Looks like all the comments from the anti-NN folks have been hidden. I guess when it comes to advocating no content discrimination and all bytes being equal, that doesn't apply to MyDD.
An open debate about these very relevant comments by the FTC commissioner is really all that we at Hands Off the Internet wanted to see happen. People need to hear both sides of the issue, not have one side of the debate hidden from them.
Thanks for linking to the members of our coalition. As you can see it is a broad mix of business, internet freedom advocates, technology groups and minority groups.
I guess you have no response then to the fact that the companies fighting FOR net neutrality are the ones with the highest profits and are more monopolistic in relation to their industries then the telecom companies are?
This myth that the anti-NN folks are big business needs to end. It is the pro-NN folks who are actually the biggest and most profitable businesses in this fight. They are looking out for their own bottom line, and must be delighted that all these bloggers are helping them protect their own profits.
A lot of people here seem to want to imply that the telecos are the big bad guys out for a profit, and Google and their band of rag-tag small-time bloggers merely have the best interests of the internet at heart.
As this report from the American Consumer Institute shows, the companies who are fighting FOR net neutrality are actually the businesses in this fight that run the highest profits and monopolize the most market share in their industry:
Cable TV and Telco network providers (Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon, et al.) have greater sales, but lower profit rates, market valuations, returns on invested capital and cash flow multiples than NN advocates (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and eBay). * Measured by the market value of outstanding shares (market capitalization), Google and Microsoft are far larger than cable and Telco network providers. * Net Newcomers Google (50.1%), Yahoo (27.1%), and Amazon (25.9%) enjoy monopoly-like returns on invested capital compared to AT&T (8.5%) and Verizon (8.7%). * In addition to superior financial strength, NN companies also enjoy significant market power reflected in large shares in relevant markets. Google dominates the "search" market, Microsoft dominates markets for software, and eBay dominates markets for online auctions, etc.
This might not change your position on net neutrality, but please, it's time to get past this insane myth that this is big business vs. the little guys. The biggest, baddest and most profitable businesses in this fight are on the pro-net neutrality side.
I can understand where if there's some services that use up a lot more bandwidth than others, there's a tier or cost that's associated with that.
In this interview, Lamont, with this quote, makes clear he is open to different internet tiers. He understands that when there are activities that use up a lot of broadband, a tiered internet becomes much more efficient. Not a single person or organization is advocating content discrimination, the debate is about a tiered system versus an untiered system.
It's nice to see that Lamont is open to an internet that allows different tiers. This is exactly what Hands Off the Internet is supporting, and exactly what Matt and the Save the Internet crowd are opposing.
I'm sure Matt will totally gloss over this quote, but the bottom line is Lamont sounds very open to a tiered internet.
Lucas, I'm sorry but you are misinformed on this. The site was never blocked by Cox. Some tech bloggers have dug into this and discovered that it was a technical problem caused largely by Craigs List themselves.
"the truth is that Craigslist is equally at fault and could have fixed the issue themselves long ago if they were simply following the RFCs for TCP/IP. Many people have verified this to be the case and I took the time to verify it myself."
"Cox communications never blocked anything on the network so this was never a "Net neutrality" issue to begin with since the blocking is being done on a piece of software that users downloaded."
"Craig Newmark could have corrected the problem for everyone globally on his own servers months ago"
The link below has more details on what exactly he technical problem was. Hope this helps clarify for you what actually happened.
Whether you outright SAID Cox was blocking Craigs List, IMPLIED they were blocking Craigs List or just SUGGESTED this activity might lead to nefarious conduct, it was pretty clear the point you were trying to get across. I'm not going to suggest you outright lied, but c'mon Matt, you attempted to exploit the situation to make your political point.
You're having a field day going after the telecom and posters like myself who support the Hands Off the Internet side of the debate, but all the examples you have cited of sites being blocked were either in Canada, or due to technical reasons, none of them were out-and-out violations of net neutrality.
Ironically enough, we may have our first legitimate case of a blatent violation of net neutrality...and it's NOT by a telecom company, but by a CONTENT provider:
Excellent point. There is absolutely no evidence of the service being degraded in any way. These are the kind of misconceptions and poor examples that myself and others with Hands Off the Internet are trying to combat.
Vonage's VoIP files are traveling along the public internet like data of any other kind. So saying "Canadian ISP Degrades Vonage" is not just misleading, but flat out false. There is no degrading occuring of the VoIP data packets at all.
Matt, if your idea of a "non-neutral" internet is one where no degradation occurs and people can get enhanced service for only $10 extra...I'm not sure what we're all supposed to be afraid of.
In that case I'd buy the bridge you're selling in a heartbeat. The scenario you're describing is pure tin-foil hat, head-in-the-sand fiction. The idea that an internet provider would block websites of a certain political viewpoint is almost so unbelievable it's laughable. The PR ramifications from such a move would be so negative and swift that the company would be out of business in days.
What you are describing is the same "the sky-is-falling" charge that people said would happen when AOL/Time-Warner merged and people said AOL would block you from accessing Newsweek in favor of Time Magazine and other Time-Warner publications/services. Nothing of the sort even came close to happening and nothing of the sort is going to happen this time.
Matt, as someone who is part of this debate with the Hands Off the Internet coalition, I just want to point out that your hypothetical example is way, way off base.
The scenario of a blog taking 30-seconds to load is ridiculous and patently absurd on its face. What exactly do you think the regular tier is going to be, 28.8 dial-up? Of course not. Would the higher tier the telecoms companies be faster than the regular tier? Definitely. But the regular, or "slow" tier as you call it would be the exact same speeds we all use now (i.e. T3/cable/broadband connections). I use the internet everyday, and it never takes more than a few seconds for a blog to load. The situation you are describing is pure fiction and seems more like an attempt to scare people than a realistic example.
You are correct that AT&T is part of the Hands Off the Internet coalition, but it is incorrect to say I am a telecom industry lobbyist. I work on all sorts of different issues, Hands Off the Internet happens to be one of many clients for me right now.
Also, your insinuation that Hands Off the Internet=AT&T + the telecoms and no one else is incorrect. A full list of the Hands Off the Internet membership is here:
There are a few telecom companies, but as you can see the coalition also includes groups like the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Center for Individual Freedom, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Against Government Waste and Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association (along with many others).
Also, the 700,000 member union, Communications Workers of America have come out against net neutrality.
You are totally correct that some of the telecom companies are very involved with Hands Off the Internet, but it is not true to imply that it just AT&T and not a broad coalition of many different groups.
The FCC chairman said that enacting new laws protecting Net neutrality would be premature. He said that the commission has already adopted a set of principles, which he feels are sufficient to address the issue.
"Consumers need to be able to access content on the Internet unimpeded," he said. "But at the same time, we understand network operators may offer differentiated tiers and differentiated speeds."
He added that the commission hasn't seen any widespread abuse that would justify making new laws.
Now I'm on the Hands Off the Internet/anti-government involvement side of this debate, so I'm hardly an unbiased observer, but it's statements like this that I think are leading many people to start questioning the "sky is falling" attitude many bloggers have toward the net neutrality debate.
Just wanted to make a couple factual corrections to your statement.
1. Mike McCurry has made quite clear in postings both here on MyDD, as well as on Huffington Post, that he was, and is, opposed to government mandated net neutrality because he believes that is what is best for the internet. He works for Hands Off the Internet BECAUSE he feels this way, not the other way around. If you have strong beliefs on an issue regardless of whether or not you are getting paid to promote that view, then by definition you are not a shill.
2. It is not even possible for Mike McCurry to be a shill for Verizon, because Verizon is not paying him a dime. McCurry represents the Hands Off the Internet coalition, and Verizon is not part of this coalition.
Almost everyone endorses the PRINCIPLE of net neutrality. However, from this statement it appears that Lamont is ok with the idea of internet tiers, which would be prohibited by things like the Markey Amendment. The burden of proof in this case is on Lamont and yourself to show MyDD a statement from Lamont opposing the development of internet tiers. Until we see that, I think MyDD should assume that Lamont is IN FAVOR of allowing the development of some sort of tiered system and therefore may not endorse as strict a version of net neutrality as the rest of the MyDD community does.