
(Looks like we're going to have to keep fighting this one. And we accepted one of "those ads" once again. So it gives me great pleasure to present this fine guest post from Dover Bitch on the topic of Net Neutrality, based on a popular suggestion she made in the comments. -- JH)
The time has come, once again, for action. The last chance to keep the flow of information on the Internet unhindered by corporate interests rests with the Snowe-Dorgan Net Neutrality bill, soon to be considered in the Senate. We absolutely must win this fight -- a fight that begins right here with you.
The biggest advantage we have is our collective brainpower. Together, we need to tailor some concise and crystal-clear analogies and explanations of the issue. Then, we will take them to the local media, wherever we can, and rally the public to act. It's not enough for us to call our senators -- we need our friends and neighbors to make those calls as well. If we can explain the issue well, there is no doubt that we can create the kind of energy that the Senate will take seriously.
So here's the plan: You're all invited to make suggestions in this message thread. Come up with a brief analogy or explanation that would make anybody understand what's at stake. It can explain the need for Net Neutrality in terms of idea-sharing or it can be about the need for fairness in business. Keep in mind that some of these examples might be suitable for a call-in show where people are talking about investing. Another might be suitable for a show about fixing your car. We need a broad range of flexible examples or analogies (Don't underestimate the power of a sharp analogy).
When the thread is full, we will vote on the ones we think are the best. Then, we take them to the streets and win this thing.
The belief in an open exchange of ideas is a key thread in the fabric of our national identity. It is part of the competitive spirit that makes us world leaders in industry and technological innovation. It is a symbol of the faith our Founders had in us and the trust we have in ourselves to work collectively to overcome whatever challenges face us.
However, we live in an age when our traditional media is woefully unprepared to hold our leaders accountable. Our government is actively intimidating reporters and whistleblowers. We're told the people listening in on our private conversations don't care about our kids' soccer practice, but it's up to us to wonder what we might say that will trigger some hard drive to spin in some basement somewhere. We have seen an unprecedented effort by our own government to create fake news segments for the dwindling number of corporate media owners to broadcast as regular reporting. We have taxpayer dollars going to "public relations" companies who write propaganda in foreign publications, knowing full well those stories will eventually make it back to the United States.
The antidote to our poisoned media culture is an unfiltered Internet. The power of a single voice to reach as many people as are willing to listen. The ability to unite bloggers, blog readers, commenters and even the lurkers, who may make a subtle, but influential comment at the supermarket or, at a minimum, cast a critical vote in a key primary or election.
The increasing number of online citizens couples with the free flow of information over the Internet to create a force, possibly the only force, capable of filling the void that has been left by the desperate and sorry situation surrounding our traditional media. And now the powers that be are on the verge of handing control -- editorial control -- over to the same telcoms who have been handing over records of our communications to the government. The same companies who are counting on the FCC to relax the rules so they can get in the arena with America's largest traditional media outlets.
The time has come for us to ensure this betrayal does not happen. It is a fundamental fight for our ability to have a voice in shaping the direction of our democracy. Last weekend's energetic convention was a sign of one possible future. A defeat of the Snowe-Dorgan Net Neutrality bill in the Senate represents an alternate, darker future.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Netz!
Fitz!
Turing!
It’s a bird, it’s a plane - it’s a busted rape gurney!
at first, the picture looked like a glowing ram’s horn, used to sound an electronic alarum …
Jane, Christy and the FDL crew… you all rock!
The Snowe-Dorgan vote is slated for 6/22. That gives us a week to craft our messages and get them to the public in every avenue possible.
Dover Bitch….I love that name.
Great post….Thanks.
falciparum!
and fitz!
Here’s an analogy to get things started:
Obviously, you can substitute anything for In ‘N’ Out and McDonald’s, but this was just the first analogy that came to my mind. FDL has the sharpest readers around. Can’t wait to see what everybody comes up with.
Awesome post. (And, thanks to the last one of “those ads,” I was able to go to YKos. So thank you for wasting your money at blogs that want to fight you tooth and nail — we’d rather you spend it here than somewhere that might do you good. We promise to put your fundage to good use. *g*)
Just want to mention that it’s “into the breach” rather than “breech.”
Tax payer money. You hit the nail on the head. How will this affect public entities that have internet access? How will this affect schools, police stations, libraries, universities, court houses, etc. Are they going to have to pony up to get “good” internet access? There’s still locations that can only get dial-up. How will this affect the private sector that doesn’t have ties to the telecoms? How much are they going to have to push onto customers to cover their costs? Money is the issue. This can’t be a battle about John Q. Public against the telecoms because with this Admin, Johnny never wins. This needs to be framed in larger standards.
There needs to be a way to show how the slowing of the dissemination of information is detrimental to society. Scientific diciplines are finally and slowly integrating into each other. I really feel society is on the brink of a scientific revolution but who knows what will happen if the flow of information is distracted, interrupted, and/or manipulated for the sole purpose of greed.
It’s a hard one to explain, that’s for sure. I usually resort to the toll booth analogy — everyone has used eBay, and there’s a reason eBay is opposed to this. If you’re a little guy, do you want to wind up paying a toll for cyberspace? Because that’s what the telcos want you to do - and they’ll wind up sticking you into the traffic-congested slow lane. Right now those roads are free. The telcos talk about “freedom” but what they mean is they want to be free to create another profit center. Most people don’t respond to positively to the notion.
Here are a few, some with a business slant. I’m not very “pro business” myself, so these are meant to fill a rhetorical prescription.
1. Everyone needs clean air and clean water. Everyone needs equal access to information. “Net Neutrality” keeps the pipes of the internet clean.
2. Net neutrality is the basis for entrepreneurship. America believes in the power of ideas. No one should be able to strangle a good idea while its still in its crib.
3. Innovation can happen in a garage. Or on the internet. Why should inspiration be forced to wait for admission through a corporate toll booth?
4. Any number of people without corporate clout conduct their ideas through the internet: Pro-lifers. Christian peace groups. Book clubs. Knitting circles. Train enthusiasts. Libertarian debaters. Scientists. Teachers and students. What right does AT&T or Disney or Coke or Comcast have to dictate our lifestyles?
5. Did capitalist free markets triumph because information was restricted or because it, too, was free? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Toll Roads are a big hot button issue here in Central Tex - to date I have helped at least a dozen life long Repubs fax our Senators with this analogy alone
but it’s worse than that - we’re all already paying ISP’s - so I told these folks not only are you paying for the road - anti net neutrality will charge you for the lane you use - and oh by the way, there will no doubt be “taxes” and fees on usage (another sore point)
no I’m not offering this up as a workable analogy - just proof that analogies work as none of these folks have ever contacted Congress in their lives
The toll booth analogy seems good to me.
Or: It’s the difference between zooming along an interstate highway in the fast lane or riding behind someone going 25 mph for a couple of hours.
Driving analogies are good, because everyone understands them.
I would like some sort of jingle, slogan whatever to counteract the… well, neutrality of the term “net neutrality”. I know I am not the only one (I hope) that gets confused on if I am for or against it, just because of the name. Especially with the opposition using the same words to mean the opposite thing.
I mean, I am for it (I think… either that, or I’m against it.. whichever one means I’m not for the telcos taking over ;), but as I was telling a friend the other day… perhaps I’m just so accustomed to those crazy California iniatives where, in order to support it, you have to vote no that I’ve just wound up confusing myself.
Anyway… a slogan, or something that one can use would be great.
Google fights back. Probably some good links here under “sponsored sites” about why to oppose this.
A simple approach:
“I’m calling in support of net neutrality. Keeping the Internet free and open to everyone is important for small business and for democracy. Please ask the senator to vote “yes” on the bipartisan Snowe-Dorgan Internet freedom Preservation Act (Senate bill 2917).”
I like Jane’s toll booth analogy. I’ve explained it as a sort of conveyor belt mechanism — like the I Love Lucy episode in the candy factory, where once you start messing with the rhythm of things, everything gets screwed up. And then no one is happy with the candy.
But I think the toll booth is better. No one wants to be in the slow lane waiting for change alla time. Especially if the guy in the toll booth gets to decide individually how much everyone in line has to pay — and can change it any time on his own without anyone providing oversight. (Hello, rubber stamp republican congress?)
Net Neutrality is the way the Internet was back in the 90s when browsers first got big, kids with new ideas and hard work were able to get rich and the Internet turned into the amazing thing it is today.
The bill in Congress wants to make it work like your local cable TV provider, where only big companies decide things and good luck calling customer service.
It ain’t broke. Don’t ‘fix’ it.
“Google fights back. Probably some good links here under “sponsored sites” about why to oppose this.”
Whoops, here’s the link…
http://www.broadcastingcable.c.....y=Breaking News
The Internet Guru at Columbia U already framed it perfectly …
He called the TeleCom proposal to squat in between Internet users and Internet sales pitches and censors … THE TONY SOPRANO BUSINESS MODEL.
Ready made framing: Extortion … Fat, Dumb Gatekeepers Decide Who Gets Thru and Who Don’t … Mafioso Extortionist: Nobody Passes Till You Pay Us Your Monthly Vig (aka: juice; aka: bribe).
Don’t matter what you think of Italian-Americans or the “worth” of HBO’s Crime Family the ever-dysfunctional Sopranos. This Net NON-Neutrality effort by telecom companies is as close to Al Capone Patronage, and Tony Soprano Waste Management Extortion, as it gets.
EVERYBODY gets pissed over Mafioso Extortion.
Nanette @ 16
HANDS OFF THE INTERNET! period
How about international competition? Whatever Congress does will apply only to the US; other countries will presumably continue the free flow of information, and while we are strangling innovation here, they’ll be pulling miles ahead of us everywhere else.
If you have a small business in the state with a website, contact your reps and sens with:
“I am a small business owner (website address), and I am concerned that I will have to pay more to get the same access as larger companies to stay on line. I already pay for internet access and web hosting, why should I have to pay more? If this bill does not pass, you may see many businesses in the state fail or never get started because you’ve given control to who gets access (or is accessable) to big corporations. And that means fewer jobs and fewer tax revenues.”
Google the term “Dark Fiber”.
Its an example of trying to corner the “Frozen concentrated orange juice” market and failing.
Somebody’s gotta pay for that.
It’s not my analogy, but the story someone linked to a couple of threads ago had a good one:
This is from Penn State Professor Jeff Kuhn’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://live.psu.edu/story/18325
It’s a good non-technical explanation of the technical difficulties with doing away with net neutrality. I’ll comment on some of my own experience later, and reinforce it with another quote from this paper, but for now, read it. It’s really good.
H/T to whoever it was who found this, BTW.
I think this is also a battle for the “mythical little guy.”
Great posts so far!
A slightly idealistic, but perhaps useful angle:
Comcast and AT&T may own the “pipes” but the public owns the infrastructure that supports the pipes: the land, electricity, the public crews that keep all that running. We sometimes forget the words of that old song:
“This land is your land, this land is my land…”
We own this country, and internet providers are lucky we let them make a buck in it.
Ooooh, Paul at 20 — good one. Everyone hates sitting around and waiting for the repair guy. Who wants that with their internet — only while they are online. Blergh.
Come up with a brief analogy or explanation that would make anybody understand whats at stake.
On the website end, it’s like the phone company saying they want to charge you more money for your phone line because more people call you than they do your neighbors, and your unpopular neighbors (or even you) are offered a deal where they can pay more money for their line or people may never call them again… but to top it off, on the net-user end, the phone company wants to charge you more money to call your popular friend(s), while making it harder for you to call everyone else.
I like the fast food analogy. Why should I have to drive through MacDonald’s when I want to go to Burger King? Just because the owner of the road I have already PAID TO DRIVE ON (via my ISP monthly bill) has a deal doesn’t change the fact that I want BK not MacD’s.
Fast food works because fast food is supposed to be, you know, fast.
I’m with ya on the little guy thng DB -
THEY want to control YOUR Internet
We need to remind people that we paid for the internet. Our tax dollars developed it, but now the telecoms want to go out and build toll booths on our highways.
Uses the toll road analogy and states the damn facts.
Sigh. This is when I wish so many of my friends weren’t virtual. I just ordered wayyyyy too much General Tsu’s chicken and too many crab dumplings from my favorite Chinese place and there’s nobody to share with.
I also managed to swipe three kinds of cake from some coffee and dessert thing that’s going on in the building’s lobby.
Who’s with me? Don’t be shy.
This is also not an analogy, but I think one of the most important points to push is that Net Neutrality is about preserving the status quo, and telecom claims that it’s “massive new government regulation” or “the government controlling the Internet” are, to be blunt, self-serving lies.
Since it is preserving the status quo, we don’t have a situation of deciding which idea is better, we have “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” It’s clear how it would benefit them; it’s their obligation to show it would benefit us, and if they can’t, we don’t change. Plain and simple.
And since they’ve led off with blatant lies like the idea that Google and eBay are using their networks “for free,” I’m guessing they don’t have any good arguments.
What Cujo359 said at 7:15.
Now this is the Roots!I love it!
I think supporters of net neutrality should open another front against the telcos and cable companies: breaking up the duopoly for internet access.
Some cities are already providing free internet access (Philly, etc.)
The more cities that do this, the greater the leverage we will have against internet providers.
I wrote my congressman a few weeks ago on net neutrality and he sent back a wishy-washy response that could lead one to believe he supported net neutrality, but gave him plenty of weasel room. MoveOn.org informed me that he voted against neutrality last week.
I called his office and told them I was outraged. His aide tried to justify the rep’s position by saying that he felt like the net neutrality amendment in the house would have “regulated” the Internet and that was bad for consumers. He believes in “free market forces.”
I guess the idea of legally protecting consumers from abuse by powerful utility companies with unequal bargaining power just doesn’t fit in with this guy’s unquestioning support of corporate America. I guess I need to check and see who’s been contributing to his campaign fund.
Cujo 28 - thanks, that Jeff Kuhns testimony is AWESOME
I like the toll booth/fast lane, slow lane analogy. It’s easy to understand.
One of our Roots Project members wrote up a great diary on Kos about an hour ago on the NN issue. It’s longer than you want, but she explains it really well, the history of the telecoms, equal access to phone lines, etc. It’s really good. And we’re proud of her.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/15/21545/0159
The telco protection racket.
“Nice website yis’ got dere … shame if nobody gots ta see it…. yiz pays us every month on the 15th, nice and regular-like, and that home page will pop right up when da suckers click on it.”
Idea #1:
Target stockholders of companies that make their money off the internet, yet oppose net neutrality.
Point out that they (the stockholders) need to dissuade these companies from killing the goose that lays the golden eggs in return for short term gains (sure killing the goose sounds like it will boost the bottom line this quarter, with golden eggs and freshly cooked goose, but what’s it going to do to subsequent quarters?). In trying to eke out a bit more revenue they risk killing the business.
Play out the scenario for them: Broadband provider X decides that they need to be paid twice every time someone looks something up on Google–once, by their customer, who’s paying for internet service, and then a second time by Google, for no good reason. Problem is, Google isn’t stupid. They realize that there’s no good reason why they should pay to provide a free service to X’s customers; there’s no advantage in it for them. They won’t pay. So X blocks Google, and now X’s customers can’t get to Google. Same story with ebay. And CNN, and Microsoft, and… Now X’s customers are paying for a service that’s all but useless to them.
As a consequence, X doesn’t get the addition revenue they were dreaming of, and in the process they loose the revenue stream they already had.
Mention that, should the companies persist in the delusion of being able to kill the goose and still get eggs, it might be a good idea to dump their stock early, before the market catches on.
–MarkusQ
cbl at 23: Unfortunately, the telecoms are working to frame net neutrality as “government control of the Internet,” in order to confuse the simple “Hands Off the Internet” message.
Cujo359 28 -
That was me. At your service. I am all over this issue. It SUX what they’re trying to do.
My grandson was interviewing me some weeks ago for a class project. One of the questions he asked me was what did I consider to be the best invention of my time (I’m 60) and why. I responded almost instantly that it was the internet. The why was because it freed up people to learn about the whole world, exchange ideas, and connect on a level that was totally without precedent in the history of the human race. I told him that I could see the internet fostering people power that could one day trancend the political voices that speak for us now around the world. With the internet, I told him, you are only limited by your ideas. That having the internet was like living in the worlds biggest library and museum. My final remark was that as long as the internet was free, open and uncontrolled, our current and future freedoms were protected by the best use of freedom of speech this country has ever seen. I want my grandson to have that world!
TRex:
I’ll take some of that General Tso’s chicken…
Water cooler talking point: “In your experience, don’t you think cable companies blow donkey? Didja know Congress is about to hand over control of the Internet to them?”
Redshift 47 -
In my rightwing rag of a local paper (the Vegas R-J) they recently had a ‘net neutrality article in the bidness section totally spun as “all these great nascent internet technology benefits we may not get if we don’t let the Suits have control.”
Not shitting.
Josh Marshall had a good point about the telecoms claims that they need to do this extortion to pay for upgrading the Internet:
A good analogy for Net Neutrality already exists in our prescription drug care, for those of us fortunate enough to have insurance. You go to your doctor and get a prescription for Drug Zowie for whatever ails you. You go to the pharmacy and hand over your prescription. The pharmacist tells you, “Well, your insurance won’t pay for Drug Zowie because they have an exclusive agreement with a company that competes with Zowie’s makers. You can have their competing product, Drug Poop for your $15 copay, or you can pay $80 a pill for Drug Zowie. It’s your choice.” Is Drug Poop the same as Drug Zowie? No. Is it as good as Drug Zowie? Maybe, you don’t know. Is it what you (and your doctor) wanted when you walked into the pharmacy? Heck, no! But you weren’t given a real choice, because your insurance company already brokered a shady deal to prevent you from getting the care you and your doctor want for you.
If you want to be able to get the Internet you enter into your browser, without lag times, without blockage, without detours, if you want your Drug Zowie, support Net Neutrality.
After spending way too much time in airports the last 10 days, this came to mind
The telcos want to be in charge of the TSA%u2014 they and their big money clients get a pass through the security line, no wait, no hassle. Smaller clients get to stand in line but make it through without much fuss. The rest of us regular folk have to take off our shoes, unpack our laptops, take out our video cameras, and then when we get to the other side, the do the wands bit. By that time, we’ve missed our plane.
That’s what would happen without Net Neutrality%u2014we’d all effectively be on the no-fly list.
So I had to do some (real) work today. What’d I miss?
SalHepatica said:
The telco protection racket.
“Nice website yis’ got dere %u2026 shame if nobody gots ta see it%u2026. yiz pays us every month on the 15th, nice and regular-like, and that home page will pop right up when da suckers click on it.”
- - - -
LIKE I SAID AT #22 … OR LIKE THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY INTERNET GURU SAID … “IT’S THE TONY SOPRANO BUSINESS MODEL.”
Who wants to defend restraint of trade … extortion … the Monthly Vig to operate?? Only Mafioso.
Murtha speaking now.
My comment disappeared into the ether. What happened?
It seems like it should be pretty easy.
“Don’t let the same idiots who fucked up cable TV fuck up the internet!”
the best thing i heard was at the net neutrality panel at ykos. tim karg of the free press explained that the telcos want to shape the internet along the cable tv model.
i don’t know about you, but i hate my cable tv company, and i hate the limited options they give me. i can’t get the super station from chicago, i can’t get the golf channel (not that i want it), i can’t get the gay channels (again, don’t want it, but not that there’s anything wrong with that), i can’t get lots of stuff that i know is available thru other cable tv companies.
if we can frame the debate in that way, i think we have a shot.
One point the Kuhn testimony makes has to do with what happens when you try to prioritize bandwidth:
Today the Internet2 Abilene network does not give preferential treatment to anyone’s bits, but its users routinely experiment with streaming HDTV, hold thousands of high quality two-way video conferences simultaneously, and transfer huge files of scientific data around the globe without loss of packets.
This jibes with experience I’ve had over the years. Prioritizing network traffic is never a good solution. In the end, you run out of communications capacity, which we often refer to as “bandwidth” or “pipe”, and you often just end up creating more offered traffic load than if everything went through promptly. Internet protocols try to guarantee that traffic is delivered in one way or another. If it is not, the software just tries to send the message again. The only way to prevent this is simply to block some forms of traffic altogether.
One of the reasons I know that prioritizing traffic is a bad idea came from experience I had on a DoD project many years ago. We were trying to fit too much data through the communications media that were available (this was back when 16 kilobits was a fast link). One particular form of traffic was accounting for 80 percent of the offered communications load. Some management genius told us to set that traffic at a higher priority so it would get through. We argued, of course, but had to do it anyway. The results were predictably disastrous. Not only did the “priority” traffic not get through, neither did anything else. The problem was too much traffic for the comm pipes available. Nothing was going to fix that but less traffic or more pipe.
I might add that in this project, the underlying communications protocol was one of our own design. It was loosely based on the TCP/IP protocols that are used to run the Internet, but it was different nonetheless, and tailored for our environment. It was marvelously efficient in the environment we used it. Typically, we could push actual data (as opposed to data plus overhead traffic) at a rate nearly 90% of the capacity of the links. With TCP/IP, you’re lucky to get 90% utilization even counting the overhead traffic. We ended up learning the same thing Internet2 did, that there’s little real use for prioritized data traffic.
So, practically speaking, if you’re going to prioritize traffic, you’re really getting rid of traffic. There’s no other reasonable way to do it. That’s why people say you can’t prioritize the traffic meaningfully, and they’re right.
Telco squatter scam!
The telcos want to build firewalls between all websites and then charge everyone to get through the walls!!
Vote yes on net neutrality and NO to the telco squatter scam!!!
The only thing is, I think we also need to counter the anti-net neutrality folks whose argument is “net neutrality will make internet access MORE EXPENSIVE for EVERYONE.” Because that message will probably work for them.
I don’t understand this all that well, but isn’t internet access (due to congestion) going to get more expensive for everyone either way?
We can’t let the cable companies lead people to believe that maintaining net neutrality will make using the internet more expensive for the average Joe - we need to be able to show that the costs will be going up but it won’t cost any more to maintain net neutrality than to destroy it - and then add the toll booth or McDonalds analogy.
OK, will try it again.
After being in too many airports this last week plus, here’s the analogy:
The telcos run TSA. IF you are one of their preferred platinum customers, you get a pass and don’t have to go through security.
If you are a customer, but not on the preferred platinum list, you go through security quickly, don’t have to stop to take off shoes, etc.
If you are one of the regular folks like us, you have to take off your shoes, coats, belts, etc. open your laptop, cameras, all of your electronic gadgets, and then once through the detector, you have to be wanded or searched. By then, you’ve missed the plane
Or, you are on the no fly-list.
So, I’ve been working today. What’d I miss?
more from the net neutrality panel at ykos:
adman green of moveon.org told the story of telis, the at&t of canada. they were in a labor dispute with their employees’ unions. and they blocked internet access to all websites that held positive views about the unions from their customers. is that what we want to be able to happen now?
There are some good cable TV analogies.
What they want is a basic cable/premium cable divide. They say that they’ll provide better service for the high end but somehow not provide worse service for everyone else. But look at basic cable.
Cable companies are required to provide a basic cable package for a regulated profit, but they want you to get extended basic and premium services where they can make serious money. So do they provide a good, solid product for basic cable? No, they do their best to make basic cable something nobody wants.
Without Net Neutrality, most of the Internet will become basic cable.
Coincidentally, I included these scenarios is in an email to Senator Mikulski earlier this evening.
Cujo -
Also, Wiki has a good, more technical, summary of the salient attributes of the issue (and the wiki stuff will be continually updated — until the Suits gain control).
To amplify Paul at 20:
Remember the first big internet providers? Compuserve, AOL, Genie? How their stuff worked and nobody else’s did? Well, customers wanted real access to the whole internet. But charging both content producers and end-users is the most profitable business model, so the big companies are going to Washington to get Congress to force Americans to buy a product they have already rejected in the marketplace.
Be sure to add that the bill also allows broadband providers to avoid non-profitable areas. This will make the digital divide WORSE, not only for the inner city, but rural America. When AT&T wanted to wire America for telephones, the federal government forced them to wire rural America as the price for being allowed to sell telephone service in profitable areas. What would have happened to rural America if telephone service never reached beyond the wealthy suburbs? Don’t we want all of America included in the digital revolution?
You’re a good Southern Baptist. You go to church every Sunday. The minister is distraught this week. Folks, this is the last week of full Southern Baptist services. You see, we no longer have religion neutrality.
You’ve got to pay full service rates to get full service religion.
We can have the choir, or the communion.
If we’re going to keep Jesus in the nativity, we’ve got to lose Joseph and two wisemen.
Thankfully, we’re able to arrange refreshments.
There’ll be coffee (decaf only) and cake non-frosted sugar free day old donuts.
For those that prefer full service Southern Baptist services, they’ll still be available every Sunday at 2:00am, or at the Catholic church across the street.
odd, comments show up in Firefox but not on Safari. I don’t get it. Oh well. Sorry for the duplicate post.
BobbyG @ 7:31 pm (#52) - That sounds an awful lot like how the music business was going to go to hell if we didn’t let the music industry make all sorts of changes to the copyright law. We did and it went to hell anyway.
Welcome, DB!! Woo hoo!
How about this?
If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.
FYI -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_neutrality
One analogy–which kind of isn’t an analogy, because its real–is cable TV. When you sign up for your cable TV, your cable (or satellite) provider gives you a menu of the channels they carry on their private network & you can choose from them. It’s not like you can just get a set-top box and choose any content you want (like with the Internet). They may have five hundred channels, but they determine what those are. If I want LinkTV, or Current, and my cable operator doesn’t carry them–I’m out of luck.
Further, not all of that content is priced the same–a basic package might cost $30 for 100 channels, but HBO might be $12 for just five channels. Other content might be pay-per-view.
Internet access providers want to have the same control over their broadband networks. The CEO of the largest cable company, Comcast, said to congress the other day, they don’t want to be regulated as a “dumb pipe”–i.e., just access. They want to control what is on their networks–the content.
This will manifest in both what may be charged to content providers (who want to have access to you), but also charges to the consumer (different content, like HBO, might be priced at a premium).
A good example of the former, and a good parallel to what might play out in Internet content, is the case of Fox News. In 1996 when the channel was launched–Rupert Murdoch actually paid cable & satellite operators on a per subscriber basis to put Fox News on their networks. That was the only way they could acheive the kind of nationwide access they needed to get the channel going.
That is the same dynamic which would be at play without Net Neutrality, and completely changes what the Internet is. Rather than an open network with worldwide access, it becomes a patchwork of cable TV style “walled gardens” where big media companies control what gets in and the price of access.
Cujo359 70 -
I know by now I can count on YOU for great analogies.
Yes.
Click here for the 411.
Here’s a subsidiary but nevertheless related talking point. The telcos are making a big deal out of, “Don’t burden us with unnecessary regulation! Competition and the market will take care of everything!!”
Sure. Just like we’d never need regulations to make sure that these exact same companies gave their cell phone customers access to 911 in emergencies, or number portability . . . oh, wait.
And these aren’t even new regulations they’re whining about. They’re the old rules of the road, that have been in place since the beginnings of the internet. They’re not asking for a free market; they’re asking for a government handout, at the expense of small businesses, consumers, and the innovation that’s one of the last places where America still has a competitive advantage.
everhopeful @ 7:40 pm (#61) - I have an answer, I don’t know how convincing it is.
Television’s free. Do you like that? Do you like the non-stop Fear Factors and American Idols and the endless parade of crappy sitcoms? Because that’s what’s cheap. If you want quality, you have to pay. Oh, and freedom isn’t free, either.
I like the toll booth analogy, too - most people can instantly relate to it. But it’s bigger than just the tollbooth. It’s like the folks with the EZ Pass (for those who haven’t experienced EZ Pass, it’s a transponder you buy from the Transportation Authority and mount on your windshield - you pre-pay on it, but it allows you to bypass the tollbooths because sensors “read” the transponder and automatically debit your EZPass account), have all the exits on their side of the highway, so those who have to use the tollbooth have to detour just to get to the exits.
Do we want Internet Freedom to become Internet “Fee”-dom?
Maintain the Internet as an Entrepreneurial Incubator.
How about a medical analogy?
“You’re here to see the Doctor? Do you have a Platinum ‘Premium MD’ Card? No? OK then, have a seat and we’ll be with you . . . in a while.” Other patients walk in while you’re sitting there, and after flashing the shiny card, they’re waved right in. And you sit and sit and sit . . .
Two tiered service - yeah, that’s just what the doctor ordered . . .
everhopeful at 60:
The only thing is, I think we also need to counter the anti-net neutrality folks whose argument is “net neutrality will make internet access MORE EXPENSIVE for EVERYONE.” Because that message will probably work for them.
Short answer: *snort* — Yeah right, making the Internet more like cable TV will make it less expensive.
It helps that almost all the companies we’re fighting against are phone companies and cable companies. If anyone tries to push that line, ask them to cite a single instance where giving the phone company or the cable company what they wanted resulted in lower prices.
antonetteg 74 -
Y’all are now getting on a roll. Yep.
:)
In the end, it’ll all devolve to Content Control. Now, perhaps to the otherwise indifferent infotainment masses, WFTC? But, if you value open communication and the free flow of all information, their days may well be numbered on the internet.
brownandserve @ 7:42 pm (#65) - I’ll see if I can find some documentation on this, but your VeriZomcast hypothetical isn’t very hypothetical. It’s why you’re using Excel instead of Lotus. Back in the ’80s, Microsoft deliberately changed things in Windows so that features of Lotus wouldn’t work properly. The rest, and Lotus, is history.
Cujo @ 83 speaks the utter truth on that point.
Matt Stoller put it pretty succinctly at YK:
Like dropped calls? Then you’ll love the pay-internet!
wow 60 comments and no one off topic. This is some kind od record!
One approach is to focus on US teleco’s greed and lousy price/performance. US teleco’s provide an inferior, slower internet broadband service - and charge customers more - than those in other countries. The US telecos supposedly need more money to upgrade to handle new video and other high capacity downloads. Yet, teleco’s in other countries already can handle this high capacity stuff without high prices. The US teleco’s, which are already underdelivering, want to extort even more money.
brownandserve - I sent an e-mail to Mikulski (and Sarbanes) last week, and got a response from Mikulski today - don’t have the text of it now because it’s on my work computer, but I would be curious to know whether you get the same response I did.
This is all because the righties can’t lies on their political websites.
There’s a couple of points to illustrate to people who only use the net for emailing and sharing photos and simple things. 1. What regular people can get under a non-neutral net (e.g. the McDonalds vs. In ‘N’ Out burgers) and 2. What regular people can distribute on the net (i.e. their own emails, blogs, and photo galleries).
This needs work (and brevity!) but here goes for explaining #2…
Imagine the post office trying this. You want to send a newsletter to your friends and family about your recent vacation. You buy the paper, envelopes, and stamps, and pay for extra copies at the one hour photo shop. You write up the stories, put funny captions on the back of the pictures, print everything out, stick it in the envelopes, put the stamps on and 3 months later the post office finally delivers your envelopes. No the mail wasn’t sitting in the spare bedroom of the letter carrier. You didn’t pay the extra fee that the post office demands for Extra-Special First Class postage so your mail was dumped into the ‘whenever you get around to it bin’ to be delivered after all the Extra-Special Bulk Class junk mail some advertiser paid to be rushed ahead of plain old 1st Class. That’s what the phone companies want to do, deliver the websites first of big companies willing to pay extra fees over the general rates everyone pays.
hmmm. It needs work
Is everyone already aware of Save the Internet http://savetheinternet.com and It’s Our Net http://www.itsournet.org/
Slogans…
A neutral network is a public square.
looseheadprop says
June 15th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
wow 60 comments and no one off topic. This is some kind od record!
_____
The prospect of hanging in a fortnight serves to wonderfully concentrate the mind.
something like that. don’t have my quote book handy.
How about “Net neutrality, keeping the internet slow but fair!”
Another reason to have net neutrality is that a faster internet means more porn downloads.
It just struck me: This is a quintessential liberal issue.
Philosophically, it’s a battle between the liberal value of making public utilities available to all at low cost to all and the conservative value of exploitation through private ownership with use available to those who can pay.
We could be asking ourselves how many times we have used the internet to find information that is vital to our well being.
Looking for medical information, finding a doctor, weather/road conditions, etc.
Using the internet has become a critical part of how we live. How we interact, how we get important and vital access to the information we need. For example, my health insurance company doesn’t even provide a paper booklet of doctors or services I HAVE to use the internet.
Hope thats helpful
We support the maintenance of the pipes, we support the maintenance of roads, National Parks, the people who keeps us safe (policemen, firemen, etc.) Republicans and Democrats alike enjoy these things as part of society.
Whats the point? Socialism works.
There’s an unclosed a href tag in Cancer Cures’s post @ 77
RevDeb @ 68
Clear history, empty caches, reload the page should do it…
Cancel cable in retaliation and no more banking on line?