Al Franken(stein) / Alan Grayson 2012

Just so everyone is aware, “Net Neutrality” = not letting private interests assign quality of service to Internet traffic. I.E., not letting anyone say that traffic to or from any source is more valuable than another, and acting upon it.

The epitome of freedom.

As a network engineer, it’s amazing that this is even an issue. “Cox Cable being able to assign value to Internet traffic?” That was my first thought. A corporation could rob me of a base freedom because there was more worth in them limiting my bandwidth to .

But apparently this is actually an issue because of Glenn Beck, et al.

To simplify:

Neutrality means: freedom – browse how you want, your data will not be governed

Non-neutrality (the conservative approach): let private entities assign value to your Internet browsing and restrict it as they wish

Tea Partiers should be for Net Neutrality. Period.

Do you want private intersts and government agencies dictating how you can browse the web? And what value (in terms of ToS) your browsing has?

This is ridiculous beyond belief. Then again, it came out of the clue-free mouth of Al Franken, so I guess it should be expected. In case he missed the memo, it’s MSNBC, and not FOX News, that is a property of NBC Universal. So if anything, the opposite would be true.

In any case, the providers are very much more concerned with limiting bandwidth (read: limiting downloads) and maximizing profits, and not so much with “regulating” political speech or viewpoints. If anyone should be concerned, it’s Steve Jobs, not Stuart Smalley. Not that it stopped him from spreading FUD or anything.

What Fox haters fail to realize is, if Fox is so wrong and spread lies. Why are they so popular? The American people are smart enough to listen to many ideas and CHOOSE what they want to watch. No one network gets it right. You have to take everything in and make your own conclusions.

Net neutrality sounds like government run radio/TV to me.

Some_Dude said:
Just so everyone is aware, “Net Neutrality” = not letting private interests assign quality of service to Internet traffic. I.E., not letting anyone say that traffic to or from any source is more valuable than another, and acting upon it.

The epitome of freedom.

As a network engineer, it’s amazing that this is even an issue. “Cox Cable being able to assign value to Internet traffic?” That was my first thought. A corporation could rob me of a base freedom because there was more worth in them limiting my bandwidth to .

But apparently this is actually an issue because of Glenn Beck, et al.

How hard is it to publish something on YouTube? Is freedom of speech threatened? No!

If it works don’t fix it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J—aiyznGQ

Some_Dude said:
To simplify:

Neutrality means: freedom – browse how you want, your data will not be governed

Non-neutrality (the conservative approach): let private entities assign value to your Internet browsing and restrict it as they wish

Tea Partiers should be for Net Neutrality. Period.

Do you want private intersts and government agencies dictating how you can browse the web? And what value (in terms of ToS) your browsing has?

If your internet subscriber prioritizes traffic, maybe you would change ISP? I would!

And please tell me how many ISPs block access to Daily Kos.

“What Fox haters fail to realize is, if Fox is so wrong and spread lies. Why are they so popular?”

Because people are stupid, and easily led.

“Because people are stupid, and easily led.”

Man, I was wondering how a community organizer that never held a real job in the private sector, never ran anything, was an absentee Senator became the President of the USA. Thanks for the tip.

You mean, Al, your lies won’t get out fast?

Ah, I see.

Al, if the choice is between private corporations or the government I’ll take my chances with the private companies. In the end if you don’t like the service from one you can switch to another. There is only one government and no alternative once that beuracracy screws the pooch.

Some_Dude said:
Just so everyone is aware, “Net Neutrality” = not letting private interests assign quality of service to Internet traffic. I.E., not letting anyone say that traffic to or from any source is more valuable than another, and acting upon it.

The epitome of freedom.

As a network engineer, it’s amazing that this is even an issue. “Cox Cable being able to assign value to Internet traffic?” That was my first thought. A corporation could rob me of a base freedom because there was more worth in them limiting my bandwidth to .

But apparently this is actually an issue because of Glenn Beck, et al.

Shhhhhhhhh don’t use facts. You’ll only scare and confuse them….

I’m curious to hear Al’s responses on relay switching and his TCP/IP and VOIP analysis.

I’d like to see a combo of a working broadband initiative for rural communities as well as a competitive market for both the private and “big business” providers.

If the federal government ever got it’s act together and provided help for laying fiber optic down in rural areas…that would provide jobs and help the rural states. Check out Burlington Telcom in Vermont for an example of local governments that have made an absolute mess of this.

So many jobs just ripe for the picking!

On the flip side…Telcom companies are allowed to charge their users fees based on usage. Free enterprise is just that…as long as there isn’t a monopoly…which there isn’t….it should be a foregone conclusion.

There are a ton of jobs available in developing rural fiber optic.

Jackie_Treehorn said:
As a network engineer, it’s amazing that this is even an issue. “Cox Cable being able to assign value to Internet traffic?” That was my first thought. A corporation could rob me of a base freedom because there was more worth in them limiting my bandwidth

That is an old argument…Internet access it isn’t a base freedom. Internet access is a choice.

Just for fun…here’s an interesting link…http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/fastest-us-internet-provider-comcast.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

“Who’s the fastest ISP in the US? According to well-known Internet metrics firm Ookla (which runs the Speedtest.net and Pingtest.net websites), it’s Comcast, with an average speed of 16.23Mbps.

In the US, Comcast was followed by Charter and then by Cablevision; indeed, all of the top players are cable companies. Verizon comes in ninth, despite its FiOS deployments, in part due to its DSL lines.”

Net neutrality will be interpreted as making the internet neutral with content. The liberals will have as much say as the conservatives and it will become the responsibility of the websites to enforce the 50/50 opinions. With a hefty fine for those websites that violate the net neutrality. So a conservative website will have to restrict conservative ideas so that 50% of content is liberal. The same will apply to liberal websites, maybe, after they restrict all the conservative websites first.

chatmandu002 said:
Net neutrality will be interpreted as making the internet neutral with content. The liberals will have as much say as the conservatives and it will become the responsibility of the websites to enforce the 50/50 opinions. With a hefty fine for those websites that violate the net neutrality. So a conservative website will have to restrict conservative ideas so that 50% of content is liberal. The same will apply to liberal websites, maybe, after they restrict all the conservative websites first.

You’re confusing net neutrality with the fairness doctrine. Totally different things. Some_Dude was right on with his description of neutrality above.

Mark Flinner said:
What Fox haters fail to realize is, if Fox is so wrong and spread lies. Why are they so popular?

Conservatives like to watch sports and news. There are probably more liberal people watching TV in general but they’re not watching cable news.

DukeCO said:
You’re confusing net neutrality with the fairness doctrine. Totally different things. Some_Dude was right on with his description of neutrality above.

Exactly,

My point was just to allow the government to provide access to land lines (fiber optic) to rural communities. Or at least hire locals to stat the process…not “wifi” or any other airwaves.

The rest is just “ease of access”.

Otherwise, Congress will debate again and again and form a consensus…and it will be too late.

The tech does move quick.

Al Franken: Without Net Neutrality Fox News Will Load Faster Than Daily Kos

I have issues with this in so many ways!

I will never enjoy William Gibson stories again.

Don’t agree really with his premise but the overall picture he states is correct

This right-wing fear mongering about Net Neutrality is a laughingstock

It will do absolutely nothing that they are crying about and the winners from not passing it are the big companies that will have free-reign to do anything and everything they want including screwing and deceiving customers

chatmandu002 said:
Net neutrality will be interpreted as making the internet neutral with content. The liberals will have as much say as the conservatives and it will become the responsibility of the websites to enforce the 50/50 opinions. With a hefty fine for those websites that violate the net neutrality. So a conservative website will have to restrict conservative ideas so that 50% of content is liberal. The same will apply to liberal websites, maybe, after they restrict all the conservative websites first.

Absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality whatsoever. Turn off Beck and go get some fresh air, it will do you good.

A lot of people here don’t seem to understand what net neutrality is. To put it simply, net neutrality means NO ONE controls the speed of the internet. It means everyone has the same right to use the internet. That means not even the government will control it. RIght, left, moderate, people, everyone should be against it. And not just for freedom of speech issues. The guy I freelance for will be hurt since his website won’t load as say a corporate website. It will help crush small businesses who use the internet for cheap advertising and marketing. Do you really trust big business enough to believe they will do the right thing? Again, political speech is just a piece of the problem. And for those who hate government regulation so much, are you willing to give up your freedom because of it?

I will be honest, I wish Al hadn’t said it that way. It belittles the debate. Now, it’s become a right vs. left thing. Which it isn’t.

In the grand scheme of things, we actually do have “Net Neutrality” today. Anyone who wants news from the Left can simply visit Media Matters, Daily Kos, etc. Those who want news from the Right can visit NewsMax, NewsBusters, etc..

Ideology for all walks of life (political, religious, cultural, conspiracy-based, etc..) are all accessible through venues such as the internet, TV, radio, books, newspapers, etc. If I don’t like Fox News, I have the freedom and the right to simply tune in to MSNBC. NOBODY is keeping me from watching any of the programs on MSNBC if I wanted to.

So, let’s be real; the whole “Net Neutrality” as proposed by the Democrats is NOT about giving everyone equal access to all news…because everyone have that access today. “Net Neutrality” as proposed by the Democrats is about filtering out news (or news commentary) that the Democrats and the Liberal think tanks disagrees with. In other words, we have no right to have an opinion that differs from theirs.

..pathetic!

Bias-Media said:
In the grand scheme of things, we actually do have “Net Neutrality” today. Anyone who wants news from the Left can simply visit Media Matters, Daily Kos, etc. Those who want news from the Right can visit NewsMax, NewsBusters, etc..

Ideology for all walks of life (political, religious, cultural, conspiracy-based, etc..) are all accessible through venues such as the internet, TV, radio, books, newspapers, etc. If I don’t like Fox News, I have the freedom and the right to simply tune in to MSNBC. NOBODY is keeping me from watching any of the programs on MSNBC if I wanted to.

So, let’s be real; the whole “Net Neutrality” as proposed by the Democrats is NOT about giving everyone equal access to all news…because everyone have that access today. “Net Neutrality” as proposed by the Democrats is about filtering out news (or news commentary) that the Democrats and the Liberal think tanks disagrees with. In other words, we have no right to have an opinion that differs from theirs.

..pathetic!

Yes, we have net neutrality. And I think I speak for many people when I say we want to keep it that way. It’s an issue of controlling the speed of traffic. Corporations can choose to pay to have their sites load faster. And you know that people are typically going to go to the faster sites leaving smaller businesses or sites without corporate backing to get to the faster sites. We all should disagree with it. Again, this ain’t about FOX vs. MSNBC. This is about big guys vs. little guys. MSNBC will be fine without net neutrality, just as FOX will be. It’s us that will get hurt by it. And not because we can’t get our political content anymore.

“Net Neutrality” as proposed by the Democrats is about filtering out news (or news commentary) that the Democrats and the Liberal think tanks disagrees with. In other words, we have no right to have an opinion that differs from theirs.

“Bias-Media”, please cite your sources on this allegation. We’ll be waiting.

Bias-Media said:

So, let’s be real; the whole “Net Neutrality” as proposed by the Democrats is NOT about giving everyone equal access to all news…because everyone have that access today. “Net Neutrality” as proposed by the Democrats is about filtering out news (or news commentary) that the Democrats and the Liberal think tanks disagrees with. In other words, we have no right to have an opinion that differs from theirs.

..pathetic!

Really? You’re really going with this one?

I guess, Bias-Media, you could always look at the proposed legislation, and show us exactly what wording supports your allegations. There’s nothing like a primary source.

i appreciate most of the posts here…thank you. because i’ve heard this mentioned in the past but never fully understood it. someone mentioned that it works fine now, but as franken mentions the merger between comcast and nbc studios, i could foresee some scary combinations trying to limit information…
someone like bp, who is already doing whatever they can to keep things quiet, has a huge advantage of limiting information…
this pretty much seems like a no brainer…except for those fraken haters

Al Franken is assuming that the Daily Kos can’t compete in terms of offering content that viewers want to read. Which makes this the first time that I agree completely with Mr. Franken.

Some_Dude said:
The epitome of freedom.

As a network engineer, it’s amazing that this is even an issue. “Cox Cable being able to assign value to Internet traffic?” That was my first thought. A corporation could rob me of a base freedom because there was more worth in them limiting my bandwidth to .

No, silly, that’s not a base “freedom”, that’s an upgrade, for the low, low price of $9.99/a month. Which is in addition to the monthly cost of the “base freedom” you contracted with a company to provide for you.

Hey, when you don’t pay your bill and they terminate your service, does that deprive you of a “base freedom?”

one thing that does appear obvious is that after todays disappointing campaign finance vote, repubs…and the right leaning scj’s…will be on the side of big business

Verizon FiOS offers three different speeds of service ranging from $49.99/month to $139.99/month. If I’m satisfied with 15Mbps and the lower price, why shouldn’t I be able to buy that instead of a service almost 3 times the price?

Verizon FiOS plans

I really don’t think people understand what this is about. This isn’t about what politics you can listen to. Believe me, without net neutrality, NBC will have more of the power than NewsCorp with the Comcast deal. This is about big business squelching small business. People who use the web for ecommerce, for advertising. They run the risk of being crushed out by a larger corporation who can pay for the faster traffic rates on things like Verizon FIOS. It has nothing to do with your plan. It is the idea of taking what made the internet so awesome in the first place, a free floating place where ideas are equal, where websites have the same speed as everyone else. It helped the small businessman. But without net neutrality, that small businessman will be crushed faster than raising taxes will. Again, you are given the benefit of the doubt to the large corporations, who, guess what, don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t give a fuck about the American dream. And the thing that scares me is that ideology gets in the way of the argument here. Again, this isn’t an ideological battle. This is the haves vs. the have nots. And we give up net neutrality, then we give up the internet, we, the ones who made it what it is today.

Permatiltx said:
It has nothing to do with your plan. It is the idea of taking what made the internet so awesome in the first place

Of course it does! If I buy a slower service, my traffic isn’t going to move as fast as yours if you bought the faster service. Your complaint is that it might work the same way for companies, to the extent that they could get squeezed out because their sites won’t load fast enough. That’s not a well founded fear, and not something that should have us telling private businesses how to run their business without some sort of actual problem at hand. Another fear is that it represents a power grab of the communications system, and we can avoid that one by leaving things be, since it works pretty damned well the way it is.

Hey Pablo, I didn’t explain it well enough it seems – I apologize. When I say that a lack of Net Neutrality would lead to your ISP being able to assign quality of service to your Internet traffic, here’s some examples:

- Say your ISP doesn’t like that many of their users consume tons of bandwidth playing video games or sharing files over P2P networks. Without Net Neutrality, it would be legal for them to limit the speeds of those on-line transactions/traffic. And on the other hand, promote their own music/video/file sharing services and provide bettwe speeds and a higher priority to them

- Say your ISP is owned by Time Warner. A hypothetical (and all but certain) in the absence of Net Neutrality: Time Warner decides that they will throttle traffic to all non-Time Warner sites/networks while giving a higher priority to traffic going to sites or networks they own.

- An ISP could outright limit freedom of speech by blocking access to certain sites or content. Ala China and their “Great Fire Wall”.

In other words, not only will you be paying a monthly fee for Internet access, you’ll also be at the mercy of some private institution/corporation in regards to what information you could access, and what level of service you’ll get in regards to certain sites/services/protocols/etc.

Net Neutrality is how the Internet is run now. There is some regulation already, such as by the FCC and ICANN (http://www.icann.org/). However, they don’t allow the throttling of traffic, nor do they prohibit free speech except for truly egregious things such as child pornography.

Again, choosing Net Neutrality is literally choosing freedom. Allowing it to be broken is allowing corporations to rule. I think we’ve had enough of that already, leave my Internet alone.

Pablo said:
Of course it does! If I buy a slower service, my traffic isn’t going to move as fast as yours if you bought the faster service. Your complaint is that it might work the same way for companies, to the extent that they could get squeezed out because their sites won’t load fast enough. That’s not a well founded fear, and not something that should have us telling private businesses how to run their business without some sort of actual problem at hand. Another fear is that it represents a power grab of the communications system, and we can avoid that one by leaving things be, since it works pretty damned well the way it is.

Yes, that’s what I agree. We have net neutrality now. See, this isn’t about consumers here. It is about traffic speed, and even if I spend more money to get the DailyKos to download faster, MSNBC will be faster. Again, we are agreeing on keeping the same thing. We are just on two sides of the coin. See, it’s this fear of government regulation that we are willing to keep up something we already have. See, what the cable companies are opening up is for companies to spend more to increase the speed of their website, to allow more bandwidth based on how much money they spend. That doesn’t happen now. Yes, it isn’t control of content, it’s control of how we receive the content. Cable companies are consistently going to have us spend more money, and that’s not the issue here. Again, I agree, keep it the way it is. Net neutrality.

Some_Dude said:
Net Neutrality is how the Internet is run now.

Then why do we need a new law?

Again, choosing Net Neutrality is literally choosing freedom. Allowing it to be broken is allowing corporations to rule.

Freedom has nothing to do with it. If you don’t like the way your service provider is providing service, you have the freedom to use a different one. And the provider has the freedom to run their business the way they see fit.

I’m not interested in the fearmongering that says we need regulation because of what is not a problem now and likely will never be. Wake me up when there’s a demonstrable threat.

Pablo said:
Then why do we need a new law?

Freedom has nothing to do with it. If you don’t like the way your service provider is providing service, you have the freedom to use a different one. And the provider has the freedom to run their business the way they see fit.

I’m not interested in the fearmongering that says we need regulation because of what is not a problem now and likely will never be. Wake me up when there’s a demonstrable threat.

We don’t need new legislation, that’s the point.

Also, my man, you’re not getting it. Net Neutrality is for NO REGULATION. Getting rid of it invites regulation!

Sorry for the exclamation points, but you’re literally arguing against what you stand for.

“Net neutrality” should be thought of as “equal access.” SERVICE providers – Comcast, Verizon, etc. – would not be allowed to discriminate between and among CONTENT providers – FoxNation, DailyKos, Amazon.com or whoever.

Without specific prohibitions against such discrimination, it won’t matter how fast your internet connection is if your service provider is allowed to discriminate against the content provider of your favorite websites – whatever they may be. It won’t matter if you can post on youtube if youtube can’t get your video to your intended audience. It won’t matter if Fox is more popular than DK if Fox isn’t willing to pay for carriage – or will only pay a Cox for carriage if it also throttles DK. Verizon could conceivably limit or completely eliminate anti-ISP – or anti-Verizon – websites. They could demand payments from content providers in return for carriage – IF they can afford it.

Wikipedia has a very good entry on the matter.

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

“In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its Broadband Policy Statement (also known as the Internet Policy Statement), which lists four principles of open Internet,[13] “To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:

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

“These points are often summarized as “any lawful content, any lawful application, any lawful device, any provider”. President Barack Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 called for an investment of 7.2 billion dollars in broadband infrastructure and included an openness stipulation. During the FCC’s hearing, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to adopt the four criteria laid out in its 2005 Internet Policy Statement as the requisite openness.”

Franken’s sentiments are correct and appropriate. Conservatives may tend to prefer non-neutrality since it would, as a matter of course, favor wealthier corporations, media, and websites – and their owners – at the expense of non-profit organizations like Mediaite (they didn’t INTEND it that way; that’s just how it’s turning out).

Net neutrality promises a “level playing field.” If you don’t like fairness, pick up your ball and go home!

You know that Beck has turned “level playing field” into equal results, but he’s throwing red meat to his reactionary viewers and supporters.

We live in a world divided into three realities: mainstream media, conservative/reactionary media and radical views rarely revealed by corporate media on the left or the right.

Jon Stewart is right: “Nothing Obama does will ever make [Fox "News"] happy.” On the other hand, this week Christopher Hayes, sitting in for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, gave George Bush credit for pointing our right after 9-11 that we were not attacked by Islam and that Islam is a religion of peace.

Back to net neutrality: for Beck it’s a Marxist plot. Fox Beck, every reform proposed by this Administration is a Marxist plot, and his supporters actually believe this nonsense.

Net neutrality regulations reach well beyond just ensuring freedom of speech or in this case freedom of data. These regulations will also prohibit economically discriminatory partnerships. This means that independent online entrepreneurs will not be allowed to engage in mutually beneficial relationships with ISP’s. In other words, why should anyone care how fast a “Daily Kos” type site loads when such sites will be regulated out of existence? Beyond this, I think it is important to remember that no man created the human ability to speak; this is the basis of freedom of speech – the basis of any inalienable right. Unfortunately for these philosophical supporters of net neutrality, it took quite a few men and exponentially more dollars for us to have the ability to surf the web/access content on the internet. That is a service worth paying for, to the degree that we have universal access. Net neutrality will prohibit this.

“If Fox is so wrong and spead lies. Why are they so popular?” [sic] This isn’t an argument. In fact, it’s an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. 

“If Fox is so wrong and spead lies. Why are they so popular?” [sic] This isn’t an argument. In fact, it’s an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.