no more open internet :'( sad day in history

[Diver0001]

must be "net neutrality" LOL

 

[ljpm]

must be "net neutrality" LOL

Actually, blocking web sites is only allowed without net neutrality. LOL

 

[ljpm]

the link won't load for me.

I included a link to one of the graphs. But if the article didn't load the image may not either.


BY LEE DRUTMAN and ZANDER FURNAS

With the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to move forward with a controversial proposal that threatens net neutrality and the open Internet, lobbying activity looks like it has reached a fevered pitch. But for the companies involved—especially the telecom companies that are eager to be allowed to charge more for a “fast lane” of Internet service—lobbying has been at a fevered pitch for almost a decade.

Going back to 2005 (when the phrase “net neutrality” first shows up in lobbying disclosure reports), the principle’s biggest opponents (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and their allies) have lobbied against net neutrality about three times as hard as the biggest proponents of neutrality (Level 3, Google, Microsoft and their allies).

To better understand the lobbying dynamics around net neutrality, we took the long view and tallied up the 20 lobbying organizations that mentioned “net neutrality” or “network neutrality” most often in their lobbying reports between 2005 and 2013. In the top 20, we found an even split: 10 pro-neutrality organizations and 10 anti-neutrality organizations. But when it came to intensity, the lobbying was far from balanced. The top pro-neutrality organizations filed 176 lobbying reports mentioning net neutrality. But the top anti-neutrality organizations far outpaced them, filing 472 reports that mentioned net neutrality. That’s a 2.7-to-1 ratio.

When we arrange the top-20 net neutrality lobbying organizations by amount of reports on the issue (Figure 1), the disparity is clear. The five most active organizations on the issue since 2005—Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and the National Music Publishers Association—are all opposed to neutrality. Verizon and AT&T are heads and shoulders above everyone else, each with an estimated 119 reports mentioning net neutrality.

Not only does the anti-net neutrality faction devote more lobbying attention to the issue, but these top organizations also consistently have a much larger lobbying footprint. Figure 2, below, looks at the money that the top pro- and anti-neutrality organizations have spent lobbying since 2003. Consistently, the anti-neutrality groups have outspent the pro-neutrality groups by a margin of more than 5-to-1, although this has narrowed to closer to 3-to-1 in recent years as Google Inc. has increased its lobbying presence.

Of the five organizations with vested interests in this issue that spent the most money in 2012 (the last year for which we have complete data), four oppose neutrality. All five, though, spent impressive sums.

While the dispute over network neutrality is often thought of as a battle between giant corporations, it’s clear from the data that over the lifespan of this issue, the pressure has been far from equal. The leading opponents of neutrality (largely the Internet service providers) have devoted significantly more resources to lobbying than the leading supporters of net neutrality (largely the big tech companies). While the tech companies have been expanded their lobbying presence recently, they are still playing catch-up. The big telecom companies have spent years convincing key decision-makers. We will see soon whether all their intense lobbying has paid off.

Lee Drutman and Zander Furnas are fellows at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for open government globally and uses technology to make government more accountable to all.

 

[Akimbo]

From a consumer standpoint, this whole argument is pointless. Sure the providers would prefer if their bandwidth wasn't overloaded by streaming movies, but Cellular and Satellite ISPs routinely charge for usage. Comcast has progressively priced options for speed. I am confident that censoring for business gain will be managed better by competition than government.

 

[ljpm]

From a consumer standpoint, this whole argument is pointless. Sure the providers would prefer if their bandwidth wasn't overloaded by streaming movies, but Cellular and Satellite ISPs routinely charge for usage. Comcast has progressively priced options for speed. I am confident that censoring for business gain will be managed better by competition than government.

CENSORING for business gains will be managed better by competition. ?!? REALLY.

!st, net neutrality is not about censoring it is about the prevention of censoring.
2nd Censoring is ok???
I don't want the government censoring my and they are supposed to have the interest of the people as their goal. I definitely do NOT want a corporation censoring me!

I guess FREE Speach is only for those who can pay for it.

 

[kelemvor]

I am confident that censoring for business gain will be managed better by competition than government.

Competition would probably work if there was competition in the market. Most people only have one choice for high speed internet, and it's dictated by your physical address. There was recently legislation that didn't go through which would have prevented local municipalities from causing this problem. It's caused primarily by regulations on providers at the combination of city/state/county/subdivision level. Even the nation's biggest providers can't afford to deal with all the municipalities in order to service large geographical areas.

US broadband: Still no ISP choice for many, especially at higher speeds

So, in a way - you're right. Too much regulation - at the local level. If that regulation won't be eliminated, then you don't get competition, and if you don't have competition you've got monopolies in most geographic areas. Lack of competition means your assertions will never be true unless some business just decides they are more interested in altruism than in earning profits for shareholders. In which case the board/ceo/etc would likely simply be replaced with folks who would do what is necessary to earn profits for their shareholders.

 

[ljpm]

Competition would probably work if there was competition in the market. Most people only have one choice for high speed internet, and it's dictated by your physical address. There was recently legislation that didn't go through which would have prevented local municipalities from causing this problem. It's caused primarily by regulations on providers at the combination of city/state/county/subdivision level. Even the nation's biggest providers can't afford to deal with all the municipalities in order to service large geographical areas.

US broadband: Still no ISP choice for many, especially at higher speeds

So, in a way - you're right. Too much regulation - at the local level. If that regulation won't be eliminated, then you don't get competition, and if you don't have competition you've got monopolies in most geographic areas. Lack of competition means your assertions will never be true unless some business just decides they are more interested in altruism than in earning profits for shareholders. In which case the board/ceo/etc would likely simply be replaced with folks who would do what is necessary to earn profits for their shareholders.

You assume the market will be competing for people. The ISP's will be competing for content providers. That is where they will be able to make more money. The people will be stuck with whatever plan they decide to give us. We are actually the product the ISP's will be selling to the content providers.

 

[RayfromTX]

Government is more accountable to voters than corporations are. I trust bureaucrats more than I do politicians and I trust politicians more than I do corporations. We have just given the fox free reign over the henhouse.

 

[BRT]

Speak for yourself. I have the choice of Verizon, Verizon, or Verizon.

I assume you are somewhere outside of Erie? Top 7 Internet Providers in Erie, PA | HighSpeedInternet.com

 

[BRT]

Here is a simplified version of what I fear has happened.

I post content for free on the internet. It is interesting and people spend hours downloading and enjoying it. My neighbor sells similar content on the internet. He would make more money if more people paid to download his content instead of downloading mine for free. He buys a controlling interest in an ISP and begins to throttle down the speeds at which people can access my free content. Over time he makes it a pain to access and even find my content and more people turn to his content which they have to pay for. Because he is more powerful, he uses his wealth to increase his power and consequently, his wealth. His content becomes canned crap and mine is no longer available. It gets worse from there. That is the loss that comes with today's decision.

The ability to access free quality content just suffered a blow. The change will not happen immediately. We will experience it in the same way that you successfully boil a frog. You don't toss a frog into boiling water because they will jump out. You put them in cool water and slowly raise the temperature until they are dead.

The FCC changed the rules in the 90s to allow ownership of multiple broadcast outlets within a market area. Companies like clearwater communications bought up thousands of radio stations and consolidated them for increased profits. Eventually it became possible to drive from one market to the next and not tell any difference because all the content was created somewhere else and distributed nationwide. The local radio station was effectively dead and with it an important part of our communities. We lost quality of life and wealthy investors gained big profits.

The process continues but I fear the loss of our radio stations will seem quaint in comparison to the loss of our open and free internet. Oh well, google and others already killed much of what was amazing about the internet. The period of 2000-2006ish will be considered the golden age of the internet. There was lots of content but google hadn't quite turned it into the marketing behemoth that it has become. Searches used to find content but now they find advertising while mining your searches for their future use.

I'm rambling......

You may be right, we will see, but the analogy to radio is flawed because radio is heavily regulated and there are government barriers to entry. Our community has very limited radio options. A number of years ago a friend of mine started a radio station of very limited power that only played to our town. It became popular and suddenly I could effectively advertise on the radio. He wasn't licensed but they never came after him for that. They created an incident where he felt he was being attacked by what turned out to be plainclothes feds. As he drove away one of them slapped the windshield. He was arrested for assault. After many months in jail he agreed to shut down his station. The problems are almost always too much regulation and almost never not enough regulation.