Why Net Neutrality Matters (And What You Can Do To Help)


#1

#2

I think working to build protocols that circumvent ISP monitoring is the most practical answer… begging self interested politicians to not be self interested is an endless task.

One day we’ll all be storing chunks of encrypted data on each other computers that are connected via mesh networks and they won’t even know what hit them! :wink:


#3

It was I thought called an inter network or internet because various networks from various vendors had to inter operate or remain neutral (neutrality) to each other vice locking in the government to one vendor’s wares. This was an anti lock-out (as in lock-out the competition and lock-in the government) provision. This was an anti enclosure, anti barrier to entry provision. But the enclosure industry doesn’t like this because it can’t create artificial scarcity and drive everything with voter lock-out through sponsorship (yep the ultimate jerrymander is at risk) so we now have them proposing a separate but equal, segregated internet where they will have even less incentive to fix their last place performance in the US because doing so would get rid of the incentive of their high priced premium lanes.

Update on this. We don’t buy it. They can reclassify and we certainly don’t trust enough to want to play again. It doesn’t leave us the room to trust. Now what follows is a diatribe that borders on spam, sorry for the vent.

Here is a quote from the acquired and failing Huffington Post

“In communications, common carriage is about protecting free speech over private networks. It’s a rule under which private communications companies have grown and prospered. Moreover, telecom carriers invested 55 percent more to upgrade networks and services during the period when they were classified as common carriers than they have in the years since the FCC removed common-carrier rules from broadband services. Businesses invest and profit as common carriers.”

It may be that part of what fueled the dot com bubble was the thought that throwing a bunch of money at the net would save supply side and sponsorship from the democracy inducing internet. When money didn’t force people to watch ads the bubble bursts and the Bush Admin stepped in with its info service separate but equal segregated internet ideas to try to save the attempt at information enclosure. Sponsored federal judges and now the the cable lobbyists appointed to the FCC commission and headship have tried the same.

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night to a loud click. Its your drunken uncle and he’s got a bottle in one hand and a loaded gun in the other aimed at your head. He starting to pull the trigger but instead responds to your begging and stumbles off into the other rooms. The next day as you’re getting ready for bed you hear him loudly talking to him self asking where his gun and his ammo are? Of course he’s already holding both and has used the families money to stash liquor and loaded guns all throughout the house. This drunken relative is the American Cable/Telecom/Media/FCC complex and its hostage is the American public and to an extent the rest of the world with the bad examples and bad decisions it makes. Its malevolence and belligerence is a fed and increased by the system which it enabled.

Reclassification would be a stalling tactic at best. The industry has already said it would essentially ignore it by boasting reclassification couldn’t stop it. And the FCC just by its record of headship is captured. There was never any editorial fire wall and it really is the Cable/Telecom/Media industry and its not any more ethical than the oil industry. In carbon energy we have many examples including Bopol India, Enron, Iraq’s 1&2, Exxon Valdes, BP oil spills, oil subsidies… In media/communications we also have many examples including the World News scandal, the World Com MCI scandal, Fox granted the right to lie on behalf of Monsanto by firing its anchors for an expose or RBSt, media complicity in Iraq’s 1 &2… and an industry that constantly uses the money we give it to lobby against our rights. A broken up AT&T is back and working against our rights and like the rest of the industry helping the government spy on citizens possibly in return for favors. Lowest developed world price/performance rankings for US telecom/cable and approaching lowest free press ranking for US media. And there is of course the apparently seething contempt these two demonstrate for the public as demonstrated by Comcast itself. The drug industry and other American industry are patrons and are also egged on to similar behavior.

Soon enough it will be Comcast News and Comcast who decides who gets elected based on how well they protects it and its real patron’s interests or how all of that translates to more money and power for the Comcast some of it directly from elections rigged by money. Making sure firms and interests like Comcast can’t get away with contempt of public and hostile actions that undermine the public is the reason we need a functional internet.

From the Forbes site a reader response:
“But try to reach a small company, maybe a news & politics site that cannot pay for prioritization, and those users will have trouble reaching those sites or experiencing them without congestion.”

Try to get a politician in front of the public who didn’t have enough money to qualify as bought and paid for and it won’t happen. This anti neutrality trash is sponsorship its censorship and its being paid to censor and propagandize. We don’t want them to have the profit, and even if this stalling tactic goes through and its said the government regulated them to common carrier status it should be noted it was the public that did it. But it will be sort of the total buyer’s market absolute dumb pipe system that is needed at a very minimum.

Information Week readers:

" As Susan Crawford states: “First, the relevant market for everyone is (or should be) high-capacity, low-latency, symmetrical fiber connections to homes and businesses of at least 100Mbps. That’s what they have in South Korea, Japan, Sweden, and (soon) Australia and China. Right now, the vast majority of Americans are stuck with the cable guys’ product, which is very expensive (three or four times as expensive for the same download services as in other countries) and second-best (because it doesn’t provide symmetrical, or equal, upload capacity). It’s not fiber, and it’s under the complete price/service control of individual companies that, again, are subject to neither oversight nor competition and have no incentive to make the upgrade to fiber.”

“Therefore, no competition. The concept of forbidding those who service middle mile networks from also servicing last mile is called “unbundling,” and it has demonstrably worked in Europe. That’s another thing we could do: force providers to choose which one they provide to. That would create a marketplace of last mile providers.”