The murder of net neutrality....

[madfloridian]

Most are ignoring the really big elephant in the room....that a president's appointees indicate his mindset, are a reflection of the changes he wants to make. I would like to see that differently, and my mind is open to be convinced.

Before posting this I did a search, and I found it was posted by n2doc here on April 29. It was basically ignored. How could something that important by such a reporter as Michael Hiltzik just disappear that quickly?

As Hiltzik points out, Tom Wheeler is blowing smoke when he says he does not want to do away with net neutrality.

This needs to be reposted if for no other reason than the hearty laugh Wheeler seems to be having at our expense.

Your complete guide to the murder of net neutrality


The beginning of the end of net neutrality? President Obama announces the appointment of Tom Wheeler as FCC Chairman last May. (Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg / May 1, 2013)

You couldn't say the crime is being committed by stealth. Quite the contrary: Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is aiming to slay net neutrality in broad daylight. The murder weapon is a proposal to allow Internet service providers to charge content companies more for faster access to their subscribers.

Wheeler's proposal, which is scheduled for a preliminary vote by the full FCC on May 15, has been assailed as a full-scale retreat from the open-Internet principle traditionally upheld by the commission, and explicitly supported by President Obama. Wheeler claims he's not backing away from net neutrality at all, and that assertions to the contrary are the product of "a great deal of misinformation."

He's blowing smoke. The critics are right. Wheeler's proposal will turn the Internet as we know it into the private preserve of a handful of rich and powerful companies. It will make them richer and more powerful. And you'll be getting the bill. If the commission votes for the proposal, it will then be subject to months of public comments. But the risk is it could become law by the end of this year.

First, some background. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers can't discriminate among content providers trying to reach you online -- they can't block websites or services, or degrade their signal, slow their traffic or, conversely, provide a better traffic lane for some rather than others.

Hiltzik points that "Wheeler proposes to let that happen. His proposal would forbid ISPs to block any legal websites or services, but allow them to favor some traffic under "commercially reasonable" arrangements, to be reviewed by the FCC on a case-by-case basis."

When people like Wheeler, like Arne Duncan, are appointed to lead aspects of our nation....then someone needs to convince me that the president does not agree with their goals.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. ,

,

[emsimon33]

2. Can't convince you as I agree and it is even more egregious

When Obama appointed Rahm Emmanuel as his right-hand person, I knew that Obama was little better than an old-time Republican. He sprinkles a few crumbs for his followers but save the cake for the wealthy and the privileged. He, like Clinton, is one of the best Republican presidents that we have had and that is NOT a compliment. Obama is a grave disappointment. If he let's Net Neutrality die, then he will be dead to me....same with TPP and the XL Pipeline. His hands are dirty and I hope that he lives to see the reduction of the U.S. to a 3rd world slum and realizes his hands are as bloody as Reagan's in that demise.

[BuelahWitch]

3. I wonder what will happen to sites like DU?

Another elephant in the room...

[madfloridian]

7. I have had letters already...

from other sites, perhaps prematurely, that it might be too costly for them to operate. Just don't know what's coming.

[Recursion]

8. Providers can already block access to any site they want to

And they do, in fact, block access to a ton of servers.

[RobertEarl]

17. I find that interesting

You say providers do block access to a ton of servers. Lets call these servers 'books' in the internet library.

Should they be allowed to block certain books?

I think this is the core of net neutrality; open books.

We should be outlawing the limiting of access to books either on the web or in the library. What Wheeler is doing is going the other way and making it legal to block some 'books' on the web.

[Recursion]

23. Well, that's not what net neutrality means

Net neutrality is about whether carriers can perform Quality of Services prioritizations on traffic they are routing for other parties.

We should be outlawing the limiting of access to books either on the web or in the library.

An idea worth considering. Also not at all what net neutrality is about.

[onenote]

29. If that was an accurate description

wouldn't it mean that Netflix charging people for their "books" (rather than making them available for free as in a library) is an affront to network neutrality?

[xocet]

4. k & r n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

5. Obama was forced to appoint Wheeler and Duncan...

he had no choice. really.

[Firebrand Gary]

6. Several things...

Apple, Samsung, Google, Facebook, Yahoo etc, should revolt! How this would be beneficial to companies like Microsoft or Apple, have me dumbfounded... People are not going to buy a new surface or Ipad every couple of years! What would be the point? The greatest allure of the internet, is its accessibility and equality. It's the one place where our voice is still equal to everyone else's! Ultimately, it's the reason its under attack!

This should be a lot easier for "the people" to stop than people are making it.

[madfloridian]

9. Bill Moyers on the topic.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/02/a-primer-just-what-is-net-neutrality-and-why-all-the-fuss/

What’s the latest? In January, an appeals court struck down an order issued by the FCC that had effectively split the difference. It allowed ISPs to create a two-tiered Internet, but promised close supervision to avoid anti-competitive practices, and banned “unreasonable” discrimination against providers. In January, Michael Winship explained what the court’s ruling meant, and Ars Technica offered a more detailed explanation of what the court struck down.

On April 24, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler wrote that his agency would propose new rules that would comply with the court’s decision, to be finalized by the end of the year. Wheeler promised that those rules “would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted.” But Wheeler’s proposal would allow network owners to levy extra fees on content providers, raising alarm from consumer advocates. “The proposed approach is the fastest lane to punish consumers and Internet innovators,” said a representative for Netflix.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/25/net-neutrality-will-be-saved-only-if-citizens-raise-an-outcry/

Now, barely three months after the president identified him as “a strong supporter of net neutrality,” Wheeler has rolled out a proposal that our most digitally engaged newspaper, The Guardian, delicately suggests would “axe-murder net neutrality.”

According to Los Angeles Times tech writer Jim Puzzanghera, the plan “would allow Internet service providers to charge companies for faster delivery of their content.”

Gabe Rottman, an American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel and policy advisor who focuses on First Amendment issues, correctly explains, “If the FCC embraces this reported reversal in its stance toward net neutrality, barriers to innovation will rise, the marketplace of ideas on the Internet will be constrained and consumers will ultimately pay the price.”

[Doctor_J]

10. same thing on education. Duncan wants to kill public schools.

So does the president. I wish the fan club would admit that

1. This is true
2. It's disastrous for the party and America

[woo me with science]

11. K&R The murder of our democracy.

[Octafish]

12. Freedom of Expression is an Enemy of Empire...

...and its Rulers, the owner-operator class.

[madfloridian]

21. ....

[sabrina 1]

13. Wheeler is a former Cable Corp Lobbyist. What else could be expected of him other than

to slaughter Net Neutrality so that Corps can now take over the Internet the way Corps have taken over the Media?

Did Obama not KNOW about this clear Conflict of Interest?

Are there no Democrats who actually agreed with HIM during the campaign when he said he would 'fight to protect Net Neutrality'??

Just another corporate operative buying their way into strategic positions in the government, as has been the case for years, working for Corporations, then returning to the Private Sector,, Clapper is another example, afterwards to pick up their rewards for a job well done FOR THE CORPORATIONS.

[madfloridian]

18. Just what was needed.

A lobbyist for the cable business. Fox in charge of hen house.

[madfloridian]

14. "Tom Wheeler tries, and fails, to justify his execution of net neutrality." From Slate

Slate is most definitely not a liberal activism site. They are even weighing in on this.

The FCC Chairman’s Many Excuses

Today, millions of Americans from every sector are up in arms over Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to end network neutrality and authorize cable and phone companies to discriminate among websites and charge Web giants for “fast lanes” while keeping the rest of us in a “slow lane.”

Despite the outcry, Wheeler isn’t changing sides, he’s making excuses. In the past week, the chairman has published two blog posts and given one speech (at the cable lobbying association he used to head), while two law school professors, Kevin Werbach and Phil Weiser, have taken to the Huffington Post to defend him.

Wheeler’s posts attempt to placate critics, but let’s get one thing straight: He is not backing off his plan to hand the keys to the Internet over to the cable and phone industries. The chairman told the cable industry to “put away the party hats” because he’s not actually going to kill network neutrality. But his proposal is the same plan offered by the largest cable and phone companies, which have tried to kill network neutrality for almost a decade. Since 2006, the phone and cable industries have proposed a world where they won’t “block” any websites, but they will simply create a lane for all websites and then charge anyone who wants better service for a fast lane. They have fought a nondiscrimination rule for at least eight years, using tens of millions of dollars. The tolls for the fast lane may be tied to bandwidth or a company’s revenue. Finally, the cable and phone giants want this world to have no clear rules—just vague principles about what might be “commercially reasonable,” which is an invitation for small companies to sue the giants if they’re unhappy. Since the cable and telephone companies have more FCC lawyers than most companies have employees, they will scare off most potential companies suing and then beat the rest in “FCC court.”

That’s basically what the chairman is backing—the often proposed AT&T/Verizon plan. It’s the plan that President Obama repeatedly opposed, beginning in 2006. It’s the plan that network neutrality advocates have fought against for eight years. He is emphasizing what AT&T always conceded: that carriers would be unable to “block,” that a provider will not “degrade” whatever is today’s existing service (and tomorrow’s “slow lane”), and therefore the Internet will remain an “open pathway.” But as Wheeler, Werbach, and Weiser concede, he will permit paid fast lanes. He will even permit cable and phone companies to offer fast lanes exclusively to one competitor and not to others. The only real restriction is that fast lanes can’t be offered exclusively to a company also owned by the cable or phone company. So Comcast wouldn’t be able to offer a fast lane only to NBC.com—which it owns—but could offer it only to Netflix or only to Apple, and nobody else, under the terms of his proposed rule.

President Obama appointed him, appears to be standing by him. That makes it the president's policy. It's really a very large elephant that won't go away just because we pretend it is not there.

[KoKo]

16. Recommend...and thanks for the extra links to article at "Slate and Moyers....

Serious, informative posts sink so fast on DU these days it's hard to find them when they go to Page two or three in hours--while less serious DU Lounge type subjects seem to multiply with huge amounts of comments and recommends.

[madfloridian]

19. Very true.

I will never be good at using sensational subject lines with all kinds of caps and punctuation. That's what sells.

[Doctor_J]

24. gd is now just the lounge, BOG, and hof merged

Much different than when I joined.

[woo me with science]

20. Thank you.

[Shankapotomus]

15. What about Packet Radio?

It's primitive but couldn't that be a great underground alternative internet project for techies to start working on seriously now? Transmissions take place over the air and you don't need a service provider. All you need is the equipment.

Packet radio is a form of packet switching technology used to transmit digital data via radio or wireless communications links. It uses the same concepts of data transmission via Datagram that are fundamental to communications via the Internet, as opposed to the older techniques used by dedicated or switched circuits

.

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio|

[WinkyDink]

22. Yep, critics of the Admin are just "conspiracy theorists" who have "misinformation."

[RKP5637]

28. And treated as disgruntled employees in USA, Inc. n/t

[woo me with science]

25. kick

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Where are the pros?

Somebody has to talk some sense into you people--Sheesh!

Where's the Bluelink Special?

[RKP5637]

27. We campaign, we vote, and then this, for example ...

[woo me with science]

32. "For example," indeed.

Like a jackhammer.

[RKP5637]

33. There are millions upon millions of us in this country that are

really not represented and many of the seeming disparate groups have more in common IMO than they realize. We are given corporate sponsored candidates and then propagandized. ... but a candidate that truly represents we the people has little chance of recognition in the US, generally, hence millions move along in corporate dug ruts to keep them in line. Money is foremost in USA, Inc., we the people, not so much than to serve corporate masters.

[Shivering Jemmy]

30. Just don't care to convince you

What possible benefit could accrue to me from the effort?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

31. Give it your best shot - without expecting some sort of payoff for the effort. nt

[father founding]

34. Baby Steps

The first step is to take the internet out of corporate control. Do away with ICANN and give it to a really independent governing group that do not have a political agenda.

[Blue_Tires]

35. Epic kick