The Telcos' Secret Anti-Net Neutrality Strategy 457
NoMoreHelio writes "The political blog ThinkProgress lays out big telecom's plan to attack net neutality. The blog obtained a secret PowerPoint presentation from a telecommunications industry front group (PPT) that outlines the industry strategy for defending against regulatory attempts by the FCC. The industry plans to partner with two conservative 'astroturfing' groups, best known for their work seeding the Tea Party movement. Today's revelation from ThinkProgress comes as Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) joined various telecom-funded front groups to unveil an anti-net neutrality bill."
Re:It's no secret (Score:3, Informative)
At this point, we need to decide who we want to be in charge of the internet. Letting it evolve on its own has gotten us to where we are now, but I can't see that continuing much longer.
So, we now need to choose between an oligopoly (relatively unregulated) and "government takeover" (unspecified regulation).
I don't trust either side right now ....
Re:A La Carte (Score:2, Informative)
Slashdot doesn't qualify to be on our Premium network however Digg is available for only $1.99/mo. however, if you get our 50-sites Package** you can have high-speed fast lane access to any 50 websites in our Tier 1 provider category for $59.99/mo. atop your $49.99 Basic Internet Access* package when you also switch to our world-class VoIP services.
*does not include YouTube or any online video streaming service access, attempted accessing of such services will automatically upgrade your package to the Video+ service for a monthly fee of $89.99 in addition to your existing Premium Sites package.
**Premium sites which contain content from other sites not included within our Premium network will incur extra surcharges per access of .001/KB transferred from foreign network sites
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm taking that as sarcasm. I am wondering though, is net neutrality going to end up a victim of partisan politics? The FCC under Obama says "Net Neutrality good" so the GOP leadership says "Net Neutrality bad" for no reason other than taking the opposite side of Obama seems to be their strategy? While taking a good chunk of telecom money, of course. Combine that with the fact that many elected democrats aren't exactly the staunchest supporters of net neutrality, and obviously also take money from telecoms.
Re:Watch the other hand... (Score:5, Informative)
While I am for net-neutrality, and we do need some form of regulation on the internet to keep the providers fair and clean, do not, and I repeat, do not assume that the government is pushing net neutrality for the purpose of helping you. There have been many times in the United States where our government will push something like Social Security, saying "This is to help the widows with children", which, yes, is a noble cause that many can't argue with. But look at it now, it is a system used to hook the societal leeches and give paychecks to fat-asses who are too lazy to get up and work.
I'm a bit curious who you think receives Social Security checks. You got the survivor and child benefit correct, but the only other two benefits are a retirement benefit available at age 62 (that's a reduced benefit; you don't get the unreduced benefit until age 66 or 67 depending on when you were born) and a total disability benefit which generally requires a year or two worth of paperwork to prove that your disability is severe enough to end your working life.
I think it's somewhat arguable whether or not the survivor benefit is strictly necessary in this day and age. But I'm curious how these social security benefits which you can only get at the end of your working lifetime are "a system used to hook the societal leeches and give paychecks to fat-asses who are too lazy to get up and work."
Do you think that Social Security is welfare? It isn't.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2, Informative)
What are you talking about. Gov't tells you what to do with your property EVERY DAY! Your house required a building permit to build even though you may have already purchased the land. Your car has to be registered and insured, and you have to follow a long list of rules while driving. The government says that you have to have electrical wiring inspected, and that structures built must conform to the building code. I'd like to turn my backyard into a feedlot to increase the efficiency of my income, but I'm sure the gov't would have something to say about that.
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Informative)
The regulation would be to keep things the same. To prevent things from getting worse. Not to change the internet.
Re:It's no secret (Score:5, Informative)
So far we have seen all manner of attrocities. ISP companies lying to its users and the government about its activities with regards to blocking and tampering with traffic is just part of it. Hijacking DNS and all sorts of other nonsense is just the beginning of what ISPs want to do to make even more money than ever before. They want to regulate what applications you can run and, who knows, maybe even what operating systems you can use.
The push for net neutrality is to stop what they are trying to do and prevent them from doing even worse. Think back to how the phone networks were handled before various regulations were placed on it. You couldn't even own your own phone!! You had to use theirs and it had to be leased! Even now they still charge for stupidity like "tone dialing service" and crap like that. How would you feel about getting charged extra for using https or ftp? It took more than the application of regulations to clean up the mess that was the phone network -- it took the courts system to break up the phone company and then serious regulation. And what did the public "suffer" from this? We suffered regulations like minimum quality of service requirements among others. We all got better service and better flexibility and you could use your own phone! I would expect nothing less from net neutrality regulations.
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Informative)
For far too long now, the GOP SOP has been "Corps good. Privatize the public commons, better!"
And that should be a reason for supporting net neutrality. We've given the telecoms tons of money, tons of land, etc. its a myth that all these ISPs got to be so large because of their own work and its the big evil government who is regulating them. That is completely false. It is the big evil government who said "here have a few million dollars, 'modernize' America, give it internet access" and then handed out public land left and right so its citizens could have internet access. However, now the internet access is no longer internet access but rather dumbed-down media portals in essence.
If it was privatized we sure wouldn't have these huge ISPs who can conspire to block net neutrality but instead smaller, regional companies competing for your business.
Really, if arguing from liberal, conservative, libertarian, green or just about any other political ideology, net neutrality in the US makes sense for the majority of ISPs.
Re:Mostly agree... (Score:3, Informative)
You don't remember comcast forging reset packets?
I still do not understand why they were never charged with anything criminal. At the very least some sort of fraud or wire tampering.
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the internet is not and has never been "the same". If the internet was kept "the same" we'd be having this conversation on Usenet over a period of days while we each waited for the UUCP batch job to run and update the posts.
Do you think that we would have seen all of this innovation on the internet if it had been regulated since day one? Regulation tends to protect the status quo. I'm not sure if it's really the way we want to go with regards to the internet. I've maintained for awhile now that it would be better to remove the legal/regulatory barriers that keep new upstarts from entering the ISP market. I would much rather see a multitude of companies competing for my business than a regulated duopoly that buys off regulators to protect it's business model.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2, Informative)
You have to admit from a consumers stand point right now most providers have a vested interest in telephone, Internet and television and right now each is sold seperately and they will lose money if you were able to find another business to supply your services. I could buy one monthly Internet account for approx $50 and the buy a voip line for approx $20 [whichvoip.com] monthly and eventually online cable providers will get on board. Even if you pay the exact same amount for each service you will not in many cases be paying it to them. So as long as they can screw with your Internet connection the can ensure no one else can cash in on these other services. They have so much vested in your connection getting filtered how can you truly believe them?
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Informative)
Look up Common Carrier [wikipedia.org] sometime (how about now? I dare you to learn). Net neutrality is not a new and exotic concept, and it is not unreasonable or out of line with how business is done in other industries right now.
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Informative)
History has proven that the largest polluters aren't corporations but rather the government.
When you have any numbers to say that government creates more waste than just the power industry, you might have a point.
However, since we live in a reality where those numbers don't exist....
Re:Hooray! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Informative)
Are you old enough to remember how close we came to having several of the Great Lakes become completely dead bodies of water?
Before the EPA stepped in, the Cuyahoga River, which runs through Cleveland actually caught fire. Today, thanks in largest part to the EPA, you can fish for snook, redbreast, sunfish or tarpon. If you've been to Cleveland in the last ten years, you'll find that the river no longer smells like creosote.
Since the EPA, the air in ever major American city, with the possible exception of Huston, has improved considerably. There were days here in Chicago when you could see green, stinking smog hanging over the entire downtown area. The Chicago River was a stinking mess, with factories and mills up and down the river dumping waste into it.
Today, living on the river is highly desirable and there is even sport fishing on the river. People can enjoy eating lunch along the river and you no longer have to hold your nose like you did twenty years ago.
If you want an example of what happens when there is insufficient, weak regulations on industry, you might have seen a little story in the paper sometime last week about an accident in the Gulf of Mexico, which, by the way, is not even in the top ten of oil spills. Yet. At what point do you think the "invisible hand of the free market" would have acted to clean up those environmental disaster?
If you can point to an example of a place where unregulated industry led to a healthy, prosperous, happy society, please do. Otherwise, you are just spouting nonsense.
Re:Hang on there, pardner... (Score:2, Informative)
. If you look at the health care bill that they just passed (supposedly necessary because of evil Big Pharma and evil Big Insurance), among its biggest supporters was Big Pharma and the big health insurance companies/organizations.
Half right. The politicians made a deal with the hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies. The insurance companies would have preferred to have the status quo, as evinced by their relentless ad campaigns on the news channels in the months leading up to the healthcare vote.