Keep the Net Neutral!

[sgrizzle]

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.

[patric]

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.

Looks like Netflix is one of the first victims:

http://hothardware.com/News/Verizon-Allegedly-Already-Throttling-Customers-After-Net-Neutrality-Ruling/

[Red Arrow]

Looks like Netflix is one of the first victims:

http://hothardware.com/News/Verizon-Allegedly-Already-Throttling-Customers-After-Net-Neutrality-Ruling/

Also from your link:

We are looking into this specific matter, but the company representative was mistaken. We are going to redouble our representative education efforts on this topic."

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

[TheArtist]

  This is gonna get uuugly.

[Hoss]

Might be the best commentary on net neutrality ever.

John Oliver is freaking hilarious.

Mostly NSFW:

[youtube]fpbOEoRrHyU[/youtube]

[Hoss]

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.

[patric]

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.

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

[Hoss]

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

[heironymouspasparagus]

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

[patric]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

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...

[guido911]

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".  

[heironymouspasparagus]

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...)

[guido911]

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

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.