A description of Net Neutrality

Net Non-Neutrality is what the NSA want's.............So this will be what they will get. (because we are run by a, Corporatocracy) Period.......The sheeple don't want to know about it....................i's plain and simple denial................ With the Media Spin of course.......... Free Internet=yes

a reply to: Semicollegiate


I think you are missing a few KEY points and might possibly be misunderstanding what net neutrality does.

1. The biggest players are lobbying to do away with net neutrality not the small players.

2. Doing away with net neutrality puts an already Oligopoly in charge of how the internet will operate. That is key, if their wasn't a oligopoly in the telecom industry already than you might see competition.

The key points of undoing net neutrality are

1. The telecom industry Oligopoly was becoming irrelevant as online content providers and online tech companies were cutting into their revenues and could possibly become future competitors . Undoing net neutrality it ensures that the telecom oligopoly gets a cut of all online transactions.

2. The Hollywood and content provider Oligopolies have not been successful in stopping online piracy. Undoing net neutrality will give them the control to make connections so slow to known pirate host that they will become unusable.

3. The telecom industry is one of the most common and largest Oligopoly industries around the world. The telecom Oligopoly industry is typically controlled by the biggest corporations and wealthiest investors for a reason. They program the consumers with their content on what to buy and think. Once net neutrality is gone they will be free to get back control the only true medium where non controlled feedback is provided in real time around the world by real people. If ATS doesn't fall into the MSM thought process they will be able to slow down the connection to an unusable state regardless if ATS wants to pay them or not.

a reply to: TheCowboyWay

Net Nuetraility is what the NSA want's

Actually the NSA would want the exact opposite along with its cohorts the MSM,Hollywood,and the telecom industries who control what you see,hear,and think. Coincidentally they are the ones pushing for this.

Without net neutrality they can control what content people access online by making non approved websites so slow that they will be unusable.

a reply to: interupt42

1. The biggest players are lobbying to do away with net neutrality not the small players.

The biggest players will win.

Make a new parallel internet, maybe one that has no NSA on it.

That's the only solution. The fact that they've let this go on so long means that they are using it for something.

I edited my post, was jacked up on some wild turkey....lola reply to: interupt42

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The government is the reason cable TV is a monopoly.

The government is at the root of the problem.

More government to fix anything is a shoddy repair.

Using the government to create a monopoly system and then using said government to remove any ability for someone else to compete with said monopoly is what has happened. Government created the current problem but it wasn't through regulation, rather it was through ignoring the free market. What we got is the result of crony capitalism. Unfortunately when such a system is in place and no competitors are possible, they only fix is for government to step in.

It may not be an ideal solution but it is a solution and the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.

Net Neutrality offers the ability for someone to compete with an existing technology.
It is taking ownership away. It is a violation of property rights. Ownership means absolute control over what is owned.

Losing ownership anywhere is one step closer to losing ownership of your own body.

They already own your labor. (income tax)

The telecoms accepted a ton of government money to build, maintain, and administer the network. The instant they did that they gave up any private property rights. They only delivered 1% of what was agreed but they took 100% of the money that was intended to essentially buy them out of the business. They do not deserve private property rights because we the people paid for the network. Not them the corporation.

I understand that. Its the price we pay for letting the local governments make a monopoly in the first place.

8 years ago the US was the world leader in technology, it is our biggest industry. 2 years ago we were the leader by a slim margin. We are no longer the leader at all. This problem goes far beyond what we pay to access the internet. I really don't know how else to explain it other than to say the government decided to be malicious and declare war on our tech industry. The rest of the world is scrambling to make all of their network infrastructure avoid anything under US control. Here at home we pay the most and get the least in internet speed. Our speed is below every first and second world nation on the planet, and we're behind some third world nations. Our network policy is about to deny new startups the ability to compete.

If it's not obvious already I know a bit about this stuff and have an educational background in it. Currently I am designing a game. About 10 months ago I came to the realization that I need to market and sell my game outside of the US only. I don't want to be forced to spy on my customers and give that data to the government. I don't want the government to force me to put spyware in my product. I don't want to pay an extortion fee so that my website is visible to other people. I don't want Verizon to be able to put me at a competitive disadvantage at any moment they want for any reason they want. I don't want my customers to be forced into higher priced gamer tier internet to use my product. I don't want to compete in a market where I don't get the same treatment on the network as my bigger competitors.

Many more are like me. Repeal of this law is just another step in a long line of violations that says if you want to do business over a network, you should not do it in the United States. I do not like typing that, this is supposed to be the land of opportunity, the land where I can create a product, sell it, and be successful if it's a good product. Instead my best option is to avoid anything having to do with the US at all.

We need to remove laws already on the books, never make new laws.

Surely you would agree that not all laws need to be removed? Sometimes a law can be clean, simple, and good. Net Neutrality is one such law. Another is Glass-Steagall. What happened when we repealed Glass-Steagall under the idea that laws need to be done away with, and that regulations should disappear? We got a financial collapse. We then replaced Glass-Steagall, which was 1.5 pages of legislation with Dodd-Frank which is over 9000 pages, has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese, and is totally ineffective. Sometimes an existing law shouldn't be touched. What's going to happen when the repeal of Net Neutrality runs us into the ground? How many pages of ineffective legislation are we going to get then? The current bill is 11 lines.

HR 5252 RS
SEC. 253. COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLE.
1 Section 254(b) (47 U.S.C. 254(b)) is amended by re-
2 designating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8), and inserting
3 after paragraph (6) the following:
4 ‘‘(7) COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY
5 .—Universal
6 service support mechanisms and rules should be com-
7 petitively neutral. In this context, competitively neu-
8 tral means that universal service support mechanisms
9 and rules neither unfairly advantage nor disadvan-
10 tage one provider over another, and neither unfairly
11 favor nor disfavor one technology over another.’’.

No. Only the profit motive is an incentive.

Without Net Neutrality the telecoms can discourage use of the network in order to avoid upgrading it getting more mileage out of the existing lines. With Net Neutrality new companies are able to create technologies that compete with existing models and force upgrades to the providers. Do you realize how many network upgrades Netflix has forced the telecoms to make? This is a good thing. Discouraging use means those upgrades never happen.

As far as the free market goes. Without Net Neutrality the market is less free because the barrier to entry is considerably higher. Low barriers to entry are key to free markets as they allow anyone to compete. Net Neutrality preserves the free market.

You can't really have net neutrality unless you pay into the net the same proportion that you use.

Otherwise someone will be paying for other people's internet.

I'm in slow motion, thinking i am driving 88 mph and only doing 20.............do jest,pffffft agree
a reply to: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: interupt42

1. The biggest players are lobbying to do away with net neutrality not the small players.

The biggest players will win.

They are winning. The telecom industry is one of the biggest Oligopolies.

Make a new parallel internet, maybe one that has no NSA on it.

Don't disagree but their are numerous technical and non technical challenges with this and mesh type networks. Also the telecom industries won't allow it as they have revolving doors between the FCC and the telecom industry. The former FCC head honcho left the FCC to become the head of the Telecom industries lobbying group which it was suppose to regulate. While the head of the the Telecom industries lobbying group head honcho swap positions with him and is now the FCC head honcho.

www.techdirt.com...

That's the only solution. The fact that they've let this go on so long means that they are using it for something.

No that is not the only solution. The reason they let this go on so long is because you have competition not at the small business level but at the Oligopoly level.

Google ,netflix, amazon and other online oligopoly members have conflicting business models with the telecom industry. The online merchants want everyone online for as cheap and fast as possible. However this is not because they care about the consumer but rather in an unlikely event their business model thrives on fast cheap if not free online access. While the telecom industries business model thrives on nickel and dimeing the consumer for everything.

Gogole is providing faster ,cheaper, and more reliable internet to customers in the short time span they became a internet provider (2 years i think) than the existing Oligopoly providers have been able to do for decades.

Google who is a proponent for net neutrally is actually investing billions on providing global internet access for the world and faster cheaper internet access for the US. What is and what have the existing Oligopoly industry done? now imagine if they not only control how you get to the internet today but in the future they will control what you get to access on the internet. The internet will become stagnate because the telecom oligopoly makes money by not upgrading or innovating without extorting its customers base.

The funny thing is, the telecom industry is wanting to unregulate net neutrality while on the other hand they are lobbying for stricter regulations on what a ISP provider can do and work. You see google fiber was and is becoming a threat to them so they are creating laws specifically targeting google fiber to not allow them to become competitors.

Trust me that I agree with less gov't involvement but net neutrality is one of the few regulations that actually benefit the consumer hence they are wanting to undo it. Net neutrality is basically the equivalent of regulations that prevent monopolies.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for the outline.

So, the status quo has net neutrality in it based on the money received from the government by the service providers.

The service providers are sorting the data they handle and a law is required to stop the sorting. Why isn't this illegal now?

Looks bad. Two laws to enforce one law.

Sadly, some people had to live through WW2, we will have to live through making a free market, non oligarchical, non governmental internet. Or go without. Or leave the United States.

Another is Glass-Steagall. What happened when we repealed Glass-Steagall under the idea that laws need to be done away with, and that regulations should disappear?

Glass-Steagall was actually way past the problem. The Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking and fiat money are the real cause of every recession and depression and war since 1913.

I know that sounds simplistic, but it is real.

Like "unfairly advantage" is a hole big enough to put the solar system in it. Advantage is OK? Just not unfairly.

a reply to: interupt42

Google who is a proponent for net neutrally is actually investing billions on providing global internet access for the world and faster cheaper internet access for the US.

That is what the Powers that Be get out of it.

One provider for the whole world.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You can't really have net neutrality unless you pay into the net the same proportion that you use.

Otherwise someone will be paying for other people's internet.

Not true. the problem is with the existing archaic business model the telecom industry is using. They dont want to change because they dont want competition and they dont want to let go of their gravy train.

Google fiber proved that the telecom industry is full of B$. Google fiber is using the latest fiber technology and provides two plans: FREE 5mb up and down service or 1GB up and down service for 70 bucks unlimited.

I pay 80 bucks for 50mb down 10 up from comcast with a average 10mb down and 5 up. In addition Google fiber has no restrictions on download or upload caps.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: interupt42

Google who is a proponent for net neutrally is actually investing billions on providing global internet access for the world and faster cheaper internet access for the US.

That is what the Powers that Be get out of it.

One provider for the whole world.

Maybe but I rather have one provider for the world that gives me the power to control what sites i visit than my existing only provider option that I have with the power to restrict what sites I visit.

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You can't really have net neutrality unless you pay into the net the same proportion that you use.

Otherwise someone will be paying for other people's internet.

Not true. the problem is with the existing archaic business model the telecom industry is using. They dont want to change because they dont want competition and they dont want to let go of their gravy train.

Google fiber proved that the telecom industry is full of B$. Google fiber is using the latest fiber technology and provides two plans: FREE 5mb up and down service or 1GB up and down service for 70 bucks unlimited.

I pay 80 bucks for 50mb down 10 up from comcast with a average 10mb down and 5 up. In addition Google fiber has no restrictions on download or upload caps.

They can change that in a heartbeat.

I had unlimited 4g with sprint and one day they just changed to 5gig max. I paid an $800 cell phone bill that month.

a reply to: interupt42

gives me

never really happens.

I don't know when, but they are gonna take everything away.

"The entity big enough to give you everything you have is strong enough to take everything away" Thomas Jefferson

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The service providers are sorting the data they handle and a law is required to stop the sorting. Why isn't this illegal now?

I think you misunderstand. This used to be illegal. Net Neutrality made it illegal. You can count how long ago it was "temporarily" repealed on your fingers and toes. This is a very recent change. The reason it isn't illegal now is because the FCC caved to the telecoms lobbying power. Not only was the guy at the head of it a former lobbyist himself, but the telecoms went to the FCC and said if you don't give us what we are asking for, we are going to disrupt communications in the US to the point that trillions of dollars will be lost from the economy each year. Then they said they would get lawyers and very strongly oppose anything and everything the FCC tried to do from now until forever. Unless the FCC capitulated.

Remember the 20's when the mob had so much power they could dictate to the police, when, how, and what would be enforced? That is what the telecoms are doing to the FCC (their police) now.

Sadly, some people had to live through WW2, we will have to live through making a free market, non oligarchical, non governmental internet. Or go without. Or leave the United States.

The internet isn't truly free in any country. Every country with a network infrastructure has built that network using government funds. South Korea, Japan, Sweeden, Brazil, and the list goes on. None of it has been done purely out of the free market. Then again... how often is infrastructure built purely out of free market? Human wellness generally plays more of a factor in things like building sewers, water pipes, roads, airports, and so on rather than pure profit potential.

Since you're anti regulation what you should actually be looking for is a return to Net Neutrality. It is one small regulation that does a whole host of good things and creates a free market. The lack of anything at all is very destructive as I hope I pointed out already due to current market conditions. There's a third option too but it's not something most people want. That is to make ISP's into common carriers which would make them heavily regulated and more like a utility such as electric, water, gas, or phone. The FCC ruling this way is very possible.

Glass-Steagall was actually way past the problem. The Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking and fiat money are the real cause of every recession and depression and war since 1913.

I don't want to get too far off topic here but Glass-Steagall was designed to prevent catastrophic banking crashes. Prior to the legislation one happened roughly every 10 years in the US. Since the full repeal we have also had one happen just about every 10 years (well, there's only been time for one so far but it was right on time). There are other problems yes, but Glass-Steagall was designed to do something very specific, and it did it very well.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
They can change that in a heartbeat.

I had unlimited 4g with sprint and one day they just changed to 5gig max. I paid an $800 cell phone bill that month.

Competition is the way to protect the consumer from changing business practices. The telecoms however are actually trying to legislation Google Fiber out of the business because they don't want competition. They don't want it on the data front and they don't want it on the hardware front.

As for the cell phone thing... if you think our wired networks are bad our mobile networks are in 10x worse condition. This is actually fallout from a 2010 FCC ruling to repeal Net Neutrality where the FCC compromised and gave up any protections on mobile networks. Compare the quality of our phones and the rates we pay to places like the UK, Norway, Japan, and South Korea sometime. You will be astonished. Our typical $150/month+2 year contract plan in the US is worse than what you can get in the UK month to month for $10. And the UK doesn't even have a good mobile setup. I won't sidetrack this thread with that though.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
They can change that in a heartbeat.

I had unlimited 4g with sprint and one day they just changed to 5gig max. I paid an $800 cell phone bill that month.

Competition is the way to protect the consumer from changing business practices. The telecoms however are actually trying to legislation Google Fiber out of the business because they don't want competition. They don't want it on the data front and they don't want it on the hardware front.

As for the cell phone thing... if you think our wired networks are bad our mobile networks are in 10x worse condition. This is actually fallout from a 2010 FCC ruling to repeal Net Neutrality where the FCC compromised and gave up any protections on mobile networks. Compare the quality of our phones and the rates we pay to places like the UK, Norway, Japan, and South Korea sometime. You will be astonished. Our typical $150/month+2 year contract plan in the US is worse than what you can get in the UK month to month for $10. And the UK doesn't even have a good mobile setup. I won't sidetrack this thread with that though.

Google will win because the rulers want a single provider.

The UK, Norway, Japan, and South Korea also have higher population densities, they have economy of scale. Also there is probably governmental aid to the providers in those countries, before profits.

a reply to: Aazadan

Since you're anti regulation what you should actually be looking for is a return to Net Neutrality.

Wont happen unless Google needs it.


The Fed et el are the key things about politics and the economy. Actually the economy is the basis of any freedom of any kind. And the Fed et el control the economy.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Henry Ford

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Google will win because the rulers want a single provider.

1. Google is losing.
2. They don't need a single provider to gather data on you. They own all the providers and they own the internet back bone.

3. Cause you are probably going to go there: Mesh networks can be infiltrated as well just like they infiltrated tor .

What good can come from giving more power to an already Oligopoly controlled industry ?

Net neutrality is the equivalent of the anti monopoly laws or are you against that as well?