Fleet executives speaking at the CCJ Summer Symposium in La Jolla, Ca., today said their experiences implementing electronic logging devices have been overwhelmingly positive for their businesses, customers and drivers.
The panel was moderated by CCJ‘s Technology Editor, Aaron Huff, and consisted of Neil Smith, Vice President, operations, Western Area, Con-Way; Jim Gomez, Jr., Vice President, operational compliance, John Christner Trucking and Scott Baker, Vice President, recruiting and driver development, Swift Transportation.
The first point all three participants agreed upon was that the process of implementing e-logs was not cheap and did not occur quickly. In the case of Swift – an admittedly large carrier – Barker noted that the process to introduce e-logs took six quarters – a full year and a half – to complete.
Smith noted that a mandate is likely coming and, based on Con-Way’s experience, said he would recommend that fleets get ahead of the curve now before they “have a gun to their head” and have to meet government-implemented deadlines.
“It’s a lengthy, complicated process,” he noted. “And it’s hard enough to do without having to worry about meeting a deadline to be in compliance with federal regulations.”
Training and equipment installation were two implementation bottlenecks all three panelists experienced.
“We wanted our own technicians trained to install the equipment,” Barker said, “so that added some time to the process. But once they were ready, we began installing equipment as our trucks came through the shops for maintenance. It was a constant flow of activity over a year and half. But even though it was a very extensive process, that went off very well. Honestly, after a time, even most resistant drivers saw what e-logs could do for them and today, they don’t like it all if the system goes down and they have to go back to keeping paper logs.”
According to Gomez, e-logs have become a powerful management tool for John Christner in that they allow quick and accurate matching of drivers with available hours and loads.
“To better manage our data flow, we contracted with a third-party company that provides a service platform showing us our driver’s virtual hours in real time,” he says. “We can also use this system to project those hours out over coming days to see what a particular driver’s hours look like right up unto the load is delivered. We’ve never had that capability before.”
Smith agreed, adding that initially drivers pushed back against the e-log initiative drivers.
“They felt it was a ‘Big Brother’ issue and wanted to know why we needed the government watching everything we did,” he said. “But, they found that it actually enhanced their productivity and paychecks. Because it allowed us to manage them better by matching them up with loads while they still have hours left in the day.”
Every Safety Director that I know lives in dread of a school bus accident. The thought of one of their trucks getting tangled up with a school bus is a nightmare, regardless of which driver is “at fault.”
Every employee of your company, from the CEO to each of your drivers, is a compassionate human being. No one wants to see a child hurt. Worrying about a school bus accident can make you, a dedicated and professional Safety Director, an unhealthy insomniac. In order to get some sleep (after reviewing your truck driver hiring practices), you should develop your own company’s media plan.
You say that you are too small of a company to have a fancy “media plan”? Hopefully, you will never need such a media plan. But, if a noteworthy crash happens on your watch, you (as the Safety Director) will likely get pushed into the media spotlight. Being prepared and being empathic might determine if you retain your job after a noteworthy accident.
A media plan does not have to be complicated or outsourced to a high-priced media consultant. Simplicity is the key for you to remember your plan and then to implement it. A media plan has one purpose with five distinct components.
Purpose: The purpose of your media plan is to professionally identify your company as a safe and committed group of people. The media must tell a compelling story very quickly. All media – television, radio, newspaper and internet news – works off of the same newspaper article structure:
Who, What, When, Where and How.
The 5 components of your plan
Who #1 – Talk with your CEO and all department managers about your plan. Make certain that they all know the identity of your media representative. Typically, the CEO or the Safety Director is the natural choice for this important responsibility. Make certain the other company employees know that they should NOT interact with the media and that they should direct the media to you.
Who #2 – When first talking to the media, identify your company without giving the name of your involved driver. Your driver should be protected, at least initially. Have information on company’s history and safety record ready to impart.
What – Provide the basic details of the facts of the loss without inflammatory language. Know the type of accident it was (i.e. rear-end, overturn, t-bone) and exactly how many vehicles were involved. Do NOT speculate on the number of people injured or killed.
When – Much like the component of “what”, the “when” involves more details of the accident facts including at what time the accident occurred.
Where – Details of exactly where the accident occurred and possibly the name of any hospitals where the accident participants were transferred.
How – Do NOT guess or speculate as to the cause of the accident. Resist the temptation to tell everything you know. You can honestly answer questions without divulging the preliminary contributors to a crash until a full investigation is completed. You should be prepared to say: “We are not prepared to comment on the cause of this accident. We are working directly and actively with law enforcement officials to do a full investigation. It would be irresponsible for us to comment on the cause of the accident until all factors are fully investigated. We are aware that in many serious accident situations, in many cases the first reports prove to be inaccurate.”
Write it and follow your outline. Prepare a written outline with the basics of your company’s data. You are less likely to be misquoted if your statement is in writing. Avoid using industry slang or trucking buzz-words, as the general public does not understand trucking terms or trucking operations. Before meeting the media, practice what you want to say with a trusted staff member.
The basis of your initial statement should be a sincere care and concern for the accident participants and their families. You could refine this basic outline of your media statement: “The employees of ABC Trucking are shocked and saddened by this tragic accident. We offer our thoughts and prayers to all the accident participants and their families. We are diligently investigating all the facts of this accident. Additional details should be available shortly.”
Remember, you do not have to answer every media question in order to prove that you are a professional. I recommend that you tell your media contact that you have a statement, but do not have answers to all of his/her pending questions. Don’t say “no comment,” but do not get enticed into speculation. Recognize that there could be some uncomfortable pauses in the questioning. Don’t feel pressured to keep talking.
If you have sufficient time, coordinate your initial media contact with your defense counsel and your insurance company. These entities typically recommend that your company say nothing. However, a prepared statement of empathy and concern might be in your best interest.
Andy Sievers
Sievers Safety Services, LLC
Mahomet, IL
ajsievers@mchsi.com
(217) 714-1960
By Craig Ballantyne
In the summer of 2000 I was finishing up my master’s thesis in Exercise Physiology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario (Canada’s ‘steeltown’). At the time, I lived with two buddies, and the only computer with Internet access in our house was in my friend’s room in his basement apartment.
One Saturday afternoon, after getting home from running tests in the lab, I noticed my roommate was out at one of his Kung Fu classes, and so I went down to look for job opportunities on a fitness website.
It was during this fateful Internet search that I stumbled across the email address of the fitness editor for Men’s Health magazine, the biggest fitness publication in the world. I decided to take a chance and send him my latest fitness email newsletter, even though it had only 150 subscribers.
A few days later the editor replied back, and wanted to use a piece from my article in an upcoming issue. Just like that I had instant credibility. This one opportunity would be the foundation for the exponential growth of my fitness information publishing business over the next 10 years.
It allowed me to become a leader in my industry, and that has made all the difference. And today we’re going to cover my favorite advanced leadership mindset and marketing tips I was taught by one of my mentors, Dan Kennedy. These 7 steps will help you break the 6-figure and even 7-figure barriers in your business by establishing yourself as leader in your industry and niche market.
1) You Must Have Extreme Self-confidence
Your business is not only about selling your product. It’s also about attracting people who want everything you have to offer. Your business is YOU. It doesn’t matter if you run a shop on main street in your town or a website serving people from all over the globe, you must be confident that what you bring to the world is unique and different from everyone else offering similar products.
2) You Must Take Action and Implement What You Learn
This step is not nearly as much fun as thinking big, but it is just as essential. The most successful people in the world are action takers. They don’t think too much, they just get it done. If you’re struggling with implementing what you know, then set more deadlines in your business. If you already have deadlines, cut them in half. Be bold. If you have a product planned for release in 3 months, cut that back and set a deadline of 2 months. You’ll find a way to get it done and you’ll be one step closer to being a leader in your industry. Life rewards action.
3) You Can Never Be Satisfied
You can never rest or try to sustain status quo. As Kennedy says, “You must be finding the replacement for the replacement.”
If you are a salesperson having a record year, you must still be looking into the future and planning for when sales aren’t as easy. You must continue to stay hungry and remain on top of the trends in your industry.
Likewise, if you’re an online information marketer, it doesn’t matter if you are getting 10,000 visitors per day to your site from Search Engine Optimization and affiliates, if you don’t keep coming up with new stuff, eventually your traffic will dwindle and your business will die.
Keep learning and networking, and never be satisfied as long as you remain in business.
4) Really Big Thinking – “Make no little plans”
This is my favorite step on the list. I just love to think big, and to plan and predict future opportunities for my business. It’s a great exercise to do on airplanes, because research shows we’re more creative when we get outside of our daily work environment – plus, it’s much more productive than watching a movie you’ve seen before.
When it comes to big thinking, always be conceive and believe that you will achieve great plans. You must be sure of yourself that you will dominate your chosen niche. You must not be afraid to create bigger and bolder ideas everyday and always be looking for markets where you can charge top dollar, and bigger projects and products that will allow you to do so.
5) You Must Work on the Macro and Micro Components of Your Business
Everyone wants to be the “idea guy”, but if you want to succeed you have to force yourself to be good at ideas, follow through, and details. You need to have every aspect of copy, product creation, and lead generation in place if you want to create a 6-figure or 7-figure income.
6) You Must Develop Multiple, High-Value Skills
It’s not enough to be just a good speaker, or salesperson, or product creator. We need multiple skills. First we have to identify an opportunity, then generate leads, then build interest in our prospects, then persuade our prospects to become customers, and finally deliver extreme value and service. Don’t just stop when you’ve become good in one area of expertise.
You also need to develop the skill of learning how to say NO. Too many folks spread themselves too thin, so you have to decide what projects are right for you and will advance your business.
7) Always Focus on Strategic Associations
If you sit at home and think you can avoid seminars and mastermind groups yet still develop powerful affiliate and business relationships, you are sorely mistaken. You need to be at seminars, having conversations in the hallways and at the bar, meeting new people online and offline.
Listen, by nature I’m an introverted person. A highly introverted person. I’d much rather read a book than introduce myself to a stranger. But guess what? Of all the strangers I’ve introduced myself to at the dozens of conferences I’ve attended, not one of them has bit me. And many of them have become friends, and a few of them have become lifelong business partners.
In fact, I might never have had my chance to run Early to Rise if it wasn’t for a Mastermind group I joined where I met Matt Smith, my business partner. So get out there. Go to seminars and events. Plan ahead and have a list of people to meet and questions to ask AND people that you can help. Never go empty handed or without a plan.
Follow those 7 steps to start building a serious business and you’ll soon join the ranks of leaders in your industry.
Want to learn more about transportation management systems, electronic logs, and how to improve fleet operations with technology? Or, looking to obtain a better payback on technology you’ve already deployed? We will be in Little Rock June 9-13 holding ELD workshops and TMS classes. Contact us us schedule an appointment or to learn more.
May 1, 2014 Avery Vise
From a controversial proposal to mandate detention pay for truck drivers, the Dept. of Transportation’s (DOT) surface-transportation funding proposal, the Grow America Act, contains little in the way of new policy initiatives or programs specific to trucking that will require major rulemakings. For the trucking industry’s leading policy analyst, that’s a good thing.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is still working through all of the policy changes and rulemakings required by the current transportation reauthorization known as MAP-21, Dave Osiecki, executive vice president of the American Trucking Assns. (ATA), told FleetOwner. So the fact that DOT isn’t pushing a whole new set of major changes is welcome.
“The industry needs to catch its collective breath,” Osiecki said. “This bill would slow down the regulatory pipeline.”
Instead of policy, many of the more than 30 motor carrier provisions in the DOT proposal would increase FMCSA’s power and flexibility in dealing with carriers and drivers in enforcement matters, Osiecki said. “They call it the Grow America Act. I would call it the Grow DOT Authority in Trucking Act.”
DOT’s reauthorization proposal represents a wish list of additional authorities and powers for FMCSA, Osiecki argued. “It makes it clear that FMCSA is an enforcement agency not a safety agency.”
Rather than focus on the best ways to achieve improved highway safety FMCSA takes a much more limited approach, he said. “What we find with FMCSA is that they are falling more and more into a ‘We’re going enforce the regulations and punish violators’ mindset.”
A number of federal agencies– including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)- – take a broader view of their mission and treat their regulated industries as partners rather than targets, remarked Osiecki.
Grow America Act provisions that would increase FMCSA’s authority include those that would:
• Prohibit a vehicle, driver or employer barred from operating in interstate commerce due to an imminent hazard order or failure to pay a civil penalty from operating or being operated “in any manner affecting interstate commerce.” (Sec. 5102)
• Require that requests for administrative review of imminent hazard out-of-service orders be filed by the carrier or driver within 15 days after the order. (Sec. 5106)
• Clarify DOT’s jurisdiction over international transportation while traveling through the United States. (Sec. 5107)
• Prohibit states from issuing commercial driver’s licenses to individuals who would immediately be disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle upon the issuance of the license. (Sec. 5201)
• Disqualify an individual from operating a commercial vehicle for 1 year for the first violation or life for committing two or more violations if he is discovered operating a commercial motor vehicle after his commercial driver’s license has been revoked, suspended or canceled based on offenses committed while operating a non-commercial motor vehicle. (Sec. 5202)
• Require states to disqualify drivers that have been federally disqualified for the duration of the federal disqualification and to record the violation in the Commercial Driver’s License Information System. (Sec. 5203)
• Disqualify an individual from operating a commercial motor vehicle when that individual has not paid a civil penalty. (Sec. 5204)
• Provide that an individual who receives a verified positive USDOT drug test is disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle and remains disqualified until he completes the return-to-duty process (Sec. 5205)
• Give FMCSA more discretion to impose safety standards that arguably might have a limited negative impact on driver health. (Sec. 5301)
• Allow FMCSA to revoke a carrier’s USDOT number for failing to comply with a subpoena. (Sec. 5304)
• Provide DOT the authority to ensure that federal contractors that exercise operational control over motor carrier operations comply with FMCSA safety regulations. (Sec. 5506)
• Impose criminal penalties for violating an imminent hazard out of service order. (Sec. 5509)
• Clarify that in assessing the maximum penalty for operating in violation of an out-of-service order each day of operation constitutes a separate offense. (Sec. 5510)
• Expand FMCSA’s right to access the motor vehicle driving record of any individual in connection with a safety investigation (Sec. 5514)
• Grant FMCSA the authority to require the recall of electronic logging devices that fail to meet certification requirements. (Sec. 5504)
• Clarify DOT’s authority to enforce commercial regulations under part B of subtitle IV, title 49, through an administrative adjudication process in addition to civil action in federal courts. (Sec. 5513)
• Place requests by DOT for the Attorney General to bring an enforcement case for violations of subchapter III of chapter 311 and chapters 313 and 315 on equal footing with requests to enforce violations of chapter 5. (Sec. 5508)
• Amend the definition of commercial motor vehicle to include vehicles operated by passenger carriers that are subject to FMCSA’s safety jurisdiction but are not covered by the current vehicle definition. (Sec. 5101)
• Give DOT jurisdiction over brokers for motor carriers of passengers. (Sec. 5302)
• Close a loophole in the Secretary’s jurisdiction over certain small bus operations. (Sec. 5103)
Not all the motor carrier provisions in the Grow America Act are aimed at expanding FMCSA’s safety and enforcement powers and authority. However, a number of them appear aimed at freeing up the agency’s resources to focus on other more important issues. Some even provide some relief to motor carriers.
The Grow America Act would also:
• Allow FMCSA to suspend rather than revoke the authority of a carrier or broker whose financial security has been cancelled (Sec. 5305)
• Give FMCSA discretion in deciding whether new entrant safety audits are necessary (Sec. 5105)
• Revise and streamline FMCSA’s grant programs for state partners (Sec. 5401)
• Repeal the self-insurance option for motor carriers (Sec. 5503)
• Establish the Unified Carrier Registration Plan as a not-for-profit corporation outside the U.S. government (Sec. 5502)
• Repeal the motor carrier financial reporting requirement (Sec. 5505)
• Codify FMCSA’s obligation to maintain the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (Sec. 5501)
• Continue the requirement that FMCSA conduct safety reviews of motor carriers that pose the highest safety risk while eliminating obsolete terminology (Sec. 5104)
• Make various technical corrections to MAP-21 (Sec. 5511)
• Remove the requirement that audits of Mexico-domiciled carriers be conducted onsite in Mexico (Sec. 5512)
• Eliminate two FMCSA reporting requirements that have become obsolete (Sec. 5515)
By Woody Leonhard
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has proposed a new set of rules that will change — some say kill — net neutrality.
With regulations coming soon, Congress hunkered down; and with a brawl breaking out on a dozen different fronts, here’s what you need to know about the FCC’s proposal and how it will affect you.
Perceptions of net neutrality differ
In the March 27 Top Story, I talked about how Netflix’s deal to hook directly into Comcast’s network didn’t violate net neutrality. I noted that co-locating Netflix servers in Comcast facilities simply bypassed intermediaries such as Cogent, Level 3, and other Content Delivery Network (CDN) companies. (CDNs typically act as a bridge between content providers such as Netflix and Internet service providers such as Comcast.)
The Netflix/Comcast deal might result in higher Netflix fees, but it doesn’t have any net-neutrality repercussions that I can see. However, other events and trends do have possible ramifications for net neutrality. Since I wrote that March 27 Top Story, the discussions about keeping the Internet on a level playing field have reached new highs and, unfortunately, new lows.
Discussing net neutrality is often difficult because it means very different things to different people — and to different multi-billion-dollar organizations. A SaveTheInternet YouTube video has a layman’s overview. Yes, it’s biased; but it includes humorous scenes from John Hodgman’s July 29, 2006, The Daily Show skit on the topic.
My definition of net neutrality is really quite simple and, I think, reflects the interests of most individuals and businesses that rely on the Internet. In his Feb. 27 Stratechery blog, Ben Thompson said it best: “Net neutrality means non-discrimination against packets from origin to destination. A packet from Netflix or YouTube or PornHub or the New York Times is treated and priced exactly the same from server to client and back again.”
As the blog notes, ISPs and content providers base their definitions of net neutrality mostly on their corporate interests.
Fallout from a questionable FCC decision
Years ago, the U.S. Congress gave the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) permission to regulate the Internet within the U.S. Back in 2002 — centuries on Internet time — FCC chairman Michael Powell decided to classify broadband to the home as an information service rather than a telecommunications service. That fateful — many say flawed — decision set up the net-neutrality fight we have today. The FCC’s rules for telecommunications services (or “common carriers”) are well established and quite extensive. On the other hand, the FCC’s rules for information services have always been squishy — and they’re getting only squishier.
In 2010, then–FCC chairman Julius Genachowski issued a new set of rules for broadband service providers. In an Ars Technica article, Matthew Lasar called it “net neutrality (lite).” Although the rules alienated many net-neutrality proponents, they specifically prevented ISPs from blocking content. But the rules also let ISPs “manage” networks and offer better service to certain kinds of packets.
Verizon sued, claiming that the FCC had overstepped its authority. (Ever think about what your Verizon bills — and fees to other service providers — subsidize?) This past January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. As reported in a Jan. 14 New York Times Bits column:
“[The court ruled that] the FCC cannot subject companies that provide Internet service to the same type of regulation that the agency imposes on phone companies. It cited the FCC’s own decision in 2002 that Internet service was not a telecommunications service — like telephone or telegraph — but an information service, a classification that limits the FCC’s authority.
“[The FCC can regulate the Internet], just not in the manner that it sought to do so. The appeals court said telecommunications laws give the FCC broad power to make rules governing the treatment of Internet traffic by broadband providers, because Congress has directed the agency to promote innovation and the growth of the Internet.”
Translation: If the FCC wanted more regulation of ISPs, it should have classified them as — more regulated — telecommunications services. The ruling left the FCC with judicial directions clear as mud — and no firm directions from a well-greased Congress. (A March Politico column reported that “even before announcing its plans for Time Warner Cable, Comcast had donated to almost every member of Congress who has a hand in regulating it.”)
The court’s decision left current FCC chairman Tom Wheeler a whole lot of nothing to work with — and much speculation from everyone else, given Wheeler’s background. A former president of the National Cable Television Association, he’s spent decades working as a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry. Few doubt his experience; many worry about his allegiances.
A proposal with few merits — and big liabilities
To replace the rules shot down in flames by the Appellate Court, Wheeler’s FCC is floating a new proposal, detailed in an April 29 Official FCC Blog post. The proposal is an opening salvo — a request for comments from interested parties (essentially everyone). In the post, Wheeler states:
“First, this is not a final decision by the Commission but rather a formal request for input on a proposal as well as a set of related questions. Second, as the Notice makes clear, all options for protecting and promoting an Open Internet are on the table.”
Many observers view Wheeler’s “fast track” proposal as cable-industry same-old, same-old — quite possibly the antithesis of net neutrality. But Wheeler does have a good point. Whatever rules the FCC promulgates will undoubtedly be taken to court (there goes some chunk of your Verizon fees again). The FCC has to find some sort of middle ground that will pass judicial muster and not paralyze the Internet indefinitely. (Whatever FCC rules eventually stick, the service providers will still make billions.)
Wheeler’s proposal, in broad terms, allows “fast lanes.” Any content provider willing to pay for preferential treatment gets shunted to the faster connections.
But if there are fast lanes for those who can afford it, there obviously must be slow lanes for everyone else. Can’t or won’t pony up the extra bucks? You’re relegated to a slower connection, possibly putting you at a distinct competitive disadvantage.
But how slow is slow? That’s the vexing question. Will it be equivalent to what we now have coming into our homes? Or will sites such as WindowsSecrets.com suddenly slow to a snail’s pace? Will the next Facebook-competitor wannabe get outbid by Facebook for speedy access?
It gets even more complex and confusing. If Netflix ups its prices to recoup the added cost of fast-lane access, the price of a broadband provider’s own services (movies and TV shows, for example) will look more attractive.
Unfortunately, Wheeler’s proposal has an Achille’s heel: the FCC will have to make judgment calls on whether any restrictions an ISP places on its fast and slow lanes are “commercially reasonable.” The FCC presumably would monitor all Internet service in the U.S. and rule on whether a specific broadband provider, in a specific instance, is using unreasonable restrictions to improve profits.
Wheeler’s current guidelines seem reasonable: “Something that harms consumers is not commercially reasonable. … Something that harms competition is not commercially reasonable. … Providing exclusive, prioritized service to an affiliate is not commercially reasonable. … Something that curbs the free exercise of speech and civic engagement is not commercially reasonable.”
But obviously, the devil is firmly in the details. Squishy guidelines like these should make us all feel queasy. To me, they sound like a feeding frenzy for corporate lawyers. The FCC will have to spend millions or billions playing judicial roulette.
Those opposed are looking for a better way
Unlike some, I don’t think of Wheeler as a cable-company shill leading a mostly blind and well-greased congress to an end that’s not in consumers’ best interests. That said, I don’t agree with his proposal — on almost any point.
In a May 2 Slate story, Marvin Ammori takes Wheeler to task:
“Let’s get one thing straight: [Wheeler] is not backing off his plan to hand the keys to the Internet over to the cable and phone industries. The chairman told the cable industry to ‘put away the party hats’ because he’s not actually going to kill network neutrality. But his proposal is the same plan offered by the largest cable and phone companies, which have tried to kill network neutrality for almost a decade.
“Since 2006, the phone and cable industries have proposed a world where they won’t ‘block’ any websites, but they will simply create a lane for all websites and then charge anyone who wants better service for a fast lane. They have fought a nondiscrimination rule for at least eight years, using tens of millions of dollars. The tolls for the fast lane may be tied to bandwidth or a company’s revenue.
“Finally, the cable and phone giants want this world to have no clear rules — just vague principles about what might be ‘commercially reasonable,’ which is an invitation for small companies to sue the giants if they’re unhappy. Since the cable and telephone companies have more FCC lawyers than most companies have employees, they will scare off most potential companies suing and then beat the rest in ‘FCC court.'”
In my opinion — and others’ — that description hits the nail squarely on its head. Senator Al Franken fired off a two-page memo (PDF) that also takes exception to the FCC’s proposal:
“Struggling to craft a ‘commercially reasonable’ standard misses the point: Pay-to-play arrangements are inherently discriminatory and anticompetitive, and therefore should be prohibited as a matter of public policy. They increase costs for consumers and give ISPs a disincentive to improve their broadband networks — undermining the FCC’s mission to protect the public interest and strengthen the nation’s broadband infrastructure.”
Though it’s still too early to predict the end of the Internet as we know it, plenty of individuals, consumer groups, and analysts are ready to run Wheeler out town on a rail. See, for example, the May 5 InfoWorld story, “Thanks to Tom Wheeler, the end of the open Internet is nigh.”
The time to discuss net neutrality is now
There’s a growing resistance to the FCC proposal, and that resistance will undoubtedly swell during the FCC’s official public-comment phase. Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are launching public-awareness campaigns. An EFF post puts it this way:
“The problem is that most people don’t know about this extremely opaque process, and so they don’t participate. Let’s change that. Stay tuned. We’ll let you know when it’s time to raise your voice and add your testimony during the FCC’s public comment window when the new proposed rules are announced.”
If you believe net neutrality is threatened, you can help others understand the facts. Talk to your friends, even if they don’t know a URL from a 404. This is a thorny, multifaceted issue with no simple solution. (For more, see the May 6 InfoWorld story, “Level 3 accuses Comcast, other ISPs of ‘deliberately harming’ broadband service.” There needs to be an open, public debate about what we want the Internet to be. And you can be sure that an enormous amount of money will be spent attempting to obfuscate that debate. Best to get the facts straight now, so you can speak out knowledgeably when the time comes.
If you want to follow this issue — or even participate in the fight for net neutrality — drop by the Save The Internet blog. It provides links to more information, a petition, and other ways you can help out.
