Skip to main content

U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler testifies before a House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee hearing on oversight of the FCC on Capitol Hill in Washington May 20, 2014. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst  (UNITED
FCC Chair Tom Wheeler

Since Federal Communciations Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed a two-tiered, pay-for-play internet, the agency has been deluged by comments opposing the move—677,000 comments in fact, more than the last big firestorm over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." There have been so many comments, in fact, that the FCC has extended the deadline for comments from midnight tonight to midnight Friday, per Politico, because the online comment site has been overwhelmed. Wheeler told The Hill that the agency is working through comments.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency is “mining through” the submissions from lawmakers, content providers, public interest groups and citizens who have seen fit to tell the FCC what is on their mind.

“There’s a lot of late-night oil,” Wheeler said last week in response to a question about how the agency is processing all of the opinions, which it will continue to comb through Tuesday. […]

Facing a backlash from public interest groups and Democrats on the commission and in Congress, Wheeler broadened his plan to put more emphasis on other options, including changing how Internet providers are regulated. […]

“Reclassification is the best way to for us to preserve the Internet as an unfettered tool for communication and the sharing of ideas,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote in a Friday Facebook post.

Schumer joins Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA),  Al Franken (D-MN) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR), among others, in an official letter to the FCC asking for reclassification.

While the numbers—and a good chunk of Senate Democrats—are with real net neutrality with the teeth of FCC enforcement through reclassification, the corporate money is decidedly against it. The big internet providers and telecom services are lobbying hard against us. Meanwhile, tech giants like Google, Netflix, Amazon and Facebook are pushing for net neutrality rules that extend to cellphone service, as well as a commitment from the FCC to protect websites conflicting with ISPs when the providers "abuse 'interconnection deals,' which websites make to connect to Internet providers’ servers for more direct access to users."

Public opinion is clear on this one. There's some indication that Wheeler is listening, but there's every incentive to keep the pressure on. If you haven't already, send your comments supporting net neutrality. You can use the FCC comments page; the inbox they set up specifically for this issue, openinternet@fcc.gov; and with Daily Kos's petition.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" (20+ / 0-)

    was so much more important...to people who didn't have something better to do.

    "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

    by gjohnsit on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:16:44 PM PDT

  •   FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (dingo) is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreatLakeSailor, NM Ray, coral

    how the picture caption is supposed to read, isn't it?

  •  I received a message... (6+ / 0-)

    from Free Speech TV today which said that some conservatives on the appropriations committee were attaching a couple of amendments which, if passed, would kill net neutrality.  They asked that we phone our Congress representatives and ask them to vote against these amendments.  

    FSTV wasn't too clear.  I guess they are working under extreme 'trying to keep up' pressure.  My Congressperson, Barbara Lee)'s staff did not know about it and thanked me for calling it in.  

    Possibly you can find more info at Free Speech TV.    

    "Our duty is to the Constitution, not to the criminals in Washington." Paul Craig Roberts

    by dharmasyd on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:24:34 PM PDT

    •  I got the same email (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      but it was from freepress.net/Free Press Action Fund

      http://www.freepress.net/...

      The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

      by GreatLakeSailor on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:03:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That link is almost useless (3+ / 0-)

        They should have described what the amendments would do:

        Appropriations bill H.R. 5016, introduced on July 2nd, provides funding for financial services and general government, including the FCC. H.R. 5016 will be the vehicle to force through language to further restrict community broadband networks.

        The amendment most damaging to local telecommunications authority is expected to come from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). The amendment's purpose is to remove authority from the FCC to preempt state laws preventing local broadband infrastructure investment. By restricting the FCC's use of its funding, the legislation will choke the agency's ability to explore its plan to influence anti-muni state barriers so local communities can decide their own fates.

        The other amendment:
        H.R. 4752 from Rep Latta (R-OH) will be brought up in the House, likely as an appropriations rider, some time within the next few days. In the past several months, the municipal network movement has made great strides. If passed, this bill's content can be a significant setback. We encourage you to call the D.C. office of your elected officials and tell them to vote NO on H.R. 4752, NO on any rider based on H.R. 4752's language, and NO on any amendment that restricts FCC authority.

        Be very specific when it comes to municipal networks - local governments should be the ones to decide whether a network makes sense. These amendments are designed to strip the power from the FCC that would allow it to ensure local governments can make this decision.

        H.R. 4752's language would prevent the FCC from regulating Internet service providers under Title II. There is also some indication that the House will consider an amendment on municipal broadband; constituents need to stop the rider and the amendment from moving forward.

        This bill was introduced months ago. According to OpenSecrets.org, its Republican sponsor has received more than $320,000 in campaign contributions from the communications sector since 2007.

  •  midnight * Friday * extension ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dharmasyd, coral, northerntier, G2geek

    TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes? -- Addington's Perpwalk.

    by greenbird on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:25:01 PM PDT

  •  I finally got around to commenting to the FCC (8+ / 0-)

    Thanks to the blogosphere for sounding the trumpets !

    Wonder how influential the John Oliver video was ?

    "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

    by New Rule on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:29:34 PM PDT

  •  Another corporate PBO appointment strikes again. (3+ / 0-)

    Warren is neither a Clintonesque triangulator nor an Obamaesque conciliator. She is a throwback to a more combative progressive tradition, and her candidacy is a test of whether that approach can still appeal to voters.-J. Toobin "New Yorker"

    by chuck utzman on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:31:25 PM PDT

  •  Net neutrality? Pfft, that's dead. The debate now (0+ / 0-)

    is who do you want censoring your internet: The government or the corporation?

    •  how about we leave it the fuck alone? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevemb

      It's not broken. It's certainly not an either or option. Trying to frame it as such seems very alarmist in a reaganesque-Fox sort of way, where we're all supposed to scream "Not the government, oh noes!"

  •  If the Internet ain't happy, ain't nobody happy! (0+ / 0-)

    If the Internet ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!

  •  I view this decision (8+ / 0-)

    as a test as to how much influence "we, the people" have on national policy. Given this is a "Democratic" power ploy, how this comes down gives me a plumb line as to how far we are on the road to Oligarchy.

  •  I can't imagine the traffic slowing ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State, coral

    ... any between now and Friday.

    Please send the FCC a message showing your support of an open internet.

    It's quick, it's easy, it's painless.

  •  I don't really like the phrase "net neutrality"... (0+ / 0-)

    ....I saw it here for a long time and had NO idea what it meant. Isn't there a better way of expressing the idea that companies want to charge more for speed? I'm still not even sure if that is what they want to do.

    What DO they want to do?

    And "reclassification"-- we want "reclassification"?

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:53:09 PM PDT

    •  what they want to do is a bit complicated (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheDudester

      and it's a mixture of down right horrible practices and some that are probably necessary.

      The crux of this problem the '2 tiered internet' stuff is mostly over blown.  It mostly centers around netflix and their refusal to pay extra for going way over in terms of traffic and thereby breaking the peering agreements.

      That said reclassification might bring about a more open and cheaper internet. But it's going to have to survive a long court battle first and given what happened in Verizon I'm not optimistic on that.

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:01:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Netflix isn't 'breaking' anything (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD, stevemb
        The crux of this problem the '2 tiered internet' stuff is mostly over blown.  It mostly centers around netflix and their refusal to pay extra for going way over in terms of traffic and thereby breaking the peering agreements.
        They were already paying for the bandwidth they consumed, just like every other web company. This is just rent-seeking on the part of Comcast and TWC. Meanwhile Cablevision captured the Netflix performance crown without engaging in extortion.
        That said reclassification might bring about a more open and cheaper internet. But it's going to have to survive a long court battle first and given what happened in Verizon I'm not optimistic on that.
        Per Tim Wu, there aren't any significant legal issues surrounding common carrier status. It's the FCC's band-aid approach to the problem thus far that resulted in a successful legal challenge.
        •  No netflix is not (0+ / 0-)

          and yes netflix is breaking down the peering agreements which if that happens would be catastrophic for the internet.

          And here's the thing whether of not there is any 'significant legal issues' or not we both know the ISPs will fight it tooth and nail. And I would hope we both know that there is no guarantee they would lose that fight. SCOTUS seemed to indicate that it would be okay with reclassification but this is the same SCOTUS that promised a 'narrow' decision on Hobby Lobby and then broke it's word in less than a week.

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:59:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are spouting industry spin (2+ / 0-)

            Netflix isn't breaking peering agreements. The telcos are. Like I said, Netflix and Cablevision get along just fine without the extortion.

            Netflix is a convenient scapegoat. You could break the company into 20 pieces and the result would be the same: ISPs refuse to deliver the bandwidth for which customers have already paid (because of course they don't really have to compete for the customer dollar). ISPs are pursuing a backdoor rate-hike with no actual improvement in service.

            Common carrier would end these games and introduce much-needed competition.

            And here's the thing whether of not there is any 'significant legal issues' or not we both know the ISPs will fight it tooth and nail. ...
            Who cares? What's the point of this FUD? All industry regulation faces opposition. The point is that piecemeal rules of the sort the FCC have implemented so far are more vulnerable to challenges.
            •  it's not industry spin it's the facts (0+ / 0-)

              You do know that the next highest share of downstream is youtube at ~17-18%? And that youtube has paid extra for it's streaming?

              Let me be clear here the ISPs suck and suck badly. I'm all for things changing with them and for them facing more regulation if not a real reckoning for their shananigans.

              That however does not change the fact that netflix is a problem here too with wanting a free lunch. Common carrier would hopefully introduce competition but it's not going to change the asymmetrical distribution of downstream traffic.

              Lastly what's the point? Um how about being realistic as to what would happen?

              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:51:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  bullshit (4+ / 0-)

                Go Google some more. You are buying into and spewing nonsense that sounds logical but that the true backbone providers actively dispute. They have plenty of bandwidth. It's the "last mile" providers that have refused to build out their infrastructure despite increasing consumers prices. Proof? Just look at what Google fiber has done. In those cities the local providers somehow found the magical technology to bring prices down while increasing speeds.

                So I call bullshit. I've been involved with internet providers before they even commercially sold accounts. The Comcast and Verizon's are just looking for another bottomless profit center without having to actually do anything.

                •  It has nothing to do with capacity (0+ / 0-)

                  that's an argument that shows you don't understand the issue at  hand. You can call bullshit all you want it doesn't change reality or the facts.

                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:37:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and I am tired of repeating myself about the ISPs (0+ / 0-)

                    you want to be myopically tribal? That's up to you but it's not useful.

                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:38:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  oh do tell (2+ / 0-)

                    Explain like you would to someone who's been in the business for 20 years, darling. I'm all ears.

                    •  if you've been in the business for 20 years (0+ / 0-)

                      then I am at loss for why you are confusing peering agreements with capacity.

                      Perhaps you could explain that?

                      I'm past sick of the myopic tribalism about this issue. The ISPs are a bunch of virtual monopolies (or perhaps 'just' virtual monopolies)  that both deserve and need more regulation and competition. However no matter how many times I say that it seems to always get ignored when I also point out that the difficulties and issues with netflix will not go away without addressing them too.

                      You are aware that most issues in life are not 'good' and 'bad'?

                      Der Weg ist das Ziel

                      by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:42:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Peering agreements ARE the internet (3+ / 0-)

                        No major backbone provider is complaining about it...only, coincidentally, the last-mile providers. Why? Because peering agreements pretty much force backbone provider to keep their shit updated and optimized with the latest equipment and software at no cost to the consumer or anyone else. If you're a backbone provider you need peering agreements: you need to give and you need to get them. Without the latest and greatest equipment no one will want to make these (courtesy...or very, very low cost) agreements with you because your network is shit. Obviously, Comcast and the like (who are last mile providers and need peering agreements more than anyone) don't like any kind of agreement that doesn't provide them a profit in some way. If they can FORCE these agreements without having to update their equipment then that's what they'll do. Preferably they'd like to control Netflix in the process. If they can't get that then reclassifying the internet will certainly help them get peering agreements at a low cost without having to upgrade their equipment.

                        In markets where Google has injected high speed internet these very same last mile providers have somehow managed to provide speedier service at lower prices. Imagine that!

                        So tell me again what I don't fucking understand, okay?

                        •  that's not going to solve the issue with netflix (0+ / 0-)

                          when netflix is throwing twice as much traffic as is coming back (which admittedly may or may not be strictly accurate I can't recall the exact ratio) that is a problem and has nothing to do with capacity. Peering agreements only work because the traffic was roughly equal. When youtube first began to disturb that balance you know what Google did? Paid for the difference. What the hell is so special about netflix that they can double youtube in downstream percentage but still not have to do the same? Please tell me oh all knowing expert I'm incredibly curious to see your justification on that.

                          Because we both know that there is no justification. Netflix was and is just too bloody successful for the current model and it's going to have to suck it up and deal with it like Google did.

                          And yes if you don't understand that that's on you.

                          Der Weg ist das Ziel

                          by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:11:42 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You made my points for me (3+ / 0-)

                            Peering agreements were mostly gentlemen s' agreements, the caveat being that if things became uneven somehow that the other party helped make up the difference. That is why Netflix (and others) have made offers to providers that  ameliorate and help the peering partner's capacity issues. Netflix has helped backbone providers...and helped themselves...all in the same spirit that peering agreements were made. They offer to provide free servers and other equipment to any peer that needs them, meaning their content has a shorter road to travel to consumers and will be faster. Maybe they even get dedicated pipes. (Interesting sidenote: Pornographers in the 90s did the same damn thing and many of us credit them with being the fuel that backbone providers used to make the internet what it is today.)

                            Of course Comcast doesn't fucking like that...a faster Netflix is a cable providers worst nightmare. They think it's unfair that Netflix is helping the backbone providers provide good throughput of their content without affecting non-Netflix traffic? Netflix made the same offers to these guys and got turned down...even when offering cash on top of it all. I'm using Netflix as the example but they were not alone in making offers like this.

                            Let's take this a step further by using an analogy to roads and bridges. When a developer wants to build a new office park in the middle of no where the local city/county usually makes them build many of the roads and/or bridges that lead to and out of the new park. These roads are public roads that would otherwise never get built. A city isn't going to build a road just because a developer wants one...they have to help the city build those, too. This is what Netflix has been doing. It's what pornographers did early on in the 90s. We don't need any new regulations except ONE...make NN permanent and inviolable.

                            Netflix helping to build the internet they NEEDED was a feature NOT a bug of how the internet's backbone works. And exactly how it has ALWAYS worked. The backbone providers get through it and come out the other end with better capacity and throughput than they would have otherwise. That's good for everyone except Comcast and other cable providers who have been providing miserable last-mile speeds ON PURPOSE because Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and YouTube are threat to their business model. It's that simple. Other countries have last mile providers with higher speeds and none of these issues. How can ESTONIA do it but we can't? Really?

                          •  Thanks for the clear explanation and apt analogy. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            eltee, charlatan, stevemb

                            Unfortunately, you are dealing with our resident troll, and none of what you just told him will make an iota of difference to him.

                            Thank you for trying though.

                            Signed,
                            The hundreds of others who have tried previously.

                            As private parts to the gods are we, they play with us for their sport. - Black Adder "Chains"

                            by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:30:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you. For reading. (2+ / 0-)

                            I get long-winded sometimes when someone is wrong on the internet. :)

                          •  No, thank you for bringing your experience and (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            charlatan, stevemb

                            expertise to Daily Kos!

                            I would recommend that you turn this series of comments into a diary because right now they're lost in a dead thread. A new diary would help more of us understand this complex subject.

                            As private parts to the gods are we, they play with us for their sport. - Black Adder "Chains"

                            by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:16:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  netflix has never made such an offer (0+ / 0-)

                            in point of fact it was netflix's intransigence on that issue that is part of the problem.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:35:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's *exactly* what Netflix is already doing (2+ / 0-)

                            with Cablevision. It's standard for large content providers to work with ISPs. Please back up your 'intransigence' claim with a cite or withdraw it.

                          •  Don't Hold Your Breath (2+ / 0-)

                            There are approximately eleventy zillion requests for cities from him already in the queue ahead of you, and that's just on the NSA threads.

                            On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

                            by stevemb on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:07:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yeah because I should treat your demands seriously (0+ / 0-)

                            while you insult, belittle and bully right?

                            Let me spell it out for you for the upteen time Steve, I don't waste my time with people attacking me or 'arguing' in bad faith. I'll debate till the cows come home as demonstrated by my comments with people I think are doing more than trying to waste my time. That includes providing links.

                            So if I refuse to take you seriously well I think even you can figure it out from there.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:10:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cablevision is much much more complicated than tha (0+ / 0-)

                            After being embarrassed in 2011 it wanted to get it's speeds up and allowing netflix to use Open Connect did that. More over we probably will never know the finical details which is really what this is all about. Open Connect basically places the costs on the provider where as the providers want netflix to pay for it.

                            Personally I declare a pox on both houses.

                            As to the intransigence let's be clear here Netflix has refused to do what youtube has done for years and only did so with commcast because of the decision in Verizon.

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:07:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not complicated (1+ / 0-)

                            The Cablevision deal is a simple colocation agreement. CDN's do it all the time. You can even rent a cage at a data center and do it yourself.

                            As to the intransigence let's be clear here Netflix has refused to do what youtube has done for years and only did so with commcast because of the decision in Verizon.
                            Again a big claim without a cite. In fact Google is presently fighting the same fight Netflix did. The intransigence here is on the part of ISPs who are screwing their customers out of their rated bandwidth.
              •  Netflix is not getting a free lunch (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stevemb

                You say the ISPs 'suck' but you naively accept their cries of poverty. It's horseshit. Netflix already pays for a given amount of upstream and downstream bandwidth. Netflix's customers already pay their ISPs for a given amount of upstream and downstream bandwidth. It shouldn't make any difference to the ISP how the customer uses her bandwidth, unless the ISP intends to short its customers.

                This is a critical point. My ISP, Cablevision, doesn't think Netflix is getting a free lunch, yet it has the best overall Netflix performance. They also deliver 100% of the bandwidth promised to me 24/7, quite unlike most of the other ISPs I have used.

                ISPs like Comcast and TWC are already equipped to deal with vastly greater downstream than upstream bandwidth. It's why I used to get 30Mbits down and 5Mbits up. There isn't anything 'special' about the Netflix bandwidth profile. In fact historically the 'problem' users have been the ones who actually saturate their upstream connections.

                TWC and Comcast are doing the exact same thing to Netflix they've been doing to users for years -- that is, they throttle and try to upsell when the customer actually uses her alloted bandwidth. Netflix is just the latest boogeyman... a few years ago it was bittorrent.

                You do know that the next highest share of downstream is youtube at ~17-18%? And that youtube has paid extra for it's streaming?
                CDNs like Akamai are not the issue here. Do you understand the difference?
                •  false dichotomy (0+ / 0-)

                  you point out where I have EVER said the ISPs are poor or in poverty and I will apologize.

                  Netflix pays for access yes but what you don't seem to understand is that Youtube which is the 'runner up' in downstream in the mid teens pays the difference for decidedly being the reason it goes over peering agreements.

                  You really want to argue that netflix which is double youtube isn't doing the same?

                  The ISPs are at best a bunch of greedy twits but netflix is no better on this issue.

                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:14:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Complaining that peering agreements (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    stevemb

                    aren't economical is crying poverty.

                    Netflix pays for access yes but what you don't seem to understand is that Youtube which is the 'runner up' in downstream in the mid teens pays the difference for decidedly being the reason it goes over peering agreements.

                    You really want to argue that netflix which is double youtube isn't doing the same?

                    What? This is a muddle.
                    •  that's not the argument though (0+ / 0-)

                      the argument is that peering agreements are being exceeded and massively so.

                      What's a muddle about that? Youtube has paid for years for exceeding peering agreements so that their traffic doesn't get downgraded. Why should netflix be different?

                      Der Weg ist das Ziel

                      by duhban on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:12:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Exceeded how exactly? (1+ / 0-)

                        Be precise. We're talking about the last mile here, not backbone providers. The customer has already paid for delivery of that content to their homes. Comcast et al claiming they can't economically deliver the bandwidth the customer paid for is crying poverty. It's also bullshit.

                        Youtube has paid for years for exceeding peering agreements so that their traffic doesn't get downgraded. Why should netflix be different?
                        Cite pleez.
        •  Wow, everybody hates Netflix now (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          charlatan, stevemb

          and here I thought the right wing of the party loved successful business ideas, successful business models, and successful businessmen.

          Apparently, only until one of those successful businesses pisses in the Wheaties of the really big boys.

          Rule #1 in the New America:  never, ever do anything to piss off the Fortune 500 or the Forbes 400, or whatever the designation is of the less than 1,000 richest families in the country and their corporate ventriloquist dummies.

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:36:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  bingo: Netflix. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        Another example of how one company, in essence one person, can foist a problem on society at-large and say (pardon my language), "Fuck you, deal with it."

        There's a sane way to do full-length feature films online, which is to download them to the individual's device at whatever speeds the network can handle without disruption (there's that D-word again) and then upon completion, play them.

        The only adjustment that requires is to get over the obsession with instant gratification.  That, in its generalized sense, is an absolute precondition for the survival of our species, so it will come as a matter of Darwinian selection.  The only question for each individual is whether you want to be ahead of the Darwin curve or go the way of the Dodo.  The place to start is by learning to order a movie the day before you want to watch it.  That's not so hard, is it?

        But in the immediate practical sense the reasonable policy would be for Netflix and its subscribers to pay a higher rate that is calculated to provide the capital for building the infrastructure needed to accommodate them.  They do not have a right to a free ride any more than Cliven Bundy does.  

        Aside from Netflix, there really is no significant problem with bandwidth and transmission speed.  Everything else can be treated as a common carrier just like the conventional telephone system: content-neutral, open to all, tariffed rates.   No rabbit hole of unstable markets and price negotiation over the equivalent of every payphone call.  A flat level playing field and a fair market.

        That is not too much to ask.

        Three decades of relevant professional experience speaking here.

        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

        by G2geek on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:36:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ride free (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stevemb
          The place to start is by learning to order a movie the day before you want to watch it.  That's not so hard, is it?
          This is goofy. Streaming is a thing. It's not going away. Instant gratification is the raison d'etre of fat pipes. It enables entirely new classes of applications. At any rate, streams already travel to the end user at whatever rate the network can handle without disruption -- that's why we have buffering.
          But in the immediate practical sense the reasonable policy would be for Netflix and its subscribers to pay a higher rate that is calculated to provide the capital for building the infrastructure needed to accommodate them.  They do not have a right to a free ride any more than Cliven Bundy does.
          What free ride? Netflix pays to push video content to its own dedicated equipment at my ISP's data center, and I pay my ISP $70 for a 50/25 connection that's uncapped and unthrottled (practically I get about 90/40). Say I stream a Netflix Super HD video at a paltry 7Mbps. How is this a free ride? It barely puts a dent in the bandwidth I was sold.

          My ISP correctly sees my Netflix usage as a mundane capacity issue, and because they deliver on their promised bandwidth they have no need to extort Netflix. Shitty ISPs that massively oversell their capacity (primarily due to lack of competition) are getting exposed now that customers are starting to actually use their bandwidth.

          Why should Netflix subscribers have to pay extra to build out capacity that was already promised to them by super-profitable regional monopolies?

          •  so in other words, you're right and... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban

            ....everyone else who has looked at this is wrong.

            Hmm.

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:23:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Got anything to say re my argument? (0+ / 0-)

              Or did you think an appeal to (anonymous) authority was sufficient? Better yet, take it up with this guy.

              •  I already said it. (0+ / 0-)

                Instant gratification is the raison d'etre of the climate catastrophe.  Either we will learn to outgrow it as a species, or it will lead to our extinction.  Between now and then, it's a darwinian selection disadvantage for individuals.

                Netflix doesn't have a dedicated circuit to your ISP.  For the distance between Netflix' racks and your ISP's racks, Netflix bogs down the capacity of the network at large.

                For which reason there are certain predictable times of day & night when I can, and when I can't, get a decent stable connection to the remote maint ports of PBXs on customers' prems.  I'm quasi-nocturnal so I don't mind having to connect to certain machines at certain hours.

                Unless you work for your ISP and have frank chats with management, you don't know what they think.  All you know is what they say in their corporate communications to subscribers.

                We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                by G2geek on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:27:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  How about any gratification at all? (0+ / 0-)
                  Instant gratification is the raison d'etre of the climate catastrophe.  Either we will learn to outgrow it as a species, or it will lead to our extinction.  Between now and then, it's a darwinian selection disadvantage for individuals.
                  It's not like I object to this in principle, but you can apply this argument to literally anything, including the very existence of the internet itself. It's a non-sequitur. Ripping people off for broadband isn't going to save the planet either.
                  Netflix doesn't have a dedicated circuit to your ISP.  For the distance between Netflix' racks and your ISP's racks, Netflix bogs down the capacity of the network at large.
                  Going by the docs they are probably both connected to the same peering facility in downtown Manhattan. The open connect appliance drastically reduces required inbound bandwidth by caching content in-network. Ergo the exchange no longer bogs down. That's the whole point.
                  Unless you work for your ISP and have frank chats with management, you don't know what they think.  All you know is what they say in their corporate communications to subscribers.
                  Both companies are reportedly happy with the relationship. I have no reason to think either is lying. Netflix isn't exactly known for its reticence.

                  Both you and duhban have put forth this idea that Netflix and its subscribers are freeloaders. I see no support for that. Netflix pays for its bandwidth, and even resolves peering bottlenecks on its own dime. The customer of course is already paying out the nose for subpar broadband.

                  The companies complaining about 'unbalanced' peering are simply trying to distract from their own oversold and underperforming networks.

    •  Speed isn't strictly the issue (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angie in WA State, Simian, G2geek, stevemb

      Bandwidth (i.e., 'speed') right now is, or recently was anyway, a commodity like natural gas -- it's undifferentiated. You already pay your telco or cable company for the bandwidth you use surfing dailykos or streaming a video. Likewise, Kos pays his web host for any bandwidth we consume when we connect to the site.

      What the telcos want to do (roughly) is to treat bandwidth differently depending on its origin and destination. They could then, in the worst case scenario, bundle websites with your internet account the way they bundle TV channels with your cable account, charging both the end users and the websites more for preferential access. This would not only jeopardize small businesses and startups, it would also impact user-supported websites like dailykos.

      Now that's the nightmare scenario, of course, but in the short run the end of neutrality raises artificial barriers to competition. Netflix can afford to pay telcos for last-mile access at acceptable speeds, but what about a startup competitor?

      Reclassification simply means that broadband access would be considered an essential like telephone service, and that internet service providers would have to open up their data pipes to competition at reasonable rates. Per the nondiscrimination rule the telcos would not be able to give preferential access to specific websites -- and we're back to bandwidth as natural gas. We definitely want this.

      •  to be clear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        no matter what happens it's not 'the end of net neutrality' because net neutrality has never existed. The ISPs have shared because it's quite simply MAD (mutually assured destruction) to do anything but share traffic across their networks.

        This is the biggest reason why I personally do not believe any outcome where in sites like daily kos are censored. Then again in all fairness with the lack of competition in general and in specific I do have to admit the chance is still greater than 0 (which is where I would want it).

        Reclassification is not a panacea and the elephant in the room remains netflix.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:19:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i dont believe in reclassification either (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban, stevemb

          I believe in making net neutrality a permanent law not open to interpretation and then leaving it the hell alone. I'd rather backbone providers put their money where they always have -- their infrastructure -- instead of using it to meet more regulations.

          •  wishes and fishes and all that (0+ / 0-)

            there's a lot I'd like to see enshrined in law. Including strong regulation against the non competition agreements the big ISPs almost always have.

            We make do with the hand we have not the hand we wish we had.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:48:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You DO realize that you're using "ISP" (1+ / 0-)

              to group a bunch of backbone providers in with the piranhas like Comcast who are merely last mile providers, right?

              There's a HUGE difference in how these two different types of providers operate and lumping them all into "ISPs" shows a startling ignorance for someone who is so sure they understand the issues inside and out.

              If Comcast and AT&T went out of the internet business tomorrow the internet would still survive. If the major backbone providers went out of business...not so much. And yet, the backbone providers pretty much do nothing but provide backbone internet service...their companies aren't into all these other businesses that would also (coincidentally) benefit from controlling internet content. They pour all their extra money into equipment NOT lobbyists. They are passionate about what they do and many of them were right there when the internet was born.  

              If the FCC comes down on either side (Comcast's or re-classification), I'd bet a lot of those providers will just get out of the business....and the internet will end up being wholly owned by the conglomerates, which is what they wanted all along. So either way Comcast will win. The only way for US to win is to get the FCC to leave things alone and to force everyone else to leave it alone. PERIOD.

              •  you are making a more techincial distinction (0+ / 0-)

                then most here would and frankly I don't see the point. If it makes you feel better substitute in 'Last Mile Providers'.

                And let's be clear here you are attributing things to me again that I have never said. I'm sure in your mind it's a thrilling conversation and all that but out here the only thing I'm sure of is that you have confused capacity with peering agreements and that you would much rather engage in myopic tribalism than discussion this issue like adults.

                As I have said at various times during this discussion I'm well informed on some aspects of this and well uninformed on others. I do know the netflix part of this very well and you have yet to do more than scream and yell in response to that aspect of this discussion.

                Which while hilarious will not create a useful discussion here. Would you like to change that or is 'mindlessly bash Last Mile Providers' your final answer?

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:25:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So I guess you don't know the difference (3+ / 0-)

                  When you start accusing me of screaming and yelling when all I'm doing is typing...you aren't interested in a discussion, you're simply interested in "winning" without actually having anything like facts to back up your opinion.

                  I will disagree with you on one last thing. You don't know fuck about Netflix either.

                  •  really? (0+ / 0-)

                    you want to throw stones about that? When you started this discussion trying to argue from brute authority? When you have ignored my actual position?

                    You know that thing you're in? It's called a glass house and you should stop throwing stones before you break it.

                    I'm all for a discussion but you started off very badly and have done nothing to convince me that you want one. Which is a shame because if you really have 20 years in this business I could probably learn something new.

                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:41:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  but there's another risk. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          charlatan, duhban

          In the absence of a common carrier policy, carriers will be able to bundle services in a monopolistic manner.

          Anyone who lived through the deregulation of the telcos knows this one.

          There was a time when telcos had absolute control over what you could connect to their lines.  Deregulation broke down the wall.  One of the more mundane results was wider choice in home telephones, including the answering machine and cordless phone.  One of the more subversive results was that small businesses and nonprofits could afford communications systems formerly reserved only for the Big Guys, thereby leveling the playing field of access.  

          But the most subversive result of all was the ability to connect a modem to the telco's lines, and thereby was born the original Bulletin Board Systems and then universal access to the Internet.

          With common carrier provisions, you still retain choice.

          Without common carrier provisions, the telcos and cablecos can dictate what equipment you can and cannot connect to their lines.  

          This means cheesy crappy phone service for small businesses and nonprofits.  It also means a toll both in the way of telecommuting.

          But most dangerously it means the routers and other devices that are at the boundary between your desktop (or the palm of your hand) and the world.

          He who controls the routers, controls the world.

          Mark my words.

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:56:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  interesting (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek

            You raise a good point and I'm not against us going for reclassification. It just seems to be taking on mythic proportions and in the process I see people arguing for things that either never were or are unlikely to be.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:00:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that occurs in every area of public policy. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              Start with a rational arguement within limited parameters, and end up with a fooferoo.  There is probably a combinatorial function that maps to this dynamic;-)

              We got the future back. Uh-oh.

              by G2geek on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:31:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  From the wiki: Net neutrality (also network neu... (3+ / 0-)

      From the wiki:

      Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. The term was coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.

      I should point out that people like duhban have one, and only one goal: you pay more. Ideally, in his vision of the Internet, duhban and others would like to see each Internet user have a set amount of bandwidth they pay for per month, beyond which you would face exorbitant overage fees (as many mobile carriers impose today on their own networks). They think- as conservatives often do- in terms of "why do you get to have so much when I don't", rather than "why don't I GET this when you DO". His vision of the Internet is "pay for what you use" instead of "pay the bill and use however much your connection can stand". It's regressive, it's conservative, it's Republican. It's duhban's vision of the Internet, and it fucking stinks.

    •  YES, we want reclassification (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      charlatan, coral, northerntier

      The last time the Congress or the FCC did anything about Internet Services (and how they came to classified as 'specialty information services') is in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

      Tom Wheeler, as Chairman of the FCC (federal communications commission) has the authority to reclassify this service as a Public Utility.

      JUST LIKE landline telephone services are.

      This will prevent the restructuring of Internet Services into a Tiered Menu, where they can charge more for some services than others.

      Every page of the Internet should be available for YOU the Consumer at the same speed, regardless of what content you are accessing.
      THAT right there is what Net Neutrality means.


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

      by Angie in WA State on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:39:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes but that creates huge expenses (0+ / 0-)

        For backbone providers to meet new regulations that come with being reclassified. Why not make net neutrality permanent and inviolable with reclassification? The internet is not broken...it's being preyed upon by profiteers. Let's not create new problems...let's allow the internet to stand on it's own two feet without commercial or government interests trying to own or control it. The whole idea behind its inception was decentralized control. That's why if one backbone has an outage you will rarely notice it. Reclassification will ruin it as much as net non-neutrality will.

        •  It needs to be reclassified as Public Utility (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          charlatan, Swamp Cat

          for the same reason that Landline telephony (POTS or Plain Old Telephone Service) lines were classified as a Public Utility, when they broke up MA Bell into the Baby Bells:

          So that the public utility service being provided by commercial, for-profit entities, could not sold for more than a rated amount to customers for basic service (access to a telephone line). So that EVERY citizen would have the ability to use this public utility service, and not only the wealthy.

          We put electricity into over 99% of the residences in the United States during the 1930 (The Rural Electrification Act) for the same reason and under the same sort of auspices.

          It means that when a service is ubiquitous to the entire nation, deemed necessary to the regular, daily life of the citizenry as a whole; that it is in the nation's best interest to classify this service as a Public Utility, and then let the federal government and state governments (as needed) regulate the service going forward.

          This is why the telephone CLECs (the regional providers who used to be the Baby Bells) were granted the ability to charge each and every customer a set fee monthly, per line. This fee is nominally supposed to go to maintain, extend and upgrade the existing POTS wiring. The justification for the fee? That CLECs were regulated as a public utility by the FCC & the regulation of these private businesses which supplied this public utility cost something, so the Congress lets them charge a special fee in return.

          As someone who worked at a CLEC, for a backbone national private data network provider and for an ISP, I know this industry. It needs regulation as a public utility and the sooner, the better.


          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

          by Angie in WA State on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:26:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting article saying that Google and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    Facebook has been much quieter on the issue than they were:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/...

    •  Kabuki? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      Are face book and google just going through the motions to look good for their users clients customers marks?

      Same with Right Wing Democrats?

      The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

      by GreatLakeSailor on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:15:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Google and Facebook are not your friends. (0+ / 0-)

      They will do whatever they can get away with for their own interests, which are not yours.

      Each of them seeks a monopoly even wider than the monopolies they presently have.

      I trust NSA before I trust either of them, and that should tell you something.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:58:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Busy day today so I'm bitching late, and in the (3+ / 0-)

    wrong place, but I'm bitching all the same.

    This morning on MSNBC, Tamron Hall started out with some major breaking story about a bunch of fucking racists lining up to scream at busloads of immigrant children in Arizona.  Now that isn't such a surprise (not exactly breaking news, either), as I know there are certain elements in this country (I call them Real Americans) who are pretty much racist fuckheads.  What pissed me off about the story was how she said that it was the Sheriff's office that notified the group of teabagging bigots, and the word she used (not once, but at least twice before I turned off my radio so I could shout invective at her without interruption), to describe the person who notified the real Americans was "whistleblower."

    Since when did tipping off a bunch of bigots about a busload of toddlers they could torment count as whistleblowing?  I thought that was a term reserved for people exposing illegal (or allegedly illegal) activity like that pencil-dicked geek Snowden.

    Whistleblower - for fuck's sake.  MSNBC is really starting to push me back to just listening to music in the morning.

    /rant off...thanks for reading

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:54:45 PM PDT

    •  Didn't see what you are talking about but (0+ / 0-)

      if you feel something you see is inappropriate or inaccurate (on MSNBC or anywhere else) then you should contact them.

      •  Did that...still felt like ranting. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        northerntier

        That's the way anger works.  Sure, they can stop calling some asshole a whistleblower, but the damage is already done - they've redefined the word for a large chunk of their audience to include anyone who says anything - I'm not reporting the news, I'm whistleblowing it! (that's just a little hyperbole)

        Anyway, if we want President Obama to have a fair shot at getting any kind of sensible immigration reform out of congress, it would help if the media didn't make excuses for and minimize the actions of, Republicans.

        And Tamron Hall should fucking know better...she followed her story about the immigrant children...excuse me, about the protesters of the immigrant children (because hey, they're exciting) with a story about black kids getting disproportionately expelled from school in grades K-4.  Does she not see how similar those two stories are?

        Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

        by darthstar on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:09:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I gave up on them a long time ago. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      darthstar

      Like when I first heard Chris Matthews open his yap about how wonderful chaining social security after whining about it so much when Rmoney was running. Then I saw someone else come on talking about how wonderful it was. After that I turned them off and never turned them on again.

  •  Schumer and FB are on my side? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreatLakeSailor, NM Ray

    I think I've slipped through the looking-glass.

    I thought Schumer had nothing but contempt for us plebian blogging bottom-dwellers.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:04:35 PM PDT

  •  Slam Them! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hooper

    I wonder what part of "We the People" the Corporations Fail to Understand!

    Oh, I get it.  All of it.

    If Money is Speech, Speech isn't Free! I wonder what it is about that that Antonin Scalia cannot understand?

    by NM Ray on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:34:52 PM PDT

  •  Too right some big money is against us (0+ / 0-)

    As this story illustrates, Comcast is quite pleased with the proposal.

    http://arstechnica.com/...

    But I think its a stretch to describe google etc. As anything buy corporate.

  •  netrality/maintained (0+ / 0-)

    decent wages don't eliminate jobs. Republicans eliminate jobs; and workers, and prospects, and then excuse it all and call for more austerity. there is no end to their ignorant, arrogant avarice. only political dinosaurs support their treachery.

    by renzo capetti on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:15:15 PM PDT

  •  Harder for startups.... (4+ / 2-)

    It seems that the "teaming up" of broadband companies with certain services for higher speeds, kind of makes it harder for a start up company, like Etsy, to compete in the online markets.  Slower internet connection when you are not shopping on a partners site may divert traffic away from the new guy.  

    This WSJ article explains it kind of nicely

     Very interesting, and I'll be doing a lot more research before I pick a side......and there seems to be more than 2!

    "The Internet's corporate ownerswant it to become a technique of marginalization and control."
    ~Noam Chomsky

  •  I love that John Oliver's terrific first episode (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coral, northerntier

    of @LastWeekTonight ended with the bit which launched the surge in comments to the FCC on #NetNeutrality.

    For those who missed this great bit, here ya go, the final one minute is the best part, where Oliver finds his Inner Activist and flaps his arms and hollers "Fly my pretties, Fly, Fly!":


    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

    by Angie in WA State on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:31:00 PM PDT

  •  Meanwhile, the House GOP is "Helping" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coral

    Well, helping Comcast and Verizon:

    House members plan to try and add an amendment to H.R. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act to block funding of FCC network neutrality rules. H.R. 5016 is the bill that keeps funding the government and whose failure to pass can shut it down.
  •  the conservatives (0+ / 0-)

    don't want all of america to vote now they want america to be as anti social as they are.

  •  I have been trying for the past 3 days to get in, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coral

    and the site is just overwhelmed.  It just can't keep up.

    "Death is the winner in any war." - Nightwish/Imaginareum/Song of myself.

    by doingbusinessas on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:26:42 PM PDT

  •  Proud of Ed Markey (3+ / 0-)

    Thanks Markey

  •  My FCC comment today (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northerntier

    This is my story about why we need Common Carriage and what we will miss if we fail this moment in history.  

    Enjoy!

    Dear FCC Commissioners:

    I have been working the problem of finding ways to communicate about important issues that don't ordinarily get across for something like 40 years.  I have worked in journalism, political organizing, political campaigning for specific candidates and since about 1992, web design .

    The best example is a website I designed for Alan Pogue, a former US Army medic in Vietnam, turned photographer and social justice activist.

    What could be less likely to be judged valid according to popular entertainment values and tastes than images of wounded people.  A medic learns to have the courage to see the whole human before him and promote hope and healing, rather than give in to feelings of squeamishness or disgust.  These are moments of reality.  As gritty as it gets .

    Should the passionate intellect always be restricted to only what can gain popularity ratings?

    That is the question that tests whether we can afford or support the First Amendment and the truth tellers who most need it.

    The Internet needs to be a Title II Common Carrier because the tough truth that people turn away from but need if the Republic is to survive, is not a commercial principle.

    Consumerism versus Citizenship is what this is about.  Reality versus pretty images.

    http://www.documentaryphotographs.com

    Check out the Rosa story, the Maquiladora Madonna, linked from the front page.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:14:49 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site