Watch the video, then see if he wasn't right. He was he first one to bring it to public attention in 2007. The message and not the messenger is what is important here.

John

With something as incalculably valuable as the Internet, it was just a matter of time before the greedy bastards figured out a way to own it. As far as I'm concerned, Net Neutrality is one of the most important issues facing us today. Really.

2007? Hardly. I can remember having discussions about this in my ISP's offices 10 years before that.

2007? Hardly. I can remember having discussions about this in my ISP's offices 10 years before that.

1997? Yikes Kelly! I had no idea it dates back that far.

John

From what I have read elsewhere, the risk is for wireless data not wired service.

From what I have read elsewhere, the risk is for wireless data not wired service.
================
Here is yet another article

It states:

Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. have struck their own accord on handling Internet traffic, as both participate in talks by U.S. officials on Web policy, two people briefed by the companies said.

That's exactly opposite, not that it should be up to large corporate monopolies to decide such matters in the first place.

John

While I agree in principle, "net neutrality" is kind of a deceiving name. IE, it's nothing BUT neutral to all parties: it's the govt someone coming in & saying what can be done with the internet vs the companies who own the physical stuff. It's not neutral. :) Someone owns the data lines after all.

But I've always felt the basic internet should be like the US road system (not the DOT though!): govt keeps them running, it's up to the private person/company to do everything else. If one area is always bogged down (IE NYC), put a bypass so people who don't need data from that location can bypass it. If there's a part of the country with little internet users, there should be little $$ invested in that area. Heck, I wouldn't even mind a small data-tax if it kept things running & people didn't have to pay extra for net service (like the gas tax): don't use the net much, you pay practically nothing. Use it a lot, you pay more. That's how it works with sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc. More you have the higher $ amount you pay. If you can't afford it, don't use it!

Companies/persons can have their own internet lines that the Govt has no direct control over, like how a private parking lot isn't policed by the local PD/sherif. They can handle those how they want.

However that's not what net neutrality is about anyway... It's about letting people use other people's stuff however they want, when they want, with no/little control over that. Just like Google doesn't allow MS employees to use their parking lots to park for work, I'd expect the same with data. And that's the only reason I'd support basic infrastructure by the govt.

And there you have the corporate news media at work on American's heads as I stated earlier.

During the October 20 edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck stated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is planning to vote on reinstituting net neutrality. Beck went on to claim that "we have Marxists that are designing and working on net neutrality -- are big believers in net neutrality, right? Gosh, it does seem that these would be the wrong people to help, you know, innovate business for it. And so what they want to do is, if I can do the third one, control content."

Last April, a Federal Appeals court ruled that the FCC has no legal right to set strict Net Neutrality regulations on Internet providers.

Judge David Tatel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court wrote:

""Because the FCC 'has failed to tie its assertion' of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices".

John

There's a simple enough fix to the problem. Simply deny the data carrier the means to know where the data is coming from, its final destination and its content.

Bob.

"There's a simple enough fix to the problem. Simply deny the data carrier the means to know where the data is coming from, its final destination and its content.

No. That would not be a viable solution today thank's to the USA PATRIOT ACT.

The law requires carries to track data origins, content & destinations and provide that information to the US government for analysis. The final version of the PATRIOT ACT was signed into law by President George W. Bush in March, 2006.

IIRC, following the attacks on September, 11, 2001, the Bush administration started conducting "data mining" operations without obtaining the obligatory Court Orders. A law suit was filed and the US Supreme Court ruled that those operations were unlawful and they must not continue. So Bush requested a rivision to the PATRIOT ACT from congress to allow "data mining" and they agreed. So now, "data mining", by the US government is legal.

"However that's not what net neutrality is about anyway... It's about letting people use other people's stuff however they want, when they want...

WRONG! I pay $40 per month to my ISP for the right to use their "stuff". They don't "let" me do anything...I PAY for it!

If left unchecked, they could abitrarily declare premiums on certain content, origins, destinations, and/or quantities forcing me to pay $100 per month or more.

I heard that citizens of some countries are force to pay such a tax on download quanties. Customers pay a flat rate for a certain megabyte allotment each month. If they exceed their allotment, they are charged a tax per megabyte.

Congress let telephone companies get away with that for years. Now these companies want to do the same thing with the internet. There is no justification for it. Its nothing more than price gouging.

"...As far as I'm concerned, Net Neutrality is one of the most important issue facing us today...

Agreed.

If the internet becomes our primary vehicle for receiving & transmitting information, this could be the beginning of the slide down the "slippery slope" towards corporate control of speech.

The US Supreme Court recently gave large corporations the upper hand in controlling political speech in their ruling on the "Citizens United" case. Corporations can now spend unlimited funds supporting or opposing politicians or bills. They're still limited regarding the amounts in direct contributions they can make but they are not limited to the amount they can spend on TV/Cable/Radio and print adds. That case gave corporations the same First Amendment rights as individuals.

So what's the problem with that? Well, there are only a few individuals who have the financial means to compete with large corporations in the arena of political speech.

"No. That would not be a viable solution today thank's to the USA PATRIOT ACT."


Not that hard to render that meaningless with TOR, JonDo and end to end encryption. Traffic analysis can be thwarted by flooding with masses of meaningless chatter.
Certainly not viable if you simply want to watch streaming content but if you simply want to hide source and destination to the extent that the ISP alone is clueless as to what they're forwarding not that difficult. Thanks to our govenment's attempt to align us with North Korea and China with some secret internet filter this has been a fairly hot topic on local fora.

Bob.

Posted by:
mtntvguy

"You had me on your side until you threw Bill Moyers into the mix. How can you put any stock into the words of a man who makes his living whining and making snide comments about anything and everything? I've not met many people who need to get popped in the snotlocker more than he does."


I believe that's called critical journalism. Not so welcome in most of the US media - not good for business and knee-jerk optimism...

The US Supreme Court recently gave large corporations the upper hand in controlling political speech in their ruling on the "Citizens United" case. Corporations can now spend unlimited funds supporting or opposing politicians or bills.

==================

Actually, there are no limits to what they can spend. They do it through PACs (Political Action Committees) instead of directly. They create a PAC with a Patriotic name such as "FreedomWorks" and then spew the lies via cable TV or radio without fear of exposure by the corporate media. This fall a majority of Americans will go to the polls and vote out the politicians who were actually trying to help them, and vote in those who will forever support large corporations thanks to corporate news media.

Moreover, in light of Citizens United v FEC (that I linked in my first post) the corporations merely have to use their lobbyists to threaten politicians before they vote on legislation. That's all.
When the case was moved by Chief Justice Roberts to the top of his 2010 docket (a year ago) you began to see the Democrats (including the President) slowly allow the watering down of HR 3600 (The Health Care Reform Bill) to be more 'Corporate friendly'. In August of 2009 Roberts stated that he wanted it decided "before the 2010 elections". Those of us who know the US Supreme Court knew the decision would be 5 to 4 in favor of Citizens United and against the FEC. So did all the politicians. That is when the fear of upsetting the Insurance Companies overtook them (including the President) and they began watering the bill down. The entire media also knew. Only the public didn't know.

In addition, the Corporate sponsored "Tea Part Movement" began receiving publicity from the Corporate Media. Last August Health Care Insurance Company people were sent to Town Hall meetings (held by politicians to promote the Health Care Insurance reform legislation) to disrupt the meetings by shouting down the politicians when they were speaking. The vast majority of the media never revealed their ties to Health Care corporations and corporate billionaires like David Koch even though there was ample proof of it. The media went right along with the scam. The corporate media falsely called them "Grassroots Movements". With nearly every lie told about what the Health Insurance reform bill actually said, there was the Corporate Media right there to either support the lies or not challenge them.

Once Chief Justice Roberts announced that he was accelerating the Citizens United case everyone (except most of the public) knew what the outcome would be and that it would forever shift future legislation in favor of the wealthiest corporations (without the public being aware of it thanks to corporate media). I tried from August 2009 to January 2010 (when the case was actually heard) to get one single reporter on any single news network to cover the story and none would. Phone calls, e-mails, letters to 5-6 people on each of CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX NEWS, CBS all failed to get anyone to report this predetermined Supreme Court case that would forever change legislation in favor of corporate interest and against public interest. And when it was decided the case got a predictable "yawn" from the Corporate News Media.

Net Neutrality legislation is doomed to failure for the same reason. Not surprisingly, a majority of the Congress is now against it.

John

At the risk of being flamed - what is the difference between out Internet access being controlled by a number of big corporations, or ONE big entity - the US Govt. Do you pro Net Neutrality folks really trust the government that much. Especially with the shenanigans going on now. At least with a number of big corporations you have a chance that one will do what the others do not allow (look in the wireless world where there are still companies providing unlimited data after the big guys have switched to capped rates). You may not like the choice, but at least you still have a choice. When Big Brother takes over, no choice at all, heaven help us.

I've been saying for over a decade that bandwidth is the currency of the future.
And illusioneer makes a good point. Trusting one group of people with selfish interests over another group of people with selfish interests is not likely to bring happy results for our own selfish interests...

At the risk of being flamed - what is the difference between out Internet access being controlled by a number of big corporations, or ONE big entity - the US Govt. Do you pro Net Neutrality folks really trust the government that much.

The notion that Net Neutrality means that the government will control the internet came from the corporate news media. It, like most legislation or potential legislation that can curb corporate monopoly and upward wealth shift is distorted by them at the public expense (check my Glenn Beck quote above for an example). Net Neutrality rules or potential legislation means that there will be a guarantee that everyone has equal access to the internet. No one will control it. It is pretty much what we already have now only guaranteed to stay that way.

John

Net Neutrality rules or potential legislation means that there will be a guarantee that everyone has equal access to the internet. No one will control it. It is pretty much what we already have now only guaranteed to stay that way.

Let's keep it that way, folks.

An article on Net Neutrality showed up on MSNBC today...

Verizon/Comcast 2012 Joint Price List:

Basic Internet access (web and standard definition video, except major entertainment sites) $49.95

Google Fast Internet Channel (no slowdown of search results) +$9.95

High Definition Video Add-on (watch video up to 1920x1080) +$19.95

Entertainment Package (watch Hulu, ABC, Netflix, etc.) +24.95

Your Total Monthly Bill: $104.80

[Total delivery fee paid by Netflix for streaming delivery at more than 56 kbps: $200M/year]
[Total delivery fee paid by Hulu for streaming delivery at more than 56 kbps: $300M/year]

So should I choose the DSL Monopoly or the Cable Monopoly for my internet access?

Looks like they will always have the same prices, right at the pain level where consumers grit their teeth but don't march with pitch forks.

And consumer and business access speeds will always be at the minimum they can get away with, after all that is their responsibility to shareholders.

Why should they settle for selling bit pipes when they can collect extra for everything going through their pipes, both from the providers and the consumers?

"...Moreover, in light of Citizens United v FEC (that I linked in my first post) the corporations merely have to use their lobbyists to threaten politicians before they vote on legislation. That's all.

Yeah, that does appear to be the case now. So what does that say about our political system?

So, today's politicians are driven/controlled by "money".