PDA

View Full Version : URGENT CALL-TO-ACTION: Last Day for Public Comments to FCC on INTERNET REGULATION




CountryB4Party
06-15-2007, 11:33 AM
TODAY - 06/15/2006 Last Day fore Public Comments

There is unconfirmed talk that MoveOn.org is flooding the FCC with pleas in support of Internet regulation. If this info is accurate, we need to counter their support letters with opposition letters to the FCC. If this info is not accurate, we need to send our thoughts to the FCC anyway, if you haven't done so already.

One can send a comment by email to the FCC using the Freedom Works letter feature.

Excerpt from the Freedom Works site:

"This Friday, June 15th is the deadline for filing comments with the Federal Communications Commission against the prospect of massive federal regulation of the Internet. MoveOn.org and their liberal allies have been pushing more federal control for some time, and now are flooding the FCC with comments in support of greater regulation of the Internet.

Our side needs to be heard as well!"

Let's all send an e-mail now. Please pass this call-to-action to all your groups.

http://www.freedomwor...

Let's put our collective force behind Freedom on this issue today!

Yours in Liberty,
Dena

(I offer my apologies in advance if this call-to-action is considered off topic. Considering the issue, I personally don't believe it is; however, I offer apologies just in case. ;) )

briatx
06-15-2007, 11:42 AM
Network neutrality is important. It'd be best if corporations and the government did not regulate the Internet at all, but if corporations want to regulate the internet and end network neutrality, then what?

The government should PRESERVE liberty, and ending network neutrality would reduce freedom all over the net.

4Horsemen
06-15-2007, 11:43 AM
What are you talking about?

maggiebott
06-15-2007, 11:50 AM
They're talking about the government setting laws and rules for the internet, much like they monitor your t.v. and what is allowed and what isn't. If you go to Europe and watch a program you would notice a huge difference in programming.

Needless to say, I learned a great deal watching bbc and appreciated its diversities.

The link to fcc isn't working. :(

briatx
06-15-2007, 11:53 AM
Don't have time to explain it, but here is wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

buffalokid777
06-15-2007, 11:58 AM
Net Neutrality IS important....

Having Net Neutrality is important....

WHY?

The big telecoms like ATT Verizon, want to control what you see....

Right now we have net neutrality....If you want to look at these forums....you can...

Without Net Neutrality.....If ATT decides this site uses too much bandwidth....or Verizon doesn't like people using up bandwith on watching Ron Paul videos on you tube....they can say you don't have acces to ron paul forums unless ronpaulforums.com pays ATT a fee....Or verizon can say you can't watch youtube unless youtube.com pays verizon a fee....removing net neutrality is the first step towards internet censorship....

Think Ron Paul is being censored by the establishment on television....

If the big telecoms get what they want and the removal of net neutrality....

The establishment will be able to begin censoring candidates like Ron Paul on the internet through your ISP....

Net Neutrality is important!

Bossobass
06-15-2007, 12:26 PM
HERE (http://www.freedomworks.org/action/fcc/) is the form to fill out and it will automatically be submitted to the FCC.

Today is the deadline.

Bosso

briatx
06-15-2007, 12:30 PM
Maybe you guys didn't get it.

But if you support that link, even though it says "free and open internet" what it really means is the end of network neutrality.

This is a bad thing. The end of network neutrality will hurt netroots campaigns like Ron Pauls.

austinphish
06-15-2007, 12:32 PM
why does moveon.org care?

DjLoTi
06-15-2007, 12:39 PM
This has the chance to make front page digg news

That means.... all those people will be directed to this site.

Lets try to get it on digg front page!!

http://digg.com/tech_news/Last_Day_for_Public_Comments_to_FCC_on_INTERNET_RE GULATION

IrrigatedPancake
06-15-2007, 12:44 PM
Saying a bill or corporate policy or any system of regulation is aimed at "Network Neutrality" does not necessarily mean it will produce what you think of as network neutrality. I think the "Patriot" act and "free" trade organizations are pretty good examples. Don't get pulled in by terms like this, make sure you know what regulator's definitions are.

drinkbleach
06-15-2007, 12:45 PM
Maybe you guys didn't get it.

But if you support that link, even though it says "free and open internet" what it really means is the end of network neutrality.

This is a bad thing. The end of network neutrality will hurt netroots campaigns like Ron Pauls.

One thing I've learned is that when Congress says one thing they mean another. The PATRIOT Act was unpatriotic. The immigration reform bill didn't actually reform anything. The torture bill allowed torture. It's so Orwellian. If Congress is talking about a "free and open internet" then I'm going to oppose the measure.

Gee
06-15-2007, 12:45 PM
Network neutrality is important. It'd be best if corporations and the government did not regulate the Internet at all, but if corporations want to regulate the internet and end network neutrality, then what?
They don't want to do that. Its something politicians made up as a "what if" scenario. The very people who created the internet don't want net neutrality legistlation, and no ISP to my knowledge has stated any desire to block portions of the internet to their customers. A lot of the proposals would actually make some current technologies illegal, such as the packet scheduling protocols used in many routers.

Honestly, any ISP who blocked access to certain parts of the internet people found desirable would quickly watch their customers leave them. Its really not even possible to regulate internet access in such a way! Even if a bunch of evil corporations did manage to do it, new networking protocols would arise to bypass their restrictions. Any attempt to regulate a packet-switched network is going to be a loosing battle, since each node determines the destination of each packet. You'd literally have to physically control each node in the network.

At most, its an anti-trust issue. The only way a company could restrict internet access is if it had a monopoly or near-monopoly, which of course means such restrictions would just be symptoms of another problem.

I'm a computer engineer, I've studied many networking protocols. I find the idea of congress regulating the internet for our "protection" to be completely and utterly absurd. It could so easily be written in a way that would hinder the developement of the internet, and to somehow think congress knows enough about the internet to be able to act in its best interest is absurd.

angrydragon
06-15-2007, 12:59 PM
This network regulation will just lead to network socialism. It'll hold back the growth of the internet. Plus prices have dropped as we get better services like broadband. Dial-up used to cost 25 dollars a month, now dsl is 15 dollars a month. Can't wait for FIOS to come around this area.

This is just asking the FCC to regulate the internet like tv and radio.


For example, if Google and Microsoft were really popular, ISPs might need to allocate more bandwidth to support access to their sites. If ISPs were not allowed to charge higher prices for higher bandwidth, they would not provide that bandwidth. Instead, they would choose to provide less for the same price in order to reduce costs. As a result, consumers would not get more bandwidth for accessing Google and Microsoft’s web services regardless of whether they are willing to pay.

It is important to bear in mind what makes such innovative activity possible: private property and the free market. Proponents of net neutrality hail companies like Google and Microsoft for having made the Internet what it is today, and claim that higher ISP fees would impede the innovation of such companies. But the ISPs that made web access fast and affordable made the Internet as well. Being able to freely charge prices for services is what makes innovation possible at all. To stifle the free market is to stifle the potential for innovation.

Also, note the irony of promoting net neutrality under the banner of "Save the Internet." It was ISPs that brought us the Internet, as we know it. Net neutrality advocates are calling on the government to protect the Internet from its own creators!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/que1.html

torchbearer
06-15-2007, 01:04 PM
Emailed the FCC.

briatx
06-15-2007, 01:14 PM
I don't much trust either the telcomms or the government in this arena. I'm fine with things like QoS in routers, because lets face it, file sharing shouldn't be given priority.

Still, what you have right now is essentially a data agnostic network, network neutrality, and we need to keep that.

I hear a lot of talk about how competition will solve this problem, but tell me, how much competition is there in the broadband market? I can either buy broadband from Time Warner cable, or DSL. Two choices: phone company or cable.

The telcomms have had a monopoly in the past, and I think they retain much of that monopoly power if recent consolidation is any indication. Competition is good, and if enough players are in the market, I believe that the market would solve the problem. I don't see that much competition in this arena however. Perhaps someone can point it out?

TruthLiberates
06-15-2007, 01:47 PM
The Internet can not be regulated. It’s an open network where it’s a pull system controlled by the consumer when they surf for content. Nothing is pushed to anyone like broadcasting. The Internet is really free space for anyone who’s chooses to use this medium as a way to communicate or seek communications. It’s global, complex and with 680 million users world wide it has become the popular means of expression.

buffalokid777
06-15-2007, 01:51 PM
Killing the current data agnostic, net neutrality...is simply a way for the isps to tax people coming and going.....

I pay to use their pipes....I have cable internet from time/warner......if i want to hook up vonage for voip.....the packets will come to me just as fast as packets from time/warner internet phone....

Killing the current setup....time/warner will be able to give priority to their own packets over vonages degrading vonages service....well unless vonage pays them a fee....double taxation except time warner would be able to do it.....instead of the government.....I pay to use time warners pipes to get my information I request off the net....vonage pays their isp to send the info I request from them....

Why should vonage have to pay their isp and time warner so I can get my info requested from vonage? This is what would happen if the current way the internet is run is changed.....and don't you think time warner would do just that...force people to use their service in this manner to grub more money?

Sure I could go over to the only other broadband choice available here verizon....but they would just do the same thing.....at least if things change....we know how these corporations are.....suck every possible penny from the consumer as possible....outside of Verizon DSL and Time Warner Cable....I have no other choices for broadband available....If a scenario like that comes to pass...the only other choice I would have for broadband is NONE

And the isps didn't pay for the pipes....they paid for part of them...tax dollars paid for the rest......it was a joint venture between the gov and industry to build the internet.....net neutrality was part of the deal for the tax dollars invested.....

I am against all internet regulation...except net neutrality, net neutrality has been in existence since the internet was born and should REMAIN....we're hearing talks of taxation on emails....taxation of all internet sales....those ideas are garbage....net neutrality is where I can request any info off the net and they will deliver it to me weather if its from my isp or someone else...that's the whole reason I pay my isp....them wanting fees from me to use the pipes AND wanting fees from websites whose information I want is just plain garbage....And ATT has stated this is what they want.....

lucius
06-15-2007, 02:59 PM
I emailed the FCC:


Your Comments Have Been Submitted to the Federal Communications Commission:eek:

tacitt
06-15-2007, 05:07 PM
I still don't get it, there's so much double-talk everywhere on this issue. I found a Moveon.org letter on the issue here:

http://civic.moveon.org/airwaves/fccletter.html?id=10525-7192177-927rwz&t=2

What do we have right now? What is being proposed? What system has the least intervention? (either by the government, or possibly private, consolidated power)

tnvoter
06-15-2007, 05:16 PM
They don't want to do that. Its something politicians made up as a "what if" scenario. The very people who created the internet don't want net neutrality legistlation, and no ISP to my knowledge has stated any desire to block portions of the internet to their customers. A lot of the proposals would actually make some current technologies illegal, such as the packet scheduling protocols used in many routers.

Honestly, any ISP who blocked access to certain parts of the internet people found desirable would quickly watch their customers leave them. Its really not even possible to regulate internet access in such a way! Even if a bunch of evil corporations did manage to do it, new networking protocols would arise to bypass their restrictions. Any attempt to regulate a packet-switched network is going to be a loosing battle, since each node determines the destination of each packet. You'd literally have to physically control each node in the network.

At most, its an anti-trust issue. The only way a company could restrict internet access is if it had a monopoly or near-monopoly, which of course means such restrictions would just be symptoms of another problem.

I'm a computer engineer, I've studied many networking protocols. I find the idea of congress regulating the internet for our "protection" to be completely and utterly absurd. It could so easily be written in a way that would hinder the developement of the internet, and to somehow think congress knows enough about the internet to be able to act in its best interest is absurd.

Exactly, this neutrality thing is bogus.

In order for an internet provider to have a license to provide the internet - it has to provide access to all of the internet. So this is an issue to a problem that does not exist.

Gee
06-15-2007, 05:31 PM
I'm not sure I can say this loudly enough, but,

No ISP has expressed any desire to limit the internet access of their customers in the way the net neutrality advocates claim.

They just don't want to. Sure maybe someday they will, its certainly within their power. If they all get together and conspire to do it, maybe we'll have an application of anti-trust laws on our hands. I personally have 3 or 4 broadband options where I live, and most people have at least 2.

Pre-emptive regulation sounds almost as bad as pre-emptive war, IMO :mad: