Twitter Comes Out In Favor of FCC's Strict Net Neutrality Rules

Twitter is arguably the largest Internet business (other than Netflix) that relies on a free and open Internet, without the fear of throttled or otherwise hampered bandwidth by downstream, or off-ramp, providers. The nature of Twitter's business relies on rapid dissemination of content on an increasing range of user devices from desktops to small screens and no-screens (automotive interfaces). Additionally, like ATS, the material within Twitter's content, "tweets," are often videos, images, links, and other broadband assets from millions of different web domains every day. Even if Twitter were to purchase access to the "fast lane" of the Cable Industry's proposal, vast amounts of the content tweeted by its users would be slowed down or otherwise restricted.

Twitter wants aggressive net neutrality rules

In a blog post, Twitter says that it previously backed "common sense net neutrality rules" through a Washington trade group, the Internet Association. But now the company is going further. Independently, Twitter is arguing that the Federal Communications Commission should move ahead with the most aggressive rules ever proposed for Internet providers — to be sure that they don't unfairly speed up or slow down some sites over others or create Internet "fast lanes" that give wealthy firms an advantage over smaller ones.

Lately, the Net Neutrality "debate" has seen a massive increase in the amount of disinformation, deflection, and outright lies from paid operatives on social media -- including paid politicians, most republican. Examples include:



These and others like them are part of an expensive and well-coordinated astroturf campaign by corporate media and the cable industry to confuse the issue with lies, hyperbole, and fear-mongering.

Without the FCC's Net Neutrality rules in place for American consumers, cable companies will be free to create the tiered Internet they want. If you like the way cable TV channels are bundled, then you'd love the new tiered Internet:

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yes, the Republicans sure don't like this, and are trying to twist the information to make it look like a bad decision for the average American when, in reality, the FCC ruling/decision gives some breathing room to an internet under attack.

Net Neutrality is, in my opinion, the most important technological protection we can protect for our species. enforced sharing of information unfettered by a few large corporations or the "walmarting" of the internet should be in every single humans interest. The effects will dictate how our civilization goes from here on out.

Its quite simple. those who want to stop the protections that government enforces for neutrality and instead push it over to the market to destroy, then first off they are extremely short sighted, but more importantly, tax money created the internet..and that alone should keep it public domain for its entire existence.
No subscription internet sites.

Find out which politician and/or corporation is trying to achieve this and vote em out/boycott their products.

I have to admit I haven't followed this closely at all.

So who is going to bear the brunt of the costs if fast lane "subscriptions" become a thing? Is it every site? Is it the end user?

Would sites that get the most traffic end up paying more than sites that get much smaller amounts? Will I have to pay more for my internet connection to insure it loads a page or video as fast as it does now?

Don't cable companies owe the government huge sums of money for upgrades that they refuse to pay? I was under the impression that the govt. gave cable companies $ to build more infrastructure and that hasn't happened, while at the same time these companies have been posting substantial gains annually.

If anyone has a TL;DR it wold be much appreciated.

Would also appreciate analogies. So is this the equivalent of telling the average driver that taxes aren't enough to drive on the Highway? Even though we pay for it?

What do these companies stand to gain? What would they stand to lose? It seems like if you pay x amount you get x amount of speed, and that's been working for the most part (is that BS too?). Is there some actual change, or is this just a money grab?

I'm confused about internet speed, the number of users and whether or not an influx of users and data consumption actually has any bearing on the service provided.

So if I'm paying x amount a month for internet speed that's slower than my neighbor who pays more, is there actually a difference? Is it like my water bill, where if I use more water it makes sense that my bill is higher?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yea I had to drop my cable, like many others, because of the steady and constant higher and new charges to the point where the cost would have been near double the cost of 1 year ago. So yea this bundling will end up amounting to gouging. The cable companies are already blaming everybody else for the price increases.

originally posted by: Domo1
So who is going to bear the brunt of the costs if fast lane "subscriptions" become a thing? Is it every site? Is it the end user?

Content providers like ATS, the cable companies have already made that clear. Additionally, they've also proposed plans for end-users to pay supposedly "lower" basic-Internet access, with bundles that allow more broadband content.


For ATS, as an example, it's like this:

1) We already pay a premium to our hosting provider, SoftLayer, for their fastest, highest-performance connection to the Internet. They are our upstream provider.

2) Part of the fee is shared across backbone and downstream providers. If Level3 is the backbone provider your cable company uses, they get a very small micro-payment for the ATS traffic you consume, as part of the peering agreements.

3) Another smaller part of the fee goes all the way to the downstream provider, or cable company. If you're on Comcast, they get another smaller micro-payment for the ATS traffic you consumer.

This is how it works now. Net Neutrality makes sure than nothing changes.

The cable companies and other downstream providers want to be able to slow down ATS traffic in favor of content providers that pay an additional, much higher, downstream bandwidth fee. So despite already paying a premium for very-fast upstream access, ComCast would still be allowed to slow down ATS, or even block it completely. Legally.

Will I have to pay more for my internet connection to insure it loads a page or video as fast as it does now?

The cable companies are spreading fear and uncertainty, but your cost will likely stay the same.

If they cry that Net Neutrality will kill their profits, they're lying. Analysts have found that Time Warner has a 97% profit margin on broadband, and the numbers look to be very similar across the board.

Don't cable companies owe the government huge sums of money for upgrades that they refuse to pay?

Yes, that's a huge problem. Thanks to their heavy lobbying, the penalties for not performing the upgrades never happened.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Twitter, Facebook are part of the Government system of control. I know your stand on this subject and I respect you and your opinion but you are wrong.



Look at gun control laws they are a way of getting a foot in the door this is the exact same thing. What they are selling sounds great but I do not trust them at all anymore. Look at what Obama care was supposed to be......YA.

a reply to: SubTruth

You have one of two choices.


Government Intervention: Net Neutrality: use the same laws that force companies to treat all phone calls equality.


Corporate Control: No Net Neutrality: allow cable companies to control/restrict the flow of digital content.


It sucks, but this is the position we're in.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Well, I am certainly interested in this big check for being a shill for freedom of speech and minimal government regulation.

I may have lost the argument for freedom but, I still want my check because that is all I am concerned about.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: SubTruth

You have one of two choices.


Government Intervention: Net Neutrality: use the same laws that force companies to treat all phone calls equality.


Corporate Control: No Net Neutrality: allow cable companies to control/restrict the flow of digital content.


It sucks, but this is the position we're in.

Ask yourself what the founding fathers would have to say if they lived today. The constitution does not support government control of private industries. I am pro-liberty and once you put those glasses on things like this are very clear.



But like I said before I respect you and your opinion and I could be wrong about this. Only time will tell and I hope you are right.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Find out which politician and/or corporation is trying to achieve this and vote em out/boycott their products.

Well, considering repealing Net Neutrality is now an official part of the Republican platform you can start with half of congress to vote out. This comes at the expense of the big ISPs who own a monopoly on internet access, so your boycott of the product requires not using the technology at all.

originally posted by: SubTruth
Ask yourself what the founding fathers would have to say if they lived today. The constitution does not support government control of private industries. I am pro-liberty and once you put those glasses on things like this are very clear.

They also didn't support corporate control over private services like roadways and water works. Corporations that did such things were given a charter to operate for X years. Verizon is instead a multinational with more political power than our own congress, and a higher revenue stream than most countries.

Building our networks would fall under that criteria I believe.

Also, do you believe corporations have the right to dictate how you use a product or service you purchase from them? Net Neutrality prevents them from doing so.

a reply to: Aazadan

Back in the founders day life was a little more simple but I do believe the lessons put forth lay a good foundation to follow.


Private business is just that private. But we do need regulations to keep the check and balance system in place. We have shifted to far to the government control side. The government control 40% of the GDP right now. If we continue down this road liberty will fall. We do need a small central government but currently we are out of control.


We are so far gone we do not even understand what real freedom is anymore.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Aazadan

Back in the founders day life was a little more simple but I do believe the lessons put forth lay a good foundation to follow.


Private business is just that private. But we do need regulations to keep the check and balance system in place. We have shifted to far to the government control side. The government control 40% of the GDP right now. If we continue down this road liberty will fall. We do need a small central government but currently we are out of control.


We are so far gone we do not even understand what real freedom is anymore.

Not that I need any more enemies but, I do not think that we do need regulations.

Or, at least, I would be happy to demand none knowing that some will remain (hopefully the few that you think are useful).

I hope your right Bill. The two voices i respect the most in this issue are you and Denninger at market-ticker and y'all are on opposite sides of this. Unsurprising being that you are a content provider and he once ran an isp. Last mile costs and the way streaming has fubared the peering model seem to be the most cogent argument on the other side, and the destruction of currently viable businesses along with more power and the ability to stifle content and innovation are your most powerful.

I do have a prediction though.The consumer will pay more either way. With net neutrality they will pay more in the cost to access broadband regardless of how much and what services they use. Without net neutrality the consumer will have to pay more for services like netflix will charge more to offset what they have to pay isp.

I think sites like this are in the worst spot to be in if net neutrality fails. No one knows if the business is viable if it has to go subscription only. Even Netflix in my mind is iffy as to it's viability if it can't continue to force isps to bear costs that they do now in providing their content, especially with the blow back they got from their last subscription price rise.

Conversely i think the smaller isps that often are in rural areas and their customers are going to be the big losers if this regulatory regime passes.

a reply to: greencmp

Some regulation is not only wanted but flat out needed. Imagine fracking companies doing whatever they want. Or monopolies being formed that screw the consumer........Oh wait........Crap.



Ya maybe you are right.

a reply to: jefwane

Really good post that breaks it down in a way most readers will be able to digest the information......Bravo. I agree with most of your points.



Bandwidth is going to be huge mark my words. The flow of information is the control point. PTB want to be able to control the flow not so much the content.

a reply to: SubTruth

We are so far gone we do not even understand what real freedom is anymore.

Sure we do, last time I checked we still pretty free in this nation.


I kinda see this as a first amendment issue, the internet is a great and fantastic place for people to freely assemble and express them self's.

Do we need corporations dictating who has the ability to do so more efficiently?

How would the founding fathers feel about that.

a reply to: SubTruth

I think there is one important thing you're overlooking Sub. Gov. Regulation is Risky, always is. But like it's been clearly laid out you have one of two choices. Gov. Regulation or Private Control. Not having to use either would be great but that's not on the table anymore. Out of the two we have left at least one of them is there to serve the public interest while the other is there only for it's own interest.

With private control there is no reason at all for them to do anything other than profit from it. Whereas the real purpose of the Gov. is to serve us, I know they do a really crap job of it most of the time, believe me, but that was and is their job, we just need to make sure they do it better. There is no reason at all for private business to serve anyone but themselves.

Let me add to that last idea with the most important and honest idea. Let's get real and admit what will decide this. It's not Gov. doing right by the people. To rely on that has always screwed us. The only thing that makes the Gov. do the right thing is pressure in terms of Money. On one side is Corp. money control on the other is extremely diversified money control. Both sides have the money influence to wage war. The Corp. side is more centralized while the other side rests in the hands of many different businesses and individuals who have a lot invested as well. Just as much as the centralized corps. and they do not want to lose their invested money either. In my opinion it's better to be on the side of power which resides in the hands of many rather than the hands of a few.