Powered By IdeaScale
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

fawsmith

User Profile Image fawsmith
Member since : Oct-23-2009 (Verified)
2 Ideas, 22 Comments, 127 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

Imagine you picked up the phone to order a Papa John's and Ma Bell tried to steer you towards Dominos Pizza instead, because Dominos pays them commission on your order. Extreme, yes, but illustrative of "traffic prioritization" arrangements that will develop if we don't insist on Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is fundamental to an Open Internet. Don't be distracted by FUD.
Imagine if you picked up the telephone to order a Papa John's and Ma Bell tried to steer you towards Dominos Pizza instead, because Dominos is paying kickbacks to your telco. Extreme example, I know, but illustrative of the "traffic shaping/prioritization" shenanigans that will develop if we don't insist on Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is fundamental to an Open Internet. Don't be distracted by FUD.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 313 Ideas
12345678910….1213Next »

Comments Posted

fawsmith 3 months ago
Net Neutrality as a label is as transparent as it gets:- ISPs must maintain neutrality as to the content they transmit (level playing field).

Focus on that simple point could reclaim the discussion from an irreconcilable political debate between Libertarians, Liberals and Conservatives.
fawsmith 3 months ago
@ShawnLandden: Exactly. When private enterprise competes transparently on a level playing field, the consumer always wins. Net Neutrality ensures there is a transparent, level playing field.
fawsmith 3 months ago
Net Neutrality does not prevent multiple broadband packages, just that all those packages don't discriminate between content providers. Without Net Neutrality your ISP can arrange kick-backs for providing you a limited menu of "featured partner content". This is not the internet we know and love.

Net Neutrality should not be confused with Universal Access, which can be debated separately. Universal Access (e.g. Finland) cross-subsidizes to fund broadband connections for the poor, similar to how Universal Service Funds ensure that the poor here in the US can have a telephone.
fawsmith 3 months ago
The ISP environment in the US is not that competitive. How many of us have real choice without significant switching costs? We're slipping way behind countries that have made national broadband access a priority:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/broadband-around-the-world/
I'll ignore the obvious fallacy of using the Wall Street melt-down that was caused by deregulation (repealing Glass-Steagal, blocking the reporting of OTC derivative swaps etc.).
fawsmith 3 months ago
@trev.dyck: A physical on-ramp is needed to the Internet, be it copper, fiber, satellite dish or a WiMax tower. Net Neutrality ensures that your requets are not throttled based on kick-backs your on-ramp provider receives from certain content providers.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@AmericanPatriot: "Internet Freedom Act" drips with irony:
1/McCain admitted he doesn't know how to use a computer, let alone the Internet. Guess which lobbyists wrote this bill?
2/McCain's the largest recipient of big ISP lobbyist money.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/174280/surprise_mccain_biggest_beneficiary_of_telcoisp_lobby_money.html
3/ This anti-neutrality bill removes existing freedoms by allowing big ISPs to start shaping your internet traffic.
Must be opposite day!
fawsmith 4 months ago
@recinader: Thanks for getting abusive and illustrating how those without facts & logic on their side resort to Ad Hominem attacks.

1/The open internet we recognize today did not exist before DARPA. Networking you refer to was like a set of walled gardens. Internet, with it's intrinsic Net Neutrality, enabled an open, level playing field of interconnectedness on which innovation flourished. Seriously. No-one wants to go back to a limited set of expensive options via BBS. AOL tried to keep that walled garden model going far too long and paid a heavy price.

2/The Fortune 50 pay virtually no tax. Ditto for the super-rich. It's small business, you & I that keep the government funded. I'm okay with profits, so long as they're not extorted by using corporate shills to shape legislation to enable monopolistic profiteering.

Newsflash: Caps Lock doesn't impart truth-iness.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@recinader: Thanks for getting abusive and illustrating my point about those without facts or logic on their side resort to Ad Hominem attacks. Networking before DARPA was like a set of walled gardens. The internet, with it's intrinsic Net Neutrality, allowed a level playing field for innovation to flourish. Seriously, no-one wants to go back to a limited set of expensive options via BBS. AOL tried to keep that walled garden model going far too long and paid a heavy price.

@dar: "Tar Baby"? WTF dude, didn't that epithet die along with Strom Thurmond?
fawsmith 4 months ago
@ray_white: Thanks for the example IRL. Net Neutrality currently prevents these back-room dealings, but is under threat and so we need to require the FCC to protect Net Neutrality.

Highest bigger arrangements in monopoly environments shut out small business and stifle innovation. Most Americans have little real choice of ISPs, and when they do, switching costs are high.

In contrast, it's relatively easy to switch search engines and PPC advertising is peripheral to the search result list. Engines that have messed with the integrity of the search result list (pay-for-placement) have lose their reputation been consigned to the dot-com graveyard.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@dbg: Net Neutrality *is* the status quo that has nurtured innovation and growth of the internet so far. Now it's under threat and needs to be protected from corporate monopolies.

@dar: There's many well-researched, cogent postings supporting Net Neutrality on this forum, and they're ranked highest in up-votes precisely for that reason. We the people understand that monopoly ISPs want to defeat Net Neutrality to profiteer at our expense, and so we demand that the FCC do it's job and protect the public interest.
fawsmith 4 months ago
Read your blog and wish I could recover those wasted minutes. ISP already profit from subs on both ends, once to upload each content request and again to download that request. Allowing them to strike side-deals with content providers and then traffic shape to prioritize content from those partnerships would just be extortionate profiteering. Let's protect the status quo that has worked so well. Net Neutrality FTW!
fawsmith 4 months ago
@stackla: your cause would be better served by going after the message, not the messenger. Ad Hominem attacks ("looney toons" etc.) are usually the go-to debating approach of those without logic or facts to support them.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@recinader: Government intervention (DARPA) designed & built the internet. When the NSF transferred this precious public resource to private corporations, Net Neutrality was part of the deal. We're just trying to protect the status quo from corporate profiteering.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@stackla: Ignoring history dooms us to repeat the mistakes of history. The goverment you so despise built the Interstate Highway system. The NASA moon landings gave us the integrated circuit and microprocessor powering the computer you're using to spread your ignorance. Look up Darpa. The government you so despise designed and built the internet. When the NSF handed over this precious resource to private corporations, it was with the requirement for net neutrality. Don't be distracted by the faux-patriotic, small-goverment rhetoric wrapping McCain's trojan horse bill. It's bought & paid for by the monopoly ISPs looking to extract revenue sharing agreemetns for featured content.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@dbg: Net Neutrality has allowed innovation to thrive and the whole Internet to grow naturally. Let's not allow ISPs shady financial partnerships to start shaping what parts of internet traffic are prioritized. Corporate sock-puppets love to demonize P2P/gamers and use sew FUD about 911 calls not getting through. While we're distracted with that, they can use McCain to slip through legislation to allow them setup revenue sharing agreements for featured content. Net Neutrality is about protecting small business and consumers like you and I.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@Dar: For the vast majority of Americans there's very little choice or turf-wars amongst ISPs. Each Baby Bell was assured monopoly on last mile copper to their customers, and corporate consolidation has made this worse not better. The free market doesn't function well with monopolies/oligopolies, so common-sense government regulation is needed ensure small business can compete on a level playing field.
fawsmith 4 months ago
Americans *have* researched this issue, and overwhelmingly are demanding that their 535 elected representatives in DC protect Net Neutrality. Don't equate censorship with common-sense regulation to protect a level playing field for free speech. That is just piffle.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@onaturalia: Sounds like some-ones been studying at the Glenn Beck School of Debating. We don't need to prove our case, you do. Net Neutrality has protected the blooming of a 1,000 flowers of innovation over these past 2+ decades. Let's keep it that way.

@Dar: Net Neutrality != One-Size-Fits All. You can choose still pay for 56Kbps dial-up, while I choose to shell out for 6Mbps broad-band. Net Neutrality ensures that we both can access the WHOLE internet, delivered at the speed of the plan for which we pay, not at a speed/quality that has been shaped/prioritized by our ISPs financial partnerships.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@JoeProvo: Prioritization effectively results in redirection. If your ISP prioritized YouTube videos(over traffic from Break, Vimeo etc.) because Google kiced-back enough ad revenue, then you'd eventually stop watching Vimeo because of perceived lack of service quality. Did the ISP redirect you? No, but your Pavlovian response achieves the desired result.

To your other comment, I get Mike's point exactly, but respectfully disagree. We can protect VoIP 911 in the same way we protect POTS 911, without yielding Net Neutrality to corporate financial interests. We expect no less of our government, for and by the people.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@mike.cambell16: Some responses here are harsh, but down-votes could be for the following reasons:

1/Our tax dollars (DARPA) designed & built the internet as a shared resource for robust information transfer. When the NSF transferred it to the private sector, it did so along with the requirement for free peering. Allowing corporations who inherited this public treasure to traffic shape/priorize for their financial advantage negates the spirit of the internet as a public resource.

2/ Google pays freight on their end. We pay freight on our end. If the railroad also wants to make money with side deals, they shouldn't do this at the expense of our unfettered access to the internet.

3/ Data metering could be in our future, similar to electricity metering, but this is very distinct from traffic shaping to prioritize corporate financial partnerships.

Hope this helps understand the valid reasons for down-votes.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@mike.cambell16: Thanks for underscoring my point as to how lobbyists & shills spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) as a smokescreen while pushing their corporate client's agenda.

Our telco system does a good job of providing 911 service without allowing Ma Bell to prioritize calls to/from their financial partners.

Net Neutrality is needed to protect this on the Internet.
fawsmith 4 months ago
@JoeProvo: Gas and electricity are fundamentally different, but both utilities can heat your home. Like telephones, the Internet allows you to exchange information, and should do so unimpeded by the biggest kickback Ma Bell is getting from her financial partners.