FCC kills Net Neutrality

[ManaByte]

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_netneutrality_3things/

FCC breaks Obama's promise on Net Neutrality: 3 things you need to know

BREAKING: Minutes ago, the FCC -- led by Obama appointee Julius Genachowski -- sold out Net Neutrality and the future of free speech online. The rules -- written by Comcast and AT&T, the companies the FCC is supposed to regulate -- broke Obama's campaign promise1 and allow corporate censorship.

Read the 3 reasons why -- then share with friends by filling out the form on the right.

1: Corporate censorship is allowed on your phone

The rules passed today by Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski absurdly create different corporate censorship rules for wired and wireless Internet, allowing big corporations like Comcast to block websites they don't like on your phone -- a clear failure to fulfill Net Neutrality and put you, the consumer, in control of what you can and can't do online.2

2: Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation

The rules passed today would allow big Internet Service Providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the "fast lane." Big companies that could afford to pay these fees like Google or Amazon would get their websites delivered to consumers quickly, while independent newspapers, bloggers, innovators, and small businesses would see their sites languish in the slow lane, destroying a level playing field for competition online and clearly violating Net Neutrality.3

3: The rules allow corporations to create "public" and "private" Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it

For the first time, these rules would embrace a "public Internet" for regular people vs. a "private Internet" with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more -- ending the Internet as we know it and creating tiers of free speech and innovation, accessible only if you have pockets deep enough to pay off the corporations.4

 

The FCC could have reclassified and regulated these greedy corporations in an enforceable way, but instead, they sold out. This isn't Net Neutrality, this is a historic mistake.

Sign on the right to hold President Obama accountable to his promise -- and then share with your friends!
 

Sources:

1:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/net-neutrality-obama-see_n_681695.html

2, 3, 4: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/the-fccs-guide-to-losing_b_795061.html

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Because if there's anyone who understands taking neutral stances on the Internet, it's ManaByte

[Beardo]

Corporate Censorship?

Is that the new liberal boogie man? 

[naff]

3: The rules allow corporations to create "public" and "private" Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it

For the first time, these rules would embrace a "public Internet" for regular people vs. a "private Internet" with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more -- ending the Internet as we know it and creating tiers of free speech and innovation, accessible only if you have pockets deep enough to pay off the corporations.4

 

Um. You can already have private internet. THE INTERNET is just the biggest public WAN (Wide Area Network) in the world. There are other country spanning private WANS (PRIVATE INTERNETS OMG) available, this is nothing new and THE INTERNET  will always be the one most people will use.

2: Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation

The rules passed today would allow big Internet Service Providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the "fast lane." Big companies that could afford to pay these fees like Google or Amazon would get their websites delivered to consumers quickly, while independent newspapers, bloggers, innovators, and small businesses would see their sites languish in the slow lane, destroying a level playing field for competition online and clearly violating Net Neutrality.3

WTF!? How is this any different to people/companies with money being able to pay for well optimised websites and high/priority bandwidth whereas small sites can't? Nothing new here apart from alarmist bs.

As for point 1, are they talking about 3G networks or wifi? IDC anyway because AMERICA

Obviously if telcos are able to start filtering websites based on their agendas that's bad, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening here.

[ManaByte]

WTF!? How is this any different to people/companies with money being able to pay for well optimised websites and high/priority bandwidth whereas small sites can't? Nothing new here apart from alarmist bs.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/google-verizon-propose-open-vs-paid-internets/

For example: You want Youtube or Netflix streaming? You need to pay for access to the Google Verizon SUPER Internet.

[GilloD]

2: Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation

The rules passed today would allow big Internet Service Providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the "fast lane." Big companies that could afford to pay these fees like Google or Amazon would get their websites delivered to consumers quickly, while independent newspapers, bloggers, innovators, and small businesses would see their sites languish in the slow lane, destroying a level playing field for competition online and clearly violating Net Neutrality.3

WTF!? How is this any different to people/companies with money being able to pay for well optimised websites and high/priority bandwidth whereas small sites can't? Nothing new here apart from alarmist bs.

As for point 1, are they talking about 3G networks or wifi? IDC anyway because AMERICA

Obviously if telcos are able to start filtering websites based on their agendas that's bad, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening here.

Imagine this: You pay $60 a month or whatever for broadband internet. Then you have to pay another $10 to use YouTube. $5 for Google. Wanna use Hulu? Sorry, that's Verizon only! Oh, and none of the providers in the States offer access to Wikileaks.

Thats kind of an ULTIMATE HORROR scenario, but thats what this system is set up to do.

[Bocsius]

+Bocsius stifles yawn.

[Great Rumbler]

His GOP colleague, Commissioner Meredith Baker, had no less than seven major objections, including one that "we have turned prioritization into a dirty word." To Baker, charging companies like Netflix for better access to ISP customers is unabashedly pro-consumer, since it might (insert a gentle cough of skepticism here) lower consumer broadband prices. As for network management, it's an "engineering marvel." Baker's statement made clear—repeatedly—that she was bewildered by any view of ISPs as huge companies that might misuse their power and control, and she rejects any attempt to limit their "innovation."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/why-everyone-hates-new-net-neutrality-ruleseven-nn-supporters.ars

smh

[Akala]

leave the internet alone. something in the back of my mind doesn't like any of this, but something in the front of my mind doesn't really care.

[Bocsius]

I do enjoy how Republicans are becoming more and more transparent about being puppets for big corporations. Between Baker here and those clowns on the financial panel, how anyone can take the GOP seriously is beyond me.

[Beardo]

that she was bewildered by any view of ISPs as huge companies that might misuse their power and control,

From the people that brought you OBAMA DEATH PANELS no less.

Is it really any worse than thinking the federal government is any better?

[Bocsius]

Is it really any worse than thinking the federal government is any better?

On the other hand, you can vote for the federal gubmint.

Then again, I suppose voting Republican is tantamount to voting directly for the corporations, so point conceded.

[Eel O'Brian]

well, just like everything else involving cable and the internet, i will find a way to steal it,  if it comes down to me having to pay any more than the $65 a month i already pay Time Warner for their shitty intermittent service

i remember paying for the cheapest basic cable and using a little "bullet" adapter to get free premium cable channels back in my poorboy days

[Beardo]

Is it really any worse than thinking the federal government is any better?

On the other hand, you can vote for the federal gubmint.

Then again, I suppose voting Republican is tantamount to voting directly for the corporations, so point conceded.

Of course all the cable companies are out to squeeze us all dry. That's not exactly a secret. But the only power they have is power that I give them. Comcast sucks, so I dont use their shitty service. However, shit like what happened today proves that the federal government truly believes it has unlimited power over you. Whether you are on the left or right the FCC power grab should really scare you.

[Beardo]

This shit always starts off with good intentions.

Federal Government: We need Net Neutrality. We want to make the internet fair for all
Conservatives: This net neutrality thing sounds like a bad idea.
Liberals: Why do you love big business rabble rabble rabble
Com companies: "How will you enforce it, lawls
Fed: Good point. Will you help us write it then"
Com: Sure



Everone: ffffuuuu

[naff]

For example: You want Youtube or Netflix streaming? You need to pay for access to the Google Verizon SUPER Internet.

Yeah that's possible but not likely. But yes companies like Verizon or Comcast could run a separate network in parallel to the internet. I'm pretty sure they could always do this? Well, now they definitely have more of an incentive to do so with the FCC actually having some legislation to stand on, no matter how meek the legislation ended up being, it still seems like a positive step to me. That boldprogressives crap was alarmist and wrong, a simple guise for Obama bashing.

Additional Online Services: A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization.

^ This is the small additional clause that's getting peoples knickers in a twist about separate internets.

[Great Rumbler]

Is it really any worse than thinking the federal government is any better?

On the other hand, you can vote for the federal gubmint.

Then again, I suppose voting Republican is tantamount to voting directly for the corporations, so point conceded.

Of course all the cable companies are out to squeeze us all dry. That's not exactly a secret. But the only power they have is power that I give them. Comcast sucks, so I dont use their shitty service. However, shit like what happened today proves that the federal government truly believes it has unlimited power over you. Whether you are on the left or right the FCC power grab should really scare you.

I'd rather the government control the country than for-profit corporations, but that's just me.

[Beardo]

Is it really any worse than thinking the federal government is any better?

On the other hand, you can vote for the federal gubmint.

Then again, I suppose voting Republican is tantamount to voting directly for the corporations, so point conceded.

Of course all the cable companies are out to squeeze us all dry. That's not exactly a secret. But the only power they have is power that I give them. Comcast sucks, so I dont use their shitty service. However, shit like what happened today proves that the federal government truly believes it has unlimited power over you. Whether you are on the left or right the FCC power grab should really scare you.

I'd rather the government control the country than for-profit corporations, but that's just me.

This "For-profit corporation" boogieman is misplaced. What's scarier, the TSA or a "For-profit security service" ?

I understand where liberals are coming from on this, but corporations have almost no real power over you unless granted by the government.

[Bocsius]

Fortunately, we elected some Republicans to stand between us and the corporations. They'll protect our interests. Nope, not a thing to fear.

[Beardo]

Fortunately, we elected some Republicans to stand between us and the corporations. They'll protect our interests. Nope, not a thing to fear.

Well we know that our elected democrats will keep the internet, the beacon of freedom that it is. 

[Great Rumbler]

Is it really any worse than thinking the federal government is any better?

On the other hand, you can vote for the federal gubmint.

Then again, I suppose voting Republican is tantamount to voting directly for the corporations, so point conceded.

Of course all the cable companies are out to squeeze us all dry. That's not exactly a secret. But the only power they have is power that I give them. Comcast sucks, so I dont use their shitty service. However, shit like what happened today proves that the federal government truly believes it has unlimited power over you. Whether you are on the left or right the FCC power grab should really scare you.

I'd rather the government control the country than for-profit corporations, but that's just me.

This "For-profit corporation" boogieman is misplaced. What's scarier, the TSA or a "For-profit security service" ?

I understand where liberals are coming from on this, but corporations have almost no real power over you unless granted by the government.

Yes, and it's a good thing the government doesn't grant corporations any more power, because they're doing plenty to screw everybody over as it is.

Also, yeah, having Blackwater secure our airports would be such a GRAND idea.

[Mandark]

This "For-profit corporation" boogieman is misplaced. What's scarier, the TSA or a "For-profit security service" ?

I'm going with Blackwater on this.



edit: goddam beaten

[Great Rumbler]

This "For-profit corporation" boogieman is misplaced. What's scarier, the TSA or a "For-profit security service" ?

I'm going with Blackwater on this.



edit: goddam beaten

[Van Cruncheon]

how are those for-profit jails in california and nevada doing, i ask

[Mandark]

And really, the TSA?  The federal government has several divisions that are authorized to kill people, and you bring up the friggin TSA as the scariest bogeyman?

Time to step outside the bubble, my friend.

[Great Rumbler]

Yeah, but the TSA might fondle your junk, that's WAY more important that somebody with brown skin who I don't know being kidnapped from their home and taken to some hidden torture camp in Europe to be held indefinitely!

[Mandark]

Anyway, is there a good guide to this stuff that lays out the main issues, what each side was pushing for, how the proposed rules would work, etc?  Cause I haven't followed it too closely.

Something not dumb and hyperventilating would be nice.

[Oblivion]

I don't get Beardo's complaint here. The Fed controlling the internet? I thought what the libruls wanted (before this legislation) was to keep whatever rules were in place beforehand?

[Great Rumbler]

Anyway, is there a good guide to this stuff that lays out the main issues, what each side was pushing for, how the proposed rules would work, etc?  Cause I haven't followed it too closely.

Something not dumb and hyperventilating would be nice.

Try these:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20026326-94.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/why-everyone-hates-new-net-neutrality-ruleseven-nn-supporters.ars

[T-Short]

Also EFF:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I'm going to wait until the hyperbole has settled down before coming to a conclusion.

[lordmaji]

leave the internet alone. something in the back of my mind doesn't like any of this, but something in the front of my mind doesn't really care.

sounds exactly how I feel.