Still think net neutrality doesn't matter?

If you bought into this idea that a "free and unfettered" internet meant that corporations should be able to own it and charge what they want, then you are a schmuck. Because this is what you are getting:

Telecommunications giant AT&T said this week that it will join Comcast and other providers in a controversial business model that limits the amount of information subscribers can access, and imposes penalties for overages.

The move will see AT&T broadband users forced into a tiered Internet that would limit accounts to a paltry 150 gigabytes a month. Users who download too much information on AT&T's broadband network will be subject to an additional $10 fee for every 50 gigabytes. Fees on the first three overages will be waived, according to DSLReports.com.

In layman's terms, if you're used to watching Netflix, playing online video games or using your computer to share files with your friends or engage in other bandwidth-intensive activity, get ready to be slammed with additional fees.

The move has some tech businesses and Internet freedom advocates up in arms, calling AT&T's plan a way to force other companies into a restrictive business model. Some are also concerned that with Internet users watching their bandwidth meters, usage may go down and innovation could suffer.

Some analysts are predicting the move could have a tremendous effect on Netflix, the most popular movie rental service online with a massive catalog of watch-anytime titles available for streaming. While it does not yet offer true 1080p video (high definition is at 720p), should Netflix finally upgrade to full fidelity video as planned, AT&T users would have to keep their viewing time to less than 90 minutes a day to avoid overage fees.

I don't know about you but sites are loading more slowly for me already

Right now, as I sit here, I have Americablog in one tab sitting and waiting for "widget.linkwithin.com". Vagabond Scholar is in another one, waiting for "i4.ytimg.com". The article in the New York Times on how the so-called Democratic majority at the FCC sold us out on net neutrality yesterday won't run at all. It's waiting for "graphics8.nytimes.com". Ah, there it goes...after about a full minute. Wired.com's home page is waiting for "syndication.jobthread.com." CNBC.com took forever to load, waiting for a graphics server.

That didn't take long.

Because it's going to be a different internet from now on, one that belongs to the corporations instead of the people:

Internet providers - WINNERS
* Cable companies like Comcast Corp, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision Systems Corp and big landline providers like AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc

* The rules will not stand in the way of usage-based pricing, allowing cable and other fixed line companies that also serve as high-speed Internet providers to increase rates for subscribers that do bandwidth-heavy tasks.

* Cable subscribers considering dropping their TV service to watch television and movies online may think twice if new pricing schemes push up the cost of streaming content.

* Cable companies are also better off than when the FCC was considering reclassifying broadband under the stricter regulatory regime of existing phone rules.

Wireless carriers - WINNERS
* Verizon Wireless (joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group Plc, AT&T, Sprint Nextel Corp, T-Mobile (U.S. unit of Deutsche Telekom AG

* Wireless carriers would be granted added flexibility under the rules, which acknowledge the tighter bandwidth-constraints mobile broadband faces.

* They would be subject to a looser version of the no-blocking policy, which only bans the blocking of websites and competing voice and video services.

* Mobile broadband could still discriminate against bandwidth-heavy content.

* CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry, continues to say the rules are unnecessary, but commended the FCC for recognizing the need to regulate mobile broadband differently from landline services.

Content providers - LOSERS
* Google Inc, Microsoft Corp, Amazon.com, Facebook, Netflix Inc

* Video content providers may lose some of the edge they were building over cable companies if downloading content becomes more expensive under usage-based pricing.

* Mobile broadband is not subject to as many network management restrictions as wireline services, creating fewer protections for mobile applications.

Internet users/consumers - MIXED
* Public interest groups Free Press, Public Knowledge and the Media Access Project all complained that the rules would give Internet providers too much power over Internet users.

* This is particularly worrisome, they said, for the poor and minorities who use their cell phones as a primary tool to access the Internet.

* But some industry analysts say the rules will prevent network congestion and allow companies to make sufficient money to invest in upgrading their networks.

* FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said consumers would not see significant changes as the rules are intended to preserve the current openness of the Internet.

So unless the giant corporations who provide content can find a way to say "screw you" to the giant corporations that provide the bandwidth and offer their own distribution networks (which in turn will no doubt discriminate against competetitors in their industry), the internet, which was developed by DARPA for the Department of Defense using OUR taxpayer money, will be solely the province of Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Cablevision, and the like. If Amazon, Google, Facebook and the like build their own networks, they will favor their own content. From now on, no matter what happens, what we see on the internet is a function of how it contributes to the profits of the corporations who carry the ones and zeroes across the wires and through the air. And government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, continues.

Is there nothing this president won't sell us out on?

I've just about given up hope of ever getting anything other than lip service from this president. As I've said before, I never expected a progressive dreamboat, but there are so many of us clinging to the muffler under this bus that our backs are starting to scrape the pavement:

LAS VEGAS--The Obama administration and its allies at the Federal Communications Commission are retreating from a militant version of Net neutrality regulations first outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September.

That's my reading of a number of recent developments, underscored by comments made by government speakers on a panel on the first day of a Tech Policy Summit at CES in Las Vegas.

Genachowski had initially described his vision for the future role of the FCC as a "smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet." Communications companies understood that to mean aggressive and detailed enforcement of rules that would, among other things, prohibit ISPs from offering premium, or "fast lane," services.

Last fall, Genachowski proposed six Net neutrality rules and asked the full commission to approve them. The proposed rules could be adopted as early as spring.

But even as the commission concludes its collection of public comments next week, both the White House and the FCC appear to be dialing back their expectations.

[snip]

The administration is clearly backtracking. But why?

Part of the reason is some unexpected political pressure, including a letter signed by 72 congressional Democrats opposing the FCC's proposed rules soon after they were announced.

But the bigger explanation is the growing priority within the administration for nationwide, affordable broadband service. In the course of preparing the national broadband plan, mandated by the 2009 stimulus bill, universal high-speed access has taken on increased significance in the government's hopes for a rapid economic recovery. Beyond the current financial woes, Congress, the FCC and the White House all recognize the importance of improving the communications infrastructure to maintain U.S. competitiveness in technology innovation.

As Fried pointed out, however, nationwide broadband coverage would require an additional investment of $350 billion, much of it for fiber optic cabling. While the FCC was developing its plan and spending "too much time on Net neutrality," he said, the communications industry had already invested $60 billion toward that effort. By contrast, the stimulus bill allocated only $7 billion for broadband projects. Clearly, Fried noted, satisfying the goals of the national broadband plan will require significant private investment.

The major carriers are making the investments, and have every business reason to make more. But the Net neutrality rules, depending on how the FCC defines key terms, could hamstring their efforts to make their money back. Net neutrality is making Wall Street uncomfortable about financing broadband deployment. That in turn is making the White House nervous.

Because Wall Street comes first and foremost. Always. And if the maw of Wall Street is ever sated, then maybe the Obama Administration will deign to serve the people of this country. I'm all for affordable broadband service, but what good will that do us when two or three companies control what sites we can see?

(h/t)

There are only 3 days left....

...to let the FCC know why you oppose the Federal Trade Commission's plan to let internet service providers charge sites for access and determine what you can and cannot find on the internet.

Tell your story about what the internet has done for you here.