Senate / House Scumsuckers Working on Internet Neutrality
With FCC Chair Julius Genachowski working to assure that major carriers can't tie up the Internet, the usual suspects are up to doing the bidding of the major corporations. John McCain, as per the lying asshole he is, has introduced into his caucus a bill he has feloniously named Internet Freedom Act of 2009. Could he possibly be a bigger liar? Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced legislation in the house called, Real Stimulus Act of 2009. This is another laugher of a lie. This article also contains a very nice graphical depiction of global Internet cost / speed relationships. As you might imagine U.S. customers are definitely getting screwed in this globally competitive marketplace. Nothing new with that. You can read about it here.
Why does the FCC need to pass "Net Neutrality" laws? Don't things work fine as they are right now? Somehow the FCC thinks that the Internet today is a failed market, but that is news to me. All of the great innovation from youtube to the iPhone has happened without any government involvement from the FCC.
Net neutrality may sound like fairness but it's exactly the opposite. Bandwidth is finite and networking companies must be able to manage the increase in traffic. As they spend billions to build and improve networks, they should be able to set prices and manage those networks as they see fit.
If the FCC takes control of the Internet, we will have the inevitable result of all poorly designed regulations: business decisions prejudiced by politicians and political decisions prejudiced by corporations. We are not talking about high finance - we are talking about one of the most competitive, efficient and consumer driven industries.
October 31, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The FCC does not pass laws. They create guidelines. The guideline they want to solidify is the fluffy one that currently is in effect. They have to solidify it because Comcast is challenging their authority. Comcast wants to offer different tiers of service to its customers and charge differing rates, like an airline offers different classes of seats on a plane. Everybody rides in the same plane but some seats are roomier and demand a higher price.
Net neutrality will assure that everyone has equal access to the web, that one group of people will not get preferential treatment because they can pay more or be made to pay more.
The FCC will not take control of the Internet.
Government will not take control of the Internet.
The Internet will continue to be competitive and efficient IF BIG BUSINESS TELECOMS KEEP THEIR FUCKING HANDS OFF OF IT!!!
Got that, Bill?
October 31, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see anything wrong with Comcast offering different tiers of service. And big business telecoms have already been in the industry for years and things have worked just fine.
October 31, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The goal is to regulate the availability of content as per the providers individual chunks of the overall network and to ultimately charge for content not within a providers own chunk. The Internet is one big homogenous network. They want to segregate it and charge for it in a piecemeal way according to content.
October 31, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The headline pretty much says what you need to know: "With the FCC launching a rule-making proceeding on net neutrality, a pair of bills have been introduced to Congress that would bar the FCC from issuing "any regulations regarding the Internet." After all why would we want the Federal Communications Commission to regulate corporate exploitation of the one medium that stands poised to supplant all other communication mediums?
October 31, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any corporate exploitation that has happened so far.
October 31, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see. I suspect if I look in one of your ears I can see clear through to the other side and see daylight. You might see it someday too. But it'll probably be too late for you by then.
October 31, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you see problems in how companies have participated in the Internet industry so far? The Internet may be a big homogenous network, but it is not infinite in bandwidth. And you should want private companies to continue to invest to improve the network, make it larger, make it faster, etc.
I thought people wanted to have a debate over the pros/cons of "net neutrality", not throw personal attacks at other people.
October 31, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said. They want to wall of the content. The only freedom that is going to be promoted in this scheme is that of the corporations. Yours will be down the tubes. Wake up!!
October 31, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What have they done which makes you believe they plan to "wall off content"???
November 1, 2009 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What rationale do you subscribe to that justifies the federal commission whose mission is to oversee the communications industry being restricted from overseeing the one medium of communication that seems poised to subsume all previous mediums of communication, newspapers, television, and radio?
November 1, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Internet industry so far has shown intense competition and innovation without the types of rules that the FCC is looking to propose. The FCC should be allowed to oversee the Internet. But I don't agree with the new rules they are proposing.
Once they do this, the next thing will be "Search" neutrality, where you can no longer pay more money for your website to be a top result when somebody googles you.
How about "surfing" neutrality where everybody gets a free computer so we can be sure that everyone has access to the Web? Why charge people different prices for dial-up versus DSL versus broadband connections?
Or "airplane seat" neutrality where all seats on the plane cost the same amount of money.
How about "sports" neutrality where all seats in the stadium cost the same?
Or "team" neutrality where all professional athletes get paid the same amount of money?
Or "coffee" neutrality - where every coffee cart pusher gets paid the same as a Starbucks?
November 1, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you agree with me that:
Which the two bills being introduced to congress by the Republicans McCain and Blackburn, as cited in this blog specifically forbid.November 2, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes they should be allowed to oversee it. But I think their latest idea of trying to add additional rules to the industry is a mistake. Why try to fix something that isn't broken? Or are you in favor of "airplane seat" neutrality and the other examples I listed.
November 2, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in favor of handrails on public stairs, even though they may be working just fine for the most part without them, just as I'm for protecting access to communications/internet for all even if the system is functioning ok for now. Open access/neutrality to communication mediums is a cornerstone of democracy. To compare it to whether we all get to sit in first class is a diversion from a meaningful discussion of the issue. Your philosophy, that we all deserve the best that we can afford is Ok until you get to basic structural elements of industry and society. John D. Rockefeller ran up against similar constraints when he tried and succeeded for a while in controlling the railroads/access to his competitors in the oil business.
November 2, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy to slip down stairs. But I don't see any similar issue with the Internet. Things have worked just fine without the FCC trying to do what they're doing now. I'm not exactly sure what you're afraid of. I don't foresee people being shut out of having access to the Internet. But if people want to pay different prices for different levels of service, that seems appropriate. The airline analogy is not a diversion at all, it is a relevant comparison. Discriminating may be necessary to optimize network performance - uses for broadband infrastructure are constantly changing, and it isn't entirely clear that discriminating based on content wouldn't be the best way to optimize network performance, whether doing so would add to profits or not for the provider. The cable networks already "discriminate" in favor of programming over Internet traffic for subscribers who get both from the cable company, because the programming needs priority. Content providers are worried that if broadband providers aren't banned from discriminating, they'll extract premiums from content providers to get their stuff delivered, or give competitors that option. But some kinds of content should get higher or lower priority as a matter of optimization, and blanket bans on prioritizing may end up making a mess of traffic overall.
The federal government is a poor choice for any of this - from defining what is required of a provider to satisfy "neutrality," to developing the rules for enforcement, to operating those rules, the federal government and in particular the FCC are poor choices to solve the problem, assuming the problem exists in the first place. Maybe the Internet has worked so well because neutrality has been part of the architecture to date without the government having much say. Maybe it's worked so well because there has been minimal government regulation of its design and operation. Maybe both. More of the latter to shore up the former is a dangerous trade-off.
November 2, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I approach the net neutrality debate with both trepidation and ambivalence, because I haven't reviewed all the arguments. My inclination (and I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise) is to oppose complete net neutrality. This stems from my perception as a songwriter of the deplorable use by P2P applications of enormous bandwidth to disseminate dishonestly pirated material in violation of the rights of song creators and other artists. It isn't personal, because songs I write are in genres that the illegal users have no interest in stealing. Rather, I believe that at least in principal, someone - if not the Internet service providers then someone else - should be able to monitor and restrict inappropriate use of bandwidth.
I also understand the potential abuses of putting power in the hands of these providers. It's why I'm ambivalent, but I would like a solution that satisfies the needs for both access on one hand and control of those who abuse access on the other.
October 31, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Net neutrality and illegal file sharing of copyrighted material are two very different things. We should be careful not to confuse the two.
FYI it is starting to appear as though the distributors in the industry are facing some heavy ridicule for stealing or otherwise abusing the copyrights of authors as much or more than file sharers. I know I have seen articles related to this of late.
The link I provided has that nifty chart demonstrating the value proposition for the service provided. As you can see U.S. consumers are coming up notably short on that. Net neutrality is about not allowing that to grow worse and also about preserving the ability of consumers to access content across the greater Internet without any artificial barriers. You can see from various activities of providers that they want very much to find ways to increase profits but not actually do anything different. They have test marketed metered billing throughout this year and would also like to erect a toll booth of sorts to keep you inside their own networks. It would be very restrictive if you were suddenly faced with staying inside the network of your particular ISP. Only the very big players would survive under that model. That will occur if they aren't prevented from doing so. You can be certain of that. The pattern is exactly the same in all of American business. The consumer is taking it in the ass and that must come to a halt. Not to mention McCain is one, if not the biggest recipient of campaign dollars from industry PACs. The name of the legislation he has put forth is an insult. It has snake oil written all over it.
November 1, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to say that US consumers are "coming up short". Are they just comparing the price of an Internet connection that Comcast (for example) sells on a stand-alone basis? I pay for a "triple-play" package where I get phone, Internet and Cable TV. I'm not sure how the study actually determines the cost I pay for Internet service when most people I know have some type of bundled package.
I am paying less today than I was a few years ago and my cable modem is faster than it used to be. I also now have DVR available on my Cable TV system plus a lot more on-demand movie choices. They also offer a 30Mbps service for additional money, but the 15Mbps standard package works fine for me.
I also have Verizon competing against the incumbent cable TV company for my bundled business. Verizon's package is cheaper and has more channels but I haven't switched because I hear the customer service isn't as good.
November 1, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean I can no longer make fun of jughead and mika and cheney and rush and stuff like that?
Let barking does lie or whatever. I like the sound.
November 1, 2009 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that Dick. Lis, Wendy, Stilli and some others might object. You know, girls just want to have fun. You better check with them. It's not my call. If it was up to me you can have all the fun you want. I think I'll go find Cheney and ping his limo with a pea shooter. That was fun fifty years ago. Maybe it still is.
November 1, 2009 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink