Only YOU Can Protect Net Neutrality

[_CY_]

Cable companies are reportedly funding fake consumer groups to attack net neutrality

The public wants net neutrality so badly that it broke the FCC's website. But can the weighty voice of the people combat well-funded astroturfing? VICE believes that the nation's cable companies are funding groups that pretend to represent consumers, but are actually just parroting their own stance to shout down the general public. For instance, the outlet has learned that Broadband for America, which describes itself as a coalition involving "independent consumer advocacy groups," and which counts senator John Sununu amongst its members, is actually funded by the NCTA -- big cable's lobbyists. It's the same situation with the American Consumer Institute, another anti-net neutrality voice of the people, which just happens to receive the bulk of its funding from the CTIA, which represents the US wireless industry. Now, what was the thing our grandma told us about astroturfing? Oh right: if you have to invent spokespeople to represent the other side in the debate, you're probably not the good guys.

 

[_CY_]

Great video here.


Don't let the FCC rule the internet. The government wants to control it.

what a turd of a video! that asshat goes on for a good 10 minutes before we find out he's probably paid by comcast to spout garbage that charging extra for uninterrupted access for content providers is good for the consumer.

sorry all I could stand is 10 minutes worth of this garbage ... for the first 10 minutes that asshat had me convinced he was in favor of consumers .. instead of probably a paid shill for comcast/TWC

call it what you want .. charging consumers three times for broadband performance one is already paying for is flat wrong.

fact is ISP delivering broadband access has become a utility much like electricity, natural gas and water/sewer. natural utilities due to construction limitations like duplicate telephone poles needed to make final mile connections for fiber are controlled by local government. note during this latest economic slow down .. government controlled utilities are the only ones with rates that's gone up in increments vs jumping up by 2x and 3x prices overnight like unregulated Oil prices and recent propane prices jumped by 3x or more last winter.

wireless ISP or WISP are not competition to fiber/copper due to technical and/or financial difficulties. shop around a bit .. WISP prices will be waaay higher than cable/fiber/copper. then factor in lag times ... this is why WISP only thrive where no other final mile connections are available.

so in any major metro area .. battle lines have already long been decided. note WISP are operating in free wireless spectrums .. vs giants like AT&T has purchased rights to higher closed ghz spectrum.

in major metro areas with few exceptions .. you've either have cable and/or At&t (telephone co) making final mile connect to your home. ALL other so called competition has go thru final mile connections. now if WISP overcomes technical/financial limitations for broadband delivery .. that could change. as it stands WISP either costs too much and/or has too high lag times to be competitive with fiber/copper.

in other world a monopoly and/or oligopoly exist in almost ALL markets for broadband access. this is why FCC should reclassify all ISP as common carriers. all this means is ISP will not be able to charge the consumer 3X for broadband service performance they are already paying for.

1. consumer pays for broadband at XX MB per sec speed performance guarantees
2. consumer is getting ready to pay extra to premium content providers as they pass on costs.
3. consumer is getting ready to pay extra to prevent slowdown on data that needs highest QOS (quality of service) like VOIP and streaming video.

note stream video only requires about 150kb/sec to prevent video from stopping to buffer. the slowest broadband is about 1.5mb/sec .. note I'm not referring to folks that stream 24x7 .. those folks are already limited by caps. this is about the consumer that only uses modest amount of bandwidth per month, getting ready to be charged 3x for performance they are already paying for.

mark my words .. if this load of crap goes comcast/TWC's way with net neutrality killed off ... after a honeymoon period of course ... look to see your broadband access costs to go up by 2x or 3x!!!! or more...

 

[_CY_]

Democrats Want Paid Prioritization on the Web Banned

The Democratic bill sponsors said it is intended to "prevent the creation of a two-tiered Internet system."
0shares

Net Neutrality

Two Democrats on Tuesday unveiled a net neutrality bill that would ban ISPs from striking paid prioritization deals with content providers.

The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, from Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and Rep. Doris Matsui, is intended to "prevent the creation of a two-tiered Internet system," they said.

Paid prioritization is under consideration at the Federal Communications Commission as part of its new net neutrality rules. Initially, Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed allowing paid prioritization if it was "commercially reasonable." But amidst backlash, he revised the proposal before a final vote to ask for public comment on whether paid prioritization should be banned outright.

Leahy and Matsui - as well as bill co-sponsors Sen. Al Franken, Rep. Henry Waxman, and Rep. Anna Eshoo - think so.

"Americans are speaking loud and clear – they want an Internet that is a platform for free expression and innovation, where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider," Leahy said in a statement.

One of the reasons the FCC put paid prioritization on the table was because the court has struck down its previous net neutrality rules - twice. The paid prioritization allowance, therefore, was a peace offering of sorts to the ISPs - like Verizon and Comcast - who possibly would've sued the FCC again if the rules were not to their liking. Wheeler, however, said several times that he would not allow a two-tiered Internet and that any sort of deal would have to be deemed commercially reasonable.

But the only example of a commercially reasonable deal that that has been provided by the FCC thus far is a prioritized connection to someone with an at-home heart-rate monitor that didn't significantly impact Internet traffic to anyone else.

Those opposed to paid prioritization - particularly Sen. Franken - argue that it could lead to much more nefarious deals that could significantly impact the Internet.

Of course, the easiest answer is that Congress pass a law that puts some sort of net neutrality rules in place. And that's what we have here. But the issue is split down party lines - as evidenced by the fact that only Democrats are co-sponsoring this bill. It could probably find support in the Senate, but likely wouldn't pass muster in the Republican-controlled House.

In mid-May, in fact, House Republicans penned a letter to Wheeler, which urged him to back off any sort of net neutrality regulation at all. The lawmakers - including House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, and Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers - said net neutrality rules would be "counterproductive," as they "would only serve to deter investment and stifle one of the brightest spots in our economy."

 

[LightningCrash]

Careless bill text would kill OpenConnect. I hope they're careful.

 

[henschman]

what a turd of a video! that asshat goes on for a good 10 minutes before we find out he's probably paid by comcast to spout garbage that charging extra for uninterrupted access for content providers is good for the consumer.

sorry all I could stand is 10 minutes worth of this garbage ... for the first 10 minutes that asshat had me convinced he was in favor of consumers .. instead of probably a paid shill for comcast/TWC

You're out of your element. Tom Woods is a well-known and highly respected economist in the Austrian school. He is known for his consistent defense of individual liberty, economic freedom, and freedom of association. I have met him, and he is most certainly not anybody's shill. This is pure ad hominem and a groundless assumption on your part.

call it what you want .. charging consumers three times for broadband performance one is already paying for is flat wrong.

I say preventing people from engaging in mutually agreed contracts that have terms you don't like by threatening them with violence is flat wrong. It's just a little moral primary called the non-aggression principle, that happens to be the basis for all of civilization. No biggie.

 

[_CY_]

You're out of your element. Tom Woods is a well-known and highly respected economist in the Austrian school. He is known for his consistent defense of individual liberty, economic freedom, and freedom of association. I have met him, and he is most certainly not anybody's shill. This is pure ad hominem and a groundless assumption on your part.


I say preventing people from engaging in mutually agreed contracts that have terms you don't like by threatening them with violence is flat wrong. It's just a little moral primary called the non-aggression principle, that happens to be the basis for all of civilization. No biggie.

What crock! who gives a rip with he's known for and how nice a guy his is .. in the video he's being a shill for the ISP's
did you bother to watch said video?

who's threatening violence? WTF??

 

[SoonerP226]

who's threatening violence? WTF??

Using government regulation is threatening force. If you refuse to comply with the rules, who comes to make sure you do, and what are they carrying?

 

[henschman]

Actually I'm pretty sure the penalty for violating this proposed rule is that the government will blow kisses and fart rainbows until the violator relents and does what they say.

 

[Hobbes]

Actually I'm pretty sure the penalty for violating this proposed rule is that the government will blow kisses and fart rainbows until the violator relents and does what they say.

You're not well informed.
The FCC proposal would loosen existing regulations rather than tighten them.

You would have been for it before you were against it.

 

[_CY_]

Using government regulation is threatening force. If you refuse to comply with the rules, who comes to make sure you do, and what are they carrying?

now that's quite the stretch!

if ISP are allowed to charge content provider and end user extra for what end user is already paying for.
pretty sure no one is coming to get you if you don't pay for your broadband. your ISP will simply turn off service.

what's at stake is our broadband bill doubling and tripling if ISP is allowed to charge 3x times for what they are already getting paid for.
which is to provide broadband at XX speeds at what ISP is already charging for.

again ... the lowest speed for broadband is about 1.5mb sec ... whereas about 100 to 150kb/s (.8 to 1.3mb sec) is needed for streaming video to deliver content without stopping. or level of service consumer is already paying for. by throttling video ISP wants to charge content provider and YOU for speedy access. that YOU are already paying for.

my normal broadband speeds are 2465 kb/s .. whereas about 150kb/s are needed for high quality video without stopping.
my broadband is slow compared to other service levels ..