Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ex-Obama adviser calls on FCC to reclassify Web access: report

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:05 PM
Original message
Ex-Obama adviser calls on FCC to reclassify Web access: report
Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - The U.S. could regain its authority to pursue both network neutrality and widespread access to broadband by formally reclassifying Internet access as "telecommunications services," a former adviser to President Obama said in a published report on Sunday.

Susan Crawford, who was a special assistant to the President for science, technology and innovation policy, wrote in the New York Times that, before it can reclassify Internet access, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has to prove "good reason".

Crawford, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, was writing in response to the Federal appeals court ruling last week that the FCC lacks the legal authority to tell Comcast Corp not to block certain uses of its Internet access services.

Comcast, which is the No.1 TV and Internet service provider to U.S. homes, had been found to slow down access to file-sharing services used for sharing TV and movies by users.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63A21T20100411
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. internet should be a public utility, not controlled by parasite corporations who hate us nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Public Utility = government control over content by default..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Subject to first amendment.
In fact, there's virtually no 'control' over content where FCC has authority, as in radio + tv.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. You are far more trusting than I
I have seen what the commerce clause, asset forfeiture, free trade agreements and condemnation have proven to authorize at the federal level...pardon me for not quite trusting authoritarians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Don't trust our system of laws, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. I have seen their application and the (gwb) influence on those good 'ol lawz
keep them out of the internet...I can't believe when people proclaiming liberalism or progressiveness advocates for authoritarianism...it is so contrary..truth can be stranger than...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Check out the Center for Constitutional Rights for a lot of reasons not to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
christx30 Donating Member (774 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
32. Ask the people
that have lost their homes due to eminent domain how much they trust our system of laws to protect them from government abuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. Some things about eminent domain,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
christx30 Donating Member (774 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #44
49. Well,
Edited on Tue Apr-13-10 11:30 AM by christx30
I'm not seeing a whole lot of limits on when they can come in and take your property. If the local government thinks they can get more property taxes from some corporation, they will come and take it out from under you. They will give you a joke of a compensation and send you packing. But what if I love my home and would rather have that than the money?
I mean... do you know of any examples of when a judge says that a person's right to their property trumps the "public interest"?
And that is why I don't trust our "system of laws" to protect us, any more than I trust my children around an unattended bag of chips.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Not popular decisions generally.
Edited on Tue Apr-13-10 11:51 AM by elleng
I think our system of laws has geared up to protect us. About major recent Supreme Court decision on the issue:

'Public reaction to the decision was highly unfavorable and, as a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws. Prior to the Kelo decision, only eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight. Since the decision, forty-three states have amended their eminent domain laws, although some of these changes are cosmetic.<18>'

VERY INTERESTING Dissenting opinions:

On June 25, 2005, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. The dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception:

“ Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. ”

She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." 125 S.Ct. 2655, 2671

Clarence Thomas also penned a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed and that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test:

“ This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.' ”

Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting:

“ Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
christx30 Donating Member (774 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Again
these are laws that local areas have put in place to protect people. But they didn't HAVE to do it. I would rather they simply not have the power to steal my home so Wal-mart can build a store. Wal-mart comes to me to get me to sell, and I say no. So Walmart goes to the city council and tells them what's going on. I would rather the city council say "Sorry. We don't have the power to force him to sell. Go back to him and offer more money". The courts wouldn't do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
27. What the fuck are you fucking talking about?
Edited on Sun Apr-11-10 11:40 PM by boppers
If you don't fucking think the fucking FCC isn't constantly fucking regulating content....
....try saying the word "fuck" on radio or TV.

:evilgrin:

edit: added grin to indicate that this wasn't meant with hostile intentions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
43. You say that so well!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #27
46. Broadcast - not cable where you hear it all the time. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toopers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
53. What about the fairness act?
People wanted to make sure that radio broadcasts both sides of the political spectrum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. shouldn't public utilities be built and paid for with public funds?
Edited on Sun Apr-11-10 10:22 PM by onenote
Telephone companies aren't public utilities --they're private, regulated utilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. If you like what the authoritians
at the FCC have done with radio and television, you'll simply love the FCC overseeing your web access.....I pray good sense and overwhelming opposition leaves the FCC out of the internet business. I live in the country, there are options and they are getting better all the time, we don't need the FCC to fuck things up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I prefer the FCC to Comcast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. There are other options to Comcast
once FCC takes over there will be no non-FCC option. The market and technology will take care of comcast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Not in my area there isnt
Besides, you're confusing regulation with operating the ISP, which isnt the same thing.

Thats like claiming that regulating the banks is socialism, a tea bagger concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. You know, I can't even believe I am hearing this on here...
Edited on Sun Apr-11-10 10:08 PM by pipoman
when Janets tit fell out and the Bush FCC wanted to step in, oh, the howling right here in this very place...there is not one fucking thing which is less freeper than opposing inevitable religious influence on the regulation of the internet. There is nothing liberal or progressive about moral regulation or support for assisting in the birth of such ultimately inevitable monstrosity.

There are other options in most areas and those areas are getting larger. You can't get much more rural than I am and I have the satelite option, cellular is getting closer, a nearby town has free hs internet access for the entire town wirelessly...it is coming..in the mean time, sat isn't too bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. Good posts - you're not afraid to bell the cat. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. I understand your main concern is censorship
Edited on Sun Apr-11-10 10:54 PM by DJ13
But theres no more effective censorship than allowing corporations to price freedom above what you're willing to pay.

Allowing the Comcasts and the Verizons to operate unregulated will result in exactly that..... censorship based on ability to pay.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I am unable to think of an example of that model playing out?
Edited on Sun Apr-11-10 10:58 PM by pipoman
Technology seems to be getting cheaper on it's own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
35. .
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 02:11 AM by Occulus
I was thinking of a whole different issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
34. You live in California, according to your profile.
There are, quite literally, *thousands* of other ISP's on California.

Go here:
http://www.dslreports.com/search

Enter a zip code.

Wallah. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. If I understand you, because there are many 'options,'
and likely to be more, there's no need for regulation; the 'market' will handle everything. Is that what you're saying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I think right now
Edited on Sun Apr-11-10 10:29 PM by pipoman
we are in the midst of such rapid change in the web industry that it remains to be seen how comcast or any other system will maintain the market. I like the new cellular options and believe they are getting better, I haven't counted out the telephone companies who currently have 95% of the nation hard wired. I also know how we all howled and the world laughed when Janis Jackson's tit fell out and the FCC suffered cardiac arrest...multiple arrests...I'd rather my access to the internet not fall prey to GWB or BO for that matter political expediency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. You're wrong
Classifying the internet as "telecommunication service" gives the FCC no more say in its content than it does with telephone service. It merely declares ISP's as "common carriers."

Actually, ISP's should welcome such a declaration as it would free them from any responsibility over the content of their traffic.

But I expect Comcast to fight this tooth and nail since it is the biggest threat to their (and, really, all media broadcaster's) business model. So long as they control the distribution of and access to programming, they're running a money printing machine. If the internet circumvents that control, they'd have to lower their virtually-all-profit prices or go out of business. They'll do everything they can to throttle internet access to the same programming that they want people to pay them $50/month to watch (with commercials.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I suppose it depends on what people are willing to accept
I believe there will, if ComCast doesn't but out, people will begin using the next technology....hey, isn't it the FCC who limits the speed which can be transmitted via the telephone lines or some such?...I'll go check on that now..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. isn't the speed 'limited' by the laws of physics,
or technology?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. The speed is limited by law, in one sense, and use, in another sense, and cost, in a third sense.
Anybody can get a true broadband link to their house, with a full speed, guaranteed, 3Mbs, no limits, no shaping, no censorship.

$1,100 to $2,400 a month. Pair up a couple of T-1's, set up and agreement with a couple peering points (another $500-1000 a month) and you're ready to go!

The problem is that people have become accustomed to thinking that service that costs $3-4,000 a month should be only 50 bucks, because they've gotten so used to sharing that link with others.... sharing made possible by traffic shaping, bandwidth caps, and access restrictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
40. I see you're a geek, bop!
Thanks for the info.

You say 'anybody' can get. Is this regardless of their geographic location?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #40
48. Having access to copper helps.
Fiber, ever better.

If you're really remote, microwave is required. It's more expensive.

If you're remote, and mobile (think ships) the cost goes up more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. Common carrier comes with a huge burden to consumers.
For example, they can no longer stop spam/malware at the perimeters of their networks, as that would be regulating content. Hello, SPAM!

They'd also have to massively increase prices in order to guarantee access, or drop speeds to levels where all access is equal. Like the phone companies had to do with phones. Hello, 56K!

Oh, and of course, there's the huge burden of *every* ISP, large and small, having to deal with compliance, another consumer cost. Hello, price increases!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. I'm not sure about burden to consumers re: 'common carrier.'
Want to think about it, re: communications. I'm something of a transportation common carrier expert, which is, of course, where the 'theory' began, and have not studied, otherwise. Appreciate the conversation, tho, bop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. What has FCC done with radio and television
that you disagree with?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Well, there are only big people in my house,
I really don't need to hear beeps or worse during the Kill Bill marathon on TBS. I don't believe there should be massive regulation of the content of radio or TV beyond the pretty much universally agreed to limitations like the separation between porn and adult content.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. There is no massive (or other) regulation of content,
so to what do you object?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Regulation "for the children" as it's come to be known
anything which is currently regulated has been specifically targeted by a law making that content illegal or regulated....that's fine with me. We don't need content regulation of the internet on any level which isn't already actionable....and I believe that is the ultimate reality of FCC involvement in the internet industry on any level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
31. Things the FCC objects to:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #19
39. Do you like the idea of these 'standards' being applied to
your internet? Do you trust the Bushites to interpret and enforce these 'standards"? No thanks, I think we're fine as we are.

It’s Against the Law

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent, or profane material.

Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

*

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
*

The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
*

The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

Profane Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”

Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.


Thanks to boppers for posting the link....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wcshustle Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
38. What has the FCC done?!?
Check out a documentary by Robert Kane Pappas called "Orwell Rolls Over In His Grave"...as in George Orwell..."1984"...BIG BROTHER!! I'm a pretty moderate liberal and even this scared me because it's verifiable...at least it might open your mind enough, hopefully, that you will research it more and find out what's really happening when politicians use words like regulating and deregulating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. 'that you disagree with'
was the operative phrase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wcshustle Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Everything they did that was discussed in the doc. I disagreed with
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. How many radio channels are there?
How many TV channels?

How free is their speech?

Do we want that kind of censorship, and tightly regulated content, to happen to web sites, too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
go west young man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
30. Many of the posts in this thread are in relation to concerns about
regulation of content. That is ridiculous. The Obama Administration is on the side of a more accessible and free internet. The plan is to force providers to increase service which they are reluctant to do. If Comcast or any of the local internet monopolies want to serve communities and get their guaranteed dollars they should increase capacity and speed up service. Not shut people out or charge more. The FCC taking back control will force Comcasts hand.

Europe, Korea, and Japan are well ahead of the US when it comes to the internet. We have some catching up to do if we want to stay competitive in the modern world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. I *want* regulation of content to be allowed on my own damn networks.
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 01:13 AM by boppers
I also worry that the FCC tends to over-reach. Also, this isn't just about Obama, this is about regulation that will exist under liberals and conservatives... as well as under content-ban attempts by the likes of Hillary Clinton (who didn't like video games), and Tipper Gore (who didn't like music), and the likes of the RIAA and MPAA. That's the downside of allowing *any* kind of federal content regulation that I, and others, are concerned about.

The flip side is that I *want* to be able to control content on my own networks. There's no sane reason the government should be allowed to step in and demand I always allow port 1433 into and through my networks, exposing my business clients to remote MSSQL attacks. The reason the internet has remained accessible and relatively safe is *because* me, and my peers, are able to react quickly and shut down, or control, unacceptable or excessive content, or be proactive and limit content ahead of time.

Heck, the whole reason for this problem, or, rather, the "spark" that ignited this, was content that has absolutely nothing to do with the web.

Let me repeat: Comcast was slowing down *non-web* traffic, in order to keep their web traffic flowing smoothly.

In specific, rather than shutting down port 80 (http), or 443 (https), traffic, they were sending "please stop" signals to people who were running non-web, file sharing, software (on ports 6881-6999), that was overloading their networks (BitTorrent traffic can easily swamp an entire neighborhood's worth of capacity, the "torrent" part of the name isn't an accident).

As far as Comcast having any kind of "monopoly", that's certainly not true where I live, nor is it true in most locations that I've lived and worked in.. there's a vast number of smaller companies that provide services to both large and small users.

Here's one way of finding more:
http://www.dslreports.com/search

edit: add a resource to locate competing ISP services
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. People cannot use more bandwidth than they are sold and given.
Argument void.

They have been selling more than they have been able to provide - and by throttling certain traffic they tried to hide that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Fair enough.
Meter on bandwidth used. Problem solved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
42. I agree that regulation of content is generally foolish,
certainly in respect to tv and radio, and as there's ample opportunity for the public to address proposals for restrictions, we do that. (Janet Jackson comes to mind.)

As to similar restrictions over the internet, thats a different matter, which is why its resonable to think about similar rules for the internet. Originally, there was in fact limited physical access, for tv and radio, so rules re: such were a reasonable thing, in the public interest. Now that 'access' is significantly less restricted, we should adapt to the new world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 01st 2024, 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC