The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Snopes.com, which monitors various causes that circulate on the Internet, recently explained this issue:

Simply put, network neutrality means that no web site's traffic has precedence over any other's...Whether a user searches for recipes using Google, reads an article on snopes.com, or looks at a friend's MySpace profile, all of that data is treated equally and delivered from the originating web site to the user's web browser with the same priority. In recent months, however, some of the telephone and cable companies that control the telecommunications networks over which Internet data flows have floated the idea of creating the electronic equivalent of a paid carpool lane.

If companies like AT&T have their way, Web sites ranging from Google to eBay to MoveOn either pay the equivalent of protection money to get into the "fast lane" or risk opening slowly on your computer. We can't allow the Internet—this incredible medium which has been such a revolutionary force for democratic participation, economic innovation, and free speech—to become captive to large corporations.

---------------------------------------------

For more Information:

Wikipedia in-depth article on network neutrality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Bipartisan "Save The Internet" Coalition:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/

---------------------------------------------

MoveOn.org's Net Neutrality petition:
http://civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7450-6607671-lrSJ9BGGdsbsHYN06iGvcA&t=3

Big Internet operators like AT&T and Verizon want the power to decide which Web sites open properly on our computers—giving them control over what we do and where we search online. So far, Congress has caved to their demands.

Because of intense public pressure, some members of Congress are starting to switch from AT&T's side to ours! In just a week, Congress saw over 250,000 of us sign a petition demanding the Internet stay free. Joining this call are tech pioneers like Google and Microsoft, diverse groups ranging from MoveOn to Gun Owners of America, and even some celebrities.

If enough of us stand up now, there's still time for the House of Representatives to do the right thing next week when it votes on whether to protect or destroy Network Neutrality—the Internet's First Amendment and the key to Internet freedom.

Can you join our petition asking Congress to protect the free and open Internet?

http://civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7450-6607671-lrSJ9BGGdsbsHYN06iGvcA&t=2

This petition will be delivered to your members of Congress, and everyone who signs will be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the pressure on Congress this week.

Companies like AT&T are spending millions lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. A House committee voted to go along with AT&T's scheme last week, but we are fighting back hard before next week's full House vote. We want to raise public awareness of this issue and hand Congress 350,000 signatures.

To reach this goal, we're launching a contest: Ask your friends to sign the petition and you can win one of 10 iPod Nanos or one of 40 BarnesandNoble.com gift certificates. Start by signing the petition yourself, and you'll receive instructions to enter the contest.



---------------------------------------------


Thanks to DanChangTulsa and AltruismSuffers for bringing this topic to the forum.

Looks like Netflix is one of the first victims:

http://hothardware.com/News/Verizon-Allegedly-Already-Throttling-Customers-After-Net-Neutrality-Ruling/
(http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item28887/Verizon_Chat.jpg)

Also from your link:

I expect that means that "company representatives" will be told not to reveal such information.

  This is gonna get uuugly.

Might be the best commentary on net neutrality ever.

John Oliver is freaking hilarious.

Mostly NSFW:

[youtube]fpbOEoRrHyU[/youtube]

And of course, after the Mensa of Texas (Sen Rafael Cruz) went on his rant about net neutrality being "the Obamacare for the Internet", Jimmy Fallon makes a funny about it.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26442998/Photos/2014-11-13_091641.jpg)

Great, now the GOP will make net neutrality a "must fail" because Obama must fail.

Maybe not though. Many in his conservative base have been hammering him about his stance. We'll see.

Wanna make guesses on which way Oklahoma representatives and senators will go on this??

Inhofe called the presidents Ebola response "another failed immigration policy," so I have some idea.

And who was it that actually has put mass amnesty in place for millions of illegals..??   Oh, yeah...that would be Reagan and Bush I.


Here's another one for the "failed policy" department - who started the worst "hyperinflation" the country saw in the 70's - not Carter, as branded by Faux News.  That would be Nixon, going through the Ford administration.  And yet, the lies continue unabated out of the MurdochianWarpedTimeAlternateReality BS generator!

How is it that people of conscience could continue to pass the lies and deceptions??   I never used to believe in the concept of the "Great Deceiver", but now I'm not so sure...

Rather than sloganeering on the subject of net neutrality, I think a hard look at what is at issue should be done. Do we want government involved in the internet any more than it already is (like maybe spying)? Do we want to prohibit ISPs from transacting business as they see fit? Should ISPs that choose not to charge content providers that devour more bandwidth to essentially do away with those ISPs that do want to charge more via competition? And what about the risks of the loss of innovation and possible job losses. Then there is always the "if you don't like Verizon, don't use them"; or "spend your own money and become a ISP yourself" argument. On the other side, I do understand how come content providers are getting the short end, and that there is a risk that if they are disliked by an ISP there could be discriminatory treatment. I am still trying to figure out both sides of this.

To me, this is a complicated matter which cannot be resolved by simply complaining that "Mr. Smith gets better internet service than I do because he can afford to pay more in fees".  

guido, don't get bogged down by the sloganeering....just read it all through!


At it's most fundamental level, it was the US government that created the internet (with lots of enabling help from Al Gore....at least according to the guys who did the hands on tech work), so by definition, each citizen has contributed proportionally to the 'making' of the internet.  Until recent years, when the FCC came under that same spasms as so much of our country due to the US Congress being bought and paid for, radio/tv spectrum was considered to be used for the benefit of the people.

This is an even more direct extension of that logic, since we actually PAID for it....as opposed to electromagnetic spectrum that is naturally occurring and just happens as part of nature.

It should be open, equal, regulated, and operated for the benefit of the citizens.  Like is done in every other part of the civilized world, perhaps?

I don't ever expect that to happen...


As for the risk of loss of innovation and job losses - well, that is just a tired, worn out, slogan used to justify the wrongheaded way we do things so often.  It just ain't gonna happen - UNLESS.....  The only way we get loss of innovation and job losses is when the elephants in the room stifle innovation and choke out ingenuity to protect their monopolies.  See: the entire history of AT&T.  Anyone really think it would naturally take almost 100 years to get past the plain old "Princess" phone technology - clicking switches - without the guaranteed and protected monopoly the Bell system had for most of that time?  Allowing the big ISP's to set the agenda is just like letting AT&T set the agenda 40 years ago - innovation is stifled.  Costs are artificially inflated.  Access limited or denied - even though those being limited or denied helped pay for the thing to start with!

Here is a thought - why doesn't Tulsa set up a network of internet access for all it's citizens - make it a county wide thing - provided as a public utility like water/sewer/etc?  Add $10 a month to my bill.  There are municipalities doing this and it is something that could be done very inexpensively compared to the current systems.  We are always going on about what Tulsa can do to make itself more attractive to outside people...well, THAT is one thing that would get LOTS of attention!!  And companies and people putting it on their 'checklists' of features.  Bet we could do that cheaper than the many tens of millions we give to some of the companies we have lured in....

Here is a question for all the network people - high speed wifi internet....cost/time ??

To paraphrase some of my favorite Gravy....
What we are talking about is "breakfast in bed" for 400,000..... where "breakfast" is really internet - and "bed" is really access anywhere in town.


I should not have made that reference - now I am craving some biscuits and gravy!!  Gotta go to Grandy's!!  (Yep, one right down the street tonight...)

Here's an article. Kinda covers everything from a libertarian slant.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/obamas-scheme-to-regulate-us-into-broadb

AT&T - against everything good for the citizens of the US.  Typical corporate blackmail 'first shot' at any attempt at regulation that allows a wider breadth of internet.  And nothing at all libertarian in any way, shape, or form about AT&T approach - they want more government protection for anti-competitive activities.  AT&T is the ultimate poster child in this nation - I defy anyone to find one even more - that; "There's also more than a little irony in the spat considering that AT&T was, for decades, a creature of the state, benefiting from the brief nationalization of the telecommunications industry in 1918 and favorable state and federal regulations that froze out competitors long afterward."   From that link....

The whole idea that "government regulation" would stifle investment in this field is inane and ridiculous.  Plus a flat out lie and they know it.  Much like the lie that people would stop investing in the stock market based on a capital gains tax of 25% or 15% or any other amount that has existed in this country in the past.  Ignorant crock of carp.

The question is, what is the absolute minimum amount of fiber and the absolute lowest cost installed for that fiber to provide the broadband.  Fiber is exponentially cheaper - probably by thousands of times cheaper - than the installed wire infrastructure base for simple voice communications.  How many miles in a city like Tulsa would be required?  Existing case that might be comparative is to know how many miles of fiber Cox Cable has installed in the county.  10,000 miles?  20,000 miles?

Nationwide I could see it needing millions of miles.  At a few dollars a foot for those quantities...  Maybe Elon Musk should look into this - I bet he could do the job.





 

It's amazing how quiet politicians were on this subject...and by politicians I mean DC Republicans...until the President came out in favor of it.  I'm betting that 90 percent of them didn't even research what it was.

Just solidifies my opinion that it doesn't matter what the President is for, or if it even benefits them, most of the rank and file conservatives will be against it.

If Obama came out and stated his favorable opinion on the air, many Republicans would likely hold their breath to prove they weren't in favor of it.

I have a similar opinion of most Democrats. 

It makes the world go round.
 
 :D

Then your opinion would be wrong.

In my opinion.

See what I did there?

 8)

Yep, you aren't as clever as you think you are.

And Scene

Sen. Ted Cruz says “‘Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-franken-doesnt-think-ted-cruz-understands-what-net-neutrality-is/

Sen. Al Franken sets him straight:

“Obamacare was a government program that fixed something that changed things,” Franken clarified for Cruz. “This is about reclassifying something so it stays the same. This would keep things exactly the same that they’ve been.”

“We’ve had net neutrality the entire history of the internet.”

I would call Cruz a buffoon, but he makes buffoons look like Mensas.

So now, a TP foundation called FreedomWorks just released the most incredulous 90-second propaganda piece on net neutrality the world will likely ever see.  Someone please get her to either take a decongestant, or blow her nose.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeCj4y36UKM[/youtube]

She didnt mention the Kenyan Death Squads that will come to your grandma's house and smash her Chromebook.

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet'

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/net-neutrality-key-vote-today-fcc-board (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/net-neutrality-key-vote-today-fcc-board)

Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Sling TV are slowly killing the Industry I'm in. I see the big picture. But my Millennial children don't get it. 18 to 35 year old cord cutters like to brag about the money their saving. All the while paying 61 dollars for internet. 7.99 for Hulu. 9.99 for Netflix. 8.33 for Amazon Prime and 20 dollars a month for Sling T.V. just to get ESPN 1 live.
Once the manufacturers of the Smart TVs start putting DVR service in the sets. Cable and Satellite will be doomed.

I love my DirecTV and I have Netflix, Hulu and Cox high speed internet and a Roku box that I never use. Until Orange is the new Black comes back on.
The cable companies are really surviving on their internet service. Because their old infrastructure just doesn't support high def and the upcoming 4K channels that would keep them competitive with other services that have the capabilities. IMO that is why the big push for regulation.
The internet has all but destroyed the brick and mortar store. And now it's after the home entertainment industry.

I would have no problem with a 100 gig data plan a month. If my kids max it out and it slows down to where no gaming or streaming could be done. All the better. I'm on this computer all day 5 day's a week. The last thing I want to do when I get home is log on. I take weekends off of it also. And this thing I carry around could be a dumb phone as far as I'm concerned.
So today's decision puts me on the unpopular side of the discussion because soon enough it will effect my job and how we will have to adjust to stay in business.

Thanks for pointing that out. Because I know for certain you believe those death squads exist...

If cable companies and the service providers would give in to alacarte programming, things would be much different.  I know many people who don't want to pay for an entire tier that likely includes ESPN when they don't care about ESPN.  So, this is the alternative until the the CCs and retrans can figure out a way to stop bleeding subscribers.

Now that my mother is no longer with me I will likely start evaluating exactly what and how much TV I watch to see if it's even beneficial for me to have cable OR satellite.  I have Netflix.  I also have Prime (but not for the video; I shop far too much on Amazon for it not to have paid off for me already).

If only that's how government would treat taxpayers. 

As a very active user of the internet for business (far more than entertainment), I simply have never experienced a single problem that would justify government regulations. I cannot even see how this would affect me, except that the government is unnecessarily getting involved in the private lives of people. (channeling my inner anti-Sally Kern)

What is net neutrality and what does it mean for me?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/24/net-neutrality-what-is-it-guide/23237737/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/24/net-neutrality-what-is-it-guide/23237737/)

Thanks.

Satellite has been dead tech walking for a long time now. And DVRs are too, as well as "Smart" TVs.

It's all going to the cloud, non-linear unbound content served on demand is the future. Anything with a screen can be your display device and there's no need for it to be smart because you have your dvr/cable box in your pocket. 4K streams are no obstacle, the compression technology already exists and will be the norm once gigabit internet is more widespread.

Cable companies aren't doomed, they own the pipes and a ton of the content. And content is king. It just won't be delivered in the same way. Anyway, in a post Time Warner/Comcast merger world there aren't cable companies, there's the new Ma Bell and some other little local companies.

I agree with the ala carte approach.  I pay for far more channels than we watch.  But I have to get the biggest package to get the ones we do watch.  :'(

"biggest package"....

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

I thought it might have been that..

I am pathetic. I know.

Sadly, your industry hasn't adapted - if a company doesn't "eat it's own young", some other company will eat it for them.  They are the wagon/buggy makers while the world is moving to cars/trucks.  And cable and satellite have been seriously pissing people off the whole time just to put the cherry on top.

They both still own big infrastructure, but better start figuring out how to make "proper" future use of that.  And it ain't gonna be by circling the wagons and trying to get the Republicontins to protect them....

They should be looking to Europe and the Pacific rim for possible new business model ideas.  Don't have to copy, just gain inspiration.

66.99 starting March 3rd, actually.  Another rate hike, YAY! /s

If I had cable TV (almost 6 years free), I'd probably still have at least Netflix, because Netflix offers me things that Cable doesn't and for a fraction of their price. OnDemand generally only works for the current season stuff (which can be covered by Hulu Plus for a lot of things).  Netflix is also $7.99 a month for streaming only. I haven't had their disk service since they split the services in two.  It's 9.99 if you want the option of 1 BluRay disk out at a time, instead of 1 DVD.

I didn't have Amazon Prime for their streaming service, just the spread-out shipping costs. Their browsing capabilities were crap.  Even with the shipping, I didn't buy as much from them last year, so whenever it came up for renewal in December, I cancelled it to save some cash to go towards the house. And saying that people are paying 8.33 for just video is disingenuous.

I don't have a HuluPlus account, as there wasn't enough stuff on there that I was interested in. Plus, if I wait between 3 days to a week, the current episodes will show up there for free.

If I want to see any shows the next day, I prefer to buy a season pass on iTunes or Amazon Video for it. This is only 2 or 3 shows a year.

As far as SlingTV goes, I got it because I was interested in DIY, HGTV, and Cooking Channel/Food Network, putting me in the $25/month tier.  I'm probably going to drop it, as I'm tired of those f'ing "Building Alaska" commercials.  It's a good start, but not quite there.  The app doesn't work with Chromecast or AirPlay, so that's another downside.  For this fix, I'll go back to streaming episodes from those networks on Ulive.com (with minimal commercials).

And for local stuff?  OTA antenna.  The new house came with an older attic model that works really damn well.  Super grateful for the digital signal conversion push, even if it did subsidize a bunch of conversion boxes that people really didn't need.

If I wanted "Cox TV Advanced", (the second tier, first one with OnDemand), it's $40/month for 12 months, but 74.99 after that (for up to one year). This doesn't even include the Receiver rental, which is required for OnDemand and/or PVR capabilities (an additional 8.99 per month).  Add in the monthly taxes and service charges, and even for the first 12 months, you're still paying about 60$ a month, and then almost $100 a month after that, and for 220 channels, of which I'd watch maybe 20 or 30? Theoretically, you could call and threaten to cancel at 12 months, but that's just an idiotic practice.  No thanks.

May be an idiotic practice, but it works.  :)

Ugh, I've been spending too much time in toxic environments.  The first thought response that came to my mind was basically Godwin-ing myself -.-

Man that sounds like a lot of work for home entertainment. Ala let's break up Ma Bell. It will be better. We promise.  ::)

Nope, not hard at all

Is it a brand new show?  Hulu, iTunes, or Amazon Video.

Past seasons or older movies?  Netflix

Idle watching? Netflix, maybe SlingTV

www.canistream.it for help if you're looking for specific movies.  Includes online rentals, streaming services, and rental or purchase of discs.

This is where next level guidance comes in. A single app or box to tie everything together.

Something like this:
https://www.fan.tv/