Net neutrality
 

You probably heard the FCC voted thursday to move forward with the open Internet rule-making process. Big win for us internet users... but

and

Who loves ya, baby? It sure ain't McCain and Beck. :headshake

link

We don't need no stinkin' gubermint runnin' our interweb!

You don't get it, do you. :headshake

[rant on]This is a clear indication that the GOP has become anti-individual, anti-small business, and most vociferous when working against their stated core values. Stifling innovation to protect corporate interests is the game plan. It makes me wish there were a sensible free market alternative to the Democrat's nonsense, but the Republicans have supported Corporate Capitalism to such an extent that they don't even recognize the power of individual action any more.[/rant]

No, we don't need big business running the Internet. From Bruce's link:

The examples of big business attempting to subvert the internet are numerous. Included in the previous discuss were Comcast intentionally blocking data packets (ie Bit Torrent), and software designed to identify and subvert Skype packets. How many times must they be caught and exposed subverting the internet before everyone acknowledges who threatens you and your freedom of information?

Numerous examples including the NY Times and IEEE Spectrum posted in The internet is over!

Yes, after denying they were subverting Skype packets, Comcast later admitted to that and other 'traffic management'. It is this simple. They are only selling a bit transfer service. If they cannot provide sufficient bandwidth, well, most of the fiber optics laid in the ground in the 1990 still is not lit. The hardware to transfer data was laid and unused even 10 years ago.

Their job is to increase bandwidth as necessary to always meet the load. Their job is not 'traffic management'. Internet protocols address that. Protocols that work as long as they don't cut costs - stop increasing their cable bandwidth.

We have already seen how 'traffic management' was manipulated for their own financial advantages. The 'data transfer' companies cannot be trusted to 'manage traffic'. They already have a virtual monopoly (a duopoly) on the last mile. Why do they need power to manipulate which data you should and should not get? Why did Comcast have the right to skew Skype telephone conversations? Because they could. Because nobody told them their only job is a data transport company that must increase bandwidth as required.

tw! where ya been? i thought the cellar-wide daily word count felt like it was dropping. Shoulda known it was cause you weren't around - or have i just been missing you in passing?

A couple of our GOP operatives were harassing him every time he posted...

I get what neutrality implies and what the word open is given to mean but what else are we missing?

I guess I don't get it either.

...and who is this Signfeld? For a Newb they have a good grasp of cellar society. I'm thinking sock-puppet.

Been here all along. Little worthy of replies was being discussed.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/3456363_d7032a1322.jpg
cock

I get it, I just don't want the progressives invading yet another area of my life.

I'm curious what you think net neutrality means and why you think it is a progressive idea?

Next thing you know they will be after control of radio waves and who gets to say what on a station broadcasting to those who care to listen.:rolleyes:

The initial net neutrality regulatory "principles" were issued by the Bush FCC several years ago:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:

* access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
* run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
* connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
* competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The two new principles being proposed are, to quote FCC chair Genachowski:

“The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management,”

“The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. The Chairman also proposed clarifying that all six principles apply to all platforms that access the Internet.”

None of these principles are about the government "controlling" the internet.

Net Neutrality is about the telecomm companies (ATT&T, Verizon, Comcast, TIme Warner Cable, etc) that control most of the pipelines, and internet service providers that use those pipelines, being agnostic about what's going through their network. They will still have legal obligations to report any fraud, identity theft, kiddie porn, or other illegal activity they notice on their network (to kill THAT strawman).

It is about ensuring that the telecomm companies and ISPs cannot manipulate access, availability, or throughput on their network based on the content or source or type of traffic-video, text, image, audio, etc....for example, that they dont limit or restrict streaming video, VOIP services, legal file sharing or other applications.

Think of the internet pipelines as analogous to roads. Net neutrality is about preventing the telecomm companies that control those pipelines and ISPs that provide services through those pipelines from restricting how consumers can use those roads.

It is about preserving and promoting the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.

added:
So.....spudcon.....what is wrong with that or how is that "the progressives invading your life"?

Thanks red. It's what I wanted to know.

"Reasonable network management?" By whose lights? Terminology like that is a red flag to people who actually take an interest in liberty.

The word "progressive" in a political context should always be used in quotes, in part to indicate that it does not mean what some say it means. "Progressive" in my several decades' experience is chiefly progressive of overweening centralized governmental power, and such a power structure is a dead hand, suppressing the economic power to make prosperity on every hand. It is necessarily less democratic too, as a moment's thought will show.

This is not a thing to be trusted, but only to be repelled. This repelling is really just a less -- reeking -- version of the Jeffersonian struggle that waters the tree of Liberty with you-know-whose blood. As long as you're exsanguinating tyrants, you're doing about as well as exsanguination could.

The Administration as usual is reckoning without free-market mechanisms. A telecomm company that decided to invidiously "manage" content can and could always be replaced by a more freedom-oriented company, which by marketing that point of their service would steal away market share, particularly in the libertarian 'Net culture. This present regrettable Administration does not believe in capitalism, not really, and all their actions may be fruitfully scrutinized in that light. The dopes Obama appoints seem all to believe that capitalism is the problem, and not the salvation.

Free market, my ass. Every one of these telcom giants, that are against it, have mostly exclusive franchises from local governments. There is very little overlap in their monopolies. They have most subscribers by the balls and have been squeezing regularly.

You gonna fight them? Bullshit, even small corporations have enough money and legal firepower to destroy you. If the guy at the local hardware store fucks you over, you bad mouth him around town, get some people on your side, switching to a different store, and hurt his business.

Do you think you can hurt Comcast, or walmart, when is most cases the alternatives are slim to none? How about the banks? Or the insurance companies? No fuckin' way.

The only protection you have is the government's rules, and with these giant corporations, the states aren't even big enough to reign them in.
The olde timey Robber Barons were saints compared to these clowns, although neither gave a shit about you, at least the Barons cared about the country.

So the only chance we got, it holding politicians accountable, if they sell out to big business, vote them out. Just because they're traded their souls for a big campaign chest, doesn't mean you have to sell them your vote.

:thumb:

I agree but the problem is that the general voting public does not know which politicians are in which big businesses back pocket. And the lobbyists are marching around the Capitol buying up votes and making deals on the part of special interests. The American public is generally quite ignorant when it comes to influence and policy making in Washington, D.C.

WHAT BRUCE SAID!!!

And Merc too. Which is why I hold that the right to access and publish information about the government is more important than the right to keep and bear arms, when it comes to preserving liberty.

True, but what we can do is keep track of how our elected reps vote. That's public information, they even put it in the paper, here.

I can only bitch about how your rep votes, but I can sure as hell hold my rep accountable for his/her voting record. Admittedly, not all my neighbors will take the same view of my rep's voting record that I do.
Also, my actions are of limited consequence to the rep, but if more people would do it, we'd all be better off... and considering the usual voter turn out, especially in off years, it wouldn't take all that many.

It is not always about "which politicians are in which big business back pocket."

IMO, that is a convenient and ignorant generalization. Access does not always buy influence.

It is. or should be, MORE about which candidate or elected official or political party represents YOUR ideological views to the greatest extent.

On the issue of net neutrality, which position best represents your position. Its simple, if you are pro-consumer and pro-open Internet (that the Internet should be a public resource), you should be supporting net neutrality.

Absolutely!

But it is easier to blame lobbyists for all the ills of Congress rather than to accept personal responsibility.

You can participate in the process as much as possible or you can treat politics as a spectator sport and simply cheer or boo from the sidelines.

Access is not mentioned. But people like you rely on the ignorance of others to not understand how politicians are influenced in Washington by lobbyists.

Talk about ignorant generalizations, that is one if I ever read one.

Or you can examine who they are being influence by and call attention to them. It is important to expose them for the back door deals and let everyone know. There are many ways to "participate in the process".

I scare you, huh? :eek:

But then again, you never let facts get in the way.

I am impressed that you can read the minds of all of our elected officials to know what influences their votes. I guess you do have powers greater than mine to KNOW that they are influenced by money rather or more than ideology.

:lol2: hardly...


Actions speak louder than words.

Even the most politically naive should recognize that politicians (and political parties) are guided by ideology.

I dont dispute that money keeps politicians in power and power enables them to pursue their respective ideologies.

On this issue, there are simple ideological differences.

One party believes the government should regulate the Internet to the point that it secures an open, unbiased, accessible "public" system.....and the other party believes that it should be left to the big telcomms to provide those assurances.

Really? wow. how enlightening. not.

Now just replace ideology with power and you might be on to something.

People run for office to pursue an ideological agenda that they believe in, not with the goal of getting as much lobbyists money as they can.

Money (and power) is an enabler.

Please point me to where money indisputably changed one's ideology.

One party's ideology is to support a government regulatory role as being in the best public interest...the other's is to support a reliance on voluntary industry action as being in the best public interest. The McCain bill makes that pretty clear.

Keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better. It is false.

Yea, all the more reason for me to contribute to the defeat of Harry Reid.

Pick up any HS history book. Don't let the facts get in the way of your excuses.

Voluntary! What are you kidding me.

Prove to me their ideology was not changed.

Here are a few short lists:

http://politicalgraveyard.com/trouble/kickbacks.html

more recent:


Read more: http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/ar...#ixzz0VBQMHXQg

Let's Go International!

http://ty.rannosaur.us/10-plundering-politicians/

How about that Larry Summers! What a piece of work:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_bailing_out/

http://www.sextonreunion.com/profile...st-financially

I agree completely that money can (and does) corrupt.

But where did it change DeLay's ideology or Jefferson's....or any sitting elected official? Where/when did they vote against their ideology?

When did DeLay take money to vote FOR a strong government regulatory program as opposed to supporting the position of the business community? When did Jefferson vote against the Democratic position on a bill?

Well if you believe that, "People run for office to pursue an ideological agenda that they believe in, not with the goal of getting as much lobbyists money as they can.", then you must believe that all those who have been convicted of the crimes of taking money actually went into politics specifically with an ideology to take money from the outset. So guys like Randall “Duke” Cunningham never really wanted to do anything but get money, right?

So who is the mind reader now?

But yet you can't really prove you know what their ideology is or is not. Like I said, I believe their actions speak louder than their words. The majority may have started out with "ideology" as a motivator but most are in it for power. And for a few who have been caught it is more obvious.

How about ole Mr Jefferson and his cash in the freezer? Damm you would have thought he could have come up with a better hiding place.

Okay, I'm back, and here's my answer. I don't trust ANY regulatory control over any private business by the government we've had in the last twenty years. They have proven themselves incompetant again and again. Say what you will about big business, but it's the small businesses that get bullied out by government fascism, while the big businesses that are in bed with politicians are rewarded for corruption. Remember the banks that were too big to let go under? Funny how government regulators bailed out the bank that handled their pensions, while small town banks and businesses were thrown to the wolves. If I start a small internet company, I don't want Big Brother regulating me out of business.
And just because the FCC under Bush started this idea, it is still a commission, and who are they accountable to? Not me and not you.
Keep the government out of the internet, or we'll be in the same boat as the Chinese.

How do you know what their ideology is and was from the beginning? Can you tell me that you are reading their minds? It is not about voting for or against Demoncrats, it is about voting for and inserting favorable legislation which supports lobbyists and big business interests. You act like you don't know any of this.

Yea, read my link about Larry Summers above, it will make you want to puke on his desk.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...s_bailing_out/

If you are not willing to accept that there are significant ideology differences between the two major parties (and individual officials) on most (not all) policy issues based on platforms, campaigns, voting records, etc....there is little to discuss.

Carry on.

I never said anything about "differences between the two major parties", that has nothing to do with this discusssion. You are the one who brought up the esoteric idea that a politicians "ideology" in someway had an effect on their basic and inherent coruptness. Don't let the facts get in the way of your defense of the Demoncrats or any politician in power for that matter. You asked me to provide you with examples and I did so, numerous.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the ideology of former Congressman Randy Cunningham:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...ke-cunningham/

Followed by the ideology of former Congressman William Jefferson:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080503195.html

Reading about scumbag Summers just validates what I said. And some want the internet to be influenced by these types of bureaucrats. Blech!

Nope..no mind reading.

I can only say that I interacted with members of Congress for more than 10 years, both from within (Senate staff) and from the other side (public interest lobbyist).. and those interactions were with both those with whom I agreed and those with whom I didnt. And, I think it gives me more insight into what motivates them than many, including you.

For the last 10 years, my interactions have been more with state and local elected officials (governors and mayors), some of whom have gone on to higher office and others with those aspirations...not for the money, but to pursue an ideology.

How many elected officials have you actually spoken with in your lifetime to know what motivates them?

Or you can find a handful of examples of those who were corrupted and make sweeping generalizations without providing any evidence of how positions or ideology where changed by money.

But yet you admit you have no idea what their ideology really is, only what you believe them to believe. Not by their actions. I take it the other way. And if the behavior of the Current Congress is any measure it further validates that they are in it for power and not for some esoteric "ideology" you care care to hang your hat on. Their actions speak their ideology for them.

But then again you are a nameless faceless internet poster just like me and you expect me to trust you?

If you believe that ideology drives them then what is the ideology of these, much more than a few, examples of corrupt politicians. If their ideology did not change due to money then they must have been corrupt from the very beginning of their entry into politics, right?

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=603803&postcount=33

There are currently two bills related to the pending FCC regs and net neutrality.

The Markey (D) bill in the House, "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009":
And the McCain (R) bill in the Senate, "‘Internet Freedom Act of 2009’":
IMO, both are ideologically driven.

One recognizes a government regulatory role to ensure openness and one doesnt.

Ideology makes wonderful campaign promises, and might even be their guideline, although it's usually clear as mud... but it covers the ground.

That said, they don't vote ideologies, they vote bills (laws), which are complicated, long(thousands of pages), and usually have far reaching unintended consequences nobody thought of. No Congressman could possibly have time to Google all the subjects covered, no less know them.

The purpose of lobbyists was to point out all the ramifications and nuances of the legislation, so the Congressman could understand exactly what he was applying his ideology to. When a bill would help the Railroads at the expense of the coal mines, they would both send lobbyists to plead their case.
Then they decided lobbyists who were wining and dining Congressmen, and their staffers, in order to get their attention would up the ante with campaign contributions and perks like corporate jet transportation.

So when a Congressman has to vote on something that doesn't directly affect his constituents in a noticeable way, how does he balance huge campaign contributions against ideology? By trading his vote to someone that is affected by the bill, in trade for their vote on something that affects him?

Or, whoever paid best.;)

Markey's top contributor in the current campaign cylce is Time Warner...opposed to net neutrality.

Among his top industry contributors are the telephone utilities....also generally opposed to net neutrality, at least the big guys - ATT, Verizon, Bell South.... (and a little farther down on the list, music tv/movie/music industry that are generally more supportive of limiting legal fire sharing than they are net neutrality.)

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...270&cycle=2010

Sorry guys, I understand your cynicism, but based on personal experience, I just dont agree with it.

Oh..and I thought we de-bunked the myth of "thousand page" bills.

In this case, the McCain bill is less than one page and the Markey bill is maybe 5 pages.

That's because in this case, McCain's and Markey's are simple statements rather than major legislation.

Simple statements with significant potential impact on the future of the Internet.

And they are representative, in terms of "pages" of most bills in Congress.

Like the defense appropriation bill?
I knew a guy that wrote bills for the PA legislature. Not an elected official or staff, just an electrical engineer/ lawyer they hired to write what they wanted to accomplish, in legalese. They were fucking books.

I suspect most congressmen never see more than a synopsis.

Granted, the 12 appropriation bills are longer than most.

The Defense Approp. bill is 400+ page ...that could be printed in 200 pages if they printed on more than half the page across.

Members of Congress are provided with a reasonable (IMO) comprehensive summary (w/o the legalese) on every piece of legislation.

In any case, Undertoad would have accused me of diverting the discussion (again!) as he often does :) .. if I drifted off from the main topic of discussion.

How about sticking to net neutrality.

Pussy. :lol2:

Don't let the facts get in the way of your inability to defend yourself. :rolleyes:

The description I posted on the net neutrality principles is factual.

As are the descriptions of the two pending bills and the source of Markey's campaign contributions.

If you want to take the discussion off point with generalizations about the influence of money, so be it....even though you evidently have no direct experience in the political process or little, if any interaction, with elected officials.

But you are the best cut and paster around!

We can be whatever we want to be...thats what makes this country great. :)

And who gives a fuck what strangers think.

As for me, I knew at a young age. ;)

http://rlv.zcache.com/when_i_grow_up...0afd2y_210.jpg

Now I am just a "former"...

http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/s...ags175x172.jpg

... and a "fat cat" east coast liberal elitist Democrat passing the time here til I retire!

::bites tongue::

:lol2:
Anyway, preserving Net Neutrality is important, to keep a few mega-telcoms from strangling thousands of other businesses, and poking you in the pooper.

Be careful now, some people seem to want that.

anyone in particular there MTP?