It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is net neutrality?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
There seems to be some confusion about net neutrality (what Obama wants for the internet) because people think that allowing the FCC to regulate the internet will change the way it is now. The truth is the opposite - the corporations want to change the services you get now, and slow down your streaming of Netflix.

But irrelevant words like "Obamacare for the internet" and "communist" and "founding fathers" are being thrown around to spread fear and keep people from knowing the truth. Luckily, here is an article from USA Today that explains it. I am denying ignorance right now.


Q: What is net neutrality?

A: Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that Internet service providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring or blocking some sources. It also prohibits Internet service providers (ISPs) from charging content providers for speedier delivery of their content on "fast lanes" or deliberately slowing the content from content providers that may compete with ISPs.



Q: So what's going to happen when I'm streaming House of Cards in the future?

A: In theory, the only thing that should change is that there are actual regulations on the books -- or potentially laws, should Congress pass new ones -- that prohibit ISPs' discrimination of content and content providers. An ISP would be prohibited from slowing the delivery of a TV show simply because it's streamed by a video company that competes with a subsidiary of the ISP.


USA Today




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Whatever they could do to keep it the way it is right now would be fine with me. However, the question is "How is that best accomplished".

The telecommunications companies (telephone and cable providers) who control much of the broadband internet access is possibly trying to change that access into something different than it is now. The U.S. government and FCC are trying to pass legislation stopping that...

...However (and here's the rub) it seems when government regulators step in, bad things happen. The FCC may say they want legislation keeping the internet exactly as it is right now, but that may not be what actually comes out of the legislation. For legislation to pass, lawmakers usually pile on a bunch of extras onto that legislation that often serves to complicate matters even more.


edit on 2/25/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
This is NOT legislation. These are rules that are written by regulators. There is no law about it.

They will simply make it so.

And they will open the door to all sort of things you won't believe in the doing. Once you let them in they will take it over in ways you never thought you were agreeing to.

I still can't believe that many of the same people who understand the mess they made of Obamacare still trust they will do something great with this.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

The word you are looking for is totalitarian.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
This is NOT legislation. These are rules that are written by regulators. There is no law about it.

They will simply make it so.

And they will open the door to all sort of things you won't believe in the doing. Once you let them in they will take it over in ways you never thought you were agreeing to.

I still can't believe that many of the same people who understand the mess they made of Obamacare still trust they will do something great with this.


This is the first step in regulating content. There is a reason they are keeping the rules secret. There is absolutely no need for "net neutrality". The internet is about as free as you can get with plenty of competition. This is slight of hand stuff. They get all the Gruber voters to focus over here while they are busy screwing them somewhere else.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
It seems we're screwed either way. The corporations will surely screw us for the profits, but the government officials are often times lobbied and bought by those same corporations. While I don't want the corporations to have control, I don't trust the regulators to do it right...



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
This is NOT legislation. These are rules that are written by regulators. There is no law about it.

They will simply make it so.

And they will open the door to all sort of things you won't believe in the doing. Once you let them in they will take it over in ways you never thought you were agreeing to.

I still can't believe that many of the same people who understand the mess they made of Obamacare still trust they will do something great with this.


This is the other thing a lot of these simpleton's don't get. We have all these alphabet agencies basically making regulations with practically no oversight. it is almost like bureaucratic tyranny.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I like how the OP lays out what the term 'net neutrality' means and then every comment after it has it completely backward.

Their distrust for government has reached a point of no return. These commenters trust Comcast, Time-Warner and their money more than they do the people trying to protect them. I want to argue against some of these commenters but they have the entire concept so backwards and they've misread so many opinion pieces that getting them to actually understand what the concept of net neutrality is would be pointless and not worth the effort or time.

Go ahead and search this exact question into your preferred search engine, 'What is net neutrality?' I'm anxious to hear about what you see when you search for that.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

The problem is we don't know what's in the 300+ pages of "regulation" proposals.



It could be a real whammy.


edit on Feb-25-2015 by xuenchen because: [_oOo_]



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
I like how the OP lays out what the term 'net neutrality' means and then every comment after it has it completely backward.

Their distrust for government has reached a point of no return. These commenters trust Comcast, Time-Warner and their money more than they do the people trying to protect them. I want to argue against some of these commenters but they have the entire concept so backwards and they've misread so many opinion pieces that getting them to actually understand what the concept of net neutrality is would be pointless and not worth the effort or time.

Go ahead and search this exact question into your preferred search engine, 'What is net neutrality?' I'm anxious to hear about what you see when you search for that.


I trust the free market. I don't trust the government. I guess you are one of these people who believe the Affordable Care Act is really affordable. They use these innocuous sounding terms to get you sheeple to support this nonsense. The most neutral internet you can have is one that isn't regulated.

I have to deal with a slew of regulations in my professional life and know how the game works. Come up with some supposed problem that no one can show is an actual problem then develop some regulation named to make people think it is all for the good of consumers and then pass it under the cloak of darkness to hide all the craziness contained that actually screws over consumers both directly and indirectly.

They get you focused on a problem defined as ABC while actually getting passing the regulation to accomplish XYZ.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
This is the kind of misdirection you have to be careful of with the regulation: Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that Internet service providers should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring or blocking some sources.

If you don't like how your internet provider's service then get another provider. It really is that simple. Internet providers are not monopolies. Comcast kept messing up my internet service, so I dropped them and went with AT&T. This is what happens in a free market. Most major cities probably have multiple sources of service providers to meet your individual needs.

What this is really about is regulating content and figuring out a way to tax the internet.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
It is obamacare for the internet.




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
When will they clamp down on content anyway?
I 've been expecting that for a while,now.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

If we truly had an actual "Free Market" I might agree with you but we don't. There are still other laws and regulations in play which allow for Comcast and Time Warner to dominate and control the market in ways which don't allow for real "Free Market" capitalism to challenge them like it should. Because of that there isn't a balanced field of play so any competition that would keep them in check using the "Free Market" method doesn't always apply.

For "Free Market" capitalism to work like you suggest would require all regulation to end and a true Free Market to exist, which has never and will never happen. Not that we'll ever see anyway. So while your position might be valid conceptually, it simply isn't what we are dealing with in reality.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
You won't know how bad it is, until it passes and is fully implemented.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Edumakated

If we truly had an actual "Free Market" I might agree with you but we don't. There are still other laws and regulations in play which allow for Comcast and Time Warner to dominate and control the market in ways which don't allow for real "Free Market" capitalism to challenge them like it should. Because of that there isn't a balanced field of play so any competition that would keep them in check using the "Free Market" method doesn't always apply.

For "Free Market" capitalism to work like you suggest would require all regulation to end and a true Free Market to exist, which has never and will never happen. Not that we'll ever see anyway. So while your position might be valid conceptually, it simply isn't what we are dealing with in reality.


How do we not have a balanced field of play currently as it pertains to the internet. Let's see some real world examples.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
When will they clamp down on content anyway?
I 've been expecting that for a while,now.


1984



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Statement from the White House on Net Neutrality.



No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.

No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.

Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.

No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.


It's easy to be for this so I am, but that does not deal with my worries about it.

I simply do not trust the White House or any government agency anymore. My concerns are more about the FCC being used as a political tool and there being little to no oversight in the making of the rules.

Until the rules are in place, it's hard for me to imagine what the final product will be. The FCC is given the power, but what will they do with it?

I'd rather have seen the rules defined fully by Congress through legislation. The weak attempt made was just for show IMO. With contributors involved why would they want involvement at that level.

For now I support it provided it is as advertised.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername

It is obamacare for the internet.



And it could be the Dodd-Frank of internet content.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Warning. This post and content has been removed for serious violations of telecommunications laws.





top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join