[TriLUG] Net Neutrality again...

Thu Sep 7 15:10:45 EDT 2017

I hope this does not turn into BarBQ wars, but I could not let David
Burton’s e-mail go unanswered.

1) The Communications Act Of 1934 is an act by congress that authorized the
executive branch to regulate communications by wire or radio.  It is not
executive overreach.  It maybe old.  It maybe outdated.  It is the law of
the land.  According to the DC Circuit Court the FCC can regulate ISPs if
they declare that ISPs are common carriers.  The act covers “interstate and
foreign communication by wire or radio, and for other purposes”.  That
sounds to me like it covers ISPs to me.

2) A huge part of the country is still an ISP monopoly.  As of June 30,
2015, only 22% of Census Blocks had two or more ISPs offering 25 Mbps
Internet access.  I am not sure why you think the VoIP fights are over.
Without Net Neutrality they will be back.

3) This is to prevent problems.  Something that regulations should, but
rarely do.  The ISPs were well on their way to causing trouble.  It was
stopped by Title II and Net Neutrality rules.

As for viewpoint censorship, I would think that Net Neutrality rules would
be high on your list of things to keep.  Without Net Neutrality, startups
could, and I say would, face killing in the crib expensive payments to ISPs
to have equality to the established Internet information providers.

-Charles Fischer

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:42 PM, David Burton via TriLUG <trilug at trilug.org>
wrote:

> The FCC's "net neutrality" rules are:
>
> 1. An example (one of many!) of executive overreach. In a representative
> democracy, the Executive Branch is not supposed to making up laws, by
> dictatorial fiat. National laws are *supposed* to be made by Congress,
> which (at least theoretically) answers to The People.
>
> 2. Increasingly irrelevant, as bandwidth/capacity increases. We're long
> past the fights over whether ISPs could block competitors' VoIP products.
>
> 3. A solution in search of a problem. Really, did you see anything get
> better or worse when the FCC imposed its "net neutrality" rules in 2015?
> What good did it do?
>
> Theoretically, net neutrality rules could prevent ISPs from downgrading the
> priority of packets from Vonage or porn sites, but the reality is that the
> VoIP wars are over, and all the major ISPs (except Google?) are in the porn
> distribution business themselves, anyhow, so that isn't likely to happen.
>
> It is so typical of government to address yesterday's problems, instead of
> tomorrow's. The FCC has built a Maginot Line, where the Panzers aren't
> going.
>
> The real problem isn't lack of neutrality toward bandwidth allocation by
> ISPs. The real problem is lack of neutrality toward information flow,
> through the new corporate information gatekeepers, like Google, Facebook &
> Wikipedia. Viewpoint censorship by those giant corporate entities is
> increasingly manipulating what you can find, and what you can learn.
>
> Conservatives used to be very hopeful that the plethora of new information
> sources would finally break the Left's long domination of the press. But as
> information gatekeepers consolidate their market positions, what is
> happening is that the Left's old censorship methods are simply being
> replaced by new ones.
>
> Liberals tend to take a very blasé attitude toward the problem, because it
> isn't their ox being gored, since the major viewpoint censors are all
> leftists.
>
> That might prove to be shortsighted. I expect that, in the long run, those
> corporations will prove to be more loyal to their bottom lines than their
> ideology. So the liberals who celebrate the crushing of conservative
> dissent may find themselves on the receiving end, as well, someday.
>
> https://stream.org/lefts-campaign-against-conservative-speech/
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Conservatives-in-Tech-Say-
> They-re-More-Isolated-12173168.php
>
> https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=
> 10200248881692914&answer_id=10202976939492654
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20160113104052/http://blogs.
> telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/
> climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Wes Garrison via TriLUG <
> trilug at trilug.org>
> wrote:
>
> > 2 points:
> > rage regulation => rate regulation
> > Freudian slip???
> >
> > Here is a list of ACTUAL NET NEUTRALITY violations; excellent examples of
> > why we need Net Neutrality rules codified by Congress.
> > https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-
> neutrality-violations-brief-
> > history
> >
> > -Wes
> >
> > _________________________________
> > Wesley S. Garrison
> > Network Engineer
> > Xitech Communications, Inc.
> > phone:  (919) 260-0803
> > fax:       (919) 932-5051
> > __________________________________
> > "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from email."
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:41 PM, John Vaughters via TriLUG <
> > trilug at trilug.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Pete, that link was helpful, I actually forgot this rule went
> > > through. In my mind it had failed. I am not sure this rule affects
> things
> > > much at all, but I appreciate the heads up and I will definitely let my
> > > Senators and member of congress know my opinion on this topic.
> > > John Vaughters
> > >
> > >
> > >     On Thursday, September 7, 2017, 12:27:29 PM EDT, Pete Soper via
> > TriLUG
> > > <trilug at trilug.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Here's the first hit when I searched, so we can become a more informed
> > > electorate:
> > >
> > > https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/24/15685414/net-neutrality-
> > > fcc-nprm-explained
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > >
> > > On 09/07/2017 12:23 PM, Brian via TriLUG wrote:
> > > > As I understand it, Net Neutrality is on the books, and this is an
> > > > attempt to keep it from being repealed by the new administration.
> > > >
> > > > On 09/07/2017 12:16 PM, John Vaughters via TriLUG wrote:
> > > >> So is there a new push for net neutrality? or is this just to try to
> > > >> get it going again?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>      On Thursday, September 7, 2017, 12:02:49 PM EDT, Brian via
> > > >> TriLUG <trilug at trilug.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>  Hi Folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't know if others of you subscribe to FreePress.net, but I
> > managed
> > > >> to wind up subscribed, probably by way of submitting a form to send
> a
> > > >> letter to my senator.  Senator Thom Tills is against net neutrality,
> > by
> > > >> the way; if you are a North Carolina resident, please consider
> > > >> contacting his office to (politely) express your opposition.
> > > >>
> > > >> Anyway, I recently got a note from FreePress.net mentioning
> organizing
> > > >> in-district drop-ins, and wondered who in the TriLUG community might
> > > >> like to get involved to express their support for net neutrality in
> > the
> > > >> form of a short face-to-face with congressional staff in a local
> > > >> district office.
> > > >>
> > > >> Here's the link to a little info and a form to sign up as the
> > organizer
> > > >> of a drop-in event.
> > > >>
> > > >> https://act.demandprogress.org/sign/sign-up-host-team-
> > > internet/?source=freepress
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> -Brian Henning
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was sent to: John Vaughters <jvaughters04 at yahoo.com>
> > > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from
> > that
> > > address.
> > > TriLUG mailing list : https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > > Unsubscribe or edit options on the web    : https://www.trilug.org/
> > > mailman/options/trilug/jvaughters04%40yahoo.com
> > > Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
> > > --
> > > This message was sent to: Wes <wes at xitechusa.com>
> > > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from
> > that
> > > address.
> > > TriLUG mailing list : https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > > Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  : https://www.trilug.org/
> > > mailman/options/trilug/wes%40xitechusa.com
> > > Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
> > >
> > --
> > This message was sent to: Dave Burton <ncdave4life at gmail.com>
> > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from
> that
> > address.
> > TriLUG mailing list : https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  : https://www.trilug.org/
> > mailman/options/trilug/ncdave4life%40gmail.com
> > Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
> >
> --
> This message was sent to: Charles Fischer <cfischer at modernferrotype.com>
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from that
> address.
> TriLUG mailing list : https://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  : https://www.trilug.org/
> mailman/options/trilug/cfischer%40modernferrotype.com
> Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
>