HDTV Almanac - FCC Loses on Net Neutrality

And it could also result in your internet service provider blocking all traffic to and from the Drudge Report, Fox News, Michelle Malkin's, and Ann Coulter's web sites...

Or all traffic to and from Huffington Post, OpenSecrets, WikiLeaks, TalkingPointsMemo...

Or all traffic to and from Catholic websites...or Jewish websites....or Baptist websites...

Or all traffic to and from PBS and the BBC...

Or all traffic to and from YOU and random hours during the day, because your son ticked the owner of your cable provider's daughter off by abandoning her at the prom in favor of the honey with the see-through dress...

The Comcast issue was about bandwidth which increases the ISP costs dramatically. With most people having access to at least 2 ISPs now I just don't see any of that happening. There is too much competition for one ISP to drive away customers by limiting the sites they can visit.

With most people having access to at least 2 ISPs...

I don't mean to be picky, but can you quantify that? I think "most" may be a bit of a stretch. Unless you're talking about slower speed/dial-up ISPs.

Even so, it won't matter how many broadband ISPs you have to choose from if they're all degrading internet video in favor of their particular brand of VOD. Same goes for degradation of Skype in favor of Digital Phone service, or etc. etc. etc. I'm sure you can see the anti-competitive (ie monopolistic) tendencies here if they (the ISPs) are allowed to continue to favor one type of traffic over another.

Just my $0.02

- Shane

Most cable companies make $39 to $59 a month off each customer from that horrible baseline they call "basic cable". But there are ever more ways to get your entertainment directly from the producer's website, or from free Internet TV...

This move is also one of those "Head 'em off at the pass!"; who would want to spend half a c-note each month for something they can meet or beat on the Internet for free? Do you think Comcast et al are going to give high priority to the traffic coming from their free competition? Or the reverse?

This move has all kinds of ramifications - ranging from enforcing an illegal monopoly to denying the right to free speech to individual Americans.

I was mostly considering cable vs. DSL but there is also dial up, satellite and Wi-Fi. I agree there is potential for abuse but I think natural competition will win out OR if it does become an actual problem that we'll see new legislation.

Let's say Comcast decides to slow down DirecTV ondemand Video. Can DirecTV sue Comcast now under other laws?

Between the this court decision and the Bush Administration's influence on the FCC resulting in cable not being defined as a communications interface, nobody can sue Comcast for anything.

They can interfere with, block, or even change anything that traverses their pipe....Stalin's dream.

And their customers can promptly cancel service and switch to DSL (in most areas). If broadband ISP was truly a monopoly and there was no alternative then I'd be more inclined to agree that net neutrality should be enforced. And I think if we see abuses then we'll see regulations to counter that. I believe the gov't is waiting to see if competition enforces neutrality naturally and if not I think they'll step in. To me that's preferable to adding more and more regulation that may not be necessary.

Typical DSL speed is 1.5 Mbps / 128 Kbps down/up.

Cable speed is five times that, typically 5 Mbps / 500 Kbps down/up.

That is a massive speed hit; the equivalent of saying that if the consumer doesn't like the pilot telling them what they are permitted to say and and listen to while flying, they can take the bus. The cable companies know that - they know they've got the consumer between a rock and a hard place because in most cases around the United States they have a monopoly on acceptable speed.

I hope you are right, and legislation comes that defines cable as a communications interface and thus protected from manipulation and political censorship.

With the recent Supreme Court decision that gave the corporations the right to free speech as if they were living human beings, reinforced by the recent D.C. District Court ruling saying that the amount of money given to PACs and so on could not be capped, those with sufficient wealth can buy all of the advertising space (and even the programming) on the traditional media sources of television, radio, newspapers, and magazines and ensure that the American people only hear one voice, one opinion.

You can afford that, when you can tap the entire asset base of all of America's corporations; you're not even spending your own money.

This court action that overturned the FCC now paves the way for the mega-corporations to legally decide what the American people can hear and say over the Internet, eliminating the last affordable form of mass communication.

If it stands, then democracy in America is done; it will have been priced out of the reach of the American people.

(Even if it doesn't stand, democracy in America is in deep doo-doo; mom and dad and grandma and grandpa vote - but how much time do they spend on the Internet? All that they're going to hear and read is whatever the people with the most money want them to hear and read. They'll be going to sleep and getting up to the paranoid histrionics of Glenn Beck rather than the soothing strains of Glenn Miller.)

I wouldn't say massive. I have 6 mb DSL and I think it's available up to 12 mbps depending on location. And AT&T Uverse (which uses copper twisted pair phone lines just like DSL) goes up to 18 mbps. The difference with DSL is that you have a dedicated connection so your speed won't vary much. With cable it's essentially a big LAN so your 5 or 10 mbps top speed may only be 1 or 2 mbps if your neighbors are all downloading movies and playing online video games at the same time. I can also say that going from a 12 mbps comcast cable connection to a 6 mb DSL connection was totally transparent with no visible differences, although I don't download a lot of movies or huge files.

Those speeds sound like you live within the limits of a major city or its suburbs in America. In rural America and the nation's smaller cities - to include cities that are not quite that small but are served by Comcast, such as Pittsburgh - those speeds on DSL are at best illusory promises of what will happen "someday" but are never attained.

And I would point out that you have to pay more for those higher rates. Is the ability to participate in democracy in America - the free exchange of ideas - to be a matter of income? If you have sufficient income, you can play - but otherwise, not?

The transferal of the "poll tax" from the voting booth, to the means of information exchange?

So we didn't have free speech before the internet existed???

Prior to the internet, we were less able to detect when we were being lied to; prior to the internet, we had to rely on books, magazines, newspapers, TV, and radio to disseminate information. Prior to the internet, discussion of issues was of necessity limited - there was simply no way for the individual to participate in nationwide forums in anything remotely approaching a real-time manner.

I know that some - those who are being enriched by the status quo - wish to see the Internet's ability to reveal them for what they are to be stifled. But if it happens, we will be in much worse shape than before the internet became commonplace because so many newspapers have died. Those that remain are too often the voices of mega-corporations with the agenda of any corporation: To enrich a few people by separating many people from their money.

I was not expecting you to switch horses in mid-stream from arguing that alternatives existed (when they do not) to inferring that free speech existed before the internet and so if "traffic shaping" were used to block the flow of political information (or to ensure that only the "right" political information got through) there would be no impact upon the right to free speech that every American has.

A curious diversion, given that the Supreme Court has given the corporations the ability to use their limitless funds to drown out the speech of all other Americans on all forms of media except the Internet.

And then there is the fact that using traffic shaping to eliminate the dissemination of political ideas and the collection of political contributions from grass roots organizations would help only America's right...who are no doubt still stinging from the fact that Obama used precisely those methods to attain the Presidency.

That fact leads me to suspect that I can guess the political motivation of those who argue that permitting the corporations to decide what will take place on the Internet is...no big deal.

Wow. Better check your tin hat - the aliens could be here any second......

Seriously - I never said I was in favor of allowing the kinds of internet abuse you believe are eminent. I just don't believe it would actually happen. And why the obsession with cable broadband? If all you're worried about is getting your message out to the public you can do that with HTML text and a 56K modem. And you are GROSSLY exaggerating the decline of newspaper and TV outlets and the ability for those big, bad greedy corporations to control everything with their ill-gotten gains.

On second thought - believe whatever you want. It's not worth arguing over.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Bow-to-Money-Supreme-Co-by-Thom-Hartmann-100329-498.html

For OpEdNews: Thom Hartmann - Writer

In a decision that shows the extended impact of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down limits on contributions to political groups that spend money to support or oppose candidates.

The court found that the $5,000 annual limit on contributions to such groups is unconstitutional, writing that the Citizens United ruling "resolves this appeal," in favor of SpeechNow.org, a group that seems to have been started with the specific purpose of challenging campaign-finance regulations.

SCOTUSblog concludes that this ruling "significantly broadens the impact of Citizens United, extending its constitutional reasoning from campaign spending to campaign donations."

Unless something is done quickly - like amending the Constitution to say that corporations aren't persons and don't get Bill of Rights protections - we can expect to see more and more of our elected officials having to bow to the wishes of the world's largest corporations or get creamed by multi-million dollar corporate financed ad campaigns.

If you are one of those who expects to benefit from the above, you would not find the addition of the ability to censor what people say and what people see on the Internet to the corporate bag of tricks to be threatening. Of course. Why, you might even go so far as to portray those who worry about democracy as crazies in tinfoil hats...can't be having the American people remove such powerful weapons when they've hardly begun to be deployed, eh?

We now have a scenario where the web entities approved by the corporations can get unlimited bandwidth, while those web sites dedicated to democracy - or simply to the truth, like PBS - may find that their visitors receive bandwidth equivalent to "HTML text and a 56K modem". Or worse. Or are blocked entirely.

If you think that this ruling that overturns the ability of the FCC to enforce net neutrality would be restricted to cable corporations such as Comcast, you are mistaken. There is no such thing as a DSL or dial-up home run to the website of interest. You have to remember the role that "precedent" plays in law. Because the user with the dial-up or the DSL hits the backbone at some point, the corporation owning that part of the backbone can use the precedent of this Comcast perversion to employ traffic shaping. And so can the DSL and dial-up providers themselves; they, too, agglomerate the traffic within their facility.

And there are other ways which this FCC ruling can be perverted. What is to prevent a corporation that owns or controls an internet access point or a portion of the backbone from deciding that the traffic that they will "shape" is all DNS queries that target domains known to be Republican - or Democratic - fund-raising organs? What is to prevent Comcast from doing that?

Whether the end user is on a 300 baud modem or a dedicated T3 trunk, their ability to participate in democracy - to exercise free speech; to participate in the exchange of ideas - is now threatened by a handful of individuals hiding behind the anonymity and immunity of a corporate facade. Not good, when our politicians can now be directly controlled with the limitless funds available to that same handful of corporate executes and wealthy individuals.

If you do nothing else, ask yourself: Why would our "big, bad greedy corporations" continually become involved in court cases designed to expand their power and influence if they did not desire "to control everything"? I note a distinct lack of corporate money being used to bring court cases that argue that a corporation is just a piece of paper with none of the rights reserved for living, breathing American citizens.

In the early '70s, I joined the United States Army. My first assignment was with an organization known as the Army Security Agency. We did...interesting...things. I have been involved in technology since that time. (I remember my delight when my ability to participate in what were known as bulletin board systems - BBSs - was greatly enhanced by transitioning from a 300 baud modem to a 1200 baud modem...today, when people want to speak derisively of speed, they say speak of "56K dial-up"...always makes me chuckle. Particularly in light of the fact that the military systems I was accustomed to ran exponentially faster; being a civilian again was such a...handicap.)

My point is that I have experience with all kinds of electronic systems; systems used for all kinds of...purposes.

This Court decision that overturns net neutrality is the equivalent - no ifs, ands, or buts about it - of permitting the U.S. Postal Service to open each and every letter that it receives, read it, and then decide how soon they will deliver it - or if they will deliver it - based upon its contents.

And remember this: Databases are easy to create; easy to manage; easy to populate. I personally run several versions of SQL Server, mySql, SQLite - you name it - in my home.

Once an entity has the authority to open and inspect the "mail", you can justify storing what that individual does on the Internet as an integral part of your filtering system...you must be able to compare the traffic to what you want to pass and want to impede or block, eh? As with electronic medical databases, there is no doubt in my mind that corporations will share that information one to another; there is simply too much money in play bounded by zip in the way of ethics and morality. And if someone takes that possibility to the Courts with the intent of preventing that sharing...the Courts.... reflect too many Republican appointments.

It is unfortunate for America that the right - the Republicans - profess democracy and patriotism, but act in a manner that is the antithesis of democracy. If only Americans would remember that ancient wisdom:

"It is not what a man says that reveals the man; it is what the man does."

In the mouth of a Republican, "liberty" and "freedom" are words that describe what they shall have...not you.

For the record, I do not stand to benefit in any way from any of these decisions. Furthermore, I think you've watched a few too many conspiracy movies.

lollll...I hope so. I truly do. Quite a lot of people hope you're right, I imagine; googling "threat citizens united" yields over 1.5 million hits - and its not even election season yet.

to Gartrste..I fully support everthing you are saying, those who think Net Neutrality is a minor issue are the same ones crying freedom - while...miners die, the banking system destoys the economy, energy Lies about human induced global warming, cigarettes are good for you.....etc. etc. etc. The serfs just love to line up to support the kings. Go figure.

And typically, they will either diss it as no big, deal, or go directly to insult = your tin hat.

My insult to them is they all watch money obsessed charlitans like Beck, Gas Bag, and the rest of the Fox ilk who care nothing about hunanity. After all, those pesky humans get in the way of profit. (and spare me the capitalism does x,y,z - please. It can do all that and be for the people too).

For the record (again) - I don't watch Fox news or Beck or any of the other idiots on either side of the political fence. I do support net neutrality and even said that if we start to see abuses similar to the ones mentioned that I have no doubt we'll see new legislation to stop it.

There are far too many ISP choices and more on the way (Wi-Fi e.g.) for one to control anything.

Allowing corporations to make campaign contributions and sponsor advertising is not something I support. In fact I don't support any type of campaign financing - let the gov't pay for equal time for all candidates or get it donated by the media so it's all fair and there is no need to have millions of dollars in donations. Problem solved. However, the notion that this will somehow allow "big business" to "buy" elections is overstated.

In order to pull off this scenario one would have to directly control all media outlets and all internet access and that's not happening.

Interesting how the other side always pulls out the "greedy big business" and "you must stand to profit from this" and "you must watch Fox" cards (none of which apply to me). Lack of regulation wasn't the problem with mining. The government was lax in enforcing existing safety regulations (especially the $90M in uncollected fines). And you think MORE government is the answer? Puh-lease.

Okay, akirby, please stop with the Tin Hat and you're paranoid conspiracy stuff and I'll accept you don't watch Beck et al.

As for more goverment, exactly what is the difference between no rules and not enforcing rules that are there. So yes, I DO believe we need more govenment, but also a less whore like set of political operatives. Deregulation, and effecting that by removing active regulation is a battle cry of the right - of which EVERTHING that is not a lie, is about money and greed. If you missed that, then not only not watch entertainment news, you might read or listen to the progressive side.

After all, when the progressive side spoke up for clean meat (Sinclair) a hundred years ago, they weren't spit on. (Sorry for the short paralled reference but I have to run!).

Wow. I see there's no possibility of having a rational, logical argument here.

Actually I am very conversational, very accomodating to other views. One of my very best friends is a republican/right person, and he constantly sends me right/repub. emails.....and you know what, there is NOT A ONE, that I can't go to Snopes, or simply by logic, show that it is either:

a fraud (by misuse of information),
based on a fraudulent assignment to someone real,
downright lies,
racist/racist or other bigotted inuendo,
worship of veterans as a cover to being blind to war,
and all of the above wrapped in fear gaming.

So I am sorry, but I am as open minded as a human can be, but I am just not that stupid. For example, I understand lots of good reasons Obamacare is not good, but Death Panels is NOT one of them, yet the entire right ran with that BS. It is not socialist any more than 10,000 other social things we do in this country and like it. The president can't be fascist, communist, and wild left wing liberal - yet the right just circles those accusations over and over. And I could just go on for days.
I am sorry, but the state of the modern rights has NOTHING humanistic to offer, and nothing but fraud and greed to show for it. I see very very little beyond crass hypocrisy is almosts everything coming out of the political right.

So, present solid consevative philosophy or any other for that matter, and we can discuss maturely. I will not insult you, but I will occasionaly, usually in a hurry, insult the machinations of the right.

I'm not interested in political debates, especially not on a HDTV site.

You say that "death panels" are a gross overreaction to Obamacare that would never happen.

I say that loss of free speech and Big Business buying elections is a gross overreaction to lack of net neutrality.


There is no difference between the two, except you believe one and not the other. The answer is never far left or right, but somewhere in the middle.

Okay, HDTV Mag is not a forum for political debate...can I close with that the ridiculous concept of Death Panels, only flew because of corporately manipulated media - granted that started by and mixed with cult like following of politicians out for power at any cost, or simply No at any cost.

I can not say net neutrality will allow all information flow to be manipulated and/or censored. Indeed the fear of it, the aspects of the constitution it and corporate personhood violates, may drive new law and new amendments to pre-empte that. But neither would I say that there is ever a case where soul-less (corporate) profit engines will not take advantage of any and everything, evil or not, to the brass ring of quarterlies.

Please, I do not think All corporations are bad. After all, many have distinct policy that adhere's to the concept of corporate charter - to be for the public good. In fact my wife's business is a corporation, and she is only evil when in a shoe store.

The technology is already here to run a network outside of corporate control, at least within fairly densely-populated areas. That and a cooperating university's backbone will enable the bypassing of any traffic-shaping that shows up for awhile. In rural areas, it gets a bit more difficult, but you can do amazing things with a wok:

http://www.usbwifi.orconhosting.net.nz/

It often seems silly to me, to feel that I should keep such ideas in my bag of tricks...on the other hand, I never thought the Supreme Court would be settling Presidential elections rather than the American voter, or that my country would get lied into a war. Or that I'd see the day that a corporation - all corporations - would become citizens of the United States of America...again, by the Supreme Court.

lolll...no doubt I'll feel better about corporations suddenly being "people" the day we have a draft because of a war we've been lied into and a corporation - or its board of directors and executive suite - shows up at the local recruiter's office to answer the call.

Don't think I'll hold my breath.