A few different takes on Net Neutrality

Lists like this should all be prefaced with this statement of fact: there is absolutely no legitimate support for ending network neutrality anywhere, and anyone acting against net neutrality has a direct and personal short-term financial interest in fostering network monopolies and online extortion. This is usually because they are being paid directly by the incumbent monopolists and extortionists, either as a lobbyist or another form of political campaign financier.

Network neutrality protects capitalist competition online against corrupt government officials picking crony market winners and losers, so there is no legitimate economic or political argument to be made against net neutrality. The only rational discussion left is about how to act to restore net neutrality in the US and abroad, and how quickly.

Let’s start with a lighthearted and semi-serious take on the issues. Of all main stream media analysis, John Oliver’s new show does the best work on this topic.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) on Net Neutrality

Next up is a similar mainstream analysis of net neutrality, this time with a target audience who frequently plays video games.

Extra Credits on Net Neutrality – What a Closed Internet Means

Notice that neither of the two videos above has anything direct to say about NSA spying, despite the fact that the end of net neutrality will also mean that Internet access rentiers start throttling any communications encrypted beyond their spy masters’ liking.

Below, Fight For the Future concentrates on online spying with their Reset The Net campaign, yet doesn’t discuss net neutrality in this context at all. They completely fail to mention that the ISP’s themselves are paid-off insiders in the whole online spying game.

Fight For The Future – June 5th, 2014 – Reset the Net

We will admit some obvious bias here, but have you seen any other video talk about both net neutrality and spying together in context to each other?

What Are Data Roads? What is Net Neutrality?

If you agree with the claims being made here, then you can do something about it today at our IndieGoGo campaign. For a limited time you can become eligible for Unwatch.Me privacy cloud testing there for a donation of $90 or less per month, and at the same time support community fiber in the City of Angels!

Open letter to Los Angeles City’s Information Technology Agency

In response to the City of Los Angeles Community Broadband Network (LACBN)
Initiative and related Request for Information (RFI)

An open letter to:
Steve Reneker
General Manager
Information Technology Agency
200 N. Main St. 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012

On behalf of:
Data Roads Foundation
1793 Northwood Ct.
Oakland, CA. 94611

Data Roads Foundation is responding to this City of Los Angeles Community Broadband Network (LACBN) Initiative and the related Request for Information (RFI), despite the fact it asks the all wrong questions based on a nonsensical approach to infrastructure investment, as defined here:


‘The City recognizes that it is not simple to build out broadband infrastructure throughout the City, or to achieve the other goals outlined above. Broadly speaking, there are at least three ways that communities have pursued broadband deployment. One way is for the municipality itself to build a broadband network that competes with private enterprise. The second is by seeking to attract entry of a new competitor that is willing to build a new “Google type” model to service the city or parts of it. The third is by seeking to encourage one or more incumbents to expand their existing networks.

At this stage, the City is seeking to achieve its goals through the second and third options…’

There are two obvious flaws with this list of “three ways”:

1. The phrase “competes with private enterprise” presumes broadband Internet access market competition which does not actually exist today — definitely not anywhere within the city of Los Angeles, California.
Continue reading

Los Angeles City gives away yet another monopoly

Los Angeles City officials have figured out yet another way to give an Internet access monopoly away to the incumbent haves, while pretending they’re doing it all for the poor have-nots. They are calling it the City of Los Angeles Community Broadband Network (LACBN), even though their stated approach is nothing like the community fiber networks already deployed in much smaller cities in the US — including the Chattanooga fiber network which was cited in the LACBN FAQ. That FAQ also contains the key flaw in the whole LACBN unicorn-hunting farce — both the question and answer in #4:

4) Why wouldn’t the City have LADWP build out the fiber network and offer internet services?

The City of Los Angeles does not want to compete with private business, and the City prefers to have a separate network handling its essential services (water, electric and public safety).

Both parts of this answer are in direct contrast to the extremely successful Chattanooga fiber deployment, which was completed by their public municipal electrical utility (same as LA’s DWP): EPB.

Here is the most problematic part of that answer: what “private business” would LA City be competing with? Don’t they know that monopolies, by definition, do not compete? Perhaps this is just a confusion over the meaning of the opposing words ‘monopoly‘ and ‘competition‘, so let’s explain the difference to them.

Continue reading