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 You Should Know About Net Neutrality

page: 6
44
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

The right at this point disproves of the government's actions first then makes up a reason why later.



while left fabricates hypothetical situations and uses coolcatch phrases in order to pass legislation that they wont let any of the public read.......

And the left eat it up like the useful idiots they are


Yes, while the extreme right-wingers live in religious/political fallacies built upon fear and irrational situations. All the while trying to build their futures ironically based upon the past.

You act like heavy right-wingers are so much different. They'll buy into any ridiculous filth their side propagates just as easily without question. I see heavy right-wing politicians as well as pundits say and do some incredibly dumb things on a pretty much regular basis. Stop blaming the democrats/liberals/left-wing. Everything political in America has been shown to be incompetent for quite some time now. Republicans and Democrats can't even hardly work with each other right now. Both of them are a bunch of snobby cry babies systematically ruining the country. All because they're both too greedy and selfish to make a compromise.




posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

What are you going on about? You're obviously no network engineer. To get an idea of what the ISPs have been up to, why don't you read this blog post from Level 3. Here's a relevant excerpt:


Again, this is what plenty of people have been saying since the beginning of this interconnection fight. Verizon, Comcast and AT&T have deliberately made the decision not to make rather basic and inexpensive upgrades to their interconnection points that would solve the congestion problems with Netflix. In doing so, they are the ones creating the bottleneck and congestion -- and effectively using it to shake down Netflix, getting them to pay extra for the bandwidth that the broadband providers' customers have already paid for.

Looking at this, it once again becomes clear that it's Verizon, AT&T and Comcast that have deliberately caused this congestion, using their positions as dominant players with monopoly control over the last mile to force Netflix to pay them extra. As Level3 notes, it takes two parties to take the "trivial" steps to remove the congestion, and it's Verizon that's the party who isn't cooperating:

All of the networks have ample capacity and congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect with some last mile ISPs like Verizon. The cost of removing that congestion is absolutely trivial. It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point. I can confirm that Level 3 is not the party refusing to add that capacity. In fact, Level 3 has asked Verizon for a long time to add interconnection capacity and to deliver the traffic its customers are requesting from our customers, but Verizon refuses.

As we've discussed, Verizon, Comcast and AT&T know exactly what they're doing here. People hadn't been so concerned with interconnection disputes in the past, because they didn't think the big broadband players would be so crass and so anti-consumer to purposely let interconnection points clog up. But, those three companies have such control over the market at this point that they are able to do that and can effectively shake down internet companies to get them to double pay for the bandwidth that subscribers are already paying for.


ISPs sell their subscribers bandwidth, it shouldn't matter what the customers choose to use it for.

The ISPs' networks are NOT being congested with Netflix traffic (and so what if they were, that would be ON THE ISP), they've been purposefully letting the IXPs become bottlenecks so that they can then extort money from backbone providers and content providers.
edit on 2015-3-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Bearack
Yes, and this antiquated technology is perfectly capable of far higher speed so... what is your reasoning to support your argument from before?


There will be no delay in speeds what so ever so, no matter how much data is moving back and forth. The only reason at this point will be for government regulation and taxation of the net. That is the real monster of this. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"


edit on 4-3-2015 by Bearack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Bearack
I do not follow your train of thought. Because, in the future, we might have improvements... regulation now is bad? What does this have to do with your prior argument regarding bandwidth?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TonyS

The left/right system truly has a devolved into a system that caters to the extreme sides of the political spectrum.


Yup, as in...its a business model, an industry in and of itself. Who wins elections? The sign makers.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't think anyone is worried about net neutrality they are just worried about the 300 pages of regulation that we were not allowed to see until it was passed.

Who knows what kind of fascist regulation is in that bill.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The text of the regulations is apparently only 8 pages and the rest is commentary. Based on the criticism I've seen from Republican commissioner Ajit Pai, who has of course read it, I don't personally expect any great surprises.

In my opinion, there's been a deliberate attempt to mislead people about the SOP by which new regulations are adopted by the FCC. There's nothing unusual about this process in regards to these regulations compared to others except perhaps the extension of the public comment period and the fact that 4 million Americans commented to the FCC.

Furthermore, in a greater sense, there is an effort to tie this with a myth that centered around a gaffe made by Pelosi prior to the House vote on the ACA — the infamous "We Have to Pass the Bill" quote. Ironically, many people seem to believe that the comment actually meant that nobody was allowed to see the contents of the bill before it was voted on. The Senate version passed before Christmas 2009 (months before her remark) and the House version had actually been posted to the web days before her comment was made.

Regardless of that, the regulations will likely be posted to the FCC website even before they appear in the Federal Register and of course, once they're presented to Congress, Congress can overrule the regulations. The whole thing is not even remotely as sinister as it's being made out to be.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Will this decrease the cost of internet yet increase your local taxes if the internet is treated like a public utility?

Yeah comcast,cox,at&t and verizon won't be tollbooth gatekeepers anymore but what will this do exactly?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You described Net Neutrality perfectly, but you didn't describe the bill that passed at all...



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The individuals working at DARPA created the internet. If the collectivists hadn't sucked out as much as 95% of the wealth created in the 20th century, those same individuals would have made a better, more diverse, more responsive and adaptable internet, as private inventors and contractors. The internet would have developed in a way similar to the telephone system. The internet started as a practical task of connecting the various computers in the nation. Only DARPA could think of that?

Collectivists accept fait accompli as destiny, a lot.

"Net Neutrality" is authorization for some type of government action. Government presence will always lead to taxtion and manipulation, if not out right control, by government/lobbyist/oligarch/establishment plutocrats.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   
But wait, didn't NLBS say Net Neutrality was like the best thing to ever happen?


edit on 5-3-2015 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You didn't let the fact that your initial comments were completely invalidated slow you down at all.


The individuals working at DARPA created the internet. If the collectivists hadn't sucked out as much as 95% of the wealth created in the 20th century, those same individuals would have made a better, more diverse, more responsive and adaptable internet, as private inventors and contractors. The internet would have developed in a way similar to the telephone system. The internet started as a practical task of connecting the various computers in the nation. Only DARPA could think of that?

Collectivists accept fait accompli as destiny, a lot.


You can prove this? Of course you can't. I'll see your French and raise you some Latin: petitio principii

"better, more diverse, more responsive and adaptable internet" Did you just pluck a few ambiguous, unquantifiable terms out of thin air? Whose more deluded, the "collectivists" or the Mises disciples who believe that all good things must come from the mythical unregulated free market?

You might as well have argued that if the Internet was developed by unicorns, it would fluffier, shinier and infinitely more magical.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
My opinion on the topic has been known for some time now, and I form that opinion based on my years of experience in the IT sector. I would prefer that the government stay out of the internet. But the telecom corporations have proved time and time again that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate. Between extorting websites into paying more or face throttling, abusing current Title II Common Carrier regulations, price-fixing and share monopolies, I have lost all faith in the ability of telecoms to manage themselves.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
So riddle me this my more web savvy than I posters, is there some way that deregulation could be helpful in this situation? Break up the monopolies and allow third party access or some such? Does it have to be more laws?

Why is Ron Paul so opposed to this if there's nothing wrong with it? I find it hard to believe he's just kneejerking on it. Doesn't reclassifying the internet as a utility change its legal status? Won't that open the door for more regulation down the line?



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: engineercutout
So riddle me this my more web savvy than I posters, is there some way that deregulation could be helpful in this situation? Break up the monopolies and allow third party access or some such? Does it have to be more laws?


Actually you make a good point.

Both should have happened simultaneously.

These internet Ogres have been around for a long time, and have played internet gods. In the beginning of the internet it wasn't so bad, because everyone needed things to grow, but when they realized they could fleece the masses, and the small guys something had to be done.

The problem lies in the corporations that actually control the hubs, telcos, and main switching centers for the internet. Basically whoever controls the bridges, gateways, and highways make up the rules, but in this case the rules were starting to get very distorted, and corrupt.

I would actually like to see some monopoly break-ups in the telecommunications area and the internet too.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
From an Independent's point of view, the right AND the left have both been spewing some nonsense lately about Net Neutrality.

This is one of those times that I am SO thankful that I became an Independent.

The Right refuses to see that Net Neutrality HAD TO HAPPEN. Why do they fail to see it? Because they are so far into being on big business (ISP) side of this that they forget about us, the consumers, the internet users and OUR rights.

The Left refuses to acknowledge that this can and more than likely will be abused. Again, forgetting our rights in the process.

The simple truth is, ISPs backed the government into a corner. And now this FCC rule change is the end result. They should have kept their collective mouths shut.

I'm going to go ahead and say it right here, right now. I bet you that when a Republican President gets elected in 2016 (Yes, I am saying a Republican will win) They will do absolutely NOTHING to change this. NOTHING. Electricity is still a utility, phone service, cable TV, and natural gas. Nobody changed that.

I blame the ISPs for being so vocal about how they wanted to screw over the consumers. They are solely responsible.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You didn't let the fact that your initial comments were completely invalidated slow you down at all.


The individuals working at DARPA created the internet. If the collectivists hadn't sucked out as much as 95% of the wealth created in the 20th century, those same individuals would have made a better, more diverse, more responsive and adaptable internet, as private inventors and contractors. The internet would have developed in a way similar to the telephone system. The internet started as a practical task of connecting the various computers in the nation. Only DARPA could think of that?

Collectivists accept fait accompli as destiny, a lot.


You can prove this? Of course you can't. I'll see your French and raise you some Latin: petitio principii

"better, more diverse, more responsive and adaptable internet" Did you just pluck a few ambiguous, unquantifiable terms out of thin air? Whose more deluded, the "collectivists" or the Mises disciples who believe that all good things must come from the mythical unregulated free market?

You might as well have argued that if the Internet was developed by unicorns, it would fluffier, shinier and infinitely more magical.


Quantitative terms assume that all variables are known and controlled. That never happens in economic sitations. You must be a true beleiver in the power of wishful thinking, or blind obiedience.

Qualitative terms are sufficient for useful understanding if they are true, meaning that they correspond to reality as far as language and human cognition can make them.

The War Between the States, WW1, WW2, the Great Depression, the Cold War, and the Banker Bailout were all bought and paid for by collectivistic statist ideologues using the entire population's wealth and lives. All of that wasted time and money would have been put into capital and technological developement which would have increased the total wealth in society for everyone.

Additionally, the nationalization the economy in both wars eliminated the diversity of products and the regime uncertainty resulting from not knowing what the government might tax or ban or regulate or confiscate also prevented alot of investment in businesses and individuals.

The internet would have been built something like the phone network was but with more diversity, redundancy, and accountability to name three of many more.

Since inflation has increased about 2000% since 1900 with no commensurate change in life style, as much as 95% of the wealth in the private economy has been sucked out.

The Industrial Revolution came from the free market, as did the Agricultural Revolution. All we got from progressivism is bigger government, richer cronies, and self serving social science psychobabble. Regulations don't produce anything but unknown consequences.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
You described Net Neutrality perfectly, but you didn't describe the bill that passed at all...

What 'bill that passed' are you talking about?

The FCC, as with any administrative federal agency, does not pass bills. That's the sole domain of the legislative branch - Congress. Instead, it makes rules.


originally posted by: engineercutout
So riddle me this my more web savvy than I posters, is there some way that deregulation could be helpful in this situation? Break up the monopolies and allow third party access or some such? Does it have to be more laws?

Why is Ron Paul so opposed to this if there's nothing wrong with it? I find it hard to believe he's just kneejerking on it. Doesn't reclassifying the internet as a utility change its legal status? Won't that open the door for more regulation down the line?

There are complications - primarily, infrastructure such as this falls near to a natural monopoly. While close, it is not entirely so; in some areas there is competition (formerly between 56k, cable, DSL, and even fiber optic like ye olde T1 lines).

One of the issues that has been facing Google is that of right-of-way. Stringing up cable on an existing pole is a hell of a lot cheaper than burying it in the ground. Entrenched ISPs frequently have exclusive rights to power poles to run their cables. To compete, Google would have to somehow get those exclusive rights shared. This is a significant barrier to entry for Google's internet plans.

Complicating matters, many states have ruled against allowing municipalities to compete against the existing entrenched ISPs. Again, this restricts competition. Deregulation would not help in this instance - the only reason Google is capable of even starting its network is due to its immense wealth. What could some mom-and-pop shop do?

Paul opposes a lot of things - generally, government action that he sees as overreach beyond the scope of the Constitution. Almost any regulatory move (even one like this which appears to benefit the average person) is probably something he is opposed to.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

You are correct, it was not a bill and I am not sure why I said that. I meant the rules.

An overview is here:

www.fcc.gov...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian
There are many things amiss and I see an oversimplification of the Net Neutrality debate on both sides.

Here is something that I found interesting (the paid for grass roots push for NN):
Soros, Ford Foundations ‘Lavish’ $196 Million to Push Internet Regulations



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join