"Fake Net Neutrality" Scheme Threatens Internet Freedom,

[Blue]

FCC Chair Genachowski's "Fake Net Neutrality" Scheme Threatens Internet Freedom, Digital DemocracyJohn Nichols
December 1, 2010

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president, he made net neutrality an issue—pledging to defend the core values of a free and open Internet by assuring that all Americans would have equal access to all websites and to all the promise of this digital age.

Asked in 2007 if he would "make it a priority in your first year of office to re-instate Net Neutrality as the law of the land" and "pledge to only appoint FCC commissioners that support open Internet principles like Net Neutrality," candidate Obama responded by saying: "I am a strong supporter of net neutrality," said Obama. "What you've been seeing is some lobbying that says [Internet providers] should be able to be gatekeepers and able to charge different rates to different websites.... so you could get much better quality from the Fox News site and you'd be getting rotten service from the mom-and-pop sites. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there.... as president I'm going to make sure that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward."

That commitment made Obama a favorite contender among tech-savvy voters in general and especially among young voters who see through the spin of telecommunications corporations that seek to do away with Net Neutrality so they can choose which websites consumers could easily and effectively access—based on whether the owners of the sites paid the providers top dollar

Candidate Obama stood out in 2007 and 2008 as the one presidential prospect who "got" that the debate about Net Neutrality was about a lot more than technical rules and regulations. It was about the fundamental commitments the United States must makeif we are to maintain Internet freedom and realize the promise of digital democracy.

But does the President Obama still "get" it in 2010?

Despite the fact that Obama still talks a good game regarding net neutrality, the man he appointed to chair the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, is proposing a "net neutrality" rule that bears scant resemblance to what candidate Obama promised.

Genachowski's plan, which he unveiled Wednesday and which he wants the FCC to vote on December 21, does not restore Net Neutrality as it existed before a Republican-dominated FCC took steps to undermine the principle, nor does it guarantee Internet freedom and flexibility. (You can read Genachowski's plan here.)

An analysis being circulated by the Save the Internet Coalition asserts that Genachowski's "proposed rule is riddled with loopholes, and falls far short of what's necessary to prevent phone and cable companies from turning the Internet into cable TV: where they decide what moves fast, what moves slow, and whether they can price gouge you or not: a shiny jewel for companies like AT&T and Comcast."

FCC Chair Genachowski's "Fake Net Neutrality" Scheme Threatens Internet Freedom, Digital Democracy | The Nation

Just another tool in the elitists bag of tricks.

[gunnut]

Net neutrality is like single payer health care plan. You get other people to pick up the tab for those who can't or don't want to pay.

The most recent example of this scheme is the consumer credit protection act. It restricts credit card companies on how they could charge late fees and jack up rates on crappy borrowers. So they jack up rates for everyone and apply the same outrageous late fees on everyone.

[Double Edge]

Net neutrality is like single payer health care plan. You get other people to pick up the tab for those who can't or don't want to pay.

Should broadband data hogs pay more? ISP economics say "no"

Lose net neutrality and we go back to the compuserve days of 'walled gardens'.

[gunnut]

Should broadband data hogs pay more? ISP economics say "no"

Lose net neutrality and we go back to the compuserve days of 'walled gardens'.

How much would you say your data usage is compared to...oh...Netflix or Youtube?

Net neutrality is pushed by entities like Google, who owns Youtube and serves billions of hits per day. Google wants net neutrality so you and I have to pay for its data center.

[Double Edge]

Net neutrality is pushed by entities like Google, who owns Youtube and serves billions of hits per day. Google wants net neutrality so you and I have to pay for its data center.

And the only reason it was brought up was because ISPs where whining.

Well, that ars article made me think otherwise :)

I was not here at the time but we all breathed a sigh of relief recently when your FCC did not fall for it either.

[zraver]

How much would you say your data usage is compared to...oh...Netflix or Youtube?

Net neutrality is pushed by entities like Google, who owns Youtube and serves billions of hits per day. Google wants net neutrality so you and I have to pay for its data center.

We don't pay for anything but our own use. The net relies on public goods (transmission lines, power stations etc) to meet the needs of its users. Removing net nuetrality means that companies can begin to charge more to specific companies (content fees) than others. Should a porn hub have to pay more than one devoted to rare dog breeds? It would also allow comapnies to charge other companies for the right to access potential customers at speeds fast enough to atract them with sites easy enough to find them.

[gunnut]

We don't pay for anything but our own use. The net relies on public goods (transmission lines, power stations etc) to meet the needs of its users. Removing net nuetrality means that companies can begin to charge more to specific companies (content fees) than others. Should a porn hub have to pay more than one devoted to rare dog breeds? It would also allow comapnies to charge other companies for the right to access potential customers at speeds fast enough to atract them with sites easy enough to find them.

Why shouldn't company charge based on usage?

Why don't we have a "power neutrality?" Everyone from Yankee stadium to Google data center to your household should pay the same for power usage. Afterall, electricity is a public good running on public infrastructure, right?

[zraver]

Why shouldn't company charge based on usage?

Because the net is fundamentally speech. Charging based on the volume of speech would have a chilling effect on public speech. The net is the new agora. How much could WAB afford to pay? Would they have to charge us to stay open?

Why don't we have a "power neutrality?" Everyone from Yankee stadium to Google data center to your household should pay the same for power usage. Afterall, electricity is a public good running on public infrastructure, right?[/QUOTE]

[Double Edge]

Why shouldn't company charge based on usage?

That's the point, we do pay based on usage, whether its me, you or Youtube. The ISPs come up with these pretexts because they want a bigger cut in revenue such sites generate. They can't get it if they asked so they have to subvert the system somehow.

That's all this game is about, the dollar bill

Why don't we have a "power neutrality?" Everyone from Yankee stadium to Google data center to your household should pay the same for power usage. Afterall, electricity is a public good running on public infrastructure, right?

Thats not what this is about at all is it.

[gunnut]

Because the net is fundamentally speech. Charging based on the volume of speech would have a chilling effect on public speech. The net is the new agora. How much could WAB afford to pay? Would they have to charge us to stay open?

Newspapers, magazines, are all speech. We should all pay a single price and get whatever we want. In that case, I want all the papers and magazines I can get my hands on.

Free speech means government doesn't censor. Free speech doesn't mean a private entity can't regulate it. Free speech certainly doesn't mean we don't have to pay.

If all speech should be without censor, public and private, then why do people get banned here? I know how to get banned here without making criminal threats. Just start talking about the swastika and how the original meaning was corrupted by the Nazis.

[gunnut]

That's the point, we do pay based on usage, whether its me, you or Youtube. The ISPs come up with these pretexts because they want a bigger cut in revenue such sites generate. They can't get it if they asked so they have to subvert the system somehow.

That's all this game is about, the dollar bill

Right. So I'm all for that. The same principle also gets me more money for doing more work.

Thats not what this is about at all is it.

It's about making money. It's about charging the market rate. It's about balancing the books. It's about return on investment. We do that every single day. Price control has always led to market distortion and ultimately failure.

[zraver]

Newspapers, magazines, are all speech. We should all pay a single price and get whatever we want. In that case, I want all the papers and magazines I can get my hands on.

your conflating, sites are free th charge what ever they want. The ISP's want the government to give them not the websites the right to set prices by letting them tax success.

Free speech means government doesn't censor. Free speech doesn't mean a private entity can't regulate it. Free speech certainly doesn't mean we don't have to pay.

If all speech should be without censor, public and private, then why do people get banned here? I know how to get banned here without making criminal threats. Just start talking about the swastika and how the original meaning was corrupted by the Nazis.[/QUOTE]

[gunnut]

your conflating, sites are free th charge what ever they want. The ISP's want the government to give them not the websites the right to set prices by letting them tax success.

ISPs deliver the content. They build and maintain the system. Of course they should be able to charge whatever they can get away with.

Newspaper delivery is not free. Someone has to buy the truck, pay for the fuel, and hire the guy who actually throws the paper to my porch.

Mail delivery is mandated by the Constitution. It's a right, just like free speech. Why do I have to pay for stuff to get delivered? Why do I have to pay more to ship 53 lb of 45 ACP ammo to my house than a 1/2 oz. letter to your door?

Why don't we go one step further and force the ISPs to give us free service?

[Double Edge]

Right. So I'm all for that. The same principle also gets me more money for doing more work.

Time was when you could not get a faster connection than 56k over a copper line but as the tech improved you manage to work at 200+ times that rate today over the same line. All that changed was they replaced the equipment on the opposite ends of the line. That equipment got more capable of pumping more down the same line.

Has your subscription rate gone up proportionately, not at all, its been pretty much the same or its gone up marginally. That is why you can't really compare this to power, your power consumption has not gone up 200x in the last ten years. In fact this is how the telcos want to frame the argument and its not got much merit nor traction.

And if you cannot win in the market then try to get govt to regulate it somehow

It's about making money. It's about charging the market rate. It's about balancing the books. It's about return on investment. We do that every single day. Price control has always led to market distortion and ultimately failure.

The telcos do charge what they can get away with otherwise they would go out of business and ppl pay those rates based on their consumption or get disconnected. That ars article makes it pretty clear where the costs are, and it ain't in bits as the telcos claim.

This debate has been going on since the days of the dot com boom. They've wanted to muscle in on the profits from the get go but could never make a coherent case. Had the telcos got their way then we would had an internet market that was orders of magnitude smaller than it is today. Allowing the telcos to get their way today means we foreclose on what the future potential of the net will be. Given how fast things have developed just over the last ten years its apparent how myopic this view is.

[zraver]

ISPs deliver the content. They build and maintain the system. Of course they should be able to charge whatever they can get away with.

They already make a profit on those actions, thats not the problem, the problem is they want a portion of other peoples profits for no work and want to use the government to do it.

Newspaper delivery is not free. Someone has to buy the truck, pay for the fuel, and hire the guy who actually throws the paper to my porch.

Yup but you don't pay more for the paper because the news print mill wants to charge differing rates based on customer profitability.

Mail delivery is mandated by the Constitution. It's a right, just like free speech. Why do I have to pay for stuff to get delivered? Why do I have to pay more to ship 53 lb of 45 ACP ammo to my house than a 1/2 oz. letter to your door?

For general usage lets call the following three things system stress: weight, volume, quantity modified by velocity. Mail rates are charged based on the system stress they create. That half oz letter is indivually the cheapest in raw terms but becuase of quantity is the most expensive per weight. If I want to do a mass mailing I can cut my rates by reducing the velocity (delivery speed) and thus reduce stress on the system. Same goes for your ammo. In your case the weight is the stress and possibly the volume. You can reduce your rate by reducing the velocity, or if if you want more velocity your rates go up.

If you accept that rough thumbnail sketch of how the USPS works we can move on.

ISP's already charge customers depending on system stress. There is no problem, everyone pays for the bandwidth they use modified by the velocity of delivery they desire. Thats not what net nuetraility is about.

lets say that 53lbs of ammo is for a load of Cor-Bon +P JHP rounds. Based on simple system stress fees it should not matter if that 53lbs is ammo or some other item taking up roughly the same volume. What ISP's now want to do is charge based on the item to be delivered (content). Now lets say that the USPS feels Cor-Bon is making enough money that they can afford to pay an additional premium for the continued delivery of thier product. If they don't pay they can't do business. Since the cost will get passed on to the consumer, your rates go from lets say $40 for the usual delivery method to $65. Does that make some other ammo you had decidded against for what ever reason more atteactive. What if your second or even third choice is now $40. Is $25 a shipment enough to drive you away from Cor-Bon? The only way for Cor-Bon to keep you as a customer is to not pass on the cost. In effect, they now must pay the USPS protection money or have thier business destroyed.

When the mob does that we call it extortion and it violates RICO. Yet the teleco/ISP's want the government to gove them the legal power to extort. We are supposed to forget they already double charge, charging once at each end of the connection line. They charge us for access to the net at the speed we desire, and then they charge content providers for the exact same thing.

Lets keep internet fees based on stress, its good for the everyone. even the telcos, they are not losing money in fact profits are climbing as overall net business expands.