you've got 1 day to speak up for net neutrality (if it's worth the effort)

[h3rm35]

(via email)

Comcast, AT&T and Verizon have deployed hundreds of lobbyists in a final push to kill the open Internet.

Their goal: Take control of Internet content away from Internet users. Their tactic: Tell outrageous lies about Net Neutrality — the only thing stopping them from interfering with your online experience.

You now have ONE DAY left to convince the FCC that these companies are wrong:

Debunk Their Junk.
Demand Net Neutrality.

Free Press and our allies in the SavetheInternet.com Coalition are gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures to show the FCC that Internet users -- and not corporations -- should control the Internet.

In the last year alone, phone and cable companies have spent more than $90 million to hire nearly 500 D.C. lobbyists in a last-minute push for power over what we do, where we go and with whom we connect online.

Their lobbyists are now flooding the FCC with lies that portray Net Neutrality as a threat to the free-flowing Internet.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to speak out now to keep the Internet open. The FCC must craft new Net Neutrality rules that protect our Internet freedom. Our best chance to be heard by the agency ends Thursday, April 8, when the agency’s docket for public comments closes.

Tell the FCC: Net Neutrality Protects the Open Internet

Set the record straight: Tell the FCC that Net Neutrality is essential to keeping the future of communications open and available to all Americans.

It’s critical that the FCC hears from you before the April 8 deadline. Pleasetell the FCC to protect Net Neutrality once and for all.

Thank you,

Misty Perez Truedson
Program Manager
Free Press
SavetheInternet.com

P.S. Please get all of your friends to support free speech online. Forward this e-mail and share on Twitter.

[Easy Skanking]

We've all gotta speak up about this one.
Thanks for the heads up, h3rm35.

[Melchor]

I can say that I am extremely cynical about the efficacy of comments on NOPRs but I threw in my two cents regardless.

[h3rm35]

my pleasure, and ditto to what Melchor said, although we do seem to be much better off with the FCC than we used to be five years ago.

[h3rm35]

(via email)

The future of the Internet is in grave danger.

A federal appeals court ruled today that the FCC doesn't have the authority to protect Internet users. The decision means the agency can't stop Comcast from blocking Web traffic. It can't carry out the National Broadband Plan. It won't be able to safeguard Net Neutrality.

Let's Win Back Control of the Internet:
The FCC Must Act on Our Behalf.

I’m a policy lawyer at Free Press. They don’t usually let me send you e-mails, but today is different. Let me explain how we got into this mess:

Two years ago, the FCC ruled that Comcast could not block online content, and Comcast challenged the ruling in court. Today, the court ruled in Comcast's favor, effectively placing the Internet in the hands of big phone and cable companies.

This decision exploits a loophole in current law — the result of overzealous deregulation by the Bush administration — that threatens Net Neutrality and leaves the FCC unable to achieve the crucial goals of the National Broadband Plan.

Thankfully, this FCC can correct its predecessors’ mistakes, reassert its authority, and close the loophole. (Get ready, this is a tad complicated.)

The FCC needs to “reclassify” broadband under the Communications Act. In 2002, the FCC decided to place broadband providers outside the legal framework that traditionally applied to companies that offer two-way communications services, like phone companies.

That decision is what first put Net Neutrality in jeopardy, setting in motion the legal wrangling that now endangers the FCC's ability to protect our Internet rights.

But the good news is that the FCC still has the power to set things right, and to make sure the free and open Internet stays that way. And once we’ve done that, the FCC can ensure that Comcast can’t interfere with our communications, no matter the platform.
That won't happen unless thousands, even millions, of us take action now.
To be clear: This court decision hurts. But it’s created the opportunity for us to fix what was broken so many years ago.

It’s our Internet, not theirs. Let’s take it back.

Thanks,

Chris Riley
Policy Counsel
http://www.SaveTheInternet.com
http://www.FreePress.net

[Easy Skanking]

That is a bad situation either way. Corporate control will result in everything having a cost associated. If the FCC gets a hold of it, then they will want to put bans on the kind of speech and the kind of material that is allowed. There's got to be another option.

[FastTadpole]

I've said my piece on this trojan horse to get the government foot in the door to legislate the internet. When they are in they will not just stop at preventing bandwidth throttling or preventing ISP blocks on certain sites. When was the last time the FCC protected you from something? How does their record with television reflect on this decision?

Most of it is here:

Net Neutrality
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=342

I'll summarize the juicer parts:

Movement Hijacked and Spun

Creating a free internet via legislation was the point but this grassroots movement has been raped and has had a bastard child. The full impact won't be evident at first and may even be embraced as a good thing to get public support but this ultimately gives government a foot in the door in legislating the internet. How fast they will move to make Net Neutrality a Neutered Net is unknown.

Fear is a main component in garnering support.

There is a very real threat in having a internet that emulates a cable model, the media is playing on that fear.

Talks are already taking place in backrooms of some ISPs in order to come up with a subscription based model for internet 2.0 that will package together blocks of mainstream websites for public consumption like the TV media already does. A 'basic cable' package will be offered as a default and anything outside of mainstream will be packaged as extras for a fee. The FCC is on board with this since it give them control through regulation. Don't be fooled by Net Neutrality, it is a trojan horse to have government / big business control and shape the internet, leaving independent media behind in the dust of regulation.

Competition is key to combating this. If you don't like the service go to some company that can better provide it. I get more into this later.

A Manufactured Battle on Two Fronts

The FCC and Congress are creating a simulated battle with the end result already wrapped up and ready to go. It is nothing but a PR campaign and to support the illusion of democracy like every 5-4 Supreme Court ruling or close vote in the House.

Pitting a big corporation against the government in defence of a free internet -- nice spin to drum up support for government regulation of the web. Don't like ComCast? Switch ISPs - the free market in action. This ruling will hold back the dogs for a few more minutes. Maybe they'll mix up the tactics with policing net fraud, terrorism, kiddie porn and piracy to get their foot in the door to control ISPs.

ISP Monopolization and Corporate Cronyism are the main Issues

Telcos are currently a free market force. Telcos by themselves are interested in profit and not censorship. Unless censorship is legislated or profitable. Maybe the government could make it illegal for sites to pay ISPs to favour certain types of content or limit certain protocols. Government intervention would only serve to legislate the internet by its very definition. Net Neutrality is a clever way to get its foot in the door and that is the very reason they are on board.

This wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't a huge favouritism in regards that kills the competition between these entities. It is appalling that the free market system has resorted to corporate cronyism where the laws favour them and treat them as a person with no regard to any crimes or moral accountability for these soulless entities that are afforded all of the benefits of personhood when it suits them.

As I had mentioned above the only way to combat this is to have a level playing field with true competition by eliminating collusion and regional monopolies of the ISPs. That is the only way the consumer can effectively vote with their dollars and get the service they want at a price that reflect the true value of the service. A service that is becoming more of a need in this world, some countries have even gone as far as to label it a human right to have broadband access. Competition = choice = economic freedom. When everything is subsidized, given grants and publicly funded infrastructure in a system that tends to favour select companies that are chummy with the administration.

The only thing the government should be doing in this case is enforcing the existing competition and monopoly laws. If they are going to subsidize then they have to do it transparently across the board.

Competition is the Solution

Free market forces will allow the public to purchase and support who they want. I would not support an ISP that goes the subscription model route. If it does happen there would be an uproar and new ISPs would capitalize on the demand for the 'old internet', there will certainly be a market for it. Government intervention may very well quash this new start up option or at least make it much more difficult. Television and radio is heavily regulated but we see this model nonetheless.

There is already laws against corporate collusion and pseudo-monopolies why add another layer of regulation just for the internet unless to censor, shape and control it to the government's whim? People may be afraid of an OPEC type model of pricing fixing and collusion by an entire industry but we are dealing with a non-renewable resource in that instance and scarcity plays a large role in the supply-deamnd curve and is easily manipulated. Ultimately the internet can be branched off or seceded with enough ingenuity and know-how and public support (demand) so if it comes to this, regulation will likely kill this option.


The sector has quite a bit of competition right now in some regions. The end user can choose what they want and how they want their service delivered. Bigger companies that want to take censorship funds from corporations and make deals with RIAA. The consumer can pay less and support this or not if there is adequate competition in the industry.

This applies to search engines as well. Google and Yahoo/Bing control much of what is indexed on the internet and control the lions share of the revenue and customer base.

Here lies the choice, let's feel powerless to combat the evil corporation in our free market economy and have the government protect us and regulate us and censor us from ourselves. Or we can support those companies that serve the public interest or if we don't like it we can get off our couches and create our own grassroots alternative ISPs in the true spirit of democracy.

The Government will Save Us from the Evil Corporations!

Government thinks they can better manage health care (they played the evil insurance companies card on that one) than health professionals and they think they can dictate to technology professionals as to how to run their ISPs.

Any time there is regulation there is a cost involved in setting up the system, installing the technology and enforcing the legislation. It will cost us either on the tax bill or on your ISP bill, either way we're paying for it.

When has the government ever saved us from the corporations history dictates quite the opposite. They stack the deck in favor of those who present their point of view and the news they want you to see. I present to you the television monopolies as case and point.