Innovation And Our Better Future Depend On Preserving Net Neutrality

from the giving-innovators-a-chance dept

Wed, Feb 5th 2014 1:11pm — Lloyd Kaufman

Troma Entertainment would never have reached its 40th year as arguably the world's longest running independent movie studio if Net Neutrality or the Open Internet did not exist. I know, I know, some might say, "That would be a good thing." Haha! But without Net Neutrality, we probably would not have visionary innovations like Crowdfunding, Macklemore, Huffington Post, Youtube, Justin Bieber and maybe even Anonymous. Net Neutrality is essential to free speech and allows for a free and diverse Internet of equal opportunity. The Internet, our last democratic medium, is severely threatened as I write this. The American courts and the US government have effectively decided to nullify net neutrality and the major media/broadband conglomerates are down in Washington, D.C. 24/7 spending kabillions of dollars to lobby against our beloved Open Internet.

The mega cartel that controls world media has their ass in a tub of butter. They control or own the cinemas, newspapers, T.V. stations, radio and even Broadway “legitimate” theaters. The only competition they face is on the Internet.

On the Internet, the playing field is level. Troma can compete with Disney if Troma has art or “content” that is interesting or compelling. The mediocre “suits” who control media do not want to get up in the morning and have to think. It’s much easier to have an oligopoly club where they control the marketplace 100%. It’s a club of smugness that promotes cheap-to-make walking feces like the Kardashians or brainless blockbuster movies with non-stop explosions. The “news” we get in The New York Times or on TV is pre-digested baby food. Because of this mainstream disgrace, so many of us go right to the internet for our news, art and commerce.

Net Neutrality is defined as the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites, but it’s more than that – it’s our freedom of speech! Free speech--not just giving it, but also free speech in the form of our right to receive diverse news, art, commerce or simply some fat, sweaty teenager blogging about Robin’s nipples in “Batman & Robin.”

The giant devil worshiping international media conglomerates want to create a super highway with expensive prohibitive tolls with faster and better internet for themselves. This will make it impossible for independent artists or innovators because they simply can’t compete. The result will be similar to US television, where the biggest companies own the networks and cable systems etc. and air constant iterations and reruns of their own content. It will become harder to get anything independent into the consciousness of the public. The Internet will become an NBC-ABC-CBS kind of world unless we the people take action.

In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created the Open Internet Order which set anti-blocking and anti-discrimination Network Neutrality rules. While the FCC claimed the rules would protect Open Internet, many of us Net Neutrality advocates felt the proposed rules had many loopholes and were made with the purpose of winning support from the telco lobbyists. Of course, we were right. The FCC stated that the rules would make it illegal for ISPs such as Verizon to block services or charge content providers like Netflix for faster Internet highways to their customers. Now, just a few weeks ago-the rules were invalidated by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia because the FCC chose years ago to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers and therefore has no right to regulate them.

If the court ruling stands, then ISPs can hike prices and charge content providers to deliver Internet traffic faster while also eliminating content providers that cannot pay the fees. As consumers, we need to be aware of our standing and that ISPs will now have more control over regulating the content sites we may want to see. If certain sites are faster while others are slow because they can’t pay the tolls, we will get pushed into using only the sites that are quick to load. Those of us who can’t pay the tolls on the super highway will be relegated to the bumpy, slow buffering dirt road. Troma and 1000’s of potential innovators will disappear. I predict Netflix and the like will make sweet-heart deals with the ISP/conglomerate club in order to close the door on competitive future innovators.

We will see the same thing happen with the Internet as we have with the car, telephone, food industry, and with television. People will be kept in the dark and given an illusion of variety, the sharing of information will be controlled by a few big conglomerates and change-the-world innovation like Kickstarter, Anonymous, Bitcoin, Troma and yes, 2 girls 1 cup will all be practically inaccessible. The biggest problem is how these 1st Amendment issues are intentionally being kept from the public. Beware of elected officials and TV talking heads who decry Net Neutrality as “purveyor of piracy and pornography.” This same bogus argument has been used by The Big (White) Boys and the MPAA since the time of VHS. The elite always throw a monkey wrench into new technology to delay it so they can and then take it over. They did it with VHS and they are now trying to do it with the World Wide Web.

We defeated SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) which had nothing to do with stopping piracy. It had to do with stopping competition on the Internet. Congress was surprised at the magnitude of the number of voters who protested against SOPA and who want to preserve an open internet. Many in Congress changed their position on SOPA as a result. We must all make our voices heard and let our elected representatives know that if Net Neutrality and Open Internet go away, they too will go away.

If you would like to learn more about our stance on Net Neutrality, please follow: www.lloydkaufman.com and www.troma.com
and on Twitter: @lloydkaufman

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadband, free speech, internet, net neutrality

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 1:34pm

I agree, but...
I pretty much agree with everything said here, but it is filled with ad hominem attacks that while they may be true, make it seem desperate and unprofessional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 1:46pm

It�s a club of smugness that promotes cheap-to-make walking feces.....

As opposed to what??? The highbrow content distributed by Troma? You have to be the biggest bottom feeder in the industry. Your content would have to improve by a factor of ten before it'd even qualify as "dreck".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 5 Feb 2014 @ 1:51pm

Re: I agree, but...
Yeah, the basic idea may be sound, but the crazy claims('kabillions of dollars', 'devil worshiping international media conglomerates'... really?), hyperbole, and other over the top stuff almost makes this feel like the sort of thing the anti-net neutrality side would put out, in order to try and get people to automatically dismiss the pro-net neutrality side by painting them, and their arguments, as irrational and prone to ridiculous claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 5 Feb 2014 @ 1:52pm

Re:
Ah the sour grapes, I can practically taste them from here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 1:52pm

Hahaha. What a dipshit. I guess this is what happens to people not talented enough to get in to the DGA or IATSE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 1:57pm

just remember people who started all this! the same people from the same industries, Hollywood and the entertainment industries! and also remember which politicians are lined up with and by those industries. you already have a government that promised things like protecting whistle blowers but did the exact opposite and has prosecuted every one of them! when the situation is as it is at the moment, when mega corporations can use a swinging door between them and government and pay to get what laws they want, in what countries they want, it's a hell of a fight in hand! stop the lobbying and party donations is a start. stop the buying off of courts, not just here but everywhere! maybe, just maybe there can be some progress. leave things as they are, where monopolies rule and the innovation of the planet will end! and basically, all because of a movie or a song! how crazy is that??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:04pm

As a polemic, fails because too "witty."
"visionary innovations like Crowdfunding, ... Huffington Post, Youtube, Justin Bieber" -- Inclusion of the last definitely makes nearly everyone who's not a 14-year-old girl question your sincerity here, and since you appear to be serious on the rest, that's a severe mistake especially mid thorugh first paragraph.

"The �news� we get in The New York Times ... is pre-digested baby food." -- You just knocked one of Mike's major sources.

I've nothing more. BUT because the kids are trying to stifle my expression here, I'll add the usual tagline just to test their actual tolerance for free speech, not what they blather about meaning so long as pleases them:
This is Techdirt! If you value civility leave at once! (21 of 198)

10:04:28[l-17-1]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:16pm

I thought they removed the Open Internet Rules because they were badly worded so that better ones can be put in place. Are americans panicking yet ? Cos up north here, we usually, especially with the Cult-Like "Conservative" government in "majority" power (can't be majority when more than 60% of people didn't vote for them....goddamn british parliamentarism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:18pm

Re:
I'm in a hurry and I forgot to finish my point. Bad me.

I was saying that everything bad that goes on in the US usually ends up affecting us poor helpless canucks up there, and now with Harper with a majority, the effects are sped up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:23pm

There's a new bill, called the "Open Internet Preservation Act", that would restore the FCC�s net neutrality, or open Internet, rules. These rules would remain in effect until the FCC takes new action on net neutrality, after the court left open the agencys authority to pass new rules if it finds a new way to write them.

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Bill-Text-Waxman-Eshoo- Open-Internet-Preservation-Act-2014-1-24.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:24pm

How I love a Troma film :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:25pm

As a polemic, fails because too "witty." -- REPOSTED, YOU LITTLE CENSORS!
"visionary innovations like Crowdfunding, ... Huffington Post, Youtube, Justin Bieber" -- Inclusion of the last definitely makes nearly everyone who's not a 14-year-old girl question your sincerity here, and since you appear to be serious on the rest, that's a severe mistake especially mid thorugh first paragraph.

"The �news� we get in The New York Times ... is pre-digested baby food." -- You just knocked one of Mike's major sources.

I've nothing more. BUT because the kids are trying to stifle my expression here, I'll add the usual tagline just to test their actual tolerance for free speech, not what they blather about meaning so long as pleases them:
This is Techdirt! If you value civility leave at once! (21 of 198)

10:25:48[l-626-3]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:27pm

An interesting tidbit...
The issue of whether ISP's were common carriers are not arose with disruptive companies starting to offer lower cost VOIP service in direct competition with the major telcos. Back then the telcos wanted it the other way around so that small start up VOIP service providers would be subject to the same regulatory fees and practices that telcos were making it difficult for those providers to compete for phone service customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:29pm

From Freepress.net and savetheinternet.com

http://act.freepress.net/sign/internet_FCC_court_decision2/?source=slider%3Fsourc e%3Dwebsite_actions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mdpopescu (profile), 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:49pm

Moar government!
Yes, let's give the government even more power to mess with the Internet! What could possibly go wrong?

(The concept of "regulatory capture" appears to be a difficult one for a lot of people.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 5 Feb 2014 @ 2:56pm

Re: An interesting tidbit...
The discussion over whether or not ISPs should be classified as common carriers predates VoIP by a few years. Back in those days, everyone assumed they already were and were quite surprised when that turned out not to be so.

The VoIP issue was about the phone companies wanting to classify VoIP providers as telephone companies. They didn't care so much about the common carrier part -- that would have just come along as part of the deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 3:03pm

Re:
There's a new bill, called the "Open Internet Preservation Act", that would restore the FCC�s net neutrality, or open Internet, rules. These rules would remain in effect until the FCC takes new action on net neutrality, after the court left open the agencys authority to pass new rules if it finds a new way to write them.

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Bill-Text-Waxman-Eshoo- Open-Internet-Preservation-Act-2014-1-24.pdf

For the benefit of you and some of the other rubes here: Look at a bill, any bill. If all of its sponsors are from the minority party in the House; it'll never even hit the floor. I'm afraid you'll have to find another fantasy to jerk off to. This bill is a dead man walking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 3:07pm

Re: Re:
Sour grapes?? By comparison, Marcus Carab is brilliant, sophisticated entertainer compared with Lloyd over here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 5 Feb 2014 @ 3:21pm

As a polemic, fails because too "witty." -- REPOSTED 2ND TIME, YOU LITTLE CENSORS!
"visionary innovations like Crowdfunding, ... Huffington Post, Youtube, Justin Bieber" -- Inclusion of the last definitely makes nearly everyone who's not a 14-year-old girl question your sincerity here, and since you appear to be serious on the rest, that's a severe mistake especially mid thorugh first paragraph.

"The �news� we get in The New York Times ... is pre-digested baby food." -- You just knocked one of Mike's major sources.

I've nothing more. BUT because the kids are trying to stifle my expression here, I'll add the usual tagline just to test their actual tolerance for free speech, not what they blather about meaning so long as pleases them:
Techdirt. A "safe haven" for pirates. Weenies welcome. Vulgarity cheered. (17 of 198)

11:21:23[m-442-5]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 5 Feb 2014 @ 3:23pm

Government-controlled Net Neutrality?
Pardon me, but I have my doubts. Previous attempts by the government to "level the playing field" by regulations have ultimately led to regulations written by and for the established industry players. They've given us industries controlled by corporate monoliths, like Monsanto, and most of the telecom industry.

I love net neutrality, but lets do it the right way by policies that allow competition to exist and thrive within the telecom industry. Ultimately, the best guarantee of net neutrality is consumer choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 4:08pm

As a polemic, fails because too "witty." -- REPOSTED 3RD TIME, YOU LITTLE CENSORS!
"visionary innovations like Crowdfunding, ... Huffington Post, Youtube, Justin Bieber" -- Inclusion of the last definitely makes nearly everyone who's not a 14-year-old girl question your sincerity here, and since you appear to be serious on the rest, that's a severe mistake especially mid thorugh first paragraph.

"The �news� we get in The New York Times ... is pre-digested baby food." -- You just knocked one of Mike's major sources.

I've nothing more. BUT because the kids are trying to stifle my expression here, I'll add the usual tagline just to test their actual tolerance for free speech, not what they blather about meaning so long as pleases them:
Techdirt. A "safe haven" for pirates. Weenies welcome. Vulgarity cheered. (17 of 198)

12:06:07[n-37-7]

By strange coincidence, Mike Masnick posted on another topic at 54 past, and suddenly this gets censored. It's a fair conjecture then that he's the one censoring my posts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 5 Feb 2014 @ 4:53pm

Re: Re: I agree, but...
i thought it was funny, and the hyperbole and insults were simply over-the-top good fun in the course of gigging deserving targets...

oh, but who will think of the immortal, immoral, fictitious entities we call korporate people ? ? ?
i'd surely hate to hurt the delicate sensibilities of the 1%...
*snicker*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 5 Feb 2014 @ 5:00pm

Re:
@ anon 1:46
gosh, you seem super-smart; could you possibly explain to me the universal principles you go by that allow you to distinguish 'good'shit from 'bad' shit ? ? ?

'cause -as you don't appear to be aware- one man's meat, is another man's poison...

but, ever so helpful and kind of you to determine for the other 7+ billions what is and isn't -you know- 'good' shit...

c'mon, grow up and think on this for more than a few seconds: IF you support the principles of free speech AND free culture, THEN you support the right of sturgeon's 90% to co-exist with the cream that rises to the top... in fact, THEY MUST co-exist: the cream would NOT exist without the crap...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 5:30pm

Re: Government-controlled Net Neutrality?
Its not be consumer choice we switch our mind set regularly only complete openness is neutral , consumer choice comes after openness is achieved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave Xanatos, 5 Feb 2014 @ 5:40pm

Re: Re: Re: I agree, but...
Hyperbole? I thought it was funny because it's true!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 6:39pm

Re: Re:
@ anon 1:46
gosh, you seem super-smart; could you possibly explain to me the universal principles you go by that allow you to distinguish 'good'shit from 'bad' shit ? ? ?

Maybe he has a twin and they play 2 anons 1 cup
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 6 Feb 2014 @ 5:44am

Re: Government-controlled Net Neutrality?
That's a little like saying "let's guarantee interstate movement and commerce by letting the States decide" and then being puzzled why (legal) Hispanics can't get into Arizona, or gays can't traverse Georgia.

The established powers have too much control for consumer choice to have any effect. Just like the roads are freely available to all legitimate road users, so should the internet 'highway' be freely available to anyone who wants to use it how they legitimately wish. Loss of net neutrality means more controlling corporations, more controlling government, less choice for consumers, and a massive cut in free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Sayin', 6 Feb 2014 @ 5:48am

another amusing guest post
I have to say that this post was fairly amusing, because the writer seems to be hell bent on ignoring a basic truth:

If a service provider tries to limit access to the regular internet, the kick back at them would be hard, swift, and unmerciful.

The real issue is that many who support net neutrality forget to mention that many of the discussions for sponsored services are OVER AND ABOVE WHAT YOU ALREADY GET. That is to say that, as an example, it would be extra over your current transfer limits, or faster service than you are currently getting, usually by setting up a direct peer with your ISP or preferential routing.

Yes, it will make some services perform better than others, but it won't make your current services worse - it will just give you a taste for better.

What most people don't know is that companies like Google, Netflix, and others are reported to have already made deals with major ISPs for preferential routing and better peering for their customers to make their services run better, and that this type of thing is well within the bounds of net neutrality.

The scare story is the "they will charge you extra for CNN, like a pay channel", the reality isn't anything like that at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 6 Feb 2014 @ 8:15am

Re: Re:
When you reply to him, it just makes it harder for the rest of us to ignore him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
missyg (profile), 7 Feb 2014 @ 8:29am

Internet Must Go
Net neutrality is an incredibly important issue for a culture dependent on the internet, so it's really important to stay up to date on the issues. Here's a great short mockumentary to bring you up to speed: www.theinternetmustgo.com/‎
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not your Mother!, 13 Feb 2014 @ 1:58pm

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 5th, 2014 @ 1:46pm
I don't believe anyone is forcing people to watch Troma movies in the same way the mass media is forcing us into knowing what we know about the Kardouchians. The truth is, we should have the right to choose what content we watch and not be mind controlled into enjoying what the mass media is putting in front of us. Also, independent cinema is hardly the bottom feeders of the industry. It takes a LOT to complete a work with a limited budget. Satan's helpers would love for you to believe that independent cinema is not real art! But real art does not have a price tag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lloyd kaufman, 13 Feb 2014 @ 2:34pm

Re: Re: I agree, but...
Good points! My dad used to tell me the same things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Wanderer (profile), 24 Feb 2014 @ 2:15pm

Re: another amusing guest post
The real issue is that many who support net neutrality forget to mention that many of the discussions for sponsored services are OVER AND ABOVE WHAT YOU ALREADY GET. That is to say that, as an example, it would be extra over your current transfer limits, or faster service than you are currently getting, usually by setting up a direct peer with your ISP or preferential routing.

It would still mean that any newcomers, who can't afford to pay for the "sponsored services" treatment, would be at a disadvantage compared to the established players; it would raise the barrier to entry, thus reducing competition and (potentially disruptive) innovation.

There are other problems with this line of argument as well, but that's the most obvious and probably most important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2014 @ 9:39pm

Re: another amusing guest post
Just Sayin' just can't stand it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]