Network Neutrality Is Dead AT&T wins. Again. You can almost smell the last hope of any tough network neutrality protections dying on the wind, as carrier lobbyists work tirelessly to derail such efforts, the principles of companies like Google begin to buckle under the promise of billions in wireless ad revenue, and the FCC and Congress get further mired in inaction and partisan bickering. While having to remain valiantly optimistic by nature of their profession, you can tell consumer advocates can certainly feel this sea change, groups like Free Press this week accusing FCC boss Julius Genachowski of " dragging his feet," and waffling on bold promises he made in a speech just one year ago. Public Knowledge's Art Brodsky explains why in a nutshell: The problem goes back to a month after that triumphant Brookings speech, when AT&T launched an all-out "shock and awe" campaign against Genachowski. Using its formidable grass roots organization and its more formidable financial stranglehold over members of Congress, AT&T convinced Genachowski and his team, most of whom had not been in Washington for long, that they would be crushed if they attempted Net Neutrality rules. The FCC has been nearly paralyzed ever since. For his part, Genachowski tells the BBC at least the companies involved know he's dedicated to network neutrality: "There is no question in the minds of the companies in this space that we are committed to preserving a free and open internet. . . "The internet is open now. The companies that are providing internet services understand that the internet is open, should be open and that there will be repercussions if they take steps to close the internet. Except if the companies involved in neutrality violations are busy lobbying to craft the rules, there won't be repercussions -- because the rules either won't get passed, or they'll be chock full of the kind of giant loopholes we've already seen in the Verizon and Google proposal. Of course the sector wouldn't need network neutrality rules if there was adequate competition, but that's something the Genachowski-led FCC made the decision not to pursue in any substantive fashion -- again in part for fear of upsetting AT&T and other incumbent carriers. Forgetting Comcast and Verizon for a moment, AT&T alone has one of the most powerful lobbying operations in any industry, in any country, and an ocean of fauxcademics, astroturfers, think tankers, and hired PR agents all waging war constantly against consumer protections of any kind. This is a company that was able to have the laws changed and gain immunity for their actions when it was found they were illegally wiretapping American citizens. That they were able to bully the FCC and derail neutrality protections should surprise no-one. There is no question in the minds of the companies in this space that we are committed to preserving a free and open internet. -FCC Boss Julius Genachowski |
To be clear: we probably will still see some kind of neutrality rules passed, but with companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast dictating what's in them, companies like Google and Skype waffling on their principles to make a buck, and a timid regulatory authority -- the restrictions are going to be weak and meaningless with a cheap facade of consumer protection. Genachowski obviously doesn't deserve all the blame; his inaction is only a symptom of a systemic disease that goes right to the bone of U.S. politics and telecom policy. As I've argued for years, we simply will not be able to fix the broadband sector (or any sector for that matter) until we collectively force government to address undue corporate influence on the political process - however chicken-and-egg such a scenario may be. AT&T began the network neutrality debate in 2005 by insisting they were going to play Internet bridge troll and impose extra tolls on companies and consumers that already pay for bandwidth. Five years later they've successfully used their immense power in DC to ensure nobody can stop this from happening.
|
 milnoc join:2001-03-05 H3B kudos:1 | Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! The United States political system has become so hopelessly corrupt over the years that major corporations now literally own the politicians in Washington, and therefore own the American people. It simply doesn't matter who gets elected anymore.
The Network Neutrality concept only applies to corporations. The people will be told by the corporations what they can and can't get out of their "leased" Internet connection.
Corporations control the medium, and therefore control the message. -- Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast! »thecanadianpublic.com (click "Watch Live!") | |
|  |  patcat88 join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY kudos:1 | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! If only the USSR returned, it would keep the USA in check or face a counter culture revolution funded by the KGB. | |
|  |  KommiePremium join:2003-05-13 united state kudos:2 | Americans need to wake up and start voting third party. Its the only hope we have left. | |
|  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by Kommie:Americans need to wake up and start voting third party. Its the only hope we have left. Its called the Tea Party, by some accounts the fastest growing political movement in US history. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by wifi4milez:Its called the Tea Party, by some accounts the fastest growing political movement in US history. The tea party is an extension of the Republicans. Anyone who thinks they will change anything is kidding themselves. We need a complete overhaul of the corrupt system. | |
|  |  |  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by roymustang:said by wifi4milez:Its called the Tea Party, by some accounts the fastest growing political movement in US history. The tea party is an extension of the Republicans. Not really. While they are the complete opposite of the Democrats, they directly compete with the Republican party for seats. However, if you had to say which party they were more closely aligned (ideologically) with it would be the Republicans. --
Never forget 9/11, kill the terrorists where they sleep, and God bless our troops.
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  RRedlineRated RPremium join:2002-05-15 Williamsport, PA | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by wifi4milez:Not really. While they are the complete opposite of the Democrats, they directly compete with the Republican party for seats. However, if you had to say which party they were more closely aligned (ideologically) with it would be the Republicans. The Tea Party is not a political party, and EVERY member of any Tea Party organization that has run for major office, has run as a Republican.
They are Republicans, plain and simple. -- One nation, under Zod! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by RRedline:said by wifi4milez:Not really. While they are the complete opposite of the Democrats, they directly compete with the Republican party for seats. However, if you had to say which party they were more closely aligned (ideologically) with it would be the Republicans. The Tea Party is not a political party, and EVERY member of any Tea Party organization that has run for major office, has run as a Republican. They are Republicans, plain and simple. I am not a member of the Tea Party, however I find myself drawn to some of their ideals. You are correct that they are not (yet) a standalone party however. One can look at them as a changing of the guard within the Republican Party. They take issue with a lot of what the GOP does, and thats why the established "red" leadership is scared of the Tea Party. --
Never forget 9/11, kill the terrorists where they sleep, and God bless our troops.
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  1 edit | said by RRedline:said by wifi4milez:Not really. While they are the complete opposite of the Democrats, they directly compete with the Republican party for seats. However, if you had to say which party they were more closely aligned (ideologically) with it would be the Republicans. The Tea Party is not a political party, and EVERY member of any Tea Party organization that has run for major office, has run as a Republican. They are Republicans, plain and simple. It's not that simple. I think the idea is that its easier to take over from the inside than to run under a different label.
Its rather brilliant actually.
I am not a tea party member either, but if they actually keep even half of their promises that might change. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by DataRiker:said by RRedline:said by wifi4milez:Not really. While they are the complete opposite of the Democrats, they directly compete with the Republican party for seats. However, if you had to say which party they were more closely aligned (ideologically) with it would be the Republicans. The Tea Party is not a political party, and EVERY member of any Tea Party organization that has run for major office, has run as a Republican. They are Republicans, plain and simple. It's not that simple. I think the idea is that its easier to take over from the inside than to run under a different label. Its rather brilliant actually. Yep, hence my "changing of the guard" analogy in my last post. --
Never forget 9/11, kill the terrorists where they sleep, and God bless our troops.
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  1 edit | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! What really captured my attention is they finally brought to light that the FED cannot be allowed to simply print money at will. Basically what Ron Paul has been saying for the past decade. Out of all they stupid things the government does, this is probably the scariest.
Although I've never heard anymore mention of this from the Tea Party lately, so maybe its forgotten again. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by DataRiker:What really captured my attention is they finally brought to light that the FED cannot be allowed to simply print money at will. Basically what Ron Paul has been saying for the past decade. Out of all they stupid things the government does, this is probably the scariest. Although I've never heard anymore mention of this from the Tea Party lately, so maybe its forgotten again. What has made the Tea Party such a overwhelming success is that they have incorporated some of the Libertarian values into their message. This has enabled them to immediately pull in the sizable Libertarian movement (Ron Paul et al), as well as not alienate their Republican base. There have always been ancillary movements to the Republican party (Libertarian is just one example), and now all those people/movements are uniting under the Tea Party. As you mention, they still run under the banner of the Republican part (at least for now), so this is the most "in your face", yet "stealth" movement in history. Downright brilliant if I must say so myself. --
Never forget 9/11, kill the terrorists where they sleep, and God bless our troops.
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  TsumePremium join:2004-02-23 Johnson City, TN | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! I agree with many of the Tea Party ideals, but cannot vote for a Tea Party candidate as they have all been religious wingnuts so far and I'm a strong believer in the separation of church and state.
Additionally, I do not think the Tea Party would do ANYTHING to help net neutrality - if anything ,they'd do nothing - since their platform is all about having government butt out of business. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by Tsume:I agree with many of the Tea Party ideals, but cannot vote for a Tea Party candidate as they have all been religious wingnuts so far and I'm a strong believer in the separation of church and state. Additionally, I do not think the Tea Party would do ANYTHING to help net neutrality - if anything ,they'd do nothing - since their platform is all about having government butt out of business. Sounds like you should go Libertarian, except that they would also not vote for additional legislation on matters such as net neutrality. The conundrum you face is that while you agree with the Tea Party/Libertarian values, you desire an extremely progressive (liberal) stance on issues related to the internet. Its a tough place to be, good luck with your decision! --
Never forget 9/11, kill the terrorists where they sleep, and God bless our troops.
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! try social libertarianism | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  n0ym join:2004-12-21 Rockville, MD | said by RRedline:said by wifi4milez:Not really. While they are the complete opposite of the Democrats, they directly compete with the Republican party for seats. However, if you had to say which party they were more closely aligned (ideologically) with it would be the Republicans. The Tea Party is not a political party, and EVERY member of any Tea Party organization that has run for major office, has run as a Republican. They are Republicans, plain and simple. Probably more accurate to say they're the hard core base of the GOP. But you're right; they're nothing new. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  geonaplolatidiots join:2005-12-14 Los Angeles, CA kudos:1 | yea, uh.. i'm not interested in "cutting spending" which bush did for illegal wars and then cutting taxes for the rich, if the taxes for the rich were a good thing, they'd help us in this current situation.
the tea party needs to stop fear mongering and lying, they're biggots, all they do is contradict themselves and they're religious FREAKS.
i'll gladly sit there and watch O'Donnell lead herself to her demise trying to "ban masturbation." the GOP and faux news have turned the american political system into a fucking reality show at the expense of everyone else. I'm still wondering where the tea party was when bush spent money he didn't hvae on wars that did nothing, against countries that did nothing to us. Whoever calls for the "terrorists to be killed in their sleep" needs to be killed in their sleep. Americans easily call out the death of "insurgents" oversea's, they give themselves way too much credit.
Look for the tea party to continue the destruction of America, repeal the health care bill MY ASS, we're mandated to buy car insurance, we should be mandated to buy health insurance, ESPECIALLY WHEN SOMETHING FINALLY HAPPENS TO YOU, I PAY FOR IT THROUGH MY F'N TAXES.
the tea party is just an excuse to capture the idiots of this country, to use them.. jesus christ, it's like they're fighting for the rich and not even knowing it.
Live with the understanding that to have a good society, you need taxes. I'm tired of listening to John Boehner talk about less taxes, all he does is take bribes from companies, take free trips and enjoy his life, while fucking everyone else in the country, you guys are all blind. This is a guy who was caught handing out bribes on the floor and said it wasn't the right place to do it.
Rather than be with your country in this absolute shitty time and support the president that has reformed things that should've been reformed, be against him and blame him for not turning around an entire credit associated economy in 3 years, pathetic. Whoever expects anyone to do so is dreaming, the banks are all against him, everyone is against him. Just remember, if the banks and wall street are against you, they'll hold you down.. and when some other idiot comes into power that gives them everything, then they will release the grip, start lending and take it back to the all credit economy it used to be, then it'll collapse again.
try paying as you go. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! Really could not have said it any better myself. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  KoilPremium join:2002-09-10 Irmo, SC kudos:1 | said by geonap:yea, uh.. i'm not interested in "cutting spending" which bush did for illegal wars and then cutting taxes for the rich, if the taxes for the rich were a good thing, they'd help us in this current situation. the tea party needs to stop fear mongering and lying, they're biggots, all they do is contradict themselves and they're religious FREAKS. Really...that is quite an interesting an open minded belief you have there. You set a sterling example of exactly what we don't need and why the Democrats are going down in flames.
i'll gladly sit there and watch O'Donnell lead herself to her demise trying to "ban masturbation." the GOP and faux news have turned the american political system into a fucking reality show at the expense of everyone else. I'm still wondering where the tea party was when bush spent money he didn't hvae on wars that did nothing, against countries that did nothing to us. Whoever calls for the "terrorists to be killed in their sleep" needs to be killed in their sleep. Americans easily call out the death of "insurgents" oversea's, they give themselves way too much credit.
Again...very telling choice of words here. You're truly a wordsmith of epic proportions.
Look for the tea party to continue the destruction of America, repeal the health care bill MY ASS, we're mandated to buy car insurance, we should be mandated to buy health insurance, ESPECIALLY WHEN SOMETHING FINALLY HAPPENS TO YOU, I PAY FOR IT THROUGH MY F'N TAXES.
the tea party is just an excuse to capture the idiots of this country, to use them.. jesus christ, it's like they're fighting for the rich and not even knowing it.
Live with the understanding that to have a good society, you need taxes. I'm tired of listening to John Boehner talk about less taxes, all he does is take bribes from companies, take free trips and enjoy his life, while fucking everyone else in the country, you guys are all blind. This is a guy who was caught handing out bribes on the floor and said it wasn't the right place to do it.
Thank goodness that kind of activity doesn't go on for those on the left side of the isle. Some might think that the timing of some vacations, or the costs related to those vacations might be along the same lines. Not to mention the arm wrangling and back room deals that Pelosi et all are making to get whatever deals that they can scrape by to go through....but when its on your side of the fence, its ok, right? Stop trying to make this a one sided issue, when your precious D's are doing the same if not worse.
Rather than be with your country in this absolute shitty time and support the president that has reformed things that should've been reformed, be against him and blame him for not turning around an entire credit associated economy in 3 years, pathetic. Whoever expects anyone to do so is dreaming, the banks are all against him, everyone is against him. Just remember, if the banks and wall street are against you, they'll hold you down.. and when some other idiot comes into power that gives them everything, then they will release the grip, start lending and take it back to the all credit economy it used to be, then it'll collapse again.
try paying as you go. Ha!! Yes indeed....Support a president who has sold how many generations down the proverbial river and will begin with more debt than I can imagine, a health care system that doesn't do anything at all like what you JUST SAID as far as paying as it goes, or even by some accounts, sustainable due to increased costs all around. Sure, you've changed the system, but when its just as broken as the one you replaced, whats the gain?
This doesn't even begin to cover all of the promises delivered by him and his campaign. Where is the transparency? Good to see those lobbyists are gone..oh wait. You've had so much kool-aid you're about to drown in it. Keep watching the MSM and don't bother thinking for yourself..the government will do it for you. Just like you want. -- DSLR Mafia My Blog - Raising Connor WoW: Mal'Ganis : Aftershock : Krimdal
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! In most states in the US (except New Hampshire), if you own a car, you are REQUIRED to have car insurance. Just ask anyone who has been caught driving without insurance. You can find them at the local courthouse or bus stop.
Obviously, the idea of shared risk is unknown to you. Insurance (be it home, car or health) is about sharing risk among the policyholders. When I pay my car, home or health insurance, I'm throwing money into the pot to help cover any claims that arise against me or anyone else who has thrown money in the pot. | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by wifi4milez:said by Kommie:Americans need to wake up and start voting third party. Its the only hope we have left. Its called the Tea Party, by some accounts the fastest growing political movement in US history. There have been 3rd parties long before the Tea Baggers split off from the Republican party. And we are talking true 3rd parties... not the half ass Tea Baggers who are simply splitters. Tea Baggers are not a solution to anything. | |
|  |  |  |  |  Roop join:2003-11-15 Ottawa, ON | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! the tea party has been corrupted by sarah palin for some time now.
it's a pitty. i had very high hopes until i saw them side with palin. further some of the tea party's meetings have been at expensive up-scale resorts, allowing the corporate influence to come in again. | |
|  |  |  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY | said by NOCTech75:There have been 3rd parties long before the Tea Baggers split off from the Republican party. You are absolutely correct, there have been hundreds (thousands?) of fringe movements that have tried to counter the Dems and Repubs. All those movements have been nothing but a blip on the radar, while the Tea Party has millions of supporters. --
Never forget 9/11, kill the terrorists where they sleep, and God bless our troops.
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by wifi4milez:said by NOCTech75:There have been 3rd parties long before the Tea Baggers split off from the Republican party. You are absolutely correct, there have been hundreds (thousands?) of fringe movements that have tried to counter the Dems and Repubs. All those movements have been nothing but a blip on the radar, while the Tea Party has millions of supporters. Tea Baggers are a blip on the radar. Once their done getting whatever they want they'll return to the Republican party... oh wait, they are already are in the Republican party. They are NOT running as Tea Party as the official party, they are all running as Republicans. They haven't had to deal with the horseshit Republicans and Democrats have thrown in the path of the 3rd parties to make they stay in power. Until they actually split off and actually form their own party with their own ideals they are nothing more then a wing of a current party. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | I find it interesting that a good deal of responses with a comment against the Tea Party or against further legislation uses AT&T | |
|
 |  |  |  wdoa join:2001-10-16 Spencer, MA | LOL The Tea Party is more right wing than the mainstream of the Republican Party. The Tea Party would basically strengthen the grip of corporations on this country in the name of "reduced government" and "free market competition". That and socially regressive stands of many Tea Partiers. | |
|  |  |  |  |  KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium join:2009-02-11 Earth Orbit kudos:8 | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! Want to clue us in to how? They're rebelling against the corruption in Washington and putting out the message that all incumbents are at risk.
How is a message of fiscal responsibility social regression, unless you are a progressive socialist who believes the government needs to be in control of every aspect of your life.
You shouldn't listen to anyone--government or corporation--who says "you can trust us, we have your best interests at heart". -- All the wealthy, unhappy people you've ever met take sleeping pills; Mobile Infantrymen don't need them. Give a cap trooper a bunk and time to sack out in it, and he's as happy as a worm in an appleasleep. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  wdoa join:2001-10-16 Spencer, MA | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! hmm, most of the Tea Party candidates are social conservatives. Anti Choice/Abortion. Sarah Palin, check, Christine O'Donnel, check. Fundamentalist Jeebus rants etc, As with many conservatives, it's not that they want less government it's that they just want it in other areas. i.e Let the Corporations runs rampant (eliminate unemployment compensation, dump the min. wage, end government enforced civil rights, OSHA, worker protections because "the free market will sort it all out") while fighting a war against gay rights, abortion/choice. Most of the Tea Party folks I know as well as the candidates are social regressive s. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  TsumePremium join:2004-02-23 Johnson City, TN | So far all of the tea party candidates have been:
-anti choice ("pro life") -anti gay rights ("pro family") -anti religious freedom ("god in government")
I am failing to see how any of the above 3 things, which are all very important to me and many others, can be considered anything other than social regression. The right needs to butt out of my life.
More importantly, Tea Party would not craft legislation for Net Neutrality- they are about less regulation, not more. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  KoilPremium join:2002-09-10 Irmo, SC kudos:1 | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! said by Tsume: The right needs to butt out of my life. I have the same request for the current administration and Democratic party, who are MUCH more interested in meddling in the day to day matters of my life (and my money). | |
|
 |  |  |  neftv join:2000-10-01 Broomall, PA Reviews:
·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice
| Actually its called the Libertarian party. They are registered in all 50 states and have nothing to do with the Republicrats that are in Washington DC. The mentality of a two party system has to stop because America is going nowhere with those one in the same party Republicans+Democrats=Republicrats Libertarians are not the silver bullet but its a step in the right direction. I would right have a Libertarian president/Congressman/Senator than the know it all lawyers that are there now that only really care about their paycheck. | |
|  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Ha, Tea Party! The only thing they are are a bunch of corporate sellouts that would do anything for money. O'Donnell in DE can't even manage her own finances, much less represent her state!
If you vote for them, expect net neutrality to really come crashing down. -- This signature has consumed several bytes of your bandwidth. | |
|  |  |  |  |  ParogadiWhat? Stop Looking At Me Like ThatPremium join:2003-03-31 Racine, WI | Re: Network Neutrality? Political change? Never happen! Save for the fact that their social economic plan is just as bad as the republican's. | |
|
 |  |  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | said by wifi4milez:Its called the Tea Party, by some accounts the fastest growing political movement in US history. No, the Tea Party is just the new wing of the GOP.
Notice how the candidates didn't run as Independent or as "Tea Party" but as Republicans.
They think that they'll get a few people into Washington and then the Republican party will suddenly come around to their way of thinking. What will actually happen is they will be crushed in the Republican cogs of the party machine. Comply and serve, or be removed and replaced by someone who will. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|  |  |  |  |
 |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by Kommie:Americans need to wake up and start voting third party. Its the only hope we have left. I personally think there will need to be collapse before 'we' wake up enough to do anything about it. Unfortunately, may be too late by then. | |
|
 |  | | I won't be supporting these asshole democrats and republicans any longer.my vote will go to the probable loser 3rd party until enough of you out there do the same.
we all must work together to get these leeches out of our lives. think head up corporate asses is no good to this country. | |
|  |  | | said by milnoc:The United States political system has become so hopelessly corrupt over the years that major corporations now literally own the politicians in Washington, and therefore own the American people. It simply doesn't matter who gets elected anymore. The United States is effectively ungovernable. The Rethugs and Baggers are just "Dr. No's" to any reasonable approach of governing, while the corporations are pulling everyone's strings. | |
|  |  DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
| said by milnoc:The United States political system has become so hopelessly corrupt over the years that major corporations now literally own the politicians in Washington, and therefore own the American people. It simply doesn't matter who gets elected anymore. The Network Neutrality concept only applies to corporations. The people will be told by the corporations what they can and can't get out of their "leased" Internet connection. Corporations control the medium, and therefore control the message. That pretty much sums it up. | |
|
 MurdocPremium join:2009-02-08 Manitowoc, WI | crushed by who? Att is going to bribe the government to take out the FCC now or what? | |
|  |  Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | Re: crushed by who? The last thing AT&T wants to do is take out the FCC. They not only like the facade of regulation but they also like actual regulations that take potential competitors out. They even love Julius Genachowski when he is essentially a mouthpiece for AT&T Mobility and he often is. What they don't like is when an FCC Commish, especially the Chairman, speaks out against the industry (AT&T) position. | |
|  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: crushed by who? said by Sammer:The last thing AT&T wants to do is take out the FCC. What they don't like is when an FCC Commish, especially the Chairman, speaks out against the industry (AT&T) position. If AT&T wanted to drive someone out of the FCC it would be Commissioner Copps. He is the FCC commish that consistently takes anti-industry positions on EVERY issue before the FCC. | |
|
 DavePR join:2008-06-04 Canyon Country, CA | Bandwidth hogs hurt everyone on wireless There is a finite amount of capacity on wireless, and there always will be. Let the carriers compete.
Fixed broadband, on the other hand, should be able to supply the advertised speeds to all customers for all traffic. There is no need for traffic control to free up capacity. It should be illegal to sell preference or slow down competitors.
We really need to differentiate. "Network Neutrality" is too imprecise. | |
|  |  See 20 replies to this post | |
 phatness join:2002-07-02 Old Greenwich, CT | Is it time we start doing something Is it time we start writing and calling our state representatives?
I believe many people would agree that we need Net Neutrality and would gladly spend a few minutes calling their representatives in Congress or writing a letter. Believe it or not, they will actually listen since technically, their constituents are their bosses, where the FCC Chairman isn't directly reporting to the citizens. | |
|  |  Pv8man join:2008-07-24 Hammond, IN | Re: Is it time we start doing something I agree with you 100%
But we need to do more then just calling our representatives.
We need to devise a clever plan of action.
Please throw your best ideas in this thread if you have any. | |
|  |  jslikThat just happenedPremium join:2006-03-17 | said by phatness:Is it time we start writing and calling our state representatives? Winner!!!
Believe it or not, your representatives DO listen IF enough people threaten to do something that a corporation can't do...vote them out of office. Threaten their political future, you will get results. -- If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
|  |  phatness join:2002-07-02 Old Greenwich, CT | Speak of the devil:
Net Neutrality Compromise Being Weighed by U.S. Lawmakers »www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-2···fcc.html
"...Legislation letting the Federal Communications Commission regulate Internet service providers was being discussed with industry representatives yesterday by aides to Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing the private talks..." | |
|
 RaptorNot a Dumptruck join:2001-10-21 London, ON Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Buy 'em out "The budget crisis of 2313 left the federal government strapped for cash. The Brawndo Corporation valiantly stepped in and purchased the FDA and the FCC. This made the Thirst Mutilator even more better. " -- ....where's my fiber? | |
|  |  ArrayListnetbus developerPremium join:2005-03-19 Evanston, IL | Re: Buy 'em out lol "even more better" | |
|
 eakes join:2000-10-20 Richardson, TX | NN - may it rest in peace Thank goodness that NN is dead! Another piece of regulation that is not needed. Now, if the FCC or whomever would invalidate those long term monopoly contracts cities, states and other political entities signed with cable companies and telcos for telecom/cable/internet services in their areas. Competition is good, monopoly is not. NN, as variously conceived, would have 'nailed in' the network technology we presently have to the benefit of present players and would have greatly, if not completely, impeded advancements in technology.
All who think creation of CLECs aided and abetted the roll out of DSL would likely love NN. But, truth be know, CLECs and the law suits resulting from the legislation that created them, actually slowed, and sometimes stopped, technology that would have enabled DSL to more people. The same would happen with NN legislation - that is truly a good death! | |
|  |  Simba7I Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT | Re: NN - may it rest in peace said by eakes:All who think creation of CLECs aided and abetted the roll out of DSL would likely love NN. But, truth be know, CLECs and the law suits resulting from the legislation that created them, actually slowed, and sometimes stopped, technology that would have enabled DSL to more people. The same would happen with NN legislation - that is truly a good death! So.. Do you really believe that the CLECs would actually upgrade their stuff or service more areas because of this?
I highly doubt it. Plus, DSL is an antiquated and inefficient technology. -- Bresnan 18M/1M MyWS[E5200@3.75GHz,4GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7] WifeWS[A64@2GHz,2GB RAM,120GB HDD,Win7] Router[2xP3@1GHz,512MB RAM,18GB HDD,SMC 8432BTA,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,Intel Pro/1000MT,IBM Gigabit Ethernet-SX,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,Gentoo Linux] | |
|  |  jslikThat just happenedPremium join:2006-03-17 | said by eakes:Thank goodness that NN is dead! Another piece of regulation that is not needed. Now, if the FCC or whomever would invalidate those long term monopoly contracts cities, states and other political entities signed with cable companies and telcos for telecom/cable/internet services in their areas. What "monopolies" are you talking about? Exclusive cable franchises (either on the local or state level) have been outlawed for over 25 years....It's the cost of rolling out these networks that have been the biggest hurdle vs. ROI (however you define it). See FIOS. -- If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
|  |  |  ArrayListnetbus developerPremium join:2005-03-19 Evanston, IL 1 edit | Re: NN - may it rest in peace i'm guessing the word "exclusive" is the key word in what your saying. | |
|  |  |  |  jslikThat just happenedPremium join:2006-03-17 | Re: NN - may it rest in peace said by ArrayList:i'm guessing the world "exclusive" is the key word in what your saying. Yes, exclusive defined as "restricted in use: only available to or used by one person, group, or organization"...  -- If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
|
 LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | AT&T did what they were asked by gov't
This is a company that was able to have the laws changed and gain immunity for their actions when it was found they were illegally wiretapping American citizens. At the governments request. Let's not forget that little fact. AT&T didn't spy on citizens on their own hook. The gov't demanded they do it and the gov't refused to prosecute them for doing what they demanded. | |
|  |  See 11 replies to this post | |
 LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 1 edit | Making a case for throwing the bums out
»Network Neutrality Is DeadAs I've argued for years, we simply will not be able to fix the broadband sector (or any sector for that matter) until we collectively force government to address undue corporate influence on the political process And the way to do that is throw out the existing congresscritters - both Dem & Repub. The voters can make this happen - toss out the incumbents and vote for those not tied to either party's money.
In any case, Congress has bigger fish to fry over the next 2 weeks than net neutrality. Both parties are scrambling like mad to save their jobs and job creation and tax cuts will take up all their time.
Except for sites like BBR and some advocacy groups NO ONE cares about net neutrality legislation. They care about 10% unemployment and job creation and whether their taxes will go up on 1/1/2011 unless Congress doesn't get off their duffs. | |
|  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Making a case for throwing the bums out said by Linklist:Except for sites like BBR and some advocacy groups NO ONE cares about net neutrality legislation. They care about 10% unemployment and job creation and whether their taxes will go up on 1/1/2011 unless Congress doesn't get off their duffs. A survey backs the idea that no one cares about this topic: »news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2010092···gulation
Fifty-seven percent of likely voters in the U.S. don't support any Internet regulation by the federal government, according to a new survey released by Broadband for America, an advocacy group with members including AT&T and Verizon Communications.
Sixty-three percent of respondents said they preferred the "current approach," while 30 percent said they wanted additional government rules.
The survey, of 800 likely voters, also found that 76 percent of respondents agreed that the Internet is currently working very or fairly well, Broadband for America said.
Of the 31 percent of respondents who thought the government should regulate the Internet, more than two-thirds said the regulations should be focused on privacy, online safety and protecting children, Broadband for America said.
| |
|  |  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: Making a case for throwing the bums out That's all just right spin that always paints "Regulation" in a negative way.
All I get from this is 57% of the likely voters in the USA are truly uninformed about just about everything. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
 pawpaw join:2004-05-05 Greenville, SC Reviews:
·Charter
| You Will Get Your "Network Neutrality" but it will be the opposite of what you wanted, because it will be the Newspeak version.
That is why I think no regulation is better than any regulation. Instead, all efforts should be focused on lowering the barriers to entry for ISPs, and promoting competition.
Evaluate every law, regulation and directive against its impact on starting up a new business. Big corporations love government regulations because they make it harder for newcomers.
»www.lp.org/news/press-releases/l···partiers | |
|  |  pawpaw join:2004-05-05 Greenville, SC | Re: You Will Get Your "Network Neutrality" It has come to pass... | |
|
 | | Political system This is a reflection of everything in Washington now. It does not matter what party or candidate you are talking about. They are all controlled by corporations and special interests. This is true for the tea parties as well.
Here is what needs to happen. However, I doubt that we as americans will get off our lazy &*&&*@ to do it.
1. Political Parties are outlawed altogether. Why do we need them. Any attempt to retain, organize, or reestablish political parties will be punishable by law (including jail sentences) 2. All candidates are no longer allowed to receive corporate, special interest, lobby, or private donations for campaigns. EVER. Punishable by law if violated. (including jail time) 3. All candidates will be given a campaign budget (adequate but not large) by the federal government. It will be the same amount for all candidates. 4. Candidates will only be allowed by law to campaign for 60 days prior to the election. Also punishable by law if violated. 5. Every public office in the land from the whitehouse down to local office in counties and cities will have a 2 term limit imposed. Any attempt to circumvent this will be punishable by law. 6. Supreme court justices are limited to one 10 year term. Any attempt to circumvent this will be punishable by law. 7. All offices will retain the same term lengths except for congress which will then be 4 years. 2 years means that congress people spend too much of their time fundraising/campaigning and not enough time working for the people of the nation. They will still be limited to two terms. Any attempt to cirumvent this will again be punishable by law (and a jail sentence)
If we did this the politicians wouldn't be mired in money and campaigns. They wouldn't be able to run on party lines and they wouldn't be able to be career politicans. Lets do it and sweep all of these idiots out the door. We need a sea change in our political system. Not later but now. | |
|  |  | | Re: Political system I like it.
Where do I sign up? | |
|  |  RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY | Sometimes I think that H. B. Piper had the right idea in his story "A Planet For Texans" (AKA "Lone Star Planet") available at »www.gutenberg.net/2/0/1/2/20121/.
Basically a politician swears to represent the interests of ALL (not some/most) of his constituents. Every constituent by law has the right to register any objections to the actions of the politician in a face-to-face meeting. After the objection has been delivered, the politician (or his friends if the objection results in the death of the politician) can file charges in the "Court of Political Justice" for use of excessive force in registering the legal objection.
IOW: If you do not like the actions of your representative, you can legally rough him up or kill him. The only restrictions are that you must do it face-to-face (ie: No use of long range weapons such has bombs or rifles or any thing that will harm anyone else), there must be no interference by bodyguards/etc., and it must be done by someone who is a constituent (ie: If you do not like the actions of a Senator from the state of New York, you can only protest if you are New Yorker not a resident of some other state).
For further details, see the story using the above URL. | |
|  |  |  KylemaulLovin' My FirefoxPremium join:2001-03-30 North Port, FL | Re: Political system Interesting premise as you describe it, but not practical whatsoever. Your link is dead, btw. Who in their right mind, (other than maybe a boxer, blackbelt, etc) would even run for office? Just LOL. | |
|  |  |  |  RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY | Re: Political system said by Kylemaul:Interesting premise as you describe it, but not practical whatsoever. Your link is dead, btw. Who in their right mind, (other than maybe a boxer, blackbelt, etc) would even run for office? Just LOL. You have to read the story to get the background on the set-up. I am not saying that it would work but only that it is an interesting concept.
The link is good. It should display a directory list with the story in different formats. Try using this URL.
»www.gutenberg.net/2/0/1/2/20121/20121-h.zip | |
|
 |  | | Doesn't stop corporations from promising jobs, etc.
No, instead, the politician should become a 'public servant' and get compensated by the federal government for the rest of his life even when his term is up. He should never be allowed to work for a person or corp or receive money/gifts of any kind from a person/corp again. Family income should be treated the same way. | |
|
 | | political system Finally, there should be a measure in the political reform that outlaws candidates using their own money for their campaign or at the very least sets a very strict cap limit on how much of their own money they can spend on a campaign. If this law is violated they will again face punishment by law and possible jail sentence. | |
|  |  decifal join:2007-03-10 Bon Aqua, TN kudos:1 | Re: political system Only one concern is somehow there might need to be a cap on how many people end up running for offices if they are gonna be given public funds to run.. I mean say if everyone in one state alone ran for president. That is a buttload of money and realistically just not doable for voting booths... We need a way to dwindle that down.. Maybe a local primary? Then state? Then country?
Donno, just thinking here | |
|  |  |  | | Re: political system Yes. That is an issue. Perhaps a primary of some kind would be necessary. Maybe state primaries for congress, senate, etc. However, the primaries would be open to everyone who is NOT associated with a political party (which would be outlawed). | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: political system AND also state primaries for president which are not done now. But it would be necessary perhaps without a political party system to pare down the candidates to a reasonable number. | |
|  |  |  |  |  WhatNowPremium join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC | Re: political system We do have the states electing the President that is what the Electoral College does. They are not primaries. The political parties have Primaries which is controlled on the Republican side by that collection of nut cases in South Carolina because they are at the front of the election process. If you can win the right states you do not have too win the popular vote. | |
|
 |  | | Too late The 2008 election and the time since only proves the govt of the US is now just a front office for the largest multinationals. Real change will occur only in the direction of concentrating more wealth in the hands of fewer and removing as much political control as possible from what's left of the middle class at the greatest rate possible.
Voting will at best affect only the rate, and not the direction, of this change. The money in the system is insurmountable. Today's freedom on the internet will one day be a faint fond memory. The free egalitarian access to the majority of content we enjoy today occupies the full attention of armies of corporate lawyers and schemes to regain control of both content and access are brewing in media and government offices around the world. The money involved ensures the status quo will not remain. Before the internet became effectively concentrated in the hands of a few very large and influential providers the option to route around obnoxious policies was available but going forward the cost of entry effectively voids creation of alternatives. The market is essentially closed to new entrants.
Internet bandwidth should be available as a utility like electricity or water. Should your kilowatts be priced according to what TV network you watch? Should your gallons be priced according to what soap you buy? But the incumbent system is too entrenched and the stakes too high now - listen to the screaming and howling every time a public entity starts to provide utility IP connectivity. We, the people, lost. | |
| 
approval from: Somnambul33t 
| Pleeease learn yourself a little about the HUGE problems.. Sorry, but you guys keep crying about nothing.
TCP/IP has HUGE problems technically. There's zero way you can write a "net neutrality" law that every ISP won't when forced to follow say "we told you so" when some hacker brings the entire internet in the USA to it's knees.
Karl Bode, you really need to learn a little bit about the failings of TCP/IP before you cry about something that if enacted would either be against the US constitution or leave our entire network in serious trouble of being 9/11ed out of operation in a few minutes.
Why do you think the Obama administration wanted to have the power to shut down the internet? Because they would NEED it if a LAW forced every ISP to do what you want them to do.
And our defence department AND the federal reserve have told Obama that our economy and safety would collapse if the ISPs couldn't stop packets when they wanted to.
How would YOU fix the internet when an ISP couldn't stop a botnet from saturating every router in the USA without getting a court order?
You guys crying about this are just silly and unrealistic. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: It Is Time The FCC has outlived its usefulness...let the Internet be reg free! | |
|
 | | If this does happen..... I will simply sign off, no biggie.
- A -- LETS GO METS! | |
|  | | What is "Network Neutrality"?
"Network Neutrality"??? I have never had anyone satisfactorily explain to me exactly what this term means. It means disparate things to different people, all of whom claim to "know" what it is. Newton's Laws apply here also, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Govenment involvement and regulation is almost never good in the long term. After all, just look at what the government did for the railroads. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. | |
|  nishiko7Premium join:2007-05-01 Pleasant Hill, CA | EXCELLENT article and summary, Karl! Hit 'em hard, and repeat -- you're doing a fantastic job, Karl! This is my favorite blog.
You're one of the few true consumer advocates who hasn't yet been corrupted. I'm surprised they haven't bought you out yet. I bet they've tried. Everybody has their price, but I hope yours is REALLY REALLY high, because we desperately need you to remain on our side (as consumers).
I look up to you like God himself when it comes to anything broadband. Thank you for all you do to TRY to make this world a better place. | |
|
 | |
|
|