Have you signed on to save the Internet yet? .

[Robbien]

In less than 48 hours, the FCC will stop taking public comment on Net Neutrality. Our window of opportunity is about to close - this is your last chance to tell them to Save the Internet!

Click here to demand Net Neutrality.
http://www.commoncause.org/KeepTheInternetOpen
So far, 22,453 Common Cause activists have told the FCC to protect Net Neutrality and stop the corporate division of the Internet at our expense. Will you help us make it 25,000 before the June 15th deadline?


When the FCC let Net Neutrality rules expire last summer, telecom companies were thrilled. Without these rules, there's nothing to stop them from creating a divided Internet. Big Telecom will charge other major corporations steep fees to place their websites in a fast lane. But the rest of us (individuals, nonprofits, and small businesses) will be stuck in the slow lane.

[snappyturtle]

1. Yes I have.....got to get everybody to sign...1st K&R ! nt

[Robbien]

2. The FCC are stinkers

They are hoping everyone forgets about this so they can hand the internet over to MaBell.

[snappyturtle]

9. You betcha! nt

[regnaD kciN]

3. I thought this was beaten back in Congress a few months ago...

:shrug:

[Robbien]

5. We tried to get net neutrality permanently written into law,

but didn't get enough votes in Congress.

Now the FCC just wants to hand it over to the telcos.

[KansDem]

4. Completed

I even re-wrote the message for that "personal touch"

FCC

I urge you to keep the Internet neutral. I depend on it for all my news and information. Without it I would be at the mercy of the corporate-controlled media and their biased, ineffectual journalistic practices.

Thank you.

Sincerely
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx

[Robbien]

7. I re-wrote mine also

High Five

:thumbsup:

[HowHasItComeToThis]

6. DONE

[rockedthevoteinMA]

8. Done. Thanks! NT

[Sanctified]

10. Sorry I am against corporate welfare.

Net Neutrality is nothing but big corporations getting out of paying for what they use and forcing you the little guy to pickup the tab.

[Robbien]

11. You do understand you have that backwards?

Net Neutrality is designed to stop corporations from grabbing up corporate welfare. Stop big telcos from fleecing small users.

[Sanctified]

12. Sorry but giving large corporations

free reign to push as much data as they please across the internet without having to pay for the bandwidth they use is corporate welfare. Net Neutrality is going to do jack and shit for the little guy but it will certainly fatten the wallets of Google, Amazon, Net Flicks and others who offer streaming content.

[Robbien]

13. Again backwards

Net Neutrality is exactly what we have today. It is expiring and this thread is asking support for it to continue.

Without net neutrality, there will be two internets. A fast low cost one for the big corps and a slow high cost one for the individual user.

[Sanctified]

14. Not sure where you are getting your info from

but net neutrality is not going to affect the speed you connect to the internet, you pay your ISP a certain amount of money to connect at a certain speed whether it's dial-up, DSL, Cable, FIOS or a T1. Net Neutrality is designed to insure that large corporations, (the ones who are all supporting Net Neutrality by the way) do not have to pay for the bandwidth they use. So in essence your connection could be slower to Google, Amazon or Youtube without net neutrality but it would only be because they failed to pay their bills. Under Net Neutrality the big players can continue to have unlimited bandwidth but someone else is going to have to pay for it and it wont be the big players.

[Robbien]

16. You know nothing

about Net Neutrality. In fact everything you post about net neutrality is backwards.

The only good thing about your posts is that it keeps kicking up the thread. So at least there's that.

If you care to learn anything just follow the OP links. Otherwise I hope you can continue to live happily in ignorance.

[Sanctified]

25. A) your Link Says nothing about the facts of Net Neutrality

It basically does a little song and dance about "OMG we are going to have teh slow internet".

B) If you want the facts on Net Neutrality read the following:

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6077007.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

The reality is like peak oil there is a finite amount of bandwidth available for the internet, with more and more companies offering streaming content there is going to be less bandwidth available unless the networks are upgraded to support it. If the major telcos are unable to charge the people responsible for using most of the bandwidth they will either not upgrade giving everyone a slower internet or upgrade and pass the cost on to you. Me personally I would prefer to keep my internet bill as it is and would like to see Google start footing the bill for the traffic they create.

Seriously though when you see companies like Amazon.com, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo lobbying for a bill you should ask yourself who is this going to benefit, you or Corporate America?

[Robbien]

26. Again, backwards. Have you even read the info at the links you provided?

You also state you don't want to support net neutrality because Microsoft supports it. Well, AT&T is against it. So you can stand with AT&T or you stand with Microsoft. Normally the sure bet is picking the opposite side the big corps are supporting. In this instance, you either go with MaBell or you go with Bill Gates. Both sides have big corps. To determine which side to support one has to investigate the merits of the system instead.

Both your CNet link and your Wiki link say that net neutrality is good for the individual user and bad for any one corporation who wants to control access to the net. My link say this, your two links say this. I don't understand why you believe the opposite. Even your links state this as fact.

One very interesting item provided by your CNet link is that DC Dems are now falling in line in support of Net Neutrality because GOPers have this new bill coming down the pike called COPE which would give exclusive authority over net turf wars to the FCC. If net neutrality comes into effect before COPE is brought up for consideration, then COPE is dead. So its another reason to support net neutrality. Thanks for the link.

[Sanctified]

27. From the CNET Article

"Network operators from the telephone and cable industries, now allied with some of the nation's largest hardware makers, have said repeatedly that they have no intention of blocking, degrading or impairing content. They say they're protecting their right to manage their networks as they see fit, which could mean charging extra to heavy bandwidth users, such as video providers, that expect to have their content shuttled at priority speeds."

I have no issue with Big Telecom Corporate America charging Big Business Corporate America, I do have an issue with Big Business Corporate America using a resource and Big Telecom Corporate America charging me for it. I fail to see why you don't understand how Net Neutrality works. I guess I understand it because I do some work for a software company that has integrated VoIP into their software and the CEO totally supports Net Neutrality because if it does not pass he will have to start paying for the bandwidth he creates, you see, he likes Net Neutrality because he gets more profit, same for Amazon, Google, Yahoo and the rest.

[Robbien]

28. One last time

Sure your company doesn't want net neutrality to expire because it will have to pay more for higher access. All companies and high volume internet users should feel the same way. But every single internet user should feel the same way.

Here is the rub. We all pay the approximately the same for access to the internet no matter the volume. The net is neutral in that way. What the FCC wants to do is make the telecos the gatekeeper of the internet. The telecos want to charge each user for volume usage. Whatever the telecos collect from all of us, they get to keep as earnings on their gatekeeping activity. Basically it will all end up where we will have to pay our ISPs for access to our internet and then pay the telecos for our volume usage of our internet. Sure high volume users will have to pay more than low volume users but we all will have to pay the additional volume charge to the telecos. To help with gatekeeping, the telecos say they want to set up a separate high volume user access, i.e. two tiers.

But end result, the telecos will be charging us all for volume usage of the internet. The internet that we the taxpayers paid to establish, the FCC wants to give rights to the telecos to charge us to use.

Net neutrality says no. The rights belong to all of us and should not be handed over to the telecos.

Since the deadline is today, I don't need the thread kicked any more. Thanks for your help in keeping it kicked and thanks for your links. Too bad you still favor giving up our rights and handing them to the telecos, but at least I tried.

See ya.

[murloc]

30. "The reality is like peak oil there is a finite amount of bandwidth available for the internet"

Completely untrue.

Comparing peak oil to internet capacity is quite imaginative. Like comparing a Boeing 747s to Oranges.

When we run out of natural resources for silicon, copper and glass (needed for routers, fiber and copper lines), THEN the internet will be limited in bandwidth.

Never mind the fact that router capacity & speed is increasing at an incredible rate and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. Internet routers like the CRS-1 are now available and support up to 92 -terabtyes per second- of traffic (enough to route every active phone call in the US simulatanouesly) And thats just todays internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRS-1

Telco's want to be rid of NN for one reason and one reason only...$$$$ for via new QOS services.

Limited NN is a good thing. Unfortunately both sides are asking for either all or nothing.

[murloc]

29. unlimited bandwidth ???

Free?

lol

Oh my.

Let me assure you, that Google, Amazon, youtube, all those guys, get *ONLY* the bandwidth that they pay for from their service providers. Backbone providers are not in the corporate charity business. No company can yell "Network neutrality" and get free OC3 installed their datacenter.

Telcos want to be rid of Network Neutrality so that they can provide a "fast lane" (QOS) to providers that want to buy it. In other words offer extra services for $$. (so far so good)

So far thats all well and good. However the dark side is that Telcos want to create a fast lane, without investing more into their infrastructure.

In essence, telcos want to remove the fast lane from the internet highway, make it an "HOV" that you and I pay to use. That degrades service for everyone, AND costs everyone more.

Unfortunately, many people on both sides of the NN neutrality debate are misinformed or simply dishonest which makes ever getting a good NN bill passed unlikely.

[Zookeeper]

15. Done. K&R n/t

[OnyxCollie]

17. Done. nt

[lonestarnot]

18. done

[SpiralHawk]

19. Done and k & r

fer sure

Don't need no stinking republicon-corporate fascist control of the net

[lpbk2713]

20. IMHO the FCC has their instructions from Rove and the BushCo regime.

Public input bears absolutely no importance to this regime. It is now time for BushCo to pay back the telcos for services rendered to the NSA for tapping conversations and for searching records. Our only hope is to turn things around starting in January 2009.

Sorry to throw a wet blanket on your thread but that's how I see it. Don't expect any changes for the better until there's a major house cleaning at FCC.

[Robbien]

21. True, but why let the FCC give the internet away without at least filing a complaint?

Why make it easy for Bush/FCC to repay the telecos with a gift of our internet?

At least the FCC will know that 25,000 people are lodging a complaint against them.

[lpbk2713]

22. I see your point........... n/t

[Vidar]

23. Yes.

[Robbien]

24. Great! And a kick

:thumbsup:

[Uncle Joe]

31. Too late to recommend,

thanks for the thread Robbien.

Kicked