Toledo Talk

Everything You Need To Know Before E-mailing The FCC About Net Neutrality

Instead of hijacking the buckeye support thread anymore , I wanted to share this.
http://consumerist.com/2014/04/29/everything-you-need-to-know-before-e-mailing-the-fcc-about-net-neutrality/

created by OldTimer on Apr 29, 2014 at 03:25:02 pm     Comments: 73

source      versions


Comments ... #

Well, I don't know what everyone else sees when they click on the link but I see black text on a black background............

posted by Foodie on Apr 29, 2014 at 03:38:00 pm     #  

worked for me, thanks, OT. It's not going to do a fucking bit of good to email them, since the head used to be a lobbyist for the telecoms, but it will make you feel better about doing nothing. :)

posted by nana on Apr 29, 2014 at 04:03:37 pm     #   1 person liked this

In my NOT so humble opinion, it is the responsibility of all of us, as users of the internet, to make clear our opinion regarding this issue. Failing to do so could yield an internet that resembles cable television today...being charged more or less depending on the web sites we would like to visit or subscribe to, not having access to some sites if there is a disagreement between our ISP and a content provider, having different sites available in different regions due to above reasons or licensing agreements. I do not think we can underestimate the possibility of how important this particular issue is to the future of the internet as we know it today. Please feel free to disagree with me, but I personally feel quite strongly about this issue and it's potential impact.

posted by breeman on Apr 30, 2014 at 09:41:31 am     #   9 people liked this

For all interested in this topic, the new FCC net neutrality proposal will be published on May 15th. All have the right to comment on the proposal and the FCC does take these comments into consideration. As I understand it, the FCC will move forward, amend, or scrap the proposal based on the comments received...this is your chance to contribute your $0.02.

posted by breeman on May 01, 2014 at 07:43:56 am     #   2 people liked this

Also, note that there is a petition at Whitehouse.gov to support addressing this issue properly, I was the 40,000th signature on this petition...please join me in supporting this issue at: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

posted by breeman on May 01, 2014 at 07:55:00 am     #   2 people liked this

Just did. Thanks for providing the link. Now, do you know of a petition we can sign to urge the Prez to keep the domain control of the web in the hands of the US?

posted by Foodie on May 01, 2014 at 09:43:20 am     #  

Hi, now is the time to make your voice heard on this topic. For those interested in commenting on proceeding 14-28 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, the FCC has created a separate filing system for comments here: http://www.fcc.gov/page/fcc-establishes-new-inbox-open-internet-comments

Note that the above link allows filing via email. You can also create a proper filing on the proposal by uploading a text file with your comment here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=d3mwc Link requires you provide your contact information, I can only assume that these might be taken a bit more seriously.

posted by breeman on May 16, 2014 at 04:16:10 pm     #  

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Here's a pretty good explanation of what net neutrality is, for those who may not understand. Also includes links to other explanations.

posted by Sohio on May 17, 2014 at 01:38:11 pm     #   2 people liked this

Emails sent.

posted by OhioKimono on May 19, 2014 at 07:22:47 am     #  

Found this hilarious video on the net neutrality issue (comedy) thought others might enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

posted by breeman on Jun 04, 2014 at 09:50:53 am     #  

Once again bumping this thread as the deadline for comment ends on September 10th. Like with voting if you don't let them know your opinion, then don't complain when they make a mess of things, and I'm sure all would agree that left on their own, politicians have a HIGH probability of making a mess of things!!!

That said, I'm stealing (with pride) a portion of Gizmodo's post, "How to Yell at the FCC About How Much You Hate it's Proposed Net Neutrality Rules". Which in my opinion are about as neutral as current cable provider rules.

Step one: Visit http://FCC.gov/comments and find the proceeding with the title "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet." It should be the one on top and should also have over 20,000 filings in the last 30 days.

Step Two: Click the proceeding number "14-28." This will take you to the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System. It looks a little janky, but hey, the government built it.

Step Three: Fill out the form. Write about your feelings. Express your concerns. Air your grievances. Provide your real name and address. Hope for the best.

Step Four: Click "Continue" and make sure you like what you wrote. If you don't you can modify your comment. If you do, click "Confirm."

Thanks to all who have posted their comments and those that will do so, hopefully they will listen to us before my last dying glimmer of faith in our democratic system fails.

posted by breeman on Sep 08, 2014 at 09:50:17 am     #   3 people liked this

Just read that Pelosi is actively supporting net neutrality. That should rally some support against it.

http://deadline.com/2014/09/nancy-pelosi-joins-effort-to-reclassify-the-internet-for-net-neutrality-regulation-831411/

posted by jimavolt on Sep 09, 2014 at 07:07:31 am     #   1 person liked this

Ninny Nancy, she really should just retire to her home away from Washington D.C.

posted by MIJeff on Sep 09, 2014 at 11:29:39 am     #  

jimavolt posted at 08:07:31 AM on Sep 09, 2014:

Just read that Pelosi is actively supporting net neutrality. That should rally some support against it.

http://deadline.com/2014/09/nancy-pelosi-joins-effort-to-reclassify-the-internet-for-net-neutrality-regulation-831411/

If people are against net neutrality just because pelosi supports it... they're fucking idiots. period. all hyperbole intended.

fucking. idiots.

posted by endcycle on Sep 09, 2014 at 11:36:57 am     #   5 people liked this

I don't know, ever have that one guy in the group that always picks the wrong thing? I can see someone saying, well which one would Bob pick, and then choosing differently because lord knows if that's his choice it has to be bad.

posted by MIJeff on Sep 09, 2014 at 11:43:34 am     #  

Endcycle - I didn't mean to light your F-bomb fuse, but I can understand how my comment could have seemed to be political. It was not intended as a political comment, rather I was trying to point out that a well-known idiot supported the legislation.

I opposed the proposed regulation law as soon as I became aware of how it would function.

Feel free to choose whatever reason/justification you want to be against the proposed legislation.

posted by jimavolt on Sep 09, 2014 at 01:29:06 pm     #   2 people liked this

I just got a letter from my very own Congress Critter, Robert E. Latta. I sent old Bob a letter about Net Neutrality and got something back.

In his letter, Congressman Latta references H.R. 4752 believing it to be the panacea for whatever ails the Internet. Now then.

The way I understand things, Net Neutrality is supposed to provide for:

The deregulation of content (other than that which is criminal, such as child pornography);

Open access to all sites and platforms;

The prevention of ISPs from charging extra for access to "premium" sites.

I've tried reading HR 4752 and cannot decipher it well enough to see if it includes these things. Can someone help me out here? I plan on writing Bob back to tell him my thoughts - as soon as I have some.

posted by madjack on Sep 17, 2014 at 05:32:25 pm     #  

Try looking up the issue on the EFF site, electronic freedom foundation.

posted by MIJeff on Sep 17, 2014 at 06:16:49 pm     #  

Latta has taken a ton of $$ from telecom companies, and as I understand it his bill would prohibit the FCC from setting up any regulations to preserve net neutrality. It most definitely would not provide for the items you list.

posted by probegt on Sep 18, 2014 at 04:41:35 pm     #  

Madjack HR 4752 is the OPPOSITE of what we are trying to achieve. The intent of this bill is to de-classify internet service providers as "common carriers" and subject to regulation by the FCC. In effect this does two things, by preventing regulation by the FCC, the rules recently enacted by the FCC requiring all internet service providers carry traffic with equal priory would not apply. Further, by removing the "common carrier" classification, this too, would remove the legal provision that all communications carriers are required to transit all traffic with equal priority. These classifications were originally created when AT&T was a monopoly and enabled other providers to emerge and thrive by requiring that they carry the traffic of all with equal priority and service quality.

posted by breeman on Sep 19, 2014 at 02:35:44 pm     #   1 person liked this

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/congressman-bankrolled-by-isps-tries-to-halt-internet-regulation/

Madjack HR 4752 is the OPPOSITE of what we are trying to achieve

Couldnt agree more. This is the polar opposite of net neutrality

posted by khunty on Sep 20, 2014 at 09:39:38 am     #  

Well, we're all about to find out just what is in that secret 300+ page of regulations the FCC plans to adopt on 2-26-15 - the contents of which won't be made public until AFTER it is adopted.

Have a familiar ring to it? "We have to pass it to find out what's in it?"

If you think this won't have a direct impact on your Internet life and household budget, then think again.

posted by Foodie on Feb 12, 2015 at 08:40:00 am     #   2 people liked this

Internet access will get more expensive, and in the long run services like Netflix will likely get more expensive as well. I don't think there's ever been a case where government involvement or regulation has made anything cheaper. That said now that us little people will be allowed to read these rules it'll be interesting to see what sort of content censorship the FCC has granted itself.

posted by taliesin52 on Feb 26, 2015 at 01:43:41 pm     #  

Net-neutrality has been law of the land since the internet was created. It's about time it's been codified by the FCC. Your connection to the internet should be treated just like your connection to the power grid.

Any why would Netflix be getting more expensive. ISPs are already charging us more because we we're actually starting to use those internet connections they've been making us over-pay for for years anyway. If anything, it should keep Netflix priced down because they won't have to pay ISPs like Buckeye and Verizon a buck or two be allowed into our houses on their networks.

posted by SensorG on Feb 26, 2015 at 03:50:33 pm     #   4 people liked this

Yay!!

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/fcc-passes-net-neutrality-rules-victory-open-internet-activists-n313301

posted by breeman on Feb 26, 2015 at 05:04:08 pm     #   4 people liked this

I'd say your celebration is a bit premature. Let's see what's in those 330 and some odd pages of regulation - that, I repeat, were kept secret from We, The People.

You've swallowed the Kool-Aid on this one.

posted by Foodie on Feb 26, 2015 at 05:12:20 pm     #   2 people liked this

Here's an interesting comic-strip version of the issue, fun to read:

http://economixcomix.com/home/net-neutrality/

posted by viola on Feb 26, 2015 at 05:21:49 pm     #   1 person liked this

The comic strip is actually a very good representation of this issue...unfortunately a good representation of what is fundamentally wrong with our government today, but that can easily be a VERY long thread of it's own and does not belong here. Fortunately the first step is in place and now let the lawsuits begin! (so the detractors of Title II categorization can fulfill their prediction of a "period of uncertainty" while they challenge the FCC's authority to regulate communication :-) )

posted by breeman on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:53:39 am     #  

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

posted by stooks on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:58:12 am     #  

Speaking of $$ sloshing around DC:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

posted by Foodie on Feb 27, 2015 at 10:07:05 am     #   1 person liked this

Nice link Foodie, the comment section of that page would make David Duke blush.

If it's to believed, the evil mastermind and puppet master Soros spent $196 million in the last 13 years fighting for NN.

According to Open Secrets the top 10 telecom companies spent $100 million last year fighting against it...

posted by SensorG on Feb 27, 2015 at 02:01:13 pm     #   3 people liked this

It is to be believed.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 02:34:53 pm     #  

I don't bother with the comments on any site. They're typically populated by whackos from both sides of the aisle and we're all dumber for having read them if we choose to do so.

And, of course, I'm sure that Open Secrets (partially funded by the aforementioned evil puppetmaster Soros) and theoatmeal.com (whatever kind of whackjob site that is) are far more reputable than the Washington Examiner.

Everyone should wonder about this: last minute changes to the FCC's power grab were made at the request of Google among others. How and why is it that Google and others knew what was contained in the 330+ pages but We, The People were kept in the dark?

Of course, I also realize that those of you who are totally in favor of the government controlling every aspect of your life could care less about any of this and just can't understand why there are those of us who actually do care. Since I don't waste my valuable time on lost causes, I won't bother to try to explain it. Your epiphany will come at some point. Or maybe not. Doesn't really matter to me.

posted by Foodie on Feb 27, 2015 at 02:49:33 pm     #  

lol ok

posted by toledolen_ on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:02:41 pm     #  

With the elimination of NN by the SCOTUS, the FCC stepping in and re-establishing rules for it, was the best we could hope for considering Congress is completely worthless for anything these days. Keep in mind, NN is what we’ve had since the Internet was established (insert Al Gore joke). NN has given us Amazon, Netlix, Facebook and even Toledo Talk.

You talk about the government control of the internet, so surely you’ve already read the 330+ pages since you know what’s in there right? I get it, Obama is for NN so it must be stopped at all costs. Again this was something that people of the right and left used to be for – an open internet where ISPs don’t get to play favorites with traffic.

posted by SensorG on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:07:53 pm     #   2 people liked this

I am totally for the government intervening whenever possible. The free market can't be trusted because of the wealthy evil rich people. I'm glad that the FCC, who has been so awesome in terms of all the other stuff they are supposed to save us from, like media duopolies and monopolies. Appointments to the FCC have never been political, and FCC action has never been manipulated by big money and big media.

It's not like in recent years sitting FCC Commissioners have ever approved things that favored media conglomerates and then swiftly accepted positions at those organizations, right?
I mean, Comcast would never recruit and hire the sitting FCC Commissioner, right?
The FCC is a freaking joke. One singular example: encryption of cable and FORCED use of DTA boxes.

The FCC is no hero. No panacea. No superman. If they are slightly better than Congress this week, that doesn't make them our messiah.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:37:31 pm     #   2 people liked this

Well hope JR has saved up enough for the license he will need to operate this site in the future.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:44:54 pm     #  

Never said the FCC was the messiah, but if for one shinning moment they don't bow down to their corporate overloads, good for them and for us. We now have encryption of cable and FORCED use of DTA boxes because the government isn't regulating it, we deregulated cable almost 20 years ago - we were promised more competition and lower costs, that worked out well. Without NN, the ISPs would do the exact same thing for our internet connections.

Also, I'm all for free markets, that's why I'm for NN. Today's ISP don't exist in a free market. I get exactly two sucky choices for an ISP. The last thing I want is them decided what I get to watch.

posted by SensorG on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:52:48 pm     #  

MIJeff posted at 03:44:54 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

Well hope JR has saved up enough for the license he will need to operate this site in the future.

Wouldn't make sense to make JR get a license and then have all us unlicensed users. Computers could have slots that accepted our National Internet User ID and License, and our credit cards to keep the meter running.

If everyone was required to register themselves as users. It would be "fair" and "equal."
If we saved just one life. Or just one kid from adult content, or the wrong kind of thinking, or "old" math, or the wrong educational materials, like non-common core, or the wrong Ministry of Internet Voting ballot, or exposure to dangerous and harmful dreams of freedom, it will all be well worth it. Of course, we'll need to log what you do and where you go just in case you go off the official tracks later. For safety.

What, are you not real Americans? Get with the program. Big Brother's got this. Rest easy.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:55:06 pm     #   1 person liked this

We now have encryption of cable and FORCED use of DTA boxes because the government isn't regulating it, we deregulated cable almost 20 years ago - we were promised more competition and lower costs, that worked out well.

Yeah. I was in the industry in 1992 and 1996. I watched what happened from the inside.

Funny thing though... DTA boxes didn't come into our lives because of the 1996 deregulation. It appears that you might be shocked to hear that they came into our lives because the FCC voted 5-0 in October 2012 to allow total encryption, a reversal of a prior decision to prohibit the encryption of the basic tier, Which WOULD HAVE allowed consumers an entry-level place for basic cable that required no DTA, and the related incremental costs, hassle, wallwarts, and poorly performing universal remotes.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 04:11:23 pm     #   1 person liked this

"Well hope JR has saved up enough for the license he will need to operate this site in the future."

Where does that website-licensing idea come from?

"Wouldn't make sense to make JR get a license and then have all us unlicensed users."

I currently pay monthly web hosting fees and domain name registration fees that users of this site don't have to pay.

I understand the tin-foil, conspiracy theory of licensing site owners in order to discourage people from creating websites with custom domain names to host content that's mostly outside someone's terms of service.

If licensing site owners did ever occur, it would probably be part of the domain name registration fee. But that would mean domain name squatters would have to pay more. So maybe the licensing fee would kick-in when the domain name DNS points to a hosting provider's server.

But show me the documentation that says domain name owners will have to be licensed.

posted by jr on Feb 27, 2015 at 05:39:02 pm     #  

I cant show you anything, half the rules aren't written yet and what is was never released before they passed it, I am just speculating.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 27, 2015 at 06:27:34 pm     #  

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

posted by hunkytownsausage on Feb 27, 2015 at 07:38:29 pm     #   1 person liked this

hunkytownsausage posted at 07:38:29 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

Time-Warner and Comcast are all for net neutrality. Why do you think that is? Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

The FCC still hasn't let the public know what is in the 300+ pages of regulations. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Google was given access to the regs the public wasn't, which allowed them to lobby for changes. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Net neutrality is all about politics. It is all about cronyism. So it makes perfect sense to me to be against it.

posted by tolbuck on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:16:58 pm     #   2 people liked this

I don't think anyone on here is complaining about net Neutrality. The title is great, yet they remain suspicious of the hidden contents.

The Kanamits brought a book "To Serve Man" which when decoded was a cookbook.

Transparency will be a touchstone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72g7qmeP1dE

Posting bills online
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/us/politics/22pledge.html?_r=0

posted by MrGlass419 on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:38:01 pm     #   1 person liked this

tolbuck posted at 08:16:58 PM on Feb 27, 2015:
hunkytownsausage posted at 07:38:29 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

Time-Warner and Comcast are all for net neutrality. Why do you think that is? Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

The FCC still hasn't let the public know what is in the 300+ pages of regulations. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Google was given access to the regs the public wasn't, which allowed them to lobby for changes. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Net neutrality is all about politics. It is all about cronyism. So it makes perfect sense to me to be against it.

Time Warner and Comcast are not for Net Neutrality. You've got to be fucking kidding me if you believe that.

posted by hunkytownsausage on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:59:03 pm     #  

Comcast is for NN?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/comcast-net-neutrality/

Example, let's say you have BuckeyeExpress as an ISP. If your watching Netflix on you TV right now, do you think Netflix should have to pay Buckeye money so it can go across their network? You already pay BEX a bunch of money for a high speed connection and you already pay for Netflix, but should Netflix have to pay BEX too?

Let's say you decide to watch Netflix on your iPad in car. Shouldn't Verizon get compensated as well?

Good luck if your an online retailer. Amazon, eBay or Wal-mart could easily pay Comcast $50-100 million per year for faster access. If your a small site trying to sell widgets, good luck. Hell, a Wal-Mart could spend that with no issue, but a Sears or ToysRUs couldn't. Game over for them.

posted by SensorG on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:23:47 pm     #  

hunkytownsausage posted at 07:38:29 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

Having a VE Day style celebration for something that we have not been allowed to see, and don't know what will look like, is not a common sense position.

Reluctant suspicion of big money/government lobby collusion is the common sense position.

Until the facts and ramifications are known, it's ALL based on political bent. People can posture as if it is not, but in truth... everyone is guessing, projecting, and defending the unknown. There is simply no other basis for a position.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 10:11:26 pm     #  

As I said earlier. I cannot understand how anyone would be against net neutrality.

This is common sense.

posted by hunkytownsausage on Feb 27, 2015 at 10:33:35 pm     #   2 people liked this

The idea of it sounds nice.
What remains to be seen is how true to the description is the bride when the veil is lifted. Maybe she will be as pretty as we both hope.
The idea of the marriage sure is lovely while we wait.

posted by justread on Feb 28, 2015 at 05:50:07 am     #  

hunkytownsausage posted at 08:59:03 PM on Feb 27, 2015:
tolbuck posted at 08:16:58 PM on Feb 27, 2015:
hunkytownsausage posted at 07:38:29 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

Time-Warner and Comcast are all for net neutrality. Why do you think that is? Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

The FCC still hasn't let the public know what is in the 300+ pages of regulations. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Google was given access to the regs the public wasn't, which allowed them to lobby for changes. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Net neutrality is all about politics. It is all about cronyism. So it makes perfect sense to me to be against it.

Time Warner and Comcast are not for Net Neutrality. You've got to be fucking kidding me if you believe that.

Well, read it from the horse's mouth:

http://corporate.comcast.com/twctransaction/net-neutrality-together

posted by Foodie on Mar 02, 2015 at 01:59:32 pm     #  

More like the horse's ass...

http://time.com/3579332/comcast-obama-net-neutrality/

Comcast also makes a dubious-at-best claim that it doesn’t “prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes,” even though Netflix is paying Comcast (and, since, other Internet Service Providers) to more quickly deliver Netflix’s content to Comcast subscribers.

http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/

posted by SensorG on Mar 02, 2015 at 03:24:40 pm     #  

Just providing a link to the "official" corporate position. For me, personally, I think Comcast/NBC are scum. Crony capitalism at its worst.

I know you are all giddy because you believe that the big bad corporations got their comeuppance. We'll see how that works out when they start getting Obamacare style waivers that exempt them from the new - and still secret - rules.

Control and censorship of Internet content is the rest of the camel still hiding outside of the tent. All under the guise of "fairness" of course. As can be said about so many things - it won't be what is or isn't "fair" - it will be who gets to decide what is or isn't "fair".

So, bask in your perceived "victory" while you can.

posted by Foodie on Mar 02, 2015 at 04:11:42 pm     #   1 person liked this

Yeah, comcast is pretty well known in the IT world for being really, really really bad in most ways - and they lobbied as hard as anyone against net neutrality. Of COURSE they spin it differently on their site.

posted by endcycle on Mar 02, 2015 at 04:13:21 pm     #  

Bear in mind we are discussing two things here. One is the fact that the FCC is even PERMITTED to regulate the broadband market, this was previously not in place. The second item is the actual regulations they intend to implement towards the industry, and true they have not been shared with the public, in my opinion this is not good, but also not entirely unusual as they are still being finalized. There is, however, the right for the FCC chairman to still publish these rules in their "draft" state, I believe there is quite a bit of pressure from the public and some members of congress on this point.

Last point I would like to make, and I realize that this will inflame some, but hey I like watching tolls burst into flame :-) That private industry in a capitalist environment does not serve the greater good of the people, they merely exist to turn a profit. It is the governments responsibility to tame that unbridled enthusiasm and prevent collateral damage to peers and the communities in which they reside. We should, as intelligent people, understand that this is the balance they are intended to provide. There are certainly examples of how there have been errors on either side of this balance (too much or too little regulation), but it must exist.

posted by breeman on Mar 03, 2015 at 01:02:02 pm     #   1 person liked this

Sweet. Socialist trolling.

posted by justread on Mar 03, 2015 at 01:14:08 pm     #   3 people liked this

Good grief.

Marx lives on.

posted by Foodie on Mar 03, 2015 at 01:19:45 pm     #   2 people liked this

Sorry. Can't let this one go by with a simple comment. I am so sick and tired of free market capitalism taking it on the chin and having a perverted description of it spread by those who apparently get their info from Pravda.

Governments don't create anything. Governments consume and redistribute - to the poor and the already rich. Look no further than billions of your tax dollars being handed over to numerous failed solar companies who just happened to have connections at the highest levels in DC.

Free market capitalism built this country and, largely, much of the rest of this world. Free market capitalism has given us vaccines, drugs and other methods to wipe out previously wide spread and deadly disease. Free market capitalism made this the richest nation on Earth in a relatively short period of time and we have shared much of that treasure with the rest of the world in many different forms. And, free market capitalism is the only method that is going to get us out of the hole we're in. The government running the presses at the mint 24/7 only works for so long. The government monetizing our own debt (Google it) only works for so long.

As for corporations existing "only to turn a profit" - think about that for a minute. If private enterprise ran like most governments, there wouldn't be any $$ for anyone. Private enterprise doesn't have printing presses in the basement where they can churn out (eventually worthless) stacks of dollar bills. Many corporations have also donated hundreds of billions of dollars of said profit over the years to many good causes. Yes, they've also given tremendous amounts to the criminals in DC and on K street but who's fault is that? If we wouldn't put up with our elected officials being bought and paid for, that wouldn't go on.
Does government have an oversight role? Absolutely. But the massive amounts of frivolous regulations that have been churned out by over reaching government at all levels is a large part of why our economy is stuck in neutral.
At some point, the FCC's actions will be revealed for the Trojan Horse they truly are - and I promise you, most of you won't like it.
Our liberties have been slowly chipped away at for decades. Of late, they're being destroyed at break neck speed. The Internet is about the last place that completely free speech could be exercised. I prefer to keep it that way. The Internet has worked because of the absence of over reaching, power grabbing bureaucrats AND free market capitalism. That is about to change.
/end rant

posted by Foodie on Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:04 pm     #   2 people liked this

http://agoodcartoon.tumblr.com/post/112519623990/the-cartoonist-has-no-idea-how-net-neutrality

posted by toledolen_ on Mar 03, 2015 at 02:58:45 pm     #   1 person liked this

So frustrating... the internet works because we have Net Neutrality today. Or we did till the SCOTUS did away with it recently, hence the FCC stepping in. NN is about the free market. Consumers get to decide what internet services survive, not the ISPs.

The ISPs know nothing about free market capitalism anyway. Much of their fiber was laid with billions in tax payer money, public and private land was given to them for access and right of way. They have negotiated monopolies with local and state government (money well spent for them).

The ISP don't want free market capitalism anyway. They want their billions in tax payer dollars for fiber they'll never deliver and they want to end NN to increase their profits even more.

Look at this way -
People get frustrated with Buckeye every time negotiating with a TV channel results in the channel getting pulled from their cable. Wait till they start to negotiate web sites as well.

Without NN, Buckeye could simply pull the plug on the Toledo Free Press, not allowing their web site to accessible to any BEX user. JRB doesn't like someone from WSPD say, he can simple block their site and the iHeartRadio app on their network. NN keeps this from happening. You want the Toledo Blade to have more influence in NWO?

Lastly -
Someone was bitching about the encryption boxes that Buckeye Cable is forcing on it's customers. It's a money grab, plain and simple, but that's free market capitalism right? Companies can do any crappy thing they want to us in the name of profit and we should just sit back and cheer "free markets"!

posted by SensorG on Mar 03, 2015 at 03:41:23 pm     #  

People get frustrated with Buckeye every time negotiating with a TV channel results in the channel getting pulled from their cable. Wait till they start to negotiate web sites as well.

That's a good analogy and a nice point, SensorG. I'd like to add that if you think watching TV is frustrating because of all the commercials breaks, just wait until that very same group gets a firm hold on your Internet along with a license to dictate which sites you'll have access to and which you'll be barred from ever seeing.

posted by madjack on Mar 03, 2015 at 04:33:18 pm     #  

Someone was bitching about the encryption boxes that Buckeye Cable is forcing on it's customers.
Yes. That was me.
It's a money grab, plain and simple, but that's free market capitalism right?
Yes it is a money grab. But it's also the most recent example of the FCC siding with Big Cable behind closed doors, screwing the consumer. In fact, it is a superb example of why consumers should be very careful when placing their trust in the FCC as Defender of the Marketplace. And, because the FCC allowed this to happen across the board, the consumer can't simply select an alternate cable provider who respects the consumer who simply wanted a basic cable tier with no special equipment.

The FCC allowed it to become The Cable Way or the Highway. And that, my friend, is why I expect them to turn around and let THE SAME PEOPLE (Since we all know how often the TV and internet providers are one in the same) do it to us again.

In the case you use as an example, the cablesystem created a situation in which the only way to use the free market to escape their greed is to dump them altogether, which is one of the reasons their subscriber numbers keep dropping like a rock.

posted by justread on Mar 03, 2015 at 04:45:32 pm     #  

Update - and a great read about the rules which were just released. There are a total of about 8 pages of actual federal law changes out of the 400ish in the document. Here's the actual document- http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

TL;DR from a post in a Reddit thread - https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/2yswt2/fcc_releases_full_net_neutrality_rules_400_pages/cpcp1ij

"About 50 paragraphs of summary, 15 paragraphs of history, 25 paragraphs of rationale, 100 paragraphs of rules, 25 paragraphs of the scope of those rules, 50 paragraphs of how to enforce those rules, 130 paragraphs declaring the internet subject to Title II with reasoning and expected implications, 110 paragraphs encouraging providers to take this to heart and implement policies that won't require the FCC to step in (forebearance), 30 paragraphs of constitutional considerations, and 10 paragraphs of final orders. 582 paragraphs over 280 pages. (Also keep in mind that some pages are nearly half filled with footnote citations.)
Appendix A is a short list of the rules themselves written as an 8 page update to 47 CFR, the actual federal laws under consideration.
Appendix B is a 68 paragraph, 23 page analysis of the regulatory environment itself (a meta discussion from the FCC's point of view).
Chairman Wheeler's Statement is 5 pages; Commissioner Rosenworcel's is 1 page; Commissioner Pai, 64 page dissent; Commissioner O'Reilly, 15 page dissent."

And then this is a pretty good read on what exactly this rule change is all about. Contrary to Foodie's concerns about all of our FREEDOMS being ERODED AND OMG SOCIALISM AND STUFF, it's a pretty reasonable and solid thing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/2yswt2/fcc_releases_full_net_neutrality_rules_400_pages/cpcu9d0

"§ 8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
Section 8.7 is amended to read as follows:
§ 8.7 No throttling.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
Section 8.9 is redesignated section 8.19.
New section 8.9 is added to read as follows:
§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.
(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
(b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. ederal Communications Commission FCC 15-24 285
© The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.
New section 8.11 is added to read as follows:
§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
Section 8.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4), revising paragraphs (b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), removing paragraph (b)(3), redesignating paragraphs © and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e), and adding new paragraph © to read as follows:
§ 8.11 Continues, but for the sake of a TLD:DR, I will stop there. § 8.12 and on is your rights to file a complaint, procedures for complaints, confidentiality clause.
If you get the time, I would encourage you to read this document, as the FCC did a great job with it.
A little side note I found funny and a nice little jab at specifically mentioning Verizon, on page 293 a footnote was added: >10 The Verizon court specifically touted the virtuous cycle as a worthy goal and within our authority. Verizon, 740 F.3d at 644 (“The Commission’s finding that Internet openness fosters the edge-provider innovation that drives this ‘virtuous cycle’ was likewise reasonable and grounded in substantial evidence.”).
Also on page 294, the FCC details a little paragraph of how it is using it's rules: >13. The legal basis for the Open Internet rules we adopt today relies on multiple sources of legal authority, including section 706, Title II, and Title III of the Communications Act. We conclude that the best approach to achieving our open Internet goals is to rely on several, independent, yet complementary sources of legal authority. Our authority under Section 706 is not mutually exclusive with our authority under Titles II and III of the Act. Rather, we read our statute to provide independent sources of authority that work in concert toward common ends. Under section 706, the Commission has the authority to take certain regulatory steps to encourage and accelerate the deployment of broadband to all Americans. Under Title II, the Commission has authority to ensure that common carriers do not engage in unjust and unreasonable practices or preferences. And under Title III, the Commission has authority to protect the public interest through spectrum licensing. Each of these sources of authority provides an alternative ground to independently support our open Internet rules."

posted by endcycle on Mar 12, 2015 at 02:27:59 pm     #  

Time will tell. Releasing the new "rules" is one thing. How they get implemented over the years may be quite another.

To someone who embraces socialism (or worse), I'm sure you do find all of this quite reasonable.

As one who rejects socialism (and worse), I do not.

posted by Foodie on Mar 12, 2015 at 03:37:05 pm     #  

How is NN socialism? Should Samsung have to pay First Energy so their appliance work in my house? The internet should work the same way.

Netflix shouldn't have to pay BEX to available in my house either. Nor should BEX get to censor what I read or watch.

The internet you enjoy today is because we have NN. Codifying it with law is a no-brainer.

Pretty simple really.

posted by SensorG on Mar 12, 2015 at 03:47:47 pm     #   3 people liked this

The government not allowing corporations to extort and censor consumers and other corporations is socialism?

posted by SensorG on Mar 12, 2015 at 04:34:27 pm     #  

You keep using this word "socialism". I do not think it means what you think it means.

posted by endcycle on Mar 13, 2015 at 09:45:37 am     #  

I'm painfully aware of the definition. It is what has been foisted upon our country by an out of control administration and congress for too many years now.

Margaret Thatcher stated it best - and I paraphrase -

"Socialism - a wonderful thing - until you
run out of other people's money."

posted by Foodie on Mar 13, 2015 at 12:33:01 pm     #   1 person liked this

SensorG posted at 05:34:27 PM on Mar 12, 2015:

The government not allowing corporations to extort and censor consumers and other corporations is socialism?

You are far too hung up on the propaganda fed to you by the power grabbing FCC and the media sources you choose to have explain it to you. NN (and these new rules, if allowed to stand, will prove to be anything but NN) is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Government control of the Internet and its content is the wolf. The back door method for reviving the so called Fairness Doctrine those of you on the left are so fond of being but one of their goals.

But, alas, I'm wasting time and keystrokes on those who truly believe this was all about reigning in those mean, nasty corporations and protecting the "little guy."

When will you ever learn that your government doesn't give a shit about the little guy? Today more than ever, government's primary goal is to amass and retain as much power, (control over every aspect of your life) and $$ for themselves and their cronies as possible - all in the name of watching out for you - the little guy and "the working people" so that you will foolishly keep voting for them.

posted by Foodie on Mar 13, 2015 at 12:51:09 pm     #   2 people liked this

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Wow, I’ll admit that I haven’t made it through all 400 pages, but I’m not seeing anything close to what you are. Then again, I haven’t bought enough Goldline coins to get my Glenn Beck decoder ringer. Maybe in a few months…

You’re clearly rallying against something you haven’t read, have no intention of reading, haven’t a clue how the internet or NN works and yet I’m getting “fed propaganda” while you quote talking heads on the radio…I'm the guy "wasting my time".

posted by SensorG on Mar 13, 2015 at 01:23:11 pm     #   2 people liked this

Yeah, I'm with you on this one, SensorG. It looks really, completely, and totally benign - which is weird as hell for ANYTHING the government does. I mean, it's a competently written and setup grouping of rules that actually seem to be aimed at ensuring exactly what we're supposed to want here.

Also - that Thatcher quote? Demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about "socialism" at best. Not to get off-topic, but maaaaybe you need a refresher. Wikipedia has a great page on it which goes into pretty solid coverage on the various forms of socialism (which, in various forms, works REALLY WELL all around the world - but, you know, murrica and stuff, so that's evil and bad and europeans style something or other will steal our babies and whatnot).

posted by endcycle on Mar 13, 2015 at 03:19:02 pm     #  

Unfortunately it's time to bring up this subject again as our gubment has lost it's marbles again. The new FCC chairman is proposing to remove the Title II classification of internet service. This change would essentially eliminate what is known as "Net Neutrality" which required all carriers to carry all traffic with equal priority and resume the ability of ISP's to create extra cost "fast lanes" for some services, and block others. If you have the time to voice your opinion it can be done here (I strongly recommend you make your voice heard!) : https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

Don't let the new FCC chairman turn the internet into what will certainly become a shit pile if permitted to proceed with this change (pardon my language...as stated before, I feel quite strongly regarding this subject)

posted by breeman on Jul 10, 2017 at 08:48:49 am     #