Here at the Lounge, we have been talking for years about how broadband providers have manipulated our bandwidth to increase profits on their content side. How ISP’s use Deep Packet Inspection for the sale of statistical information based on a customers use of the bandwidth, and how DPI and E-Mail manipulation are our number one privacy concern. We have talked quite often about the need for more competition in the broadband market and how in competitive markets, ISPs act much more pro-consumer. We talked about how in markets that do lack competition, the cable industry has flooded State and Local government with FUD and untold $$millions while lobbying for regulations that stifle competition and innovation.

In reality, the Money Grubbing  Internet Service Providers should be required to provide non discriminatory internet access, guaranteed speed and data access, and to be free from anti-competitive abuses and practices.

Little does anyone remember, but back in the early 1990′s, there was an outcry from internet users across the country over a perceived notion that the  telephone companies were doing everything in their power to disrupt the use of dial-up modems on their networks. In essence, the discussion today is just an extension of that from 20 years ago. We need Dumb Pipes.

First we must insist that is that the owner of the plumbing should not care what the plumbing is used for or who uses it. This means that just because you are the local cable company, you cannot discriminate in how your Internet service is priced to benefit your other businesses. Streaming a 3 gig movie should not, for example, be more expensive than streaming the same amount of data from a cable branded stream.That is the current business model for all of the Major Internet Service Providers

DPI issues would also be addressed. Deep Packet Inspection is a form of computer network packet filtering that examines the data part of a packet as it passes an inspection point, searching for  predefined criteria to decide if the packet can pass or if it needs to be routed to a different destination. This is how they track your every move. They also can set up programs to look for anything in your e-mail, or watch your every click. ISP’s make $$$Millions of dollars selling your click history. We need to insist that these ISP’s de-monetize the data, or at the least, pay us for it.

The carriers very much want the FCC to stay as far away as possible from the network neutrality debate. And if their actions are any indication, they are trying very hard to push through as much change before the government steps in. In proposing what looked like Internet pricing intended to ward off competition to its cable TV business, Time Warner set off  a shit storm of criticism. After seeing this particular danger lurking, Time Warner bailed on the new pricing. This was a direct result of the potential for increased oversight, not because the average customer would pay much higher prices. Either way, everyone must understand that laws are needed now. Once these pricing plans go live, there will be no turning back.

In closing, there is simply was no reasonable justification for the per-gigabyte pricing that the Internet Service Providers are proposing. I cannot imagine a situation in which a gigabyte of Internet data should cost $1 from the cable company, when it costs them about 3 cents to produce in a non-competitive market.

I strongly believe that Internet companies should provide either access or content, but not both. Verizon should not discriminate against Yahoo because it has a deal with Google. The Internet carrier should handle traffic for both companies equally, for the simple reason the consumer often often has only one broadband provider to choose from in most parts of the nation.

I believe Deep Packet Inspection for network management and  e-mail is the single biggest privacy concern on the internet today, much like the post office searching every letter sent for a note from Kendal Meyers. We need to insist that these ISP’s de-monetize the data, or at the least, pay us for it

Little does anyone remember, but back in the early 1990′s, there was an outcry from internet users across the country over a perceived notion that the  telephone companies were doing everything in their power to disrupt the use of dial-up modems on their networks.  Historically, internet regulation were non-existent or by the seat of the regulators pants. Today, evidence suggests that the Internet was not even recognized as a phenomenon or concern by most regulators until the mid 1990s, when it became obvious it would have a giant impact on the most basic business models. As a result, the rules or actions that can be identified with fair use do not seem to have been framed with the Internet in mind, and the time is ripe for change.

Here at The Lounge, we have been ranting for years that the Money Grubbing  Internet Service Providers be required to provide non discriminatory internet access, guaranteed speed and data access, and to be free from anti-competitive abuses and practices. As online gamers, streamers, and website owners, Lisa and I have experienced a plethora of disruptive practices from our ISP’s including attempts to cap our unlimited data plan, disruption of our online peer-to-peer gaming, and disconnects from our video streaming due to subjective issues such as ‘network congestion’ or ‘provider disruption’ All of this while we paid in excess of $50 a month for unlimited speed and data plans from ISP’s who in the end, gave us limited data and bandwidth while vilifying us as bandwidth hogs. A little history tells the story of why we must insist that ISP’s in some way shape or form take on the look of a ‘common carrier’ of old, and provide  non-discriminatory access to the world wide web.

In 1980,  the FCC ruled that firms that use basic telecommunications services to provide an enhanced service, such as information delivery, are not engaged in the provision of a basic common carrier telecommunications service, or local telephone service. Rather, they are providing an “enhanced” service and, accordingly, are not subject to the direct jurisdiction of the FCC. At the time, a telecommunications common carrier was the term used to describe a provider of telecommunications transmission service that offers its service to the public for a fee and, in contrast to a television station owner or a cable television operator, does not control the content of the information transmitted by its facilities or services. Rather, the carrier’s customer controls the content and the destination of the transmission.

Local and long distance telephone companies operated as common carriers, which historically have had close regulatory scrutiny by both federal and state agencies. The history of common carriage is fundamental to the discussion today. There was a series of FCC decisions that gave customers the right to attach approved devices directly to the network, which has allowed both ISPs and users to attach modems to their phone lines, a necessary precondition for dial-up access.Some observers also point to common carriage regulation as an important internet enabler. Entry by ISPs has been facilitated by common carrier rules which mandate nondiscriminatory access and reasonable rates apply to both the dial-up lines used by individual customers and the telephone network dedicated lines used by many ISPs to connect points of presence to the Internet. In 1997 the FCC affirmedan earlier ruling that the transmission between an end user’s premises and an enhanced service provider’s location in the same calling area would be treated as a local call, rather than as an interstate call, regardless of whether that transmission carries data, an e-mail message, or even  a voice call over the Internet. For the final years of the 20th century, the internet was truly open and free.

Today, this has all changed. The old model service providers like AOL and CompuServe who were among hundreds of providers who sold  services in a competitive market based on a ‘local call’ to a ‘common carrier’. Every day were were bombarded with offers from ISP’s who were willing to provide us with the deal of a lifetime, including free access if we were willing to dial their number. The FCC regulations of unfettered access to the network is what fostered this competition. With the advent of broadband technology, high-speed internet access has become ubiquitous. Today, a typical consumer has little or no choice in his local community in respect to a high-speed or broadband provider. A large majority of consumers are located in area’s where the only provider is the Cable TV company who in turn is the content provider for competing services. This leads to a corporate media dominance not seen since the early days of  Radio and it is quite obvious we need pro-consumer regulation at the provider level.

The simple fact is the  Service Providers have had no incentive to provide pro-consumer services and no need to create equal and unfettered access to data on their broadband networks. This, along with the consolidation of the providers makes regulation even more imperative. The real scary part is that over the last decade, has been a large contraction of  pipes, with only 4 or 5 dominate broadband providers available in the country, and the habit of these providers is to continue to use anti-consumer and disruptive practices to enhance their bottom line. Either way, as long as were are dominated by just a few providers and those providers continue to disrupt the flow of information on their networks, we must force the F.C.C. to regulate these providers for the good of the people.

There is a little covered report out that shows that the lack of sunspots can be directly related to ‘Climate Change’ here on earth.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs a climate data auditing site, says the sunspot numbers are another indication the “sun’s dynamo” is idling. According to Watts, the effect of sunspots on TSI (total solar irradiance) is negligible, but the reduction in the solar magnetosphere affects cloud formation here on Earth, which in turn modulates climate.

This theory was originally proposed by physicist Henrik Svensmark, who has published a number of scientific papers on the subject. Last year Svensmark’s “SKY” experiment claimed to have proven that galactic cosmic rays — which the sun’s magnetic field partially shields the Earth from — increase the formation of molecular clusters that promote cloud growth. Svensmark, who recently published a book on the theory, says the relationship is a larger factor in climate change than greenhouse gases.