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: 7
44
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: beefydog
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


The principle behind Net Neutrality isn't a right or left issue. This is why I wish we had more people in washington with some tech knowhow.

When packets of data reach a server they are held in a queue. In a queue packets are processed in a first in, first out system.

That is what happens under Net Neutrality. Packets reach the server and they get processed. Without Net Neutrality what happens is some of those packets are for torrents so they get sent to the back of the queue, others are for the "fast lane" so they jump right to the front.

This is not a viable business system for most people. It means that when you start a business, you will be in the slow lane because a larger company in the same field as you has purchased a non compete fast lane. This is done so they get the business and not you.

If we didnt have Net Neutrality, Facebook never would have been able to supplant Myspace, Google over Alta Vista, Youtube over anything. And you never would have known, because access to the media talking about these fights would have been blocked.

Regardless of who funded Net Neutrality we got the best possible outcome from the given options of:
Leave it alone
Give it to the corps
Give it to the government

Verizon pushed the issue (even Comcast backed out), and made the government do something. So the government did. If you want to know why the door was opened at all to internet regulations, its because Verizon was going to court so they could legally charge you 5 times instead of once for the internet connection you're already paying for... and then so they wouldn't have to upgrade it in the future.




posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The corps want more money. If they can make more money from letting millions of little people through compared to a known reliable quantity big players, they will do what makes more money.

If the corps cut off the millions of little guys, the little guys will never buy more internet. Cutting off the little guys would be destroying the future growth of the internet and of the internet providers. In return for a growing internet, an internet that reaches more people in more ways, faster, a shrewd business man should consider paying more now to get more later.

An unknown consequence of regulation is that discerning the intentions of powerful companies becomes more uncertain. It will be harder to detect the time when companies care less for making money and more for becoming the ruling class.


edit on 7-3-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I commented about this:

"better, more diverse, more responsive and adaptable internet"

in response to those comments you said:

"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. "

All of those adjectives refer to the Internet. Internet performance, as with any other computer network, is completely quantifiable. Bandwidth, packet loss, latency, hop counts, etc etc all have numerical values.

"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."

More unsubstantiated, purposefully vague statements. How would there be more accountability? How would there be more diversity? What actions of the government led to the consolidation of the ISP market? How would there be more redundancy? What actions of the government have impacted the number of backbone providers? What about the role of ISOC, IETF, etc?


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.


Lol. Let me quote you again:


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.


Whose the real true believer here? The premise of every argument you make is that everything is better with an unregulated free market regardless of your ability to actually prove it. I'd call that faith. When did the standard of living for most people really increase?

Look at something like the length of the average work week:

1850 - ~70 hours
1900 - ~60 hours
1920 - ~50 hours

How about life expectancy at birth?

1850 - 38.3 years
1900 - 48.23 years
1920 - 56.34 years



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

More unsubstantiated, purposefully vague statements. How would there be more accountability? How would there be more diversity? What actions of the government led to the consolidation of the ISP market? How would there be more redundancy? What actions of the government have impacted the number of backbone providers? What about the role of ISOC, IETF, etc?


In a competitive system the consumer can change service providers when the product is considered over priced or substandard. That is real accountability. Diversity is enabled by various competitors trying to keep a steady market share. They can try to offer a service at the lowest price or they can specialize and serve a specific type of customer better than any other company, maybe at a slightly higher price. Like cell phone vs cable vs something not invented because of the government monopoly.

The government made the internet before the microcomputer revolution. If the internet had happened naturally as a consequence of the microcomputer revolution, the internet would be less centralized, no monopoly players, and would have evolved the internet protocols best suited to the micro computer network that exists today. The DARPA net is like when the government spent the public's money to build a network of canals in 1820's only to have them made obsolete by the railroads in the 1830's before the canals were even finished.




Whose the real true believer here? The premise of every argument you make is that everything is better with an unregulated free market regardless of your ability to actually prove it. I'd call that faith. When did the standard of living for most people really increase?

Look at something like the length of the average work week:

1850 - ~70 hours
1900 - ~60 hours
1920 - ~50 hours

How about life expectancy at birth?

1850 - 38.3 years
1900 - 48.23 years
1920 - 56.34 years


The work week was steadily declining over time. No union or legislation needed.




The Industrial Revolution is real and a free market phenomenon. It made more food and better technology.

What is more likely to increase life span, more food and better technology or a law?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
So, it seems that the full rules were published on March 12th. Some excerpts follow The Verge's article.
These are the FCC's full rules for protecting net neutrality:

One of the big questions this document answers is which Title II regulations the commission won't be applying to internet service. It turns out to be quite a lot: more than 700 rules aren't going to be applied.
...
The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization.
...
The commission does still allow internet providers to perform "reasonable network management," which might affect service. However, there are also strict rules as to what is and is not "reasonable." The commission says that reasonable management is something that primarily has a technical justification, not something that has a business purpose. It also specifically calls out Verizon's attempt to throttle the speeds of people on its unlimited data plans — that, seemingly, will not fly under these rules.


The FCC ruling, from that source.

The L.A. Times has some additional information, with some excerpts following the link.
Net neutrality regulations released by FCC; industry lawsuit expected:

The 400-page order enacting the regulations was posted on the FCC's website two weeks after it was approved on a partisan 3-2 vote by the Democratic-controlled commission.
...
The actual new regulations take up just eight pages in the FCC's order.
...
The last 87 pages of the order are statements from the five commissioners, including a 64-page dissent from Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai.

Unsaid is that a whole lot of the document consists of citations, frequently from comments submitted for consideration to the FCC.

It is somewhat amusing that the mocked 400 pages include a 64 page dissent.

edit: where to find statements
STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER (pages 314-315)
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN (pages 316-319)
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL (page 320)
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI (pages 321-384)
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY (pages 385-400)
edit2: the table of contents is broken down by paragraphs; here are a few page #s
I. Introduction (pages 3-4)
II. Executive Summary (pages 4-18)
III. Report and Order on Remand (pages 18-133)
IV. Declaratory Ruling (pages 133-204)
V. Order (pages 204-268)
VI. Constitutional Considerations (pages 268-279)
VII. Severability (pages 279-280)
VIII. Procedural Matters (pages 280-281)
IX. Ordering Clauses (pages 281-282)
Appendix A (pages 283-290)
Appendix B (pages 291-313)
edit on 0Sat, 14 Mar 2015 00:18:34 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The last part of your post overwhelmingly proves that a free market economy helps those who live in it. No rules or regulations led to that, just the good old capitalist free market economy of the USA.

Once the fed got involved, e.g. keeping interest rates lower and printing money, we started to see market bubbles, the worst of which was ushered in directly by the Federal Reserve.

The more liberty and free market a nation strives for, the more equality and quality of life they see. When equality is strived for over liberty, you often see neither.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
If the corps cut off the millions of little guys, the little guys will never buy more internet. Cutting off the little guys would be destroying the future growth of the internet and of the internet providers. In return for a growing internet, an internet that reaches more people in more ways, faster, a shrewd business man should consider paying more now to get more later.


They don't want you to buy more internet. They want you to use it for your online banking, email, and so on. All low bandwidth activities they they can charge a fortune for due to their monopoly status. Using it for newer higher data activities like streaming video is expensive for them, and directly competes with another product they are offering. They don't want you to have more, and they don't want to provide more. Because leaving things as is gets them 100% of the profit, at 0% of the cost. That does not work in favor of the small business or the individual.




top topics



 
44
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join