Toledo Talk

Everything You Need To Know Before E-mailing The FCC About Net Neutrality

Instead of hijacking the buckeye support thread anymore , I wanted to share this.
http://consumerist.com/2014/04/29/everything-you-need-to-know-before-e-mailing-the-fcc-about-net-neutrality/

created by OldTimer on Apr 29, 2014 at 03:25:02 pm     Comments: 117

source      versions


Comments ... #

Well, I don't know what everyone else sees when they click on the link but I see black text on a black background............

posted by Foodie on Apr 29, 2014 at 03:38:00 pm     #  

worked for me, thanks, OT. It's not going to do a fucking bit of good to email them, since the head used to be a lobbyist for the telecoms, but it will make you feel better about doing nothing. :)

posted by nana on Apr 29, 2014 at 04:03:37 pm     #   1 person liked this

In my NOT so humble opinion, it is the responsibility of all of us, as users of the internet, to make clear our opinion regarding this issue. Failing to do so could yield an internet that resembles cable television today...being charged more or less depending on the web sites we would like to visit or subscribe to, not having access to some sites if there is a disagreement between our ISP and a content provider, having different sites available in different regions due to above reasons or licensing agreements. I do not think we can underestimate the possibility of how important this particular issue is to the future of the internet as we know it today. Please feel free to disagree with me, but I personally feel quite strongly about this issue and it's potential impact.

posted by breeman on Apr 30, 2014 at 09:41:31 am     #   10 people liked this

For all interested in this topic, the new FCC net neutrality proposal will be published on May 15th. All have the right to comment on the proposal and the FCC does take these comments into consideration. As I understand it, the FCC will move forward, amend, or scrap the proposal based on the comments received...this is your chance to contribute your $0.02.

posted by breeman on May 01, 2014 at 07:43:56 am     #   2 people liked this

Also, note that there is a petition at Whitehouse.gov to support addressing this issue properly, I was the 40,000th signature on this petition...please join me in supporting this issue at: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

posted by breeman on May 01, 2014 at 07:55:00 am     #   2 people liked this

Just did. Thanks for providing the link. Now, do you know of a petition we can sign to urge the Prez to keep the domain control of the web in the hands of the US?

posted by Foodie on May 01, 2014 at 09:43:20 am     #  

Hi, now is the time to make your voice heard on this topic. For those interested in commenting on proceeding 14-28 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, the FCC has created a separate filing system for comments here: http://www.fcc.gov/page/fcc-establishes-new-inbox-open-internet-comments

Note that the above link allows filing via email. You can also create a proper filing on the proposal by uploading a text file with your comment here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=d3mwc Link requires you provide your contact information, I can only assume that these might be taken a bit more seriously.

posted by breeman on May 16, 2014 at 04:16:10 pm     #  

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Here's a pretty good explanation of what net neutrality is, for those who may not understand. Also includes links to other explanations.

posted by Sohio on May 17, 2014 at 01:38:11 pm     #   2 people liked this

Emails sent.

posted by OhioKimono on May 19, 2014 at 07:22:47 am     #  

Found this hilarious video on the net neutrality issue (comedy) thought others might enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

posted by breeman on Jun 04, 2014 at 09:50:53 am     #  

Once again bumping this thread as the deadline for comment ends on September 10th. Like with voting if you don't let them know your opinion, then don't complain when they make a mess of things, and I'm sure all would agree that left on their own, politicians have a HIGH probability of making a mess of things!!!

That said, I'm stealing (with pride) a portion of Gizmodo's post, "How to Yell at the FCC About How Much You Hate it's Proposed Net Neutrality Rules". Which in my opinion are about as neutral as current cable provider rules.

Step one: Visit http://FCC.gov/comments and find the proceeding with the title "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet." It should be the one on top and should also have over 20,000 filings in the last 30 days.

Step Two: Click the proceeding number "14-28." This will take you to the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System. It looks a little janky, but hey, the government built it.

Step Three: Fill out the form. Write about your feelings. Express your concerns. Air your grievances. Provide your real name and address. Hope for the best.

Step Four: Click "Continue" and make sure you like what you wrote. If you don't you can modify your comment. If you do, click "Confirm."

Thanks to all who have posted their comments and those that will do so, hopefully they will listen to us before my last dying glimmer of faith in our democratic system fails.

posted by breeman on Sep 08, 2014 at 09:50:17 am     #   3 people liked this

Just read that Pelosi is actively supporting net neutrality. That should rally some support against it.

http://deadline.com/2014/09/nancy-pelosi-joins-effort-to-reclassify-the-internet-for-net-neutrality-regulation-831411/

posted by jimavolt on Sep 09, 2014 at 07:07:31 am     #   1 person liked this

Ninny Nancy, she really should just retire to her home away from Washington D.C.

posted by MIJeff on Sep 09, 2014 at 11:29:39 am     #  

jimavolt posted at 08:07:31 AM on Sep 09, 2014:

Just read that Pelosi is actively supporting net neutrality. That should rally some support against it.

http://deadline.com/2014/09/nancy-pelosi-joins-effort-to-reclassify-the-internet-for-net-neutrality-regulation-831411/

If people are against net neutrality just because pelosi supports it... they're fucking idiots. period. all hyperbole intended.

fucking. idiots.

posted by endcycle on Sep 09, 2014 at 11:36:57 am     #   6 people liked this

I don't know, ever have that one guy in the group that always picks the wrong thing? I can see someone saying, well which one would Bob pick, and then choosing differently because lord knows if that's his choice it has to be bad.

posted by MIJeff on Sep 09, 2014 at 11:43:34 am     #  

Endcycle - I didn't mean to light your F-bomb fuse, but I can understand how my comment could have seemed to be political. It was not intended as a political comment, rather I was trying to point out that a well-known idiot supported the legislation.

I opposed the proposed regulation law as soon as I became aware of how it would function.

Feel free to choose whatever reason/justification you want to be against the proposed legislation.

posted by jimavolt on Sep 09, 2014 at 01:29:06 pm     #   2 people liked this

I just got a letter from my very own Congress Critter, Robert E. Latta. I sent old Bob a letter about Net Neutrality and got something back.

In his letter, Congressman Latta references H.R. 4752 believing it to be the panacea for whatever ails the Internet. Now then.

The way I understand things, Net Neutrality is supposed to provide for:

The deregulation of content (other than that which is criminal, such as child pornography);

Open access to all sites and platforms;

The prevention of ISPs from charging extra for access to "premium" sites.

I've tried reading HR 4752 and cannot decipher it well enough to see if it includes these things. Can someone help me out here? I plan on writing Bob back to tell him my thoughts - as soon as I have some.

posted by madjack on Sep 17, 2014 at 05:32:25 pm     #  

Try looking up the issue on the EFF site, electronic freedom foundation.

posted by MIJeff on Sep 17, 2014 at 06:16:49 pm     #  

Latta has taken a ton of $$ from telecom companies, and as I understand it his bill would prohibit the FCC from setting up any regulations to preserve net neutrality. It most definitely would not provide for the items you list.

posted by probegt on Sep 18, 2014 at 04:41:35 pm     #  

Madjack HR 4752 is the OPPOSITE of what we are trying to achieve. The intent of this bill is to de-classify internet service providers as "common carriers" and subject to regulation by the FCC. In effect this does two things, by preventing regulation by the FCC, the rules recently enacted by the FCC requiring all internet service providers carry traffic with equal priory would not apply. Further, by removing the "common carrier" classification, this too, would remove the legal provision that all communications carriers are required to transit all traffic with equal priority. These classifications were originally created when AT&T was a monopoly and enabled other providers to emerge and thrive by requiring that they carry the traffic of all with equal priority and service quality.

posted by breeman on Sep 19, 2014 at 02:35:44 pm     #   1 person liked this

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/congressman-bankrolled-by-isps-tries-to-halt-internet-regulation/

Madjack HR 4752 is the OPPOSITE of what we are trying to achieve

Couldnt agree more. This is the polar opposite of net neutrality

posted by khunty on Sep 20, 2014 at 09:39:38 am     #  

Well, we're all about to find out just what is in that secret 300+ page of regulations the FCC plans to adopt on 2-26-15 - the contents of which won't be made public until AFTER it is adopted.

Have a familiar ring to it? "We have to pass it to find out what's in it?"

If you think this won't have a direct impact on your Internet life and household budget, then think again.

posted by Foodie on Feb 12, 2015 at 08:40:00 am     #   2 people liked this

Internet access will get more expensive, and in the long run services like Netflix will likely get more expensive as well. I don't think there's ever been a case where government involvement or regulation has made anything cheaper. That said now that us little people will be allowed to read these rules it'll be interesting to see what sort of content censorship the FCC has granted itself.

posted by taliesin52 on Feb 26, 2015 at 01:43:41 pm     #  

Net-neutrality has been law of the land since the internet was created. It's about time it's been codified by the FCC. Your connection to the internet should be treated just like your connection to the power grid.

Any why would Netflix be getting more expensive. ISPs are already charging us more because we we're actually starting to use those internet connections they've been making us over-pay for for years anyway. If anything, it should keep Netflix priced down because they won't have to pay ISPs like Buckeye and Verizon a buck or two be allowed into our houses on their networks.

posted by SensorG on Feb 26, 2015 at 03:50:33 pm     #   4 people liked this

Yay!!

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/fcc-passes-net-neutrality-rules-victory-open-internet-activists-n313301

posted by breeman on Feb 26, 2015 at 05:04:08 pm     #   4 people liked this

I'd say your celebration is a bit premature. Let's see what's in those 330 and some odd pages of regulation - that, I repeat, were kept secret from We, The People.

You've swallowed the Kool-Aid on this one.

posted by Foodie on Feb 26, 2015 at 05:12:20 pm     #   2 people liked this

Here's an interesting comic-strip version of the issue, fun to read:

http://economixcomix.com/home/net-neutrality/

posted by viola on Feb 26, 2015 at 05:21:49 pm     #   1 person liked this

The comic strip is actually a very good representation of this issue...unfortunately a good representation of what is fundamentally wrong with our government today, but that can easily be a VERY long thread of it's own and does not belong here. Fortunately the first step is in place and now let the lawsuits begin! (so the detractors of Title II categorization can fulfill their prediction of a "period of uncertainty" while they challenge the FCC's authority to regulate communication :-) )

posted by breeman on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:53:39 am     #  

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

posted by stooks on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:58:12 am     #  

Speaking of $$ sloshing around DC:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

posted by Foodie on Feb 27, 2015 at 10:07:05 am     #   1 person liked this

Nice link Foodie, the comment section of that page would make David Duke blush.

If it's to believed, the evil mastermind and puppet master Soros spent $196 million in the last 13 years fighting for NN.

According to Open Secrets the top 10 telecom companies spent $100 million last year fighting against it...

posted by SensorG on Feb 27, 2015 at 02:01:13 pm     #   3 people liked this

It is to be believed.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 02:34:53 pm     #  

I don't bother with the comments on any site. They're typically populated by whackos from both sides of the aisle and we're all dumber for having read them if we choose to do so.

And, of course, I'm sure that Open Secrets (partially funded by the aforementioned evil puppetmaster Soros) and theoatmeal.com (whatever kind of whackjob site that is) are far more reputable than the Washington Examiner.

Everyone should wonder about this: last minute changes to the FCC's power grab were made at the request of Google among others. How and why is it that Google and others knew what was contained in the 330+ pages but We, The People were kept in the dark?

Of course, I also realize that those of you who are totally in favor of the government controlling every aspect of your life could care less about any of this and just can't understand why there are those of us who actually do care. Since I don't waste my valuable time on lost causes, I won't bother to try to explain it. Your epiphany will come at some point. Or maybe not. Doesn't really matter to me.

posted by Foodie on Feb 27, 2015 at 02:49:33 pm     #  

lol ok

posted by toledolen_ on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:02:41 pm     #  

With the elimination of NN by the SCOTUS, the FCC stepping in and re-establishing rules for it, was the best we could hope for considering Congress is completely worthless for anything these days. Keep in mind, NN is what we’ve had since the Internet was established (insert Al Gore joke). NN has given us Amazon, Netlix, Facebook and even Toledo Talk.

You talk about the government control of the internet, so surely you’ve already read the 330+ pages since you know what’s in there right? I get it, Obama is for NN so it must be stopped at all costs. Again this was something that people of the right and left used to be for – an open internet where ISPs don’t get to play favorites with traffic.

posted by SensorG on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:07:53 pm     #   2 people liked this

I am totally for the government intervening whenever possible. The free market can't be trusted because of the wealthy evil rich people. I'm glad that the FCC, who has been so awesome in terms of all the other stuff they are supposed to save us from, like media duopolies and monopolies. Appointments to the FCC have never been political, and FCC action has never been manipulated by big money and big media.

It's not like in recent years sitting FCC Commissioners have ever approved things that favored media conglomerates and then swiftly accepted positions at those organizations, right?
I mean, Comcast would never recruit and hire the sitting FCC Commissioner, right?
The FCC is a freaking joke. One singular example: encryption of cable and FORCED use of DTA boxes.

The FCC is no hero. No panacea. No superman. If they are slightly better than Congress this week, that doesn't make them our messiah.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:37:31 pm     #   2 people liked this

Well hope JR has saved up enough for the license he will need to operate this site in the future.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:44:54 pm     #  

Never said the FCC was the messiah, but if for one shinning moment they don't bow down to their corporate overloads, good for them and for us. We now have encryption of cable and FORCED use of DTA boxes because the government isn't regulating it, we deregulated cable almost 20 years ago - we were promised more competition and lower costs, that worked out well. Without NN, the ISPs would do the exact same thing for our internet connections.

Also, I'm all for free markets, that's why I'm for NN. Today's ISP don't exist in a free market. I get exactly two sucky choices for an ISP. The last thing I want is them decided what I get to watch.

posted by SensorG on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:52:48 pm     #  

MIJeff posted at 03:44:54 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

Well hope JR has saved up enough for the license he will need to operate this site in the future.

Wouldn't make sense to make JR get a license and then have all us unlicensed users. Computers could have slots that accepted our National Internet User ID and License, and our credit cards to keep the meter running.

If everyone was required to register themselves as users. It would be "fair" and "equal."
If we saved just one life. Or just one kid from adult content, or the wrong kind of thinking, or "old" math, or the wrong educational materials, like non-common core, or the wrong Ministry of Internet Voting ballot, or exposure to dangerous and harmful dreams of freedom, it will all be well worth it. Of course, we'll need to log what you do and where you go just in case you go off the official tracks later. For safety.

What, are you not real Americans? Get with the program. Big Brother's got this. Rest easy.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 03:55:06 pm     #   1 person liked this

We now have encryption of cable and FORCED use of DTA boxes because the government isn't regulating it, we deregulated cable almost 20 years ago - we were promised more competition and lower costs, that worked out well.

Yeah. I was in the industry in 1992 and 1996. I watched what happened from the inside.

Funny thing though... DTA boxes didn't come into our lives because of the 1996 deregulation. It appears that you might be shocked to hear that they came into our lives because the FCC voted 5-0 in October 2012 to allow total encryption, a reversal of a prior decision to prohibit the encryption of the basic tier, Which WOULD HAVE allowed consumers an entry-level place for basic cable that required no DTA, and the related incremental costs, hassle, wallwarts, and poorly performing universal remotes.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 04:11:23 pm     #   1 person liked this

"Well hope JR has saved up enough for the license he will need to operate this site in the future."

Where does that website-licensing idea come from?

"Wouldn't make sense to make JR get a license and then have all us unlicensed users."

I currently pay monthly web hosting fees and domain name registration fees that users of this site don't have to pay.

I understand the tin-foil, conspiracy theory of licensing site owners in order to discourage people from creating websites with custom domain names to host content that's mostly outside someone's terms of service.

If licensing site owners did ever occur, it would probably be part of the domain name registration fee. But that would mean domain name squatters would have to pay more. So maybe the licensing fee would kick-in when the domain name DNS points to a hosting provider's server.

But show me the documentation that says domain name owners will have to be licensed.

posted by jr on Feb 27, 2015 at 05:39:02 pm     #  

I cant show you anything, half the rules aren't written yet and what is was never released before they passed it, I am just speculating.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 27, 2015 at 06:27:34 pm     #  

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

posted by hunkytownsausage on Feb 27, 2015 at 07:38:29 pm     #   1 person liked this

hunkytownsausage posted at 07:38:29 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

Time-Warner and Comcast are all for net neutrality. Why do you think that is? Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

The FCC still hasn't let the public know what is in the 300+ pages of regulations. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Google was given access to the regs the public wasn't, which allowed them to lobby for changes. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Net neutrality is all about politics. It is all about cronyism. So it makes perfect sense to me to be against it.

posted by tolbuck on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:16:58 pm     #   2 people liked this

I don't think anyone on here is complaining about net Neutrality. The title is great, yet they remain suspicious of the hidden contents.

The Kanamits brought a book "To Serve Man" which when decoded was a cookbook.

Transparency will be a touchstone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72g7qmeP1dE

Posting bills online
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/us/politics/22pledge.html?_r=0

posted by MrGlass419 on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:38:01 pm     #   1 person liked this

tolbuck posted at 08:16:58 PM on Feb 27, 2015:
hunkytownsausage posted at 07:38:29 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

Time-Warner and Comcast are all for net neutrality. Why do you think that is? Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

The FCC still hasn't let the public know what is in the 300+ pages of regulations. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Google was given access to the regs the public wasn't, which allowed them to lobby for changes. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Net neutrality is all about politics. It is all about cronyism. So it makes perfect sense to me to be against it.

Time Warner and Comcast are not for Net Neutrality. You've got to be fucking kidding me if you believe that.

posted by hunkytownsausage on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:59:03 pm     #  

Comcast is for NN?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/technology/comcast-net-neutrality/

Example, let's say you have BuckeyeExpress as an ISP. If your watching Netflix on you TV right now, do you think Netflix should have to pay Buckeye money so it can go across their network? You already pay BEX a bunch of money for a high speed connection and you already pay for Netflix, but should Netflix have to pay BEX too?

Let's say you decide to watch Netflix on your iPad in car. Shouldn't Verizon get compensated as well?

Good luck if your an online retailer. Amazon, eBay or Wal-mart could easily pay Comcast $50-100 million per year for faster access. If your a small site trying to sell widgets, good luck. Hell, a Wal-Mart could spend that with no issue, but a Sears or ToysRUs couldn't. Game over for them.

posted by SensorG on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:23:47 pm     #  

hunkytownsausage posted at 07:38:29 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

Having a VE Day style celebration for something that we have not been allowed to see, and don't know what will look like, is not a common sense position.

Reluctant suspicion of big money/government lobby collusion is the common sense position.

Until the facts and ramifications are known, it's ALL based on political bent. People can posture as if it is not, but in truth... everyone is guessing, projecting, and defending the unknown. There is simply no other basis for a position.

posted by justread on Feb 27, 2015 at 10:11:26 pm     #  

As I said earlier. I cannot understand how anyone would be against net neutrality.

This is common sense.

posted by hunkytownsausage on Feb 27, 2015 at 10:33:35 pm     #   2 people liked this

The idea of it sounds nice.
What remains to be seen is how true to the description is the bride when the veil is lifted. Maybe she will be as pretty as we both hope.
The idea of the marriage sure is lovely while we wait.

posted by justread on Feb 28, 2015 at 05:50:07 am     #  

hunkytownsausage posted at 08:59:03 PM on Feb 27, 2015:
tolbuck posted at 08:16:58 PM on Feb 27, 2015:
hunkytownsausage posted at 07:38:29 PM on Feb 27, 2015:

I just can't understand how anyone would be against Net neutrality.

Forget about politics. This is just common sense.

Time-Warner and Comcast are all for net neutrality. Why do you think that is? Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

The FCC still hasn't let the public know what is in the 300+ pages of regulations. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Google was given access to the regs the public wasn't, which allowed them to lobby for changes. Shouldn't this be a huge red flag?

Net neutrality is all about politics. It is all about cronyism. So it makes perfect sense to me to be against it.

Time Warner and Comcast are not for Net Neutrality. You've got to be fucking kidding me if you believe that.

Well, read it from the horse's mouth:

http://corporate.comcast.com/twctransaction/net-neutrality-together

posted by Foodie on Mar 02, 2015 at 01:59:32 pm     #  

More like the horse's ass...

http://time.com/3579332/comcast-obama-net-neutrality/

Comcast also makes a dubious-at-best claim that it doesn’t “prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes,” even though Netflix is paying Comcast (and, since, other Internet Service Providers) to more quickly deliver Netflix’s content to Comcast subscribers.

http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/

posted by SensorG on Mar 02, 2015 at 03:24:40 pm     #  

Just providing a link to the "official" corporate position. For me, personally, I think Comcast/NBC are scum. Crony capitalism at its worst.

I know you are all giddy because you believe that the big bad corporations got their comeuppance. We'll see how that works out when they start getting Obamacare style waivers that exempt them from the new - and still secret - rules.

Control and censorship of Internet content is the rest of the camel still hiding outside of the tent. All under the guise of "fairness" of course. As can be said about so many things - it won't be what is or isn't "fair" - it will be who gets to decide what is or isn't "fair".

So, bask in your perceived "victory" while you can.

posted by Foodie on Mar 02, 2015 at 04:11:42 pm     #   1 person liked this

Yeah, comcast is pretty well known in the IT world for being really, really really bad in most ways - and they lobbied as hard as anyone against net neutrality. Of COURSE they spin it differently on their site.

posted by endcycle on Mar 02, 2015 at 04:13:21 pm     #  

Bear in mind we are discussing two things here. One is the fact that the FCC is even PERMITTED to regulate the broadband market, this was previously not in place. The second item is the actual regulations they intend to implement towards the industry, and true they have not been shared with the public, in my opinion this is not good, but also not entirely unusual as they are still being finalized. There is, however, the right for the FCC chairman to still publish these rules in their "draft" state, I believe there is quite a bit of pressure from the public and some members of congress on this point.

Last point I would like to make, and I realize that this will inflame some, but hey I like watching tolls burst into flame :-) That private industry in a capitalist environment does not serve the greater good of the people, they merely exist to turn a profit. It is the governments responsibility to tame that unbridled enthusiasm and prevent collateral damage to peers and the communities in which they reside. We should, as intelligent people, understand that this is the balance they are intended to provide. There are certainly examples of how there have been errors on either side of this balance (too much or too little regulation), but it must exist.

posted by breeman on Mar 03, 2015 at 01:02:02 pm     #   1 person liked this

Sweet. Socialist trolling.

posted by justread on Mar 03, 2015 at 01:14:08 pm     #   3 people liked this

Good grief.

Marx lives on.

posted by Foodie on Mar 03, 2015 at 01:19:45 pm     #   2 people liked this

Sorry. Can't let this one go by with a simple comment. I am so sick and tired of free market capitalism taking it on the chin and having a perverted description of it spread by those who apparently get their info from Pravda.

Governments don't create anything. Governments consume and redistribute - to the poor and the already rich. Look no further than billions of your tax dollars being handed over to numerous failed solar companies who just happened to have connections at the highest levels in DC.

Free market capitalism built this country and, largely, much of the rest of this world. Free market capitalism has given us vaccines, drugs and other methods to wipe out previously wide spread and deadly disease. Free market capitalism made this the richest nation on Earth in a relatively short period of time and we have shared much of that treasure with the rest of the world in many different forms. And, free market capitalism is the only method that is going to get us out of the hole we're in. The government running the presses at the mint 24/7 only works for so long. The government monetizing our own debt (Google it) only works for so long.

As for corporations existing "only to turn a profit" - think about that for a minute. If private enterprise ran like most governments, there wouldn't be any $$ for anyone. Private enterprise doesn't have printing presses in the basement where they can churn out (eventually worthless) stacks of dollar bills. Many corporations have also donated hundreds of billions of dollars of said profit over the years to many good causes. Yes, they've also given tremendous amounts to the criminals in DC and on K street but who's fault is that? If we wouldn't put up with our elected officials being bought and paid for, that wouldn't go on.
Does government have an oversight role? Absolutely. But the massive amounts of frivolous regulations that have been churned out by over reaching government at all levels is a large part of why our economy is stuck in neutral.
At some point, the FCC's actions will be revealed for the Trojan Horse they truly are - and I promise you, most of you won't like it.
Our liberties have been slowly chipped away at for decades. Of late, they're being destroyed at break neck speed. The Internet is about the last place that completely free speech could be exercised. I prefer to keep it that way. The Internet has worked because of the absence of over reaching, power grabbing bureaucrats AND free market capitalism. That is about to change.
/end rant

posted by Foodie on Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:04 pm     #   2 people liked this

http://agoodcartoon.tumblr.com/post/112519623990/the-cartoonist-has-no-idea-how-net-neutrality

posted by toledolen_ on Mar 03, 2015 at 02:58:45 pm     #   1 person liked this

So frustrating... the internet works because we have Net Neutrality today. Or we did till the SCOTUS did away with it recently, hence the FCC stepping in. NN is about the free market. Consumers get to decide what internet services survive, not the ISPs.

The ISPs know nothing about free market capitalism anyway. Much of their fiber was laid with billions in tax payer money, public and private land was given to them for access and right of way. They have negotiated monopolies with local and state government (money well spent for them).

The ISP don't want free market capitalism anyway. They want their billions in tax payer dollars for fiber they'll never deliver and they want to end NN to increase their profits even more.

Look at this way -
People get frustrated with Buckeye every time negotiating with a TV channel results in the channel getting pulled from their cable. Wait till they start to negotiate web sites as well.

Without NN, Buckeye could simply pull the plug on the Toledo Free Press, not allowing their web site to accessible to any BEX user. JRB doesn't like someone from WSPD say, he can simple block their site and the iHeartRadio app on their network. NN keeps this from happening. You want the Toledo Blade to have more influence in NWO?

Lastly -
Someone was bitching about the encryption boxes that Buckeye Cable is forcing on it's customers. It's a money grab, plain and simple, but that's free market capitalism right? Companies can do any crappy thing they want to us in the name of profit and we should just sit back and cheer "free markets"!

posted by SensorG on Mar 03, 2015 at 03:41:23 pm     #  

People get frustrated with Buckeye every time negotiating with a TV channel results in the channel getting pulled from their cable. Wait till they start to negotiate web sites as well.

That's a good analogy and a nice point, SensorG. I'd like to add that if you think watching TV is frustrating because of all the commercials breaks, just wait until that very same group gets a firm hold on your Internet along with a license to dictate which sites you'll have access to and which you'll be barred from ever seeing.

posted by madjack on Mar 03, 2015 at 04:33:18 pm     #  

Someone was bitching about the encryption boxes that Buckeye Cable is forcing on it's customers.
Yes. That was me.
It's a money grab, plain and simple, but that's free market capitalism right?
Yes it is a money grab. But it's also the most recent example of the FCC siding with Big Cable behind closed doors, screwing the consumer. In fact, it is a superb example of why consumers should be very careful when placing their trust in the FCC as Defender of the Marketplace. And, because the FCC allowed this to happen across the board, the consumer can't simply select an alternate cable provider who respects the consumer who simply wanted a basic cable tier with no special equipment.

The FCC allowed it to become The Cable Way or the Highway. And that, my friend, is why I expect them to turn around and let THE SAME PEOPLE (Since we all know how often the TV and internet providers are one in the same) do it to us again.

In the case you use as an example, the cablesystem created a situation in which the only way to use the free market to escape their greed is to dump them altogether, which is one of the reasons their subscriber numbers keep dropping like a rock.

posted by justread on Mar 03, 2015 at 04:45:32 pm     #  

Update - and a great read about the rules which were just released. There are a total of about 8 pages of actual federal law changes out of the 400ish in the document. Here's the actual document- http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

TL;DR from a post in a Reddit thread - https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/2yswt2/fcc_releases_full_net_neutrality_rules_400_pages/cpcp1ij

"About 50 paragraphs of summary, 15 paragraphs of history, 25 paragraphs of rationale, 100 paragraphs of rules, 25 paragraphs of the scope of those rules, 50 paragraphs of how to enforce those rules, 130 paragraphs declaring the internet subject to Title II with reasoning and expected implications, 110 paragraphs encouraging providers to take this to heart and implement policies that won't require the FCC to step in (forebearance), 30 paragraphs of constitutional considerations, and 10 paragraphs of final orders. 582 paragraphs over 280 pages. (Also keep in mind that some pages are nearly half filled with footnote citations.)
Appendix A is a short list of the rules themselves written as an 8 page update to 47 CFR, the actual federal laws under consideration.
Appendix B is a 68 paragraph, 23 page analysis of the regulatory environment itself (a meta discussion from the FCC's point of view).
Chairman Wheeler's Statement is 5 pages; Commissioner Rosenworcel's is 1 page; Commissioner Pai, 64 page dissent; Commissioner O'Reilly, 15 page dissent."

And then this is a pretty good read on what exactly this rule change is all about. Contrary to Foodie's concerns about all of our FREEDOMS being ERODED AND OMG SOCIALISM AND STUFF, it's a pretty reasonable and solid thing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/2yswt2/fcc_releases_full_net_neutrality_rules_400_pages/cpcu9d0

"§ 8.5 No blocking. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
Section 8.7 is amended to read as follows:
§ 8.7 No throttling.
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
Section 8.9 is redesignated section 8.19.
New section 8.9 is added to read as follows:
§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.
(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
(b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. ederal Communications Commission FCC 15-24 285
© The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.
New section 8.11 is added to read as follows:
§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
Section 8.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4), revising paragraphs (b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), removing paragraph (b)(3), redesignating paragraphs © and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e), and adding new paragraph © to read as follows:
§ 8.11 Continues, but for the sake of a TLD:DR, I will stop there. § 8.12 and on is your rights to file a complaint, procedures for complaints, confidentiality clause.
If you get the time, I would encourage you to read this document, as the FCC did a great job with it.
A little side note I found funny and a nice little jab at specifically mentioning Verizon, on page 293 a footnote was added: >10 The Verizon court specifically touted the virtuous cycle as a worthy goal and within our authority. Verizon, 740 F.3d at 644 (“The Commission’s finding that Internet openness fosters the edge-provider innovation that drives this ‘virtuous cycle’ was likewise reasonable and grounded in substantial evidence.”).
Also on page 294, the FCC details a little paragraph of how it is using it's rules: >13. The legal basis for the Open Internet rules we adopt today relies on multiple sources of legal authority, including section 706, Title II, and Title III of the Communications Act. We conclude that the best approach to achieving our open Internet goals is to rely on several, independent, yet complementary sources of legal authority. Our authority under Section 706 is not mutually exclusive with our authority under Titles II and III of the Act. Rather, we read our statute to provide independent sources of authority that work in concert toward common ends. Under section 706, the Commission has the authority to take certain regulatory steps to encourage and accelerate the deployment of broadband to all Americans. Under Title II, the Commission has authority to ensure that common carriers do not engage in unjust and unreasonable practices or preferences. And under Title III, the Commission has authority to protect the public interest through spectrum licensing. Each of these sources of authority provides an alternative ground to independently support our open Internet rules."

posted by endcycle on Mar 12, 2015 at 02:27:59 pm     #  

Time will tell. Releasing the new "rules" is one thing. How they get implemented over the years may be quite another.

To someone who embraces socialism (or worse), I'm sure you do find all of this quite reasonable.

As one who rejects socialism (and worse), I do not.

posted by Foodie on Mar 12, 2015 at 03:37:05 pm     #  

How is NN socialism? Should Samsung have to pay First Energy so their appliance work in my house? The internet should work the same way.

Netflix shouldn't have to pay BEX to available in my house either. Nor should BEX get to censor what I read or watch.

The internet you enjoy today is because we have NN. Codifying it with law is a no-brainer.

Pretty simple really.

posted by SensorG on Mar 12, 2015 at 03:47:47 pm     #   3 people liked this

The government not allowing corporations to extort and censor consumers and other corporations is socialism?

posted by SensorG on Mar 12, 2015 at 04:34:27 pm     #  

You keep using this word "socialism". I do not think it means what you think it means.

posted by endcycle on Mar 13, 2015 at 09:45:37 am     #  

I'm painfully aware of the definition. It is what has been foisted upon our country by an out of control administration and congress for too many years now.

Margaret Thatcher stated it best - and I paraphrase -

"Socialism - a wonderful thing - until you
run out of other people's money."

posted by Foodie on Mar 13, 2015 at 12:33:01 pm     #   1 person liked this

SensorG posted at 05:34:27 PM on Mar 12, 2015:

The government not allowing corporations to extort and censor consumers and other corporations is socialism?

You are far too hung up on the propaganda fed to you by the power grabbing FCC and the media sources you choose to have explain it to you. NN (and these new rules, if allowed to stand, will prove to be anything but NN) is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Government control of the Internet and its content is the wolf. The back door method for reviving the so called Fairness Doctrine those of you on the left are so fond of being but one of their goals.

But, alas, I'm wasting time and keystrokes on those who truly believe this was all about reigning in those mean, nasty corporations and protecting the "little guy."

When will you ever learn that your government doesn't give a shit about the little guy? Today more than ever, government's primary goal is to amass and retain as much power, (control over every aspect of your life) and $$ for themselves and their cronies as possible - all in the name of watching out for you - the little guy and "the working people" so that you will foolishly keep voting for them.

posted by Foodie on Mar 13, 2015 at 12:51:09 pm     #   2 people liked this

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Wow, I’ll admit that I haven’t made it through all 400 pages, but I’m not seeing anything close to what you are. Then again, I haven’t bought enough Goldline coins to get my Glenn Beck decoder ringer. Maybe in a few months…

You’re clearly rallying against something you haven’t read, have no intention of reading, haven’t a clue how the internet or NN works and yet I’m getting “fed propaganda” while you quote talking heads on the radio…I'm the guy "wasting my time".

posted by SensorG on Mar 13, 2015 at 01:23:11 pm     #   2 people liked this

Yeah, I'm with you on this one, SensorG. It looks really, completely, and totally benign - which is weird as hell for ANYTHING the government does. I mean, it's a competently written and setup grouping of rules that actually seem to be aimed at ensuring exactly what we're supposed to want here.

Also - that Thatcher quote? Demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about "socialism" at best. Not to get off-topic, but maaaaybe you need a refresher. Wikipedia has a great page on it which goes into pretty solid coverage on the various forms of socialism (which, in various forms, works REALLY WELL all around the world - but, you know, murrica and stuff, so that's evil and bad and europeans style something or other will steal our babies and whatnot).

posted by endcycle on Mar 13, 2015 at 03:19:02 pm     #  

Unfortunately it's time to bring up this subject again as our gubment has lost it's marbles again. The new FCC chairman is proposing to remove the Title II classification of internet service. This change would essentially eliminate what is known as "Net Neutrality" which required all carriers to carry all traffic with equal priority and resume the ability of ISP's to create extra cost "fast lanes" for some services, and block others. If you have the time to voice your opinion it can be done here (I strongly recommend you make your voice heard!) : https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-108&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

Don't let the new FCC chairman turn the internet into what will certainly become a shit pile if permitted to proceed with this change (pardon my language...as stated before, I feel quite strongly regarding this subject)

posted by breeman on Jul 10, 2017 at 08:48:49 am     #  

Net Neutrality seems to be on the way out, this time the FCC is pushing the issue. This will hurt all consumers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/backlash-building-over-plan-gut-net-neutrality-n823436

posted by jimavolt on Nov 23, 2017 at 09:08:39 pm     #  

Yep, Trump and conservatives are having their way for big corporations at the expense of small businesses and consumers.

Republicans in a nutshell.

See their tax plan and healthcare plan for more examples.

posted by SensorG on Nov 23, 2017 at 10:17:39 pm     #   4 people liked this

That tax plan sucked, btw.

It just doesn't inspire everyone to project that into a massive, broad sweeping generalization that casts roughly half of our fellow Americans, whom we do not know, in a harshly negative light.

As we remember those without homes or food at this time of year, we should also remember those without any joy. :(

posted by justread on Nov 24, 2017 at 07:21:56 am     #  

Yeah SensorG, this is Toledo Talk, not SB.

I think this is a bad idea, just as it was years ago when it was originally discussed here. I hope it gets stopped again.

posted by jimavolt on Nov 24, 2017 at 07:59:29 am     #   1 person liked this

I do get that some conservatives think this is bad, but then they vote and enable the politicians who do this.

I’m afraid I have little patience for it any more and tend to paint with a broad brush, but the truth is, if you want NN, don’t elect Republicans.

posted by SensorG on Nov 24, 2017 at 08:14:36 am     #   7 people liked this

Republicans decided to destroy the internet in favor of big corporate profits at the expense of small businesses and consumers.

This is bad, really really bad...

posted by SensorG on Dec 14, 2017 at 02:37:30 pm     #   8 people liked this

It's terrible.
The internet will die in 2018 at the hands of one party just like due process died in 2017 at the hands of the other.

By 2019, we won't even be able to trust our own eyes and ears.

It's a terrible, terrible, new world. :(

posted by justread on Dec 14, 2017 at 02:42:14 pm     #   2 people liked this

What do you mean, by 2019? Fully half of what I see and hear right now cannot be substantiated.

Watch out for the ducks!

posted by madjack on Dec 14, 2017 at 03:13:43 pm     #  

OMG!! The sky is falling ........cluck, cluck....the sky is falling........

Run for your lives!!! The end is near.

posted by Foodie on Dec 14, 2017 at 04:50:36 pm     #   1 person liked this

What appeals to you about ending NN?

Is it corporations deciding what you can see and what apps work on your phone?

Is it the crushing financial burden that it puts on small businesses and start ups?

Is it the increased costs for services and apps?

Just curious?

posted by SensorG on Dec 14, 2017 at 06:56:02 pm     #   6 people liked this

Flippant responses to eliminating Net Neutrality are depressing. The open web dies a little more.

This is the top discussion at Hacker News. The thread contains over 1000 comments.

The top or first comment states:

This wouldn't be a problem if ISP's weren't de facto monopolies. If there was competition in this space, then there would be incentive to improve the infrastructure and Internet speeds.

However, ISP's kill competition by making legal arrangements with local governments to only do business with them, and by cutting competitors' cables.

Since we have no way to guarantee reasonable speeds to small time websites now, we should pursue antitrust legal and foster competition in this space. Comcast didn't realize it, but net neutrality was their own safety net.

Another comment:

So, we've had lowercase net neutrality for basically the entire existence of the Internet. But the uppercase Net Neutrality has only been around for a couple years, but came into existence because we were losing the lowercase version.


May 2, 2006 Toledo Talk thread started by Maggie Thurber titled Net "Neutrality" that contained 76 comments. GZ and AC seemed to be in agreement.

That thread referenced this June 2006 WaPo opinion by outside writers, including Lawrence Lessig, titled No Tolls on The Internet.

Excerpts from that 2006 opinion:

The protections that guaranteed network neutrality have been law since the birth of the Internet -- right up until last year [2005], when the Federal Communications Commission eliminated the rules that kept cable and phone companies from discriminating against content providers. This triggered a wave of announcements from phone company chief executives that they plan to do exactly that.

Most of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started out in their garages with great ideas and little capital. This is no accident. Network neutrality protections minimized control by the network owners, maximized competition and invited outsiders in to innovate. Net neutrality guaranteed a free and competitive market for Internet content. The benefits are extraordinary and undeniable.


My June 2006 comment

Against Net Neutrality
Republicans in Congress
American Conservative Union
AT&T
BellSouth
Cingular

It's interesting how government, I mean, Republicans don't want to protect that which government created. This must be a Republican example of "smaller government."

Feisty days.


Back in 2006, many tech companies supported Net Neutrality, and I believed that their support back then was genuine. But today, I don't trust these tech companies because some of the big ones have become massive. It's a much different environment today, compared to 2006, and maybe Big Tech has a different view now.

That TT thread started in May 2006. Twitter was two-months-old. While Facebook launched in February 2004, it was still closed off to most of the world. Facebook opened up to everyone in September 2006. The iPhone did not exist, but the BlackBerry (Crackberry) phone was popular in the business world. It's possible that some homes in the Toledo area still used dial-up modems to access the internet. Our home used a "shared" desktop computer. In 2006, we capitalized the first 'i' in "internet".

Excerpts from my July 2006 Toledo Talk post

Last winter, I asked my [teenage] stepdaughter how she communicates with friends. Results with order not indicating importance:

- talking on the cell phone
- text messaging on the cell phone
- Internet instant messaging [probably AIM or Yahoo! Messenger]
- blogs [Xanga] and/or message boards (mainly MySpace)
- PhotoBucket.com for photo sharing

And now today, like many people, she uses Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.


Dec 14, 2017

Most of my doomsday language posted below is theoretical, but without Net Neutrality, the evil schemes are possible. I cannot grasp why these possibilities should be available, unless the goal is anti-freedom.

Without Net Neutrality, this could be bad for the future of the internet. Maybe not in 2018. Not in 2020. But possibly in 2025, 2030, and beyond.

But based upon the above 2006 thread, this seems like a familiar movie, which means that this whole thing will be replayed again in a few years.

Internet freedom existed at least in spirit or as an idea, since the internet was created. Obama's so-called regulation simply guaranteed that the freedom existed in the future.

That freedom means or meant that toledotalk.com can be accessed at the same speed as Facebook.

If toledotalk.com is slow, then it's probably something within my control, such as bad code, poorly-written SQL queries, the use of a database, low-grade hosting provider, bandwidth limits per my account plan, slow server CPU, low RAM, etc. I can make changes to improve toledotalk.com's response time.

Each toledotalk.com page is dynamically generated, which means that each page takes a couple seconds to download completely because of how I build each page on the fly on the server.

The elimination of Net Neutrality means that now it's possible for some company to charge me a fee to ensure that each page accessed at toledotalk.com responds as fast as it did when Net Neutrality existed. Will a toll road fee get implemented anytime soon? Probably not. But could it happen? Yep.

If each toledotalk.com page took 30 seconds to load, and it had nothing to do with something technical that I could control, and my only recourse was to pay a $1,000 per year access fee in addition to my current fees to get each page to load in a second or two, then obviously, I would not pay the toll road fee, and nobody visits a website where it takes 30 seconds for each page to load. The site disappears.

Is that an extreme example? Yes. But is it possible without Net Neutrality? Yes. That's the point. With Net Neutrality, that could not occur.


Earlier this year, I saw this great quote about Net Neutrality.

Support net neutrality to prevent businesses, such as Comcast and Time Warner from controlling the internet in order to allow businesses such as Facebook and Google to control the internet.

Throw in Netflix too. In my opinion, I don't trust those companies whenever they start talking about altruistic causes.

Dec 12, 2017 - NY Times - Net Neutrality Protests Move Online, Yet Big Tech Is Quiet

This is disgusting.

Netflix, once among the most vocal of net neutrality boosters, is perhaps the most conspicuous in its relative silence. In recent months, the company’s chief executive, Reed Hastings, has said net neutrality is no longer the company’s “primary battle,” partly because Netflix is now large enough that it can secure the deals it needs with internet access providers to ensure its service is delivered smoothly to customers.

In other words, "I have mine, and I don't want startups to get their's."

This is the first time that I actually hope that a company goes out of business. While I enjoy the Netflix shows, I won't lose any sleep if the company imploded and closed. I doubt that my wife will agree to cancelling Netflix.

That owner built his business when the spirit of Net Neutrality existed. I infer that Hastings does not want any of today's high school or college students to become future video startup entrepreneurs who could disrupt how we consume information.

Google, Facebook, and Netflix have been freely able to build massive businesses that many people enjoy for utility reasons and for entertainment purposes. And those businesses have disrupted industries.

DuckDuckGo is a search engine that works pretty well, and many privacy geeks prefer it over Google. DDG represents no threat to Google's bottom line. But in my opinion, DDG's mere existence, and the fact that enough concerned people use it heavily makes DDG an irritant to Google.

In my opinion, Google does not want to see anything that could cause even a tiny percentage of users to stray from Google's primary, money-making products.

Hence the reason why Google in 2013 shuttered its RSS/Atom feed reader called Google Reader that many independent web publishers and readers enjoyed. The theory was that Google shutdown Reader because the company wanted to encourage more people to use it's Facebook silo competitor called Google+.

Instapaper developer Marco Arment speculated that the real reason for the closure was to try to keep everyone reading and sharing information using Google+, and that it signaled the end of the era of unrestricted and interoperable web services like RSS from large organizations like Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

I remember when Twitter offered RSS feeds because I used them. These companies have zero interest in an open web today even though they exploited that openness years ago to create their companies.

But like Netflix's CEO implied, they no longer need that openness because they're set. To hell with everyone else, including the future tech founders. Everyone else must rely on existing Big Tech platforms. And without Net Neutrality, it will be easier to limit choices and easier to silo people onto these giant platforms.

Without Net Neutrality, Google could lobby service providers to create toll road fees high enough that Google could still afford them, but maybe DuckDuckGo could not.

Ello represents no threat to Facebook. Ello is so small that maybe it should not even exist. Those users can migrate to Facebook if they are not using Facebook now.

Facebook can afford the toll road fees, but maybe Ello cannot. Facebook is doing everything it can to get into China. These companies want as many users as possible, and then they want more.

In my opinion, the biggest tech companies want less competition, regardless of the insignificance of these other attention-grabbers. Ravelry should be disappeared and replaced by Facebook.

Today, internet startups can form in dorm rooms or backyard patios with an internet connection, a laptop, some technical chops, maxed-out credit cars, and loans from friends and family.

But can future startups afford the toll road fees to make their services responsive enough to scale to enough users to attract venture capital money if that's the route desired by the founders?

If the startups create native apps, can those startups afford the fees to make their apps available to users?

Can a profitable, well-established, web-based business like Basecamp afford toll road fees? I bet Google, Microsoft, and a few other Big Tech companies wouldn't mind if Basecamp disappeared.

And so on.


December 2017 - Business Insider - Portugal hints at what the American internet could eventually look like without net neutrality

Simply put, net neutrality means that all data on the internet is treated equally. An internet service provider can't prioritize certain companies or types of data, charge users more to access certain websites and apps, or charge businesses for preferential access.

Advocates of net neutrality argue that it ensures a level playing field for everyone on the internet. Telecoms firms, however, are largely against it because of the additional restrictions it places on them.

Take a look at Portugal. The country is bound by the European Union's net-neutrality rules, but it allows for certain kinds of pricing schemes that hint at what a net neutality-less internet might look like.

The country's wireless carrier Meo offers a package where users pay for traditional "data" for their smartphones — and on top of that, they can pay for additional packages based on the kind of data and apps they want to use, "zero-rating" those services.

If you love watching videos, and Netflix is included in the video bundle but Hulu isn't, you're likely to try to save money by using only Netflix, making it harder for its competitors.

And without net neutrality, big-name apps could theoretically even pay telecoms firms for preferential access, offering them money — and smaller companies just couldn't compete with that.

An ISP could even refuse to grant customers access to an app at all unless they (or the app company) paid up.

"In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages," he wrote. "A huge advantage for entrenched companies, but it totally ices out startups trying to get in front of people which stifles innovation. This is what's at stake, and that's why we have to save net neutrality."

Yonatan Zunger, a former Google employee, recently retweeted Khanna's tweet, adding: "This isn't even the worst part of ending net neutrality. The worst part happens when ISPs say 'we don't like this site's politics,' or 'this site competes with us,' and block or throttle it."


July 2016 tweet :

With @verizon buying @Yahoo remember: Verizon once launched a news site that banned coverage of NSA, net neutrality:

October 2014 dailydot.com story :

Verizon is getting into the news business. What could go wrong?

In exchange for the major corporate backing, tech reporters at SugarString are expressly forbidden from writing about American spying or net neutrality around the world, two of the biggest issues in tech and politics today.

Unsurprisingly, Verizon is deeply tangled up in both controversies. Verizon has been snarled in U.S. government surveillance for years.

The first revelation from Edward Snowden’s leaks showed that Verizon gave the National Security Agency (NSA) all of its customers’ phone records. Later leaks showed that virtually every other major phone and credit card company in America was doing the same thing.

Verizon has also led the charge to kill net neutrality -- the principle that Internet service providers, like Verizon, should treat all Internet traffic equally—earning its place as the most vocal, aggressive, and well-funded opponent the so-called open Internet movement faces.

Curiously, Verizon’s self-censorship applies only to surveillance conducted by the United States.


Dec 14, 2017 - axios.com - The twilight of net neutrality rules

The FCC is expected to approve a plan today to repeal net neutrality rules that will let internet service providers give preferential treatment to some web content or block it entirely.

Why it matters: The exact impact on internet users remains unclear. But providers like AT&T and Comcast will be allowed to make their customers pay more to access certain content or charge companies like Netflix more to reach their customers faster than the competition.

Pai also launched an attack on tech industry in recent weeks in an attempt to paint big web platforms, not ISPs, as the major threat to speech online. That rhetoric was cheered by some of President Trump's backers.

Except that I believe that the Big Tech industry today is closer to the ISPs on this issue.

More from the Axios story:

Winners: Internet providers and wireless carriers that have heavily lobbied against the rules.

Losers: Startups that say the rules will make it harder for them to compete with the dominant players they're challenging. Also large tech companies that, despite less involvement during this fight, have become associated with the net neutrality rules.

The big question: What will this mean for consumers? They could end up paying more for services like streaming video if those services have to pay internet service providers for "fast lanes." That cost could be passed along to the people who use those services.


Another Dec 14, 2017 Axios story titled FCC votes to remove net neutrality rules

The FCC voted Thursday along party lines to remove net neutrality rules that prohibited internet providers from giving preferential treatment to some web content — or blocking it entirely.

Why it matters: The repeal empowers internet providers like Comcast or AT&T to charge web services like Netflix or Facebook extra fees if they want to see their content delivered faster. They also have more leeway to favor content their subsidiaries produce, or to charge customers more to access certain websites.

The FCC voted to remove the three “bright line” rules: no blocking, no slowing down content, and no offering websites to deliver their content faster to customers if they pay for the privilege.

What's next?: The rollback will likely be challenged in court. And some in Congress are pushing hard for a legislative fix to settle the issue once and for all or a bill to outright strip the repeal from the books.


Depending upon which data you access, Google and Facebook receive 63 to 80 percent of U.S. digital-ad spending.

Dec 7, 2017 Axios story titled Snap, Google, Facebook again dominate list of top iPhone apps

I'm unsure what the list would look like for Android phone users. Obviously, in many parts of the world, low-end Android devices dominate.

From that Axios story:

Apple released its list of top iPhone apps for the year and, once again, the list was dominated by titles created by Facebook, Google and Snap. Their apps combined for all of the top seven spots among free iPhone apps followed by Netflix, Spotify and Uber.

Why it matters: These companies dominate the share of ad spending so it's vital to their future to have top-ranked mobile apps as well. On the other hand, it's getting harder and harder for others to find their way to the top of the charts.

And without Net Neutrality, it might be even harder for startups or indie developers to get their apps in front of users, at least in the free category. The better option for indie developers is probably the paid route, but that might still be difficult without Net Neutrality.

In my opinion, no Net Neutrality suggests support for anti-freedom and anti-innovation. No Net Neutrality could wipe out the indie developers and the indie web publishers.

Even if that seems unrealistic now, I don't understand giving this possibility to large internet service providers and indirectly to other large internet companies, such as Google, Facebook, and Netflix.

posted by jr on Dec 14, 2017 at 08:11:46 pm     #   6 people liked this

I was being serious. It's terrible.

posted by justread on Dec 14, 2017 at 08:36:15 pm     #  

SensorG posted at 06:56:02 PM on Dec 14, 2017:

What appeals to you about ending NN?

Is it corporations deciding what you can see and what apps work on your phone?

Is it the crushing financial burden that it puts on small businesses and start ups?

Is it the increased costs for services and apps?

Just curious?

Nothing. At all.

No.
No.
No.

I don't want to end it.

I also don't want to use it for partisan attacks on broad sweeping generalized groups of people.

posted by justread on Dec 14, 2017 at 08:40:32 pm     #  

madjack posted at 03:13:43 PM on Dec 14, 2017:

What do you mean, by 2019? Fully half of what I see and hear right now cannot be substantiated.

Watch out for the ducks!

It was a sequential number in a numerical sequence.
But we're already fucked.

Watch out for the fucks.

posted by justread on Dec 14, 2017 at 08:41:48 pm     #   1 person liked this

I just explained it to a naysayer like this:

The one with the most money is about to control what's "truth."

In an environment like we have now... that is not tenable.

posted by justread on Dec 14, 2017 at 09:30:18 pm     #   1 person liked this

justread posted at 08:41:48 PM on Dec 14, 2017:
madjack posted at 03:13:43 PM on Dec 14, 2017:

What do you mean, by 2019? Fully half of what I see and hear right now cannot be substantiated.

Watch out for the ducks!

It was a sequential number in a numerical sequence.
But we're already fucked.

Watch out for the fucks.

Fuck, I thought we determined sending fucks was good? Is this a new non net neutral development, in which when I say "fuck you, Justread" it's no longer endearing? That's not a world I want to live in.

If that's true, yes, we all lost today.

posted by JoeyGee on Dec 14, 2017 at 10:04:54 pm     #  

I really don’t know how this isn’t partisan. I’m sorry, but Latta, Portman, Trump are all for the destruction of Net Neutrality and Republican voters keep voting for them.

The only real hope we have to save NN is to have the courts block the FCC till till the 2018 elections and hope the Democrats sweep the congress.

posted by SensorG on Dec 14, 2017 at 10:20:14 pm     #   4 people liked this

"I don't want to end it. I also don't want to use it for partisan attacks on broad sweeping generalized groups of people."

Republicans in the federal government have opposed net neutrality for more than 10 years. Why?

Dec 14, 2017:

The FCC voted Thursday along party lines to remove net neutrality rules ...


But republicans at different levels of government have tried to regulate the internet, especially in 2006, and they fraudulently tried to describe their plans as noble causes.

My December 2006 Toledo Talk comment

Strange, or maybe not, how so many Republicans are interested in taking away freedoms by controlling the Internet with Big Government.


Other links contained in that December 2006 comment:

October 2006

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist [a Republican] pulled a "Taliban" of his own Friday night [Sep 29, 2006] by sneaking unrelated internet gambling provisions into a port security bill while removing key measures that would secure the nation's mass transit system. Proponents of the crackdown said the [Internet gambling] industry, which is mostly based overseas, provides a front for money laundering, some of it by drug sellers and terrorist groups, while preying on children and gambling addicts.


March 2006 at the state level

A New Jersey lawmaker's attempt to legislate civility on an Internet discussion board runs into a wall of opposition from bloggers and others who saw it as an attempt to stifle free speech.

[Republican] Assemblyman Peter Biondi and his staff said they were trying to curb malicious exchanges on some local discussion boards when they introduced a bill requiring people to provide their real names and addresses before posting on public Web sites. The bill also stated that hosts could be sued for failing to disclose the identities of people disseminating false or defamatory information.


May 2006

The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.

http://www.toledotalk.com/cgi-bin/comments.pl/16/3907

U.S. House of Representatives in 2006.

Ohioans voting for Internet freedoms

  • Sherrod Brown (D)
  • Stephanie Jones (D)
  • Marcy Kaptur (D)
  • Dennis Kucinich (D)
  • Ralph Regula (R)
  • Tim Ryan (D)
  • Ted Strickland (D)


Ohioans voting against Internet freedoms

  • John Boehner (R)
  • Steve Chabot (R)
  • Paul Gillmor (R)
  • David Hobson (R)
  • Steven LaTourette (R)
  • Robert Ney (R)
  • Michael Oxley (R)
  • Deborah Pryce (R)
  • Jean Schmidt (R)
  • Pat Tiberi (R)
  • Michael Turner (R)


Another December 2006 comment that pointed to a December 2006 ThinkProgress post titled John McCain’s War On Blogs.

[Republican] John McCain has made clear that he doesn’t like the blogosphere. Now he has introduced legislation that would treat blogs like Internet service providers and hold them responsible for all activity in the comments sections and user profiles.

posted by jr on Dec 14, 2017 at 10:40:43 pm     #   4 people liked this

Don’t forget that Republicans just this year voted for and Trump sign legislation to allow ISPs to sell our search and browser history.

posted by SensorG on Dec 14, 2017 at 10:53:36 pm     #   3 people liked this

Just because the senate and house are forced to be polarized by the non-representative perversion inside the beltway, doesn't mean everybody sees the world in polar oppositions. We don't need to mimic their dysfunction out here in actual America.

I hope there are a lot of people who are precise in their language as they identify specific opportunities to fight for net neutrality rather than returning to the tired and too easily blocked out R and D derp. (A list of individuals is specific. A clear identification of the freedoms, access and privacy lost are specific. A clear identification of opportunities to be represented is good. Do that. Use data. The actual data. Not simplistic generalizations. Not just "Be sure not to R.")

I guess it depends on one's true goals and objectives. Education or Subjugation? I see both from people on the very same side. One works better.

They real wolf is here. But people have been hearing "wolf, wolf" for so long.

posted by justread on Dec 15, 2017 at 07:05:20 am     #  

"Just because the senate and house are forced to be polarized by the non-representative perversion inside the beltway, doesn't mean everybody sees the world in polar oppositions. We don't need to mimic their dysfunction out here in actual America."

On this issue, that's a tough sell for me when in my opinion, one of the biggest threats to internet freedoms and privacy are republicans in the federal government, and it has been that way for more than a decade.

Over the past 11 years, it seemed realistic to think that republicans would have consumed more information about internet technology, processed that information to become more knowledgeable, and concluded that their opinions in 2006 were mistaken. It was possible for republicans to evolve intellectually over the past 11 years, but obviously, that never happened, at least on this issue.


Dec 14, 2017 - The Verge - Ajit Pai just handed Republicans a bag of shit

[Republican] Pai gutted net neutrality without ever trying to make the case for it being a good idea.

Pai’s final media appearance was a troll-ish video with alt-right blog The Daily Caller, in which he literally dances with a woman who supported the insane Pizzagate conspiracy that ended with a gunman storming a pizza parlor.

What the hell.


Dec 13, 2017 - Gizmodo - Ajit Pai Thinks You're Stupid Enough to Buy This Crap

Pai has apparently decided to resort to his time-honored tactic of being incredibly condescending.

In a video with the conservative site Daily Caller’s Benny Johnson—the dude who got fired from BuzzFeed for plagiarizing Yahoo Answers—Pai urged the country to understand that even if he succeeds in his plan to let ISPs strangle the rest of the internet to death, they’ll let us continue to take selfies and other stupid bullshit.


It's hard not to wonder if republican Pai is insane.

This is the Chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Explains Net Neutrality but he never mentions future innovation.


SensorG said above:

Don’t forget that Republicans just this year voted for and Trump sign legislation to allow ISPs to sell our search and browser history.

Yep, that was more ominious legislation supported by republicans.

March 2017 - Toledo Talk thread - Internet privacy

As most had expected, the House of Representatives today voted 215 to 205 to kill privacy rules protecting US broadband subscribers.

The rules, approved by the FCC last fall, were slated to take effect this month.

But thanks to relentless lobbying by the broadband and marketing industries, the GOP quickly rushed to dismantle the rules at ISP request.

Today's vote came after the Senate voted 50-48 last week to [kill] the rules.

The vote to dismantle the rules is seen as one of the more brazen examples of pay-to-play politics in recent memory. It's a massive win for giant ISPs.

The FCC pursued broadband privacy rules after companies like Verizon got caught covertly modifying packets to track users around the internet, and companies like AT&T and Comcast began exploring forcing users to pay more for privacy.

And how did our two local House reps vote?

Democrat Kaptur voted NO, meaning that she supported internet privacy.

Republican Latta voted YES, which means that Latta opposes internet privacy.


March 2017 - nymag.com - Why Congress is Dismantling Internet Privacy Rules

ISPs would like to do what Google and Facebook, not covered by the new FCC rules, are already doing: sell anonymized profiles based on data those companies gather to third parties for ad targeting.


March 2017 - Electronic Frontier Foundation - Repealing Broadband Privacy Rules, Congress Sides with the Cable and Telephone Industry

If the bill is signed into law, companies like Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon will have free rein to hijack your searches, sell your data, and hammer you with unwanted advertisements. Worst yet, consumers will now have to pay a privacy tax by relying on VPNs to safeguard their information. That is a poor substitute for legal protections.

Make no mistake, by a vote of 215 to 205 a slim majority of the House of Representatives have decided to give our personal information to an already highly profitable cable and telephone industry so that they can increase their profits with our data. The vote broke along party lines, with Republicans voting yes, although 15 Republicans broke ranks to vote against the repeal with the Democrats.

Should President Donald Trump sign S.J. Res. 34 into law, big Internet providers will be given new powers to harvest your personal information in extraordinarily creepy ways. They will watch your every action online and create highly personalized and sensitive profiles for the highest bidder. All without your consent. This breaks with the decades long legal tradition that your communications provider is never allowed to monetize your personal information without asking for your permission first.


The federal officials who oppose internet freedoms and privacy are dominated by republicans. Why?


A lame counter argument from some users might be, "Why should I care about ISPs invading my privacy? I have nothing to hide."

And that reminds of the Edward Snowden quote :

"When you say I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing to hide, that is no different than saying I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing to say or freedom of the press because I have nothing to write."

Or journalist Glenn Greenwald's quote :

Over the last 16 months, as I've debated this [privacy] issue around the world, every single time somebody has said to me, "I don't really worry about invasions of privacy because I don't have anything to hide."

I always say the same thing to them. I get out a pen, I write down my email address. I say, "Here's my email address. What I want you to do when you get home is email me the passwords to all of your email accounts, not just the nice, respectable work one in your name, but all of them, because I want to be able to just troll through what it is you're doing online, read what I want to read and publish whatever I find interesting. After all, if you're not a bad person, if you're doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide."

Not a single person has taken me up on that offer.

posted by jr on Dec 15, 2017 at 09:59:32 am     #   3 people liked this

Justread-brilliantly stated, but these times do not really work well for that articulation. What has happened, is, instead of the elected officials listening to their constituents, the constituents now listen to their elected officials. Even more destructive, the right has crossed lines that had not been crossed before. I'm not just talking about corruption or serving self interests, I'm talking about blatantly abusing power to satisfy a very small group of donors. Someone, they are then able to sell part of the population on these ideals, that are clearly against their own interests. They cry LIES when challenged. These are bad times, I hope we emerge with better critical thinking and clarity. My Brother will tell you, no, we're just fucked. He's probably right.

I love the debate, you know I do. We are now in post-debatable conversations. Democrats are still democrats, but the new version of Republicans, are not the old version. While some of those people still exists, the moderates have been and are in fear of being primaried. Conservatism has been supplanted by Nationalism. The only economic policy they share with the old guard, is "Voodoo economics", and it's tattooed on their foreheads by their wealthy donors so they don't forget it. How do you have a philosophical debate around that?

I'm not asking you to defend their position on NN, but I will ask this-Why do you think they want to eliminate it? And to help the conversation, their argument is that the FTC can handle policing it better than a clumsy law". Doesn't that, in theory, go against many of the tenets of conservatism? Good laws should replace bad bureaucrats?

posted by ahmahler on Dec 15, 2017 at 10:03:59 am     #   1 person liked this

I'm not asking you to defend their position on NN
Thank you. It is not defendable.

Why do you think they want to eliminate it?
I can't see any reason to eliminate it other than placing control of what currently and will pass for "truth" in the hands of a very few people. And favoritism.

I'm going off the grid. Your brother is welcome to come with. I share his stark pragmatism on the issue. :(

If we can keep this together until 2020, the two major parties are going to get the same wake up call the media got last fall. It's not their game to manipulate. It is the property of the people, and has been possibly irretrievably hijacked by the bandits of every political stripe who serve special interest, party and self above our nation.

And our representatives don't represent us. I don't care what letter is after their name. Nobody crosses over the beltway without selling their soul.

I would say more, but we are literally living 1984. Right down to the mutherfucking cameras. Removing NN removes freedom.

posted by justread on Dec 15, 2017 at 10:35:01 am     #   2 people liked this

I will admit to being a little conflicted about net neutrality. I don't think it is as easy as it is being portrayed, I think we have a bit of the-sky-is-falling scare tactics with absolutely no proof that the industry was going down the path that the Dems acted to avoid.

From a serving consumer perspective, I struggle with the idea that ISPs are supposed to provide the same level of service to all, no matter how much it costs them. In other words, socialize the cost of the Internet by making low-use consumers pay for the usage levels of mega-user consumers.

With regard to the ability of ISPs to sell subscriber data - how is this any different from Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc., monetizing what they know about us? So to say that Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue, when the reality is that they evened the playing field among WHO can profit off of our internet use.

Bottom line is, who should we/do we trust more? Government or the private sector? Who is going to be more responsive to consumers? I know who it trust more.

I will also note that one of the things the FCC did with this vote to roll back net neutrality was force ISPs to be transparent about throttling, etc. So consumers will be told or will be able to find out if their internet access is not 'free'.

posted by not_me on Dec 15, 2017 at 11:08:05 am     #  

What ISP do you have? I pay extra, a lot extra for the bandwidth I use. The internet connection to my house isn't 'free' and I can't think of a single person who believes that.

We watch a lot of Netflix and Buckeye charges me more for the data I use. Without NN Buckeye gets to now go back and charge Netflix for right to even let me use it, even though I'm paying for a high speed connection and paying for Netflix.

Should Samsung have to pay First Energy money so I can use my TV and dishwasher? Even thought I pay for the electricity and paid for the TV? Shouldn't First Energy get a cut form Samsung?

As for privacy? I can choose to use FB, Amazon or Google. I don't really have a choice to use an ISP in this day and age. Also, the above mention sites only see a small fraction of my daily life, my ISP sees everything.

posted by SensorG on Dec 15, 2017 at 11:41:04 am     #   4 people liked this

"With regard to the ability of ISPs to sell subscriber data - how is this any different from Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc., monetizing what they know about us?"

According to what I posted above, no difference exists from a privacy and money-making viewpoint. It's why the ISPs lobbied the republicans to change the rules. The ISPs want the data to make more money.

ISPs would like to do what Google and Facebook, not covered by the new FCC rules, are already doing: sell anonymized profiles based on data those companies gather to third parties for ad targeting.

And piggybacking off of SensorG's comment above, how many internet service provider choices do you have at home?

I choose not to have a Facebook account. I choose to use Fastmail instead of Gmail. I choose to browse the web often with JavaScript disabled on all devices. I can choose to use DuckDuckGo search instead of Google search. I can choose to shop at brick and mortar stores or shop online at other websites, instead of at Amazon. Or maybe I choose to stop buying stupid shit.

I have far more choices, regarding what websites I visit and how I browse the web versus the choices for home ISPs.

The issue is not only with our home ISPs. The issue also concerns how the websites that we visit are connected to the internet.

ISPs on both ends can now harvest, package, and sell our web browsing activity. How much data we make available will depend upon whether we encrypt our web browsing activity by using Tor or a VPN and whether the websites use SSL/TLS, which you see with "https".

Even if we use Tor, and even if the visiting website uses https, the ISP on the server side still knows what website we are visiting, and apparently, that's enough data to sell to someone.

Play around with this interactive page:

https://www.eff.org/pages/tor-and-https

toledotalk.com has been hosted on a shared server. To secure it more for web visitors, I would move the site to Digital Ocean and use an SSL/TLS certificate from Lets Encrypt. DO and LE are easy to use, but who cares at this point?

posted by jr on Dec 15, 2017 at 12:57:11 pm     #   2 people liked this

Courtesy of JustRead:
If we can keep this together until 2020, the two major parties are going to get the same wake up call the media got last fall. It's not their game to manipulate. It is the property of the people, and has been possibly irretrievably hijacked by the bandits of every political stripe who serve special interest, party and self above our nation.

They won't get the wake up call. The media system that (now) everyone relies on has evolved into something else, and that something else is controlled by Fortune 50 companies and the US Government. A guy named William Randolph Hearst established control of the dead tree publications some years back and enjoyed considerable success, but that was then and this is now.

I suppose some argument might be made about freedom of the press or freedom of speech, but a case like that would take years to resolve and cost a ton of greenbacks. My thought is that even if the case got to the USSC, it would be too late for a decision to matter.

A few things occur to me. One is that it takes a good deal of effort to stay informed about the important laws and regulations that are being proposed, and most people are far more concerned with the outcome of Dancing with the Stars or some other inane train wreck that's on TV to even think about NN - let alone understand it. A second item is that once people are elected or appointed, there's no way to force them to keep the promises they made while they were rolling down the good ol' campaign trail.

In this case, out of the people who actually knew that the FCC was going to vote on NN, and who really understood what NN was and what the ramifications were (and I think we're talking damned few people here), how many of those people actually contacted their elected weasels and told these elite fatheads how they wanted the vote to go, and why? Fewer still, and I'm betting they were ignored.

Come to that, how many elected officials actually understand the NN issue, the associated regulations, and the ramifications of deregulation? Not many, I'm thinking. I know for a stone cold fact that mine don't understand, and don't care (either about the regulations or my opinion).

So enjoy it while it lasts, because it isn't going to last long.

posted by madjack on Dec 15, 2017 at 01:45:23 pm     #  

I might be moving to Montana soon. I think the problems will start in the cities.

posted by justread on Dec 15, 2017 at 02:37:45 pm     #  

There is a certain mind-set that enjoys the blogsphere. Free, unfettered, unrestrained, don't trample on me, wild west kinda outlook which is how the net for the public began. Didya really think that would last forever? Nothing goes on forever. The fed is back in the game raising rates an inch at a time so strap it on we are back for another round of inflation and higher prices for everything. The world's resources are limited but mankind's inherent greed is not. We will be able to be as free as we want,,,if you can pay the piper.

posted by Mariner on Dec 15, 2017 at 02:46:52 pm     #  

Courtesy of Henry David Thoreau, 1849.

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to- for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well- is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

posted by justread on Dec 15, 2017 at 03:52:33 pm     #   1 person liked this

oh my GOD i hate Thoreau so much.

Such a whiny, overpriveleged shit. I mean, if I was rich and had tons of mommy and daddy's money to spend and had no need to work at all I'd probably get a nice cottage by a lake somewhere too and feel pretty happy that I wasn't burdened by ALL THAT STUFF like work and bills and whatnot.

I can't take anything he said seriously, EVEN if he made a good point.

posted by endcycle on Dec 15, 2017 at 04:09:35 pm     #   1 person liked this

it was a true pleasure to take a break from supervising the kids and their whittling to log onto to TT to see a nice passage about how things ought to be. Huzzah!

posted by ahmahler on Dec 15, 2017 at 04:43:37 pm     #  

endcycle posted at 04:09:35 PM on Dec 15, 2017:

oh my GOD i hate Thoreau so much.

Such a whiny, overpriveleged shit. I mean, if I was rich and had tons of mommy and daddy's money to spend and had no need to work at all I'd probably get a nice cottage by a lake somewhere too and feel pretty happy that I wasn't burdened by ALL THAT STUFF like work and bills and whatnot.

I can't take anything he said seriously, EVEN if he made a good point.

It all looks pretty good until it's time to do Emerson's laundry.

posted by justread on Dec 15, 2017 at 05:52:39 pm     #   3 people liked this

"... feel pretty happy that I wasn't burdened by ALL THAT STUFF like work and bills and whatnot."

Does the "whatnot" include a spouse, children, material possessions, and old age?

Thoreau shunned those "burdens", although death at age 44 was probably not by choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau

When his aunt Louisa asked him in his last weeks if he had made his peace with God, Thoreau responded, "I did not know we had ever quarreled."

Thoreau worked some, although it was probably in management, which is not real work.

Thoreau returned to Concord and worked in his family's pencil factory, which he would continue to do alongside his writing and other work for most of his adult life.

He rediscovered the process of making good pencils with inferior graphite by using clay as the binder.

Later, Thoreau converted the pencil factory to produce plumbago, a name for graphite at the time, which was used in the electrotyping process.

In my opinion, anyone who can make a good pencil is okay by me.

I can see me dying like this some day.

... following a late-night excursion to count the rings of tree stumps during a rainstorm, [Thoreau] became ill with bronchitis.

I took our dog for a long walk at about Midnight Wednesday because it was snowing hard.

Walden and Civil Disobedience are well-known Thoreau works, but my favorite is his essay titled Walking.

"I can't take anything he said seriously ..."

Not even Civil Disobedience?

Indian independence leader Mohandas Gandhi (a.k.a. Mahatma Gandhi) was impressed by Thoreau's arguments.

American civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was also influenced by this essay.

Author Leo Tolstoy has cited Civil Disobedience as having a strong impact on his nonviolence methodology.

Others who are said to have been influenced by Civil Disobedience include: President John F. Kennedy ...

The Mahatma, MLK, Tolstoy, JFK, that seems like a decent writing accomplishment for a slacker, like Thoreau.

posted by jr on Dec 15, 2017 at 07:11:48 pm     #   3 people liked this

Your dog walk is reminiscent of John Muir strapping himself up in a tree in the Rockies during fierce windstorms to feel what the tree felt.
Or a guy who sees a heavy storm squall on radar and rushes out to the lake to ride in front of it in both power and sail.

posted by Mariner on Dec 16, 2017 at 06:41:36 am     #  

All I know is that it's getting harder and harder to stick it to the man.

posted by foodie88 on Dec 16, 2017 at 10:31:35 am     #  

foodie88 posted at 10:31:35 AM on Dec 16, 2017:

All I know is that it's getting harder and harder to stick it to the man.

This is an excellent analysis of Civil Disobedience. Maybe the best one I have read.

posted by justread on Dec 16, 2017 at 10:36:06 am     #  

According to what I posted above, no difference exists from a privacy and money-making viewpoint. It's why the ISPs lobbied the republicans to change the rules. The ISPs want the data to make more money.

My point was that the Republicans were being demonized for leveling the playing field , but no one was mad at the ability of facebook, et al, for their monetization of data.

Also, the above mention sites only see a small fraction of my daily life, my ISP sees everything.

I disagree. I'm logged into facebook at both my work and home computers. On a break at work, I searched for an item that I was looking to buy. When I got home and did a bit of news checking, I start seeing ads for the item that I just searched for at work. How is that possible if facebook isn't tracking more than just my facebook activity?

What ISP do you have? I pay extra, a lot extra for the bandwidth I use.

I have AT&T Uverse, which is one out of six options for me. I pay $40/month for 1T at 50 mbps.

Look, I said I was conflicted, I just don't think it is as cut-and-dried as everyone makes it sound, or that it is the end of life as we know it. I don't think this was directed at minorities, or gays, or the LGBT crowd like some are accusing.

If you want the internet to be regulated as a utility, as a public utility, than let's talk about freedom of speech, let's talk about youtube and facebook and twitter and others restricting free speech, demonetizing videos, etc., of those who speak out against abortion, for trump, against immigration, etc.

posted by not_me on Dec 16, 2017 at 10:39:29 am     #  

I disagree. I'm logged into facebook at both my work and home computers. On a break at work, I searched for an item that I was looking to buy. When I got home and did a bit of news checking, I start seeing ads for the item that I just searched for at work. How is that possible if facebook isn't tracking more than just my facebook activity?

Because you used Google?

posted by justread on Dec 16, 2017 at 10:59:57 am     #  

Not_me-the bandwidth is already monetized. You’re paying for 50mbps. There is nothing preventing the free market surrounding your bandwidth. Currently, you can use that on anything you wants. Eliminating NN, potentially makes in demand apps and sites, a la carte. That’s okay with you?

posted by ahmahler on Dec 16, 2017 at 03:34:31 pm     #   1 person liked this

"My point was that the Republicans were being demonized for leveling the playing field ..."

What was unlevel about either the internet or the web, since their respective creations around 1970 and 1990, that required republicans to support potentially stifling legislation?


"... but no one was mad at the ability of facebook, et al, for their monetization of data"

A lot of websites try to monetize the data that they collect from their users' activity. This is not unique to Facebook.

Privacy geeks are aware of Facebook's creepy-ass methods, but that's Facebook's business. By now, people should know that Facebook is an advertising surveillance network.

Facebook users are not customers. Facebook users are products that help Facebook generate revenue.

Users freely give their content to Facebook, and Facebook has no obligation to be kind to its product (users).

Maybe some Facebook users are aware of Facebook's shady practices, and those users simply do not care because they gain too much value from Facebook.

Some businesses, orgs, and people make money directly or indirectly from Facebook. Web referral traffic from Facebook is important to many website owners. Small businesses may gain more customers by interacting on Facebook.


"I'm logged into facebook at both my work and home computers. On a break at work, I searched for an item that I was looking to buy. When I got home and did a bit of news checking, I start seeing ads for the item that I just searched for at work. How is that possible if facebook isn't tracking more than just my facebook activity?"

That ain't restricted to Facebook. That's the modern, advertising, consumer web. It has been that way for a while. Manage your cookies.

If people have a problem with Facebook and all of the other websites that track their web surfing habits, then that's a user issue. Users can choose to alter their web surfing methods.

People can use custom, privacy-protecting web browsers and/or privacy-protecting web browser plugins.

My number one tip: Disable JavaScript as much as you can. Will that ruin some of your web experiences? Yep. But it's your choice.

Actually, a lot of your web reading experiences will be improved greatly with JavaScript disabled because websites will load much faster, and a lot less crapware will get downloaded to your devices.

I choose not to have a Facebook account partly due to Facebook's business practices, and partly because I prefer the open web over silos, such as Facebook.

But my main reason for not having a Facebook account is because the service provides no value to me.

I converse with friends and family by other means. I consume information my way with zero influence from others. And I never experience FOMO, the Fear Of Missing Out.

If you want to use Facebook, then delete the app from your phone. Your phone's battery life will increase.

Use https://mbasic.facebook.com on your phone. According to others, it's snappy. And you can use the privacy-protecting web browser plugins.

As far as I know, only one internet exists, but we have many options, regarding websites to visit and use, methods of communicating over the internet, and ways to publish, share, and consume content on the web.

12 to 17 years ago, blogs, email, and RSS were popular ways to create, share, consume, and comment on content. Simple, open standards were the social network. Many people bought their own domain names to host their own content. Their own websites or domain names became their online identities, instead of profile pages or feed pages on someone else's platform.

But Facebook, a silo, made it magnitudes more easy for less technical people and really everyone of all ages and backgrounds, including businesses, non-profits, and other orgs to discover, connect, follow, create, share, and consume information, especially in the smartphone age.

I don't blame Facebook for making it much easier to do those things, compared to what previously existed and compared to other initiatives that exist today, such as the IndieWeb, which is not a social media replacement, but it's still too-technical for most people.

If warts exist with using Facebook, then it's the price of using their service. For two billion people, the positives of Facebook must outweigh any negatives.

But we have choices.

micro.blog is an interesting new web service that began earlier this year, and it opened up to everyone a few weeks ago, but it leans toward the too technical. Some year, these things will become simpler.


"If you want the internet to be regulated as a utility, as a public utility, than let's talk about freedom of speech, let's talk about youtube and facebook and twitter and others restricting free speech, demonetizing videos, etc., of those who speak out against abortion, for trump, against immigration, etc."

Nobody censors content because free speech does not exist at Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, and Toledo Talk.

Free speech has never existed on websites, and it never will. Website owners can enforce their rules however they desire.

People complain about the social media giants arbitrarily enforcing their posting guidelines, but they do that because they can.

And it's also an issue of scale. Facebook has two billion users. That's an unfathomable number of users, posting an unfathomable amount of content every minute.

Facebook employs over 12,000 people. Obviously, it's tough to manage an unimaginable amount of daily content. People use Facebook for free, and they expect Facebook to cater to their every whim.

If Facebook wants to delete content produced by conservatives, then they can do that. It might be bad for their business, but they could do it, and nobody could do anything about it except bring bad publicity to Facebook, which could hurt its business.

Users have the freedom to go elsewhere or start their own websites.

I explained this free speech myth long ago in Toledo Talk's posting guidelines. And so did other TT users.

Free Speech

ToledoTalk.com is NOT a free speech zone.

Some people think they should be allowed to post whatever they want on a message board that's owned and funded by someone else. And if these users are denied the ability to post whatever and however they want, then they believe the site owner is engaged in censorship. That's all wrong thinking.

I'll let other Toledo Talk users explain how it works.

photodan said in April 2005:

"jr has every right to make this site as closed or even as censored as he wants it to be. If he decided that the word, "it" was not allowed to be posted then that is his right. This is not free speech. We are only allowed to post here at jr's whim since he's the one paying for it. He owns the space we are scrawling upon."

psyche777 said in June 2005:

"There is no such thing as free speech on message boards -- they are controlled by those who own them. So unless you own your own? pretty much have to play by whatever rules exist."

Equal Rights

ToledoTalk.com is NOT an equal rights zone.

September 2009 comment in a thread that technically violated these posting guidelines:

I'll admit to a favorable bias toward long-time, active contributors. More leeway exists for those gold members. If a new user had made a similar post, the thread probably would been removed.

It might help if people realized the following:

  • You pay nothing extra to use social media.
  • You are not their customer.
  • You are their product to be sold.
  • You have no free speech rights on those services.
  • You have no equal rights on those services.
  • You have the right to choose NOT to use those services.

Even if other options are cumbersome, you still have choices. Choose wisely or accept the conditions.

And I don't see how the solution is to let the ISPs become a potentially more nefarious version of Facebook, Google, and Amazon's data tracking. Facebook and Google have no control over how I choose to use the web.

Projects like the ones below seem interesting, until someone notices and pays politicians to pass new laws that stifles innovation.

November 2017 - Motherboard - We must end our reliance​ on big telecom monopolies and build decentralized, affordable, locally owned internet infrastructure.

http://nycmesh.net

Detroit Community Technology Project - The Equitable Internet Initiative

posted by jr on Dec 17, 2017 at 12:50:02 am     #   1 person liked this

I hope jr realizes how grateful we are. Not just for the forum, but for the time and effort put into well developed reports on a variety of issues that do a lot of education. I come for laughs and info. But I get smarter here, in an expanded horizon sort of way. I hope I occasionally provide value to the proposition in the form of some comic relief.

posted by justread on Dec 17, 2017 at 06:39:58 am     #   1 person liked this

Eliminating NN, potentially makes in demand apps and sites, a la carte. That’s okay with you?

At this point, yes, I am. If the ISPs start doing a la carte pricing, then I'm open to revisiting it, but I also believe in the private sector being responsive to consumer demands. Net neutrality, IMO, is a solution to a problem that did not yet exist.

What was unlevel about either the internet or the web, since their respective creations around 1970 and 1990, that required republicans to support potentially stifling legislation?

I'm not sure I'm interpreting this correctly, but it was not a level playing field that facebook and amazon could monetize data and ISPs couldn't. If monetizing data was stifling consumers, than facebook and amazon wouldn't be as popular as they are.

A lot of websites try to monetize the data that they collect from their users' activity. This is not unique to Facebook.

I did say "et al" which means "and others", so I know it's not unique to facebook.

Nobody censors content because free speech does not exist at Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, and Toledo Talk.

Free speech has never existed on websites, and it never will. Website owners can enforce their rules however they desire.

To an extent, I get your point, especially with smaller places to TT. However, youtube is being sued by PragerU based on free speech grounds and I think the case has merit:

The United States Supreme Court…recognized more than a half-century ago that the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can apply even on privately owned property. One of the most important places to exchange and express views is cyberspace, particularly social media, where users engage in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity on any number of diverse topics. Where, as in the case of Google/YouTube, a private party operates as one of the largest internet forums for speech and expression in the history of the world and such forum is accessible to and freely used by the public in general, there is nothing to distinguish it from any other forum except the fact that title to the property on which the forum exists belongs to a private corporation. As the highest court in the nation has made clear, ‘[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.'

In a landmark free speech case, Packingham v. North Carolina, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority saying "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. ... By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge."

An interesting news article discussing application of first amendment to Twitter:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/twitters-censorship-may-be-unconstitutional/article/2617261

Packingham is the first step in applying free speech to websites. It has not, yet, been applied beyond government action on internet to private owners. PragerU is testing that case right now.

Unfortunately, I will admit that if PragerU is successful, it is going to mean more government regulation in determining how large a website needs to be, to offer free speech protections. (Just like I hate where the Christian baker argument has gone - if baker is successful, we will need regs and rules on what art is).

posted by not_me on Dec 17, 2017 at 10:04:53 am     #  

Interesting that so many of the same folks think the mainstream media does nothing but lie but trust Comcast (NBC) and AT&T (CNN soon) with NN.

posted by SensorG on Dec 17, 2017 at 10:46:48 am     #   1 person liked this