“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/...+the+Headlines
==========
The Fawning Corporate War-Mongering Media that completely believed all the dubya/ head/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.
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.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...110086694.htmlThe 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 Ins ute, 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 Ins ute, 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 Ins ution. 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
.
Dude, you're ing 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?
I don't like ads either, but that source of revenue replaces a user fee.
Are you a socialist?
No Sherlock. You should read what I say instead of assuming.
So? What does net neutrality have to do with pricing?
I still want to see proof.
That's not proof. Where is the data actual data? I can make nice charts too you know. Where are the do ents where Comcast acknowledges and defends it?
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 bull 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.
You can get the 2008 court do ents 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.
Yep, and those good 'ol packet resets are proof enough for you? You should know better.
I know you won't provide it, because it's meaningless.
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.
So now you're backtracking and agree that Comcast is indeed throttling traffic..
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.So now you're backtracking and agree that Comcast is indeed throttling traffic..
And it's so meaningless that spurred new legislation... /facepalm
Why do you think we're even talking about this?
http://www.newsoxy.com/technology/co...icle10386.html
http://www.cyber-knowledge.net/blog/...-fcc-pressure/
http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Comca...LJ&full_skip=1
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03...g_bittorrents/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9872464-38.html
http://lawvibe.com/the-end-of-p2p-th...slaps-comcast/
That's right. Fall for the headline rather than the information included.
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."
"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."
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.
tbh, given your expertise on the subject, what you think is proof is entirely irrelevant.
dimsah making WC look like a fool... What else is new?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
