In case you don't get it...the FCC shutting down Net Neutrality could shut down freedom of speech!

[BreweryYardRat]

This is what I want to make clear. This isn't hyperbole. This isn't conspiracy theory. This is cold, scary truth, and why so many people are screaming about it.

Easiest way to explain is by showing you my e-mail to Congress, created using this site: http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet

***
Let me quote from an article: "This means that the will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others."

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2193214/ftc-abandons-net-neutrality

If allowed to continue, this could essentially be a way to quash freedom of speech -- staying within the letter of the FCC's edicts but defying the spirit of the Bill of Rights. When major companies can determine website pricing, there's a problem.

Whether it's a blanket higher price for higher speeds -- thus disadvantaging poor people -- or individual pricing for individual sites -- disadvantaging people with views, political or not, different from the guys doing the pricing, most of whom probably won't be enlightened enough to act professionally and not screw over people with different views (which could include your supporters!) -- it's going to cause major problems.

Because this probably means that sites belonging to the disadvantaged will load at glacial paces. And what that means is that nobody visits those sites---and thus nobody hears that person or group's views.

Is freedom of speech still free if you're shouting into enforced silence?

Please vote for enforceable network neutrality. For the people's sake.
***

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread seawolf.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

2. net neutrality is the most important issue of our time

the web is the only way out of the big media mess we're in.

[ooglymoogly]

25. "Net neutrality" how orwellian

at best a very confusing name for a very important issue...Looks like it was coined by a phony pug think tank and that is why a lot of people don't get it and are not rising up in sufficient numbers to stop this fascist power grab in its tracks.

[slipslidingaway]

3. K&R n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Does this mean that Al Gore can start his own webservice and we

can all just become members? Sort of, pool all the Democrat leaning people for easier communication and access?

[loudsue]

12. Now THAT is a great idea!

:kick:

[ooglymoogly]

24. I'd buy into that in a heartbeat nt

[dEMOK]

36. That would still mean that the average Joe would be marginalized...

You may want to rethink.

That would also mean that the "internets" would become just like the MSM -- where "truth" is at the mercy/discretion of multi-national corporations.

No thanks. That's not my America.

[kimmerspixelated]

5. Thanks Seawolf!

Done!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. This issue should be called "net freedom", not "net neutrality"

I think the fact few have heard about it is because the name doesn't incite one to find out more about it. This is the first I hear about this, and I almost flew over this post to other ones because the name, "net neutrality" didn't seem like a hot, important issue.

[Pierogi_Pincher]

10. I like that--'Net Freedom'. n/t

[ooglymoogly]

26. net freedom is better than "net neutrality"

another to consider is "internet rights"

[dEMOK]

38. That's Exactly Why the (then) Republican Congress Couched This Issue in the Term, "Net Neutrality"..

...you know. If they wanted this issue to stand out, they would have called it something like "Patriot Net."

[annabanana]

7. It is the Public Network. . It should not be privatized...n/t

[Kablooie]

8. I still don't understand exactly what net neutrality is about.

Could someone state it clearly and simply?
I hear all sorts of results but don't understand what the basic change in the law is.

[diva77]

11. try this link

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

snip

What is Net Neutrality?

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet.

snip

[Pierogi_Pincher]

9. Kick & recommend. And screaming we should be.

The companies' unabashed lust for MORE is sickening.
The word must get out. People won't know what hit them till it's too late.
P_P

[loudsue]

13. "People won't know what hit them till it's too late." Yep. It's the republican way.

They've been operating under the media radar, because they CONTROL the media. And they have stolen our rights as Americans....the REPUBLICANS have stolen our rights, with sneaky legislation that most of the PEOPLE were NOT allowed to hear about.

It's time to outlaw the entire republican party. They're a bunch of greedy, perverted fascists.

:kick:

[alfredo]

14. I put it in more personal terms a politician can understand.

I give them some what ifs.

What if

Your ISP cut a deal with your political opponent to limit your bandwidth or price your site out of the market?

An ISP punishes your contributors and supporters with higher prices and lower bandwidth?


I think the admin of this site should have a back up plan to go to a mailing list if it comes down to it being priced out of the market or has its bandwidth cut.

[BearSquirrel2]

15. I thought ...

I thought that the "free market" was driven by consumers. This is not a "free market" tactic. It's the exact opposite. It's what conservatives are ALWAYS for when they say "free market". It's the freedom of the people with the most power to stifle competition and innovation.

[Danger Mouse]

17. 'Free market' is a misnomer when used by republicons.

What they really want is a 'slave market' where we do all the work and production, and they get all the fat cash payoffs. This includes crushing all competition and controlling the media, the corporation, and our society. It's all about control, and shows like American Idle and the power of the church are part of the opium which keeps 'the people' in a drugged, sleeping stupor.
Everything that America is and was is falling apart around us and most don't even realize it!

[treestar]

19. Amen

This is exactly what they mean by "free market."

[R_M]

21. Conservatives have always used double talk to fool the populace.

[getmeouttahere]

16. What about boycotting the ISP's that try to squelch net freedom?

Just throwing it out there...

We should be doing that with every company that supports conservative/repressive policies. It's the only power we have left, in my view.

[Danger Mouse]

18. It's not power enough. Not unless you can get enough people to do it.

Otherwise, the fat cats will just light another cigar with a $100 dollar bill while they laugh and laugh...

[getmeouttahere]

30. Agreed, it has to be a majority of people....

I just don't see enough of us willing to make the sacrifices necessary....

[Danger Mouse]

34. Yeah, and as I said...as long as there is American Idle and religion

and other forms of opium, the people will remain drugged and content enough for the thugs to manipulate...

[entanglement]

22. The problem is the telcos, it's the guys who own the pipes

and the "last mile" into your home - like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast

[getmeouttahere]

32. Ok, here's my idea....

It's really simple, we make the sacrifice of completely disconnecting our broadband connections, perhaps using dial-up with a local company that deserves the business, until the Verizons and Comcasts of the world get it right and promote full net freedom.

If we're not willing to make the sacrifices, we'll never take back our country! Before my idea is thrown to the trash heap, think about the sacrifices our grandparents had to make during WWII, or the Depression, for that matter.

[dEMOK]

49. So dial-up customers won't be affected?...

In that case, I'd say that your suggestion has allot of merit.

[L. Coyote]

20. Domain blocking is already happening.

There is no protection now! A provider can block any domain they want.

[SayWhatYo]

31. Has that ever happened to you?

As in outside of university or corporate situation? I find it hard to believe that any service provider would block access to a host unless there was some sort of engineering purpose for it(as in security risks to the system or something going on down the tubes that was causing issues) I'm referring to now though, not what could happen in the future.

[L. Coyote]

42. Yes. A college professor's domain, an educational website with politics,

blocked by a the Utah state education network and by a national hot spot wi-fi provider. The domain offers an article with analysis of election fraud.

[19jet54]

43. You mean like...

... illegal kiddie porn?

[Ezlivin]

23. So when do we set up our own rogue, rebel WiFi network?

Geeks aren't going to take this lying down.

[19jet54]

27. Bullshit!

... "net neutrality" is a bumper sticker that is designed to kill the future of the internet thru political means. I have spent my entire life in technology, even have a thank you from Bill Clinton for my work during Y2K as a technical expert, was offered a job with Cisco around employee 500 or so - but I have to say, nobody here has used one technical fact to argue this point of "freedom of speech" over the proposed pay for bandwidth scheme, which is nothing more than a continuation of existing pay for usage system.

Are these "GOP" scare tactics working for you? Bullshit!

[BreweryYardRat]

39. Then enlighten us.

Provide some technical facts as to why we should consider letting the big corporations have a more significant degree of control.

I'm curious.

[19jet54]

41. First off, I reject the basic premise of your question

... it is a leading question to the way you think, not a technical discussion of "packet priorities"?

And to kind of answer your question, Bill Clinton, Al Gore & Newt Gingrich led the way to privatize the internet in the early 1990s, the dot-com era, from the old government & university controlled era to what it is today. Since I have been involved since way back, the 1990s opened up the net to everybody for commercial enterprise and bogged it down to unusable levels. Then, they invested in our future with bigger pipes (bandwidth) and better routing. But as we started adding video & VOIP, it has slowed down again and the video & VOIP (internet telephone) is at time unusable. The plan is to "packet prioritize" for the time sensitive information, and add value to existing internet traffic. Again, with the dot-com businesses, they would pay premiums for certain types of service (they already do anyway) with the rest of the traffic being basically un-effected. In other words, you should not see or know this even exists at all. It is a technical issue more than anything else. In fact, your service should improve if you use VOIP, video teleconferencing, live video feeds, or movie downloads as they can then guarantee delivery service.

I guess the best analogy is US mail & package delivery service - everyone gets basic mail service for the same prices (2-3 day), but you can pay for premium services (2nd day or overnight) depending on need. Now replace the word day with milliseconds and apply it to internet packets. And like with delivery services (US Postal, Fedex, UPS, or whoever) there is plenty of competition to keeps prices under check. Remember when only the the TELCO provided ISP service? Now that cable, WiFi and Satellite have entered the markets, our bandwidth & quality of service, not to mention price are much better.

Personally, I long for the old days when I had the internet to myself and a few others, but since everybody & their brothers are here now, we need a way to manage the traffic, just like city traffic, that makes it both fair & reliable for everyone. And yes there are lane restrictions based on automobile content (express lane of 2 or more people) but who cares what the people are talking about? Or do you think the "car pool lanes" breed "highway neutrality" too? (I would use Freeway vs Highway but since some are toll, highway makes more sense)

While Cisco is now a "big corporation" they only had 500 employees in the 1990s when the dot-com internet revolution started - To your question "more control"? - They always have had it, but John Chambers if you knew him, is more dedicated to our American principals than we are! It is not about control to him, but how to make things better for everyone. BTW - he has the most astounding record for buying small businesses with great ideas and both including them and treating the employees as equals in every way. With the divestiture of ATT, life has changed in many ways, some good & some not so good, but overall the Telecom has become better with both service & price. Competition provides the safeguards we demand on freedom of speech content, not the suppression of technology advances.

[Wiccan Warrior]

52. So you support demolishing Net Neutrality then?

[MasonJar]

28. I say we start a blog/internet campaign against AT&T and the politicians

out there supporting this asap, while we still can. Call your reps; they can stop this with legislation.

[SemperEadem]

29. I signed it the other day... and I encourage everyone on DU to sign it

the net needs to remain as it is... big corporations cannot be made overlords on top of every other fucking consession they've been allowed to force from The People.

[joeunderdog]

33. kicked... for the last bastion of freedom

[dEMOK]

40. Me too (for the same reason)...

:kick:

[LaPera]

35. Our liberal voices have had a huge impact via the web with ideas, money, support & awareness...and

they've been trying to find ways to shut us up and shut us down for a long time now...This may just be it!

[dEMOK]

37. This (and any/every further) challenge to net neutrality must be vigorously nipped in the cojones...

Here's my working title for the bumper sticker:

Neuter The Net Neutrality Traitors
Before They Neuter Net Neutrality!

Man! If I could only get Rove or "Newt" to help me out here... ;)
_____________________________________________

All joking aside -- Thank you seawolf for your passion re: this immensely important issue. The net indeed is the last bastion of genuine freedom in America & worldwide.

[19jet54]

44. Been smoking opium?

... there are spys everywhere just out to get YOU!

[dEMOK]

46. So Typical of Those Who Buy Into the Superior/ Inferior equation

Where (here or anywhere else) did I mouth the words you tried to put in mouth?

Grow up & understand the difference between genuine debate & a wanton assertion of opinion.

I'll be 60 in a few years. When I'm senile (20 years later) -- you can tear me to shreds. Until then -- Fuck you!

[19jet54]

48. It ain't the years...

... it's the mileage mensa member!

[dEMOK]

51. WTF are you speaking of??? n/t

[dEMOK]

50. Grow up & actually debate on a factual basis... n/t

[Uncle Joe]

45. Thanks for the thread seawolf.

Kicked.

[dEMOK]

47. Me Too...

:kick: