Powered By IdeaScale
Login / Signup
Fcc.Gov About Open Internet Get Informed about the Open Internet and Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Read the Speech Workshops OpenInternet Blog Open Internet
« Back To OpenInternet.gov

pangasamaneesh

User Profile Image pangasamaneesh
Member since : Nov-05-2009 (Verified)
4 Ideas, 76 Comments, 139 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

Now before anyone disliking regulations criticizes this idea and votes it down -- I'll say I agree in principle that there should never be over regulation but markets can't govern themselves completely -- under regulations are just as bad as over regulating.

Before Bush & Cheney were in the White House we had 30 + years of common sense, pro consumer, pro competitive Internet regulations banning mega mergers between big ISPs, forcing them to share their infrastructure with smaller ISPs, offer cheap Internet access to smaller ISPs at wholesale prices so they can then resell broadband Internet access cheaply to their own customers -- The Ma Bell system was broken up to create more competition in the emerging broadband Internet access market that was still in its infancy. Our nation's leaders realized Internet would become the future of all media one day and wanted it to be open, competitive and vibrant for users. Large Internet companies had to provide equal, fair, and unfettered access to smaller companies -- so NetZero could buy Internet access from AT&T and resell it to their customers cheaply. The U.S. Congress even passed a law the 1996 Telecommunications Act mandating the broadband Internet access market be kept open and competitive, so there can be universal, affordable access to all Americans. They saw Internet as a public utility -- and a public right -- as soon as the bill was passed AT&T complained that it was unfair that they had to provide affordable Internet access to smaller competitors. They lobbied to reverse the regulations -- what they couldn't convince the courts to undo President Bush did for them in office. There even was a National Broadband Plan before Bush entered office but what did the Bush Administration do -- massive deregulation of the Internet and scrapped the National Broadband Plan.

Due to the Bush Administration's bad policies the U.S. fell from 4th in the world in terms of broadband Internet access penetration when George W. Bush entered office in 2001 to 17th by 2005-2006 -- last I checked it is 28th.


What happened was other countries maintained their pro competitive regulatory commitments banning mergers etc and kept broadband Internet access affordable. The Bush Administration though neglected to keep up these common sense regulations and as a nation we fell behind other countries that kept up their regulations.

Last year in Europe as the Obama FCC sought to restore Net Neutrality -- a European Commissioner bragged Net Neutrality is better in Europe -- and the Internet market is more competitive there -- this Commissioner said that in Europe they would not hesitate to enforce Net Neutrality ever -- there is no dire need in Europe today for new Net Neutrality rules like in the U.S. because so much of the Internet market there is already competitive.

If we maintained our regulatory commitments during the Bush years there would not be a huge digital divide in the country today. We could have millions of more jobs (closing the digital divide can result in more job creation) and Internet for everyone rich or poor, or urban or rural. Internet companies would not be able to throttle web traffic. Big ISPs like Time Warner Cable and Comcast would be unable to prioritize and discriminate against web traffic or content. A major problem right now with cable companies is they have a conflict of interest as they also have digital cable TV services -- they might without Net Neutrality try to restrict competition from online video on demand services to their TV services.

What we need to try to do is breakup AT&T again -- spinoff SBC Communications & BellSouth from AT&T, and breakup some big cable companies -- forbid providers of TV or Internet service from owning content -- there should be Net Neutrality making every ISP a dumb pipe taking you to the same Internet and providing equal access to all. We need to restore the regulations the Bush Administration abandoned and enforce the regulations we have.
First off, we must learn from our mistakes the last 8 years under the Bush Administration where deregulations allowed for the duo-opolization of the broadband Internet access market. As we abandoned regulatory commitments that benefited consumers and led to increased competition and innovation other countries kept their commitments and we fell behind other nations in broadband Internet penetration (will go into this below). First though it is worth noting we have always had Net Neutrality but the Bush FCC removed it and now the fight to bring it back is going on against ISPs and wireless carriers wanting it done away with permanently.


Before former President Bush entered office we had 30 + years (under both Republican and Democratic U.S. Presidents) of pro competition, pro innovation rules to keep the Internet open. AT&T (Ma Bell) was forced to be broken up for a reason to create competition in the broadband Internet access market (should never have been allowed to re-merge) and policies mandating that competition remain to prevent mega mergers like we've seen since former President Bush came to office in 2001 were in effect. When Bush entered office the U.S. was 4th worldwide in terms of broadband Internet penetration -- thanks to deregulation, mega-mergers etc we have less competition, consumer choices and innovation now -- also the U.S. has slipped way behind other countries that maintained their commitments to pro competition regulations in adopting broadband Internet and have a digital divide in this country where usually urban rich areas have Internet and poor rural areas lack Internet access. Even when people in rural areas want Internet they'll often find there is no provider in their area for high speed Internet or they provide sub par service and there are no other choices for better service.


We have had Net Neutrality also before but it was gutted unfortunately and mistakenly by the Bush FCC in 2005. I welcome Net Neutrality's return and the extension of these rules for the first time to wireless carriers.

If we close the digital divide we can create millions of new clean high tech jobs for the future that will help the economy especially now given the high unemployment we have. Net Neutrality is necessary for a democratic open Internet. Everyone even people using mobile devices should have access to the same open Internet that connects everyone together and lets anyone participate online freely with no corporate gatekeeper
Net Neutrality is essential -- by the way we've had Net Neutrality before - it is the principle of an open democratic Internet where anyone can go online and connect freely with others (it is a principle to prevent ISPs from blocking online access to certain services) we had Net Neutrality prior to 2005 when the Bush FCC made the error of stripping the Internet of this basic protection for the Internet. Net Neutrality makes sure you can connect to everyone else on the Internet -- now the Obama FCC is making the right choice in restoring this principle to protect this openness. In fact, their taking Net Neutrality a step further than it previously existed making it apply to wireless networks and wireless devices. As it should be when you on the web whether through wireline or wireless connections we should have the same openness on the Internet.

We face a challenge from ISPs though that want to preserve and extend their legacy of closed/proprietary technology systems like cable TV to the Internet -- thanks to the Internet's openness we have been able to reclaim the media for the public. Whether Republican or Democrat all Americans should support a democratic open Internet. This is not about govt control of Internet but preventing corporations from slowing down or blocking our Internet.

An open Internet is a great town square for the public where free speech is safe a closed Internet without Net Neutrality where big cable and phone companies restrict what we can do online could censor free speech. Big ISPs decide what's on, how much it costs, and how fast it downloads. That is not the type of Internet I signed up for or want. I want equal Internet -- everyone should have equal access to the Internet.

Today Internet can be used for watching television, placing phone calls (think Skype, and Vonage), reading news and information, communicating via email and instant messaging all freely. Without Net Neutrality cable companies would like to stop their Internet customers from downloading video off the web from even legal competing services like Apple's iTunes Store or accessing YouTube etc. Cable companies may privilege their own TV service offerings over rival online offerings. Instead of improving their infrastructure, expanding bandwidth, and speeding up our connections they want to slowdown our connections and restrict our Internet usage.

We have always had Net Neutrality -- the debate to save it or kill it started after the Bush FCC in 2005 made the regrettable mistake of gutting Net Neutrality protections that existed at the time for an open Internet. Now we're fighting to get those protections back and seem to be succeeding.

Before former President Bush entered office we had 30 + years (under both Republican and Democratic U.S. Presidents) of pro competition, pro innovation rules to keep the Internet open. AT&T (Ma Bell) was forced to be broken up for a reason to create competition in the broadband Internet access market and policies mandating that competition remain to prevent mega mergers like we've seen since former President Bush came to office in 2001 were in effect. When Bush entered office the U.S. was 4th worldwide in terms of broadband Internet penetration -- thanks to deregulation, mega-mergers etc we have less competition, consumer choices and innovation now -- also the U.S. has slipped way behind other countries that maintained their commitments to pro competition regulations in adopting broadband Internet and have a digital divide in this country where usually urban rich areas have Internet and poor rural areas lack Internet access. Even when people in rural areas want Internet they'll often find there is no provider in their area for high speed Internet or they provide sub par service and there are no other choices for better service.

If we close the digital divide we can create millions of new clean high tech jobs for the future that will help the economy especially now given the high unemployment we have. Net Neutrality is necessary for a democratic open Internet. Everyone even people using mobile devices should have access to the same open Internet that connects everyone together and lets anyone participate online freely with no corporate gatekeepers. AT&T should not be allowed to block Skype or Vonage Mobile's iPhone app from running on their wireless networks (under Net Neutrality discrimination is disallowed) nor should Apple be able to block Google Voice from the iPhone App Store because it duplicates/competes with the calling features of the iPhone itself. I applaud the FCC for working to restore Net Neutrality and extend it to wireless Internet. Everyone should be afforded the same protections whether on wireline or wireless Internet.
Stand up for the public interest, promote democracy online by protecting Net Neutrality which benefits independent labels, independent musicians and the American public. Stop Internet censorship by American ISPs and ensure no lawful content can be discriminated against on the Web by big ISPs that includes AT&T blocking Skype and Vonage iPhone applications from their wireless EDGE and 3G networks due to competitive reasons. We should be able to use Google Voice, Skype, Vonage Mobile over Wifi, AT&T's EDGE or 3G network or any other carrier's wireless networks with our phones when we access the mobile Internet. We need strong Net Neutrality protections for wire-line as well as wireless devices like the Apple iPhone, Blackberry devices, Palm Pre and Palm Pixi (with WebOS), Windows Mobile phones, Google Android (Linux based phones) etc.

In fact not only does Free Press (www.freepress.net) which fights for media reform (against media consolidation, while supporting more independent media, more diversity on the radio, more independent local news and radio stations etc) support wireless freedom as well but also Net Neutrality with their website www.savetheinternet.com

Among the SaveTheInternet Coalition, you'll find the conservative religious website of The Christian Coalition which presents the Conservative Argument for Net Neutrality http://www.cc.org/commentary/conservative_argument_net_neutrality and a petition of their own for Net Neutrality (rules for an unfettered, democratic, open equal Internet for everyone) http://www.cc.org/olcampaign/defend_net_neutrality&ei=nYcNS7aKBZT6sQOt37yqAw&sa=X&oi=nshc&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CAkQzgQoAQ&usg=AFQjCNG1RLSZUBQetgAKfIwvoI1TwmGVCg but some liberal progressive groups like MoveOn.org http://civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/, the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/net-neutrality), CREDO Action (http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/fcc_nn/), as well as Consumer's Union which published a letter in favor of Net Neutrality (http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/014894.html), Common Cause (http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773657) and the Future of Music Coalition which supports independent labels and independent musicians got on board along with a number of independent musicians like Pearl Jam, R.E.M., Kronos Quartet and more got on board with a campaign called Rock The Net (http://futureofmusic.org/issues/campaigns/rock-net) the petition lasted from 2007-2009 but they remain committed to Net Neutrality even now. So must we remain committed to protecting free speech online and Net Neutrality itself -- we don't want Internet to become closed like in China. With the Internet the public has a chance to reclaim the media for democracy from corporate power don't let corporate power grow again at the expense of the American public and sacrifice democracy once again as was done for radio, television and cable television. We want Internet to remain open, not closed like those other technologies. We demand an open Internet!
Displaying 1 - 25 of 322 Ideas
12345678910….1213Next »

Comments Posted

pangasamaneesh 8 days ago
OpenInternet did you even read what I said about free market capitalism though -- markets are not free just by being unregulated. For markets to be truly free they must be open to competition and there must be plenty of consumer choice. A monopoly or duopoly market like broadband Internet access is today is not a free market. For the market to be freed of this duopoly government antitrust enforcement would be needed to breakup some of the big cable and phone company ISPs and any further mega mergers that are harmful to competition and consumers would have to be rejected as such for the damaging effects they would have for competition and consumers.

If we are to become more competitive with the other countries of the world we now lag behind in adoption of universal broadband Internet access we must have a national brpadband plan, mandate competition, so there is enough consumer choices in each market (1 incumbent phone provider vs 1 incumbent cable provider in each town is insufficient) and encourage innovation by offering low taxes and some level of deregulation. Total deregulation and allowing big companies to just get bigger is not helpful and certainly not the answer.

I suggest you check out Broadband.gov and provide your own suggestions there on what shape and form the National Broadband Plan should take. Here are a few major things it should mandate: 1) competition, 2) require Internet to be more affordable -- Internet that is should be reasonably priced; 3) encourage innovation -- no mandate needed here just encouragement through tax credits and other incentives -- in a competitive market some deregulation can occur as long as the market does not become un-competitive as a result. You can vote on ideas there as well and add your own. Like at OpenInternet.gov there will be a Join the Discussion link on Broadband.gov to do so.
pangasamaneesh 8 days ago
Your welcome erikcorona -- just thought I'd add another point to the discussion -- incumbent telecom company ISPs like AT&T are behind this but cable companies could be as well (by the way in most areas with Time Warner Cable they are the only broadband Internet provider in town so they can keep raising prices all they want and not fear consumers fleeing to a cheaper competitor. Only time these companies actively try to improve their networks is when competition develops. When Verizon came out with its Fios service (which is available in some but very few TWC markets) TWC would improve service in those markets and offer promotions for new customers. When actual competition emerges to threaten their dominance they are forced to improve service and do so but otherwise become complacent. In 99% of all areas with TWC they are the only viable broadband Internet access provider available.

In my town we have Qwest or TWC -- Fios is offered in very few areas and Verizon has decided not to expand to more areas.

They offer special deals when you sign up for Road Runner High Speed Internet service to new customers but why don't existing customers qualify for any promotions? The fact is TWC is a monopoly company and do their best to retain their huge profits. They don't mind the fact there is a digital divide -- that is they have no interest often in expanding access to service in areas where service is currently unavailable as that would require spending money to upgrade infrastructure etc.

They can and will as mentioned in the article I described in my last post continuing increasing rates until Internet becomes unaffordable even for too many of their existing customers and so many of them start ditching their Internet service that losing customers becomes unprofitable.

AT&T before it was allowed to re-merge with SBC Communications & Bell South was upgrading its IT infrastructure at a faster pace (since 2006 though has been trying to mess with Net Neutrality, and institute metered Internet billing -- customers are charged more for higher bandwidth use (even if its legit streaming Netflix movies etc from the Web -- for users of Watch Now they can easily surpass TWC's outrageously proposed low bandwidth caps) and faster speed. Herein lies the problem though all users should be able to have equal access to the Internet whether rich or poor, urban or rural. Broadband Internet Service is supposed to be fast as opposed to dead-end dial-up connections with which you can get busy signals and frequent disconnects. Broadband Internet access is also supposed to be an always on capable connection -- you don't have to worry about getting disconnected -- as long as you have service you don't have to worry about being disconnected and having to re-connect frequently.

So if broadband Internet service is supposed to be fast in general why offer slower plans and faster plans to broadband subscribers getting Internet. All broadband Internet access services should offer equal, fair and fast access to the Web. We should have higher speeds, be able to do more with more bandwidth -- bandwidth caps when absolutely necessary are understandable; carriers have to be able to prove their reasonableness even then to ensure their not doing it to stifle competing services but have to actually prove it is to stop bandwidth congestion. As I mentioned cable companies are trying to cap bandwidth to stop competition from Internet based video services from developing. They are doing this to prevent their digital cable TV customers upset with paying expensive fees for cable from cutting the cord so to speak (replacing cable with Internet TV providers that are cheaper and in some cases even free) we need access to broadband Internet access to improve in the following ways -- we need more choice, competition, and innovation.

Keeping Net Neutrality will ensure the next Google, the next YouTube, Facebook or Twitter won't need ISP permission to innovate. These websites or companies on the Web I've mentioned are big and popular now but started out small. Without Net Neutrality they all would have needed permission from ISPs to innovate. The incumbent ISPs hate the idea of these websites being accessible for free over the ISP's own infrastructure -- so in future if Google wanted TWC users to be able to access its website Google must pay TWC so Road Runner users can access Google. They want to charge Internet users higher fees and they want to charge sites like Google for access to their users. This violates the history of telecommunications law in this country.

The Internet became successful because of its openness. Companies like Comcast want to be able to control the airwaves because they dislike democracy. Comcast is afraid of public opposition to its plans. They want to silence any and all dissent -- stop criticism against them from being voiced in the news.

In the realm of journalism by the way journalists were supposed to provide a voice to the voiceless of this country but with more corporate control of the news there is less independent ownership and less minority owned sources of news which results in less diversity. If Comcast owns NBC Universal do you think MSNBC would remain as independent as it is and remain committed to fact checking stories or become more like FOX News. Does anyone here think what if Comcast gets NBC Universal what that would do for democracy? Would they allow MSNBC to do accurate reporting even if that includes reporting stories critical of Comcast?

The Corporate Media already don't like reporting on themselves or exposing corporate scandals etc if they have nothing to gain by doing so. They are more interested in reporting what they want us to know than what we need to know what the truth is.

Under Net Neutrality any web entrepreneur with a good idea can make it big and make a difference.

There are 2 paths forward -- the first is the closed Internet (without Net Neutrality) that looks like cable TV or radio today -- which cable and phone companies want (in which even critics of government enforced Net Neutrality could suffer at the hands of the duopoly ISPs) where status quo is king -- big cable and phone company ISPs gets to decide what's on, how much it costs and how fast it downloads. Internet that is no longer a vibrant town square for everyone but a cash cow for a few. An Internet where censorship by corporations of individual free speech can occur.

The second path is the righteous path -- one of openness and nondiscrimination where anyone with a good idea can make it big and make a difference.

So we need to let the FCC and Congress know the following needs to be mandated -- choice, competition, innovation, and yes a Net Neutrality rule for nondiscrimination.

If we close the Digital Divide in our country we can create at least hundreds of thousands or even millions of new jobs and become more competitive with other countries in the world in offering broadband Internet access. That is why we also need a National Broadband Plan (the FCC is seeking public comment on just such a National Broadband Plan at Broadband.gov) There are some areas of the country left either unserved with no broadband Internet access provider willing to provide Internet or under-served with access but access is sub-par compared to what it should be.

That needs to change!
pangasamaneesh 10 days ago
For the record the duopoly cable company ISPs wanting bandwidth caps and overage charges don't want to institute them to protect their network from bandwidth hogs but to discourage competition to their digital cable TV offerings from emerging online.

Point is for those ISPs who say "low caps + overage charges will encourage people to use the Internet"? The unsaid ending is "will encourage people to use the Internet for low bandwidth purposes and dissuade them from using online video which competes with our cable TV monopoly." I use Apple's iTunes Store and the Apple TV for downloading and watching movies and TV Shows and can easily in no time at all exceed the small caps Time Warner Cable wanted to set. So I'd be forced to either pay huge fees for the "privilege" of watching shows online or stop watching shows online entirely. (I'd likely do the latter since I couldn't afford the former.) It's not an action to save their network from bandwidth hogs, it's an action to save their cable TV monopoly from Internet-based competition. Even now Time Warner Cable still wants to do this and despite lying that this will enhance the value of the Internet for their customers and that everyone will benefit from it -- TWC is living outside reality they know their customers protested the last time they tried this and don't want these caps but says their customers like them to the press.

Starting an ISP might cost money but there are other factors as mentioned like sleazy activities by the incumbent ISPs to stop competition from emerging.

You know what free market capitalism is -- (this by the way is the best system but requires some government regulation and enforcement of said regulation to protect the markets from monopolies) Free markets require personal freedom to choose. Choice requires multiple options by service and price. Options by service and price require actual competition. Where there is no actual competition there is no possibility of choice and therefore no real freedom. Unregulated monopoly capitalism is not a free market any more than it has proved to be. Right now, in the current "free telecom market" I have to pay the 'loser' duopoly to choose when "I choose" to use the other 'winner' duopoly.

Under Net Neutrality they would not be allowed to do this. So who do we have to thank for our having reduced competition and choice -- the courts that struck down the 1996 Telecommunications Act for the benefit of incumbent phone and cable companies, and the Bush Administration. I urge Congress also to pass The Internet Freedom & Preservation Act by Congressman Ed Markey as well as the Broadband Fairness Act to outlaw deceptive broadband caps.

It's always conservatives that want less regulation and their reducing regulations during the Bush years allowed a duopoly to be formed on the Internet for anyone accessing it in the U.S. By the way Net Neutrality is in even worse danger in Canada right now. At least the current FCC is working toward Net Neutrality but the Canadian Government has decided to leave the issue of Net Neutrality to citizens and ISPs to worry about.

The reason we have reduced competition is not that its expensive for new ISPs to develop and few find the market profitable enough to enter but the incumbent companies pull so many dirty underhanded tactics to prevent competition from emerging. Recently, I read a new article about a Time Warner Cable executive stating TWC's decision to keep raising its Internet rates as long as they can. They are doing so not because they have to but they want to squeeze every dollar out of consumers. Ever hear the expression "pain at the pump" when gasoline bills were so costly well picture being pinched by the cable and phone company ISPs for every penny. They have expressed their intent to keep raising rates as long as they can -- when too many people find broadband unaffordable and have to cancel service that their fat profit margins decrease then they'll be forced to offer lower pricing but otherwise they intend to keep raising rates all they want.

When speaking of the digital divide -- there is none in Europe -- we have a digital divide with other countries including the European nations which have continued to mandate competition.

With the 1996 Telecommunications Act struck down the phone companies that complained about rules requiring them to do line sharing with smaller ISPs and offer them wholesale rates to buy Internet access cheaply and resell it gave up on doing this as they never wanted to, and only did earlier because they had to.

Under George W. Bush opportunities for monopolies increased but opportunity for actual American citizens stayed about the same or decreased.
pangasamaneesh 17 days ago
I agree that the FCC should learn from the past and analyze past mistakes made that allowed increased consolidation, reduced competition and consumer choice to occur.
pangasamaneesh 17 days ago
Yes Dave I'm all for breaking up Comcast's existing business while blocking their merger with NBC Universal as well -- separate their digital cable TV business from their Internet business if need be to prevent a conflict of interest with Comcast wanting to stifle online video on demand services to keep them from competing with their digital cable TV offerings --such a power play by Comcast should not be allowed. Net Neutrality would of course prevent them from doing this. In 2008 the Bush FCC actually penalized Comcast for blocking Bit Torrent and they responded with a lawsuit against the FCC saying the FCC was unfair to them and should not be able to protect consumers from Comcast's abuses.

In fact Free Press.Net has a page at www.freepress.net/comcast with a petition against the merger, and a website DearComcast.com where questions can be submitted to Comcast and to Congress to ask them about the proposed merger.
pangasamaneesh 17 days ago
Yes we do need Net Neutrality clearly and we need to limit media consolidation at the same time we need more diversity of opinions expressed not less.
pangasamaneesh 17 days ago
Yes to no unfair or unnecessary data shaping and data management schemes.
pangasamaneesh 17 days ago
From what I hear Canada is unfortunately for its citizens falling behind the U.S. in enacting Net Neutrality rules -- however, in principle I agree that we need to do as much as possible to encourage innovation (and more competition at the same time) we need to solve congestion problems and maintain choice, competition, etc on the Internet.
pangasamaneesh 17 days ago
I agree with Dave on this and do we need to mandate competition, affordability and have a national broadband plan to be more competitive in providing Internet access to all Americans on an equal level with other countries providing more access to more users. Bridge the digital divide we have with other countries that maintained regulations in the years we ditched them, and refused to allow mega mergers among service providers.

pangasamaneesh 17 days ago
Yes we need to mandate increased competition, increased affordability, pay attention to the international lessons of deregulating as other countries maintained regulations -- have a national broadband plan, shrink the digital divide in our country back to what it was in 2001 (we were 4th in the world in terms of broadband Internet penetration and the Bush Cheney Administration inherited a National Broadband Plan but ignored it, and made policies favoring corporations over the public) today we are 29th or 30th in the world. We need faster Internet speeds and more bandwidth to be able to use -- no to unnecessary and unfair bandwidth caps by cable company or phone company ISPs to stop us from using services that compete with those companies other products.
pangasamaneesh 17 days ago
I agree with Dave's point when he created this topic we need to mandate increased competition and affordability and put users on the Information Superhighway back in the front seat of the car -- that we can go where we want to go, and not have ISPs tell us how to use the Internet, or what we can or cannot do.
pangasamaneesh 17 days ago
I agree that ISPs should not be required to act as copyright cops and go policing the Internet. They have to tread a fine line between users privacy -- if an allegation of copyright abuse is made a proper investigation has to be made to tell if the content being used is not protected under fair use -- about 1-2 years ago Universal Music Group was sued after they got YouTube to remove a video uploaded to their site by a mother sharing a family video with a Prince song being played in the background. The case was titled Lenz v Universal and the Electronic Frontier Foundation came to Stephanie Lenz's defense -- Lenz was the plaintiff of the lawsuit against UMG for sending a baseless takedown notice to YouTube. The video was protected under fair use but removed by YouTube several months after being uploaded upon receiving a complaint of the video possibly infringing UMG's copyright.

It was outrageous what UMG did -- after the lawsuit was filed YouTube allowed the video to be re-posted on their site and I myself watched it and couldn't even tell Prince music was being played in tbe background -- I heard that music was playing but couldn't hear what song was playing or tell who the artist was by listening.

I signed the Electronic Frontier Foundation's petition recently to support Real Net Neutrality - telling the FCC to not give immunity to Hollywood on Net Neutrality -- that just because Net Neutrality rules protect lawful Internet use and lawful content from being discriminated against by ISPs with competing content or services does not mean Hollywood should have blanket immunity on this. If any allegation of copyright abuse is made a proper investigation has to be made, the user or users have to properly informed in advance of any action by their ISP against them and have the chance to contest the allegation.

Thanks to the DMCA any allegation of copyright abuse can quickly get a user's YouTube account suspended or their videos uploaded taken down even if they met the requirements of fair use. This is unacceptable. In terms of stopping illegal activities online government and ISPs must be wary of dangerous hacking activities (in principle I sometimes support the work of hackers who hack a product to make it work better -- like hacking products to add new features to it -- porting Linux to iPhone/iPod, bringing Boxee to hacked Apple TVs etc) to break into someone's computer network to do harm, sending fraudulent spam messages, uploading computer viruses online, malicious behaviors such as this and acts of cyber terrorism should be investigated and the culprits prosecuted. However, for ISPs to go policing the Internet for alleged copyright violations alone is unacceptable and unnecessary.
pangasamaneesh 18 days ago

Filtering out spam and blocking denial of service attacks is one thing -- sending spam messages is unethical whether or not its illegal -- and much of the spam emails that are fraudulent are in fact illegal under the weakly worded CAN SPAM Act.

Reasonable network management means that ISPs must not unfairly discriminate against certain content or services -- I can understand on occasion if too much bandwidth is being used some level of filtering can be done -- but how much is too much? If the market were more competitive -- by the way before AT&T re-merged with SBC Communications & Bell South -- in the years leading up to 2005 AT&T routinely upgraded its networks -- since 2005 rather than investing its cash wisely and fairly -- rather than investing in upgrading its networks something it was doing earlier it shifted its strategy to lobbying against Net Neutrality and lobbying to get their way in Washington. So before 2005 AT&T was upgrading its network infrastructure to accommodate more bandwidth usage -- I have said this before that if the broadband Internet access market were more competitive we would not need Net Neutrality rules to be enforced right now -- I once mentioned an article with a EU Commissioner bragging Net Neutrality was better in Europe and that if Net Neutrality were ever in any real danger there that they would not hesitate to protect it.

Most of us with high speed Internet access get it from a cable or phone company and are our choices between providers are very limited now -- the Bush FCC is to thank for that by allowing mega mergers.

In a more competitive market there would be more incentive to innovate, smaller ISPs would be less interested in bandwidth caps -- now using bandwidth caps as a last resort if the network cannot sustain any additional bandwidth usage in its existing form is reasonable -- we don't want too much bandwidth all used at once that it causes a massive outage and physical harm to the networks. We have a market dominated by big name cable and phone company ISPs -- in a more competitive market there would be more incentive to innovate -- thus more incentive to upgrade IT networks regularly to allow more bandwidth use.

So instead of restricting bandwidth why not upgrade IT networks to accommodate higher bandwidth use. You might argue that such upgrades may be costly -- to a small ISP massive upgrades may be somewhat costly but the big ISPs that dominate the market can afford to make such massive upgrades if they wanted to -- they are too greedy though and disinterested in providing customers worthwhile service. In a duopoly market they can charge whatever they want, reap billions of dollars in profit, and maintain the status quo -- that works for them -- if customers are unhappy with their service too bad -- the big cable and phone companies are the only choice in town for U.S. web surfers and even if there is an alternative provider in your area -- like 2 or 3 companies instead of 1 if the other 2 providers are no better than the 1 you already have your stuck -- it makes no difference which of the 2 or 3 providers you choose -- you can't switch to a better provider if all the providers are providing bad service. Either have service or cancel -- either accept a slower high speed Internet connection or live without Internet at all.

In a competitive market with line sharing mandated, competition and affordability mandated etc and Net Neutrality not in any clear danger the use of bandwidth caps are less common -- I've never heard of bandwidth caps being used in the EU because they aren't used at least not unless absolutely necessary to protect the networks of all the Internet providers there. Unfair and unnecessary bandwidth caps are unacceptable. ISPs wanting to use bandwidth caps should and must provide good reasons for why to do this -- capping the bandwidth of Internet users downloading video over the Web or streaming etc by cable company ISPs as a tactic to discourage us from getting TV online -- that is prioritizing web traffic and content in this manner is wrong -- they're not capping our bandwidth because we are using too much of it but they want to protect their traditional business models -- cable company ISPs don't want their Internet customers to be able to use online video on demand services in place of digital cable TV services -- that is consumers canceling their cable and watching their shows online via a TV network's own website streaming player or Hulu, YouTube, Boxee etc.

The bandwidth caps if done purely for business and anti competitive reasons which is part of their motive is unacceptable.

pangasamaneesh 19 days ago
No company B can exist and succeed in a monopolized market though and Comcast and other ISPs are already discriminating -- Comcast was found guilty in 2008 by the Bush FCC of violating Net Neutrality rules when they were accused of slowing down or blocking access to Bit Torrent services. They tried to do it deceptively -- even hide the fact they were doing it to escape being punished but it came out and then Comcast was penalized for doing so by the FCC. Their response to sue the FCC for punishing them for breaking the law. Also, even if there is a company B -- broadband Internet access market has become a duopoly -- duo meaning 2 with few big cable and phone companies controlling access. The Internet I maintain is a collection of private and public networks and as such is public property -- the public domain on the Internet is public property.

Internet as a public utility like electricity is public property -- the Internet represents the future of all media and we cannot allow anyone company or even a few companies to own the future of the media. Monetizing technologies in and of itself is not problematic but allowing big companies to co-op them is. During the 1970s we had a lot of diversity on the radio dial with plenty of station owners and independent/minority ownership of course this was before The Fairness Doctrine that said the airwaves belonged to the public and all station broadcasters had to comply with the public interest was overturned.

We had at least 60 companies owning radio stations -- there was room for commercial radio but we also had plenty of choices of noncommercial radio stations. Today a majority of the radio stations are owned by 5 or 6 big companies and there are insufficient voices on the radio -- rather than giving a voice to the voice-less radio like TV has become consolidated and there are very few points of view expressed.

With health insurance -- 1 thing that certainly needs to change in reform is lifting the insurance industry's outrageous antitrust exemption -- mandating affordability and competition. A few days ago U.S. Rep Anthony Weiner spoke well on the issue the insurance companies don't care about the country, or about the American people. They don't care about our welfare, our health etc at all.

They only are in the business of providing health insurance to make a profit so why don't they exit the health insurance market and offer a product or service in another market they can make a profit from that does not affect the country as a whole.

To the people wanting Social Security privatized that's saying you want to allow the big commercial and investment banks who caused this financial crisis to be able to gamble with your retirement money. I know you didn't mention privatization but mentioned Social Security as a failure -- you know what the biggest problem though is with Social Security -- managing the Trust Fund falls under the Department of Treasury and whenever former President Bush and Congress needed money after passing such huge tax cuts for the rich would raid the Trust Fund and use that money for their spending programs while flooding the Trust Fund with IOUS that if never paid back would become worthless.

Also, at the time Social Security was created life expectancy was lower but with more people living longer there is a strain on the system which is why some reasonable reform minus privatization is needed.

Postal Service raising rates is bad news especially for independent publications -- at one time Free Press had a campaign to challenge unfair postal rate hikes that would threaten independent publications that are the lifeblood of our democracy. While large publications could afford to keep operating with the postal rate hikes it would harm independent publishers.

When government acts in the public's best interest I'm all for it but when govt sides with corporations that is wrong.

It is never in a crony capitalist's interest to improve their business -- big health insurance companies who have a monopoly of the health insurance market can continue to ration care, pay less etc to cover the care of people who need it when they need it couldn't care less about the country our the public's health. They only want to make a profit something they could easily do in any other market as well. However, they profit by denying care to their existing customers, raising premiums each year, and canceling insurance to some of their customers who use their insurance when they need to (or use their insurance too often as the insurer sees it that insuring these individuals while the right thing to do is unprofitable) there is a moral and an economic imperative for health reform.

Recently, Rep Anthony Weiner spoke that over the years insurance companies have always opposed reform and that in Congress one side of the aisle -- Democrats support health reform as the right thing to do, while Republicans support the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Weiner said insurance companies don't care about our country, they don't care about or deficits, etc they only want to make money. There is nothing wrong with making money but the fundamental basis in our healthcare system is flawed -- of course they are going to deny care to save more money. They could be making their profits in any other market if they wanted.

We need not for profit choices of health insurance -- and competition from such a provider would force big insurers to lower premiums as the non profit choice offers lower costs big insurers afraid to lose customers will be forced to do the same.

Alan Grayson another Rep in the U.S. Congress once charged the GOP plan on healthcare is to tell people not to get sick, and if you do die quickly.

I don't want monopolists messing with our free market enterprise system -- no more mega mergers should be allowed to even take place, and antitrust to breakup existing monopolies should occur.

However, that's a completely different topic unrelated to the discussion here which is about an open Internet and Net Neutrality. So let's get back to discussing Net Neutrality.
pangasamaneesh 20 days ago
OpenInternet when I said some websites are public including governmental I mean non military related government sites that encourage public participation, seek public input like this site openinternet.gov is seeking public comments, broadband.gov another website by the FCC to seek public comment on crafting a national broadband plan to bridge the digital divide created during the Bush Cheney years with policy ideas like mandating increased competition, forbidding future mega mergers -- breaking up monopolies even if need be with assistance in that area from the FTC and DOJ to mandating more affordable and reasonable prices for broadband Internet access so those who don't have it because they can't afford it at prices big cable and phone companies are charging can afford to get it at lower pricing.

Public universities websites are also public -- any website in the public domain is part of a public network -- yes some university websites might be part of a private network if owned and operated by a private university. Keep in mind there is such a thing as a public university and a private university. Even today, some parts of the Internet -- some networks are part of the public domain and free information and content is accessible via these sources -- open source companies contribute material sometimes to the public domain -- so their contributions to the public domain become part of a public network even if their own websites are private.

Just wanted to make that clarification -- I have been more than happy to debate you on why Net Neutrality is really needed -- and bring up the fact it is nothing new -- this is not about the FCC trying to expand its powers -- it already has regulatory powers to protect the Internet under the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress but has neglected to use that authority wisely and during the Bush years the FCC rather than regulating and enforcing regulations to protect consumers allowed monopoly companies to duopolize the market for broadband Internet access.

The FCC had some policy failures during the Bush years -- in 2002 they redefined the Internet from an information service with a telecommunications service as Internet was defined by the Clinton FCC to purely an information service -- this was their first mistake -- other mistakes included allowing AT&T to re-merge with SBC Communications and Bell South, failing to list the nondiscrimination rule for the Internet in its 2005 Internet Policy Statement -- a rule that had always been in place and enforced in previous years. What we're asking for is to restore the basic Net Neutrality provisions prior to 2005. We don't want the FCC to have any new authority it never has had before but to return to the business of protecting the Internet -- and not pass any new Net Neutrality rule never implemented before -- nor enforce new rules that we've never had before -- but restore old rules discarded during the Bush years and maintain them. The FCC is not expanding into new or uncharted territory it has never been in before -- it has mandated Net Neutrality in the past and we're now fighting to preserve Net Neutrality that is all.

After all without Net Neutrality ISPs can choose winners and losers -- with Net Neutrality anyone with a good idea big or small can make it big and make a difference -- there is plenty of competition and innovation -- without Net Neutrality the creators of Facebook and Twitter, or even YouTube would need permission to create those websites from the nation's top cable and phone company ISPs and more importantly need permission of those ISPs for users to be able to access their websites. No ISP should be able to cherry pick what content and services work on their site. Again go back to the Information Super Highway analogy or to the one about the U.S. Postal Service not being able to pick and choose what mail to deliver.

If someone is mailing a letter thru the U.S. Postal Service even if the letter mentions the U.S. Postal Service and happens to criticize the agency for bad service the letter writer had with the Postal Service the Postal Service cannot say we don't want to deliver this letter to its recipient if the letter is accusing us of bad service -- the recipient has the right to receive the letter uncensored --the letter writer has a right to free speech to express his opinions and ideas in the form of a letter and mail them to the intended recipient -- the recipient has the right if he wants to receive the letter to receive it and read it. Mind you with junk mail the recipient has a right to sort his mail and throw the letter without opening it if it appears to be junk -- just as the letter writer has a right to free speech the recipient has a right to be free of offensive speech.

Hope that clarifies why I've taken the position I have.
pangasamaneesh 20 days ago
Examples of websites in the public domain include government websites, and websites of public universities etc -- on some parts of the Internet public domain content is available -- the Internet consists of both private and public networks -- to say it is private property is to suggest one entity owns the Internet.

No one owns the Internet -- the Internet like other public utilities like electricity, water etc don't belong to anyone person or corporation -- some companies provide Internet access, others provide online services -- some companies have search engines, yes MSN was created as part of a private network -- and the MSN online service and web portal is still owned privately by Microsoft -- however, MSN is just one of the available websites we can surf to as users of the Internet. If Microsoft had their way -- their original intention was to create MSN as an alternative to the Internet -- they wanted a private, separate collection of proprietary websites and a private online network separate from the actual, open Internet -- a closed, walled garden style network that they can own and control in entirety however, they chose with no requirement they comply with Net Neutrality and with MSN being the only portal likely in this network there would likely not be any competing websites in this network -- MSN would face competition from the Internet that would benefit from remaining open and nondiscriminatory -- I support Net Neutrality because I believe it is the right thing -- with big cable and phone companies having already expressed the desire to establish slow and fast lanes of prioritized access, to censor, degrade, and block access to certain websites Net Neutrality is needed to ensure there are no slow lanes for us and fast lanes for them.

Anyone concerned about censorship on the Web should support Net Neutrality to prevent corporate censorship. When government works towards the public interest and protects consumers then government action is justified but when government sides with corporations and helps them protect the status quo government is destructive and harmful -- government should never sanction monopolies like AT&T's Ma Bell monopoly they allowed for years till breaking the Ma Bell system up during the 1980s only to allow Ma Bell to be re-established by AT&T during the 2nd term of the Bush Cheney Administration.
pangasamaneesh 21 days ago
Let me be clear the Internet belongs to no corporation in America -- it should and is meant to be available to everyone -- it is public property -- to say it is private property is suggestive that one or two companies own the entire Internet. No company owns the Internet and to have a monopoly on the Internet is illegal.

Microsoft tried to monopolize the web browser market in the 1990s and succeeded in driving Netscape out of the browser business but prompted antitrust attention. The Internet is a public and private collection of networks -- some parts are privately administered but other sections are publicly owned. One might think that ISPs rather than trying to establish closed, proprietary Internet networks -- (at one time when Microsoft first created MSN they wanted MSN to be a closed version of the Internet -- a separate network unaffiliated with the actual Internet -- later realized it would be better to include MSN as part of the open Internet rather than creating a separate set of networks from the Internet they made MSN part of the open Internet) so the Internet is a collection of private and public networks. It is not completely privately owned -- if it were private a few corporations would be able to own it -- no one owns the Internet -- it belongs to everyone. No one person or no one corporation owns it or can own it -- none would be allowed to own it. It is supposed to be open to all Americans and hopefully the digital divide will be reduced in upcoming years so more users can get on the Internet.
pangasamaneesh 21 days ago
Yes we need Net Neutrality.I agree with Free Press's Timothy Karr and the rest of the Free Press team on this (see www.freepress.net and www.savetheinternet.com for more info). Net Neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity and economic innovation in America. Since the FCC removed this basic protection in 2005, the top executives of phone and cable companies have stated their intention to become the Internet's gatekeepers and to discriminate against Web sites that don't pay their added tolls.
This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it. It would damage my ability to connect with others, share information and participate in our 21st century democracy and economy. The FCC must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.
pangasamaneesh 21 days ago
Net Neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity and economic innovation in America. Since the FCC removed this basic protection in 2005, the top executives of phone and cable companies have stated their intention to become the Internet's gatekeepers and to discriminate against Web sites that don't pay their added tolls.
This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it. It would damage my ability to connect with others, share information and participate in our 21st century democracy and economy. The FCC must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination. Personal critics of Net Neutrality concerned with government censorship on the Internet could also have their voices stifled/censored by their ISPs if Net Neutrality protections require they practice reasonable network management were not in effect and not enforced.
pangasamaneesh 24 days ago
Also indeed the FTC can play a role in breaking up monopolies in the broadband Internet access market so ISPs can be more competitive, and we can have some form of regulation to ensure the ISPs price their services more affordably and promote policies to expand broadband deployment to areas of the country without it, while improving infrastructure in areas with Internet but an Internet provider with insufficient bandwidth storage to distribute large amounts of bandwidth equally to all users so bandwidth caps would be unnecessary. Improving access to broadband for under served users with broadband Internet slower than it should be and unserved users without Internet so Internet can improve for all users would be good. As part of our tech infrastructure when we improve public works like our roads and bridges, our electricity etc to ensure public goods work better the Internet should benefit from the same improvements.

In fact, Congress and President Obama fortunately realized this to be the case when writing and passing The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act which allocates some money for infrastructure repairs/expansion to roads and bridges, as well as IT infrastructure. Some goes toward transportation infrastructure and others to tech and IT infrastructure -- then some went out even as tax cuts and additional unemployment financial benefits etc. and state relief.
pangasamaneesh 24 days ago
I agree in principle with those not wanting government Net Neutrality regulations on the Internet that we don't want over regulations but no regulations at all can lead to disaster. If government does not regulate in a monopolistic controlled market the monopolies will. If there was sufficient competition already in the U.S. broadband Internet access market -- enough choice, competition, innovation etc that we could be assured new Net Neutrality rules are not needed to protect the openness of the Internet -- having Internet free of any government or corporate rules -- we could rest easy in knowing corporations would not try to censor free speech of users on the Internet (in regard to the analogy I gave of the U.S. Postal Service not being able to prioritize what mail to deliver and why ISPs should thus be able to prioritize connections -- openinternet raises a point about delivery of spam email -- as consumers we have a right not only to exercise free speech but a right to be free of offensive speech -- I hope the FCC considers these issues carefully and no doubt they are considering to some extent ora large extent some of them -- most spam e-mails are fraudulent today and illegal under The CAN SPAM Act which should have been a stronger bill and outlawed all junk email -- Congress and the FCC will in considering such issues as Net Neutrality etc and weighing free speech rights for users against those of spammers or ISPs wanting under free speech the right to discriminate against the free speech of users -- the best way to proceed forward on these issues) I think it best to revisit the 1996 Telecommunications Act that was to empower the FCC to mandate competition and ensure affordable, universal access to high speed Internet would be possible for all.

By the way I have heard reports that some city governments in the country have proposed establishing their own city run Internet services to provide affordable access to users and compete with the corporate big iSPs in each market -- companies like AT&T. Comcast etc don't want consumers to have other choices.

They want us locked into their companies exclusively for service. You don't like Comcast or AT&T then live without Internet. Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable or whatever corporate provider you have in your area is too unaffordable for you without these services city governments want to offer at the local level users would be stuck without Internet. The big companies don't want city governments to be able to establish government run Internet services to compete with them and risk their prices being undercut by smaller Internet providers.

What we want is not regulation of the Internet but regulation to protect us from corporate regulation. Some of these big companies don't care about their customers -- they aren't doing what's in the best interest of their customers -- only the interests of their executives or shareholders -- only their corporate special interests matter. Without Net Neutrality corporations could have unprecedented power over the Internet - corporate power threatens democracy -- the U.S.A. is not and was not intended to be a plutocracy but a democracy. While government bureaucracy can be bad the same can be said of bureaucracy in corporations that don't care about anyone but themselves.

For example, health insurance companies don't care about the public welfare, of our well being, they only care about their profits -- this year I heard some insurance companies to please Wall Street are planning to cancel insurance for some of their quote unprofitable customers -- people who have insurance but use it often when they need to -- insurance companies lose money when they have to pay for treatments etc for their customers. Big OIl and coal companies don't care about the environment and financial companies don't care about the damage they do to the economy when they act like casinos and gamble with our money. Corporate power is too strong already and has gotten stronger with the unfortunate Citizens United decision -- free speech was meant for individuals not corporations -- not that I'm advocating denying any corporation a right to express free speech they can say what they want to but should not be able to use free speech to buy elections, or censor the free speech of individuals.

You say some may not approve of how you run your business but your customers are happy -- how do you know this -- what if they are unhappy but you have a monopoly and your company is the only company they can go to to get the type of product your selling. If your the only company offering Internet access in your town and run a big outfit -- bought other iSPs or drove them off the market to reduce competition -- if consumers want Internet they have no choice but to use your business even if they are dis-satisfied -- either that or not have Internet which is even worse -- we should be expanding access to the Net for others not limiting how many people have it.
pangasamaneesh 24 days ago
OpenInterrnet you have an interesting argument for why you don't like Net Neutrality and say if one ISP tried to block specific services etc that upset consumers there is competition and we can flee to another provider -- the only reason the ISPs are not doing this to a large extent and charging us more and more for every piece of data we use is because they know consumers will leave them for an ISP that doesn't do it -- that they can lose customers this way. Sadly, I have to disagree with this idea it would be nice if it could be this way but the broadband Internet access market today as noted earlier has been allowed to become a duopoly market -- there is a digital divide in this country with some people being unserved because they cannot afford Internet access from one of the big ISPs, or there is no ISP choosing to provide service in their area. There is also the issue of people being under-served those who have Internet but their high speed Internet access is slower than it should be.

Today if we had a vibrant competitive Internet marketplace with plenty of choices like in the EU (one time I mentioned an article of a EU Commissioner saying Net Neutrality is better in Europe -- the market there is competitive enough that they don't need to enforce Net Neutrality rules -- they have regulations banning mega merger activity and require line sharing etc -- banning unnecessary and unfair bandwidth caps etc. The EU is strongly committed to Net Neutrality and this Commissioner said that the EU would never hesitate to protect Net Neutrality there if needed but there is enough competition there that if one ISP tried to discriminate there are so many more to choose from -- many small ISPs as well (often its the big ISPs wanting to discriminate the most) are available there who wouldn't engage in such behavior and consumers could simply switch to a non discriminatory ISP.

If Internet access in the U.S. were more competitive -- if AT&T had been disallowed to re-merge with SBC Communications and Bell South, had other big companies in Internet access market been prevented from mega mergers here -- we would not only be able to have universal, affordable broadband Internet access today in the U.S. but would not have to worry about Net Neutrality.

Up till 2005 the FCC had strong Net Neutrality rules in place but beginning in 2002 onwards started hurting their own authority by making bad decisions like redefining the FCC's definition of Internet from an information service with a telecommunications service to purely an information service- the FCC has less clout to regulate and protect information services without a telecommunications component. The reason they made this mistake had something to do with cable companies rolling out Internet services.

If competition was still sufficient today the dire need to restore/protect Net Neutrality would be much less. Also, the concern is once Net Neutrality is gone it can be gone for good we could never again have a nondiscriminatory Internet.
pangasamaneesh 25 days ago
Agreed phones cannot be prioritized so why should the Internet. Likewise, the U.S. Postal Service cannot prioritize what mail to deliver so why should the Internet. Why should Comcast be able to censor its user's emails criticizing Comcast for example even if the email is sent using Comcast's own email service.

By the way under telecommunications laws Net Neutrality is perfectly legit and it is the moral thing to do. Even with the recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy (despite it emboldening big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way as the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy.) The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.


Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

The Information Superhighway analogy comparing Internet to our national highways run by the federal and state governments most of which are free of toll booths is also a good one and represents the need for why we need to maintain Net Neutrality. While I admit I am concerned with language that would mandate ISPs to act as copyright cops and police the Net to ensure it is only being legally used -- only legal uses should be protected but don't want an unnecessary and vague exemption for Hollywood etc. Net Neutrality should apply to Hollywood as well and if someone is misusing Internet before discriminating against that user and taking action proof should and must be furnished this is indeed the case -- the mere allegation of illegal activites should not be sufficient cause to discriminate.

That is why I signed the Electronic Frontier Foundation's petition to the FCC for Real Net Neutrality!
pangasamaneesh 25 days ago
I agree northrup.mike. In fact I'll provide a better argument for why indeed we need Net Neutrality -- we both care about the issue and are concerned that the future of the Internet should remain open so we support Net Neutrality. Trolls, corporate folk, and right wing nuts ignore history -- ignore the fact we already have Net Neutrality or have had it in the past and are fighting to preserve it and say no to new government regulation -- as if it doesn't already exist but government is trying to create new regulation where there was none.


By the way under telecommunications laws Net Neutrality is perfectly legit and it is the moral thing to do. Even with the recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy (despite it emboldening big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way as the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy.) The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.


Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

The Information Superhighway analogy comparing Internet to our national highways run by the federal and state governments most of which are free of toll booths is also a good one and represents the need for why we need to maintain Net Neutrality. While I admit I am concerned with language that would mandate ISPs to act as copyright cops and police the Net to ensure it is only being legally used -- only legal uses should be protected but don't want an unnecessary and vague exemption for Hollywood etc. Net Neutrality should apply to Hollywood as well and if someone is misusing Internet before discriminating against that user and taking action proof should and must be furnished this is indeed the case -- the mere allegation of illegal activites should not be sufficient cause to discriminate.

That is why I signed the Electronic Frontier Foundation's petition to the FCC for Real Net Neutrality!
pangasamaneesh 25 days ago
Indeed government in this case is trying to protect free speech and we need Net Neutrality. By the way under telecommunications laws Net Neutrality is perfectly legit and it is the moral thing to do. Even with the recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy (despite it emboldening big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way as the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy.) The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.


Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

The Information Superhighway analogy comparing Internet to our national highways run by the federal and state governments most of which are free of toll booths is also a good one and represents the need for why we need to maintain Net Neutrality. While I admit I am concerned with language that would mandate ISPs to act as copyright cops and police the Net to ensure it is only being legally used -- only legal uses should be protected but don't want an unnecessary and vague exemption for Hollywood etc. Net Neutrality should apply to Hollywood as well and if someone is misusing Internet before discriminating against that user and taking action proof should and must be furnished this is indeed the case -- the mere allegation of illegal activites should not be sufficient cause to discriminate.

That is why I signed the Electronic Frontier Foundation's petition to the FCC for Real Net Neutrality!
pangasamaneesh 25 days ago
Under telecommunications laws Net Neutrality is perfectly legit and it is the moral thing to do. Even with the recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy (despite it emboldening big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way as the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy.) The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.


Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

The Information Superhighway analogy comparing Internet to our national highways run by the federal and state governments most of which are free of toll booths is also a good one and represents the need for why we need to maintain Net Neutrality. While I admit I am concerned with language that would mandate ISPs to act as copyright cops and police the Net to ensure it is only being legally used -- only legal uses should be protected but don't want an unnecessary and vague exemption for Hollywood etc. Net Neutrality should apply to Hollywood as well and if someone is misusing Internet before discriminating against that user and taking action proof should and must be furnished this is indeed the case -- the mere allegation of illegal activites should not be sufficient cause to discriminate.

That is why I signed the Electronic Frontier Foundation's petition to the FCC for Real Net Neutrality!
pangasamaneesh 25 days ago
Under telecommunications laws Net Neutrality is perfectly legit and it is the moral thing to do. Even with the recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy (despite it emboldening big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way as the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy.) The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.


Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

The Information Superhighway analogy comparing Internet to our national highways run by the federal and state governments most of which are free of toll booths is also a good one and represents the need for why we need to maintain Net Neutrality. While I admit I am concerned with language that would mandate ISPs to act as copyright cops and police the Net to ensure it is only being legally used -- only legal uses should be protected but don't want an unnecessary and vague exemption for Hollywood etc. Net Neutrality should apply to Hollywood as well and if someone is misusing Internet before discriminating against that user and taking action proof should and must be furnished this is indeed the case -- the mere allegation of illegal activites should not be sufficient cause to discriminate.

That is why I signed the Electronic Frontier Foundation's petition to the FCC for Real Net Neutrality!
pangasamaneesh 25 days ago
Under telecommunications laws Net Neutrality is perfectly legit and it is the moral thing to do. Even with the recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy (despite it emboldening big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way as the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy.) The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.


Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

The Information Superhighway analogy comparing Internet to our national highways run by the federal and state governments most of which are free of toll booths is also a good one and represents the need for why we need to maintain Net Neutrality. While I admit I am concerned with language that would mandate ISPs to act as copyright cops and police the Net to ensure it is only being legally used -- only legal uses should be protected but don't want an unnecessary and vague exemption for Hollywood etc. Net Neutrality should apply to Hollywood as well and if someone is misusing Internet before discriminating against that user and taking action proof should and must be furnished this is indeed the case -- the mere allegation of illegal activites should not be sufficient cause to discriminate.

That is why I signed the Electronic Frontier Foundation's petition to the FCC for Real Net Neutrality!
pangasamaneesh 25 days ago
openinternet -- I understand your views on not wanting the FCC to have too much power and thinking in moving forward on Net Neutrality the FCC would be getting more powerful than it already is. When you say the FCC is asking for enhanced authority to regulate what it does not regulate today -- technically pre 2002-2005 the FCC had this authority and used it wisely. Since 2002 the FCC changed its definition of broadband from an information service with a telecommunications service (any service falling under this definition the FCC has authority to regulate) to purely an information service. Despite this definition change -- in which the FCC raised its own ability to regulate into doubt they were still able to keep some regulation in place. It was 2005 when they made the Internet Policy Statement and they failed to maintain nondiscrimination rules in the Internet Policy Statement.

Did you read what I said about email providers/ISPs without Net Neutrality could choose what mail to deliver etc -- the U.S. Postal Service cannot pick and choose what mail to deliver that it picks up for delivery. Then there is also the matter of the Information Superhighway analogy a good one in my opinion for why the Internet needs to stay open. To say the Internet is privately owned would suggest one person or company or a few own the Internet -- no one owns the Internet -- if Internet ownership were possible/is possible the Internet belongs to everyone -- you and me, and everyone else in this country and around the world. The Internet connects us globally to people with different cultures, it lets us share ideas, etc get information, be entertained, communicate etc and is more interactive than TV or radio ever were. Losing TV and radio to corporate interests the public's last best chance to reclaim the media and save our democracy rests in our ability, our willingness and that of the FCC and the desire of all of us including the government to protect the Internet for everyone and keep all of us safe from monopolists trying to control the Internet.

I didn't know the history of how the Carterfone decision came about but celebrate the benefits it has brought to wireline phones and think the same benefits should rightly be applied to wireless. Besides the PC model -- the entire PC market ecosystem is one of openness -- you can choose any hardware/software configuration of your choice. Let's say your using a Windows or Linux based PC you can use any vendor/manufacturer's brand of computer (a Dell, an HP, an Acer, a Gateway, a Sony, Toshiba etc customize it with your own hardware and software) you can use any computer operating system, any web browser etc to access the Internet, any IM service, any search engine, any media player juxebox with streaming capabilities for streaming music or movies from the Web like Windows Media Player, Real Player etc or any alternatives to those two that work well, you can use any media player for playing files stored on your hard drive.

Your ISP cannot tell you to access the Internet from a computer you have to have a Dell or an HP with Windows XP or higher, you do not have to have to use Internet Explorer or the MSN browsing software, you do not have to have an Intel specific graphic chip for watching video online you can have high quality graphics chips compatible with your operating system software from any other vendor. Not only can you choose the hardware you want to use with the service provider in your area of your choice (which we could have for cell phones with wholesale open access if Carterfone is applied to wireless world allowing consumers more freedom) but by applying Net Neutrality also to wireless carriers cannot discriminate against whatever Internet enabled applications we choose to use as long as they are safe and lawful. AT&T cannot discriminate against Skype's iPhone app by restricting it to Wifi only. The Internet already has or has had Net Neutrality in the past -- I am not advocating to give the FCC any new powers it does not already have -- it has/has had the authority to mandate Net Neutrality in the past but gutted its own authority -- even Congress provided it such authority under the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
pangasamaneesh 26 days ago
The Internet is public property -- no one company owns the Internet and cannot own it. Nor should they be allowed to do so. Internet is a public utility and was originally developed by government -- it grew out of Arpanet and other government networks.

There is some private investment in the Internet but corporations don't own the Internet it belongs to the public -- as in not the government itself but every citizen. Just as the future of the media belongs to the public so too the Internet belongs to us. The Internet belongs to everyone and everyone should be able to have fast, affordable equal nondiscriminatory access. The public has a right to public utilities -- we have a right to use the Internet for information -- the Internet is more interactive than any other form of media and the companies owning the pipes that supply access hate that they have to under Net Neutrality provided fair access to users for all services.

That they cannot discriminate against specific websites for political or financial reasons.
pangasamaneesh 26 days ago
I agree with erikcorona's statement no one here is advocating a government takeover of the Internet but some form of government regulation to protect the Internet that has existed in the past be maintained to ensure the Internet remains competitive and open. In crafting a national broadband plan (the FCC is seeking public comment also for their website at broadband.gov on expanding deployment etc to those on the wrong side of the digital divide -- those unserved or under served -- those with no broadband Internet access because its unaffordable, no carrier offers service in their area etc or they do but speeds are slower than they should be) the FCC should focus on ensuring equal access, choice, competition, innovation and openness for the Web. Net Neutrality should apply to all Internet companies even Google -- no exemptions -- not for Hollywood -- language saying that ISPs cannot discriminate against legal content and services should not be used to give the MPAA an unfair and unnecessary exemption -- if someone does commit piracy and is breaking the law (the merge allegation of copyright abuse can get someone's Internet access shut down if the MPAA has their way and ISPs would be forced to act as copyright cops even if they don't want to) instead it should be mandated that any illegal Internet activities be proven before shutting down a user's access -- the mere allegation of abuse is not enough and should not be enough -- it must be proven.

Hence, I have signed the EFF's petition on Real Net Neutrality at www.realnetneutrality.org

Historically the Internet even in the U.S. has always had some form of Net Neutrality rules that need to be restored/maintained and protected. If the U.S, Postal Service cannot pick and choose which letters to deliver why should ISPs be able to do such a thing. They shouldn't and with Net Neutrality they cannot.

The FCC is already moving toward crafting Net Neutrality rules and a National Broadband Plan which will be good for everyone even those who disagree policy wise on the way this is to be implemented. If Congress were to move forward and pass The Internet Freedom & Preservation Act that would be a huge achievement for Net Neutrality legislation to protect the openness of the Internet. Once the broadband Internet access market can be made more competitive again like it was before 2001-2002 then some moderate level of deregulation can occur (rules preventing mega mergers should permanently stay in place but in a competitive market may not need many more regulations) we need for the Internet to be neutral and free of government and/or corporate censorship.
pangasamaneesh 27 days ago
To Whom This May Concern At The FCC,

The following are my suggestions and observations for protecting Net Neutrality and the Open Internet from being closed off by big cable and phone company ISPs, a few analogies to be studied on how Internet should be viewed (Information Superhighway analogy it should be kept open and competitive, with some government regulation to ensure this)

The recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy emboldens big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy. The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.


Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

The Information Superhighway needs to be protected -- using this analogy the Internet should be kept open and accessible like our federal highways -- I'm not advocating that government control the Internet but the Internet be open and we should be able to access any website without corporate gatekeepers on the Web. A majority of our nation's roads and highways have no toll booths and even those that do aren't owned by corporations that can set arbitrarily high prices. The way we do this is to return to some form of government regulation that existed in the past. That the FCC focus on the parts of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that provided them the power to mandate competition among broadband Internet access providers (the 1996 Telecommunications Act was a blueprint by Congress for the FCC to use to ensure a vibrant and competitive broadband Internet access market would continue in the U.S. instead the FCC ignored that portion of the Act and focused on another area in the Act dealing with de-regulation to completely de-regulate the market and allow big companies to consolidate) and the FCC revise its definition of broadband Internet access changed tragically in 2002 by the Bush Administration from an information service back to an information service using a telecommunications service to give them more regulatory clout to protect the Internet. Before 2002 the FCC defined broadband Internet access like this but it was changed in 2002. We also need to restore Net Neutrality protections lifted in 2005 when the Internet Policy Statement of the Bush FCC was released without nondiscriminatory service mandated for the freedom of Internet users.

We need wholesale open access and wireless Net Neutrality for mobile phones so the mobile Internet has the same nondiscriminatory protections as the rest of the Internet and cellular phone users can access the legal mobile applications of their choice over their carrier's network even if it is a VOIP app like Skype or Vonage Mobile for iPhone or Blackberry that competes with the carrier's network in offering call services. For example, AT&T Wireless cannot block apps it dislikes because they compete with AT&T's offerings like Skype for iPhone thus restricting such apps technically capable of working over 3G to Wifi. Wholesale open access likewise would apply the benefits of the Carterfone ruling to wireless and say cellular phones have to be opened up so you can use any phone with any carrier of your choice and that can result in increased competition. Breaking up business and financial monopolists in the cable and telecommunications industry (separating AT&T from SBC Communications & Bell South again; and AT&T Wireless from Cingular Wireless) etc and banning further mega mergers like Comcast NBC Universal -- which poses a huge conflict of interest with a company owning the pipes for distributing TV channels and Internet access owning content. Already Comcast with their TV Everywhere scam want to force us to bundle digital cable TV with broadband Internet access if we want access to video services online.

That is unacceptable and wrong. By the way cable prices have been rising for too long. Cable companies with Internet and TV services have a conflict of interest between allowing fast Internet and access to video sites and blocking them without Net Neutrality so we can be forced to pay for their expensive digital cable TV offerings as well.

Comcast and companies like AT&T claim they don't make enough money to make massive network upgrades and improve infrastructure to accommodate higher bandwidth and provide access to more users like unserved users -- in poor rural areas that are on the wrong side of the digital divide -- or underserved users who have Internet but their high speed Internet is slower than it should be. Yet they make millions and even billions of dollars of profit each year and have enough money to pay special interest lobbyists to fight Net Neutrality rules that would benefit users. Like U.S. Senator Al Franken said he feels Comcast would say or promise anything to win support for the merger but afterward if allowed permission to merge might break those promises. Comcast's word should not be trusted.
pangasamaneesh 27 days ago

The recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy emboldens big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy. The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.


Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

The Information Superhighway needs to be protected -- using this analogy the Internet should be kept open and accessible like our federal highways -- I'm not advocating that government control the Internet but the Internet be open and we should be able to access any website without corporate gatekeepers on the Web. A majority of our nation's roads and highways have no toll booths and even those that do aren't owned by corporations that can set arbitrarily high prices. The way we do this is to return to some form of government regulation that existed in the past. That the FCC focus on the parts of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that provided them the power to mandate competition among broadband Internet access providers (the 1996 Telecommunications Act was a blueprint by Congress for the FCC to use to ensure a vibrant and competitive broadband Internet access market would continue in the U.S. instead the FCC ignored that portion of the Act and focused on another area in the Act dealing with de-regulation to completely de-regulate the market and allow big companies to consolidate) and the FCC revise its definition of broadband Internet access changed tragically in 2002 by the Bush Administration from an information service back to an information service using a telecommunications service to give them more regulatory clout to protect the Internet. Before 2002 the FCC defined broadband Internet access like this but it was changed in 2002. We also need to restore Net Neutrality protections lifted in 2005 when the Internet Policy Statement of the Bush FCC was released without nondiscriminatory service mandated for the freedom of Internet users.

We need wholesale open access and wireless Net Neutrality for mobile phones so the mobile Internet has the same nondiscriminatory protections as the rest of the Internet and cellular phone users can access the legal mobile applications of their choice over their carrier's network even if it is a VOIP app like Skype or Vonage Mobile for iPhone or Blackberry that competes with the carrier's network in offering call services. For example, AT&T Wireless cannot block apps it dislikes because they compete with AT&T's offerings like Skype for iPhone thus restricting such apps technically capable of working over 3G to Wifi. Wholesale open access likewise would apply the benefits of the Carterfone ruling to wireless and say cellular phones have to be opened up so you can use any phone with any carrier of your choice and that can result in increased competition. Breaking up business and financial monopolists in the cable and telecommunications industry (separating AT&T from SBC Communications & Bell South again; and AT&T Wireless from Cingular Wireless) etc and banning further mega mergers like Comcast NBC Universal -- which poses a huge conflict of interest with a company owning the pipes for distributing TV channels and Internet access owning content. Already Comcast with their TV Everywhere scam want to force us to bundle digital cable TV with broadband Internet access if we want access to video services online.

That is unacceptable and wrong. By the way cable prices have been rising for too long. Cable companies with Internet and TV services have a conflict of interest between allowing fast Internet and access to video sites and blocking them without Net Neutrality so we can be forced to pay for their expensive digital cable TV offerings as well.

Comcast and companies like AT&T claim they don't make enough money to make massive network upgrades and improve infrastructure to accommodate higher bandwidth and provide access to more users like unserved users -- in poor rural areas that are on the wrong side of the digital divide -- or underserved users who have Internet but their high speed Internet is slower than it should be. Yet they make millions and even billions of dollars of profit each year and have enough money to pay special interest lobbyists to fight Net Neutrality rules that would benefit users. Like U.S. Senator Al Franken said he feels Comcast would say or promise anything to win support for the merger but afterward if allowed permission to merge might break those promises. Comcast's word should not be trusted.
pangasamaneesh 27 days ago
The recent tragic decision by The U.S. Supreme Court on Citizen's United which undid democracy emboldens big cable and phone company ISPs to suggest Net Neutrality violates their free speech which is bogus -- by the way the Internet is more interactive than radio or TV ever were -- it encourages participation, dissent, and democracy. The Open Internet encourages free speech on the part of users. We just pay a monthly fee for access and have unlimited equal access to all Internet websites but big ISPs want to be able to change all of that. They dislike the idea of being forced to deliver every email message even messages by consumer rights groups criticizing them etc. The Open Internet threatens their legacy business model where in the past they would co-op and monetize technologies for corporate gain at the expense of the public interest.


Big ISPs like Comcast want to be able to censor what we write in our emails and publish to the Web. Let's say I write an email about Comcast criticizing them for anti competitive, and anti consumer policies and I happen to be using Comcast's email service to send the message. Comcast wants to be able to reject my message because they think its unfair for them to be forced to deliver a message criticizing them.

When the U.S. Postal Service delivers letters every day to mailboxes they cannot filter out and decide which letters to deliver and which not to. If I want to send a letter to someone they cannot refuse to deliver my letter because they don't like what I have to say. They don't have a free speech right to do such a thing. If the Post Office cannot prioritize and discriminate against what mail is delivered ISPs cannot either.

The Information Superhighway needs to be protected -- using this analogy the Internet should be kept open and accessible like our federal highways -- I'm not advocating that government control the Internet but the Internet be open and we should be able to access any website without corporate gatekeepers on the Web. A majority of our nation's roads and highways have no toll booths and even those that do aren't owned by corporations that can set arbitrarily high prices. The way we do this is to return to some form of government regulation that existed in the past. That the FCC focus on the parts of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that provided them the power to mandate competition among broadband Internet access providers and the FCC revise its definition of broadband Internet access changed tragically in 2002 by the Bush Administration from an information service back to an information service using a telecommunications service to give them more regulatory clout to protect the Internet. Before 2002 the FCC defined broadband Internet access like this but it was changed in 2002. We also need to restore Net Neutrality protections lifted in 2005 when the Internet Policy Statement of the Bush FCC was released without nondiscriminatory service mandated for the freedom of Internet users.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Yes Europe is doing better than the U.S. in broadband Internet access -- here's how they have a more competitive broadband Internet access market that is more affordable and thus European nations have more Internet users than the U.S. Here in the U.S. there is a Digital Divide between urban and rural neighborhoods. Google, Facebook and Twitter may have all been established by American entrepreneurs which makes Internet in the U.S. seem successful but as far as broadband deployment, accessibility and affordability goes Internet in Europe due to pro competitive regulations has become better.

In Europe Net Neutrality is not in any danger -- if Net Neutrality goes in the U.S. even its personal critics who decry it as a government takeover of the Internet could suffer with big ISPs discriminating against services. AT&T Wireless could block Skype and other VOIP apps on its cellular network just because they compete with AT&T's phone service and are more affordable. Net Neutrality in the U.S. though could be in danger hence the debate and the fight to save it or allow it to die. Without Net Neutrality Facebook, Twitter and the sites you mention established in the U.S. that have become popular would need permission from ISPs to innovate.

Cable company ISPs with a conflict of interest could discriminate against Internet customers using Internet Protocol Television or video on demand online services like those provided by VUDU, Boxee, Apple iTunes Store + Apple TV, XBox Live Video Marketplace etc. I would rather have the Information Super Highway stay open than allow big telecom and cable companies to monopolize the Internet and become gatekeepers. Imagine if these companies ran the national highways they could have toll booths in numerous areas and force you to pay to drive on their roads. Yes some roads have toll booths in some states but there not that many overall as there could be with corporate control of the roads. Corporations could if they had this power decide where you can go, when and where you can travel etc and how much you pay when you come across a toll booth.

They want to protect their legacy model of closed media and feel threatened by an open democratic, nondiscriminatory Internet that encourages innovation. I read back in 2005 soon after the FCC made its tragic decision to gut nondiscrimination rules on the Internet thus sparking the debate over saving Net Neutrality that AT&T for the first time said without Net Neutrality they would like to act as gatekeepers and charge Google special access fees for their Internet customers. AT&T felt why should their Internet customers who pay for access to the Web be allowed free access to Google -- or in retrospect when users are subscribing to their Internet service -- why shouldn't websites also pay a fee.

If Google wants AT&T's Internet customers to be able to use its services like the Google search engine, GMail etc then Google must pay a monthly fee to AT&T -- hence users aren't just paying for service but websites start to be charged so that users can access their websites. AT&T hated the idea that they could not prioritize traffic on their network -- they don't want to just be a dumb pipe that takes users to the Web they want special priority access deals. Google has always been 100% completely free for users to access and use (unless you consider the implications of losing privacy) and AT&T has expressed they don't like the idea of Google having free access to its network. AT&T wants to control all incoming and outgoing traffic from tis network -- what websites its customers can visit etc. Imagine your ISP telling Facebook that if you want our customers to be able to visit your website you have to pay us special fees.

Without Net Neutrality big media companies can package special bundles and have prioritized Internet access -- Comcast can say to its Internet customers if you want to use Boxee, YouTube, Hulu or any video sharing or video download website you have to subscribe to our digital cable TV service also -- thus forcing you to bundle Internet with TV. What if a user just wants Internet access from the cable company and get their TV from satellite or an IPTV provider. Some people have considered ditching cable and watching video entirely online. This would not be possible without Net Neutrality as cable companies trying to protect their legacy model and protect their cable TV business may try to force customers to bundle Internet and TV to watch video over the Web.

Also, distributive companies that own the pipes for TV and Internet service should not b able to own the content flowing thru it -- hence Comcast NBC Universal merger is bad news for the public. Comcast spends so much money each year on lobbying Washington against Net Neutrality and is now doing so to get permission for the merger while saying they do not have the money to upgrade their network infrastructure and provide users even faster Internet. If they can afford to pay lobbyists millions or even billions of dollars why can't they afford to upgrade their networks? There is a difference between free market capitalism with open markets, crony and casino capitalism etc.

Free market capitalism provides plenty of competition and consumer choice -- often government antitrust enforcement is needed to breakup business and financial monopolies to keep our markets open and free. There was a time when wireline phones were as restricted as cellular phones -- your phone was exclusively tied to a specific carrier -- but the FCC's Carterfone decision benefited consumers and forced the wireline phone market open -- allowing us to use any land line phone with any wireline provider of phone service. Without the Carterfone decision the invention of the fax machine might not have happened or it would have taken longer for the first machine to be created.

AT&T has actually expressed they would like to do this -- they would like for nothing better than to be able to discriminate against Google -- if government gives them a free pass and allows them to run their network however they want with no mandate that that they keep user's freedoms in mind AT&T wants to block Google -- I once read a quote where an AT&T executive said this -- if I can find it again I'll cite it and where I got the quote from.

It is not a supposition -- they want to discriminate against Google but currently they cannot unless Net Neutrality is allowed to be axed.

I support free and open markets with minimal government intervention -- you say we should have no government intervention though at all. Imagine by the way the benefits of wholesale open access and wireless Net Neutrality being able to use any legal content or applications/services on your phone over your carriers network of your choice -- AT&T could not stop iPhone owners from using Skype over 3G just because AT&T doesn't like Skype -- wholesale open access would open the market to more competition and allow the same benefits wireline phone and PC users have in the wireless market -- case in point you can use any cellular phone with the carrier of your choice -- the PC model is open you can use any browser to access the Internet, any media player with streaming capabilities for streaming video etc over the Web -- but most popular cellular phones like the iPhone, Palm Pre, Blackberry Storm, Motorola Droid, My Touch 3G with Google etc are restricted to AT&T (which collaborated with the NSA during Bush Cheney years on its illegal warrantless wiretapping program), Sprint NexTel, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless.

Under antitrust increased competition requirements should be mandated -- AT&T's re-merger with SBC Communications & Bell South to reconstitute the Ma Bell system should never have been allowed, nor should the AT&T Wireless/Cingular Wireless merger have been approved -- which has only served to reduce competition in the wireless phone market among 5 national carriers to 4.

It is important to strike a proper balance in this regard -- government is supposed to serve the public not shareholders so government should protect consumers from abusive and anticompetitive corporations. That is what I'm advocating for as a consumer rights activist and a media reformer. I don't want an all powerful government that takes away civil liberties but I don't want to allow big businesses to remain all powerful and continue to gain more power. We cannot allow corporations and special interests to run wild. Big OIl companies lobby Washington against environmental protections and laws to hold them responsible for polluting our air and water, and lobby against clean energy legislation to invest in wind, solar, geo-thermal energy etc -- even though transitioning to clean energy could help end the U.S.'s dependence on foreign oil -- leading to no more oil wars, and strengthen the national security of the nation. Some say the solution is just to expand oil drilling in the U.S. but with just 3% of the world's oil reserves no matter how much we would drill at home we can't end our dependency on foreign oil just by drilling -- it could harm our environment more etc and we may still have high gasoline bills.

Likewise with the Internet it is important for the U.S. Government to have good policies to protect the open Internet -- we can either sit back and allow discrimination on the Web by ISPs or we can stop it.

During the 1970s we had at least 50 or 60 independent owners of radio stations today though because government allowed more consolidation of the news media and of the radio dial since lifting the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s (which said the airwaves belong to the public and station owners can have licenses to use the airwaves as long as they serve the overall public interest) today just 5 or 6 companies control most of the radio stations, magazines, TV channels, and Internet websites -- each time the public has tried to use one of these mediums to reclaim the media (journalists were supposed to give a voice to the voiceless but with consolidation and less diversity of opinion) our efforts were sacrificed to strengthen corporate power. The future of the media though does not belong to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation or to any other corporation be it Comcast, AT&T, Verizon Communications, General Electric, Time Warner, Disney, or any other conglomerate. The future of the media belongs to us -- all of us voicing our views on this website and everyone else nationwide.




AT&T wants to block its customers access to Google and will do so if provided the chance --a world without Net Neutrality means Google would no longer be free for us to use but we have to pay extra and Google has to pay each ISP for access to its customers.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Actually it is not a fantasy it is a fact -- we have had regulations earlier -- the Internet is already neutral but big cable and phone companies want to kill net neutrality and to do that they have to get the U.S. Government to abandon its commitment to protecting consumers.

Big ISPs want to become gatekeepers -- the U.S. Highways if corporations were allowed to own and operate them would consist of a series of toll booths and corporations would become gatekeepers deciding where we can go, where we can travel to etc, and charge us for driving on the highways -- every highway could have a number of toll booths. The Information Superhighway should function in the same capacity as our federal highways -- that is they should remain open and free of corporate control -- I don't want government over regulation but under regulation is just as bad.

Competition by the way can be harmed by big businesses -- regulations forbidding mega mergers and mandating competition help consumers. It keeps companies from consolidating to a point they can monopolize and close markets to competitors. Innovation by monopolists comes much slower than innovation in open and competitive markets. Free market capitalism which is what the U.S. was supposed to encourage has come under threat from crony capitalists and business and financial monopolists.

I can agree in principle that government sanctioned monopolies are bad -- sometimes govt can do bad things but when govt works properly I can support responsible government regulation and intervention. Less FCC power will simply mean more corporate power, more concentration and consolidation of the media and the Internet. No company should be able to have a monopoly of any market -- antitrust rules were initially created at the suggestion of Teddy Roosevolt a Republican U.S. President for the benefit of protecting free markets, and protecting consumers. Under Bush there was barely any antitrust enforcement, Bush was pro big business and had a lot of friends in the business community and sided with their lobbyists. mega mergers were allowed to occur and hardly any companies were broken up for monopolistic abuse of power etc.

CEOs never buy regulations or want them -- your statement CEOs who can't survive otherwise buy favors such as regulations and subsidies, limiting consumers and harming competition -- thus is partly inaccurate -- yes businesses lobby in Washington which is legalized bribery that needs to stop but responsible government intervention when government acts on behalf of the public instead of corporations -- on Net Neutrality corporate cable and phone company ISPs would love nothing better than government to give up on Net Neutrality rules and allow them to do whatever they want -- we still have neutrality but they are trying to kill it and lobbying against it every day.

Net Neutrality can be good for business investment though particularly for small businesses and be good for competition -- without Net Neutrality Facebook and Twitter would need permission to have been created -- new web entrepreneurs would need permission to innovate. Censorship could occur without Net Neutrality.

Corporate monopolies restrict competition and consumer choice and we need government that represents the public's interest and does what's best for us not corporations. Without Net Neutrality even people who criticize it might suffer the same loss of freedoms on the Web as everyone else.

Do you really think its okay for ISPs to own content -- that[s a conflict of interest -- cable company ISPs have a conflict of interest -- without Net Neutrality can discriminate against online TV services competing with their digital cable TV offerings and say if you want to watch YouTube videos etc you have to subscribe not only to our Internet service but our TV service as well. Prioritization and discrimination could occur. Phone service providers cannot prioritize phone calls so why should they be allowed to do so with the Web.

Net Neutrality makes every ISP a dumb pipe taking us to the same Internet -- they hate this notion they have to provide equal and fair access to the Web -- they want to charge us more for certain features -- like when you subscribe to digital cable TV they are bundled packages -- you can get basic cable, basic digital cable, what I'd call advanced digital cable with premium movie channels like HBO, Cinemax and ShowTime etc, video on demand, pay per view etc, HD content and DVRs the more you have the more you pay per month. However, with Internet you just pay a monthly fee for Internet access that lets you do whatever you like on the Web -- you don't pay extra for using Facebook or Twitter. You don't pay for premium content etc -- you pay for unlimited Internet access and really get it at a basic price (that unfortunately for some in rural areas is unaffordable or there is no provider hence the digital divide) they can't charge you extra.

With TV service lets say you pay $49.99 a month for HD DVR, HD and digital cable each month -- well one month you buy a HD movie from Pay Per View or Video On Demand for $4.99 that $4.99 gets added to your bill for that month. Otherwise you don't pay extra -- with Internet there is no provision even for them to charge us extra and they shouldn't have to or be able to. It's wrong cable companies are already price gouging customers in general -- we shouldn't have to pay extra for Facebook, My Space, Twitter or Google. We should have universal, affordable public access to the Internet for all -- an Internet that is democratic, non discriminatory, neutral, equal and encourages participation, collaboration, and empowers the public to speak their minds. Internet that supports entrepreneurialism and innovation. An Internet that is open and required to be kept open is better than Internet that is allowed to be closed. Without Net Neutrality kiss Internet freedom goodbye -- you worry about government takeover of Internet -- Net Neutrality though is meant to stop the corporate takeover of the Web by big ISPs.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
The market cannot or will not protect the Internet -- corporate monopolies already controlling TV, radio and publishing would love to take over the Internet and start discriminating against content. We need to ensure the Internet remains open and prevent corporations from hijacking the Web from users.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Dar, for years corporate record labels and their RIAA mouth piece had a scandal called pay for play where they bribe radio stations to only play RIAA music. Ending Net Neutrality may benefit the corporate types -- RIAA musicians would still get promotion from RIAA itself without the Web -- but indy musicians could suffer. The Future of Music Coalition represents indy musicians and a number of indy musicians have joined them in supporting Net Neutrality -- after all once its gone it could be lost forever. We can't lose Net Neutrality the underlying principle of nondiscrimination on the Web which the Internet has always had.

Now with the Internet indy musicians have a chance as long as Net Neutrality remains. While most RIAA labels oppose peer 2 peer file sharing some indy labels and artists support it as a way to enable music discovery of their music.

So I respectfully disagree with you Net Neutrality is needed. Net Neutrality is not a government takeover of the Internet -- the Web has always been neutral and had rules mandating neutrality prior to 2005 when the Bush FCC gutted nondiscriminatory rules. What's at stake is here saving Net Neutrality, restoring it or letting it die as the big cable and phone companies want.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Dar,

I can agree with you on principle that no one wants big government -- too much govt can be bad -- govt can take away civil liberties etc -- but given a choice between govt and corporations -- I feel government is instituted to represent the overall public's interest and do what's in their best interests while corporations exist just to maximize their shareholders. It is wrong when governments create and allow monopolies like when our federal government allowed Ma Bell to retain its monopoly on wireline phone service for so many years before AT&T was broken up. Sometimes governments allow monopolies but later realize they made a mistake in doing so and breakup government sanctioned monopolies like in the case of AT&T during the 1970s-1980s.

Government sanctioned monopoly is bad -- however, when government is not obstructive -- when govt supports free and open markets that are competitive by breaking up monopolies to create more competition and consumer choice that is a good thing. Corporations even in our political process exert far too much influence -- since the tragic Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v FEC corporations can now spend limitless amounts of money to buy and rig elections. The special interests can lobby government to side with corporations -- case in point health insurance companies lobbying against healthcare reform before this ruling can now spend even more to fight reform.

In a democracy every vote is supposed to count but some voices are louder and angrier than others -- some voices are backed up with millions or billions of dollars -- corporate lobbying is really legalized bribery that needs to stop. Corporate personhood needs to be abolished and campaign finance reform restrictions on how much they can spend on elections needs to be restored.

Even with capitalism there are at least 3 different theories -- free market capitalism with free and open markets that are competitive, crony capitalism when markets are closed and dominated by business and financial monopolies who when they fail demand on socialism for themselves thru programs like TARP, (examples of closed markets are broadband Internet access market in U.S. a few big cable and phone companies have a duopoly on its access market today because Bush Administration's de-regulations from 2001-2008 allowed mega mergers etc; and casino capitalism where banks can act like casinos and take dangerous risks and gamble with money -- under Bush we got a combination of crony capitalism and casino capitalism. War profiteers, big polluters, and neo-conservatives thrived in his regime. Thank goodness the country voted to hold him accountable in the 2006 Congressional midterms and elected Barack Obama in 2008 -- as John McCain would have just continued the same type of failed economic policies of putting Wall Street before Main Street.

Govt has always had a regulatory role on the Internet -- the Bush FCC gutted Net Neutrality in 2005 and hence the debate to save it or let it die has sprung up. If you enjoy the Web as it currently is -- like using new technologies like Facebook, Twitter. etc and even Google know this: ISPs in a world without Net Neutrality can discriminate against such websites if they want. Govt can deregulate or regulate but it does play a role even today. The free market is made less free by monopolies and government sanctioned monopolies. When government works to tear down monopolies though and toward consumer protections then we have free and open markets. Other examples of closed markets today are cellular phones -- there are only a few wireless phone carriers at the national or even regional level to now choose form that are widely used. AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Sprint NexTel or T Mobile. AT&T swallowed up Cingular Wireless a few years back --a merger that should have been prevented, and Verizon gobbled up All Tel Wireless also.

AT&T re-merged also with SBC Communications & Bell South reconstituting Ma Bell which should never been allowed to happen. Part of the reason for the breakup was to ensure the broadband Internet access market would remain competitive as it develops and also to ensure more wireline phone competition from more service providers.

I recommend reading the following book by Free Press "Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for the Digital Age" analyzing U.S. policies that have worked and failed over the years in relation to journalism and the Internet. This book outlines the policy failures I often describe and why we need Net Neutrality. To find out more about Free Press visit www.freepress.net, for Net Neutrality see www.savetheinternet.com to read more on why its needed.

So Dar I partly agree with you but not completely -- no offense but you are partly wrong -- I'll give you some credit on the issue of government sanctioning monopolies which is wrong. However, as noted I do not believe in giving corporations control to do whatever they want -- and have no government intervention at all. Massive de-regulation can be just as bad as over regulating.



pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
openInternet -- I never said George W. Bush invented the Internet (nor did Al Gore per se) but it is a fact that under Bush there was massive deregulation -- of a number of markets including the broadband Internet access market which has become less competitive, open, access is less affordable in rural areas -- and there is a digital divide. I have done the research which is why I know this. Under Bush 30 plus years of pro competitive regulations were gutted as was Net Neutrality -- in 2005 the Bush FCC crafted an Internet Policy Statement with 3 freedoms for Internet users -- they dropped the nondiscrimination rule and thus the future of Net Neutrality came into doubt -- now those of us who value the Internet as it exists today -- we value the democratic openness of the Web -- and don't want to lose the Information Super Highway we have come to enjoy we have to ensure the restoration of Net Neutrality.

Government has always been involved in regulating media -- they can deregulate media companies allowing more consolidation -- which harms consumer choice, leads to reduced competition etc or have good regulations to encourage diversity of opinions on the radio dial, more diversity on TV etc. Internet should be considered a public right -- as it is a public utility -- the Internet today is our best chance for reclaiming the media. To see statistics of the digital divide go to www.internetforeveryone.org and select your state on the map -- it shows 2007 numbers last I checked of how many people per state have broadband Internet and how many don't. Not convinced do an extensive Google search and you'll find other sources of information on our digital divide.

In order to be competitive with other countries having better Internet access -- the countries of Europe have more competitive and open markets. We must learn from history -- study the international lessons of our failed policies -- as we abandoned pro consumer, pro competitive regulations other countries maintained their own which is why the U.S. today is at least 28th in the world in terms of broadband Internet penetration. -- I am glad that we have a new FCC now committed to consumer protection and protecting the Internet -- a new FCC committed to a national broadband plan -- and to making the U.S. more competitive with other countries in offering broadband Internet access. It will not be easy as there are entrenched corporate special interests -- lobbyists for the Big Cable & Phone companies will fight against regulation requiring competition and for them to make their services more affordable -- just as Big Oil & Coal companies fight against climate change and clean energy legislation.

Whenever we try to hold polluters accountable for environmental damage they do they lobby against us such efforts. Speaking of clean energy -- some think the best way to wean our dependence of foreign oil is to drill more oil ourselves -- but with just 3% of the world's oil reserves we cannot drill our way out of this problem. To strengthen our national security and make the country more competitive globally we have to lead on clean energy or we'll be following China and others transitioning to clean energy, we need to have more energy efficiency and as this website is about protecting the open Internet -- we need to have common sense regulations to protect the Internet from dangerous corporations. We need to challenge corporate power. They have too much influence over our media, and our political system -- especially now thanks in part to the tragic decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizen's United v FEC to strike down 20 + years of campaign finance reform laws restricting how much corporations can spend on elections. Stop the corporate takeover of our democracy. Whether you political identification makes you Republican or Democrat as Americans we should all be concerned about this. We don't want America to become a plutocracy. We are a democracy.

Corporations have gained unprecedented control over radio, TV, publishing and the Internet -- already they have too much control over the Internet we can't let them increase their control any further -- we need to have Net Neutrality now and we have to roll back the regulations we had earlier mandating competition and reduce the power corporations already have.

We must learn from history not repeat it. Every time a transformative new technology emerged with the power to give a voice to the voiceless there was a great moment of hope -- we saw it when radio was invented in the 1920s, Television in the 1950s, Cable Television in the 1980s. Each time media moguls send their lobbyists to Washington to co-op and monetize the technologies before they get off the ground. Each time the public's best chance to reclaim the media was sacrificed to corporate power. Each time the public had no idea laws were being passed in their name killing the dream. With the Internet though we can use the Internet to save the Internet. With the Internet we not only have a tool that speaks truth to power, it protects truth from power. Former President FDR once said on the eve of his 1936 re-election "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace business & financial monopoly, war profiteers, reckless and risky financial speculators who had begun to consider The Government of the United States as an appendage of their interests. We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as govt by organized mob." FDR got the New Deal passed because he took the fight to his opposition and never backed down, and neither can (nor will) we. Logon www.savetheinternet.com today!
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
It is odd how many negative votes proposed ideas in regard to Net Neutrality are now getting. AT&T and other providers must be paying people to vote down Net Neutrality. Anyone with knowledge on this issue should and would I expect and hope would vote yes for Net Neutrality, and expanding broadband deployment (see broadband.gov in addition to openinternet.gov)
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Now before anyone disliking regulations criticizes this idea and votes it down -- I'll say I agree in principle that there should never be over regulation but markets can't govern themselves completely -- under regulations are just as bad as over regulating.

Before Bush & Cheney were in the White House we had 30 + years of common sense, pro consumer, pro competitive Internet regulations banning mega mergers between big ISPs, forcing them to share their infrastructure with smaller ISPs, offer cheap Internet access to smaller ISPs at wholesale prices so they can then resell broadband Internet access cheaply to their own customers -- The Ma Bell system was broken up to create more competition in the emerging broadband Internet access market that was still in its infancy. Our nation's leaders realized Internet would become the future of all media one day and wanted it to be open, competitive and vibrant for users. Large Internet companies had to provide equal, fair, and unfettered access to smaller companies -- so NetZero could buy Internet access from AT&T and resell it to their customers cheaply. The U.S. Congress even passed a law the 1996 Telecommunications Act mandating the broadband Internet access market be kept open and competitive, so there can be universal, affordable access to all Americans. They saw Internet as a public utility -- and a public right -- as soon as the bill was passed AT&T complained that it was unfair that they had to provide affordable Internet access to smaller competitors. They lobbied to reverse the regulations -- what they couldn't convince the courts to undo President Bush did for them in office. There even was a National Broadband Plan before Bush entered office but what did the Bush Administration do -- massive deregulation of the Internet and scrapped the National Broadband Plan.

Due to the Bush Administration's bad policies the U.S. fell from 4th in the world in terms of broadband Internet access penetration when George W. Bush entered office in 2001 to 17th by 2005-2006 -- last I checked it is 28th.


What happened was other countries maintained their pro competitive regulatory commitments banning mergers etc and kept broadband Internet access affordable. The Bush Administration though neglected to keep up these common sense regulations and as a nation we fell behind other countries that kept up their regulations.

Last year in Europe as the Obama FCC sought to restore Net Neutrality -- a European Commissioner bragged Net Neutrality is better in Europe -- and the Internet market is more competitive there -- this Commissioner said that in Europe they would not hesitate to enforce Net Neutrality ever -- there is no dire need in Europe today for new Net Neutrality rules like in the U.S. because so much of the Internet market there is already competitive.

If we maintained our regulatory commitments during the Bush years there would not be a huge digital divide in the country today. We could have millions of more jobs (closing the digital divide can result in more job creation) and Internet for everyone rich or poor, or urban or rural. Internet companies would not be able to throttle web traffic. Big ISPs like Time Warner Cable and Comcast would be unable to prioritize and discriminate against web traffic or content. A major problem right now with cable companies is they have a conflict of interest as they also have digital cable TV services -- they might without Net Neutrality try to restrict competition from online video on demand services to their TV services.

What we need to try to do is breakup AT&T again -- spinoff SBC Communications & BellSouth from AT&T, and breakup some big cable companies -- forbid providers of TV or Internet service from owning content -- there should be Net Neutrality making every ISP a dumb pipe taking you to the same Internet and providing equal access to all. We need to restore the regulations the Bush Administration abandoned and enforce the regulations we have.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
karinbelli,

n some countries pro competition, pro consumer regulations were maintained like in the EU banning mega mergers in the broadband Internet access market and mandating major cable and phone company ISPs like AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Comcast etc resell Internet access at wholesale rates to smaller providers like NetZero -- allowing NetZero to buy Internet access from these larger companies and resell it at more affordable pricing so we can have universal broadband Internet access available and affordable for all Americans.

In a recent Arstechnica article "EU Taunts U.S. Net Neutrality's Better Here" from last October 2009 -- the EU Commissioner in charge of Information Society & Media talked some serious smack about the US. She claimed that network neutrality was better in Europe—thanks to "pro-competitive EU regulation" that curbstomps the preferred "deregulatory" approach in the US. Reding also made the issue personal, telling Europeans that she plans to be "Europe's first line of defense whenever if comes to real threats to net neutrality."

Reading was speaking at a conference in Brussels on "The Future of the Internet and Europe's Digital Agenda," and she opened her Tuesday remarks with a bang. After waxing eloquent about the wonders of the Internet and it's continued massive growth rates, Reading made a powerful statement about the European Commission's stance on network neutrality.

"Prioritizing some traffic means restricting the rest, and it will be essential to remain vigilant as regards the impact this has on competition," she said. "The European commission attaches high importance to preserving the open and neutral character of the net in Europe, in the interest of fair competition and tangible consumer benefits."

And not only is the Commission solidly behind the idea of a neutral net, but it believes that Europe is already doing better in this area than the US.

A link to the article is here followed by an excerpt. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/eu-taunts-us-deregulation-sucks-and-net-neutralitys-better-here.ars -- the Commissioner . talked some serious smack about the US. She claimed that network neutrality was better in Europe—thanks to "pro-competitive EU regulation" that curbstomps the preferred "deregulatory" approach in the US. Reding also made the issue personal, telling Europeans that she plans to be "Europe's first line of defense whenever if comes to real threats to net neutrality."

Reading was speaking at a conference in Brussels on "The Future of the Internet and Europe's Digital Agenda," and she opened her Tuesday remarks with a bang. After waxing eloquent about the wonders of the Internet and it's continued massive growth rates, Reading made a powerful statement about the European Commission's stance on network neutrality.

What's more Net Neutrality should apply to all providers -- whoever says Facebook and Netflix can use different tiers for their members but AT&T cannot which would seem unfair for AT&T -- if Facebook and Netflix are being anti competitive they should stop.

We should curb unnecessary and unfair bandwidth caps on legitimate high speed Internet customers who use Internet more -- major ISPs like AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Comcast etc should not be able to throttle lawful traffic on their network -- if NetZero gets broadband Internet access from AT&T and wants to resell it more cheaply AT&T should not be able to throttle NetZero's Internet connection and slowdown Internet not only for NetZero but NetZero users.

Net Neutrality has always been the law since the Internet's inception but was tossed out by the Bush FCC in 2005 -- before George W. Bush we had 30 + years of pro competitive, pro consumer common sense regulations -- the 1996 Telecommunication Act passed by Congress was a blueprint for a more competitive, vibrant broadband Internet access market. What happened was AT&T cried foul and complained to Congress, and the courts that they should not have to comply with the 1996 Telecommunications Act -- Congress was being unfair to them by forcing them to provide affordable Internet access to smaller ISPs who can then resell Internet access to their own customers at cheap prices and still make a profit as well.

What AT&T could not get Congress and the courts to undo in the 1996 Telecommunications Act George W. Bush's FCC undid. Completely deregulating a number of markets including the broadband Internet access market allowing AT&T to reconstitute Ma Bell by merging with SBC Communications & Bell South thus allowing the market for broadband Internet to become a duopoly of major phone and cable companies. AT&T should have to share their infrastructure with smaller ISPs and provide them affordable rates -- this could help level the playing field, allow more smaller providers and more competition. In a duopoly or monopoly market innovation is slow to come -- monopolists don't want to upgrade infrastructure as often as they would have to in a competitive market -- innovation is risky and expensive for them. Forcing customers to use subpar broadband Internet -- high speed Internet providers advertise really high speeds but even high speed Internet service is often slower than advertised.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
karinbelli,

First off you say you disagree with the idea of allowing government intervention in a market that is thriving -- broadband Internet by the way in the U.S. is not thriving as much as it should and could. There is a digital divide -- many people in rural areas cannot afford high speed Internet at the insane prices duopoly cable and phone companies charge. Either that or high speed Internet is not offered in their area because no ISP wants to risk setting up infrastructure in there area -- they want to protect their existing profits and don't want to upgrade and expand infrastructure unless they have to.

So by no means is Internet thriving -- with a digital divide it can never thrive. Second, whatever success the Internet has had in the U.S. even recently was because of its openness. Without Net Neutrality Internet pioneers responsible for creating Facebook, My Space, Twitter, YouTube, even Google would need permission to innovate from the large cable and phone company ISPs. The Internet has always been neutral because ISPs from the start were required to comply with Net Neutrality -- in recent years the Bush FCC -- from 2001-2008 did massive de-regulation (will talk about that in my next post here) and in 2005 mistakenly decided to jettison Net Neutrality rules -- they made a document called the Internet Policy Statement with few goals for Internet Freedom -- nondiscrimination which was the core principle of Net Neutrality was removed from their list of mandated Internet freedoms which ISPs would have to provide users.

That's how this debate over Net Neutrality started -- quickly users who realized the success of Facebook, Google, My Space, Twitter, and YouTube was possible because of Net Neutrality and concerned for its future rose to its defense. Cable and phone company ISPs likewise began lobbying to kill it. Internet after all without Net Neutrality would look like cable TV or radio of today -- big cable and phone companies could decide what's on, how much it costs and how fast it downloads. Your ISP could charge you extra for higher bandwidth use if you download music or videos -- even legally via iTunes, XBox etc -- and your ISP can charge the companies providing such services in order for Internet users to be able to access those sites. Imagine without Net Neutrality AT&T saying to Google that our Internet customers can no longer access your search engine or other services for free. In addition to their having to pay a monthly subscriber fee (which we already do to access Internet) webmasters have to pay a fee as well.

So if I'm an AT&T customer and want to access Google -- unless Google pays AT&T whatever amount AT&T wants them to pay then AT&T can block user's access to Google -- we've always been able to access and use Google completely free -- and Google has not had to pay an ISP anything so their site can be made accessible to users. That is the dilemma of Internet without Net Neutrality.





I
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Yes we need to stop discrimination and prioritization. I just made a comment concerning this issue for another post.
My main concern is with cable companies owning content they can then prioritize said content and discriminate against content they don't own. Worse with Comcast's NBC Universal merger they could prioritize NBC content for their digital cable TV service -- every year cable and broadcast TV networks renegotiate with providers a new contract for the year to keep channels on the provider's service. Often times the networks demand higher fees from the cable providers which have to be passed on to consumers. Cable providers pretend to complain about the higher fees and refuse to accept them, even notifying the public about the cable network's demands to raise rates but then ultimately go along with the network's demands even if they ask viewers to vote on whether to roll over or get tough and viewers vote for get tough -- the cable providers still roll over. What if Comcast can say since they own NBC Universal Comcast Digital Cable TV subscribers never have to worry about higher rates each year for NBC Universal owned channels ever again but viewers of other providers may be forced to still pay the higher fees each year.

Even worse what if Comcast with their anticompetitive and anti consumer TV Everywhere scheme says that their high speed Internet customers from now on have to also subscribe to their digital cable TV service to watch TV online. They set up an unfair and unnecessary anticompetitive pay wall forcing Internet users to pay for their expensive TV service. They force users to bundle Internet and TV in order to access YouTube, Hulu, or other video sharing sites and services designed for viewing TV over the Web -- even the legit paying services. They don't want competition from cheaper, more affordable, legal, online video on demand systems like the Apple iTunes Store and Apple TV, Microsoft's XBox 360 Live Video Marketplace for purchasing and downloading movies (or renting and downloading movies) or purchasing episodes of your favorite TV Shows in either SD or HD, or even streaming TV Shows and Movies via Netflix Watch Now to be available. They say if you want to download movies from iTunes using your Comcast High Speed Internet service you also have to have Comcast's Digital Cable TV service.

That is prioritizing and discrimination which would be impossible with Net Neutrality. Comcast in fact should be forbidden from merging with NBC Universal as it would cause a conflict of interest. All ISPs should be dumb pipes taking us to the same Internet -- just providers of Internet service and perform the same way as wireline phone service providers do. What we do online, how we use the Web, how often we use the Web that's up to us. So they should not be able to institute unfair and arbitrary bandwidth caps on legit users either. Unless a user is spamming they should not have service slowed down, blocked or terminated. Also the Net Neutrality protections should extend to wireless also so cellular phone carriers cannot unfairly discriminate against VOIP apps on their network -- AT&T should not be able to ever again restrict Skype's iPhone app for example to Wifi ever again. There was no technical reason for the block they had on Skype back in 2008 but it was an anti competitive, anti consumer business decision.

Also worth noting for those who say if you don't like your provider just change it -- when 1 company has a monopoly on the regional market and you have to move from California to escape Comcast -- or you have to move from your current city to get better Internet from another provider that is not right. There should be competitive, affordable access in all cities and all states. Moving to another town just so you can have another provider should not have to be an option.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
I agree with Dave on principle that we have to breakup the monopolistic cable and phone company providers of broadband Internet access that have made the market less competitive and reduced consumer choice. My main concern is with cable companies owning content they can then prioritize said content and discriminate against content they don't own. Worse with Comcast's NBC Universal merger they could prioritize NBC content for their digital cable TV service -- every year cable and broadcast TV networks renegotiate with providers a new contract for the year to keep channels on the provider's service. Often times the networks demand higher fees from the cable providers which have to be passed on to consumers. Cable providers pretend to complain about the higher fees and refuse to accept them, even notifying the public about the cable network's demands to raise rates but then ultimately go along with the network's demands even if they ask viewers to vote on whether to roll over or get tough and viewers vote for get tough -- the cable providers still roll over. What if Comcast can say since they own NBC Universal Comcast Digital Cable TV subscribers never have to worry about higher rates each year for NBC Universal owned channels ever again but viewers of other providers may be forced to still pay the higher fees each year.

Even worse what if Comcast with their anticompetitive and anti consumer TV Everywhere scheme says that their high speed Internet customers from now on have to also subscribe to their digital cable TV service to watch TV online. They set up an unfair and unnecessary anticompetitive pay wall forcing Internet users to pay for their expensive TV service. They force users to bundle Internet and TV in order to access YouTube, Hulu, or other video sharing sites and services designed for viewing TV over the Web -- even the legit paying services. They don't want competition from cheaper, more affordable, legal, online video on demand systems like the Apple iTunes Store and Apple TV, Microsoft's XBox 360 Live Video Marketplace for purchasing and downloading movies (or renting and downloading movies) or purchasing episodes of your favorite TV Shows in either SD or HD, or even streaming TV Shows and Movies via Netflix Watch Now to be available. They say if you want to download movies from iTunes using your Comcast High Speed Internet service you also have to have Comcast's Digital Cable TV service.

That is prioritizing and discrimination which would be impossible with Net Neutrality. Comcast in fact should be forbidden from merging with NBC Universal as it would cause a conflict of interest. All ISPs should be dumb pipes taking us to the same Internet -- just providers of Internet service and perform the same way as wireline phone service providers do. What we do online, how we use the Web, how often we use the Web that's up to us. So they should not be able to institute unfair and arbitrary bandwidth caps on legit users either. Unless a user is spamming they should not have service slowed down, blocked or terminated.

Here's my reasoning now for Net Neutrality which independent musicians also support -- Google Future of Music Coalition and Rock The Net for more info.

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Net Neutrality is a freedom and should remain so. Here's some thoughts on why we need Net Neutrality:

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
I agree with takemctaker's comment and a number of comments from other pro Net Neutrality supporters of why we need an open, democratic Internet which by the way indy musicians also support (as does the Future of Music Coalition with represents independent musicians -- just check out their Rock The Net campaign they did earlier) here's why we need Net Neutrality:

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
I can agree to this in principle -- but someone has to enforce Net Neutrality and that someone unfortunately would be the government. You don't like government or corporations but someone has to keep the corporations trying to do away with Net Neutrality in line. Of course we can't let Government ever get too big. By the way here's why I support Net Neutrality:

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet. Also independent musicians support Net Neutrality so they can more easily distribute their music and get their songs heard considering the corporate record labels and RIAA have dominated radio with payola. Just visit the Future of Music Coalition website and you'll find a campaign called Rock The Net done by them.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
What Finland and some of the countries in Asia are doing is the right thing (no offense to Dar but Dar is spreading FUD) -- as we abandoned our pro competitive regulations during the Bush Cheney years and the national broadband plan in place before he entered office we dropped from 4th place in the world in terms of broadband Internet access to 28th just as northrup.mike clearly stated. This is a fact. Today the amrket is duopolized -- crony capitalists closed the market -- deregulation allows business and financial monopolists to run wild with mega mergers to reduce competition and end consumer choice.

We had a national broadband plan before -- a new one is being worked on again -- with a goal to make broadband Internet access affordable and accessible to all Americans rich or poor, urban or rural. Broadband Internet is a right its a public utility. We should not let it become a cash cow just for a few. As long as we have Net Neutrality it remains a vibrant town square for all of us the minute we lose Net Neutrality the Internet just becomes a closed system like cable TV or radio of today.

Here's my take by the way on why we need Net Neutrality:

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.

pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
ascending is right the comments that Net Neutrality is a plot by the government to take away free speech or take over the Internet are false. By the way here's my take on Net Neutrality and why we really need it.

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Agreed Net Neutrality is essential to ensure corporations cannot stifle or censor free speech on the Web. This is not about government control -- some are trying to spread misinformation and lies about Net Neutrality. We had it once before for 30+ years plus pro competitive Internet regulations banning mega mergers so we have a competitive broadband Internet access marketplace but the Bush Cheney Administration reversed 30 years of progress under both Democrat and Republican Presidents before him with total deregulations. He was the pro Big Business President allowing business and financial monopolization to occur resulting in less competition and consumer choices.

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
I agree we need Net Neutrality protections restored. Here's my take on the matter:

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Agreed the Internet is for everyone -- it should be made more competitive, ISPs should be forced to stop unfair bandwidth caps on legitimate users and upgrade their networks to accommodate more use rather than restricting high speed Internet connections. It's one thing to have a free and open market that is competitive and another when business and financial monopolies control markets and close them off to new competitors.

Here's an argument for why Net Neutrality is needed:

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Agreed ISPs should not be able to prioritize connections anymore than phones can't. Furhermore, would like to add the following note of why Net Neutrality is needed.

Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
There's a difference between free market capitalism though with open and competitive markets and crony capitalism with business and financial monopolies controlling the Web and discriminating against our Internet.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. We need open access to the Web to inspire positive change. With the recent MLK day now behind us I thought I'd share with you that some of us reflected on that day of the progress MLK helped bring when he led the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s to end segregation in America. We should not allow ISPs to segregate the Web in the same way the country was segregated. We need to empower independent voices in the media and on the Internet. We need more participation with more diverse voices on the radio dial, TV and the Internet.

After all the Web empowers and inspires creativity as long as it stays neutral -- don't allow ISPs to destroy the single most important and wonderful thing about the Web.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
karinbelli even if they don't put politics over profits -- your right about one thing they have lobbyists donating to candidates from both political parties but recall the Tv Everywhere scam I mentioned by Comcast -- setting up pay walls on the Internet to force their high speed Internet subscribers to also use their expensive digital cable TV service in order to watch TV online. If this is not an example of a monopoly then please tell me what you think is a monopoly. It is monopolization to use anti competitive and anti consumer business practices to restrict consumer choice and competition in a market. When a market is locked up -- case in point lock-in when you buy an iPhone to AT&T's network that constitutes monopolization. I have nothing against businesses establishing a competitive advantage by providing a better product or service and consumers choosing theirs over a competitors.

Case in point: Google today has a competitive advantage on the Internet with web search and is constantly expanding into new areas but their not using their position in one market to shut out competition in another. It's not like when Microsoft used Windows to force Netscape out of the browser business by bundling IE and deliberately coding Windows to be buggy when running Netscape. Google does not shut out competitors. They have so far succeeded in maintaining their competitive advantage in online search and online advertising without harming competitors. In fact the competition to Google is fierce with Microsoft Bing, and other players.

ISPs may not block a political party's website but they might block websites like Skype.com, Vonage.com, or the Magic Jack website. I've heard for Time Warner Cable Road Runner subscribers Time Warne Cable has been purposely throttling the high speed Internet connections of Apple TV users. If Comcast's TV Everywhere scheme is not anti consumer or anti competitive what is? Standard cable prices have been rising for years and will only continue to do so over the next 10 years even for digital cable users without a DVR or HD DVR, or without Video On Demand. This is in part due to broadcast and cable networks demanding higher fees each year as they renegotiate contracts with the cable providers. Costs that end up being passed on to consumers. Big Cable and Telecom companies have duopolized the broadband Internet access market already choking off competition from smaller ISPs.

There was a time when competition was mandated and the big ISPs had to offer wholesale pricing to smaller ISPs so they can buy Internet access cheaply and resell it at affordable prices. AT&T hated that under the 1996 Telecommunications Act they had to do this. At this time NetZero could buy broadband Internet access cheaply from a larger ISP and resell it. They complained to Congress which passed the law in the first place, they complained to the courts and in a few short years were able to get the rules that were pro consumer pro open market rolled back. Whatever they couldn't get the courts to rule unconstitutional during the Bush Cheney years with an FCC run by people sympathetic to big cable and telecom companies whatever remained of the 1996 Telecommunications Act was demolished. The new FCC under Bush and Cheney reasoned that big ISPs would still offer wholesale pricing to smaller ISPs without regulation but they were wrong. Without coercion, without being compelled or forced to do so the big ISPs stopped doing so and NetZero went back to just selling dialup. It is outrageous for most Americans broadband Internet is too expensive or inaccessible and dialup or slow Internet is more convenient. As the U.S. abandoned its commitment to having a national broadband plan though and mandating universal, affordable broadband Internet access be made available to all Americans whether rich or poor or urban or rural other countries maintained their commitment to such regulations and the U.S. slipped from 4th in the world in terms of broadband Internet penetration to 28th today. We fell behind the other countries that maintained their regulatory commitments.

In this case if we maintained our regulations -- the regulations would have been good for the country -- we abandoned common sense regulations and fell behind other countries that maintained their's. For 30 plus years under both Democratic and Republican U.S. Presidential Administrations before Biush and Cheney we had an FCC looking out for consumers and protecting a level and open playing field on the Internet. An FCC that was determined to keep the broadband Internet access market years before it ever developed an open and competitive market.

Actually when a company has a monopoly they can do whatever they want -- even if they block access to websites -- your line of reasoning is they would lose business and consumers would flock to another ISP. What if all ISPs are doing it though? Furthermore, what if there is only 1 ISP in your town or state and you can either choose to use their service or not have broadband Internet service at all. Think about that?

Since the Bush Cheney years started free market capitalism with open markets has been replaced with crony capitalism -- capitalism for the rich -- who prefer socialism when they fail resulting in bailouts like TARP for the financial and auto industries.

Somehow we need to return to free market capitalism and mandate open markets again by outlawing mega mergers which result in less competition and less consumer choice and even breaking up big companies that have monopolies. As such in the financial industry companies too big to fail that they needed TARP should be broken up by antitrust regulators. If a business is too big to fail after all they are too big to exist. They may not put politics before profit but cable company ISPs may block YouTube, Hulu, iTunes Store, and even Boxee for users of their Internet services who don't buy their digital cable TV service -- making it impossible to cut the cord and save money.

No company should be able to force you when using one product of theirs to use another one in order to use some other company's product along with the original product you bought from the first company.

For example, your ISP should not be able to tell you if you don;'t subscribe to their digital cable TV service they can block or slowdown your access to YouTube. It is wrong for Comcast or Time Warner Cable to say if you want to access YouTube over the Web you have to have their expensive digital cable TV service. You cannot watch YouTube if you have Road Runner from Time Warner Cable but use satellite television from Dish Network or DirecTV. Also you cannot replace digital cable TV or satellite TV with a competing online TV provider. I can't replace my digital cable TV provider with Hulu. Imagine canceling cable and just watching all the TV you want online. It is not possible even if your paying for Internet Protocol Television!
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
karinbelli no no one is paying me to write this -- I wrote this myself and these are my personal opinions on the matter. Although I have done research on the subject and read what some others have said they are my words. Companies like AT&T may still upgrade their networks but when their monopolies they don't make expensive upgrades that often. Also their trying to restrict bandwidth usage -- sometimes when using my ISP which is supposed to offer high speed Internet connections my Internet is slowed down for some time. When loading my e-mail the login page loaded within seconds but when trying to login there was a delay and I had to wait 3-4 minutes -- sometimes it can even be longer than that for a page to load. Sometimes it loads super fast other times it loads slower. This is because ISPs are trying to institute bandwidth caps -- most of the smaller ISPs only offer dialup service and if you want broadband you only have 1 or 2 choices. If their both bad you just have to live with shoddy service or not have service at all.

Internet is a public utility and therefore a public right -- a mass communications and mass media medium. A two way system where you can communicate. The best hope the public has today to reclaim the media from corporate power is for the Internet to remain open and democratic with non discrimination. Participation on the Web has always been possible and should remain so, the Internet should not be allowed to be segregated like AT&T wants. Most of the time companies like AT&T which have a monopoly position don't upgrade their towers and infrastructure that often as it is costly and risky. When there is free market capitalism with open markets and no monopolization companies are more quick and willing to innovate. AT&T only innovates when they feel there is no choice they absolutely have to do it to keep up with new potential competitors.

You mention competitors like Magic Jack and Vonage as competitors for digital phone service well guess what in order for them to stay in business Net Neutrality needs to remain the law. Otherwise AT&T, Time Warner Cable and other companies supplying digital phone services can and will discriminate against rival services to restrict and limit competition.

This is what Comcast is trying to do with its TV Everywhere scheme that is anti competitive and anti consumer. They want to establish a pay wall and only allow Comcast's High Speed Internet users with their Digital Cable TV service to watch TV online. What's wrong with this you might ask -- sure it would harm free online TV providers but makes sure TV is paid for even in the online world? Well it means if you have satellite TV from Dish Network or DirecTV but use Comcast for Internet you still can't watch TV online -- they are prioritizing and discriminating against competing services.

Cable company Internet providers want to force users to buy their expensive digital cable TV services. They don't want users to even be able to cut the cord and use even legal, paid video download and streaming services like Apple iTunes Store, VUDU, XBox Live Video Marketplace, Cinema Now, Movie Link, Netflix Watch Now etc. So it's not just about stopping users from getting TV for free online but even paying users who pay an online provider must be forced to also pay for digital cable TV. Imagine your cable provider supplying you with high speed Internet telling you when you signup for Internet that if you want to access YouTube and video sharing sites online you must also bundle digital cable TV with your Internet. They are forcing you when you get their Internet service to also get their TV service. With Net Neutrality they cannot do this. Without wireless Net Neutrality AT&T can discriminate against VOIP apps on the iPhone or any other smartphone like they originally did with the Skype iPhone app restricting it to Wifi when technically there was no reason why it couldn't be used over AT&T's EDGE or 3G networks. Of course they later changed this policy due to public outcry and government intervention and now Skype and Vonage Mobile's iPhone apps can run on AT&T's networks.

Wholesale open access and Net Neutrality as well as wireless Net Neutrality should be mandated otherwise companies will never comply with these principles -- unless they are rules. Wholesale open access says you can use any cellular phone with the service of your choice. When that happens carriers have to compete on the merits of their service not on which carrier has the best phone on their network. iPhone users frustrated with AT&T Wireless can keep their iPhones but switch to another network. Right now there are only 4 major national wireless phone carriers (AT&T Wireless, Sprint Nextel, Verizon Wireless, and T Mobile) -- by mandating wholesale open access more competition can occur -- another thing we should do is end the mega mergers and if possible reverse some that already occurred. With common sense pro competitive regulations AT&T Wireless could not have merged with Cingular Wireless and we would still have a 5th choice for wireless phone service. Of course Verizon Wireless bought All Tel Wireless a regional carrier thus reducing competition and consumer choice even further. Before the Carterfone decision (if you don't know about it you can Google it) AT&T which was the Ma Bell Telephone Monopoly could dictate what hardware or what phones worked with its wireline phone service. Today any phone designed for land line use whether its cordless or even if it has a cord can be used with any phone service. I can use the phone of my choice with the service of my choice. Furthermore, if the Carterfone decision had not been made the fax machine might not exist today at least not in the form it has taken. AT&T would not allow competition and did not allow others to try to innovate. They wanted to protect the status quo and keep their monopoly in check they were broken up also to ensure the wireline phone market and eventually the broadband Internet access market would remain vibrant and competitive.

However, this is about Net Neutrality so am going to return to the merits of why it is needed. Without Net Neutrality phone companies can discriminate against Vonage and Magic Jack -- do further bandwidth caps and charge websites and companies like Vonage and Magic Jack excessive fees for the convenience of being able to reach potential customers. Without Net Neutrality and these increased fees on Magic Jack by phone company ISPs the costs would eventually have to be passed on to consumers. Consumers who switched before to Magic Jack for its affordability and improved service would find it as expensive as traditional phone service or digital phone services by cable companies.

Without Net Neutrality you might not be able to watch TV online if you don't subscribe to your cable company's digital cable TV service assuming you have your cable company's Internet service. Your ISP can cherry pick which websites work and which don't. Without Net Neutrality giant cable and phone companies can decide what's on, what it costs and how fast it downloads. Thus without Net Neutrality ISPs can charge excessive fees to website owners for permission to have their site load fast or load at all for users which would have to also be passed on to customers. The cost of cable TV is rising annually -- despite alleged protestations by cable companies to demands for much higher fees by the broadcast and cable TV network they end up agreeing to accept the higher fees or run the risk of losing channels on their services.

With Net Neutrality you pay a basic monthly fee for broadband Internet usage -- they don't bill you based on how much bandwidth you use but without Net Neutrality they could do so. Let's say right now I pay $40 a month for high speed Internet access -- a fixed monthly price -- without Net Neutrality my ISP can charge me $40 or $50 dollars more based on what websites I visit and how much bandwidth I use. If I don't download lots of video and music off iTunes but still access Google they can charge me $60 a month -- if I do download my bill can be $70 or $80 a month for each month I download content. If I download content and access Google frequently they can charge me $100 a month for the months I do so. If one month I stop using Google and stop downloading at random my bill may for that month return to $40 -- so without warning they can adjust the price based on how I use the Internet -- the more I use it or the more heavily I use it the more I end up paying. If I don't use it at all for one month I'm still expected to pay for service but may pay a lot less than I otherwise would.

Without Net Neutrality ISPs can become gatekeepers and can overcharge users and charge a webmaster for permission so his site can be accessed by users. Its double/triple dipping into a user's pocketbook or wallet. The ISP is charging us repeatedly for using the company's service. Never before has a company been able to discriminate against how users choose to use their service. Phone companies cannot discriminate against users -- they cannot control free speech on their network. With Net Neutrality every service provider becomes a dumb pipe just distributing service to users -- however they want to use the service is up to them. AT&T cannot tell its wireline phone users what they can and cannot say on the phone. They cannot control who we talk to, how long we talk etc. So why should they be able to do so on the Internet?!

With Net Neutrality you pay for Internet service and then can go out on the Web and access any information you want on the Information Super Highway. With an open, democratic and non discriminatory Internet can visit the websites of your choice freely -- we may have disagreements but you know what without Net Neutrality your ISP might be able to censor free speech online. Your ISP can censor what you say or I say. When I mentioned President Obama was able to capitalize on the open Internet when running for office any Republican candidate could do so too if they get out their message clearly and control the message.

Anyone can participate on the Internet regardless of age, race, gender, skin color, national origin, sexual orientation (gay or straight), even disability, regardless of religious or political views as long as it remains open. Without Net Neutrality we might not even be able to have this discussion -- speech could be censored, dissent silenced and what I have to say or others say could be let ignored.

With Net Neutrality there is a level playing field and anyone with a good idea even small web startups can make it big. Once small web startups that are big today like Google, Facebook, and Twitter would need permission from individual ISPs to innovate were it not for Net Neutrality.

We had it once before and just need to restore the old Net Neutrality rules and extend them to wireless phone carriers -- as everyone even using mobile Internet should have access to the same democratic and open Internet. We should also have a national broadband plan and a goal to make broadband Internet more accessible and affordable -- to deploy universal broadband Internet access nationwide. Use common sense regulations to mandate more competition -- prevent further mega mergers and if necessary use antitrust enforcement to breakup companies that merged during the Bush Cheney years to duopolize the market, mandate the big ISPs offer wholesale pricing to smaller ISPs to resell broadband Internet access cheaply to consumers. Everyone should be able to access broadband Internet whether rich or poor, or whether they live in urban or rural areas. Reducing the digital divide and even eliminating it can lead to the creation of hundreds of thousands or even millions of new high tech jobs which given the current state of the economy and 10% unemployment would be nice.

Now I'm not advocating a government takeover of the Internet and Net Neutrality is not about allowing govt control or disallowing it but preventing corporations from becoming gatekeepers on the Web. A number of people including independent musicians support Net Neutrality (Google Rock The Net -- Rock The Net was a campaign by independent musicians run by the Future of Music Coalition with supports independent musicians -- to support Net Neutrality's restoration -- it ended when President Obama was elected but other campaigns to continue fighting for it continue -- the people at Rock The Net still support Net Neutrality but didn't feel the need to continue the fight any longer having scored a key victory electing a President who supports it), think of the effect on campus journalism websites here's one in Yuma AZ for AWC www.azwesternvoice.com, or the New York Public Library's website www.nypl.org. There's also the website www.yumalibrary.org for the Yuma County Library District, educational websites for colleges like www.arizona.edu for The University of Arizona in Tucson, websites like www.colorofchange.org a political website for Black America that gives a voice to African Americans, by the way even the right wing Christian Coalition recognizes the need for Net Neutrality and supports it. I often don't agree with them as I see them as a religious extremist group but support them on this. Consider the effect without Net Neutrality on the following websites that are political: www.moveon.org, www.aclu.org -- American Civil Liberties Union fights for civil liberties and is a progressive/liberal group, www.progressivefuture.org, another liberal website, www.dscc.org the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee website for electing Democrats to the U.S. Senate, the websites of the DCCC and DLCC to elect Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives, and to state legislatures nationwide, as well as the website of the DGA to elect Democratic Governors. Now those are a lot of websites supporting Democrats that have benefited from an open Internet but there are also political websites favoring Republicans that could lose out without Net Neutrality. You have no idea which political persuasion your ISP prefers -- what if your ISP decides to discriminate against political websites favoring one political party over another. Let's say your a Democrat and tomorrow your ISP blocks www.dnc.org and other sites that Democrats often like to visit.

Or lets say your a Republican and your ISP blocks www.gop.org but allows access to www.dnc.org and Democratic Party websites? Lets say one ISP may discriminate against GOP favored sites and allow Democratic Party websites, but another ISP discriminates against Democratic Party sites and approves GOP sites. Depending on what ISP you use -- 1 ISP may favor certain sites, and discriminate against other sites which a second ISP may allow. Let's say Time Warner Cable discriminates against Google and YouTube (now owned by Google) but allows Hulu. Let's say Comcast allows access to Google & YouTube but blocks Hulu. How much frustration and confusion may ensue. Depending on what ISP you have some ISPs will discriminate against one set of websites over another -- one ISP may discriminate against Google, but another ISP may allow it but block Yahoo instead of Google. See how much frustration, confusion and discontent could occur.

This is why we need Net Neutrality. If Time Warner Cable discriminates against Google but Comcast allows Google but in contrast blocks Yahoo despite Time Warner Cable allowing Yahoo what type of precedent could and would be set here?

We are traveling into dangerous and uncharted territory -- either we keep the Internet open with Net Neutrality rules or the future of the Web will become closed.

Regardless of political views an open Internet would be in the best interest of all people.
pangasamaneesh 1 month ago
Actually karinbelli no offense but your the one misinformed -- you believe businesses only want what the customer wants -- any business that doesn't listen to customers will soon be out of business according to your theory. Only problem is in some states today thanks to all the deregulation under the Bush Cheney years -- broadband Internet access market has become duopolized -- in some rural areas there is no broadband Internet provider at all or the service is terrible by the provider and there is no alternative.

Without common sense regulations companies can have mega mergers and reduce competition. In a monopolized or duopolized market companies only innovate when they have no choice and feel they absolutely must do so. Upgrading network infrastructure is expensive and risky for monopolies and they don't want to make the investments willingly. Recently AT&T Wireless having received a lot of complaints about shoddy coverage from iPhone users in the New York area rather than improve their infrastructure has decided the heck with customers in this area lets just stop selling iPhones in New York City. Then we won't have to worry about anymore complaints from users in the Bronx, Harlem, Manhattan etc.

Big business does not always care about their customers -- if there are only 2 companies providing Internet service in your town or state and their both bad choices and you can't buy service from an out of state company providing better service (assuming there still are good companies providing superior service) the consumer is screwed.

The cable company just wants to maximize its profits even if it means squeezing every last cent the consumer has. The cable company hates competition from online video on demand systems and may think I didn't go into business so other companies can compete and provide more affordable service. For many people the only choice they have is digital cable TV from their local cable provider (you can't choose cable providers if you select cable as there is only cable provider per city or state usually) or a satellite TV provider like Dish Network or DirecTV.

In a few states there now is competition from phone company based IPTV providers like Verizon's Fios TV -- if I could I would love to have Fios TV but its not offered in my area.

Furthermore, for land line phone service I can choose digital phone from Time Warner Cable or Qwest. What if the service from both companies is not that good. I can't choose a third company. The cable company wants to discriminate against Boxee, XBox Media Center, Apple iTunes Store + Apple TV, VUDU, Netflix Watch Now for downloads or streaming, and other competing online video on demand services -- if you get broadband Internet access via a cable modem from the cable company they want you to use their digital cable TV service as well in order to watch TV online. The cost of cable has been going up for years -- every year during winter time the cable company pretends to care about annual price increases and says they refuse to the TV networks demand to raise prices year over year and ask for consumer feedback. Then they go around and sign a contract with higher fees which have to be passed on to the customer.

When you only have a choice of 1 or 2 providers and both providers are no good that's not much of a choice. One problem I have with the Obama Administration and the FCC's proposed Net Neutrality rules is a loophole unfairly and arbitrarily benefiting copyright owners over the ISPs and the users. Under this loophole ISPs will be forced to become copyright cops and at the merge allegation of piracy or copyright abuse can and must suspend a user's Internet access with no formal or proper investigation and notice to the user warning the user of the risk of having Internet access revoked if the user is committing piracy. To read more about this anyone interested can visit www.eff.org or www.realnetneutrality.org where the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a petition to the FCC about concerns of loopholes in the Net Neutrality rule.


Big Media has never cared about the public all they care about is making money. We are at a defining moment in a few short years phone service, TV services, radio, and news can all be delivered over a high speed Internet connection. Advances toward doing so are already happening. At this moment we must learn from history. Every time a new transformative technology emerged with the power to give a voice to the voiceless there was a great moment of hope. We saw it when radio was invented in the 1930s, Television in the 1950s, Cable Television in the 1980s. At first the radio had diverse and independent voices (before the Fairness Doctrine was revoked in the mid 1980s and media consolidation began -- note: the Fairness Doctrine was a rule that said radio and TV broadcasters given a license to use the airwaves must represent the public interest as the airwaves belonged to the public) -- during the 1960s and 1970s there were at least 60 independent owners of radio stations today its down to just 5 or 6 companies controlling a majority of the radio stations, TV channels, publishing etc. Anyways, every time a new technology emerged with the power to give a voice to the voiceless media moguls sent their lobbyists to Washington to co-op and monetize the technologies before they got off the ground. Each time the public had no idea laws were being passed in their name behind closed doors that were killing the dream. With the Internet we stand at a moment of great opportunity as we can use the Internet to save the Internet.

Companies like AT&T have already expressed they want to segregate the Web and discriminate against websites they don't like. You think the solution karinbelli if one company does something you don't like to switch providers -- what if all providers are doing it? AT&T recently has expressed they want to find common ground with supporters of Net Neutrality and said how about this: they'll agree to support the idea of Net Neutrality in principle but they don't want rules requiring them not to discriminate against websites or impose arbitrary, unfair and illegitimate bandwidth caps on legit users (spammers by the way are non legit) they want to be able to segregate websites. To be able to decide what's on, how much it costs, and how fast the websites download. This is a nonpartisan issue as the Christian Coalition a religiously extremist right wing group even supports Net Neutrality. With Net Neutrality there is a fair and level playing field -- no one needs permission to innovate. Without it once small web startups that are big today like Google, Facebook and even Twitter would need permission to innovate. This is a battle between democracy and plutocracy. In this battle the Internet will end up going one of two ways -- the first is the righteous path of openness, and non discrimination -- an Internet where anyone with a good idea can make it big and make a difference. The second path is a closed Internet that looks like cable TV or radio of today where giant cable and phone companies decide what's on, how much it costs and how fast it downloads. Internet in this case would no longer be a vibrant town square for all of us but a cash cow for a few. That's why we need to ensure the Internet remains democratic and open. Otherwise think of the effect on educational institutions with websites, think of their campus journalism websites, think of public library or school library run websites, think of the effect on political websites whether they benefit Democrats or Republicans. President Obama used the Internet as a candidate for the Presidential election to get the nomination of the Democratic Party for President and to win the election -- doing fundraising online, appealing to young voters etc.

Any Republican candidate could do the same things with an open Internet and succeed if they get their message out properly and control the message. With a closed Internet though all users may suffer. This is not about government control of the Internet. The FCC before 2005 had Net Neutrality rules but the Bush FCC gutted the authority of the FCC in 2005 on Net Neutrality but said it was still preferable. With monopolies you can never change to another company if the company you have you don't like.
pangasamaneesh 2 months ago
takeymctaker I'm glad to see someone who understands the situation like I do and agrees of the need to restore Net Neutrality. As I noted even the religious extremist group the Christian Coalition a right wing group supports Net Neutrality so its not a partisan issue. AT&T wants to segregate the Web but the Web's greatest benefit has been it allows participation. Imagine what effect public libraries, educational institutions, campus journalism websites, news websites, and how all other websites would be impacted without Net Neutrality -- the danger it would cause and the anti consumer, anti competitive harm. This is why like you I see the need for an open, democratic Internet and yes your right in pointing out the Internet grew out of Arpanet a Defense Department program to network computers together.
pangasamaneesh 2 months ago
takeymctaker also makes a good point paid speech is not the same as free speech we don't want pay-walls on the Internet restricting free speech and the Internet which encourages participation on the Web to be segregated and censored. Just think of the effect it would have on web startups. With Net Neutrality anyone with a good idea can make it big. Without Net Neutrality once small web startups like Facebook and Twitter, even Google would need permission from ISPs to innovate. Never before have ISPs been able to prioritize and discriminate against web traffic flowing over their networks -- neither have phone companies and by that I mean traditional wireline phone companies they cannot control and censor speech -- they cannot tell you what to say or not say on the phone. With Net Neutrality these service providers become dumb pipes providing access to service but cannot control content, web applications, or services -- they just distribute service we cannot allow them to own content -- with cable companies there is also a conflict of interest without Net Neutrality cable companies with broadband Internet services can discriminate against Boxee, Apple iTunes Store + Apple TV, VUDU, Roku, Netflix Watch Now streaming service etc and say if you want to watch TV online you also have to buy our costly digital cable TV service and be a monthly subscriber. Pay walls like that are anti competitive and anti consumer -- Comcast may claim their TV Everywhere scheme will benefit consumers but it locks out satellite TV and online competitors -- its not just about stopping free online TV services but even paid online TV providers like Apple iTunes Store which sells TV and movies online in digital form and downloads them to your Apple TV, Mac or Windows PC with iTunes.
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
rezpete,

Your correct about one thing the airwaves do belong to everyone that's what I was implying -- however, commercial broadcasters have always had to license permission to use the airwaves from government. Even today, that is the way the system works -- what's changed is that broadcasters are no longer obligated to serve the public interest. Earlier this year government mandated all TV broadcasters switch from analog to digital signals. The DTV transition was scheduled for February 2009 but extended to June 2009 thanks to passage of the DTV Delay Act which delayed the Digital TV Transition by a few months more. Now the DTV Transition is already complete. I never said the airwaves belong to government per se govt though has always been responsible for licensing the right to use the airwaves to broadcasters wanting to use it. There was a time when govt said these companies had to serve the public interest. That rule of course for TV and radio broadcasters was the Fairness Doctrine. It was lifted by the Reagan Administration in the 1980s as a favor to the Far Right. Before the Fairness Doctrine was revoked also we had at least 60 independent radio broadcasters now thanks to media consolidation (govt always makes media policy through regulations -- when they deregulate their media policies benefit media companies, when they increase regulations mandating competition they benefit the public) and a 6 o clock news hour was mandated -- media companies had to air news at that time whether they wanted to or not -- and they didn't because news was unprofitable. Today, only 5 major companies control all the radio broadcasts, the fact is media consolidation has led to only a few companies controlling what we see on TV, hear on the radio etc. Now we have less independent and minority owned TV and radio stations, less diversity and localism.

Also, the last 8 years there were huge tax breaks for big businesses under the Bush Administration and jobs continued to go overseas. So your argument that increased regulations leading to less jobs in this case doesn't fly. Yes excessively high taxes and too many regulations can be harmful for the economy but what I'm suggesting is reasonable regulations serving the public.

On the Comcast NBC Universal merger whether this merger is good for Comcast and NBC's bottom line if it harms consumers it should be rejected. Ironically NBC acknowledged consumer harms by the AOL Time Warner merger in 2000 -- whether allowing that merger regardless of it helps AOL & Time Warner's businesses harms consumers it should be rejected. Also given Comcast has tried to violate Net Neutrality already (in 2008 the Bush FCC fined them for blocking Bit Torrent sites unfairly) a merger with Comcast and NBC Universal would be fraught with mischief and could lead to more mega media mergers. Content companies should never be allowed to be owned by providers of TV, Internet, phone, radio services etc or vice versa.

I recommend the book by Free Press "Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for The Digital Divide" to explain the failed policies of the Bush years and why we need better regulations. The de-regulations of the Bush years allowed a handful of telecom and cable companies who hated the wholesale requirements that they re-sell Internet access cheaply to smaller companies who could then re-sell broadband Internet access to their customers (would increase competition) that didn't like that rule -- when lifted to abandon wholesale pricing altogether.

Critics at these companies of Net Neutrality say with Net Neutrality further investment in network infrastructure could be jeopardized. False! For more accurate info and reasons why Net Neutrality is needed I also suggest reading the blogs at SaveTheInternet.com
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
I agree with Dave we need to restore the Net Neutrality rules repealed unfortunately by the Bush FCC in 2005 and extend them to apply to the wireless carriers -- whether using a mobile device for Internet access or a wireline device everyone should have equal access to the same Internet.
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
For this reason the Comcast NBC Universal merger should be blocked -- Comcast has already been found guilty of violating Net Neutrality (last year they were ordered by the FCC to stop blocking and/or slowing down access to Bit Torrent) they oppose Net Neutrality any time a cable provider merges with a content company problems can occur. The Comcast NBC Universal merger is a merger full of mischief, reduced consumer choices, innovation and competition. Visit www.freepress.net/comcast and click their Take Action link to tell Washington to oppose the merger!
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
Internet is a public good and the public has a right to fast affordable Internet -- should be affordable and accessible to everyone in the country whether Republican or Democrat, male or female, (regardless of age, race, skin color, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political views, disability etc) in fact the FCC of previous Presidential Administrations before Bush (since Internet's creation) recognized this and had regulations in place to protect the Internet's openness for the public. They forced the breakup of AT&T for just this reason -- did not want content companies mixed with Internet providers -- did not want AT&T to be able to decide how Internet users of AT&T's network could use the Internet. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's FCC sold out to special interest lobbyists, removed regulations banning mega mergers, and allowed AT&T to re-merge with two of the biggest Baby Bells (SBC Communications & Bell South) lifted the competition rules and now the broadband Internet access market is duo-opolized. When Bush entered office the U.S. was 4th in the world in terms of high speed broadband Internet penetration now it is like 27th or 28th. Other nation's maintained their commitments to competition as we abandoned ours and Internet connections began to suffer. Even so called high speed connections in the U.S. today are not always as fast as advertised. They should be faster. We should be adding more bandwidth to accommodate more Internet usage for downloading music, video, making phone calls etc not limiting bandwidth unfairly.



The Internet is the last great communications medium to have remained open for years. As we fight for Net Neutrality we cannot ignore history, we must learn from it. Every time a new technology emerged in the past with the power to give a voice to the voiceless in America there was a great moment of hope. We saw it when radio was invented in the 1920s-30s, Television in the 1950s, Cable Television in the 1980s. Each time media moguls sent their lobbyists to Washington to co-op and monetize the technologies before they got off the ground. Each time democracy was sacrificed to corporate power. Each time the public had no idea laws were being passed behind closed doors in their name that was killing the dream. This time is different though we can use the Internet to save the Internet. We have a tool that not only speaks truth to power it defends truth from power.

On another note: for the people who say on FOX News that media diversity and localism are bad and that restoring rules like The Fairness Doctrine are about liberals wanting to remove dissent that is completely untrue we want more independent and minority voices heard on the radio, TV and Internet not less. The Fairness Doctrine was a set of rules that said the TV and radio airwaves belonged to the public and corporate broadcasters could get a license to use them only if they listen to and support the public interest. Under the Fairness Doctrine we would still have FOX News and Rush Limbaugh could remain on the air but his station would be obligated after 4 hours to bring someone else on with a competing viewpoint. You couldn't have one side 24/7. On the news different perspectives had to be aired. FOX News would have to at least for four hours bring in someone with a different perspective.

Of course Fairness Doctrine was removed during the Reagan years as a gift to the Far Right. We were talking about Net Neutrality though which centers on protecting everyone's access to an equal Internet -- by the way media reformers don't want to stop dissent they want to make the news media better -- hold corporate media accountable and want government to adopt media policies that serve the public interest not special interests.

Without Net Neutrality free speech could be censored by your ISP in any form. What if your ISP doesn't like conservative voices and censors speech of conservatives online? Or if your progressive your ISP censors speech of liberals online? Its the big American ISPs that don't want dissent really in Net Neutrality debates. We need to stop them!
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
Dar,

I'm sorry to tell you this but your wrong about Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is essential -- by the way we've had Net Neutrality before - it is the principle of an open democratic Internet where anyone can go online and connect freely with others (it is a principle to prevent ISPs from blocking online access to certain services) we had Net Neutrality prior to 2005 when the Bush FCC made the error of stripping the Internet of this basic protection for the Internet. Net Neutrality makes sure you can connect to everyone else on the Internet -- now the Obama FCC is making the right choice in restoring this principle to protect this openness. In fact, their taking Net Neutrality a step further than it previously existed making it apply to wireless networks and wireless devices. As it should be when you on the web whether through wireline or wireless connections we should have the same openness on the Internet.

We face a challenge from ISPs though that want to preserve and extend their legacy of closed/proprietary technology systems like cable TV to the Internet -- thanks to the Internet's openness we have been able to reclaim the media for the public. Whether Republican or Democrat all Americans should support a democratic open Internet. This is not about govt control of Internet but preventing corporations from slowing down or blocking our Internet.

An open Internet is a great town square for the public where free speech is safe a closed Internet without Net Neutrality where big cable and phone companies restrict what we can do online could censor free speech. Big ISPs decide what's on, how much it costs, and how fast it downloads. That is not the type of Internet I signed up for or want. I want equal Internet -- everyone should have equal access to the Internet.

Today Internet can be used for watching television, placing phone calls (think Skype, and Vonage), reading news and information, communicating via email and instant messaging all freely. Without Net Neutrality cable companies would like to stop their Internet customers from downloading video off the web from even legal competing services like Apple's iTunes Store or accessing YouTube etc. Cable companies may privilege their own TV service offerings over rival online offerings. Instead of improving their infrastructure, expanding bandwidth, and speeding up our connections they want to slowdown our connections and restrict our Internet usage.

We have always had Net Neutrality -- the debate to save it or kill it started after the Bush FCC in 2005 made the regrettable mistake of gutting Net Neutrality protections that existed at the time for an open Internet. Now we're fighting to get those protections back and seem to be succeeding.

Before former President Bush entered office we had 30 + years (under both Republican and Democratic U.S. Presidents) of pro competition, pro innovation rules to keep the Internet open. AT&T (Ma Bell) was forced to be broken up for a reason to create competition in the broadband Internet access market and policies mandating that competition remain to prevent mega mergers like we've seen since former President Bush came to office in 2001 were in effect. When Bush entered office the U.S. was 4th worldwide in terms of broadband Internet penetration -- thanks to deregulation, mega-mergers etc we have less competition, consumer choices and innovation now -- also the U.S. has slipped way behind other countries in adopting broadband Internet and have a digital divide in this country where usually urban rich areas have Internet and poor rural areas lack Internet access. Even when people in rural areas want Internet they'll often find there is no provider in their area for high speed Internet or they provide sub par service and there are no other choices for better service.

If we close the digital divide we can create millions of new clean high tech jobs for the future that will help the economy especially now given the high unemployment we have. Net Neutrality is necessary for a democratic open Internet.
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
Yes government is supposed to serve us -- even when government gets big -- and do oppose growing the size of government if it erodes civil liberties -- however, regulations that are good for the public I support. Bad regulations of course I'd oppose. On Net Neutrality I say yes we need rules. After all government is supposed to serve the public interest. Who do Big Corporations serve? Their shareholders only and pander to their executives desire for bonuses -- govt serves the people so we need rules to protect the open Internet. Net Neutrality is not about govt control or lack of govt control it is govt protecting the public or allowing corporations to wreak havoc on our Internet.

The Internet is a public good -- a public utility that belongs to everyone; not the government or corporations -- govt had a role in creating it but it is the people who the Internet belongs to and all the people need to come out in favor of Net Neutrality to protect the open Internet.
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
Agree with individual posting this topic we need real broadband Internet access competition and we do need an open Internet with Net Neutrality rules that protect the public from corporations.
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
Yes we need Net Neutrality protections requiring ISPs use reasonable network management (must be careful in defining those terms though) no one is advocating government control of Internet just protecting Internet for the public from corporations. We had Net Neutrality before 2005 when the FCC issued its Internet Policy Statement weakening its ability to enforce Net Neutrality just saying they would prefer ISPs to comply without backing it up with a requirement they do so. We were supposed to have a competitive broadband Internet access market and Net Neutrality -- the 1996 Telecommunications Act by Congress was a blueprint for just such a future but corporate special interest lobbyists under the Bush Administration lined up to oppose it -- whatever parts of it they couldn't get courts to undo the Bush FCC invalidated. We went from 4th in the world in terms of broadband Internet access penetration down to 28th today.

The Future of Music Coalition with a handful of independent labels and musicians has supported Net Neutrality with their Rock The Net campaign http://futureofmusic.org/issues/campaigns/rock-net (now ended), even the conservative Christian Coalition has endorsed Net Neutrality and published an essay titled "The Conservative Argument for Net Neutrality" http://www.cc.org/commentary/conservative_argument_net_neutrality, Free Press a national, nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to media reform, wireless freedom and Net Neutrality issues started the Save The Internet coalition to protect the open Internet www.savetheinternet.com), Common Cause and Consumers Union endorse Net Neutrality (Google Common Cause Net Neutrality, and Consumers Union Net Neutrality) and progressive liberal groups like MoveOn.org, and the progressive civil rights group the American Civil Liberties Union has come out in favor of strong Net Neutrality protections.

I too am often concerned with big government and wanting to protect civil liberties from being infringed by government but this is a case where regulation protects the public from powerful corporations which we need. I applaud the FCC for crafting pro Net Neutrality rules!
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
Yes please ignore corporate shills and listen to the will of the people. Sadly, some in Congress like U.S. Senator John McCain (who frankly is computer illiterate and shouldn't even involve himself in this issue) have come out on the wrong side of history -- against the American people and for telecom special interests in crafting anti Net Neutrality legislation to allow the Internet to become a private fiefdom for the cable and phone company monopolies. Internet access is a public right and we need to break the duo-opoly on broadband Internet, promote more competition and innovation in that space making high speed fast affordable Internet truly that -- universal Internet service to all communities rich or poor, urban or rural. Since 2001 thanks to former President Bush's policies the U.S. has fallen from 4th in the world in terms of broadband Internet penetration down to 28th as other countries kept up their regulatory commitments to prevent mega mergers, mandate Net Neutrality etc so while we deregulated Internet access providers other countries maintained regulations on their ISPs and have come out on top of us in delivering broadband Internet to their citizens.

If we closed the digital divide in this country we could create millions of new high tech clean jobs of course though that would require Net Neutrality remain, and government to require more competition nationally among Internet companies.
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
I agree with jonathan -- Net Neutrality regulations that protect free speech are good -- regulations are not always bad -- it would be bad if a law passed making it illegal for government to enforce Net Neutrality rules, it would be bad if a so called Net Neutrality bill passed that harmed free speech online. A strong pro Net Neutrality, pro free speech, pro consumer bill like the Internet Freedom & Preservation Act is an example of a good bill. John McCain's Internet Freedom bill in contrast is deceptive and a bad bill that harms Net Neutrality.

McCain has accepted campaign contributions from AT&T which wants government to do away with Net Neutrality so they can be gatekeepers on the Internet. McCain is with the special interests vs the public on this. Regulations can be bad or good -- their good if they uphold good things.
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
While I support Net Neutrality protections by the FCC I can concur with this post we do need to protect individual privacy online (accept in cases where an individual may be breaking the law -- laws have always had a hard time keeping up with technology and resolving security vs privacy issues is important.
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
We need Net Neutrality rules to protect the public interest so we can continue to have an unfettered, democratic and equal Internet with non discrimination; free speech is protected online (after all in a world without Net Neutrality status quo is king, we know free speech would be censored, and Internet would no longer be a vibrant town square for all of us but a cash cow for a few) this is about the future of communications and the media its either open or closed, all or nothing.

We must learn from history -- we can no longer avoid it. Every time a trans formative technology has emerged in the past with the power to give a voice to the voiceless there was a great moment of hope. We saw it in the 1920s when radio was invented, the 1950s when Television was invented, the 1980s when Cable Television was invented. Each time media moguls send their lobbyists to Washington to co-op and monetize the technologies before they get off the ground. Each time the public had no idea laws were being passed in their name that were killing the dream. Each time the public was unaware their efforts to reclaim the media was sacrificed to corporate power. However, this time is different.

This time we have a tool that not only speaks truth to power, it protects truth from power. We can use the Internet to Save The Internet. Back in 1936 on the eve of his re-election as President then President FDR once said "We had to deal with the old enemies of peace business and financial monopoly, financial and reckless speculators, war profiteers who had begun to see The Government of The United States as an appendage to their special interests. Today we know government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by Organized Mob. FDR got Congress to pass The New Deal because he took the fight to his opposition and never backed down and neither will we in fighting to preserve the democratic, open Internet.

We must tread carefully though in regard to defining reasonable network management so big cable and telecom giants cannot find loopholes to violate Net Neutrality and still claim to be in compliance with reasonable network management -- we must ensure Net Neutrality does not give govt power to censor free speech online anymore than a lack of Net Neutrality rules would allow big ISPs to do so. We nee Net Neutrality but must proceed carefully in setting the new rules!
pangasamaneesh 3 months ago
Net Neutrality rules are not designed for government to control, block, censor, or slowdown access to Internet. Net Neutrality rules exist (and we had Net Neutrality before 2005 but the Bush FCC voted to gut the requirements and now the fight to protect Net Neutrality has emerged as major ISPs have made it known without Net Neutrality requirements they would like to discriminate against certain web traffic and content. ISPs like AT&T don't like the idea of users being able to access specific websites -- as long as we all pay our monthly Internet access bills we all should have full, fair, equal, non discriminatory access to the Internet.

It is wrong for Comcast to block its Internet customers access to YouTube, or Time Warner Cable blocking access to Apple's iTunes Store and slowing down video downloads thru iTunes as Time Warner seeks to force Road Runner High Speed Online Internet customers to use Time Warner Cable's own Digital Cable TV services.

They don't want users to be able to access the Internet the way they want. Telecom companies don't like us to be able to use Google or Skype etc.

Net Neutrality is a must. Without it the Web as everyone knows it might end. The ease with which to reach your favorite sites is GOING TO END.
• The speed with which to reach those sites is GOING TO END.
• The ease with which you share videos with friends is GOING TO END.
• The freedom to access the site of any organization from Planned Parenthood to The Christian Coalition is GOING TO END.
• Access to the wide selection of web-series is GOING TO END.
• Access to the amazing choice of shopping sites is GOING TO END.
• Access to information from a multitude of educational institutions is GOING TO END.
This is because:
a) You are moving to China.
b) You are moving to Iran.
c) You are severing your ISP connection.
d) The efforts of ATT, Comcast, Time/Warner Cable, Verizon, Verizon Wireless, The NCTA
The correct answer is “d”. The list of restrictions above is currently the plan of the United States TELECOM COMPANIES, who are trying to erode a long-standing Internet principle – Net Neutrality – which keeps the Internet as an open platform. As it stands now, anyone can create and distribute content on the Web and anyone can access any number of sites at comparable speeds. Net Neutrality is what makes the Internet so great – and so vital for innovation and creativity.
These Telecom companies, the people who charge you every month for access to the Internet, have waged an extremely aggressive campaign against the very access for which you’re paying.
They don’t like that they can’t tell you WHAT to watch.
They don’t like that they can’t CONTROL the information you are accessing.
They don’t like that with just a couple of bucks, you can build a website or a platform or a web-series that can garner the size of audience that ONLY THEY USED TO COMMAND.
They don’t like that they can’t get A CUT OF ALL OF IT.
They grew accustom to controlling your phone rates (Hello, Skype). They grew accustom to controlling what you saw on cable. They grew accustom to their arrangement with the studios and the networks. And they grew accustom to the manner in which they financially participated in those arrangements. Now, because of the Internet, we have a different media landscape.
In Washington right now, the Federal Communications Commission is attempting to make Net Neutrality a hard and fast rule for the Internet. This would stop AT&T and other companies from destroying web content and your access to it. Because of this, the Telecom Companies have nearly 500 LOBBYISTS in place to steal your Internet freedom. There are only 535 members of Congress. That’s nearly one lobbyist for every member of Congress. The TELECOM COMPANIES have also (at press time) already spent nearly $75 MILLION dollars to convince lawmakers to restrict your unfettered Internet access.
This is serious business. For them AND for us. A liberated Internet will continue to be a reality in your life (and in the lives of your children) if rules like NET NEUTRALITY are in place. Everyone has a say and the power to stop the telecom lobby -- call and write the FCC; your Representatives and Senators in Congress and tell them you want strong Net Neutrality protections that put your interests first over the telecom and cable lobby.

Net Neutrality is not just a progressive or liberal idea. Even the Christian Coalition has published an essay on The Conservative Case for Net Neutrality http://www.cc.org/commentary/c.....neutrality

I understand some not endorsing Net Neutrality just yet have some concerns -- they don't want government to be able to censor what we do or say online -- we need rules requiring ISPs to practice reasonable network management -- the trick is how do you define what is or isn't reasonable network management? That's the rub where the FCC and Congress will have to tread carefully in explaining. However, we do need Net Neutrality (we've always had it the big telecom and cable lobby though want to get rid of it) which is why the campaign to defend it emerged.

This is about whether to allow monopoly control of the Internet or public control. This is about open or closed communication. It is a battle between democracy and plutocracy. We must learn from history -- every time a trans formative new technology emerged with the power to give a voice to the voiceless there was a great moment of hope. We saw it when radio was invented in the 1920s, Television in the 1950s, Cable Television in the 1980s, each time media moguls send their lobbyists to Washington to co-op and monetize the technologies before they get off the ground. Each time the public truly had a chance to reclaim the media it was sacrificed to corporate power. However, this time we stand at a unique cross road we have a tool that not only speaks truth to power it defends truth from power. We can use the Internet to save The Internet.

We know the future will go down one of two paths -- the first is the righteous path of openness and non discrimination where anyone with a good idea can make it big; the second is of a closed Internet that looks like cable TV and radio of today -- Internet that is non longer a vibrant democratic equal town square for all of us but a cash cow for a few. An Internet where giant phone and cable companies get to decide what's on, how much it costs and how fast it downloads. In the future of communications its all or nothing -- open or closed; viable for the entire public or for just a few.

We need Internet that works for everyone rich or poor, urban or rural. That is why I urge anyone and everyone willing to listen to join the movement for a better democratic Internet at SaveTheInternet.com, or go to anyone of the other websites with petitions for Net Neutrality like MoveOn.org, ACLU.org, Common Cause, or The Christian Coalition via http://www.cc.org/olcampaign/defend_net_neutrality