Jump to content
The Education Forum
Douglas Caddy

How will gutting Net Neutrality affect the Education Forum?

Recommended Posts

The linked NBC article which begins this thread is certainly depressing. Short of a massive response over the next few weeks, this is a done deal.

The FCC is made up of political appointees, but apparently oversight of their decision-making ends there. It appears the current make-up of this body are prepared to move forward with this decision no matter what, even as it is conceded that it will totally transform the internet and give “internet service providers free rein to control your online experience.” These service providers did not create the internet itself, they do not create the content, they simply provide the pipeline through which the internet is accessed. But they are about to receive the keys to the kingdom. 

The chairman of the FCC claims that Net Neutrality amounts to “micromanaging the internet.” That is like claiming municipal waterworks are “micromanaging” access to clean water, or highway systems “micromanage” transportation. A spokesperson for Verizon is “confident” that consumer’s access to the internet will be protected “without forcing them to bear the heavy costs from unnecessary regulation that chases away investment and chills innovation."   Is Net Neutrality an unnecessary regulation which has created “heavy costs” for consumers? Neither Verizon or the FCC share any data to support this. Has the internet ever lacked investment or innovation? That’s nonsense.

The FCC “collected a record 22 million responses before the comment period closed at the end of August. However…senior FCC officials said they did not take into account the quantity of the comments when making their decision.” In fact, officials dismiss this record response as fraudulent: “New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said his office has spent the past six months investigating hundreds of thousands of those comments, saying many were spam offering antinet neutrality views. Some of the comments used fake names and email addresses, while others borrowed the details of real New Yorkers, which Schneiderman said is akin to identity theft.”  *

This decision may well approach Citizen’s United as a signature disaster for American democracy and the pursuit of the common good. It is not hard to predict that not just the Education Forum but also resources such as the Mary Ferrell Foundation and academic repositories such as the Weisberg and Armstrong archives will become a “tier 2” resource. Also, video streaming services such as Vimeo, where many of the recent independent JFK documentaries can be accessed, will be in danger of being squeezed out (“throttled”).

* note: The New York Attorney General's complaint is that hundreds of thousands of ANTI net neutrality comments submitted to the FCC appear to be fake, while the vast majority of submissions support net neutrality. The FCC is apparently refusing to cooperate with a probe into these comments.

Edited by Jeff Carter
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a good comparison Jeff, Citizens United.

 

As much as I do not like to admit it, Trump and Bannon ran a smart campaign.  Through a combination of rightwing populism and a nebulous promise about "jobs"--which turned out to be as big a chimera as Reagan's infamous "jobs, jobs, jobs"  BS--they managed to con some of the middle class public into thinking they had their interests at heart.  Which was as big a con job as Rush Limbaugh pulled.

Every initiative that this gang has started is precisely the opposite.  Trump is starting to rival W as a horrendous president.  All he needs is to start a war with Iran or North Korea in order to rank right next to him.

That record is one reason that what we do is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Sandy, you should have a look at the Vidal - Buckley doc. They had debates during prime time on ABC TV during the Democratic Convention in 1968. ABC put them together in a bid for ratings success - which suggests their appeal was to a wide audience.

Jeff,

I don't remember 1960s television. I don't know why ABC put the Vidal / Buckley debates on TV. (Though I'm glad they did.) The television I remember didn't have intellectual debates like that except on PBS.

I have a hard time imagining that the public in the 1960s were more intellectual than those of later decades. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people back then read more because there was no boob tube to dumb them down. (I have noticed that average people were better writers back then. Or so it seems.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

As much as I do not like to admit it, Trump and Bannon ran a smart campaign. 

On the morning of October 28 their "smart" campaign was dead and stinking. 

There were two stories CNN and MSNBC concentrated on -- Trump's proclivity for sexual assault, and his with-holding his tax returns.

James Comey changed all of that.  Over the last 11 days of the campaign all the coverage was on Hillary's e-mails belonging to a sex pervert.

People give Trump/Bannon way too much credit.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine clicking an Educationforum link, or a BBC link, and getting a splash screen telling you that the link to the BBC story will incur “Long-Distance” charges, or that The Educationforum is not an affiliated partner of Spectrum, or you get a splash screen offering an upgraded subscription package to reach one or the other website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FCC surely knows what they are doing. The unpopularity of their impending decision is no mystery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While their owners probably won't let them one would think the Main Stream Media would be reporting on if not protesting this if I understand right that it would restrict even their ability to disseminate what they do do.  I've seen no "sign this petition" or "email your congressman" campaigns in it or any reporting on it though I haven't read much news the last few days.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

While their owners probably won't let them one would think the Main Stream Media would be reporting on if not protesting this if I understand right that it would restrict even their ability to disseminate what they do do.  I've seen no "sign this petition" or "email your congressman" campaigns in it or any reporting on it though I haven't read much news the last few days.  

I stand corrected, slightly, after reading Mr. Caddy's links.  Still, if enough Hell is not raised in the next two weeks to stop it, it's been nice knowin ya in this format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is one stopped it the first time.

But I don't see it this time.  Does anyone know an online petition I can sign?

Not aware of any petitions but links at the end of Huff Po article Doug linked above.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-other-thanksgiving-turkey-the-fccs-stealth-net_us_5a1964dfe4b0250a107bff83

I'm going with Please Don't End Freedom of Speech with Net UnNeutrality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, not the release of declassified JFK assassination documents  is the MSM conspiracy  issue of the day!

You can e-mail the commissioner directly through here.   gofccyourself.com , Don't worry, he won't see that title, but it gets you quickly to the specific case. When you've filled out the form, go up to the top to hit "review " before submitting. At least that's how I had to do it.

 

In the 2016 elections, Despite the populist rhetoric.There was never a doubt in  my mind where Trump would weigh in on this issue, given the people backing his campaign.

What was a little unclear  was Hillary's support of net neutrality, as I had read in the Podesta hacked e-mails that her stand on it was a bit more ambivalent, than her public posture for net neutrality. (though she said nothing specifically that was anti net neutrality) However, this is no surprise , as Hillary, being the centrist she was, was  actually rather ambivalent about a lot of issues. That's why these inferences that Hillary would have started WW3 with the Russians that are sometimes bantered about by Oliver and Roger Stone are such BS! ( One I love, but I can freely say, "Natural Born Killers" sucks!, and the other I loathe!)

However the one thing you can be sure about with Hillary is she knows her bread and butter and she would not reverse her position and defy Obama's stance on net neutrality. But now, we have to contend with this. It's practically a done deal! You poor guy's in the middle get suckered again! But now it's for all of us!

The internet is potentially such a great equalizer. The highest overall internet use is in Nordic countries where the government takes an active hand in making the internet accessible to their citizens. In my mind any infrastructure bill, as one of the few good things that Trump has proposed which he could actually have accomplished, should also include bringing dependable broadband to a greater number of our citizens.

I think this article is enlightening in telling you about the rise and the current state of the internet, though it doesn't specifically address the Net Neutrality issue. Later on, Check out 34 and 35, and which states where well financed interests have the most pull to crush municipal internet.

https://www.vox.com/a/internet-maps

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2017 at 6:26 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Jeff,

I don't remember 1960s television. I don't know why ABC put the Vidal / Buckley debates on TV. (Though I'm glad they did.) The television I remember didn't have intellectual debates like that except on PBS.

I have a hard time imagining that the public in the 1960s were more intellectual than those of later decades. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people back then read more because there was no boob tube to dumb them down. (I have noticed that average people were better writers back then. Or so it seems.)

 

PBS was founded in June 1970.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×