Net Neutrality -- the wolves are circling

NotMe

unread,

Apr 14, 2010, 2:26:33 PM4/14/10

to

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/net-neutrality-needs-your_b_536890.html

It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by here and
"tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and political
culture now.
But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day and
more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear we've
just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a platform
for commerce and discourse.

And so it's far from surprising that the powerful interests have lined up on
different sides of a huge fight going on in Washington; and it will probably
be very familiar to you, after years of battling over Net Neutrality.

On one side are the telephone and cable companies who believe they should be
in control because they own the wires that deliver the Internet to your
house. On the other side is you, the consumer, and President Obama's FCC,
with a broad set of interests -- making sure consumers are protected, users
and content are not discriminated against, and broadband service is
universally affordable and available.

President Obama has been a strong champion for an open, fast Internet. He
was a leader on Net Neutrality as a Senator, and he has pushed hard to
create a National Broadband Plan to build the fast broadband infrastructure
we need. And his FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, has been fighting hard to
make President Obama's vision a reality, which is no surprise to those of us
who knew Julius before he headed the FCC.

But not surprisingly, the industry is fighting back, with heavy artillery on
their side.

Today, there's a vital hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee, and I need
your help. You could make an enormous difference if you take just a couple
of minutes right now, call your Senators and urge them to support the
President's push for Net Neutrality and a National Broadband plan. You can
just call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senator.

It's helpful to bust wide open the convenient myth many in Washington buy
into -- the idea that it's only the industry and those with financial skin
in the game who really care about these issues.

The travesty in the court system last week underscored the importance of you
weighing in, and doing it in a hurry. Just last week, the industry won a
round in court, with a DC Circuit of the Federal Appeals Court ruling that
could block the FCC from protecting Net Neutrality, working for consumers,
or making broadband available to all Americans.

The details get a little technical, but it basically boils down to this:
back in the Bush Administration, the FCC classified the Internet as an
"information service" rather than a "communications service." This limits
what the FCC can do, which is, of course, just the way the big telecom
companies want it.

But the FCC could reclassify the service and preserve its traditional role.
The telecom companies are giving it everything they've got to keep this from
happening, and if you don't speak up, they could win.

A win for them would mean that the FCC couldn't protect Net Neutrality, so
the telecoms could throttle traffic as they wish -- it would be at their
discretion. The FCC couldn't help disabled people access the Internet, give
public officials priority access to the network in times of emergency, or
implement a national broadband plan to improve the deplorable situation
where the United States -- the country that invented the Internet -- lags
far behind in our broadband infrastructure. In short, it would take away a
key check on the power of phone and cable corporations to do whatever they
want with our Internet.

The telecom companies try to say that only Congress can pass a law to make
this better. But having suffered through a year of record filibusters and
procedural hurdles to grind the process to a halt, do you really think it's
a good idea for Congress to try and do this, when the FCC can have the
authority right now?

Look, eventually we may need to build a new legal framework for broadband
service, but the Internet is moving too fast, the economy needs the
innovation of the Internet too badly, to wait. Especially because we don't
have to. The FCC can act right now.

But they need the political support from the Senate, and the Senate needs to
know that you care about this. So call right now and let them know.
Especially if your Senator serves on the Commerce Committee (here's the
membership of the committee).

Bottom line is that this is the way politics work. In the end, you pull the
levers, but only if you use them. The industry will fight for control, and
they should fight -- if you were advising them, you'd give them that advice
yourself.

But we need to show them that we're going to fight even harder to make sure
the Internet stays in the hands of the American people, that we get to set
the rules to benefit all of us, not just a few huge corporations.

John Varela

unread,

Apr 14, 2010, 6:55:06 PM4/14/10

to

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:33 UTC, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> It would be at best sophomoric and at worst patronizing to stop by here and
> "tell you" you how important the Internet is to our economy and political
> culture now.
> But when you're talking about almost 200 billion emails sent each day and
> more than $3 trillion in e-commerce a year ago, it's more than clear we've
> just scratched the surface of what the Internet can do, both as a platform
> for commerce and discourse.

It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
But maybe I don't understand the issues.

--
John Varela

David H. Lipman

unread,

Apr 14, 2010, 7:03:32 PM4/14/10

to

From: "John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net>

I do NOT want to pay a per MB/GB tax quota!

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

(PeteCresswell)

unread,

Apr 14, 2010, 9:21:05 PM4/14/10

to

Per John Varela:

>It seems reasonable to me that people who use a lot of bandwidth
>should pay more than people who only use a little bit of bandwidth.
>But maybe I don't understand the issues.

The way I understand it:

I go to the supermarket to buy milk.

ABC Dairy milk is $2.10 for a half-gallon.

Soprano Brothers' Dairy milk is $2.00 for a half-gallon.

So I buy Soprano Brothers' milk.

Eventually ABC Dairy goes broke and/or is bought out by Soprano
Brothers because they cannot compete on retail price.

But what I don't know is:

1) ABC's cost of production is $1.25

2) Soprano Brothers' cost of production is $1.50

3) The reason Soprano Brothers' milk costs less retail is that
they're paying off the Turnpike Authority to let their trucks
travel the road for fewer dollars per mile and can afford to sell
to the supermarket for a lower cost (production +
transportation).

ABC is not paying off the Turnpike Authority, so their cost of
transportation is higher - so high, in fact, that it wipes out
their competitive advantage from being a more efficient producer.

Bottom line: the system becomes perverted. The most efficient
producer is now losing out to a less efficient producer - and the
consumer is not informed.

Extrapolate that to web sites and response time instead of
Turnpike Fees and you've got my understanding of the issue.

Want to order something from ABC, who is not paying off the ISP?
Well, you can do that... but you'll wait 15-20 seconds for their
page to load whereas XYZ'page (XYZ is paying off the ISP) loads
in a fraction of a second. The problem being that you don't
know who is paying off the ISP and who is not.
--
PeteCresswell

NotMe

unread,

Apr 14, 2010, 10:45:08 PM4/14/10

to

"John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-49p0bQCeksjx@localhost...

Uncompetitive environment is one issue as is who uses how much but the real
issue seems to be the desire of the carriers to charge a premium to the
providers for access to 'their' client base. Recent examples: ATT cut
content from a web based concert because ATT management did not agree with
the lyrics in the song.

Other issues: introducing latency problems to VoIP for competitors to the
carrier's copper phone services.

Filtering in and out bound email for content or scanning in/out bound email
and adding advertising. I can see all sorts of possabilities with the
latter. I send an email to a client and included in the email is an advert
that just happens to have an offer a few buck less than my quote.

Travis

unread,

Apr 14, 2010, 11:47:24 PM4/14/10

to

The roads are free to drive on out here.

The government subsidizes milk production.

--

Travis in Shoreline Washington

Richard B. Gilbert

unread,

Apr 15, 2010, 12:08:42 AM4/15/10

to

I wish someone would define "Net Neutrality".

I'm sure I don't understand the issues, couched in buzzwords as they
seem to be!

What I have right now is what I want.

Golden California Girls

unread,

Apr 15, 2010, 12:17:02 AM4/15/10

to

That's not nearly as bad as the advert having a URL that sends your quote into
the great spam bucket.

Golden California Girls

unread,

Apr 15, 2010, 12:17:37 AM4/15/10

to

That is Net Neutrality

Richard B. Gilbert

unread,

Apr 15, 2010, 12:23:33 AM4/15/10

to

So what's the evil alternative?

QN

unread,

Apr 15, 2010, 12:23:06 AM4/15/10

to

IMHO the real issue is not bandwidth, but rather the intent of ISPs to
protect their other products such as cable TV or VOIP service.

I gather Europe has better bandwidth engineered into their system, but I
also heard the the high speed internet service is pricy.

unread,

Apr 15, 2010, 4:49:59 AM4/15/10

to

Well Duh!! You don't understand; drink more MCI Kool-Aid.

Golden California Girls

unread,

Apr 15, 2010, 9:36:10 AM4/15/10

to

Since you presumably are on Verizon, if you want anything but Verizon.com you
(or someone) pay a per byte transfer charge.

Richard B. Gilbert

unread,

Apr 15, 2010, 10:39:55 AM4/15/10

to

Well, Web browsing is not really practical on my phone and also too
expensive. I could maybe live with the tiny screen but trying to input
a long URL via the keypad is too daunting. I use my phone as a phone
and use a desktop computer to handle my e-mail, web browsing, etc.

Golden California Girls

unread,

Apr 15, 2010, 9:00:54 PM4/15/10

to

Yes, a per byte charge for your desktop computer! We aren't talking about
cellular data plans.

unread,

Apr 16, 2010, 8:32:54 AM4/16/10

to

stevev wrote:
>
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:zfednVeC9_3cClvW...@giganews.com...
>> QN wrote:
>>> IMHO the real issue is not bandwidth, but rather the intent of ISPs
>>> to protect their other products such as cable TV or VOIP service.
>>>
>>> I gather Europe has better bandwidth engineered into their system,
>>> but I also heard the the high speed internet service is pricy.
>>>
>>> Where I live, the only choice that can deliver streaming video is my
>>> cable company. The phone company has internet service too, but their
>>> fastest speed is 2.4Mbps. A duoploy is about as bad as a onopoly.
>>> -That is why these kind of companies used to be handled as Public
>>> Utilities.
>>
>> There are other things in life besides "streaming video". And it's a
>> hell of an inefficient way to distribute video.
>
> LOL, what if they said they can no longer transmit to people who's last
> names start with G? Maybe there are too many users with G names, or
> they don't pay as much as those with S last names...who knows. The

So I change my surname to Halliburton and get on with my life!

> point being, if Comcast is unilaterally allowed to block whatever it
> chooses, then what's to stop others from doing the same? And who will
> decide what content is allowed to be blocked? Since Comcast (as other
> cable companies) are give exclusive rights, what if the local
> authorities failed to renew Comcast's contract unless they didn't block
> or did block this or that? I don't want government involvement/control
> of the internet anymore than I want a root canal, but in this case I
> think the FCC was right and the courts wrong. We certainly haven't
> heard the last of this.
>

Somebody is censoring the net right now! I can recall the days when I
could sit down at my desk in the morning and find a couple of hundred
messages offering pharmaceuticals without prescription; a picture of
female genitalia that left NOTHING to the imagination, etc. I don't
miss that shit! Or how about the spam in Arabic or Russian.

Try distributing kiddie porn. You may get away with it for a few days
or weeks but eventually they will find you and land on you like a ton of
bricks.

(PeteCresswell)

unread,

Apr 16, 2010, 11:23:30 AM4/16/10

to

Per stevev:

>The point being,
>if Comcast is unilaterally allowed to block whatever it chooses, then what's
>to stop others from doing the same?

Also, the really insidious part would come when they don't
out-and-out block a site - but they just make response from that
site significantly slower... and the user never knows what's
going on.

Our whole system is based in part on the assumption of informed
consumers. The above undermines that.
--
PeteCresswell

Message has been deleted

(PeteCresswell)

unread,

Apr 17, 2010, 8:30:26 PM4/17/10

to

Per I once was Bob:
>Actually, the rest of the civilized world has much faster (often
>100mb) access while we drool over getting 20mb.

Do they have network neutrality in, say, the EU?
--
PeteCresswell

Golden California Girls

unread,

Apr 18, 2010, 1:18:53 AM4/18/10

to

Why yes, but they also have socialism.

(PeteCresswell)

unread,

Apr 18, 2010, 4:48:01 PM4/18/10

to

Per Golden California Girls:

>> Do they have network neutrality in, say, the EU?
>
>Why yes, but they also have socialism.

Half of my family lives in Germany.

They come here (USA) to visit for the novelty and low prices but
none of them would even consider staying - it's kind of like an
advanced third-world country to them.

4-6 weeks vacation.... retirement on full pay.... medical care...
*vastly* superior roads..... If there weren't so many Germans
over there, I'd move in a heartbeat...-)
--
PeteCresswell

Gary

unread,

Apr 18, 2010, 9:35:42 PM4/18/10

to

"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:2srms59k2rp3sm3fu...@4ax.com...

>
> Half of my family lives in Germany.
>
> They come here (USA) to visit for the novelty and low prices but
> none of them would even consider staying - it's kind of like an
> advanced third-world country to them.
>
> 4-6 weeks vacation.... retirement on full pay.... medical care...
> *vastly* superior roads.....

For which they can thank the American GI for liberation from tyranny and
post-war American and European efforts for providing the foundation for
democracy to flourish.

-Gary

Gary

unread,

Apr 18, 2010, 9:38:21 PM4/18/10

to

"Golden California Girls" <gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
news:hqe4nt$4ru$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> Why yes, but they also have socialism.

The EU is socialist? Me thinks you've been spending too much time listening
to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

-Gary

Message has been deleted

LDosser

unread,

Apr 19, 2010, 12:07:47 AM4/19/10

to

"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:2srms59k2rp3sm3fu...@4ax.com...

Sharia coming RSN ...

Golden California Girls

unread,

Apr 19, 2010, 12:16:31 AM4/19/10

to

Never heard of Glenn Beck. I don't listen to drug addicts either.

Get my news from NHK, DW, BBC. Have no use for no news all opinion outlets
like MSNBC, Fox, CNN ...

(PeteCresswell)

unread,

Apr 19, 2010, 8:03:42 PM4/19/10

to

Per I once was Bob:

>Sort of. They can also thank the fact that their government isn't
>owned by the Corporations and the uber-rich, and they don't have 5% of
>the population holding 95% of the country's wealth.

And also that they haven't frittered away a 200-billion dollar
surplus to leave a 700+ billion dollar deficit and set the stage
for the greatest financial collapse since the great depression in
the process.

Heaven forbid that during the good times the supposed bearers of
the mantle of fiscal responsibility should have socked away some
money against the day when the nation would need it instead of
maxing out the credit card.

I don't blame the pols though: they're just trying to get
re-elected.

I blame us: the American public. Imagine some poor guy's
chances of getting elected - by either party - if he ran on a
platform of "We need to cut entitlements and raise taxes."
--
PeteCresswell

Message has been deleted

Richard B. Gilbert

unread,

Apr 20, 2010, 11:33:27 AM4/20/10

to

I once was Bob wrote:

> On target, Pete. The problem is an incredible lack of intelligence on
> the part of the public. Try to explain to someone about how the
> neo-con masters have successfully taken over the Republican Party and
> used every and any issue they can to maintain power, with one and only
> one end goal: increasing their wealth at the expense of the public and
> the country.
>
> The incredible brainwashing that the neo's have done to the doltish
> public, dragging them by inclusion of a myriad of false issues, dwarfs
> that done by any government in history, although the techniques are
> the same as that used in ancient times and that used by other modern
> despots.
>
> The bottom line: if the public could think their way out of a box, we
> wouldn't be in the situation we are now... and about to see the
> experiment of Democracy fail due to unrestrained greed.
>
> PS. Walter Mondale ran on the platform of "yes, we need to raise
> taxes" and was soundly defeated. GHWB "no new taxes" won... and then
> realized that taxes did have to be raised. The doltish public blamed
> him for raising taxes (not having the intelligence to understand or
> face reality) and voted him out in protest.

A politician has only ONE thing to sell. His word! If he promises only
what he can do, and does what he promises he has a good shot at a career!

The guy who promises what he cannot do is, at best, an idiot. At worst,
a crook!

Walter Bushell

unread,

Apr 28, 2010, 6:42:12 AM4/28/10

to

In article <yMmdnYO12_9dVVDW...@giganews.com>,

She probably doesn't get elected in the first place, so the career in
politics doesn't get started.

>
> The guy who promises what he cannot do is, at best, an idiot. At worst,
> a crook!

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.