This post will be updated as developments warrant...
I look at the question of net neutrality and see an entire world of human insight and wisdom that originates in the sphere of the as yet unseen, the human capacity that regenerates life but makes no 'profit' in for instance, the Citizens United framing. That is, what comes before production, before economics, and the sheer scale of all that these are dependent on precisely what the current industry model externalizes, marginalizes and denies.
The scope of this contribution to technology that is harnessed brings to mind the high speed filming that enabled us to witness the dynamics of a flower blossoming. This has contributed to recognition of biological function, its relationship to identifiable mathematical principles both ancient (golden mean) and present day (eg quantum physics) are instruments humanity utilizes to understand relational dynamics of life.
None of the essentials come from an economic ideology. They come from recognition of pre-existing interrelational economy of natural processes and content, an oikos, if you will. The capacity to observe, imagine and describe is uniquely human and transcends any 'cultural' or 'economic' mandate. The idea of 'content' as in 'programming' that is sold as the product of the industry, is utterly impoverished and empty without the ongoing diversity of human interactions THAT HAVE NO PROFIT MOTIVE. They themselves ARE natural profit in regeneration of life.
It is precisely the centuries old perspective and model of dehumanized socioeconomic controls for private profit that have generated the devastation the planet faces. Because it faces the 'blow-back' of natural degradation from its attempts to usurp what it should never have claimed as its 'own', this should be taken as a wake-up call to nurture, at the same scale, that which it is destroying. If for no other reason than to recognize that its sheer size renders commensurate degradation of the very grounds on which it has been constructed.
We are currently witnessing the 'programming' consequences of such a fragile, 'siloed' and impoverished model that it resorts to highly destructive gluttony (monopoly) in order to stay afloat, witness
financialization fraud, that has already doubled-down on its collapse track since the revelations of 2008.
This may be the most important issue of our time. Yet, there has not been much coverage in the US media.
Yes, the Internet is a telecommunications service. But, it's more than that! It allows communication between or among people that are connected. It will change history, politics, science, human evolution. Being connected to the Internet will become essential to one's well being. The Internet should be government owned infrastructure with open and free access. Wifi everywhere.
This issue is grounded in the Bubba Clintion era's Telecommunication Act of 1996. This act transferred ownership of the publicly owned broadcasting spectrum. The Gingrich congress transferred not only the publicly owned internet, but double and tripled "for free", the broadcasting spectrum worth billion$. This government theft was unprecedented.
Under a representative government there would never have been such a transfer of publicly owned property. The act should be nullified and void. This act cost Americans unknown numbers of other potential broadcasters that would have expanded the voices and ideas necessary for a country laying pretense to open and representative governance. Whatever the outcome of a truly crooked Federal Communications Commission will not be enough.
The broadcasting spectrum is not the domain of privateers.
I guess I am confused. This is net neutrality? ":...net neutrality, the concept that says online traffic should be relegated to fast or slow lanes determined by the large telecom companies...." And the large telecoms were opposed to that?
Then why all the fuss?
Net neutrality is the opposite... it is a concept that says online traffic should NOT be relegated to fast or slow lanes. This is why the communications multinationals consider todays ruling a loss for them. Verizon, Comcast, tec., lobbied for the right to slow down internet traffic for those sites that were outside of their control (i.e. commondreams.org) while giving the user easier access to the MSM sites like Fox and CBS.
Words of caution: The Verizons and Comcasts of the world are down but not out. They will regroup and come back with a different strategy to undermine the public interest. We must be vigilant as this is only one battle in a perpetual war to protect our right to net neutrality.
That's hilarious, i missed that on first read! They left out a word...
The Internet Service Providers, ISP, such as, Comcast, Verizon, etc.oppose net neutrality. They want to charge by content, eg,10MB of data from Google $1, 10MB of data from Microsoft $5. So each data byte could have a different price. Net neutrality says all data bytes are treated the same. (it's not just about fast or slow it's also about access for a fee)
Netflix, Yahoo, Google, etc. support Net Neutrality.
Good heavens, how did we ever survive, let alone make any progress, before the internet ....
The Gingrich Congress and the Clinton Presidency -
Hurrah! With the two Republican dissenting votes, how much more obvious can it be that conservatives are all about control and dictatorship?
Excellent points. I wholeheartedly agree.
I wonder if we should all be applauding anonymous for their hard work and dedication and their online activism.
I truly am averse to injecting a note of cynicism to this celebration, but I don't believe that a leopard changes his spots. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is a diehard Telecom lobbyist. His decision to support Title II allows him to appear to be giving in to the will of the people, while his corporate masters are assured that their bill to strip the FCC permanently of its power to regulate the Internet will dispose of net neutrality once and for all - a much better solution for the telecom giants in the long run.
So I'm not breaking out the champagne at this point. Story to be continued...
Will Netflix get a rebate from Comcast?
I did not get to see TV until about age 12. It also started out as a service to the people. News, weather, public interest, children's programing, and family oriented program.TV got so bad I have not watched in years. I agree with you 100% that the profiteers are already spending money to turn the internet into their profit machine and defeat this one way or the other.
A victory for the commonwealth and the use of federal regulatory powers for the commonwealth. The FCC ratifies the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. Nonetheless, a sad state of current affairs that such a victory is so uncommon as to be deemed "historic." Here's to more historic decision making in American governance!
Thanks opaG . Glad to see someone who still has a grip on reality. This is Kabuki theater 101, an ObamaCon specialty. He and Wheeler can look really cool, knowing that net neutrality will actually be disposed of nicely once the FCC is stripped of its power to regulate the internet. Plus, then all the so-called Progressive Obamakins can blame the nasty Republicans. It's a win win situation for them.
We can't post links here (or at least CD used to not allow that), but if you Google "bill to strip fcc of power to regulate the internet" you can read about this clever strategy and also see a draft of the bill. And I can't wait to see how many Dems vote along with the Republicans to pass this. Haven't all these celebrators learned anything about how ObamaCon and his gang operate? This is the usual scam. Promises and lies. Lies and Promises. All the same thing.
Great post. I have tried in the past to say, with much less eloquence, the same. The old adage was "Necessity is the mother of invention." The monopolists of today insist that profit is the true driver of innovation, yet unbiased observation disproves their claim. They would have us all agree that without the profit motive humanity would cease to inquire, to innovate, and to invent. True that some who make careers of science do so seeking fortune, but they are not imo the majority. And it is a statistical fact that most basic research from which all technological innovations spring is publically financed with our tax dollars. When a new line of inquiry ripens from these test plots it is harvested by the profit seekers and claimed falsely as their own. The only innovations of the monopolists has been in the realm of financial instruments and other schemes to concentrate the wealth of a species upward. Worse still, it is not truly innovation, but merely the obliteration of common sense through the workings of deregulation.
As with opaG, I need to raise another flag of caution. While I desperately wanted this result, I do have to ask the basic question of, "who benefits". Now I see that the cable/telecom companies are losers in this, but ... I also see that there is a huge aparatus that wants the internet as a means of (1) undermining uncooperative governments and (2) spying on the population as a whole. These people see that they will soon be able to "compute on the whole human population". That is, run predictive behavioral algorithms based on data obtained from each and every one of us in real time. This is powerful stuff, and when they get it, we are well and truly screwed. So I have to ask the question, was this decision made because in some corridors of power it was seen to further these interests?