Obama taking over the internet this week??

[tnvoter]

As seen on front page of http://grassfire.com ....

"On December 20, the Federal Communications Commission will move to take control of the Internet through what is being called Net Neutrality -- a series of rules and regulations that could throw open the door for yet another federal power-grab. With control over Internet, Obama and his liberal cohorts could decide what you see and hear on the Internet! Stop the assault on our First Amendment rights by signing our petition opposing the FCC's Net Neutrality rules today. Grassfire Nation will present tens of thousands of petitions to each of the five FCC commissioners before the Net Neutrality rules ... "

is this really happening??

[tangent4ronpaul]

Mobile Carriers Dream of Charging per Page

* By Ryan Singel Email Author
* December 17, 2010 |
* 2:49 pm |
* Categories: Mobile Internet
*

Just a week before the FCC holds a vote on whether to apply fairness rules to some of the nation’s internet service providers, two companies that sell their services to the country’s largest cellular companies showed off a different vision of the future: one where you’ll have to pay extra to watch YouTube or use Facebook.

The companies, Allot Communications and Openet — suppliers to large wireless companies including AT&T and Verizon — showed off a new product in a web seminar Tuesday, which included a PowerPoint presentation (1.5-MB .pdf) that was sent to Wired by a trusted source.

The idea? Make it possible for your wireless provider to monitor everything you do online and charge you extra for using Facebook, Skype or Netflix. For instance, in the seventh slide of the above PowerPoint, a Vodafone user would be charged two cents per MB for using Facebook, three euros a month to use Skype and $0.50 monthly for a speed-limited version of YouTube. But traffic to Vodafone’s services would be free, allowing the mobile carrier to create video services that could undercut NetFlix on price.

In short, you’d have a hard time creating a better graphic of the future that net neutrality advocates warn will be imminent if the federal government does not apply fairness rules to the mobile internet. A court struck down an earlier set of fairness rules in the spring, but it was never clear if those rules applied to wireless carriers.

“It certainly is exactly the thing we have been warning the companies will do if they have the opportunity and explains why AT&T and Verizon are so insistent that the wireless rules be solely about blocking and not anything else,”

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/carriers-net-neutrality-tiers/#

http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

I thought Net Neutrality was the FCC saying companies couldn't block services. ie: if you buy badwidth from Comcast, they can't block your access to NetFlix in order to get a monopoly (themselves) of where you can rent movies to stream.

-t

[akforme]

There are so many thing about this that are complete fear mongering bullshit that I don't even know where to start. Maybe we need restaurant neutrality too so we pay the same no matter if we order crab legs or hot dogs.




Mobile Carriers Dream of Charging per Page

* By Ryan Singel Email Author
* December 17, 2010 |
* 2:49 pm |
* Categories: Mobile Internet
*

Just a week before the FCC holds a vote on whether to apply fairness rules to some of the nation’s internet service providers, two companies that sell their services to the country’s largest cellular companies showed off a different vision of the future: one where you’ll have to pay extra to watch YouTube or use Facebook.

The companies, Allot Communications and Openet — suppliers to large wireless companies including AT&T and Verizon — showed off a new product in a web seminar Tuesday, which included a PowerPoint presentation (1.5-MB .pdf) that was sent to Wired by a trusted source.

The idea? Make it possible for your wireless provider to monitor everything you do online and charge you extra for using Facebook, Skype or Netflix. For instance, in the seventh slide of the above PowerPoint, a Vodafone user would be charged two cents per MB for using Facebook, three euros a month to use Skype and $0.50 monthly for a speed-limited version of YouTube. But traffic to Vodafone’s services would be free, allowing the mobile carrier to create video services that could undercut NetFlix on price.

In short, you’d have a hard time creating a better graphic of the future that net neutrality advocates warn will be imminent if the federal government does not apply fairness rules to the mobile internet. A court struck down an earlier set of fairness rules in the spring, but it was never clear if those rules applied to wireless carriers.

“It certainly is exactly the thing we have been warning the companies will do if they have the opportunity and explains why AT&T and Verizon are so insistent that the wireless rules be solely about blocking and not anything else,”

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/carriers-net-neutrality-tiers/#

http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

-t

[puppetmaster]

keep the gov out of regulating more shit!...we don't need them for this

[cswake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juw5Ew_fKgs

[teacherone]

There are so many thing about this that are complete fear mongering bullshit that I don't even know where to start. Maybe we need restaurant neutrality too so we pay the same no matter if we order crab legs or hot dogs.

good analogy!

[tangent4ronpaul]

keep the gov out of regulating more shit!...we don't need them for this

This sounds like a good one. If you want high speed Internet out here, there are 2 companies that provide it and they both charge about $70 a month. Isn't that enough? Do you want your ISP to tell you - well, you pay for the bandwidth, but we are going to charge you extra every time you visit this web site, or you can't use your NetFlix account anymore because we want to force you to buy movies from us, even though our selection totally sucks compared to theirs...

Normally companies lobby to get a monopoly corner of the market and drive their competition out of business. This is the opposite. Now if those 2 companies didn't have a shared monopoly on the market, things would be different, but...

I suppose you have some "free market" options. For example, You could use your NetFlix account via US Snail only and wait a couple of days for your movie to arrive instead of watching it now.

Very interesting and scummy timing as to wireless devices on this. If they get a pass on being able to charge on individual sites for them, there are going to be a TON of very pissed off Christmass shoppers.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Actually, both ISP's out here said they wanted to block NetFlix several months ago and they were blocked.

Comcast DID majorly slow down P2P connections, then they put in bandwidth limitations so they shut down your connection if you used too much in a given month. Then I dumped Comcast and told them to shove their contract for my "unlimited" bandwidth connection (up to X speed) as they were in breach of contract. These companies have been pulling this crap! It's not fear mongering.

-t

[Travlyr]

Take away the Internet and the people would revolt, right?

[Travlyr]

Does anybody know if this has legs?
http://swansat.com/liberty.htm

[tangent4ronpaul]

Take away the Internet and the people would revolt, right?

People that grew up with it - maybe, but I would predict that people would adapt and the USPS would become once again profitable :)

Think this is more along the lines of corporate greed squeezing and squeezing - charge enough for entertainment, food, medicine, transportation, etc., to the point that people can't afford their necessities nor distractions, then yes - the people will revolt.

-t

[One Last Battle!]

You know, this wouldn't be a problem if the last mile was privatized. The government endorses monopolistic practices through control of the infrastructure, and then claims it is seizing control of the internet to prevent a monopoly.

[tnvoter]

I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

[Matt Collins]

Internet Cop (http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/08/internet-cop)

President Obama’s top man at the Federal Communications Commission tries to regulate the Net.

March 2011 Reason Magazine article here:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/08/internet-cop

[Matt Collins]

yep