Slashdot Mirror
FCC Public Comment Period For Net Neutrality Ends Tomorrow, July 15
samzenpus (5) writes "The deadline for the FCC's public comment period on their proposed net neutrality rule is coming up fast. The final day to let the FCC know what you think is tomorrow, July 15. A total of 647,000 comments have already been sent. Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon and other tech companies are making a final push for net neutrality saying that the FCC decision, "shifts the balance from the consumers' freedom of choice to the broadband Internet access providers' gatekeeping decisions." The Consumerist has a guide to help you through the comment process, so make sure your voice is heard."
One of those comments was mine and I encourage others to do the same. The FCC may very well ignore the comments, but the more that there are the more it will show people how corrupt they are. Ignoring 50 comments is one thing, ignoring 650,000 comments is another thing entirely, especially when almost every single one of those comments is opposed to the policy they are proposing.
Make your voice heard, and even if not heard by the FCC, then let it be heard by your fellow citizens that the FCC won't listen to us anymore. Our government is corrupt but most people don't realize the extent to which it is corrupt. This is a good way to show them.
-AndrewBuck
Way to repeat the industry propaganda. Net neutrality does not say anything at all about the upgrades you carry out, all it says is that whether or not the upgrades are done, you can't priveledge one customer over another because that person paid you to speed their traffic and slow others.
-AndrewBuck
The FCC can force this on internet companies by reclassifying their status. The courts agreed with Verizon because internet service providers are classed as information services, which doesn't allow the FCC to regulate them the same way they do other things. It's really a question of whether ISPs are "information services" or if companies like Google and sites like Slashdot are the information services, and Verizon, AT&T, etc are utilities for access to such. It's like asking whether the electric company provides light in your home.
Quick, do you vote "yes" or "no" on the Jabberwocky?
This is the most lucid summary I've seen of the current "debate". Quoting:
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It is important to get in your comments before the former telecommunication lobbyists at the FCC go ahead and do what they have announced they intend to do, give the telecommunication companies the right to charge the Internet companies that you already pay a monthly fee to gain access to . That way they can pretend that they considered all sides of the issue before they let the telecommunication monopolies gouge the suppliers (and indirectly, you)
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Like most every political issue in the dysfunctional USA discourse, we have multiple off topic debates created as distractions from the real issues. Some of it promoted intentionally. I wouldn't expect comcast to stop at merely paying bums off the street to fill up public comment time at the FCC (as they have done, proving they have no respect for democracy.)
This is not about technical packet routing but the policies beyond the technical issues. Comcast purposely screwing up NetFlix in order to make them pay and then pass that onto their customers as a Comcast tax. You pay for bandwidth, NetFlix pays for bandwidth. If both of you use the full amount of bandwidth you are promised and PAY FOR and the ISPs can't deliver on their marketed promises... then that is a legal issue for the ISPs making the false claims.
This is also an issue of corporations playing favoritism with those packets. It doesn't matter if your car is broken down into atoms and sent in one big data flow -- when the corporation IDs all the atoms for your car and does not like your destination then slows down only your atoms... it doesn't matter what technical router issues they can dream up as an excuse for intentional discrimination which is not based upon neutral technical issues (like SIP needing priority.) That is smokescreen for their real agenda... to turn internet into cable TV.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Again with the propaganda. Analogies are useful, but only to a point and your analogy has gone past the point. You are perfectly allowed to pay more to get a bigger pipe or lower latency today; that already exists, just go shopping for bandwidth and you will see many options. What you are not allowed to do is pay more to make sure your competitors have a smaller pipe, or higher latency.
To use your analogy, you are allowed to spend as much as you want and buy as big of an engine as you want, but you are not allowed to spend money to make sure the guy you are racing against has a smaller engine.
I really do wonder what the motivation for all these AC posts is. Are they just misunderstanding the issue and posting anon because they are afraid of being downmodded, or are they paid industry shills whose job is not to win the argument, just to muddy the water enough that people get confused?
-AndrewBuck
Wow, yet another industry shill posting as AC to spread propaganda. I think you are the 4th or 5th one in this thread.
In answer to your misinformation...
Net Neutrality originally meant: leave the internet alone, it's been working fine for years.
Yep, and it still does mean that. You can claim it means whatever you want, but the people areguing for common carrier status want exactly this, and nothing more.
Then corporations start to throttle back our bandwidth, and instead of the courts charing them with selling a fraud, or deceptive trade practices
I would be very happy to see them do this, unfortunately it would be a tough case to make because they always weasel language into the contract you sign with them saying they can "regulate speed for QOS reasons" and that your speed is "up to" some threshold, etc.
the FCC and Obama come in with a plan to give government control over the internet, and require the ISPs to log your internet activity and just give it to police whenever they ask for it. And of course Mr. Obama and the FCC call this plan "Net Neutrality".
This is just ludicrous. In what way is saying to ISPs "you can't discriminate based on who sends the traffic, you have to treat it all equally" equal to "governemnt control over the internet" in the pejorative sense you are intending for it to mean. I guess the government would have some control as all regulations are a form of control, but that is not what you meant. The people arguing for net neutrality want all players to have the same access to the public internet without large entites paying to prevent their data from getting through, so why would they want the government to do exactly the same thing. You were just trying to scare people into doing what the giant corps want, which is to let them screw their customers over by forcing them to pay for a connection and then pay again to make it not suck. Furthermore, your comment about logging on the internet is pretty funny in light of the Snowden leaks. Why would they need to pass a law to "log the internet" when they have been doing exactly that for years. Just more phony scaremongering to confuse people who are not well informed.
That's right, they gave it the same name, but it has a completely different meaning.
Nope, that was just the big ISPs and their paid shills who post AC on sites like slashdot. Go crawl back into the hole you came out of. To quote Woodie Guthrie "all you facists are bound to lose". You might win on this one and get the two tiered internet your paymasters want, but the people are slowly learning how badly they are being screwed over and eventually they will wake up and take action.
-AndrewBuck