Because of its technical nature Net Neutrality is perfect for a Learning Community.
Net Neutrality encompasses:
- Technical – What is the Optimal Internet Architecture
- Economic – What should be the drivers of the Telecommunications Industry
- Political – What role does the community have in setting Standards of Behavior or anything.
For Net Neutrality I would think almost every learning community might be able to contribute to finding the optimal answer to Internet Management.
Below is a post I did in the Tea Party Learning Community.
I am looking for some feedback as to the best way to move forward.
In response to President Obama publishing his “Net Neutrality” recommendations, the right wing’s collective head exploded.
Here is a comment on Townhall.com
rmt5 in MA Wrote: 2 hours ago (10:17 AM)(11-1-2014)
I have only ONE question regarding net neutrality: “Is Obama FOR it?”
If he is, then I have only ONE answer : “I’m AGAINST it!”
This one quote puts in sharp focus the mindset of a conservative. If the other guy is for it, I have to be against it.
You might say that rmt5 in MA is an exception.
But, then you have Sen. Ted Cruz taking to twitter to say exactly the same thing. If Obama is for it, then he has to be against it.
Even through it does not appear he knows what he is talking about, that does not stop him.
Sen. Ted Cruz on Monday blasted net neutrality as “the biggest regulatory threat to the Internet” in reaction to President Obama’s request to the Federal Communications Commission to create new rules of the road.
“In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet,” the Texas Republican and possible 2016 presidential contender said in a statement distributed by his office. “It puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices for consumers. The Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”
Mr. Obama on Monday called on the FCC to create rules governing access to the Internet “ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.”
The problem with Cruz’s attack is that he is attacking the one suggestion that pretty much as no hope of happening.
But, what about “Transparency” Mr. Cruz? Do you think the Community has the right to set standards of behavior on the Community members. Of course you do, you are a Christian. And you believe very strongly that the Community can and should have Community Values.
So when it comes to the Internet, shouldn’t Transparency be a basic Standard. In fact, shouldn’t we have transparency in all public policy?
Here is what Obama Proposed:
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:
- No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
- No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
- Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
- No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
SEE ALSO: Obama issues plan for net neutrality
The rules include no blocking by a website or service, no intentional slowing down of service by providers, increased transparency, and no paid prioritization on service speed.
Net neutrality rules are intended to provide companies the same speed and access to lines as others and curb undue influence from cable corporations. Proponents say such oversight helps provide a more level playing field for Internet access but opponents see such rules as government overreach in an area, they argue, that has thrived without them.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/10/ted-cruz-net-neutrality-is-obamacare-for-the-inter/#ixzz3Imc8GfFT
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
This is what happens when people use a 1st century fixed text to solve 21st Century Problems.
In Telecommunications, one can always buy additional bandwidth. And those with the most money can always buy the most bandwidth. That is not the issue.
The key issue “in disagreement” is the amount of “Transparency” the government will recommend. (I know about making it a Telecommunication Service and not an Information service, but that is not where the battle is or should be).
For example, IPv6 added additional Classes of Services and their management (QoS enhancement features were introduced and must be used to configure a Slot Table Class of Service on the routers.) I don’t think Ted Cruz understands any of that. Yet, because he has a bible, he believes he knows everything he needs to know to recommend public policy.
What Cruz and all the other religious fundamentalist cannot understand, is tThe question is not who manages the Routing Tables, rather, the question is how much transparency to those routing tables should the community have for analysis and comment.
We think it would very little oversight to make the “Internet” function optimally. But the people doing the oversight cannot expect to manage the Internet optimally, if their world view is based on a 1st Century static text book.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Monday waded into the debate over “net neutrality” by suggesting that Internet service should be regulated more heavily to protect consumers.
A look at the issue and what’s at stake:
Q. What’s net neutrality?
A. Net neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers shouldn’t manipulate, slow or block data moving across its networks. As long as content isn’t against the law, such as child pornography or pirated music, a file posted on one site will load generally at the same speed as a similarly sized file on another site. It means anyone can connect to the Internet and offer content without having to pay to reach consumers.
Q. Why is it being debated now?
The Federal Communications Commission embraced the idea of net neutrality in a 2010 rule. But last January, a federal court knocked down that rule after it was challenged by Verizon. Since then, the FCC has been trying to figure out how it can enforce open Internet principles in a way that would survive any future legal challenges.
Q. Doesn’t everyone want an open Internet?
A. Yes, although not everyone defines it the same way. The major cable and telecommunications companies that supply most of the nation’s broadband say blocking or slowing down content would never be in their best interest commercially. But, some industry officials say, data hogs like Netflix might need to bear some of the cost of handling heavy traffic. And they want flexibility in thinking up new ways to package and sell Internet services. The industry says that’s only fair, considering the companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into a network infrastructure that, so far, has prospered without much government intervention.
Q. So what did Obama propose?
A. Obama on Monday suggested that the FCC reclassify Internet service as a public utility using the 1934 Communications Act. He also called for a strict ban on “paid prioritization,” meaning that Internet companies can’t charge content providers for faster access. Obama’s proposal falls in line with what much of the public and consumer advocates want, according to a review of the record-breaking 3.7 million public comments filed with the FCC on the issue this year. But Internet providers and several high-ranking Republicans in Congress say the proposal would stifle new developments and kill jobs. In the immediate hours after Obama’s announcement, stocks for major cable providers tumbled.
Q. What happens next?
A. Probably nothing for a while. While FCC commissioners are politically appointed and Obama’s statement indicates political pressure, the FCC isn’t under any obligation to do what the president wants. Further, the issue of net neutrality is so highly technical and legally complex that even FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler — who was appointed by Obama — suggested that the president may have oversimplified things. In a statement issued Monday, Wheeler said applying Title II of the 1934 Communications Act raises “substantive legal questions,” including whether that law would cover mobile devices.
Comments about this from Townhall.com
rmt5 in MA Wrote:2 hours ago (10:17 AM)
Cableguy Wrote:2 hours ago (9:59 AM)
Dyadd Wrote:3 hours ago (9:22 AM)
B1RD Wrote:3 hours ago (9:03 AM)
The government needs to get out f the depth of our lives and let us live to pursue happiness not live to pay taxes!While we are free to live within the law, rules and regulations Obama forces down our throats we do not have the liberty to live in peace with each other!Give me liberty or give me death!When a nation has a wicked ruler the people complain!When a nation has a righteous ruler the people rejoice!Where are we? Complaining or rejoicing?
Bliefus Wrote:4 hours ago (8:37 AM)
As I just heard, on my favorite TV station, all bills should go un-named for a good while until we can decipher real goals and real effects.
As only one example, the Affordable Care Act is not. It is unaffordable.
It’s a wealth distribution system.Wolves in sheep’s clothing could even include what Obama likes.