13
   

Save Net Neutrality

 
 
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2014 01:39 pm
Click and sign the petition
http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2014 01:51 pm
From PDiddie's blog

But it seems we got tricked; we elected, and re-elected, an Obama who appointed this guy.



If reports in the Wall Street Journal are correct, Obama’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Thomas Wheeler, has proposed a new rule that is an explicit and blatant violation of this promise. In fact, it permits and encourages exactly what Obama warned against: broadband carriers acting as gatekeepers and charging Web sites a payola payment to reach customers through a “fast lane.”

Late last night Wheeler released a statement accusing the Wall Street Journal of being “flat-out wrong.” Yet the Washington Post has confirmed, based on inside sources, that the new rule gives broadband providers “the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers … in a commercially reasonable matter.” That’s telecom-speak for payola payments, and a clear violation of Obama’s promise.

This is what one might call a net-discrimination rule, and, if enacted, it will profoundly change the Internet as a platform for free speech and small-scale innovation. It threatens to make the Internet just like everything else in American society: unequal in a way that deeply threatens our long-term prosperity.

There doesn't appear to be any ambiguity in the reaction to the proposal, that's for sure. It may in fact be even worse than it initially appears. Worst of all, those of us who support net neutrality may have to start sucking up to a few of the largest tech companies in order to save it.

No matter what may develop, there is only a short time left to save net neutrality as we know it. That means a lot of loud complaining about this new rule to Wheeler and the FCC, just to see if public opinion can still make a difference.

It's the same federally as it is locally: as a concerned citizen you must take action. I dislike having to repeat myself over and over again to my elected (and appointed) officials just as much as you do, but they don't seem to listen. So make sure they hear you.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 11:01 am
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 11:23 am
@edgarblythe,
Signed and tweeted.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 11:40 am
I posted this on Facebook today
While campaigning, the President promised to maintain net neutrality. Now, he is going back on his word, and the end of neutrality is almost a done deal. I urge everyone who reads this to contact Obama and your congressional representatives to protest.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 04:17 pm
@edgarblythe,
This pisses me off more than anything else going on in politics. The conservatives claiming that the democrat politicians of today are liberals when all of them are for the rich and powerful and more conservative than the so called conservatives of the 1950's and 1960's. If people dont wake up we are all going to find ourselves slaves to a business dominated government if we arnt already there. The republican party of today is run by a bunch of people who are power crazy and want to control every aspect of our lives. And the so called democrats are helping them rather than protecting us from big businesses excesses. Who can i vote for today that shares my viewpoint? No one. I am reduced to voting for the least odorous candidate.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 04:49 pm
The only candidates I sort of trust are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Warren is not running. Bernie is, only as a third party.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 09:12 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

This pisses me off more than anything else going on in politics. The conservatives claiming that the democrat politicians of today are liberals when all of them are for the rich and powerful and more conservative than the so called conservatives of the 1950's and 1960's. If people dont wake up we are all going to find ourselves slaves to a business dominated government if we arnt already there. The republican party of today is run by a bunch of people who are power crazy and want to control every aspect of our lives. And the so called democrats are helping them rather than protecting us from big businesses excesses. Who can i vote for today that shares my viewpoint? No one. I am reduced to voting for the least odorous candidate.


What puzzles me most is how few of ordinary citizens protest. It's not too late to turn it around, but it soon will be.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 08:37 am
Told you not to elect Obama...
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 08:44 am
@McGentrix,
He was not my first choice. We had no choice, after he was nominated. Look who he ran against.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 08:50 am
THE ANTI-SOPA DREAM TEAM IS CONSIDERING A REUNION AGAINST THE FCC'S PROPOSED NET NEUTRALITY RULES
http://www.onthemedia.org/story/anti-sopa-dream-team-considering-reunion-against-fccs-proposed-net-neutrality-rules/
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 12:11 pm
I believe the big shots are afraid of an informed public and are working to stifle the best source of information.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2014 03:16 pm
http://venturebeat.com/2014/05/08/internet-fast-lane-proposal-crumbles-as-150-tech-companies-voice-net-neutrality-support/
Don't quit voicing an opinion yet.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2014 07:23 pm
Contentious net neutrality proposal gets FCC green light, public comments wanted

Grant Gross
@GrantGross May 15, 2014 9:38 AMprint
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted to release a hotly debated proposal to reinstate net neutrality rules, asking whether it should move forward a proposal allowing broadband providers to engage in “commercially reasonable” traffic management or whether it should regulate broadband as a common-carrier utility.

The FCC’s vote Thursday to approve a notice of proposed rulemaking now opens it to public comment for 120 days. The notice, or NPRM, asks whether the commission should bar broadband providers from charging Web content providers for priority traffic, which some net neutrality advocates have feared Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal would allow.

Wheeler’s proposal would prohibit broadband providers from selectively blocking traffic, but his proposal also would allow the controversial practice of allowing broadband providers to manage traffic in “commercially reasonable” ways, creating what opponents call a 'fast lane' for Internet traffic.

Read: The FCC's contentious new 'net neutrality' rules and you: What you need to know

Despite criticism from fellow commissioners, Wheeler defended the proposal, saying the FCC would find many of the possible broadband provider practices feared by net neutrality advocates unreasonable. If a broadband provider charges a service like Netflix a fee to access the Internet connection for which a customer has already paid, that would be an unreasonable practice prohibited by the FCC, he said.


Wheeler’s proposal, he said, would consider the slowing of broadband connections by providers to be unreasonable and prohibited. “When a consumer buys specified capacity from a network provider, he or she is buying open capacity, not capacity where the network provider can prioritize for their own profit purposes,” he said. “Simply put, when a consumer buys a specified bandwidth, it is commercially unreasonable, and thus a violation of this proposal, to deny them the full connectivity and the full benefits that connection enables.”

Wheeler defended his proposal, in the face of “thousands” of emails and phone calls raising concerns about it.

“I don’t like the idea that the Internet could be divided into haves and have-nots, and I will work to see that does not happen,” he said. “We will use every power to stop it. The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable.”

Two commissioners, Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel and Republican Ajit Pai both criticized Wheeler’s decision to push forward with the proposal, despite public outcry. The commission should have taken more time to listen to concerns, they both said.

fcc campout FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE
Activist Yoni Galiano poses in front of a tent at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, where activists are camped in an effort to encourage the FCC to pass strong net neutrality rules.

But Wheeler said FCC action is needed after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out old net neutrality rules in January. The commission’s action on Thursday is just the first step toward new rules, he noted.

Pai, who voted against the NPRM, said the commission should defer to Congress on an issue as important as net neutrality. He questioned calls to regulate broadband providers like a telecom service or utility, saying it would reverse a long-standing U.S. policy to keep the Internet largely unregulated.

“Nobody thinks of plain, old telephone service or utilities as cutting edge, but everyone recognizes that the Internet has boundless potential, and that’s because governments didn’t set the bounds early on,” he said.

Pai criticized Wheeler’s proposal as a muddy middle ground between regulation and a free-market approach. Wheeler’s proposal is a “lawyerly one that proposes a minimal-level-of-access rule and a not-too-much discrimination rule,” he said. “To date, no one outside this building has asked me to support this proposal.”
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2014 11:28 am
Despite receiving 150,000 signatures petitioning for net neutrality, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (former lobbyist for his industry cronies) isn't listening--yet. His proposal granting big telecom and cable the right to charge different rates and put users who won't pay up in the SLOWLANE advanced out of his committee yesterday. But there's still time to act.

Let's flood his email inbox with angry missives. Write to him with the subject line: WE DEMAND NET NEUTRALITY

His email is here: [email protected]
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2014 12:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
I just sent out an email to that email account as you suggested Edgar.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2014 08:35 pm
@edgarblythe,
I did as well.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2014 08:53 pm
Nice, important topic - and surprisingly candid comments! I keep harassing Bernie Sanders to run - and my daughter has been touting Warren for years.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2014 09:17 am
Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
http://www.cringely.com/2014/05/06/14890/

NSFnetBackboneThere’s a peering crisis apparently happening right now among American Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and backbone providers according to a blog post this week from backbone company Level3 that I am sure many of you have read. The gist of it is that six major ISPs of the 51 that peer with Level3 have maxed-out their interconnections and are refusing to do the hardware upgrades required to support the current level of traffic. The result is that packets are being dropped, porn videos are stuttering, and customers are being ill-served. I know exactly what’s going on here and also how to fix it, pronto.

The problem is real and Level3′s explanation is pretty much on target. It’s about money and American business, because this is a peculiarly American problem. Five of the six unnamed ISPs are American and — given that Level3 also said they are the ones that typically get the lowest scores for customer service (no surprise there, eh?) we can guess at least some of the names. According to the American Customer Satisfaction Index’s 2013 report (the latest available with a new one due any day now) the worst ISPs in American are — from worst to less bad but still lousy — Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, AT&T U-verse, Cox Communications, and Verizon FiOS. That’s seven companies and since Level3 says only five are creating this peering problem then two in there are off-the-hook but still not the best at what they do.

The idea here is pretty clear: these five ISPs want to be paid extra for doing the job they are already being paid for. Extra ports are required to handle the current level of traffic and these companies are assuming that when the pain becomes great enough — that’s our pain, by the way — Level3 or some Level3 customer like Netflix will pay the extra money to make the problem go away.

This ties into the current Net Neutrality debate and the new FCC rules that Chairman Tom Wheeler says he’ll be offering-up later this month that will both keep the playing field level while somehow allowing for a version of fast lane service. I already have doubts about Chairman Wheeler’s proposed rules.

Let’s understand something: Internet service is an extremely profitable business for the companies that provide it. Most on this notorious list are cable TV companies and generally they break even on TV and make their profit on the Internet because it costs so little to provide once the basic cable plant is built. So what these five are saying, if Level3 is on the level, is that the huge profits they are already making on Internet service just aren’t quite huge enough.

I’d call this greedy except that Gordon Gecko taught us that greed is good, remember, so it must be something other than greedy.

It’s insulting.

So here is my solution to the problem. I suggest we look back to the origin of peering, which took place in the dim recesses of Internet history circa 1987. Back then the Internet was owned and run by the National Science Foundation and was called NSFnet. Lots of backbone providers served NSFnet and also built parallel private backbones that were generally built from T1 (now called DS1) connections running at 1.5 megabits-per-second. Most backbone links today are 10 gigabits-per-second and there are often many running in parallel to handle the traffic. Back in the NSFnet days peering was done at a dozen or so designated phone company exchange points in places like Palo Alto and San Diego where backbone companies would string extra Ethernet cables around the data centers connecting one backbone with another. That’s what peering meant — 10 meters or less of cable linking one rack to another. Peering was cheap to do.

Peering also made for shorter routes with fewer hops and a generally lower load for both backbones involved, so it saved money. Nobody paid anybody for the service because it was assumed to be symmetrical: as many bits were going in one direction as in the other so any transaction fees would be a wash. Most peering remains free today with Level3 claiming that only three of its 51 peers are paying (or are being paid, it isn’t clear which from the post).

The offending ISPs are leaning on the idea that with Content Distribution Networks for video from Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, and Hulu, the traffic is no longer symmetrical. They claim to be getting more bits than they are giving and that, they say, is wrong.

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them. The bits aren’t aren’t being forced on the ISPs by Netflix or Level3, they are being demanded from Netflix and Level3 by we, the paying customers of these ISPs.

The solution to this problem is simple: peering at the original NSFnet exchange points should be forever free and if one participant starts to consistently clip data and doesn’t do anything about it, they should be thrown out of the exchange point.

Understand that where there were maybe a dozen exchange points 25 years ago, there are thousands today, but if a major ISP or backbone provider doesn’t have a presence at the big old exchange points — that original dozen — well they simply can’t claim to be in the Internet business.

These companies are attempting to extort more millions from us just to provide the service we have already paid for.

I say throw the bums out.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 07:49 pm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Obama on Net Nutrality - Discussion by edgarblythe
SO WHATs WRONG WITH NET NEUTRALITY?? - Question by farmerman
Net Neutrality - Discussion by RABEL222
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Save Net Neutrality
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 09:31:50