Why the FCC proposes to eliminate Net Neutrality

Doug Muder wrote an excellent post on today’s The Weekly Sift about how the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to end Net Neutrality will enable monopolists to dominate the Internet.

Long story short: Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers operate like telephone companies.  Anybody can phone anywhere who is connected to the system, and every ISP charges its customers the same rates..   The end of Net Neutrality means that they operate like cable TV companies.  You would have to accept whatever restriction they choose to impose.

Muder shows how the end of Net Neutrality ties in with the growth of business monopoly and how this ties in with the growth of economic inequality.

I strongly recommend reading Muder’s article, but I have a couple of graphics below that also explain the issue, although not in as great a depth.

LINK

The Looming End of Net Neutrality (and why you should care) by Doug Muder for The Weekly Sift.

Obama-GOP compromise? I hope not

All ways in which President Obama and Republicans in Congress could reach agreement are bad for the American people.

All of President Obama’s initiatives that are good for the American people are unacceptable to the Republicans.

Bad for Americans, acceptable to Republicans

Pro-Business Trade Treaties

President Obama has pushed for new trade treaties that give foreign corporations the right to appeal for damages if countries pass laws that unjustly deprive them of profits.  Similar provisions in existing trade treaties have been used against environmental regulation, subsidies for renewable energy and financial regulation.  Proposed new treaties are believed to go further.

The proposed Trans Pacific Partnership agreement appears doomed, but the Trans Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (aka the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) and the Trade in Services Agreement might sneak in under the public’s radar.   Corporate American favors these treaties, so the GOP might go for them.

Weakening Social Security and Medicare

President Obama repeatedly proposed changing the formula for Social Security benefits and raising the age for Medicare, in exchange for modest tax increases on upper income brackets.  Even though the tax increases are off the table, Republicans might go for such a “grand bargain” on other issues.

Starting New Wars

If President Obama discovers some new threat that he says requires military intervention in a foreign country, the Republicans in Congress are sure to support him—short of actually voting authorization, which he says he doesn’t need anyway.  Likewise for new authority for surveillance, preventive detention, drone strikes, prosecution of whistle-blowers, etc.

Tar Sands Pipeline  [Added 11/15/14].

The Canadian government and Trans Canada corporation want to bring corrosive tar sands bitumen from northern Alberta to oil refineries in the United States.  Republicans in Congress are strongly in favor of this.  President Obama’s stand on the Keystone XL pipeline is uncertain, but federal regulators have already quietly approved the alternative Alberta Clipper pipeline.  Overall the President is a strong promoter of energy development, including hydraulic fracturing for natural gas.

Good for Americans, unacceptable to Republicans

Climate Change

President Obama says that he wants laws and regulations that limit the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.  A larger segment of the Republicans deny that human-caused climate change is even taking place, let alone that something should be done about it.

Immigration Reform

The only feasible immigration reform, as I see it, is some provision providing a path to citizenship for the millions of unauthorized immigrants already in this country.  I admit this is not good, but the alternatives are worse.

Graphics with words speak louder than words

Graphics with words can be a better form of communication than words alone.

Two cases in point:

• Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I’m going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY Works for The Oatmeal.
• DUCKS, a diary of working on the Alberta tar sands, for Hark! A Vagrant.

The passing scene: Links & comments 7/14/14

Economix Explains Social Security

Economix Explains the Transpacific Partnership

Economix Explains Net Neutrality

Cartoonist Michael Goodwin uses words and pictures to give clear explanations of three important, and often misunderstood, issue.

Crimea Annexation Spurs Some Russians to Emigrate by Yekaterina Kravtsova for the Moscow Times.

Amid heightened nationalist passions over the Ukraine crisis,  President Vladimir Putin is cracking down on independent journalists and opposition politicians.

The United Nations estimates that 40,000 Russians asked for political asylum in other countries last year, the highest number from any country except Syria.  This year Russian requests for asylum are running ahead of last year’s.

Putin’s Russia is not a free country.

Russia wipes out Cuban debt by Aljazeera America.

President Putin agreed to cancel Cuba’s debt to the old Soviet Union, while Cuba plans more offshore oil concessions for Russian companies.  The USA could have had equivalent deals any time during the past 50 years if not for the ongoing U.S. embargo against Cuba.

The Real Reason Pot Is Still Illegal by Lee Fang for The Nation.

Marijuana is a cheap substitute for prescription painkillers, and may be less addictive.   The big pharmaceutical companies would lose a lot of sales if marijuana were legalized.

The Fire This Time:  A look at the religious violence in Burma by Hozan Alan Senauke for Buddhadharma.

The vice-abbot of the Berkeley Zen Center says that violence against Burma’s Muslim minority is contrary to the teachings of Buddha.

 

John Oliver explains net neutrality

John Oliver gave a  clear—and entertaining—explanation of what Net Neutrality is and why it matters.

He called on viewers to let the Federal Communications Commission know what they thought, and the FCC received more than 70,000 comments immediately after the broadcast—enough to temporarily overwhelm its comments section.

Click on Most Creative ‘Net Neutrality’ Comments on the FCC Website to read some of them.

The twilight of net neutrality?

The Internet was created by research paid for by American taxpayers, and, since it was first opened up to the public, it has operated under the principle of Net Neutrality — the principle that it is equally open to all, regardless of their views, social status or ability to pay.

Now Tom Wheeler, a former telecommunication lobbyist appointed by President Obama to head the Federal Communications Commission, has proposed a change in policy — to allow some companies to pay extra to get better access.

Just two months ago the White House itself gave a good explanation of why that is a bad idea.

Rights of free speech, and the free flow of information, are central to our society and economy — and the principle of net neutrality gives every American an equal and meaningful opportunity to participate in both. Indeed, an open Internet is an engine for freedom around the world.

Preserving an open Internet is vital not to just to the free flow of information, but also to promoting innovation and economic productivity.  Because of its openness, the Internet has allowed entrepreneurs — with just a small amount of seed money or a modest grant — to take their innovative ideas from the garage or the dorm room to every corner of the Earth, building companies, creating jobs, improving vital services, and fostering even more innovation along the way.

Absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries. The resulting decline in the development of advanced online apps and services would dampen demand for broadband and ultimately discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. An open Internet removes barriers to investment worldwide

This is from The White House Blog: Reaffirming the White House’s Commitment to Net Neutrality (Feb. 18, 2014).   Evidently the FCC didn’t get the word, or maybe it was the White House spokespeople who didn’t get the word.