Big Telecom Wanted to Force Your Favorite Websites into the Slow Lane. Here’s What the Internet Ha

a reply to: theantediluvian

Exactly. To do so, we need to think outside of the box. Bitcoin offers encryption, right out of the box. I am all for an internet 2.0. One designed as a replacement, fully designed to remove censorship, and protect civil liberty.

My only advice, is do not dismiss new ideas. We are only beginning to understand reality.

Don't have time to read the responses yet, so I don't know if anyone has already said this, but if the big conglomerates get their way you will be charged for internet service exactly the same way you're charged for data on your phone, and your internet bill will double. Mark my words.

originally posted by: intrptr
Is it the slow lane for those that cannot afford the next upgrade package? Like Cable TV, one day they'll sell us our service in increments. If you want Email thats so may dollars a month. if you want news wire, again a few bucks. If you want to upload comments, start a website on the internet or access to porn or streaming channels then a bunch of dollars more.

If you want it all (that you currently have right now, plus "hi speed") it will eventually cost you hundreds.

Xfinity is working a deal to absorb Time Warner, right? A step in the wrong direction if you ask me.

No it really isn't about the speed that the CONSUMER can access what they like, it's about content providers having to pay for preferential deliever of their websites (i.e. ATS) faster then sites that cannot afford the exorbinate fees. You'll be able to access content from NetFlix and Ebay and Amazon and the like just fine... But access to personal and user driven content will be limited to what's left over.

It's about adviserizing/marketing 'content' being the only content readily available. Or small websites like ATS will have to pay in other then hard cash - with their information gathering (their 'meta-data, sic) and so on and so on.

It's PAYOLA (look it up) on a much grander scale. It's pay for play on the businesses especially the small online businesses that will be hurt and we will have our effective choice reduced to the Mega Monopoloies.

See the Electronic Freedom Foundation for more background and information.

www.eff.org...

This is a good example of not fully understanding what a discussion is about. I'm not putting anyone done, I didn't really get what was going on for the longest time.

So Please - Please educate yourself.

originally posted by: AntiNWO
Don't have time to read the responses yet, so I don't know if anyone has already said this, but if the big conglomerates get their way you will be charged for internet service exactly the same way you're charged for data on your phone, and your internet bill will double. Mark my words.

This is probably true - they are doing it already with "business class" but is not really a prime issue in the current debate and effort.

originally posted by: DocMartigann
a reply to: FyreByrd

HA there is way to many people living in there parents garage, basement, ect.... that will never let that happen! plus the the proffesionals out there.

Respectfully but what are you talking about? And how does it apply to the topic. We can't read your mind out here.

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: FyreByrd


Learn the proper order of this legally. Even if they rule this, I will consider this a violation of the RICO act, and, use my rights accordingly. At this point, the internet should be fully protected for us. It is a digital library of Alexandria, and it should be treated and referenced as such.

What does "proper order of this legally" mean. I know the legal definition of Common Carrier and the common usage but I don't know what you are refering too.

And what about RICO - How do you propose to Use it and with regards to whom and or what?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: stargatetravels

I disagree. That idea is propaganda.

How are you going to shutdown the Bitcoin network? They are the largest hashing network on the planet.

They could easily be the internet 2.0 if threatened.

No. The Bitcoin network is a P2P network using TCP over IP (in this case, the IP network IS the Internet). The Bitcoin protocol is application layer.

The issue is Net Neutrality or basically that ISPs shouldn't have the right to pick and choose how they allocate bandwidth dependent on the type of traffic or the destination. Imagine for example that Comcast was in a deal with Hulu to throttle Netflix connections, thereby tanking Netflix among Comcast subscribers. Take that to the next logical step and they could throttle news sites they don't like to a crawl or block them altogether, making themselves Internet censors.

We don't need to treat ISPs as a public utility, that's part of the problem — we need to recognize net neutrality as a civil liberty.

Thank you for the execllant addition. I still believe that designating Internet Service/ISP service as we do mail and shipping companies as a Common Carrier is the easiest solution and their is considerable legal precident (which is most like Big Business long term goal - getting rid of the COMMON CARRIER designation on shipping, mail and other PUPLIC services.

I don't understand all of this or how it works but I know one thing we the people are the ones that always get screwed someway somehow. The whole system is rotten to the core in this country. It's all about how much they can milk from us and line their pockets. Everywhere I go I get screwed. I get screwed at the grocery store I get screwed at the gas pump I get screwed on my electric bill. I'm sick and tired of it. The greed in this country knows no end.

a reply to: FyreByrd

But access to personal and user driven content will be limited to what's left over.

More and more limited until eliminated for good. The biggest deal to old people like me is that there exists somewhere a place to place you thoughts and opinions that the whole world can read. That is utterly amazing.

The only way to talk about something in the Land Before Internet was to write a letter to the editor of some media circular like newspaper or magazine and hope they published it in the little editors column. Or you could advertise in the paper ads to sell something or Dear friggin Abby , visit a game show studio audience, call in talk show, or hang out at the water cooler at work.

The powers that be would like information dissemination to return to that one sided one direction propagation. Any and I mean any adjustments they make to the Internet in the future, no matter how carefully disguised will be directed at that eventual outcome (if they have their way).

Thats what my post was directed at, sorry if I wasn't more direct.

a reply to: wantsome

The greed in this country knows no end.

Not only, but just try and start a little tiny business of your own selling some produce like honey or eggs or t shirts on the side of the road or entrance to the grocery store and see what happens. Unless you are with the Girl Scouts or Salvation Army, you would be arrested and fined.

They can charge anything they like for the stuff we have to buy to exist for they have a total monopoly on well, everything.

regards,

a fellow screwdizen

originally posted by: intrptr
The powers that be would like information dissemination to return to that one sided one direction propagation.

Exactly. The "good ole days" are trying to come back. The FCC just gave the nod to the slow lane. Please find a petition to sign.

I"m not by any means an expert on this, but I have read a different side to the story than what is posted here mainly.

I read Karl Denninger's market-ticker.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Market Ticker Blogalmost every day. As a former CEO of an ISP I tend to trust his views on this more than anyone else I see here or in the MSM. He's posted his views on the net neutrality debate in a recent blog The Net Neutrality Debacle
in which he states

Resolving the last-mile monopoly issue is separate and distinct from creating a government mandate that effectively allows established businesses to shift their cost onto others who do not wish to consume their service.

At the end of the day what those arguing for "Net Neutrality" in the context of today's submissions are demanding is the ability to use government force to compel the subsidization of a private, for-profit business service.

What he's basically saying is that many of those arguing for net neutrality are doing so because their business relies on the current state of affairs. Netflix and other full-movie streaming services in particular, and if they get this "Net Neutrality", that everyone with internet will be subsidizing Netflix customers usage through higher costs on their internet bill rather than the consumers of those services paying for it through their subscriptions. Also, there is the disturbing trend on Facebook and other sites where ads that you can't close are launching with streaming video and audio. So, by and large most of those in favor of "Net Neutrality" are actually arguing that anyone who pays for an internet subscription should pay for their neighbors Netflix usage and Facebook's ad's with streaming video, rather than netflix charging their customers more for their services and Facebook paying for the bandwith they use to try to sell you something.

This seems to be one of those issues where people should be careful what they wish for because they might just get it.

a reply to: FyreByrd


The Corporate Conglomerates are screaming for Big Government to interfere with the markets on their behalf.
We see where the interference is and it is coming from the top elite themselves.

a reply to: jefwane

This seems to be one of those issues where people should be careful what they wish for because they might just get it.

We already do. Look at cable tv. When it first appeared it was cheap and everyone paid the same price. You paid it to not see ads. Once poplar and everyone was jumping on board the advertisers slowly "worked" their way into it and now we pay for tiered packages plus the ads. We pay for the ads.

So it is the same with the internet. As time goes on they are doing the same thing. One little encroachment at a time. That way the frog doesn't jump out of the pot.

What we need is an ESP internet.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The Internet must be declared a COMMON CARRIER - like telephone lines, trucking and shipping lines. It really aught to be a public utility ....

Yes.


F&S&

originally posted by: wantsome
I don't understand all of this or how it works but I know one thing we the people are the ones that always get screwed someway somehow. The whole system is rotten to the core in this country. It's all about how much they can milk from us and line their pockets. Everywhere I go I get screwed. I get screwed at the grocery store I get screwed at the gas pump I get screwed on my electric bill. I'm sick and tired of it. The greed in this country knows no end.

Okay you sentiment is shared by many. But, as the Black Panthers were wont to teach their recruits and children, "Knowledge is the best weapon".

It's easy to sit by and say "the world su*ks", most of us do on many issues but I blieve that if an issue, an area or domain of 'su*kiness' is particularly galling it helps to DO something about it however modest. You are respnsible for the world we live in - it is a collective manifestation our mental/spiritual/physical health as individuals.

Check out Electronic Freedom Foundation for information on this and other electronic and privacy issues.

originally posted by: jacobe001
a reply to: FyreByrd


The Corporate Conglomerates are screaming for Big Government to interfere with the markets on their behalf.
We see where the interference is and it is coming from the top elite themselves.

Top Elite own Big Business who own Government. A truer equation, I don't know of.

originally posted by: jefwane
I"m not by any means an expert on this, but I have read a different side to the story than what is posted here mainly.

I read Karl Denninger's market-ticker.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Market Ticker Blogalmost every day. As a former CEO of an ISP I tend to trust his views on this more than anyone else I see here or in the MSM. He's posted his views on the net neutrality debate in a recent blog The Net Neutrality Debacle
in which he states

Resolving the last-mile monopoly issue is separate and distinct from creating a government mandate that effectively allows established businesses to shift their cost onto others who do not wish to consume their service.

At the end of the day what those arguing for "Net Neutrality" in the context of today's submissions are demanding is the ability to use government force to compel the subsidization of a private, for-profit business service.

What he's basically saying is that many of those arguing for net neutrality are doing so because their business relies on the current state of affairs. Netflix and other full-movie streaming services in particular, and if they get this "Net Neutrality", that everyone with internet will be subsidizing Netflix customers usage through higher costs on their internet bill rather than the consumers of those services paying for it through their subscriptions. Also, there is the disturbing trend on Facebook and other sites where ads that you can't close are launching with streaming video and audio. So, by and large most of those in favor of "Net Neutrality" are actually arguing that anyone who pays for an internet subscription should pay for their neighbors Netflix usage and Facebook's ad's with streaming video, rather than netflix charging their customers more for their services and Facebook paying for the bandwith they use to try to sell you something.

This seems to be one of those issues where people should be careful what they wish for because they might just get it.

Thank you. While that is not my understanding, I do want to look into it futher. Thank you for the link. I've not heard the "last-mile' issue named before and assume (???) that it's about the price endusers pay for ISP service. Whether it means that business can pass it's cost for high network speed and precedence or means something else I do not know.

The sources that I have followed, state that at issue is the pactise of treating certain content (content like netflix) different then other content (say your private blog) differently based on what that content holder (website) is willing to pay.

I don't think it's at issue who the final bill will fall to either way but the selective (dare I say censoring) of the interent based on how much a provider can pay.

As a hypothetical, Let's say a mainstream news outlet with deep pockets (say the Wall Street Journal) is willing and able to pay $X,000.00 per however the 'business model is' YY unit of traffic but the labor of love news outlet (say The Christian Science Monitor) can't pay more then $X.00 per YY then, regardless of where it turns up in a search for "news oulet" will always be less available to consumers and will not perform and well as deep pocket interests and so, effectively it will act as de facto censorship based on money or PAYOLA.

originally posted by: intrptr

What we need is an ESP internet.

LOL - 95% of content on the internet I don't want in my head (there is enough questionable stuff running around in it already).

a reply to: FyreByrd

…(there is enough questionable stuff running around in it already).

NSA can't snoop there, though.