OUR INTERNET FREEDOM IS NOW AT RISK -- THE FCC WILL VOTE TOMORROW -- OCT. 22ND!!

[Guest tnvolfan]

TGO MEMBERS:

I have copied the following info from the Internet Freedom Coalition

DON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT SLOW INTERNET PROGRESS!!

The Internet has become a powerful communications and economic force because it has been free from government interference.

To make sure the power and promise of the Internet continues, we need to keep it free of government interference.

We oppose three basic threats to Internet Freedom:

• Taxes
  
• Regulations
  
• Any attempt by the United Nations to manage the Internet
  

URGENT ACTION:

The FCC will vote Thursday, October 22, 2009 on what it calls a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (NPRM) on Net Neutrality. In the event the NPRM passes, it will trigger a comment period in which the public will be allowed to file opinions.

For the next couple days, we need to make our case against FCC even taking that first step down the road to a Washington takeover of the Internet. The FCC created a website at Welcome to OpenInternet.gov where you can comment on government regulating the Internet under so-called net neutrality rules. The left has been flooding it with comments. Please take a moment to head over to Welcome to OpenInternet.gov and click on "Join the Discussion" to make your voice heard for keeping the Internet in private hands.

YOU CAN SIGN A PETITION TO OPPOSE FURTHER GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE INTERNET:

Internet Freedom Coalition | Sign our Petition

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SUPPORTING INTERNET FREEDOM!

[Guest tnvolfan]

JUST SO YOU KNOW . . . .

Even though you could not join the discussion yesterday when the above thread was posted,

YOU CAN JOIN THE DISCUSSION NOW!

Make comments according to your strengths -- if you're in business, if you have a technical background, or like to talk around the world, whatever, your comments will have more weight if they have a specific, and perhaps, positive uniqueness that will make them stand out. Good luck, and let's hope that the FCC will not do anything to alter the freedom of speech that is the true strength of the Internet!

Edited October 22, 2009 by tnvolfan
FCC finally opened up their discussion forum

[Guest KarlS]

TNVOLFAN,

I saw that when I commented. Nice to know it really won't have any influance. Here is some other info on FCC that I had emailed to some friends. I had sent emails to these jokers but no responses. These guys are BAD business for 1st amendment!

***

Our president has been using a man by the name of Robert McChesney to work on digital media programs for the White House. He runs www.freepress.net and has his own web site http://www.robertmcchesney.com/. He is one of the most influential MARXIST men in the world. He has been contracted to work with another MARXIST by the name of Mark Lloyd to work on some government programs with the FCC in December. Here is McChesney's address rwmcches@uiuc.edu. Our 1st amendment rights are really in deep trouble and changes will happen before we even know what hit us.

[Guest c.a.s.]

Net Neutrality is NOT ABOUT LEGISLATING THE INTERNET.

It's about legislating ISPs. Force them to be DUMB PIPES rather than selectively throttle or delay or tier select traffic over others. Streaming video would have to be treated the same as IMs, the same as email, the same as P2P, the same as web pages... Et Cetera.

The only good argument against it is that they are running low on bandwidth, and it helps with "quality of service". REAL Quality of Service could be achieved if they would upgrade their archaic equipment. But they have nothing driving them to, because in most locales, there are Duopolies with no GOOD competition for best service, thus no need to upgrade.

There is internet technology available that supports 200gbps. Verizon offers RESIDENTIAL Fiber Optic. And no limits, to boot!

And Verizon is alone in this. They are the only ones without bandwidth limits for users, and they aren't controlling what goes through.

The REAL reason that ISPs are fighting against Net Neutrality is because they would lose control. They could not control their users. They could not stop the users from canceling the content-providing services from them (such as Comcast Cable and Phone) for internet-based content such as Netflix, Hulu, Skype, etc.

The FCC is investigating ATT/Apple's ultimate control over what is allowed on the Iphone, because they banned apps that provided services that ATT provides (VoIP, for example).

Some people would like the option of being able to use the 250GB of bandwidth they are given, at the speed they paid for, as they see fit.

http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html

Edited October 21, 2009 by c.a.s.

[Guest tnvolfan]

Our president has been using a man by the name of Robert McChesney to work on digital media programs for the White House. He runs www.freepress.net and has his own web site http://www.robertmcchesney.com/. He is one of the most influential MARXIST men in the world. He has been contracted to work with another MARXIST by the name of Mark Lloyd to work on some government programs with the FCC in December. Here is McChesney's address rwmcches@uiuc.edu. Our 1st amendment rights are really in deep trouble and changes will happen before we even know what hit us.

Hey KarlS, you should see the very revealing study that Glenn Beck did on Mark Lloyd:

YouTube - Obama's FCC Diversity Czar Loves Hugo Chavez's Revolution - Czar Mark Lloyd - Glenn Beck

[Motasyco]

It's all just a bunch of ones and zeros. Which do they have a problem with? The ones or the zeros? I think it's pretty clear the government like zeros. I see them adding zeros to to lots of things. Must be the ones.

[Guest mosinon]

I think folks are missing what is really going on here.

Net Neutrality is about not allowing ISPs to throttle your internet or controlling what you see. If you have comcast, for example, net neutrality means that comcast isn't allowed to block TNGunowners or charge TNgunowners for using their pipes.

This is what the current administration is after.

The argument against net neutrality is that since the wires belong to, charter for example, shouldn't charter be allowed to control what content goes over their network?

You can argue either way, Republicans generally are not in favor of net neutrality (another regulation) and democrats are generally in favor of net neutrality (another regulation on business).

Personally I like the internet where the ISPs aren't allowed too much control but I can see how it can be argued that since it is their network letting ISPs charge extra for youtube or TNgunowners could be good for business. Hey, if you don't like it, go get another provider or something.

If you like the net the way it is you should probably support the current administration on this issue, if you run an ISP you should oppose the administration.

As an owner of Apple stock I am personally torn.

[Guest KarlS]

I understand Net Neutrality and also understand it's intent by itself is not for the Government to control the internet. I'd love to be wrong on this one but when this administration allows Robert McChesney and Mark Lloyd to negotiate with the FCC there should be real concern. This goes beyond Net Neutrality hearings on Thursday.

[Guest c.a.s.]

I think folks are missing what is really going on here.

Net Neutrality is about not allowing ISPs to throttle your internet or controlling what you see. If you have comcast, for example, net neutrality means that comcast isn't allowed to block TNGunowners or charge TNgunowners for using their pipes.

This is what the current administration is after.

The argument against net neutrality is that since the wires belong to, charter for example, shouldn't charter be allowed to control what content goes over their network?

You can argue either way, Republicans generally are not in favor of net neutrality (another regulation) and democrats are generally in favor of net neutrality (another regulation on business).

Personally I like the internet where the ISPs aren't allowed too much control but I can see how it can be argued that since it is their network letting ISPs charge extra for youtube or TNgunowners could be good for business. Hey, if you don't like it, go get another provider or something.

If you like the net the way it is you should probably support the current administration on this issue, if you run an ISP you should oppose the administration.

As an owner of Apple stock I am personally torn.

The major reason I am FOR Net neutrality is because of the Duopoly in my area, and in many areas. Here, it is Comcast and ATT. Neither provide particularly good service, but they are all that is available. At least Comcast's prices are better. But it's pretty much "get screwed" or "get screwed, but at least you got a jaw of Vaseline!"

[Guest mosinon]

I understand Net Neutrality and also understand it's intent by itself is not for the Government to control the internet. I'd love to be wrong on this one but when this administration allows Robert McChesney and Mark Lloyd to negotiate with the FCC there should be real concern. This goes beyond Net Neutrality hearings on Thursday.

When I worry about my second amendment rights I turn to the NRA. When I worry about my first amendment rights I turn elsewhere. I probably don't agree with Robert mccheesy (or whatever) on lunch but if he is passionate about net neutrality (and from reading your link he is) and I'm a supporter of that position then...

I don't have to agree with every position a person has to support them on a particular issue. I want the people defending my rights to be passionate and obsessed and to be, well, jerks.

On the net neutrality issue (still torn, I write books and all, I'd rather people bought them) you probably can't find a more sincere advocate than mayor mcheese.

[Guest tnvolfan]

The problem with Robert McChesney and Mark Lloyd is that they talk out of both sides of their mouths. Glenn Beck and John Stossel (formerly of ABC News) will address the Internet & FCC tomorrow night at 5pm on Fox News. I'm watching and so should everyone who is interested in what is happeniing with the Internet.

[Guest SUNTZU]

From my cold, dead hands.

[Guest KarlS]

Lots of good points. For supporters it may not change things the way you'd like. I'll break this down somewhat from my point of view and it's hard because I don't want changes but I know some changes are needed. C.A.S. mentions the archaic infastructure in his area. I too am at the end of the pipe with my provider being a cable company. I pay for a certain level of internet quality and expect that. However at the end of a "shared Pipe" it is not always met. Now a step further...I use VOIP for my phone service and quality is directly dependant upon the bandwidth within the pipe. I paid for and deserve the advertised and promised quality. The ISP provider would like to charge the VOIP provider to create revenue to upgrade plant. After all they feel I skirted the system to save money by using someones elses switched phone system on their pipe. I also save on any state and federal taxes. I pay for the service and nothing else. However the ISP needs the revenue for state. local, and federal taxes, maintenance and upgrade, and pole leases. They would love to charge my VOIP provider to recoup charges. There are two sides to the story but it still goes deeper.

C.A.S. also mentions Verizon. Smart man. Guess I'm partial as I'm a retired Verizon employee. I also can relate to other parts of this as I installed and maintained Data lines over both copper and fiber from T3's and T1's from big business to cell towers and FIOS to your house. Verizon went to FIOS in one sense to "Get away" from the government and actually help both the customer and themselves. Certain ISP's are regulated and others are not. Verizon and the other bigs are regulated. As you know the government hates big business and thinks it's evil and need to share it's profit.

It was the governments regulations concerning CLEC's that changed the industry and the push was on for fiber. The selling of bundled copper lines at mandated prices did bring on more competition but the net result was a degraded plant and totally confused customers. Fiber was the answer as CLEC's were kept on the copper. If it's kept that way you the customer have an incredible service. In order to bring you this type of service it costs a tremendous amount of money. Imagine the cost to run a line 50 miles to pull 10 customers off? Hence they too would love to recoup cost in some way. The charges may bring me my own fiber some day but I don't want any added charges either. Shrug? I can't have it both ways.

I'm afraid here lies the problem. They may protect us from ISP's and added charges but the pipe restricts in a different way. The government feels there needs to be "social Justice" on the internet. Start throwing those words around and there are losses to all of us. That social justice may bring C.A.S. and I a new line (not)with no charges or restrictions but at what cost overall? It's time to read between the lines on this one. Those two men I mentioned earlier in the thread are an extreme danger to all of us. Come on. They are true Marxist revolutionaries hired by this administration to work directly with the FCC. They believe in order to complete a true revolution the government needs to control all media and internet. They want to be able to shut down the pipes we rely on at any given moment when the government sees an emergancy. I understand what TNVOLFAN's concern is because she's up on both men. It's beyond Network Neutrality. Read between the lines on this one. It's about trusting anything this government does now. I don't trust the whole thing and it smells like fish to me.

[Guest KarlS]

Just to add a point of reference. I'm sure everyone reading this has just got their copy of The American Rifleman and or American Hunter in the mail today. Read page 12 in either magazine! The article called Silencing The First Amendment by Wayne LaPierre, executive VP. He outlines the plan to silence us all and goes into Mark Lloyd extensively.

[Guest Rainmaker]

Was on the Daily Show last night. He states it much more eloquently than I can.

Video: From Here to Neutrality | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

To sum up I think his main points are

1) Your provider will realize they can get cash for giving some sites preferential treatment.

2) Your provider therefore gives your representatives cash to get neutrality stopped.

3) Your representatives give you vibrant paranoia, and yet channel it, so that you don't realize as another one of your rights gets used as toilet paper for people richer than you.

But maybe I'm just missing the point.

[Guest c.a.s.]

There is a major flaw in a lo of he anti-arguments.

There are already four Net Neutrality rules!

These were introduced in 2005 with nary the paranoia today.

• "Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice."
  
• "Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."
  
• "Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network."
  
• "Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."
  

They only added TWO new rules.

(Well, are in the PROCESS of adding)

Nondiscrimination

"Providers are forbidden to favor or disfavor lawful content, applications, or services accessed by their subscribers, subject to reasonable network management."

Transparency

Providers must disclose to customers their network management policies before the customer signs up for service. Providers must also disclose their network management policies to content, application, and service providers, as well as to the FCC.

As well, the scope of those rules were extended to include Mobile Broadband (such as 3G)

In all six of those rules, where does it state that "internet injustice" needs to be handled? Or "internet inequality"? This isn't even a first baby step in that direction. For any of those movements, they will essentially be forced into a single, large jump, since NONE of these have anything to do with censorship. It actually FORBIDS it by any ISPs.

If they want to ban certain speech, they would do it, but not with NEUTRALITY rules that have already been there.

Where did I put my roll of aluminum foil?