[GRLUG] Comcast and net neutrality

Bob Kline bob.kline at gmail.com
Sun Oct 21 19:28:58 EDT 2007 

I don't know that I'd call it boiler plate,
but you're welcome tweak the letter I
sent if that's helpful.  Keeping in mind
that at most you'll get a form letter
back from your "representatives,"  and
it might not even pertain to the issue
you wrote about,  it's probably more
important to just send something than
to worry too much about the details.
Some aid probably just puts the e-mails
in to piles and sees which is higher
anyway.  i.e.,  your "representative"
probably never reads them.

You might also mention support for S.156,
which keeps states from taxing the Internet
for a while longer.

I'd say the goal here is to ensure that the
Internet doesn't become the ad soaked
useless medium that TV has.

And what Comcast is doing might not
actually be illegal.  The problem is that it
is effectively a monopoly in many areas.
It's well known that it and other large ISPs
treat people in different geographic areas
differently depending on how much
competition they figure exists.  This too
they are not very forthcoming about.

   -Bob

++++++++++++++++++
Cable provider Comcast is already
clearly violating what is called net
neutrality - the practice of treating
all Internet traffic equally.  While it
of course denies this, the Associated
Press has verified through tests that
in fact Comcast is prioritizing Internet
traffic.

The Internet,  despite some problems,
has proven to be overall a valuable
enabling technology, and positively
affects many segments of US business,
science, and technology,  in addition to
serving as a vast library for millions.
It would be unconscionable to let Comcast
and others to now do to the Internet what
has been done to radio,  cable, and satellite
TV.  Now so laden with advertising that
each 30 minutes of programming can
contain 12 to 15 minutes of advertising,
rendering each medium at the least mind
numbing, and and the worst useless.

It was the intent of the net neutrality
legislation to ensure that this does not
happen.  By controlling traffic based on
content and source,  Internet companies
will attempt to force users to upgrade to
premium services,  much like cable and
satellite TV,  in order to view any content
without also accepting  incessant advertising.

People have recognized for years now that
companies like AT&T,  Comcast, Verizon,
and others should not be allowed to own
the backbone fibers that route much of the
Internet traffic in the US.  Their fears have
proven to be justified.

I'd ask that the welfare of the little people
in the US be taken in to consideration on
this issue, and that Congress make more
permanent arrangements to ensure net
neutrality.  The Internet is simply too
valuable to let happen to it what Comcast
apparently has in mind.  The Internet should
be equally available to all Americans, and
free of additional fees just to get back to
what they currently have for the most part.


++++++++++++++++++

On 10/21/07, Joe Vanderstelt <thisboyiscrazy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm also a Comcast customer than has been effected. I would like to
> write a letter to Levin and Stabenow but write was never my best
> subject. Does any have a boiler plate  type letter I would use?
>
> On 10/20/07, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did that yesterday.  Congress has been
> > slow to act on net neutrality legislation,
> > making me think they are in the back
> > pocket of the industry on this issue too.
> > Industry says legislation is unnecessary,
> > which suggest it wouldn't hurt then either.
> >
> > But it's what we can do.  I'd like to see the
> > tax payers have their own backbone fibers,
> > that can be used by private ISPs,  but not
> > controlled.
> >
> > Of course the tax payers have Internet2 - not
> > to be confused with Internet 2.  A high speed
> > Internet backbone that only gov't labs and
> > schools can use.  It's been around for 8 years
> > that I know of,  and is supposedly a vehicle
> > for researching high speed networks.  That part
> > I think is a crock, and doubt that it will ever be
> > opened up to ordinary tax payers.  Too much
> > fun the way things are...  :-(
> >
> >     -Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/20/07, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Both me and a friend of mine have encountered Comcast's filtering.
> > > Since I found out that it's there, I can't help but wonder if any
> > > given spurious RST packet came from them.
> > >
> > > However, there may be a way around it, but it requires delaying action
> > > on received RST packets to see if normal packets follow, which would
> > > require modification of the TCP stack of the host and any NAT in
> > > between.
> > >
> > > I think I'm going to send Levin and Stabenow a couple more letters
> > > regarding Net Neutrality.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 10/20/07, Bob Kline < bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Those of you with Comcast might be interested in this:
> > > >
> > > > http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/10/19/comcast/
> > > >
> > > > For those of you that don't have Comcast,  what one
> > > > company does others might follow.  Comcast has been
> > > > less than forthcoming about its activities, and was dug
> > > > out by the Associated Press.
> > > >
> > > > The head of SBC,  and later AT&T,  mumbled a couple
> > > > of years ago that he didn't see why people should be
> > > > able to use "his" fibers to put competitive services on.
> > > > In that case phone service like Vonage.
> > > >
> > > > While companies like Comcast are trying to snow
> > > > Congress in to thinking there is no need for net neutrality
> > > > legislation,  clearly there is.  The alternative is to let
> > > > outfits like Comcast do for the Internet what it and
> > > > DirecTV have done for TV - just a sea of ads, with the not
> > > > so subtle hint you might want to buy some premium
> > > > services if you want to actually watch any programming.
> > > >
> > > > With the Internet we might end up paying for premium
> > > > services just to stay where we are now.  Otherwise
> > > > Comcast might just want to make your life miserable.
> > > > And don't forget that it is a monopoly in many of the
> > > > areas it serves.
> > > >
> > > >     -Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > grlug mailing list
> > > > grlug at grlug.org
> > > > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > :wq
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > grlug mailing list
> > > grlug at grlug.org
> > > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > grlug mailing list
> > grlug at grlug.org
> > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> >
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20071021/73bea8c3/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the grlug mailing list