I do. Basically, a lot of the high speed backbone network was actually created by the government. Lots of 'dark fiber' are still available, but they go from city to city, they're not meant to be rerouted to a rural area, unless an ISP actually deploys. But this is why backbone providers don't have an issue with 'more bandwidth'. There's plenty of bandwidth on the backbone (heck, some universities have been running the fabled Internet II at much higher speeds for a while now). Furthermore, the actual costs to ISPs to tap into these networks has only gotten cheaper (technological advances tend to do that on a compe ive market).
So the problem here is the captive audience. The 'last mile'. What's the incentive for ISPs to upgrade their networks? None. They can offer subpar service because they don't have to compete. Furthermore, because they're gatekeepers, they get to dictate the terms of what goes in that last mile.
Now, I don't want to paint ISPs necessarily as the bad guys, but the reality is that they're abusing a power that was granted to them, and no other than the en y that granted that power can stop that. That's the government. If you really want to remove the government from the internet, you have to remove the monopolies/duopolies (which the government granted). The problem is, and this is no bull, it does take a lot money to drop a wire (fiber now) to a remote city of 2000 people. Market says that even if you're slightly profitable on that area, it makes no sense to put forth the investment and maintenance on such areas, when you can make 1000x more on a metropolis. And so that people will get screwed. So it's always a balancing act.
Well, like I said, 'supposed to', and it did for a long time. Heck, Tom Wheeler, who was the previous commish and set forth the le II regulation, was a former NCTA lobbyist and was pretty impressive he actually took that step (although he was familiar with the dynamics of the industry, and he never offered to undo monopolies).
FREEDOM
or Make earnings of big corporations great again
the GOP figures that liberals use the internet much more than conservatives do, so to pay for tax breaks, they want to charge the liberals to post crap in the internet.
After the death of net neutrality, what will the internet look like?
Negotiating internet access will feel a lot like negotiating your television cable or cellphone bill.
You'll be forced to untangle various packages relating to different sites and services you might use,
pay for ISP-branded content you probably don't care about, and
get that sinking feeling at the beginning of every month that,
one way or another, you're overpaying.
Instead of simply worrying about how much internet you use or how fast you need it to be, you're going to have to worry about what kind of internet you use.
Premium sites like Netflix and YouTube will likely cost more,
you'll be nickel-and-dimed for the use of free apps like iMessage and FaceTime, and
unfettered access to the full internet will be more expensive.
Start-ups, facing even higher barriers of entry, will be forced to spend money partnering with telecom companies. Fewer of them will survive.
And the start-ups that do survive will spend an unnecessarily high amount of their income paying to survive.
This is great news for established companies like
Facebook and Google that will always be able to afford internet tolls. They will cement their already dominant position against newer but better sites and services.
Decentralized services like bitcoin might never reach critical mass, since they have no corporate backing to pay the internet tolls, and will be automatically relegated to the slow lane of the internet from the get go.
Telecoms may also exert influence on political speech — like in 2007 when
Verizon prevented Naral Pro-Choice from using text messages to sign up new supporters,
citing their right to block "controversial or unsavory" content.
Verizon felt en led to manipulate its cellphone network — its private infrastructure.
By 2020, telecoms may also feel en led to keep their internet customers from accessing certain types of political speech on the public net.
Eventually the changes will give way to a
race to the bottom: ISPs will charge more and more to access the most valuable external services
and only those in bents with enough cash will be able to reach their users.
Everyone else, including
start-ups, nonprofits, academics and regular people running their own websites, will be relegated to the undifferentiated trough of slow-lane internet traffic.
http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-benenson-net-neutrality-future-20171218-story.html#testnws=politicsnow&track=_newsletter_p olitics-now___________20171219
Comcast Is Pushing For a Flimsy Net Neutrality Law it Knows Telecom Lobbyists Will Write
large ISPs still need to find a way to prevent any future FCCs from simply reinstating the rules.
That’s why the same giant ISPs that backed the FCC’s assault on net neutrality are now pushing for a “legislative solution” in Congress.
The goal:
they want a law that contains so many loopholes as to be effectively meaningless, yet prevents the FCC from crafting any real, tough laws down the road.
And they know that with this incarnation of Congress so awash in campaign contributions, that big telecom lawyers will be the ones writing it.
It would likely ban most of the more heavy-handed abuses Comcast knows it couldn’t get away with anyway, ranging from the outright blocking of websites and services, to the blatant throttling of the company’s compe ors.
Comcast long ago gave up on such efforts to instead focus on more subtle, clever abuses of a lack of compe ion in the broadband space.
a Comcast-approved law wouldn’t cover all of the areas where net neutrality violations are actually currently occurring, whether that’s Comcast’s use of arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees (and zero rating of its own content), or the interconnection shenanigans we witnessed when ISPs let peering points congest to drive up costs for content and transit companies.
There’s a universe of ways that companies like Comcast can hide this anti-compe ive behavior behind faux-technical jargon
Comcast blocked its broadband customers for using Roku or their Playstation to watch HBO Go for no coherent reason, or
how it applied arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps under the guise of fairness, with the real goal of making using competing services more expensive.
The solution being offered here won’t be real net neutrality, but an effort to codify federal apathy to a lack of broadband compe ion into law. With the express purpose of preventing tough, real rules down the road.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...term=Read+more
Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False
The story of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet was refuted by an Inspector General investigation whose findings were not made public prior to Thursday’s vote.
We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process"
This statement kicked the Obama-is-taking-over-the-internet talking point into overdrive
(fringe conservative groups had already been calling net neutrality “Marxist” in emails to Republican mailing lists).
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbympa/net-neutrality-fcc-inspector-general-report?utm_campaign=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter +-+1219&utm_content=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter+-+1219+CID_c6788629c309507a6b574d5f66f006ae&utm_med ium=email&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_term=Rea d+more
comcast Blackburn doing BigISP dirty work, she's pocketed $600K from the telecom industry
The Republican net neutrality bill doesn't save net neutrality
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced a bill in response to the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality rules, but supporters of net neutrality aren’t happy with it.
The Open Internet Preservation Act
would prevent blocking or degrading the quality of legal web traffic,
but would also ban the FCC from making any rules that go beyond those two requirements.
It would override any state net neutrality laws,
like those recently proposed for California and Washington.
And it firmly defines broadband as an “information service,” which would mean it couldn’t be regulated more strictly as a le II service, as it was under the newly repealed Open Internet Order.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/19/16797778/congress-open-internet-preservation-act-marsha-blackburn-net-neutrality-bill
This is one of the many ways the oligarchy buys and FAKES NEWS
NAACP Fought Net Neutrality Until Last Week, Now Suddenly Supports The Idea
For years now we've pointed out how one of the telecom industry's sleazier lobbying tricks involves paying minority groups to parrot awful tech policy positions.
That's why you'll often see groups like the "Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership" support compe ion-killing mergers or oppose consumer-centric policies like more cable box compe ion or increased wireless compe ion.
This quid pro quo is never put into writing, so when these groups are asked why they're supporting policies that undermine their cons uents, they can deny it with a wave of breathless indigence.
But this tactic remains very real, and very harmful all the same.
It played a huge role in ginning up bogus support for the attack on net neutrality.
AT&T and Comcast have co-opted countless minority groups in this fashion, with a lot of it coordinated through a telecom-funded organization dubbed the Multicultural Media, Telecom & Internet Council (MMTC).
In short:
if you want to keep the funding flowing, it's expected that you'll parrot telecom industry policies, even if they harm your cons uents.
This has been a problem for years that nobody much likes to talk about.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171218/13023938832/naacp-fought-net-neutrality-until-last-week-now-suddenly-supports-idea.shtml
and with the ADDITIONAL $100Bs flowing to the oligarchy for the oligarchy's tax cut scam, buying influence, legislators, judges, anybody, will be relatively much cheaper, mere rounding error.
Outstanding journalism here
Still convinced Chris has no idea what the issues are here.
Pooplov with another poop post
You haven't proved me wrong.Pooplov with another poop post
22 States Sue FCC For Axing Net Neutrality
The legal battle against the Federal Communications Commission has just begun.
Schneiderman is leading the multistate lawsuit, backed by a coalition of attorneys general from 20 other states ―
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington ―
and the District of Columbia.
The attorneys general, all of whom are Democrats, claim that the FCC broke federal law when it reversed the net neutrality rules.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/attorneys-general-sue-fcc-net-neutrality_us_5a5e84c3e4b00a7f171b815a?utm_medium= email&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__011718&utm_c ontent=__TheMorningEmail__011718+CID_4780dbeea4b26 093d4872beef42e9d57&utm_source=Email%20marketing%2 0software&utm_term=HuffPost&ncid=newsltushpmgnews_ _TheMorningEmail__011718
otoh, Repug s are paid to support BigISP screwing their rural/redneck/dirt-scratcher/trailer-park base.
More Mayors Sign Pledge to Protect Net Neutrality, Refusing to Do Business with Internet Providers That Don't
Mayors and local leaders who have signed the pledge as of Monday morning:
Mayor Bill de Blasio — New York, New York
Mayor Steve Adler — Austin, Texas
Mayor Ted Wheeler — Portland, Oregon
Mayor Ron Nirenberg — San Antonio, Texas
Mayor Sly James — Kansas City, Missouri
Mayor Mark Farrell — San Francisco, California
Mayor Catherine E. Pugh — Baltimore, Maryland
Mayor Barney Seney — Putnam, Connecticut
Mayor Paul Soglin — Madison, Wisconsin
Mayor Sam Liccardo — San Jose, California
Mayor Jacob Frey — Minneapolis, Minnesota
County Board of Supervisors Chair Zach Friend — Santa Cruz County, California
https://www.commondreams.org/newswir...iness-internet
Comcast 'blocks' an encrypted email service: Yet another reminder why net neutrality matters
For about twelve hours earlier this month, encrypted email service Tutanota seemed to fall off the face of the internet for Comcast customers.
But as soon as users switched to another non-Comcast internet connection, the site appeared as normal
It's not the first time Comcast customers have been blocked from accessing popular sites. Last year, the company purposefully blocked access to internet behemoth Archive.org for more than 13 hours.
In recent weeks, there have been several more site blocking issues.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/comcast...rality-repeal/
Could California Effectively Restore Net Neutrality for the Entire Country?
In the absence of federal open-internet protections, states across the country are starting to pass their own laws
If the legislation passes, California would follow Washington, which was the first state to pass its own network neutrality policy at the beginning of the month.
Governors in New York, Montana, and Hawaii have issued executive orders that bar state offices from doing any business with internet providers that don’t adhere to basic network neutrality protections,
California’s might be the most significant—not just for the bill’s toughness and the state’s huge population, but also because it’s the home of the world’s largest internet giants.
beyond banning internet providers from blocking or throttling access to websites,
would also bar them from engaging in another discriminatory process called “zero rating,”
which is when an internet providers privileges some websites and apps over others by not counting their usage against monthly data caps.
The new California proposal would also bar internet providers from meddling with or unreasonably neglecting network management and interconnection agreements that would downgrade how certain websites are able to connect to their networks, a practice all kinds of internet providers have engaged in over the years.
Barbara van Schewick, a law professor at Stanford University who specializes in internet regulation,
doesn’t believe the the FCC’s pre-emption clause will hold water.
According to case law “the FCC can only prevent the states from adopting net neutrality protections if the FCC has authority to adopt net neutrality protections itself,”
https://slate.com/technology/2018/03...eutrality.html
probably a harbinger of ISP hard ball
Comcast won’t give new speed boost to Internet users who don’t buy TV service
Comcast keeps losing TV subscribers, but it has a new way to fight cord cutting.
https://arstechnica.com/information-...uy-tv-service/
Senate Democrats plan to force vote on net neutrality May 9th
They've got enough signatures to file the pe ion.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/30/...ality-may-9th/
The Senate’s Big Vote to Save Net Neutrality and Embarrass Republicans Is This Week
Senate Democrats announced today that they’ll force a vote to keep net neutrality protections in place on Wednesday, May 16.
Support in the chamber is just one vote shy of passing the resolution, but Democrats see a win no matter what the outcome.
The net neutrality rules the FCC overturned prevented internet service providers from blocking or throttling online content. It also prevents ISPs from creating “fast lanes” for content providers that are willing to pay more to have their sites and services delivered at greater speeds to customers, which critics say effectively puts everyone else in a “slow lane.”
Senate Democrats have been rallying around an effort to maintain the le II protections through the Congressional Review Act,
which Congress can use to overturn federal regulations with a simple-majority vote.
At this point, 49 Democrats and Republican Senator Susan Collins have jumped on board
—meaning that if all senators are present for the vote, just one more Republican will need to flip.
In a statement sent to Gizmodo, Senator Ed Markey wrote, “May 16 will be the most important vote for the internet in the history of the Senate, and I call on my Republican colleagues to join this movement and stand on the right side of digital history.”
https://gizmodo.com/the-senate-s-big...+%28Gizmodo%29
Net neutrality, according the Pai's calendar, is finished at midnight, tonight.
Ryan has time to pass cuts to CHIP, but no time to vote on net neutrality.
Pai and his FCC is just another oligarchy bag
FCC Emails Show Agency Spread Lies to Bolster Dubious DDoS Attack Claims
As it wrestled with accusations about a fake cyberattack last spring, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) purposely misled several news organizations, choosing to feed journalists false information, while at the same time discouraging them from challenging the agency’s official story.
Internal emails reviewed by Gizmodo lay bare
the agency’s efforts to counter rife speculation that senior officials manufactured a cyberattack,
allegedly
to explain away technical problems plaguing the FCC’s comment system
amid its high-profile collection of public comments on a controversial and since-passed proposal to overturn federal net neutrality rules.
The FCC has been unwilling or unable to produce any evidence an attack occurred
—not to the reporters who’ve requested and even sued over it, and not to U.S. lawmakers who’ve demanded to see it. Instead, the agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster its cyberattack story with the aid of friendly and easily duped reporters, chiefly by spreading word of an earlier cyberattack that its own security staff say never happened.
The FCC’s system was overwhelmed on the night of May 7, 2017,
after comedian John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight, directed his audience to flood the agency with comments supporting net neutrality.
In the immediate aftermath, the agency claimed the comment system had been deliberately impaired due to a series of distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS).
Net neutrality supporters, however, accused the agency of fabricating the attack to absolve itself from failing to keep the system online.
The system similarly crashed after Oliver ordered his viewers to the FCC website in 2014. The FCC, at the time led by Democrat Tom Wheeler, determined that the comment system had been affected by a surge of internet traffic.
The issue was compounded, sources told Gizmodo, by a weakness in the system’s out-of-date software.
Importantly, the agency never blamed a malicious attack for the system’s downtime in 2014—not in any official statement.
But in May 2017,
under the Trump-appointed chairman, Ajit Pai, at least two FCC officials quietly pushed a fallacious account of the 2014 incident, attempting to persuade reporters that the comment system had long been the target of DDoS attacks.
“There *was* a DDoS event right after the [John Oliver] video in 2014,” one official told reporters at FedScoop, according to emails reviewed by Gizmodo.
https://gizmodo.com/fcc-emails-show-...s-d-1826535344
============
FCC’s 2019 Budget Shrinks To $333 Million; Fee Cuts Planned.
http://www.insideradio.com/free/fcc-...75854b12f.html
So the FCC commenting system will not, never?, be hardened against "attacks" by John Olivers's viewers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote