Why Didn't DU Take Part In The Fight For Net Neutrality?

[marym625]

Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Yesterday over 10,000 different sites took place in an online "slow down the Internet" campaign. A link to the site "Battle for the Internet," put up by FreePress, was on all our favorite sites including the ACLU, Common Cause, Move On, etc as well as many huge commercial sites, tumblr, Netflix and Vimeo to name just a few.

Some of us on DU posted a link to Battle for the Internet asking our fellow DUers to participate. Many of us participated and then shared the link on twitter, Facebook and blogs.

The site made it unbelievably easy to write to the FCC, to sign the letter demanding a free Internet. To write to and then to even call each of our elected officials, without having to even dial the phone.

But Democratic Underground did not participate. While I would not expect DU to take part in every campaign to fight for progressive issues, this particular issue will, should we lose net neutrality, make DU a difficult place to visit. We would never expect or want DU to pay for a fast lane, nor would want DU to become a pay site. But after over a decade of a place to discuss, learn, share information without having to deal with the RWNJ trolls, with thousands of members, fighting for its right to exist seems not only the responsible thing to do but necessary.

Here are the results of the Battle for the Internet campaign yesterday. It is not over by any stretch of the imagination but it is a good start.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/sept10th/#infographic

Receive an answer from the Administrator


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=6782

[merrily]

1. Good question. Have you Asked the Administrators?

If not, perhaps cross post your OP in ATA.

For those who still think this was court mandated, no, it was not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877886

To the countrary, the Supreme Court had previously told the FCC that, if the FCC wanted to regulate internet service providers heavily, the FCC should re-classify the providers. Instead, the FCC went back into court without reclassifying, a "strategy" that seemed destined to lose the case to the providers, and lose was just what it did. I can't see how the FCC possibly could have expected anything else. I doubt it did.

Maybe that is because the FCC's legal department has lots of lawyers whose resume included, or consisted of, lobbying for the likes of Verizon and Comcast.

Of course, when confronted with the above, some say that re-classifying was not an option. That, is bs, just as the claim that the court mandated the end of net neutrality was s.

Executive agencies do reclassify. If reclassification were not an option for the FCC and telecommunication industry, why did the Supreme Court not say that from the jump? Just to have the black-robed fun of watching the FCC waste taxpayer dollars on reclassifying, holding reclassification hearings and then losing another case in the SCOTUS, while the Justices LOL and yell "Gotcha?" Come on, now. (Guess I slept through Justice Ashton Kutcher's confirmation hearings?)

As to Chair Wheeler himself.

Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with positions including President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler

Wheeler succeeded Genachowski, whose pre-FCC resume included paving the way for FOX and who joined the Aspen Institute* and The Carlyle Group after leaving the FCC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen_Institute

Genachowski, in turn, replaced Acting Chair Michael Copp, who served only until Genachowski could be confirm and was the only one of the three who actually is a "fierce advocate" of net neutrality.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Michael-Copps-former-FCC-commissioner-on-net-5626535.php



BTW I have written Wheeler in the past, despite my view that my letter would do nothing. His form letter response was that he is for net neutrality. IOW, Orwellian Double Speak. (I know it is a form letter because others received the identical letter.)

So, the key in writing Wheeler may be to specify that you oppose tiers of service (which Wheeler has enabled) and leave out the apparently more ambiguous term "net neurality."

[marym625]

4. Thank you for all the information

I have received that same format letter from Wheeler. I actually laughed the first time I received it. Talk about double speak and outright bullshit!

I don't know how to cross post but I will look it up. And no, I haven't asked the administrators. But I will now.

Thanks again for posting all that. All good information that are important facts in this fight. I would like to add I hadn't included it because the OP is more about DU. But it's always good to have this information when discussing net neutrality. Appreciate it!

[merrily]

10. You are very welcome.

[marym625]

8. OK. posted in ATA

Thanks for that.

[marym625]

9. Received an answer from Administrator

Skinner replied

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=6782

[littlemissmartypants]

2. Kicking. Thank you. nt

[marym625]

5. Thanks!

[Cha]

3. mahalo marym

[marym625]

6. Thank you

Love the "mahola." Never got that before

[Cha]

7. Kinda flows~~

[freshwest]

11. DU's 'right to exist' is not endangered by a lack of net neutrality.

Our right to participate without being able to pay, or being able to pay more, is endangered.

DU did participate on the copyright slow down, which did endanger its existance.

Perhaps a post in ATA would help, or an OP with the link.

It doesn't seem to be very important at DU right now, as it would require more big government to rein what is already an accomplished feat. Comcast tiered its rate of speed months ago for all customers.

Private property over freedom of speech. It's been less of an in your face process and more of a free market push.

We don't like the federal government here, or at least that's my take on the many posts pilloring any action it takes without any solutions to replace it offered.

I suspect many here are just fine with the free market determining who will get content and at what rate of speed it comes.

The DU atmosphere does not appeal to Democrats much, more are expressing their ideas elsewhere, offline.

[marym625]

12. except you can't exist without being able to access it

was my point. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

[freshwest]

13. I can't exist? I edited my post. I know what your point was. Mine is different.

[marym625]

16. Alrighty then, first..

I just read you edited comment. I find that sad. Not that you're incorrect but if you are correct.

I don't know about previously but I did receive an answer from the administrator on this post (in the ATA) which I linked to in an edit on my OP. They just missed the boat.

If I read you correctly, you don't believe anyone is stating what they think the answer should be when saying what they think is wrong? I don't believe that's true. I have seen quite the opposite. I have posted about solutions myself.

I didn't say that well. I mean if no one can access it, the website, it may as well not exist. It's existence will be useless.

I don't remember what else you said in your first comment. If I haven't responded in full, I will go back to it and reply.

[freshwest]

17. We don't agree. You did good asking the Admins. I'm not going to discuss DU anymore. So you don't

need to bother to re-read my post and I won't be responding to many posts at DU for a while. I have no problem with you in any way today or later. I hope you are having a good day offline, too. If you feel my posts are detracting from your OP, let me know and I'll happily delete them all and simply leave a Rec. At least I've bumped this.

[marym625]

19. I'm truly sorry you feel that way

If I added to that, I'm even sorrier. I was trying to respond in one post rather than multiple responses. Sort of bring it all together.

Don't delete anything. I disagree it has detracted from the original post. Just a continued thought in the same area.

I don't think you've maybe been around enough to see everything. Maybe hang out for a while longer. The different groups have better discussions, usually, than General Discussions. Just kind of a catch all.

I hope you'll change your mind.

[marym625]

20. Okay, I didn't read your post right at first

I meant the plural "you" not YOU!

As far as I'm concerned

[daredtowork]

14. Good luck in getting people to care about anything

when they could be be Liking cat pictures, celebrity scandals, and tweets about how far seats can recline on airplanes.

Even the title of a post that actually addresses a problem is tl;dr!

[marym625]

15. tl:dr?

I am sorry. I don't know what that means

[daredtowork]

18. Internet cute-speak

abbreviation for "too long: didn't read".

[marym625]

21. well ain't THAT scary

Damn! So sound bites have to start being cut down to two words?

Vote Dem
Civil Rights
American Idiot

I just cracked myself up with that last one. It's so sad that you're so right on about that.

Thanks for the shorthand info.

[daredtowork]

22. I just find it all the more demoralizing

People so don't have time for your problem, they can't spell it out. tl;dr.

But cat videos they can gawk at all day long.

[marym625]

23. They don't get that my problem

IS their problem

Hate cats

[daredtowork]

24. Yes, until it's too late. sigh. nt.

[marym625]

25. it's another...

And here we go again

[daredtowork]

26. Yay, those dudes are from around here. nt.

[marym625]

27. You're from Eastbay, California? n/t

[daredtowork]

28. Yes I'm in Berkeley

Just savoring the irony of our global heightened awareness, local obliviousness.

[marym625]

29. LOL

Good one.

Nice area. Plan to go up that way this winter to visit family.

I think if you're not on a college campus, everyone is pretty oblivious anymore. Unfortunately.