By popular demand! (Fair warning... This is a LOT of stew!) 5 lb well-marbled Chuck roast, chunked Salt & Pepper to taste 6 T Grapeseed oil 2 yellow onions, cut into 1" chunks 3 T Granulated garlic 2 Bay Leaves 2 tsp Thyme 4 T Balsamic Vinegar 1 small can Tomato Paste 1 large can diced tomatoes 1/2 c AP flour or GF Alt 4 c beef broth 4 c water 2 T sugar or low glycemic alternative like Xylitol 10 carrots, peeled and cut into 1" pieces 2 lb mini white potatoes, cut into thirds (or even quarters if they're not quite 'mini.') 2 bags frozen peas Optional but highly recommended: 1 lb your favorite kind of mushrooms, quartered (Chanterelles, Crimini, White, or Porcini are my suggestions) Heat oven to 300°. Pat beef dry and season generously. In a large pot, heat 2 T Grapeseed oil over medium-high heat until a sheen appears on the surface of the oil. Grapeseed oil has a very high smoke point, but be careful of the surface getting too hot. Splattering is no bueno! Brown meat in batches, because there's a lot of it! Be sure and add an extra T of oil every batch, and don't crowd it! This will help the meat brown evenly. Move meat to a large plate and get back to work. Add onions, and balsamic vinegar, sprinkle with granulated garlic. Heat, stirring and scraping those delicious meat particles from the bottom of pan, about 5 to 7 minutes. Add the can of tomato paste and diced tomatoes, then cook a few minutes more. Put all that beefy goodness back in the pan and sprinkle with flour; stir until lumps disappear. Maybe another couple minutes. Add the broth, water, bay leaves, thyme, and sugar (or 'sugar'). Stir to deglaze and bring it all to a boil. You can wisk in some more flour if the gravy is too loose (mine tends to be most times). Drizzle some more balsamic vinegar in with the floor for good measure. Cover pot with lid, stick it in the oven and braise for a couple hours. Remove pot from oven and add carrots and potatoes. Add the fungi here if you so indulge. And you should. For even more flavor craziness, sauté the shrooms in a couple T of Grapeseed oil and balsamic before adding to the pot. Cover and place back in oven for about 45 minutes. You might check in 15 minute intervals to make sure the veg is cooked through and the beef is tender. Scrape the pot as necessary. Check seasoning (TASTING!) and salt, pepper, and sugar until perfect, then add the two bags of frozen peas. Don't worry. They cook very quickly. Cool it down, then nosh the hell outta that stuff! Or, you know, fridge that shiznit, because soups are always better the next day. Now, you could forego the oven part, and just use the stove, but you are gonna have to keep stirring for the duration because that pan will need scraping. Trust me on this. I dare you to hate this recipe. It is so rich and comforting, it's like a warm, fluffy blanket, except for your insides. Enjoy!
Well, I did it all the 'wrong' ways. First thing I did was give away my work for years, literally years to fan dub projects for properties like Transformers.
(OK, aside. Fan dub projects, for those without Google-fu, are fan-made cartoon or anime properties that originated in another language and dubbed into English. For example, Transformers: Victory...You haven't heard of it? Et voilà. Sometimes fandubs traipse into the "already dubbed" territory, due to loud fan dissatisfaction, but for the most part, fans stick to properties that will probably never see an official release, to avoid copyright kerfuffles.)
So, I did work on a few fandubbed series for Transformers properties in order to work on my character chops, and to be honest, it helped lay the foundation for anime dubbing.
As for actual video game work, I started with V123 and really made a conscious effort to seek out game and game-like projects. Now, this was in the earlier days of online casting, so the market wasn't flooded with pros yet, and you could still audition for everything posted. So, I rattled off a halfway decent read and got it in ASAP, and I got a butt-ton of work on tiny one-and-two person companies making indie games in their basement.
Since I was still living in the (not at all) hotbed of game development of Northeast Oklahoma, I did whatever I could. Mainly, I devoured any decent game I could, and started paying close attention to credits.
Got involved with more fan projects, these being games that were being developed as a "skin" or "mod(ification)" of an existing retail game. For example, Ultima V: Lazarus, a modern remake of the classic RPG Ultima V, is one of the most famous "total conversion mods." The game they modded was Dungeon Siege, a retail game that was a little like the first Diablo, a point and click action RPG. Now, this is gaming on PC, mind you, when many retail games came bundled with (sometimes released later), modification tools. Think of it as sandbox tools or Minecraft-like tools to just kind of go crazy and create, with the game's code and systems as a backbone.
Now, a lot of this stuff is highly technical and not important for the average voice actor. But we're not trying to be average voice actors, are we? One piece of advice I will give is that any part of the industry you want to be involved in, LEARN AS MUCH AS YOU'RE ABLE. Every part of the creation process.
When I wanted to get into VO for video games, I learned about how all the different parts of the game were created. Now, I'm not suggesting that you all learn everything from the ground up, but I am saying that understanding is key to success in any endeavor. In this case, I learned about how audio assets (basically an industry term for files) are created, named, logged in libraries the games's code can access, and how the audio is affected in the game world.
Sure, this is probably pretty overwhelming for someone reading how I did it, but remember, when I started, I lived in a flyover state with little-to-no game development footprint, and a thirst to perform I needed to quench, and most importantly, not having access to the glut of coaching and information we do now.
And that seems to be the linchpin of the situation. No real information at the time. I know...now, not an issue. But then, lack of information made anyone in my situation have to really be good at Google-fu and also understand the creative process.
Fast-forward to today. What's really funny is that the opposite problem exists. People don't really research things like they had to just a few years ago, and that's probably because of the exponential growth of information (good and bad) made available to the world through the magic of the interwebs.
What's kinda tragic about all this is that the posture and attitude of talent nowadays seem to be fixed in 'there must be a clear path to success' mindset. I think it's partially because of so much information, partially because of instant gratification and entitlement. But I think that is a major mistake not just in VO of any kind, but in life. You have to have a growth mindset when doing anything, otherwise your attitude and perception become blinders-on and can miss something extremely important. For more on Fixed and Growth Mindsets and getting out of your comfort zone, give this a read:
This one should file under 'the sky is blue,' but I started using credits of games to see not only whose wonderful talent was working behind the mic, but also the people responsible for hiring said talent.
This was quite an eye-opener, because the array of locations at which dialogue was recorded was simply staggering. You name the major or mid-major city, parts of a game was recorded there.
Now, I get it. Some actor was at some random convention appearance somewhere, and they had an emergency session in, let's say, Tulsa. So, am I counting on work being done anywhere? No, I have a more realistic view of the world than that. But it did open my eyes to the possibility of work being done anywhere. And that is quite heartening.
I've always been a fan of the working backwards method of breaking things down. Kinda like when you were a kid and you might have started at the end of a maze in an activity book. I dunno about you, but it sure seemed easier to finish backwards.
That's one good way to see the connections. So, let's walk through a little of what I (used to) do.
So-in-so, You-know-who, and What's-his-face are all in a game. A little cursory Google-fu let's me know that So-in-so, You-know-who, and What's-his-face are all represented by different agents, two in Los Angeles, and one in Chicago. One can then infer that all three of those agencies/agents have a good relationship with the casting director, and then you can continue drawing conclusions as to who have good relationships with others and who the main decision-makers are at the game developer. You can go even further down the rabbit hole and see how the connections work all the way from the decision-makers all the way through the developer to the publisher, but that's really unnecessary.
At this point, I'm going to tread into really 'wrong way to do it' territory.
Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to do what I'm saying, but it might rub some people the wrong way. So...caveat lurker.
Nowadays, I would suggest to go to mixers, networking events, classes (especially like those done by Mary Lynn Wissner in L.A. where you get to meet the pros/agents), and literally anything that gets you out of the booth and into sharing air with people that you need to meet.
A few years ago, however, I looked up people and tried to connect on social media. I'm going to tell you that isn't the best method now. Especially if you're very direct about your intention to use their station to get work. People really have their feelers out for privacy/stalkery behavior, and that's the last thing you want to be seen as. So like I said, be careful of your practices.
So, follow people on Twitter or Facebook and be a fan, just don't be *that person*. If you do, you're just making these awesome people withdraw further and further into their insular worlds, while making them hate all voice actors in the process. So, use Wheaton's Law. Don't be a dick.
Here's a quick story about how this has worked.
A group of extremely talented people got together and made a web show about board games. That was right up my alley, so I watched. It was awesome. And funny. And the superlatives could continue. Needless to say, I was following all the cast and crew on Twitter, and interacting like a fan does.
During one episode, a talent that I actually knew personally made an appearance. Interest piqued. So I used my powers of Google-fu to do some cursory information gathering. Holy crap, every one of these people lived within twenty miles of me. And HOLY CRAP, some of them work at a studio that I've been trying to get in the door for literally years. (Sure, I could have looked up this information before, but hey, I was just a fan...shoot me)
So now, my fandom was tempered with a sense of purpose. I made a real effort to keep interacting with them all, and one day, a Twitter direct message pops in my inbox.
"Hey dude! You do VO right? Would you want to voice a character in a videogame who is sort of a HAL 9000 parody?"
Jaw, meet floor. Not "you wanna come in for an audition?"
A *job*.
So, I'm not saying don't be like me. I'm saying to use good judgment. Be a good fan and don't engage people you want to work with, just leave out the work stuff. Let them get to know you. The real you. The one that likes vinyl records and Not Your Father's Root Beer. Oh, wait. That's the real me. :P
Instead of stalking someone on social media, troll around on industry sites like Gamasutra or IGDA. Go to industry events like GDC, the Electronics Entertainment Expo, Austin Game Conference, San Diego Comic Con, and literally hundreds of other events that have all sorts of industry pros that love rubbing elbows with other pros, including voice actors. (This is true for any part of the VO industry)
Invariably, some permutation of this question always gets asked: "But Brad, all this stuff is so expensive and far away."
Yup.
In true Socratic fashion, allow me to ask you a question.
How serious are you about voiceover?
Please don't think I'm violating Wheaton's Law here. It's a very serious question, and sometimes, we need serious questions to galvanize us to action.
It's funny how many times I've seen people deride 'voiceover hobbyists.' (as opposed to 'professionals') Pardon my language, but that's utter bullshit. You know what's awesome about hobbies? You look for excuses to spend time and money on hobbies. You'll stay up until the wee hours playing a game (analog or digital), reading a book, sipping whisky or wine, smoking cigars, biking....ad infinitum ad nauseum. You get it.
So maybe, just maybe, we should treat VO more like a hobby and less like a profession. Now, I'm not talking about being less of a professional. I'm saying, change your perspective, like the late, great, Robin Williams said in Dead Poets' Society. For those of you that came from the corporate world, don't trade one cubicle for another. Don't look at your studio with a sigh, but a smirk. A shit-eating grin, if you will.
If you looked at VO the same way you looked at the things that gives you the most pleasure on Earth, I bet those dollars you need to spend on VO education, trips, events, workshops, mixers, and anything else even remotely related to VO, would be spent without the sigh that I bet happened when I talked about all the events in the first place.
My dear mentor Bob Bergen talks about VO needing to fill your soul. That you should get chills just stepping up to the mic. I couldn't agree more. That's the hobbyist mindset I'm talking about. The love of the craft should charge you in such a way that it ought to be illegal.
Now, back on topic...before anyone asks the other guaranteed-I'll-hear-it question, I'll say it: "Do I have to play games to get work in video games?"
The answer is the same as the old saying, "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps."
You don't have to play games, but it definitely does help. It helps to know trends in game casting and character development. But if you don't play, don't let that stop you.
In conclusion, and I'm sorry this meandering has literally taken me all afternoon to answer, I think that all of these things I've talked about come together in one irrefutable truth: the more 'you' comes out, the better.
Good relationships come with letting the real you be seen. And that's really what it comes down to in this industry...in all parts of it. People like spending time with people they like, and that is true for the booth, as well.
So be you. And don't be a dick. And if you are a dick by nature, try to be a lovable curmudgeon. Your reputation is safe with me.
Go give the link a read, I'll wait. Horrifying, isn't it? The idea that your home could be levelled by someone's mistake? And the aftermath is that nobody is taking responsibility for the horrible mistake. That's what can happen when the lowest bidder is hired. You can see how a person might draw the same conclusions about hiring voice talent. You might have hired a creative agency, but they turn around and use a service that takes no responsibility for the quality of talent provided, as opposed to having a roster of professional talent themselves. Then when things go sideways for whatever reason, the finger pointing begins, and things only go downhill from there. Being professional at all levels is as important today as it always has been. Don't settle, else the wrecking ball might hit your business next, and at that point, whose fault is it? Certainly not Google Maps.
Last year, I wrote a five-part Magnum Opus on Net Neutrality, and one year later, the fight isn't over. The Verge talks to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in an exclusive interview.
'Delightfully Irreverent, Yet Effective' Talk about VO Atlanta
What a weekend.
There were many things that happened this past weekend at VO Atlanta, I hardly know where to start. So when I chat about things, they’re in no particular order, just to quickly dispel any semblance of import to my rantings. So away we go.
Meeting Andrea Romano - OK, I totally lied. Getting to meet Andrea was at the absolute top of my meager list of hopefully-these-things-happen, and by gum, I’m gonna lead with her. It was all I could do to not mark out like a squeeing fangirl, but I held it together long enough to get to speak with her for a few minutes before the Animation Domination panel (more on that later).
Her keynote was amazing, with engaging stories that we might have all heard in one form or fashion, but to hear it straight from her was awesome. So much love, care, and energy championing this industry. There were some worthy nuggets from this luminary of the industry, from warm-ups to the fact that she isn't afraid to fight for new talent (yeeeeeeah, boy!), to the hilarity that always seems to happen behind the scenes when amazing talent is involved. It was a true honor to speak with her.
6 A.M Flights from Dallas - Two words. 1) Never. 2) Again. Waiting for early check-in for nearly two hours in the Hilton lobby was bad for me, and worse for everyone else, because I guarantee that I fell asleep, and when I sleep, I become a Monty Python parody.
Robert Marshall from Source-Elements - You, sir, have my sincere accolades. At one point, I think he and I were the only ones in his breakout session who understood the subject matter, but it was awesome getting to really mull over the crunchy tech stuff. Our nearly four hour epic tech conversation in preparation for writing my blog on Net Neutrality a few weeks back was also pretty awesome.
Joe and Ann Cipriano - Some of the classiest people in VO. Joe shared with everyone a very special treat, and that was to bear witness to several live promo sessions that took place in the expo room, courtesy of Source-Elements. It was definitely one of the best real-world examples for some of the attendees that were new to the industry.
I hadn’t shared oxygen with Joe since VOICE 2008, when I met him, and it was really wonderful to catch up, chat about my family’s future in the industry, and bask in the glow of his effervescence. I hadn’t met Ann in aught-eight, so it was great to meet the woman behind the man. A sweet lady, and her willingness to share Joe with the lot of us speaks volumes.
Dustin Ebaugh - My brother, my friend. It was wonderful to sit with you and mind the booth for WOVO. I know that our time was limited, but when we spoke, there were important things shared. And that Friday night spectacle....yeah, that was pretty funny. ;)
John Taylor - It has been a year since we hung out at Victor’s in L.A. last year, and it was really wonderful to get to see JT, who celebrated his birthday over the weekend. My friends, if you don’t know John, you should. So good to see him and share in libations.
Animation Domination Panel - Andrea Romano. Pat Fraley. Everett Oliver. Ben Amick from Cartoon Network. Amazeballs covered with awesomesauce. Nuggets, anecdotes, laughs, tips, and inside knowledge that I’ve never been privy to ever before. And folks, I’ve learned a lot in all my time in this industry, and I learned stuff at this panel, and that’s saying something.
Everett Oliver - One of the funniest and entertaining people I’ve ever met. Everett is a person that I only got to know this last weekend, and it’s a damn shame that it took until this weekend for us to meet. I hope we get to work together in the future. I can only imagine the booth sessions we would have. It makes me LOL just to think about it. :D
Johnny Heller - This is the person I nominate for most unlikely for me to hang out with, since I really don’t do audiobooks. But there are things that simply transcend our particular segment of the industry. We broke bread, we shared many a drink, we had a wonderful conversation at the party upstairs, but the meal we shared with Pat, Katie, and Dave...that was freaking epic. The best social dinner I’ve ever had. Seriously. I regret only that we weren’t friends before this weekend. We must congregate again.
“Uncle Roy” Yokelson - Finally, I get to meet one of the guys I most respect in the industry. So much knowledge and production savvy. So cool. We should have hung out more.
Anne Ganguzza - You are a rock star, and Katie's new best friend. I wanna be like you when I grow up. I think if I learned to multitask like you, my brain would implode. You are a shining example of what happens when someone decided to be awesome in our industry, then just goes and does it. That's for being amazing, and for being our friend.
Nazia Chaudhry - My friend and amazing talent, it was so amazing to catch up with one of the very first people I ever met in the industry, many, many Earth rotations ago. We broke bread, and took pictures, and she even re-educated me in the proper way to smile for selfies. Thanks for that golden nugget! ;) We miss you in Dallas!!!
Dave Edwards - Pat Fraley’s assistant for the weekend, it was great to get to know Dave, as we hung out and talked tech, gear, records, music, and just about everything peripheral to VO. It was mighty refreshing to take a break from talking shop, and you, my friend, were the catalyst.
George Whittam - It was SO GOOD to catch up with George after so many years of no air-sharing. A tech deity among lowly humans in this industry. By the way, my weight loss hero. We need to have a sidebar chat about that. Thank you for hanging at dinner late Saturday night.
Anne Vydra & Vera McKinney - These ladies were some of the most energetic and sweet people I’ve ever met, and the way we met is one of the funnier situations of the conference. It was great to hang off and on all weekend. I guess you just gravitate to people that are most like you. You both and my wife and I simply must hang out in the future.
Andrew Bates - Person in the industry most likely to be voted as person most likely to look like Patton Oswalt, and nearly as funny. Those are both compliments, bub. Sucks that we only met late Saturday night. Great meal, though. Keep in touch!
Elaine Clark - Finally! Elaine and I share air. I helped organized the VoiceLympics Cruise in 2009, and Elaine and I worked on an excursion workshop to her VoiceOne studios in San Francisco. Never actually got to meet. Finally I have. Thank you for your wonderful direction in the breakout session, and your boundless energy in not only that session, but all of Saturday in the kids’ VO day. Bravo.
Simone Fojgiel - Mi amiga...such wonderful work all weekend just being awesome. Your passion for this industry is amazing, your fashion sense is fearless and awesome, and your efforts on organizing Spanish VO day on Saturday with representatives from over twenty countries was simply superb. Congratulations, and see you soon!
James Arnold Taylor - If there was ever one person to make me want to consider quitting the industry, it’s JAT. And no, I’m not serious. But James is a serious talent. And if you haven't seen his one man show, you should. And be humbled.
Jeffrey Umberger - It was wonderful to get to meet who many, many people call, “the best and nicest agent in the industry.” As friendly and gracious as he was in our few minutes together, I can see why people say that. My deepest thanks to Jeffrey for moderating the ‘Atlanta’ panel, and for having time to talk with me. And all the thanks in the world for letting Pat Fraley introduce me. I cannot wait to work together.
Doug Turkel - My dear friend, it has been too long since we spoke, and boy, did we make up for lost time. Our talks were philosophical, meaningful, shallow, and filled with frivolity. In other words, we made up for lost time. Words were spoken that touched me deeply. Thank you for hanging out, my friend. We shouldn’t wait so long to speak again.
Cliff Zellman - My closest friend, confidant, hetero life-mate, travel buddy, and everything in between. Thank you for everything. Thank you for letting me assist you in your sessions, and thank you for being awesome. To see the look on the faces of your charges, was to see the look of discovery and dawning of realization. You. Were. Amazing. As always.
Pat Fraley - My mentor, my friend, my champion. There is no person in the industry who has helped me more than you. Long before I met you, I had hoped simply to know you. Now, I am simply floored that your kindness and generosity knows no bounds. Your session late in the afternoon on Saturday was just what everyone needed. Humor, comedy, information, and lots and lots of laughs.
But that session was just the tip of the iceberg. Your donation of a home study course in the awards capped off a whirlwind weekend, and a moment of pure joy was captured, frozen forever. Ladies and gentlemen, the moment of the weekend.
“A thousand words will not leave so deep an impression as one deed.” - Henrik Ibsen
Turns out, Pat, it is, in fact, Ibsen. :)
Gerald Griffith - This man worked his ass off to bring one amazing experience to this past weekend. You, sir, have my eternal thanks for four days of pure engagement. There just is simply nothing else to say, save a simple thanks. Thank you for assembling the Avengers. We really should talk about a video game session for next year. ;)
Katie Venable - My wife. It was so wonderful to have her along on a conference trip for the first time. She wasn’t always by my side, but her exploration of the sessions led to her connecting with so many wonderful people, and more importantly, meeting my dear friends in the VO industry. We talked about the goals we had for the weekend, and with your help, my darling, we achieved them all. And our little business is all the better for it. I love you. Thank you for coming with me on this trip. It meant the world to me. You were amazing.
I’m afraid that I’ve missed something or somebody, and for that, I’m truly sorry, and I totally reserve the right to amend that at a later time, because, to be frank, I’m still reeling from the weekend’s events (and travel).
I know there were many, many others that attended, and that I interacted with, and please don’t feel slighted if I neglected to mention you here. I reserve the right to do this awesome thing called ‘editing my post,’ which allows my pea brain to right itself with the geomagnetic storms going on this week, and revisit these words to more accurately reflect the weekend as a whole.
To all that attended, your own paths through the weekend were certainly divergent from my own, with different experiences and wonderful people met and things learned. Embrace that path. I assure you, your own walk through the conference was no less amazing as mine.
Just remember that the conference actually starts the moment it ends, as the energy and momentum built over the span of the conference is fuel for the future.
We live most of our lives in a box, and to have time to gather in one place is just the best thing for our psyche. A renewal. An engagement.
Net Neutrality and Voiceover, Pt. 5: Net Neutrality and Voiceover
(This is the fifth of five in a series of words in regards to Net Neutrality. For part four, click here.)
My apologies in advance for the 'Department of Redundancy Department' name of today's blog. I felt like it was rather apropos, though, given the repetitive nature of the information surrounding this grand debate.
Today, we're going to talk a little about how your voiceover business might be affected one way or another, by the confirming, or vacating, of new rules on Net Neutrality. Let's get to it.
The Voiceover Industry
So comes the part that most of my colleagues might actually be interested in. The effect of the Net Neutrality decision on the VO industry. I spoke with people that have a stake in the debate, like Robert Marshall at Source-Elements and Kevin Leach at ipDTL, and several fellow talent just to see how far-reaching this debate could actually be.
Kevin Leach responded by email to my inquiry, and he had this to say:
It's a complex topic and there are strong moral and political arguments for net neutrality, aside from legitimate concerns that end users such as voice talent may be held to ransom by monopolistic internet service providers. Ultimately, ipDTL is a very small business and all that we can do is pledge to continue providing the best service achievable in an ever changing climate.
Robert and I spoke on the phone for nearly two hours (passing the time while getting my car serviced FTW), and had a truly pleasant, geek-filled conversation. We talked about everything from Net Neutrality, to future feature loadouts for Source-Connect Now (hello, Source-Connect Classic connecting to Source-Connect Now!), to the way P2P (remember, that's peer-to-peer) connections could be affected by ISPs, to the documentation process of working with open-source software like the Opus Codec (the heart of SCN and ipDTL).
Robert seemed to think that services like SCN and ipDTL could be targets for shutdown by ISPs, much in the way that that Comcast targeted Bittorrent. The thing that might keep users safe is the amount of bandwidth that is used by ISDN replacement technology. He mentioned that the constant amount of data throughput just didn't compare to file sharing, even if the technology was essentially the same, so the ISP could just leave us alone. But if an ISP simply blocked all P2P connectivity, then we could be at risk for sporadic loss of service, just because the ISP currently has the freedom to just up and make that decision. The Net Neutrality decision could insure that doesn't happen with impunity.
Robert was also optimistic about having structure in place that keeps cable companies and ISPs in check, and that Net Neutrality could only benefit the little guys like Source-Elements and ipDTL. We agreed on many concerns, including the amount of information being passed off as true, that simply wasn't (we mythbusted these issues in part 4). One thing that stood out in our conversation was that most people know nothing of the issues surrounding the debate, and don't even know what Net Neutrality was.
We spoke briefly about interconnection, one of the lost arguments in the debate. Interconnection is how data travels along the actual backbone of the internet, and how ISPs are acting as toll collectors to companies, only allowing them the fastest connection if they're willing to pay big bucks for them. Robert called interconnection the real issue of Net Neutrality, because that's where all the big companies are fighting, and how end-users like us will end up footing the bill.
I also spoke with ten voice actors, just to get an idea of where people stood on the issue. Eight out of ten told me they didn't know anything about Net Neutrality. When I asked those eight why, the responses were essentially the same: It was too complicated to understand enough to form an opinion. Interestingly enough, half of them mentioned that they thought it best to leave that debate for the experts, not people like us. The other two I spoke to had clear opinions on Net Neutrality, and one was firmly for, and the other was firmly against. I asked each of them why they thought as they did, and the person who supported Net Neutrality spoke of a dislike of cable companies because of poor customer service and a worry about the timing of the opposition to the issue. The person who opposed Net Neutrality spoke of not needing government oversight on the internet and was afraid of higher taxes.
While I was in no way scientific in my approach, the informal results were just staggering. A vast majority of those I spoke to barely knew what Net Neutrality was, let alone had an opinion. That was truly surprising to me.
Final Thoughts
When I set out to write, I wanted to make sure that I knew as much as I could about the issue before us all. After over fifty hours of research and eight hours of preparation, I have a much clearer picture as to the situation that we are all in. And I say that, because it's true. We are all in this. We will all be affected, regardless of the outcome of the FCC's decision tomorrow. And I can tell you two very clear things. One, John Oliver was right. If you want to do something evil, hide it in something boring. And two, this stuff got really boring. It seemed that after a while, the information just started snowballing, because the level of intrigue and ridiculousness goes way deeper than some partisan politics. I have come to the realization that if I've gotten to the point where my eyes glaze over, then we've reached a tipping point. I am convinced that tomorrow's vote is a necessary good, and only a starting point. I'm afraid that things will just get more boring and more evil if we sit by and let our opinions be spoon-fed soundbites.
Conclusion
We've finally arrived. The end of one journey, and the beginning of another. Tomorrow, the FCC, barring any shenanigans, will vote on whether your internet service is given protections from the whims of companies, or not. You can probably tell where I stand, and that's for a commission of experts to handle oversight on a growing industry that affects millions of Americans. I'm tired of political and monetary clout being thrown around on an issue that most of the country was in agreement on, at least until one man made his opinion known.
Resources
As I promised, here are all the links that you need to have your own voice heard, and also lots of links that help delve even deeper. Now, fair warning, some of these have been linked before, but for convenience, I wanted to make sure you didn't have to go back through five walls of text and have to find them in context. So here they are:
Official Links
Chairman Wheeler's Proposal
Make a comment with the FCC (The proceeding in question is 14-28, FYI)
Letters to the FCC from Investors, Small Businesses, and Scholars
Letter from Investors to Chairman Wheeler
Opinions of leading educators and scholars
Letter from members of the Real Estate industry
What startups are looking for in Net Neutrality rules
More Explanations
What is Network Neutrality? (Slideshow)
Don't call them "utility" rules
Issues of no competition to 'Cord-Cutters'
Three things people get wrong about Net Neutrality
Reality check on Net Neutrality rhetoric
Is Net Neutrality becoming a partisan issue?
Title II is Already Here
Verizon is already a Title II common carrier in many states
Net Neutrality and Voiceover, Pt. 4: Politics, Misinformation, and Mythbusting
(This is the fourth of five in a series of words in regards to Net Neutrality. For part three, click here.)
In part three of the series, we really dug deep into how the current debate really heated up after the Verizon challenge to the 2010 Open Internet Order. In this installment, we're going to delve into the rhetoric being bandied about and do some real truth-searching. So, let's get to it.
Politics
So, the political hubbub really started in November 2014, when President Obama made his opinion on Net Neutrality known. The response has been swift from detractors, all of a sudden labeling Net Neutrality as a power grab or Obamacare for the internet have become the rallying cries.
The result of this sudden Republican outrage is a contest to see who can boil the issue down to an apocalyptic sound bite the most effectively.
The problem with that is, the folks on Capitol Hill really don't know much about the internet and how it actually works, let alone Net Neutrality itself. Turns out, most Americans don't either.
And there's the dangerous rub. People don't know much about an issue that could affect them, and they rely on people they're supposed to trust for their education in that issue.
Misinformation and Ignorance
The even more dangerous part is how that information is disseminated. If I'm a Congressman, and my leanings are a particular direction, then, without fail, if someone that leans opposite of my general political viewing supports something, then I'm essentially supposed to oppose it, no questions asked.
That's where Republicans stand right now. Because Obama stood up and supported something, they responded by opposing it. And for anyone to say it was motivated in a different way is simply untrue, otherwise why wait until so late in the game?
Maybe it's because there wasn't any negative connotation to sell their constituents until Obama's November statement. Maybe it was simple ignorance of the technology that fuels the issue. Maybe they truly believe in their heart that Net Neutrality is going to somehow stifle innovation in the tech industry.
The truth of the matter is that the more a person tries to boil down or simplify the issues at hand, the more questions get raised. That's the exact situation that has faced me, personally, while researching and writing these words. That's one of the reasons for delaying the later parts of the series until the week of the vote. It was my hope that the more I read, the more things would become clear. And it has. Unfortunately, in our instant-gratification, consumer-driven world, we generally don't give ourselves enough time to truly understand how things work.
So, with that said, I have done my due diligence, and I truly believe that I understand the issue as best as one person can. I only pray that you, my colleagues and friends, will set aside your political leanings, and seek first to understand. And I know that's a tall order, given the fact that most people say they don't have the time to do that. And I understand that perception.
The more I research, the more I see the instant, easy-to-digest nugget is the only way that people are willing to consume their information. It's also a scary truth about the technical side of the voiceover industry. Most people I know would rather call themselves incapable and ask for help than to seek true understanding of a topic or issue.
Mythbusting
Let's explore some of the more deplorable myths floating around the 'net these days.
Net Neutrality will stifle innovation.
Not true. When it comes to innovation, properly regulated telecommunications have pushed companies to innovate rather than stagnate, and if you don't believe me, then remember what happened to Ma Bell in our history lesson. Keeping the internet neutral like it has been is the way to go.
But we don't need new rules, we have an open and free internet now!
Correction. We had (pretty much) an open and free internet circa 2010, with the Open Internet Order. Then Verizon went and sued the FCC like a petulant man-child. Then the US District Court for the 3rd District vacated all parts of the OIO except for the Transparency part. We talked about that in our history lesson. So in internet terms, Verizon is the reason we can't have nice things.
Net Neutrality will raise taxes.
No. No way, emphatically HELL NO. And who do we thank for that? Actually, Congress. Thanks to a permanent moratorium imposed by Congress on state and local governments, there has been no taxation on internet access at that level, and HR 3086 passed on July 15, 2014 guarantees that there will never be (unless grandfathered in like the ten states below), and the latest annual moratorium on a federal internet access tax was passed in December. If anyone says that Net Neutrality will raise taxes, they are a liar or misinformed. Chairman Wheeler has already talked about how the Universal Service Fee (you pay this now) won't increase under the new rules. Oh, and by the way, internet access is already taxed in Hawai'i, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Title II will be the end of the internet as we know it.
Not true. How do I know this? Simple. Ask your friends in Tennessee and Wisconsin how their internet is different than yours. Because those two states already treat internet access as a Title II common carrier. Their digital world hasn't ended. Seriously, the end of the internet? Where does that argument even come from?
Net Neutrality is an Orwellian power grab.
*sigh* Not true. Did you know that the FCC has had its power since 1934? You should if you've been reading this series. If not, well, again, it's simply not true. The FCC was granted its power by Congress. You know, those guys that are labeling Net Neutrality a power grab by the government? Yeah. It was them that gave the FCC the power to regulate things because those appointed were experts in their field, not elected officials who can't even internet right.
We don't need eighty year old rules governing something as dynamic as the internet.
But the Federal Trade Commission uses the Sherman Antitrust Act all the time as the standard to break up monopolies, and that was signed into law in 1890. Yes, those numbers are in the correct order. Eighteen. Ninety. I don't care that it's an apples-and-oranges comparison. It's just to illustrate what a straw man crock that argument is. The reason that we use legislation that is broad, is to give commissions made of experts like the FCC and FTC the power to do what they were created to: regulate specific industries. Did you know that there are eleven members of Congress that are older than the Telecommunications Act of 1934? Does that mean that opponents of Net Neutrality wouldn't want those folks having an opinion? I kid. But it's just as ridiculous.
Competition will be reduced if the internet is classified as a common carrier under Title II.
*ahem* Have you ever actually tried to get competing internet service in your area? Whoever you have as an ISP, I invite you to try and get service with a competitor. Go on. Try it. The short version is, 'you can't.' The lines running to your residence right now are owned by a single private company, and you're probably already their slave...err...customer. Under the current ruleset, they don't have to allow another service to use those lines because there is no Title II common carrier protection for you, so you don't have any choice. That means that you are stuck with the provider that owns the infrastructure that last mile from the main internet backbone to your home. And it is an irrefutable fact that Title II could only help to have more competition for your internet service. Don't believe me? Watch the John Oliver segment again, and watch for the comparison to drug cartels, which isn't far off. Oh yeah, and those that want to try and say that wireless broadband is competitive with wired is just delusional.
Net Neutrality will lead to a 'Department of the Internet.'
You mean like a cabinet-position-reports-directly-to-the-President-yet-head-of-a-department, Departmet of the Internet? Nope. Not gonna happen. Wait. I take that back. Yes, it could happen...if Congress makes it that way. Not the FCC. The FCC doesn't have that level of power, because Congress didn't create it that way, nor did Congress create such a beast. That kind of statement is fear-mongering at best, and just not true.
Title II will keep companies from investing in broadband technology.
Nope. Nope. And....nope. Oh! And, nope. So, really...does this sound a little like companies hedging their bets at best? Espouse the evils of Title II classification, all the while preparing for the impact? Yup, that sounds like companies that are preparing for inevitability, while hoping there are enough Obama-haters that will buy into the vitriol. I'm sorry for the blatant op-ed stuff here, but straight-up lies infuriate me.
Net Neutrailty is just a solution looking for a problem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I agree that you shouldn't fix something if it isn't broken. But we are supposed to do routine maintenance, aren't we? I mean, there's one thing that we can learn from wait-until-it's-broken approach, and that is that it'll be way more expensive and messy if we wait. The solution of having strong regulatory power in the hands of the FCC is to prevent further problems like the Madison River Communications/Vonage situation. What if your ISP decides to block Skype, Google Hangouts, Source-Connect, ipDTL or any other VoIP service because it is in direct competition with bundled internet phone? Oh, sure, a regional North Carolina ISP didn't fight the FCC when that ruling came down. But what about the juggernauts like Verizon, Comcast, or Time-Warner? They fought simply because they didn't want to have rules against their interests, and made use of the limitless resources available to them in legal proceedings and lobbying dollars to make the rules they don't like go away. The FCC's new rules aren't a solution looking for a problem. They're a solution to problems that are coming, and we got a taste of those kind of testing-the-waters actions like Comcast's blocking of Bittorrent, AT&T's blocking of Facetime chat (unless you subscribe to a more expensive data plan). and Netflix being throttled by Comcast as a strongarm negotiation tactic (a similar deal with Verizon followed). These are problems, folks. These are problems that need solutions, otherwise, they will happen again. And that is why there is no need to look for a problem to solve with Net Neutrality. They're already there.
But we can't even see the proposal until after the vote!
And that's always been the case. The proposal is 332 pages long. I've linked less than 40 stories about Net Neutrality that you'll actually be able to understand, and my bet is that most won't read those. To be fair, most of the 332 pages are the FCC's formal responses to many of the questions that were submitted to the committee last summer through the website comment system. The actual proposal is essentially the same of the fact sheet that Chairman Wheeler provided weeks ago. So go read that. Nothing draconian or scary there.
But this is all just about a fight between Comcast and Netflix.
Fair point that part of the Net Neutrality debate stems from this colossal fight, but this debate isn't all about that fight. It's just one squabble that affected Comcast customers for months while two corporations played chicken. And to be honest, I don't ever want to be put in the middle of one of those fights as a consumer that relies on services to go about my daily business. So why on Earth would we want to wait around for the next clash of the titans (see what I did there?) to make our voice heard? Because it's not just a fight between two big companies that we need to regulate the situation. It's because one of those companies used its customers as a bargaining chip against another, and those customers paid both companies for services that they couldn't use in conjunction with one another simply because there weren't rules saying they couldn't. It's like a coach telling a basketball player to go out there and see what he or she could get away with until a referee whistles them with a foul. Except in this case, the FCC is the referee, and the US District Court of the 3rd District took away their whistle.
But this is just an Obama plan to rule the internet.
Did you know that the FCC has been trying to implement Net Neutrality rules in some form since 2005, when a guy named George W. Bush was in the White House, and his appointment to the Chair of the FCC, Michael Powell (son of Colin Powell, yes, that Colin Powell), was the guy pushing Net Neutrality? So, as long as we're being fair, this process was started ten years ago by people from the Republican party. Seriously, here's a pill for your cranial rectosis.
My ISP says they're for Net Neutrality. I'm confused.
You should be. And that's terrifying. What's even more terrifying is so much hate for Net Neutrality and Title II classification when I read this. This is from just six weeks ago. And in case you didn't want to read it all, here's just the conclusion:
Our research suggests that Americans, across traditional political divides, are opposed to givingInternet service providers greater authority to discriminate against certain content providers. Themost conservative voters, for instance, gave the lowest favorability rankings to Internet service providersand showed the greatest concern about ISPs influencing the government in their favor.
Additionally, conservative voters showed a willingness to accept government oversight in the realm of Internet service. Conservative voters agreed with FCC Chairman Wheeler’s recent statements on proposed Internet rules by a wide margin. They also favored consumer protections from large Internet service providers in order to prevent monopolization and protect consumer choice.
In sum, the results of this survey show that liberals and conservatives alike are concerned about providing additional ability for Internet service providers to discriminate against content providers and want the Internet to remain an ecosystem of open access.
That's a lot of Congress saying they don't trust ISPs. Ouch. I don't think I trust ISPs to self-govern, either. Maybe they're all just blowing smoke?
Chairman Wheeler sure changed his tune from just ten moths ago.
He sure did. I wish he were as confident in his decision making skills as I am. Then again, a British comedian called him a dingo. And a whole lot of people talked about how his decision was wrong. No, maybe I don't wish he were as confident as me. Oh, never mind, yes I do! Really....? Do I? Oh, screw it.
Part Five
Well, we're nearly to the end of our journey together. Then the real journey will begin. A world where Net Neutrality may become the rule of the web, and maybe it won't. It's kinda exciting to see how it all shakes out. But tomorrow, we will talk a little about how Net Neutrality will affect all of us in the voiceover industry. I talked to folks at Source-Connect and ipDTL, and we'll talk about how you can speak out, whatever way you lean.
See you tomorrow. And in the meantime, enjoy this clip from one of the funniest shows ever.
Net Neutrality and Voiceover, Pt. 3: Chairman Wheeler, Once a Dingo, a Dingo No Longer
(This is the third of five in a series of words in regards to Net Neutrality. For part two, click here.)
At the end of Part 2, we left you with the instances of failed legislation and John Oliver's throwdown about Net Neutrality.
I skipped ahead to summer 2014, because that's when things really started getting interesting. To be fair, plenty actually happened between 2006 and John Oliver's gauntlet being tossed. Let's talk about those interesting events before moving forward.
Interesting things from 2005 to 2007
One interesting thing was a set of principles for an open internet, handed down in 2005 that invoked section 706(a) of the TCA34 which says that Congress charges the FCC with:
Encourag[ing] the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunicationscapability” – broadband – “to all Americans.
And later, the same policy document says:
The CommunicationsAct charges the Commission with “regulating interstate and foreign commerce incommunication by wire and radio.” TheCommunications Act regulates telecommunications carriers, as common carriers, under Title II. Information service providers, “by contrast, are not subject to mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II.” The Commission, however, “has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications.” As a result, the Commission has jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner. Moreover, to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers, the Commission adopts the following principles:
· To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
· To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
· To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
· To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
This is important because it was really the first attempt at Net Neutrality after the deregulation-fest that was TCA96. This is also important for reasons you'll see below.
One other interesting thing was Skype's "Carterfone" petition, which would allow users the ability to connect any tele-or video-conferencing program to an existing wireless network to be used, as long as it didn't harm the network. The original decision allowed the eponymous Carterfone, but more importantly, other devices like modems to be connected to the telephone network. Even more interesting, the FCC dismissed Skype's petition. Makes you wonder how many innovative programs might have taken off had the decision gone the other way? Also interestingly, the FCC had a much bigger fish to fry in the middle of all this Skype business.
Comcast's Other Shoe Drops
Particularly, like stepping into a situation where it was found that Comcast was actively throttling, sometimes outright blocking the peer-to-peer data connections of their users, which essentially planted Net Neutrality into the zeitgeist. If you were ever looking at a tipping point, this was it.
What happened is, Comcast started arbitrarily slowing down certain types of data connections, specifically, peer-to-peer connections through Bittorrent. For those of you unfamiliar with peer-to-peer (VO folks, this is really what P2P stands for) connectivity, here are two services that use P2P connectivity that you may be using in your voiceover business: they are Source-Connect Now and ipDTL. Now, we'll have more on where the VO industry falls in this scrum in Part 5 of this blog, but just know that right now, in the status quo, your ISP (because there's only a handful of them, so generalization is pretty much OK) has the right to throttle your download speeds with impunity.
Now, here's where a lot of you may freak out just a little bit. And honestly, it's with good reason. In our connected world, it's scary to have the ability to connect with others be affected adversely for any reason. Now everyone should calm down, because unless you are using a ton of bandwidth, you're probably* OK. (* I take no responsibility for the accuracy of that statement. After all, we are talking about your ISP, here.)
Now that we've all had our moment, the question that comes to mind is: why would an ISP throttle a connection?
The answer is simple. Piracy. In 2007, most P2P connectivity was done for the purpose of sharing music and movies to other anonymous people on the internet. Think of this process in terms of a song that is broken into 5-second clips. You connect through a program that seeks out other people, and if you have a chunk that someone else wants, that chunk is provided by you (the seeder) to the person that doesn't (the leecher). Now, multiply the ability to be able to seek for, and provide to thousands of other people per second, and you now understand the concept of torrenting. which is the term for a massive amount of anonymous P2P connections that provide ways to share data.
Now, before you all start getting on the 'of course, why shouldn't they do that if it's illegal' bandwagon, understand that not all P2P sharing of data is illegal. There have been many problems with the way the law interprets file sharing and torrenting, and fast forward to today, where content providers like Sony are getting on the P2P bandwidth bandwagon (remember the debacle over The Interview?) by providing movies to download through a P2P connection for a fee.
So, you can see how much the use of P2P technology has changed in just over seven years.
But what happened in 2007 is, Comcast started targeting users that used Bittorrent and other P2P software, and started not just slowing down those connections, but blocking them completely. And not only slowing down or blocking connections, but actively putting fake data on their own network for the purpose of mucking with the connectivity of its paid users. I mean, wow.
When called out on the practice, Comcast denied doing it at all, despite evidence to the contrary. And then in steps the FCC, as you might expect. A short six months later, the FCC tells Comcast to stop throttling its customers. And this is only where the story only starts getting crazy.
Less than a month later, Comcast appeals the FCC's decision, to no one person's surprise, but won't begin to hear oral arguments in that case until January 2010.
The Open Internet Order
Just before, in October 2009 (maybe without confidence that their decision against Comcast would be upheld), the FCC gives public notice that there are going to be new rules proposed in regards to the internet.
In the meantime, oral arguments began in Comcast Corp. v. FCC (600 F.3d 642), and less than four months later, the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd District (Washington, D.C.) ruled in favor of Comcast, and vacated the 2008 decision.
The reasoning given by the appellate court was that under the 2005 rules (the ones we talked about above), the FCC didn't have the ability to make rulings such as the one they levied against Comcast, because they lacked the ancillary authority to do so because of the poor wording of the TCA96 amendments.
The FCC responded with even stronger rules than those from 2005.
The FCC Open Internet Order 2010 built upon the tenets quoted above, and the resulting summary of rules were applied:
Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services
No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.
No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.
These rules were much stronger than anything that had ever been proposed before. They retooled the FCC's ability to provide oversight to the way the internet was being utilized by carriers and ISPs, while not reclassifying them from their current Title I (Information Service) status. That one decision was what would sink those rules.
Verizon Amps Up Your Appellate Court Experience
The Open Internet Order was issued on December 21, 2010. It took nine months for it to to be entered on the Federal Register. It only took a week for a lawsuit to be filed.
Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC was filed in the same district court that had presided over the previous Comcast decision.
During oral arguments, Verizon all but admitted that if the Open Internet Order didn't exist, that they would explore charging websites and content providers to have prioritized traffic over their network.
Long story short, the Open Internet Order was gutted. The 'Transparency' provision was upheld. However, the 'No Blocking' and the 'No Unreasonable Discrimination' provisions were vacated by the court, on the holding that the FCC was trying to impart rules that only applied to Title II (Telecommunications Service) entities, which ISPs were not classified.
The silver lining for the FCC was that in the decision, the court held that if they had reclassified ISPs as Title II entities, then all the provisions of the Open Internet Order would have been upheld.
Add further to the intrigue that there were reports of Comcast and AT&T reaching out to Verizon asking them not to challenge the Open Internet Order. Verizon didn't heed those requests for one reason or another. Speculation abounds, but some believe that Verizon did this to disrupt an impending merger between Comcast and Time-Warner. For whatever reason, Verizon pursued and won, but at what cost? It essentially sets the stage for the battle that the American public is seeing unfold this week.
Chairman Wheeler, Dingo
Current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler was appointed in November 2013, shortly before the Verizon decision was handed down in January 2014. Shortly after the decision, the FCC again announced that they were beginning to consider a reworking of the 2010 rules.
In April 2014, the Chairman's proposal leaked, and the outcry was loud and immediate. Chief among the uproar was proposals of fast and slow lanes for websites and services, which would allow the stifling of choices for us, the end-users.
OK, here's an example. I pay a subscription to my ISP, and I use it to watch Netflix on my various devices. However, my ISP starts a 'strategic partnership' with Hulu (translation: Hulu pays my ISP to have priority access to available streaming video bandwidth), and that partnership allows my preferred streaming service to be throttled because it chose not to (or couldn't afford to) pay off my ISP to prioritize the network in its favor. Who suffers? The consumer, the services that don't pay, and the other up-and-coming streaming services in competition with Hulu.
Now, take that example and apply it to just about any of your chosen applications. Streaming radio, email, Facebook, and cloud backup services. All of those just scratch the surface of what could be affected by the practice that is called "paid prioritization."
By the way, you folks on T-Mobile are already have this thing on your wireless data service with select music services. In fact, it was introduced only three weeks after the report on Last Week Tonight. When using these paid-priority services on their network, it doesn't count toward your monthly data cap. They're called 'zero-rating' services, which the companies would love for you to think that are awesome, which on paper, are good ideas. That is, until your preferred service doesn't pony up the money to T-Mobile, and you get hit with overages because you streamed music with Rdio instead of Pandora (or whatever service doesn't pay up).
So why the FCC's sudden departure from trying to do what it was created to do?
If you do some digging, and when I say some digging, I mean a simple Google search, you'll find that Chairman Wheeler was formerly the President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA), both of which are lobbyist organizations that represented the very industry on which he was supposed to provide oversight.
The question of motivation really only came to light after John Oliver's skewering of the entire messy proposition on Last Week Tonight, which Oliver equated to hiring a dingo as a babysitter. The other issue brought to light were the ways that cable companies agree not to intrude on each other's territory much in the way drug cartels operate. This was a spotlight on the way that cable companies and ISPs generally do not compete with each other at all, which is a glaring, inconvenient truth that they would rather you not know.
It really made people start to wonder how much influence the NCTA and CTIA had in Washington. That's why Oliver suggested people share their opinion at the FCC website, and it promptly crashed under the stress.
More Cutting-Room Floor Legislation
A flurry of activity followed the announcement of the FCC's new plan in the summer of 2014. One of those was a simple, direct piece of legislation that was presented by Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that would outright ban the entire concept of fast and slow lanes for internet access. It died in last year's Congress after being referred to committee. The pair have presented it again for the new Congress, but to be fair, it won't make it out of committee, simply because it doesn't deal with the enforcement problems that the FCC has had in previous attempts to perform oversight.
Chairman Wheeler, Not a Dingo
After John Oliver insinuated Chairman Wheeler's former connection to the cable lobby would equate to a dingo watching over one's child, Mr. Wheeler was forced to go on record in response. He said, "I would like...to state for the record that I'm not a dingo."
Certainly, though, the die had been cast, with public (and corporate) support firmly against tiered speed rules, things calmed down as the FCC went back to the drawing board. In the meantime, in only four months, the number of comments on the FCC website swelled to 3.7 million.
November 2014 rolled around, and then the entire situation got even more volatile when the President shared his opinion.
Almost immediately, there was a universal Republican response. Net Neutrality was evil. It was "the Obamacare of the internet."
Chairman Wheeler saw the writing on the wall, and at CES 2015, he revealed just how different the new rules would be when the FCC voted on this new proposal on February 26.
In the next part of our discussion on Net Neutrality, we'll talk about the politically charged things some people are saying, and do a little mythbusting. Be sure and check it out.
Net Neutrality and Voiceover, Pt. 2: The Current Ruleset and Laws
(This is the second of five in a series of words in regards to Net Neutrality. For part one, click here.)
So yay! More history!
*acknowledges the collective sighs and groans*
We left off yesterday with three decisions that were important in shaping the FCC's posture towards the internet.
The Brand X decision handed down by the Supreme Court left cable companies' broadband offerings classified under Title I of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, the original law governing mass communications in the US (and also what established the FCC as a oversight body).
The sanction against Madison River Communications for blocking Voice-Over-IP service Vonage for fear of competition with its own voice network.
The deregulation of DSL (Digital Subscriber Lines, the telecom companies' broadband offering), that was originally regulated under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934.
Title I vs Title II
This seems to be the best time to clarify what exactly the difference in classification, which also happens to be one of the major points of contention in today's debate.
Just to be clear, the classification is what determines what rules apply to a particular service.
Title I is the classification given to 'information services,' which are the lightest touch when it comes to regulation from the FCC. When the Brand X decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it effectively deregulated cable TV and cable internet service, which put extremely light governance on those services.
Title II is the classification given to 'telecommunication services,' in turn, are given the label of 'common carrier' label, which simply means that although the infrastructure may be privately owned and operated, it has a responsibility to the public good. Many people see the Madison River Communications decision as the first time the FCC imposed common carrier-like restrictions on an internet service provider (ISP), which nudged the FCC towards true oversight of the internet.
So, basically, if something is classified under Title I, the 'information service' will be self-governing for the most part. Whereas classification under Title II, the FCC has better authority to do what is was commissioned to all the way back in 1934: regulate.
Failed Legislation
One of the other big debates surrounding Net Neutrality is why the FCC is taking the lead on what many consider a legislative issue. Honestly, I, too, believe it is, but historically, Congress has not been proactive in its pursuit of updating laws that were sorely lacking already back in 1996. I could truly go on for days about this issue alone, but I'm here to inform, not persuade. At least not yet.
Now, my opinion aside, there have been efforts to approach a minimal concept of Net Neutrality in the past through legislation. The problem has always been the strength of the legislation, the cable company lobby, and most problematic of all, the lack of understanding from all but a few members of Congress.
One such situation arose in 2006, when speaking out against an committee amendment to proposed legislation, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens made an infamous statement about the internet as a "series of tubes." A meme was born.
But this isn't to say that Congress failed on one attempt to strengthen regulation of the internet en masse, but nine times since 2006 has legislation been presented and failed to gain traction. Most died in committee, which is basically Congress' way of saying, "we don't want any" through a closed door to an unwelcome solicitor.
So yes, there have been more failed attempts at Net Neutrality legislation than marriages to Henry VIII. A dubious honor, to say the least.
An observant person would see the parallels to the early 80s and the eventual breakup of Ma Bell by the FCC and DOJ. All because Congress refused to make it a priority, and so the governing body of telecommunications called them out for its inability to take action. Maybe that's why the FCC is jumping into the fray now, because nobody else will.
Or maybe it's because John Oliver saw something he (and a few million people) didn't like in the summer of 2014.
And that's where we'll pick up tomorrow. Where our current system has gotten us, and the magical about-face of a man who may, or may not, be a dingo.
izzy806
romaincrisis
yousharknotpass
discoholicmusic
origamiaround
annaxmalina
2087
gummygunk