody’.

    The protests are neither liberal or conservative. Protestors have come from the liberal Occupy and Democracy Now side to the Tea Party. These various Protestors have blockaded Tom Wheeler from leaving his driveway. Protestors have been arrested all over the USA (mainly because we’re not supposed to be utilizing our God-given rights to protest anymore). Protestors have been arrested at Google Headquarters.

    Why Google? Originally the Telco’s that were going to ‘profit’ from this fast lane (Verizon etc). Originally, Google, Yahoo etc were FIGHTING against this fast lane. What changed? They’ve made ‘side deals’ with the Telco’s. Deals for selling ‘free speech for the average Joe’ as long as their content gets delivered in the fast lane.

    So, Tom Wheeler of the FCC waited a few months, then re-introduced the Fast Lane, this time calling it a Hybrid-Internet.

    http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/home/id=1202676021562/Taking-Sides-For-and-Against-Obamas-Net-Neutrality-Plan?mcode=1202615432600&curindex=1&back=NLJ – notice – this is the National Law Journal. Showing who is making ‘side deals’ and it’s everybody who WAS protesting. Can’t beat ’em, buy ’em.

    If you’re not worried about paying for the ‘fast lane’ you might consider how this is going to play out for the average Internet user.

    To get streaming at Netflix or other sites like Hulu or even LOL cats, you will have to pay more for the Fast Lane. If you are going to websites without a huge bankroll to pay for that fast lane, you will not get in. Links will drop out. Video’s won’t load or won’t play without endless buffering. You will be so frustrated you WILL pay for that Fast Lane, even if you can’t afford it.

    But what really worries me, is that this Fast Lane is going to close off free speech. If you are an activist of any sort (Occupy, Tea Party, or name your political party or issue, such as climate change, or tax inversions, or even legal MJ for pain) if you’re on an alternative site, they will not be able to compete.

    Like the Roadback.

    This is an article that explains, loosely, and not like I’d say it, just a bit about how this is going to cost the average person.

    http://www.tomsguide.com/us/net-neutrality-free-speech,news-18792.html

    And this shows the money, including Dark Money, being dumped into killing this idea of making the Internet into a public Utility like the phone company or the Electric company.

    http://gizmodo.com/how-much-money-big-cable-gave-the-politicians-who-overs-1657002442

    While this focuses mostly on the Republicans, please note that they’re buying the Dems too.

    The only way to stop this is to get involved, call your bought politicians, and maybe research this yourselves.

    Because contrary to the PR machine, this won’t cost jobs; they still need the same people to run the Internet that are working there already.

    Ask yourself, who profits? It’s the corporations – not the people.

    #373893
    Jan Lucinda1
    Participant

    Pip-

    I am generally pro business but in this case, I think it is very important for the internet to stay a public utility. This is the way health groups like Roadback can inform people of treatment options.

    Jan

    #373894
    richie
    Participant

    Hi This is a highly complex issue –we basically have a net neutrality system right now —your provider makes available to its users high speed internet for additional charge and corporations have high speed internet available right now —Remember –competition keerps down cost –in my area the cable provider competes with FIOS and Directvas well as minor players –this keeps costs in line —THe issues are many and complex and cerainly cant be simplified –
    richie

    #373895
    richie
    Participant

    Hi I am more confused than ever –just read the link to Toms Guide and he appears strongly net neutrality —which the way I see it -we already have it –without any real problems —this would keep it an open internet


    if people are aware of how the internet business works -there is no big deal about this –an outfit like Google makes revenue from clicks- that takes bodies – they certainly arent going to restrict people from their site -these big players sell advertising thats their main source of revenue –less viewers -less revenue —this is a big “tempest in a teapot”–Net neutrality keeps it an open internet —its what we have now —-
    richie

    #373896
    Pip
    Participant

    Yes, Richie – what we have now. What the FCC, under former lobbyist Tom Wheeler, is trying to do is change it so that there is a fast and slow lane. It is a very concerning issue because while it brings in more $ to the Telco’s, it effectively works to silence criticism of…just about anything that cannot afford to pay for the ‘fast lane’.

    Today, every legal journal I get, (and really, I have no idea how I ended up on all of them and need to take some time to get off those lists – they scare me), was going crazy. Apparently the Telecoms have banded together and are in the process of suing about this which will put this right in the lap of the very pro-business Supreme Court.

    This is no longer a legal issue; it’s becoming a political one.

    Reclassifying the Internet into a public utility will make is so that they cannot attempt to make it a profit driven business in the future. Lobbyist Tom Wheeler backed off after the public outcry the first time, only to wait 4 months and ‘rebrand’ his same plan as ‘a hybrid’ Internet and then try again.

    #373897
    Pip
    Participant

    Richie – I came back because I think I know why you are confused.

    Lobbyist Tom Wheeler is proposing to END net neutrality. He is calling it a fast lane, or a hybrid, but the end result is that it is becoming a ‘pay to play’ model.

    The people fighting this want to keep it neutral, not determined by how much you have to pay.

    We probably do not have a chance to do this because there is tons of money being dropped into this issue to “PR spin” this issue so that you vote to raise the prices yourself, because, yes, American’s are that stupid.

    This link shows how this is becoming a political issue – https://gigaom.com/2014/11/10/the-biggest-danger-to-net-neutrality-is-now-political-not-legal-even-as-verizon-renews-fcc-lawsuit-threat/

    And this issue is showing how some corporations are fighting this – http://gizmodo.com/report-corporate-giants-like-visa-and-ford-support-net-1659123688/all – mainly because it will screw them over to have the same access to customers.

    But the part that scares me is the money. They’ve already bought all the Republicans on this issue and are working on the Democrats who will also sell us out.

    This was a post in the comment section of the last link –

    WonderingWalnutUdamnthisburnershitsux
    Saturday 10:02am

    PFollow wonderingwalnut

    Scott Cleland (president of Netcompetetion and George H.W. Bush as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for telecom trade matters) is that you? Netcompetition.org you say? So I did some digging.

    TL/DR: “NetCompetition.org is heavily funded by telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, Qwest and Time Warner,18 who all have a vested interest in ending net neutrality”

    source 18: http://www.netcompetition.org/docs/about/

    From http://www.terribleinformation.org/zane/files/Net

    “In June of 2006, NetCompetition.org was launched as a response to sites like SaveTheInternet.com. It too relied on the emotional appeal of its language to promote its agenda. One propaganda video on the website15 tries to diminish the friendly term “network neutrality” by associating it with unpopular phrases like:

    o “government regulations”

    o “special interest legislation”

    o “corporate welfare for dot-com billionaires”16

    The website also accuses network neutrality of being “bankrolled by the e-commerce giants, who enjoy 80-90% gross profit margins.”17 Although some of these accusations may be true, they are all irrelevant and hypocritical. They are irrelevant because they only criticize those who support network neutrality, not the idea itself. And, they are hypocritical because NetCompetition.org is heavily funded by telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, Qwest and Time Warner,18 who all have a vested interest in ending net neutrality. Not to mention, most of the telecom companies’ net incomes surpassed those of the e-commerce giants(Google, Yahoo, eBay, etc.) by the billions, in 2006.19”

    Look at the spin involved aimed at ‘regular people’. We can’t win against what has been launched to defeat this.

    If the Astroturf is out, like with Pharma, how can this be stopped against billions of dollars?

    #373891
    Jan Lucinda1
    Participant

    This is still going on.

    #373890
    Pip
    Participant

    Yes, Jan, but we have good news to report this AM.

    http://act.commoncause.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=7786&em_id=3881.0

    Dear Common Cause Activist,

    tellcongressFCC300BREAKING: Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler just proposed new rules that would deliver strong net neutrality for generations to come!

    Over 4 million Americans asked him to make sure providers can

    #373889
    Jan Lucinda1
    Participant

    Pip- Glad to hear the good news!!

    #373888
    greypilgrim256
    Participant

    Pip, you may have your information confused. Wheeler is not proposing to end net neutrality. I’m pretty sure that Wheeler and Obama are much in favor of net neutrality.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31128823

    http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/

    #373887
    Pip
    Participant

    Richie,

    Wheeler, a former Telco lobbyist, WAS for creating the ‘fast lane’ and for charging more for access to high speeds. The blow back, by over 4 million responders to his original rules, caused him to change his mind. Hence the new proposal yesterday.

    That being said, there is going to be billions of dollars spent on fighting this during the next 3 weeks. I’m more concerned about what the ‘compromises’ will be.

    Remember, if ISPs and video people (Netflix, Hulu) have side deals, it doesn’t matter to them to fight this tooth and nail like they were in the beginning.

    #373885
    richie
    Participant

    Hi Pip —
    I am missing the issue on this —For example I use my local cable company for phone internet and the tv —I dont even know how netflix or the like even works –I do know my cable co offers a high speed option which I dont take —fortunately in my area FIOS has made strong inroads so the cable co is really on their toes –let me give you another example I got my estimate for this year –I called them and said I like them {BS] and dont want to change to FIOS -I am with them since day one about 30 years –I laid it on them {“what am I getting for my loyalty etc etc –they switched me to another person who promptly reduced my monthly bill 35.00 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -I felt I used a novel approach –I didnt cry poverty {not with all the extra programming I get } but played up the loyalty angle and it worked –I do agree with you –got to keep your eyes and ears open –Good job on the Wheeler thing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    richie

    #373886
    greypilgrim256
    Participant

    One more positive change that already took place is exactly what is and what ISN’T defined as Broadband. ISP can no longer claim that the offer broad band unless it is faster than 25megabits p/s

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2015/0130/FCC-redfines-high-speed-Do-you-still-have-broadband-Internet

    #373884
    Pip
    Participant

    Thanks for the info, GreyPilgrim – I’ll read that next!

    Richie –

    You kind of hit the nail on the head with getting your bill reduced. Notice, it was this time, with no contract to say you’re locked into that price. Let me explain further as well as I can. I’m no tech geek.

    What the Telephone companies and the cable operators have done, is pressure Wheeler, who used to work for them, to make them a legal monopoly. They were saying that because they ‘laid the pipe’ from the house to the ‘store’, they can charge more depending on usage.

    But they didn’t ‘lay the pipe’. Most of that was covered under your tax dollars, back in the day. Then, the companies took over expansion, and paid lots and lots of money to grow the networks more and maintain them, but they STILL got billions of our tax to defray their costs.

    If you use the ‘road’ analogy, right now, the roads are free. You can jump on the Internet Highway and go wherever you like. Same price as whatever your service provider charges you to get on, FOIS, Cable, whatever.

    What they were trying to do (and we’re not out of the woods yet) is charge you more, depending on where you’re going, to use the ‘free’ roads.

    They were trying to make the Internet into a Toll Road.

    So, those that could use a lot of bandwidth (how fast your Internet connection works – anybody remember dial up?) they could charge you more. They already charge companies for use of a

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.