|
|
|
|
|
Let's recap a bit, shall we? Radio and television transmissions are regulated by the FCC because they are public assets (owned by the people of the United States). As a result, we have a somewhat orderly, and largely beneficial, use of the "airwaves."
For instance, stations are licensed for certain frequencies, and for certain power outputs. Without these governmental organizational regulations, the public airwaves asset would be largely useless. For another instance, those from the public who do not wish their children to be exposed to swearwords or other content would be powerless.
Private radio (HAM, CB, and the like) are similarly regulated, as are transmissions between ground and commercial airplanes, and communications to and from satellites. And those who use these public assets are required to report and comply as necessary to their preservation, and orderly and equitable (if often too political) use.
All of this governmental regulation has not been good, but without regulation, we could not rely on communications. And without such regulation, someone, likely the company with the most resources, could and would (this part is opinion only) build a station with the power to drown out all other voices.
The Internet is another public asset, developed and encouraged largely at public expense. And even if we, the people, did not pay for it, the Internet should be preserved for public benefit just as the "airwaves" are, and the highways, and other public assets, and for most of the same reasons.
Remind me again why the government (i.e., the representatives of the people) should not regulate its people's asset, the Internet?
|
|
|
The argument against Net Neutrality is, at its’ base, the same argument that has been used for years by those who would eliminate any program that effectively aids the public at a low cost; I’ve got mine and I don’t care about you.
It is the argument used against public schools by those who would return education to being the privilege of the wealthy, who say that public schools discourage innovation among private schools and charter schools. “I don’t have kids, so why should I be paying for a school?” is their most frequent war cry.
It is the argument used against free or low-cost school lunches in our public schools. There are those who have argued that it is not the government’s responsibility to see poor children being fed or, at the very least, fed well. Not when there’s a McDonalds down the street with a dollar menu and hey, those people need to eat too.
It is the argument used by those who say the public libraries of our proud nation are a threat to the profit margins of bookstores. People like lawyer Constantine Xinos, who – after failing in his suit to stop his city from building a fully funded public library – used his position as village treasurer to fire the library staff on the grounds that the public library was a waste of city resources. He went on to say, at a council meeting where the citizens showed up to protest against his decision, that the children who used the library should "stop indulging people in their hobbies" and “their little, personal, private wants." He further said that if the young children wanted someone to help them with finding books and doing homework, they should “put your money where your mouth is," and stop “whining” and raise the money themselves.
Net Neutrality is this in a nut shell; a set of regulations which would prohibit any corporate body from reducing bandwidth or limiting access to certain resources as a means of extorting money from their customers for the services they get for free now.
Forgive me the capital letters on this, but I fear this may be the only means of driving this point home: NET NEUTRALITY IS THE ONLY SURE WAY TO KEEP THE INTERNET LIKE IT IS NOW.
What John McCain and those who support him want to do is start giving Internet Providers the ability to start setting up “package deals”, similar to what cable companies do now. You can get the basic package for $XX.XX a month, but if you want the local channels, it will cost $X.XX more. And if you want the HD channels, that will be another $XX.XX.
Imagine that for a second. Imagine trying to log on to the Internet to search for some information to help your kids with their homework and then getting a block saying that you can’t use Google without upgrading your account to the Deluxe User Package. Imagine trying to keep in touch with your friends and family on Facebook without paying the extra $10.00 monthly fee because your IP has determined that Facebook users use more bandwidth than the average customer and must pay accordingly… even if there are people who use more bandwidth than you visiting other sites?
That is the reality that the corporate masters behind John McCain want to bring about.
Don’t let it happen. Keep the Internet free. Support Net Neutrality!
|
|
|
Net neutrality basically means that our internet service providers cannot discriminate or change the flow of any information from any internet source. For example, say Comcast is your internet service provider (isp) without net neutrality your isp can decide what content it allows through to your computer, favoring certain types over others. Most of us do not wan our service providers deciding content we want to see, especially if they have their own content upon the internet. What this means to us is that one of our most important free sources of information is being threatened by the telecommunications industry, however their intentions are not bad, isps often use regulating techniques to discriminate against processes that draw too heavily upon localized bandwidth.
However it is very important to remember that the internet is an important free media source in our nation today. Any bill or law that threatens our access to information infringes upon our first amendment rights and our free access to information. Without unbiased information a democratic body cannot make informed decisions about it's representation, we don't want to lose our ability to decide what's right for ourselves. Voting for net neutrality is voting to uphold the constitution, and uphold our own individual freedoms.
With so many ailments affecting our country today it is important to keep clear unbiased channels of information open. The media is an important factor in our lives. Because we must play an active role in our government as citizens, without the media, and free unbiased information, we cannot act as an informed body, or even as a democratic body if we aren't informed.
|
|
|
Keep the Internet a free public utility not dominated by corporate interests.
I believe the free flow of information is vital to a democracy. Please limit the role of Internet service providers to communications services and please assure that those services are delivered in a way that protects free and anonymous speech (except spam), free access to information and freedom from unwarranted surveillance and tracking. Society is best served when the provision of information and "content" is truly free which means that it not be controlled by those who own the communications medium itself. Moreover, the bundling of content and communications services operates to the disadvantage of other ISPs, content providers and the general public. ISPs should be purely a public utility.
|
|
|
I just attended the Open Internet and Innovation workshop in Boston yesterday, and I was disturbed by the basic tone, which was, "gee, how can we keep making money with this thing to keep it alive?"
There were a lot of ideas that seemed to me very similar to the way network operators were thinking, pre-internet-era. The current internet has become too polluted by large corporate stakeholders who have their own selfish ideas about how the network shall be built.
They had all sorts of new ways they wanted to charge money, all sorts of new limitations on users, no interest in a user as a contributor to the network, but merely as the consumer of some monopoly's service.
That's not what the internet was about, when it was first deployed. I remember a political friend of mine in 1990 declaring the entire internet “welfare for geeks, and a complete waste of money.” Do you think it was a waste of money?
"Stakeholders" have come along and taken it over enough that all eyes are on them, and what they can do to be profitable, and choke our speeds, and limit our connectivity.
When a plumber encounters a clogged valve, he cuts it out and puts in a new one. It's really much easier than trying to deal with the old one. That's also the easiest way to renovate a house. You just put up a new one instead of trying to fiddle with all the problems of the old one.
I say we keep the Internet…
But in parallel, we should also build a new faster, more open one, too. If the cable companies are offering good value, people will stay with them, just like people would have stayed with compuserve when the internet first appeared. If not, then that obviously wasn't such a good service.
To start, let's figure out what it would take to just put a tarabit up/down to every premise in the country, and this time, make sure that every single component of the entire network is, as David Clark said, an interchangeable puzzle piece that fits into the whole. That goes for every single component, software and hardware, so that anybody at any time, can enhance the network.
The government has dropped the ball on Internet research, leaving us in the biased hands of entities such as cable labs, who have developed proprietary protocols that are good for the cable company, but not really good for a real “internet.”
So somebody said to me, when I mentioned the above idea, "what about the cost of doing that? It's not free, you know." No good investment is, but the small $11B investment in the original Internet, has paid $Trillions into the economy, so it's a pretty good investment, I'd say. $11B is how much we have been spending each few weeks in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s how much we have been spending every 5 days on interest on the national debt. The real questions are, what’s a better investment? Bombing people in Afghanistan? Paying $400 per gallon for gas there? Or having every premise in the country connected with a terabit up/down?
|
|
|
In 1991, I was on the internet, directly, through UUCP. My ISP was a company based in my area that had bought a few T1 phone lines, and set up some modems that people like me could call into.
For the most part, I was driving on the information superhighway in my own car. A very American way of getting around.
When the telecommunications act of 1996 changed the rules about how much the phone companies could charge to ISPs, they rapidly all went out of business. See they were not allowed, by law, to unfairly charge anybody more money than they charged to their own subsidiaries. They whined and cried to congress and said that they couldn't innovate if they had to let all these little companies have fair prices. the result is now none of us are really ON the internet at all. we are on proprietary networks built by the phone and cable companies with our money, instead. they get to choose what equipment we have. they get to limit our speeds. they get to be in the driver's seat.
unfortunately this whole net neutrality debate has assumed that's the way it must always be now. we couldn't have end users actually DRIVING on the superhighway... gasp... goodness forbid!
Well I say that REAL net neutrality means that we all are REALLY on the internet.. which simply means we are all wired to each other, period... that means that we can directly communicate with each other, in any way we please, with any equipment we please... and make any new connections with the deployment of new wires, as we please...
we need to restore the ability, at all levels, to innovate, and create new network infrastructure, with must interconnect rules, once again. we have to take away the special privileges that the phone and cable companies have grabbed onto for themselves to such an extent that few can even imagine a world without them.
|
|
|
I am the person who posted this comment. To the person who thinks this is about government, we are supposed to be the govenment. What happened to people standing up for our laws and what the government is supposed to be. I am against anyone who would shut us up and not allow us freedom of speech as we have so much of on the internet. When five per cent of the people in a country have as much money as the other 95 percent of all the others combined, what kind of government do we have? Does our vote really count? We are the government and should have the right to speak up and be heard. What a better place than the internet?
|
|
|
ISPs, IACs and carriers which choose to filter destinations, protocols, keywords or to throttle normal traffic, could be re-classified as "Select Media Access Providers".
Select Media Access Providers should be excluded from government programs, funding, preferences, protections or any other publicly funded initiative aimed at enhancing access to the public Internet for citizens.
Discrimination of content dilutes the value of having a public network in the first place, and should not be encouraged or subsidized.
|
|
|
A large ISP (DSL provider) in California sells *their* VoIP service.
If you order their VoIP service, all is well, quality is good, it works.
If you DO NOT order their VoIP service, they sabotage your VoIP packets, you cannot use their DSL for voice service (another provider, or build-your-own).
Basically, they implement a tiered service, or a $39 surcharge for the ability to use VoIP through their DSL.
What next? Perhaps a $39 surcharge if you want to use some other email service, or for watching YouTube, or for browsing OpenInternet.gov
Let's make the net neutral again!
|
|
|
The FCC should and follow through with its decision to make Net Neutrality laws as it will preserve the open and free nature of the internet.
Corporate giants such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T argue that any government regulation will "stifle" innovation (CNN.com), however these same companies are denying public access to potential businesses/sites/small companies trying to promote their own innovations. As these corporations found loopholes to manipulate the internet to their benefit, it has caused injustice and hurt the open nature of the internet. By allowing the FCC to implement these new Net Neutrality laws, it allows businesses, big and/or small, to have the same neutral opportunities to expand, grow and promote. It will ensure the equal opportunity to participate in the global market, which makes these laws to come very vital. The internet for so long has had the reputation of being free and place that has helped our nation because of its free nature. By preventing corporate giants from data shaping, bandwidth throttling, and favoring partner sites, the internet remains a free neutral place.
In addition, Net Neutrality laws will ensure that people's own person freedom to access the internet isn't tampered or messed with. As a common misconception, Net Neutrality is NOT about regulating the content of the internet and what people can access, but rather how people access and the abilities that enable them to do so. People have the right to look, research, post, blog, watch, and etc. to whatever is on the internet. It shouldn't be interfered with just because big corporations want to make more money by favoring certain cites and controlling content. Hard-working Americans pay for the internet because of its free nature and openness, and it should stay that way.
Radio, television, movies, and music are all already highly regulated, and the internet is the last free enterprise that isn't. Net Neutrality laws will keep the internet free.
Thanks for reading :)
-Corey O.
|
|
|
STAND UP FOR INTERNET NEUTRALITY! Corporate control is bad for democracy.
|
|
|
I turned off my internt on my Blackberry and started saving $20.00 on my T-Mobile bill. I dropped Facebook and do Twitter via SMS now. 9 people are following me on twitter I know them via e-mail some are authors, professors, and news anchors. Twitter is a rich line of technology along with e-mail in between the instant teetws of cyber time. Money I save can go towards goals because of the cognitive technology in my life. Leaving Facebook is a temporary choice because it does not provide a healthy cognitive online only relationship. Facebook is commonplace among older adults talking about normal routine of typical life rather than a cognitive advancment. Twitter is amongst for whoever knows who you are there for at any moment in cybertime to listen in to your realtime cognitive advances and attain cyber and human attention at any place on Earth.
|
|
|
With France's High Court having last June issued a ruling declaring ubiquitous broadband access a fundamental human right, the righting of rule has begun. As ReadWriteWeb blog quoted Cory Doctorow, "(preemptive strike against naysayers: "Human rights" aren't only water, food and shelter, they include such "nonessentials" as free speech, education, and privacy)." A realistic world view embraces the basic tenet that life-long learning need not be proprietary to privileged cultures. Every nation must look forward to a future without greed and self-interest in the interest of humanity's evolution, and furthermore, must mandate it.
|
|
|
Telecommunication companies must be prevented from strangling the free flow of information and ideas essential to maintaining a democracy solely for the purpose of accumulating private wealth.
|
|
|
The FCC should look back at how Broadband proliferation occurred from its beginnings to understand how to move it forward today. By researching and studying The Cable Communications Act of 1984, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, , and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the federal arm of our telecommunications regulatory system can learn valuable lessons about hoping to create a (well oiled infrastructure) with plenty of competition.
The Cable Act of 1984 created the linear programming we have come to enjoy, and at the same time, hate to pay for. In essence, the act created content, the crux of the now issue; how to share it with everyone at a reasonable price. The Consumer Protection and Competition Act held that companies could not hold customers hostage for programming, in that programming tiers must be created to allow a choice on what consumers must pay to receive, and that any competitor could challenge an incumbent operator.
While they can be somewhat expensive, tiers are what consumers must pay extra to obtain for their favorite programs, while accepting many others they do not want. Competition in wire-line overbuilds never really materialized to any significant degree due to the high cost of infrastructure build-outs, programming, and overhead. DBS came along with the answer to that problem with terrestrial Satellite programming that consequently filled the gap of the underserved while creating the only programming competition wire-line operators have seen to date.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 created, more than anything else, the sharing of networks by incumbent phone companies. They had to sell their network connections to competitors thereby creating competition in the local and long distance markets. Now that land-line communications has been replaced by a mobile industry, the ATT’s, and Verizon’s are finally upgrading their networks to enter the Broadband and Content arenas. However, this is proliferating at a woefully slow pace without a significant dent in the overall market.
Fast forward to today, and due to years of deregulation, you have a closed infrastructure consisting of a few large operators, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable with the ATT’s and Verizon with both comprising an insignificant market share of wire-line competition in the highly populated suburban areas. But you can’t blame cable companies for taking steps to eliminate competition and protect their territories; Wall Street demands it.
To solve the problem the FCC will have to look at (network sharing), and with a current closed network which is under built to handle a shared capacity, or more significantly, their current customer demands. Maybe the FCC can look at a Broadband (Super Highway), like our Interstate Highway System, making a pipeline to share with all competitors, but who would build it out, and at what cost. A competitive infrastructure is the right solution.
Leonard Grace
http://www.thecablepipeline.com
|
|
|
Keep the government out of the internet which is private enterprise.
|
|
|
The Internet protocols were designed to be complete ignorant of the information, content, or applications that transferred through them. The content delivered is separate from the information provided. When the Internet was designed there was no World Wide Web, but because of this feature it could be added without restructuring the Internet. Similarly, when YouTube decided it could create a superior video service it just did so, requiring no permission or changes to make different use of the pipes.
In *National Cable v. Brand X*, the Supreme Court got this flat wrong—and in doing so obliterated the age-old neutrality regulation of common carrier. Make it clear, as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (HR 3458) does, that the telecommunications—IP—of the Internet, is distinct from the applications and services that are provided over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Association_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Carrier
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/text
|
|
|
Transmitters (the people, users, and server operators) of data should own the data and it should be illegal to intercept without permission the data, look at the data, and especially modify the data. This should include not only the data but the information associated with it's transmission such as the port number, and other IP header information, other than that needed to route the data to it's proper destination (port numbers are virtual on the client side). In addition, it should be illegal to interfere with the transmission of data, including discrimination and redirection, without permission of the owner or other special legal authority under law (such as a court order). The ISP or network provider should have absolutely no right as to the transmission of information over the network, and devices connected to the network treated just like public airspace and other controlled public network transmissions. This shouldn't apply to information they want to transmit locally however, or to networks that aren't connected to or expected to be connected to the Internet. The Internet is a special type of network with certain expectations and definitions, a type of transmission and signal.
What this means is that ISPs could not spy or monitor the data you transmit or store without just right. ISPs could increase the network priority of local traffic over their network such as VoIP and TVoIP and things like email, BUT NOT change the priority of specific Internet traffic or applications like Skype or BitTorrent. They would be blind to what is being transmitted over the Internet without permission, but would be able to tell it is Internet traffic separate from their own local traffic. Internet traffic in its' entirety could be managed separately from their own network traffic in a way that isn't application or data type specific. Things like what Comcast did (spoofing/hacking data of the customers) wouldn't be allowed, ever. Transmitters of data would be responsible for what they transmitted including lawfulness, and as such and would have legal right if someone other than the recipient did something with the data.
|
|
|
I work in the web development industry in Silicon Valley. I can tell you firsthand that the true value of the Internet is in keeping it free and open for all to enjoy on the same level. This profoundly reflects the true American ideals of freedom and democracy for all. The actual price of connecting users to the Internet is becoming cheaper at an exponential rate, most technology follows this trend in price. Therefore claiming that some sites are vastly more costly than others to ISPs is a mute point that will have less and less relevance in the future. I understand the dangers in over regulation, but when only a few companies like AT＆T, Comcast and Verizon are controlling the data to the entire Internet then they can very easily block users access to the Internet, creating an inherently anti-democratic system. We really need to prevent corporate power from blocking, censoring and discriminating against others. The openness of the Internet is precisely what leads to such amazing innovation and creates more business opportunities and economic growth for America, it's a win for consumers.
Please support a strong Net Neutrality rule.
Thank you for listening,
KC
|
|
|
In order for you to be able to read this text, the characters I type are copied from my keyboard signal translator to a buffer in my computer's memory. At the same time, each character is copied from a font store to my screen buffer, so I can see what I'm typing. As soon as I hit the "Post Idea" button, my buffer contents are sent over the network to the FCC servers. To make this trip, the text, routing information, and control commands have to be copied by every Internet router along the path. On arrival, the text is copied from a buffer to storage (usually a database with multiple indexed copies) on the FCC server. When you request to see my submission, the whole series of copies goes in reverse from the FCC server to your Internet device, and then to your screen buffer in the form of font copies. That's a minimum of 11 copies per view, involving a minimum of 3 legal entities. I am not bothering to count the number of router hops, database index copies, or optic-brain processes that could also be called "copies".
So the real question is not whether any person or thing can copy my text. If you can read it, it has been copied. The question is whether I retain proper attribution of my own words. That is taken care of by the inclusion of my chosen pseudonym under the title above. Did I have to sign a lot of legal waivers for each time my text was to be copied around the Intenet (minimum 11 waivers)? NO. I just had to associate a chosen name with my text, kind of like a non-exclusive Trademark.
So let's stop talking about "copy" rights already -- they're completely useless, and always have been since the invention of the first camera obscura. Let's talk instead about attribution and plagiarism (which can really just be summarized as willful mis-attribution). That is a much more productive discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net neutrality is such a nuanced subject. I completely support the concept of leaving the Internet open and fair. Perhaps one of the best aspects of the Internet is that the barrier to someone creating a new website or company is very small. Anyone with a connection, has the ability to create something that anyone else can view. We should strive to preserve this aspect of the Internet, as it is fundamental and largely what has made the Internet what it is today.
However, my faith in the US legislative bodies to produce laws that would maintain this without negatively affecting the situation is pretty small. That we have Congressmen and Senators that are not capable of reasoning about the Internet and its operation in terms beyond big trucks and tubes is most worrying.
Still, opposing a law against net neutrality simply because it might limit "innovation", as the ISPs would have you believe, is not good enough. I can't think of many large innovations brought on by the ISPs in the last 5 years, unless you consider bandwidth caps and protocol blocking innovations. My Comcast cable connection is only marginally faster than when it was first activated, many years ago.
Another large factor is that ISPs are, by and large, local monopolies. I believe that Internet access is becoming increasingly fundamental, approaching the level of utilities such as electric and water. To say that the "market" will be able to decide what is right in terms of Internet access is ignorant. Many people have only one choice for broadband Internet access. For this reason, it is important for there to be some form of oversight to determine when there have been abuses and what can be done to correct the situation.
To summarize, here is my list of concepts that I consider to be fundamental to the Internet.
1) Fair. Traffic traveling over the Internet should be treated in a uniform matter regardless of source, destination, or protocol. Users must be able to freely access the content and applications of their choice, without interference or manipulation from the ISP.
2) Open. The cost and process needed to acquire and Internet connection should be as low and and easy as possible for both individuals and organizations.
3) Prevalent. Internet access should be available to every citizen from multiple sources. This means that local monopolies should not exist. Multiple ISPs should provide access in the same locations, so consumers have true choice, forcing providers to actually innovate instead of simply raising their fees from year to year.
If legislation is necessary to maintain these ideals, so be it. If legislation is not necessary, then all the better. However, we must not stand by idle to watch our freedoms taken away by a handful of greedy corporations. To support Net Neutrality is to support open and fair access for everyone.
|
|
|
is what this country needs.
Google had the right idea when it announced in the last few days that they'd be trying out a gigabit fully neutral internet connection for maybe up to 500,000 users. that's a gigabit UP and DOWN... with no data shaping. no looking at our data. no limits. and a cost of only about $20 a month...
If you look at what happened to the economy in the wake of the commercialization of the internet, you can see that what originally started as about a $11B investment by the government in network infrastructure, research and development, turned into trillions of dollars in innovation, entrepreneurship, and disruptive technologies.
But all that is dying off now because the internet has become bogged down by monopoly phone and cable companies who don't want us to have the fast speeds necessary for the next generation of innovation.
That's why I think the actual broadband initiative should be to get a TERABIT (that's 1000 gigabits, or a million megabits) of UP and DOWN connectivity to every single user, in every home and every office and wherever else, in this nation.
yes it is true that we don't have the computing power to handle that kind of throughput, YET, but just imagine the gold rush as computer designers finally have a real reason to make something far faster than ever before.
imagine the gold rush as trillions in untapped gdp are suddenly accessible through this new far faster connectivity between all of us.
we NEED to have a new faster playing field. and if the internet is fast enough, we won't have to worry about all these limitations that the current usual suspects are trying to impose on us, because we will have the wherewithal to do an end run around them, and make our own way.
We need to take it to the next level, people.
|
|
|
The FCC should monitor all matriculating students on the web which websites they visit to help better understand the student body as a whole. The parents of each family should be allowed unlimited privelage on a nuetral web to let their children visit any site whatever, as long as the parent gives permission. With the given information this can be shared with the shcool boards without any objections whatever, unless a child has indicretions at school and or outside scrimmages in which both children are involved in the misdemeanor of the violent crime of domestic violence with the use of or intention of physical force or a verbal threat with a deadly weapon. The school board can then choose to keep the children seperated at their discretion and at the discretion of the offenders parents and of the victims parents to make examplar cases.
|
|
|
Another communist,,not socialist idea from our current administration. Stop Obama Now.
|
| Displaying 151 - 175 of 313 Ideas |
|
|
|
Vote Up
Vote Down
TTY: 1-888-TELL FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Close