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.

 

Can someone please explain my stance on net neutrality?!?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Okay, so I've seen a lot of posts on net neutrality lately, and I am confused. The way people are talking about it doesn't make the issue clear.

I think that we should be free to surf the web the way we enjoy, with the full speed of our internet connection being used towards everything. Nothing should be throttled, nor censored. Businesses should not be able to prioritize their, and their partners web pages, advertisements, etc.

Am I for, or against Net Neutrality?




posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope


Am I for, or against Net Neutrality?


You're just fine.


If you don't know ... why do you care? LOL



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I haven't a clue what Net Neutrality actually means in respect to regulating it. Now, it seems that some with special interests always control the regulations that are passed, no matter which way it goes. If it doesn't pass, the language actually defines the parameters, a defeat of a bill can cause a clarification of what is allowable. So regulations that do not pass can have influence on things.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

I'm trying to figure out whether Net Neutrality is the good thing or the bad thing - And if it is something good - Are politicians, businesses using the word to manipulate legislation, policy, and consumers by using it wrongly? I'm just trying to understand the situation better.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

there is so much BS being spewed all over the net it's hard to tell what it is or isn't.

all i know is , if my bill goes any higher i'm just gonna cancel the whole package and break out the super nintendo and the genesis.
edit on 4-3-2015 by thishereguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
The fed has a hold of it. Time will tell. At least the corporations can't play games. But that doe not mean that gov won't. Once a foot is in the door they usually take it too far. I am sure there will be fees and taxes added for gov. But i am not sure what else they will do. What else can they do that the NSA isn't already?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: thishereguy

My snes is already plugged in! A much better console than the PS4, or xbox one. I seem to have a pretty fair internet company.. Though I'm not sure who their parent company is = /



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Here's how I see it from/in an oversimplified view. The Dems smacked down a greedy corporate interest/control. The government got its foot in the door (Republicans thinking ahead).

Short term win. Long term ... have a look at what government is doing to the Bill of Rights ... specifically gun control.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Oh my goodness. Lol. No one has yet told me in simple terms if I'm for, or against net neutrality.

I don't care what the government is doing ( well, I do, just not in this topic )

Don't care about gun control ( in this topic! )

Just want to know .. When I think of freedom, free to do what we want without censorship or prioritization, am I for, or against Net Neutrality? ( What Net Neutrality is supposed to mean - not what it's been altered to mean by any agendas, or politicians. )



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Me (flat out) telling you would rob you of your right to think critically. I've given you everything you need to figure it out for yourself.




posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Nevermind! Type "Net neutrality "in google, I find articles with opinions and double speak and this and that. Look on ATS, and I see people talking about ramifications and politicans and partisan issues, and such. Good old Google define..." Define net neutrality "

net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality

the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

This can be closed! I am for net neutrality.

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



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

You've given me nothing, lol. Good old google gave me a straight forward definition. Articles, forum boards, searching opinions, etc on this matter just makes my head hurt trying to find a definition. Turns out the good old " define " word in google works wonders.

To clarify, I was wondering if Net Neutrality was the word "neutral" applying to the net, or to how businesses wanted to control the net. Seeing people debate the issue.. I have no idea how to tell how to define the world.
edit on 4-3-2015 by deadlyhope because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope

This can be closed! I am for net neutrality.


Muwahahahaha!!! I could've told you that, but you'd have been right to point your finger at me after a period of time elapses and the rules change.

Remember those treaties the government signed with the Indians?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I can make it very simple for you. When government gets involved it screws everything up. Costs rise, efficiency falls, taxes appear and unnecessary laws are applied. That about sums up government meddling in any free enterprise.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I would like if someone could give me a single example of anything the government has put its grubby paws on that turned out good in the end.
There are none as far as I am aware.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Okay, so I've seen a lot of posts on net neutrality lately, and I am confused. The way people are talking about it doesn't make the issue clear.

I think that we should be free to surf the web the way we enjoy, with the full speed of our internet connection being used towards everything. Nothing should be throttled, nor censored. Businesses should not be able to prioritize their, and their partners web pages, advertisements, etc.

Am I for, or against Net Neutrality?


You would be for Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is about keeping the Internet the same as it has been so far. All data treated the same regardless of where it comes from.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
You would be for Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is about keeping the Internet the same as it has been so far. All data treated the same regardless of where it comes from.


This.

I can't believe so many people avoided answering you! LOL! I can only assume they don't REALLY know what it is.

I'd like to point out that the confusion over this is a direct result of the GOP propaganda machine. This is a very simple issue, and they have deliberately made it as confusing as possible, as is demonstrated (I believe) by the comments in this thread, and others like it.

Net neutrality is just what it sounds like. The net is neutral to who is using it and for what. A byte is a byte is a byte, no matter who the customer is.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
In the interest of complete disclosure, I would like to add some simplified and very simple examples about why people fear Net Neutrality... I'll use Verizon in my example, but Comcast and others are also against net neutrality.

The Internet will be taxed: This is possible. It's possible that our costs will go up to pay for some sort of government involvement in the form of taxes. But if it does, it will go up for everyone. Just as Al Gore pays the same price for every unit of electricity as everyone else in his area, the wealthiest corporations will pay just the same as you do for information sent in and out of their computer systems. Al Gore cannot pay a premium and get better, faster or higher access to electricity. It's a utility, and available equally to us all.

Net Neutrality violates Free Speech rights: Verizon thinks it's their "free speech" to decide what content goes to whom and how fast... Here's what they have to say:



"Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners [e.g. Verizon] engage in First Amendment speech," Verizon writes.

Verizon believes that it's entitled to the same kind of control over the content that flows through its network as newspaper editors exercise over what appears in their papers. That includes the right to prioritize its own content, or those of its partners, over other Internet traffic. Source


Of course, Verizon's comparison to a newspaper fails miserably when we realize that a newspaper determines its content, sure. But once it goes out, it's available to everyone, costs the same for everyone, and the content is the same in every newspaper.

The Internet will be "regulated": This is true. Verizon would LIKE to offer "upgrades", whereby you could pay more to receive better service in the form of:

1. Fast tracks: If a wealthy corporation or individual wants to pay more, and they are sending data from NY to California, their data would flow in a direct and fast route - rerouting and slowing down other data (belonging to us regular folks) to accommodate for the "upgrade" customers' data. For us "regular" customers, OUR data would be routed all over the country (to Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Florida, Washington State, New Mexico and then finally to California, with a layover in Arizona), and it would also be slowed down, again, to accommodate for the "upgrade" customers' "fast track".

2. Preferential access: Verizon would also like to let its "upgrade" customers use the more effective tools on the Internet, like search engines, video players, etc., and deny access to them for the rest of us (unless, of course, no one else was using them at the time). This would mean that I could want to watch a video on Hulu, but would be automatically rerouted to YouTube, because Hulu was busy serving the "upgrade" customers. Same with search engines. I would try to go to bing (my favorite search engine), but I'd be automatically rerouted to Google. Take it or leave it.

3. Faster downloads: In controlling and rerouting the the Internet traffic, of course Verizon's "upgrade" customers would receive faster downloads, but that isn't all. Some companies (internet websites) will pay more to have their data downloaded faster to the customer, and other websites (who don't pay) will be as slow as molasses. Now, as an end user, if I'm wealthy and decide to get the "upgrade" for my home computer, and I go the the second website to download something, it will still be as slow as molasses for me because the site itself doesn't pay the premium. Net neutrality protects small websites who are trying to compete with the larger, wealthier Internet users.



The net neutrality rules prevent a large Internet service provider like Comcast or Verizon from deciding whether to allow faster downloads of certain sites, protecting entrepreneurs and small websites trying to compete with large companies, and creating​​​​​​​​​ more options for consumers searching for new services online. Source


The government would "regulate" ALL of that in the form of saying, "Sorry, Verizon, you can't do that. All data and access must be equal for all customers."

Basically, the non-neutral net is for the wealthy. Net neutrality is for equal treatment.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Nevermind! Type "Net neutrality "in google, I find articles with opinions and double speak and this and that. Look on ATS, and I see people talking about ramifications and politicans and partisan issues, and such. Good old Google define..." Define net neutrality "

net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality

the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

This can be closed! I am for net neutrality.


Remember- the government can write a multi-hundred page document to twist the definition of the words they use to describe in such a way that they can lie right to your face without you knowing the difference.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

They can simply title the document "net neutrality" and then outline a plan for fema death camps- then pass it around and vote on net neutrality. Half the people voting wouldn't even read past the title.

In the end, more government intervention is worse for our free internet- but in the mean time, corporations are trying to leverage their power too much.
This is what happens when monopolies are allowed to run rampant- but of course nobody is willing to address the fact that a world wide megacorporation such as time warner might not have our best interests in mind. There's a reason anti monopoly laws are in place- they need to be enforced better.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I agree with net neutrality, which in my understanding is an internet which is not interfered with.

However, I also have a conflict here, because I would not want the internet (in my country) to be totally unplugged and flooded with e.g. child porn. In fact, currently, the balance seems OK.







 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join