No Net Neutrality thread?

[Spurminator]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/21/internet-regulation-proposal-sets-off-political-firestorm/?iref=allsearch

Internet regulation proposal sets off political firestorm

By: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) - The Obama administration is facing a fresh round of heat from Republicans Tuesday amid the passage of a Federal Communications Commission proposal that aims to impart new regulations on internet providers.

The so-called "net neutrality" rules, proposed by the Obama administration, is the federal government's most high-profile move yet in connection with a debate nearly as old as the modern-day Internet itself. The proposed rules would require high-speed providers to treat all types of Web content equally, instead of allowing providers to favor some types of websites or apps at the expense of others.

While some Democrats say the proposal doesn't go far enough in leveling the Internet playing field, Republican critics – including the two on the five-panel FCC commission - say it is the latest example of government overreach into a place it has no business to be.

"Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs," wrote Robert McDowell, a Republican member of the FCC, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Meredith Atwell Baker, the second Republican member of the FCC, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the Democrat-dominated panel is "intervening to regulate the Internet because it wants to, not because it needs to."

"Preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet is non-negotiable; it is a bedrock principle shared by all in the Internet economy. No government action is necessary to preserve it," wrote Atwell Baker.

The same sentiment was echoed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday:

"Today the Obama administration, which has already nationalized health care, the auto industry, insurance companies, banks and student loans, will move forward with what could be the first step in controlling how Americans use the internet by establishing federal regulations on its use," he said in a speech on the Senate Flor. "This would harm investment, stifle innovation and lead to job losses. That's why I along with several of my colleagues have urged the FCC chairman to abandon this flawed approach."

Meanwhile, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, filed an amendment last week in an effort to halt implementation of the new provisions. Twenty-nine Republican senators also wrote to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, last week to register their opposition to the proposal and urge him to abandon it.

But Some Republicans have gone even further in their criticisms, saying it constitutes an effort on behalf of the Obama administration to censor the Internet.

"Let's face it, what's the Obama administration doing? They're advocating net neutrality which is essentially censorship of the Internet," GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann said earlier this year. "This is the Obama administration advocating censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them."

"This could be the very worst "Merry Christmas" present that you have ever received… Internet freedoms may VANISH!" wrote the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative group, in an e-mail to supporters.

"We've got to minimize the damage done by the FCC this month," added RedState.org blogger Neil Stevens earlier this month. "We need a light, light, light touch if we have to have regulation at all."

But in a clear illustration of just how divisive the issue has become, Democratic Sen. Al Franken is slamming the proposal as too lenient to broadband providers.

"Instead of proposing regulations that would truly protect net neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman [Julius] Genachowski has been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their public endorsement of this draft proposal, which would destroy it," Franken wrote on The Huffington Post. "No chairman should be soliciting sign-off from the corporations that his agency is supposed to regulate."

Michael Copps, a Democrat member of the commission, said in a written statement that he won't block the plan after weeks of trying to make it tougher.

"The item we will vote on tomorrow is not the one I would have crafted," Copps said. "But I believe we have been able to make the current iteration better than what was originally circulated.

– CNN.com's Doug Gross contributed to this report

[fyatuk]

After seeing some numbers regarding bandwidth usage for downloading/streaming video and expected growth rates of both usage and bandwidth, I have to say treating all content the same is economically a bad idea.

Just like preventing insurance companies from rating freely is going to result in an across the board increase of premiums, preventing ISPs from charging freely is going to result in higher bandwidth charges across the board, or severe bandwidth limitations on users.

They shouldn't be allowed to charge differently depending on source (aka favor Blockbuster over Netflix, Google over Yahoo, etc), but they should be able to rate for content. Of course, that could just as easily be done by a bandwidth charge instead of flat fee, which is probably where the ISPs will head.

[Spurminator]

After seeing some numbers regarding bandwidth usage for downloading/streaming video and expected growth rates of both usage and bandwidth, I have to say treating all content the same is economically a bad idea.

Just like preventing insurance companies from rating freely is going to result in an across the board increase of premiums, preventing ISPs from charging freely is going to result in higher bandwidth charges across the board, or severe bandwidth limitations on users.

They shouldn't be allowed to charge differently depending on source (aka favor Blockbuster over Netflix, Google over Yahoo, etc), but they should be able to rate for content. Of course, that could just as easily be done by a bandwidth charge instead of flat fee, which is probably where the ISPs will head.

When I contrast this well-reasoned and still concise perspective on the issue with Michelle Bachmann's "censorship of the Internet" argument in the article above, it makes me really sad for this country.

[baseline bum]

Does Michelle Bachman ever have anything to say that makes sense in this universe and not just her right-wing dystopia?

[boutons_deux]

I'm sure this blatantly dishonest "net neutrality" lie is the thin end of the wedge towards increasing prioritizing/commercializing Internet traffic, just like the SocSec tax holiday is the beginning of the end of SocSec.

The biggest corps will be able to afford selling bandwidth to their sites, while smaller and newcomer businesses will be shut out.

I'm also sure this is not for corps to stop losing money, but how corps can to make more, new money.

eg, which network operators are losing money because Netflix streaming moving take 20% of the entire bandwidth in the evenings?

Information is free, but information delivery, as cheap as it is over networks, is not free because of the huge volumes. And are streaming movies really "information"?

While the Repugs are trying to kill USF (which their red-state bubbas need for rural networking), there is an argument that USF expansion, like a tax on every Internet subscriber bill (just like telephone has been for decades) goes to the network builders/operators to subsidize the operations.

I have no doubt the corporations will fuck up Internet like they fuck up everything else as long as they increase their profits. They'll destroy anything to make profits. And nobody can stop them.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I have been trying to read and grasp at both sides of the debate. So far it looks like no matter the outcome us normal folks will end up getting screwed. Also a lot of funny right wing paranoia. Net neutrality in theory sounds great but this billread does not.

[Wild Cobra]

After seeing some numbers regarding bandwidth usage for downloading/streaming video and expected growth rates of both usage and bandwidth, I have to say treating all content the same is economically a bad idea.
No shit. I understand the arguments about the fear Comcast, et al. will pick and choose, but the real issue is the higher bandwidth people selling a product want to crowd out everyone else. The fear than Comcast will make products like Netflicks on Demand unusable is ridiculous. There is only so much bandwidth, and not everyone can be using such high bandwidths at the same time without problems.

They shouldn't be allowed to charge differently depending on source (aka favor Blockbuster over Netflix, Google over Yahoo, etc), but they should be able to rate for content. Of course, that could just as easily be done by a bandwidth charge instead of flat fee, which is probably where the ISPs will head.
I agree if someone wants to pay for a guaranteed download speed, the provider should be able to charge a premium for it.

Does someone really think that a ISP blocks content of others?

Where's the proof? I've only heard talk of it. Never seen proof of it.

[Wild Cobra]

I have been trying to read and grasp at both sides of the debate. So far it looks like no matter the outcome us normal folks will end up getting screwed. Also a lot of funny right wing paranoia. Net neutrality in theory sounds great but this billread does not.
Unless the internet infrastructure can keep up with our ever increasing need for speed, our services will be disrupted, no matter what policies are put in place.

[ElNono]

It's bullshit. The US doesn't have a bad broadband infrastructure. Verizon just laid a lot of FTH, but what they charge is tenfold for the speeds they provide compared to other less developed nations with smaller markets. Thus, you end up with very poor broadband adoption.

Again, the question here is if you want to put the country above a few companies' interests. When you start charging bullshit fees you raise the barrier of entry and simply make the US less competitive against the rest of the world.

Eventually, Corps will win this though. It's just too much money in play for them not to buy up the legislation.

[ElNono]

Unless the internet infrastructure can keep up with our ever increasing need for speed, our services will be disrupted, no matter what policies are put in place.

Spoken like somebody that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Keep it up :tu

We already pay for the speed we want. We also already paid for the infrastructure upgrade. This has nothing to do with that. It's about double dipping on both sides of the connection. It's very much like cell phone usage. The US is one of the few countries where both ends pay for cellphone minutes, and still have among the highest rates in cell telephony.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The problem I'm seeing is that there are corporations on both sides of the debate

meaning no matter what happens, us normal folks get fucked anyways

[MannyIsGod]

It's bullshit. The US doesn't have a bad broadband infrastructure. Verizon just laid a lot of FTH, but what they charge is tenfold for the speeds they provide compared to other less developed nations with smaller markets. Thus, you end up with very poor broadband adoption.

Again, the question here is if you want to put the country above a few companies' interests. When you start charging bullshit fees you raise the barrier of entry and simply make the US less competitive against the rest of the world.

Eventually, Corps will win this though. It's just too much money in play for them not to buy up the legislation.

It shitty when you look at the speeds we get compared to the speeds in all of Europe and Korea/Japan. Sure, we don't have caps for the most part but thats because we're capped by speed.

[ElNono]

It shitty when you look at the speeds we get compared to the speeds in all of Europe and Korea/Japan. Sure, we don't have caps for the most part but thats because we're capped by speed.

We have caps (at least most cable co. do), and we also have shitty pricing. It's asinine that the same internet service costs $40 if bundled with TV service and Phone service on a 2 year contract, but $65 if sold standalone. There's no actual value difference from a provider standpoint that justifies the 50% hike in price. There's no infrastructure impediment either.

[ElNono]

The problem I'm seeing is that there are corporations on both sides of the debate

meaning no matter what happens, us normal folks get fucked anyways

Completely agree. This will end in some backroom deal and we'll be fucked either way. Eventually we'll have to pay through the nose for the 'cap free', 'ad free' experience. Which is what we're getting now at a fraction of the cost.

[ElNono]

I mean, if you REALLY want to lower the bandwidth load on the current infrastructure, ban fucking ads. Nobody wants them and they're everywhere wasting people's time and bandwidth.

[Wild Cobra]

It's bullshit. The US doesn't have a bad broadband infrastructure. Verizon just laid a lot of FTH, but what they charge is tenfold for the speeds they provide compared to other less developed nations with smaller markets. Thus, you end up with very poor broadband adoption.

Again, the question here is if you want to put the country above a few companies' interests. When you start charging bullshit fees you raise the barrier of entry and simply make the US less competitive against the rest of the world.

Eventually, Corps will win this though. It's just too much money in play for them not to buy up the legislation.
fascist.

[Wild Cobra]

Spoken like somebody that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Keep it up :tu

We already pay for the speed we want. We also already paid for the infrastructure upgrade. This has nothing to do with that. It's about double dipping on both sides of the connection. It's very much like cell phone usage. The US is one of the few countries where both ends pay for cellphone minutes, and still have among the highest rates in cell telephony.
Yet you have no proof.

[Wild Cobra]

We have caps (at least most cable co. do), and we also have shitty pricing. It's asinine that the same internet service costs $40 if bundled with TV service and Phone service on a 2 year contract, but $65 if sold standalone. There's no actual value difference from a provider standpoint that justifies the 50% hike in price. There's no infrastructure impediment either.
There are still bottlenecks.

I can get 20+ megabit all day long on downloads from Comcast. However, once I need to access outside their local network, I am tied with hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing, over a limited bandwidth, there is conflict. I sometimes have to wait a long time for Spurstalk. When our combined access exceeds the max speed, shits going to get dropped. Normal data packages just get slower, but the complaint that the speed isn't fast enough for something like Blockbuster on Demand, is unreasonable. You simply cannot expect priority to such services, under the

Look...

I fucking hate Comcast. However, i will not allow the lies to go forward just because I hate them. I agree their pricing, service, etc. is fucked up. Still, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Parker2112]

Its not about bandwidth, its about tightening the noose.

Who was claiming the Patriot Act was a bad idea after Sept 11th?

But unfortunately hindsight is too slow to keep up in this case.

[ElNono]

fascist.

WC attacking the messenger when he can't back up his bullshit... par for the course, tbh.


Yet you have no proof.

Proof of what dummy? That you're talking out of your ass?


There are still bottlenecks.

I can get 20+ megabit all day long on downloads from Comcast. However, once I need to access outside their local network, I am tied with hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing, over a limited bandwidth, there is conflict. I sometimes have to wait a long time for Spurstalk. When our combined access exceeds the max speed, shits going to get dropped. Normal data packages just get slower, but the complaint that the speed isn't fast enough for something like Blockbuster on Demand, is unreasonable. You simply cannot expect priority to such services, under the

Complete and utter bullshit, and again complete lack of understanding of the technology involved. Cable Co has been laying out fiber also to their local substations. The entire traffic allocation is nothing like it used to be. Nowadays with Docsis 3.0 and switched cable broadcast, they freed even more bandwidth.

Again, this has nothing to do with access between you and the Comcast backbone. Nothing. Zero. Nada. You are already paying for a speed limit and that's what you get.



Look...

I fucking hate Comcast. However, i will not allow the lies to go forward just because I hate them. I agree their pricing, service, etc. is fucked up. Still, two wrongs don't make a right.

Uh? What's that even supposed to mean?

Is that your 'proof'? Your personal experience with Comcast?

Comcast throttles you because they're trying to nickle and dime you to death using whatever old hubs they might still have, so you pay both for the upgrade and also their Wall Street goal for the quarter. You'll never see them losing money even though thy've been upgrading their networks for years now. Heck, probably a good chunk of the infrastructure upgrade money is government subsidized (was just reading about that a couple weeks ago).


And folks, this is the basic problem with this topic. Completely uninformed people building opinion on the sounbite of the day, or what cable looked like in the 90's and the struggles they had to go through growing up. It's a fiber world out there, and there's even plenty of dark fiber to go around.

[ElNono]

And BTW, 9 out of 10 times, 'Spurstalk taking a while to load' has to do with DNS lookups (simply switch to a faster DNS, such as google's), or Spurstalk being down or under a hack attempt.
Spurstalk is a relatively slow traffic site, and to top it all off, a lot of the heavy content is cached by your browser. Really poor example to try to point out network infrastructure limitations.

[Parker2112]

The FCC’s Grand Plan to Control Your Internet, TV, and Phone?
From Kelly William Cobb on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:19 PM

This Thursday, the FCC opens up comments on its proposal regulate the Internet. While no one is quite sure all that it will contain, Scott Cleland (a long-time telecom policy expert and insider) has pieced together recent FCC filings from Google to outline how Net Neutrality regulations could be part of a grand plan to control how virtually all media enters your home. Here's a brief summary:
Under the guise of “Net Neutrality” and “consumer protection” the FCC would begin regulating Internet access for the first time under a completely new regulatory scheme (even though they lack the authority to create it). Meanwhile, the FCC would push regulations – cloaked in the heart-warming language of competition and innovation – mandating that your cable box (known as a set-top box) become a “broadband gateway device” controlling access to your Internet, TV, and phone. The FCC has already started looking at set-top box regulations in their National Broadband Plan.
The FCC would then begin setting rates for the total cost of all three services. Chairman Genachowski said he does not intend to set prices for Internet access. However, the legal maneuvering is so tenuous and the desire from left-wing groups so strong that a mere promise to “forbear” from rate setting is certainly no guarantee. On top of this, it would open the door for the FCC to begin monitoring or censoring content on the Internet (in addition to your TV), something Free Press and other progressives, as well as the White House regulatory czar advocate. The Songwriters Guild of America has a great op-ed on why government censorship is entirely possible if the Internet becomes regulated.
This plan outlines a dark hypothetical world that would effectively destroy any future competition for services and turn our nation’s networks into “dumb pipes” under government centralized control. Everyone will buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves. Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim.
Worst of all, this extreme case of political favoritism for Google’s business model (which is developing set-top boxes and carrying all content to users for "free") is not out of the realm of possibility. Both Google and the socialist organization Free Press have long pushed for such regulations and both are arguably the closest groups to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. They are also strong supporters of President Obama who are calling for their payoff. The former head of Google’s policy shop is now Chief Technology Officer at the White House and Free Press’s former press director is the FCC’s spokesperson.
There are a lot of hurdles for the FCC should they choose this horrendously anti-free market route to take over the nation’s Internet networks and control the flow of media. Already facing severe bipartisan opposition from Congress and the court, the FCC would certainly invite another legal challenge. But if it works, Internet, phone, and TV service will simply become Google Chrome, Android/Google-Voice, and Google TV.

Read more: http://atr.org/fccs-grand-plan-control-internet-tv-a5081##ixzz18p9ZkOjm

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone who thinks what you get from Comcast is due to their bandwidth needs to play a bit with an uncapped cable modem.

[Winehole23]

Net neutrality in theory sounds great but this billread does not.It is a point of guile to label things opposite. A politically appealing label hides deception well.

To have a "net neutrality reg" that upholds the right of internet providers to make invidious distinctions as to priority -- for example, possibly. Depending on how the courts hash it out.


Or maybe not. Comcast seems quite sanguine about Tuesday's decision.
"While we look forward to reviewing the final order, the rules as described generally appear intended to strike a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace for certainty and everyone's desire that Internet openness be preserved," Comcast Vice President David Cohen declared.

"Most importantly, this approach removes the cloud of Title II regulation that would unquestionably have harmed innovation and investment in the Internet and broadband infrastructure."
Reasonable and timely

Rather than Title II common carrier regulations, much of the Order's legal framework is based on Section 706 (http://www.psc.state.fl.us/publications/telecomm/trilogy/universa/706.aspx) of the Communications Act, which requires the FCC to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans."

The question of whether this and various other sections of the Act that the FCC is invoking will survive court scrutiny is an interesting one, but there are other potential legal bugbears ahead. The ISPs also insist that they've got the First Amendment right to cut priority access deals with content providers.

"The First Amendment protects the right not just to decide what to say, but how to say it," former National Cable and Telecommunications Association CEO Kyle McSlarrow declared (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/big-cable-pro-net-neutrality-arguments-turn-first-amendment-on-its-head.ars) last year. "Does the First Amendment really allow the government to prohibit a content or applications provider from paying to acquire the means to distribute its content in the form or manner it wishes?"

How will all this play itself out? It depends on how the FCC enforces this advisory, and who sues the government in response.

"We have a legal basis for the rules we adopted today that is very strong—that gives us the authority we need," Genachowski told reporters in a press conference held after Tuesday's Open Commission meeting. "And I am confident it will in court."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/fcc-priority-access-deals-unlikely-to-get-past-new-open-internet-rules.ars

Commissioner Genachowski relies heavily on the stoutness of existing FCC regs. I guess we'll see if they old up in court.

[senorglory]

Does someone really think that a ISP blocks content of others?

Where's the proof?

Comcast Blocks BitTorrent Traffic 24 Hours a Day

http://gizmodo.com/390947/comcast-blocks-bittorrent-traffic-24-hours-a-day

[boutons_deux]

“This proposal appears to be riddled with loopholes that would open the door to all kinds of future abuses, allowing companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, the big Internet service providers, to decide which websites are going to work, which aren’t, and which are going to be able to get special treatment.”

“Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn’t nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a tea party group in your area).”

the power of the telecom and cable industry lobbyists in Washington, D.C.: “In recent years, they’ve deployed 500 lobbyists, basically one for every member of Congress, and that’s just what they report. AT&T is the biggest campaign giver in the history of campaign giving, as long as we have been tracking it. So they have really entrenched themselves. And Comcast, Verizon, the other big companies, are not far behind.”

As the open Internet becomes increasingly stifled in the U.S., and the corporations that control the Internet become more powerful, we may not see such democratic participation for much longer.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/president_obamas_christmas_gift_to_att_and_comcast _and_verizon_20101221/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Truthdig+Truthdig%3A+Drilling +Beneath+the+Headlines

==========

The Fawning Corporate War-Mongering Media that completely believed all the dubya/dickhead/Repug lies about Iraq and then ignored the anti-war protests/arrest at the WH this week is certainly going to become the Fawning Filtering Corporate War-Mongering Internet.

[spursncowboys]

Because some radio stations could operate on the same freq, ultimately destroying the ability to broadcast, regulations were needed. Since there is no need because the internet doesn't operate on one network, this is just obama taking more controlled with his socialist friends. the last time the senate voted for this, it was a close vote. that kind of close hot button issue should not be bypassed the congress and decided by unelected bureaucratic.

[spursncowboys]

The Net Neutrality Coup
The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.
By JOHN FUND

The Federal Communications Commission's new "net neutrality" rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations. The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.

There's little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.

Yet President Obama, long an ardent backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality. He is seeking to impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Mr. Obama, has worked closely with the White House on the issue. Official visitor logs show he's had at least 11 personal meetings with the president.

The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been "taken out of context." He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was "hesitant to say I'm not a Marxist."

For a man with such radical views, Mr. McChesney and his Free Press group have had astonishing influence. Mr. Genachowski's press secretary at the FCC, Jen Howard, used to handle media relations at Free Press. The FCC's chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio.

Free Press has been funded by a network of liberal foundations that helped the lobby invent the purported problem that net neutrality is supposed to solve. They then fashioned a political strategy similar to the one employed by activists behind the political speech restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill. The methods of that earlier campaign were discussed in 2004 by Sean Treglia, a former program officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts, during a talk at the University of Southern California. Far from being the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, Mr. Treglia noted, the campaign-finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by foundations like Pew.

"The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot," he told his audience. He noted that "If Congress thought this was a Pew effort, it'd be worthless." A study by the Political Money Line, a nonpartisan website dealing with issues of campaign funding, found that of the $140 million spent to directly promote campaign-finance reform in the last decade, $123 million came from eight liberal foundations.

After McCain-Feingold passed, several of the foundations involved in the effort began shifting their attention to "media reform"—a movement to impose government controls on Internet companies somewhat related to the long-defunct "Fairness Doctrine" that used to regulate TV and radio companies. In a 2005 interview with the progressive website Buzzflash, Mr. McChesney said that campaign-finance reform advocate Josh Silver approached him and "said let's get to work on getting popular involvement in media policy making." Together the two founded Free Press.

Free Press and allied groups such as MoveOn.org quickly got funding. Of the eight major foundations that provided the vast bulk of money for campaign-finance reform, six became major funders of the media-reform movement. (They are the Pew Charitable Trusts, Bill Moyers's Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Joyce Foundation, George Soros's Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.) Free Press today has 40 staffers and an annual budget of $4 million.

These wealthy funders pay for more than publicity and conferences. In 2009, Free Press commissioned a poll, released by the Harmony Institute, on net neutrality. Harmony reported that "more than 50% of the public argued that, as a private resource, the Internet should not be regulated by the federal government." The poll went on to say that since "currently the public likes the way the Internet works . . . messaging should target supporters by asking them to act vigilantly" to prevent a "centrally controlled Internet."

To that end, Free Press and other groups helped manufacture "research" on net neutrality. In 2009, for example, the FCC commissioned Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society to conduct an "independent review of existing information" for the agency in order to "lay the foundation for enlightened, data-driven decision making."

Considering how openly activist the Berkman Center has been on these issues, it was an odd decision for the FCC to delegate its broadband research to this outfit. Unless, of course, the FCC already knew the answer it wanted to get.

The Berkman Center's FCC- commissioned report, "Next Generation Connectivity," wound up being funded in large part by the Ford and MacArthur foundations. So some of the same foundations that have spent years funding net neutrality advocacy research ended up funding the FCC-commissioned study that evaluated net neutrality research.

The FCC's "National Broadband Plan," released last spring, included only five citations of respected think tanks such as the International Technology and Innovation Foundation or the Brookings Institution. But the report cited research from liberal groups such as Free Press, Public Knowledge, Pew and the New America Foundation more than 50 times.

So the "media reform" movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That's quite a coup.
[/B]
Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html

[boutons_deux]

"the internet doesn't operate on one network,"

perfectly false.

tcp/ip provides global connectivity "one network" to the entire IP numerical address space, along with "one network" for the DNS name space.

Broadcast radio and TV signals are regional media, not global.

This fake net neutrality has nothing to do with Magic Negro's gang slimed (in your mouth) as socialists.

This is yet another case of powerful, mega-corporations buying the govt regulations to increases their profits, and power.

It's totally, typically dishonest, rabble-rousing, protective of the mega-corps to blame these cases, tea bagger style, exclusively on The Big Bad Problematic Government

The govt is guilty of being corrupted, but the anti-socialist, authoritarian corps are the perpetrators of the corruption.

[boutons_deux]

WSJ's "liberal-left" socialist slime bags may have been pushing for TRUE net neutrality and the Internet as a regulated PUBLIC UTILITY, but that's clearly NOT what resulted.

They were beaten by the mega-corps and their mega-$$$.

My guess is the ATT, Comcast lobbyists actually wrote the regulations, not left-liberal slime bags.

[Wild Cobra]

And BTW, 9 out of 10 times, 'Spurstalk taking a while to load' has to do with DNS lookups (simply switch to a faster DNS, such as google's), or Spurstalk being down or under a hack attempt.
Spurstalk is a relatively slow traffic site, and to top it all off, a lot of the heavy content is cached by your browser. Really poor example to try to point out network infrastructure limitations.
I know that, and that is my point. When someone experiences a break in the video streaming, they blame the ISP for it. The think net neutrality will fix things. If anything, it will probably make things worse.

[boutons_deux]

How Comcast and Huge Telecom Players' Latest Gambit Could Destroy the Internet as We Know It

“there is no evidence of wireline Internet traffic growing so fast as to require intrusive traffic interference to control it. … traffic growth rates have been declining, to levels slower than the rate of improvement of latest transmission equipment.”

Comcast is seeking, like other dominant carriers, to be both “vertically” integrated, i.e., control connectivity from the last-mile to the backbone, as well as “horizontally” integrated, i.e., control available content or applications like NBC-U. Its two-dimensional system of integration pushes beyond the iPhone “walled garden” model by which Apple controls the applications available to the consumer. This two-dimensional integration suggests the real, long-term danger that the FCC and Congress refuse to recognize.

The real drama being played out in terms of Internet congestion and changing pricing models needs to be seen as part of a more profound and systemic change in the control of the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure, especially the Internet. Comcast and other conglomerates that make up the telecommunications trust, like the trusts that dominate the oil and gas sector, health care or financial services, are aggressively pushing to control all aspects of the market sector. Unless the debate over congestion and pricing is opened up, refocused to the larger question of industry consolidation, the FCC December 21st proposal will only make the problem worse.

Stay tuned – the worst is yet to come.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/149289

.

=======

That sure sounds like socialist-lefty coup d'etat to me.

WSJ, you've convinced me, even if you do belong the VRWC kingpin Murdoch.

.

[Cry Havoc]

I know that, and that is my point. When someone experiences a break in the video streaming, they blame the ISP for it. The think net neutrality will fix things. If anything, it will probably make things worse.

:lmao

Dude, you're fucking clueless. Why are you still arguing with ElNono, when he's demonstrably shown that he has a much, much better grasp of the technology than you do and he's telling you that your opinion is screwed at the very basest of levels?

[Wild Cobra]

I mean, if you REALLY want to lower the bandwidth load on the current infrastructure, ban fucking ads. Nobody wants them and they're everywhere wasting people's time and bandwidth.
I don't like ads either, but that source of revenue replaces a user fee.

Are you a socialist?

[Wild Cobra]

There are still bottlenecks.

I can get 20+ megabit all day long on downloads from Comcast. However, once I need to access outside their local network, I am tied with hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing, over a limited bandwidth, there is conflict. I sometimes have to wait a long time for Spurstalk. When our combined access exceeds the max speed, shits going to get dropped. Normal data packages just get slower, but the complaint that the speed isn't fast enough for something like Blockbuster on Demand, is unreasonable. You simply cannot expect priority to such services, under the


Complete and utter bullshit, and again complete lack of understanding of the technology involved. Cable Co has been laying out fiber also to their local substations. The entire traffic allocation is nothing like it used to be. Nowadays with Docsis 3.0 and switched cable broadcast, they freed even more bandwidth.

Again, this has nothing to do with access between you and the Comcast backbone. Nothing. Zero. Nada. You are already paying for a speed limit and that's what you get.

No shit Sherlock. You should read what I say instead of assuming.


Comcast throttles you because they're trying to nickle and dime you to death using whatever old hubs they might still have, so you pay both for the upgrade and also their Wall Street goal for the quarter. You'll never see them losing money even though thy've been upgrading their networks for years now. Heck, probably a good chunk of the infrastructure upgrade money is government subsidized (was just reading about that a couple weeks ago).

So? What does net neutrality have to do with pricing?


And folks, this is the basic problem with this topic. Completely uninformed people building opinion on the sounbite of the day, or what cable looked like in the 90's and the struggles they had to go through growing up. It's a fiber world out there, and there's even plenty of dark fiber to go around.

I still want to see proof.

[Wild Cobra]

Comcast Blocks BitTorrent Traffic 24 Hours a Day

http://gizmodo.com/390947/comcast-blocks-bittorrent-traffic-24-hours-a-day
That's not proof. Where is the data actual data? I can make nice charts too you know. Where are the documents where Comcast acknowledges and defends it?

[ElNono]

I know that, and that is my point. When someone experiences a break in the video streaming, they blame the ISP for it. The think net neutrality will fix things. If anything, it will probably make things worse.

It's actually the other way around. Right now a user can run a traceroute and diagnose who's at fault. Adding an extra layer of packet munging renders such diagnosing impossible. If anything people will blame their ISP more instead of level3 or other backbone providers. In that vein, actual comparison of ISPs will be a thing of the past, since there's no comprehensive way to test performance in a transparent way like we do now.

FWIW, I'm not thrilled the FCC having to step in, because they'll probably also add some bullshit provisions there too (backed by content providers), but ISPs brought this to themselves. I still think the consumer will be screwed to a certain extent no matter what happens.

[ElNono]

That's not proof. Where is the data actual data? I can make nice charts too you know. Where are the documents where Comcast acknowledges and defends it?

You can get the 2008 court documents and FCC filings if you want hard evidence. They're out there in the Comcast vs FCC case. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Use google while you don't get charged extra for it.

[Wild Cobra]

It's actually the other way around. Right now a user can run a traceroute and diagnose who's at fault. Adding an extra layer of packet munging renders such diagnosing impossible. If anything people will blame their ISP more instead of level3 or other backbone providers. In that vein, actual comparison of ISPs will be a thing of the past, since there's no comprehensive way to test performance in a transparent way like we do now.

FWIW, I'm not thrilled the FCC having to step in, because they'll probably also add some bullshit provisions there too (backed by content providers), but ISPs brought this to themselves. I still think the consumer will be screwed to a certain extent no matter what happens.
Yep, and those good 'ol packet resets are proof enough for you? You should know better.

[Wild Cobra]

You can get the 2008 court documents and FCC filings if you want hard evidence. They're out there in the Comcast vs FCC case. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Use google while you don't get charged extra for it.
I know you won't provide it, because it's meaningless.

[ElNono]

Yep, and those good 'ol packet resets are proof enough for you? You should know better.

What the heck are you talking about? RST packets have zero to do with route tracing. Wow, just wow. You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, uh?
This would be hilarious if it wouldn't be so sad. Please bring Lngrrr into the conversation. At least he knows what he's talking about...

[Wild Cobra]

What the heck are you talking about? RST packets have zero to do with route tracing. Wow, just wow. You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, uh?
This would be hilarious if it wouldn't be so sad. Please bring Lngrrr into the conversation. At least he knows what he's talking about...
I know, that's a different thing yet. What i read was the proof that BitTorrent was being blocked was because of the number of packet resets.

[ElNono]

I know you won't provide it, because it's meaningless.

So now you're backtracking and agree that Comcast is indeed throttling traffic.. :rolleyes

And it's so meaningless that spurred new legislation... /facepalm
Why do you think we're even talking about this?

[Wild Cobra]

So now you're backtracking and agree that Comcast is indeed throttling traffic.. :rolleyes

And it's so meaningless that spurred new legislation... /facepalm
Why do you think we're even talking about this?
No, I'm saying that lawsuits aren't proof.

[dimsah]

That's not proof. Where is the data actual data? I can make nice charts too you know. Where are the documents where Comcast acknowledges and defends it?

http://www.newsoxy.com/technology/comcast/article10386.html

http://www.cyber-knowledge.net/blog/comcast-admits-bandwidth-throttling-under-fcc-pressure/

http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Comcast-Defends-Network-Throttling/story.xhtml?story_id=031002UKEALJ&full_skip=1

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/comcast_to_stop_busting_bittorrents/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9872464-38.html

http://lawvibe.com/the-end-of-p2p-throttling-fcc-slaps-comcast/

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.newsoxy.com/technology/comcast/article10386.html

http://www.cyber-knowledge.net/blog/comcast-admits-bandwidth-throttling-under-fcc-pressure/

http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Comcast-Defends-Network-Throttling/story.xhtml?story_id=031002UKEALJ&full_skip=1

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/comcast_to_stop_busting_bittorrents/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9872464-38.html

http://lawvibe.com/the-end-of-p2p-throttling-fcc-slaps-comcast/
That's right. Fall for the headline rather than the information included.

[dimsah]

Did they or did they not deliberately throttle specific internet traffic?


That's right. Fall for the headline rather than the information included.



"The cable provider said that it was limiting peer-to-peer BitTorrent traffic to generously provide more bandwidth for all customers."

"Comcast simultaneously admitted and defended its practice of throttling peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic in comments filed with the Federal Communication Commission on Tuesday"

"Faced with continued scrutiny from the US Federal Communications Commission, Comcast has agreed to release its choke hold on BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer traffic."

"Here's an excerpt from Comcast's filing on Tuesday:
Comcast's network management practices (1) only affect the protocols that have a demonstrated history of generating excessive burdens on the network; (2) only manage those protocols during periods of heavy network traffic; (3) only manage uploads; (4) only manage uploads when the customer is not simultaneously downloading (i.e., when the customer's computer is most likely unattended) ("unidirectional sessions" or "unidirectional uploads"); and (5) only delay those protocols until such time as usage drops below an established threshold of simultaneous unidirectional sessions.
Although network management practices must respond to new technological developments and necessarily change over time, Comcast to date has not found it necessary to manage traffic associated with downloads, or bidirectional traffic (i.e., uploads that occur at the same time a customer is downloading). P2P file uploads that are underway before the network management threshold is reached are not interrupted, and neither bidirectional file transfers nor downloads--including new ones--are affected. This action is nothing more than the system saying that it cannot, at that moment, process additional high-resource demands without becoming overwhelmed, just as a traffic ramp control light regulates the entry of additional vehicles onto a freeway during rush hour. One would not claim that the car is "blocked" or "prevented" from entering the freeway; rather, it is briefly delayed, then permitted onto the freeway in its turn while all other traffic is kept moving as expeditiously as possible, thereby ensuring order and averting chaos. This is an appropriate analogy to Comcast's management of P2P unidirectional uploads."

[ElNono]

I know, that's a different thing yet. What i read was the proof that BitTorrent was being blocked was because of the number of packet resets.

Proof of BitTorrent being blocked was real easy. You could craft a BitTorrent-looking packet and send it over any connection and you would get a RST packet, effectively disconnecting the connection from the TCP Stack.
It was egregorious in that it wasnt even throttling, but flat out disconnections.
It was so easy to detect that the FCC did the test and sued Comcast once it verified what was happening. Comcast hasn't denied doing it since the trial, instead they shifted their tune to 'we can do whatever traffic shaping we want in our network'.
The judge agreed that the FCC didn't have the power to mandate Comcast from stoppin the practice, so we arrive here with the FCC getting the required powers to enforce that now.

[ElNono]

No, I'm saying that lawsuits aren't proof.

tbh, given your expertise on the subject, what you think is proof is entirely irrelevant.

[ElNono]

dimsah making WC look like a fool... What else is new? :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Hey idiot...

I read those! I understood them, did you?


Did they or did they not deliberately throttle specific internet traffic?
"The cable provider said that it was limiting peer-to-peer BitTorrent traffic to generously provide more bandwidth for all customers."

Yes, to effectively keep what some may refer to as a "guard band." have to maintain some bandiwth for surges.


"Comcast simultaneously admitted and defended its practice of throttling peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic in comments filed with the Federal Communication Commission on Tuesday"

We have spped limits on our highways too. So?


"Faced with continued scrutiny from the US Federal Communications Commission, Comcast has agreed to release its choke hold on BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer traffic."

I'm sure they never agreed to that wording. They probably increase the bandwidth on the shared nodes, both upload and download.

I have used several things trough Comcast, like Netflix on Demand, which I think uses bit torrent. Never a problem where I live, but I'm on a node with few users.

[Wild Cobra]

dimsah making WC look like a fool... What else is new? :lmao
I guess from your limited viewpoint...

[ElNono]

Wow, ignorance is indeed bliss...

[ElNono]

lol bitching about the wording, instead weather it's true or false
lol standing up for the company he already agreed is overcharging him and giving him a shitty service

:lmao

[dimsah]

This is what you said.

That's not proof. Where is the data actual data? I can make nice charts too you know. Where are the documents where Comcast acknowledges and defends it?

I provided the proof and you came back with.


Yes, to effectively keep what some may refer to as a "guard band." have to maintain some bandiwth for surges.


We have spped limits on our highways too. So?

[Wild Cobra]

lol bitching about the wording, instead weather it's true or false
lol standing up for the company he already agreed is overcharging him and giving him a shitty service

:lmao
I simply understand bandwidth. I started in digital communications in the early 80's. Yes, I know you have more modern knowledge of things, but there are simple truths that the backbone and local structures can only hold so much bandwidth. I may not agree with the way they do it, but I agree they have a right to keep their network from being chocked.

[Wild Cobra]

I provided the proof and you came back with.
But it wasn't proof, unless you believe everything you read on the internet.

There was an allegation of Comcast blocking 100% of bit torrent traffic. About half, maybe more large downloads now use bit torrent packets. That accusation is flat out ridiculous.

[ElNono]

I simply understand bandwidth. I started in digital communications in the early 80's. Yes, I know you have more modern knowledge of things, but there are simple truths that the backbone and local structures can only hold so much bandwidth. I may not agree with the way they do it, but I agree they have a right to keep their network from being chocked.

I already told you this is not about overall bandwidth. But you keep on posting.

There are no chokepoints right now that cannot be worked out. We have more fiber laid out than we can use. Go read up on dark fiber. This isn't Ted Stevens' series-of-tubes anymore.

I have a 5 apartment ONT right under my bedroom window. The current consumer fiber infrastructure was built WITH net neutrality, and with the companies making money on top of that.

What's really sad is that you're exactly like the people that legislates over this: think they know what they're talking about and are completely misinformed.

[MannyIsGod]

I can't wait to move to a place where I can get any kind of internet service that has more than a 2mbps bandwidth from a provider other than Comcast. I can easily say Comcast is the worst company I've ever had to deal with.

[ElNono]

I can't wait to move to a place where I can get any kind of internet service that has more than a 2mbps bandwidth from a provider other than Comcast. I can easily say Comcast is the worst company I've ever had to deal with.

Verizon is right there in suckitude tbh. They just happen to have better infrastructure.

[Spurminator]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/fcc-priority-access-deals-unlikely-to-get-past-new-open-internet-rules.ars

FCC: Yup, we're going to stop "paid prioritization" on the 'Net
By Matthew Lasar | Last updated about 15 hours ago

The Federal Communications Commission is releasing the details of its new net neutrality Order in stages. Although the FCC's new ban on "unreasonable discrimination" for wired ISPs allows certain kinds of traffic discrimination (not all bits need be equal), the agency made clear after today's meeting that "paid prioritization" deals with Internet companies are unlikely to be allowed. Critics had worried that the new Order would only affect outright website blocking, leaving paid prioritization untouched (or even implicitly sanctioned).

"Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy 'No Unreasonable Discrimination' Rule," advises one subheading of the new net neutrality rules. Ed Whitacre's dream of directly charging Google and Yahoo to "use his pipes"—a key event in starting the entire net neutrality debate—appears to be dashed.

"A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., 'pay for priority') would raise significant cause for concern," the Commission then elaborates. This is because "pay for priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current practice."

Insofar as engaged

As we've reported, the FCC's new rules forbid Internet providers from blocking lawful content and they require transparency from ISPs. They also require that network management and packet discrimination to be "reasonable," but that only applies to wireline broadband. Wireless operators gets a free pass on rationality; they're limited only to the transparency and blocking provisions.

Here's the text of the Commission's "no unreasonable discrimination" rule:

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer's broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.

What are "reasonable network management" practices? Here you go:

A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user's choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.

"Specialized services" like IPTV (think AT&T''s U-Verse) will also be allowed over the last-mile broadband connection, although the FCC insists it will watch their deployment for anti-competitive behavior. But the Order rather strongly suggests that priority deals are "unlikely" to fit into this "reasonable" framework.

Why not? First, "since the beginning of the Internet," the agency explains, "Internet access providers have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees to reach the providers' consumer retail service subscribers or struck pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that US broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements."

Second, priority deals would represent a "departure from longstanding norms" and "could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet." They would raise barriers on entry for edge providers and could also boost "transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to access a critical mass of potential users."

Third, pay for priority could hurt users at the low end of the economic ladder—bloggers, students, libraries, schools, advocacy groups. "Even open Internet skeptics acknowledge that pay for priority may disadvantage non-commercial uses of the network, which are typically less able to pay for priority, and for which the Internet is a uniquely important platform."

Finally, ISPs that push pay for priority service "would have an incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized traffic." As some game developers worry, ISPs might effectively charge for non-inferior service, investing "less in open access and more in services that they can provide at a premium."

"In light of each of these concerns, as a general matter, it is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the 'no unreasonable discrimination' standard," this section of the FCC's Order concludes. "The practice of a broadband Internet access service provider prioritizing its own content, applications, or services, or those of its affiliates, would raise the same significant concerns and would be subject to the same standards and considerations in evaluating reasonableness as third-party pay-for-priority arrangements."

History

All of these assertions will soon be contested. AT&T has all but told the FCC that it could live with net neutrality rules... provided those rules give a green light to priority access arrangements.

As AT&T warned the FCC a year ago, a "strict" nondiscrimination provision "would completely ban voluntary commercial agreements for the paid provision of certain value-added broadband services, which would needlessly deprive market participants, including content providers, from willingly obtaining services that could improve consumers' Internet experiences."

On top of that, AT&T has its own take on the history of this matter. The ISP insists that paid priority access was "fully" and even "expressly" contemplated by the Internet Engineering Task Force decades ago as it mapped out the 'Net's key protocol, TCP/IP.

But the Center for Democracy and Technology pushes back that AT&T is misreading early IETF documents, which were purposed to "describing the technical architecture needed to deploy differential services—not the payment schemes that may be associated with it."

Hello, Level 3

Then there's the sticky question of whether the dispute between Level 3 Communications and Comcast falls into this zone of scrutiny. The Internet backbone and Content Delivery Network operator insists that Comcast crossed the line by charging it to move Netflix movie data to Comcast network subscribers. Comcast pushes back that this is just a private peering/transit dispute, in which Level 3's sudden jump in traffic required a economic response.

When asked if the FCC would scrutinize the Level 3 dispute, Chairman Julius Genachowski responded that the agency was "looking into it." It seems likely that if controversies like this keep coming up, complaints invoking the FCC's new Order will be filed, requiring the Commission to look into the matter quite a bit over the coming months.

Or maybe not. Comcast seems quite sanguine about Tuesday's decision.

"While we look forward to reviewing the final order, the rules as described generally appear intended to strike a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace for certainty and everyone's desire that Internet openness be preserved," Comcast Vice President David Cohen declared. "Most importantly, this approach removes the cloud of Title II regulation that would unquestionably have harmed innovation and investment in the Internet and broadband infrastructure."

Reasonable and timely

Rather than Title II common carrier regulations, much of the Order's legal framework is based on Section 706 of the Communications Act, which requires the FCC to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans."

The question of whether this and various other sections of the Act that the FCC is invoking will survive court scrutiny is an interesting one, but there are other potential legal bugbears ahead. The ISPs also insist that they've got the First Amendment right to cut priority access deals with content providers.

"The First Amendment protects the right not just to decide what to say, but how to say it," National Cable and Telecommunications Association CEO Kyle McSlarrow declared last year. "Does the First Amendment really allow the government to prohibit a content or applications provider from paying to acquire the means to distribute its content in the form or manner it wishes?"

How will all this play itself out? It depends on how the FCC enforces this advisory, and who sues the government in response.

"We have a legal basis for the rules we adopted today that is very strong—that gives us the authority we need," Genachowski told reporters in a press conference held after Tuesday's Open Commission meeting. "And I am confident it will in court."

[fyatuk]

What's really sad is that you're exactly like the people that legislates over this: think they know what they're talking about and are completely misinformed.

At least I freely admit I don't know enough about backend infrastructure to really make a claim. I've read a few articles mostly relating to peak traffic growth outpacing bandwidth growth, but I'm by no means an expert and I certainly wouldn't want legislation crafted without expert opinions. Problem being most experts are going to be people who work for the ISPs or content providers, so they'll likely have a biased outlook.

I could probably figure it all out with a bit of research, since I do have a slight background in such things, but that's too much work for my life ;)

[spursncowboys]

El Nono, do you disagree with the prediction from most experts right now that net neutrality will take away more private reinvestment?

Can you explain why all the Socialist and Marxist groups are pushing this? Why they feel this to be a step towards overthrowing capitalism?

[MannyIsGod]

I thought Time Warner was bad in San Antonio but they've got nothing on Comcast. Just flat out terrible.

[Spurminator]

Can you explain why all the Socialist and Marxist groups are pushing this? Why they feel this to be a step towards overthrowing capitalism?

Link?

[spursncowboys]

MIG: Comcast is over where I am at and they suck balls here too.
Surprisingly I got broadband from my city govt. electric co. CDE and I have seen 45 to 50 sometimes, compared to having to pay extra for 10 from comcast and barely ever getting 5-6

[spursncowboys]

Link?
so you have no comment on the first three questions. Add nothing but want me to spend more of my time getting you links. No that's ok.

[Winehole23]

Took me about 5 seconds to find.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html

[ElNono]

El Nono, do you disagree with the prediction from most experts right now that net neutrality will take away more private reinvestment?

I do. Look elsewhere in the world where the investment was already done.
What ISPs are trying to avoid is being merely data carriers. I don't blame them for trying to maximize the ROI for their shareholders, but as a consumer I have a problem how they're trying to do that.


Can you explain why all the Socialist and Marxist groups are pushing this? Why they feel this to be a step towards overthrowing capitalism?

Google, Vonage, Amazon, Netflix, etc etc etc are Socialist/Marxist?
Okay...

[ElNono]

There's also something else that gets lost in the dollar discussion, which is how important is to have the low barrier of entry to the network as a nation. When its cheaper and easier to develop the next YouTube/Amazon/Google/Facebook in China than in the US, then that's where the information is going to flow.

[Spurminator]

I'm sorry, snc, but my bullshit meter goes off when I see things like "This is a Marxist ploy to overthrow Capitalism." That's why you should source. Most people aren't going to go looking for links that back your statements up, and frankly it's not their responsibility.

[ElNono]

Let me state for the 3rd time that I'm not fond of what the FCC is doing either. Vague language is prone to be abused as soon as the next FCC chairman from a different party steps in.

[Spurminator]

Everyone pushing this thing one way or another is going to have an agenda. I'm with whoever is going to ensure I have full access to available information at the best possible speeds. If that puts me on the same side as Marxists, so be it, but I've seen a lot of hysterical doomsday scenarios coming from both sides of the argument so at this point I'm still developing an opinion.

[boutons_deux]

"Vague language is prone to be abused"

Wrong.

NEVER assume good faith in Congress until proven beyond a doubt, and over time.

Vague language is MEANT to be abused, that's why lobbyists write the vague legislation (Congress can't do details, so lobbyists "help" them) and then lobbyists write the rules and regulations that implement the legislation. It's going on right now with the rule-writing for the health reform.

[spursncowboys]

Took me about 5 seconds to find.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html

I posted that article on p. 2

[ElNono]

This isn't Congress we're talking about. This is the FCC.

[spursncowboys]

Right FCC, unelected group of bureaucrats just made a decision that has been a hot button issue in congress. I know the libs, dems, and socialists got upset when bush did this kind of thing. Are they too against it when their side does this?

I don't think having the Federal Gvt regulate in any capacity will keep the internet free as, or more free, than it is right now. JMO.

[spursncowboys]

I see more download limits like in cell phone co.'s in the future. Also more having to explain yourself when you are using alot of bandwidth, which means less privacy.

[ElNono]

I see more download limits like in cell phone co.'s in the future. Also more having to explain yourself when you are using alot of bandwidth, which means less privacy.

Artificial caps though. Unlike in the cellphone case, where bandwidth is based on specific spectrum availability, wired speeds are basically limited in the dozens of gigabits magnitude for coax/switched pair, or nearly speed of light (you'll hit an electronics limits before then until we develop full optic electronics) for fiber.

[ElNono]

I don't think having the Federal Gvt regulate in any capacity will keep the internet free as, or more free, than it is right now. JMO.

Your ISP doesn't want the Internet as free as we have it right now.
I understand you don't like the FCC. But I don't think you've identified who your actual foe is.

[boutons_deux]

This isn't Congress we're talking about. This is the FCC.

The FCC, like all branches of the Exec, is infiltrated with political appointee hacks and under continuous attack industry lobbyists.

Does anybody think FCC makes rules totally separate from industry influence?

[boutons_deux]

"I don't think having the Federal Gvt regulate in any capacity"

If not the govt, then who regulates?

We know that industry self-regulation and self-policing fails every time.

[spursncowboys]

the consumer regulates. IMO there is not a need for regulation because there is no real problem.

[spursncowboys]

From dial-up to the highspeed internet we have right now and satelitte. Do you think this type of improvements and advancements would have come with the regulations that the dems wanted in the early 90's?

[ElNono]

the consumer regulates. IMO there is not a need for regulation because there is no real problem.

Yeah, I'm sure consumers would have broken up Ma Bell eventually... :rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

the consumer regulates.

Bullshit.

Go tell cable customers to "regulate" the shittiness out of Comcast or whatever local monopoly people have to buy from.

When all the cc issuers or cell phone providers offer the same minefield, hyper-complex contracts, like with 2-year minimums and disco penalties, why aren't the consumers regulatin those conditions out of the marketplace?

There are so many examples of consumers getting screwed, you people are on some different planet.

The corps work very hard, and very effectively, to reduce consumer choice.

[ElNono]

From dial-up to the highspeed internet we have right now and satelitte. Do you think this type of improvements and advancements would have come with the regulations that the dems wanted in the early 90's?

I don't outright know what the dems wanted in the 90's. You'll have to refresh my memory. What I can tell you is that the service we get right now is nowhere near the top 10 in the world. We've been lagging in broadband adoption a lot, and it has everything to do with pricing and greed and little to do with infrastructure.

[spursncowboys]

I didn't mean to insinuate that no govt. regulation is good. obviously breaking up monopolies, created in part by federal inside deals, is good to the consumer and out of their abilities to affect the market.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't wait to move to a place where I can get any kind of internet service that has more than a 2mbps bandwidth from a provider other than Comcast. I can easily say Comcast is the worst company I've ever had to deal with.
I agree, but is it reason enough to make more bureaucracy?

[MannyIsGod]

Well, I was merely commenting on my outright hatred of Comcast. I support some enforcement of net neutrality for reasons outside of my hatred for comcast.

[Wild Cobra]

El Nono, do you disagree with the prediction from most experts right now that net neutrality will take away more private reinvestment?

Can you explain why all the Socialist and Marxist groups are pushing this? Why they feel this to be a step towards overthrowing capitalism?
That's really the key. The internet has seen phenomenal growth because it wasn't burdened by the government. I simply cannot believe it will keep pace with government interference.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I was merely commenting on my outright hatred of Comcast. I support some enforcement of net neutrality for reasons outside of my hatred for comcast.
Yes, I know. You are an authoritarian. We all understand that. Most liberals like you, Elno-it-all, etc. are authoritarians.

[Wild Cobra]

I already told you this is not about overall bandwidth. But you keep on posting.

There are no chokepoints right now that cannot be worked out. We have more fiber laid out than we can use. Go read up on dark fiber. This isn't Ted Stevens' series-of-tubes anymore.

I have a 5 apartment ONT right under my bedroom window. The current consumer fiber infrastructure was built WITH net neutrality, and with the companies making money on top of that.

What's really sad is that you're exactly like the people that legislates over this: think they know what they're talking about and are completely misinformed.
I know what you are saying, but i don't believe you. You have shown no proof that it isn't about bandwidth.

[Wild Cobra]

This isn't Congress we're talking about. This is the FCC.
Just as bad. A bureaucracy of selected elitists.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, I know. You are an authoritarian. We all understand that. Most liberals like you, Elno-it-all, etc. are authoritarians.

:lol

[ElNono]

I know what you are saying, but i don't believe you. You have shown no proof that it isn't about bandwidth.

What you believe is irrelevant in that you've demonstrated widely to know absolutely nothing on the current state of affairs as far as network comms is concerned. Unfortunately bringing up to speed somebody that missed the last 20-25 years in telecommunications is a futile effort, especially if said person is unwilling to listen in the first place.

When you have to pay more to access Spurstalk and still get incrdibly shitty service, don't forget this thread!

[ElNono]

Just as bad. A bureaucracy of selected elitists.

Probably worse. That said, such description fits just as nicely to company CEO's...

[Wild Cobra]

What you believe is irrelevant in that you've demonstrated widely to know absolutely nothing on the current state of affairs as far as network comms is concerned. Unfortunately bringing up to speed somebody that missed the last 20-25 years in telecommunications is a futile effort, especially if said person is unwilling to listen in the first place.

When you have to pay more to access Spurstalk and still get incrdibly shitty service, don't forget this thread!
Well, it's been since 1992. Not quite 20 years. The technology changes some, but some realities do not. As forgetting worse service? That's what I expect net neutrality to do. Left alone, I expect my service will only get better.

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono.

The last switch I worked on was an AT&T DACS III frame. Thing was amazing for it's time. There is little difference in concept of packet switching in the past, to present. Just the increased formats, speeds, media, etc.

[ElNono]

Yes, I know. You are an authoritarian. We all understand that. Most liberals like you, Elno-it-all, etc. are authoritarians.

You commented on your hatred of Comcast earlier... But then we already know you're an authoritarian... :tu

[Wild Cobra]

You commented on your hatred of Comcast earlier... But then we already know you're an authoritarian... :tu
Really? For not wanting government imposed restrictions, like you do?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

[ElNono]

ElNono.

The last switch I worked on was an AT&T DACS III frame. Thing was amazing for it's time. There is little difference in concept of packet switching in the past, to present. Just the increased formats, speeds, media, etc.

And this addresses what exactly?

[Wild Cobra]

And this addresses what exactly?

Are you saying that the method of data paths, switching, alternate rouses, etc. differ from the era of that type of equipment?

What is new that makes my knowledge of 18 years ago obsolete on such a topic?

[ElNono]

I mean, we can talk from switched t-1 to ds3.. And you would be talking tech somewhat obsolete about 10 years ago. Replaced by OC3 and OC12, consumers now get a full fiber going to their home, doing GBps on a tri-channel... It's crazy stuff what gets to home now.

[Wild Cobra]

I mean, we can talk from switched t-1 to ds3.. And you would be talking tech somewhat obsolete about 10 years ago. Replaced by OC3 and OC12, consumers now get a full fiber going to their home, doing GBps on a tri-channel... It's crazy stuff what gets to home now.
Yes, I know. Communication capacity is increased from the time I worked in the field. The basic concepts have not.

[ElNono]

Are you saying that the method of data paths, switching, alternate rouses, etc. differ from the era of that type of equipment?

What is new that makes my knowledge of 18 years ago obsolete on such a topic?

Actually, it is. It's much more complicated these days, with DPI and failover routing. Then again, we didn't have the sheer size of network we have now.
No to mention a top of the line router fits on a mini-atx box these days.

And really, what really outs you as being behind is your claim that the cable co. infrastructure hasn't changed, and that your neighbor downloading porn makes Spurtstalk load slowly, and that's prima facie proof of bandwidth lacking

[jack sommerset]

Actually, it is. It's much more complicated these days, with DPI and failover routing. Then again, we didn't have the sheer size of network we have now.
No to mention a top of the line router fits on a mini-atx box these days.

And really, what really outs you as being behind is your claim that the cable co. infrastructure hasn't changed, and that your neighbor downloading porn makes Spurtstalk load slowly, and that's prima facie proof of bandwidth lacking

sorry about that guys.

[ElNono]

Yes, I know. Communication capacity is increased from the time I worked in the field. The basic concepts have not.

It's more that new tech has been built on top of the older concepts, thanks to availability of tech. A decent DPI box can do milions full descramble and categorization of packets, reassembly and routing PER SECOND.

[Wild Cobra]

It's more that new tech has been built on top of the older concepts, thanks to availability of tech. A decent DPI box can do milions full descramble and categorization of packets, reassembly and routing PER SECOND.
There are still bottlenecks in some places. Rerouting can only accomplish so much. Then the way cable internet is designed, there is only a limited bandwidth shared by multiple users. Sure, it's fiber optic to a certain point, but then is limited by copper wire speeds, shared by all the users on that hub.

[ElNono]

There are still bottlenecks in some places. Rerouting can only accomplish so much. Then the way cable internet is designed, there is only a limited bandwidth shared by multiple users. Sure, it's fiber optic to a certain point, but then is limited by copper wire speeds, shared by all the users on that hub.

Comcast switched over their hubs interconnects to fiber since they started their HD offerings. Coax simply has no bandwidth for their full HD feed + Internet multicasting. Switchig to fiber there was basically mandatory for them if they wanted to offer HDTV. Thy already did that switch.
Up until about a year or two ago, they started to have problems even with that setup because compression on the HD feeds was getting worse and now they were having bandwidth problems in the last mile. Enter Docsis 3.0 and switched cable, a concept very similar to UVerse IPTV. Basically, channels with high bandwidth now share the same bandwidth, and are switched over when the consumer tunes to it.
Comcast will probably go full IPTV until it finally ditches coax and moves to FTH.

FWIW, under the broadband access government programs, these companies get subsidies for a lot of these upgrades. The problem is that adoption is dismal because price and quality of service is terrible. What most US ISPs advertise as broadband is not even classified as such by both the FCC or the rest of the world.

[MannyIsGod]

You can't make this shit up. Comcast has assigned me an IP address in Fort Wayne IN while I'm in Santa Fe, NM. This is fucking up my NBA league Pass and I'm dealing with ther CS right now.

Fucking HATE Comcast.

[xrayzebra]

Splain something to me. I have AT&T UVerse. Copper
to the house from the terminal. But to the cross connect
a couple of blocks over they have fiber. So they got all
the bennies of fiber to cross connect then copper to the
user. I ask a tech the other day, if and when they were
going to run fiber to the homes, he said not for a very
long time.

But Time-Warner ran fiber to all terminals and then
copper to the house.

Maybe you smart guys can explain all this to me. I
am an old communicator, when the trans-oceanic cable
would transmit 2-5 WPM. Back in 1950.

I will give them high grades for one thing. I don't believe
I have ever gotten a garbled message.....LOL

Oh, about the topic. The government will screw up a
wet dream. No further comment.

[ElNono]

UVerse uses straight out IPTV. Basically, they have a full feed on fiber to your local hub, and the boxes are not tuners, but merely a stream box with a h264 decoder + decrypter.
Whenever you tune a channel, an IP connection gets made to the local station through the coax and you get streaming video coming in. It's really effective and cost efficient, since it reuses the existing coax setup and you're only using up the bandwidth that you need for TV access while freeing the rest for Internet usage. Even if you have 4 boxes recording 4 channels on each, you're only using bandwidth for 16 channels, which is obviously a lot less than the 100+ channels cable co. packs in the same coax cable.

Why doesn't cable companies do this? Well, they're transitioning to a similar model, and now that they don't need to deal with Analog TV they'll probably accelerate the transition. The difference basically boils down to the fact that their architecture is based off QAM tuners in the boxes instead of flat out IP. While most of the boxes do have a cablemodem built in for side-band communication and security, their video architecture is based off tuners (because, again, they needed to support hybrid digital-analog).
The thing is, eventually we're going to reach gigabit/terabit speeds (15-30 years from now?), and coax can't deal with that. That's why for companies like Verizon who needed to build a last mile infrastructure of their own, FTH was the investment that makes more sense longer term.

[jacobdrj]

I love the internet from Uverse, but IPTV has so many compression errors... DirectTV does a much better job.

[Wild Cobra]

Splain something to me. I have AT&T UVerse. Copper
to the house from the terminal. But to the cross connect
a couple of blocks over they have fiber. So they got all
the bennies of fiber to cross connect then copper to the
user. I ask a tech the other day, if and when they were
going to run fiber to the homes, he said not for a very
long time.

But Time-Warner ran fiber to all terminals and then
copper to the house.

Maybe you smart guys can explain all this to me. I
am an old communicator, when the trans-oceanic cable
would transmit 2-5 WPM. Back in 1950.

I will give them high grades for one thing. I don't believe
I have ever gotten a garbled message.....LOL

Oh, about the topic. The government will screw up a
wet dream. No further comment.
The bottom line is signal to noise ratio. A great deal of bandwidth can be put on copper, and if the run isn't too long, it works great for a few gigabits.

[ElNono]

^^^ Correct

About the difference in compression errors, tuner-based systems like Cable using QAM or Satellite use Reed-Solomon error correction to actually fix the incoming stream in case of packet loss or minor interference. IPTV instead just uses the regular IP network, thus it's much more prone to transient packet loss. That's why you'll see more compression artifacts in UVerse. That said, they can add Reed-Solomon on a side band connection and probably will if interference becomes much of an issue long term.

[xrayzebra]

^^^ Correct

About the difference in compression errors, tuner-based systems like Cable using QAM or Satellite use Reed-Solomon error correction to actually fix the incoming stream in case of packet loss or minor interference. IPTV instead just uses the regular IP network, thus it's much more prone to transient packet loss. That's why you'll see more compression artifacts in UVerse. That said, they can add Reed-Solomon on a side band connection and probably will if interference becomes much of an issue long term.

The only problem I have had with UVerse is
with the equipment itself. I was one of the
first users in my neighborhood. I have had to
have the gateway replaced twice and one
set top box. But the Tech's have all been great
people and take care of business. I cant say the
same for their Tech Support people, in India
and other overseas locations. They want to go
by the script even though you have already
gone through all the steps before contacting them. I have learned one thing though. Use
chat on the internet and don't call.

Now you spoke of compression. I have a hearing
problem and use hearing aids. Boy does the
compression they put on the cable show itself
in the sound. I solved the problem by buy myself
some TV ears. I was also a radio operator for
many years and all the guys I work with have
some hearing problems. Monitoring four or five
frequencies and listening to all the chatter and
junk will take its toll. Not bitching. I loved
communications and still do. I love to read your
post on the different "improvements". I can
remember when 50-60 WPM was the norm,
100 WPM on Teletype was superman speeds
and when the old IBM 512's came along and
12 cards per minute was the cats meow and
the the IBM (nomenclature escapes me) but
it transmitted 100 Cards Per Minute. And
then computers came into use, replacing
teletype, 1200 bauds, we were living high. Now,
who knows what these things transmit/receive
at. A message from half way cross the earth
in mere seconds.


Yeah, guys, when you get close to eighty things
do get a might different physically and technically.
You all have a lot to come, if government doesn't
screw it up too bad.

Merry Christmas to all of you and a Very Happy
New Year. I hope you all get what you want
for Christmas and remember who's birthday
we are celebrating.

:toast

[senorglory]

I know you won't provide it, because it's meaningless.

Now you're just trolling.

[Winehole23]

Now you're just trolling.Bashing WC is a time-honored custom here, but it often fails to impress.

[Winehole23]

I would definitely put your post in that category.

[Winehole23]

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday struck down the latest effort by the Federal Communications Commission to require internet providers to treat all traffic the same, a policy known as net neutrality.

The FCC did not have the legal authority to enact the 2011 regulations, which were challenged in a lawsuit brought by Verizon Communications Inc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/14/usa-courts-netneutrality-idUSL2N0KO0WH20140114

[boutons_deux]

AT&T Sponsored Data Plan: Aiming to Kill Net Neutrality

The FCC has, in effect, stood behind the concept of net neutrality, where transmission of data does not depend on either its source or destination. Data is neutral, and every bit is no more or less equal than any other.

The rules, however, apply only to fixed-line ISPs, not wireless carriers. The effect of a sponsored data plan will be to favor those companies that can and are willing to pay to the disadvantage of those who cannot or will not pay.

Expect the cable and satellite providers to raise a stink about AT&T’s plan. Consumer advocacy groups, too, have already joined the fray. As one consumer advocate told Wired, “Letting the carriers charge more or less money to reach certain sites is discriminatory, and it’s not how the Internet is supposed to work.” Maybe not, but if AT&T gets its way, that is how the Internet will work in the future.

AT&T Sponsored Data Plan: Aiming to Kill Net Neutrality - AT&T (NYSE:T) - 24/7 Wall St. (http://247wallst.com/telecom-wireless/2014/01/07/att-sponsored-data-plan-aiming-to-kill-net-neutrality/#ixzz2qObZRxgB) http://247wallst.com/telecom-wireless/2014/01/07/att-sponsored-data-plan-aiming-to-kill-net-neutrality/#ixzz2qObZRxgB

[boutons_deux]

Repug corporate whores against net neutrality, pushing to screw up Internet, create a rigged, tilted field enriching the biggies and stifling competition

GOP Wants FCC to Ditch Net Neutrality Rules

House Republicans on Wednesday penned a letter (http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/5-14-14-Net-Neutrality-Letter.pdf) to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, which urged him to back off any sort of net neutrality regulation.

"We are writing to respectfully urge you to halt your consideration of any plan to impose antiquated regulation on the Internet, and to warn that implementation of such a plan will needlessly inhibit the creation of American private sector jobs, limit economic freedom and innovation, and threaten to derail one of our economy's most vibrant sectors," reads the letter, which was signed by House

Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, and Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

The lawmakers 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."

An unregulated approach to broadband deployment, they argued, has resulted in the private sector deploying broadband to 95 percent of U.S. households.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2458063,00.asp?mailingID=85BF483041BB77967D 1FC8FF8BB85E48

and the "private sector" Internet is a wealth-extracting, un-free-market of uncompetitive local monopolies. goddam, the Repugs LIE as much as they are ignorant dumfucks

[boutons_deux]

F.C.C. Votes to Move Ahead on Net Neutrality Plan

The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes.

While the plan is meant to prevent data from being knowingly slowed by Internet providers, it would allow content providers to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service.

Some opponents of the plan argue that allowing some content to be sent along a fast lane would essentially discriminate against content not sent along that lane.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/technology/fcc-road-map-to-net-neutrality.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0

As always, money gets what it wants, unstoppable influence and favorable govt policies, which is nearly never what the voters want.

Rigging The Game, it's 100% Corporate-Americana.

[Winehole23]

In a one-on-one discussion with Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) President Gary Shapiro, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler implied that Title II of the Communications Act will be the basis for new net neutrality rules governing the broadband industry. Title II lets the FCC regulate telecommunications providers as common carriers, and President Obama urged the commission to use Title II to impose net neutrality rules that ban blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/title-ii-for-internet-providers-is-all-but-confirmed-by-fcc-chairman/

[Winehole23]

cautiously optimistic. if true, would be big news.

[TeyshaBlue]

Internet access...The next utility.

I told my brother that back in 2003. :lol

[boutons_deux]

If internet goes under Title II, IIRC, Google Fiber will be allowed on poles that are denied to them now.

water, money, internet, health care, electricity, all should be non-profit public utilities.

[boutons_deux]

Commerce Department Study Reveals There's Almost No Competition If You Want Real Broadband

https://i.imgur.com/sthIXli.png

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141217/10125929466/commerce-department-study-reveals-theres-almost-no-competition-if-you-want-real-broadband.shtml

[boutons_deux]

White House Finally Takes Aim At A Decade Of Ridiculous Protectionist State Community Broadband Laws

For the second time in as many months, Obama has again poured a little gasoline on the FCC and a hot-button broadband conversation topic after belatedly calling for Title II reclassification (https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141110/06490829092/surprise-president-obama-calls-real-net-neutrality.shtml) back in November. This week The White House released a report (http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/community-based_broadband_report_by_executive_office_of_the_ president.pdf) (pdf) throwing the President's full support behind a push to kill off these awful laws, while pressuring the FCC to do the same. The report highlights how community broadband is the perfect tonic for market failure, and a great place to start in terms of improving lagging, uncompetitive U.S. networks:

"In markets where private competition is anemic, whether because of regulatory barriers to entry or the high fixed costs of infrastructure investment, town and cities can build their own middle-mile networks and offer competitive access to the private sector, as Scott County, MN has done. Or municipalities can provide service directly to consumers, like in Chattanooga, TN. In either case, municipalities are creating more choices for consumers, fostering competition and creating opportunities for economic growth. Municipal broadband is often a logical choice for towns and cities that are already served by a municipal electric utility, since infrastructure costs can be shared across those two services, just as private cable companies leveraged their networks to provide Internet service."

Back in July, FCC boss Tom Wheeler responded to petitions from several community-run ISPs (https://www.epb.net/downloads/legal/EPB-FCCPetition.pdf)(pdf) by stating the agency would be taking a long, hard look (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Its-Put-Up-or-Shut-Up-Time-For-FCC-On-Community-Broadband-129829) at these state laws as part of their mandate to ensure broadband is deployed on a "reasonable and timely basis." That's why, as we've been noting, the FCC has been amping up efforts to show this simply hasn't been happening (https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150108/08234729632/fcc-to-raise-minimum-broadband-definition-to-25-mbps-further-highlighting-nations-pathetic-lack-broadband-competition.shtml). Wheeler, bucking expectations of fealty to his lobbyist past, has been highlighting frequently how roughly two-thirds of the country is unable to get more than one ISP that can provide speeds of 25 Mbps or higher.

Ignoring their own failures, ISPs and hired friends are quick to point out the municipal broadband projects that haven't worked (because like any business plan, some don't work), while ignoring areas (like Chattanooga, TN, Wilson, NC or Lafayette, LA) where these efforts are not only paying great dividends, they're motivating incumbent ISPs to improve their services. Opponents of these projects like to ignore the most salient point of all: communities wouldn't be getting into the broadband business if the existing market was working. If at any point in the last fifteen years these folks really wanted to stop these efforts, they could have improved services. Instead, they've taken the cheaper route: lobbying (http://www.muninetworks.org/content/time-warner-cable-monopoly-protection-act-heads-north-carolina-governor), lawsuits (https://www.epb.net/news/news-archive/comcast-lawsuit-against-epb-dismissed/) and disinformation (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/63279).

After Wheeler's latest comments, Incumbent ISPs threatened to sue if the government dares to dismantle their state-built empires of protectionist legislation. Because the justification for eroding local rights is fundamentally weak at its core and an ugly PR move, they've often waged this battle under the guise of states rights, using groups like The National Conference of State Legislatures (http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/2175585~bc3525dec407478e249e80f538642c2f/NCSL.pdf) to do the threatening for them. They've also had folks like Rep. Marsha Blackburn to similarly complain that the government is telling states what to do (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140716/09525527897/why-does-rep-marsha-blackburn-want-to-block-you-having-competitive-broadband.shtml) (you'll notice that letting giant companies write telecom law that hurts these same communities is just fine, however).

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150114/05072829686/white-house-finally-takes-aim-decade-ridiculous-protectionist-state-community-broadband-laws.shtml


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140308/06040526491/if-you-want-to-fix-us-broadband-competition-start-killing-state-level-protectionist-laws-written-duopolists.shtml

[boutons_deux]

Sad states of affairs

Alabama: Municipal communications services must be self-sustaining, "thus impairing bundling and other common industry marketing practices." Municipalities cannot use "local taxes or other funds to pay for the start-up expenses that any capital-intensive project must pay until the project is constructed and revenues become sufficient to cover ongoing expenses and debt service."

Arkansas: Only municipalities that operate electric utilities may provide communications services, but they aren't allowed to provide "basic local exchange service," i.e. traditional phone service.

California: Public entities are generally allowed to provide communications services, but "Community Service Districts (http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/CSD.pdf)" may not if any private entity is willing to do so.

Colorado: Municipalities must hold a referendum before providing cable, telecommunications, or broadband service, unless the community is unserved.

Florida: Imposes special tax on municipal telecommunications service and a profitability requirement that makes it difficult to approve capital-intensive communications projects.

Louisiana: Municipalities must hold referendums before providing service and "impute to themselves various costs that a private provider might pay if it were providing comparable services."

Michigan: Municipalities must seek bids before providing telecom services and can move forward only if they receive fewer than three qualified bids.

Minnesota: 65 percent of voters must approve before municipalities can offer local exchange services or operate facilities that support communications services.

Missouri: Cities and towns can't sell telecom services or lease telecom facilities to private providers "except for services used for internal purposes; services for educational, emergency, and health care uses; and 'Internet-type' services."

Nebraska: Public broadband services are generally prohibited except when provided by power utilities. However, "public power utilities are permanently prohibited from providing such services on a retail basis, and they can sell or lease dark fiber on a wholesale basis only under severely limited conditions."

Nevada: Municipalities with at least 25,000 residents and counties with at least 50,000 residents may not provide telecommunications services.

North Carolina: "Numerous" requirements make it impractical to provide public communications services. "For example, public entities must comply with unspecified legal requirements, impute phantom costs into their rates, conduct a referendum before providing service, forego popular financing mechanisms, refrain from using typical industry pricing mechanisms, and make their commercially sensitive information available to their incumbent competitors."

Pennsylvania: Municipalities cannot sell broadband services if a "local telephone company" already provides broadband, even if the local telephone company charges outrageously high prices or offers poor quality service.

South Carolina: The state "requires governmental providers to comply with all legal requirements that would apply to private service providers, to impute phantom costs into their prices, including funds contributed to stimulus projects, taxes that unspecified private entities would incur, and other unspecified costs."

Tennessee: Municipalities that own electric utilities may provide telecom services "upon complying with various public disclosure, hearing, voting, and other requirements that a private provider would not have to meet. Municipalities that do not operate electric utilities can provide services only in 'historically unserved areas,' and only through joint ventures with the private sector."

Texas: The state "prohibits municipalities and municipal electric utilities from offering telecommunications services to the public either directly or indirectly through a private telecommunications provider."

Utah: Various procedural and accounting requirements imposed on municipalities would be "impossible for any provider of retail services to meet, whether public or private." Municipal providers that offer services at wholesale rather than retail are exempt from some of the requirements, "but experience has shown that a forced wholesale-only model is extremely difficult, or in some cases, impossible to make successful."

Virginia: Municipal electric utilities can offer phone and Internet services "provided that they do not subsidize services, that they impute private-sector costs into their rates, that they do not charge rates lower than the incumbents, and that [they] comply with numerous procedural, financing, reporting and other requirements that do not apply to the private sector." Other requirements make it nearly impossible for municipalities to offer cable service, except in Bristol, which was grandfathered.

Washington: The state "authorizes some municipalities to provide communications services but prohibits public utility districts (http://www.wpuda.org/) from providing communications services directly to customers."

Wisconsin: Cities and towns must "conduct a feasibility study and hold a public hearing prior to providing telecom, cable, or Internet services." Additionally, the state "prohibits 'subsidization' of most cable and telecom services and prescribes minimum prices for telecommunications services."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

red states DOMINATE with the corporate protectionism

Freedom! :lol

No regulations! :lol

Free Market! :lol

Govt Overreach! :lol