Net Neutrality. What do you think about this?
 

I have received two of these messages from The White House since I wrote the president on Ebola.

This one is on the internet and plans to use the FCC to control it in some way? Is this a way to stop free enterprise, or a good thing? I don't understand it.


The White House




The President wants you to see this:

This morning, President Obama asked the FCC to put in place strong rules to protect the Internet.

Every day, the Internet unlocks countless possibilities for creation and innovation. And one reason it's been so successful is a level playing field: Most service providers have traditionally treated all Internet traffic equally.

That's the principle of "net neutrality." It's an idea that says an entrepreneur's fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money.

As the FCC considers new rules, we simply can't take that principle for granted.

Hear directly from President Obama why he supports net neutrality, and what that means for you. Then pass this message on to anyone who cares about the future of the Internet.

Watch this important message from President Obama.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality




This email was sent to [email]
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

Is it okay with you (or anyone) to have their internet access limited to selected websites (Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, face-to-face streaming) due to a third party (e.g., Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner), controlling the speed and ability to access sites? Is it okay to have new small entrepreneur companies unable to compete on a level playing field on the internet? If so, then you are against net neutrality.
If you enjoy your total access to all sites and applications as you do today, then you support net neutrality.
To me today's electricity is similar to net neutrality. You obtain electricity services in your home and you do not need to be told that you have to limit your electricity usage due to a third party company having a big marketing promotion that requires a major allocation of available electricity resources.
This may be an oversimplification ... but I think it exemplifies this complex policy decision.

///

I THINK I agree with the President and Gary7, however I do have questions.

This appears to weaken the power of the cable companies, HOWEVER, it does increase Government control over something else in our life, and I am concerned specifically about privacy and what this might mean to that area.

Lastly, much of what we have today in content is the result of Comcast, Netflix, or whomever making it available in the interest of making money.

So...

1. Will this in anyway detract from our privacy ?

2. How much control will the Government actually have on content ?

3. Will the content, as a result of this, be less in quantity or quality.

Anyone with opinions, please....

Totally for net neutrality. Gary7 said it all.

Good questions, Rags. My 2 cents (or less) are:
1. I do not think net neutrality changes privacy policies (but who am I to know).
2. From what I read, government will not control the content any more than they do today.
3. I think that without net neutrality, our quality would decrease with our internet services due to a lower bandwidth if cable companies and ISPs demand a higher share of the band available.

Thanks Gary....just trying to figure this out.....how about a couple more questions...only way to learn.

My thought on privacy is that the President wants to make the internet a "utility". I do not care if the government knows how much electricity I use, but they do control WHO gives it to me and thus lots of information is not kept private.

ON content, where I was going was.....this appears to hit direct at bottom lines of some enterprises. Bottom line goes down..investment in product goes down along with quality perhaps.

I am just trying to weigh it all, but my opinion has always been....it has been already too much like a "utility" and what we need is OPEN COMPETITION.

I do not know but will keep reading

I had a 3 month battle between Netflix and Comcast whe I could not load Netflix after 8pm. They each blamed the other and Cocast told me to upgrade my router.

Then I read that Comcast and Netflix had made a deal for Netflix to pay for faster speeds. Comcast had throttled back Netflix intentionally. All of a sudden my Netflix was fine again.

For the first time EVER I agree with Obama on this one.

What I find most interesting is Gracie wrote to the White House about Ebola and now it appears they are using her email address to send her their propaganda. Gracie, please correct me if I misinterpreting the series of events.

Why would we believe the current majority in the Senate and White House wants to "protect the little guy" from corporate giants such as "Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner controlling the speed and ability to access sites"....

when they do NOTHING to block the merger of the two worst giant octopus cable-internet carriers, Time Warner and Comcast, into a horrible monopoly that is twice as unresponsive to the consumer as they already are individually??

"When the merger was first proposed last February, some analysts said the bold move to combine such big companies in the telecommunications space would face public and political criticism. And it has. The companies' legendary poor customer service rankings have raised calls for the merger to be blocked because the deal would reward some of the nation's most unpopular firms. As columnist Catherine Rampell asked: "Can we block a merger just because two companies are jerks?"

The FCC, which will review the merger on public interest grounds, may use conditions as a way to create policies without creating formal rules, says Paul Gallant, managing director of telecom research at Guggenheim Partners.

“I still suspect the merger will be approved. It doesn’t seem to trip any antitrust wires, and merger conditions would let the FCC push various Internet policies it cares about," Gallant said. "But I also think the companies’ national reach in broadband is making this a closer call than Comcast-NBCU was four years ago.”

A lot of people don’t like the Comcast-Time Warner merger, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be approved - The Washington Post

That is their MO. I subscribed 2 years ago. And I have sent them almost as many emails as they sent me. And as you can imagine, it doesn't matter what your position is...their reply is just a spin on their position. I'm sure I have the NSA monitoring my emails by now.

And probably my TOTV posts as well.

It kinda looks that way.

If someone does not want to receive their email (or a company's email that you receive when ordering their product) then there is always the opt-out option.

I sure have no way to dispute what you say, but think you are jumping...no LEAPING to conclusions on this...

"Comcast's top executives endured hours of intense questioning from lawmakers worried a merger with Time Warner Cable will hurt consumers and competition, including from Republicans who might have been expected to back the deal.

Some of the toughest questions at a House hearing on the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable came from an unlikely source Thursday: free-market, anti-government-intervention, Tea Party Republicans.

The biggest critics of the proposed merger since it was announced earlier this year have been left-leaning consumer rights groups, open-Internet advocates and liberal lawmakers like Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). But Thursday’s hearing of the House Judiciary Committee hearing saw a different cast of doubter

Self-described “free market advocate” Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) repeatedly questioned Comcast executive vice president David Cohen on whether the combined company would increase bills and limit choices for pay TV customers, especially in rural and Hispanic households. Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) questioned Comcast’s choice last August to cut a network, RFDTV, that serves primarily rural audiences that carry programming designed to appeal specifically to rural communities. Reps. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Joe Garcia (R-Fla.) homed in on how the merger would affect local businesses in their districts, while Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) said he worried the merger would create “more of an in balance with already left-of-center media environment.”

And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) worried that a combined Comcast-Time Warner Cable would be in a position to discriminate against conservative programming, particularly Glenn Beck’s show."

House Republicans Question Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger

I saw nothing in your attachment that was political and mine link is from May, but why make this political when there is no evidence, thus far, that there are any politics involved.

IIRC Net neutrality was originally lumped into Obama's Connect America plan and really was a non-issue. The issue, as I saw it was using the termination fees from large, populated, well connected areas to build the communication infrastructure in rural areas. In my mind, net neutrality was just a bonus for the powers that be.

My opinion? I have smaller fish to fry and couldn't care less.

If you want to see what is going on behind the scenes, look for the the stealth taxes that the FCC is considering as well as the fees that will be added. Have you checked your cell phone addons recently? The WH does not have an entirely beneficent position here. I don't believe the WH has a pure position on anything.

"Yet Congress is oblivious to Federal Communications Commission efforts to undermine the spirit if not the letter of ITFA by extending substantial new federal fees on broadband access. These fees could be as harmful, if not more so, than any that state and local governments might imagine. Yet many in Congress, unaware of the fees that might be applied to the Internet, applaud the FCC"

FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase - Forbes

Interesting article....as I said earlier, do not understand but reading this evening starting to......

The article ends with this...

"Inevitably, network neutrality with “telecommunications services” will lead to new fees and regulations that will harm the Internet.

It is easy to see government abuses of the Internet abroad. It is time we took a closer look at home as well."

Personally, I think the less government intervention the better.

They changed daylight savings times and messed up all of the electronic devices that automatically switched us from one DST to EST or what ever zone you are in.

They messed with the light bulbs and we now have to buy expensive light bulbs made in China and we cannot dispose of them when they die because of the mercury (or whatever) in them.

They screwed with the bandwidths forcing us into the digital world which made money for the cable companies by forcing us to buy the DVR boxes and digital adapters and making all of the VCR/DVDs obsolete.

I cannot begin to think what they will do with the internet access.

Z

Good article written two days ago:

"On a recent Monday night in Brooklyn, five empty chairs stood on stage — one for each member of the Federal Communications Commission. A crowd had amassed in the room for a public hearing to send this message to the agency: Don’t hurt the open Internet.

But the commissioners’ absence sent a stronger message: We’re not listening.

The FCC — the agency charged with regulating telecommunications — is expected to vote by the end of the year on Chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan to let Internet service providers (ISPs) offer “fast lanes” to companies that can afford to pay for speedier access.

Hundreds of businesses, organizations, and websites that rely on an open Internet have slammed the plan, which would kill Net Neutrality — the principle that requires ISPs to treat all traffic equally. Net Neutrality has made the Internet an unrivaled space for free speech, civic participation, innovation and opportunity. Without it, a few ISPs would become the gatekeepers of everything we do, say, and see online.

During the public comment period, nearly 4 million people— a record-breaking figure — weighed in on Wheeler’s plan. A whopping 99 percent of these comments oppose this proposal, according to one study.

Given the unprecedented public interest in this issue, many groups have urged the FCC to get out of Washington and host public hearings. But so far Wheeler has ignored this call.

In fact, the FCC has gone out of its way to avoid attending public gatherings like the one in Brooklyn. It’s been more than five years since all five FCC commissioners left Washington together to participate in a public hearing where anyone could testify.

These kinds of public hearings used to be commonplace for the agency, regardless of which political party was in control of Washington. But Wheeler’s FCC is different.

Instead of appearing at events with open microphones, Wheeler — a former lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries — has opted to attend industry trade shows. In fact, all five commissioners consistently attend the annual conventions of the cable, wireless, broadcasting, and electronics industries.

Yet somehow they just can’t find the time to meet with the public……

Commentary: Nobody listening in net neutrality public hearings

There is a thread about how politics is a waste of time, yet, while we avoid "wasting our time" our leaders are appointing folks like this and we do not care....we do not discuss and it matters not to us and thus we get what you point out.

On the other hand, we have a poster on this subject who is doing the right thing....writing and expressing opinion.

These appoinments, like FCC are done quietly because we just do not care. CSPAN is a very big tool for us Americans and one that most countries would love to have (I almost said "would kill for" and that is true actually) yet we ignore that kind of thing as dirty and taboo !

To date the internet has been neutral. What Comcast et al have requested is the ability to have certain websites work better for the consumer, and other website work more slowly. Of course Comcast would insist that for a website to work well, or even work at all, the website must pay Comcast a fee. At this time all websites are neutrally passed thru to the consumer by Comcast. So having net neutrality preserves the status quo. If you'd like Comcast for instance slowing down TOTV if they don't pay up, then you should oppose Obama's proposal. Now he does not have the legal authority to force the FCC to accept his position. Some very powerful politicians have vigorously come out against his position, perhaps they get donations from Comcast, perhaps they have ODS.

Here is Obama's statement

Ever since the internet was created, it's been organized around the basic principles of openness, fairness, and freedom. There are no gatekeepers deciding which sites you get to access. There are no toll roads on the information super highway. This set of principles, the idea of net neutrality, has unleashed the power of the internet and given innovators the chance to thrive. Abandoning these principles would threaten to end the internet as we know it.
That's why I'm laying out a plan to keep the internet free and open. That's why I'm urging the Federal Communications Commission to do everything they can to protect net neutrality for everyone. They should make it clear that whether you use a computer, phone, or tablet, internet providers have a legal obligation not to limit or block your access to a website. Cable companies can't decide which online stores you shop at, or which streaming services you can use. And they can't let any company pay for priority over its competitors.

To put these protections in place, I'm asking the FCC to reclassify internet service under Title II of the law known as the Telecommunications Act. In plain English, I'm asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately the decision is theirs alone. But the public has already commented nearly four million times, asking the FCC to make sure that consumers, not the cable companies, get to decide which sites they use. Americans are making their voices heard, standing up for the principles that make the internet a powerful force for change. As long as I'm president, that's what I'll be fighting for, too.

Good one! The Mods as NSA. You can run, but you can't hide!:wave:

While wikipedia is crowd produced and there are editors, it does tend to have a good self-correcting mechanism

Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There you will see both some pro and con arguments. You will also see the history of the concern, and that the term was not coined by a politician. At this point there are also over 150 links you can follow.

The Net Neutrality Debate in 2 Minutes or Less - Scientific American I don't think Scientific American has a political agenda

Thanks for those links.....I like the link below from the Detroit Free Press...and for those who make light of this subject or have a bit of political fun....this from the article...

"Net neutrality is the most important policy concept you've probably never heard of. Negotiations under way in Washington, D.C. — between broadband service providers, President Barack Obama and the Federal Communications Commission — will likely have a far greater impact on how you live your life than, say, Ebola."

It is easy to understand...well, sort of, but gives the basics and is not that long to read. I really suggest all read it as it will have an impact and it is not so easy to "pick a side" on this without reading a bit.

What you need to know about net neutrality


PS....I might add that this paper seems to also have a bit of an agenda, but it is a start !!!

People would be wise to not look at this issue in partisan political terms.


So called, net neutrality is just one issue! Laws and regs are lagging technological development of the internet! The last time communications laws were really updated was when AT&T was broken up! Since that time there has not been a major overhaul... and the internet has happened! They have just put a few band-aids on it! Now the internet is now the major communication mechanism in the USA.

The internet is intertwined with our economy, finance, our currency (electronic transactions), and in many other areas of our lives. That is just too much power for a handful of companies to have without rules!

Plus... as we can all see, those companies are elimnating competition by merging! For example... AT&T seems to be reassembling its parts! We only have 4 phone companies, and they were angling to take that number down to 3 phone companies! Same goes for the cable companies!


The question is:

- Do you think a few large companies that stand to make a lot of money will keep promises to be good and self regulate in a manner that will end up being fair to all?

- Or do you think the gov can come up with a regulatory framework that is fair to all?

Obviously there will never be a perfect solution!

Companies by definition have a goal of maximizing profit and of course management wants to maximize bonuses (rationalized by profit gains).

Personally, I believe large businesses have too much of a conflict of interest to do a good job of self regulation!

IMO; Since there is little competition... there needs to be a counterblance!

Good post...as I look at this, I find the word competition missing and that seems to be the answer.

I agree totally with you...THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE at all.

I also want to share, for anyone who might be interested, another great link..

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/up...abt=0002&abg=0

This is an important issue

What do I think of net neutrality? Like Gary7 and many others I'm all for it! Period.

Now however, do I trust this government to administer the net. Absolutely not.

Just remember it was great when they started with cable tv to incent companies to make it available to everyone and we all know how that has gone.

How do you think the net is being "administered" now? If you like the way it is working in terms of equal availability of ideas and materials, you can thank the FCC for having it that way. What is being proposed is changing the system. Again the FCC gets to make the call based on current law. You may not like the government, but regulations are essential. Or we could just let Comcast run it anyway they like. Who do you suggest administer the net? That is a serious question unless by "this government" you just mean a government with Obama as the President even when he agrees with you about net neutrality.

I am not sure if I understand this post ! Can you clarify ? What about competition for example ?

I am not clear yet on how it affects US, the citizen. You obviously are..please explain it to me.

It appears to me that no matter what, we are going to pay the bill and I am trying to figure if we get more or less for our money.

If we do not have net neutrality, then small companies and entrepreneur start-ups will have a difficult time competing for their services with limited bandwidth ... with the advantage to the huge companies like Comcast and others. In this case, you may not be able to find the solution that you want (e.g., an innovative and legal alternative to cable tv) ... and the huge companies can force the market price up.

I hear you and I am still navigating through all the writings on this now.

You seem to be in the know, so allow me ...

Making the internet like a utility, will then demand that the government monitor it with their own equipment. That bothers me...is that an unecessary worry ?

While the internet can be very frustrating, it seems to me that acting as a utility with government involved will stifle the content and in fact, allow the government to make the final decision on content. Is that overstated in your opinion ?

While we do not think much about it, there IS investment in broadband and it is exchanged on the stock market. This requires individual investors putting up their money. Would, in your opinion, net neutrality squash any or all private investment ?

I am not an expert … I just have studied and worked with the internet since the earliest days.
- Government monitor the internet? They always have … and they always will. Be thankful for the type of monitoring that they have done since the beginning of the internet.
- This policy has no effect on content. … unless you not let net neutrality happen … in which case it can decrease business competition and thus decrease content.
- Private investment? My two cents says there are always investors but the variable is the amount of risk on small companies and entrepreneurships they want to take to ensure a solid return on investment.

I appreciate your input and thank you. Even though you do not profess to be an expert, alongside me, you are just that !

I am not anti government, and I know the FCC is "government", but I just have trouble allowing the government to intrude once again into our lives...It very seldom works :)

I still must continue reading on this before I make any decision on how I am leaning. I certainly am tainted by Comcast for sure :)

The problem is Net-Neutrality will be used to pull websites from the INTERNET that the Central Government does not like. The INTERNET is the equivalent of phamleting in the days leading up to the Revolution.

Increased costs guaranteed
 

Net neutrality offers some much needed protections for consumers. However, the reality of business is if sources of revenue are blocked for the broadband providers, that lost income will come from somewhere else.

There is No Free Lunch and every time the government steps in "to save the day", the cost of that lunch ends up skyrocketing.

This is a no win proposition. Once the FCC can rule the internet, you can be sure that internet regulations will be voluminous.

The FCC in 1934 through the Communications Act was given very broad powers to regulate all transmission of information.

If all the FCC does is true net neutrality, eliminating the option for a provider to offer faster transmission for a price that's a great thing for consumers.

If they try to regulate content IN ANY WAY Congress will need to reign them in.

Doesn't the FCC regulate content to a certain extent in TV and radio? I believe that is part of their reason for existence. (I certainly could be wrong.) I think I have heard the comment "That's against FCC regulations".

The FCC thankfully does regulate some content ... e.g., obscene, indecent, and profanity broadcasts (based on some restrictions), cigarette advertising, and many regulations to protect children ... just to name a few.