Net Neutrality is Dead.
backseatLover12
Posts: 2,312
Wake up! This involves everyone.
##############################
Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords
Advocates of a free and open Internet could see this coming, but today's ruling from a Washington appeals court striking down the FCC's rules protecting the open net was worse than the most dire forecasts. It was "even more emphatic and disastrous than anyone expected," in the words of one veteran advocate for network neutrality.
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit thoroughly eviscerated the Federal Communications Commission's latest lame attempt to prevent Internet service providers from playing favorites among websites--awarding faster speeds to sites that pay a special fee, for example, or slowing or blocking sites and services that compete with favored affiliates.
Big cable operators like Comcast and telecommunications firms like Verizon, which brought the lawsuit on which the court ruled, will be free to pick winners and losers among websites and services. Their judgment will most likely be based on cold hard cash--Netflix wants to keep your Internet provider from slowing its data so its films look like hash? It will have to pay your provider the big bucks. But the governing factor need not be money. (Comcast remains committed to adhere to the net neutrality rules overturned today until January 2018, a condition placed on its 2011 merger with NBC Universal; after that, all bets are off.)
"AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason," telecommunications lawyer Marvin Ammori (he's the man quoted above) observed even before the ruling came down. "Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all."
The telecom companies claim their chief interest is in providing better service to all customers, but that's unadulterated flimflam. We know this because regulators already have had to make superhuman efforts to keep the big ISPs from degrading certain services for their own benefit--Comcast, for example, was caught in 2007 throttling traffic from BitTorrent, a video service that competed with its own on-demand video.
Amazingly, even after Comcast was found guilty of violating this basic standard of Internet transmission, the FCC greenlighted its acquisition of NBC, which could only give the firm greater incentive to discriminate among the content being pipelined to its customers.
ISPs like Comcast are only doing what comes naturally in an unregulated environment, the way a dog naturally scratches at fleas. "Cable and telephone companies are simply not competing for the right to provide unfettered, un-monetized internet access," wrote Susan Crawford, an expert on net neutrality, around the time of the Comcast case.
This wouldn't be as much of a threat to the open Internet if there were genuine competition among providers, so you could take your business elsewhere if your ISP was turning the public Web into its own private garden. In the U.S., there's no practical competition. The vast majority of households essentially have a single broadband option, their local cable provider. Verizon and AT&T provide Internet service, too, but for most customers they're slower than the cable service. Some neighborhoods get telephone fiber services, but Verizon and AT&T have ceased the rollout of their FiOs and U-verse services--if you don't have it now, you're not getting it.
Who deserves the blame for this wretched combination of monopolization and profiteering by ever-larger cable and phone companies? The FCC, that's who. The agency's dereliction dates back to 2002, when under Chairman Michael Powell it reclassified cable modem services as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services," eliminating its own authority to regulate them broadly. Powell, by the way, is now the chief lobbyist in Washington for the cable TV industry, so the payoff wasn't long in coming.
More at: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-net-neutrality-20140114,0,522106.story#ixzz2qUjS0G8B
##############################
Net neutrality is dead. Bow to Comcast and Verizon, your overlords
Advocates of a free and open Internet could see this coming, but today's ruling from a Washington appeals court striking down the FCC's rules protecting the open net was worse than the most dire forecasts. It was "even more emphatic and disastrous than anyone expected," in the words of one veteran advocate for network neutrality.
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit thoroughly eviscerated the Federal Communications Commission's latest lame attempt to prevent Internet service providers from playing favorites among websites--awarding faster speeds to sites that pay a special fee, for example, or slowing or blocking sites and services that compete with favored affiliates.
Big cable operators like Comcast and telecommunications firms like Verizon, which brought the lawsuit on which the court ruled, will be free to pick winners and losers among websites and services. Their judgment will most likely be based on cold hard cash--Netflix wants to keep your Internet provider from slowing its data so its films look like hash? It will have to pay your provider the big bucks. But the governing factor need not be money. (Comcast remains committed to adhere to the net neutrality rules overturned today until January 2018, a condition placed on its 2011 merger with NBC Universal; after that, all bets are off.)
"AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason," telecommunications lawyer Marvin Ammori (he's the man quoted above) observed even before the ruling came down. "Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all."
The telecom companies claim their chief interest is in providing better service to all customers, but that's unadulterated flimflam. We know this because regulators already have had to make superhuman efforts to keep the big ISPs from degrading certain services for their own benefit--Comcast, for example, was caught in 2007 throttling traffic from BitTorrent, a video service that competed with its own on-demand video.
Amazingly, even after Comcast was found guilty of violating this basic standard of Internet transmission, the FCC greenlighted its acquisition of NBC, which could only give the firm greater incentive to discriminate among the content being pipelined to its customers.
ISPs like Comcast are only doing what comes naturally in an unregulated environment, the way a dog naturally scratches at fleas. "Cable and telephone companies are simply not competing for the right to provide unfettered, un-monetized internet access," wrote Susan Crawford, an expert on net neutrality, around the time of the Comcast case.
This wouldn't be as much of a threat to the open Internet if there were genuine competition among providers, so you could take your business elsewhere if your ISP was turning the public Web into its own private garden. In the U.S., there's no practical competition. The vast majority of households essentially have a single broadband option, their local cable provider. Verizon and AT&T provide Internet service, too, but for most customers they're slower than the cable service. Some neighborhoods get telephone fiber services, but Verizon and AT&T have ceased the rollout of their FiOs and U-verse services--if you don't have it now, you're not getting it.
Who deserves the blame for this wretched combination of monopolization and profiteering by ever-larger cable and phone companies? The FCC, that's who. The agency's dereliction dates back to 2002, when under Chairman Michael Powell it reclassified cable modem services as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services," eliminating its own authority to regulate them broadly. Powell, by the way, is now the chief lobbyist in Washington for the cable TV industry, so the payoff wasn't long in coming.
More at: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-net-neutrality-20140114,0,522106.story#ixzz2qUjS0G8B
0
Comments
always comes down to $, always
noun
1.
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
This article explains what it is and how it affects all of us.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/14/262454310/feds-cant-enforce-net-neutrality-what-this-means-for-you
...The Open Internet
Net neutrality is an idea that's governed the Internet since the beginning: that all Internet users deserve equal access to online information, no matter whether you use Verizon or Comcast. Internet service providers should be "neutral" to the content their customers consume.
As things are now, the FCC regulates net neutrality by "policing" an open Internet. Its chairman just this week doubled down on the importance of this role, too.
The current rules, passed in 2010, prevent broadband Internet service providers from blocking lawful content and other Internet services.
What This Means
What you see depends on where you sit. Net neutrality advocates fear that if the federal government stops enforcing rules to keep the pipelines free and open, then certain companies will be able to get greater access to Internet users. That, they say, creates a system of haves and have-nots — the richest companies could get access to a wider swath of Internet users, for example, and that could prevent the next Google from getting off the ground. Judge David Tatel, who was part of the three-judge panel, said that striking down net neutrality could have negative effects on consumers.
"The commission has adequately supported and explained its conclusion that absent rules such as those set forth in the Open Internet Order, broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment," he said, adding that broadband companies have "powerful incentives" to charge for prioritized access or to exclude services that competed with their own offerings.
"Verizon also said that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment, since broadband companies transmit the speech of others. That gives the providers 'editorial discretion,' according to Verizon.
"The FCC argues that it has the authority to enforce net neutrality under provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Communications Act of 1934.
"Internet rights groups believe the open Internet is what lets companies like Twitter, Facebook and Skype flourish. Supporters say net neutrality prevented existing market players from slowing down or blocking the connections of Skype calls, for instance, to protect their businesses."
Just wait until they start censoring whatever the big money pays them to.
Eddie Vedder teams up with The Hulk to call for net neutrality
FCC Moves Forward With Two-Tiered Internet Plan
"WASHINGTON – On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted to propose a new “open Internet” rule that may let Internet service providers charge content companies for priority treatment, relegating other content to a slower tier of service."
Hundreds of protesters gathered outside the FCC before the vote to condemn the plan and urge the FCC to protect Net Neutrality. Beating drums and chanting “Save the Internet,” they heard speeches from Internet freedom advocates and social justice activists before streaming into the meeting.
Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron made the following statement:
“Millions of people have put the FCC on notice. A pay-for-priority Internet is unacceptable. Today, both Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel stated that they support prohibitions on paid prioritization and other forms of unreasonable discrimination. Tom Wheeler spoke passionately about the open Internet, but his rousing rhetoric doesn't match the reality of his proposal. The only way to accomplish the chairman’s goals is to reclassify Internet service providers as common carriers.
“The Commission says it wants to hear from the public; it will be hearing a lot more. This fight will stretch into the fall, but there’s one clear answer: The American people demand real Net Neutrality, and the FCC must restore it.
“We’re encouraged by much of what was said during today's meeting. But words amount to little without the rules to back them up. If Chairman Wheeler is sincere in his objections to a fast-lane, slow-lane Internet, then reclassification is the only way to prevent this terrible scenario from becoming a reality.”
Make your voice heard to protect and open and free internet!
Net Neutrality has finally become a kitchen-table issue."
http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/05/21/fcc-net-neutrality-and-stirring-hornets-nest
I wonder if say netflix could or would do the same thing. I mean if a certain ISP was jerking them around, slowing down their speed and charging them extra, couldn't they just make it so that the people who subscribed to that ISP no longer received Netflix at all? Do that for a week and the customers would probably revolt, and the ISP would have to fix things.
They're here: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4923173
FACT: Comcast owns NBC; Disney owns ABC; and News Corporation owns Fox Broadcasting Company.
Comcast owns NBC, Telemundo, E Entertainment, Versus, 14 television stations, Universal Pictures, and Hulu. Disney holdings include 10 television stations, 277 radio stations, ABC, ESPN, A&E, the History Channel, Lifetime, Discover magazine, Bassmaster magazine, Hyperion publishing, Touchstone Pictures, Pixar Animation, and Miramax Film Corp. Viacom owns 10 television stations, The Movie Channel, Comedy Central, BET, Nickelodeon, TV Land, MTV, VH1, and Paramount Pictures. CBS owns 30 TV stations, Smithsonian Channel, Showtime, The Movie Channel and Paramount Network Television. News Corp. owns 27 television stations, the Fox Network and Fox News Channel, FX, National Geographic Channel, The Wall Street Journal, TV Guide, the New York Post, DirecTV, the publisher HarperCollins, film production company Twentieth Century Fox and the social networking website MySpace. Time Warner owns HBO, CNN, the Cartoon Network, Warner Bros. Time magazine, Turner Broadcasting and DC Comics.
Currently, six major companies control most of the media in our country. The FCC could decide to relax media ownership rules, which would allow further consolidation and put decisions about what kinds of programming and news Americans receive in even fewer hands.
With MTV the reason they don't play videos is because there is no money in it. MTV's target audience is young people. How many people in their teens and 20's are going to sit around and watch a block of music videos hoping to catch one that they really like, when they can call up any music video they want pretty much on demand on their phone? Plus even before the advent of Youtube, when MTV first started out they were basically playing music videos for free without paying any royalties (calling it a promotional thing). When the record companies realized they were providing MTV with most of their content free of charge, they decided to start charging for it. At that point it was much less profitable to run videos all day and they started looking for other, cheaper programming, that they owned that they could run in its place.
http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/08/29/the-internet-slowdown-is-coming
Don't Say We Didn't Warn You: The Internet Slowdown Is Coming …
If you’re reading this you probably already know that the fight for Net Neutrality is coming to a head. So here’s the deal: September will be epic, and it will all start with the Internet Slowdown.
On Sept. 10, Free Press and our partners at Battle for the Net will launch the Internet Slowdown — 24 hours that will show the world what the Web will look like if the sites we know and love are stuck in the slow lane.
This is going to be huge, and we want you to be part of it.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to allow discrimination online is a disaster. Everyone from the companies to the artists to Congress to the president knows that we need real Net Neutrality to prevent broadband providers from discriminating against content or applications.
When Wheeler released his proposal earlier this year, support for his plan was scarce. Net Neutrality advocates from across the country slammed the rules, and people camped outside the agency’s doors in protest. Hundreds gathered at rallies in D.C. and at FCC field offices across the country.
Four months later, support for Wheeler’s plan is basically nonexistent.
In July, protesters greeted President Obama on fundraising trips to the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Activists have turned out in record numbers to lobby their members of Congress. And don’t forget the millions of comments people filed in opposition to the FCC’s proposal — and in support of Title II reclassification. The influx crashed the agency’s website (twice).
The momentum has been building for months and on Sept. 10 companies, individuals and websites will inundate the Internet with our message: We demand real Net Neutrality and nothing less.
So consider yourself warned: The Internet Slowdown is coming. Now we need you to pitch in. Have a website or blog? Put the sloading (get it? slow + loading?) code up on your site. Or help spread the word by sharing this image on social media.
http://act.freepress.net/call/internet_obama_nn_thanks/?t=3&akid=5014.9503304.iP-X64
Continue to bash him, that's what people do. But while continuing to peruse the free internet, remember, it is he who stood up to the corp giants and stopped the end of net neutrality. At least for now.
COUGH, WHAT’S NET NEUTRALITY, COUGH?
The idea that all content on the Interwebs should be treated equally – meaning broadband companies shouldn’t be allowed to speed up or slow down content based on who is providing the content. We don’t actually live in a net neutral world right now; there’s currently no regulation over how Internet providers treat traffic from different websites. Earlier this year, a federal court decision cleared the way for broadband companies (like Comcast) to cut deals with content providers (like Netflix) to give them faster connections. The FCC’S been trying (and trying) to come up with new rules for the Interwebs ever since.
WHAT DO BROADBAND COMPANIES WANT?
Rhymes with honey. Companies like Verizon and Comcast want to reap the benefits of getting paid to provide a fast lane. They also say it promotes competition and innovation.
WHAT’S ON CONTENT PROVIDERS’ MINDS?
Rhymes with honey. Companies like Netflix and Google don’t want to pay up for faster access, and think the Internet should be free for all. They also say pay-to-play would actually stifle innovation, since it would put startup sites at a disadvantage.
WHAT DOES THE FCC WANT?
Please hold, buffering. It hasn’t made up its mind yet and it’s playing Switzerland, trying to make everyone happy. It’s now considering a “hybrid plan” that would err more on the side of net neutrality.
SO WHAT DID OBAMA SAY THEN?
That the Internet should be reclassified as a public utility. Meaning it would be seen as a necessity like electricity, rather than a pay-to-play option like cable TV. Also meaning more regulation on broadband companies from the FCC, which is a big change to an industry that hasn’t had a lot of oversight in the past. No surprise his critics aren’t loving this.
theSKIMM
This is about the future of the Internet and who holds the keys. Though the FCC’s new rules probably won’t be out until next year, they will decide how often and on what sites you will see the spinning wheel of death.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/fcc-rules-net-neutrality/index.html
Net Neutrality Lives!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."